The Atlantic Article

[Glenn E. Meyer]

PawPaw - I was talking about the generic advice now being given and in videos being shown in schools about how if it is a last resort you should fight.

But they take away or forbid efficacious instruments of self-defense. Of course, we should remember her as we remember the prof. at VT who held a door shut and was killed.

Should they have to do that?

I'm disgusted with those who at the end of all the hide and flee discussions tell you to fight with a pencil or the IPAD frisbee of death.

 

[DaleA]

Her name was Dawn Hochsprung, and I believe that she was a hero. I don't know what she thought about guns on Thursday, December 13th, but I bet that on Friday, December 14th, she wished that she had a shotgun in her office.

To PawPaw and Glenn, well of course she would have liked to have some kind of firearm to protect her class and herself from a murdering maniac on a rampage.

That's so blatantly obvious it doesn't need to be said.

Oh wait, IT DOES!

 

[DaleA]

For Glenn only.

Do you realize that in the event of someone breaking into a school and going berserk, the 'armed instructor' you envision would have to be able to take a revolver, point it at the door and pull the trigger when the madman attempts to enter the classroom?

Completely far-fetched, delusional and totally beyond the capabilities of ANYONE working in a school at ANY level!

Or so I've been told. (Sarcasm off)

 

[Alabama Shooter]

I'm disgusted with those who at the end of all the hide and flee discussions tell you to fight with a pencil or the IPAD frisbee of death.

Those of us who were sentient pre-9/11 can recall all of the training and advice to cooperate fully with hijackers. Strange that since after that advice turned to "fight to death no matter what" there were no more successful hijacking in the US.

The advice for a crazed shooter response is to run away. Sound advice for the vast majority of the population but what if you can't? I am of the opinion that if the crazed shooter knew that the response would be death/ engagement shortly after the first shot there would be much less mass shootings. Very few shooters plan to deal with people shooting back and them and even fewer fight back/ keep fighting when they are engaged. They are not interested in fighting, merely killing.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's an interesting proposition. Stopped immediately. It's argued that the shooters are sucidial for the large part. But that means (IMHO - for what it is worth), they expect to commit mass violence and THEN die in a shootout or by their own hand. That's been called a 'warrior's death' and attractive to them.

To be stopped almost immediately, short circuits that vicarious fantasy that they have before the acts.

Of course, they don't worry about being stabbed with a pencil.

I think you are correct, Alabama Shooter. Even those who attack known armed locals probably want to get some killing in first. Would it stop all of them, maybe not - it might shift targeting. However, lots of the school rampages have the school as a specific target for a personal reason. Not being able to make a big splash there could reduce the drive for the attack.

We should also cut down on all the hoopla about prayer services, funerals and ceremonies of remembrance. While they might help the survivors, they fuel the next one's fantasy life.

 

[Old Smoker]

As gun owners, we have an obligation to police who we sell our guns to. In todays society, you cannot trust ones word, nor rely on personal contact to make sure you are not selling to a felon, or somone who is on mental illness drugs.
The last medical journal I read, had over 40% of our population on some type of antidepressant. In Milwaukees water supply, prozac is showing up in minute amounts.
This is what I would propose to become law.
A stupid persons law.

If a family member uses your guns in a crime, you are also charged.
If one of your children use one of your guns in a crime, you are also charged.
If one of your children shoot themselves by accident, because the guns werent secure, you should be charged.
If you sell a gun to a felon, or someone who is , a drug user, is on anti depressants, or you suspect should not own a gun, and that person commits a crime, you should be charged.
If you sell a gun to a trafficer, you should be charged.
The above sounds kinda goofy, but the problem here, is, that we as gun owners need to take responsibility for our guns.
Now as to those who violate the law and own guns illegally, I say no second chances. You commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 5 years on top of the original charge, no exceptions. No probation, no parole, no good time. I'd rather pay higher taxes to commit these people, than give up my guns.
Lasr, if a person is legally issued a narcotic , or any mental disease prescription, the persons name immeadiately goes on a federal no sell list. The name stays there until a doctor releases the person from the prescriptions.
If you are arrested for using any illegal drug, your name goes on a federal no sell list.
If you have more than 3 dui's, your name goes on a no sell list.
Stalkers and restraining orders....no sell list
It seems as a society, we have totally gone to the me equation .
Our fathers, the greatest genersation, are rolling over in their graves, watching what we, the "me" generation has done to this country.

 

[Tom Servo]

Smoker, that seems like a good idea until we work out its implications.

If a family member uses your guns in a crime, you are also charged. If one of your children use one of your guns in a crime, you are also charged.

What if they steal my guns, despite reasonable precautions? What if they were just fine when I gave them a gun in 2011, but their life changes in 2013 and they snap?

If you sell a gun to a felon, or someone who is , a drug user, is on anti depressants, or you suspect should not own a gun, and that person commits a crime, you should be charged.

What if I've been given no reason to suspect such factors and the purchaser hid them well? Am I then liable?

Lasr, if a person is legally issued a narcotic , or any mental disease prescription, the persons name immeadiately goes on a federal no sell list. The name stays there until a doctor releases the person from the prescriptions.

So, if someone gets prescribed a minor drug for social anxiety, depression, or PTSD, they lose the right to defend themselves? That's a very, very serious thing to deny someone. It would also have the unintended consequence of scaring many folks away from getting mental treatment.

 

[sigcurious]

Lasr, if a person is legally issued a narcotic , or any mental disease prescription, the persons name immeadiately goes on a federal no sell list. The name stays there until a doctor releases the person from the prescriptions.

Not to mention, getting prohibited if you say, get your wisdom teeth out, break an arm, get a bad cold, or any number of minor things for which they might prescribe a narcotic. That's a lot of back and forth paperwork.

If you are arrested for using any illegal drug, your name goes on a federal no sell list.
If you have more than 3 dui's, your name goes on a no sell list.

An arrest(note you did not even say conviction) for drug use, but 4 DUIs? So the person who is not convicted of anything gets prohibited, but another person who endangers themselves and others by driving under the influence(which covers drugs too btw) it takes 4 times? Seems pretty arbitrary and inconsistant.