This is what is being allowed to happen (CONN Shooting)

This is a discussion on This is what is being allowed to happen (CONN Shooting) within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by noway2 I was saying to my wife today that after Xmas (i.e. money goes to gift buying) that one of the top ...

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 111
Like Tree86Likes

Thread: This is what is being allowed to happen (CONN Shooting)

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    I was saying to my wife today that after Xmas (i.e. money goes to gift buying) that one of the top priorities is get the AK that I've been wanting to buy before "they" say that we can't have them.
    We called around and went to a few gun shops...no luck. Had fun "kickin' tires" tho.

    So we bought sound-suppressed pellet rifles to deal with vermin here on the farm and I'm going to learn how to handle a long gun! It's a start and we can have some fun.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,878
    The anti-gun people don't want criminals to have guns, they don't want you to have a gun, they don't want teachers to have guns, they don't want security guards to have guns, they don't want police officers to have guns, they don't want anyone to have guns, PERIOD.

    Anti-gun people have an irrational fear of the inanimate object known as a gun and they don't want guns in schools, PERIOD.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  4. #63
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Midwest Area to be Precise.
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by CookieEOD View Post
    And yet they are required to bring up the possibility of abuse or sexual misconduct they suspect in the home. Make it a potential addition to there job description and pay em for it. Why is that hard to understand? Why shouldn't someone who dedicated there life to helping raise the future not want to be a protector to them. thats a whole different convo though.
    Not true at all. It is ridiculous. If they suspect someone is abusing the kids at home they are legally bound to help them and speak up for them. Why not make the teen supervisors working at McDonalds "honor bound" to protect the patrons and the fry cook? Sorry but the teacher is in a position to speak up for teh kids incase the kids parents are abusing them and it is not the same thing as taking a bullet for them.

    Why not make those with CCWs legally liable if they fail to stop a shooting? We are trained, so what is the difference? What about the guy at the oil change place, is it his duty to jump in front of me like the Secret Service, if some nutcase starts shooting? How about the barrista at Starbucks? Maybe we could cross train the lunchladies to diffuse bombs in case some kids make some pipe bombs?

    It is silly to force others to take a responsibility for kids because they are teachers to the level you suggest. Why not just have the parents stand guard? I mean afterall they are the kids parents? Just have the father and mother stand next to little Jimmy and Suzy all day?

  5. #64
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    Not true at all. It is ridiculous. If they suspect someone is abusing the kids at home they are legally bound to help them and speak up for them. Why not make the teen supervisors working at McDonalds "honor bound" to protect the patrons and the fry cook? Sorry but the teacher is in a position to speak up for teh kids incase the kids parents are abusing them and it is not the same thing as taking a bullet for them.

    Why not make those with CCWs legally liable if they fail to stop a shooting? We are trained, so what is the difference? What about the guy at the oil change place, is it his duty to jump in front of me like the Secret Service, if some nutcase starts shooting? How about the barrista at Starbucks? Maybe we could cross train the lunchladies to diffuse bombs in case some kids make some pipe bombs?

    It is silly to force others to take a responsibility for kids because they are teachers to the level you suggest. Why not just have the parents stand guard? I mean afterall they are the kids parents? Just have the father and mother stand next to little Jimmy and Suzy all day?
    Ever watch how the father and the mother behave at soccer games? If you have done that you know why you don't want the parents standing guard duty.

    And let's be fair here. In today's world most adults have ZERO familiarity with either guns or how to defend with them because
    most of us live in urban and suburban areas and relatively few receive military style or police style training. Heck, even here
    there are a large proportion of participants who don't get any training beyond what is required (if at all) to obtain their license.

    Can you just imagine the complicated liability and compensation issues which might follow various scenarios in which
    ordinary parents volunteered to do armed guard duty?

    I have a very vague recollection that when I was in JH the school asked for parents to volunteer to stand at each
    entry/exit between classes. I know my mom did a stint of such service. In today's world that would be putting her life on the
    line. Even then, there were plenty of young people with illegal knives and illegal guns. The problem arose because
    they then let 16 year olds drop out, and they sometimes had a 14 year old g f in the JHS. So they'd try to sneak in and meet
    up in some hidden place while classes were in session.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #65
    Member Array CookieEOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    Not true at all. It is ridiculous. If they suspect someone is abusing the kids at home they are legally bound to help them and speak up for them. Why not make the teen supervisors working at McDonalds "honor bound" to protect the patrons and the fry cook? Sorry but the teacher is in a position to speak up for teh kids incase the kids parents are abusing them and it is not the same thing as taking a bullet for them.

    Why not make those with CCWs legally liable if they fail to stop a shooting? We are trained, so what is the difference? What about the guy at the oil change place, is it his duty to jump in front of me like the Secret Service, if some nutcase starts shooting? How about the barrista at Starbucks? Maybe we could cross train the lunchladies to diffuse bombs in case some kids make some pipe bombs?

    It is silly to force others to take a responsibility for kids because they are teachers to the level you suggest. Why not just have the parents stand guard? I mean afterall they are the kids parents? Just have the father and mother stand next to little Jimmy and Suzy all day?
    Maybe I'm just old fashioned... I thought it was our job as adults to protect kids. But then again America has become a self serving country full of people completely unwilling to show any sacrifice. Protecting children and having an oil change guy jump in front of a bullet for our old butts is completely different and it is absurd to think that this falls under the same category.
    Secret Spuk and Hopyard like this.

  7. #66
    Ex Member Array SayVandelay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    The anti-gun people don't want criminals to have guns, they don't want you to have a gun, they don't want teachers to have guns, they don't want security guards to have guns, they don't want police officers to have guns, they don't want anyone to have guns, PERIOD.

    Anti-gun people have an irrational fear of the inanimate object known as a gun and they don't want guns in schools, PERIOD.
    I would add that in this case, if his family gad a right to put him in treatment or have him evaluated, and didnt have to remortgage their home to do it, maybe it could have been avoided. UNFORTUNATELY a lot of the same people who support gun rights dont support a persons right to affordable treatment. If anyone wants to talk about liberals like their animals, they should be able to see that conservatives are just a different kind of animal if everything comes down to the politics
    noway2 and Hopyard like this.

  8. #67
    New Member Array FireCop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    10
    In taking a critical look at the dynamics of the actions of recent high profile active shooter incidents, we have to first look at the "M.O.", so to speak, of the shooters. The victims and prospective protectors and guardians were at an extreme disadvantage due to the places and conditions chosen by the shooters. The recent shooters chose facilities that are not normally associated with danger or violence. They were places where the occupants would never even imagine a shooting scenario occuring. It would seem the shooters chose to launch their attack inside buildings, where people are much more contained. You don't often read about shooters walking down a neighborhood street, midday, hoping to find targets. It is obvious they choose victims, in close quarters, to maximize the terror, and dare I say, body count.

    I agree with getting lethal force options in the hands of the good guys. The difficulty arises in how to effectively train the good guys. How do we train them beyond the simple placement of bullet holes within a certain area on a piece of paper? How do we instill the concept of the warrior mindset, as often discussed by Grossman? How do we train them to maintain their fine motor skills in an active shooter incident? Overall, how do we train them to quickly calculate all the dynamics of actually getting a bullet into the kill zone of the active shooter? Some dynamics to consider:

    • Site Picture
    • Back Drop
    • Developing the Tactical Advantage
    • Target Identification (Is it another good guy w/ a gun?)
    • Concealment & Cover You can see just a fraction of the difficulty in training the well intended good guys. I think this is the direction that we need to go to increase the chances of a more favorable outcome to these incidents. We are asking the good guys to effectively go up against psychologically deranged individuals with a blood lust, who have reached the point where they do not fear death. The burden of the weight of that task is somewhat beyond comprehension.
    Hopyard likes this.

  9. #68
    Member
    Array rigel42's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    473
    I believe Adam off-ed himself as soon as the first responders arrived. I do have to wonder if just one person fired (even missed) one shot, would he have ended the rampage earlier.

  10. #69
    VIP Member Array multistage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NW Iowa
    Posts
    2,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    Welcome, and thank you for your service! As an alternative, why not allow legal concealed carry in all schools? If perpetrators understood they might well be attacking a "harder" target rather than a "Victim Zone" they might reconsider.
    Quote Originally Posted by CookieEOD View Post
    And yet they are required to bring up the possibility of abuse or sexual misconduct they suspect in the home. Make it a potential addition to there job description and pay em for it. Why is that hard to understand? Why shouldn't someone who dedicated there life to helping raise the future not want to be a protector to them. thats a whole different convo though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    Not true at all. It is ridiculous. If they suspect someone is abusing the kids at home they are legally bound to help them and speak up for them. Why not make the teen supervisors working at McDonalds "honor bound" to protect the patrons and the fry cook? Sorry but the teacher is in a position to speak up for teh kids incase the kids parents are abusing them and it is not the same thing as taking a bullet for them.

    Why not make those with CCWs legally liable if they fail to stop a shooting? We are trained, so what is the difference? What about the guy at the oil change place, is it his duty to jump in front of me like the Secret Service, if some nutcase starts shooting? How about the barrista at Starbucks? Maybe we could cross train the lunchladies to diffuse bombs in case some kids make some pipe bombs?

    It is silly to force others to take a responsibility for kids because they are teachers to the level you suggest. Why not just have the parents stand guard? I mean afterall they are the kids parents? Just have the father and mother stand next to little Jimmy and Suzy all day?
    Can you think of anything greater than giving your life to save a bunch of little kids? Especially if one was yours? I'd do it in a second. Of course, pride and honor are rare these days. So, no, I cannot expect that out of anyone. I should be able to, but hey, anymore it's all about ME!

    In today's America, of course you should not expect that kind of courage, anymore than a faculty member should be expected to carry a gun and be ready to defend kids. Both should be a given, but they aren't.

  11. #70
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by multistage View Post
    Can you think of anything greater than giving your life to save a bunch of little kids? Especially if one was yours? I'd do it in a second. Of course, pride and honor are rare these days. So, no, I cannot expect that out of anyone. I should be able to, but hey, anymore it's all about ME!

    In today's America, of course you should not expect that kind of courage, anymore than a faculty member should be expected to carry a gun and be ready to defend kids. Both should be a given, but they aren't.
    There are few parents who would not willingly jump in front of a bus to save our children, and I think
    there are few teachers who would not willingly attempt to tackle or otherwise take out a deranged
    person harming children in their school. I think the fact that 6 teachers died proves that. That they
    failed might prove nothing more than that no one ever taught them to throw a book, a chair, or even to try to splash paint into the BGs eyes. Of course as we weren't there we do not
    know what they may or may not have tried, but I feel certain that all not instantly shot by surprise TRIED.

    Dang it, everyone talks about arming the teachers. Even OC or that device talked about elsewhere here
    that shoots OC balls might have broken things up and saved some.

    People just don't know how to fight nowadays, and maybe that fact says a great deal of good about us
    to counter the bad news.
    Last edited by Hopyard; December 16th, 2012 at 02:16 PM. Reason: grammar
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #71
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by multistage View Post
    Can you think of anything greater than giving your life to save a bunch of little kids? Especially if one was yours? I'd do it in a second. Of course, pride and honor are rare these days. So, no, I cannot expect that out of anyone. I should be able to, but hey, anymore it's all about ME!

    In today's America, of course you should not expect that kind of courage, anymore than a faculty member should be expected to carry a gun and be ready to defend kids. Both should be a given, but they aren't.
    Soldiers get months if not years of training before being asked to put others' lives before theirs. So do cops and first responders.

    Are you planning on training all these teachers? Buying them guns? With whos' money? The taxpayers? How is my paying to protect (not even teach, which I already *have* to do) EVERYONE else's kids any different than my having to pay for EVERYONE else's health insurance?

    In all these horrendous school shootings teachers HAVE risked and GIVEN their lives for their charges. It wasnt required and they werent armed. Most teachers teach for reasons beyond a paycheck.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  13. #72
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    I agree Hopyard. Guns are not are only defensive tools. People can benefit from many other types of training. I know I could. There are times when many of us have to go unarmed (firearms).

    I have never not responded to an emergency, as a park ranger or a private citizen. In none of those situations was I ever armed. How many times do we see regular citizens respond to help others? All the time...no guns required.

    We shouldnt focus only on that and I agree more training for teachers in these situations is needed. Even if it's just a bullet-proof locked shield they can use to keep shooters from entering a classroom or cafeteria and better inter-classroom communications.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  14. #73
    Member Array CookieEOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Soldiers get months if not years of training before being asked to put others' lives before theirs. So do cops and first responders.

    Are you planning on training all these teachers? Buying them guns? With whos' money? The taxpayers? How is my paying to protect (not even teach, which I already *have* to do) EVERYONE else's kids any different than my having to pay for EVERYONE else's health insurance?

    In all these horrendous school shootings teachers HAVE risked and GIVEN their lives for their charges. It wasnt required and they werent armed. Most teachers teach for reasons beyond a paycheck.
    Wouldn't it have been nice for those who layed there lives down to protect our childrento have been able to have a fighting chance in the first place? OC spray, taser, gun could have potentially kept them from being meat shields...

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by CookieEOD View Post
    Wouldn't it have been nice for those who layed there lives down to protect our childrento have been able to have a fighting chance in the first place? OC spray, taser, gun could have potentially kept them from being meat shields...
    I have replied in several threads, perhaps not this one, that I completely support allowing teachers who choose to do so to cc.

    I never said no guns. In the post you quoted, I was discussing other options.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  16. #75
    Member Array redwood66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    126
    Unfortunately "they" will not let this crisis go to waste for the gun control agenda. Training, mental health issues, security will all take a back seat.
    Woman With A Gun

    Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession. - George Washington

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

best hand gun for concealed carry
,
how many shootings where carry was allowed
,
military allowed to conceal carry?
,
school shootings thwarted by armed citizens
,
shootings thwarted by concealed carry
,
the talk about the government being responsible for the conn shooting
,
usa concealed carry connecticut forum
,
we will not let gun control happen in the u.s.
,
what is going to happen shooting
,

what would happen if everyone was able to carry a gun

,
what would have happensd if the conn janitor had accl and was armed?
,
what's the nra position since the conn.shooting
Click on a term to search for related topics.