Gun Carry Policies, Part 2

[dilligaf0]

Theoretically, a person lives in a state that allows people to carry firearms (openly or concealed).
Disregarding individual venues rules and policies.
Should that person be allowed to carry their firearm into Government buildings (Municipal, County, State or Federal)?

 

[WebcamStartup]

Government shouldn't have preferential treatment. If the private sector can't limit carry (open or concealed) neither should the government. Maybe it'd make the Politicos think twice about pissing off the general population, too.

I support open carry period. We can cherry-pick specific scenarios, but then we're opening up the can-of-worms that is 'pointed questions'.

 

[JickyJuly]

I agree that government shouldn't get special treatment on the laws they make. I do think there are at least two government places that should not allow guns though.
1. Court rooms. Too much emotion. Some 30k a year police officer shouldn't be expected to jump between a rapist/murderer and a bullet because the victim or their loved one was allowed to bring a gun into a charged space.
2. Schools. Tiny people grab things. Not many people are going to be well trained enough to be surrounded by children and not make everyone involved less safe by having a weapon.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Maybe it'd make the Politicos think twice about pissing off the general population, too.

This is why I vote no.
good gravy

 

[LadyLuna]

My assumptions about this question were that private businesses are allowed to ban guns, and we're assuming that guns are allowed in all the buildings being talked about, right? (You did say "Disregarding individual venues rules and policies.")

I voted "yes", because while there are certain government buildings in which I don't think guns should be allowed, I don't think there should be a blanket ban on "government buildings".

I definitely agree that there shouldn't be guns allowed inside courtrooms. I also agree that guns shouldn't be allowed in elementary schools. However, middle and high school, I see no reason to forbid guns IF the gun safety class thing was put in place in 5th grade. (Obviously, the person teaching gun safety should be allowed to bring guns in, but they must be in a locked box until the person gets to whichever class, and any ammo must be left outside in a secure manner.)

 

[WebcamStartup]

And LOL @ the WTF my post got scored. Like I said; cherry-picked questions. Cherry-picked questions don't mix well with people that disregard political correctness.

 

[WebcamStartup]

I agree that government shouldn't get special treatment on the laws they make. I do think there are at least two government places that should not allow guns though.
1. Court rooms. Too much emotion. Some 30k a year police officer shouldn't be expected to jump between a rapist/murderer and a bullet because the victim or their loved one was allowed to bring a gun into a charged space.
2. Schools. Tiny people grab things. Not many people are going to be well trained enough to be surrounded by children and not make everyone involved less safe by having a weapon.

I'm one of the people that believe that teachers should be allowed to pack. Ain't it ironic that guns aren't allowed in schools, but yet when people bring guns to school and start popping off, the school calls the people with the guns, to bring guns into the school in order to shoot the people with the guns.

Seems like the process could be streamlined by allowing teachers to pack, and it'd also be a deterrent to those that are considering shooting up a school.

Hell, give teachers the ability to conceal-carry, even if not allowed by the state. The argument is; "What if the teacher shoots up the school?" Well, hopefully the teacher in the neighboring classroom is a better shot. Would result in less casualties than waiting for the police.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I'm one of the people that believe that teachers should be allowed to pack. Ain't it ironic that guns aren't allowed in schools, but yet when people bring guns to school and start popping off, the school calls the people with the guns, to bring guns into the school in order to shoot the people with the guns.

Some states do allow that. My sister use to be a principal of an elementary school. The schools board of education voted to require her to conceal carry. She had to take the class and get the permit. They also voted to have at least one other staff member of her and their choosing also carry if they were amenable to it. I believe they chose a janitor/maintenance guy. Had some military background.

And before anyone says anything allowing any staff member to carry, keep in mind every single employee there gets fingerprinted and goes through a full background check. State law even for substitute teachers. They included maintenance people too. And to get the CCW permit is yet another background check.

 

[JickyJuly]

I wouldn't send my child to a school where any teacher was allowed to carry a gun. If they want to have qualified, trained and armed folks whose job it is to monitor things and keep a campus safer, that's one thing. But, teachers? No. Working with children does not mean that someone is qualified to protect them to that degree. A four year degree and the patience to deal with kids doesn't mean someone can handle firearms responsibly enough to do so surrounded by kids. Add in the fact that teachers are grossly underpaid and overburdened and giving them license to bring a gun to school is just a recipe for disaster. I'm sure we can all think of a few teachers over our years as students whose gun would easily and swiftly be grabbed and turned into a disaster if they were required to carry. I get that people fear for the safety of students. But, there has to be a better way than adding an element of danger.

And substitute teachers, god never. Any fool with 70 college credits and a clean record can be a sub... aka punching bag for the day. Let's be real about how easy it is to have a reasonable record and still be crazy and irresponsible as shit.

 

[JoleneBrody]

And LOL @ the WTF my post got scored. Like I said; cherry-picked questions. Cherry-picked questions don't mix well with people that disregard political correctness.

Maybe somebody just disagrees with you and finds you're post "wtf" worthy...

 

[WebcamStartup]

Maybe somebody just disagrees with you and finds you're post "wtf" worthy...

And it's fair speculation that if it was just a debate on concealed / open-carry, it might be completely different. Adding the modifiers on the question is a form of cherry-picking responses, and I'm willing to speculate that the WTF is a result of that, which is 'cute'. Whether I'm right or not is completely debatable, as it's pure speculation, but I feel I'm right in assuming such.

Some states do allow that. My sister use to be a principal of an elementary school. The schools board of education voted to require her to conceal carry. She had to take the class and get the permit. They also voted to have at least one other staff member of her and their choosing also carry if they were amenable to it. I believe they chose a janitor/maintenance guy. Had some military background.

And before anyone says anything allowing any staff member to carry, keep in mind every single employee there gets fingerprinted and goes through a full background check. State law even for substitute teachers. They included maintenance people too. And to get the CCW permit is yet another background check.

I'm honestly very surprised to hear that. Me, myself, personally, I feel that it's a step in the right direction.

I wouldn't send my child to a school where any teacher was allowed to carry a gun. If they want to have qualified, trained and armed folks whose job it is to monitor things and keep a campus safer, that's one thing. But, teachers? No. Working with children does not mean that someone is qualified to protect them to that degree. A four year degree and the patience to deal with kids doesn't mean someone can handle firearms responsibly enough to do so surrounded by kids. Add in the fact that teachers are grossly underpaid and overburdened and giving them license to bring a gun to school is just a recipe for disaster. I'm sure we can all think of a few teachers over our years as students whose gun would easily and swiftly be grabbed and turned into a disaster if they were required to carry. I get that people fear for the safety of students. But, there has to be a better way than adding an element of danger.

And substitute teachers, god never. Any fool with 70 college credits and a clean record can be a sub... aka punching bag for the day. Let's be real about how easy it is to have a reasonable record and still be crazy and irresponsible as shit.

It's not something that should be mandated, just as nothing should be mandated upon anyone. It's something that should be enabled though. Even the unknown factor would mitigate school violence, guaranteed. Operating a firearm also isn't rocket science. I'm sure just from watching James Bond, most people who've never shot could probably figure out how to operate the device.

If you can't trust a teacher with a firearm, because of lack of competence, shouldn't one question whether that individual can be trusted instructing a class? I get that some people are mechanically in-apt, clumsy and might not be the best person to wield a weapon in an event, and I get that some people might be naive enough to let a student get a hold of the piece, but I'd like to have a little bit more faith in your average teacher. If not, I have to question their competence in general.

 

[JoleneBrody]

wow.
Yeah, it's the question askers fault that someone found your answer wtf worthy. If they hadn't asked the question you wouldn't have been tempted to answer in the way you did... Damn dirty OP!

 

[JickyJuly]

If you can't trust a teacher with a firearm, because of lack of competence, shouldn't one question whether that individual can be trusted instructing a class? I get that some people are mechanically in-apt, clumsy and might not be the best person to wield a weapon in an event, and I get that some people might be naive enough to let a student get a hold of the piece, but I'd like to have a little bit more faith in your average teacher. If not, I have to question their competence in general.

I'm not sure how the ability to shoot a gun overlaps with competence or lack of in other arenas. Many, many people when armed, make the world less safe even with the best of intentions. I would say it's similar to the way that many people make the world less safe by driving even in their best attempts. I don't have to trust any old fool to drive my kids around. I don't want to trust whomever feels comfortable with a gun around them either. We aren't all able to do everything we want to do to a level that should be required. I grew up in a house with (LOTS!) of guns. I grew up in an area where keeping yourself safe was very necessary. My Dad taught me gun safety and took me to shooting ranges, but I am definitely one of those people who is not the best candidate for keeping a gun on herself. I wish I were, but I absolutely know that I am not. If everyone in the world had the self-awareness to recognize when they are not good at something and that by continuing with it they might be endangering themselves or others, teachers with guns might not be as frightening a thought. But, most people are not that keen on recognizing their own limitations and faults. Most people aren't going to admit that they suck at something they feel is necessary or important.

And, when a teacher is at fault for accidentally shooting a child or allowing a child to get a hold of their gun, who is held responsible? The teacher? The school district? Someone's getting sued into oblivion. Maybe someone is going to be jailed. Teachers make peanuts, and most cities don't want more costs. Would the schools need extra insurance? Would teachers be paid more for the extra risk? Opinions aside, the logistics of arming pencil pushers who put sparkly star stickers on kid's papers for a living doesn't quite add up.

 

[dilligaf0]

And LOL @ the WTF my post got scored. Like I said; cherry-picked questions. Cherry-picked questions don't mix well with people that disregard political correctness.

All of you can discuss all you want (but keep it nice), the only thing I'm interested in is the yes or no votes.

 

[WebcamStartup]

wow.
Yeah, it's the question askers fault that someone found your answer wtf worthy. If they hadn't asked the question you wouldn't have been tempted to answer in the way you did... Damn dirty OP!

See? Totally pointed, lol

Okay, to add some context; In the very first Democratic debate, the question; "Do 'Black Lives Matter' or 'All Lives Matter'?" was asked. That was a totally pointed question, and being the politicos they are, Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley all answered "Black Lives Matter" instead of "All Lives Matter". It would be politically incorrect, given the current landscape, to answer otherwise. Had just the question "Do all lives matter?" been asked, it would have been a completely different response.

Same with this situation, where if the questions on "Should open / concealed be allowed?" or "Should the federal government be held to the same standards as the private sector in regards to state regulation", my response would have been more politically correct and acceptable.

In that aspect, the question is somewhat pointed, but I'll play the game because fuck political correctness.

 

[WebcamStartup]

I'm not sure how the ability to shoot a gun overlaps with competence or lack of in other arenas. Many, many people when armed, make the world less safe even with the best of intentions. I would say it's similar to the way that many people make the world less safe by driving even in their best attempts. I don't have to trust any old fool to drive my kids around. I don't want to trust whomever feels comfortable with a gun around them either. We aren't all able to do everything we want to do to a level that should be required. I grew up in a house with (LOTS!) of guns. I grew up in an area where keeping yourself safe was very necessary. My Dad taught me gun safety and took me to shooting ranges, but I am definitely one of those people who is not the best candidate for keeping a gun on herself. I wish I were, but I absolutely know that I am not. If everyone in the world had the self-awareness to recognize when they are not good at something and that by continuing with it they might be endangering themselves or others, teachers with guns might not be as frightening a thought. But, most people are not that keen on recognizing their own limitations and faults. Most people aren't going to admit that they suck at something they feel is necessary or important.

And, when a teacher is at fault for accidentally shooting a child or allowing a child to get a hold of their gun, who is held responsible? The teacher? The school district? Someone's getting sued into oblivion. Maybe someone is going to be jailed. Teachers make peanuts, and most cities don't want more costs. Would the schools need extra insurance? Would teachers be paid more for the extra risk? Opinions aside, the logistics of arming pencil pushers who put sparkly star stickers on kid's papers for a living doesn't quite add up.

The easy solution to your later point on lawsuits is eliminating the concept of lawsuits, but that's the Libertarian in me. Insurance, too. I also personally find your comment of "pencil pushers who put sparkly star stickers on kid's papers for a living" insulting to teachers everywhere. No wonder you've got no faith in armed teachers, doesn't seem like you've got much faith in them to begin with. Just sayin.

As for your first paragraph, it's one of those issues where debating is just for the sake of debating, which is fun, but there's no convincing the other party because people's opinions differ. We've all outlined our points, I see where you're coming from and recognize what you're saying, and hopefully, although disagreeing, you can recognize where I'm coming from as well.

 

[WebcamStartup]

And a complete 180 on some of the dialogues; Instead of paying teachers more for packing, maybe instead we should argue that they should be paid hazard for NOT being allowed the right to defend themselves from school shooters. I would argue they are at higher risk as-is.

 

[JickyJuly]

The easy solution to your later point on lawsuits is eliminating the concept of lawsuits, but that's the Libertarian in me. Insurance, too. I also personally find your comment of "pencil pushers who put sparkly star stickers on kid's papers for a living" insulting to teachers everywhere. No wonder you've got no faith in armed teachers, doesn't seem like you've got much faith in them to begin with. Just sayin.

I don't think it's insulting in the least. There's zero reason to have faith in the gun wielding abilities of any stranger let alone someone who goes to college for 4 years to make 20-35k a year teaching kiddies. People who feel called to teach are obviously doing so out of passion for children and book smarts. I did make a grammatical error with "kid's". That might insult teachers I suppose. Maybe I'm less politically correct than you.

 

[WebcamStartup]

I don't think it's insulting in the least. There's zero reason to have faith in the gun wielding abilities of any stranger let alone someone who goes to college for 4 years to make 20-35k a year teaching kiddies. People who feel called to teach are obviously doing so out of passion for children and book smarts. I did make a grammatical error with "kid's". That might insult teachers I suppose. Maybe I'm less politically correct than you.

There is every reason to have faith in every human, regardless of their profession, or salary, unless said individual has proven otherwise.

And as for passion, one should assume that they would passionately protect their children using any means at their disposal.

 

[Sevrin]

See? Totally pointed, lol

Okay, to add some context; In the very first Democratic debate, the question; "Do 'Black Lives Matter' or 'All Lives Matter'?" was asked. That was a totally pointed question, and being the politicos they are, Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley all answered "Black Lives Matter" instead of "All Lives Matter". It would be politically incorrect, given the current landscape, to answer otherwise. Had just the question "Do all lives matter?" been asked, it would have been a completely different response.

Same with this situation, where if the questions on "Should open / concealed be allowed?" or "Should the federal government be held to the same standards as the private sector in regards to state regulation", my response would have been more politically correct and acceptable.

In that aspect, the question is somewhat pointed, but I'll play the game because fuck political correctness.

The easy solution to your later point on lawsuits is eliminating the concept of lawsuits, but that's the Libertarian in me. Insurance, too. I also personally find your comment of "pencil pushers who put sparkly star stickers on kid's papers for a living" insulting to teachers everywhere. No wonder you've got no faith in armed teachers, doesn't seem like you've got much faith in them to begin with. Just sayin.

As for your first paragraph, it's one of those issues where debating is just for the sake of debating, which is fun, but there's no convincing the other party because people's opinions differ. We've all outlined our points, I see where you're coming from and recognize what you're saying, and hopefully, although disagreeing, you can recognize where I'm coming from as well.

And a complete 180 on some of the dialogues; Instead of paying teachers more for packing, maybe instead we should argue that they should be paid hazard for NOT being allowed the right to defend themselves from school shooters. I would argue they are at higher risk as-is.

There's no reason to make 3 posts in a row, even if you are quoting others. It's not hard to figure out, just by looking, but there's a bit of an explanation how it works here:

https://www.ambercutie.com/forums/threads/the-new-acf-is-here.21213/

 

[WebcamStartup]

There's no reason to make 3 posts in a row, even if you are quoting others. It's not hard to figure out, just by looking, but there's a bit of an explanation how it works here:

https://www.ambercutie.com/forums/threads/the-new-acf-is-here.21213/

Not trying to derail this thread (and I contemplated even acknowledging this post to avoid it), but can you please point out a single one of those quoted posts that's completely redundant? I personally feel that each one of those quoted posts contains rhetoric not included in any of the others. There might be some redundant points, but it honestly adds more substance to the conversation (whether you agree with it or not) than your quote and comment on said posts.

 

[Sevrin]

You may be new to message boards, but not every thought requires a separate post.

 

[JoleneBrody]

See? Totally pointed, lol

Okay, to add some context; In the very first Democratic debate, the question; "Do 'Black Lives Matter' or 'All Lives Matter'?" was asked. That was a totally pointed question, and being the politicos they are, Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley all answered "Black Lives Matter" instead of "All Lives Matter". It would be politically incorrect, given the current landscape, to answer otherwise. Had just the question "Do all lives matter?" been asked, it would have been a completely different response.

Same with this situation, where if the questions on "Should open / concealed be allowed?" or "Should the federal government be held to the same standards as the private sector in regards to state regulation", my response would have been more politically correct and acceptable.

In that aspect, the question is somewhat pointed, but I'll play the game because fuck political correctness.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I voted no in the poll, for the same reasons I voted no in part one.

Interesting thought been running through my head since part one...

What if it became mandatory for every single person over the age of 18 to have a firearm on them at all times. I mean everybody. Physically handicapped, mentally ill, ex-convicts...everybody. Get caught in public without your gun, hefty fine. Repeat offenders get jail time.

 

[Mikey_P]

I'm for conceal carry but not open carry. Before the nerd coward boys took over the media with their images, 15-20 years ago there was far more warnings by the gun media against open carry, how it isn't a defensive advantage and how it tells the bad guys who to kill first. I feel that open carry is just for political nerds trying to make a point and cowards.

I'm all for gun ownership but not open carry.

I do not believe that guns should be allowed in government buildings. I'm in a 'guns everywhere' state and government buildings are still off limit on the state level and obv on the federal level.

 

[WebcamStartup]

I voted no in the poll, for the same reasons I voted no in part one.

Interesting thought been running through my head since part one...

What if it became mandatory for every single person over the age of 18 to have a firearm on them at all times. I mean everybody. Physically handicapped, mentally ill, ex-convicts...everybody. Get caught in public without your gun, hefty fine. Repeat offenders get jail time.

Switzerland requires everyone to be trained at a similar age, and thus gun ownership is much higher, which has worked out nicely for them.

 

[WebcamStartup]

I guess I'll refrain from analogies, I must suck at them.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Switzerland requires everyone to be trained at a similar age, and thus gun ownership is much higher, which has worked out nicely for them.

Gun ownership is much higher? Higher than who? Other Euro countries maybe. Don't believe it's higher than the US.

But ownership is not what I was talking about, nor the Swiss requiring men to undergo military training.

I am talking about everybody (and I mean everybody) walking around strapped, everywhere they go in public.

 

[WebcamStartup]

Gun ownership is much higher? Higher than who? Other Euro countries maybe. Don't believe it's higher than the US.

But ownership is not what I was talking about, nor the Swiss requiring men to undergo military training.

I am talking about everybody (and I mean everybody) walking around strapped, everywhere they go in public.

I'm speaking without knowing for 100% certainty, but I actually think per capita there is higher gun ownership in Switzerland than USA. Raw number of gun owners, hell no. I actually believe per capita, yes. I'm going to have to see if I can find those numbers so I can talk with certainty on this.

I honestly think the concept would work out better. Sure, you'll have "events", but homicide isn't something new, so "events" already occur. ALTHOUGH I am highly against all forms of mandates, so fuck that shit. Still think it would reduce crime and violence though. I also believe it would help mitigate bullying and other forms of negative reinforcement.

 

[Gen]

I'm speaking without knowing for 100% certainty, but I actually think per capita there is higher gun ownership in Switzerland than USA. Raw number of gun owners, hell no. I actually believe per capita, yes. I'm going to have to see if I can find those numbers so I can talk with certainty on this.

I honestly think the concept would work out better. Sure, you'll have "events", but homicide isn't something new, so "events" already occur. ALTHOUGH I am highly against all forms of mandates, so fuck that shit. Still think it would reduce crime and violence though. I also believe it would help mitigate bullying and other forms of negative reinforcement.

From my perspective, adding guns to every potentially heated situation (bullying, road rage, firing an employee of 20 years, whatever) seems like it would increase violence. Think of someone getting mad and punching a wall, except they have a weapon at hand. I'm curious how that would mitigate bullying or violence? Say someone bullies you, you pull a gun on them, they pull theirs on you, and then where does the situation go from there?