Ron Paul (R-moran) Introduces Bill to Abolish ‘Gun-Free Zones’ - and permit guns in public schools

[jpak]

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/08/04/ron-paul-introduces-bill-to-abolish-‘gun-free-zones’/

Rep. Ron Paul (R-edit:moran-Texas) has introduced a bill in the House that would allow teachers to carry firearms onto public school grounds. Gun-control groups call it an “extremist” bill. H.R. 2613, the Citizens Protection Act of 2011, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and remove all federally created criminal safety zones.

<more>

The GOP/NRA assault on America continues....

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. This is obviously an attempt at retroactive birth control.

[iverglas]

25. I wonder how he reconciles it

with his resolute devotion to the fight against women's reproductive rights??

:rofl:

[LAGC]

2. Heaven forbid some adult be able to have a chance to defend their students against homocidal maniacs

We all know the police are only 15 minutes away... except when they get scared and wait outside while all the bloodshed goes unchallenged inside, like at Columbine.

[jpak]

4. Yeah, the first time the kids get a hold of teacher's Glock - or he drops it in class

:nuke:

[gejohnston]

12. But what if the teacher is an Ed Shultz fan and

and only buys American? Then he would not have Glock. Kids would not get to hold it, and I doubt they would know it's there.

[rl6214]

53. Modern Glocks don't go off when dropped

[jpak]

113. So they won't be carrying anything but Glocks? That's just plain stupid

yup

[ileus]

59. OC on your hip and that'll never happen. Never leave a gun in a briefcase or other bag.

[Starboard Tack]

77. What is a homocidal maniac? Some kind of anti-gay freak?

[LAGC]

78. LOL.

Yep, that's it. Very intuitive.

Homocide, homicide, whatever. ;)

[YllwFvr]

93. It sucks but at that time

Officers were told to wait for special teams help. Now they are told to enter immediately, which may not make things better. I guess we well see. Hope to never face that situation myself

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Sounds like a good law. Responsible adults should be able to carry anywhere. N/T

[RC]

7. Even the local swimming pool, correct?

Just leave it under your towel when you go in the water, nobody will bother it.


I really don't understand the love affair some people have with their guns and their wild west Fantasies.

[PavePusher]

17. If they have lockers and you can do it discretely, why not?

Otherwise, best left secured in one's vehicle.

The only "wild west Fantasies" are the ones anti's bring up, based on bad fictional movies and penny-dreadfuls.

[iverglas]

26. or discreetly, whatever

Guns in public locker rooms at children's recreational facilties.

Now why didn't WE think of that??

Otherwise, best left secured in one's vehicle.

What, where it can free itself if something terrible happens at the pool and shoot the bad guy?

You seem to be kind of missing the entire point here ...

[SteveM]

33. Please explain "wild west Fantasies" in light of crime rates.

[oneshooter]

81. "wild west Fantasies." Ask the fellow with a picture of a "cowboy with two guns sticking out" n/t

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dtexdem]

10. I do not consider anyone who supports this nonsense to be a responsible adult.

And any responsible adult would understand why she or he should not be able to carry a gun anywhere they might want -- for that matter, wouldn't want to do so in places like schools.

But, then, gunnuttery and responsibility just don't mix.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

13. Can you explain...

...why you believe it is irresponsible?

I'm really curious.

What is irresponsible about carrying a tool on your person in a school? Why is it OK for an security guard to be armed, but not a teacher?

[Upton]

14. So what?

I don't have much respect for someone who advocates restrictions upon my constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties either..

Btw, authoritarianism and the Bill of Rights just don't mix..

[digitaln3rd]

16. The bill of rights says nothing about the right for any Tom, Dick, or Harry to carry a gun.

No matter how much the right wing try to spin it.

[gejohnston]

18. The Bill of Rights puts limits on the state

it does not grant rights.

[Hoopla Phil]

19. Your right. The 2A says . . .

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and BEAR Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well now, it DOES say something about carrying guns after all. Heck, ya learn something new everyday don't ya?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

34. Doesn't have to...

...it says that the government cannot infringe upon Tom, Dick or Harry's right to do so.

Its not a right-wing or left-wing thing. Its an American thing.

[SteveM]

36. Yes, "Gun-Free Zones" have worked so well...

Law-abiding citizens carry no guns, da thug (if he/she can read) understands as well.

Remember Klebold's last conversation with his Dad before the Columbine shooting: They agreed that the then-pending concealed-carry legislation in Colorado should be defeated. I rather suspect for different reasons.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Guess we know who you'll be voting for

[GreenStormCloud]

31. If I were a single-issue voter, but I'm not. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

32. Excellent! That makes 2 of us

Let's hope everyone else here who totes feels the way you do, because I have been confronted in this forum by one member who says I am pushing gun loving Dems away, which I don't believe. We are not a single issue party and we can hopefully all stay in the tent while disagreeing on marginal issues.

[Marengo]

51. Who might that be? N/T

[Starboard Tack]

55. Follow the thread. You'll find out.

[Marengo]

57. I'm asking you to explain it to me. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

58. Well, if you followed the thread you'd see his answer. It isn't for me to explain.

[Marengo]

62. I see no mention of who he may vote for, but you seem certain...

How do you know this, and who is it?

Why won't you answer this question?

[Starboard Tack]

63. It appeared that he was supporting Ron Paul

but he clarified that Gun Control was not a wedge issue, so unlike at least one pro-toting poster on this forum, it is not a wedge issue. How about you? You inside the tent?

[Marengo]

67. Sharing a similar position on an issue with Ron Paul does not equal support...

Do you support the Patriot Act? If not,I guess we know who YOU will be voting for, eh?

I think you owe an apology to the OP for insinuating such a vile thing.

-Edited for punctuation

[Starboard Tack]

68. Why would I support the Patriot Act? Do you?

don't even bother to answer, because I really don't care what you think, much less what you are doing here.

[Marengo]

71. Wow! It really IS necessary to explain the point to you!

According to you, agreeing with Ron Paul on an issue equals support and a vote for him.

As Ron Paul opposes the Patriot Act as I presume you do, then I guess we know who YOU will be voting for, eh?

[Starboard Tack]

72. I didn't quote Ron Paul to substantiate my position.

Get it?

[Marengo]

75. Don't need to. That you hold a similar view...

is proof enough, according to you own standard.

[Starboard Tack]

76. Not at all.

When you cite someone to support your position, it is hardly illogical to assume that you might support the person you're citing. He could have cited someone less anathematic to the Democratic party. So, who will you be voting for?

[Marengo]

79. Oy! Once more to the blackboard. You are resorting to an association fallacy...

Support for a proposal does not equal universal support for the one issuing it. To claim otherwise is resorting to an anti-intellectual , ad hominem discreditation device which indicates a weakness of one's own position or mind. You could have debated the value of the gun free zone concept as you see it, but instead chose to attack the character of GSC. Why is that?

What you apparently fail to realize is that such a fallacy can easily be employed against you as well. Once again using your metric, if you oppose the Patriot Act, you support Ron Paul, ALL of his positions, and will be voting for him.

BTW, so far as I can see from the article linked, GSC did not quote Paul as you claim in an earlier post. Either provide evidence of a direct quote or apologize for being dishonest.

-Edited for punctuation

.

[oneshooter]

82. He will do neither. He believes that it is below his position in life. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

88. GSC defended his position quite adequately

Your assumption that because I don't support something that Ron Paul doesn't support, then I must support Ron Paul, even though I didn't cite him or know his position is beyond absurd.
So, who will you be voting for? Or are you going to keep dodging that question?

[Marengo]

103. If you don't like association fallacies, don't direct them to others.

"Your assumption that because I don't support something that Ron Paul doesn't support, then I must support Ron Paul, even though I didn't cite him or know his position is beyond absurd.

Yup, just as absurd as your assumption that GSC will be voting for Ron Paul because he agrees with one of Ron Paul's proposals.

See how it works?

Oh, and I would advice you stop with the rather pathetic diversionary attempt: "So, who will you be voting for? " The subject of our debate is your usage of a logical fallacy to discredit another poster, not my voting habits.

[GreenStormCloud]

101. Where did I cite Ron Paul?

All of my posts in this thread have been my own thoughts. If they happen to agree with someone else on that issue, so what? You seem very eager to throw mud instead of actually discuss the topic.

What is wrong with a responsible adult being able to carry anywhere he pleases?

[Marengo]

105. It doesn't look to me that GSC did either, although you claim he did.

You might want to address this if you wish to dispel any appearance of dishonesty on your part.

[Ilsa]

5. Schools at risk usually have a police officer on the grounds.

My sons' middle school has one. Yes, he's armed.

[Blown330]

27. So did the college I went to.

I doubt any of them were under 40 and had seen the interior of a gym in the last 20 years. Usually only saw them in the food court or in the parking lots putting tickets on the cars of visiting parents.

[YllwFvr]

94. School resource officers are sorta the easy job

Given to older officers around here too.

[markbark]

6. I've got a cash saving idea!

Eliminate the US Capitol police.
Reps, Senators and staff can just carry, right?
Remove all those bollards, gates and such that keep the public away from their elected representatives!

You guys CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives.... c'mon, put yer money (ahem, excuse me, OUR money) where your mouth is!

[spin]

11. The Capitol is not a gun free zone ...

you just mentioned the US Capitol Police.



There are places where I can not carry my concealed weapon in Florida for example in a courthouse. The last time I was in my local courthouse, I was a witness in a case. There were several armed police in the room and the judge might have been carrying under his robe.

The courthouse was probably the safest place in town.

I have no problem with restrictions on where I can't carry my concealed weapon as long as armed security is present.

[iverglas]

29. could you start here?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9PHYIvlIYd0/Rn51yTUfUBI/AAAAAAAAAi8/h4bYD4nuYmA/s400/US+Embassy+Ottawa4+June+19,+2007.JPG
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/2007/06/us-embassy-building-in-ottawa.html

Your government demanded the most prime piece of real estate in my capital city to erect its monstrosity, and then proceeded to demand that a complete lane of traffic for an entire city block on part of the city's ceremonial route, on the street where the Prime Minister's official residence is also located, be blocked. (Also on the street on the other side of the building, it seems.)

I think it was our money that paid for the impediments though ...

[SteveM]

38. "You guys CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives..." Define the ideology of "you guys."

[iverglas]

44. did you think the comment was addressed to jpak???

I wonder whether it might not have been addressed to the person whose ideas were quoted in the opening post, and followers of that person.

Does the shoe fit? No? Pas de problème, eh?

[rl6214]

54. Why are YOU jumping into this conv ersation, it was not directed at you

You have railed against this in other threads.

[iverglas]

60. hahahahahahaha

Sez the pot.


You have railed against this in other threads.

Really?

QUOTE ME.

Or retract your false allegation.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha. I just say that to amuse myself.


I do indeed from time to time wonder why people plonk themselves into conversations about which they know nothing and start flinging around false allegations and the like ...

Oh look ...

[SteveM]

66. Pardonnez-moi. I was looking into Hal's eye: "I'm afraid I can't do that." nt

[DWC]

9. WoW! Responsible Adults...

allowed their Constitutional Right to the tools necessary to defend themselves and those in their charge from violent criminals / murders.

What a novel idea.

Semper Fi,

[eallen]

15. It wasn't that long ago that *students* could carry guns to schools.

When I was a teenager, I was a member of a rifle club. The shooting range was at a local public high school. We carried our target rifles there Saturday mornings.

I'm not that old. Or at least, I don't think I am.

:hippie:

[Hoopla Phil]

20. Yup, I recall many rifles and shotguns in the truck windows in my school parking lot.

And many handguns were under the seat. Never had a problem.

[iverglas]

43. "And many handguns were under the seat. Never had a problem."

Ah, there's just nothing like a responsible gun owner. A handgun under the seat of a car in a school parking lot. Now, that's not risky behaviour. Noooo.

Perhaps you're distinguishing those long ago and far away days of innocence from the here and now. I dunno.


I never saw a firearm in my life when I was a kid ... except for the one our alcoholic spouse-abusing neighbour aimed at my boy cousin when he went onto the neighbour's lawn to get his baseball ...

Somehow, I don't feel deprived.

[gejohnston]

24. Ours was

was either Wed or Thursday IIRC.

[Hoopla Phil]

21. It's really a shame that a Democrat did not introduce this. We really need to

get out in front of this issue. Start by taking the so called assault weapon ban OUT of the party platform.

[iverglas]

30. a shame about this one, too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Paul terms himself "strongly pro-life",<188> "an unshakable foe of abortion",<189> and believes regulation or ban<190> on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".<191><192> He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception;<193> his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."

edit - whoops - left out the "one" I was talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act


Does that last bit sound vaguely familiar at all?

Not just women need fear Dr Ron, I fear.

Women -- can you imagine having this turd as your obstetrician??? The skin crawls.

But anyhow, get a Democrat doing that job, and you'll have all the votes you need to win every seat in both houses, plus the white one, I think.

After all, who else are all the actual Democrats going to vote for??

... That is the theory, right?

[Starboard Tack]

23. Well shit how're ya gonna teach'em anything without a gun?

not to mention fixin' the class size problem.

[SteveM]

39. "teach'em...without a gun:" I taught my 8th grade class using a shotgun...

I brought the Remington 870 to my class, showed how to dismantle it, how to clean it, some safety considerations, where the safety was. Teacher was there, had a few questions, no problem. Of course, that was in 1961 before the controller/banners tried to equate guns with porno, psychological deviance, and such.

[Starboard Tack]

41. "I taught my 8th grade class using a shotgun..."

No, you taught a class about shotgun maintenance and some safety. What on earth does that have to do with teachers being armed with concealed handguns or bringing guns to school in 2011? I was in 10th grade in '61 and don't recall anyone advocating carrying concealed handguns around anywhere, unless you were plainclothes LE.
The gun banner/controllers were a result of outrageous behavior by some gun users who ruined it for everyone else. Blame the fools who went around shooting people indiscriminately, not the folks who are trying to fix the problem. How much do you want society to bleed without applying a bandaid or two? And we all know that when bandaids feel, one of two things happen. We either bleed to death or we get stitches and the latter is usually a preferred choice. So why keep squeezing the wound and making it bleed more by toting more guns around? Of course, I keep forgetting, guns save lives and toters never have a really bad day.

[SteveM]

65. Well, I took you up on your statement...

Perhaps too fine a line, here. The point is that guns in the classroom may be a good step toward better gun safety in and out of the home, and perhaps more importantly, a good way to de-mystify the subject. Our law enforcement was a sergeant in uniform, carrying a gun. He even came to our second grade class, and in response to a student's question, removed his revolver from its holster, unloaded it, and demonstrated its use (without pulling the trigger). But to your point, I have no problem with responsible teachers/administrators having guns on them: I just don't have the fear of that you seem to have.

"The gun banner/controllers were a result of outrageous behavior by some gun users who ruined it for everyone else."

The modern history of gun control began with the 1968 GCA, and sprang less from noted assassinations than from gunfire erupting in black ghettos during the mid-latter 60s. The "indiscriminate" shooting is a more modern phenomenon (the earliest most folks can point to is the 1966 Whitman shootings in Austin, Tx). Those trying to "fix the problem" began in the 70s and 80s a veritable culture war against gun-owners, easily documented in Kates and Kleck's The Great American Gun Debate.

I don't know what kind of bandaids you refer to; the legislation coming forth has no bearing on the societal problems these "aids" were purported to have addressed. And the just-add-water "stitch" of so-called gun-free zones is the worst kind of faith-based social policy.

On "wound-squeezing:" The violent crime rate has been in significant and steady decline since the mid 1990s, and none of that can be traced to gun-control bandaids. I'll give you this: I don't go along with Lott's assertion that "more guns = less crime" (who knows?), only that the gun-control meme "more guns = more crime" has similarly not been proven: Since the mid-1990s, the number of guns in the hands of civilians has increased by over 100,000,000.

"Of course, I keep forgetting, guns save lives and toters never have a really bad day."

Individuals "toting" guns is an individual decision to better enhance self-defense, not social policy, as alluded to above. I don't know what you mean about folks (guns or no) never having a bad day.

Frankly, the spread of concealed-carry legislation, guns in public places, etc. is a sign of how Second Amendment advocates have blown through the flimsy, gauzy gates of "gun-control." Unfortunately, some of this smacks of revanchement; what happens when you've been smeared so many times in editorials, speeches, news stories, crap research like that of Bellisile's, etc. Gun-controllers made the modern NRA. But when all is said and done, I don't think even these "mopping up" actions will make much difference either way as social policy. They may make a difference to individuals, however.

Thank you for this discussion.

:)

[Starboard Tack]

69. "I have no problem with responsible teachers/administrators having guns on them"

How do you define "responsible" in this case? I'm assuming you would entrust your children/grandchildren to a classroom where there is an armed adult, deemed responsible by who?
There is no sound evidence to support either side regarding the reduction in violent crime. Way too many variables. But we do know that 30,000 gun deaths occur annually, which would make 300,000 since 9/11. The terrorist attack took out 3,000 lives and the world changed and we lost all kinds of freedoms. Ten times that figure annually from gun violence gets us more relaxed gun control. Interesting priorities.
"Individuals "toting" guns is an individual decision to better enhance self-defense" damn right it is. All about SELF and not about society. Kinda says it all, doesn't it.
"Gun-controllers made the modern NRA" - LOL - and the way women dress causes rape

So, am I correct in assuming your priorities are all about the individual's "rights", rather than society's rights, even though the exercising of those individual rights helps destroy the social fabric?

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. "...the exercising of those individual rights helps destroy the social fabric"

Would that be like "causes moral harm" or "damages social cohesion"? Or is it more like the old Soviet all-purpose charge of "hooliganism"?

More culture war, pretending to be concern...

[Starboard Tack]

73. No "moral harm" no "damages social cohesion"

just dangerous by design and not conducive to peaceful co-existence. Nothing to do with morality or the soviets, just selfish and potentially, if used as designed, very dangerous. Fact attested to by 30,000 deaths annually.

[rrneck]

83. "dangerous by design..."

You mean like a person from a broken family who has spent the bulk of his life on the street or in the criminal justice system? Someone who was never given hope for anything beyond the acquisition if money by any means? Someone who never had a chance at a productive life?

You mean the guy who actually starts the fight. That's the "dangerous by design" factor that causes the problem and presents the actual danger.

[Starboard Tack]

85. Are you saying that a gun is not dangerous by design or just rambling?

[rrneck]

87. Dangerous to who? nt

[Starboard Tack]

98. Nobody in particular. Just dangerous.

[rrneck]

102. How? nt

[Starboard Tack]

108. How! Smoke peace pipe

[rrneck]

109. Have you noticed

that when you finally have to put or shut up you evade the question?

[Starboard Tack]

111. What question? How? How what?

Are you OK?

[rrneck]

112. If you remember to blink

it reduces the "deer in headlight effect".

How are guns "just dangerous"?

Pinpoint for us the locus of this unfocused peril.

Or throw another tantrum. Your choice.

[ManiacJoe]

114. Yes, they are dangerous. That is what makes them useful as tools.

Ditto for chainsaws.

Responsible handling of such tools mitigates the risks to yourself and others.

[hack89]

80. There is no such thing as society's rights

made up rights never trump real civil rights. Never.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Civil rights are society's rights

The right of an individual to carry a concealed handgun is not a civil right. It is a legislative right.

[hack89]

86. The Bill of Rights delineates individual rights.

They mark a bright line that government can't cross. All Constitutional rights are individual rights. There is no case law supporting your notion of collective rights.

[Starboard Tack]

89. Which right says you can carry a concealed gun?

That's why we're here to discuss how you can keep your rights and others who want gun free zones can enjoy their right to a peaceful pursuit of happiness. The line is not so bright, but rather murky.

[hack89]

91. The right to bear arms.

There is no right to peace and happiness - you need to read the Constitution again.

[Starboard Tack]

107. Thank you for that clarification

I guess it's time to get back to the drawing board

[iverglas]

90. a society has interests

-- and is entitled to take action to protect them, subject to meeting certain criteria.

Or did you think that no society was entitled to enact environmental protection legislation? Just for starters.

And yes, sometimes the public interest does actually trump private interests and individual rights and freedoms.

Or did you think that no society was entitled to enact environmental protection legislation? Just for starters.



typo fixed

[hack89]

92. Yes they have interests

As long as they do not usurp individual civil rights there is no problem. If there is a conflict then enumerated Constitutional rights take precedence. If society as whole take exception to that, the Constitution has a mechanism to modify civil rights.

[iverglas]

95. no, you don't know what you're talking about

What you have said is a total nonsense, and doesn't merit being read, let alone responded to.

But what the heck.

There is a conflict between society's interest in prosecuting criminals and an individual's freedom of speech interests.

Tried lying under oath in a court and getting caught lately?

Oops. So much for your freedom of speech in that situation.

There are sooooo many examples one could give, but it would almost certainly be pointless, because I have virtually no doubt that you would continue to make ideology-driven and completely baseless and silly statements, and I'm not being paid to instruct you.

[hack89]

96. Of course I don't - silly me. nt

[hack89]

97. Every one of those conflicts has been adjudicated in the courts

the government typically over reaches and the Supreme Court eventually draws the line. But the individual rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are the touchstone for their deliberations.

The boundary between society and individual rights is a contentious one - I would agree with you that it is not a easy and neat border. Fortunately in America, the system is biased towards the individual as it should be - the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review assures this.

As for your example, yes you will get in trouble if you lie after voluntarily swearing to tell the truth. However, there is the individual right to not incriminate yourself that ensures that society cannot force an individual to testify against themselves. Society has also designated certain types of communications as privileged and can be kept private from the courts. So that particular boundary was adjudicated over the years with a balance found between individual rights and state power.

[iverglas]

99. oops, sorry

As for your example, yes you will get in trouble if you lie after voluntarily swearing to tell the truth.

Nothing voluntary about it. I think you will find that it is an offence for a witness who is subpoenaed to testify to refuse to be sworn/affirmed. It's called contempt. So being sworn under duress, i.e. on pain of punishment, is hardly "voluntary". Oops, there goes your freedom of speech again.

I wasn't talking about accused persons and their right not to testify, so we'll just ignore that little diversion.

So that particular boundary was adjudicated over the years with a balance found between individual rights and state power.

And there goes your assertion about society having no "rights" and, when forced to agree that society has interests it is entitled to protect, that individual rights and freedoms always trump the public interest.

Oh well, eh?

Btw, here in Canada we have a counterpart of your scrutiny process, so your "fortunately in America" comment, I dunno, just seems to be one of those "everything is better in the USofA because nobody else in the world cares about individual rights and freedoms like we care about individual rights and freedoms" things. 'Tain't so.

[hack89]

104. There have to be boundaries.

but they have to be determined by their impact on individual rights. We have system that works. I can live with the strict scrutiny standard - in my life time the trend has always been towards more individual freedoms. As long as gun control issues are adjudicated to that standard I have no concerns for the future.

[iverglas]

28. now this is odd

A minute ago I posted a post and it showed up as a posted post, but with no number, and nowhere to be found in the thread. So maybe I was replying to something in that deleted subthread just as it was being deleted ...

It's still instructive. It was a reply to a question about whether an armed teacher at Virginia Tech might not have been able to save lives. I figured: why be content with a hypothetical question? Why not look at the actual teacher?


Now just who was the instructor in the classroom at Virginia Tech?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak

Death

Couture-Nowak was teaching an Intermediate French class in Room 211 at Norris Hall on the morning of April 16, 2007 when she was killed by Seung-Hui Cho as one of the 32 victims in the Virginia Tech massacre. Couture-Nowak, one of the first to be shot in Norris 211, was 49 years old when she died.

After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door, Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called. The attempt at barricading the door proved unsuccessful. Couture-Nowak and 11 of the 22 registered students perished. Couture-Nowak died in front of the door and next to the teacher's desk.

Oh, right, the point:

Jocelyne M. Couture-Nowak (February 17, 1958 — April 16, 2007) was an instructor of French in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia and was the only Canadian victim of the Virginia Tech massacre. She was a native of Canada, and while residing in Truro, Nova Scotia, she co-founded the first Francophone school in the region.

I'm curious whether someone would seriously suggest that a Canadian francophone-rights activist, former daycare worker and French teacher would have been carrying a firearm in her classroom. And if not by choice, maybe teachers should be required to do so? If our concern is to protect children, why not? Why rely on the teachers to carry or not carry firearms at their own whim?

Any theories about what her widowed husband might say?

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14269/gun-violence-panel-heated-but-civil

... Despite maintaining a generally orderly atmosphere, last night's Q&A panel session on gun violence did not entirely avoid harsh clashes of words.

Starting at 7 p.m., the Students for Non-Violence Club held a screening of ABC 20/20 special "If Only I Had a Gun," which sought to dispel notions that carrying a gun increased safety. The screening was followed by a questioning session between the audience and a four-member panel in Haymarket Theatre.

... "I thought it was more civil and more constructive than I anticipated," said Jerzy Nowak, director of the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention. He repeated an earlier comment that the two sides likely agreed on at least 60 percent of the issues and could make progress together.

"I hope it's the beginning for a further dialogue," Nowak said.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14228/tech-reflects-on-peace-violence

As with tragedies of the past, the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention has been intimately involved in promoting campus safety and preventative measures to avoid such crimes.

The center was established in the aftermath of the April 16, 2007 shootings. Former horticulture professor Jerzy Nowak, whose wife Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was among the victims in Norris Hall, was installed as its director.

But hey, I'm sure all the other victims' families are on board with guns in schools ...

[spin]

40. Lets look at the details of the shooting at Noris Hall during the Virginia Tech massacre ...

Virginia Tech massacre

***snip***


Norris Hall shootings

About two hours after the initial shootings, Cho entered Norris Hall, which houses the Engineering Science and Mechanics program among others, and chained the three main entrance doors shut. He placed a note on at least one of the chained doors, claiming that attempts to open the door would cause a bomb to explode. Shortly before the shooting began, a faculty member found the note and took it to the building's third floor to notify the school's administration. At about the same time, Cho had begun shooting students and faculty on the second floor; the bomb threat was never called in.<1><19> Within one or two minutes of the first shots, the first call to 9-1-1 was received.<20>

According to several students, before the shooting began Cho looked into several classrooms. Erin Sheehan, an eyewitness and survivor who had been in room 207, told reporters that the shooter "peeked in twice" earlier in the lesson and that "it was strange that someone at this point in the semester would be lost, looking for a class".<21> Cho's first attack after entering Norris occurred in an advanced hydrology engineering class taught by Professor G. V. Loganathan in room 206. Cho first shot and killed the professor, then continued shooting, killing nine of the 13 students in the room and injuring two others.<1> Next, Cho went across the hall to room 207, in which instructor Christopher James Bishop was teaching German. Cho killed Bishop and four students; six students were wounded.<1> Cho then moved on to Norris 211 and 204.<20> In both of these classrooms, Cho was initially prevented from entering the classroom by barricades erected by instructors and students. In room 204, Professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor, forcibly prevented Cho from entering the room. Librescu was able to hold the door closed until most of his students escaped through the windows, but he died after being shot multiple times through the door. One student in his classroom was killed.<22> Instructor Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and student Henry Lee were killed in room 211 as they attempted to barricade the door.<23>

Cho reloaded and revisited several of the classrooms.<20> After Cho's first visit to room 207, several students had barricaded the door and had begun tending the wounded. When Cho returned minutes later, Katelyn Carney and Derek O'Dell were injured while holding the door closed.<25><26><27> Cho also returned to room 206. According to a student eyewitness, the movements of a wounded Waleed Shaalan distracted Cho from a nearby student after the shooter had returned to the room. Shaalan was shot a second time and died.<28> Also in room 206, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan may have protected fellow student Guillermo Colman by diving on top of him.<29> Colman's various accounts make it unclear whether this act was intentional or the involuntary result of being shot. Multiple gunshots killed Lumbantoruan, but Colman was protected by Lumbantoruan's body.<30><31>

Students, including Zach Petkewicz, barricaded the door of room 205 with a large table after substitute professor Haiyan Cheng and a student saw Cho heading toward them. Cho shot several times through the door but failed to force his way in. No one in that classroom was wounded or killed.<32><33><34>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

In several classrooms the students and teacher had the time to barricade the door. Lets suppose that in one of those classrooms there was a teacher or a student with a concealed handgun and the skill to use it. After the door was barricaded, the armed individual could have taken cover behind a desk with his handgun pointed at the door. After Cho broke through the door, the armed person could have made certain that he was a threat and opened fire at Cho. He may have only wounded Cho, it is hard to say. But I would suspect that an experienced shooter shooting from a resting position would have been able to hit Cho multiple times.

It also could be argued that had Virginia Tech not been a gun free zone, Cho might not have been as likely to try his massacre.

Interestingly enough, even today, off duty police officers are not allowed to carry their firearms on the Virginia Tech campus.

Concealed Carry Law for Cops

As a police officer, you'll probably be allowed
to wear your handgun off-duty anywhere in
the state where your jurisdiction is located.
Under H.R. 218 you'll now be allowed to
cross state lines while wearing your handgun
as long as you meet the identification
requirements as outlined in the law.
However, this law does have limitations. Let's
say you're a police officer in the state of Virginia, and you've decided to take
some college classes at Virginia Tech University during your off-duty hours.
While Virginia has one of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the nation,
you'd better not be caught carrying on that campus. Even after that horrible
massacre of 31 students and faculty at Virginia Tech, their gun-free zone
policy is being enforced as strictly as ever. The fact that you're an off-duty
police officer won't entitle you to be armed.
http://www.careerpoliceofficer.com/PoliceandPolice/concealed_carry_law_for_cops.html

[iverglas]

42. and let's look at my actual point

Do you, or does anyone, have any reason to believe or ground to assert that an instructor in that incident would have been carrying a firearm if permitted to?


It also could be argued that had Virginia Tech not been a gun free zone, Cho might not have been as likely to try his massacre.

It could be argued that if the dog hadn't stopped to pee, it would have caught the rabbit.

If you want to argue it, argue it. Never mind "let's suppose". Let's tell me. Was there an instructor or student in any of all that who would have been carrying a firearm if permitted to?

If you can't answer that, then you should just give up while you're only this far behind.


edit: a good start would be to identify anyone on the scene who actually had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

[spin]

45. I would suggest that is possible that an instructor might have had a firearm ...

that day.

And that after that day, many instructors would consider carry a firearm if allowed and some might decide to do so.

Why not? There are 10 million people in this nation who have carry permits. Not all instructors hate firearms.

If the campus had not been a gun free zone there is a larger chance that one of the students might have had a legally concealed firearm. In Florida alone, for example, 152,152 people between the ages of 21 to 35 have concealed weapons permits. Some are probably college students. Many of those students are ex-military who are attending college after their military service.


source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_holders.html

[iverglas]

46. so that's a no

[spin]

48. Nope, not a no. It is a quite possbile. (n/t)

[iverglas]

50. so is life in another galaxy

I'm not going to be basing my arguments on that possibility, though!

[spin]

47. Self delete. replied to wrong poster. (n/t)

[iverglas]

49. that's okay

I often talk to myself too. ;)

[rl6214]

56. "was the only Canadian victim of the Virginia Tech massacre. She was a native of Canada,"

Makes no difference, she was still the victim of a gun free zone killing.

[iverglas]

61. are you sure she wasn't a pink unicorn?

she was still the victim of a gun free zone killing

Hmm. She was a victim of an afternoon killing. A sunny day killing. A handgun killing. So many kinds of killings ... some of them even make sense.

She was an instructor in an educational facility, one of the people that a bunch of dunderheads think should be allowed to tote guns at work.

Would SHE have been toting a gun had she been allowed to?

Would ANY instructor or other adult in the scenario have been toting a gun had they been allowed to?

If YOU cannot answer YES and PROVIDE EVIDENCE to support your answer, then why not just keep silent when you have the chance?

One avoids looking foolish or ... well, motivated by something other than actual concern for actual victims ... when one does that.

[Blown330]

64. So simple.

Would SHE have been toting a gun had she been allowed to?

Maybe yes, maybe no though very unlikely in her particular case.


Would ANY instructor or other adult in the scenario have been toting a gun had they been allowed to?


Again, but in this less specific case there is probably more of a chance that somebody would have been carrying had they been allowed to.


If YOU cannot answer YES and PROVIDE EVIDENCE to support your answer, then why not just keep silent when you have the chance?


Well since YOU cannot answer NO and PROVIDE EVIDENCE to support your answer, the you should just keep your own advice and spare us the drivel.

[iverglas]

74. I'm not interested in chances

There's no question of chances here. There are specific people in a specific situation.

Who wants to pin their life on a chance, anyhow? If guns in schools are going to save people's lives in the event of an attempted mass murder, let's have the proof that there is going to be a person with a gun where it is going to have an effect.

If you can't even tell me that there WAS someone in that situation who WOULD HAVE BEEN carrying a gun had they been allowed to, I am entitled to point and laugh every single time you or anyone else starts ugly bullshit all over again. It amounts to using the deaths of people, and using their surviving families, for an agenda that not one of them, to my knowledge, has uttered the least agreement with, based on nothing.

If someone can produce no reason to believe that anyone would have been in possession of a firearm AND in a position to use it to good effect, that someone is engaging in nothing more than deceit when these claims are made.

[Blown330]

100. Then you aren't interested in life....

...since chance takes a fairly important role in it.

If guns in schools are going to save people's lives in the event of an attempted mass murder, let's have the proof that there is going to be a person with a gun where it is going to have an effect.

Can you produce proof that a person with a gone would NOT have an effect? Your logic here is rather weak.


If you can't even tell me that there WAS someone in that situation who WOULD HAVE BEEN carrying a gun had they been allowed to, I am entitled to point and laugh every single time you or anyone else starts ugly bullshit all over again.

You ask for proof for yet you cannot provide proof against. I laugh at almost all your posts which is why I haven't put you on ignore yet. It's bewildering how someone who claims to be so well educated will go to such effort to prove otherwise. Given any situation where I could be faced with defending myself against someone with a gun, you really don't possess the technical nor practical knowledge to convince me my chances don't improve being armed myself.

[iverglas]

106. hey, at least I understand the things I read

... and don't pretend not to.

Can you produce proof that a person with a gone would NOT have an effect? Your logic here is rather weak.

My logic is just fine, thank you.

I don't have to produce proof of anything, thank you.

That is because I am not making any CLAIM for which I need to produce any proof, thank you very much.


You ask for proof for yet you cannot provide proof against.

What the FUCK are you talking about?

If you say it is raining in Tanzania and I ask you for proof, I have to provide proof it is not raining in Tanzania?

I think not, chum. In fact, I know not. I am not making any claim here. What the hell would I produce proof of?


Given any situation where I could be faced with defending myself against someone with a gun, you really don't possess the technical nor practical knowledge to convince me my chances don't improve being armed myself.

Oops. I thought we were talking about all the lives that would have been saved if people at Virginia Tech had been permitted to tote firearms around campus. In fact, I'm sure we were. How did this suddenly become all about you?

Oh, well, I guess because that's what it's always all about.

[Blown330]

110. Your ignorance is showing again.

I don't have to produce proof of anything, thank you.

Yes, we all know your M.O. here. Deny, deny, tap dance, insult, pretend moral outrage and victim-hood, lather, rinse, repeat. You are as predictable as they come.

What the FUCK are you talking about?

For someone who claims to be so smart you sure seem to have trouble keeping up around here. Unfortunately I can't make it any simpler for you without drawing pictures in pastels.


Oops. I thought we were talking about all the lives that would have been saved if people at Virginia Tech had been permitted to tote firearms around campus.

Oh we are, you just have to think a little harder. It is certain that the claim that lives could have been saved had CCW holders been allowed to carry at VT holds more water than the empty bias that you present. VT did prove that blockading doors, hiding under desks, and waiting for police response was a miserable failure as a choice in tactics.

[iverglas]

115. nothing of mine showing except civility and rationality

If you have any hidden away somewhere, feel free to bring it out.


It is certain that the claim that lives could have been saved had CCW holders been allowed to carry at VT holds more water than the empty bias that you present.

Don't you get dizzy going in all those circles?

What CCW holders? Have you named any yet?

Which ones do you know would have had firearms on their persons? Have I missed those names too?

[ileus]

35. Sounds like a pretty good bill to me....assuming you trust your teachers.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

37. Whether or not I trust them

has little to nothing to do with it. If they were inclined to harm the children, they already have them 8 hours a day...

[rl6214]

52. Unrec for typical driveby spam shtick bullshit