Surely! But that was an invite, not a snarky remark.
Can't take weapons into Moda.
But you see, it is. My legal ability to have a weapons is taken away every time I step on base, or in a movie theater, or in a recruiting center, or in a mall, or in a concert, or ... That means that when someone attacks the Navy Yard, or an Islamic terrorist shoots up an Army base, or attacks a recruiting center (all places where "gun legislation" has "taken away" the "legal right to possess a gun") there are many people killed instead of a one or two plus the shooter.
I don't know or care what the NRA wants, it's about knowledge of society and your personal worldview on good v. evil.
OR, let's not make it so that when you do pull up in front of school and walk in the unlocked door bent on a shooting rampage, that people trying to protect kids are not legally mandated to have their weapons (if they own them) taken away from them where they spend 9+hours a day? I'm not saying to buy every teacher a Glock (like someone said before). I'm asking you to not restrict a teacher or coach or security guard from bringing their Glock with them to do their job.
Can't take weapons into Moda.
Can't take weapons into Moda.
The people protecting schools in Afghanistan do. Then again, I don't know how many people in Holland or Canada attack schools like they do here in the US and AFG.
It's different when you're in the military...let me ask you this...would you feel safer sending your own children to school in Afghanistan where everyone is armed or say Taipei American school where guns are not allowed for private purchase or to be carried in public.....which place would innocent students be actually less likely to be shotThe people protecting schools in Afghanistan do. Then again, I don't know how many people in Holland or Canada attack schools like they do here in the US and AFG.
I ate every single meal for two years in a chow hall filled with people from around 15 different countries...all of whom were armed. Not a single "mass shooting" incident. The one time someone (not in the chow hall) drew their weapon and fired they were immediately struck down by three other armed individuals.
What I'm postulating is that, while the football coach is a hero for using his body to shield a student's, he may have been able to protect a bunch more who were killed or wounded if he had the opportunity to be armed while he was being slaughtered.
Why?? I'm under more restrictions to have a weapon in the military than some asshole civilian out in town is. Why should I be able to eat armed in a chow hall in AFG but not in one at the Navy Yard where people actually come in and shoot at me? I can carry in Baghdad but I can't carry on MacDill AFB. I can sleep with a pistol in my hand in a tent in Helmand Province but not on the Submarine Base.
I don't know Taipei. What I do know from the military is the concept of Operational Risk Management. And I feel that, in the very unlikely (statistically insignificant, though tell the families of the victims that) event that someone does something at a school that requires security guard intervention, it's almost criminal to legislate that they have security duties but cannot be armed to perform them. Maybe in Taipei they never have criminals attack schools. Here they do. But here they also legislate that when criminals attack schools, people who are charged with protecting them cannot be armed, so they generally die. Along with lots of students.
I understand your point but my question is which system in the long run is safer for future generations....safe enough to entrust your families lives to? As it is, ours is flawed or we wouldn't be burying innocent children. I'd give up my guns in a heartbeat if the world agreed to disarm....which I know is a pipe dream
Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush states that “it is DoD Policy” to “limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel.” “The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried,”
That's the "worldview" point...I feel that, if the world did "disarm all guns", that there would be people dying with arrows or swords or sticks or bombs or.... b/c people are inherently evil and selfish and generally go through a "self-preservation" mode check before doing something that would hurt others. In your scenario, I'd ask what would happen in Taipei if a Taliban member decided girls shouldn't go to school and came in with a suicide vest? Or a machete? I'm happy that it hasn't (to my knowledge) happened in Taipei. But I'd say that, for better or worse, and due to many things Calvin and others are pointing out, it is happening here just like it is in AFG, not like it is in Taipei.
The Taiwanese National Guard and Taipei Police and Swat team would deal with it full force....happened with a kidnapped celebrity case back in the 90s....gangsters...nobody is stabbing students in Taipei schools....one mentally ill guy stabbed 4 people on the subway years back. You can walk anywhere anytime of night in the city unarmed and it would be extremely rare to feel unsafe...citizens don't have guns or feel a need for them..
That's awesome that there's an armed force to deal with this (just as there's a Columbine Police Dept, an Aurora PD, a Sandy Hook SWAT team)...but what happens in the 5-30 minutes it takes those guys to show up? In FL this week a bunch of students and teachers were killed because it took almost half an hour for armed personnel to show up. Those trying to protect children were killed due to being unarmed. Some students said they were hiding in a closet for hours.
That 19 year old would not have been able to purchase a gun or ammo in Taiwan...that's what would happen..they have mentally unstable people like everywhere else...but not guns
in order for that to work, you wouldn't have a choice in the matter..no one would..otherwise it's just status quo standoffs for eternity...war ever stops being a world sport....we might actually do some good on this planet for a change
