Parkland Plans 'Active Shooter' Drill

Jonathan Gerard July 24, 2012 at 09:59 pm

Should every town in America do this? It would be cheaper to put a metal detector at the school entrance. It would be smarter to outlaw handguns and only allow private citizens to own rifles and other paraphernalia necessary to maintain a militia. When America was founded there was a wild west. We don't need a "wild west" in our civilized communities. I know that many people disagree with this value but I also know that the majority of Americans agree and that majority does not rule.

Mom of DnNnD July 25, 2012 at 02:04 pm

There is no reason to not be prepared. You can outlaw everything you want, but the criminals will still be criminals. They will still have access to guns, even guns that are only supposed to be issued to military personnel. This is the time we live in and it's only going to get worse. Be prepared.

Jonathan Gerard July 25, 2012 at 05:16 pm

Of course there's a reason: the cost. Especially when the likelihood of it happening in any given place is like a billion to one. But what have you got against limiting guns and registering owners? I can't bring a bottle of shampoo on a plane (for safety reasons) why should I be able to bring a gun that fires 100 bullets into a bar or onto a campus? There is no other purpose to these guns than mass murder. What is wrong with limiting the personal ownership of firearms to what is properly used in hunting and target practice? And why does someone's "right" to target practice trump my right to a safe neighborhood? Reasonable people can figure out priorities and solutions. Fanatics make all or nothing demands.

John July 27, 2012 at 12:56 pm

Unfortunately for you Mr. Gerard, reasonable people are not the ones who break the law or commit mass murders. Your correct chances are slim, but for the sake of your survival I hope for you that a "fanatic" is nearby should you be one of the unlucky to have to experience the unthinkable. Also just a bit of info, the majority of campuses are "gun free zones" prohibiting them. Including the campuses where we have had mass shootings within the last few years. How can that be one may ask, they are gun free. For some reason the idea of a utopian love fest safe haven at the school did not stop the mentally disturbed individual hell bent on destruction. A few .45 rounds to the head would have though!

Jonathan Gerard July 27, 2012 at 01:29 pm

You prescribe a Wild West culture--where guns are going off all over the place--good guys fighting bad guys and hoping the good guys win. It didn't work. That's why Americans, through their government, created police forces and a National Guard. You would let untrained citizens enforce the law. With guns.
Let's assume, to follow your argument, that that would work in a rural community where there is lots of space between people and, if you missed your human target, it probably wouldn't matter. How dense a population would you consider necessary to conclude that it was unsafe for untrained citizens to enforce the law themselves? I don't accept your assertion that my survival could depend on a fanatic being "nearby." Studies have shown that virtually no one in prison has a bullet wound inflicted by an armed bystander who stopped the criminal. Our hugely armed population has not done anything to stop violent crimes.

Chris July 27, 2012 at 03:05 pm

Jonathan, how would this work, if you limit my second amendment rights, i limit your first amendment rights? you can only say what i want you to say, go to the church i want you to go to. is that an equitable trade? where does it stop once you start limiting our fundamental rights. If you think limiting gun ownership is the answer you are grossly mistaken. why does your right to say something i don't approve of trump my right to bear arms?

Mom of DnNnD July 27, 2012 at 04:46 pm

I think Duwayne Henderen and Davis Dawkins would totally disagree with you Jonathan. Both tried to rob an internet cafe in Marion Florida and were shot by 71 year old Samuel Williams, who had a license to carry a concealed weapon. - July 13, 2012.
FYI - I am against citizens owning guns. I think only the police and military should have access to guns. Unfortunately, that is not, nor will ever be reality. Also, in the high school I went to, we had metal detectors at all entrances. The thugs would hand the guns through an open window to a friend inside. See criminals will be criminals. Our option is to be prepared.

Jonathan Gerard July 27, 2012 at 09:05 pm

Chris, you know the answer to your own question. Words don't kill people. Guns do. The government DOES limit the right to practice one's religion when it comes to smoking peyote or marrying a few women at the same time. If our society can limit these "rights" which don't threaten anyone's life, surely it can limit gun ownership--which can. You have a right to own a car and drive it, but not without a license and insurance and after reaching a minimum age. Guns are more dangerous than cars and, unlike cars, they serve no necessary purpose. They have only one purpose--to kill.
So thanks, but I won't trade my right to freedom of speech and of religion for your right to kill me just to stand your ground. I never said that no one should have a gun. All I wrote was that there can be reasonable limits and controls on gun ownership. Tell me why a person should be allowed to buy a gun at a gun show with no background check. Tell me why a person should be able to own a gun with a magazine that can hold more bullets than it takes to kill an elephant. Tell me why we shouldn't put a serial number on every bullet manufactured here to help police track a murderer.

Peter Hamati-Attieh August 7, 2012 at 05:27 am

Ok limiting guns won't do a thing criminals will still do what they want drugs are illegal and there all over the place limiting guns will restrict law abiding citizens from owning them and allow criminals to buy them illegally and continue there crimes, getting rid of handguns will probably be the dumbest decision ever considering the shooting in Colorado movie theater if one person in the crown had a handgun the problem would have been taken care of, next with so much drama and bullying in high schools there is a great deal for preparing for these events the cost is slim who are you paying the school is already up the resources are half volunteers if not more and the cops are getting pain for the few hours of training that should prepare them for something that is very capable of happening, and why not be ready

Jonathan Gerard August 7, 2012 at 01:48 pm

So you are for an armed population that takes the law into its own hands, deciding when to intervene with a firearm when a law is being broken. And you are for legalizing drugs.
If it's ok for practically anyone to own a gun, would you mind requiring that they be registered and insured--like a car (required) or a dog (regarding reg. though not ins.)? Insurance from gun ownership could be used to pay for gun-caused damage.

tamarya September 15, 2012 at 12:17 am

Yes kind of like the guns banned from century 16 theater in aurora, somehow the shooter managed to get his guns in with that policy. Oh yeah chicago banned guns from law abiding citizens, but somehow have more shootings than most of the country. So yes don't think outlawing them will get us anywhere but killed.

tamarya September 15, 2012 at 12:27 am

Nobody should be killing you to stand their ground, so no trade off there unless you do have a criminal history and you do not want us protecting ourselves from you. Because most law abiding citizens want law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves because you are not worried about being shot because you do not break the law, or trespass, or get physical with someone.