Fred Derf Veteran Posted February 19, 2012 Veteran Share Posted February 19, 2012 we'll start treating teachers like professions when they start acting like it. Right now they won't handle our kids, particularly our boys, without ritalin and their ability to educate and inspire just blows. I consider them to be nothing but overpaid, over glorified babysitters. Most everything of importance I've ever learned has been from debating and arguing on line with people like you either from the facts/research you come up with or the facts/research I come up with. Compulsory education was out done by my curiosity online. If teachers in South Dakota are paid an average of $36,374/yr then you shouldn't realistically expect much more than babysitting. Is education really so unimportant that you'd have just about anybody do it? In Ontario, if you get only average marks in university then you can pretty much forget about being accepted into a BofE program. They get thousands of applicants for only a hundred or so positions at each university. Even then you have to compete with other graduates to get on a ready-to-hire list. The result? Very, very few "bad" teachers slip into the system. Usually the expectations are so high that any that do slip through the cracks are bounced out again within the first 5 years. The high attrition rate means that up to a third of teachers don't make stay in education more than 5 years. It's a lot of work during the school year and although it is balanced by generous vacation time, there is a lot of stress for a significant portion of the year. Not everyone can handle those demands and they find that out pretty quickly. it's a lot easier when you are a small island nation with largely secured borders. I'm from Soviet Canuckistan rather than Old Blighty. While we only share a land border with the US of A, we do take in a higher percentage of refugees and (legal) immigrants per capita. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan R. Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The senior left the house carrying a gun so clearly he was prepared to do violence. Investment is society needs to be done far in advance of a violent crime. You need to prevent the apathy, hopelessness, anger and frustration with society from taking grip. You need to give people other options. Don't you see? Luckily he did have a weapon. It's not like having a weapon caused the teens to attack him. There will always be a tiny minority that will have their own reasons to commit crimes so it isn't realistic to think that all crime can be completely eliminated no matter how hard your try or how much money you invest but that shouldn't be an excuse to not to bother trying at all. It is still cheaper at this point to prevent than it is to punish. People shouldn't have to walk around being scared. They shouldn't have to hide in gated communities. Grandma shouldn't have to stand toe-to-toe with criminals and let the best shooter win. These are not badges of merit for society. You can preach utopia all you want. It doesn't change the uncalled for assault by teens like these. And like I already said, when it does happen, we here do have the right to protect ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 I hate to do their job for them but those statistics may include suicides Comparing "homicide" rates is always risky because not all countries report them the same way. In the US it includes suicides (55% of the total), justifiable (by law enforcement action, civilian self defense, execution and assisted suicide where legal), and non-justifiable (criminal acts.) The suicide component is largely by gun where available, but historical data shows that when guns aren't availble other means are used and the total rate is unaffected. A very large proportion of the non-justifiable group is gang-on-gang in the inner cities, and they don't pay any mind to gun laws including CCW/CPL licensing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 That is NOT a fact, nor is it safe to assume that. You (and others who suggest shooting to wound) watch WAY too much TV and movies. No, I just think gun owners who hold a view of shoot to kill as the only option are idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 No, I just think gun owners who hold a view of shoot to kill as the only option are idiots. And that is an opinion not based on real world facts. The facts are taught by the certified firearms instructors who train both the police and civilians seeking a carry permit. The vast majority of these are long service cops, former cops or ex-military and all have extensive tactical training. They teach a state regulated curriculum that says to never use wounding or warning shots for the reasons noted several times upthread. Those espousing wounding and/or warning shots would not qualify to get bottled water for those guys & gals. Dot Matrix 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Are those all gun-related homicides? You can kill people in more ways than just a gun. I just verified that the gun related homicide rate is actually 2.97 per 100,000 for the US in 2010 of which is the latest year stats were available: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Gun_violence There any many European countries that have higher rates. Mexico is 3.66. Thank you. The usual idiots here look at "homicide" rates in the US and fail to realize that those also include things such as vehicular homicide (and guess what, the US has a much higher number of cars per capita than most other countries). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Raze Subscriber² Posted February 20, 2012 Subscriber² Share Posted February 20, 2012 Personal insults to prove a point. Righto tough guy, get the video. No, I just think gun owners who hold a view of shoot to kill as the only option are idiots. Personal insults not to your liking? Perhaps you could refrain from doing the same. The events happened so swiftly you do not have time to consider shoot to kill, you are simply wanting to protect/defend yourself, to survive. It is my belief and of most people posting in this thread (yes there are those saying he got what he deserved, good riddance, etc), that an unfortunate and sad death occured. The Evil Overlord 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Unfortunate? Of course. Sad? Yes, for his family. Justifiable? Most certainly - he brought it on himself by his own actions. I feel no more sorry for him than for the drunk driver who pulls in front of an oncoming train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm not questioning his rights. I'm not questioning what he did. I don't care if the instructors teach it, to me, your American instructors are no better IMO. Real world or whatever, I don't care. The fact that everyone thinks shoot to kill is alright is scary, very scary. But I guess that comes down to some of the most ridiculous gun laws in the western world. But that's another argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Raze Subscriber² Posted February 20, 2012 Subscriber² Share Posted February 20, 2012 Unfortunate? Of course. Sad? Yes, for his family. Justifiable? Most certainly - he brought it on himself by his own actions. I feel no more sorry for him than for the drunk driver who pulls in front of an oncoming train. Whoa, maybe I'm misunderstanding you or you me, I was not defending or pitying the young man, his criminal actions resulted in another person defending themself (and rightly so). I certainly believe a person has the right to defend themself with lethal force when justified as it was in this case. By the way I checked on Nebraska "Castle Doctrine" and our law is vague, but there is legislation pending that would strengthen/enhance the law. People can defend themselves but may not be immune to litigation. Hopefully the new law will be passed. The Evil Overlord 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiranui Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Nashy: You should know better than to try and have a reasoned argument with Americans over gun issues. The original poster has guns in his sig FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncoday Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm not questioning his rights. I'm not questioning what he did. I don't care if the instructors teach it, to me, your American instructors are no better IMO. Real world or whatever, I don't care. The fact that everyone thinks shoot to kill is alright is scary, very scary. But I guess that comes down to some of the most ridiculous gun laws in the western world. But that's another argument. Want to save lives? Ban cigarettes in the UK. The death rate for males from cigarettes is 49.0 per 100,000 in England. That is much worse than the 2.97 per 100,000 for gun deaths in the "Evil" US. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/mortality/uk-lung-cancer-mortality-statistics When I have visited Europe, one thing I could not stand is how much you "civilized" Europeans love to smoke cigarettes. Yuck! Southern Patriot 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan R. Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Nashy: You should know better than to try and have a reasoned argument with Americans over gun issues. This entire thread hasn't been saturated with enough facts and objectivity for your liking? Or is the outcome of this discussion just not to your liking and thus dismissed by you? The original poster has guns in his sig FFS! THE HORROR! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Want to save lives? Ban cigarettes in the UK. The death rate for males from cigarettes is 49.0 per 100,000 in England. That is much worse than the 2.97 per 100,000 for gun deaths in the "Evil" US. http://info.cancerre...lity-statistics When I have visited Europe, one thing I could not stand is how much you "civilized" Europeans love to smoke cigarettes. Yuck! I'm Australian. And just while we're on it, don't Americans complain about their ciggies costing a whopping $5 a packet? Try $20 a packet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippleman Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm Australian. And just while we're on it, don't Americans complain about their ciggies costing a whopping $5 a packet? Try $20 a packet. Cigarettes might be $5 a pack in the united states but it varies across america from average of $10 CAD in Canada to $2.50 US in Brazil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEX4S Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Point proven. People like you should not have a gun. I couldn't care less if you hve reasons of protecting your family. Your shoot to kill mentality is over the top and scary. Oh right. So we'll just put a bullet in them, no worries. Are you ****ing kidding me? Nope, not kidding deadly serious. Targets aren't the only thing worth shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Nice group :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dot Matrix Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Point proven. People like you should not have a gun. I couldn't care less if you hve reasons of protecting your family. Your shoot to kill mentality is over the top and scary. Are you ****ing kidding me? No, I just think gun owners who hold a view of shoot to kill as the only option are idiots. Have you ever fired a gun before? Have you ever taken a training or safety course on guns before? When you draw a gun, you are doing so for one reason, and one reason only: You intend to destroy something. You don't pull a gun to play Ring Around The Rosies. Second, it's a *HELL* of a lot harder to hit to hit a target below the waist, and nearly impossible to hit a knee or leg. When you shoot at a threatening target you are instructed to aim for the body. It's a larger area and harder to miss. Also, if the attacker has a weapon, then going for the knees does nothing at all to stop him from shooting/attacking back at you, as a banged up knee isn't going to stop the use of the upper body, most importantly, the aggressor's arms. As for a warning shot, in the out and open as this was, do you REALLY want to fire a shot that could go anywhere? Thirdly, the minute you decide to be an aggressor, whether by breaking into an occupied residence, or assaulting a man on a biking trail, you have sold your soul away to the devil. As soon as you enter my house, or threaten my life, all bets on your life are off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Break into this house in the middle of the night the only question is which resident will cash your life out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan R. Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Thirdly, the minute you decide to be an aggressor, whether by breaking into an occupied residence, or assaulting a man on a biking trail, you have sold your soul away to the devil. As soon as you enter my house, or threaten my life, all bets on your life are off. It's this point that I've been trying to make. What is so hard to understand about these causes and effects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Nashy: You should know better than to try and have a reasoned argument with Americans over gun issues. The original poster has guns in his sig FFS! It seems the unreasonable ones in this thread are those citing things they've seen on TV (warning shots, shooting to wound/disable) as real, viable alternatives in a real world situation. They constantly ignore the fact that shooting to disable is nearly impossible (even for trained police), and warning shots are inherently dangerous to innocent bystanders, and even to people miles away in certain cases. These same people go on to try to disprove (or simply ignore) the fact that as more and more states have enacted Castle Doctrine laws over the last decade or two, home invasions and other types of violent crime have actually been on the decline, in spite of the fact that police forces across the country have had fewer and fewer officers due to budget cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biotoxic_hazard_835 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a victim. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface. Gun control is not about guns; it?s about control. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords? If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms. If you don?t know your rights you don?t have any. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mokthraka Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I always love when people say more guns leads to more violence... doesnt switzerland have like 3 million guns? and a population of 7 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts