Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f17/)
-   -   Lets try a novel approach (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f17/lets-try-novel-approach-78928/)

4sig 12-20-2012 02:12 AM

Lets try a novel approach
 
There appears to be an increase in murders in places were legal firearms are banned. There are 3 million AR 15 s in circulation. People are proposing restrictions going forward. So the carnage continues. How about communities setting up groups of citizens willing to be guards at schools, movie theaters, mall, etc in exchange for concealed carry permits. However, to qualify they would have to take a hands on course provided by their local police department to train them to handle hostile shooter situations. This puts more QUALIFIED people to protect those who can't or choose not to protect themselves. This way if another psycho decides to take out innocent babies or adults either with one of the 3 million AR 15s or any other weapon there are people TRAINED to contain the situation until the police arrive. It may not be the perfect solution but its better than most I've read. Many would probably volunteer for no pay or minimum wage.

charlesmar 12-20-2012 02:20 AM

Another novel idea.


Veterans. Any veteran combat trained, that has weapon handling experience, if they are honorably discharged, should be required to carry concealed.

Why should their service to nation be set aside once they are trained. Buy them 2000 rounds of ammo a year to keep brushed up, pay them a little to carry, boom! Instant trained security for the nation.

God bless our service men and women. Prob better trained than le.

John_Deer 12-20-2012 02:33 AM

Malls are big money operations. Each mall generates millions each year. How about each mall is required to hire armed security guards to protect their customers and vendors. Under our current tax code they can write off the salaries of the guards. With a little training the security guards would pay their way by controlling shoplifting. Shoplifting costs us all money. Stores let shoplifting go rampant and just pass the bill on to customers that pay for their merchandise.

I ran a crew that remodeled Sears stores when Sears started their "softer side of Sears" campaign. Over 90% of the security measures we installed were to control employee theft. They spent nothing on controlling shoplifters.

Sniper03 12-20-2012 02:34 AM

4 Sig,

A consideration. However the mind set required in these situations is different than just wanting to serve a good cause. But what I have been thinking with all the government money (our tax dollars this administration is waisting) Government Czars appointed by Obama making $000.000 six figure incomes. Perhaps we could put some of the thousands of Veterans who have served and are returning to work. Providing them with a good future a decent pay and future retirement for another exemplary job of securing our schools and other facilities. Let one of the little pukes run into one or two of our vets and see what the outcome would be. That is what we need other than infringing on the Constitutional Second Amendment Rights of all of us as the Obama Administration is doing. We warned some here but they voted for the jerk anyway. Said nothing could happen. Anyway there should be no hesitation when it comes to protecting our schools, hospitals and other facilities. If the little mentally ill pukes or others show up their simply dead! Am I totally insensitive "You Bet I Am!" The trade off for a baby in grade school or a young student, no question in my mind! That is the answer on our end until the government does something about the real problem of society in general and mental illness. Gun control will do NOTHING! To stop these incidents in reality they could use a bomb next time which could be worse yet as far as the amount of casualties. Of course the liberaltards probably can not fathom that!

03

Mosin 12-20-2012 03:08 AM

It won't work.

Israel did this back in 1970 and they haven't had a school shooting yet.

They NEED these shootings to further their disarmament of Americans. Their stated goal is complete disarmament.
They've dumped guns into Mexico and made sandy hook look like day care compared to the daily violence they created down there... In the name of gun control.

So no, arming us will not work with their agenda.

JTJ 12-20-2012 03:12 AM

If you are looking for volunteers at no pay, you would have to tap the seniors. For a pay check the vets would be ideal provided they are screened for PTSD.
When the police show up they dont rush in. They spend a lot of time organizing to make sure they dont get shot. Most of the damage is done before they arrive and actually enter. People on site with a thorough knowledge of the premises are really needed.

astroman 12-20-2012 03:26 AM

Here in Nashville, a former Marine is standing guard at his children's elementary school - he is unarmed (or he is carrying concealed and not advertising)
The other parents whose kids go there appreciate his actions -link below -

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20376969/father-former-marine-stands-guard-at-elementary-school

Doc3402 12-20-2012 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlesmar (Post 1058703)
Another novel idea.


Veterans. Any veteran combat trained, that has weapon handling experience, if they are honorably discharged, should be required to carry concealed.

Required? Required? I don't blanking think so. How many years do you want me to put my life at risk for the people that spit on our returning vets? How many years should I protect the draft dodgers that got amnesty for running to Canada?

WebleyFosbery38 12-20-2012 10:45 AM

Im with you Doc, once I retired, required by law because Im a Vet isnt in my vocabulary!

What do all these crimes have in common other than being carried out by whack jobs?

1) All were done in locations where the Chicken S4it Perpetrator could be certain that they would maintain 100% firepower superiority for at least as long as it took for 911 to bring in help, 15 to 30 minutes of free fire zone guaranteed!

There is no number 2 or 3 in the comparison because each and every one of them happened for a plethora of unconnected reasons in places that range from schools, park and playgrounds to the Twin Towers and Federal Buildings. The outcome is the only other comparison, Injured, Dead, Traumatized and permanently disenfranchised victims of violence but thats a given.

Everyone here does have the right Idea but it comes down to simple sensible law, anywhere anyone posts a sign that restricts our methods of Self Defense, they who put the sign up are 100% responsible for the security of anyone passing through those doors, 100%!

Kinda like when someone puts a Camera up near a pool or play-yard they own, your responsible to monitor it and react to emergencies, thats implied when someone sees a camera. If people arent expected to protect themselves in certain places, the expectation of protection becomes the responsibility of the owner and guardian of those premises, period, 100%.

Putting every last suspected nutcase in a rubber room, taking everyone's AW's, shredding all the HC "Clips" and banning bad intentions will not stop the carnage ever.

Trained, Armed, and reasonably compensated security details in each and ever place that restricts carry rights or prevents us from any type of self defense is the only thing that will. Nothing else will work period!

Plenty of inner city schools have done this and the incidents of mechanized terrorist attacks against our children in those places have dropped to nearly zero. Those that haven't made high security as their first priority every day have been corralling our lambs and just waiting for the slaughter, why wouldnt they point their fingers at anything but the responsible parties in the mirror? Maybe its because they are 100% complicit in these murders by not doing the reasonable things anyone with a brain would do to protect precious items, there is nothing more precious than our children!!!.

They are more worried about making sure our kids are having pleasurable sex that is safe than whether they make it back home alive....

charlesmar 12-20-2012 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc3402

Required? Required? I don't blanking think so. How many years do you want me to put my life at risk for the people that spit on our returning vets? How many years should I protect the draft dodgers that got amnesty for running to Canada?

Poor choice of words, I agree. Is what it is, read into it what you will. The spirit of what was meant in my words is that rather than the authorities thinking average citizens are not trained, they overlook how many we'll trained vets there are, that are better trained than LE in weapons, that are numerous.

While I do respect your opinion, and anticipated some degree of heat for saying that, I have talked to more than a few vets who would do it, if it meant shutting up the gun snatchers, and protecting the children, while getting some increased monetary benifits.

What I meant be "required" is that I think the mindset should be the opposite. Rather than restricting your rights, they should be willing and ready to increase all rights to ensure good citizens have a means to protect themselves and others, and I think vets should have special consideration to be allowed to carry whatever they want wherever they want, they already went through extensive training.

I'm a bit radical in my choice of words, but I think rather than look at further restrictions, they should look at radical changes in allowing defense from thugs,

I apologize for my choice of words, hopefully you understand what I meant, a lot is lost in translation when typing, rather than speaking.

I am 100 percent for our troops and vets.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:11 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.