Join 3,497 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Ted Nugent reccomends more guns for students.
August 15, 2000 5:11 PM   Subscribe

Ted Nugent reccomends more guns for students. Through his new book, Nugent uses the Columbine massacre as a tool in pointing out the need for more people to be allowed to carry concealed weapons.
posted by tomorama (26 comments total)

 
Concealed weapons do give you pause. Here in Chicago, all the aldermen are allowed to carry guns, and I avoid city hall because of it. I do believe people would be more polite if they thought there was a chance others were packing heat, however, school safety would get a far greater boost if they banned all sports, than if they armed the students. Guns don't kill people, the presence of jocks causes people to kill people. The surviving jocks @ Columbine have continued to make stupid remarks since the massacre that makes it pretty clear to me that they learned nothing from it. Arming the students would not have done much good if the big propane bomb has actually gone off. And yet, I do recall another school shooting stopped by a teacher going to his car and grabbing a gun.

I am very anti-gun control, even tho I do not have much desire to own a gun. I don't much like the idea that I am restricted from any activity, or have to lose the right to own a chunk of scary metal, just because some monkey has no idea how to live in a society. It seems so unfair.

posted by thirteen at 7:04 PM on August 15, 2000


How you can you even present the idea that you shouldn't be restricted from doing whatever you want. You don't have a right to do whatever you want and neither does anyone else; just because you want to do something doesn't make it right. Your rights end where another's begin. There are limits.
posted by tomorama at 10:12 PM on August 15, 2000


Maybe, if someone in the caffeteria at Columbine was carrying a pistol, they could have impeded or even halted the attack. Not likely, however. Shooting a gun isn't like in the movies, where Arnold Schwarzenegger picks off bad guys from 200 feet away without looking. Inexperienced and untrained kids trying to use a gun are far more likely to miss their target or even hit another innocent person. An explosion in your hand isn't a peice of cake to control.Besides the obvious physics of the situation, there are plenty of other reasons why more people, younger people, carrying concealed weapons has to be completely out of the question. You're not going to have a world of preteen heroes stepping in the middle of a mugging or stopping a bank robbery. What you will have is more unnecessary violence and death. There are two many immature toughguy gang member mafioso wannabe's out there these days who will shoot you in the foot for looking at them the wrong way. What do you think will happen if you make it legal for them to have those guns?Violence is violence no matter which way you look at it, and fighting fire with fire only heightens the situation. I wish people, especially teenagers had the common sense to talk things out these days. We'd all be a lot better off. Sure, a situation will arise every now and then when you just can't talk to each other, but even then, you don't go get your gun and call up 16 friends. You duke it out fair and square - you win, you win, you lose, you lose. And that's the bottom line.
posted by tomorama at 10:14 PM on August 15, 2000


I do think I should be able to walk around doing what ever I want, so long as I do not affect you. It is how I can support people doing things that I find personally repugnent. It is why I do not think protesters should take over the streets. I was not precice enough in my post. My rights do end where anothers begin. I do not think my owning that chunk of metal violates the rights of others. The misuse of it does. I think it is unfair to assume I am irresponsible. I would support a mandatory death penalty for the misuse of a gun, but I cannot accept that I am not allowed to have one because someone is afraid of me enjoying my freedom. I do not think students should be armed, but I do think the best way to stop someone with a gun, is with another gun.
posted by thirteen at 10:51 PM on August 15, 2000


Ted Nugent is also a fucking idiot.
posted by Satapher at 5:41 AM on August 16, 2000


This is what makes the United States great!
posted by lagado at 6:40 AM on August 16, 2000


This is what makes the rest of the world want to put a big fence around the United States.
posted by lagado at 6:41 AM on August 16, 2000


I own guns and I am a responsible, law-abiding adult. I am a member of the NRA, but I do not agree with Ted Nugent's position in his book. I do believe, however, in the 2nd Amendmant. Many people think that guns are evil by nature and should be banned outright. It is important though to realize that fighting for more gun laws and restrictions does not confront the most difficult problem we have ever faced in this country. That is the lack of personal responsiblity and accountablity. Look at how our fellow citizens leap at any chance to sue someone for negligence. It's the same thing when children take the most extreme measures to solve a problem. What have our children learned from us? The fight to take away gun freedoms from law-abiding citzens like me ignores the fact that laws already exist that ban gun possession from children, felons, and the mentally-impaired. They are not being enforced. Is that my fault? I follow all laws and safety practices concerning all firearms. I take responsibility and hold myself accountable for my actions. I should be able to defend myself and my family with a gun if our lives are threatened, just like our Founding Fathers intended. There is so much to this debate that devides our country and that's a shame. Despite what some may think of my treatise here, I keep an open mind and enjoy discussing this most important issue.
posted by cowboy at 7:28 AM on August 16, 2000


Who honestly believes that, in the emotionally volatile atmosphere of a high school, there wouldn't be a lot more kids drawing and firing concealed weapons (too quickly to prevent) in a fit of anger, than students who would be able to defend themselves in a prolonged "siege" situation like Columbine?
posted by harmful at 7:31 AM on August 16, 2000


lagado: I thought we were the ones putting up the fence, to keep everybody else out.
Nicely said cowboy
harmful: I don't think anybody this side of Mr. Nugent thinks kids should be toteing guns to school. Still, some kids are bringing them, what do we do about it? I am pretty sure the answer does not have anything to do with me.
posted by thirteen at 7:57 AM on August 16, 2000


tomorama sez: "Maybe, if someone in the caffeteria at Columbine was carrying a pistol, they could have impeded or even halted the attack. Not likely, however."

How do you evaluate the probability in that situation? An armed opponent would have had *some* chance. An armed and trained opponent would have had a better chance. An armed and trained and courageous opponent might well have turned the tide of the situation. How do you know?

tomorama sez: "Inexperienced and untrained kids trying to use a gun are far more likely to miss their target"

I don't hear anybody advocating inexperienced and untrained kids using guns. Inexperienced and untrained adults have no business trying to use a gun, either. Suppose a couple of the adults were armed and prepared? (What? You say you don't even trust your kids' teachers with guns? The people who spend as much time with them as you do? Geez.)

tomorama sez: "There are two many immature toughguy gang member mafioso wannabe's out there these days who will shoot you in the foot for looking at them the wrong way. What do you think will happen if you make it legal for them to have those guns?"

Um, gee... maybe... NOTHING?!? The teen gang animals who'll shoot you (in the HEAD actually) for looking at them the wrong way do so regardless of the law. You imply that they'd shoot more people if guns were more legal. Isn't shooting people still illegal?

tomorama sez: "fighting fire with fire only heightens the situation."

Naive. Fighting fire with toilet paper only heightens the situation. That's what you have when armed criminals run rampant in an unarmed society.

tomorama sez: "You duke it out fair and square - you win, you win, you lose, you lose. And that's the bottom line."

Here's where you show your true colors. You decry violence but you still want to fight, only on your own terms. Nice fantasy world you live in.
posted by Tubes at 8:27 AM on August 16, 2000


Can I ask why the ramblings of an incoherent jackass like Ted Nugent are given any consideration whatsoever?
posted by solistrato at 9:22 AM on August 16, 2000


Ted Nugent is evil, and must be banned.
posted by holgate at 9:32 AM on August 16, 2000


I don't get it.

Guns kill you. That's their only use. To make people dead. If you've used a gun properly, you've ended someone's life.

How can you argue for guns? Where's the upside to guns? Why does anyone want guns?
posted by danwalker at 9:45 AM on August 16, 2000


Headline should read Aging Rockstar Says Stupid Shit Either for Attention or Because He's Really That Stupid.

Every so often he crawls out of the woodwork to get on the press, last time it was something about Kurt Cobain.
posted by skallas at 10:07 AM on August 16, 2000


Guns kill you. That's their only use. To make people dead. If you've used a gun properly, you've ended someone's life.

danwalker, that's just not true. I have used many guns properly, and no-one is dead as a result; nor any other species of animal. I've busted a few clay pigeons and shot up a few targets, and had a good time doing it. Maybe you can't imagine enjoying sport shooting, but are you really unable to believe that anyone else does?

The "upside to guns" is that some Americans enjoy owning and shooting them. You don't have to "get it"; you do have to respect those people and their opinions and their campaign contributions and their votes.
posted by Nic at 11:47 AM on August 16, 2000


thirteen, I don't see how you can advocate banning all school sports, then complain that, "[You] don't much like the idea that [you are] restricted from any activity, or have to lose the right to own a chunk of scary metal, just because some monkey has no idea how to live in a society. It seems so unfair." I hope you were being facetious.
posted by phichens at 11:57 AM on August 16, 2000


I was indeed joking.
posted by thirteen at 12:23 PM on August 16, 2000


Nic - well said. I participate in several shooting sports and have a load of fun. Safety is our first priority and we have the chance to teach newcomers on the subject. Very important point.

danwalker - guns do kill, but only when someone points and pulls the trigger. As stated above, shooting sports are the main reason I have and enjoy guns. But more importantly, as I said in my first post, I have them for self-defense. I hope and pray I never have to use them in that respect, but if I have to defend myself or my family from someone with muderous intentions, I have the right, legal, or otherwise to self-defense. I will only fight gun with gun, fist with fist. But if someone shoots at me, I'm damn sure going to shoot back.

On another point, when I issue this argument, people often say "that's what the police are for." I respect the police and the hard job they have to do, but how many people see the police prevent a crime as oppsed to responding to it. I'm not promoting vigilantism, but if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and I call 911, does anyone think they'll arrive before harm can be done? Maybe, but I'm not taking chances with my family's life.

I meant to say before that changing people's behavior is the solution to our nation's problem with guns, and aggression. It's the hardest problem we've ever faced. Because it's hard, it not recognized. The kids at Columbine acquired those guns illegally. How would have banning all guns prevented that? Criminals have the guns illegally, would more laws make it more illegal? That's not the point, but enforcement of the thousands of guns laws on the book is the point, and the one most people ignore. Getting kids (and adults too) to not to accelerate to the most extreme measure (killing, in their minds) is indeed something that no law can achieve. It's up to the parents to raise children to solve their conflicts without violence. Sorry for the extended rant and thanks for listening.
posted by cowboy at 12:47 PM on August 16, 2000


Anytime somebody brings up Columbine vis a vis gun control, I can't help but think about what would have happened if their bombs had gone off. These guys made up, and deployed, a TON of bombs around the school. Really big-ass nasty bombs. Luckily, it turns out they sucked at it and none of them went off. But if they had gone off - particularly the ones in the cafeteria - there would have been possibly hundreds of dead students instead of a couple dozen. And we would have been spending the last year or two fighting to get back freedom of speech on the Internet rather than arguing about guns, because Congress would almost certainly have rammed through something about posting Bad Information online. (I vaguely recall reading one of the studies saying that the main reason they started going around picking off so many kids in the first place was because they were so furious about the dud bombs.)
posted by aaron at 12:55 PM on August 16, 2000


In response to cowboy's post, I'd like to make a personal point about self-defense, guns, and responsibility.

I was in a bar fight a couple of weeks ago; my friends and I got the worst of it and ended up in the ER at Beth Israel getting assorted wounds sown up. We didn't start the fight - and we didn't end it, even though two of my friends were (legally) carrying guns, because they knew better than to show them and make a bad situation worse. So we took a beating, but no-one got killed.

The idea of owning a gun for self-defense is valid; the police really aren't there to prevent specific crimes. (Hell, one of my friends is a cop and was powerless to prevent my getting beaned with a bottle!) And of course the police aren't usually there at all: my GF in Brooklyn called 911 to report a home intrusion last month and waited half an hour for a response.

But even in your home, the legal and moral responsibility you bear as a gun owner not to use your gun unless it is absolutely necessary makes owning a gun for self-defense almost impractical.

cowboy, you are taking chances with your family's lives. Different chances than an unarmed household takes, but dangerous chances still. I know you understand that, but I want to clarify for everyone here that this argument doesn't rest on self-defense being a good reason to own a gun - even if that's the case the Motor City Madman's book makes.
posted by Nic at 1:45 PM on August 16, 2000


Guns kill you. That's their only use. To make people dead. If you've used a gun properly, you've ended someone's life. How can you argue for guns? Where's the upside to guns? Why does anyone want guns?

"The only thing about Utopias that sucks is that it only takes *one* asshole to ruin one." --me

Now, quite apart from the points others have made (shooting is fun, targets are great, hunting, etc...), there's a much more important point that needs to be made, and this is a good case in point opportunity to make it:

Guns are *tools*. Just like slim-jims and lockpicks, crowbars, hammers, knives, nmap and friends, encryption, napster, gnutella, Ian Clarke's stolen-named-program, and dynamite.

They're *all* tools. They *do* many things. Some of those things are dangerous or fatal to others, some of them may be dangerous or fatal to *you*... some of them are not dangerous or fatal to *anyone*... if proper judgement is exercised in their use.

THE TOOLS ARE NOT "BAD".

They're *not*.

Waaaah!

:-)

The people using them and their intentions might be bad, but the tools are not, and outlawing them merely deprives the law abiding of their right to use those tools legally.

The criminals always have, do now, and always will simply *ignore* those laws, and do what they want *anyway*; that's why we *call* them 'criminals', no?
posted by baylink at 3:16 PM on August 16, 2000


tomorama sez: "You duke it out fair and square - you win, you win, you lose, you lose. And that's the bottom line."Here's where you show your true colors. You decry violence but you still want to fight, only on your own terms. Nice fantasy world you live in.-TubesHow ignorant of you. You seem to rejoice in the beleif that you've destroyed my self confidence by disproving me. How can you look past the basic fact that there are exceptions to almost every rule? Until our world is perfect, there will always be situations that you can't talk your way out of. There will always be people who want to bring things to push and shove. This is wear guns come in. I'm saying it would be a better world that when such a situation as this arises, people wouldn't feel the need to prove every inch of their masculinity by going and getting their friends and their gangs and their guns to back them up. It just makes the situation worse than it has to be. Sure, it's a fantasy, but who are you to say I'm living it it. They're called ideals.
posted by tomorama at 9:17 PM on August 16, 2000


dan: I don't don't want to own a gun. but i can see how owning one might come in handy at times, even if it never made it out of the padlocked gun cabinet. its very presence might make me feel better the next time my little wannabe-thug next door neighbors have an altercation that ends up with someone bleeding all over the parking lot, or the next time one of them gets drunk and stupid(er) and misses their door in favor of mine, or both. I've never in my life before this year felt threatened in my own home, and isn't that the one place where having a gun about Just In Case seems sensible?

I have a much harder time getting behind proposals which would have teachers walking around armed, people in church packing heat, etc. Out in the world, it makes me nervous... so many variables. But in my home, if the knob on the front door starts getting rattled in the middle of the night, I'd really much rather not have to have faith in the po-lice (who I trust less and less as I get older) to be able to show up to ensure my safety.

It's unfortunate that there are guns at all (because you're right, they are tools specifically designed for killing), but there are. So the choice you have is to level the playing field with private citizens who are educated and cautious and trained about their use, or leave all law-abiding citizens as sitting ducks. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and they will use them on those of us who don't.

Using a gun for good or for bad doesn't have to mean firing it. If a 14-year-old kid stopped you on a street corner and said Gimme your wallet, depending on your mood and build and survival instinct, you might say Beat it, punk. If the same kid stopped you on a street corner, pointed a gun at you, and said Gimme your wallet, you'd have to be a lot more suicidal not to comply. But it works the other way too: criminals look for easy targets, because they're far from immune to the survival instinct---as soon as they know you have a gun, it doesn't even have to be *loaded*, they're going to re-evaluate your vulnerability in a hurry.

maybe the solution is that we all buy solid-wood or metal gun cabinets (no giveaway glass fronts!) and hang them in our living rooms, easily visible from outside the big picture window...

(also: if too many people from the bad old dal days keep turning up in unexpected places, anti-stalker munitions might just be called for. heh. Sapphireblue r00ls y... ohnevermind. ;)
posted by Sapphireblue at 10:29 AM on August 17, 2000


Ted Nugent? ROCK AND ... err, wait.

Since Salon linketh not, the official homepage of doom:
tnugent.com
posted by dgfitch at 2:01 PM on August 17, 2000


I still think Ted Nugent is an idiot.
posted by Satapher at 4:53 PM on August 17, 2000


« Older When headlines go wrong......  |  Microsoft has never made a goo... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments