Arming teachers bad cus in Parkand a singlular example exists of a cowardly RO not doing job, WTF?

[Rustic]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

It should be a personal choice of the teachers if they want to be armed or not…

 

[2aguy]

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

I've always meant to ask but what do you mean by gun free zones? I ask because someone told me Ft Hood was a gun free zone which is obviously bullshit.

Fort Hood is a military fort so someone uninformed like you would assume that soldiers on base have guns...this is not true. Guns on a military base are kept in armories and only taken out for training or deployment.....the Military and civilian police are the only ones with guns.....the Fort Hood shooter picked a gun free zone area to attack..none of the soldiers and civilians there had guns.....it was only after the Military police arrived that he was stopped.....

It was a gun free zone.

You sound like an idiot as usual. I was in the military. So I'll ask you. If MPs are carrying guns on Ft Hood how is it a gun free zone? Got a answer for that speedy?

There were no guns at the processing station he attacked...it was no different than any other building in a town or city....the MPs were not on site you moron.

So what there were no guns at the processing station? What does that have to do with calling Ft Hood a gun free zone? MP's on Ft Hood carry guns you fucking idiot.

Shit stain....a military Fort is the size of a town or city...you dumb ass....so the processing center was a gun free zone and the MPs weren't there when he attacked, you dumb ass the same as a school in a town that is a gun free zone....the town has cops...the school is a gun free zone....

 

[Asclepias]

I've always meant to ask but what do you mean by gun free zones? I ask because someone told me Ft Hood was a gun free zone which is obviously bullshit.

No, Ft Hood was a gun-free zone. I believe that was passed by George H Bush that no weapons be allowed on military bases.

Gun free zones are simply places nobody can posses a firearm outside of law enforcement. For instance in my state all government buildings are gun-free zones. So are hospitals. Churches are gun-free zones but they have a loop hole that guns can be permitted if the church has a sign on their door stating so. Of course no church does to my knowledge.

Thats just wordsmith bullshit. I know for a fact that the MPs on Ft Hood carried/carry weapons. How can you have a gun free zone with people carrying guns? The only people affected by that rule were soldiers who had CCW's. So again I ask why are people using word play to try and call something a gun free zone? The term itself says there are no guns.

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

No....mass shooters will choose another target if they know someone with a gun will possibly stop them...we know this from actual research....

The problem with a police officer is that they can be executed first, because they stand out, and get into patterns of behavior.....while an unknown number of armed school staff means the shooter has no idea who will stop them if they start shooting...

What research? Is it peer reviewed? So youre claiming shooters dont target areas when they have no clue if a civilian has a gun? Thats silly. They shootup places all the time where CCW's are allowed.

 

[Asclepias]

I've always meant to ask but what do you mean by gun free zones? I ask because someone told me Ft Hood was a gun free zone which is obviously bullshit.

Fort Hood is a military fort so someone uninformed like you would assume that soldiers on base have guns...this is not true. Guns on a military base are kept in armories and only taken out for training or deployment.....the Military and civilian police are the only ones with guns.....the Fort Hood shooter picked a gun free zone area to attack..none of the soldiers and civilians there had guns.....it was only after the Military police arrived that he was stopped.....

It was a gun free zone.

You sound like an idiot as usual. I was in the military. So I'll ask you. If MPs are carrying guns on Ft Hood how is it a gun free zone? Got a answer for that speedy?

There were no guns at the processing station he attacked...it was no different than any other building in a town or city....the MPs were not on site you moron.

So what there were no guns at the processing station? What does that have to do with calling Ft Hood a gun free zone? MP's on Ft Hood carry guns you fucking idiot.

Shit stain....a military Fort is the size of a town or city...you dumb ass....so the processing center was a gun free zone and the MPs weren't there when he attacked, you dumb ass the same as a school in a town that is a gun free zone....the town has cops...the school is a gun free zone....

Puss stain....How did he know the MPs werent there? Have you ever been to a processing center? Its crawling with MPs.

 

[Asclepias]

I've always meant to ask but what do you mean by gun free zones? I ask because someone told me Ft Hood was a gun free zone which is obviously bullshit.

No, Ft Hood was a gun-free zone. I believe that was passed by George H Bush that no weapons be allowed on military bases.

Gun free zones are simply places nobody can posses a firearm outside of law enforcement. For instance in my state all government buildings are gun-free zones. So are hospitals. Churches are gun-free zones but they have a loop hole that guns can be permitted if the church has a sign on their door stating so. Of course no church does to my knowledge.

Thats just wordsmith bullshit. I know for a fact that the MPs on Ft Hood carried/carry weapons. How can you have a gun free zone with people carrying guns? The only people affected by that rule were soldiers who had CCW's. So again I ask why are people using word play to try and call something a gun free zone? The term itself says there are no guns.

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

Armed citizens have no obligation to protect anyone or any place.

But the logic is that if you're going to shoot up a place wouldn't you pick a place where you know no one will be armed over a place where people might be armed?

The operative word is "logic". One would have to assume these people are logical.

 

[2aguy]

No, Ft Hood was a gun-free zone. I believe that was passed by George H Bush that no weapons be allowed on military bases.

Gun free zones are simply places nobody can posses a firearm outside of law enforcement. For instance in my state all government buildings are gun-free zones. So are hospitals. Churches are gun-free zones but they have a loop hole that guns can be permitted if the church has a sign on their door stating so. Of course no church does to my knowledge.

Thats just wordsmith bullshit. I know for a fact that the MPs on Ft Hood carried/carry weapons. How can you have a gun free zone with people carrying guns? The only people affected by that rule were soldiers who had CCW's. So again I ask why are people using word play to try and call something a gun free zone? The term itself says there are no guns.

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

No....mass shooters will choose another target if they know someone with a gun will possibly stop them...we know this from actual research....

The problem with a police officer is that they can be executed first, because they stand out, and get into patterns of behavior.....while an unknown number of armed school staff means the shooter has no idea who will stop them if they start shooting...

What research? Is it peer reviewed? So youre claiming shooters dont target areas when they have no clue if a civilian has a gun? Thats silly. They shootup places all the time where CCW's are allowed.

Wrong....actual mass public shooters choose gun free zones...

From the actual mass shooters...

Orlando, Pulse Night club shooter wanted to attack Disney land

Pulse shooter’s initial target was Disney site, prosecutors say


Prosecutors say the Orlando nightclub shooter intended to attack Disney World’s shopping and entertainment complex by hiding a gun in a stroller but became spooked by police and chose the gay club as his target.



3/5/18
The Washington Post's School Shooter Profile: A Chilling Account | National Review

The second thing: The shooter reveals that he thought seriously about whether his target would be a “gun free zone.” I mention this not to endorse any particular policy, but to make it clear that it is by no means rare for those who would do harm to first scope out their destinations and to make sure that they won’t encounter much resistance. The shooter openly explains that he chose the local elementary school, rather than the school he was really angry with (his own), because it lacked an armed guard. He also admits to having researched how long it took cops to respond in the area (15 minutes), and how long it would be before SWAT was on site (45 minutes). This echoes comments made by the shooter at Isla Vista, who considered carrying out his attack on Halloween, but decided against it because there’d be “too many cops walking around during an event like Halloween, and cops are the only ones who can hinder my plans.”
The actual story linked above...

“I HAVE TO BEAT **** **** . .” he wrote nine days before the Sept. 28, 2016, shooting in a misspelled reference to the Sandy Hook killer,**** ****. “Atleast 40.”

Two days later, he debated whether he should attack his middle school, from which he’d been expelled, or his elementary school, just up the road.

He decided on Townville Elementary because it was closer and had no armed security.


“Itll be like shooting fish in a barrel,” he wrote his friends, whose identities remain unclear, along with whether the FBI has tracked any of them down. The agency declined to comment, citing Jesse’s open case.

In the chat, he said he had researched police response times for the area and found that it would take them 15 minutes to get there, maybe 45 for SWAT. He said he would throw pipe bombs into each classroom before he got in a shootout with police and killed himself with his shotgun. He said he had been planning a massacre for two years.

=========
The Colorado theater shooter evidence...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater.html#ixzz2F4pLqhxu

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.

So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks




FBI: Dearborn Heights ISIS supporter planned to attack Detroit church

In conversation's between Abu-Rayyan and the undercover agent, Abu-Rayyan described his desire to commit a martyrdom operation.

The complaint filed in federal court doesn’t specify which Detroit church he was allegedly planning to attack, only that it was close and could seat 6,000 members.

The complaint quotes Abu-Rayyan saying:

“It's easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news. Everybody would've heard. Honestly I regret not doing it. If I can't do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here."

He had also told the undercover agent that a church would be an easy target because people are not allowed to carry guns there and that it would make the news.
----------------
Minnesota…...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/minn-teen-made-bombs-stockpiled-guns-prep-school-massacre-police-article-1.1776006

The unhinged teen told cops, after being busted Tuesday, that he planned to shoot his sister, mom and dad with a .22-caliber rifle before he went to a rural field and set a fire to distract cops.

The 11th-grader then said he planned to go to Waseca Junior and Senior High School where he would toss Molotov cocktails and explode pressure-cooker bombs to try and kill “as many students as he could” in the cafeteria during lunchtime.

About 1,000 students, in 7th through 12th grade, attend the school.

LaDue, according to the notebook of his plan, would kill the school resource officer before continuing to kill other students. He was prepared to be gunned down by a SWAT Team, police said.



************************


Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

Of course, there are numerous other examples such as the Columbine killersopposing the concealed carry law that was then working its way through the state legislature. The bill would have allowed people to carry permitted concealed handguns on school property. The killers timed their attack for the very day that final passage of the law was planned for in the legislature.

If you go to the link for the Colorado theater shooter they have a photo of his journal where he has notes about airports…..he lists one of the items…."Substantial Security"

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer

Building a safer Sandy Hook | News21: Gun Wars

The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.

 

[2aguy]

Fort Hood is a military fort so someone uninformed like you would assume that soldiers on base have guns...this is not true. Guns on a military base are kept in armories and only taken out for training or deployment.....the Military and civilian police are the only ones with guns.....the Fort Hood shooter picked a gun free zone area to attack..none of the soldiers and civilians there had guns.....it was only after the Military police arrived that he was stopped.....

It was a gun free zone.

You sound like an idiot as usual. I was in the military. So I'll ask you. If MPs are carrying guns on Ft Hood how is it a gun free zone? Got a answer for that speedy?

There were no guns at the processing station he attacked...it was no different than any other building in a town or city....the MPs were not on site you moron.

So what there were no guns at the processing station? What does that have to do with calling Ft Hood a gun free zone? MP's on Ft Hood carry guns you fucking idiot.

Shit stain....a military Fort is the size of a town or city...you dumb ass....so the processing center was a gun free zone and the MPs weren't there when he attacked, you dumb ass the same as a school in a town that is a gun free zone....the town has cops...the school is a gun free zone....

Puss stain....How did he know the MPs werent there? Have you ever been to a processing center? Its crawling with MPs.

shit stain....he lived and worked there....are you really this stupid....because the way you post, it would seem you are really stupid....

 

[2aguy]

No, Ft Hood was a gun-free zone. I believe that was passed by George H Bush that no weapons be allowed on military bases.

Gun free zones are simply places nobody can posses a firearm outside of law enforcement. For instance in my state all government buildings are gun-free zones. So are hospitals. Churches are gun-free zones but they have a loop hole that guns can be permitted if the church has a sign on their door stating so. Of course no church does to my knowledge.

Thats just wordsmith bullshit. I know for a fact that the MPs on Ft Hood carried/carry weapons. How can you have a gun free zone with people carrying guns? The only people affected by that rule were soldiers who had CCW's. So again I ask why are people using word play to try and call something a gun free zone? The term itself says there are no guns.

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

Armed citizens have no obligation to protect anyone or any place.

But the logic is that if you're going to shoot up a place wouldn't you pick a place where you know no one will be armed over a place where people might be armed?

The operative word is "logic". One would have to assume these people are logical.

And you don't understand this..... these shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, they visit locations and plan the attacks....you doofus.

 

[Asclepias]

You sound like an idiot as usual. I was in the military. So I'll ask you. If MPs are carrying guns on Ft Hood how is it a gun free zone? Got a answer for that speedy?

There were no guns at the processing station he attacked...it was no different than any other building in a town or city....the MPs were not on site you moron.

So what there were no guns at the processing station? What does that have to do with calling Ft Hood a gun free zone? MP's on Ft Hood carry guns you fucking idiot.

Shit stain....a military Fort is the size of a town or city...you dumb ass....so the processing center was a gun free zone and the MPs weren't there when he attacked, you dumb ass the same as a school in a town that is a gun free zone....the town has cops...the school is a gun free zone....

Puss stain....How did he know the MPs werent there? Have you ever been to a processing center? Its crawling with MPs.

shit stain....he lived and worked there....are you really this stupid....because the way you post, it would seem you are really stupid....

Just because he lived and worked there doesnt mean he could predict the future. How did he know there were going to be no MPs at the center?

 

[Asclepias]

Thats just wordsmith bullshit. I know for a fact that the MPs on Ft Hood carried/carry weapons. How can you have a gun free zone with people carrying guns? The only people affected by that rule were soldiers who had CCW's. So again I ask why are people using word play to try and call something a gun free zone? The term itself says there are no guns.

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

No....mass shooters will choose another target if they know someone with a gun will possibly stop them...we know this from actual research....

The problem with a police officer is that they can be executed first, because they stand out, and get into patterns of behavior.....while an unknown number of armed school staff means the shooter has no idea who will stop them if they start shooting...

What research? Is it peer reviewed? So youre claiming shooters dont target areas when they have no clue if a civilian has a gun? Thats silly. They shootup places all the time where CCW's are allowed.

Wrong....actual mass public shooters choose gun free zones...

From the actual mass shooters...

Orlando, Pulse Night club shooter wanted to attack Disney land

Pulse shooter’s initial target was Disney site, prosecutors say


Prosecutors say the Orlando nightclub shooter intended to attack Disney World’s shopping and entertainment complex by hiding a gun in a stroller but became spooked by police and chose the gay club as his target.



3/5/18
The Washington Post's School Shooter Profile: A Chilling Account | National Review

The second thing: The shooter reveals that he thought seriously about whether his target would be a “gun free zone.” I mention this not to endorse any particular policy, but to make it clear that it is by no means rare for those who would do harm to first scope out their destinations and to make sure that they won’t encounter much resistance. The shooter openly explains that he chose the local elementary school, rather than the school he was really angry with (his own), because it lacked an armed guard. He also admits to having researched how long it took cops to respond in the area (15 minutes), and how long it would be before SWAT was on site (45 minutes). This echoes comments made by the shooter at Isla Vista, who considered carrying out his attack on Halloween, but decided against it because there’d be “too many cops walking around during an event like Halloween, and cops are the only ones who can hinder my plans.”
The actual story linked above...

“I HAVE TO BEAT **** **** . .” he wrote nine days before the Sept. 28, 2016, shooting in a misspelled reference to the Sandy Hook killer,**** ****. “Atleast 40.”

Two days later, he debated whether he should attack his middle school, from which he’d been expelled, or his elementary school, just up the road.

He decided on Townville Elementary because it was closer and had no armed security.


“Itll be like shooting fish in a barrel,” he wrote his friends, whose identities remain unclear, along with whether the FBI has tracked any of them down. The agency declined to comment, citing Jesse’s open case.

In the chat, he said he had researched police response times for the area and found that it would take them 15 minutes to get there, maybe 45 for SWAT. He said he would throw pipe bombs into each classroom before he got in a shootout with police and killed himself with his shotgun. He said he had been planning a massacre for two years.

=========
The Colorado theater shooter evidence...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater.html#ixzz2F4pLqhxu

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.

So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks




FBI: Dearborn Heights ISIS supporter planned to attack Detroit church

In conversation's between Abu-Rayyan and the undercover agent, Abu-Rayyan described his desire to commit a martyrdom operation.

The complaint filed in federal court doesn’t specify which Detroit church he was allegedly planning to attack, only that it was close and could seat 6,000 members.

The complaint quotes Abu-Rayyan saying:

“It's easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news. Everybody would've heard. Honestly I regret not doing it. If I can't do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here."

He had also told the undercover agent that a church would be an easy target because people are not allowed to carry guns there and that it would make the news.
----------------
Minnesota…...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/minn-teen-made-bombs-stockpiled-guns-prep-school-massacre-police-article-1.1776006

The unhinged teen told cops, after being busted Tuesday, that he planned to shoot his sister, mom and dad with a .22-caliber rifle before he went to a rural field and set a fire to distract cops.

The 11th-grader then said he planned to go to Waseca Junior and Senior High School where he would toss Molotov cocktails and explode pressure-cooker bombs to try and kill “as many students as he could” in the cafeteria during lunchtime.

About 1,000 students, in 7th through 12th grade, attend the school.

LaDue, according to the notebook of his plan, would kill the school resource officer before continuing to kill other students. He was prepared to be gunned down by a SWAT Team, police said.



************************


Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

Of course, there are numerous other examples such as the Columbine killersopposing the concealed carry law that was then working its way through the state legislature. The bill would have allowed people to carry permitted concealed handguns on school property. The killers timed their attack for the very day that final passage of the law was planned for in the legislature.

If you go to the link for the Colorado theater shooter they have a photo of his journal where he has notes about airports…..he lists one of the items…."Substantial Security"

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer

Building a safer Sandy Hook | News21: Gun Wars

The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.

There are way more shooters that picked areas where guns were allowed.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats just wordsmith bullshit. I know for a fact that the MPs on Ft Hood carried/carry weapons. How can you have a gun free zone with people carrying guns? The only people affected by that rule were soldiers who had CCW's. So again I ask why are people using word play to try and call something a gun free zone? The term itself says there are no guns.

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

Armed citizens have no obligation to protect anyone or any place.

But the logic is that if you're going to shoot up a place wouldn't you pick a place where you know no one will be armed over a place where people might be armed?

The operative word is "logic". One would have to assume these people are logical.

And you don't understand this..... these shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, they visit locations and plan the attacks....you doofus.

Show me the proof that these shooters all plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, Ft Hood was a gun-free zone. I believe that was passed by George H Bush that no weapons be allowed on military bases.

Gun free zones are simply places nobody can posses a firearm outside of law enforcement. For instance in my state all government buildings are gun-free zones. So are hospitals. Churches are gun-free zones but they have a loop hole that guns can be permitted if the church has a sign on their door stating so. Of course no church does to my knowledge.

Thats just wordsmith bullshit. I know for a fact that the MPs on Ft Hood carried/carry weapons. How can you have a gun free zone with people carrying guns? The only people affected by that rule were soldiers who had CCW's. So again I ask why are people using word play to try and call something a gun free zone? The term itself says there are no guns.

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

Armed citizens have no obligation to protect anyone or any place.

But the logic is that if you're going to shoot up a place wouldn't you pick a place where you know no one will be armed over a place where people might be armed?

The operative word is "logic". One would have to assume these people are logical.

Yeah after all there is no planning involved in a mass shooting

 

[Asclepias]

The Umpqua Community College shooting occurred on a campus that allows CCW's to carry their weapons.

 

[Rustic]

No, Ft Hood was a gun-free zone. I believe that was passed by George H Bush that no weapons be allowed on military bases.

Gun free zones are simply places nobody can posses a firearm outside of law enforcement. For instance in my state all government buildings are gun-free zones. So are hospitals. Churches are gun-free zones but they have a loop hole that guns can be permitted if the church has a sign on their door stating so. Of course no church does to my knowledge.

Thats just wordsmith bullshit. I know for a fact that the MPs on Ft Hood carried/carry weapons. How can you have a gun free zone with people carrying guns? The only people affected by that rule were soldiers who had CCW's. So again I ask why are people using word play to try and call something a gun free zone? The term itself says there are no guns.

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

No....mass shooters will choose another target if they know someone with a gun will possibly stop them...we know this from actual research....

The problem with a police officer is that they can be executed first, because they stand out, and get into patterns of behavior.....while an unknown number of armed school staff means the shooter has no idea who will stop them if they start shooting...

What research? Is it peer reviewed? So youre claiming shooters dont target areas when they have no clue if a civilian has a gun? Thats silly. They shootup places all the time where CCW's are allowed.

If the shooter knows there are no firearms... that’s easy pickings

 

[Asclepias]

Thats just wordsmith bullshit. I know for a fact that the MPs on Ft Hood carried/carry weapons. How can you have a gun free zone with people carrying guns? The only people affected by that rule were soldiers who had CCW's. So again I ask why are people using word play to try and call something a gun free zone? The term itself says there are no guns.

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

No....mass shooters will choose another target if they know someone with a gun will possibly stop them...we know this from actual research....

The problem with a police officer is that they can be executed first, because they stand out, and get into patterns of behavior.....while an unknown number of armed school staff means the shooter has no idea who will stop them if they start shooting...

What research? Is it peer reviewed? So youre claiming shooters dont target areas when they have no clue if a civilian has a gun? Thats silly. They shootup places all the time where CCW's are allowed.

If the shooter knows there are no firearms... that’s easy pickings

There is absolutely no way of knowing there are no firearms even in a gun free zone.

 

[KissMy]

Teachers are armed.

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

Which is more likely to happen?

Teacher steps in and saves the day.

Let's change your scenario to real life.

Teachers are not armed:

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher without a gun dies valiantly trying to defend students who are all killed anyway.
B) There is no other option. Teacher without a gun dies and students are all killed anyway.

Dear Clueless Retard: Mass school shootings are so rare, that far more will be killed by the million armed teachers guns.

Real Life Goes Like This!!!:

A) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
B) The gun is discharged accidentally killing a student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
C) Teacher steps in to break up a fight, shoots an unarmed student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
D) Riots break out from teacher shooting student. Many are killed, Town looted & burnt!!!
E) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher runs away, 30 people massacred!
F) The gun is discharged accidentally shooting teacher, who will now live off tax payers on disability.
G) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
H) The gun is discharged accidentally.
I) Psychotic shooter comes in. Teachers get shot before they can get their guns out.
J) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Teacher shoots Parent. Tax Payers & School Liable!
K) Psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots innocent people. Tax Payers & School Liable!
L) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
M) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher can't get to gun, many get shot.
N) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
O) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable
P) The gun is discharged accidental killing teacher, who's family will now live off tax payers for life.
Q) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Teacher shoots Parent. Tax Payers & School Liable!
R) The gun is discharged accidentally.
S) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable!
T) The gun is discharged accidentally shooting teacher, who will now live off tax payers on disability.
U) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable
V) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
W) A Teacher snaps from excess pressure, shoots 15 students. Tax Payers & School Liable!
X) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
Y) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Fight, Gun comes lose, Teacher killed. Tax Payers & School Liable!
Z) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and for once saves the day.

Making things up is really silly......there are 14 states that already allow armed teachers....and nothing in your A-Z myth making has happened.....but please....keep typing...you can use the eye hand coordination practice...

So......outside of the fact that nothing you posted is actually happening in the 14 states that actually allow teachers to be armed...what else to you have?

Here’s all the states where teachers already carry guns in the classroom

Florida is on the verge of becoming the 15th state to arm teachers after Gov. Rick Scott signed an omnibus bill Friday allowing school staff to undergo law enforcement training to carry guns in the classroom.

Although the notion may seem radical, at least 14 states already arm teachers, according to a VICE News review of state laws and interviews with education department officials and school board associations around the country. Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington.


Another 16 states give local school boards the authority to decide whether school staff can carry guns, either explicitly or through legal loopholes, but officials said they didn’t know of any instances of armed teachers in those states.

Really??? There are already over 3 accidental school shootings a week!!!

Three students in a high school were injured when a teacher fired a gun inside of a classroom.....

"Last Friday, a student in Kentucky accidentally shot himself with a handgun at Frederick Douglass High School in Lexington and sustained injuries that were not life-threatening. According to student reports, the student was playing around with a gun in a classroom when he accidentally shot himself in the hand. Two days earlier, a 17-year-old female student was killed and a 17-year-old male was injured in a shooting at Huffman High School in Birmingham, Alabama. Officials have also deemed that shooting an accident."

"Teacher at Dalton high school just blockaded his door and proceeded to shoot," a 16-year-old student named Chondi Chastain tweeted at the National Rifle Assn., earning more than 17,000 retweets. "We had to run out The back of the school in the rain. Students were being trampled and screaming. I dare you to tell me arming teachers will make us safe."....

A teacher accidentally discharged a firearm while teaching a public safety class, injuring one student ....

Yes....and 17.25 million Americans carry guns without problems...... 14 states allow teachers to carry guns.....and you find the few examples ....and the Dalton High school teacher...is he the one who was the anti gun activist who shot himself as some sort of protest?

LOL!!! - Over 100,000 US Citizens get shot every year & you say there is no problem, move along, nothing to see here.

 

[Rustic]

Teacher steps in and saves the day.

Let's change your scenario to real life.

Teachers are not armed:

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher without a gun dies valiantly trying to defend students who are all killed anyway.
B) There is no other option. Teacher without a gun dies and students are all killed anyway.

Dear Clueless Retard: Mass school shootings are so rare, that far more will be killed by the million armed teachers guns.

Real Life Goes Like This!!!:

A) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
B) The gun is discharged accidentally killing a student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
C) Teacher steps in to break up a fight, shoots an unarmed student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
D) Riots break out from teacher shooting student. Many are killed, Town looted & burnt!!!
E) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher runs away, 30 people massacred!
F) The gun is discharged accidentally shooting teacher, who will now live off tax payers on disability.
G) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
H) The gun is discharged accidentally.
I) Psychotic shooter comes in. Teachers get shot before they can get their guns out.
J) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Teacher shoots Parent. Tax Payers & School Liable!
K) Psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots innocent people. Tax Payers & School Liable!
L) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
M) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher can't get to gun, many get shot.
N) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
O) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable
P) The gun is discharged accidental killing teacher, who's family will now live off tax payers for life.
Q) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Teacher shoots Parent. Tax Payers & School Liable!
R) The gun is discharged accidentally.
S) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable!
T) The gun is discharged accidentally shooting teacher, who will now live off tax payers on disability.
U) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable
V) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
W) A Teacher snaps from excess pressure, shoots 15 students. Tax Payers & School Liable!
X) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
Y) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Fight, Gun comes lose, Teacher killed. Tax Payers & School Liable!
Z) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and for once saves the day.

Making things up is really silly......there are 14 states that already allow armed teachers....and nothing in your A-Z myth making has happened.....but please....keep typing...you can use the eye hand coordination practice...

So......outside of the fact that nothing you posted is actually happening in the 14 states that actually allow teachers to be armed...what else to you have?

Here’s all the states where teachers already carry guns in the classroom

Florida is on the verge of becoming the 15th state to arm teachers after Gov. Rick Scott signed an omnibus bill Friday allowing school staff to undergo law enforcement training to carry guns in the classroom.

Although the notion may seem radical, at least 14 states already arm teachers, according to a VICE News review of state laws and interviews with education department officials and school board associations around the country. Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington.


Another 16 states give local school boards the authority to decide whether school staff can carry guns, either explicitly or through legal loopholes, but officials said they didn’t know of any instances of armed teachers in those states.

Really??? There are already over 3 accidental school shootings a week!!!

Three students in a high school were injured when a teacher fired a gun inside of a classroom.....

"Last Friday, a student in Kentucky accidentally shot himself with a handgun at Frederick Douglass High School in Lexington and sustained injuries that were not life-threatening. According to student reports, the student was playing around with a gun in a classroom when he accidentally shot himself in the hand. Two days earlier, a 17-year-old female student was killed and a 17-year-old male was injured in a shooting at Huffman High School in Birmingham, Alabama. Officials have also deemed that shooting an accident."

"Teacher at Dalton high school just blockaded his door and proceeded to shoot," a 16-year-old student named Chondi Chastain tweeted at the National Rifle Assn., earning more than 17,000 retweets. "We had to run out The back of the school in the rain. Students were being trampled and screaming. I dare you to tell me arming teachers will make us safe."....

A teacher accidentally discharged a firearm while teaching a public safety class, injuring one student ....

Yes....and 17.25 million Americans carry guns without problems...... 14 states allow teachers to carry guns.....and you find the few examples ....and the Dalton High school teacher...is he the one who was the anti gun activist who shot himself as some sort of protest?

LOL!!! - Over 100,000 US Citizens get shot every year & you say there is no problem, move along, nothing to see here.

More frivolous gun control laws will not save a single soul...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

No....mass shooters will choose another target if they know someone with a gun will possibly stop them...we know this from actual research....

The problem with a police officer is that they can be executed first, because they stand out, and get into patterns of behavior.....while an unknown number of armed school staff means the shooter has no idea who will stop them if they start shooting...

What research? Is it peer reviewed? So youre claiming shooters dont target areas when they have no clue if a civilian has a gun? Thats silly. They shootup places all the time where CCW's are allowed.

If the shooter knows there are no firearms... that’s easy pickings

There is absolutely no way of knowing there are no firearms even in a gun free zone.

Assuming most Americans are law abiding citizens, there won't be any guns, and if there is, a hell of a lot less of them than in gun permitting zones.

 

[Asclepias]

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

No....mass shooters will choose another target if they know someone with a gun will possibly stop them...we know this from actual research....

The problem with a police officer is that they can be executed first, because they stand out, and get into patterns of behavior.....while an unknown number of armed school staff means the shooter has no idea who will stop them if they start shooting...

What research? Is it peer reviewed? So youre claiming shooters dont target areas when they have no clue if a civilian has a gun? Thats silly. They shootup places all the time where CCW's are allowed.

If the shooter knows there are no firearms... that’s easy pickings

There is absolutely no way of knowing there are no firearms even in a gun free zone.

Assuming most Americans are law abiding citizens, there won't be any guns, and if there is, a hell of a lot less of them than in gun permitting zones.

If youre not law abiding wouldnt you assume most citizens were not law abiding?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

I've always meant to ask but what do you mean by gun free zones? I ask because someone told me Ft Hood was a gun free zone which is obviously bullshit.

No, Ft Hood was a gun-free zone. I believe that was passed by George H Bush that no weapons be allowed on military bases.

Gun free zones are simply places nobody can posses a firearm outside of law enforcement. For instance in my state all government buildings are gun-free zones. So are hospitals. Churches are gun-free zones but they have a loop hole that guns can be permitted if the church has a sign on their door stating so. Of course no church does to my knowledge.

Thats just wordsmith bullshit. I know for a fact that the MPs on Ft Hood carried/carry weapons. How can you have a gun free zone with people carrying guns? The only people affected by that rule were soldiers who had CCW's. So again I ask why are people using word play to try and call something a gun free zone? The term itself says there are no guns.

I’m sure the MPs did, however a gun free zone means everybody outside of authority is disarmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So by that token those making this claim that mass shooters target gun free zones are implying that armed civilians are better at protecting an area than the police?

I have no idea how you arrived at that. Police can't be everywhere. In rural locations, it can take up to a half-hour for any officer to arrive, and usually alone for at least the first few minutes.

When somebody plans a mass shooting, they don't want to be injured disabling them from suicide. They want to kill as many victims as possible and when help arrives, finally kill themselves.

If armed citizens are present when the shooter starts shooting, he may very well not end up with much of a head count before a citizen takes the shooter out, and the shooters realize this.