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

[2aguy]

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

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Here you go, moron....for 2018......the NRA convention

NRA Annual Meetings | Firearms Policy

During the 2018 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits, lawfully carried firearms will be permitted in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center and the Omni Dallas Hotel in accordance with Texas law. When carrying your firearm remember to follow all federal, state, and local laws.





* PLEASE NOTE: Due to the attendance of the Vice President of the United States at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum on Friday, May 4, the U.S. Secret Service will be responsible for event security around the Arena at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center. As a result, firearms and firearm accessories, knives or weapons of any kind will be prohibited in the forum prior to and during his attendance. Click here for additional information.

 

[miketx]

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.

70-80% of them are criminals.....and that is far less than the 1.1 million times Americans use guns to stop violent rape, robbery and murder...

Okay, genius....tell the class...... would you rather a woman be violently raped in an alley, or that she be able to carry a gun to stop it? Please...the class is waiting.

If anything you say were true St. Louis would not have the highest shooting rate in the nation!!!

All those places that have a lot of shootings also have a lot of crime loving regressive liberals who do not want to punish criminals. Police being ordered to stand down, pleas bargains, early release, etc, etc. The democrat crime party causes all of that.

 

[KissMy]

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.

70-80% of them are criminals.....and that is far less than the 1.1 million times Americans use guns to stop violent rape, robbery and murder...

Okay, genius....tell the class...... would you rather a woman be violently raped in an alley, or that she be able to carry a gun to stop it? Please...the class is waiting.

If anything you say were true St. Louis would not have the highest shooting rate in the nation!!!

Moron....St. Louis has a high gun murder rate because democrat politicians have controlled the city for decades...and they let known, violent, repeat gun offenders out of jail over and over again...normal gun owners with their legal guns aren't shooting people...which you would know if you did a little research...

Here...educate yourself on why letting violent gun offenders out of jail is a bad thing...and keep in mind, doofus.....as more law abiding Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%....

Lock up actual gun criminals, that is how you stop gun crime.

Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why

Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.

At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.

-----------

Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.

In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other cities.

You do nothing but LIE & repeat FAKE NEWS! The St. Louis area has the highest number of Police to Population Ratio in the USA except for Washington DC! So the claim that "overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time" is a total LIE!!! You can't sneeze without getting ticketed. There are no gun laws, so your claim of not locking someone up for gun crime is bullshit!

 

[miketx]

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.

70-80% of them are criminals.....and that is far less than the 1.1 million times Americans use guns to stop violent rape, robbery and murder...

Okay, genius....tell the class...... would you rather a woman be violently raped in an alley, or that she be able to carry a gun to stop it? Please...the class is waiting.

If anything you say were true St. Louis would not have the highest shooting rate in the nation!!!

Moron....St. Louis has a high gun murder rate because democrat politicians have controlled the city for decades...and they let known, violent, repeat gun offenders out of jail over and over again...normal gun owners with their legal guns aren't shooting people...which you would know if you did a little research...

Here...educate yourself on why letting violent gun offenders out of jail is a bad thing...and keep in mind, doofus.....as more law abiding Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%....

Lock up actual gun criminals, that is how you stop gun crime.

Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why

Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.

At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.

-----------

Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.

In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other cities.

You do nothing but LIE & repeat FAKE NEWS! The St. Louis area has the highest number of Police to Population Ratio in the USA except for Washington DC! So the claim that "overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time" is a total LIE!!! You can't sneeze without getting ticketed.

Oh really? Then why is there so much crime? Must be infested with regressives.

 

[KissMy]

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

70-80% of them are criminals.....and that is far less than the 1.1 million times Americans use guns to stop violent rape, robbery and murder...

Okay, genius....tell the class...... would you rather a woman be violently raped in an alley, or that she be able to carry a gun to stop it? Please...the class is waiting.

If anything you say were true St. Louis would not have the highest shooting rate in the nation!!!

Moron....St. Louis has a high gun murder rate because democrat politicians have controlled the city for decades...and they let known, violent, repeat gun offenders out of jail over and over again...normal gun owners with their legal guns aren't shooting people...which you would know if you did a little research...

Here...educate yourself on why letting violent gun offenders out of jail is a bad thing...and keep in mind, doofus.....as more law abiding Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%....

Lock up actual gun criminals, that is how you stop gun crime.

Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why

Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.

At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.

-----------

Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.

In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other cities.

You do nothing but LIE & repeat FAKE NEWS! The St. Louis area has the highest number of Police to Population Ratio in the USA except for Washington DC! So the claim that "overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time" is a total LIE!!! You can't sneeze without getting ticketed.

Oh really? Then why is there so much crime? Must be infested with regressives.

There are no gun laws, so claiming the Democrats aren't locking people up for having guns up is Bullshit!!! Republicans don't allow locking up people with guns!!!

 

[miketx]

70-80% of them are criminals.....and that is far less than the 1.1 million times Americans use guns to stop violent rape, robbery and murder...

Okay, genius....tell the class...... would you rather a woman be violently raped in an alley, or that she be able to carry a gun to stop it? Please...the class is waiting.

If anything you say were true St. Louis would not have the highest shooting rate in the nation!!!

Moron....St. Louis has a high gun murder rate because democrat politicians have controlled the city for decades...and they let known, violent, repeat gun offenders out of jail over and over again...normal gun owners with their legal guns aren't shooting people...which you would know if you did a little research...

Here...educate yourself on why letting violent gun offenders out of jail is a bad thing...and keep in mind, doofus.....as more law abiding Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%....

Lock up actual gun criminals, that is how you stop gun crime.

Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why

Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.

At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.

-----------

Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.

In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other cities.

You do nothing but LIE & repeat FAKE NEWS! The St. Louis area has the highest number of Police to Population Ratio in the USA except for Washington DC! So the claim that "overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time" is a total LIE!!! You can't sneeze without getting ticketed.

Oh really? Then why is there so much crime? Must be infested with regressives.

There are no gun laws, so claiming the Democrats aren't locking people up for having guns up is Bullshit!!! Republicans don't allow locking up people with guns!!!

I really enjoy how you people show off how out of touch you are. Your reply makes no sense whatsoever. I never a word about guns or gun laws. However, their are lots of gun laws, and having a gun is not a crime. Now, let's see what insane comment you squirt out next.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I believe I said that it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to save the day by shooting a bad guy.

Do you believe this applies to all people who are screened, trained and licensed to carry a firearm? Or just teachers?

"A teacher who is also a reserve police officer trained in firearm use ‘accidentally’ discharged a gun Tuesday at Seaside High School in Monterey County, Calif., during a class devoted to public safety, school officials said in a statement. A male student was reported to have sustained non-life-threatening injuries."

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

This guy was trained and licensed and he still messed up and could have caused a tragedy. It could happen to anyone - but especially to someone in a profession that doesn't regularly use firearms.

Yep, you have me convinced. Take guns away from teachers so a mass murderer can kill a few dozen students with no resistance.

 

[Sahba]

Why not just quietly and swiftly pass legislation that precludes school administrators from the GFZ restrictions. Do a trial period with that and once there is evidence that 'accidental discharges' didn't obliterate half the student body, then work on extending the same exemption to those teachers that come forward voluntarily to do likewise. I honestly think that most of these inane responses, re. this issue, are stemming from pure ignorance & unfamiliarity with firearms; there seems to be conjured up straw man argument that results. I don't need to name names, U know who you are, lol.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why not just quietly and swiftly pass legislation that precludes school administrators from the GFZ restrictions. Do a trial period with that and once there is evidence that 'accidental discharges' didn't obliterate half the student body, then work on extending the same exemption to those teachers that come forward voluntarily to do likewise. I honestly think that most of these inane responses, re. this issue, are stemming from pure ignorance & unfamiliarity with firearms; there seems to be conjured up straw man argument that results. I don't need to name names, U know who you are, lol.

The truth of the matter schools in the US are the safest place for children to be. The likelihood of your child perishing in a school shooting are about the same as hitting the lottery.

However because of the tragedy of lost young lives, we need to do something to make those odds even better. We need the ability to protect those kids in the event all security measures fail, and somebody gets into a school to cause massive harm.

One of the reasons we are safe sleeping at night is because we have firearms. Does that mean everybody has firearms? No it doesn't, but the idea that we very well may have keeps criminals out of unarmed homes as much as armed homes because of the uncertainty.

So the only real solution to this problem that seldom takes place is to give the same uncertainty to predators of children in our school buildings.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yea? Well the link that you accused me of not reading said that the person who accidentally discharged their gun happened to also be a reserve police officer trained in firearm use.

What happened there? Why was the gun not locked away in a non-emergency situation? Was that teacher more likely to kill a school shooter or an innocent student?

Is an unarmed teacher likely to kill a school shooter or get killed along with the students if they have no gun at all?

Unlike your supposition, mine has an almost 100% certainty, whereas your scenario has a microscopic chance of occurring.

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.

Ok. What exactly makes you think that A is more likely? What are you basing that on exactly?

Past history. Why are you so dense?

I'll take non-answers for $500, Alex.

If you're going to use "past history" as your answer, then maybe you should post this past history that you're referring to.

 

[XponentialChaos]

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

I see, you want them to keep getting murdered in school. Why is that?

As I just explained, I believe it would compound the problem. Not wanting to compound the problem is not the same thing as wanting people to be murdered. Not sure how I lost you there.

 

[XponentialChaos]

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

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Moron, one armed guard for a population of over 3,100 students, not including staff and 12 actual buildings on campus is not a place protected by guns.


And the threat against one man by one armed man before the secret service can react is completely different from someone shooting randomly into a crowd..... the fact that the NRA did allow people to carry guns at their convention is something you now have to ignore..since it makes your point pretty stupid....

I didn't say "protected by guns". I said "gun-free zone". I'll go through this slowly for you. The other poster said that the school was a "gun-free zone". You're saying that it was not a "gun-free zone". Once you two figure it out, let me know.

So guns at schools is good, but guns at NRA conventions where Pence gives a speech is bad. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Theowl32]

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Moron, one armed guard for a population of over 3,100 students, not including staff and 12 actual buildings on campus is not a place protected by guns.


And the threat against one man by one armed man before the secret service can react is completely different from someone shooting randomly into a crowd..... the fact that the NRA did allow people to carry guns at their convention is something you now have to ignore..since it makes your point pretty stupid....

I didn't say "protected by guns". I said "gun-free zone". I'll go through this slowly for you. The other poster said that the school was a "gun-free zone". You're saying that it was not a "gun-free zone". Once you two figure it out, let me know.

So guns at schools is good, but guns at NRA conventions where Pence gives a speech is bad. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Soft targets are not the same thing as GUN FREE ZONES.

ONE GUN on behalf of ONE OFFICER does not exactly prove your point.

That is still considered a SOFT TARGET. Do you, or do you not understand the difference?

 

[XponentialChaos]

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do

in schools.

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.

You think gun-free zones are less safe. Yet there were no guns allowed at a Pence/NRA convention held in Dallas a few months ago.

Explain this.

You are wrong...again.....the Republican convention allowed people to carry guns...the NRA convention also allowed people to carry guns....please do some basic research instead of just posting off the top of your head.

No Guns Allowed During NRA Convention Speech By Trump, Pence

Yes...moron, because the Secret Service was in control at that moment...the rest of the convention time concealed and open carry were allowed.... the threat of one man being targeted for murder is different from a mass shooter attacking a crowd....different threats, different measures....and again, the rest of the time NRA members walked around carrying their legal guns without a problem....

You really should stop taking those Stupid Pills....they aren't helping you....

So you're just going to back-pedal your claim now of "The Republican convention allowed people to carry guns." The link I posted directly contradicted this and now you're deflecting. Just deflect away from FACTS when your delicate feelings insist on being right.

That's adorable. No, no, go ahead and keep throwing around insults like "stupid pills". They're really helping your argument.

See ya.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Moron, one armed guard for a population of over 3,100 students, not including staff and 12 actual buildings on campus is not a place protected by guns.


And the threat against one man by one armed man before the secret service can react is completely different from someone shooting randomly into a crowd..... the fact that the NRA did allow people to carry guns at their convention is something you now have to ignore..since it makes your point pretty stupid....

I didn't say "protected by guns". I said "gun-free zone". I'll go through this slowly for you. The other poster said that the school was a "gun-free zone". You're saying that it was not a "gun-free zone". Once you two figure it out, let me know.

So guns at schools is good, but guns at NRA conventions where Pence gives a speech is bad. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

When we say guns in school we don't mean anybody can have one. We don't let strangers into school as we would at a speaking event where it's impossible to know who might make an assassination attempt at the VP or President.

Hope that makes sense for you now.

 

[Sahba]

As I just explained, I believe it would compound the problem. Not wanting to compound the problem is not the same thing as wanting people to be murdered. Not sure how I lost you there.

How about leaving the door open for the principle of a given school (provided they are determined to be proficient) to be precluded from the GFZ restriction. Bear in mind that this doesn't mean that every school principle will take advantage of the option. This small legislative step could be invaluable in creating uncertainty, for wood be school terrorists, as to the 'hardness' of the school as a target of opportunity. Bear in mind that in middle America, with school budgets so thin in many areas, U just won't be seeing the kind of school hardening as has already happened in 'the burbs' & cities...

 

[XponentialChaos]

I believe I said that it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to save the day by shooting a bad guy.

Do you believe this applies to all people who are screened, trained and licensed to carry a firearm? Or just teachers?

"A teacher who is also a reserve police officer trained in firearm use ‘accidentally’ discharged a gun Tuesday at Seaside High School in Monterey County, Calif., during a class devoted to public safety, school officials said in a statement. A male student was reported to have sustained non-life-threatening injuries."

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

This guy was trained and licensed and he still messed up and could have caused a tragedy. It could happen to anyone - but especially to someone in a profession that doesn't regularly use firearms.

Yep, you have me convinced. Take guns away from teachers so a mass murderer can kill a few dozen students with no resistance.

Once again, it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to kill off a mass murderer.

 

[XponentialChaos]

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Moron, one armed guard for a population of over 3,100 students, not including staff and 12 actual buildings on campus is not a place protected by guns.


And the threat against one man by one armed man before the secret service can react is completely different from someone shooting randomly into a crowd..... the fact that the NRA did allow people to carry guns at their convention is something you now have to ignore..since it makes your point pretty stupid....

I didn't say "protected by guns". I said "gun-free zone". I'll go through this slowly for you. The other poster said that the school was a "gun-free zone". You're saying that it was not a "gun-free zone". Once you two figure it out, let me know.

So guns at schools is good, but guns at NRA conventions where Pence gives a speech is bad. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

When we say guns in school we don't mean anybody can have one. We don't let strangers into school as we would at a speaking event where it's impossible to know who might make an assassination attempt at the VP or President.

Hope that makes sense for you now.

There's nothing unclear about "guns in schools". I'm specifically talking about "gun-free zones". One conservative poster said the school is a gun-free zone. The other one said it isn't. Make up your minds.

 

[XponentialChaos]

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Moron, one armed guard for a population of over 3,100 students, not including staff and 12 actual buildings on campus is not a place protected by guns.


And the threat against one man by one armed man before the secret service can react is completely different from someone shooting randomly into a crowd..... the fact that the NRA did allow people to carry guns at their convention is something you now have to ignore..since it makes your point pretty stupid....

I didn't say "protected by guns". I said "gun-free zone". I'll go through this slowly for you. The other poster said that the school was a "gun-free zone". You're saying that it was not a "gun-free zone". Once you two figure it out, let me know.

So guns at schools is good, but guns at NRA conventions where Pence gives a speech is bad. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Soft targets are not the same thing as GUN FREE ZONES.

ONE GUN on behalf of ONE OFFICER does not exactly prove your point.

That is still considered a SOFT TARGET. Do you, or do you not understand the difference?

What point? I'm just trying to understand what you guys consider a "gun-free zone".

Conservative poster: "Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone"

Is that bold statement true or not?

 

[Sahba]

"Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone"

Is that bold statement true or not?

NO

A GFZ applies to the visitors, members, outside persons, those not part of that institution's leadership or those on staff but not sanctioned to be armed.

A Cassino is a GFZ (plenty of armed security). A city hospital is a GFZ (armed security). A court house is a GFZ (armed sheriffs etc.)

I think U get my drift. Ease up on us getting on the same page, lol. It's not like we're all sitting around a conference table together preparing our responses to you...