Guns to protect students from guns

[M14 Shooter]

Why are there no mass shootings at gun shows and rifle/pistol/shotgun competition?

Guns aren't allowed at gun shows.

Congrats on making the dumbest statement -ever- at USMB.
.

 

[Missourian]

Bet the tax payers are thrilled to be paying for armed guards to protect kids from nutters who can't even go to school without their pacifier.

What a disaster.

I'm betting they are wondering why the school didn't have armed guards before?

The number one thing we have learned is gun control laws DO NOT deter those intent on harming others.

That guy in California bought three guns, went through universal background checks, a 10 day waiting period, gun registration, and carried his guns into a "gun free zone".

Time to institute some measures that WILL protect the population.

All the universal background checks in the world wouldn't have saved one child at Newtown. But a trained teacher with a firearm could have.

That is an undeniable fact...a fact that is anathema to the gun-grabber crowd, because it means that the solution is firearms in the hands of good people...and their agenda cannot tolerate that truth.

Simple. There weren't any guns there so they didn't need guns.

Now that there are guns there, they need armed guards.

But, its true that those guns won't make any difference. The nutters here have said they would ignore "gun free" signs. That makes them the criminals.

There have been armed people at many of teh mass shootings we hear about but the unarmed bystander has disarmed the nutter just as often as a fellow nutter.

There is no evidence that a "good guy" with a gun is the answer to anything at all.

And there were no guns at Virginia Tech...until there was one.

That sign that said "Gun Free Zone" must have been broken.

 

[koshergrl]

Why are there no mass shootings at gun shows and rifle/pistol/shotgun competition?

Guns aren't allowed at gun shows.

Congrats at the making the dumbest statement -ever- at USMB.
.

Second only to NYC's contention that left wing defacement of a black conservative billboard (by painting the black woman's face white) is actually a tribute to her, made by tribal people from Mozambique.

Then the rest of the top 10 stupid comments are a combination of retardisms uttered by luds and that idiot nutz.

 

[Missourian]

Bet the tax payers are thrilled to be paying for armed guards to protect kids from nutters who can't even go to school without their pacifier.

What a disaster.

I'm betting they are wondering why the school didn't have armed guards before?

The number one thing we have learned is gun control laws DO NOT deter those intent on harming others.

That guy in California bought three guns, went through universal background checks, a 10 day waiting period, gun registration, and carried his guns into a "gun free zone".

Time to institute some measures that WILL protect the population.

All the universal background checks in the world wouldn't have saved one child at Newtown. But a trained teacher with a firearm could have.

That is an undeniable fact...a fact that is anathema to the gun-grabber crowd, because it means that the solution is firearms in the hands of good people...and their agenda cannot tolerate that truth.

Simple. There weren't any guns there so they didn't need guns.

Now that there are guns there, they need armed guards.

But, its true that those guns won't make any difference. The nutters here have said they would ignore "gun free" signs. That makes them the criminals.

There have been armed people at many of teh mass shootings we hear about but the unarmed bystander has disarmed the nutter just as often as a fellow nutter.

There is no evidence that a "good guy" with a gun is the answer to anything at all.

This was less than one month ago.

There were no guns here either...it's a high school.

Yet, thank God, they had armed personnel.

Troutdale school resource Officers Nick Thompson and Kyle Harris were at Reynolds High School when Tuesday's shooting occurred, Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton said.

"As soon as this happened, they were there in less than a minute," Staton said. "Had they not been there, it could have been a lot worse."

Oregon high school shooting: Resource officers at Reynolds credited with preventing further carnage | OregonLive.com
​

 

[martybegan]

bet the tax payers are thrilled to be paying for armed guards to protect kids from nutters who can't even go to school without their pacifier.

What a disaster.

i'm betting they are wondering why the school didn't have armed guards before?

the number one thing we have learned is gun control laws do not deter those intent on harming others.

That guy in california bought three guns, went through universal background checks, a 10 day waiting period, gun registration, and carried his guns into a "gun free zone".

Time to institute some measures that will protect the population.

All the universal background checks in the world wouldn't have saved one child at newtown. But a trained teacher with a firearm could have.

That is an undeniable fact...a fact that is anathema to the gun-grabber crowd, because it means that the solution is firearms in the hands of good people...and their agenda cannot tolerate that truth.

simple. there weren't any guns there so they didn't need guns.

Now that there are guns there, they need armed guards.

But, its true that those guns won't make any difference. The nutters here have said they would ignore "gun free" signs. That makes them the criminals.

There have been armed people at many of teh mass shootings we hear about but the unarmed bystander has disarmed the nutter just as often as a fellow nutter.

There is no evidence that a "good guy" with a gun is the answer to anything at all.

lololololol.

 

[Geaux4it]

I keep my gun close... you never know

-Geaux

 

[daveman]

Bet the tax payers are thrilled to be paying for armed guards to protect kids from nutters who can't even go to school without their pacifier.

What a disaster.

I'm betting they are wondering why the school didn't have armed guards before?

The number one thing we have learned is gun control laws DO NOT deter those intent on harming others.

That guy in California bought three guns, went through universal background checks, a 10 day waiting period, gun registration, and carried his guns into a "gun free zone".

Time to institute some measures that WILL protect the population.

All the universal background checks in the world wouldn't have saved one child at Newtown. But a trained teacher with a firearm could have.

That is an undeniable fact...a fact that is anathema to the gun-grabber crowd, because it means that the solution is firearms in the hands of good people...and their agenda cannot tolerate that truth.

Simple. There weren't any guns there so they didn't need guns.

Now that there are guns there, they need armed guards.

But, its true that those guns won't make any difference. The nutters here have said they would ignore "gun free" signs. That makes them the criminals.

There have been armed people at many of teh mass shootings we hear about but the unarmed bystander has disarmed the nutter just as often as a fellow nutter.

There is no evidence that a "good guy" with a gun is the answer to anything at all.

 

[Jughead]

Bet the tax payers are thrilled to be paying for armed guards to protect kids from nutters who can't even go to school without their pacifier.

What a disaster.

I'm betting they are wondering why the school didn't have armed guards before?

The number one thing we have learned is gun control laws DO NOT deter those intent on harming others.

That guy in California bought three guns, went through universal background checks, a 10 day waiting period, gun registration, and carried his guns into a "gun free zone".

Time to institute some measures that WILL protect the population.

All the universal background checks in the world wouldn't have saved one child at Newtown. But a trained teacher with a firearm could have.

That is an undeniable fact...a fact that is anathema to the gun-grabber crowd, because it means that the solution is firearms in the hands of good people...and their agenda cannot tolerate that truth.

Simple. There weren't any guns there so they didn't need guns.

Now that there are guns there, they need armed guards.

But, its true that those guns won't make any difference. The nutters here have said they would ignore "gun free" signs. That makes them the criminals.

There have been armed people at many of teh mass shootings we hear about but the unarmed bystander has disarmed the nutter just as often as a fellow nutter.

There is no evidence that a "good guy" with a gun is the answer to anything at all.

On the contrary, they needed armed guards more so before than now. Previously, in a gun free zone, no one was equipped to stop a potential shooter. Now, with armed law abiding citizens on campus in possession of CCW permits, a shooter may reconsider his plan knowing that there is a very good likelihood that he will be met with deadly force.

As for "There is no evidence that a "good guy" with a gun is the answer to anything at all". Does this mean that we have no use for our police officers? They are good guys with guns.

 

[aaronleland]

I have never agreed with putting armed guards in schools with children, but this is a university. I believe the guards should be made to undergo a mental evaluation, but that should probably be done with unarmed guards in K-12 schools as well. I see no problem with this story.

 

[aaronleland]

I keep my gun close... you never know

-Geaux

That dude's wife must hate him.

 

[emilynghiem]

Bet the tax payers are thrilled to be paying for armed guards to protect kids from nutters who can't even go to school without their pacifier.

What a disaster.

I'm betting they are wondering why the school didn't have armed guards before?

The number one thing we have learned is gun control laws DO NOT deter those intent on harming others.

That guy in California bought three guns, went through universal background checks, a 10 day waiting period, gun registration, and carried his guns into a "gun free zone".

Time to institute some measures that WILL protect the population.

All the universal background checks in the world wouldn't have saved one child at Newtown. But a trained teacher with a firearm could have.

That is an undeniable fact...a fact that is anathema to the gun-grabber crowd, because it means that the solution is firearms in the hands of good people...and their agenda cannot tolerate that truth.

Simple. There weren't any guns there so they didn't need guns.

Now that there are guns there, they need armed guards.

But, its true that those guns won't make any difference. The nutters here have said they would ignore "gun free" signs. That makes them the criminals.

There have been armed people at many of teh mass shootings we hear about but the unarmed bystander has disarmed the nutter just as often as a fellow nutter.

There is no evidence that a "good guy" with a gun is the answer to anything at all.

Dear Luddly Neddite:
I like your quote that guns aren't even allowed at gun shows, which I thought was very funny.

If we can agree that the criminal and mental illness, the violence that leads to killing needs to be addressed itself,
and that is INDEPENDENT of using gun or banning guns which is an additional factor,
then there is no sense in trying to argue about guns as a "substitute" for addressing the criminal causes of violence and killing.

There are as many cases that guns helped with prevention and deterrence
as cases that guns hurt people and made problems worse.

For everyone who can forgive one case but loudly protest another,
there is someone else who will do the opposite and protest the opposite scenario forgiven by the other person.

Who is anyone to weigh one case over the other.
Why can't we respect what both people object to and not compete which is worse or better.

If somebody is objecting, then clearly both cases are unacceptable regardless who protests what.

This shouldn't be a competition to yell the loudest.
No means no, if it's one person whispering or ten people shouting, if they object, they object and
shouldn't have to fight to be heard and respected when the answer is NO I don't consent to that.

We should not be in the business of cutting down people's credibility to downplay where they say NO.

This is part of the "rape" culture that wants so desperately to explain why bad things happen,
that even the crime victims get put on the stand to search for some reason this person DESERVED
or ASKED for it, because we want to be assured there is a REASON that can explain what went wrong.

I understand we are trying to be fair, and to compare and understand the reasons for arguments.

Why can't we just accept that some people "don't feel safe" with guns around without regulations
to establish a common limit and agreement on responsibilities;
and other people "don't feel safe" without freedom to access guns
if they fear the govt is out to control or limit them for political reasons.

Can we start with what our goal is, and what makes us feel safe or unsafe.

And can we agree to work with both sides to make sure the laws stay within the
bounds of what makes everyone feel safe and empowered, and not feel threatened.

I don't feel worried when I know that police and military officers
are well trained and screened for any mental health or criminal issues that would make them unsafe.
When I see cases like Ft. Hood, clearly the screening failed and we need to do a better job.
Cases of police or military rape and abuse also need to be addressed in ways that restore public trust.

What does it take to assure the public that guns and force won't be abused in the wrong hands
but without depriving or punishing law abiding citizens and police of their ability to enforce and defend laws properly.

Can we start with where we AGREE guns and laws are used correctly?