Hogg WILD!

[Political Junky]

I would have rolled my cart over them.

What a man.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, who says the kids are in a classroom? They may be in a cafeteria, library, playground... I hear what you're saying but again, smaller mags means fewer shots.

You are avoiding the point, and that point is if you are shooting into a crowd of people (anywhere) you don't need great aim. You are killing anybody and anything.

Look at that video again (if you even looked at it at all) and tell me that smaller magazines means fewer shots. In most cases, it takes police anywhere from five minutes to 20 minutes to get to a school to stop a shooter. What difference would two seconds per magazine make?

You're making the assumption there will be a group.

According to you, you can reload a gun in a second. The armed guards that I want on the campus get that much more of an advantage if the shooter is even encumbered by your ridiculous "two seconds" suggestion.

USA Today reported he was armed.

Then USA either lied or provided false information that they must have revised which you didn't see. If you have a recent link, by all means, post it. But all other reporting didn't mention anything but a resource officer which is nothing more than a high profile hallway monitor.

Trust me, if there was an armed guard there that failed to stop this shooting, it would have been the top story for a month. The truth of the matter is mass killers avoid places where there are guns. They want total control and no resistance. The Colorado movie shooter passed several theaters that allowed firearms until he got to the one that didn't.

A good guy with a gun is not only the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, but it's also a deterrent to a bad guy with a gun.

There are several links to the tragedy.

Texas school had a shooting plan, armed officers and practice. And still 10 people died.

At Santa Fe High School, police had an active-shooter plan. Then the fog of chaos descended.

From Time magazine:

Santa Fe High School had an active-shooter plan and two armed security guards on campus. Trochesset said 200 officers from law enforcement agencies throughout the region converged Friday afternoon on the shooting scene.

Santa Fe Shooting Unlikely to Bring Gun Control in Texas


I think you and I are both together on having armed security on campus. I don't like the idea of arming teachers but if they are ready, willing, and able to undertake the responsibility...I say maybe we should arm the teachers if campus security is not practical. I'd rather have people dedicated to law enforcement do the job but in cases where the teacher is able to prove qualifications and mental stability....lets not just reject the idea out of hand.

Everything should be on the table.

Okay, your first link didn't work with my computer (possibly because of my ad blocker) but the other two didn't say anything about armed security being there when the shooting started. What one article did say is that the resource officer was wounded in the attack. The other article stated that armed security might be on the table in the future. It said that armed officers were there only for practice drills, but not full time employees of the school.

The conclusion is that there was no armed security at that school when the shooter attacked. Had there been prepared armed security (or teachers) the casualties would have been reduced or the kid wouldn't have tried to attack the school in the first place afraid of being wounded or killed himself.

What is clear is that mass shooters avoid places where guns are permitted. So the solution is to have guns in those places. And again, this is not a federal thing, it's a local issue.

I quoted the Time magazine article that said there were 2 security guards on campus.... Not sure what to tell you about the fine details but unless you're sponsoring a shoulder-to-shoulder barrier of guards around the perimeter of the school, that is about as serious as you can expect deterrence to be I would think.. Of course, more guards is better than fewer guards. The liberals are way off on not wanting armed guards at school when your first call will be to call armed response.... Makes no sense.

When it comes to a crazed gunman, an unarmed guard is like no guard at all. What could they do if a shooting happens? All they are good for is perhaps breaking up a fight between two kids or busting a kid cutting class and just walking around the halls.

Maybe instead of disrupting businesses and customers, Camera Hogg could concentrate protesting his very own schools to get armed guards. After all, if he ever gets a job, then he would have to pay those guards through property taxes.

 

[iceberg]

Limiting mag size. Does a “sportsman” really need a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

Because it’s reasonable.
I’m glad you brought it up…hypothetically…What if this last kid’s father had nothing but a bunch of 30 round clips? If you outlaw this excessive capacity, the kid would have had access to smaller clip sizes this means more downtime. Again, this mitigates the firepower while preserving vital second amendment rights.

Oh, so you like hypotheticals, do you? Even though I know you won't answer honestly, I'm going to throw one your way:

Let's say that several mass shootings ago, the Republicans agreed to give into Democrat demands on outlawing high capacity magazines. Would you have been satisfied with the last two school shootings? Would you have said we've done enough and there is nothing more we could do? Or would you say that outlawing HC magazines isn't enough, and we need to do more?

Like I said, you won't answer honestly, but be honest with yourself. You know damn well all these suggestions by anti-gunners are all stepping stones to the ultimate goal of disarming America. Because if we banned AR's, the next step would be banning all semi-automatics. Then the next step would ten round clips, then eight, then five........

This is why you have to stop the cancer before it starts. Democrats cannot be trusted. They are born liars and will never be honest enough to say what they really want. Like terrorists, they use incrementalism to eventually get everything they want.

Your standard for doing anything seems to be if it won't prevent all rampage killings, lets do nothing. Or do you have any solutions? Armed guards were at Santa Fe HS. It didn't stop the massacre of ten students. Should we not have armed guards at schools since it didn't work this last time? (Disclosure--I'm 100% for having multiple armed guards on campus)

Lets hear your ideas, please.

The truth is that Europe is actually mostly disarmed; they enjoy the same freedoms we do, the same standard of living, the same lifestyle... We have guns here. If guns made you safer, we should have not only a mostly murder free society, we should have an almost crime free society. Instead, the truth is we have, easily, the most violent, the most criminal advanced society in the world. Is it that Americans are just more homicidal by nature? I hope not. Europe has seen warfare within the last 100 years on an industrial scale. They've had ethnic cleansing. They've had bloody revolutions in many countries.Our history is comparatively placid. So if the latest among the litany of rationalizations is that we have a violent culture, they should be bloodbath central. Instead, because they are largely disarmed...they do not.
One thing we have that they do not is large swaths of rural lands. I think it would be almost criminal not to have a means of active self-defense and deterrence--yes I mean firearms--if you live in one of these areas.

So I'm not for disarming America. Mine opinion is mitigation. Limiting the size of magazines seems like it makes the most sense of steps we can take.

I saw on another post you said you can change magazines quick. That is true, of course. However, you also need to stop shooting, reload, and then re-acquire your target. This is happening during bedlam and, hopefully, during engagement with armed officers on campus. It would seem like common sense that anything that makes the shooter stop shooting for however long it takes--probably 8 to 10 seconds all together is a good thing.

It's not going to take eight to ten seconds, more like one second. Advanced training even requires you to count shots so you don't have to put a new round in the chamber after changing the magazine. In other words, you want a law that will do absolutely nothing but to hope the killer kills 18 people instead of 20.

So again I ask, are you happy with the last two school shooting results because neither had high capacity magazines?

London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever

This officer stopped a school shooter before anyone got hurt - CNN

like i said. her answer to all this is slow down a killer, not find root cause of why they are doing it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

Because it’s reasonable.
I’m glad you brought it up…hypothetically…What if this last kid’s father had nothing but a bunch of 30 round clips? If you outlaw this excessive capacity, the kid would have had access to smaller clip sizes this means more downtime. Again, this mitigates the firepower while preserving vital second amendment rights.

Oh, so you like hypotheticals, do you? Even though I know you won't answer honestly, I'm going to throw one your way:

Let's say that several mass shootings ago, the Republicans agreed to give into Democrat demands on outlawing high capacity magazines. Would you have been satisfied with the last two school shootings? Would you have said we've done enough and there is nothing more we could do? Or would you say that outlawing HC magazines isn't enough, and we need to do more?

Like I said, you won't answer honestly, but be honest with yourself. You know damn well all these suggestions by anti-gunners are all stepping stones to the ultimate goal of disarming America. Because if we banned AR's, the next step would be banning all semi-automatics. Then the next step would ten round clips, then eight, then five........

This is why you have to stop the cancer before it starts. Democrats cannot be trusted. They are born liars and will never be honest enough to say what they really want. Like terrorists, they use incrementalism to eventually get everything they want.

Your standard for doing anything seems to be if it won't prevent all rampage killings, lets do nothing. Or do you have any solutions? Armed guards were at Santa Fe HS. It didn't stop the massacre of ten students. Should we not have armed guards at schools since it didn't work this last time? (Disclosure--I'm 100% for having multiple armed guards on campus)

Lets hear your ideas, please.

The truth is that Europe is actually mostly disarmed; they enjoy the same freedoms we do, the same standard of living, the same lifestyle... We have guns here. If guns made you safer, we should have not only a mostly murder free society, we should have an almost crime free society. Instead, the truth is we have, easily, the most violent, the most criminal advanced society in the world. Is it that Americans are just more homicidal by nature? I hope not. Europe has seen warfare within the last 100 years on an industrial scale. They've had ethnic cleansing. They've had bloody revolutions in many countries.Our history is comparatively placid. So if the latest among the litany of rationalizations is that we have a violent culture, they should be bloodbath central. Instead, because they are largely disarmed...they do not.
One thing we have that they do not is large swaths of rural lands. I think it would be almost criminal not to have a means of active self-defense and deterrence--yes I mean firearms--if you live in one of these areas.

So I'm not for disarming America. Mine opinion is mitigation. Limiting the size of magazines seems like it makes the most sense of steps we can take.

I saw on another post you said you can change magazines quick. That is true, of course. However, you also need to stop shooting, reload, and then re-acquire your target. This is happening during bedlam and, hopefully, during engagement with armed officers on campus. It would seem like common sense that anything that makes the shooter stop shooting for however long it takes--probably 8 to 10 seconds all together is a good thing.

It's not going to take eight to ten seconds, more like one second. Advanced training even requires you to count shots so you don't have to put a new round in the chamber after changing the magazine. In other words, you want a law that will do absolutely nothing but to hope the killer kills 18 people instead of 20.

So again I ask, are you happy with the last two school shooting results because neither had high capacity magazines?

London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever

This officer stopped a school shooter before anyone got hurt - CNN

like i said. her answer to all this is slow down a killer, not find root cause of why they are doing it.

They don't want to come to terms with that.

When I grew up we (like most American children) were taught that God is always watching and keeping tabs. Even if you do something wrong and nobody knows, God always knows.

While you may get away with stuff today, your punishment may come in the next life after you leave earth. That kept many of us from doing really bad things in life.

As our country separates from God, many believe that when we die, it's no different than when an animal dies. You just cease to exist and there is no penalty for your sins.

It's much easier to blame an inanimate object than it is ourselves. If they try hard enough, they may be able to remove some guns, but it's almost impossible to reverse bad culture.

 

[jillian]

That was a stupid post...even for you.

And you'd like to dispute it.

I realize that as a left winger, you assume everyone thinks you know what you are talking about.

When in reality, we laugh at you...all the while wondering just how it is you could have fucked up in 2016.

Zimmerman is a serial wife/girlfriend beater. Its not hard if you do some research....and you guys embrace him.

His issues with his women are his problem, not ours.

What he did was help to show just what a bunch of hypocrites you motherfuckers are.

So when he was useful to you, you embraced him.
Now that he is no longer useful, you have disavowed him.
Right?

Don't read to well, do you.

Nobody embraced him. They stood behind his actions and were rewarded by getting to watch the racist left show it's true colors.

Why don't you stick to the facts and stop making shit up ?

That would be TOO well. What were you saying about her not reading well?

 

[candycorn]

Again, who says the kids are in a classroom? They may be in a cafeteria, library, playground... I hear what you're saying but again, smaller mags means fewer shots.

You are avoiding the point, and that point is if you are shooting into a crowd of people (anywhere) you don't need great aim. You are killing anybody and anything.

Look at that video again (if you even looked at it at all) and tell me that smaller magazines means fewer shots. In most cases, it takes police anywhere from five minutes to 20 minutes to get to a school to stop a shooter. What difference would two seconds per magazine make?

You're making the assumption there will be a group.

According to you, you can reload a gun in a second. The armed guards that I want on the campus get that much more of an advantage if the shooter is even encumbered by your ridiculous "two seconds" suggestion.

USA Today reported he was armed.

Then USA either lied or provided false information that they must have revised which you didn't see. If you have a recent link, by all means, post it. But all other reporting didn't mention anything but a resource officer which is nothing more than a high profile hallway monitor.

Trust me, if there was an armed guard there that failed to stop this shooting, it would have been the top story for a month. The truth of the matter is mass killers avoid places where there are guns. They want total control and no resistance. The Colorado movie shooter passed several theaters that allowed firearms until he got to the one that didn't.

A good guy with a gun is not only the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, but it's also a deterrent to a bad guy with a gun.

There are several links to the tragedy.

Texas school had a shooting plan, armed officers and practice. And still 10 people died.

At Santa Fe High School, police had an active-shooter plan. Then the fog of chaos descended.

From Time magazine:

Santa Fe High School had an active-shooter plan and two armed security guards on campus. Trochesset said 200 officers from law enforcement agencies throughout the region converged Friday afternoon on the shooting scene.

Santa Fe Shooting Unlikely to Bring Gun Control in Texas


I think you and I are both together on having armed security on campus. I don't like the idea of arming teachers but if they are ready, willing, and able to undertake the responsibility...I say maybe we should arm the teachers if campus security is not practical. I'd rather have people dedicated to law enforcement do the job but in cases where the teacher is able to prove qualifications and mental stability....lets not just reject the idea out of hand.

Everything should be on the table.

Okay, your first link didn't work with my computer (possibly because of my ad blocker) but the other two didn't say anything about armed security being there when the shooting started. What one article did say is that the resource officer was wounded in the attack. The other article stated that armed security might be on the table in the future. It said that armed officers were there only for practice drills, but not full time employees of the school.

The conclusion is that there was no armed security at that school when the shooter attacked. Had there been prepared armed security (or teachers) the casualties would have been reduced or the kid wouldn't have tried to attack the school in the first place afraid of being wounded or killed himself.

What is clear is that mass shooters avoid places where guns are permitted. So the solution is to have guns in those places. And again, this is not a federal thing, it's a local issue.

I quoted the Time magazine article that said there were 2 security guards on campus.... Not sure what to tell you about the fine details but unless you're sponsoring a shoulder-to-shoulder barrier of guards around the perimeter of the school, that is about as serious as you can expect deterrence to be I would think.. Of course, more guards is better than fewer guards. The liberals are way off on not wanting armed guards at school when your first call will be to call armed response.... Makes no sense.

When it comes to a crazed gunman, an unarmed guard is like no guard at all. What could they do if a shooting happens? All they are good for is perhaps breaking up a fight between two kids or busting a kid cutting class and just walking around the halls.

Maybe instead of disrupting businesses and customers, Camera Hogg could concentrate protesting his very own schools to get armed guards. After all, if he ever gets a job, then he would have to pay those guards through property taxes.

All three of the links I supplied said they had armed guards on campus at Santa Fe.

 

[initforme]

All this about a kid...a kid....gets you upset. Unreal.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And you'd like to dispute it.

I realize that as a left winger, you assume everyone thinks you know what you are talking about.

When in reality, we laugh at you...all the while wondering just how it is you could have fucked up in 2016.

Zimmerman is a serial wife/girlfriend beater. Its not hard if you do some research....and you guys embrace him.

His issues with his women are his problem, not ours.

What he did was help to show just what a bunch of hypocrites you motherfuckers are.

So when he was useful to you, you embraced him.
Now that he is no longer useful, you have disavowed him.
Right?

Don't read to well, do you.

Nobody embraced him. They stood behind his actions and were rewarded by getting to watch the racist left show it's true colors.

Why don't you stick to the facts and stop making shit up ?

That would be TOO well. What were you saying about her not reading well?

I was saying you make shit up.

Yep, that is what I said.