Nickolas Cruz Would Have Been Stopped If ....

[protectionist]

If Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School had not been a ridiculous "gun-free zone", and good guys (teachers, administrators, maintenance workers) had been carrying guns, Nikolas Cruz would have been stopped.

So all you fools who continue to get Americans killed, by your support for gun-free zones, need to get psychological help, for whatever it is that drives you to oppose training/arming law-abiding citizens, defending and protecting themselves, and others.

Presently, you are as much the danger, as the mass shooters themselves.

 

[Moonglow]

The idea of a gun free zone is not what you and other ignorant folks think it is....

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay, I'll bite: from doing what exactly would Cruz have been stopped? Recognize, of course, that something did stop him from shooting because there were very clearly many more than the 17 people he killed there and whom he could have shot.

 

[depotoo]

Okay, I'll bite: from doing what exactly would Cruz have been stopped? Recognize, of course, that something did stop him from shooting because there were very clearly many more than the 17 people he killed there and whom he could have shot.

A jammed gun.
Florida gunman's AR-15 reportedly jammed during the school shooting, he had 180 more rounds left

 

[LoneLaugher]

Okay, I'll bite: from doing what exactly would Cruz have been stopped? Recognize, of course, that something did stop him from shooting because there were very clearly many more than the 17 people he killed there and whom he could have shot.

A jammed gun.
Florida gunman's AR-15 reportedly jammed during the school shooting, he had 180 more rounds left

Yes. He suddenly had no weapon. Genius idea.!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

If Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School had not been a ridiculous "gun-free zone", and good guys (teachers, administrators, maintenance workers) had been carrying guns, Nikolas Cruz would have been stopped.

So all you fools who continue to get Americans killed, by your support for gun-free zones, need to get psychological help, for whatever it is that drives you to oppose training/arming law-abiding citizens, defending and protecting themselves, and others.

Presently, you are as much the danger, as the mass shooters themselves.

He would have been stopped if the parents in his household had gotten contacted by the people complaining of his facebook posts threatening to become a professional shooter.

the schools students and authorities needed to communicate better to all have the same information.

this guy didn't get help until it was too late, but he did ask indirectly for help by acting out.

The saddest thing is the best solutions I've found for detecting treating and curing mental disorder disease and imbalance before they become dangerous is Christian spiritual healing, including a well researched established program based in Florida. See www.christianhealingmin.org

Again, people in communities need to have the same information
and we can detect and solve problems well in advance at first sign of sickness and trouble. The solutions were right there, the signs and cries for help were given. People weren't connecting, until violence occurred to get this in the news. Let's use the media to get the solutions out and quit fighting over the problems for political points.

 

[protectionist]

The idea of a gun free zone is not what you and other ignorant folks think it is....

IF you have something to say, say it.

 

[emilynghiem]

The idea of a gun free zone is not what you and other ignorant folks think it is....

Okay Moonglow and also cc: Timmy
then instead of arguing against or for this:
1. what is the WRONG way to set up a gun free zone where it fails
2. what is the RIGHT way to set up a secure zone where it works

What's the difference, what is the wrong way
and what is the right way?

Gee whiz, if we structured this discussion over believing or not believing in God,
we might agree what are the good things God should stand for,
and what do we all oppose as the wrong ways of teaching God.

Maybe this is just shooting practice for hitting other targets we are missing
by arguing for and against instead of explaining what we object to that is wrong!!!

 

[protectionist]

Okay, I'll bite: from doing what exactly would Cruz have been stopped? Recognize, of course, that something did stop him from shooting because there were very clearly many more than the 17 people he killed there and whom he could have shot.

A person (or persons) in the room where Cruz killed 17 people could have SHOT HIM, and stopped him from killing more. The killer always has the advantage of the element of surprise. No one knows he's going to shoot, until he does. So he gets off 2 or 3 shots, and kills that many people (if his aim is right and they are hit in vital areas) And if 3 got killed, but then an armed employee shoots kills Cruz, 14 people now dead, would still be alive.

Example >> Just like in the July 4, 2002 LAX shooting. Ahmed Mohammed Hadayet shot and killed 2 people, in an airport crammed with hundreds of people. He had 250 rounds of ammunition. He was shot dead, right on the spot, by a good guy with a gun. If that hadn't happened, Hadayet would have turned the airport into a bloodbath.

Same thing with the Garland , TX shooters. Same with Moore, OK. And many more. Hundreds of lives were saved in all oft hese, because these were NOT moronic "gun-free zones"

 

[protectionist]

Maybe this is just shooting practice for hitting other targets we are missing
by arguing for and against instead of explaining what we object to that is wrong!!!

I explained what is wrong in the OP >> (gun-free zones)

 

[Moonglow]

The idea of a gun free zone is not what you and other ignorant folks think it is....

Okay Moonglow and also cc: Timmy
then instead of arguing against or for this:
1. what is the WRONG way to set up a gun free zone where it fails
2. what is the RIGHT way to set up a secure zone where it works

What's the difference, what is the wrong way
and what is the right way?

Gee whiz, if we structured this discussion over believing or not believing in God,
we might agree what are the good things God should stand for,
and what do we all oppose as the wrong ways of teaching God.

Maybe this is just shooting practice for hitting other targets we are missing
by arguing for and against instead of explaining what we object to that is wrong!!!

Gun free zones don't restrict people that are licensed to carry them as part of their duty...As seen in the last shooting a cop was there assigned to the school and was armed...

 

[protectionist]

Gun free zones don't restrict people that are licensed to carry them as part of their duty...As seen in the last shooting a cop was there assigned to the school and was armed...

But they do restrict licensed citizens in general.

 

[Moonglow]

If Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School had not been a ridiculous "gun-free zone", and good guys (teachers, administrators, maintenance workers) had been carrying guns, Nikolas Cruz would have been stopped.

So all you fools who continue to get Americans killed, by your support for gun-free zones, need to get psychological help, for whatever it is that drives you to oppose training/arming law-abiding citizens, defending and protecting themselves, and others.

Presently, you are as much the danger, as the mass shooters themselves.

He would have been stopped if the parents in his household had gotten contacted by the people complaining of his facebook posts threatening to become a professional shooter.

the schools students and authorities needed to communicate better to all have the same information.

this guy didn't get help until it was too late, but he did ask indirectly for help by acting out.

The saddest thing is the best solutions I've found for detecting treating and curing mental disorder disease and imbalance before they become dangerous is Christian spiritual healing, including a well researched established program based in Florida. See www.christianhealingmin.org

Again, people in communities need to have the same information
and we can detect and solve problems well in advance at first sign of sickness and trouble. The solutions were right there, the signs and cries for help were given. People weren't connecting, until violence occurred to get this in the news. Let's use the media to get the solutions out and quit fighting over the problems for political points.

His family members were victims of his abuse and did contact police...

 

[Moonglow]

Gun free zones don't restrict people that are licensed to carry them as part of their duty...As seen in the last shooting a cop was there assigned to the school and was armed...

But they do restrict licensed citizens in general.

sure just like at court..

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yes. He suddenly had no weapon. Genius idea.!!!

Florida gunman's AR-15 reportedly jammed during the school shooting, he had 180 more rounds left

Thank you!

I cannot think of a more palpable illustration of how effective would be restrictions on access to firearms is for abating or reducing the incidence of unlawful deaths and injuries from users of firearms.

 

[protectionist]

I cannot think of a more palpable illustration of how effective would be restrictions on access to firearms is for abating or reducing the incidence of unlawful deaths and injuries from users of firearms.

"Restrictions" is off topic. We're talking about school security - ie who is in the school when a mass
shooter arrives, and how well able they are to stop him.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay, I'll bite: from doing what exactly would Cruz have been stopped? Recognize, of course, that something did stop him from shooting because there were very clearly many more than the 17 people he killed there and whom he could have shot.

A person (or persons) in the room where Cruz killed 17 people could have SHOT HIM, and stopped him from killing more. The killer always has the advantage of the element of surprise. No one knows he's going to shoot, until he does. So he gets off 2 or 3 shots, and kills that many people (if his aim is right and they are hit in vital areas) And if 3 got killed, but then an armed employee shoots kills Cruz, 14 people now dead, would still be alive.

Example >> Just like in the July 4, 2002 LAX shooting. Ahmed Mohammed Hadayet shot and killed 2 people, in an airport crammed with hundreds of people. He had 250 rounds of ammunition. He was shot dead, right on the spot, by a good guy with a gun. If that hadn't happened, Hadayet would have turned the airport into a bloodbath.

Same thing with the Garland , TX shooters. Same with Moore, OK. And many more. Hundreds of lives were saved in all oft hese, because these were NOT moronic "gun-free zones"

Okay. TY for the clarification.

I can't really refute the logic of what you've described; nobody can; thus I won't try.

What I will say is that the logic you've described disregards what is the goal of gun control advocates. Let me explain:

• Gun rights advocates --> These folks see the goal as that of attenuating the impact any given shooter may have. That's not at all an unreasonable thing to want, so I'm not criticizing that as a goal unto itself.
• Gun control advocates --> These folks see that goal as that of reducing the incidence of shooting events that would-be shooters might endeavor to effect. This too is a very reasonable goal, so again, I'm not going to criticize it as a goal unto itself. The thing these folks have on their side is that the Brady Bill without question materially reduced the incidence of the genre of shooting events it aimed to reduce.
  • The liberal elites who are protected by guns are giving money to stop the rest of US from having gun
    
  • Want gun control? Fight smart.

The two are different approaches to achieving the outcome of fewer shot-dead and gun-injured people, which, of course, is everyone's goal.

Now for my part, I'd be willing to try both sides' approaches concurrently.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The idea of a gun free zone is not what you and other ignorant folks think it is....

And the reality of a gun free zone is not what you and other more ignorant folks wish it was.

 

[protectionist]

Okay, I'll bite: from doing what exactly would Cruz have been stopped? Recognize, of course, that something did stop him from shooting because there were very clearly many more than the 17 people he killed there and whom he could have shot.

A person (or persons) in the room where Cruz killed 17 people could have SHOT HIM, and stopped him from killing more. The killer always has the advantage of the element of surprise. No one knows he's going to shoot, until he does. So he gets off 2 or 3 shots, and kills that many people (if his aim is right and they are hit in vital areas) And if 3 got killed, but then an armed employee shoots kills Cruz, 14 people now dead, would still be alive.

Example >> Just like in the July 4, 2002 LAX shooting. Ahmed Mohammed Hadayet shot and killed 2 people, in an airport crammed with hundreds of people. He had 250 rounds of ammunition. He was shot dead, right on the spot, by a good guy with a gun. If that hadn't happened, Hadayet would have turned the airport into a bloodbath.

Same thing with the Garland , TX shooters. Same with Moore, OK. And many more. Hundreds of lives were saved in all oft hese, because these were NOT moronic "gun-free zones"

Okay. TY for the clarification.

I can't really refute the logic of what you've described; nobody can; thus I won't try.

What I will say is that the logic you've described disregards what is the goal of gun control advocates. Let me explain:

• Gun rights advocates --> These folks see the goal as that of attenuating the impact any given shooter may have. That's not at all an unreasonable thing to want, so I'm not criticizing that as a goal unto itself.
• Gun control advocates --> These folks see that goal as that of reducing the incidence of shooting events that would-be shooters might endeavor to effect. This too is a very reasonable goal, so again, I'm not going to criticize it as a goal unto itself. The thing these folks have on their side is that the Brady Bill without question materially reduced the incidence of the genre of shooting events it aimed to reduce.
  • The liberal elites who are protected by guns are giving money to stop the rest of US from having gun
    
  • Want gun control? Fight smart.

The two are different approaches to achieving the outcome of fewer shot-dead and gun-injured people, which, of course, is everyone's goal.

Now for my part, I'd be willing to try both sides' approaches concurrently.

Yes, I agree, both approaches have their merits, but for this thread, gun control isn't the topic. School security is.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Okay, I'll bite: from doing what exactly would Cruz have been stopped? Recognize, of course, that something did stop him from shooting because there were very clearly many more than the 17 people he killed there and whom he could have shot.

A person (or persons) in the room where Cruz killed 17 people could have SHOT HIM, and stopped him from killing more. The killer always has the advantage of the element of surprise. No one knows he's going to shoot, until he does. So he gets off 2 or 3 shots, and kills that many people (if his aim is right and they are hit in vital areas) And if 3 got killed, but then an armed employee shoots kills Cruz, 14 people now dead, would still be alive.

Example >> Just like in the July 4, 2002 LAX shooting. Ahmed Mohammed Hadayet shot and killed 2 people, in an airport crammed with hundreds of people. He had 250 rounds of ammunition. He was shot dead, right on the spot, by a good guy with a gun. If that hadn't happened, Hadayet would have turned the airport into a bloodbath.

Same thing with the Garland , TX shooters. Same with Moore, OK. And many more. Hundreds of lives were saved in all oft hese, because these were NOT moronic "gun-free zones"

Okay. TY for the clarification.

I can't really refute the logic of what you've described; nobody can; thus I won't try.

What I will say is that the logic you've described disregards what is the goal of gun control advocates. Let me explain:

• Gun rights advocates --> These folks see the goal as that of attenuating the impact any given shooter may have. That's not at all an unreasonable thing to want, so I'm not criticizing that as a goal unto itself.
• Gun control advocates --> These folks see that goal as that of reducing the incidence of shooting events that would-be shooters might endeavor to effect. This too is a very reasonable goal, so again, I'm not going to criticize it as a goal unto itself. The thing these folks have on their side is that the Brady Bill without question materially reduced the incidence of the genre of shooting events it aimed to reduce.
  • The liberal elites who are protected by guns are giving money to stop the rest of US from having gun
    
  • Want gun control? Fight smart.

The two are different approaches to achieving the outcome of fewer shot-dead and gun-injured people, which, of course, is everyone's goal.

Now for my part, I'd be willing to try both sides' approaches concurrently.

If what he described were logical, guns would be permitted in every setting without exception. The halls of congress. political rallies. The NRA convention.