Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I never said that I rule out 100%. However, if guns were not permitted, in the places you mention, then the safety of everyone there, is purely dependent on whatever security is provided.If what he described were logical, guns would be permitted in every setting without exception. The halls of congress. political rallies. The NRA convention.
I never said that I rule out 100%. However, if guns were not permitted, in the places you mention, then the safety of everyone there, is purely dependent on whatever security is provided.If what he described were logical, guns would be permitted in every setting without exception. The halls of congress. political rallies. The NRA convention.
I have found in some gun-free zones with security (ex VA hospital) that level of security is a joke.
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.
Nah, I wouldn't say "everyone" would need to be. Not at all. But is just a few are, then yes it is made safer.Sorry, pal. If more guns introduced into a space makes it safer, then every person, everywhere should be armed for the safety of all.
Nah, I wouldn't say "everyone" would need to be. Not at all. But is just a few are, then yes it is made safer.Sorry, pal. If more guns introduced into a space makes it safer, then every person, everywhere should be armed for the safety of all.
Examples >>
1. LAX - July 2002
2. Garland, TX - draw Mohamed contest
3. Moore, OK - beheading attack
And no need to be "sorry", Just get yourself informed, that's all.
The more good guys with guns, the better.What percentage of people outside of LEO's should be armed in a given space in order to ensure safety?
The more good guys with guns, the better.What percentage of people outside of LEO's should be armed in a given space in order to ensure safety?
In some cases, that would be excellent. No need to restrict. Better to have more guns than needed, than not enough.So...100%? Can't get more than that.
In some cases, that would be excellent. No need to restrict. Better to have more guns than needed, than not enough.So...100%? Can't get more than that.
I can respect your scope limitation.Yes, I agree, both approaches have their merits, but for this thread, gun control isn't the topic. School security is.Okay. TY for the clarification.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.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.
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"
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:
The two are different approaches to achieving the outcome of fewer shot-dead and gun-injured people, which, of course, is everyone's goal.
- 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.
Now for my part, I'd be willing to try both sides' approaches concurrently.
A few.How many armed civilians should we have per 100 students in a typical high school?
Based on necessity of getting schools secured (in a hurry)I can respect your scope limitation.
Answer to what ?What happened? No good answer?
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.
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...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!!!
Okay. TY for the clarification.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.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.
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"
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:
The two are different approaches to achieving the outcome of fewer shot-dead and gun-injured people, which, of course, is everyone's goal.
- 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.
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.
There are just as many guns at a courtroom that are in a school... and a courtroom is a gun free zone...Advertising “gun free” gives a criminal that impression, as an easy target. And many are literal within that meaning.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...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!!!
There are just as many guns at a courtroom that are in a school... and a courtroom is a gun free zone...Advertising “gun free” gives a criminal that impression, as an easy target. And many are literal within that meaning.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...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!!!
Maybe YOU should talk with him about that. There are many mentally ill people who SHOULD be allowed to buy guns (and not deprive them of their 2nd amendment rights).the PROBLEM is a 19 year old with a history of mental issues being able to buy an AR-15. BOTH need to be addressed.
but you might want to talk with the erstwhile president about why the first bill he signed made it easier for mentally ill people to obtain guns.
kk?
