More guns make the world safer (illustrated in a photo)

[rdharma]

[GreenStormCloud]

1. You don't understand the purpose of arming teachers.

They aren't going to stop a rampage shooting from starting, but they can end it quickly once it starts.

Your idea neither stops a rampage shooting from starting, nor does it end one once it starts. You obviously want the shooter to keep going until he gets tired of killing folks and shoots himself, because that is the predictable result of your policy.

[rdharma]

2. Re: Teachers

"but they can end it quickly once it starts"

You're kidding........ right?!!!!!!

[GreenStormCloud]

3. I they are armed, they can shoot the rampager.

That should be obvious to you. Unarmed teachers certainly can't do it. All an unarmed teacher can do is call 911 and wait for help, while the rampager keeps on shooting. Of course the help that the unarmed teacher is waiting for is cops with guns.

[MotherPetrie]

10. And if they get shot first?

[GreenStormCloud]

13. How does the rampager know which ones to shoot?

The armed teachers would be staff members who don't have a lot of contact with the kids, and they would carry concealed, and tell no one except the principle and vice-principle, and other members of the security team.

[av8r1998]

15. theyll get shot anyway n/t

[rdharma]

42. They should send a few unguided missiles flying that might hit the wrong target/s?

...You've been watching too many movies!

[CokeMachine]

68. Apparently

You don't have the slightest fuckall what you are talking about. You are one of the best friends the NRA has with your bullshit. Is that why you are here. How's Gregg doing?

So you approve of unguided missiles missing or not? If you weren't so funny you might be worth an ignore but you crack me up. Keep on keepin on. I love to laugh at your stichk. It's late but please give me one more so I can go to bed laughing with/at you. I do believe I've seen you before but where would that be?

Thank You!!

[holdencaufield]

4. How long did it take to subdue Hinkley?

Two SECONDS

He got off six shots into 1.7 seconds -- no time to reload, no time to aim anything but the first shot.

[thucythucy]

6. Except no shots were fired at Hinckley.

He was subdued by a gang of people swarming him.

The presence of all those guns (in the hands of highly trained security professionals) made no difference whatsoever.

Watch the video of the shooting. Not a single shot fired in return.

[holdencaufield]

7. "highly trained security professionals"

Trained in armed and UNARMED combat. They took him down by force.

I don't know about YOUR school teachers but, with the exception of one pretty buff girls' gym coach, none of mine had the training, physical strength or prowess to subdue an armed assailant.

Until we have the available funding to surround every school child with a cadre of highly trained security professionals 24 hours a day -- I might suggest that arming school security is the next best thing.

[thucythucy]

9. How well did that work at Columbine?

Besides which, you seem to be agreeing with the OP on this one.

The presence of all those guns made no difference at all, as you seem to be admitting. All those guns didn't make Reagan or Brady any less shot.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. The armed guard wasn't there.

As already noted, but ignored by anti-gun folks, is that the purpose of the armed teachers is NOT to stop a rampage shooting from starting. That is next to impossible. The purpose of the armed teachers is to be able to stop it quickly once it does start.

Your plan of nobody armed enables the rampager to start shooting and keep on shooting until he gets tired of it and kills himself.

[jmg257]

24. Hmm...I wonder if keeping the Rampager from having a gun would

Stop the rampage shooting from starting??


Seems like an idea with some real promise!

[GreenStormCloud]

29. How do you propose to do that?

There are over 300,000,000 guns in the country. Rampages typically plan their attacks, they aren't sudden impulse events. One rampager, I don't remember which one, planned over a year in advance. That gives him plenty of time to get a gun, no matter what the laws are. Remember, he is planning to break our most serious law, so lessor laws will not bother him.

[jmg257]

30. I don't. But lesser laws will make it harder for him to have access from the usual

Sources, illegal and legal.

I'm sure one could do a hell of alot damage with a single shot whatever. If that was all one had acess to. I guess.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. With months to plan, he will get whatever he wants.

All you will accomplish is creating difficulty for legal gun owners. But that is your real objective isn't it?

[jmg257]

33. Nope not at all. Just one who believes

That the best way to stop a bad guy with gun isnt a good guy with a gun, or that the best way to stop,a bad guy with a gun isnt to have him kill himself after blasting 27 other kids/adults, or that the best way to stop 2 bad guys with a gun isnt with a baby in a stoller, but to stop them from getting guns in the 1st place.

Genius, I know. And just SO hard to imagine!

Oops..on edit...yep...make it harder for legal AND illegal gun owners to get guns...ok.

[gejohnston]

34. how will it make it hard for illegal gun owners to get them?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/347339/police-bust-illegal-gun-manufacturers-in-danao
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/07/29/12/cebu-gunmakers-take-aim-backyard

[jmg257]

35. If numbers are true, and 40% of illegally used guns were stolen from

'legal' sources, and a bunch more in the flow are from straw purchases, its pretty obvious.

[gejohnston]

37. I doubt the numbers are true

the average "time to crime" as in, the last 4473 filled out to crime is about 12 years.

Even the 40 percent claim, based on a 20 year old study with a too small sample, actually said it was closer to 16 percent.

[jmg257]

45. Thanks...16% stolen...any info on the rest? nt

[gejohnston]

46. that was the claim that are private sales

the stolen number includes those stolen from PDs, or in NYPD's case, used as barter for the cop's drug connection.

[beevul]

55. How do you reconcile that with the nationwide official policy...

You know, the one where if someone BAD has a gun, we call this three digit number on the phone, and the official response, in every state, is to send numerous PEOPLE WITH GUNS.

Maybe you should address this in congress, and propose nationwide, that when someone bad has a gun, they send unarmed police instead.


/shakes head.

[jmg257]

84. I don't. The point would be to handle 'when someone bad

Has a gun' by not letting him get a gun in the 1stplace.

In other words...
If the bad guys can't get guns, there would be less 'bad guys WITH guns'. Imagine that!

Really-this notion shouldn't have been that hard for you to follow.



Calling for an armed response to a bad with a gun that is murdering a bunch of people, or has already shot a baby or 3 or 20, IS a viable option no doubt, but hardly the best possible solution. For obvious reasons.

[beevul]

95. Hardly the best possible solution? Its THE default solution.

The one I mentioned, and that you said you don't reconcile.

"Calling for an armed response to a bad with a gun that is murdering a bunch of people, or has already shot a baby or 3 or 20, IS a viable option no doubt, but hardly the best possible solution. For obvious reasons."

Put your money where your principle is, and propose sending unarmed people to deal with an armed bad guy, and see how shortly you get laughed out the door.

"If the bad guys can't get guns, there would be less 'bad guys WITH guns'. Imagine that!

Really-this notion shouldn't have been that hard for you to follow."

And yet, when a bad guy DOES get a gun, presumably, even you would call 911 knowing they'd send people with guns.

Heres your chance:

Once a bad guy has a gun, is there a better solution that combating it by sending other people with guns?

I'm all for bad guys not having guns. I'm just not for inventorying the content of the good guys gun safes or making the good guys license, register, etc, to get it done.

[jmg257]

96. Of course its the default solution, cause selfish attitudes of SO many gun

Owners will allow no alternative...and justified as 'just the way it is' because otherwise they might have to give SOME THING up, or be a bit too inconvenienced.

As the words and deeds of the NRA and your last sentence explains so well.


Edit: in otherwords, once again, I DO NOT propose sending unarmed good guys after armed bad guys...I propose - again - that the bad guys not have guns is a much better solution.

[beevul]

97. Arrogance, ignorance, and narcissism, all packed into one reply.

How efficient of you.

"As your last sentence explains so well."

"I'm all for bad guys not having guns. I'm just not for inventorying the content of the good guys gun safes or making the good guys license, register, etc, to get it done."

Yup. That's what I said.

"Owners will allow no alternative...and justified as 'just the way it is' because otherwise they might have to give SOME THING up, or be a bit too inconvenienced."

Of course, you've seen fit to remain ignorant as to what gun owners have already given up. That or you're pretending that we haven't given up anything.

You tell me, which is it?

Perhaps you've heard of these:

national firearms act of 1934.

gun control act of 1968.

FOPA with the hughes amendment of 1986.

brady bill circa mid 90s.


Its terribly easy to pretend that nothing has been given up, when its others and not you, giving things up.

And of course, theres also the other issue that nobody on the gun control side generally wants to talk about. One of those "alternative" thingies you mentioned, which I'm quite sure you and those on your side would like to pretend does not exist. (do things qualify as alternatives ONLY when you can go after guns eh?)

Mitigating what a bad guy can do with a gun if he gets one. Preventing him from going to vulnerable places with a gun.

But its just so much easier, isn't it? Easier that is, to ignore that avenue, pretend it doesn't exist. Label people as selfish when they disagree with those who wish to license, register, and inventory the gun safes of people who by and large aren't the problem, while painting them as being people that "allow no alternative", when in fact the great many of those on the "much more gun control" side - the side you appear to be coming from - aren't interested in any alternatives.

[jmg257]

98. I know I know gun owners are SO deprived. But quite obviously not nearly enough.

Obvious cause so many deaths that could be prevented.

I label those as selfish because that's exactly what they are...more concerned with themselves then doing what is necessary to substantially reduce gun violence.

I understand - its human nature...sellfishness, fear, desire, perceived needs, control or lack there of, 'being prepared', &c. Really no need to try to justify it or point out how needlessly persecuted & misunderstood many gun owners are ('what?! You mean I can only have 15 rounds in my assault rifle?! But I want 30! I'll sue..or the NRA will!')...just to recognize it exists and try to limit it a bit more.

[beevul]

99. The only one that is saying "deprived" is you.

The only one that is saying "deprived" is you.

Just like it is you who is pretending that we haven't given anything up. We have.

"I understand -its human nature...sellfishness, fear, desire, perceived needs, control, or lack there of, &c. Really no need to try to justify it or point out how needlessly persecuted & misunderstood many gun owners are ('what?! You mean I can only have 15 rounds in my assault rifle?! But I want 30!'. I'll sue..or the NRA will!)...just to recognize it exists and try to limit it a bit more."

As a former poster was known to say, what a dogs breakfast that pile of word salad is.

As someone who owns no high capacity magazines or assault weapons (in fact, the largest caliber functioning rifle I own is a 17 hmr) and has no intention of owning either...your carefully painted portrait...while it might resemble someone, doesn't depict me.

Its completely lost on you that many people stand against further encroachment on a right they feel has already been encroached on enough, out of sheer principle, isn't it.

[jmg257]

100. 'Deprived' is fine...cause of all gun owners have given and will give up.

I don't pretend it is otherwise. I simply recognize it is not enough.

Are you the only gun owner in the whole country? No? Cause as should be evident re:selfishness, its not all about you...whatever portrait you think I painted wasn't; it is more a....team photo. Call it Team NRA! if you like. Mazel Tov you don't own an assault rifle (yet you pointed out the NFA of 1934?)...big shit...the arms may be different, but sure seems the soundbites are the same. Hey! Maybe that's you in the back row! (You can read about recent events in Colorado & NY, & the NFA to get the references)

Again, I understand making a stand against encroachment on a right...as I explained above, there are numerous personal reasons people have to not want to allow (more) infringement. Their/those 'perceived needs' used for attempts at justification could/should be reduced.

[beevul]

102. LOL.

"I don't pretend it is otherwise. I simply recognize it is not enough."

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I see no such necessity. Theres a lot of alternatives which don't register/license/ban, and a lot of room between where we are now and licensing registration and bans, which those alternatives occupy. I for one am unwilling to see them skipped over, and see any attempt at doing so, as confirmation that those doing the skipping are only interested in getting the guns, rather than fixing any problems, and I'm by far not alone in that.

"Are you the only gun owner in the whole country? No? Cause as should be evident re:selfishness, its not all about you..."


I thought I made that clear, when I said that I was standing on principle. Of course, I'm standing on principle and thinking of the rights of others who are being encroached on, just like my own. That I choose to exercise my rights to a lesser degree that wouldn't necessarily be effected by these encroachments...doesn't make the encroachments on those rights any less an encroachment whether were talking about myself, or anyone else. But you knew that, and applied the word selfish just the same. But I'm sure you're right, nobody but little old me stands on principle.

Everyone else who opposes such specific lawmaking does it out of selfish self interest.

"...whatever portrait you think I painted wasn't; it is more a....team photo. Call it Team NRA! if you like. Mazel Tov you don't own an assault rifle (yet you pointed out the NFA of 1934?)...big shit...the arms may be different, but sure seems the soundbites are the same. Hey! Maybe that's you in the back row! (You can read about recent events in Colorado & NY, & the NFA to get the references)"

The NFA, I pointed out as an example of something given up.

LOL @team photo.

Ok mister goose, meet my good friend mister sauce:


Since were doing team photos and all, lets get one of team "ban them all". Hey maybe that's you in the back row! What? You don't want to ban them all? Big shit...the law proposals may be slightly different but the soundbites are the same.


"Their/those 'perceived needs' used for attempts at justification could/should be reduced."

Why? Because you say so? Peoples reasons don't have to meet a validity test, and their personal needs are none of your business.

[jmg257]

104. Whether they are 'my business' is really unimportant.

Reasons and needs become everyone's business in a society where so many continue to suffer deaths and injuries related to guns. As deadly weapons too often used illegally, there is government interest in controlling them, and continues to be. As long as most of the Perceived needs are actually selfish desires, more control is warranted. And with the numbers involved, maybe even compellingly.
Reasons and needs...what most legislative hearings on this matter are about.

You however are principled instead and just don't want to see others inconvenienced or infringed or further deprived....congrats that is nice of you. I am sure you are right, that there is plenty more that COULD be done besides licensing registration and under-reaching AW bans.

[beevul]

105. And finally, we get to where the rubber meets the road.

"Reasons and needs become everyone's business in a society where so many continue to suffer deaths and injuries related to guns. As deadly weapons too often used illegally, there is government interest in controlling them, and continues to be. As long as most of the Perceived needs are actually selfish desires, more control is warranted. And with the numbers involved, maybe even compellingly."

You say theres a governmental interest in (further) controlling weapons. In my view, that the interest can not, by definition, be both compelling and the least restrictive way to reduce gun violence (strict scrutiny), UNLESS the other avenues I mentioned, are explored first. And I dare say there would be a whole lot of others who would agree - unless the argument is controlling weapons for the sake of controlling weapons, rather than for the sake of controlling gun violence - which would be absurd - though some do espouse that view.

"As long as most of the Perceived needs are actually selfish desires, more control is warranted."

Its one thing to assert that "most of the perceived needs are actually selfish desires". It would be quite another thing to prove that assertion - that is, verify it as factual. The burden of proof, lies with those that assert such things, of course. And even if it could be verified, as many point out, we don't have a "department of needs".

"You however are principled instead and just don't want to see others inconvenienced or infringed or further deprived....congrats that is nice of you. I am sure you are right, that there is plenty more that COULD be done besides licensing registration and under-reaching AW bans."

Theres also the matter of the gun ban lobby that has stated that their goal is to incrementally work on the rights of people where firearms are concerned, until theres as little left as they can manage to reduce it to. I see no reason to give them so much as an inch, knowing what their stated goal is.

You've been here long enough, that surely, I need not dig out any quotes, I would think.

[jmg257]

116. Agree with much you have said here...I would have no interest in controlling arms

Just to control arms. Pointless if there is no benefit to society as a whole (even if the 2nd didn't exist or its intent was decided differently), and as personal reasons for ownership, even selfish ones (ha!) are reasons none the less.

I am not sure about who would need to show /prove what re: need vs. Proof vs. scrutuniy vs least restrictive..don't know how all that works. I tend to think genuine need of owners would help their case. Self defense especially, as the notion militias being necessary is no longer thought to be the case.

[Straw Man]

66. His gun was empty.

He had emptied it before anyone even knew where the shots were coming from. As a point of fact, he was subdued by a gang of Secret Service agents swarming him, not random crowd members. It's part of what they're trained to do.

Notice that some agents drew their guns. If Hinckley had continued firing, they would most certainly have returned fire. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

If guns really never make a difference, then the President's security detail should be disarmed forthwith, as should every police force in the land. If guns may make a difference in some cases and not others, then the OP is pointless.

[holdencaufield]

5. What's the matter?

Aren't you used to people questioning your assertions? You should probably stick to your echo chamber where you can say what you want and not be pestered by nasty, old facts.

[lastlib]

39. he's deluding himself with happy fantasies....

....as taught by his masters at the NRA.

A Wayne LaPeeError speech to a bullet-head is pretty much like Penthouse Letters to a sex-addict.

[bubbayugga]

80. More than that, an armed presence is a deterent against going on the rampage in the first place.

and, should it not deter the rampage, it at least provides a fighting chance which is more than they would have in a gun free zone. Unless you can cure psychotic rage and/or remove any possibility of a crazy person obtaining a gun, deterrence and armed response are the only way you will prevent another massacre. By the way, if guns do not deter violence, why do cops carry them?

[rdharma]

8. I wonder if teachers could have handled it better.......

..... than several well trained Secret Service Agents?

[GreenStormCloud]

12. You can't have several SS agents are every school.

Armed teachers are the next best possible plan.

[rdharma]

14. Active shooter!

Thank goodness old Mrs. Lippschitz has her gatt with her!

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Sometimes unarmed people get lucky.

Unarmed people tried to charge the Luby's shooter and got killed. Unarmed, charging an armed person, is usually suicide.

[rdharma]

19. More likely that they'll just cause more confusion and collateral damage. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Who do you mean by "they"?

Do you mean a civilian armed responder, or an unarmed person trying to tackle the shooter?

[rdharma]

22. You're getting silly, GSC! nt

[GreenStormCloud]

25. You used a pronoun without an antecedent.

It is reasonable for me to ask for clarification.

[gejohnston]

23. we are not talking about NYPD with 12 pound triggers

or LAPD taking out innocents in blue pick ups.

[rdharma]

36. No...... we're talking about scared teachers with very limited training.

Which is even worse!

[gejohnston]

38. I noticed that none of the "chat shows" had experts on the subject knocking the idea,

the only argument I have seen at all were pundits and politicians like P. Morgan screeching "you are stupid" or some other nonsense.

[Straw Man]

67. I know a teacher ...

... who is a retired SWAT cop and several others who were in various branches of the military.

Scared? No training? I think not.

[GreenStormCloud]

82. So allowing a rampager to continue shooting, unopposed is better?

You aren't offering any serious ideas for dealing with a rampage shooter. You need to realize that "no guns" signs haven't worked out too well.

[jmg257]

26. Isn't 'ol Lippshitz the one who left her gatt on the back of the shitter? nt

[gejohnston]

16. depends on who trains the teachers

and the type of training they receive. The training would be completely different.

[jmg257]

27. Hopefully without all those NDs! nt

[gejohnston]

32. just don't have DEA train them

[lastlib]

41. We don't pay them enough to be TEACHERS!

Let alone COPS!!!

Smoking the NRA's brand of crack will only get you brain damage, son.

[gejohnston]

43. not training them to be cops either

armed security perhaps. Besides, I would be more inclined to use support personnel who don't have kids to look after.

[putitinD]

58. until one of the kids is accidentally shot by a teacher or support staff. Its just a matter of time

[gejohnston]

60. there is a greater chance of

the same person winning the lottery three times.

[putitinD]

63. Nope, your dead wrong, accidents happen all the time, guns go off unintentally, I work in a school

and teachers have too many things to worry about already.

[gejohnston]

70. I never said teachers

and no, gun accidents don't happen all the time. The only way a modern handgun goes off is when someone pulls the trigger. Frankly, claims of "I was just cleaning it" or "it magically went off" is covering up for negligence. Even that is very rare. Journalism 101, if it's rare, it's news.

[putitinD]

72. how about breaking up a scuffle in the hallways, this happens EVERYDAY in my school,

If staff were carrying guns, yes there would some accidents

[av8r1998]

81. That's why

Weapons Retention s/b part of the training

[GreenStormCloud]

83. So your solution is to do nothing. N/T

[lastlib]

85. no, my solution is to stop the killers from getting the damn guns to begin with.

Get rid of the industrial-strength killing machines, and we no longer have the problem.

First six months, turn 'em in for cash.
Next six months, turn 'em in, and we don't prosecute.
Thereafter, if you have one, you hang in the town square. Simple as that.

[GreenStormCloud]

86. Try living in the real world. You aren't going to get your fantasy.

So you are not going to attempt suggestions that might actually work. Armed guards at schools could prevent rampage shootings.

[lastlib]

115. It may be fantasy due to the NRA's money, but it's.....

more responsible and effective than anything I've seen from your bullet-head allies at the NRA. Until you/they come up with an EFFECTIVE alternative, mine's on the table.

[sylvi]

90. Sounds like you'd be right at home

under any one of a dozen despotic regimes currently operating in the world.

[lastlib]

91. You mean like Britain, France, Australia etc?

[gejohnston]

92. Their gun ownership rate is higher than you think

France is about 25 percent of all households, more than some states.

[sylvi]

94. They hang people in the town square

for possessing non-government-approved objects?

[hack89]

93. So all guns? nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

117. "Thereafter, if you have one, you hang in the town square. Simple as that."

So, you support the death penalty just for owning a gun?? Man, these "internet toughguys" seem to be crawling out of the woodwork lately!

Do you support the death penalty for other crimes, too? There are soooo many here who think someone who rapes and murders a child, or even grown woman, only deserve life in prison. (for the record, I *am* pro death penalty for these scumbags, and many others, and have stated so quite frequently on here)

Just to play Devils Advocate here:

Another odd thing I've noticed is the people who talk about the "20 dead children at Newtown", yet fail to mention the six adults. Don't you find that odd?? Even more odd is that on a message board that is probably 98% pro-abortion, people get all nutted up about a random tragedy (yes, it's a very bad tragedy, one I couldn't imagine having to go through and losing one of my kids) where some children are killed, but the approximately 3,300+ dead babies a day, due to abortions, doesn't bother them one bit. We even have a member who does a weekly post about "kids killed since Newtown", yet he doesn't include these babies that were aborted, and never had a chance to experience life! (for the record, I always have been, and always will be, pro-choice)

We have a saying here that "Republicans only care about children while they're in the womb, but don't give a shit about them after they come out... because the repukes want to shut down aid programs like welfare and food stamps." Are we willing to let them turn that around on us and say we *don't* care about babies while in the womb, that they don't count until they come out? Then, when one of those babies grows up to be a criminal who does a home invasion, rapes the mother and daughters, while making the father and sons watch, then kills the whole family, we want to coddle the criminal and give him a life sentence, instead of frying his ass or giving him a lethal injection.

/Devils Advocate

Now tell us ALL the truth here... is your support for the death penalty extended to gun owners only, or does it go further.... or are you just another anonymous "internet toughguy" with a hard-on for gun owners??

Thanks in advance,

Ghost

[ileus]

17. I don't know about making the world safer, but they do even up the odds

and give you a fighting chance...



Wonder what would have happened if ole poo sniffer had tried to keep his shooting spree going 3 more seconds. Some of those 6 guns would have taken the fight to the shooter.

Just because you carry a firearm doesn't mean you can save everyone, it only means you have a life saving device on your person that may help your chances of survival.



Stay safe and carry on.

[rdharma]

20. Security blankets.....

"........ making the world safer."

[jmg257]

28. I want my binkie! Its in the constitution, don't ya know? Nt

[sylvi]

40. In an outdoor, crowded urban environment like that

you could never stop one crazy from charging in and getting off 5 or 6 shots from a handgun. That's why SS agents are trained to shield the President with their own bodies as one facet of his defense.

You could, however, with the presence of armed security, stop a mass shooter from coolly and methodically going from room to room over a period of minutes, taking their time to reload, and mowing down multiple groups defenseless victims. If you can't see the difference in the two scenarios then you're beyond help.

[rdharma]

44. Hinkley had a damn 6 shot .22 revolver! nt

[sylvi]

47. No shit, Sherlock

The argument is the effectiveness of armed security stopping a shooting like the one in your photo and a shooting of multiple people over a longer period such as a school shooting.

[rdharma]

48. Effectiveness?

How effective do you think do you think your ideas on "school security" would be?

[sylvi]

49. A helluva lot more than just leaving them defenseless

as you seem to be advocating. BTW I'm not for arming teachers, necessarily, but for armed and trained SROs being assigned to schools, in a centralized location within the school, able to respond to panic alarms or something similar.

[rdharma]

50. Gee? What could possibly go wrong with that scenario?

Hmmmmm!

[sylvi]

51. You mean, worse han an unchallenged and unfettered mass shooter

strolling from room to room, plying his trade until he runs out of ammo and/or victims?

Let's not have anyone shoot back at him, though. Someone might get hurt.

[rdharma]

52. An unfettered mass shooter.... with the SRO's gun?!!! nt

[gejohnston]

54. what happened to the "trained professional police officer" meme?

I don't know about where you live, but SROs where my kids went to school were all sworn police officers.

[rdharma]

56. Trained Professional?

So ....... being a "sworn police officer" protects you from being shot in the back of the head and your pistol taken?

[gejohnston]

62. so you support augmentees and or back up?

are you capable of making a rational argument? If the cop is shot and his weapon taken vs an attacker who is already armed with a gun and no cop.......
your argument is what exactly?

[rdharma]

65. Ever hear of the "Liberator" pistol?

A cheap mass produced single shot air dropped to the resistance in France. The idea being that you could shoot somebody at close range with it and then get access to a REAL gun.

[Straw Man]

71. Yes, and you get to "close range" by stealth.

Are you suggesting that a school shooter would enter with a single-shot weapon and sneak up on the resource officer, hoping to get a more deadly weapon from the officer after killing him? Is that a realistic or even remotely likely scenario?

It sounds as though you're arguing against arming police officers in general, since there are many places far more conducive to ambushing an officer than the hallways of a school.

[rdharma]

75. It would probably be a student in the hallway. nt

[Straw Man]

78. So we shouldn't have cops in schools ...

... because they might be ambushed by students with zip guns who will take the cops' service weapons and go on a rampage? OK ...

That pretty much argues against having armed cops anywhere, doesn't it? Or is it only in schools that these homicidal zip-gunners lurk?

[sylvi]

57. Please promiseme you'll never run for school board member...anywhere

The thought of someone employing your brand of "reasoning" being responsible for the safety of schoolchildren is terrifying.

[gejohnston]

53. since SROs have been around for a long time

in many jurisdictions, I would say the probability of anything going wrong is almost nonexistent.. IIRC, NYC and Houston PDs have dedicated police forces for schools.
The possibility always exists, but the issue is probability. It possible that space aliens will land on the WH lawn. The probability of that happening is extremely remote.

[rdharma]

59. "probability of anything going wrong is almost nonexistent"

Does Columbine ring a bell?

[gejohnston]

61. he wasn't there

so, it doesn't count. That supports an argument for augmentees.

[rdharma]

64. So, it doesn't count!

And if the SRO is in the bathroom? That "doesn't count" either, eh?

He was outside the school when the shooters were outside of the school.

He was within 75 yards of them.

Not there? Oh, puhlease!

[Eleanors38]

69. Barbara Boxer has a plan...

What do you think of it? Google " boxer national guard schools."

[rdharma]

73. National Guard in Schools?

I don't think it's a good idea.

I do think Boxer's suppport of the School Safety Enhancement Act, which would increase funding for a federal grants program, from $30 million to $50 million, to help fund school security measures, such as installation of metal detectors and surveillance cameras, was a good idea.

[Straw Man]

74. Yes, puhlease!

He was outside the school when the shooters were outside of the school.

He was within 75 yards of them.

A 75-yard shot with a handgun? Oh yeah, piece of cake, do it every day.

Get real, friend. If anything, your line of reasoning suggests that resource officers should have patrol rifles.

[rdharma]

76. "piece of cake, do it every day"

Good for you, Tex! This trained SRO couldn't hit 'em.

[Straw Man]

77. Perhaps you missed ...

... the sarcasm. The idea that anyone outside of an exhibition shooter could be expected to make a 75-yard shot with a handgun in a high-stress situation is absurd. If that is your benchmark for effective policing, then virtually every cop in the world is sub-par.

[sylvi]

79. "And if the SRO is in the bathroom?"

"And if the SRO is in the bathroom?"

Did you really just ask that as an argument against SROs?

Jesus H. Christ. Do you even read the stuff you post?

I gotta hand it to you, you are completely without ego. Only such a person would be willing to abjectly humiliate themselves in such a manner.

Ugh.

[Remmah2]

87. Are you saying Presidential security is not necessary?

??

[rdharma]

88. Are you throwing out another "strawman"?

[Carnage251]

101. Do you mean that Obama's Secret Service detail shouldn't have guns?

Will it make him safer?

[bubbayugga]

89. obviously guns don't deter shit so the police & the secret service might as well give theirs up too

I mean, what's the point of even carrying them if they aren't making anyone safer?

[aikoaiko]

103. Are you arguing that the SS should not be armed?

LOL.

[rdharma]

106. When in doubt..... whip out the strawman!

Does that ever work for you, aikoaiko?

[aikoaiko]

111. It was a snarky question and not a strawman.

There is a difference.

[Paul Alan]

107. Imagine if Hinckley had a 100 bullet magazine on his AR15?

He would have taken down most of the guys who carried guns before they could draw their weapons.

[gejohnston]

109. he would not have gotten close enough

and the stupid magazine would probably cause a jam.

[Paul Alan]

110. Sociopaths seem to study the element of "surprise"

It seems the political and revenge killers give themselves the advantage of surprise over their targets.

Hinckley seems to be that type, and the odds are if assault weapons were as readily available then as now, that would have been his weapon of choice.

The killers skillful use of surprise, makes the gun lovers argument for more guns to defend against these killers - even more stupid.

[gejohnston]

112. actually they were

there wasn't much of a market for AR types, but ARs did exist. There were other semi auto carbines that were actually used by militaries but not "assault weapons" like the M-1 carbine and the SKS (which was starting to become popular for deer hunting in the US and Canada because it was inexpensive.)
walking down any city street with a rifle in hand would attract unwanted attention from the cops.

Actually, Hinckley was some nut who wanted to impress Jody Foster. IIRC, that was pretty much his motivation.

[kudzu22]

108. So your argument is that the President would be safer if the Secret Service were not armed?

Somehow I doubt the current President agrees with that assessment.

[rdharma]

113. Seems like strawmen are very popular with you guys!

Or did you miss my reply Post #106?

[kudzu22]

114. My apologies if you meant that guns would make schools safer

It wasn't evident from your tone. You seemed to be arguing that since Reagan was surrounded by guns and yet still managed to be shot, that the guns could not protect him and therefore could not protect schoolchildren. Is that an accurate statement of your position?

If so, then you would have to be arguing against using guns for protection since they do not stop all attacks. So, not so much a strawman after all. If I have your position wrong, please correct me.