Arming teachers bad cus in Parkand a singlular example exists of a cowardly RO not doing job, WTF?

[Theowl32]

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Moron, one armed guard for a population of over 3,100 students, not including staff and 12 actual buildings on campus is not a place protected by guns.


And the threat against one man by one armed man before the secret service can react is completely different from someone shooting randomly into a crowd..... the fact that the NRA did allow people to carry guns at their convention is something you now have to ignore..since it makes your point pretty stupid....

I didn't say "protected by guns". I said "gun-free zone". I'll go through this slowly for you. The other poster said that the school was a "gun-free zone". You're saying that it was not a "gun-free zone". Once you two figure it out, let me know.

So guns at schools is good, but guns at NRA conventions where Pence gives a speech is bad. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Soft targets are not the same thing as GUN FREE ZONES.

ONE GUN on behalf of ONE OFFICER does not exactly prove your point.

That is still considered a SOFT TARGET. Do you, or do you not understand the difference?

What point? I'm just trying to understand what you guys consider a "gun-free zone".

Conservative poster: "Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone"

Is that bold statement true or not?

It was a SOFT TARGET. I am not getting jnto bullshit semantics with you. Mass shooters target SOFT TARGETS.

That is how it works. You mention that the odds are better that a teacher has an accidental shooting. Yes, that is generally true.

The point you refuse to get is if TRAINED TEACHERS are armed, it greatly reduces the odds that those schools will be targeted at all. That is what arming CERTAIN TEACHERS does.

 

[cutter]

Yeah it makes sense for a kid to trust some out of shape teachers that would probably shoot their eye out when a trained officer didnt do what he was trained to do and was his full time job.

Yea, I guess it’s better to just let them die without a chance for a trained teacher to save their lives. The officer that failed to act was a coward but I bet he would have fought back had he been one of those being shot at. An armed teacher is better than a coward waiting outside.

 

[Theowl32]

Yeah it makes sense for a kid to trust some out of shape teachers that would probably shoot their eye out when a trained officer didnt do what he was trained to do and was his full time job.

Yea, I guess it’s better to just let them die without a chance for a trained teacher to save their lives. The officer that failed to act was a coward but I bet he would have fought back had he been one of those being shot at. An armed teacher is better than a coward waiting outside.

The real true pathetic part is how the left absolutley CELEBRATE when there is a mass shooting. Don't doubt it. Hence, how they looooove soft targets.

Do not think for one tiny second those pieces of devilish crap don't see it as grand opportunities to push their globalist agenda. We know this.

Brought to you from the same metoo people that would gladly suck bill off right now. Brought to you from the same people who have admitted they want to the economy to tank to get power.

The democrat party NEED misery. That is precisely how they thrive. If they cannot find victims, they will make victims. That is ALL THEY DO.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Moron, one armed guard for a population of over 3,100 students, not including staff and 12 actual buildings on campus is not a place protected by guns.


And the threat against one man by one armed man before the secret service can react is completely different from someone shooting randomly into a crowd..... the fact that the NRA did allow people to carry guns at their convention is something you now have to ignore..since it makes your point pretty stupid....

I didn't say "protected by guns". I said "gun-free zone". I'll go through this slowly for you. The other poster said that the school was a "gun-free zone". You're saying that it was not a "gun-free zone". Once you two figure it out, let me know.

So guns at schools is good, but guns at NRA conventions where Pence gives a speech is bad. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

When we say guns in school we don't mean anybody can have one. We don't let strangers into school as we would at a speaking event where it's impossible to know who might make an assassination attempt at the VP or President.

Hope that makes sense for you now.

There's nothing unclear about "guns in schools". I'm specifically talking about "gun-free zones". One conservative poster said the school is a gun-free zone. The other one said it isn't. Make up your minds.

That is true, it's a gun-free zone except law enforcement. Just like over here, we used to have a ban on guns where alcohol was served, that applied to everybody except law enforcement. If the law was not written that way, then if a police officer needed to address a problem in a bar or hospital, they would have to disarm to legally enter. That's not practical.

 

[Sahba]

Gun Control – My View As An Outsider

Written By: Based Israeli – From The Israel Chapter Of The Proud Boys 2/16/2018

I’m not one to write much, and English is not my native language I apologize in advance for any mistakes.–

There are no school shootings in Israel. Not even one.

But do we have “gun control” here? You can say that.
Not every person has a gun, but some do, and others are fighting for gun rights, but..there are no “school shootings” here. Why is this the case?
My assumption is that the right to bear arms is not really about the GUN, it’s about the right to feel safe.
As you probably heard there are terror attacks in Israel, the vast majority of them are not performed by gun wielding maniacs. Back in 2002 after a devastating terror attack in a hotel 10 minutes from my house in which 30 Israelis were killed, blown up to pieces during Passover dinner with their family in “Park Hotel” in Netanya, the Israeli Defense Force went into Palestinian territories and had terrible battles (terrible for the terrorists) and confiscated most guns from the Palestinian terror groups. You can call it a type of “gun control”; so, with most of their guns gone, what did they do?

They learned how to use cars, knives, trucks, home-made bombs and suicide vests and more creative ways to cause harm. The very same tractors that we had given them license to use so they can find work and provide for their families were used as “tanks”, running over people in the streets of Jerusalem.

And nowadays, when I walk to the central station in Tel-Aviv, I feel relieved if I see a security guard with a gun, or an armed soldier, I feel safe – by proxy.
I pray that the security guard or soldier is brave and trained enough, or even in the same location as I am, to handle a bad situation should one occur, but you can never know.
What does it have to do with school shootings?
It has everything to do with it. If the intent is there to preform a horrible act against others, taking away a mere tool simply would not change anything. It doesn’t matter if it’s in a school, church, or at the local groceries store. I know it’s a repeated cliche argument “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” but it’s never the less a relevant and true argument.

If there will be no guns, there will be other tools to perform the very same action – I have seen it with my own eyes.
I was standing at a checkpoint near Nablus one day. It was time for me to eat lunch and was about to be relieved of guard duty by one of my friends. In front of me stood an old lady. I politely excuse myself and tell her she will be right through with a warm smile on my face as I turned to walk away.
As I walk out I hear my friend screaming behind me. The old lady apparently had a flask of acid and she had waited to be close to a soldier to strike. My friend’s face was deformed and he lost sight in one eye and 90% of sight in the other eye.

A “bad” person with intent to do harm does not care about your age, sex, religion, location, or the tool used to do it, the “bad” person will find a way to carry out his/her plan.

I used to walk around with my rifle strapped around my body; my hand always resting gently on it, making sure I am attentive and aware of it and my surroundings in high risk areas.

Unfortunately, the right to feel safe was taken from me when I was finished my military service, and I would absolutely HATE to see my dear friends in America suffer the gut wrenching feeling of feeling unsafe and looking around to find someone who can defend them if shit hits the fan.

Self preservation is what got us here. It’s what created the west and America, in all its glory. When the left is shitting on the American anthem, flag, and traditions, gun control is yet another path for the destruction of western values.

These are my two cents about gun control from an outsider’s perspective. A perspective of someone who lost his right to feel safe and wishes with all his heart, it never happens to you. UHURU.

(Pic of me from the morning coffee on that very same day at the checkpoint, probably the last picture my friend will ever take.)

There is a lot our Nation can learn from our Israeli friends across the pond, imho. I still have to make good on my promise a mo. or so ago to pay for a few beer kegs for our US based Proud boys, letting them know that some of us are tremendously grateful for their stalwart resolve and calm in the midst of chaos & violence perpetrated by Antifa...

 

[2aguy]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

I see, you want them to keep getting murdered in school. Why is that?

As I just explained, I believe it would compound the problem. Not wanting to compound the problem is not the same thing as wanting people to be murdered. Not sure how I lost you there.

14 states already do it without a problem, 16 more states allow it......you have no case...

 

[2aguy]

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Moron, one armed guard for a population of over 3,100 students, not including staff and 12 actual buildings on campus is not a place protected by guns.


And the threat against one man by one armed man before the secret service can react is completely different from someone shooting randomly into a crowd..... the fact that the NRA did allow people to carry guns at their convention is something you now have to ignore..since it makes your point pretty stupid....

I didn't say "protected by guns". I said "gun-free zone". I'll go through this slowly for you. The other poster said that the school was a "gun-free zone". You're saying that it was not a "gun-free zone". Once you two figure it out, let me know.

So guns at schools is good, but guns at NRA conventions where Pence gives a speech is bad. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

And you are a stupid human being. Two different security situations.....and you now know the NRA allowed concealed and open carry as did the Republican convention.....but keep playing at being stupid....

 

[2aguy]

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

You think gun-free zones are less safe. Yet there were no guns allowed at a Pence/NRA convention held in Dallas a few months ago.

Explain this.

You are wrong...again.....the Republican convention allowed people to carry guns...the NRA convention also allowed people to carry guns....please do some basic research instead of just posting off the top of your head.

No Guns Allowed During NRA Convention Speech By Trump, Pence

Yes...moron, because the Secret Service was in control at that moment...the rest of the convention time concealed and open carry were allowed.... the threat of one man being targeted for murder is different from a mass shooter attacking a crowd....different threats, different measures....and again, the rest of the time NRA members walked around carrying their legal guns without a problem....

You really should stop taking those Stupid Pills....they aren't helping you....

So you're just going to back-pedal your claim now of "The Republican convention allowed people to carry guns." The link I posted directly contradicted this and now you're deflecting. Just deflect away from FACTS when your delicate feelings insist on being right.

That's adorable. No, no, go ahead and keep throwing around insults like "stupid pills". They're really helping your argument.

See ya.

Moron....I showed you that actual NRA site that gave the gun policy for the 2018 convention.... The onlly time it wasn't allowed was when Pence was on stage. You are stupid, you are either really stupid or pretending to be stupid to troll the question.......

 

[2aguy]

I believe I said that it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to save the day by shooting a bad guy.

Do you believe this applies to all people who are screened, trained and licensed to carry a firearm? Or just teachers?

"A teacher who is also a reserve police officer trained in firearm use ‘accidentally’ discharged a gun Tuesday at Seaside High School in Monterey County, Calif., during a class devoted to public safety, school officials said in a statement. A male student was reported to have sustained non-life-threatening injuries."

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

This guy was trained and licensed and he still messed up and could have caused a tragedy. It could happen to anyone - but especially to someone in a profession that doesn't regularly use firearms.

Yep, you have me convinced. Take guns away from teachers so a mass murderer can kill a few dozen students with no resistance.

Once again, it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to kill off a mass murderer.

And again, 14 states already have armed teachers, another 16 allow it.....you have no point.

 

[Sahba]

Lol, anything involving the POTUS / VP is a really tricky & rather unique situation to make corollary example out of. Sheite, they grind to a halt all plains, trains & automobiles when the 'Da Man' be coming to town. POTUS's SS has unique carry supremacy in these situations and there is just nothing that comes close to being remotely tantamount to this situation when it comes to GFZ's in everyday life...

 

[XponentialChaos]

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Moron, one armed guard for a population of over 3,100 students, not including staff and 12 actual buildings on campus is not a place protected by guns.


And the threat against one man by one armed man before the secret service can react is completely different from someone shooting randomly into a crowd..... the fact that the NRA did allow people to carry guns at their convention is something you now have to ignore..since it makes your point pretty stupid....

I didn't say "protected by guns". I said "gun-free zone". I'll go through this slowly for you. The other poster said that the school was a "gun-free zone". You're saying that it was not a "gun-free zone". Once you two figure it out, let me know.

So guns at schools is good, but guns at NRA conventions where Pence gives a speech is bad. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Soft targets are not the same thing as GUN FREE ZONES.

ONE GUN on behalf of ONE OFFICER does not exactly prove your point.

That is still considered a SOFT TARGET. Do you, or do you not understand the difference?

What point? I'm just trying to understand what you guys consider a "gun-free zone".

Conservative poster: "Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone"

Is that bold statement true or not?

It was a SOFT TARGET. I am not getting jnto bullshit semantics with you. Mass shooters target SOFT TARGETS.

That is how it works. You mention that the odds are better that a teacher has an accidental shooting. Yes, that is generally true.

The point you refuse to get is if TRAINED TEACHERS are armed, it greatly reduces the odds that those schools will be targeted at all. That is what arming CERTAIN TEACHERS does.

Hey you're the one who brought up gun-free zones. Don't get mad at me when you can't even define them properly. Now to address your point:

There was an armed resource officer on campus. Not all schools have armed resource officers on campus.

If the shooter was intentionally seeking a target that's soft, he easily could have picked a softer target to inflict more damage.

I don't think the shooter was considering how many guns are on campus. I think he just wanted to shoot up his former high school.

 

[XponentialChaos]

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

You guys seriously need to get your stories straight here. The other poster was saying that this happened because this school was a gun-free zone. You're telling me that it's not a gun-free zone. Make up your minds and then get back to me.

So there weren't shootings there before, but when Pence comes in, they say that no guns are allowed. Why is that? What's the reasoning behind that decision? Do guns make locations safer or not? If they do make places safer, as was the case with this location never having a shooting incident, then why would they stop allowing them there while Pence was giving a speech?

Moron, one armed guard for a population of over 3,100 students, not including staff and 12 actual buildings on campus is not a place protected by guns.


And the threat against one man by one armed man before the secret service can react is completely different from someone shooting randomly into a crowd..... the fact that the NRA did allow people to carry guns at their convention is something you now have to ignore..since it makes your point pretty stupid....

I didn't say "protected by guns". I said "gun-free zone". I'll go through this slowly for you. The other poster said that the school was a "gun-free zone". You're saying that it was not a "gun-free zone". Once you two figure it out, let me know.

So guns at schools is good, but guns at NRA conventions where Pence gives a speech is bad. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

And you are a stupid human being. Two different security situations.....and you now know the NRA allowed concealed and open carry as did the Republican convention.....but keep playing at being stupid....

You're really having a hard time here. I should be getting paid for this.

Here, I bolded what you said and what the article says. Read it over slowly, multiple times and then get back to me.

firearms and firearm accessories, knives or weapons of any kind will be prohibited in the forum prior to and during his attendance."

No Guns Allowed During NRA Convention Speech By Trump, Pence

 

[XponentialChaos]

You think gun-free zones are less safe. Yet there were no guns allowed at a Pence/NRA convention held in Dallas a few months ago.

Explain this.

You are wrong...again.....the Republican convention allowed people to carry guns...the NRA convention also allowed people to carry guns....please do some basic research instead of just posting off the top of your head.

No Guns Allowed During NRA Convention Speech By Trump, Pence

Yes...moron, because the Secret Service was in control at that moment...the rest of the convention time concealed and open carry were allowed.... the threat of one man being targeted for murder is different from a mass shooter attacking a crowd....different threats, different measures....and again, the rest of the time NRA members walked around carrying their legal guns without a problem....

You really should stop taking those Stupid Pills....they aren't helping you....

So you're just going to back-pedal your claim now of "The Republican convention allowed people to carry guns." The link I posted directly contradicted this and now you're deflecting. Just deflect away from FACTS when your delicate feelings insist on being right.

That's adorable. No, no, go ahead and keep throwing around insults like "stupid pills". They're really helping your argument.

See ya.

Moron....I showed you that actual NRA site that gave the gun policy for the 2018 convention.... The onlly time it wasn't allowed was when Pence was on stage. You are stupid, you are either really stupid or pretending to be stupid to troll the question.......

Oh good! We're finally in agreement! Yes, guns were allowed at the convention, but they weren't allowed while Pence was speaking.

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I believe I said that it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to save the day by shooting a bad guy.

Do you believe this applies to all people who are screened, trained and licensed to carry a firearm? Or just teachers?

"A teacher who is also a reserve police officer trained in firearm use ‘accidentally’ discharged a gun Tuesday at Seaside High School in Monterey County, Calif., during a class devoted to public safety, school officials said in a statement. A male student was reported to have sustained non-life-threatening injuries."

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

This guy was trained and licensed and he still messed up and could have caused a tragedy. It could happen to anyone - but especially to someone in a profession that doesn't regularly use firearms.

Yep, you have me convinced. Take guns away from teachers so a mass murderer can kill a few dozen students with no resistance.

Once again, it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to kill off a mass murderer.

And again, 14 states already have armed teachers, another 16 allow it.....you have no point.

How many murderers have they stopped? How many accidental shots have

I believe I said that it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to save the day by shooting a bad guy.

Do you believe this applies to all people who are screened, trained and licensed to carry a firearm? Or just teachers?

"A teacher who is also a reserve police officer trained in firearm use ‘accidentally’ discharged a gun Tuesday at Seaside High School in Monterey County, Calif., during a class devoted to public safety, school officials said in a statement. A male student was reported to have sustained non-life-threatening injuries."

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

This guy was trained and licensed and he still messed up and could have caused a tragedy. It could happen to anyone - but especially to someone in a profession that doesn't regularly use firearms.

Yep, you have me convinced. Take guns away from teachers so a mass murderer can kill a few dozen students with no resistance.

Once again, it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to kill off a mass murderer.

And again, 14 states already have armed teachers, another 16 allow it.....you have no point.

That doesn't counter my argument. Read it again. Slowly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

Maybe you should read more replies before posting. I already explained this to you.

 

[jwoodie]

Once again, it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to kill off a mass murderer.

Once again, you compare accidentally discharging a gun with killing a mass murderer.

Apples and oranges - Wikipedia

A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared.

P.S. Repeating oneself is a sign of mental infirmity.

 

[KissMy]

You are 1,000 times more likely to get shot in the USA than in Singapore. But guns keep you safe. - LOL Repubtards are deluded!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are 1,000 times more likely to get shot in the USA than in Singapore. But guns keep you safe. - LOL Repubtards are deluded!

I don't think Singapore has any Democrats there.

 

[KissMy]

Guns were allowed at my school & it did not prevent others & I from being held & threatened at gunpoint while pissing in restroom. Guns were openly displayed in gun-racks, display cases & hidden in lockers.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

Maybe you should read more replies before posting. I already explained this to you.

I don't see it in the last few pages. Maybe I missed it?

Go ahead. What's your answer?