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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

wrong..... there are lots of guns in there.....as he pointed out the SS and police. When the Vice President isn't there, those cops and SS go with him. A gun free zone attracts mass shooters...we know this from actual research, actual statements from mass shooters and from their notes..... this is a fact, you can't lie about it.

You guys seriously need to have a meeting and figure out the definition of a "gun-free zone". Some conservatives here are saying that it means there are no guns at all. Other conservatives are saying that it means that only law enforcement/security can carry guns there.

I'm cool with whatever definition you guys collectively decide. But Jesus, figure it out already. With as much time as you guys spend talking about "gun-free zones", you'd think you guys would at least know what they are. This shouldn't be this difficult.

Get back to me and let me know what you decide.

They can’t define it because there is no such thing as a ‘gun free zone.’

That a private property owner might designate his property to be ‘gun free’ doesn’t mean it is.

Private citizens licensed to carry concealed firearms carry guns in ‘gun free zones’ all the time; the property owner doesn’t know his patrons are carrying guns because the guns are concealed.

In venues where guns are prohibited by law – such as courthouses, police stations, and airports – government provides adequate armed security.

They myth of ‘gun free zones’ is just another example of rightwing ignorance, demagoguery, and dishonesty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Anyone who advocates for arming teachers is clearly ignorant of handgun shooting and has never shot a pistol before.

Those familiar with handgun shooting and pistols correctly understand that it takes years of training and practice to become proficient and accurate with a pistol; indeed, even after years of practice and training most are barely competent with a pistol.

Understanding how to properly sight a pistol, grip a pistol, and manage recoil and the reciprocating slide takes years to develop and master.

The training a teacher receives will not adequately prepare him to respond to an emergency – shooting at a stationary target at seven yards does not prepare one for a live shooting event, where an armed teacher will lack the ability to be accurate with his pistol, likely to miss the active shooter and instead injure or kill innocent bystanders.

Advocating for arming school teachers is ignorant, reckless and irresponsible.

The ignorance is coming from you.

The VERY FIRST thing you learn in firearms training is called Downrange. What does that mean? It means never fire your weapon unless there is nobody behind your target.

Even those proficient at firearm target practice are seldom prepared for an emergency situation no matter how much training you have. Cardboard targets don't shoot back at you; that's the second thing you are taught.

When people are screaming and running all over the place, your adrenaline is pumping, bullets flying into God knows where, you don't stand there in the open breathe calmly and focusing on your target.

An armed teachers first responsibility is to protect the children in his class. That means if the shooter opens that door and enters, the teacher has the ability to defend himself and his students. Without a gun, you are just sitting ducks praying you only get injured and not killed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the law is a deterrent.

Ding ,ding, ding!!! We have a winner!!! Laws regarding guns act as deterrents just like laws regarding rape. Get it now?

Regarding making guns illegal, I never proposed that and I honestly don't know how that even came up. You went into bumper sticker slogan auto-pilot arguing against something that nobody is proposing.

Very well.......then just what are you proposing?

I'm not interested in proposing anything. It's the same song and dance every time. Someone proposes X gun reform and a swarm of conservatives give the exact same bumper sticker talking points to reject X. Look, I don't even have to propose anything and you go right into auto-pilot arguing against things I never said.

Show me a proposal that would have did something and I'd be glad to look at it. But I stay in tune with what Democrats have to offer, and it's nothing more than attempts to take steps on disarming society.

Thanks for proving my point. Look at these two consecutive sentences of yours. You'll gladly take a look at something and then you're going to dismiss it as attempts to disarm society.

You're entirely close-minded to anything related to gun control because you will just dismiss it with your paranoid "Thar coming fer our guns!!!". And even though I haven't proposed anything, you still go into auto-pilot arguing against the things I never even proposed.

That's because I can only assume given your reluctance to tell me what you propose. I'm taking by your questioning that you are not a pro-gun individual. Furthermore I said I would take a look at any proposal that would work. All the proposals I've seen thus far are nothing but reactionary and not pragmatic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bumper sticker slogans? How about comparisons?

Recreational narcotics have been illegal my entire life. Yet today, we have record amounts of OD deaths in the US. Even more that have been saved with new drugs such as Narcan[emoji768].

The reason we got rid of alcohol prohibition is that it didn't work and ended up killing more people from manufactured alcohol by amateurs.

The bottom line is that no matter what you make illegal, if it's a desired product, the bad people will always get them. It only stops good people from getting them.

Why make anything illegal then? Why have any laws at all if "bad people" will always find a way to break those laws anyway?

Laws restrict and control most from committing crime, however those laws have no negative affect on law abiding citizens. Making laws against guns do. A rapist will always rape and a thief will always steal. Laws penalize those people when they commit such crimes without penalizing the average citizen at the same time.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

You're doing a whole lot of tap-dancing here. Let's simplify this.

If a rapist is going to rape regardless of what the law says, then why do we have laws against rape?

Mass shooters who have been captured, and from the notes when they are killed state they target gun free zones. Since mass public shootings are a tiny number of the over all gun murder rate....barely 75 people murdered by mass public shooters in any given year vs. the 11,004 murdered by other criminals...... gun murder by other criminals going down is more relevant than mass public shooters. And the remedy for those few public shooters is to end gun free zones.

Did gun murder go down after gun-free zones were implemented or not?

That's a ridiculous question because before states started to implement CCW laws, everyplace was a gun-free zone. Gun free zones came up because most places became a gun permissible zones after adopting CCW laws.

I was just using his reasoning against him. He's arguing that murder rates went down when more guns were purchased.

Well, murder rate also went down since gun-free zones were established. Get back to me when you guys can establish a cause/effect relationship. Otherwise I'm just going to use your same ridiculous reasoning against you.

that in fact, as more Americans own and carry guns, the gun crime and gun murder rates went down, showing that the anti gunner argument for banning guns is completely wrong.

Oh good, let's keep playing this game.

Since the Brady Act was passed, the murder rate has gone down. Therefore background checks are good and we should do more background checks.

It was going down before the Brady bill and after Congress allowed it to expire six years ago. That's why it was determined to be ineffective.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's a ridiculous question because before states started to implement CCW laws, everyplace was a gun-free zone. Gun free zones came up because most places became a gun permissible zones after adopting CCW laws.

I was just using his reasoning against him. He's arguing that murder rates went down when more guns were purchased.

Well, murder rate also went down since gun-free zones were established. Get back to me when you guys can establish a cause/effect relationship. Otherwise I'm just going to use your same ridiculous reasoning against you.

No, as I pointed out, murder rates went down as gun-free zones were diminished. If a state had no CCW program, then then entire state was a gun-free zone. After they adopted a CCW program, a fraction of that state became a gun-free zone; let's say 20% (an arbitrary number).

So 100% gun-free zone, murder and gun crimes were up. 20% gun-free zone, murder and violent crimes decreased. The argument you are trying to make is working against you in numbers.

Still waiting for that cause/effect relationship...You can try to reason all you want, but it's still a fact.

Fact: gun deaths have gone down since gun-free zones were passed.

Also a fact: Gun deaths have gone down since Bill Clinton passed the Brady Act which required mandatory federal background checks on firearm purchases.

See? I can do it too.

I did give you cause/ effect relationship but you refuse to understand.

As I pointed out, before it was legal to carry guns in states that didn't have a program, the entire state was gun-free. Afterwards, a small percentage of a state was gun free and crime went down.

Then you don't understand how cause and effect works. Nowhere do you say that crime went down BECAUSE of the changes made.

I can do that too. Gun crime has gone down since the Brady Act was passed.

Nobody can come up with concrete evidence either way. However with the growth of more states adopting CCW laws, it's proportional to the reduction of gun crime and murders. Suicides not included of course.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the law is a deterrent.

Ding ,ding, ding!!! We have a winner!!! Laws regarding guns act as deterrents just like laws regarding rape. Get it now?

Regarding making guns illegal, I never proposed that and I honestly don't know how that even came up. You went into bumper sticker slogan auto-pilot arguing against something that nobody is proposing.

Very well.......then just what are you proposing?

I'm not interested in proposing anything. It's the same song and dance every time. Someone proposes X gun reform and a swarm of conservatives give the exact same bumper sticker talking points to reject X. Look, I don't even have to propose anything and you go right into auto-pilot arguing against things I never said.

No, it's just we won't accept new laws that only impact the average law abiding citizen. Show me a proposal that would have did something and I'd be glad to look at it. But I stay in tune with what Democrats have to offer, and it's nothing more than attempts to take steps on disarming society.

Take a look at where some of these horrific murders take place. It's in places like Chicago and California where they have the strictest gun laws.

You have to understand the politics in all this: Democrats are control freaks. They have bases that they can expect to come out and vote for them. The two biggest ones are government dependents and victims. If we could ever rid our society of either, there would be no Democrat party.

So of course the key to success is to create more government dependents and victims. For instance between Commie Care and food stamps alone, DumBama created 40 million more new government dependents, and the Democrat party is so proud of that. Victims? Everybody is a victim as far as Democrats are concerned: Victim of Big Corporations, victims of Big Pharma, victims of Big Oil, Victims of the NRA, victims, victims, victims.

So the push behind disarming the public is to create more victims. So how would we as a disarmed society be able to fight Big Crime? The same way they say they are fighting every other Big thing, and that is with a bigger federal government.

This is also why the democrats fight any legislation that will increase prison sentences for violent, repeat gun offenders.....

Democrats like criminals in the street. The more criminals, the more people need government.

Right now we have an issue on election day to amend our state Constitution. This would allow hard addicts to get a misdemeanor for heroin, crack, cocaine and fentanyl. The proposal is under 20 grams of fentanyl, it's simply a traffic ticket. You go to the window and pay it like a speeding ticket. So what is 19 grams of fentanyl? It's enough to kill over 10,000 people, and the leftists want to make that a slap on the wrist.

From what I read, it's been promoted and supported by a Soros funded group. What that would do is invite fentanyl makers from around the country to come to Ohio. That means many more OD deaths, many more people getting hooked, and of course more crime in the streets. The lie is they are wording it as to exchange prison time for rehabilitation time; much shorter time I assure you.

I don't think it will pass, but you never know because many just look at the levy and go by how it is written instead of looking into the proposal.

 

[2aguy]

Bumper sticker slogans? How about comparisons?

Recreational narcotics have been illegal my entire life. Yet today, we have record amounts of OD deaths in the US. Even more that have been saved with new drugs such as Narcan[emoji768].

The reason we got rid of alcohol prohibition is that it didn't work and ended up killing more people from manufactured alcohol by amateurs.

The bottom line is that no matter what you make illegal, if it's a desired product, the bad people will always get them. It only stops good people from getting them.

Why make anything illegal then? Why have any laws at all if "bad people" will always find a way to break those laws anyway?

Laws restrict and control most from committing crime, however those laws have no negative affect on law abiding citizens. Making laws against guns do. A rapist will always rape and a thief will always steal. Laws penalize those people when they commit such crimes without penalizing the average citizen at the same time.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

You're doing a whole lot of tap-dancing here. Let's simplify this.

If a rapist is going to rape regardless of what the law says, then why do we have laws against rape?

Mass shooters who have been captured, and from the notes when they are killed state they target gun free zones. Since mass public shootings are a tiny number of the over all gun murder rate....barely 75 people murdered by mass public shooters in any given year vs. the 11,004 murdered by other criminals...... gun murder by other criminals going down is more relevant than mass public shooters. And the remedy for those few public shooters is to end gun free zones.

Did gun murder go down after gun-free zones were implemented or not?

That's a ridiculous question because before states started to implement CCW laws, everyplace was a gun-free zone. Gun free zones came up because most places became a gun permissible zones after adopting CCW laws.

I was just using his reasoning against him. He's arguing that murder rates went down when more guns were purchased.

Well, murder rate also went down since gun-free zones were established. Get back to me when you guys can establish a cause/effect relationship. Otherwise I'm just going to use your same ridiculous reasoning against you.

that in fact, as more Americans own and carry guns, the gun crime and gun murder rates went down, showing that the anti gunner argument for banning guns is completely wrong.

Oh good, let's keep playing this game.

Since the Brady Act was passed, the murder rate has gone down. Therefore background checks are good and we should do more background checks.

Wrong.....I can show you through facts that background checks do not lower the gun crime or gun murder rate, I can also show you studies that can show the crime rates going down as more Americans own and carry guns....

Criminals by pass the background checks of the Brady act by using straw buyers or stealing guns. Armed Americans actually stop rapes, robberies and murders with their legal guns, thus, lowering the gun crime rate.

You can't support your point, I just supported mine...

 

[2aguy]

That's a ridiculous question because before states started to implement CCW laws, everyplace was a gun-free zone. Gun free zones came up because most places became a gun permissible zones after adopting CCW laws.

I was just using his reasoning against him. He's arguing that murder rates went down when more guns were purchased.

Well, murder rate also went down since gun-free zones were established. Get back to me when you guys can establish a cause/effect relationship. Otherwise I'm just going to use your same ridiculous reasoning against you.

No, as I pointed out, murder rates went down as gun-free zones were diminished. If a state had no CCW program, then then entire state was a gun-free zone. After they adopted a CCW program, a fraction of that state became a gun-free zone; let's say 20% (an arbitrary number).

So 100% gun-free zone, murder and gun crimes were up. 20% gun-free zone, murder and violent crimes decreased. The argument you are trying to make is working against you in numbers.

Still waiting for that cause/effect relationship...You can try to reason all you want, but it's still a fact.

Fact: gun deaths have gone down since gun-free zones were passed.

Also a fact: Gun deaths have gone down since Bill Clinton passed the Brady Act which required mandatory federal background checks on firearm purchases.

See? I can do it too.

Nope..... you have to show us that gun free zones caused the reduction...

Ha! I have to show that gun free zones caused the reduction but you're allowed to just say that there are less deaths because there are more guns.

Brilliant logic there.

Nope..... gun free zones are pointed out in the confessions and notes of mass shooters.....who kill about 75 people a year.... while the other 10,985 gun murders are by criminals who get their guns illegally.

 

[2aguy]

Anyone who advocates for arming teachers is clearly ignorant of handgun shooting and has never shot a pistol before.

Those familiar with handgun shooting and pistols correctly understand that it takes years of training and practice to become proficient and accurate with a pistol; indeed, even after years of practice and training most are barely competent with a pistol.

Understanding how to properly sight a pistol, grip a pistol, and manage recoil and the reciprocating slide takes years to develop and master.

The training a teacher receives will not adequately prepare him to respond to an emergency – shooting at a stationary target at seven yards does not prepare one for a live shooting event, where an armed teacher will lack the ability to be accurate with his pistol, likely to miss the active shooter and instead injure or kill innocent bystanders.

Advocating for arming school teachers is ignorant, reckless and irresponsible.

And anyone who is you, demonstrates their ignorance with every post....there are already 14 states that already have armed teachers and another 16 where it is allowed.... making your post silly........

And from actual mass public shootings we know that as soon as you confront the shooter with a gun, they surrender, run away or commit suicide...so we are not talking about teachers having to become close quarter combat experts like Navy SEALs or Delta Force operators...we are talking about people who simply need to know basic gun safety and basic gun handling, so that if there is a shooter, they can confront the attacker and force them into one of the 3 outcomes.....

That is where you show you don't understand what you are talking about.