Mass shooters target gun-free zones

[koshergrl]

Mass shooters target "gun free zones" because almost every public place with lots of targets in this country is a "gun free zone".

Nobody has shot up this school yet:

"Some teachers and staff in the Harrold, Texas, school district where Thweatt is superintendent carry concealed guns in the school as the last line of defense in the event of a shooting on campus.
"The town is 30 miles from the nearest law enforcement agency.
"Thweatt sees his job not only as an educator, but also a protector of the 120 or so kindergarten through 12th grade students in his care.
"In the wake of several major school shootings around the country, his school district passed the first-of-its-kind concealed handgun policy in 2007, aiming to provide protection for students in case of an active shooter. They called it the Guardian Plan."

Teachers with Guns

No one has shot up any of the schools that I went to, or knew people at, either - and all of them were "gun free zones".

So we agree that children at schools should be protected from the rampant gun abuse in our country.

Oh wait, you didn't agree. You think they should just be shot to bits while people on the sidelines wring their hands and wait for the cavalry.

I don't think that "gun abuse" in our schools is "rampant" enough to justify any hysterical reactionary responses - I agree with neither the calls to ban guns, nor the calls to arm teachers.

So you don't stand for much of anything at all.

Got it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Typical liberal...their bullshit gets shot down in another thread so they try it in another.

Nope it works in every thread. I believe we have more mass shootings than the next like 10 - 15 countries combined. Something you must be very proud of.

There are many countries you can get firearms more easily.
But of course you know that which is why you changed your spiel.

And of course you also know if we got rid of ghetto violence our murder rate would plummet.

No there aren't. We have by far the most guns of any country in the world. And we have no idea where most of them are.

Really? So no country on the planet has access to guns like we do?
And you refuse to address the fact that if we cleaned up the ghetto our murder rate would be the envy of the world.

In no country on the planet is it EASIER for a criminal to get a gun. Don't change my words.

You cant even remember your own posts.

"It is easier for a mass shooter to get a gun in this country than any other country on the planet."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Mass shooters target "gun free zones" because almost every public place with lots of targets in this country is a "gun free zone".

Nobody has shot up this school yet:

"Some teachers and staff in the Harrold, Texas, school district where Thweatt is superintendent carry concealed guns in the school as the last line of defense in the event of a shooting on campus.
"The town is 30 miles from the nearest law enforcement agency.
"Thweatt sees his job not only as an educator, but also a protector of the 120 or so kindergarten through 12th grade students in his care.
"In the wake of several major school shootings around the country, his school district passed the first-of-its-kind concealed handgun policy in 2007, aiming to provide protection for students in case of an active shooter. They called it the Guardian Plan."

Teachers with Guns

No one has shot up any of the schools that I went to, or knew people at, either - and all of them were "gun free zones".

So we agree that children at schools should be protected from the rampant gun abuse in our country.

Oh wait, you didn't agree. You think they should just be shot to bits while people on the sidelines wring their hands and wait for the cavalry.

I don't think that "gun abuse" in our schools is "rampant" enough to justify any hysterical reactionary responses - I agree with neither the calls to ban guns, nor the calls to arm teachers.

So you don't stand for much of anything at all.

Got it.

From my perspective, what I stand for is stronger because I don't change them due to hysterical and emotional reactions to tragedy.

But you are welcome to your own deluded perspective.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Typical liberal...their bullshit gets shot down in another thread so they try it in another.

Nope it works in every thread. I believe we have more mass shootings than the next like 10 - 15 countries combined. Something you must be very proud of.

There are many countries you can get firearms more easily.
But of course you know that which is why you changed your spiel.

And of course you also know if we got rid of ghetto violence our murder rate would plummet.

Aside from the third world, there is nowhere in the world where it is easier to get a gun than it is in parts of the US.

There really is no legitimate argument about that.

Even in the 3rd world, if a criminal wants to get a gun they have to walk into the dangerous underworld of the black market, overpay for a shoddy old gun, and have a limited amount of ammo.

In the U.S., you just drive to Wal-Mart.

One of my favorite arguments by the gun crazies is that everyone in London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Geneva, Berlin, Munich, Brussels, Sophia, Warsaw, etc... who has an itch to murder someone knows where this supposed "black market" is and has a guy they can call up to deliver any weapon they want immediately!!!!

I'm almost 40 years old. I have zero idea how to access the black market to buy a DVD of the new Hunger Games movie.

It's almost as if you have to have a degree in nonsense to have a conversation with the gun crazies.

I could easily find an illegal firearm.
It all boils down to how big of a risk you want to take to get one.
For you I'd imagine it would be more dangerous because of the part of town you'd have to enter. For the locals it's cake.

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody has shot up this school yet:

"Some teachers and staff in the Harrold, Texas, school district where Thweatt is superintendent carry concealed guns in the school as the last line of defense in the event of a shooting on campus.
"The town is 30 miles from the nearest law enforcement agency.
"Thweatt sees his job not only as an educator, but also a protector of the 120 or so kindergarten through 12th grade students in his care.
"In the wake of several major school shootings around the country, his school district passed the first-of-its-kind concealed handgun policy in 2007, aiming to provide protection for students in case of an active shooter. They called it the Guardian Plan."

Teachers with Guns

No one has shot up any of the schools that I went to, or knew people at, either - and all of them were "gun free zones".

So we agree that children at schools should be protected from the rampant gun abuse in our country.

Oh wait, you didn't agree. You think they should just be shot to bits while people on the sidelines wring their hands and wait for the cavalry.

I don't think that "gun abuse" in our schools is "rampant" enough to justify any hysterical reactionary responses - I agree with neither the calls to ban guns, nor the calls to arm teachers.

So you don't stand for much of anything at all.

Got it.

From my perspective, what I stand for is stronger because I don't change them due to hysterical and emotional reactions to tragedy.

But you are welcome to your own deluded perspective.

You don't stand for anything. All you do is namby pamby about, arguing without ever actually contributing anything to the conversation.

You don't agree, you don't disagree. Worthless.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No one has shot up any of the schools that I went to, or knew people at, either - and all of them were "gun free zones".

So we agree that children at schools should be protected from the rampant gun abuse in our country.

Oh wait, you didn't agree. You think they should just be shot to bits while people on the sidelines wring their hands and wait for the cavalry.

I don't think that "gun abuse" in our schools is "rampant" enough to justify any hysterical reactionary responses - I agree with neither the calls to ban guns, nor the calls to arm teachers.

So you don't stand for much of anything at all.

Got it.

From my perspective, what I stand for is stronger because I don't change them due to hysterical and emotional reactions to tragedy.

But you are welcome to your own deluded perspective.

You don't stand for anything. All you do is namby pamby about, arguing without ever actually contributing anything to the conversation.

You don't agree, you don't disagree. Worthless.

So you're upset that I'm not as blindly ideological as you are?

 

[koshergrl]

So we agree that children at schools should be protected from the rampant gun abuse in our country.

Oh wait, you didn't agree. You think they should just be shot to bits while people on the sidelines wring their hands and wait for the cavalry.

I don't think that "gun abuse" in our schools is "rampant" enough to justify any hysterical reactionary responses - I agree with neither the calls to ban guns, nor the calls to arm teachers.

So you don't stand for much of anything at all.

Got it.

From my perspective, what I stand for is stronger because I don't change them due to hysterical and emotional reactions to tragedy.

But you are welcome to your own deluded perspective.

You don't stand for anything. All you do is namby pamby about, arguing without ever actually contributing anything to the conversation.

You don't agree, you don't disagree. Worthless.

So you're upset that I'm not as blindly ideological as you are?

No, I just don't know why you post, if you have nothing to say. It's a waste of space and time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't think that "gun abuse" in our schools is "rampant" enough to justify any hysterical reactionary responses - I agree with neither the calls to ban guns, nor the calls to arm teachers.

So you don't stand for much of anything at all.

Got it.

From my perspective, what I stand for is stronger because I don't change them due to hysterical and emotional reactions to tragedy.

But you are welcome to your own deluded perspective.

You don't stand for anything. All you do is namby pamby about, arguing without ever actually contributing anything to the conversation.

You don't agree, you don't disagree. Worthless.

So you're upset that I'm not as blindly ideological as you are?

No, I just don't know why you post, if you have nothing to say. It's a waste of space and time.

It's safe to say that none of us know why you post here, either - you've made it clear how much you dislike the posters and staff here, and God know we all think you're a **** too - yet you post on.

As for the rest of your post, your charges of being a "waste of space and time" are thrown into question by your own compulsive need to respond to me.

 

[koshergrl]

So you don't stand for much of anything at all.

Got it.

From my perspective, what I stand for is stronger because I don't change them due to hysterical and emotional reactions to tragedy.

But you are welcome to your own deluded perspective.

You don't stand for anything. All you do is namby pamby about, arguing without ever actually contributing anything to the conversation.

You don't agree, you don't disagree. Worthless.

So you're upset that I'm not as blindly ideological as you are?

No, I just don't know why you post, if you have nothing to say. It's a waste of space and time.

It's safe to say that none of us know why you post here, either - you've made it clear how much you dislike the posters and staff here, and God know we all think you're a **** too - yet you post on.

As for the rest of your post, your charges of being a "waste of space and time" are thrown into question by your own compulsive need to respond to me.

I would ignore you if I could, believe me.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

From my perspective, what I stand for is stronger because I don't change them due to hysterical and emotional reactions to tragedy.

But you are welcome to your own deluded perspective.

You don't stand for anything. All you do is namby pamby about, arguing without ever actually contributing anything to the conversation.

You don't agree, you don't disagree. Worthless.

So you're upset that I'm not as blindly ideological as you are?

No, I just don't know why you post, if you have nothing to say. It's a waste of space and time.

It's safe to say that none of us know why you post here, either - you've made it clear how much you dislike the posters and staff here, and God know we all think you're a **** too - yet you post on.

As for the rest of your post, your charges of being a "waste of space and time" are thrown into question by your own compulsive need to respond to me.

I would ignore you if I could, believe me.

What's stopping you?

Are you incapable of simply scrolling past my posts without the software blocking it out for you?

 

[koshergrl]

You don't stand for anything. All you do is namby pamby about, arguing without ever actually contributing anything to the conversation.

You don't agree, you don't disagree. Worthless.

So you're upset that I'm not as blindly ideological as you are?

No, I just don't know why you post, if you have nothing to say. It's a waste of space and time.

It's safe to say that none of us know why you post here, either - you've made it clear how much you dislike the posters and staff here, and God know we all think you're a **** too - yet you post on.

As for the rest of your post, your charges of being a "waste of space and time" are thrown into question by your own compulsive need to respond to me.

I would ignore you if I could, believe me.

What's stopping you?

Are you incapable of simply scrolling past my posts without the software blocking it out for you?

You quote my posts continually, and since you're a mod, I can't stop your stupid name from popping up repeatedly in my alert drop down.

 

[OnePercenter]

This is why we need more police on campuses.

 

[FA_Q2]

Gun free zones don't infringe on the right to carry a concealed weapon...does it?

My understanding is that if you committ a crime in a gun free zone, the penalties are increased.

Another thing I hope somebody can clear up...I understand there were several people on campus that were carrying concealed weapons with valid permits.......I think it sucks they locked those people down. They sould be able to waive the lockdown procedures if someone is armed. Maybe they could have gotten off a shot at the killer. Of course that would be optional for the carrier

!

Why? You do not go hunting for the shooter - that is a bad idea. There is a clear difference in defending yourself and those around you and going on a vigilante hunt.

But the best remedy for a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Theoption to go get the bad guy should be available. Nobody woould prosecute you...unless you pull a Zimmerman.

In truth, they can do this now. A 'policy' does not stop anything.

I am inherently against the idea that people would be effective in 'hunting' the bad guy - you lose all advantages when you do so and may become a bigger risk to first responders. You don't hear about people doing so that often as well because most CC holders understand this.

 

[FA_Q2]

Typical liberal...their bullshit gets shot down in another thread so they try it in another.

Nope it works in every thread. I believe we have more mass shootings than the next like 10 - 15 countries combined. Something you must be very proud of.

There are many countries you can get firearms more easily.
But of course you know that which is why you changed your spiel.

And of course you also know if we got rid of ghetto violence our murder rate would plummet.

Aside from the third world, there is nowhere in the world where it is easier to get a gun than it is in parts of the US.

There really is no legitimate argument about that.

Even in the 3rd world, if a criminal wants to get a gun they have to walk into the dangerous underworld of the black market, overpay for a shoddy old gun, and have a limited amount of ammo.

In the U.S., you just drive to Wal-Mart.

One of my favorite arguments by the gun crazies is that everyone in London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Geneva, Berlin, Munich, Brussels, Sophia, Warsaw, etc... who has an itch to murder someone knows where this supposed "black market" is and has a guy they can call up to deliver any weapon they want immediately!!!!

I'm almost 40 years old. I have zero idea how to access the black market to buy a DVD of the new Hunger Games movie.

It's almost as if you have to have a degree in nonsense to have a conversation with the gun crazies.

You don't need a degree in nonsense - instead you simply have to stop fighting straw men and actually LISTEN to what people support rather than what you think they say.

A criminal that wants to kill will find a way weather that is obtaining a weapon (which you do not know how to do because you are not TRYING TO) or the use of another implement.

 

[toxicmedia]

Gun free zones don't infringe on the right to carry a concealed weapon...does it?

My understanding is that if you committ a crime in a gun free zone, the penalties are increased.

Another thing I hope somebody can clear up...I understand there were several people on campus that were carrying concealed weapons with valid permits.......I think it sucks they locked those people down. They sould be able to waive the lockdown procedures if someone is armed. Maybe they could have gotten off a shot at the killer. Of course that would be optional for the carrier

!

Why? You do not go hunting for the shooter - that is a bad idea. There is a clear difference in defending yourself and those around you and going on a vigilante hunt.

But the best remedy for a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Theoption to go get the bad guy should be available. Nobody woould prosecute you...unless you pull a Zimmerman.

In truth, they can do this now. A 'policy' does not stop anything.

I am inherently against the idea that people would be effective in 'hunting' the bad guy - you lose all advantages when you do so and may become a bigger risk to first responders. You don't hear about people doing so that often as well because most CC holders understand this.

Alright well I now DO understand that "gun free zones" are only meat to keep people from committing gun related crimes in those areas

 

[FA_Q2]

Mass shooters target "gun free zones" because almost every public place with lots of targets in this country is a "gun free zone".

Nobody has shot up this school yet:

"Some teachers and staff in the Harrold, Texas, school district where Thweatt is superintendent carry concealed guns in the school as the last line of defense in the event of a shooting on campus.
"The town is 30 miles from the nearest law enforcement agency.
"Thweatt sees his job not only as an educator, but also a protector of the 120 or so kindergarten through 12th grade students in his care.
"In the wake of several major school shootings around the country, his school district passed the first-of-its-kind concealed handgun policy in 2007, aiming to provide protection for students in case of an active shooter. They called it the Guardian Plan."

Teachers with Guns

No one has shot up any of the schools that I went to, or knew people at, either - and all of them were "gun free zones".

So we agree that children at schools should be protected from the rampant gun abuse in our country.

Oh wait, you didn't agree. You think they should just be shot to bits while people on the sidelines wring their hands and wait for the cavalry.

I don't think that "gun abuse" in our schools is "rampant" enough to justify any hysterical reactionary responses - I agree with neither the calls to ban guns, nor the calls to arm teachers.

There are not a whole lot of people calling to arm teacher (they exist but are not the thrust of the point or all that popular). Instead, most recognize that we would be better off if teachers were able to arm THEMSELVES. There is little functional difference between putting an armed guard on campus and allowing a responsible teacher with a CC permit to carry. I do not see the issue with something like this.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Gun-Free Zones are a FAILURE. Imagine if a terrorist or deranged mass shooter had to think that they might not accomplish their goal if responsible gun owners might be among the crowd to take him or her out? Gun-Free Zones sends a message to the terrorist or mass shooter that a Gun Free Zone is really meant to keep lawful gun owners from bringing their gun. Simply, it is a medium for the Left to tell everyone "We Don't Like Guns." Whether you like guns or not, a firearm is ultimately going to be the deterrent to the shooter.

 

[FA_Q2]

Good thing there was an armed and trained man at the site of the Oregon shooting.

It is easier for a mass shooter to get a gun in this country than any other country on the planet.

So why do we advertise the vulnerability of our schools?

In fact, why does this country even have gun laws anyways?

Because an appeal to extremes does not a counter argument make...

 

[koshergrl]

Mass shooters target "gun free zones" because almost every public place with lots of targets in this country is a "gun free zone".

Nobody has shot up this school yet:

"Some teachers and staff in the Harrold, Texas, school district where Thweatt is superintendent carry concealed guns in the school as the last line of defense in the event of a shooting on campus.
"The town is 30 miles from the nearest law enforcement agency.
"Thweatt sees his job not only as an educator, but also a protector of the 120 or so kindergarten through 12th grade students in his care.
"In the wake of several major school shootings around the country, his school district passed the first-of-its-kind concealed handgun policy in 2007, aiming to provide protection for students in case of an active shooter. They called it the Guardian Plan."

Teachers with Guns

No one has shot up any of the schools that I went to, or knew people at, either - and all of them were "gun free zones".

So we agree that children at schools should be protected from the rampant gun abuse in our country.

Oh wait, you didn't agree. You think they should just be shot to bits while people on the sidelines wring their hands and wait for the cavalry.

I don't think that "gun abuse" in our schools is "rampant" enough to justify any hysterical reactionary responses - I agree with neither the calls to ban guns, nor the calls to arm teachers.

There are not a whole lot of people calling to arm teacher (they exist but are not the thrust of the point or all that popular). Instead, most recognize that we would be better off if teachers were able to arm THEMSELVES. There is little functional difference between putting an armed guard on campus and allowing a responsible teacher with a CC permit to carry. I do not see the issue with something like this.

The issue is, if they are able to defend themselves, they will be able to defend the children, and the mass shootings of kids would stop. And if those mass shootings stop, the gun grabbers don't have a justification for taking our guns.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nobody has shot up this school yet:

"Some teachers and staff in the Harrold, Texas, school district where Thweatt is superintendent carry concealed guns in the school as the last line of defense in the event of a shooting on campus.
"The town is 30 miles from the nearest law enforcement agency.
"Thweatt sees his job not only as an educator, but also a protector of the 120 or so kindergarten through 12th grade students in his care.
"In the wake of several major school shootings around the country, his school district passed the first-of-its-kind concealed handgun policy in 2007, aiming to provide protection for students in case of an active shooter. They called it the Guardian Plan."

Teachers with Guns

No one has shot up any of the schools that I went to, or knew people at, either - and all of them were "gun free zones".

So we agree that children at schools should be protected from the rampant gun abuse in our country.

Oh wait, you didn't agree. You think they should just be shot to bits while people on the sidelines wring their hands and wait for the cavalry.

I don't think that "gun abuse" in our schools is "rampant" enough to justify any hysterical reactionary responses - I agree with neither the calls to ban guns, nor the calls to arm teachers.

There are not a whole lot of people calling to arm teacher (they exist but are not the thrust of the point or all that popular). Instead, most recognize that we would be better off if teachers were able to arm THEMSELVES. There is little functional difference between putting an armed guard on campus and allowing a responsible teacher with a CC permit to carry. I do not see the issue with something like this.

The issue is, if they are able to defend themselves, they will be able to defend the children, and the mass shootings of kids would stop. And if those mass shootings stop, the gun grabbers don't have a justification for taking our guns.

No, the gun grabbers are not evil. They truly believe that they are trying to do what is best. The problem is that their belief is run by emotional knee jerk reactions and ignoring any hard data on the subject.

We do this all over the country - pass law and policy that is engendered to make us fell like we have done something to make us safer while not accomplishing anything at all. My local grade school does this. They have this strict policy that the doors need to be locked at all times and adults are buzzed in by the office. You cannot move around in the school without an office secretary escorting you. This makes the parents feel like their children are safer from such things like mass shootings.

In reality, those measures do nothing at all. If I wanted entry not only would they openly grant it but the 'escort' would be nothing more than the first casualty. Silly protocols so everyone gets a warm fuzzy. the very concept is disheartening.