How many people do you think the Oregon shooter would have killed if some of his victims were armed?
The American Sniper, Chris Kyle, was armed when he got shot. Him and his buddy even sent text messages about watching each others back because the shooter was bonkers. If a sharp shooter can't protect himself while armed, I don't see how college students are going to do any better.
If you are suggesting arming all students, then I would have to wonder if you are mentally ill.
I think it would be just a ridiculous to arm all teachers.
We do need to tighten security at all schools and colleges, so maybe the NRA can put on a bake sale to help cover those costs.
So your standard is that if anyone with a gun gets shot then guns are useless for defense. There you go, liberal intelligence, an oxymoron, or just a moron, either way.
What does "tighten security" mean?
I'm saying that even if armed, there's no guarantee. Saturating this country with even more guns is not the answer.
What a contentless post. Get back to your selfies
I can name numerous instances of when a gun would not have done the victims any good.
Now I'll let you get back to the re-run in your head of The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.
I see, one anecdotal argument may not be relevant, but several anecdotal arguments are?
The fact is that most uses of guns for defense, they are not fired. So seriously, with the shootings of dozens of people by one gunman, it makes you feel safer to not have a gun because you have a list of examples where it wouldn't have helped?