What if the newly armed teacher shoots the wrong kid? "Oops?"

[westwall]

What if you fired shots in order to protect your children but only managed to shoot innocent bystanders

Does that still make it okay?

No, it doesn't. However, if you killed the bad guy and prevented him from killing everyone...would that be a good thing? Or a bad thing?

And if you did kill the bad guy but killed one innocent person as you did?

I would never fire a gun at a person because the risk of injuring or killing a bystander is too great.

10 people in a room. Only the bad guy has a gun. All the good people die. Result -10 people.

10 people in a room. Two people have a gun. Bad guy starts shooting, followed rapidly by the good guy. Bad guy kills one, and the good guy kills one plus the bad guy. Result -3.

How do you think the other seven people would feel?

 

[Ernie S.]

No, it doesn't. However, if you killed the bad guy and prevented him from killing everyone...would that be a good thing? Or a bad thing?

And if you did kill the bad guy but killed one innocent person as you did?

I would never fire a gun at a person because the risk of injuring or killing a bystander is too great.

10 people in a room. Only the bad guy has a gun. All the good people die. Result -10 people.

10 people in a room. Two people have a gun. Bad guy starts shooting, followed rapidly by the good guy. Bad guy kills one, and the good guy kills one plus the bad guy. Result -3.

How do you think the other seven people would feel?

If Noomi was our good guy with a gun here, she would never fire because of the risk of hitting an innocent. Her innocent would still die, just not by her hand, and everyone else, including her, would die as well.

But she died feeling good about herself, so she can live with that.... Wait!

 

[Noomi]

if a man with a gun came to kill you and your children would you choose to have a gun or not ?

What if you fired shots in order to protect your children but only managed to shoot innocent bystanders

Does that still make it okay?

My aim is better than that.

Have you ever been in the middle of a shooting? If you had, you would be panicked and stressed, and you may not aim right.

 

[Noomi]

No, it doesn't. However, if you killed the bad guy and prevented him from killing everyone...would that be a good thing? Or a bad thing?

And if you did kill the bad guy but killed one innocent person as you did?

I would never fire a gun at a person because the risk of injuring or killing a bystander is too great.

10 people in a room. Only the bad guy has a gun. All the good people die. Result -10 people.

10 people in a room. Two people have a gun. Bad guy starts shooting, followed rapidly by the good guy. Bad guy kills one, and the good guy kills one plus the bad guy. Result -3.

How do you think the other seven people would feel?

So 3 dead innocent bystanders is okay so long as the others live, and the killer dies?

No dead innocent is acceptable to me.

 

[westwall]

And if you did kill the bad guy but killed one innocent person as you did?

I would never fire a gun at a person because the risk of injuring or killing a bystander is too great.

10 people in a room. Only the bad guy has a gun. All the good people die. Result -10 people.

10 people in a room. Two people have a gun. Bad guy starts shooting, followed rapidly by the good guy. Bad guy kills one, and the good guy kills one plus the bad guy. Result -3.

How do you think the other seven people would feel?

So 3 dead innocent bystanders is okay so long as the others live, and the killer dies?

No dead innocent is acceptable to me.

Tell that to the seven who would still be alive along with their families. You really need to think this through instead of resorting to blind non-thinking emotion.

No one, and i mean no one, thinks it's OK for innocents to die. However, if I am ever presented with that most terrible of situations i will not hesitate to shoot the bad guy. My family, and those of the others that i would be saving, would thank me.

 

[squeeze berry]

Deany would have been the only student shot by the teacher

 

[squeeze berry]

What if you fired shots in order to protect your children but only managed to shoot innocent bystanders

Does that still make it okay?

My aim is better than that.

Have you ever been in the middle of a shooting? If you had, you would be panicked and stressed, and you may not aim right.

most cops have not been in the middle of a shooting either

 

[there4eyeM]

A properly trained guard stationed in or near the main office at Sandy Hook Elementary School would have reacted as soon as the gunman started shooting to breech the doorway.
It would have been a 99% sure thing that the incident would have been all over with only one death.

99%? Does anyone else find that a rather audacious estimation?

 

[Ernie S.]

What if you fired shots in order to protect your children but only managed to shoot innocent bystanders

Does that still make it okay?

My aim is better than that.

Have you ever been in the middle of a shooting? If you had, you would be panicked and stressed, and you may not aim right.

Some people have survived combat or other stressful situations, Noomi. Those are the people we want guarding our kids.

 

[Ernie S.]

Deany would have been the only student shot by the teacher

And who would blame her?

 

[Ernie S.]

A properly trained guard stationed in or near the main office at Sandy Hook Elementary School would have reacted as soon as the gunman started shooting to breech the doorway.
It would have been a 99% sure thing that the incident would have been all over with only one death.

99%? Does anyone else find that a rather audacious estimation?

I said a properly trained guard, not a New York City cop. It would actually be quite easy to put a few rounds in a guy shooting out the glass at the entrance. The target is focused on entering a building. In all likelihood, he won't even notice a guard. The well trained guard would be focused on the first hole in the glass with a target behind it.

 

[there4eyeM]

I know that you are earnest, but let's be frank. 99% is a very high number.

 

[westwall]

I know that you are earnest, but let's be frank. 99% is a very high number.

A bad guy, suffering the tunnel vision of breaking into whatever target and framed very nicely in a doorway? A blind person could hit that target.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No, it doesn't. However, if you killed the bad guy and prevented him from killing everyone...would that be a good thing? Or a bad thing?

And if you did kill the bad guy but killed one innocent person as you did?

I would never fire a gun at a person because the risk of injuring or killing a bystander is too great.

10 people in a room. Only the bad guy has a gun. All the good people die. Result -10 people.

10 people in a room. Two people have a gun. Bad guy starts shooting, followed rapidly by the good guy. Bad guy kills one, and the good guy kills one plus the bad guy. Result -3.

How do you think the other seven people would feel?

That's wishful thinking.

Well trained law enforcement officers who train and train and then train some more then screw up under pressure.

Its idiotic to think a teacher who sits through a 6 hour training session will be equipped to react appropriately when bullets are flying and children are screaming.

Doesn't matter though because, with every shooting where there has been a guard(s) on duty, the shooter did enormous damage. There is no way to guarantee the guard or the armed teacher is in the same place as the shooter, at the same time as the shooter AND have a loaded gun on them.

300 million guns in the US. If more guns was the answer, we would not now have the problem.

 

[Zoom]

if a man with a gun came to kill you and your children would you choose to have a gun or not ?

Hmmm, which is more likely? A man with a gun coming to kill me or winning the lotto?

Since you're in "Chicago" I would "say" the "chances" of someone with a "gun" coming to kill "you" are roughly 100 "times" greater than your "chances" of winning the "lotto"

How many school shootings happened in Chicago?

 

[Zoom]

An armed guard at columbine meant nothing. It's not a question of one bad against one armed person. It's the chances of them being in the same side of the fucking building, let alone being JJ the same room. A madman can inflict a lot if harm before cleetus gets to him from the other side of the building.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Hmmm, which is more likely? A man with a gun coming to kill me or winning the lotto?

Since you're in "Chicago" I would "say" the "chances" of someone with a "gun" coming to kill "you" are roughly 100 "times" greater than your "chances" of winning the "lotto"

His many school shootings happened in Chicago?

Where did eots, rdean or I say anything about a school?

Be specific.

 

[Oddball]

And if you did kill the bad guy but killed one innocent person as you did?

I would never fire a gun at a person because the risk of injuring or killing a bystander is too great.

10 people in a room. Only the bad guy has a gun. All the good people die. Result -10 people.

10 people in a room. Two people have a gun. Bad guy starts shooting, followed rapidly by the good guy. Bad guy kills one, and the good guy kills one plus the bad guy. Result -3.

How do you think the other seven people would feel?

That's wishful thinking.

Well trained law enforcement officers who train and train and then train some more then screw up under pressure.

Its idiotic to think a teacher who sits through a 6 hour training session will be equipped to react appropriately when bullets are flying and children are screaming.

Doesn't matter though because, with every shooting where there has been a guard(s) on duty, the shooter did enormous damage. There is no way to guarantee the guard or the armed teacher is in the same place as the shooter, at the same time as the shooter AND have a loaded gun on them.

There are no guarantees in life, Gomer...Get used to it.

300 million guns in the US. If more guns was the answer, we would not now have the problem.

If vapid non sequitur platitudes were the answer, we wouldn't have any problems at all.

 

[Oddball]

A properly trained guard stationed in or near the main office at Sandy Hook Elementary School would have reacted as soon as the gunman started shooting to breech the doorway.
It would have been a 99% sure thing that the incident would have been all over with only one death.

99%? Does anyone else find that a rather audacious estimation?

No....Lunatics who shoot up schools full of unarmed kids are cowards in the first place.

There's a reason that they kill themselves at the first sound of approaching sirens, even though they have plenty of ammo left.

 

[PredFan]

if a man with a gun came to kill you and your children would you choose to have a gun or not ?

Hmmm, which is more likely? A man with a gun coming to kill me or winning the lotto?

Since you're in "Chicago" I would "say" the "chances" of someone with a "gun" coming to kill "you" are roughly 100 "times" greater than your "chances" of winning the "lotto"

Probably much higher.