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

[PredFan]

NEW YORK – All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.

NYPD: 9 shooting bystander victims hit by police gunfire | Fox News

Now here's a story from Fox News where well trained police "accidently" shot 9 innocent bystanders. Nine!

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

All shot by police.

Oops.

Sorry.

Now suppose teachers do the same thing.

Is it still:

Oops,

sorry?

Will teachers be exempt from prosecution? How much "collateral damage" is OK?

We've already seen multiple examples of unarmed teachers being killed while trying to protect children (students).
Why do you want their hands tied behind their backs? Do you hate teachers, or just children?

Luddley loves it when people die by the gun. He gets to start another thread on it.

 

[PredFan]

Deany likes to ignore the likelyhood that a shooter would choose an easier target if the teachers at a school were armed.

 

[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?

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.

Wishful thinking only to a mindless troll like yourself. If you had any brains at all you would actually think about stuff but you can't so you don't. And for your information there are very few LEO's who are well trained with firearms. Your average gun range shooter will out qualify 90% of all LEO's. That is a simple fact. Todays LEO is a well trained report taker and ticket writer.

 

[4Horsemen]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...ed-thats-what-security-companies-are-for.html

 

[Zoom]

What happened withe the armed guard at columbine. Did that help?

 

[eots]

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.

the risk of not firing could be much greater..

 

[westwall]

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.

the risk of not firing could be much greater..

The point is it's not a "risk". It's a certainty if you don't shoot.

 

[there4eyeM]

People who think it is an easy matter to fire on another have never done it.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

OK 97% Happy. The point is, a well trained guard would have been in position to put rounds in this kid as soon as he had shot his way inside.
One step into the school and boo boom. Double tap to the chest. Body armor or not, he is down. If he moves, head shot.

 

[Ernie S.]

What happened withe the armed guard at columbine. Did that help?

Not much, of course, he was sitting in his car out in the parking lot, eating lunch. As I remember, he fired a couple rounds at one point. Noomi will be happy to know, he didn't hit any bystanders.

 

[Oddball]

People who think it is an easy matter to fire on another have never done it.

Seems easy enough for the cowards shooting unarmed victims.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Apparently 10 dead innocent people is acceptable to you since that is what will happen if no one in the room is armed.

 

[eots]

people who think it is an easy matter to fire on another have never done it.

many, many little old ladies and children have done it if you truly feel your life or your loved ones life is in immediate danger instinct will take over

 

[westwall]

People who think it is an easy matter to fire on another have never done it.

No one has said it's easy. The alternative is just far worse. You wish for all the good people to die (why, I will never understand) we, on the other hand don't.

 

[Noomi]

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.

the risk of not firing could be much greater..

The point is it's not a "risk". It's a certainty if you don't shoot.

So lets assume you DID fire, and you missed, and shot an innocent person.

Should manslaughter charges be laid against you?

 

[there4eyeM]

People who think it is an easy matter to fire on another have never done it.

No one has said it's easy. The alternative is just far worse. You wish for all the good people to die (why, I will never understand) we, on the other hand don't.

What a totally absurd statement! Nothing in the post suggests such a thing. How can people so exaggerate their own prejudices to include the impossible?

 

[blimpo]

Why don't we just issue bulletproof vests to all students?

Folks, when insanity rules there are no good solutions..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NEW YORK – All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.

NYPD: 9 shooting bystander victims hit by police gunfire | Fox News

Now here's a story from Fox News where well trained police "accidently" shot 9 innocent bystanders. Nine!

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

All shot by police.

Oops.

Sorry.

Now suppose teachers do the same thing.

Is it still:

Oops,

sorry?

Will teachers be exempt from prosecution? How much "collateral damage" is OK?

What happened to the police in the story you linked to? If I recall correctly, they got a well done from the police commissioner because they stopped a guy that wasn't currently attacking anyone. I am sure we can do the same thing with any teacher who manages to shoot 9 people when shooting at someone less that 20 feet away from them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

The man with the gun, why?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

If your disposition and demeanor in real life are the same as they are here, there will be no need for you to dream about how you'll spend your jackpot.

You must spread blah blah blah.

I owe you for this one.