Another school shooting....time to arm the teachers?

[beagle9]

I am thinking common sense......Just like the 11 year old who brought a gun to school because he wanted to protect himself from a future school attacker

Utah boy brings gun to school, cites Newtown fears - Yahoo! News

Or like this guy

Man armed with gun, knives entered Ohio theater showing Batman movie, police say - U.S. News

Ok so these are unusual circumstances or acts that are a result of the mayhem that was perpetrated on that aweful day in conneticutt or in the other incidents, so do we punish all the good people/citizens in this nation for these additional irrational acts, that are going to happen as a result of such chaos ? No we don't, because they are very few and far between, but we are to punish the whole nation because of these things now ?

Again no we don't, only that it's just that people like you whom have a bigger agenda installed for the good people of this nation down the road, and for whom thinks in these ways, hopes that soon the good people will be forced to abide by your rules or ideals, and so it's don't let a good crisis go to waste for people like you eh ?

I'm talking about irrational fear of the unknown. It is irrational to start arming yourself at a movie theater all because of one isolated case, or bring a gun to school because you think something is going to happen.

Round and round and round we go, but I'm always right in the end so just remember that...smile

 

[beagle9]

Ok so these are unusual circumstances or acts that are a result of the mayhem that was perpetrated on that aweful day in conneticutt or in the other incidents, so do we punish all the good people/citizens in this nation for these additional irrational acts, that are going to happen as a result of such chaos ? No we don't, because they are very few and far between, but we are to punish the whole nation because of these things now ?

Again no we don't, only that it's just that people like you whom have a bigger agenda installed for the good people of this nation down the road, and for whom thinks in these ways, hopes that soon the good people will be forced to abide by your rules or ideals, and so it's don't let a good crisis go to waste for people like you eh ?

I'm talking about irrational fear of the unknown. It is irrational to start arming yourself at a movie theater all because of one isolated case, or bring a gun to school because you think something is going to happen.

You don't think your fear of guns is an irrational fear of the unknown?

I don't have an irrational fear of anything. People who are armed have no fear whatever, I promise you..including other people who are armed. When I have my 30-30 with me, I'm not concerned that some druggie with a 22 is going to kill me and my family when we're camping.

The sad thing is, is that these bleeding heart libs & the selfish greedy bad guy's in this nation, have made our nation way to dangerous now, and so now we have to carry a 30/30 rifle with us camping?

What a screwed up situation that we have now, especially since we have gotten ourselves into such a situation like this in which we have in this nation now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Banning private gun ownership will not turn the country upside down. In fact, when Australia banned guns a couple decades ago, most people complied with the new laws and turned in their guns

I cannot immagine a simpler or more certain way to assure the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Americans. Congats., you top the school shooters by several orders of magnitude.

One wonders why whichever idiot that was you quoted doesn't see the fatal flaw in his own words: "MOST people complied with the new laws". Yes, well, we already have MOST people complying with the CURRENT laws about not shooting up schools full of children. The problem would be that pesky little minority that ignores laws against murder, and probably aren't going to be all that impressed with NEW laws about owning guns.

Well what you aren't considering Cecile is that banning most guns gets them off the streets. After all look how well that has worked with pot, heroin, cocaine, etc. . . .

Leftists are such children, with their black-and-white, all-or-nothing mentalities. They don't ever seem to get that you don't make something illegal with the expectation that you will wipe it out completely. You do it to lessen the incidence of that behavior, which means you need to THINK THROUGH what that will entail.

We already have laws against murder, which lessens the incidence of people killing each other by a LOT, believe it or not. But people still do it on occasion, obviously. If we make laws against owning guns, it will lessen the incidence of people owning guns, but it WILL NOT wipe out all gun ownership. So the part that has to be thought through is, "If people are going to own guns - and they are - WHICH people do I want that to be?" Trust me, it mostly AIN'T going to be the people who are inclined to ignore the law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The point is because Californbia is so strict on gun ownership I can almost gurantee if a kindergarten teacher used a firearm in a classroom killing someone who had a knife going for a kid the media would eat this up and rest assured many parents would question why a teacher would pop off in a classroom full of kids. That is my point!

So what? Threatening knife wielders get shot dead every day, even in NY & Cali. Would you rather they gut the children first? If Cali does not want such an awesome rock-star teacher, there are at least 40 other states who would love to have her.

She can move to Arizona. Hell, every OTHER rat deserting the sinking ship that is California is moving here, so she might as well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since Jim likes to hurl insults it is thus we've come to an en passé.


If someone can show me proof that a teacher from any country popped off at a school shooter protecting a lot of kids in a classroom I may jump on board.

I think you mean "impasse". I'm not entirely sure, because there are limits even to MY ability to translate gibberish to English.

Honestly, if you fools are only semi-literate in your own mother tongue, PLEASE don't make it worse by dragging in other languages and mangling them.

And I do so love the whole "We'll change the law to allow teachers to carry guns in school IF you can show me evidence of a teacher using a gun in defense WHILE IT'S ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO CARRY GUNS IN SCHOOL."

Could you possibly BE a bigger dumbfuck without special surgery?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let me spell it out for you. The reason why Israel is a horrible example is because the current state of Israel is about protection of its citizens, from inside and out.

Well, I can see where Americans wouldn't want any truck with protecting its citizens. What a silly idea!



You forgot being overrun with the various, garden-variety criminals the left so loves to coddle (or were you imagining that all crime in the United States is due to "the war on drugs"?) and occasionally being mowed down in the process of our daily lives by the occasional homicidal lunatic.

Pretty sure I'm still back at not caring what the motivation is behind the bullet aimed at my children.

The idea that teachers in Israel packing guns does nothing for the advancement of the proponents argument that teachers arming themselves as being a logical solution to school violence.

Thanks, but I actually understood what your idea was. MY point was that it's nonsensical bullshit, and I think I'm going to consider that my final answer.

Its nonsensical bullshit yet you cannot:

1) Explain how you can factor the budgeting issues of equipping teachers in school districts who are already having a budgeting crisis

Gosh, I "cannot" solve straw-man problems that you've created. THAT'S a convincing argument.

Would it shock you to know that budget solutions for school districts are NOT a federal problem? I know you'd love to jump straight from "Let's allow faculty with concealed-carry permits to gain permission to carry their weapons on campus" to "We need massive new federal laws implementing budgetary measures on EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN AMERICA!" because that's how leftists think, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to jump off that particular crazy train and let you continue on down the tracks without me.

2) Demonstrate how using real world examples of teachers actually killing suspected shooters actually supports the argument that teachers ought to be armed.

Really, dumbass? You REALLY think I'm going to accept "I'll change the law when you show me proof of people doing what's currently against the law" as any sort of ******* standard? This is lame even for a straw man.

3) You cannot coherently display a cohesive view of how arming teachers even though school has police presence, prevents future school shootings.

I hadn't realized that you REQUIRED me to explain why water is wet, so no, I didn't bother. Having adjusted my view of your intelligence downward accordingly, let me clarify:

Say I'm a crazed gunman, planning to end my life in a blaze of glory - or, at least, media coverage - by shooting up the local school. Say further than I know said school has a resource officer, as they used to be called in my area, back when TPD could afford that many cops. And, of course, I know that, except for that resource officer, everyone else on that campus is legally barred from having a gun anywhere on the property. I have two choices at that point: Look for the resource officer, who is easily identified by his police uniform, and kill him; or find out where he is and start my rampage somewhere on campus that he's far away from.

Now, say I'm the same crazed gunman, wanting to shoot up the local school. But say this time I know that, in addition to the uniformed resource officer, the school ALSO allows its faculty to carry/have weapons on campus, and THOSE people are NOT easily identified by their uniforms. I have two choices at that point: go in and risk getting killed without my blaze of glorious media coverage, or go somewhere with easier targets.

It's called logic, Bubba. Try it sometime.

Let's stop this ridiculous nonsense of calling each other's comments bullshit and let us converse philosophically as to how the other person's views is nonsensical.

It's not "nonsense", chum. I think everything you say is bullshit, and I have no intention of treating it with respect it isn't due, just because you ask me to. You want my respect for your words, say something that deserves it.

Until then, the most "philosophical" conversation you're going to get out of me is a point-by-point explanation of why you're a dumbass and your posts are bullshit. You should feel grateful, actually: I frequently don't bother explaining it.

I'm sick of you sensationalist gun freaks telling me "let's arm the teachers, because your comments are bullshit"

If that's all you're bothering to read and understand about the posts in this thread, that's YOUR problem for being a rockheaded idealogue hack who's incapable of internalizing and comprehending other people's points of view, not mine for not saying what you want to hear.

I just laid out a budgeting argument and nobody, not one person with some sense in mind has tackled that. I gave you guys the current budget of California both our state capital and Los Angeles and even provided links for reference and not one person touched that. I explained in detail that every teacher that becomes certified in the state of California to teach does not voluntarily go out and get a concealed weapons permit. We are not Texas nor are we the stand-your-ground-florida. California is one of the most strict gun law states in the United States.

I am asking you guys to tackle this problem which you failed to do.

I haven't "failed", chum (and I DO mean that in the sense of "bloody meat dumped in the water to attract sharks"). I refuse to "tackle" it. You know why? BECAUSE I DON'T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA. Not anywhere in the ******* state. And I don't live in California for a very good reason: I don't want to have to deal with the consequences of the stupid ******* laws and the stupid ******* voters who pass those stupid ******* laws. What California does or doesn't do to deal with their screwed-up budgets and schools and how they manage to implement safety programs for their schools is not my problem. Refer above to my point about individual school districts NOT BEING A FEDERAL PROBLEM.

Personally, I live in Arizona, and one of the reasons I do so is because of the lovely, sensible attitude Arizonans have toward guns.

This is the last time I will answer these questions so allow me to reformat them. If you fail to answer it or are unable to then I will realize that with all your bickering and name calling that you do not have a universal answer to a localized problem.

I believe you mean "This is the last time I will ASK these questions", and I can only say, "One can hope."

1) In a state such as California that has fiscal issues, how does every single teacher, from pre-school, to kindergarten, to elementary, to high school, to college how does the state provide for permits, bulletproof vests, training, and certification?

Not my ******* problem, because it's not my ******* state. By the way, who said anything about bulletproof vests and "every single teacher"? Feel free to stop putting words into my mouth, and trying to make me responsible for YOUR straw men.

2) Once certified, what do we do with the annual pay-out of $104 million for police officers who are present on school campuses along with the annual re-cert for armed teachers? (Remember every two years a teacher not only has to re-cert for a gun permit, but also for their license which will cost districts more money).

Again, not my problem, because you're not talking about MY school district. MY school district exists in a city which doesn't have enough cops to put resource officers in the schools anymore (and you don't wanna know about police response times to emergencies, trust me). It DOES, however, exist in a city where there are LOTS of gun owners, and anyone with a legal gun can carry it concealed if they so desire. Do I think each of the schools in my district can find a group of teachers who are already privately armed? Uh, yeah.

How YOU go about implementing safety programs is YOUR problem.

3) If teachers are armed yet their needs to be school cut backs such as after-school programs along with other extra-cirricular activities is it necessary to cut those programs in order to sustain the budgeting to allow teachers to have bullet proof vests, sidearms, and the necessary tools to defend themselves?

See above re: making me responsible for your straw men. You want to ask me a question, you ask it about MY words, not about the ones you WANT me to have said.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am thinking common sense......Just like the 11 year old who brought a gun to school because he wanted to protect himself from a future school attacker

Utah boy brings gun to school, cites Newtown fears - Yahoo! News

Or like this guy

Man armed with gun, knives entered Ohio theater showing Batman movie, police say - U.S. News

Ok so these are unusual circumstances or acts that are a result of the mayhem that was perpetrated on that aweful day in conneticutt or in the other incidents, so do we punish all the good people/citizens in this nation for these additional irrational acts, that are going to happen as a result of such chaos ? No we don't, because they are very few and far between, but we are to punish the whole nation because of these things now ?

Again no we don't, only that it's just that people like you whom have a bigger agenda installed for the good people of this nation down the road, and for whom thinks in these ways, hopes that soon the good people will be forced to abide by your rules or ideals, and so it's don't let a good crisis go to waste for people like you eh ?

I'm talking about irrational fear of the unknown. It is irrational to start arming yourself at a movie theater all because of one isolated case, or bring a gun to school because you think something is going to happen.

Sorry, WHY is it irrational to carry a firearm when you go out? Because YOU don't like them, so you assume it's a horrible, distasteful thing?

For your information, I have several friends who do this as a matter of course (because my state allows it) and give it no more thought than they do putting on their shoes and picking up their wallet and car keys. It's not a big deal . . . except to hysterical gun haters.

 

[Aristotle]

@Koshergrl

Bringing a gun in a movie theater especially since it will be frequented by men, women, and children is irrational. With police and security personnel around and the high probability of overreacting and possibly wrongfully discharging a weapon in an enclosed area is foolish. If I brought a loaded gun to my college campus under the fear that something will happen I am negligent, because the law (and common sense) states that I cannot bring a loaded gun despite me having permits. Why?

1) I am not in any uniform

2) No citizen carrying a firearm because they think something is going to happen most likely will not carry their permit and even if they did, law enforcement cannot distinguish conspiracy to commit murder or just an irrational fear.

3) The high probability of discharging a weapon in an enclosed area with other people. If I am sitting down in a classroom and I am fidgety, and if my gun is not secured properly, it may discharge possibly injuring myself and others.

I do not understand how you don't understand this.....

Perhaps in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Florida this is fine but here in California, bringing weapons based on a potentially false premonition is neither lawful nor logical.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Banning private gun ownership will not turn the country upside down. In fact, when Australia banned guns a couple decades ago, most people complied with the new laws and turned in their guns

I cannot immagine a simpler or more certain way to assure the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Americans. Congats., you top the school shooters by several orders of magnitude.

One wonders why whichever idiot that was you quoted doesn't see the fatal flaw in his own words: "MOST people complied with the new laws". Yes, well, we already have MOST people complying with the CURRENT laws about not shooting up schools full of children. The problem would be that pesky little minority that ignores laws against murder, and probably aren't going to be all that impressed with NEW laws about owning guns.

Well what you aren't considering Cecile is that banning most guns gets them off the streets. After all look how well that has worked with pot, heroin, cocaine, etc. . . .

A small sarc tag would have been most helpful, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

@Koshergrl

Bringing a gun in a movie theater especially since it will be frequented by men, women, and children is irrational.

Why? Why is being defenseless rational to you libtards and preferable to being armed?

With police and security personnel around and the high probability of overreacting and possibly wrongfully discharging a weapon in an enclosed area is foolish.

Bullshit; people do it all the time to protect others and themselves and such things as accidental shootings are very rare, less likely than drowing in a swimming pool by a factor nearly a hundred from what I remember.

If I brought a loaded gun to my college campus under the fear that something will happen I am negligent, because the law (and common sense) states that I cannot bring a loaded gun despite me having permits. Why?

1) I am not in any uniform

Why do you fascists have this obsession about uniforms?

2) No citizen carrying a firearm because they think something is going to happen, most likely will not carry their permit ...

Are you ******* kidding? JEEBUS, you dont know what the hell you are talking about.

Why in the hell would such a person NOT carry their permits, Baby Genius?

and even if they did, law enforcement cannot distinguish conspiracy to commit murder or just an irrational fear.

So you think that the cops are as stupid as you are? That is interesting then as you want them to be the only ones with guns, right? Yeah, arming the stupid always works, right.

3) The high probability of discharging a weapon in an enclosed area with other people. If I am sitting down in a classroom and I am fidgety, and if my gun is not secured properly, it may discharge possibly injuring myself and others.

Guns have to pass a 20 foot drop test, ignoramus, and they dont discharge from merely being dropped anymore. Would it kill you to learn a few facts about guns before spewing your ignorance all over the damned place?

I do not understand how you don't understand this.....

That's an easy one; because you are apparently a moron with a shoe size larger than your IQ.

Perhaps in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Florida this is fine but here in California, bringing weapons based on a potentially false premonition is neither lawful nor logical.

Kaliphornica? Who gives a **** about that hell hole?

 

[koshergrl]

It's not irrational to protect one's loved ones from armed killers.

Meanwhile:

'Woodham fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School's assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others.[2][3][4][5][6][7] The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into a his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a US Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived."

Yes, Virginia....an armed school employee can save lives....and has.

Pearl High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[koshergrl]

" It was not a cry for attention, it was not a cry for help. It was a scream in sheer agony saying that if you can't pry your eyes open, if I can't do it through pacifism, if I can't show you through the displaying of intelligence, then I will do it with a bullet."

Pearl High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This kid stabbed and bludgeoned his mother before going to the school. He was a member of a satanic cult.

You get rid of all knives, all clubs, and satanism, and we'll talk about limiting access to the only meaningful protection we currently have. When I hear baby killing loons say things like "it's irrational to protect the president of the united states by arming those who are hired to protect him" then I'll take your moronic insistence that it's "irrational" to defend children in schools, which are CONSISTENTLY targeted by lunatics, a little more seriously.

Until then, I'll continue to point out the fact that you are more highly motivated to kill children, than to protect them, as is evidenced by every dumbfuck statement posted by the loons who insist they don't want children protected.

 

[koshergrl]

Another school shooting stopped before the body count reached 28:
"The Appalachian School of Law shooting was a school shooting that occurred on January 16, 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law, an American Bar Association accredited private law school in Grundy, Virginia, United States. Three people were killed and three others were wounded when a former student, 43-year-old Peter Odighizuwa, opened fire in the school with a handgun...

"According to Bridges: at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to retrieve their personally-owned firearms[6] placed in their glove compartments. Mikael Gross, a police officer from Grifton, North Carolina retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[7] Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, North Carolina[8] retrieved his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe.[9] Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.[10] Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross."


Appalachian School of Law shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The shooting was cited by John Lott[16] and others[17] as an example of the media's bias against guns, describing how the use of a firearm in a defensive role was not reported in most news stories of the event."

 

[koshergrl]

"The shooting began on an outdoor patio, about 20 minutes before the dance was scheduled to end, around 9:40. He shot John Gillette after he asked Wurst to come inside. Before running out of ammunition, Wurst proceeded to enter Nick's Place, where the dance had been held, and subsequently fired and wounded Edrye Boraten, a teacher and two students, Jacob Tury and Justin Fletcher.[1] The shooting ended when the owner of Nick's Place, James Strand, intervened and confronted Wurst with his shotgun, ordering him to drop his weapon and later holding him at bay for eleven minutes."

Parker Middle School dance shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idb]

So, I'm just wondering...when the gun proponents have their way and every teacher is armed to the teeth, every school is locked down tighter than Alcatraz and they are no longer considered a soft target - what happens then?
What happens when the lunatics decide to go after new soft targets...bus stops, queues outside night clubs or football games, kids' sporting tournaments, family picnics, etc?

Is the answer still more unrestricted access to guns?
Should parks and sports fields and public places all be locked down with fences and walls and metal detectors and protected with armed personnel?

And shouldn't school buses be armour-plated with an armed guard on board as they take the kids from the fortified safety of the school to the walled enclave where they live.
It's too late to say "I wish we had..." after the first school bus attack.

Like I said, I'm just wondering...

 

[JoeB131]

@Koshergrl

Bringing a gun in a movie theater especially since it will be frequented by men, women, and children is irrational. With police and security personnel around and the high probability of overreacting and possibly wrongfully discharging a weapon in an enclosed area is foolish. If I brought a loaded gun to my college campus under the fear that something will happen I am negligent, because the law (and common sense) states that I cannot bring a loaded gun despite me having permits. Why?

1) I am not in any uniform

2) No citizen carrying a firearm because they think something is going to happen most likely will not carry their permit and even if they did, law enforcement cannot distinguish conspiracy to commit murder or just an irrational fear.

3) The high probability of discharging a weapon in an enclosed area with other people. If I am sitting down in a classroom and I am fidgety, and if my gun is not secured properly, it may discharge possibly injuring myself and others.

I do not understand how you don't understand this.....

Perhaps in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Florida this is fine but here in California, bringing weapons based on a potentially false premonition is neither lawful nor logical.

I'll go one further... My nephew told me that at his college town, they gave out plastic swords to the moviegoers who saw "the Hobbit" in what was probably a badly thought out promotion. Rest assured, there was very little movie watching and a lot of college guys doing sword fights. Now imagine some NRA Zimmerman Wannabe misinterpretting that stuff.

 

[koshergrl]

So, I'm just wondering...when the gun proponents have their way and every teacher is armed to the teeth, every school is locked down tighter than Alcatraz and they are no longer considered a soft target - what happens then?
What happens when the lunatics decide to go after new soft targets...bus stops, queues outside night clubs or football games, kids' sporting tournaments, family picnics, etc?

Is the answer still more unrestricted access to guns?
Should parks and sports fields and public places all be locked down with fences and walls and metal detectors and protected with armed personnel?

And shouldn't school buses be armour-plated with an armed guard on board as they take the kids from the fortified safety of the school to the walled enclave where they live.
It's too late to say "I wish we had..." after the first school bus attack.

Like I said, I'm just wondering...

When that happens, why don't we deal with it? Instead of giving up now that they're targeting children at schools, throwing up our hands and saying "Oh well, if they're going to kill them, they're going to kill them, there's no point to protecting them."

What complete idiocy.

 

[koshergrl]

@Koshergrl

Bringing a gun in a movie theater especially since it will be frequented by men, women, and children is irrational. With police and security personnel around and the high probability of overreacting and possibly wrongfully discharging a weapon in an enclosed area is foolish. If I brought a loaded gun to my college campus under the fear that something will happen I am negligent, because the law (and common sense) states that I cannot bring a loaded gun despite me having permits. Why?

1) I am not in any uniform

2) No citizen carrying a firearm because they think something is going to happen most likely will not carry their permit and even if they did, law enforcement cannot distinguish conspiracy to commit murder or just an irrational fear.

3) The high probability of discharging a weapon in an enclosed area with other people. If I am sitting down in a classroom and I am fidgety, and if my gun is not secured properly, it may discharge possibly injuring myself and others.

I do not understand how you don't understand this.....

Perhaps in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Florida this is fine but here in California, bringing weapons based on a potentially false premonition is neither lawful nor logical.

I'll go one further... My nephew told me that at his college town, they gave out plastic swords to the moviegoers who saw "the Hobbit" in what was probably a badly thought out promotion. Rest assured, there was very little movie watching and a lot of college guys doing sword fights. Now imagine some NRA Zimmerman Wannabe misinterpretting that stuff.

Yeah. Cuz that's happened a lot.

So..based on the fantasy that an armed individual might take fright at a bunch of idiots waving plastic swords at a movie theatre, we should refuse to protect our school children at school.



You baby killers are sick fuckers.

 

[idb]

So, I'm just wondering...when the gun proponents have their way and every teacher is armed to the teeth, every school is locked down tighter than Alcatraz and they are no longer considered a soft target - what happens then?
What happens when the lunatics decide to go after new soft targets...bus stops, queues outside night clubs or football games, kids' sporting tournaments, family picnics, etc?

Is the answer still more unrestricted access to guns?
Should parks and sports fields and public places all be locked down with fences and walls and metal detectors and protected with armed personnel?

And shouldn't school buses be armour-plated with an armed guard on board as they take the kids from the fortified safety of the school to the walled enclave where they live.
It's too late to say "I wish we had..." after the first school bus attack.

Like I said, I'm just wondering...

When that happens, why don't we deal with it? Instead of giving up now that they're targeting children at schools, throwing up our hands and saying "Oh well, if they're going to kill them, they're going to kill them, there's no point to protecting them."

What complete idiocy.

So, how many attacks on the new soft targets will it take before it needs to be dealt with?

Haven't you already given up by rejecting any discussion on gun control and throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, since there are so many nasty people out there with guns all we can do it is get more guns and security to protect ourselves?"

What complete idiocy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

@Koshergrl

Bringing a gun in a movie theater especially since it will be frequented by men, women, and children is irrational. With police and security personnel around and the high probability of overreacting and possibly wrongfully discharging a weapon in an enclosed area is foolish. If I brought a loaded gun to my college campus under the fear that something will happen I am negligent, because the law (and common sense) states that I cannot bring a loaded gun despite me having permits. Why?

1) I am not in any uniform

2) No citizen carrying a firearm because they think something is going to happen most likely will not carry their permit and even if they did, law enforcement cannot distinguish conspiracy to commit murder or just an irrational fear.

3) The high probability of discharging a weapon in an enclosed area with other people. If I am sitting down in a classroom and I am fidgety, and if my gun is not secured properly, it may discharge possibly injuring myself and others.

I do not understand how you don't understand this.....

Perhaps in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Florida this is fine but here in California, bringing weapons based on a potentially false premonition is neither lawful nor logical.

Yeah, KG, it's irrational to bring a gun anywhere around other people, because you know how those sneaky little metal bastards like to jump out of the holster and just start randomly firing.