Arming teachers bad cus in Parkand a singlular example exists of a cowardly RO not doing job, WTF?

[XponentialChaos]

Once again, it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to kill off a mass murderer.

Once again, you compare accidentally discharging a gun with killing a mass murderer.

Apples and oranges - Wikipedia

A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared.

P.S. Repeating oneself is a sign of mental infirmity.

It's more likely that the gun is involved in an accident than used effectively in self-defense.

Apples and oranges, lol.

 

[initforme]

The top hated even the good teachers so why do they want to arm folk they loathe?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

Maybe you should read more replies before posting. I already explained this to you.

I don't see it in the last few pages. Maybe I missed it?

Go ahead. What's your answer?

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

Maybe you should read more replies before posting. I already explained this to you.

I don't see it in the last few pages. Maybe I missed it?

Go ahead. What's your answer?

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

 

[initforme]

Perhaps if the school offered monetary incentive to carry some would. Perhaps a stipend of 10 thousand might be okay as a start.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

Maybe you should read more replies before posting. I already explained this to you.

I don't see it in the last few pages. Maybe I missed it?

Go ahead. What's your answer?

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is an unarmed teacher likely to kill a school shooter or get killed along with the students if they have no gun at all?

Unlike your supposition, mine has an almost 100% certainty, whereas your scenario has a microscopic chance of occurring.

Teachers are armed.

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

Which is more likely to happen?

Teacher steps in and saves the day.

Let's change your scenario to real life.

Teachers are not armed:

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher without a gun dies valiantly trying to defend students who are all killed anyway.
B) There is no other option. Teacher without a gun dies and students are all killed anyway.

Ok. What exactly makes you think that A is more likely? What are you basing that on exactly?

Past history. Why are you so dense?

I'll take non-answers for $500, Alex.

If you're going to use "past history" as your answer, then maybe you should post this past history that you're referring to.

If you are unfamiliar with recent school shootings, why do you need me to hold your hand?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

Maybe you should read more replies before posting. I already explained this to you.

I don't see it in the last few pages. Maybe I missed it?

Go ahead. What's your answer?

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You are wrong...again.....the Republican convention allowed people to carry guns...the NRA convention also allowed people to carry guns....please do some basic research instead of just posting off the top of your head.

No Guns Allowed During NRA Convention Speech By Trump, Pence

Yes...moron, because the Secret Service was in control at that moment...the rest of the convention time concealed and open carry were allowed.... the threat of one man being targeted for murder is different from a mass shooter attacking a crowd....different threats, different measures....and again, the rest of the time NRA members walked around carrying their legal guns without a problem....

You really should stop taking those Stupid Pills....they aren't helping you....

So you're just going to back-pedal your claim now of "The Republican convention allowed people to carry guns." The link I posted directly contradicted this and now you're deflecting. Just deflect away from FACTS when your delicate feelings insist on being right.

That's adorable. No, no, go ahead and keep throwing around insults like "stupid pills". They're really helping your argument.

See ya.

Moron....I showed you that actual NRA site that gave the gun policy for the 2018 convention.... The onlly time it wasn't allowed was when Pence was on stage. You are stupid, you are either really stupid or pretending to be stupid to troll the question.......

Oh good! We're finally in agreement! Yes, guns were allowed at the convention, but they weren't allowed while Pence was speaking.

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

I am sorry, but you are fucked up in the head as they come. You need professional help!

Goodbye!

 

[XponentialChaos]

Teachers are armed.

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

Which is more likely to happen?

Teacher steps in and saves the day.

Let's change your scenario to real life.

Teachers are not armed:

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher without a gun dies valiantly trying to defend students who are all killed anyway.
B) There is no other option. Teacher without a gun dies and students are all killed anyway.

Ok. What exactly makes you think that A is more likely? What are you basing that on exactly?

Past history. Why are you so dense?

I'll take non-answers for $500, Alex.

If you're going to use "past history" as your answer, then maybe you should post this past history that you're referring to.

If you are unfamiliar with recent school shootings, why do you need me to hold your hand?

You still haven't said anything...

Again, what exactly are you basing your answer on. Specific examples please.

 

[XponentialChaos]

No Guns Allowed During NRA Convention Speech By Trump, Pence

Yes...moron, because the Secret Service was in control at that moment...the rest of the convention time concealed and open carry were allowed.... the threat of one man being targeted for murder is different from a mass shooter attacking a crowd....different threats, different measures....and again, the rest of the time NRA members walked around carrying their legal guns without a problem....

You really should stop taking those Stupid Pills....they aren't helping you....

So you're just going to back-pedal your claim now of "The Republican convention allowed people to carry guns." The link I posted directly contradicted this and now you're deflecting. Just deflect away from FACTS when your delicate feelings insist on being right.

That's adorable. No, no, go ahead and keep throwing around insults like "stupid pills". They're really helping your argument.

See ya.

Moron....I showed you that actual NRA site that gave the gun policy for the 2018 convention.... The onlly time it wasn't allowed was when Pence was on stage. You are stupid, you are either really stupid or pretending to be stupid to troll the question.......

Oh good! We're finally in agreement! Yes, guns were allowed at the convention, but they weren't allowed while Pence was speaking.

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

I am sorry, but you are fucked up in the head as they come. You need professional help!

Goodbye!

I didn't think you'd actually address that question. You just went off on a tangent about how guns were allowed at the convention, just not while Pence was speaking...which did nothing to address my point.

Oh well. At least another conservative poster had the balls to actually answer it.

See ya.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe you should read more replies before posting. I already explained this to you.

I don't see it in the last few pages. Maybe I missed it?

Go ahead. What's your answer?

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

This is true because in the general public, we don't have dozens of highly trained government agents protecting every bar, restaurant, alley, street corner or theater. If we could afford that, nobody would need a gun except for at home unless we had such agents in every household.

But the truth is in the general public, the police only come after somebody has been attacked and there is not much they can do about it except to arrest the killer; by then, it's way too late for the victim.

In gun free zones, not only is there no protection from attackers, but nobody is armed to defend themselves which makes those areas attractive to those that do want to commit mass murder. In most instances, gun-free zones are much more dangerous than places where you can conceal carry.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I don't see it in the last few pages. Maybe I missed it?

Go ahead. What's your answer?

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

This is true because in the general public, we don't have dozens of highly trained government agents protecting every bar, restaurant, alley, street corner or theater. If we could afford that, nobody would need a gun except for at home unless we had such agents in every household.

But the truth is in the general public, the police only come after somebody has been attacked and there is not much they can do about it except to arrest the killer; by then, it's way too late for the victim.

In gun free zones, not only is there no protection from attackers, but nobody is armed to defend themselves which makes those areas attractive to those that do want to commit mass murder. In most instances, gun-free zones are much more dangerous than places where you can conceal carry.

Just curious here.

Would you want restaurant employees, bar employees, theater employees, etc. to have weapons on them? You know, to make those locations more secure in the event of an attack.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

This is true because in the general public, we don't have dozens of highly trained government agents protecting every bar, restaurant, alley, street corner or theater. If we could afford that, nobody would need a gun except for at home unless we had such agents in every household.

But the truth is in the general public, the police only come after somebody has been attacked and there is not much they can do about it except to arrest the killer; by then, it's way too late for the victim.

In gun free zones, not only is there no protection from attackers, but nobody is armed to defend themselves which makes those areas attractive to those that do want to commit mass murder. In most instances, gun-free zones are much more dangerous than places where you can conceal carry.

Just curious here.

Would you want restaurant employees, bar employees, theater employees, etc. to have weapons on them? You know, to make those locations more secure in the event of an attack.

It wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact I would welcome it. If I'm not carrying, I always hope somebody else in the place is. If some nut comes into an establishment shooting anybody and everybody, I hope an armed somebody kills the guy before he gets to me. If I'm in a gun-free zone, the only hope I have is prayer.

 

[XponentialChaos]

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

This is true because in the general public, we don't have dozens of highly trained government agents protecting every bar, restaurant, alley, street corner or theater. If we could afford that, nobody would need a gun except for at home unless we had such agents in every household.

But the truth is in the general public, the police only come after somebody has been attacked and there is not much they can do about it except to arrest the killer; by then, it's way too late for the victim.

In gun free zones, not only is there no protection from attackers, but nobody is armed to defend themselves which makes those areas attractive to those that do want to commit mass murder. In most instances, gun-free zones are much more dangerous than places where you can conceal carry.

Just curious here.

Would you want restaurant employees, bar employees, theater employees, etc. to have weapons on them? You know, to make those locations more secure in the event of an attack.

It wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact I would welcome it. If I'm not carrying, I always hope somebody else in the place is. If some nut comes into an establishment shooting anybody and everybody, I hope an armed somebody kills the guy before he gets to me. If I'm in a gun-free zone, the only hope I have is prayer.

Gotcha. Just wondering what your position was on that. My opinion is that people are more likely to do something stupid with their guns than they are to heroically save the day when a mass shooter comes along. I know that both happen though. A few incidents immediately come to mind:

Wife of Florida man accused in theater shooting testifies in court

Man charged in ’stand your ground’ killing has history of gun threats, prosecutors say

Police: Gas Station Employee Shoots, Kills Coworker In Nassau County

San Diego public utilities worker shot by resident while working in University Heights

Plenty more of these kinds of incidents I can look up. Non-lethal confrontations that turn lethal because someone has a gun. If a bunch of employees at Wal-Mart were armed, I would think that they're more likely to shoot each other over something stupid. I mean, THAT would be more likely than them preventing a mass shooting. From personal experience, I was working in a restaurant while I was in college. During a chaotic Friday night, I saw one of the cooks stab another cook in the head because they couldn't agree on who would do what.

But I know that the other side of that argument happens as well, just not as often in my opinion and I'm sure we'll disagree there.

Anyway, thanks for actually responding thoughtfully instead of just typing bumper sticker slogans.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

This is true because in the general public, we don't have dozens of highly trained government agents protecting every bar, restaurant, alley, street corner or theater. If we could afford that, nobody would need a gun except for at home unless we had such agents in every household.

But the truth is in the general public, the police only come after somebody has been attacked and there is not much they can do about it except to arrest the killer; by then, it's way too late for the victim.

In gun free zones, not only is there no protection from attackers, but nobody is armed to defend themselves which makes those areas attractive to those that do want to commit mass murder. In most instances, gun-free zones are much more dangerous than places where you can conceal carry.

Just curious here.

Would you want restaurant employees, bar employees, theater employees, etc. to have weapons on them? You know, to make those locations more secure in the event of an attack.

It wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact I would welcome it. If I'm not carrying, I always hope somebody else in the place is. If some nut comes into an establishment shooting anybody and everybody, I hope an armed somebody kills the guy before he gets to me. If I'm in a gun-free zone, the only hope I have is prayer.

Gotcha. Just wondering what your position was on that. My opinion is that people are more likely to do something stupid with their guns than they are to heroically save the day when a mass shooter comes along. I know that both happen though. A few incidents immediately come to mind:

Wife of Florida man accused in theater shooting testifies in court

Man charged in ’stand your ground’ killing has history of gun threats, prosecutors say

Police: Gas Station Employee Shoots, Kills Coworker In Nassau County

San Diego public utilities worker shot by resident while working in University Heights

Plenty more of these kinds of incidents I can look up. Non-lethal confrontations that turn lethal because someone has a gun. If a bunch of employees at Wal-Mart were armed, I would think that they're more likely to shoot each other over something stupid. I mean, THAT would be more likely than them preventing a mass shooting. From personal experience, I was working in a restaurant while I was in college. During a chaotic Friday night, I saw one of the cooks stab another cook in the head because they couldn't agree on who would do what.

But I know that the other side of that argument happens as well, just not as often in my opinion and I'm sure we'll disagree there.

Anyway, thanks for actually responding thoughtfully instead of just typing bumper sticker slogans.

And two of the four stories you posted (I couldn't get the Washington post story, you need to give them money) happened in places were guns are a no-no like NY and California.

Yes, people with guns make mistakes like people who don't use guns. We have 40,000 vehicle related deaths every year too, does that mean we should ban cars? I'm a truck driver and witness stupidity all day long. If I had the legal authority to do so, I could take about 200 drivers a day and remove their license.

If you make guns illegal, it won't stop the bad guys from getting them. That means you would have an armed criminal element and a disarmed society. What would that be like? Try this: Get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOME and place that on your front porch. Get back to us in a month or so and let us know how that works out........if you're still around to do so.

The reason unarmed people are safe in their home is because of people like myself who are armed. The criminals don't know who has the ability to defend themselves and who are helpless. Now more and more states are giving the criminals that same uncertainty outside of their home. I believe that's one of the reasons violent crime (and gun crimes) has been on the decrease since the mid 90's.

 

[2aguy]

You are 1,000 times more likely to get shot in the USA than in Singapore. But guns keep you safe. - LOL Repubtards are deluded!

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent crime and to save lives....according to the CDC. Or, if you prefer, 1.5 million times a year according to the Department of Justice....

And in the U.S., as long as you stay out of democrat controlled neighborhoods in our democrat controlled cities, you are less likely to get shot......and Singapore is a police state.....as long as you are willing to live like that you are pretty safe....except for the whole police state thing...

 

[2aguy]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

This is true because in the general public, we don't have dozens of highly trained government agents protecting every bar, restaurant, alley, street corner or theater. If we could afford that, nobody would need a gun except for at home unless we had such agents in every household.

But the truth is in the general public, the police only come after somebody has been attacked and there is not much they can do about it except to arrest the killer; by then, it's way too late for the victim.

In gun free zones, not only is there no protection from attackers, but nobody is armed to defend themselves which makes those areas attractive to those that do want to commit mass murder. In most instances, gun-free zones are much more dangerous than places where you can conceal carry.

Just curious here.

Would you want restaurant employees, bar employees, theater employees, etc. to have weapons on them? You know, to make those locations more secure in the event of an attack.

It wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact I would welcome it. If I'm not carrying, I always hope somebody else in the place is. If some nut comes into an establishment shooting anybody and everybody, I hope an armed somebody kills the guy before he gets to me. If I'm in a gun-free zone, the only hope I have is prayer.

Gotcha. Just wondering what your position was on that. My opinion is that people are more likely to do something stupid with their guns than they are to heroically save the day when a mass shooter comes along. I know that both happen though. A few incidents immediately come to mind:

Wife of Florida man accused in theater shooting testifies in court

Man charged in ’stand your ground’ killing has history of gun threats, prosecutors say

Police: Gas Station Employee Shoots, Kills Coworker In Nassau County

San Diego public utilities worker shot by resident while working in University Heights

Plenty more of these kinds of incidents I can look up. Non-lethal confrontations that turn lethal because someone has a gun. If a bunch of employees at Wal-Mart were armed, I would think that they're more likely to shoot each other over something stupid. I mean, THAT would be more likely than them preventing a mass shooting. From personal experience, I was working in a restaurant while I was in college. During a chaotic Friday night, I saw one of the cooks stab another cook in the head because they couldn't agree on who would do what.

But I know that the other side of that argument happens as well, just not as often in my opinion and I'm sure we'll disagree there.

Anyway, thanks for actually responding thoughtfully instead of just typing bumper sticker slogans.

And yet actual truth, facts and reality show you are wrong....

As we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense to 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense....gun murder went down 49%. You pick out a few stories, claim they represent something important, and then the truth, facts and reality show you don't know what you are talking about....

 

[2aguy]

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

Maybe you should read more replies before posting. I already explained this to you.

I don't see it in the last few pages. Maybe I missed it?

Go ahead. What's your answer?

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

wrong..... there are lots of guns in there.....as he pointed out the SS and police. When the Vice President isn't there, those cops and SS go with him. A gun free zone attracts mass shooters...we know this from actual research, actual statements from mass shooters and from their notes..... this is a fact, you can't lie about it.

 

[2aguy]

Maybe you should read more replies before posting. I already explained this to you.

I don't see it in the last few pages. Maybe I missed it?

Go ahead. What's your answer?

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

The Vice President is not in a Gun free zone, in fact, the Zone is saturated with guns from the SS and law enforcement....once he leaves, those guns go with him.