The guard was in a parking lot wearing a bright yellow shirt. All he managed to do was draw their fire to him at a distance.
No, paper targets don’t shoot back. Neither does a stack of dead bodies. Adrenaline is a two way street and just as easily affects the shooter’s aim who has a building full of unarmed people to choose from and all the time in the world before the police arrive.
The difference is that a person with the same training as a police officer stands a better chance of hitting the shooter who now has to defend against multiple armed people. How many mass-killers have had real training with a gun?
These are not seal-team-6 ninjas that commit these crimes. They’re crazy people with little or no skills. If you think you stand a better chance of survival cowering in a puddle of your own urine against a shooter versus a trained group of armed teachers then make your case.
Nope. From the wikipedia article:
Emphasis added. It apparently isn’t “hard to miss”, as that poster said.
Your cite is exactly what I posted. He was at a distance from the school, wearing a yellow shirt. Nobody was hit because of the distance. The shooters had no problems hitting the students who were up close.
TMTR for now, but to answer the OP: Some people like it; they point out that our airports and banks have guards, shouldn’t our children have them too? On the other hand there are:
[ul]
[li]people who hate guns period and are appalled at the idea of having them in schools.[/li][li]people who point out that whatever the merits, it would be impossibly expensive, when our schools are already desperately underfunded.[/li][li]people who are so anti-government that they see it as part of a plot to desensitize Americans to martial law.[/li][/ul]So my guess, it ain’t gonna’ fly.
It’s already flying. The only question is how many more school systems will opt for it.
No. You posted that:
That’s not all he managed to do. He fired back. So, not “hard to miss” as the poster said. It was quite easy to miss in this circumstance, and any other circumstance when the guard happens to be not near the shooters.
That is not to say that such guards have no purpose. But the poster makes it sound like it’s an “if a then b” situation. Here we had a, but not b.
The problem with your first premise is that most of these sociopaths are described as cool, calm and methodical in their executions. In other words, classic sociopathic behavior. If you don’t feel emotion or care about the consequences of what you’re doing, or are living inside your own head, the adrenalin rush is likely not going to happen or will be minimized.
I can’t imagine a world where we are arming teachers and librarians and restaurant wait staff and college students because we’ve just given up on controlling weapon access for assholes, and not dialing back the types of weapons that are available without permits. Because it doesn’t stop with teachers; you would have to arm everyone who comes in contact with large numbers of the public: doctors, musicians, the girl who serves you popcorn at the movies, et al. While the NRA sees nothing wrong with this apocalyptic vision of America, I and most others want no part of it.
Two states, and a school district in Texas, allow concealed-carry licensed teachers to be armed in K-12 schools. 300+ colleges and universities (welcome to the bunch, University of Colorado) allow students and faculty who are concealed-carry licensed to be armed on school premises.
Please show me the negative effects of this. You know, apart from you “wanting no part of it”.
sorry, all he managed to **accomplish **is that he drew their fire. He was too far away to do any good. You should have figured out my meaning when I said the shooters had no problems hitting the students but not the guard.
And yet they kill themselves before any real threat appears.
I can’t imagine a world where we set aside killing zones so crazy people have free reign.
Despite the fact that we successfully guard all kinds of institutions we go out of our way to avoid protecting schools and children.
again If you think you stand a better chance of survival cowering in a puddle of your own urine against a shooter versus a trained group of armed teachers then make your case. All you’ve done is a declare it’s not possible when it’s already being done.
Well, I’m glad you agree, then, that it’s not “hard to miss”. That’s my only point.
Nope. It’s not my job to do anything more than read what you wrote. If you meant something else, you should have posted something else.
I find it difficult to believe you didn’t understand that I implied they were too far away for accurate use of the weapons. I think you’re being deliberate obtuse but consider yourself properly informed of what I meant. Your point of dissagreemment with the idea that it’s hard to miss is not established by the cite you gave.
Sorry, but my understanding of what you originally posted was that he drew their fire and, because he was so distinctive, they shot him. How far away he was wasn’t mentioned, so that didn’t factor into it for me.
As you stated in post 65, though, we have no idea how many people are actually carrying guns at these schools. Maybe nobody is. Maybe that’s why there haven’t been “negative effects.” You don’t have any real data to work with.
They are allowed to bring guns to schools if they have a concealed-carry license. You have no way to know whether they do or not. That is how it should be. Why do you think that if the same thing is allowed in other states the result would be different?
I understand what you’re saying. My point is that if we have no idea whether any of these teachers & students who are allowed to carry guns are actually carrying guns, we have no data to use to judge if carrying a gun to school is safe or not. If none of them are actually carrying, or even a very small number of people are, then of course we’re not seeing any negative effects - things like guns being stolen from them, innocent people being shot, mistaken shootings, etc. Without those numbers, your argument that guns in school aren’t going to result in these things is baseless because we don’t know if there are actually any guns in these schools - only that people are allowed to bring them if they choose.
We have data that allowing teachers to be armed in school has no negative effects in those states. So why such hysterical objections to the proposal to allow the same thing in other states?
I recently noted this on msn.com. Apparently the Obamas see this as suitable protection regardless of where they stand personally on gun control. And apparently the school must have heard something Mr. La Pierre said if they are considering an additional guard. It does seem bizarre the lengths we go to to guard inanimate things like banks when our value as a healthy country lies in the health of our children.
A number of influential and wealthy people’s children have attended this school. I can’t understand why anyone would think middle- or lower-class children are less valued or worthy of the kind of protection these parents think is necessary for their children.
I don’t see it as an either this or that issue but rather one where we should be combining health and law-enforcement resources in a way that proves that we care more about saving children’s lives than we do about winning arguments pro and con.
I think when I was raising my little ones, if people had said they had ideas that could improve their safety in school, I would’ve been all for it rather than argue on principle or hypotheticals.
What you’re proposing is different than what the NRA is proposing. They want armed guards in every school. Some people have gone further and stated they want teachers to go through some sort of training course and carry weapons. This is what people are reacting to (“hysterically”?), not your idea. All you’re proposing is that we publicize that some people may be carrying. It’s possible that some of them will be, but I think what’s more probable is that there will be a lot of publicity about the new policy but few, if any, teachers will actually participate.
What you’re arguing in this thread is that people shouldn’t worry about what the NRA is proposing (or those further proposals) because there are already tons of guns in school! In those states that allow it! And, see? No problems! But your conclusions aren’t based on any data. We have no idea if actually having guns in teachers’ hands would or would not result in things like guns being stolen or people being shot mistakenly because we have no idea if any teachers actually have a gun strapped to their hip during class, only that there are places where that’s allowed. Maybe there are statistics out there that back up your argument and maybe there aren’t, but just saying that we’ll never know and that’s how it should be does not support your argument.