Repeal Gun Free School Zones!?

[stahrgazer]

Not at all, you've clarified none of your points, and made others murkier. The Fort Hood shooting does not indicate that anyone was "graduating" that day, certainly not the people who were targeted, although I do note that you're backing away from that claim with the quotation marks.

An extensive article on it I read last week at work spoke of graduating. If the article was wrong, so be it. My use of "Quotemarks" wasn't backing away from the claim. I think maybe it's your mind that's making things murky

Clearly the base's civilian police were armed, as one of them shot him, which goes against your claim that only MP's were carrying firearms.

Not at all, the civilian officer wasn't assigned to the base but he responded when the shooting started.

Furthermore, even a school not designated as a gun free zone can suffer mass shootings- Columbine notably had people with guns.

True.

Finally, there really is no conclusive evidence that concealed carry laws decrease violence.

There is, albeit extensive studies have not been done.

[General Brock II]

These shooters know that within minutes of starting to shoot armed cops will turn up in ever increasing numbers.

How is it a deterrant that they might get shot maybe 5 minutes quicker than they would without the guns in the school buildings?

Are we talking deterrent or safety of the children? Those five minutes would save dozens of lives. Not only that, but the police have to penetrate the building, which takes time. The teacher or principal would be able to nail the shooter from the inside - possibly before he even really got started.

It's like this... One person has the gun, many people die. If everybody has a gun, only the assailant and victims of crossfire will die.

Keeping an armed guard? Talk about expensive and impractical. We see how well armed guards work... You have got to have at least five teachers authorized to utilize a firearm and equipped to do so in the case of emergency.

[Woodruff]

What has become clear is that we obviously need to station armed guards at all firestations, so that those armed guards can go out with firemen when they respond to calls. This is clearly necessary in order to ensure the safety of our firefighters.

[Symmetry]

What has become clear is that we obviously need to station armed guards at all firestations, so that those armed guards can go out with firemen when they respond to calls. This is clearly necessary in order to ensure the safety of our firefighters.

That's ridiculous, we need an armed guard in front of all flammable houses and buildings, including fire stations.

[Phatscotty]

These shooters know that within minutes of starting to shoot armed cops will turn up in ever increasing numbers.

How is it a deterrant that they might get shot maybe 5 minutes quicker than they would without the guns in the school buildings?

Are we talking deterrent or safety of the children? Those five minutes would save dozens of lives. Not only that, but the police have to penetrate the building, which takes time. The teacher or principal would be able to nail the shooter from the inside - possibly before he even really got started.

It's like this... One person has the gun, many people die. If everybody has a gun, only the assailant and victims of crossfire will die.

Keeping an armed guard? Talk about expensive and impractical. We see how well armed guards work... You have got to have at least five teachers authorized to utilize a firearm and equipped to do so in the case of emergency.

I understand the cost issue. I have an idea to help with that. Let's relocate all the armed guards out of the social security offices and the welfare offices.

I think we can all agree our children, in their school, should be one of the safest places in the country.

[Symmetry]

These shooters know that within minutes of starting to shoot armed cops will turn up in ever increasing numbers.

How is it a deterrant that they might get shot maybe 5 minutes quicker than they would without the guns in the school buildings?

Are we talking deterrent or safety of the children? Those five minutes would save dozens of lives. Not only that, but the police have to penetrate the building, which takes time. The teacher or principal would be able to nail the shooter from the inside - possibly before he even really got started.

It's like this... One person has the gun, many people die. If everybody has a gun, only the assailant and victims of crossfire will die.

Keeping an armed guard? Talk about expensive and impractical. We see how well armed guards work... You have got to have at least five teachers authorized to utilize a firearm and equipped to do so in the case of emergency.

I understand the cost issue. I have an idea to help with that. Let's relocate all the armed guards out of the social security offices and the welfare offices.

I think we can all agree our children, in their school, should be one of the safest places in the country.

Indeed, if each and every child is guarded with any less protection than that afforded to a nuclear warhead, the country is failing.

[Phatscotty]

I like how the airlines do it. Pilots volunteer for an extensive program that, when completed, allows them to carry in the cockpit. Schools could, similarly, have teachers, administrators, etc., volunteer to complete a similar extensive training program to allow them to carry in the classroom.

"Who" is not publicly disclosed, so the potential is, any/all. Thus, schools are no longer totally defenseless, and maniac cowards might choose other targets.

Most assuredly, maniacs will always choose targets, and most assuredly, they'll find a way be it knives, guns, bombs, poison (remember Tylenol and other over-the-counter pill poisonings years back?) But at least kids in school would no longer be totally defenseless sitting ducks because the prof might be packing.

Sounds great! I fully back it!

After thinking about it, I'm not sure it'd work too well in a classroom. Kids these days are more and more violent in general. I wouldn't like to have a program like this in place to protect the kids who gang up on a "packing" professor, take his weapon, and use it against other kids in the classrooms or halls, but I'm sure it would happen if a program like this were instituted.

And what if we said "some principles" or "administrators" instead of some teachers? Well, the chance of kids getting to those arms is less, but would that fear-factor be enough to keep the maniacs at bay?

Then there are those who say, "hire more armed security/policemen to patrol the schools." Sounds great, right? Who wants double school real estate taxes to pay for this? Given the current "fiscal cliff" in the news about whether to raise taxes and reduce spending; raise taxes and not reduce spending; only reduce spending... seems pretty clear to me that no one really would wish to pay for this.

Maybe some parents could volunteer for a program where they get trained and registered and get to sit in their cars (locked) in front of the schools with their nearly-assault-but-not-quite-technically-assault-rifles ready to shoot any perp who'd come try to shoot the kids. Citizen patrol/neighborhood watch type. But wait, I live in Florida, where a citizen on neighborhood watch may or may not have illegally assaulted and killed someone who wasn't causing any trouble, out of fear he would, or racism (both arguments have been brought up about why he did it if it wasn't self-defense.) Trayvon Martin is the victim I'm referring to here, if you hadn't guessed.

There's no 100% solution.

But, signs, "gun free zone" really do make places like that targets for maniacal cowards who want to be violent and make the news.

I'm not sure that's the case. A person who enters a situation like this with the intent to die isn't going to be deterred by a sign, let alone one that says that it's not a place he'll be shot.

How do you know that?

I speculate it's highly likely the evil-doer will pick another location, possibly even just save us all the trouble and turn their weapon on themselves.

[Phatscotty]

But, signs, "gun free zone" really do make places like that targets for maniacal cowards who want to be violent and make the news.

I'm not sure that's the case. A person who enters a situation like this with the intent to die isn't going to be deterred by a sign, let alone one that says that it's not a place he'll be shot.

One of the worst killing sprees in recent US history occurred at a military base- Fort Hood in 2009.

It's not the sign, it's the knowledge that they're sitting ducks. The Fort Hood shooting was a at a graduation ceremony, a time when the perp could be reasonably sure that most of the targets would not be well armed, so, again, "sitting ducks."

I'm pretty sure that a military base isn't a good target for "sitting ducks".

Could you restate your point? I don't know what you're saying about gun-free signs anymore.

But, signs, "gun free zone" really do make places like that targets for maniacal cowards who want to be violent and make the news.

It's not the sign, it's the knowledge that they're sitting ducks.

Are you saying they matter, or not?

You might also consider reading about the Fort Hood shooting for the "graduation ceremony" inaccuracy.

Maybe you should read about military bases. On most bases, only the MPs carry guns/ammo, the rest are usually locked away except when training is ongoing.

I did read about the Fort Hood shooting, An army psychologist with Muslim leanings didn't want to be deployed to the Middle East so "went postal." Some of the trainees were "graduating" the day he picked so it wasn't an inaccuracy, and since there was this ceremony going on there probably wasn't a lot of shooting training going on, so only a few MPs carrying to worry about at least until some damage was done.

To clarify my point about "gun free zones" - we all know what the "gun free zones" are, right? Areas where even those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, cannot legally bring them in. Thus, areas where there are likely to be no persons - or very few persons - shooting back. Thus, areas where there are a bunch of "sitting ducks," helpless in front of someone with the intention to do violence.

After 9/11 they instituted a program where pilots could volunteer to carry in the cockpit, so they have something to defend themselves, the passengers, the plane against folks intending to do violence with things like box cutters. It's a possible deterrent.

Few mass murders happen in police stations, because so many of them will be armed and the nutsoids know it, so they also know they cannot generate the fear they can where there's defenseless or nearly-defenseless "sitting ducks."

Get it now?

Not at all.

Gazer, meet Symmetry.

[Phatscotty]

Question specifically for Player, or any other Americans.

Do you seriously trust this post-PatriotAct post-NDAA government tinkering with our rights?

[Symmetry]

But, signs, "gun free zone" really do make places like that targets for maniacal cowards who want to be violent and make the news.

I'm not sure that's the case. A person who enters a situation like this with the intent to die isn't going to be deterred by a sign, let alone one that says that it's not a place he'll be shot.

How do you know that?

I speculate it's highly likely the evil-doer will pick another location, possibly even just save us all the trouble and turn their weapon on themselves.

I've actually given you an article or two in the past about what constitutes a deterrent to suicide, suicidal thinkers tend to be very driven toward a single method. Especially those who chose something with a degree of spectacle. It's easily applied to a shooting spree where the shooter expects to die, and in many cases either is killed, or commits suicide.

Do you still have the NYTimes article I sent you about suicide? The findings it mentioned surprised me to be fair, as I said when I sent it to you, but the idea that a fixated individual will simply turn to something else doesn't pan out in the majority of cases.

[Phatscotty]

But, signs, "gun free zone" really do make places like that targets for maniacal cowards who want to be violent and make the news.

I'm not sure that's the case. A person who enters a situation like this with the intent to die isn't going to be deterred by a sign, let alone one that says that it's not a place he'll be shot.

How do you know that?

I speculate it's highly likely the evil-doer will pick another location, possibly even just save us all the trouble and turn their weapon on themselves.

I've actually given you an article or two in the past about what constitutes a deterrent to suicide, suicidal thinkers tend to be very driven toward a single method. Especially those who chose something with a degree of spectacle. It's easily applied to a shooting spree where the shooter expects to die, and in many cases either is killed, or commits suicide.

Do you still have the NYTimes article I sent you about suicide? The findings it mentioned surprised me to be fair, as I said when I sent it to you, but the idea that a fixated individual will simply turn to something else doesn't pan out in the majority of cases.

I think I remember that...makes sense to me. It just so happens to make sense to me that the reality you describe is not going to be prevented by having a "gun free zone" or any gun-control regulations.

Whatever we need to do about crazy people, let's do it. Neither the crazies nor is Progressive politicking going to dictate to the other 99.999% of us on how we live our lives, or what rights are going to be taken away from Americans.

[Metsfanmax]

Whatever we need to do about crazy people, let's do it. Neither the crazies nor Progressive strategy are not going to dictate to the other 99.999% of us on how we live our lives, or what rights are going to be taken away from us.

Again, as was pointed out, the principal reason you need to exercise those rights is precisely because of "the crazies." So they are exactly dictating how you act.

[Phatscotty]

Whatever we need to do about crazy people, let's do it. Neither the crazies nor Progressive strategy are not going to dictate to the other 99.999% of us on how we live our lives, or what rights are going to be taken away from us.

Again, as was pointed out, the principal reason you need to exercise those rights is precisely because of "the crazies." So they are exactly dictating how you act.

hmm, pretty sure that burglars, car-jackers, rapists, muggers, drug dealers, stalkers, pussy husbands with fat wives that beat them, animal rights activists, and a tyrannical government are also just a little part of that "dictating".

[Symmetry]

But, signs, "gun free zone" really do make places like that targets for maniacal cowards who want to be violent and make the news.

I'm not sure that's the case. A person who enters a situation like this with the intent to die isn't going to be deterred by a sign, let alone one that says that it's not a place he'll be shot.

How do you know that?

I speculate it's highly likely the evil-doer will pick another location, possibly even just save us all the trouble and turn their weapon on themselves.

I've actually given you an article or two in the past about what constitutes a deterrent to suicide, suicidal thinkers tend to be very driven toward a single method. Especially those who chose something with a degree of spectacle. It's easily applied to a shooting spree where the shooter expects to die, and in many cases either is killed, or commits suicide.

Do you still have the NYTimes article I sent you about suicide? The findings it mentioned surprised me to be fair, as I said when I sent it to you, but the idea that a fixated individual will simply turn to something else doesn't pan out in the majority of cases.

I think I remember that...makes sense to me. It just so happens to make sense to me that the reality you describe is not going to be prevented by having a "gun free zone" or any gun-control regulations.

Whatever we need to do about crazy people, let's do it. Neither the crazies nor is Progressive politicking going to dictate to the other 99.999% of us on how we live our lives, or what rights are going to be taken away from Americans.

The thing is, Scotty, and this is solely regarding the suicide thing, death by cop, or security guard just isn't going to stop them. I find the argument that gun-free zones encourage mass shootings to be kind of silly. These people know they're going to die, and they know how. They're not intending to avoid being killed.

I can see your point, and you have been trolling a hell of a lot here, that perhaps armed presence would reduce casualties, but as I showed you in the stuff I sent you, easy accessibility to a means of suicide results in higher suicide rates. If it were widely known, as it increasingly seems to be now, that walking in to a school with a gun and shooting whoever you see will end your life and get you famous, what's to prevent walking into a school and shooting people becoming an easy way out for suicidal people?

[Phatscotty]

yeah but that isn't any different than saying the less water there is around, the less people will drown. Of course the answer is "well duh" but it's even duher to try to ban water.

All I'm saying is encourage teaching people how to swim, not close all the lakes, or only open on Sundays