Gun Free Zones

[Woodruff]

and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too

that is not realistic

I wonder about any country where it is "unrealistic" to make damn sure mentally ill people with violent tendencies find it near impossible to get hold of weapons of that effectiveness.

a weapon is a weapon. you just want to cut down the murderers effectiveness, but that does nothing for prevention, while it does make it harder for people to protect themselves

No it doesn't. True that cutting down the murderer's effectiveness is a HUGE part of this discussion (well, it should be, but you seem to want to ignore that part of it). But the fact of the matter is that the teacher who charged Lansa (you know, the one you were declaring a hero a bit ago) would have had a far greater chance of success if Lansa had a non-semi-automatic weapon, perhaps even just a knife, rather than what he had. Then they would have been "a hero who lived", as you said. So no, it DOESN'T make it harder for people to protect themselves in that sort of a situation, necessarily.

[Woodruff]

can Amendments be bad and wrong? as in unchangeble ? could alway just ban bullets

except for there are a lot of American Liberals who have a similar understanding as American Conservatives and everyone inbetween as to the purpose of our second amendment, and on that we are united, just as with the first amendment.

There are far more educated, responsible and reasonable liberals and conservatives who recognize that the Second Amendment is not infringed by reasonable restrictions. Just like every other right we have.

[Woodruff]

Like it or not, I'll go ahead and bet there will be at least one gun carried into every school by a teacher or staff come wednesday.

Highly unlikely to even be a significant number outside of those schools where it was already the case.

[Phatscotty]

and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too

that is not realistic

I wonder about any country where it is "unrealistic" to make damn sure mentally ill people with violent tendencies find it near impossible to get hold of weapons of that effectiveness.

a weapon is a weapon. you just want to cut down the murderers effectiveness, but that does nothing for prevention, while it does make it harder for people to protect themselves

True that cutting down the murderer's effectiveness is a HUGE part of this discussion.

Also true that being able to defend yourself is better than being defenseless...and can cut down on the murderer's effectiveness

[Woodruff]

and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too

that is not realistic

I wonder about any country where it is "unrealistic" to make damn sure mentally ill people with violent tendencies find it near impossible to get hold of weapons of that effectiveness.

a weapon is a weapon. you just want to cut down the murderers effectiveness, but that does nothing for prevention, while it does make it harder for people to protect themselves

True that cutting down the murderer's effectiveness is a HUGE part of this discussion.

Also true that being able to defend yourself is better than being defenseless...and can cut down on the murderer's effectiveness

It's too bad you cut out the relevant portions of my post to respond to a sound-bite. How very Fox Newsy of you.

[Phatscotty]

What is the alternative then? How do you stop a murderer who is shooting children in a school?

[stahrgazer]

and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too

that is not realistic

I wonder about any country where it is "unrealistic" to make damn sure mentally ill people with violent tendencies find it near impossible to get hold of weapons of that effectiveness.

a weapon is a weapon. you just want to cut down the murderers effectiveness, but that does nothing for prevention, while it does make it harder for people to protect themselves

No it doesn't. True that cutting down the murderer's effectiveness is a HUGE part of this discussion (well, it should be, but you seem to want to ignore that part of it). But the fact of the matter is that the teacher who charged Lansa (you know, the one you were declaring a hero a bit ago) would have had a far greater chance of success if Lansa had a non-semi-automatic weapon, perhaps even just a knife, rather than what he had. Then they would have been "a hero who lived", as you said. So no, it DOESN'T make it harder for people to protect themselves in that sort of a situation, necessarily.

Wrong, Woody. It only took ONE bullet to stop her, and it would have only taken ONE bullet from HER gun - if she had had a gun - to stop him!

So yes, it DOES make it harder to protect herself.

Last I heard, teachers can't carry knives at school, either, they're considered a weapon, and if they hide them, they're considered a CONCEALED weapon which can only legally be done with a permit - a concealed weapons permit, the same type of permit that allows people to carry concealed guns. Oh, but wait, the same ban of guns in schools also bans other concealed weapons in schools, so once again, unarmed teacher would've been going up against an armed maniac criminal.

So let's just say, it was a maniac criminal armed with a lethal, cruelly sharp hunting knife, because guns would be banned in your dreams. So, no guns. Just that lethal knife made for taking down big game in a man-vs-animal setting.

Picture it: mr. maniac could still slash unarmed teachers and defenseless little kids, and probably create even more terror doing it, because instead of blood seeping from holes it would be spurting all over the classrooms from severed arteries. Further, he could probably then have gotten into more classrooms before stopped, because his giant hunting knife wouldn't make a bang-bang noise, and it might take a while for people to realize kids screaming (if they still could, if they weren't shocked into silence after watching the spurting of blood all over the place) wasn't squeals of joy like at recess but squeals of terror.

"Laws" don't stop maniacs, woodruff. Laws merely keep honest people honest.

When confronted with a maniac, people need good defenses. Too bad those 'gun free zones' meant those kids' teachers had no defenses against the maniac.

[Phatscotty]

Colorado school shooting over in 80 seconds, and only one person was shot by the Socialist BECAUSE THERE WAS A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN IN THE SCHOOL.

You heard it right, gun grabbers. The recent shooting in Colorado at Arapahoe High School happened to have a Deputy Sheriff on school grounds who was working as a school resource officer, according to a CNN report. He was in the vicinity of the shooter when the rampage began and was able to end the violence in 80 seconds. The initial reports were stating that the police took 14 minutes to arrive on the scene, but we are now learning that wasn’t what ended the shooting.

The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.

Once he learned of the threat, he ran — accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators — from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. “It’s a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly.”

The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. “We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life.”

He praised the deputy’s response as “a critical element to the shooter’s decision” to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. “He went to the thunder,” he said. “He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe.”

Not even 24 hours ago, we posted an article discussing what we’ve learned since Sandy Hook and what we’re doing about it. Well, this is a perfect example of something we should be doing across the country.

While you’re here, this is a perfect opportunity to revisit The Illusion of the Gun Free Zone, as it fits like a perfectly matched puzzle piece.

We’re tired of being polite. This needs to be common practice.
ALLOW LEGALLY ARMED STAFF TO CARRY ON SCHOOL GROUNDS.
END GUN FREE ZONES.

Share this with as many people as you can, because these are the stories that don’t stay in the headlines for very long. It’s extremely important that people see these mass shootings when they end in this fashion. The media tends to give much more attention to the shootings that have a higher death toll. The reality is, the story above should have more coverage because of the low death toll and praise the officer for defusing a horrible situation that would have been much worse.

[mrswdk]

It says in the story that the shooter took his life when he heard there was a sheriff nearby. So I guess now we can thank guns because the shooter used one to commit suicide, thus ending the rampage?

[Metsfanmax]

Police are already permitted to carry guns in gun-free school zones. This could have happened in any state.

[Phatscotty]

Police are already permitted to carry guns in gun-free school zones. This could have happened in any state.

So you voted 'yes' in the poll?

[Metsfanmax]

I didn't vote in the poll. I'd lean close to 'sounds like a good idea' but frankly not every school necessarily has the budget for that sort of thing.

[Phatscotty]

I didn't vote in the poll. I'd lean close to 'sounds like a good idea' but frankly not every school necessarily has the budget for that sort of thing.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

[patrickaa317]

I didn't vote in the poll. I'd lean close to 'sounds like a good idea' but frankly not every school necessarily has the budget for that sort of thing.

"But it's for the children though!" Isn't that the reason for putting a bunch of social programs in place even though there may not be the budget for it?

[Metsfanmax]

I didn't vote in the poll. I'd lean close to 'sounds like a good idea' but frankly not every school necessarily has the budget for that sort of thing.

"But it's for the children though!" Isn't that the reason for putting a bunch of social programs in place even though there may not be the budget for it?

It certainly seems that teaching is one of those professions that a lot of people think they can tell teachers how to do better without ever having stepped in front of a classroom.

[Phatscotty]

I didn't vote in the poll. I'd lean close to 'sounds like a good idea' but frankly not every school necessarily has the budget for that sort of thing.

"But it's for the children though!" Isn't that the reason for putting a bunch of social programs in place even though there may not be the budget for it?

It certainly seems that teaching is one of those professions that a lot of people think they can tell teachers how to do better without ever having stepped in front of a classroom.

I find it odd you are suddenly concerned about budgets when it comes to preventing school massacres.

[Metsfanmax]

I didn't vote in the poll. I'd lean close to 'sounds like a good idea' but frankly not every school necessarily has the budget for that sort of thing.

"But it's for the children though!" Isn't that the reason for putting a bunch of social programs in place even though there may not be the budget for it?

It certainly seems that teaching is one of those professions that a lot of people think they can tell teachers how to do better without ever having stepped in front of a classroom.

I find it odd you are suddenly concerned about budgets when it comes to preventing school massacres.

Oh, of course, you're correct. We should take 100% of every school district's budget and use it to fund a militia to guard the school. Doing anything less would be like not being concerned about preventing school massacres. How can you think of spending that money on books and teachers when you could be spending it on another police officer? Do you want the children to die?

[Phatscotty]

Met's, it's one person. It's for security. ...a militia..LMAO! silly. My town just passed a 2 million dollar school levy for bulletproof windows and metal detectors. I don't really think you are qualified for this topic.

But there are a lot of people who said a gun on school grounds will not prevent a massacre. There is no way around this one. an armed school resource officer was present, and he was able to prevent a massacre by being on the scene and responding in less than 90 seconds whereas it took the police 14 minutes. The Socialist murderer had 125 rounds on him, but only one person was shot (besides the coward shooter).

Score one for the good guys

[Phatscotty]

I need to make this clear, I have no problem with people privately owning guns, so long as they are responsible and have had background checks.

But putting guns in schools? Yeah, because every 5 year old needs to see a gun-toting guy everyday. Brilliant idea. Let the kids live in fear, as the guns would be a daily reminder that they are not safe.

I wonder how the students of this recent shooting at the Colorado school feel about that? Turns out, in fact, it was a brilliant idea, no??

I assume they are extremely thankful a good guy with a gun in their school was able to stop the shooter virtually in his tracks. Again, he had 125 bullets, and only 1 person was shot by him.

A massacre was prevented. Brilliant indeed.

[Lord Arioch]

I wonder if we in Sweden ever had a school shooting that actually happened. The police have arrested kidz for talking, and threatening to do it but i dont think its actually happened here.
Might be something to learn for u here?

[thegreekdog]

I didn't vote in the poll. I'd lean close to 'sounds like a good idea' but frankly not every school necessarily has the budget for that sort of thing.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

I don't support increasing school budgets for armed guards.

[Metsfanmax]

Met's, it's one person. It's for security. ...a militia..LMAO! silly. My town just passed a 2 million dollar school levy for bulletproof windows and metal detectors. I don't really think you are qualified for this topic.

Imagine how much more you could improve the quality of education in that school system with two million dollars (which is a non-trivial fraction of nearly any district's annual budget). The number of school shootings is so low as a fraction of the total number of schools in the U.S. that it's simply not a cost-effective measure. You're simply much more likely to do good for the children by improving their education than by buying bulletproof windows.

As for the "it's just one person" argument: you can use the same rationale for hiring another security guard, just in case. And another. You can't justify the salary of an armed professional on the basis that "it can stop a shooting massacre." You have to justify how likely that is to happen, given both the rate of shooting events in schools, and how likely the officer is to be able to stop an active shooting event in progress (or to deter such events from happening). It's much easier to make this argument if the "armed professional" is not simply a guard for the students but plays the "school resource officer" role that most resident police officers do in schools.

[thegreekdog]

Imagine how much more you could improve the quality of education in that school system with two million dollars (which is a non-trivial fraction of nearly any district's annual budget).

This statement is not based in reality (at least as far as my experience and knowledge of school districts go). The quality of education would not improve if you sunk $200 million into the school district. We already spend more per child on education than any other country in the world.

I agree with the rest inasmuch as spending $2 million of taxpayer dollars on pretty much anything affecting one school district, including something related to randomly and rarely occuring school shootings, is a collossal waste of money.

I also will point out the further flawed nature of the Republican party and their rhetoric. It's not that they don't want to spend taxpayer money, it's that they want to spend taxpayer money on things they want (like bulletproof windows and metal detectors).

[mrswdk]

My town just passed a 2 million dollar school levy for bulletproof windows

Seems kinda pointless when the people who attack schools tend to enter the rooms their victims are in before they open fire.

[Metsfanmax]

Imagine how much more you could improve the quality of education in that school system with two million dollars (which is a non-trivial fraction of nearly any district's annual budget).

This statement is not based in reality (at least as far as my experience and knowledge of school districts go). The quality of education would not improve if you sunk $200 million into the school district. We already spend more per child on education than any other country in the world.

This is patently false based on the research literature. There are a number of proven ways to leverage investments to actually increase the quality of education. The fact that you can dump in two million dollars without much effect doesn't mean that's it guaranteed. Also, remember that a lot of our education spending is for the infrastructure of the system, rather than actual aid dollars to individual school districts. The marginal impact of your dollar is greater if you give it directly to a school district rather than to the federal government or the state.