[Ford]

Originally Posted by MutR.

Deterrent or not, Lives would be saved if teachers were armed. theres no 2 ways around it.

How? How, besides through random theorizing and conjecture can you prove giving guns to a teacher could save any more lives than banning high-capacity magazines or the sale of glocks and five-sevens?

To me this idea of arming teachers, the way it's been presented seems as smart as introducing one invasive plant species to snuff out a previous one.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by Ford

How? How, besides through random theorizing and conjecture can you prove giving guns to a teacher could save any more lives than banning high-capacity magazines or the sale of glocks and five-sevens?

Kinda like how banning guns and STANDARD size magazines would be any better? Gotcha.

[The Inflicted]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

Okay, real talk here.

Let's say the teacher is concealed carrying or even open carrying.

They aren't ready to fire on a student at any second, but the crazy that shows up is. All the crazy has to do is quickly draw and blast on the teacher, then all of the students are sitting ducks that can only duck and run.

These terrorists also tend to commit suicide. Do they really care whether they take a bullet? Is that really a deterrent?

Just a thought here.

I think the idea is that by allowing teachers to carry concealed, if they so chose and satisfied the necessary criteria and took the training, would-be mass shooters would be less likely to mount attacks on schools in the first place because they would be less confident of the likelihood of their being the only person on school grounds with a weapon.

As Larry Correia said in this lengthy but very good article, putting up a sign that says, "No Guns Allowed" isn't deploying a magical cross to ward off vampires- it's a message that those who come into these places with evil purposes will have plenty of time to do their evil undisturbed. Just as the Clackamas episode demonstrated, most suicidal mass shooters turn their guns on themselves the moment they're confronted with armed resistance.

[Ford]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

Kinda like how banning guns and STANDARD size magazines would be any better? Gotcha.

that's my point. neither side is playing with any real evidence amigo.

[im bad at pbx]

I like this idea. My school has a strict policy on keeping doors locked. You go to the bathroom, you knock and some one lets you in. This might not be a bullet proof door but if you get against the wall the door is located people can't see you.

[MutR.]

Originally Posted by Ford

How? How, besides through random theorizing and conjecture can you prove giving guns to a teacher could save any more lives than banning high-capacity magazines or the sale of glocks and five-sevens?

To me this idea of arming teachers, the way it's been presented seems as smart as introducing one invasive plant species to snuff out a previous one.

You think someone thats gonna shoot up a bunch of people then kill himself cares if the magazine hes using is illegal?

I cant believe you actually try to argue this point.

How? Because the teachers are THERE ALREADY. How wouldnt they be able to respond and disarm a shooter faster than a police officer that has to get a report, drive to the address, locate the shooter, then react? Please tell me how an officer could possibly respond faster than a teacher thats already on the premises?

[SniperForce-Duffek]

I wanna get something clear. Someone clearly define high capacity magazine for me. Again, this 'high capacity' term is complete and utter bull**** because there is no definition of what is or isn't. The magazines that are used with ar-15's and glocks are STANDARD sized. The media and politicians continue to spew bull**** about the size when there is no standardization to begin with. How anyone can argue this is beyond me. Is a 100rd drum hi capacity? Maybe, but what is it compared to? People argue subjective terms as fact.

[TheSilentAssassin]

The Act also defined and banned 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices', which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than a certain number of rounds, and that up to the time of the Act were considered normal or factory magazines. Media and popular culture referred to these as 'high capacity magazines or feeding devices'. Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a 'normal' capacity and 'high' capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...lt_Weapons_Ban

[SniperForce-Duffek]

And in 1920 a car that did 64 mph was probably considered too fast and over powered. Now on some highways the speed limit is 80mph. Point? Times change.

[licence2kill]

Yeah, except in this case they've definitely changed for the worse.

[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by The Inflicted

I think the idea is that by allowing teachers to carry concealed, if they so chose and satisfied the necessary criteria and took the training, would-be mass shooters would be less likely to mount attacks on schools in the first place because they would be less confident of the likelihood of their being the only person on school grounds with a weapon.

As Larry Correia said in this lengthy but very good article, putting up a sign that says, "No Guns Allowed" isn't deploying a magical cross to ward off vampires- it's a message that those who come into these places with evil purposes will have plenty of time to do their evil undisturbed. Just as the Clackamas episode demonstrated, most suicidal mass shooters turn their guns on themselves the moment they're confronted with armed resistance.

I understand that point of view, I am just thinking that a suicidal maniac would be more or less just as willing to take a bullet from a defender as from his own weapon. Only the teachers are going to be armed in these situations, because we aren't giving out weapons to minors. Kill the teacher and you have a bunch of unarmed children.

You also have to factor in that armed teachers change the environment of the classroom even if the guns aren't visible. Not all teachers are going to be comfortable for that. Not all parents will be either. Keep in mind that a lot of schools are in low-income crime plagued communities with gang problems and the like. These places are equipped with metal detectors to ensure no one has a weapon, so introducing one into the mix is a little counter productive.

I'm not trying to be critical of everyones opinion, I'm just not sure how much of an effect a lot of proposed ideas will have. I think better mental healthcare that is more available is critical, as well as taking a closer look at "problem" children.

And, I don't care what everyone says, his mother knew her child was an issue. Having the guns totally available to him was stupid, and the fact is if a gun wasn't available to him this wouldn't have happened. Period, end of story, no argument against this. To suggest he could have carried out this attack with a knife or baseball bat is making an argument for the sake of arguing.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

And, I don't care what everyone says, his mother knew her child was an issue. Having the guns totally available to him was stupid, and the fact is if a gun wasn't available to him this wouldn't have happened. Period, end of story, no argument against this.

Because you know for a FACT, without a shadow of a doubt, he WOULDN'T have found a firearm from another source to carry it out. Since you're a living version of the system in Minority Report and all and can predict the future.

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

Because you know for a FACT, without a shadow of a doubt, he WOULDN'T have found a firearm from another source to carry it out. Since you're a living version of the system in Minority Report and all and can predict the future.

If we had gun regulations on par with our peer nations its very likely that he wouldn't.

[Volucris]

Face it, we're not banning guns. Pick up your liberal **** and go move to the U.K. already. There's probably a nice Islamic family looking for someone like you. You won't listen to our facts and logic, you're just another fool with an agenda to push.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Volucris

You won't listen to our facts and logic,

Lol, where were those again? LTK is arguing in terms of fact and statistics (other nations gun rates for example). I have yet to see the factual argument from the other side. I am not denying it's existence, but so far all I have heard is "This is Amurica, mkay".

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Oh that's right, what happens in one part of the world can be replicated everywhere. Must have missed it.

[TheSilentAssassin]

I'm not claiming LTK argument is valid, but it is an attempt at a conversation rooted in facts and ideas... I have yet to see that from the other side.

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

Oh that's right, what happens in one part of the world can be replicated everywhere. Must have missed it.

By your notion, every economic argument became irrelevant. Every social policy argument became irrelevant. Every military tactic became irrelevant. Every business model or market became irrelevant. Need I continue. It may not be foolproof but using other countries as examples is the damn nearest thing we can get to understanding and fixing world problems.

[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

Because you know for a FACT, without a shadow of a doubt, he WOULDN'T have found a firearm from another source to carry it out. Since you're a living version of the system in Minority Report and all and can predict the future.

Too young to buy a weapon, too reclusive to use a friends. Of course this is just this case.

[AlphaNeo36]

I'm never going to agree to ban sales to people like his mother. In my eyes, the school shooting was unavoidable from a firearm legislative perspective and comes with the territory of right to ownership.

[Ford]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

I'm never going to agree to ban sales to people like his mother. In my eyes, the school shooting was unavoidable from a firearm legislative perspective and comes with the territory of right to ownership.

this.

I cant believe you actually try to argue this point.

Nope, not trying to argue a point, trying to make a point. Neither High capacity rounds, or more guns on campus have any evidence backing up that they would make any impact.

How? Because the teachers are THERE ALREADY. How wouldnt they be able to respond and disarm a shooter faster than a police officer that has to get a report, drive to the address, locate the shooter, then react? Please tell me how an officer could possibly respond faster than a teacher thats already on the premises?

This thread, and the other one are starting to go in circles. Columbine had armed police officers on campus and immediately after the attack began, and they had no impact. In the North Hollywood shootout, the attackers couldn't care less how many cops with guns were on sight.

If I'm to understand your statement, you're arguing something very similarly as the head of the NRA. That the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Also, FoxNews has a good interview with one of the men who helped subdue the Giffords/Tucson shooter who had a gun on him.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannit...tucson-tragedy

The take away is he arrived after the shooter had been subdued, but mistook the guy holding the gun as the shooter. If a bullet had still been chambered, lord knows what may have happened to that guy.

This all a long winded way to say you have no proof guns on a school campus helps. You have some vague idea that it might... Like a park manager trying to wipe out one invasive species with another without fully analyzing or investigating all alternatives. We still don't even know how the attack went down.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

If we had gun regulations on par with our peer nations its very likely that he wouldn't.

If you actually cared about people dying then you would be complaining that cars aren't safe enough, since far more people die from cars than by guns. The fact that you don't proves you don't care how many people die, you just don't like guns because you're a pansy liberal who goes along with whatever msnbc tells you.