Gun Free Zones

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Gary Johnson would be ashamed of you.

Why?

 

[El Correcto]

Why?

The post kind of answers that Socrates.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

The post kind of answers that Socrates.

The only thing it answers is questions no one asked about your reading comprehension capabilities. Sad.

 

[Catatonic]

Now you just look like a bigot deflecting from his inaccurate post. Sad.

Now you just look like a person with no sense of humor.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Now you just look like a person with no sense of humor.

Nope. Wasn't funny and reveals his bigotry. Try again.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Just went back and read the article. The 98% claim is a link to a source. Too late tonight to research weather that source is reliable.

Also too late to spell whether correctly, apparently.

Really this logic is flawed from the beginning. Saying that having more guns in currently gun free zones would reduce gun violence is a statement without proof.

Sports complexes have both police and armed security, which I guess would qualify them as gun restricted. I don't know that there is no proof for the statement, but it's a hypothesis, based on observations, that could use some testing so that we have real data to talk about.

Consider schools. Think about armed teachers. Are these school shooters deranged? Probably. Stupid? Probably not.
So a school shooter enters a classroom. Who’s the first one shot? Teacher of course. The rest of the class is at the mercy of the gunman. What’s solved by arming the teachers? Likely the death count goes up because the deranged killer will be confined to a room with 25 to 30 targets. Who knows how far away the next armed teacher is? How many lethal shots can the shooter get off? Will the next armed teacher come alone and just be outgunned?

Really, it’s an idea that really solves nothing. It’s a “feel good” idea for the right wing.

But if the armed falculty or staff were carrying concealed, you wouldn't know which teacher was armed. Sure, you could probably figure it out over time if you were diligent, but there would always be the chance that you could miss some. Combine that with some armed guards and I think school shootings would be even more rare. Though adding armed guards to every school could be cost prohibitive for a lot of school districts. What alternative do you recommend? Ban guns all together? Abolish schools? Just keep the status quo? First two aren't going to happen, last one is what we've been doing and suggests that there isn't really a problem. Which brings me to...

Seems to me both sides of the debate are in constant search of a problem for their solutions. They both pounce on these events to push an agenda. Pushing more guns vs pushing less, both are stupid arguments.

School shootings are rare. We don't need to ban gun free zones. We don't need to ban guns. We don't need to arm teachers. We don't need armed guards. We don't need to blame it on mental health, or violent TV movies and video games.

Seriously people, chill out.

I would love to see you stand in front of a large group of people who have lost loved ones to school shootings and make this argument. These arguments always start after a school shooting with those who lost loved ones and they are demanding something be done, usually banning guns. It's based entirely on emotion, and who can blame them? The problem is that if the pro gun folks don't remind the general population of the facts, then the emotonal argument can gain traction and potentially lead to a vote to repeal the second amendment, as unlikely as that may be. But that's that's the mentality motivating those making the arguments.

The argument then progresses to "what's the solution?" So we try to come up with some more "sensible gun control", or "ending gun free zones". The one thing you can't tell a grieving parent who just buried their child is that there is no problem, so we're not going to do anything. The likelihood of becoming a victim doesn't matter much to those who have already been victimized.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

I would love to see you stand in front of a large group of people who have lost loved ones to school shootings and make this argument.

Sounds fun I'm in.

 

[bbsam]

Also too late to spell whether correctly, apparently.



Sports complexes have both police and armed security, which I guess would qualify them as gun restricted. I don't know that there is no proof for the statement, but it's a hypothesis, based on observations, that could use some testing so that we have real data to talk about.



But if the armed falculty or staff were carrying concealed, you wouldn't know which teacher was armed. Sure, you could probably figure it out over time if you were diligent, but there would always be the chance that you could miss some. Combine that with some armed guards and I think school shootings would be even more rare. Though adding armed guards to every school could be cost prohibitive for a lot of school districts. What alternative do you recommend? Ban guns all together? Abolish schools? Just keep the status quo? First two aren't going to happen, last one is what we've been doing and suggests that there isn't really a problem. Which brings me to...



I would love to see you stand in front of a large group of people who have lost loved ones to school shootings and make this argument. These arguments always start after a school shooting with those who lost loved ones and they are demanding something be done, usually banning guns. It's based entirely on emotion, and who can blame them? The problem is that if the pro gun folks don't remind the general population of the facts, then the emotonal argument can gain traction and potentially lead to a vote to repeal the second amendment, as unlikely as that may be. But that's that's the mentality motivating those making the arguments.

The argument then progresses to "what's the solution?" So we try to come up with some more "sensible gun control", or "ending gun free zones". The one thing you can't tell a grieving parent who just buried their child is that there is no problem, so we're not going to do anything. The likelihood of becoming a victim doesn't matter much to those who have already been victimized.

Around here, youth and even adult sports complexes (league play, soccer club, etc.) do not have armed security and are gun free zones.

When a school shooter enters the classroom, the teacher gets the first bullet. Armed or not doesn’t matter. Shoot teacher first and turn to students. Simple concept.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Around here, youth and even adult sports complexes (league play, soccer club, etc.) do not have armed security and are gun free zones.

When a school shooter enters the classroom, the teacher gets the first bullet. Armed or not doesn’t matter. Shoot teacher first and turn to students. Simple concept.

Thought you were talking about professional sports for some reason. Though our college sporting events around here do have police presence. But having armed personnel seemingly would be a deterrent, especially if it's known that personnel are armed, but not which ones. Ambushes/surprise attacks work really well, that's why the military uses them. That's not really an argument for disarming.

So, if sports complexes haven't had the same mass shooting issues, what do you think makes them different from schools? I'd say the fact that there aren't as many of them, and they host events less regularly than kids attend school, so it could be easier to anticipate an attack. Also, gun free zone or not, you would probably be more likely to run into a parent who ignores the gun free zone at a sports complex. A mass shooter making plans would likely take those things into consideration.

 

[El Correcto]

Around here, youth and even adult sports complexes (league play, soccer club, etc.) do not have armed security and are gun free zones.

When a school shooter enters the classroom, the teacher gets the first bullet. Armed or not doesn’t matter. Shoot teacher first and turn to students. Simple concept.

Maybe if the shooter goes undetected. Makes it to the classroom and the aims through the door. You’re are arguing from this from one scenario and not recognizing the value of having more first responders on site with guns.

 

[bbsam]

Maybe if the shooter goes undetected. Makes it to the classroom and the aims through the door. You’re are arguing from this from one scenario and not recognizing the value of having more first responders on site with guns.

Yes. I am. Armed professional police force. I’ve said that before. That’s different than piling more responsibilities on teachers.

 

[El Correcto]

Yes. I am. Armed professional police force. I’ve said that before. That’s different than piling more responsibilities on teachers.

Police did great job at Florida.

 

[bbsam]

Police did great job at Florida.

You expect teachers to do better?

 

[1989]

Would be simple to control people coming into a school building.

 

[El Correcto]

You expect teachers to do better?

I expect people defending their own lives and the lives of students to do better, yes.

 

[Catatonic]

You expect teachers to do better?

Geezus friend...ing Krist, can they do any worse?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Teachers with military or law enforcement backgrounds would be a good place to start. But any teacher who is willing to take on the added responsibility, and who undergo regular training by and have oversight from law enforcement could be a good compromise. Especially for cities that can't afford police or armed security presence in every school.

 

[bbsam]

I expect people defending their own lives and the lives of students to do better, yes.

Stop being a cheap bastard.

Look at it as defending the second amendment by putting an end to the crazy.

Sadly I bet you now find it easier to spend the money.

 

[bbsam]

Geezus friend...ing Krist, can they do any worse?

Yes.

 

[Sportello]

I expect people defending their own lives and the lives of students to do better, yes.

Trained law enforcement failed. That’s their full time job.

Teaching his hard, law enforcement is hard.

You could argue those are in the top five things we want well done in our country.

What are you willing to pay a qualified teacher who has live fire training? What steps are you willing to pay for to improve safety in our public schools?

I have an idea, build new, safe schools as an infrastructure project. Let a tax on firearm manufacturers who have made this necessary, pay for it. Just like the wall and those brown people we take advantage of.