I'm pretty sure he got that from a Dr. Phil episode.

Actually on second thought, it was probably The View.

Posted by rcrusso on 2/4/2011 4:27:00 PM (view original):
swamp has a new dictionary with words in excess of two syllables! Congratulations swamp!

I'll have to admit, that's a lousy attempt at a retaliation at swamp. lolzing

Posted by winnerpeg on 2/4/2011 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rcrusso on 2/4/2011 4:27:00 PM (view original):
swamp has a new dictionary with words in excess of two syllables! Congratulations swamp!

I'll have to admit, that's a lousy attempt at a retaliation at swamp. lolzing

Actually at least it makes sense. Usually his attacks against me are so off center no one really gets them.

Looks like Texas might be a guinea pig for the guns on campus stop spree killings theory.

EDIT: As the article points out, Utah has had a concealed carry on campus law on the books for five years. How many campus spree killings have been stopped in Utah during that period, I wonder?

First I'd like to apologize to you, anton for unjustly characterizing you as a leftist. It was sloppy.

I do not know the history of swamp or of you, So to make a judgement without knowing the relevant history is worse than sloppy.

If you say libertarian, that is good enough for me.

Second, and to the Utah question: I think the benefit is that a "loose cannon" is far less likely to enter a school to start a shooting spree if he is aware that there are other armed citizens on campus.

You could just as easily ask the question "I wonder how many carrying students or teachers have shot an innocent person in a fit of panic?" as has been a concern voiced throughout the debate.

To another point: I think if a school were going to consider allowing armed faculty members, it wouldn't be as hap-hazard as is being imagined here. I would demand a mandatory gun safety and training course, as is required by many states to get a CCW permit. It would only be becessary to have a very limited few of these faculty members, and if done correctly would be much more of a deterent than a threat. Although I do understand the concept of "done correctly" places a lot of trust in boards and groups that aren't exactly known for doing so in far more trivial matters. That would be my biggest concern.

Well, the difference between those two questions - how many many deterred vs how many were accidentally shot - is that there would actually be statistics on the latter.

It looks like both the existing Utah law and the proposed Texas law aren't so much 'arm the faculty' laws as they allow people with concealed carry licences to carry them on campus, and you do need to jump through some hoops to get those licences. So that addresses the training issue to some extent.

And no worries on the apology - I can see someone being appalled at first glance (or second or third...) by how I, uhh, address swamp.

Posted by antonsirius on 2/4/2011 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Well, the difference between those two questions - how many many deterred vs how many were accidentally shot - is that there would actually be statistics on the latter.

It looks like both the existing Utah law and the proposed Texas law aren't so much 'arm the faculty' laws as they allow people with concealed carry licences to carry them on campus, and you do need to jump through some hoops to get those licences. So that addresses the training issue to some extent.

And no worries on the apology - I can see someone being appalled at first glance (or second or third...) by how I, uhh, address swamp.

Did anyone actually say force teachers to carry?

And I am not sure about your county, but mine is more of backround check and $50 class.

Posted by antonsirius on 2/4/2011 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Well, the difference between those two questions - how many many deterred vs how many were accidentally shot - is that there would actually be statistics on the latter.

It looks like both the existing Utah law and the proposed Texas law aren't so much 'arm the faculty' laws as they allow people with concealed carry licences to carry them on campus, and you do need to jump through some hoops to get those licences. So that addresses the training issue to some extent.

And no worries on the apology - I can see someone being appalled at first glance (or second or third...) by how I, uhh, address swamp.

You can't be trained to shoot people.   And there's only so much "simulation" you can do to prepare people for chaotic situations. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/5/2011 6:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 2/4/2011 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Well, the difference between those two questions - how many many deterred vs how many were accidentally shot - is that there would actually be statistics on the latter.

It looks like both the existing Utah law and the proposed Texas law aren't so much 'arm the faculty' laws as they allow people with concealed carry licences to carry them on campus, and you do need to jump through some hoops to get those licences. So that addresses the training issue to some extent.

And no worries on the apology - I can see someone being appalled at first glance (or second or third...) by how I, uhh, address swamp.

You can't be trained to shoot people.   And there's only so much "simulation" you can do to prepare people for chaotic situations. 

So the shooters will be in the same chaotic situation and may have less training.

They also may not give a rat's *** who they hit.   In fact, that's very likely to be the situation.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/5/2011 6:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 2/4/2011 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Well, the difference between those two questions - how many many deterred vs how many were accidentally shot - is that there would actually be statistics on the latter.

It looks like both the existing Utah law and the proposed Texas law aren't so much 'arm the faculty' laws as they allow people with concealed carry licences to carry them on campus, and you do need to jump through some hoops to get those licences. So that addresses the training issue to some extent.

And no worries on the apology - I can see someone being appalled at first glance (or second or third...) by how I, uhh, address swamp.

You can't be trained to shoot people.   And there's only so much "simulation" you can do to prepare people for chaotic situations. 

No, but you can be trained in how to handle a weapon properly, which would reduce accidental shootings.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/5/2011 8:32:00 AM (view original):
They also may not give a rat's *** who they hit.   In fact, that's very likely to be the situation.

Really? You think that average people would shoot with no regard for human life? What are you basing that on?

The quoted post was in response to this:  "So the shooters will be in the same chaotic situation and may have less training."

No, I don't think the killers is school shooting sprees give a damn who they shoot.   They can just point and squeeze.    Your armed teachers have to actually aim and NOT take the shot unless they're sure they can hit the target.  Unless, of course, they just panic in the chaos and fire away.

Which is what I'd like to avoid.

So bottom line you feel an uninterupted shooting spree is more or less dangerous than a marginally trained teacher?