Feelings are deceptive.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 2/5/2011 10:21:00 PM (view original):
So bottom line you feel an uninterupted shooting spree is more or less dangerous than a marginally trained teacher?

I think they're pretty infrequent.  I think, by arming teachers, you're creating the potential for daily shootings. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2011 6:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 2/5/2011 10:21:00 PM (view original):
So bottom line you feel an uninterupted shooting spree is more or less dangerous than a marginally trained teacher?

I think they're pretty infrequent.  I think, by arming teachers, you're creating the potential for daily shootings. 

Hmmm, that may be a valid point.
Something worth temporarily considering at least...

And in many of these tragedies, the shooter(s) were seperated from the masses. Anyone aiming to take out the shooter would not have been in any danger of wounding an innocent student.

Maybe you should look up "potential".   Nonetheless, I'm sure you'd agree more guns = more shooting.   You can take it from there.

As far as training people to shoot other people, you don't know if you can until the situation presents itself.  I'd ask "How many cops actually shoot people?" and "Did you ever read about the statistics of shots fired into the air, and not at anyone, in Vietnam?"

Lastly, if you're a shooter and you know the faculty is armed, don't you think you'd be less likely to seperate yourself from the masses?

Posted by winnerpeg on 2/2/2011 5:22:00 AM (view original):
Look,
if the anti-gun people really want security and safety for EVERYONE:

- they should not allow any soldiers/policepersons to even have guns (off or on duty)
- they should destroy every one of the world's guns
AND
-they should prevent (without guns, mind you,) anyone (individuals and organizations, etc) from the production of guns 

...just to be fair and unhypocritical, you know? 

bump for relevance to where this topic is going...

Posted by winnerpeg on 2/6/2011 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by winnerpeg on 2/2/2011 5:22:00 AM (view original):
Look,
if the anti-gun people really want security and safety for EVERYONE:

- they should not allow any soldiers/policepersons to even have guns (off or on duty)
- they should destroy every one of the world's guns
AND
-they should prevent (without guns, mind you,) anyone (individuals and organizations, etc) from the production of guns 

...just to be fair and unhypocritical, you know? 

bump for relevance to where this topic is going...

This is the type of thinking that defys logic and simple reason.

Imagine if this was actually put into practice. Every gun is to be destroyed. Every gun-owner will surrender their firearm to the proper authorities.

Once this was "accomplished", there would still be several persons with guns. Namely the dishonest. non law-abiding types. Who is going to stop them from any numerous felonies they will now be able to attempt without fear of return fire? They will be virtually unstoppable.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2011 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Maybe you should look up "potential".   Nonetheless, I'm sure you'd agree more guns = more shooting.   You can take it from there.

As far as training people to shoot other people, you don't know if you can until the situation presents itself.  I'd ask "How many cops actually shoot people?" and "Did you ever read about the statistics of shots fired into the air, and not at anyone, in Vietnam?"

Lastly, if you're a shooter and you know the faculty is armed, don't you think you'd be less likely to seperate yourself from the masses?

I disagree 100% with more guns equals more shooting.

More criminals equals more shooting. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens almost never get used to kill people.

Posted by meanceprimea on 2/6/2011 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by winnerpeg on 2/6/2011 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by winnerpeg on 2/2/2011 5:22:00 AM (view original):
Look,
if the anti-gun people really want security and safety for EVERYONE:

- they should not allow any soldiers/policepersons to even have guns (off or on duty)
- they should destroy every one of the world's guns
AND
-they should prevent (without guns, mind you,) anyone (individuals and organizations, etc) from the production of guns 

...just to be fair and unhypocritical, you know? 

bump for relevance to where this topic is going...

This is the type of thinking that defys logic and simple reason.

Imagine if this was actually put into practice. Every gun is to be destroyed. Every gun-owner will surrender their firearm to the proper authorities.

Once this was "accomplished", there would still be several persons with guns. Namely the dishonest. non law-abiding types. Who is going to stop them from any numerous felonies they will now be able to attempt without fear of return fire? They will be virtually unstoppable.

Ummm, you didn't read my post properly 

Guns wouldn't be destroyed until ALL the guns were confiscated, including from the authorities. lol
(basically, I'm showing that both sides in this disagreement can't be happy...either we have elected dictatorships with guns and those they choose to also have guns, or basically everyone is allowed to have a gun...total annihilation of guns is impossible)

Jeez.   More guns = less shooting.   You really need to watch this(the Archie Bunker thing I referred to earlier):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68xSoecsoq0

Now, to address the other things.

If the Vietcong are firing at you, it seems like you'd be willing to fire back even if you were drafted.   Fear took over DESPITE training.  I could see that happening very easily with teachers in a life/death situation.

I'm not saying the shooters would make an effort to stand in the middle of a crowd.   I'm saying they would be more cognizant of their surroundings.  They put themselves in a position so that unarmed students would be between them and the armed teachers.   If you can plan a school massacre, you can plan on a way to keep from getting shot by a random teacher.

Posted by meanceprimea on 2/6/2011 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Quote post by MikeT23 on 2/6/2011 3:10:00 PM:

Maybe you should look up "potential".   Nonetheless, I'm sure you'd agree more guns = more shooting.   You can take it from there.

 

I would NOT agree. No more than I would agree that more housing = less homeless. On the surface, sure it seems reasonable, but there really isn’t a correlation there.

 

In fact my belief is more guns = less shootings. See the nuclear arms race of the last half century. If you allow one country to become more powerful, without fear of serious repercussions, they are more likely to use those weapons. People also (even disturbed shooting spree types) are less likely to enter someplace to start shooting if they believe there is a high probability they will not be the only armed person there. When a person KNOWS they are the only one packing, there is less need for contemplation and considering consequences.

As far as training people to shoot other people, you don't know if you can until the situation presents itself.  I'd ask "How many cops actually shoot people?" and "Did you ever read about the statistics of shots fired into the air, and not at anyone, in Vietnam?"

 

I believe a big reason for the shots fired into the air, is due more to the fact that many of the soldiers in Vietnam were drafted and were not volunteers. They didn’t want to be there.

 

Look, I hear what you are saying, many people are simply incapable, but there are others who are capable. I think the odds of “being able to” increase dramatically when you have the potential to save your own life or the lives of many children.

Lastly, if you're a shooter and you know the faculty is armed, don't you think you'd be less likely to seperate yourself from the masses?

 

I think you’d be less likely to bring the gun in the first place.

 

Even if they did, I doubt that assertion. Guns are better suited for ranged conflict. A shooter doesn’t go into the middle of a crowd to open fire. For, if he does, he only gets off a couple shots, at best, before some unarmed teen in the crowd knocks the shi* out of him and takes the gun away. I would be very surprised if ANY of the school shootings involved a shooter amongst a crowd. That isn’t how it generally works.

 

1) As far as 'more guns = less shootings" go, I think you're overlooking the 'suicide by cop' scenario - such as the Florida school board meeting situation that swamp used to start his initial thread. If the shooter is looking to be shot, and possibly take some people with them, the presence of guns isn't a deterrent, it's an encouragement.

2) I don't at all agree with that 'ranged conflict' argument. If you're talking about a sniper in a tower, arming the faculty (or anybody else) won't make any difference at all. And Loughner proved quite clearly that anyone with a handgun can and will open fire from the middle of a crowd.

2) I don't at all agree with that 'ranged conflict' argument. If you're talking about a sniper in a tower, arming the faculty (or anybody else) won't make any difference at all.

In the most famous tower sniper in Texas, armed locals made a HUGE difference. They forced him to take cover and that resulted in fewer deaths.