[N_Fiddledog]

They are not instituting something new here. They had these "personal defense weapons" before Sandy Hook. They just revisited the issue.

This one baffled me...

$1:

"It scares me, it frightens me. It's not the way I was brought up. It's just the fact they're dealing with violence with more violence. And that scares me," said Virginia Nuño, a mother of three school-age daughters in Fontana, Calif.

So what's the alternative? A stern talking to?

[Benn]

Assault rifle locked in a safe. Great, that elementary school massicure took what, under 8 minutes? By the one guard (Assuming he was not shot first) got to the safe, then worked the combination and loaded the weapon then found the assailant to stop him he'd already have caused the same damage. This is like taking away see through water bottles at the airport, window dressing for the ignorant to feel safe.

[raydan]

In unrelated news, California teachers must still use those scissors with the rounded tips.

[MeganC]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Can you imagine a shooter armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and quite possibly body armour shooting it out inside a school full of kids with a cop armed with another automatic weapon? The thought should terrify any sane person.

What terrifies me more is you seem to be okay with the idea of the shooter being unopposed. Please tell me I'm wrong on this because I really want to be.

[BartSimpson]

MeganC MeganC:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Can you imagine a shooter armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and quite possibly body armour shooting it out inside a school full of kids with a cop armed with another automatic weapon? The thought should terrify any sane person.

What terrifies me more is you seem to be okay with the idea of the shooter being unopposed. Please tell me I'm wrong on this because I really want to be.

True. It could be read that way. FOG...rebuttal?

[ShepherdsDog]

The fact that society now requires armed guards in schools is the major issue. What has changed? Pretty sure that if you suggested this to the overwhelming majority of Americans a generation ago they'd have thought you were insane. Americans need to become introspective and discover where they went wrong

[raydan]

My take is that they will always be crazy/delusional people who decide to go out and kill as many people as they can. Sometimes, they'll target something specific, most mostly, they'll go at any soft target. Put an armed guard in schools and they'll either shoot the guard first or choose another target... movie theatre, business, shopping mall, amateur sports event, outdoor concert or celebration... anything.

Unless you're willing to arm every single gathering place to the teeth, you're no going to stop them and even if you do put arms everywhere... impossible, I know... I'm certain it just will not work. The number of people killed from these attacks will not change.

So why would you put money into an endeavor you can't win? The only way to really stop them is BEFORE they start. Put the money into better mental health care, maybe?

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

My take is that they will always be crazy/delusional people who decide to go out and kill as many people as they can. Sometimes, they'll target something specific, most mostly, they'll go at any soft target. Put an armed guard in schools and they'll either shoot the guard first or choose another target... movie theatre, business, shopping mall, amateur sports event, outdoor concert or celebration... anything.

Lately the trend for these cowards is that they go looking for one of these signs that conveniently label the safest places for them to go on their rampages:

[N_Fiddledog]

raydan raydan:

My take is that they will always be crazy/delusional people who decide to go out and kill as many people as they can. Sometimes, they'll target something specific, most mostly, they'll go at any soft target. Put an armed guard in schools and they'll either shoot the guard first

When was the last time you heard of a mass killing where the killer killed the guard then conducted his mass killing? There are however multiple cases of a potential mass killing being thwarted by a gun carrier.

$1:

or choose another target... movie theatre, business, shopping mall, amateur sports event, outdoor concert or celebration... anything.

You mean like a gun free zone? Here's the problem with those.



There are massive drops in shooting rates in areas where citizens are allowed to conceal carry.

$1:

So why would you put money into an endeavor you can't win? The only way to really stop them is BEFORE they start. Put the money into better mental health care, maybe?

Mental health is a possible prevention technique, but what exactly do you mean by that? Having them take their meds doesn't seem to be working. A massive chunk of mass shooting incidents did involve shooters who had been prescribed psychotropics.

http://adventlife.wordpress.com/2013/01 ... ings-list/

The problem with institutionalizing potential nut case shooters is you run into the same left wing guard preventing you from doing it that won't let you have personal defense weapons.

Or do you mean educating mass shooters not to shoot people? That one sounds a lot like this nut on Hannity who suggested rather than allow potential rape victims the right to defend themselves you simply tell men not to rape.

[bootlegga]

MeganC MeganC:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Can you imagine a shooter armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and quite possibly body armour shooting it out inside a school full of kids with a cop armed with another automatic weapon? The thought should terrify any sane person.

What terrifies me more is you seem to be okay with the idea of the shooter being unopposed. Please tell me I'm wrong on this because I really want to be.

Had you not cut out the first part of that statement, you'd know exactly what he meant;

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Secondly has the Fontana School Board ever heard the term collateral damage?

He never said anything about shooters being unopposed, he was obviously concerned that a gunfight between two people armed with fully automatic assault rifles would lead to MORE, not less, deaths.

I'm guessing you're either trolling (highly likely) or just being deliberately obtuse. Either way, it's a fail on your part.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

MeganC MeganC:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Can you imagine a shooter armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and quite possibly body armour shooting it out inside a school full of kids with a cop armed with another automatic weapon? The thought should terrify any sane person.

What terrifies me more is you seem to be okay with the idea of the shooter being unopposed. Please tell me I'm wrong on this because I really want to be.

Had you not cut out the first part of that statement, you'd know exactly what he meant;

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Secondly has the Fontana School Board ever heard the term collateral damage?

He never said anything about shooters being unopposed, he was obviously concerned that a gunfight between two people armed with fully automatic assault rifles would lead to MORE, not less, deaths.

I'm guessing you're either trolling (highly likely) or just being deliberately obtuse. Either way, it's a fail on your part.

I'm reading it the same way.

The premise is that a shooter shows up at a school with a fully automatic weapon.

The Fontana school board wants their officers to be able to counter that premise.

FOG and yourself presume that countering the shooter would increase the number of wounded and killed.

Therefore, Megan is correct in her assessment that FOG and now you, too, would prefer the shooter to be unopposed in the assumption that submitting to such a criminal is somehow less dangerous than opposing him with properly trained law enforcement personnel.

[andyt]

Well, you can do better than a gun locked in a closet. Lots of vets out there looking for work, get them to patrol the perimiter. Better include universities, theaters, shopping malls, Mc Donalds, post offices, gas stations and whatever other locations I've left out. As of 2020, all cars sold in the US should be fully armored. You leave your garage, drop off your kids at the school checkpoint, go to your work checkpoint. Of course by then the NRA will have pushed thru that anti-tank missiles are protected by the second amendment, so it may all be for naught. But the US will be booming - come work for the armaments industry.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Well, you can do better than a gun locked in a closet. Lots of vets out there looking for work, get them to patrol the perimiter. Better include universities, theaters, shopping malls, Mc Donalds, post offices, gas stations and whatever other locations I've left out. As of 2020, all cars sold in the US should be fully armored. You leave your garage, drop off your kids at the school checkpoint, go to your work checkpoint. Of course by then the NRA will have pushed thru that anti-tank missiles are protected by the second amendment, so it may all be for naught. But the US will be booming - come work for the armaments industry.

I like how you think.

[Thanos]

The idea of a locker in the school office containing AR-15's really doesn't concern me at all. If a society is already saturated from top to bottom with firearms it makes little sense at all to break out the rainbows and lollipops and pretend that you can have a gun-free zone anywhere. What makes me laugh is the assumption that some principal or teacher or school office clerk is suddenly going to go all Bruce Willis Supercop when some maniac student or outsider shows up with his own weapons and starts blowing kids away. That's how dumb this entire conversation always seems to end up, that the bad guy will automatically be successfully confronted by the unflinching and unwavering stone cold good guy with ice water running in his/her veins that will cooly dispatch said bad guy with extreme predjudice, not even come close to accidentally shooting anyone else in the vicinity despite bullets flying everywhere, and then stand down without a single hair on their head out of place.

Is it even possible to discuss firearms violence at all without the debate being throttled into insignificance by those who keep believing that what they see in violence-drenched action movies is how gun fights happen in reality? Between that and the poor deluded fools who think that a "gun-free zone" in an ultra-violent society is even possible why is this discussion always dominated by those who live in a world where the sky isn't even the same colour as the one above the rest of us?

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Therefore, Megan is correct in her assessment that FOG and now you, too, would prefer the shooter to be unopposed in the assumption that submitting to such a criminal is somehow less dangerous than opposing him with properly trained law enforcement personnel.

Then, as usual, you're wrong. But just like Chavez swindling a fortune from his country, this doesn't come as much of a surprise.

I didn't say that there shouldn't be weapons in schools, I simply clarified what should have been obvious in FOG's post.

Personally, I advocate the use of shotguns over assault rifles for close-in defence. Less chance of little Timmy taking a .556 round through the head because he happened to be sitting too close to that wall opposite which a gun battle took place.

I think it's sad that it has come to this, but as I said on the first page, they might as well build guard towers and put in fences topped with razor wire, because apparently that's what it's coming to south of the border.

If Americans want to turn their nation into the Republic of Gilead, go for it. It's your country and you're free to do whatever you want, including removing any and all freedoms you so choose.

Just don't look north and expect Canadians to validate your paranoia.