Which in no way could be construed as "supporting" one or the other as you claimed.gut;1345719 wrote:You sure as hell did, unless you were channeling the english/grammar of Mr. Belly - you quoted my rhetorical question about allowing the ownership of RPG's and landmines and then said "sounds like a better idea than deciding rights are obsolete..."
The government bans dozens of substances because they're "dangerous."Raw Dawgin' it;1345641 wrote:should be ban alcohol? We tried banning alcohol and it led to more violence and more crime. Banning guns isn't the answer.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't question it.James Gatz;1345730 wrote:The government bans dozens of substances because they're "dangerous."
I don't know that we should abandoned the right simply because the government's guns got bigger than ours.gut;1345701 wrote:The "right to bear arms" is broad and doesn't necessarily imply without limits or restraint. Being allowed to purchase only a few handguns does not necessarily mean your rights are infringed upon.
And, again, what is the full text - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That justification and logic is completely irrelevant in this day and age. Or maybe we should be allowed to also own RPG's and landmines. Does that sound like a good idea?
ccrunner609;1345813 wrote:Talked with our board president and a local sherrif today and both said that the armed school official is the way to go. Huh, who had that idea?
ccrunner609;1345818 wrote:You think that but this idea will gain traction.
Here's some more recent case ruling for you to look at.gut;1345701 wrote:The "right to bear arms" is broad and doesn't necessarily imply without limits or restraint. Being allowed to purchase only a few handguns does not necessarily mean your rights are infringed upon.
And, again, what is the full text - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That justification and logic is completely irrelevant in this day and age. Or maybe we should be allowed to also own RPG's and landmines. Does that sound like a good idea?
Did you invent the internet too?ccrunner609;1345813 wrote:Talked with our board president and a local sherrif today and both said that the armed school official is the way to go. Huh, who had that idea?
Yes. You're an idiot if you think you came up with this idea.ccrunner609;1345842 wrote:do you have anything to add?
Your board President is the same guy who employs a teacher that can't even spell sheriff.ccrunner609;1345813 wrote:Talked with our board president and a local sherrif today and both said that the armed school official is the way to go. Huh, who had that idea?
You may have posted in here first, but let's not pretend you came up with some earth shattering idea. Of course it's on the national news. It's pretty much been debated since it happened. And there are advocates on both sides.ccrunner609;1345928 wrote:I was the first person to post the idea here....you and others called me stupid, it hit the national news last night as an idea and now the higher ups are in agreement. I never once said I came up with it but posted it here as a rationale prevention method before anyone else. Remember you called me stupid, we shall see who has egg on their face in the future
How am I putting words in your mouth?ccrunner609;1345939 wrote:Putting words in my mouth to make your point....doesnt work. THere are people in my community who has the same idea of what would work to protect a school. Sure there are proponents and people that wont go for it but schools are soft targets like malls, post offices and movie theaters. Change the idea of a unarmed school and they wont be targeted.
WebFire;1345945 wrote:President of National School Safety and Security Services is against it as well.
Well you must be right then.GoChiefs;1345949 wrote:So are my board president and local sheriff. :thumbup:
That's all you got? That's a pathetic comeback.ccrunner609;1345962 wrote:of course he is, more then likely a democrat toeing the party line
My responses have been from people of prominent position who back my opinion. Not an unfounded claim about their partisan political stance.ccrunner609;1345973 wrote:oh but all of yours are spot on?
GFY. You have been condescending the moment someone disagreed with you. I'm done responding to you.ccrunner609;1346001 wrote:I guess it's worse to possibly cower & freeze up when pointing your finger at a bad guy getting ready to shoot you, than to possibly do that with a real gun in your hands?
The really stupid thing is you idiots keep acting like the shooters aren't completely untrained cowards. What - a 20 year old mental case is equivalent to some Delta Force operator? Teachers in almost all 24 US school shootings that occured 2000-10 (down from 43 in the 90s..) acted heroically in protecting their students, yet you sexists assume a "25-50 year old woman" would cower & choke in the face of a threat by some elite airborne 20 year old punk bully video game junkie POS? And you're so sure of that that you'd rather a teacher face down a threat like that completely unarmed?
Look, these teachers had to try to protect their students Friday with zero weapons. Nothing to threaten the bully with; nothing to even slow him down or give him pause.
And you scoff at arming them? I'm not sure if it's the answer either, but being so smugly condescending about it shows your true colors..
I guess you idiots also don't think pilots should be armed?
And you know absolutely zero about how our military people handlnke combat. You watch a few stupid war movies & think you have a clue about it, but you embarass yourself by commenting & sharing your stupidity..
There have been cases in recent history when shooter like this were confronted by armed civilians. In almost every case, the shooter folds - just like a bully..
Sorry if this has been posted already:WebFire;1346006 wrote:Look, I am a supporter of concealed carry. I am license holder myself, as is my wife. But I think some people grossly overestimate the ability of themselves or other carriers in situations like this. The Colorado theatre was another example. Very very doubtful a carrier would have made a difference. I feel the same about admins in schools. Consider:
1. Not every school will have someone who is willing/able to carry. You certainly cannot make it a requirement of the job. For one, it shouldn't be, and two, you would severely dwindle the amount of good people available.
2. A single handgun concealed by someone is little defense for events like Newton and Columbine. It would have to be the perfect scenario for it to work. Likely a shooter is in and shooting before the admin is even in. In that case, he/she would have to hunt down the shooter and hope to get in a position for close range skill, competing against an assault rifle. Even if the admin knew right away, he would have to be able to pull his concealed weapon and get on target, then make a kill shot. All against a gunman who most likely already has their weapon drawn.
3. I have a CHL, and pistol training, and shoot enough to feel comfortable with it. Yet, no way in hell do I feel qualified to be the protector of an entire school in a shooting situation. So, I assume your designated carrier(s) would have to have advanced training. Now you have a cost associated with it. And again, a lot of places are unlikely to have someone who feels qualified or feels comfortable doing this.
4. Liability for schools. You are setting up the school for a lot of potential liability. Proper training, proper care of guns, accidental discharges, improper use of the gun, etc. People are sue happy these days.
Just a few things off the top of my head.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/With one shot, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy took down a gunman who attempted to opened fire at a crowded movie theater lobby during a late night showing of “The Hobbit” in San Antonio, WOAI reports.
Police say a gunman chased patrons from the nearby China Garden Restaurant into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater at around 9 p.m. on Sunday. An employee of the restaurant reportedly walked in the establishment looking for a woman.
When the woman, also reportedly a restaurant employee, wasn’t there, the man pulled out a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.
“It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater,” Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.
The commotion sent horrified restaurant patrons into the movie theater lobby, but the gunman followed. He again attempted to open fire, and this time his gun didn’t jam. He shot one man in the chest before Antu says an off-duty sheriff’s deputy working security the theater shot him once, dropping him to the floor.
“The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Antu added.
Due to the off-duty deputy’s bravery, the gunman was not able to make it into the theater where he could have potentially taken many lives.
The gunman and the man he shot remain hospitalized, according to WOAI.
If the gunman survives his failed shooting spree, officials say he will likely face a charge of attempted capital murder as he allegedly shot at the San Antonia police car on Southwest Military Drive as he ran from the restaurant and into the theater.
Police have yet to identify a motive for the shooting or detail the relationship between the gunman and the woman he was searching for at the restaurant.
