Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there were several law-abiding citizens in the school who are armed and trained, do you believe that might make a difference to the shooter? Might it get him to stay away from that school, knowing there was someone there who would shoot back?
BTW, there is a sign at all the school entrances stating that staff members are armed and will use deadly force to protect the children.
BTW, there is a sign at all the school entrances stating that staff members are armed and will use deadly force to protect the children.
I love those signs.
Posting armed guards at every school, in cooperation with local police departments who know the area and know how may guards would be needed to really make a difference, has worked. It's expensive (we'd have to hire and train more policemen), but are our children's lives not worth the extra expense?
Or we could allow for guards of a different, and far more numerous, nature: Obey the 2nd amendment for a change, and let any law-abiding adult who wants to, carry. A teacher if they want, a deliveryman at the school, a janitor, somebody walking their dog past the campus, plus many other such.
If the 2nd amendment were fully obeyed, most people still wouldn't bother carrying... but some would. And some demented thug who wants to shoot up a school and get tons of headlines after he's dead, would know that there's probably someone nearby with a gun who knows how to use it. So he probably won't be able to rack up the huge body count he's hoping for. And maybe some of them will decide not to do it in the first place. Presto, a reduction in shootings, without a shot being fired.
Why do the horrified spectators always call for "solutions" that have failed already? And why does the govt listen to them, and let the killings go on without restraint? Isn't it time they listened to those whose solutions are already proven to work instead?
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,586,979 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
"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."
How I interpret it is that every state should have a regulated Militia (army) and those are the ones allowed to keep and bear the arms. But then people are going to tell me, I'm wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
It says the right of the PEOPLE. Not right of the State, or the Government. So, yes, you are wrong as the Militia clause is separate. However, even if it weren't, the PEOPLE need to own guns privately in order to serve in the Militia which is not the National Guard.
The Supreme Court agrees with me by the way, and incorporated the Second Amendment as an individual right.
The people are the State in the u.s. or do I have that wrong? I have to admit, there are times I do think I do have that wrong, where as that thumb gets pressed down upon my head.
Quote:
The Supreme Court agrees with me
I wouldn't hold my breath on that for too long if I were you, because I never thought it possible for the Supreme Court could compel me to open my wallet and pay for health insurance either, but it did.
And no amount of gun toting stopped them from doing it either.
"The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
And then, two hundred years later, astronauts finally landed on the moon and proved once and for all it was NOT made of green cheese. Would this mean the the people's right to KBA was now eliminated?
Of course not. In English usage common at the time (and still prevalent today) the last 14 words of the amendment stand by themselves, regardless of the part before them.
Back to the subject:
Would anybody care to speculate on the chances that the OP's proposal would result in fewer shootings than the present hodgepodges of govt laws, which are usually obeyed only by law-abiding people?
I'm going to say no. People intent on causing a mass shooting are going to do it - period. Having more people with guns isn't going to stop them and those people for the most aren't prepared to do so.
As for your number of about 100 people in the crowd of 100K would be armed - somewhere between 14 and 20% of all Californians own guns. If were were to go on that low end, that would extrapolate to about 14,000 capable of carrying a weapon at that festival. Lets say 10% of those actually carry - so 1,400 weapons there. Did anyone actually try to save the day??
I'm going to say no. People intent on causing a mass shooting are going to do it - period.
Every single one of them?
I disagree.
As I said earlier, some whackos would go ahead and do their shooting anyway, but some would not.
In Los Angeles in 1999, a nutcase got a gun and went driving to several Jewish schools, looking for targets. When he saw the first two schools had armed guards, he did not stop, but drove past them and did not shoot. Only when he found a school that had no armed guards, did he stop, get out, and start shooting.
I honestly don't believe more people being armed would make any significant reductions in most mass shootings, but individuals should have the right to defend themselves in unlikely event they are present at one.
I carry. I'm not going to run toward a shooter to engage in a gun fight, but I will have my weapon ready if he were to approach me.
Anyone who feels they are safer without a gun when a shooter is walking toward them to put a bullet in their skull shouldn't have a gun.
I feel I'm safer with a weapon if I'm trapped in a hotel ballroom with a shooter walking around executing people.
I believe that if a shooter ever entered my kids' school, they are safer because several of the teachers there are armed and trained. It might not make a difference, but I'll take a 'might' over nobody being capable of defending them.
These conversations always get heated, and I understand why. But I would like to ask a question, and I'm not trying to load it with any judgement or entrap you in a game of language. I am sincere.
If you were in a crowd and there was a shooting, like this one in Gilroy, and a person came around a corner holding a gun, how would you react in that moment? I don't understand how you tell whether this person is a "good" guy or a "bad" guy, especially in a situation where people are panicked.
I don't know you. So, if there is a shooting, and I come around a corner & see you holding a gun, how do I know you aren't the shooter? What if I see you and end up running away in the wrong direction? Or is this a case of protecting yourself, not a consideration of others (again, I don't mean that in a judgy way, just trying to understand)?
The most important effect of letting law-abiding citizens carry (even though most still wouldn't bother), is that potential murderers would know there's probably some people in the crowd who are armed and ready.
And this knowledge would keep some of the nutcases from going in and opening fire in the first place.
That's a better result than our current laws are giving us. Isn't it worth trying?
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,586,979 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by robr2
I'm going to say no. People intent on causing a mass shooting are going to do it - period. Having more people with guns isn't going to stop them and those people for the most aren't prepared to do so.
As for your number of about 100 people in the crowd of 100K would be armed - somewhere between 14 and 20% of all Californians own guns. If were were to go on that low end, that would extrapolate to about 14,000 capable of carrying a weapon at that festival. Lets say 10% of those actually carry - so 1,400 weapons there. Did anyone actually try to save the day??
I don't know if I have the acronym right, as it was something said in a conversation over the radio that I heard ... SMF ?
Quote:
Did anyone actually try to save the day??
When a gun man preparing to do bad things enters an establishment, the first thing they look for is the one with the gun in their holster. "Shoot Me First". Your question made me think of it, because from what I understand that is pretty much how that gets played out.
Every time there's a mass shooting, the only alternatives people seem to examine, are either "ban more and more guns", or "everybody should be armed".
How about if we simply let the 2nd amendment do what it was originally intended to do?
If everyone is allowed to carry a gun, would everybody do it? Of course not. Most wouldn't bother.
But a few probably would.
And in a crowd exceeding 100,000 people (as the Gilroy festival was), there might be a hundred or so, armed and knowing how to use their weapons. That's a tenth of one percent.
And the guy who wants to commit mass murder, would know it. If he wants to go someplace where nobody could shoot back, and divert him from the body counts he wanted to rack up, a festival where maybe 1 out of a hundred people (or even less) were armed, would be the LAST place he'd want to open fire. He might not be afraid of dying. But his plan is to rack up a huge body count and get weeks of lurid headlines after the police finally show up and kill him.
If the 2nd amendment were actually upheld and enforced as written, and all law-abiding adults were freely allowed to carry a gun, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would.
And a criminal planning to rob a store, shoot up an office, or murder or rape someone in the street, shoot up a festival etc., would know that there was a pretty good chance that some of the people in the crowd were armed, and knew how to use their weapons.
Some of the crazier criminals might go ahead and commit their crimes anyway. But a number of them would consider the increased risk to himself, and decide not to commit it, than do nowadays.
Presto, a mass shooting prevented, all without a shot being fired.
Why don't we try upholding the 2nd amendment, instead of expecting government to make everything better? If someone contemplating killing people, knows there's probably someone near him armed and ready, he's less likely to even start.
The main use of civilian-owned firearms is to DETER crimes. Which is a far better result than the results we have gotten from every government so-called "gun control" scheme, which have never resulted in ANY reduction in crime.
What you are proposing is how it is today, and the body count is about 30 000 Americans per year.
If you ever decide to take a firearms class, they will tell you that carrying a gun does NOT make you a police office who will get involved in preventing people robbing stores. No. Let them rob the store, and let the owner get his money back from the insurance company.
The Parkland school shooter knew there was a trained & armed guard (a sheriff) at the school and he did it anyway.
Everybody should be checked before entering gun free zones to ensure it is a gun free zone.
They were "wanding" people and using metal detectors. The shooter cut through the metal fence at the back of the fair grounds to circumvent the security. So how else are you going to ensure it was a gun free zone?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
