Recent mass shooting proves NRA idea on school security completely wrong.

tererun · Sep 18, 2013

WillyPete said:
I don't know you well enough to call you stupid, but you do seem quite defensive.

Give it time, and you will call me stupid.

WillyPete said:
It seems clear you think gun restrictions are called for, and we agree that police should have firearms, so where is the line? Who is the first person who should NOT be allowed to have a firearm? Perhaps anther way to ask is, what is the least serious "violation" that should ban a person from owning firearms?

Oh this one has a clue. That is the argument. Where are we going to draw the line. because it is crazy to allow everyone to have a gun just as it is cray to ban all guns from law abiding citizens. Really, if you are a law abiding citizen and you handle your guns safely and with responsibility I am absolutely great with you enjoying them. It is life and you should be able to go after what makes you happy as long as you are not hurting others in an unreasonable fashion. I say that unreasonable part because some people will just hate what you do and need to get over it because they have no reason to hate it. You are new here so i am explaining it as if you have a brain until i am proven wrong.

WillyPete said:
What you're describing is a new requirement to report people who are "hearing voices" to authorities, so they can ban them. Who shall this be required of? Teachers, police, military authorities? Should there be compulsory psyche screening to purchase a firearm, or perhaps a more general screening that is compelled on everyone? Both of those ideas have Constitutional hurdles to clear.

I have not said compulsory though i would entertain an argument for that. However if you have committed the sin of being noticed for your mental problems like the recent shooter has then we have a reason to evaluate it and keep you away from guns and perhaps other items. if you are in control and no one would have any reason to examine you like most people then have at it. if you cannot discipline yourself to behave within the minimal boundaries not to be arrested or brought before a shrink then you do not have the discipline to properly handle a deadly weapon IMO.

WillyPete said:
We all want a policy that will work to reduce these killings. Apart from the psyche screening angle above, do you have anything specific in mind?

Good question, and the answer is not anything revolutionary and new. I am hoping that open honest discussion on the subject will reveal new things we can do that we can do to make things safer. I honestly am not sure about most of them, but a legitimate database of felons and people who have been declared crazy that is accesible in some manner for firearm dealers to compare their applicatiopns with would be a realistic start IMO. I am also into the decriminalization of victimless crimes like drug use or prostitution so people do not get their rights to own firearms removed for a BS crime.

YoungConserv · Sep 18, 2013

Op your premise ignores the fact that Clinton disarmed military personnel on base and lead to them being so easily slaughtered.

apdst · Sep 18, 2013

tererun said:
So finally it seems some real details come out about the shooting. I will get to the fake ones in a minute. The shooter came in with a shotgun and somewhere along the line picked up a couple of pistols. Now we hear from the NRA that teachers with guns and armed guards are the best way to prevent a school shooting. This Navy facility had armed guards roaming around. These guys are trained with their firearms and supposedly ready to use them. I would assume some of them might even be soldiers. It seems one of the way the shooter may have armed himself is by shooting the armed guards who are supposed to have been there to stop him. The other story is that this guy may have gotten more guns from a gun storage safe. The NRA suggests we have guns in school in a safe for access to the good guys if there is a armed assault on a school.

So this guy has demonstrated that even with a shotgun that is pump action and not a high capacity gun he was able to somehow acquire more guns and ammo off of the guards or from a safe or locker. This proves what i have said all along. A prepared killer is an overwhelming match for flatfooted guards, and that locked up guns are of no use unless the good guys happen to be able to get to them. Even trained armed guards whose sole purpose there was to respond to an attack were no match for dude with a shotgun who they outgunned and outnumbered surprising them. Even if he did not get his guns off of them, they fell.

Now this brings up the confusion in reporting and why that becomes relevant to this situation. Most of these situations are confusing. the facts are easier to get after things are over and a legitimate forensic investigation can determine how and what happened. During the moments where the fight is going on and for a time afterwards the situation is not known by anyone. The people involved do not know the details and neither do the authorities. What does that mean? What was one of the rumors about this? it was that there were potentially, and may still be, more than one person involved. You are a person and you have a gun in this situation where there is nothing but rumors, speculation, and fear for your life. You are more of a danger to the innocents who are running in fear than you are to the shooter. You may not even know who the shooter is. how are you supposed to determine another "good" guy with a gun from the guy shooting? It is not like they wear T-shirts with "I am the shooter" written on them.

So the NRA somehow expects that mildly trained teachers with guns are going to react better than cops and the friggen navy to a shooter that is often armed with much more than a shotgun. This is a perfect example as to why other methods are far more capable of saving lives than a bunch of flat footed undertrained teachers with guns, or even some armed guard from some security force who drew school as his assignment over being a mall cop. In the end a responding cop shot the guy in this case. Not one of the guards roaming the shipyard. It wasn't some armed person floating around. those were both present. He was not killed by some people who got to a gun locker and armed themselves. No, the cops got him. Thank you NRA for being 100 percent wrong.

More of the same old, "let's do nothing and hope everything turns out ok" :roll:

tererun · Sep 18, 2013

apdst said:
More of the same old, "let's do nothing and hope everything turns out ok" :roll:

So throwing gasoline on the fire is what you back.

haymarket · Sep 18, 2013

MaggieD said:
If the Aurora theater had not been a gun-free zone, who could argue that he wouldn't have been killed early on? Or at least that he'd have been so busy trying to avoid being shot that he'd have killed many less people? Changing a state's gun laws by making plots of ground gun-free zones doesn't save lives. It costs them, in my opinion. And if businesses and state/governmental institutions are going to designate gun-free zones, they should be completely responsible for the violence that can't be prevented because of that decision...an obligation (or at least conscientious effort) to prevent the bad guys for getting in with guns.

Maggie - I do think you and others who advocate this do have a point. Yes, if a member of that theater audience had a weapon and shot that scumbag early in his onslaught many innocent lives could indeed have been saved. I stand up proudly and concede that fact.

Having said that, there is more to this than just that isolated example. Let us say that we change the laws about the ability to carry a weapon anywhere a citizen desires to carry one. Is it then possible that the proliferation of guns in places around the nation will in turn result in innocent people being shot who are not being shot today because of the unintended consequences of that change?

In other words, would there also be a down side to this in addition to the up side? Or - do some really believe that guns and using them are a perfect good which can have no down side no matter how many people have them and are prepared to use them in any place?

WillyPete · Sep 18, 2013

tererun said:
I have not said compulsory though i would entertain an argument for that. However if you have committed the sin of being noticed for your mental problems like the recent shooter has then we have a reason to evaluate it and keep you away from guns and perhaps other items. if you are in control and no one would have any reason to examine you like most people then have at it. if you cannot discipline yourself to behave within the minimal boundaries not to be arrested or brought before a shrink then you do not have the discipline to properly handle a deadly weapon IMO.

Ok, a shrink can declare a person unfit, or if they are convicted of certain crimes. That's already true in most places, so it sounds like you'd want to enhance the mentally unfit angle. The challenge here is that mental health treatment is largely voluntary unless they are committing serious crimes, so there are few ways to force an adult to go. That's why some form of compulsory screening of gun-buyers or the general populace would be needed to make those rules effective.

Good question, and the answer is not anything revolutionary and new. I am hoping that open honest discussion on the subject will reveal new things we can do that we can do to make things safer. I honestly am not sure about most of them, but a legitimate database of felons and people who have been declared crazy that is accesible in some manner for firearm dealers to compare their applicatiopns with would be a realistic start IMO. I am also into the decriminalization of victimless crimes like drug use or prostitution so people do not get their rights to own firearms removed for a BS crime.

Such databases exist, though I'm certain they could be improved. Most recent mass shooting have a similar tone, where the person was having obvious difficulties that other people knew off, but nothing was done. Do you think it would be appropriate for a person to be able to call the authorities, and have another person held for a period of time for a mental health evaluation? Surely you see the potential for abuse there, both by the police and citizens.

SMTA · Sep 18, 2013

tererun said:
So finally it seems some real details come out about the shooting. I will get to the fake ones in a minute. The shooter came in with a shotgun and somewhere along the line picked up a couple of pistols. Now we hear from the NRA that teachers with guns and armed guards are the best way to prevent a school shooting. This Navy facility had armed guards roaming around. These guys are trained with their firearms and supposedly ready to use them. I would assume some of them might even be soldiers. It seems one of the way the shooter may have armed himself is by shooting the armed guards who are supposed to have been there to stop him. The other story is that this guy may have gotten more guns from a gun storage safe. The NRA suggests we have guns in school in a safe for access to the good guys if there is a armed assault on a school.

So this guy has demonstrated that even with a shotgun that is pump action and not a high capacity gun he was able to somehow acquire more guns and ammo off of the guards or from a safe or locker. This proves what i have said all along. A prepared killer is an overwhelming match for flatfooted guards, and that locked up guns are of no use unless the good guys happen to be able to get to them. Even trained armed guards whose sole purpose there was to respond to an attack were no match for dude with a shotgun who they outgunned and outnumbered surprising them. Even if he did not get his guns off of them, they fell.

Now this brings up the confusion in reporting and why that becomes relevant to this situation. Most of these situations are confusing. the facts are easier to get after things are over and a legitimate forensic investigation can determine how and what happened. During the moments where the fight is going on and for a time afterwards the situation is not known by anyone. The people involved do not know the details and neither do the authorities. What does that mean? What was one of the rumors about this? it was that there were potentially, and may still be, more than one person involved. You are a person and you have a gun in this situation where there is nothing but rumors, speculation, and fear for your life. You are more of a danger to the innocents who are running in fear than you are to the shooter. You may not even know who the shooter is. how are you supposed to determine another "good" guy with a gun from the guy shooting? It is not like they wear T-shirts with "I am the shooter" written on them.

So the NRA somehow expects that mildly trained teachers with guns are going to react better than cops and the friggen navy to a shooter that is often armed with much more than a shotgun. This is a perfect example as to why other methods are far more capable of saving lives than a bunch of flat footed undertrained teachers with guns, or even some armed guard from some security force who drew school as his assignment over being a mall cop. In the end a responding cop shot the guy in this case. Not one of the guards roaming the shipyard. It wasn't some armed person floating around. those were both present. He was not killed by some people who got to a gun locker and armed themselves. No, the cops got him. Thank you NRA for being 100 percent wrong.

What a bull**** extrapolation that is.

MaggieD · Sep 18, 2013

haymarket said:
Maggie - I do think you and others who advocate this do have a point. Yes, if a member of that theater audience had a weapon and shot that scumbag early in his onslaught many innocent lives could indeed have been saved. I stand up proudly and concede that fact.

Having said that, there is more to this than just that isolated example. Let us say that we change the laws about the ability to carry a weapon anywhere a citizen desires to carry one. Is it then possible that the proliferation of guns in places around the nation will in turn result in innocent people being shot who are not being shot today because of the unintended consequences of that change?

In other words, would there also be a down side to this in addition to the up side? Or - do some really believe that guns and using them are a perfect good which can have no down side no matter how many people have them and are prepared to use them in any place?

Well, I'm glad you see some merit. Now we're talking about degrees. Somewhere between you and me probably lies compromise, I'd imagine.

Some examples that come to mind:

Illinois courthouses are gun-free. Regardless of your license, you are not allowed to carry a gun into a courthouse. I'd imagine many states are like this because emotions often run high when the legal system is at work. Divorces and child-support considerations come to mind. And probably a dozen other very good reasons.

Do they simply put a sign up, "No Guns Allowed"? Uhhh, no. Every person entering the courthouse is run through a security checkpoint. Purses and briefcases are x-rayed; packages are examined; everyone runs through a metal detector. There are armed LEOs running the checkpoints and several armed LEOs standing by in case anyone gets frisky. I see the need. I see the enforcement. Good on them.

And, now, for sake of argument, let's look at the Aurora, CO shooting. "No Guns Allowed." Exits and entrances are not secured. There is no enforcement of the regulation . . . no security . . . no metal detectors . . . no checks of any kind. The sign may as well have read, "Okay, all you law-abiding citizens, leave your guns at home." Baloney on that.

I'm of the strong opinion that if state gun laws are going to be circumvented by private property owners (or Federal/state governments), they need to provide security. Or they need to be held liable in civil court when things run amok.

Most people who carry weapons have more shooting expertise than average law enforcement personnel. Many of them see themselves as guardians of themselves, their families and, many times, the rest of us.

When seconds count, the coppers are minutes away.

VanceMack · Sep 18, 2013

tererun said:
So finally it seems some real details come out about the shooting. I will get to the fake ones in a minute. The shooter came in with a shotgun and somewhere along the line picked up a couple of pistols. Now we hear from the NRA that teachers with guns and armed guards are the best way to prevent a school shooting. This Navy facility had armed guards roaming around. These guys are trained with their firearms and supposedly ready to use them. I would assume some of them might even be soldiers. It seems one of the way the shooter may have armed himself is by shooting the armed guards who are supposed to have been there to stop him. The other story is that this guy may have gotten more guns from a gun storage safe. The NRA suggests we have guns in school in a safe for access to the good guys if there is a armed assault on a school.

So this guy has demonstrated that even with a shotgun that is pump action and not a high capacity gun he was able to somehow acquire more guns and ammo off of the guards or from a safe or locker. This proves what i have said all along. A prepared killer is an overwhelming match for flatfooted guards, and that locked up guns are of no use unless the good guys happen to be able to get to them. Even trained armed guards whose sole purpose there was to respond to an attack were no match for dude with a shotgun who they outgunned and outnumbered surprising them. Even if he did not get his guns off of them, they fell.

Now this brings up the confusion in reporting and why that becomes relevant to this situation. Most of these situations are confusing. the facts are easier to get after things are over and a legitimate forensic investigation can determine how and what happened. During the moments where the fight is going on and for a time afterwards the situation is not known by anyone. The people involved do not know the details and neither do the authorities. What does that mean? What was one of the rumors about this? it was that there were potentially, and may still be, more than one person involved. You are a person and you have a gun in this situation where there is nothing but rumors, speculation, and fear for your life. You are more of a danger to the innocents who are running in fear than you are to the shooter. You may not even know who the shooter is. how are you supposed to determine another "good" guy with a gun from the guy shooting? It is not like they wear T-shirts with "I am the shooter" written on them.

So the NRA somehow expects that mildly trained teachers with guns are going to react better than cops and the friggen navy to a shooter that is often armed with much more than a shotgun. This is a perfect example as to why other methods are far more capable of saving lives than a bunch of flat footed undertrained teachers with guns, or even some armed guard from some security force who drew school as his assignment over being a mall cop. In the end a responding cop shot the guy in this case. Not one of the guards roaming the shipyard. It wasn't some armed person floating around. those were both present. He was not killed by some people who got to a gun locker and armed themselves. No, the cops got him. Thank you NRA for being 100 percent wrong.

The answer to that question is...yes. Precisely. Armed citizens are a VASTLY superior defense option than sitting around waiting 10 minutes for the cops ala Sandy Hook or 30 minutes ala the DC naval Shipyard. You bet. You have to be the worst kind of moron to think that it is a better idea to sit quietly and wait for your turn to die until the cops get there. IF they get there (police response in Colorado is +17 minutes, Stockton CA...never. They shut down their police force).

haymarket · Sep 18, 2013

MaggieD said:
Well, I'm glad you see some merit. Now we're talking about degrees. Somewhere between you and me probably lies compromise, I'd imagine.

Some examples that come to mind:

Illinois courthouses are gun-free. Regardless of your license, you are not allowed to carry a gun into a courthouse. I'd imagine many states are like this because emotions often run high when the legal system is at work. Divorces and child-support considerations come to mind. And probably a dozen other very good reasons.

Do they simply put a sign up, "No Guns Allowed"? Uhhh, no. Every person entering the courthouse is run through a security checkpoint. Purses and briefcases are x-rayed; packages are examined; everyone runs through a metal detector. There are armed LEOs running the checkpoints and several armed LEOs standing by in case anyone gets frisky. I see the need. I see the enforcement. Good on them.

And, now, for sake of argument, let's look at the Aurora, CO shooting. "No Guns Allowed." Exits and entrances are not secured. There is no enforcement of the regulation . . . no security . . . no metal detectors . . . no checks of any kind. The sign may as well have read, "Okay, all you law-abiding citizens, leave your guns at home." Baloney on that.

I'm of the strong opinion that if state gun laws are going to be circumvented by private property owners (or Federal/state governments), they need to provide security. Or they need to be held liable in civil court when things run amok.

Most people who carry weapons have more shooting expertise than average law enforcement personnel. Many of them see themselves as guardians of themselves, their families and, many times, the rest of us.

I do see your point Maggie. And I cannot argue with most of what you say. What I am saying is something more than just this narrow point....... is it possible - even probable - that if we become a society where significant numbers of people ae armed and carrying in almost every walk of life and in every place imaginable, is it not liekly that in addition to bad guys being justifiably killed that there will be innocent people killed as well because of gun proliferation and use?

I distinctly remember going to Memphis on vacation two summers ago and doing the usual Beale Street visit. In several places which served adult beverages there were prominent signs at the entrance saying that no firearms would be allowed. Now I did not ask about this - and this is just speculation - but I surmise that guns and alcohol are not the best combination in the world and the policy anticipated this.

So that is what I am asking.

APACHERAT · Sep 18, 2013

tererun said:
Ok, that is just stupid. Not you, but that sort of policy. if you are going to have the guns and trust people then they need to be loaded. if that is the case someone has done something really wrong.

Evidence seem to weigh that President Obama, Cn'C of the U.S. military don't trust the military with guns.

You'll notice in the photo below, Obama ordererd the U.S. Marines to remove the bolts from their rifles.

Strange way to try to earn the respect of those who serve under your command.

“The bolts have been removed from the rifles rendering them unable to fire a round,”

>" David Codrea has revealed that President Obama has so little regard for the United States Marines risking their lives under his command life that they were forced to dismantle their already empty parade rifles for his second inauguration parade. This is nothing less than a slap in the face of the Corps:

“Didn’t know the Marines had to take the bolts out of their rifles for the Inaugural,” an email forwarded to Gun Rights Examiner from a United States Marine Corps source observed. “Wonder if someone can explain why [they] would be marching in the inaugural parade with no bolts in their rifles!”

The email linked to a YouTube video of the 57th Presidential Inaugural Parade, embedded in this column, featuring Bravo Company Marines from the Marine Barracks Washington. Sure enough, the observation in the email is confirmed by watching the video, with screen shots provided in the photo and slide show accompanying this article.

This prompted an internet search to see if others had also noticed, and the Blur-Brain blog had.

“The bolts have been removed from the rifles rendering them unable to fire a round,” the post stated. “Apparently Obama’s Secret Service doesn’t trust the USMC. Simply searching each guy to make sure he didn’t have a live round hidden on him wasn’t enough, they had to make sure the guns were inoperable..."<

Unprecedented: Afraid Of Assassination By Obviously Hostile Military, Obama Has Marines Remove Bolts From Rifles At Inaugural « Pat Dollard

SMTA · Sep 18, 2013

haymarket said:
I do see your point Maggie. And I cannot argue with most of what you say. What I am saying is something more than just this narrow point....... is it possible - even probable - that if we become a society where significant numbers of people ae armed and carrying in almost every walk of life and in every place imaginable, is it not liekly that in addition to bad guys being justifiably killed that there will be innocent people killed as well because of gun proliferation and use?

I distinctly remember going to Memphis on vacation two summers ago and doing the usual Beale Street visit. In several places which served adult beverages there were prominent signs at the entrance saying that no firearms would be allowed. Now I did not ask about this - and this is just speculation - but I surmise that guns and alcohol are not the best combination in the world and the policy anticipated this.

So that is what I am asking.

Most folks would probably choose not to be armed.

Given the proliferation of concealed carry these days, I believe that nationally there are somewhere between 3 and 4 million permit holders.

Many probably do not carry regularly, so the national numbers are quite small.

I seriously doubt that there would ever be a return to the old western days.

CanadaJohn · Sep 18, 2013

tererun said:
So finally it seems some real details come out about the shooting. I will get to the fake ones in a minute. The shooter came in with a shotgun and somewhere along the line picked up a couple of pistols. Now we hear from the NRA that teachers with guns and armed guards are the best way to prevent a school shooting. This Navy facility had armed guards roaming around. These guys are trained with their firearms and supposedly ready to use them. I would assume some of them might even be soldiers. It seems one of the way the shooter may have armed himself is by shooting the armed guards who are supposed to have been there to stop him. The other story is that this guy may have gotten more guns from a gun storage safe. The NRA suggests we have guns in school in a safe for access to the good guys if there is a armed assault on a school.

So this guy has demonstrated that even with a shotgun that is pump action and not a high capacity gun he was able to somehow acquire more guns and ammo off of the guards or from a safe or locker. This proves what i have said all along. A prepared killer is an overwhelming match for flatfooted guards, and that locked up guns are of no use unless the good guys happen to be able to get to them. Even trained armed guards whose sole purpose there was to respond to an attack were no match for dude with a shotgun who they outgunned and outnumbered surprising them. Even if he did not get his guns off of them, they fell.

Now this brings up the confusion in reporting and why that becomes relevant to this situation. Most of these situations are confusing. the facts are easier to get after things are over and a legitimate forensic investigation can determine how and what happened. During the moments where the fight is going on and for a time afterwards the situation is not known by anyone. The people involved do not know the details and neither do the authorities. What does that mean? What was one of the rumors about this? it was that there were potentially, and may still be, more than one person involved. You are a person and you have a gun in this situation where there is nothing but rumors, speculation, and fear for your life. You are more of a danger to the innocents who are running in fear than you are to the shooter. You may not even know who the shooter is. how are you supposed to determine another "good" guy with a gun from the guy shooting? It is not like they wear T-shirts with "I am the shooter" written on them.

So the NRA somehow expects that mildly trained teachers with guns are going to react better than cops and the friggen navy to a shooter that is often armed with much more than a shotgun. This is a perfect example as to why other methods are far more capable of saving lives than a bunch of flat footed undertrained teachers with guns, or even some armed guard from some security force who drew school as his assignment over being a mall cop. In the end a responding cop shot the guy in this case. Not one of the guards roaming the shipyard. It wasn't some armed person floating around. those were both present. He was not killed by some people who got to a gun locker and armed themselves. No, the cops got him. Thank you NRA for being 100 percent wrong.

I'm not a gun advocate by any means, but this post is so ludicrously simple minded that it would be laughable if it wasn't such a serious subject matter.

Clearly, there was incredible negligence in both the initial screening process for security clearances on this individual and there was also lax security on admission to the base. That has zero to do with whether or not the damage would have been less or more if all the personnel in the facility were armed. In fact, if even one of the 12 innocent sitting ducks actually had a weapon, he or she may not be dead today and perhaps some of his/her coworkers would be alive too.

I saw an interesting statistic today, dealing with gun ownership, and you may be surprised to find out that all the Scandinavian countries have higher gun ownership than the US and each has about a 10th of the murder rate. In addition, Switzerland legislates that all men of a certain age are required to own and keep maintained a long gun in order to secure the country's neutrality. Finally, Russia, with much stricter gun control laws has a far higher murder rate than even the US.

But you go ahead, blame this and other gun related deaths on the gun and not the person pointing and shooting it. That might make you feel better than actually having to deal with why some in your society are so ****ing nuts that they have to go around shooting up strangers whenever they can't cope.

MaggieD · Sep 18, 2013

haymarket said:
I do see your point Maggie. And I cannot argue with most of what you say. What I am saying is something more than just this narrow point....... is it possible - even probable - that if we become a society where significant numbers of people ae armed and carrying in almost every walk of life and in every place imaginable, is it not liekly that in addition to bad guys being justifiably killed that there will be innocent people killed as well because of gun proliferation and use?

I distinctly remember going to Memphis on vacation two summers ago and doing the usual Beale Street visit. In several places which served adult beverages there were prominent signs at the entrance saying that no firearms would be allowed. Now I did not ask about this - and this is just speculation - but I surmise that guns and alcohol are not the best combination in the world and the policy anticipated this.

So that is what I am asking.

In answer to your bolded question: Not by the good guys. Oh, of course, there may be occasional accidents; but when you consider that mass shooting death statistics are insignificant, then one must assume those occasional accidents will be insignificant as well.

Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it right to let the bad guys be the only ones armed? Seems to me that answer's obvious.

haymarket · Sep 18, 2013

SMTA said:
Most folks would probably choose not to be armed.

Given the proliferation of concealed carry these days, I believe that nationally there are somewhere between 3 and 4 million permit holders.

Many probably do not carry regularly, so the national numbers are quite small.

I seriously doubt that there would ever be a return to the old western days.

Today... perhaps. What about tomorrow and the future if this trend towards arms in all public places continues? Is it possible - even probable - that more innocent deaths could result?

SMTA · Sep 18, 2013

haymarket said:
Today... perhaps. What about tomorrow and the future if this trend towards arms in all public places continues? Is it possible - even probable - that more innocent deaths could result?

I honestly doubt it.

There always seems to permit application rushes after some event, but I don't believe that most folks are that committed other than for bragging rights with their friends.

I watch news closely, especially CCW related, and there are very very few incidents regarding CCW.

If the number of allowed carry locations is increased, you still have a very small % of the population who carries.

If you look at the total population of DP, there are probably only few folks who carry regularly.

I do find that most folks who carry are generally politically astute when compared to the population as a whole, so I would expect the carry % to be higher on DP compared to the total US.

If you factor in 9/11, Sandy Hook, Benghazi, the Boston bombing, and this DC shooting, I would summarize that CC is probably is high as it is going to get.

Figure that 50% of the 3~4 million permit holders carry regularly, and you have a statistically insignificant number of folks from a population of 320 million who carry.

If CCW was truly that significant now, there would have been an available number of armed citizens to stop the most recent events - but that has not happened.

Are innocent deaths possible? Yes.

Are they probable? I doubt it.

apdst · Sep 18, 2013

tererun said:
So throwing gasoline on the fire is what you back.

Showing up to a house fire without a water hose is just as bad.

apdst · Sep 18, 2013

haymarket said:
Today... perhaps. What about tomorrow and the future if this trend towards arms in all public places continues? Is it possible - even probable - that more innocent deaths could result?

It's not probable that unarmed victims will die...it's a ceartainty.

haymarket · Sep 18, 2013

apdst said:
It's not probable that unarmed victims will die...it's a ceartainty.

You failed to ask the question posed. Instead you went on your own talking point and evaded facing an uncomfortable possibility.

CRUE CAB · Sep 21, 2013

tererun said:
So finally it seems some real details come out about the shooting. I will get to the fake ones in a minute. The shooter came in with a shotgun and somewhere along the line picked up a couple of pistols. Now we hear from the NRA that teachers with guns and armed guards are the best way to prevent a school shooting. This Navy facility had armed guards roaming around. These guys are trained with their firearms and supposedly ready to use them. I would assume some of them might even be soldiers. It seems one of the way the shooter may have armed himself is by shooting the armed guards who are supposed to have been there to stop him. The other story is that this guy may have gotten more guns from a gun storage safe. The NRA suggests we have guns in school in a safe for access to the good guys if there is a armed assault on a school.

So this guy has demonstrated that even with a shotgun that is pump action and not a high capacity gun he was able to somehow acquire more guns and ammo off of the guards or from a safe or locker. This proves what i have said all along. A prepared killer is an overwhelming match for flatfooted guards, and that locked up guns are of no use unless the good guys happen to be able to get to them. Even trained armed guards whose sole purpose there was to respond to an attack were no match for dude with a shotgun who they outgunned and outnumbered surprising them. Even if he did not get his guns off of them, they fell.

Now this brings up the confusion in reporting and why that becomes relevant to this situation. Most of these situations are confusing. the facts are easier to get after things are over and a legitimate forensic investigation can determine how and what happened. During the moments where the fight is going on and for a time afterwards the situation is not known by anyone. The people involved do not know the details and neither do the authorities. What does that mean? What was one of the rumors about this? it was that there were potentially, and may still be, more than one person involved. You are a person and you have a gun in this situation where there is nothing but rumors, speculation, and fear for your life. You are more of a danger to the innocents who are running in fear than you are to the shooter. You may not even know who the shooter is. how are you supposed to determine another "good" guy with a gun from the guy shooting? It is not like they wear T-shirts with "I am the shooter" written on them.

So the NRA somehow expects that mildly trained teachers with guns are going to react better than cops and the friggen navy to a shooter that is often armed with much more than a shotgun. This is a perfect example as to why other methods are far more capable of saving lives than a bunch of flat footed undertrained teachers with guns, or even some armed guard from some security force who drew school as his assignment over being a mall cop. In the end a responding cop shot the guy in this case. Not one of the guards roaming the shipyard. It wasn't some armed person floating around. those were both present. He was not killed by some people who got to a gun locker and armed themselves. No, the cops got him. Thank you NRA for being 100 percent wrong.

So a dude that is one step up from a mall cop gets dealt with by a crazed man with a shotty and you are going to claim that the NRA is wrong.
Could you be coming farther from left field?

Recent mass shooting proves NRA idea on school security completely wrong.

tererun

YoungConserv

apdst

tererun

haymarket

WillyPete

The sound of one chao mooing.

SMTA

Tsuyo Ketsu no Anna

MaggieD

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

haymarket

APACHERAT

SMTA

Tsuyo Ketsu no Anna

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

MaggieD

haymarket

SMTA

Tsuyo Ketsu no Anna

apdst

apdst

haymarket

CRUE CAB

Recent mass shooting proves NRA idea on school security completely wrong.

The sound of one chao mooing.

Tsuyo Ketsu no Anna

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Tsuyo Ketsu no Anna

Canadian Conservative

Tsuyo Ketsu no Anna

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency