And they probably needed an armed resource officer. You are debating a strawman and I am sorry I am not the liberal you want to debate. I am against gun control. I am just not deluded enough to play into this "ANY good guy with a gun is a good response to a bad guy with a gun" nonsense. We need to address the problem, not GUNS!
They mischaracterized his reason for not intervening: he was told to stay put by school officials, not that he decided to because of the reasons he gave in retrospect. As a CCW, he was under no obligation, none whatsoever, to traverse 200 yards across an open field into (through? didn't know at the time) a fire zone and confront an active shooter. That was his first reaction, though. He was told not to by school officials.
Now, if he had been enrolled in that clasd, very probably a different outcome. Or if someone in that class had a CCW and understood that it wasn't illegal to carry on campus and were willing to risk being expelled for it, also probably a different outcome.
More guns were the answer, as evidence by the police eventually wounding him and causing him to flee. It's a shame they couldn't be brought to bear earlier.
A school resource officer would likely have been as useful as 'a' security guard responsible for a college campus.
There certainly is a higher probability that there were 9 more deaths because of the campus policy, and there's no basis or proof of any kind that it ever saved a single life.You give more people guns, the killers will simply use other weapons. Why is your answer to this to turn the US into the Middle East? It is just a probable that there was less death because of the gun policy. Nobody knows. Gun fights are confusing as hell. This isn't the movies. Play a friendly game of paintball amoung strangers and see how quickly things can go to hell when a bunch of armed people get engaged in a shootout and it becomes unclear who is on what side. I have seen some remarkable friendly fire in those situations.
Sandy Hook elementary school waited 10 minutes for that response you are looking for. That's just sadistic.
I guess we should have given all the 7 year olds a gun to carry since arming anyone is a good solution to bad guys with guns.
Of course not: the point of an armed response, in firing on an attacker, is to neutralize the threat. That is all. If there were another weapon with the accuracy, effectiveness, and better chance of working with less collateral damage, an ethical and rational person would use it instead. But, there isn't. Using explosives or biological weapons to neutralize a threat would only be acceptable and necessary in some convoluted 60's James Bond scenario. Some type of hardened bunker situation, probably with a monocle and a persian cat in the mix , but we're well past personal defense, and reality, at that point.Or maybe it is a Godsend that nobody in the class was carrying. A trained person with a gun responded, not some college kid with a gun. Why do you want to pretend it is all equal?
Where does your "logic" end? Is a good guy with an explosive the answer to bad guys with explosives? Is a good guy with biological weapons your answer to bad guys with biological weapons?
I guess we should have given all the 7 year olds a gun to carry since arming anyone is a good solution to bad guys with guns.
One person with a gun could have stopped him before he killed anyone, or certainly fewer. Even in your FUBAR scenario of citizen response, it's highly unlikely there would have been as much carnage as he propagated. In other words, even a mediocre plan now, at the start of the incident, is better than the perfect plan 4 minutes later.Nonsense. A TRAINED and UNIFORMED officer with EXPERIENCE who has BACKUP and is coordinated in their response is not the same as random college kids with guns who might draw and fire on anyone they see drawing and firing. You could have easily had two armed kids in that class both draw and kill the shooter then turn and shoot at each other and wreak more havoc than the killer had through their crossfire and panic. Even if it were just one armed college kid they could easily be mistaken for the killer and end up being fired on by police and possibly even returning fire out of panic. This tendency to treat the actual police response as evidence of how an armed student would react is just ridiculous.
Who had a gun in the classroom?At least one person had a gun, and didn't stop him.
One person with a gun could have stopped him before he killed anyone, or certainly fewer. Even in your FUBAR scenario of citizen response, it's highly unlikely there would have been as much carnage as he propagated. In other words, even a mediocre plan now, at the start of the incident, is better than the perfect plan 4 minutes later.
If you watch the video, he says that he did want to intervene, despite the distance (different building, 200 yards away), but was stopped by school officials. The Raw story which this blog c/p mischaracterizes his words, He admitted in retrospect that it may have been for the best due to SWAT possibly mistaking him and others for the active shooter, but that was not the reason he didn't intervene.See the thread about it. (You didn't specify classroom in your post.)
You would rather just sit there in the middle of a mass shooting KNOWING its not going to stop on its own and wait til its your turn to die than take your chance with an armed law abiding citizen?Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation. You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.
So you would rather be purposefully killed by someone rather than possibly accidentally killed by someone else trying to stop it? Interesting survival calculus.Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation. You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.
So you would rather be purposefully killed by someone rather than possibly accidentally killed by someone else trying to stop it? Interesting survival calculus.
I have several years of martial arts training. I think I have a better shot dealing with it myself than getting caught up in friendly fire.
Following the rhetoric of the left wing on the recent shootings in Oregon as an owner of several guns I am today to be considered even more dangerous to my fellow Americans that I was the day before. Why wait until I explode? Why not break in and execute me saying I had weapons so the police were in fear for their lives?
The only other option would be to leave me alone and go about your daily lives as you did before.
Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation. You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.
So you would rather be purposefully killed by someone rather than possibly accidentally killed by someone else trying to stop it? Interesting survival calculus.
At least one person had a gun, and didn't stop him.
Of course not: the point of an armed response, in firing on an attacker, is to neutralize the threat. That is all. If there were another weapon with the accuracy, effectiveness, and better chance of working with less collateral damage, an ethical and rational person would use it instead. But, there isn't. Using explosives or biological weapons to neutralize a threat would only be acceptable and necessary in some convoluted 60's James Bond scenario. Some type of hardened bunker situation, probably with a monocle and a persian cat in the mix , but we're well past personal defense, and reality, at that point.
Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation.
You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.
Several buildings away ... not even applicable. Bogus red herring.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?