Do you think the teachers at Sandy wish they had been armed?

Speedie, speedie, speedie...

Creating gun free zones is creating freedom??? Have you been drinking? Gun free zones take away freedom. You libs are really something. You think you can call something freedom when you are infringing on someone else's rights makes it so. No where did I say that a school would require someone to carry a gun is a fairly stupid comment but then you are you are.

No politician is going to go on record saying they want an absolute gun ban. You have to listen to them like Congressman Jackson on ABC over the weekend. She went on record calling for an assault weapon ban and a high capacity magazine ban. If you kept listening to her that would not satisfy her. Even after publicly claiming those words she went further and said that "we have to get the guns". No qualifiers. I would call that one not very intelligent Representative but she shaded her words enough to fool her consitutents (and you). Bloomberg of New York City has not specifically said ban ALL guns but he wants to go back to the good old days of "reasonable" gun laws (back when ALL guns were banned in NYC). We have entertainers (granted no real power except of the pulpit) like Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers wanting to ban ALL guns from citizens and cops. They have a gun ban in Chicago but I don't hear Mayor Emmanuel wanting to change.

Why does anyone want an AR-15??? Let me ask you why a person wants a Cessna or a Corvette? Why own a car that exceeds any posted speed limit by over 70 mph? Why own a light aircraft if you are not a courier, drug smuggler, or work for some government agency. That is called freedom. That is that word you were torturing earlier. Freedom.

Strawman alert (you little liberal) I don't recall anyone saying that anyone who is for any gun control is a liberal. That is only your claim. What I have seen over the years is that liberals are always willing to compromise if they get their way and then they come back for more. I would love to see some liberal propose a law and then put a rider in the law that sunsets it after 20 years and will allow no more attempts to pass something more for 20 years. They'll never do it. Incremental gun control is the tactic. A total or near total ban is the goal.

What part of concealed carry do you not understand? You will not have teachers parading around with automatic weapons. I have a nice little PT 145. It shoots 10 shots of .45 ACP and is small enough to conceal nearly anywhere unless your school teacher is wearing a little black dress. There is always the clutch purse. Ten shots. Not too bad.

What changed to make the shooter quit the fight? Only one thing changed, he was going to be shot at or shot by an armed citizen. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

That is your conclusion, and the "armed citizen" saying it was why he killed himself. Neither one of you know, but both of you "want" it to be because the citizen was "armed." How can either of you read the shooter's mind? You can't and there is NO CORROBATED EVIDENCE that he even knew the "citizen" was even armed.

I'm not buying it, because ... #1, the shooter had superior fire-power and superior body protection, and #2, the shooter was not behaving in a tentative or "fearful" manner as far as his actions were concerned .... and the implication is that the "armed citizen" frightened him into killing himself by possessing a pistol ... there is not even any "evidence" (other than what the "armed citizen" might say) that proves the "armed citizen" even raised his weapon toward the shooter.....so that the shooter could see it.

I saw some fuzzy mall video that was supposed to have shown (headlines) the "armed citizen" with the shooter "in his sights" ... but you can't even tell the shooter from any "armed citizen" and you can't even see a weapon, rifle or pistol.

It is not uncommon for people at a tragedy, particularly involving firearms when they also have one, to NOT ACT at the moment of the tragedy unfolding, but later have to explain their inaction when they were available and equipped to act, why they did not act, but in some way (grandiose thoughts) had an impact on the final solution in the tragedy. Citizens and bystanders continually and frequently provide inaccurate, if not fabricated, accounts of their ability to see what happened and what actually happened, not to mention their alleged "role" in the events.

To conclude the guy caused the shooter to kill himself is a HUGE LEAP for reality.

Should we get back on topic?

Our teachers are already over-tasked with social/cultural/community responsibilities, and adding "school security" to the list is "too much" and will result in a further deterioration of our academic quality from the product of your existing school systems. We need to lessen their responsibilities and expand their ability to instruct the topics they were educated and trained to teach.

I think you have forgotten that is about self defense for the teachers as well. Shooter don't go after the kids alone. So a teacher can roll over and play (or not play) dead for a shooter because she or he (why do you think all teachers are women sexist) has gotten the training but not the authorization to carry a weapon. That is what has been taken away from people. The right to self defense.

I never heard your theory as to why he killed himself. Give it or shut up.

What part of concealed carry do you not understand? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What part of insufficient training do you not understand?

That's an Israeli teacher. I'll bet even a lunatic shooter would think twice before entering her classroom. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Unless they had a bomb vest and were hoping she was a virgin...

when it comes down to an actual emergency situation not everyone that has a hidden pistol is capable of clearing their head and putting the possibility of being killed on the back burner, dealing with the situation is far more difficult than it sounds ... even some cops freeze from time to time. Im not really sure you could get a teacher over that hump ... maybe the ones the werent scared to death of a pistol to start with, but the rest ?

Unless they had a bomb vest and were hoping she was a virgin... Originally Posted by i'va biggen

+100

Or an rpg and launcher nearby ...

I'm also guessing she's a "week-end warrior" with extensive training.

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1052058564]Speedie, speedie, speedie...

Creating gun free zones is creating freedom??? Have you been drinking? Gun free zones take away freedom. You libs are really something. You think you can call something freedom when you are infringing on someone else's rights makes it so. No where did I say that a school would require someone to carry a gun is a fairly stupid comment but then you are you are.

In my work place I have the FREEDOM to walk around knowing that the building is a gun free zone and the odds of a fellow employee going irate and pulling his gun and starting to shoot up the place is highly unlikely to happen. Someone carrying a gun is INFRINGING on my rights. You gun overs just don't understand that. As I said, giving someone the right to do something usually impacts someone else's rights. And can't you go make a comment without name calling???

No politician is going to go on record saying they want an absolute gun ban. You have to listen to them like Congressman Jackson on ABC over the weekend. She went on record calling for an assault weapon ban and a high capacity magazine ban. If you kept listening to her that would not satisfy her. Even after publicly claiming those words she went further and said that "we have to get the guns". No qualifiers. I would call that one not very intelligent Representative but she shaded her words enough to fool her consitutents (and you). Bloomberg of New York City has not specifically said ban ALL guns but he wants to go back to the good old days of "reasonable" gun laws (back when ALL guns were banned in NYC). We have entertainers (granted no real power except of the pulpit) like Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers wanting to ban ALL guns from citizens and cops. They have a gun ban in Chicago but I don't hear Mayor Emmanuel wanting to change.

So you were wrong when you said someone had called for a ban of all handguns. Unless you tend to read between the lines and read what you want to into the words.
I really don't think Flea has much influence in the political world.. Instead of complaining about what MIGHT happen,why don't you wait until real legislation is proposed?

Why does anyone want an AR-15??? Let me ask you why a person wants a Cessna or a Corvette? Why own a car that exceeds any posted speed limit by over 70 mph? Why own a light aircraft if you are not a courier, drug smuggler, or work for some government agency. That is called freedom. That is that word you were torturing earlier. Freedom.

Because a Cessna or a Corvette is unlikely to be the cause of death of 26 individuals in a school building. You simply don't understand the meaning of freedom. You want total freedom for people who want guns yet you have no understanding of the freedom taken away from others who do not want to be around people with guns. Do I not have the freedom to ban guns from my home??? Guns and assault rifles kill thousands in the U.S. each year who are victimless.If you are killed in a car accident you are a victim but you caused your own death in all liklihood.

Strawman alert (you little liberal) I don't recall anyone saying that anyone who is for any gun control is a liberal. That is only your claim. What I have seen over the years is that liberals are always willing to compromise if they get their way and then they come back for more. I would love to see some liberal propose a law and then put a rider in the law that sunsets it after 20 years and will allow no more attempts to pass something more for 20 years. They'll never do it. Incremental gun control is the tactic. A total or near total ban is the goal.

Yet in your first paragraph you say "You libs are really something." The Brady Bill was passed in the 1990s banning some firearms. To substantiate your claim, what laws were proposed and brought to a vote before the House and Senate after the Brady Bill to further restrict gun ownership?

What part of concealed carry do you not understand? You will not have teachers parading around with automatic weapons. I have a nice little PT 145. It shoots 10 shots of .45 ACP and is small enough to conceal nearly anywhere unless your school teacher is wearing a little black dress. There is always the clutch purse. Ten shots. Not too bad.

No idea what your point is here. I never made any such comment about anyone parading around with automatic weapons.[/QUOTE]

Give it or shut up. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Since I don't pretend to read minds, I don't have a theory. Many do kill themselves, as did the Connecticut shooter and NO ONE boasted of scaring him into it!

I'm more concerned about the motive for fabricating a story by the CHL shopper:

#1, he was a former "security guard" at the mall, #2, he was a current "security guard" at another mall (or location), and I can imagine his bosses questions (and co-workers and gf's) when they found out he was there with a weapon and didn't do anything .... so he had to explain why he didn't fire ..... fyi ... he had a .22 caliber ... that's #3. Number 4 he said he took cover in a store AFTER the shooter saw him, and LE reported the shooters rifle was not jammed when they found him dead. So, now we have the CHL hiding in a store after the shooter has cleared his weapon and can shoot more victims....and where did he leave his female friend and small child?

As I said before, the female school teachers in Connecticut had more intestinal fortitude than this guy. At least he had a .22!!!!

Personally, I would like to wait until LE finishes interviewing him about his eye-witness account of the shooter's activities. Let's see if he recants, if they even let us know.

This guys story is like a sieve.

Any other CHL's on the board carry a .22? Just asking!

Well said, Speed Racer, Elizabeth Whispers and others.

Barleybrains is just that, a pathetic poster with barley for brains.

A kid who has practiced shooting comes into a school top do harm with a .223 Bushmaster, an extremely lightweight, compact gun that is ideal for close quarters and for delivering a deadly, high-powered projectile.

Barley for brains opines that a teacher or principal would be able to stop the shooter.

Only a 1 in 10 chance when you consider that the shooter has (a) PRE-PLANNED the attack (b) has superior weaponry (c) has an opportunity to wear body armor (d) has the element of surprise on his side (e) doesn't have to worry about his shots hitting bystanders (f) can start shooting before being seen, recognized or having his motives evaluated (g) has dozens of potential targets/victims within range (h) has practiced speed-loading with extra capacity magazines (i) has weaponry that practically negates even a .45 from more than 30 feet away (j) has an agenda that is unknown and unpredictable as the situation unfolds (I could go on but Barley for brains' feeble argument is toast anyway)

Now match the shooter up with a Principal who is immersed in his job and unaware of the problem that is about to unfold.

The Principal, armed with Barley for brains' (a).45 caliber short-barreled ACP, (b) wearing no body armor is picked off at (c) 50 feet before he can even (d) un-holster his horribly-inferior weapon. Let's give Barley for brains a few shooter mistakes to help him further his moronic hypothetical that must have a series of lucky mistakes on the part of the shooter to get past the first element of surprise. (a) The Principal gets behind a door or wall before the shooter fires a shot. (b) He is smart enough to assess the situation and tells his staff to do likewise. They take cover behind desks and filing cabinets. (c)The shooter knows that particle board furniture, metal filing cabinets, sheet rock and even solid core doors won't stop a .223 round and he kills them as they are hiding from him. Let's say he misses the armed principal and the principal gets off a few hastily-aimed shots from 50 feet away and one is lucky enough to hit the shooter's body armor (not likely but in the world of Barley logic, it could happen). The round somehow knocks the shooter down and he scrambles behind a wall or door casing and continues to keep a steady barrage of .223 rounds knocking chunks of wood and sheet rock down all around the principal. Eventually the principal, cornered and without a sturdy vantage point to return fire is picked off by the shooter.

Barley for brains is an EPIC FAILURE as a thinker and forgets that a HUGE percentage of LE DEATHS occur AFTER LE has a drawn weapon and is "COVERING" a suspect who may even have his hands up.

There are training films that drive that very point home to all LE officers. It only takes a Western fast draw artist 12/100ths of a second to draw and fire and HIT a target.

A principal or teacher who is preoccupied with his or her daily tasks, would be a sitting duck in most instances.

The ONLY deterrence might be that the shooter would pick a target-rich environment without armed guards or staff. But then again, if this guy had been a logical thinker, he wouldn't have done what he did.

The solution is NOT to arm everyone!

How many times have we heard this: If only someone would have had a gun they could have stopped the (attacking) gunman. Really? There are over 200 million guns in the U.S.now, and almost half of all homes have guns in them. How many mass shootings has it prevented? Zero. But how many mass shootings has it enabled......over 61 in the last 10 years. http://tinyurl.com/cpjlwca

Just seems like the more guns we have, the more gun violence we have. Not rocket science.

..a HUGE percentage of LE DEATHS occur AFTER LE has a drawn weapon and is "COVERING" a suspect who may even have his hands up. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

With all due respect where did you get this comparative statistic?

Just asking.

Our teachers are already over-tasked with social/cultural/community responsibilities, and adding "school security" to the list is "too much" and will result in a further deterioration of our academic quality from the product of your existing school systems. We need to lessen their responsibilities and expand their ability to instruct the topics they were educated and trained to teach. Originally Posted by LexusLover

+1

the kid's mother had six guns,did it help her?

+1 Originally Posted by WhoAreWe

It's not even about that. These idiots act like defending a classroom against an armed assault is the same as teaching third graders multiplication. The entire premise is absurd. Teachers are teachers. The idea that teachers should be charged with the responsibility of protecting students against intruders with assault rifles is utterly ridiculous.