Maybe you missed it.

In Pakistan seven gunmen entered a military school and slaughtered 140 students and teachers. They executed boys and girls. They burned teachers alive in front of their students before killing them. I know, some of you short sighted SOBs will want to know what does this have to do with us. Why should we even care about Pakistan. They're not our friend.

It's this, they chose to kill children to make a point. They went to a country near a military base where they don't care too much about your rights. They killed children and made no demands. They just wanted to kill children for revenge.

Imagine an American school with a student population of 3,000 kids. Now imagine a half dozen thugs arriving at the school with weapons and explosives. They are not there to take hostages or to get concessions for a political cause. They are there to simply kill as many people as they can before they are put down like rabid dogs. What is there to stop them? Unarmed security guards, unarmed teachers, unarmed children, all with orders to cooperate until the police arrive to get the demands of the kidnappers. They're not there to kidnap, they're there to kill. So while the alarm goes out and the cops arrive to set up a command post, the guns are going off. If you're a teacher which would you rather do; kneel and wait for a bullet or to be doused and set ablaze or would you rather have a chance to go down fighting for yourself and the kids? Right now the only things that those kids have is a sign that says "Gun Free Zone".

.

In Pakistan seven gunmen entered a military school and slaughtered 140 students and teachers. They executed boys and girls. They burned teachers alive in front of their students before killing them. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Not everyone "missed it" .... Most "missed" the point ... as the U.S. surrenders.

In Pakistan seven gunmen entered a military school and slaughtered 140 students and teachers. They executed boys and girls. They burned teachers alive in front of their students before killing them. I know, some of you short sighted SOBs will want to know what does this have to do with us. Why should we even care about Pakistan. They're not our friend.

It's this, they chose to kill children to make a point. They went to a country near a military base where they don't care too much about your rights. They killed children and made no demands. They just wanted to kill children for revenge.

Imagine an American school with a student population of 3,000 kids. Now imagine a half dozen thugs arriving at the school with weapons and explosives. They are not there to take hostages or to get concessions for a political cause. They are there to simply kill as many people as they can before they are put down like rabid dogs. What is there to stop them? Unarmed security guards, unarmed teachers, unarmed children, all with orders to cooperate until the police arrive to get the demands of the kidnappers. They're not there to kidnap, they're there to kill. So while the alarm goes out and the cops arrive to set up a command post, the guns are going off. If you're a teacher which would you rather do; kneel and wait for a bullet or to be doused and set ablaze or would you rather have a chance to go down fighting for yourself and the kids? Right now the only things that those kids have is a sign that says "Gun Free Zone". Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes, such a scenario is certainly possible, even in the U.S. It happens one time in the whole world and you are going to worry about it happening here to the point of doing WHAT? Do you think an armed guard at the entry to a school building would do any good? Certainly against a single intruder but against 6 or 7? Arming a teacher or two? FYI, the overwhelming majority of school teachers are against arming teachers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...oom-poll-says/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/politi...r-guns-survey/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2773558.html

People like you believe that gun free zones were implemented by individuals who thoughtlessly do so, probably by liberals who hate the thought of guns. Usually not so. Most gun free zones are established because the pros and cons of allowing people to carry guns into the establishment are weighed and it is deemed to be safer to not allow anyone to carry guns. Every day tens of thousands of establishments (work places, schools, homes, etc.) which are designated gun free zones have no incidents. As soon as one incident occurs, even as far away as Pakistan, you repeat the same old rhetoric -- gun free zones don't work.

Yes, such a scenario is certainly possible, even in the U.S. It happens one time in the whole world and you are going to worry about it happening here to the point of doing WHAT? Do you think an armed guard at the entry to a school building would do any good? Certainly against a single intruder but against 6 or 7? Arming a teacher or two? FYI, the overwhelming majority of school teachers are against arming teachers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...oom-poll-says/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/politi...r-guns-survey/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2773558.html

People like you believe that gun free zones were implemented by individuals who thoughtlessly do so, probably by liberals who hate the thought of guns. Usually not so. Most gun free zones are established because the pros and cons of allowing people to carry guns into the establishment are weighed and it is deemed to be safer to not allow anyone to carry guns. Every day tens of thousands of establishments (work places, schools, homes, etc.) which are designated gun free zones have no incidents. As soon as one incident occurs, even as far away as Pakistan, you repeat the same old rhetoric -- gun free zones don't work. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No, I don't believe that people like that do think about the unintended consequences of their rules. Happens to liberals all the time, conservatives less so. Liberals feel and conservatives think.

Oh, this is not the first time this has happened in the world. Ask the Russians, the Israelis, the Norwegians, and the English. They've all had school shootings much worse than anything in the US.

I guess I can turn around your statement. The people who think that we should allow qualified people to be armed in schools have thought about the ramifications. They have decided that it is better to give people a chance rather than take away any chance and give them just the luck of the draw. Answer this, how many licensed concealed weapons carriers have shot up a school, a mall, or an office? I'll make it easy for you....ZERO.

Yes, such a scenario is certainly possible, even in the U.S. It happens one time in the whole world .... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Have we had 140 students and teachers in one incident? No.

But an attitude of not doing anything about it to prevent it..... resulted in ....




1,000's.

No, I don't believe that people like that do think about the unintended consequences of their rules. Happens to liberals all the time, conservatives less so. Liberals feel and conservatives think.

Oh, this is not the first time this has happened in the world. Ask the Russians, the Israelis, the Norwegians, and the English. They've all had school shootings much worse than anything in the US.

I guess I can turn around your statement. The people who think that we should allow qualified people to be armed in schools have thought about the ramifications. They have decided that it is better to give people a chance rather than take away any chance and give them just the luck of the draw. Answer this, how many licensed concealed weapons carriers have shot up a school, a mall, or an office? I'll make it easy for you....ZERO. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes, Pakistan is not the only country that has had such incidents. But when you look at how many times it has happened compared to overall homicides, the number is low. Approximately 8,500 homicides in the U.S. last year. A handful in gun free zones. Gun free zones should not be the major focus -- figuring out how to make a major impact on the 8,500 homicide deaths should be.

Regarding your last paragraph, the people who think qualified people should be armed in schools is a very small minority. Does their opinion count? Certainly. But I believe in majority rules. My office is a gun free zone. If someone does not like that fact, fight to have the rule changed or find a job elsewhere.

There have been MANY homicides committed by CHL holders.including many killings of police officers. Having a CHL does not make a person immune from committing crimes, even homicide. Have any occurred in gun free zones? The information I looked at does not go into such detail. Again, we're talking about a handful of incidents where people have shot up a school, a mall, or an office.

Have we had 140 students and teachers in one incident? No.

But an attitude of not doing anything about it to prevent it..... resulted in ....




1,000's. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Ridiculous comparison in my opinion. Prior to 9/11, how many people, liberal, conservative, or otherwise, would have thought the security procedures now in place at airports would have been necessary and agreed to them? A handful at best.

On the other hand, we all know the of the possibility of mass murders in gun free zones. We've seen it several times in recent years. I personally have no problem if a school allows teachers or others to have handguns in their possession within the school -- as long as the decision is supported by the majority of the affected individuals.

So what is your solution to prevent such incidents? It is very easy to condemn the current status quo, more difficult to come up with viable solutions that are supported.

In Pakistan seven gunmen entered a military school and slaughtered 140 students and teachers. They executed boys and girls. They burned teachers alive in front of their students before killing them. I know, some of you short sighted SOBs will want to know what does this have to do with us. Why should we even care about Pakistan. They're not our friend.

It's this, they chose to kill children to make a point. They went to a country near a military base where they don't care too much about your rights. They killed children and made no demands. They just wanted to kill children for revenge.

Imagine an American school with a student population of 3,000 kids. Now imagine a half dozen thugs arriving at the school with weapons and explosives. They are not there to take hostages or to get concessions for a political cause. They are there to simply kill as many people as they can before they are put down like rabid dogs. What is there to stop them? Unarmed security guards, unarmed teachers, unarmed children, all with orders to cooperate until the police arrive to get the demands of the kidnappers. They're not there to kidnap, they're there to kill. So while the alarm goes out and the cops arrive to set up a command post, the guns are going off. If you're a teacher which would you rather do; kneel and wait for a bullet or to be doused and set ablaze or would you rather have a chance to go down fighting for yourself and the kids? Right now the only things that those kids have is a sign that says "Gun Free Zone". Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You don't suppose they went too far, and pissed some people off do you. Like getting 77 of the tally ban killed.

Ridiculous comparison in my opinion. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That doesn't surprise me.

10,000+ U.S. deaths (10's of thousand maimed and crippled) and 100's of billions of dollars later, and still counting ...

.. compared to 140 foreign students and school teachers.

I understand.

The words are ..... diligence and perseverance.

Something many in our McDonalds/Instant Grativation society lack.

I guess I can turn around your statement. The people who think that we should allow qualified people to be armed in schools have thought about the ramifications. They have decided that it is better to give people a chance rather than take away any chance and give them just the luck of the draw. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The problem, as I see it, is that people like you believe ALL gun free zones are bad. Does not matter whether or not nothing negative has ever happened in such locations. A person should have a chance to protect themselves JUST IN CASE something happens. There is no middle ground. Just like some people won't be happy until gun control laws ban all handguns, you won't be happy until all gun free zones are abolished.

Ridiculous comparison in my opinion. Prior to 9/11, how many people, liberal, conservative, or otherwise, would have thought the security procedures now in place at airports would have been necessary and agreed to them? A handful at best.

On the other hand, we all know the of the possibility of mass murders in gun free zones. We've seen it several times in recent years. I personally have no problem if a school allows teachers or others to have handguns in their possession within the school -- as long as the decision is supported by the majority of the affected individuals.

So what is your solution to prevent such incidents? It is very easy to condemn the current status quo, more difficult to come up with viable solutions that are supported. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Conclusion : If only "a handful of people at best" are smart enough, proactive and courageous enough to go on guard against possible terroristic attacks, then they should be scoffed at and ignored ???

Tell us how we should feel about earthquakes, tsunami, or volcanic eruptions.
How about typhoons, hurricanes and ice storms ?

Only "a handful of people at best" are seismologist, geologist and meterologist. How well might we hand done in the past if we also scoffed at them and their work, ?

....in my opinion. Prior to 9/11, how many people, liberal, conservative, or otherwise, would have thought the security procedures now in place at airports would have been necessary and agreed to them? A handful at best........ Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Wrong again ....

1996: http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html

"White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security
FINAL REPORT TO PRESIDENT CLINTON"

And

Larry King Live Interview with Senator John Kerry About Terrorism
Website:www.twa800.com updates2001.htm ^ | September 11, 2001 | Larry King Live Transcript

"Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 9:26:04 PM by focusandclarity

Larry King Live September 11, 2001

KING: Senator Kerry did your -- did you committee on international operations and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

KERRY: ...."We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding." ...

If there were only a handful ... that handful was "in charge"!

BTW: KERRY: The same goof-ball YOUR MAN has running around the world .... playing footsies with the enemies of this country and slighting our friends.

The problem, as I see it, is that people like you believe ALL gun free zones are bad. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Sir! The question of the safety of our most innocent and defenseless is not a "gun zone" issue or a 2nd Amendment issue. That is bullshit pablum the Liberal wants to inject to refocus from their wimpish, lazy-ass, peacenik drivel.

It's about SAFETY AND SECURITY FIRST. Here "we are again"... going ...

"through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding."

It reminds me of the people (we have all seen them) running around in circles looking busy, but not doing a damn thing of a productive nature.

1996: http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html

"White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security
FINAL REPORT TO PRESIDENT CLINTON"

"3.1. The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements.

The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose. In its initial report, the Commission called for approximately $160 million in federal funds for capital costs associated with improving security, and Congress agreed. As part of its ongoing commitment, the federal government should devote significant resources, of approximately $100 million annually, to meet capital requirements identified by airport consortia and the FAA. The Commission recognizes that more is needed. The Commission expects the National Civil Aviation Review Commission to consider a variety of options for additional user fees that could be used to pay for security measures including, among others, an aviation user security surcharge, the imposition of local security fees, tax incentives and other means."

$100 million annually???

How fat was Bush's first check for 911? $50 BILLION?

"An ounce of prevention ..... etc."

Hey, Speed, are you one of those who celebrated Clinton's "surplus"???