so, in light of the sandy hook shooting

rather than all the talk about gun control, limiting magazines, registration, and the usual pointless debate, leading to laws that have done nothing to prevent such incidents so far.

why aren't we talking about how we may arm teachers, and school staff with effective firearms and train them in there safe use. in order to protect our school children from such madmen?

 

What needs to happen is removal of the gun free zones. Teachers, parents and faculty should have the right to choose weather they want to carry.

 

Why do you think one of the teachers won't go ballistic and shoot up half the school??

 

If I gave you a gun, would you go ballistic and shoot everyone?

 

Typical anti-gun thinking. "Well if someone gave me a gun, I might do this, so other people must think the same way." Normal people don't have those thoughts.

Tell us, if you had a gun, would you shoot up half a school?

 

Depends

What is the difference between an armed terrorist and a woman with PMT? You can reason with the terrorist............

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/armed-guards-in-schools_b_2468810.html

Your most effective strategy - well Scotland, England, Australia and many other countries have done it - tighten gun regulations

 

There have already been numerous incidents of CCW owners involved in multiple shootings - why are you assuming they would not??
http://www.csgv.org/index.php?optio...gun-permit-holders-in-2009&catid=51&Itemid=74

 

What if a teacher or teachers stop an active shooter with the only result being that the shooter died? What if because an active shooters know that the school is not a soft target he decides not to go to a school at all. You know if we're imagining what results could be and all.
Lord knows we have enough proof that not having armed school staff doesn't work. Let's be proactive and stop a bad guy with a gun with a good guy with a gun. Seems to work well when bad guys with guns encounter good guys with guns everywhere else eh?

 

dontcha just love those what if scenarios...seems they work both ways eh? What if putting armed officers or teachers prevents not only mass shootings but provides safer schools for all staff and students. It might be true that having armed people present prevents more violence than it creates, you know since we are talking about how a cure MIGHT go eh?
Your and huffpos suppositions seem strangely reminiscent of the claims by anti-gunners in each state when concealed carry was introduced, only blood didn't run in the street. History answers your suppositions with facts.

 

What if you stopped the mass shootings before they walked into a school with a gun? More guns means more gun violence - that research is SOLID. And the thing about "gun free zones" is an NRA furphy, Armed guards do not stop banks from being targeted. Columbine HAD armed guards as did Virginia Tech

The few mass shootings that were stopped by civilians were by off duty police NOT common civilians - the only civilians who DID try to stop the shootings were gunned down themselves - not a good tally

But England, Scotlan, Finland Australia all enacted strict gun regulation and all reduced the number of mass shootings

- - - Updated - - -

What if you stopped the mass shootings before they walked into a school with a gun? More guns means more gun violence - that research is SOLID. And the thing about "gun free zones" is an NRA furphy, Armed guards do not stop banks from being targeted. Columbine HAD armed guards as did Virginia Tech

The few mass shootings that were stopped by civilians were by off duty police NOT common civilians - the only civilians who DID try to stop the shootings were gunned down themselves - not a good tally

But England, Scotlan, Finland Australia all enacted strict gun regulation and all reduced the number of mass shootings

 

They have far more proof that criminals are involved in multiple shootings and even cops what is your point? That the guns were responsible hehehe nice try

 

Sigh...

Guess what? All of those shootings could have been committed without a concealed carry permit. Are you seriously making this argument? That because someone has a concealed carry permit, it could cause them to shoot up a public place?

Let me tell you a secret: there is no magic force-field that prevents you from leaving your home with a gun unless you have a carry permit. Shocking, I know.

Yes, all six of those shooters had carry permits. They also all drank water, were birthed from a woman, were human, were men, and had two arms and two legs.

I will repeat myself again just to make my point crystal clear: a concealed carry permit does not cause someone to go on a shooting rampage, nor does it even enable them. Give me a freaking BRAKE!

 

That article cites a handful if these incidents. There are over 8 million CCW licenses in the US.

 

that everyone should be viewed as under suspicion as being a potential criminal, maniac. or incompetent. is argument based a "default" negative assessment of individuel character, as such, it is rhetorically a very week argument, and is also a negative philosophy, when viewed in the american cultural norm.

that is stated in this principle, we do not judge one guilty, until one is proven so by evidence.

can you point to any statistical backing that teachers who do have there mental health, and drug use monitored somewhat, (as a condition, and result of the job they do) and are more likely that say, the socially inept, and isolated individuel, that fit the criminal profile of those who do commit such acts?

my assertion, Teachers, by the nature of the job they hold are highly unlikely to be a mass murdering homicidal maniacs. because any individuel who fits the FBI profile of those who have committed these acts, is unsuitable to he hired as a teacher in a school by temperament, and because of this temperament, can not successfully preform the job.

 

Why do you think they will?

 

Seven examples out of how many thousands?

 

seriously, you again posed an opinion piece this time from an anti gun organisation? i would say, the statistically insignificant amount of proven criminals with CCWs as apposed to holders of CCW's not proven to be criminals, and, the low incidence of any crimes, on part of CCW holders, tends to support our position, not yours.

nidal hassan was a law abiding american, and a soldier in uniform who was recruited into the terrorist group Alqeda. was there evidence of any law breaking, or terrorism issues when he received either his commission as a major of the us army, or his CCW?. as raf as his mental state, it was obama's pentagon, that covered that up, can you tell me why he was even in the as an officer army with his record?

anes subasic, another terrorist, did not kill anyone in the usa, and was more than likely, not known, or recognised, to be a terrorist upon gaining his us citizenship. or CCW, and as his terrorist act took place in another country and were not necessarily open to scrutiny by us law enforcement.

three of the individuals in the case, were stopped in there murder sprees by firearms.

you need to seriously sit down, and think about the articles you are citing, so far, they have given little support to your side in this.

 

These places you speak of were unaffected by gun bans or control. The overall murder/crime rate continued along the same pattern it was before.

 

No I am not because that would be what we call a STRAW MAN argument

I am making almost the opposite argument - that just because you are a CCW permit holder does NOT mean you are Mr/Miss innocent/Will never hurt a fly. Admittedly the proportion of those with CCW who commit crimes is lower than in the population as a whole but then so should it be because you have or should have weeded out at least SOME of the "criminal element"

Well, just don't try that over here because if you do the cops would become REAL interested in you REAL fast

Okay for a start it is BREAK not BRAKE

Now once again that is not what I was proposing

What I am countering is the insistence by many that a CCW holder will never commit a mass shooting

- - - Updated - - -

Really??? Proof???

And remember the topic of the thread is MASS SHOOTINGS

 

And what is the rate of mass shooters for the entire population??

 

Out of over 300 million?

 

Possibly because it's only one solution among many. It's useful to have a debate that canvasses many options and where one or two options are distilled from the debate for possible implementation.

The problem with solutions that are arrived at quickly is that they are susceptible to the problem of the law of unintended consequences.

Removing ideology from this debate is desirable, but difficult. Identifying vested interests isn't difficult though and they should be identified and their suggestions given weight when their motivations are known. I'm not suggesting that those vested interests shouldn't be involved, merely that their views be critically examined. The NRA, for example, could offer a wealth of technical knowledge and other suggestions, particularly from firearms manufacturers, but it is terrified that a solution involving reduction of fireams in private hands would be seen as the only solution. Its fear is based on economic interest but it would be right about the reduction solution having unintended consequences. Those in favour of restricting lawful firearms use and ownership are probably acting out of concern for public safety, not economic issues. But while their motivation is pure, untainted by moolah, their suggestions may be highly impractical. Having the purest motivation for your actions is no guarantee that they will turn out beneficially.

I think there is a need to examine how people acquire firearms and the imposition of reasonable restrictions as a starter.

The hysterical language on both sides of the debate should be toned down, though, it adds nothing.

Forgot to add - the way the debate is framed is also important. It should be as neutral as possible, to allow for optimum results.

But one principle should be to the fore - it should be about public health/safety (a principle that Bowerbird has advanced in various threads). I realise that for many Americans framing the debate in terms of rights is important and I understand that, but as far as I know the rights interpreted by the US Sup Ct which are contained in the Second Amendment are not under threat. I'm not suggesting that the idea of rights be dismissed, merely that it not occupy centre stage in the debate or it will skew thinking.

 

Oh, and mass shootings aren't considered in overall stats? UK didn't see a spike in crime and murder after a ban? Your country's murder rate wasn't declining before a ban, showing that it was already in a pattern? I am talking about the rates as a whole, and mass shootings are included within those. Do you agree with, knowing that psychos and criminals have guns, that they post signs at schools saying gun free zone? No matter what bans or restrictions you apply, criminals will always have guns. They will not disappear unless international organized crime is brung to a stop. The only places that should be considered gun free are those places with armed gaurds, period. The only time mass shootings occur are in gun free zones, plain and simple, how come this hasn't changed?
When you are acting through an emotional response, hardly anything can be done rationaly. For instance, we are at a 50 year low for crime and homicide, but because 1 parent was not responsible and let her son get her hands on her guns, the 80+ million people which 99% of them would not let this happen, should be punished? It is unrealistic and irrational. Like I always say, blaming a gun is obsolving criminals and irresponsible people of any wrong doing. Instead of trampling on the peoples birth rights as american citizens, maybe they need to correct the mistakes THEY have made first.

As for proof, your a big girl, you can look it up.

 

Yep! How many mass shootings do you have per year??