View Single Post
Old 01-16-2013, 06:46 PM   #55
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
To be impulsive is to act without forethought. If you are not regularly armed then you do not have access to immediate use. When you couple that with research that shows violent acts committed with your hands are viewed by the assailant as more intimate and thus require greater commitment vs. guns that provide greater distance both in proximity and emotion from the actual act, you are less likely to have an incident.
The point
Your head

Students and school employees already act impulsively without guns. It results in negative consequences, including people getting beat up.

Would there be more or less of the existing impulsive behavior with armed authority figures in the classroom or patrolling the halls/campus?

Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
You might argue, "well what if they have a gun in their car.... they could just as easily grab that and come back?". That's a great question. However, the time that it takes for an individual to remove themselves from the situation, walk to their car and return is time allowed to evaluate their actions removes the impulsiveness from their decision.
I wouldn't ask that question, because it doesn't make sense in the context I'm proposing.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
How articulate.
Need me to draw you a pretty picture so you can understand it?

Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
It's an erroneous assumption to think that:
  1. All teachers will be armed
  2. All teachers are adequately trained
  3. All teachers will want to pull the trigger in that situation
I agree these are serious concerns.

I'd be more in favor of armed LEO roaming the campus than armed teachers. I think it would be cheaper, safer and produce more ancillary positive effects than arming teachers. I mentioned armed teachers in my example because you'd brought it up. But given the choice, I'd go with a campus cop vs a Glock wielding geometry teacher.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
Furthermore, in your scenario the person is a "nutjob". I seriously doubt they'll care if others are armed. Additionally, a single class room where you would only need to remove one obstacle is going to leave a shooter plenty of victims to make their point. The safeguards you cited prevent nothing. You're not going to find an overwhelming majority of parents who are willing going to have their children sit across from a teacher with a .45 in their desk.

My position is rooted in reality and pragmatism.
Here's reality: even though the nutjobs are irrational, they seem to be making somewhat rational target choices. No mass shootings at police barracks. No mass shootings at NG armories. If there's been a mass shooting at a firing range or gun store, I haven't heard of it. Even Hasan went to a processing center instead of somewhere the MPs might be. No mass shootings at NRA meetings. No mass shootings at hunting club BBQs.

Obviously the personal connection or what the location represents to the nutjob matters. But it's shortsighted to ignore the fact that movie theaters, schools, churches, college campuses and other gun-free-zones are the chosen targets time and time again.

So it's ridiculous to simply dismiss the question of what would happen if these targets were no longer gun-free.

I totally agree about 100% casualties in a single classroom being amply tragic. But isn't it more tragic if the shooter can stalk through dozens of classrooms, up and down the halls, through the library, unchecked?

Putting armed cops in schools would dissuade some nutjobs. The ones that weren't dissuaded might be stopped sooner in their rampage, which would result in fewer victims. Some would just rise to the challenge and drive a OKC-style bomb up to the front door and detonate it. Or they'd put arsenic in the water fountain. Or trigger a gas leak and light a match. it goes on and on.

The fundamental question is, when we add up all the negatives and positives, do we have a net gain in safety or a net loss. Anyone that wants to create or block laws based on their answer to that question better have more to back up their reasoning than "well, I think" or "I read somewhere" or "damn libtards" or "friggin gun nuts".

Originally Posted by Swish View Post
Mass school shootings aren't being done by thugs from the hood... Is that what you're suggesting?
Nor are presidential assassinations.
We will not tolerate intolerance.

Last edited by Xcelratr; 01-16-2013 at 06:47 PM.
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote