• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Firearm Found Inside Mpls. School Staff Member’s Locker

Yeah, i do. gee, a minority of the time. Actually less than one percent of crime is prevented by armed intervention by a citizen. So no you are still not a hero, and you are more likely to get robbged, shoot yourself, shoot someone innocent, or just plain not be around your gun than you are to ever act as a hero. No, quit claiming because it happened once you are some sort of hero for owning a gun. Even the VP of the US is more likely to shoot someone in the face than to stop someone from harming him.


You just tried to make them into heroes twice. No I do not think blowing away some kids in the middle east with a guided missile from miles away makes an armed vetran a hero. First responders, cops, and EMTs are heroes. The modern US military is not a hero, and BTW is one of the actual reasons our founding fathers wanted the states to have a well armed militia because they saw federal troops of the US to be the biggest enemy to freedom we face. before you keep on arguing they are heroes and telling me I should be proud of them think about how big the pile of patriotic thoughtless BS that you are shoveling is.


Now you have made me LMAO. here is how it goes when you deal with moving targets that don't shoot back. Idiot with a gun hears gunshots, run's half a mile, digs load of crap out of shorts, pulls out gun, freaks out and sprays bullets blindly into crowd of fleeing victims of original shooter. You shot targets so you think you know what it is like to be under attack by a real gunman. Especially one that has an assault rifle and some handguns while you sport your easily jammed cheapo pistol. You are not a hero. If you are unlucky enough to actually be there and armed in this situation you are a panicky shaky ball of nerves and adrenaline who will snap fire at most anything that moves in your stark terror at the thought of an armed gunman. This is why we don't want you armed. We know where the actual gunman is, and we don't need to be shot in the back or whuile we are running by you fumbling with your gun and pittling yourself.

You guys have got to stop this heroic rambo routine. You are not rambo. you do not keep your cool in a live fire situation. You are not saving a world full of kids, and you will most likely be responsible for running little kids over as you dash for safety than anything else in the situation. I have seen you heroic types cowering in fear over paint filled geletin capsules that don't cause death. I have seen you shoot your friends on your team because you were scared ****less. i have seen you panick and run face first into trees. I have seen you bobble your gun and blind fire out of terror. I have seen you pant and wheeze after 15 steps of running with your gun. I have seen you take cover behind twigs.


No, what she just did is show us all the stupidity of gun owners by committing a felony with her pistol. She will be arrested. She will be tried and convicted. her gun will be taken from her, and her house will be searched for any other firearms. She will never own a gun again because she will be a convicted felon. She will pay fines, lawyers fees, and most likely spend a few years paying the probation department for the joy of going there. She will be restricted in drinking and any drug use will have to not only be reviewed by her doctor, but also by some idiot probation officer. She might even spend some time in jail for her troubles. All so she could put a gun in her locker which she would never get to while the school is locked down during an armed attack. unlike the heroic teachers who died trying to protect the children in CT, she will try to abandon the kids to get to her locker which will be in a room that is locked up because the school is locked down. In her wandering through the halls she will probably end up another victim while her unsupervised children will probably get killed because they are not locked down and are easy victims.

Quit living in gun fantasy land. Seriously, grandma with a gun is not even a concerned for a heavily armed suicidal attacker. She will hesitate if she actually has her gun and is there. If she gets a shot off it will be shaky and miss. meanwhile her only chance is that the shooter is paralized with fits of uncontrollable laughter and the authorities get there before he can recover and arrest him. She would have better luck stripping naked and trying to cause him to asphyxiate on his own vomit after seeing her sagging grandma naughty bits.

Sigh, same crap, different thread. Go read through Polls-Gun Control and the other threads concerning the issue. I, for one am tired of retyping the same old arguments just because someone brings it up again in a different thread.

After you have read through all the arguments and if you still want to discuss it further, then by all means post it in threads related to gun control.

You may can consider all those threads as part of my rebuttal.
 
Earlier I wrote, "At the ranges most engagements are likely to occur at within gun free buildings handguns are fine. The goal is not to have one-on-one engagements. The goal is for the targeting problem to be very difficult. We do not want one obvious person to have a concealed carry permit. We want dozens of school workers to be trained and armed for their self defense.

How many guns were present at Sandy Hook?
More guns in the hands of the right people, the school workers, might have been the right answer. If you goal is to prevent mass killings then more guns carried by more people is a good answer. If you have some other goal then you will also likely have some other answer."

So then explain Columbine and the Arizona shooting both had guns in the right hand and nothing happen. I do recall in Arizona it was an unarmed man that tackled the gun man. Seem to me you aree grasping at air trying to prove a point. Just like anytime there is a shooting the NRA and the rights answer is more guns. Talk about beating your head against the wall
I see. So if someone is shooting you prefer to wait for him to reload between killings? Talk about beating your head against the wall. I suppose that is why you are very liberal and I am a conservative.

Is your plan to wait for the mass killing to be over and then go after a guy with an empty gun?
 
Earlier I wrote, "At the ranges most engagements are likely to occur at within gun free buildings handguns are fine. The goal is not to have one-on-one engagements. The goal is for the targeting problem to be very difficult. We do not want one obvious person to have a concealed carry permit. We want dozens of school workers to be trained and armed for their self defense.

How many guns were present at Sandy Hook?
More guns in the hands of the right people, the school workers, might have been the right answer. If you goal is to prevent mass killings then more guns carried by more people is a good answer. If you have some other goal then you will also likely have some other answer."


I see. So if someone is shooting you prefer to wait for him to reload between killings? Talk about beating your head against the wall. I suppose that is why you are very liberal and I am a conservative.

Is your plan to wait for the mass killing to be over and then go after a guy with an empty gun?

That is exactly how the Arizona shooting was stopped he gun either jammed or he was reloading. If they do not have 30 or one hundred round clips they would have to reload. The point is a 9mm isnt going to stop a person with a 30 round clip it is simple math and that math is 3 to1 in favor of the person who can spray rounds. Oh by the way the peron at the arizona shooting with the gun could not get a shot off
 
Earlier I wrote, "We all have the right to defend ourselves. That right includes teachers. We can deal with the right of self defense as a separate issue form their being members in public sector unions."

yes we do, but as the courts say not with a firearm in all places. We have gone over the list plenty enough times.
I cannot say whether it is courts or liberal politicians who came up with the idea of gun free zones but the mass murderers sure love them. There have been about 60 mass killings involving firearms in the last twenty years. All, or very nearly all, have occurred in designated gun free zones.

Now instead of thinking of a firearm in the hands of amateurs, perhaps pepper spray could have ended the gunman's shooting spree, at least made it a lot more difficult.
Yeah. That is what I want when someone is shooting at me. Pepper spray? What range does pepper spray have?

One rather disquieting new aspect has been the use of body armor by the 'crazed' gunman- not too crazy to think of that- so it would take a head or femur artery shot to be somewhat quick about ending the shooting spree. Even taking out a leg won't stop the shooter if he is determined. (If you use the most loonies are ******s then pepper spray becomes an effective option)
Why don't we agree that teachers may defend themselves and if you want to go after a gunman with pepper spray instead of a firearm that is you prerogative.

It isn't the Teachers are Union members as must as right wing radicals are always decrying these Union folks as commies bent on undermining the Constitution, planting socialism, making us a nation of takers rather than rugged individualists who believe you will only git mah 'gun' when you pry it out of my cold, dead fingers.

I have no use for unions, private or public. But I do not believe that is a reason to insist that unarmed teachers be killed by armed attackers.

So many right wingers have spent so much time regurgitating such tripe it is amusing to now see them thinking enough teachers will arm themselves to do on the cheap what should be done by professionals.
I think many of us would prefer that all gun free zones be abolished as a first step. Then let each school board decide how best to protect their students. As we type back and forth states are beginning to change the laws to allow teachers the right to carry concealed weapons. In one place a CCW trainer is offering free training classes to teachers.
 
especially those addled old biddies that think FDR saved the nation with his socialist manifesto... ;)
He is not quite at the root of today's problems but he is close to it. FDR and FDO used the same clever method to stay in power. Both used policies that pretend to help while actually keeping as many people dependent as possible. The only lasting effect was to grow the size of the federal government and to create the political party of government.
 
That is exactly how the Arizona shooting was stopped he gun either jammed or he was reloading. If they do not have 30 or one hundred round clips they would have to reload. The point is a 9mm isnt going to stop a person with a 30 round clip it is simple math and that math is 3 to1 in favor of the person who can spray rounds. Oh by the way the peron at the arizona shooting with the gun could not get a shot off
What do you mean by "spray" rounds?

If one person with a weapon is insufficient then perhaps two or three or four is the better choice.

Don't be diferted. What do you mean by "spray" rounds?
 
What do you mean by "spray" rounds?

If one person with a weapon is insufficient then perhaps two or three or four is the better choice.

Don't be diferted. What do you mean by "spray" rounds?

Well if I had a 30 or 100 round clip that means I do not have to have a target I can engage multiple targets as fast as the gun shoots, or as fast as I can pull the trigger. I.E. the term spray rounds in a crowded area. Much like what happened in Colorado. Now in Newton he pretty much engaged targets one at a time.
 
Well if I had a 30 or 100 round clip that means I do not have to have a target I can engage multiple targets as fast as the gun shoots, or as fast as I can pull the trigger. I.E. the term spray rounds in a crowded area. Much like what happened in Colorado. Now in Newton he pretty much engaged targets one at a time.
Okay. So you mean pull the trigger as fast as possible.

Why can't a responder do the same back? I was once a good shooter. I could get ten aimed shots off in under 20 seconds. Anyone who has consistently trained and put rounds down range could do the same.
If the shooter has large capacity magazines there is all the more reason to return fire. It focuses his attention or it kills him.
 
Earlier I wrote, "We all have the right to defend ourselves. That right includes teachers. We can deal with the right of self defense as a separate issue form their being members in public sector unions"

The Supreme Court has already ruled that we don't have the right to carry firearms where ever and when ever we chose, that this right can be restricted... the Supreme Court is far from liberal and the author of that opinion is referred to as the intellectual anchor and strict constructionist of the conservatives.


I cannot say whether it is courts or liberal politicians who came up with the idea of gun free zones but the mass murderers sure love them. There have been about 60 mass killings involving firearms in the last twenty years. All, or very nearly all, have occurred in designated gun free zones.

Designated gun free but not gun free, there were armed Officers in most of the scenarios. Problem was in the case of schools the ability to identify the mass murderer BEFORE he started killing people. Harden the school makes more sense than thinking the socialist teachers will arm themselves and train to the level of expertise to be effective in a school shooting.


Yeah. That is what I want when someone is shooting at me. Pepper spray? What range does pepper spray have?

Depends on the spray, I have to ask, are you a teacher? School janitor? Most have routinely spoken against guns in the classroom. Rather than make CCW in schools a push from the outside why not let the teachers decide?


Why don't we agree that teachers may defend themselves and if you want to go after a gunman with pepper spray instead of a firearm that is you prerogative.

Why don't we agree to let the teachers decide what they want in the way of improved school security?



I have no use for unions, private or public. But I do not believe that is a reason to insist that unarmed teachers be killed by armed attackers.

You are entitled to your opinion.


I think many of us would prefer that all gun free zones be abolished as a first step. Then let each school board decide how best to protect their students. As we type back and forth states are beginning to change the laws to allow teachers the right to carry concealed weapons. In one place a CCW trainer is offering free training classes to teachers.

I'd suggest the state politicians remain on the sideline until the teachers, school boards and professional educators decide what is best and then work to see the money is available to create a truly effective security zone around schools. the point I try to make is after decades of calling teachers everything but loyal Americans NOW 'conservatives' are trying to claim enough teachers will strap-on and train up to a level to defend against a body armored attacker.

I'd say these 'conservatives' don't have real safety in mind but pushing an agenda to end gun free zones, nevermind the vast majority of teachers will forgo arming themselves.

If the teachers and school administrators were demanding the right to CCW in schools that would be one thing, but instead it is right wing politicians.

Some of my answers are in your quote, I didn't do a very good job of designating them, but you can see what you didn't type....
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest the state politicians remain on the sideline until the teachers, school boards and professional educators decide what is best and then work to see the money is available to create a truly effective security zone around schools. the point I try to make is after decades of calling teachers everything but loyal Americans NOW 'conservatives' are trying to claim enough teachers will strap-on and train up to a level to defend against a body armored attacker.

I'd say these 'conservatives' don't have real safety in mind but pushing an agenda to end gun free zones, nevermind the vast majority of teachers will forgo arming themselves.

If the teachers and school administrators were demanding the right to CCW in schools that would be one thing, but instead it is right wing politicians.

Some of my answers are in your quote, I didn't do a very good job of designating them, but you can see what you didn't type....

Yeah. That was a useful exercise.

Do you agree that the majority, if not all, of the mass murders in the last twenty years, where guns were used have occurred in gun free zones?

Do you believe in choice? Does a woman have a right to choose...life versus death for herself and her school children who may be murdered in a gun free zone?
 
Yeah. That was a useful exercise.

Do you agree that the majority, if not all, of the mass murders in the last twenty years, where guns were used have occurred in gun free zones?

Do you believe in choice? Does a woman have a right to choose...life versus death for herself and her school children who may be murdered in a gun free zone?

I believe in the right to choose, not strawman arguments to push an agenda. Let the teacher decide before all the feel good, rather useless political posturing.

Again 'gun free' is a misnomer- the good guys had firearms in these areas, what they didn't have was a good security system so they could act rather than react after the murders started.

I'd say you don't understand being armed. having a pistol in your hand guarantees nothing. this teacher would have to make a headshot on someone who already knows the adult must die first and is wearing body armor.

Better way to say what you mean is allowing a teacher the chance she/he can shoot a mass murderer in the head before the mass murderer shoots them.

I'd rather the school be hardened against entry, and professionals be armed and dedicated to security in place rather than a questionable few in number teachers in easy to access schools be the security. Again CCWs would be very rare and always at a disadvantage unless the schools are hardened.
 
Am I trying to do that? I'm simply pointing out that gun owners should take a second to think about their fairly common mantra of needing guns for those who break the laws, while so many of them break the law themselves in regards to where they bring their weapon.

By the way that oath does not prevent me from having a wide range of political beliefs should I choose to have them, and your opinion on what the Constitution means is not what I've sworn to support and defend

Do you actually read what you write. You don't make any sense. You did swear to uphold what the founders who wrote that amendment meant, so start upholding it.
 
Last edited:
Odds are she told the teacher thinking the teacher would like to know in case something happened. It may shock you, but people who own guns do sometimes do things with good intentions too. And they cannot put their money where their mouth is because the "progressives" are afraid of change.

That's the problem though, the people might very well have good intentions, but the gun has no such plan and it is just as happy in a childs hand or in anyones who picks it up. Those good intentions don't bring back the dead from accidental shooting or maniac murderers. That is what was found and THAT is the reason for the laws. A gun is more likely to be the cause of injuries than be used to prevent them. I don't know about you but I like it that way. Feeling that it is "shoot" or "be shot" all the time is not a way to live.
 
Well if I had a 30 or 100 round clip that means I do not have to have a target I can engage multiple targets as fast as the gun shoots, or as fast as I can pull the trigger. I.E. the term spray rounds in a crowded area. Much like what happened in Colorado. Now in Newton he pretty much engaged targets one at a time.

Bullet fire isn't math class unless you are Dirty Harry but there is still a split second at the start of a merging of field of fires where only 1 shot can be shot off in time. If 2 people are coming around a corner the person with the fastest and best aim gets that first shot off. Someone who has to keep their head hidden behind stuff isn't going to be aiming as well as someone who isn't being shot at.
 
A gun is more likely to be the cause of injuries than be used to prevent them.
This statement is blatantly false, and one of the most common non-facts I hear invoked by gun control advocates. There is a ton of research on this subject, and it is easy to do your own research. Why do you believe this to be true, if you have a source please give it, if not, please do some research and you will find that nothing could be further from the truth.

You mentioned "accidental shootings", which make up a ridiculously small percentage of accidental deaths. How do you use such a stunningly rare occurrence to justify gun control?
 
That is exactly how the Arizona shooting was stopped he gun either jammed or he was reloading. If they do not have 30 or one hundred round clips they would have to reload. The point is a 9mm isnt going to stop a person with a 30 round clip it is simple math and that math is 3 to1 in favor of the person who can spray rounds. Oh by the way the peron at the arizona shooting with the gun could not get a shot off

Only takes one aimed round.
 
Do you actually read what you write. You don't make any sense. You did swear to uphold what the founders who wrote that amendment meant, so start upholding it.

No I swore to support and defend the Constitution, which is different for several reasons.

1) The Founders didn't all agree on what the amendments meant
2) The Constitution has changed since that time
3) The SCOTUS is who determines what the Constitution means
4) I never swore to support or defend your idea of what it means
5) The oath of office is in no way meant to or decided to bind someone to a certain political belief
 
That is exactly how the Arizona shooting was stopped he gun either jammed or he was reloading. If they do not have 30 or one hundred round clips they would have to reload. The point is a 9mm isnt going to stop a person with a 30 round clip it is simple math and that math is 3 to1 in favor of the person who can spray rounds. Oh by the way the peron at the arizona shooting with the gun could not get a shot off

Perhaps you should talk to Jeanne Assam.

I posted this before in response to another member's comments. They apply to yours as well:

Larry Bourbonnais, a combat-tested Vietnam veteran, said it was the bravest thing he’s ever seen.

Bourbonnais, who was among those shot by a gunman Sunday at New Life Church, watched as a security guard, a woman later identified as Jeanne Assam, calmly returned fire and killed the shooter.

“She just started walking toward the gunman firing the whole way,” said Bourbonnais, who was shot in the arm. “She was just yelling ‘Surrender,’ walking and shooting the whole time.”

Bourbonnais, 59, was chowing down in the church cafeteria when he heard the shots. He headed in the direction of the gunfire, asking “where’s the shooter?”, as people ran past him.

Near an entryway in the church, Bourbonnais came upon the gunman and an armed male church security guard who was there with his gun drawn but not firing, he said.

Bourbonnais said he pleaded with the armed guard to give him his weapon.

But the guard just hollered at Bourbonnais to get behind him.

He wouldn’t hand me his weapon, but he wouldn’t do anything.”

Armed guard #2 was no better:

There was an additional armed security guard there, another man, who also didn’t fire, Bourbonnais said.

A couple of damn wimps!

Bourbonnais yelled at the gunman to draw his attention, he said.

“First, I called him ‘Coward’ then I called him ‘S—head’ ” Bourbonnais said. “I probably shouldn’t have been saying that in church.”

No, indeed, it only attracted the shooter’s attention:

That’s when the shooter pointed one of his guns at Bourbonnais and fired, he said.

Bourbonnais ducked behind a hollow, decorative pillar and was hit in the arm by a bullet and fragments of the pillar.

Enter our heroine:

Assam turned a corner with a drawn handgun, walked toward the gunman and yelled “Surrender!” Bourbonnais said.

The gunman pointed a handgun at Assam and fired three shots, Bourbonnais said. She returned fire and just kept walking toward the gunman pressing off round after round.

After the gunman went down, Bourbonnais asked Assam, a volunteer security guard with the church, how she remained so calm and focused.

Bourbonnais said she replied:

“I was asking the Holy Spirit to guide me the entire time.”

The Heroine Of The Colorado Springs Church Shooting « Nice Deb

Now, I'm not a religious man, so even though she credits god for her ability, I don't. I credit her. The guy she went up against had three weapons and over a thousand rounds. She prevented him from killing scores of people that day. With a 9 mm.
 
Good luck with that Rambo! When 30 or 100 are coming back at you. Soif you are that good why are you here?

Yes, TaraAnne, it is good that you have your attitude. It will keep you alive at the cost of other's deaths.

But you will understand when I say that...if I should find myself in a dangerous situation...I hope you run and hide.
 
Earlier I wrote, "Do you agree that the majority, if not all, of the mass murders in the last twenty years where guns were used have occurred in gun free zones?

Do you believe in choice? Does a woman have a right to choose...life versus death for herself and her school children who may be murdered in a gun free zone?"

I believe in the right to choose, not strawman arguments to push an agenda.

Nice knee-jerk reaction. What part of my statement above do you believe to be a strawman argument?

Do you agree that nearly all mass murders that have taken place in the last twenty years have occurred in gun free zones?

Let the teacher decide before all the feel good, rather useless political posturing.
This is more properly the role of local school boards. Before that can happen the gun free zone laws have to be rescinded.

Again 'gun free' is a misnomer- the good guys had firearms in these areas,
Really? How many armed people were there at Sandy Hook? I could find reference to only one armed person. Who were the others and what were they doing during the murders?

what they didn't have was a good security system so they could act rather than react after the murders started.
Begin with the assumption that a murder is always possible. What we want to do is cut back on the number of murders. A first shot will always be fired. It is what happens after the first shot that determines whether there is a murder or a mass killing.

Tell me more about what you would want as a security system.

I'd say you don't understand being armed.
You may say anything you want. While I was in college I also worked in a police department. I was trained by the best shot in the department. After college I spent twenty years in the Army. We were occasionally armed as a minor part of that job.


having a pistol in your hand guarantees nothing.
I do not recall offering guarantees. Do you believe we all have a right to life? Do you believe that the state cannot take away our lives without due process? Do you believe we have a right to defend ourselves?

this teacher would have to make a headshot on someone who already knows the adult must die first and is wearing body armor.
Why do you assume there would only be one armed adult? Why do you assume that all mass killings have an assailant in full body armor? Why do you assume that someone being fired upon will not respond to the fires? And why do you assume that the teacher would stand alone? If all of the adults who were murdered had been armed do you believe there would have been 27 murders? If every adult fired just one round before being murdered do you believe the shooter could have finished his task in the ten minutes it took for more armed help to arrive? The shooter at Sandy Hook managed to kill between 2-3 people every minute. Wouldn't it have been far better to have reduced his killing rate?

Better way to say what you mean is allowing a teacher the chance she/he can shoot a mass murderer in the head before the mass murderer shoots them.
This is evidence of one-dimensional thinking. This does bring us back to a woman's right to choose. Should she choose a chance of living by concealed carry or certain death having been disarmed by liberal politicians who will not stand with her as she is murdered?

I'd rather the school be hardened against entry, and professionals be armed and dedicated to security in place rather than a questionable few in number teachers in easy to access schools be the security. Again CCWs would be very rare and always at a disadvantage unless the schools are hardened.
If you are a member of a school board you may get the opportunity to make such a decision. My preferences it to eliminate gun free zones and then allow the school boards to make their choices with a far wider range of options.
 
It is a strawman argument because you are projecting your opinion as what others want. IF the teachers, school administrators, school boards want to have more CCWs in their schools then they know how to ask. Until then it is others pushing their agenda trying to use teachers as a cover.

Believe me, teachers know how to organize and demand things, what they want are better secured doors, windows and classrooms.

It is interesting you keep saying assume when the trends have been to the use of body armor and ARs. True the attacker could be attackers, not improving the odds for the teacher 'defending' her classroom. to not prepare for an attacker dressed in body armor is preparing to fail.

Now what pistol would you have the CCW use? the concealable pistols on a smaller female frame are short barreled and short gripped, not the best to aim for headshots, the CCW is for fending off attackers on the street, not body armored AR carrying in classrooms. I've watched waaay too many CCW holders using their subcompact in practical shooting. (yes there are some who can but their round count in training is pretty high)

You see pushing your agenda as the solution, but the vast majority of teachers don't so how many teachers will arm and train-up?
 
Last edited:
That's the problem though, the people might very well have good intentions, but the gun has no such plan and it is just as happy in a childs hand or in anyones who picks it up. Those good intentions don't bring back the dead from accidental shooting or maniac murderers. That is what was found and THAT is the reason for the laws. A gun is more likely to be the cause of injuries than be used to prevent them. I don't know about you but I like it that way. Feeling that it is "shoot" or "be shot" all the time is not a way to live.

I tend to not be in favor or zero tolerance policies and laws. People are humans who sometimes make well-intentioned mistakes. I think it was also Thomas Jefferson who said, roughly paraphrased, that strict adherence to the law is the greatest threat to democracy.
 
It is a strawman argument because you are projecting your opinion as what others want. IF the teachers, school administrators, school boards want to have more CCWs in their schools then they know how to ask. Until then it is others pushing their agenda trying to use teachers as a cover.
That is not a strawman. It has a name. It is...are you ready...an opinion. You are pushing your agenda. My agenda is superior. How do I know? We have an Amendment in the Bill of Rights where the US government acknowledges our right to defend ourselves first from each other but also from the government.

Allowing local school boards to decide seems to be the perfect solution. My only mandatory requirement is that we uniformly rescind all gun free zone laws. They violate my right to life because they prevent me from defending myself from others.

Believe me, teachers know how to organize and demand things, what they want are better secured doors, windows and classrooms.
Apparently you do not speak for all teachers as more than 200 teachers in Utah are getting concealed carry permits and the law allows teachers and other school workers to carry a weapon, even when in the presence of our precious crumb-crunchers.

It is interesting you keep saying assume when the trends have been to the use of body armor and ARs. True the attacker could be attackers, not improving the odds for the teacher 'defending' her classroom. to not prepare for an attacker dressed in body armor is preparing to fail.
I heard today on a local radio station that since 1955 all mass killings except one have occurred in gun free zones. I believe the definition of a mass killing is four or more killings by one person at one place and one time. I believe it.

Do you believe it is more important or less important for people to defend themselves against an attacker with body armor? Does the presence of body armor mean that you are against self defense? Given that the majority of privately owned weapons are semiautomatic is it a surprise to you that attackers arm themselves with the most common weapon?

Now what pistol would you have the CCW use? the concealable pistols on a smaller female frame are short barreled and short gripped, not the best to aim for headshots, the CCW is for fending off attackers on the street, not body armored AR carrying in classrooms. I've watched waaay too many CCW holders using their subcompact in practical shooting. (yes there are some who can but their round count in training is pretty high)

I have given my recommendations to individuals I know based on their intended use. I recommend using the largest caliber weapon that the individual can capably handle.

You see pushing your agenda as the solution, but the vast majority of teachers don't so how many teachers will arm and train-up?

Do you think it matters how many teachers will defend themselves versus huddling in the corner waiting their turn to be shot and killed? Just because you have the right to self defense does not make it mandatory that you do so. Please feel free to cower in the corner while your assailant pumps round after round into your body.

What is it about my agenda that upsets you? After the gun free zone laws are rescinded my agenda is simply to allow every local school board to decide what is appropriate for their schools.
 
You put the cart before your horse and call it new and improved.

I'd say let the teachers, principles and school administrators decide they want the CCW allowed in their schools. You are calling your agenda a cure when to the people DIRECTLY involved it is a non-starter.

Let the teachers decide.

What part of that are you not understanding, you don't work at the school let those who do decide....
 
Back
Top Bottom