• 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!

Today I Am A Greater Threat To The Well Being Of All Americans

And they probably needed an armed resource officer. You are debating a strawman and I am sorry I am not the liberal you want to debate. I am against gun control. I am just not deluded enough to play into this "ANY good guy with a gun is a good response to a bad guy with a gun" nonsense. We need to address the problem, not GUNS!

A school resource officer would likely have been as useful as 'a' security guard responsible for a college campus.
 
They mischaracterized his reason for not intervening: he was told to stay put by school officials, not that he decided to because of the reasons he gave in retrospect. As a CCW, he was under no obligation, none whatsoever, to traverse 200 yards across an open field into (through? didn't know at the time) a fire zone and confront an active shooter. That was his first reaction, though. He was told not to by school officials.

Now, if he had been enrolled in that clasd, very probably a different outcome. Or if someone in that class had a CCW and understood that it wasn't illegal to carry on campus and were willing to risk being expelled for it, also probably a different outcome.

More guns were the answer, as evidence by the police eventually wounding him and causing him to flee. It's a shame they couldn't be brought to bear earlier.

Nonsense. A TRAINED and UNIFORMED officer with EXPERIENCE who has BACKUP and is coordinated in their response is not the same as random college kids with guns who might draw and fire on anyone they see drawing and firing. You could have easily had two armed kids in that class both draw and kill the shooter then turn and shoot at each other and wreak more havoc than the killer had through their crossfire and panic. Even if it were just one armed college kid they could easily be mistaken for the killer and end up being fired on by police and possibly even returning fire out of panic. This tendency to treat the actual police response as evidence of how an armed student would react is just ridiculous.
 
A school resource officer would likely have been as useful as 'a' security guard responsible for a college campus.

I guess we should have given all the 7 year olds a gun to carry since arming anyone is a good solution to bad guys with guns.
 
You give more people guns, the killers will simply use other weapons. Why is your answer to this to turn the US into the Middle East? It is just a probable that there was less death because of the gun policy. Nobody knows. Gun fights are confusing as hell. This isn't the movies. Play a friendly game of paintball amoung strangers and see how quickly things can go to hell when a bunch of armed people get engaged in a shootout and it becomes unclear who is on what side. I have seen some remarkable friendly fire in those situations.
There certainly is a higher probability that there were 9 more deaths because of the campus policy, and there's no basis or proof of any kind that it ever saved a single life.

You're in a class. Someone with a gun starts lining people against the wall and starts shooting them. Would you rather be armed or unarmed at that point? And, if you'd rather be armed at that moment, it means you'd have to be carrying prior to the start of the incident. Which means that you are willing to risk expulsion to exert your rights, to protect in case of an admittedly low probabilty event. Most people, even with a CCW, reasonable knowledge of the laws, and a firm supporter of the 2A would do the math and leave the gun in their car or at home.
 
Sandy Hook elementary school waited 10 minutes for that response you are looking for. That's just sadistic.

The cops are not rushing in without knowing what there is. They are going to do that EVERY TIME and it is part of their training not to get themselves stupidly killed. If it takes 30 minutes to assess the situation that is how long you will wait.

It's part of the deal when one creates safe shooting galleries for nuts and criminals. Everyone who did not object to the schools gun free act can say I did that by not objecting. Maybe I should fix that in future and think of doing something about it now. They are your children you send there.
 
I guess we should have given all the 7 year olds a gun to carry since arming anyone is a good solution to bad guys with guns.

Sheez give it a rest. STRAWMAN argument and really stupid at that. Fact is gun control advocates and supporters enabled safe shooting galleries to be created for nuts and criminals with live targets, our children. Like it or not that is what they voted for and supported. Check with them if they are concerned with the blood on their hands.
 
Or maybe it is a Godsend that nobody in the class was carrying. A trained person with a gun responded, not some college kid with a gun. Why do you want to pretend it is all equal?

Where does your "logic" end? Is a good guy with an explosive the answer to bad guys with explosives? Is a good guy with biological weapons your answer to bad guys with biological weapons?
Of course not: the point of an armed response, in firing on an attacker, is to neutralize the threat. That is all. If there were another weapon with the accuracy, effectiveness, and better chance of working with less collateral damage, an ethical and rational person would use it instead. But, there isn't. Using explosives or biological weapons to neutralize a threat would only be acceptable and necessary in some convoluted 60's James Bond scenario. Some type of hardened bunker situation, probably with a monocle and a persian cat in the mix , but we're well past personal defense, and reality, at that point.
 
I guess we should have given all the 7 year olds a gun to carry since arming anyone is a good solution to bad guys with guns.

Don't be goofy. Not all the seven year olds. But had a handful of teachers chosen to carry concealed there would have been a lot less dead children for anti gun folk to exploit
 
Nonsense. A TRAINED and UNIFORMED officer with EXPERIENCE who has BACKUP and is coordinated in their response is not the same as random college kids with guns who might draw and fire on anyone they see drawing and firing. You could have easily had two armed kids in that class both draw and kill the shooter then turn and shoot at each other and wreak more havoc than the killer had through their crossfire and panic. Even if it were just one armed college kid they could easily be mistaken for the killer and end up being fired on by police and possibly even returning fire out of panic. This tendency to treat the actual police response as evidence of how an armed student would react is just ridiculous.
One person with a gun could have stopped him before he killed anyone, or certainly fewer. Even in your FUBAR scenario of citizen response, it's highly unlikely there would have been as much carnage as he propagated. In other words, even a mediocre plan now, at the start of the incident, is better than the perfect plan 4 minutes later.
 
Last edited:
At least one person had a gun, and didn't stop him.
 
See the thread about it. (You didn't specify classroom in your post.)
 
One person with a gun could have stopped him before he killed anyone, or certainly fewer. Even in your FUBAR scenario of citizen response, it's highly unlikely there would have been as much carnage as he propagated. In other words, even a mediocre plan now, at the start of the incident, is better than the perfect plan 4 minutes later.

Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation. You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.
 
See the thread about it. (You didn't specify classroom in your post.)
If you watch the video, he says that he did want to intervene, despite the distance (different building, 200 yards away), but was stopped by school officials. The Raw story which this blog c/p mischaracterizes his words, He admitted in retrospect that it may have been for the best due to SWAT possibly mistaking him and others for the active shooter, but that was not the reason he didn't intervene.

Note also that he is able to quote exact laws that allowed him to cc despite the proclamation of the president of Umpqua and the policy in the student handbook. This tells me he is a gun rights advocate, and not just a person who happens to have a CCW license. So, legally and technically not a GFZ, but the administration did their best to portray it as one, and only people like Parker knew it was nonsense and was willing to risk getting hassled or worse in exerting their rights.

In fact The Complications of Oregon's Guns-On-Campus Laws. So, if this analysis is correct, it wasn't illegal to CC at Umpqua, but you could get kicked out for it since it was against school policy. Since the whole point of going to school is to actually go to school, not many would risk it. That is a very hostile environment for gun rights, and it may possibly have exacerbated the recent tragedy.

I have to wonder if any of the victims had a CCW license but thought they weren't allowed to carry. I don't know, but it's an interesting question.
 
Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation. You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.
You would rather just sit there in the middle of a mass shooting KNOWING its not going to stop on its own and wait til its your turn to die than take your chance with an armed law abiding citizen?
 
Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation. You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.
So you would rather be purposefully killed by someone rather than possibly accidentally killed by someone else trying to stop it? Interesting survival calculus.
 
So you would rather be purposefully killed by someone rather than possibly accidentally killed by someone else trying to stop it? Interesting survival calculus.

I have several years of martial arts training. I think I have a better shot dealing with it myself than getting caught up in friendly fire.
 
I have several years of martial arts training. I think I have a better shot dealing with it myself than getting caught up in friendly fire.

Dood kicks in a door waving a gun, I hope you and 29 other ninjas charge him and kick his ass.
 
Following the rhetoric of the left wing on the recent shootings in Oregon as an owner of several guns I am today to be considered even more dangerous to my fellow Americans that I was the day before. Why wait until I explode? Why not break in and execute me saying I had weapons so the police were in fear for their lives?
The only other option would be to leave me alone and go about your daily lives as you did before.

I think BHO will be squawking about gun control until his last day in office, when finally he will also put that onto is final bucket list as well.

Then he can say "bucket ... bucket to gun control ... ."
 
Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation. You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.

My own proposal for all schools is that they all get security doors and gates, and that early retired LEO's from age 50 to 70 stands guard at each of the doors.
 
So you would rather be purposefully killed by someone rather than possibly accidentally killed by someone else trying to stop it? Interesting survival calculus.

The risk of collateral damage should not infringe anyone's right to bear arms on their own person.

There is nothing that can be done about collateral damage.

So you are correct.
 
Of course not: the point of an armed response, in firing on an attacker, is to neutralize the threat. That is all. If there were another weapon with the accuracy, effectiveness, and better chance of working with less collateral damage, an ethical and rational person would use it instead. But, there isn't. Using explosives or biological weapons to neutralize a threat would only be acceptable and necessary in some convoluted 60's James Bond scenario. Some type of hardened bunker situation, probably with a monocle and a persian cat in the mix , but we're well past personal defense, and reality, at that point.

Don't lead gun control advocates on, already the think citizens must be given nukes. ;)
 
Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation.

You have any evidence from past situations which shows training is needed?

You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.

The best way to avoid an idiot is to lock yourself in a room. Even that may not help as there may well be one in the room anyway.

So put some numbers on this obvious irrational fear you have. How many idiots per year shoot up citizens defending them?

You had better have a very significant number to go with your demand.

Lets use facts - win win.
 
Back
Top Bottom