• 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!

Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

ajn678 said:
Damn... might as well get rid of seat belts since not every person survives a car crash.
Click to expand...

Ever take a course in logic? Did you pass? I could lay this out for you but I don't feel like it.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
1) if they’ve been adjudicated by a fair process yes I support that

2) No because the government wastes so much money on things they have no constitutional basis being in that raising taxes is a giant no, the size of the government should be reduced and the savings put in mental
Health
Click to expand...

If they reduce spending elsewhere, say less navy, and use the money to provide decent mental health support then the overall size of government will not reduce.

I believe your constitution would not have the central government involved in health care as this would have been dealt with more locally in 1780. Obviously those times have gone and the world is different. I would say that it is sensable for the national gvernment to provide support for all it's citizens. But then I'm no an American or a gun nut.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
But they didn't use their guns to save Reagan. They tackled Hinkley. So, the guns didn't help.

I doubt a motivated shooter would care about armed guards. They would probably plan to shoot the guards first. If he has a rifle and 4 guards have hand guns, my money is on the guy witth the rifle.
Click to expand...

If your theories were true we'd have dead presidents, Congressmen and other public officials littering the street.
 
Polar Bum said:
So, based upon that particular event, we should discount and ignore all the times when a firearm did save a live or prevent a crime?

I think not.
Click to expand...

No...but it points out that you can have all the good guys with guns in the world and it still won't prevent an attack.
 
beefheart said:
No...but it points out that you can have all the good guys with guns in the world and it still won't prevent an attack.
Click to expand...

You mean it wont aways prevent an attack.
 
volsrock said:
A HUGE Lib Sheriff hires cowards and its Trumps fault...
Click to expand...

You have no idea who is going to be a coward until the attack occurs. Trump himself is a coward, just a loudmouth one. So you hired a coward to be our President.
 
Vox said:
If your theories were true we'd have dead presidents, Congressmen and other public officials littering the street.
Click to expand...

Most congress critters have no guards when they are not in D.C. Ask Giffords.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/here-s-how-congress-protected-n772296

"Only a small number of members in leadership positions receive full-time protective details from the Capitol Police, including the House Speaker, House and Senate Majority and Minority Leader, and House and Senate whips. Rank-and-file members sometimes receive added protection in response to specific "
 
Last edited:
Old Trapper said:
Most congress critters have no guards when they are not in D.C. Ask Giffords.

"Only a small number of members in leadership positions receive full-time protective details from the Capitol Police, including the House Speaker, House and Senate Majority and Minority Leader, and House and Senate whips. Rank-and-file members sometimes receive added protection in response to specific "
Click to expand...

And the buildings where they work are guarded better than Fort Knox.

If we really cared about kids we'd guard them in the same way.
 
Not a myth. It happens quite regularly, as even the slightest research reveals.
 
Vox said:
And the buildings where they work are guarded better than Fort Knox.

If we really cared about kids we'd guard them in the same way.
Click to expand...

There is one WH, ad one Congressional Building, one Senatorial building. There are over 100,000 schools. You willing to pay for it just so you can keep your toy?

Better idea, why not fix it so there are only two ways to get into a school, all other doors are closed/locked with alarms such as grocery stores, restaurants, etc., have for emergencies? Then place an armed guard at each door to examine what the kids are carrying, and to keep others out? Maybe one more to patrol the perimeter.

That's also the way the VA does it.
 
Last edited:
beefheart said:
No...but it points out that you can have all the good guys with guns in the world and it still won't prevent an attack.
Click to expand...

The issue of having people around who are armed isn't actually an issue of preventing an attack. It's an issue of dealing with an attack once it occurs.

If you want to talk about preventing that school shooting, you'll need to deal with the policies of the school district, the county sheriff and the various agencies that dropped the ball on the murderer and allowed him to escape having a criminal record...which enabled him to buy his firearms.
 
Old Trapper said:
There is one WH, ad one Congressional Building, one Senatorial building. There are over 100,000 schools. You willing to pay for it just so you can keep your toy?

Better idea, why not fix it so there are only two ways to get into a school, all other doors are closed with alarms such as grocery stores, restaurants, etc., have for emergencies? Then place an armed guard at each door to examine what the kids are carrying, and to keep others out? Maybe one more the patrol the perimeter.

That's also the way the VA does it.
Click to expand...

Yes, if we care about the kids we should be willing to pay to keep them safe.

Making this relevant to me "keeping my toy" is childish and inaccurate. I'm "keeping my toy" either way. The Constitution says so and the Congress says so and the Supreme Court says so.

So why do you make snarky remarks and refer to it as my "toy?" Is it just for fun in demeaning me? Firearms are serious business.....not toys.

Your "better idea" is indeed good and a part of what would need to be done........BUT, you don't have an armed guard standing around playing target. Any shooter would be sure to make that guard his first victim and he'd shoot from cover BEFORE the guard could detect his presence.

The safety of that armed guard is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the integrity of the hardened checkpoint (and, of course, the lives of the children). If that armed guard goes down you're in trouble (which is why you have other armed staff as a last line of defense......hopefully never to be used).

You need a hardened checkpoint with the armed guard in a NON-exposed location where he's able to observe and take out any threats. OTHER security personnel would be doing the checking (which would be simplified and speeded up with computerized ID, facial recognition programs and fingerprint verification when necessary).

This is absolutely possible and we should already be doing it.
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
That’s right, Hinckley successfully killed 17 people despite all of the armed security surrounding Reagan
Click to expand...

And they took him alive. Todays cops would have loaded him up with so much lead, you’d need a forklift to carry the body away.
 
Mycroft said:
The issue of having people around who are armed isn't actually an issue of preventing an attack. It's an issue of dealing with an attack once it occurs.

If you want to talk about preventing that school shooting, you'll need to deal with the policies of the school district, the county sheriff and the various agencies that dropped the ball on the murderer and allowed him to escape having a criminal record...which enabled him to buy his firearms.
Click to expand...

The only way the cop could have been effective would have been to find the location of the shooter from outside and hope to get a shot at him. The cop clearly was not thinking as an aggressor. In his defense, he was out gunned, had few defensive options, and little situational awareness.

I would change the signs from “Gun Free Zone” to “Guns on Premises”. It not like you have to prove it.
 
Truckstop said:
This is not surprising. The whole, guy with a gun saves a bunch of people is just a fantasy gun guys think about with themselves as the savior. Mostly they would just run or hide like these guys.
Click to expand...

It is a fantasy...of the anti-gun people.

How clear does it have to be...that cop in FL didnt do a damn thing to try and save those kids and it was his job.

It is NOT the job of any regular citizen carrying to save anyone else. We carry to protect ourselves and our families. We get ZERO protections from the law if we do intercede on someone else's behalf and things go wrong, like a bystander getting shot or even property being damaged.

A gun isnt magic and doesnt just magically save lives...gun owners dont believe that, but it's a myth that anti-gun people seem to like to perpetuate.

In an active shooter situation, a gun very well could save the carrier's life...if he or she isnt the first target, ambushed.

If guns magically protected their owners/carriers, cops and soldiers would never die. But they do...very little, if anything, can save someone from an ambush.

Oddly, it's the people least familiar with guns that seem to believe otherwise.
 
chuckiechan said:
The only way the cop could have been effective would have been to find the location of the shooter from outside and hope to get a shot at him. The cop clearly was not thinking as an aggressor. In his defense, he was out gunned, had few defensive options, and little situational awareness.

I would change the signs from “Gun Free Zone” to “Guns on Premises”. It not like you have to prove it.
Click to expand...

There were four freaking deputies there!
 
chuckiechan said:
And they took him alive. Todays cops would have loaded him up with so much lead, you’d need a forklift to carry the body away.
Click to expand...

Yes. He should have had enough lead in him to sink him to the bottom of a lake before he had a chance to kill 2 people.
 
Vox said:
Yes, if we care about the kids we should be willing to pay to keep them safe.

Making this relevant to me "keeping my toy" is childish and inaccurate. I'm "keeping my toy" either way. The Constitution says so and the Congress says so and the Supreme Court says so.
Click to expand...

Glad to see yet another show his ignorance of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the inability of the Congress (the right wing part anyway) to follow the instructions of the Courts. As I have pointed out several times SCOTUS ruled in the Heller decision that while you have a right to own a gun, you do NOT have the right to own any gun you so choose. And since the use fo r the AR-15 is limited it remains a "toy" just as the hot rod is a "toy" to another group.

So why do you make snarky remarks and refer to it as my "toy?" Is it just for fun in demeaning me? Firearms are serious business.....not toys.
Click to expand...

For the same reason that others of your class claim that the left is seeking to take away your guns. That is a lie that keeps being repeated by the likes of the ones who profit from your not paying attention to reality. In the meantime children are dying, and while they mouth condolences they could not care less.

Your "better idea" is indeed good and a part of what would need to be done........BUT, you don't have an armed guard standing around playing target. Any shooter would be sure to make that guard his first victim and he'd shoot from cover BEFORE the guard could detect his presence.

The safety of that armed guard is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the integrity of the hardened checkpoint (and, of course, the lives of the children). If that armed guard goes down you're in trouble (which is why you have other armed staff as a last line of defense......hopefully never to be used).
Click to expand...

Bull ****. The guard can see the perpetrator coming, and if he is not in tune enough to see him coming then you need better guards. Then too, the door is locked, and the perp is outside, not inside. One could always put in bullet proof glass, or even one way glass. Point is, teachers want to be teachers, and are not willing to be "guards" And I would rather have the first line of defense stop the perp, not some teacher.

You need a hardened checkpoint with the armed guard in a NON-exposed location where he's able to observe and take out any threats. OTHER security personnel would be doing the checking (which would be simplified and speeded up with computerized ID, facial recognition programs and fingerprint verification when necessary).

This is absolutely possible and we should already be doing it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the kids can feel like they are in a prison, not a school. Great atmosphere for learning.

Got another idea. Why not build smaller schools rather then 3000 student ones? Then you would only need one entrance.
 
Old Trapper said:
As I have pointed out several times SCOTUS ruled in the Heller decision that while you have a right to own a gun, you do NOT have the right to own any gun you so choose. And since the use for the AR-15 is limited it remains a "toy" just as the hot rod is a "toy" to another group.
Click to expand...

LOL! Heller was talking about the LAW....existing, established law pertaining to machine guns and sawed off shotguns.

Heller did not make any negative statements about modern semi-automatic weapons.......because they are established in common use as LEGAL.

Now closing on ten million AR-15s alone, besides about 100 million other semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols.

Nothing limited about the AR-15......it's used for everything.

And it sure as hell is no toy.

Facts......you should try using them.
 
Old Trapper said:
For the same reason that others of your class claim that the left is seeking to take away your guns. That is a lie that keeps being repeated by the likes of the ones who profit from your not paying attention to reality. In the meantime children are dying, and while they mouth condolences they could not care less
Click to expand...

I guess you haven't seen the many town hall meetings where the crowd roars approval when the half-wit speakers mention banning all guns.

I have to laugh, really. Your dishonesty and the dishonesty of your little group is astounding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom