[KayakerNC]

No way to prevent this.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by ugotme

With all due respect. Do you really think "Gun free zones" really means anything to someone intent on doing harm?

I have read many of your posts and although you are obviously an anti-gun person I respect your right to your point of view.

Keep in mind that there are so many gun laws now in effect and that will never - NEVER - stop some deranged fool from causing harm.

I will not pretend to have the answer and I usually refrain from getting involved in gun issues because an anti-gun person will never see the other side of the argument and neither will pro gunners.

I am a pro-gunner and enjoy the shooting sports.

A gun free zone just indicates there will be no armed resistance. That's what a person with intent to do harm will conclude.

[ugotme]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

A gun free zone just indicates there will be no armed resistance. That's what a person with intent to do harm will conclude.

EXACTLY !

And, as usual, the only people who will obey this are the honest citizens. Leaving the crazies to do as they wish with no resistance.

Who the heck thought of that anyway?

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by ugotme

EXACTLY !

And, as usual, the only people who will obey this are the honest citizens. Leaving the crazies to do as they wish with no resistance.

Who the heck thought of that anyway?

Gun free zones do not preclude the presence of an armed security team. It merely means that the general populace cannot bring guns into the building.

Concealed carry in Florida is popular - but there are places you will be arrested if you carry. A prime example is in a bar or bar area of a restaurant. There are signs on the outside door at the Sheriff's stations saying that you - not a police officer- cannot enter with a weapon.

Basically, it seems that so many do not understand what a gun free zone means.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by buggyone

Gun free zones do not preclude the presence of an armed security team. It merely means that the general populace cannot bring guns into the building.

Concealed carry in Florida is popular - but there are places you will be arrested if you carry. A prime example is in a bar or bar area of a restaurant. There are signs on the outside door at the Sheriff's stations saying that you - not a police officer- cannot enter with a weapon.

Basically, it seems that so many do not understand what a gun free zone means.

You are correct but most schools have no security. Gun free means there will either be no security or limited sources of a threat to stop you in a public area. I believe most people understand what gun free means. However in some gun free zones its well know that there is no one armed in the area. I believe Georgia now allows you to carry into a bar. There are places that are labelled as gun free which are used by those that don't care and know the law abiding person will be unarmed. Its a hard call as to where to allow and not to allow those with a concealed permit to carry. Even reasonable people fly off the handle occasionally. I do believe that those that have decided to carry a concealed weapon should receive more training then they currently receive. I've always believed that open carry is the real answer to deter an incident. The whole thing about carrying a weapon is to avoid a problem not get into a problem. In Ohio open carry is legal and no permit is required. I agree with the open carry but I do not agree with no permit. If your going to use the presence of a gun to help deter a threat I want to know the person carrying the weapon has had some training. We have to have training to fly a plane or drive a car but I can walk down to the gun shop and purchase a pistol. If I have a CCP I get it immediately, if I don't I get it in three days. No where has anyone asked me if I know how it works or how to handle it.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

You are correct but most schools have no security. Gun free means there will either be no security or limited sources of a threat to stop you in a public area. I believe most people understand what gun free means. However in some gun free zones its well know that there is no one armed in the area. I believe Georgia now allows you to carry into a bar. There are places that are labelled as gun free which are used by those that don't care and know the law abiding person will be unarmed. Its a hard call as to where to allow and not to allow those with a concealed permit to carry. Even reasonable people fly off the handle occasionally. I do believe that those that have decided to carry a concealed weapon should receive more training then they currently receive. I've always believed that open carry is the real answer to deter an incident. The whole thing about carrying a weapon is to avoid a problem not get into a problem. In Ohio open carry is legal and no permit is required. I agree with the open carry but I do not agree with no permit. If your going to use the presence of a gun to help deter a threat I want to know the person carrying the weapon has had some training. We have to have training to fly a plane or drive a car but I can walk down to the gun shop and purchase a pistol. If I have a CCP I get it immediately, if I don't I get it in three days. No where has anyone asked me if I know how it works or how to handle it.

You are correct about Georgia. Georgia passed a "guns anywhere" law recently, which means you can now carry a gun to church, school, bars, the airport, anywhere your heart desires. Hopefully, it won't be long until Florida follows their lead. Is this a great country or what?

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by janmcn

You are correct about Georgia. Georgia passed a "guns anywhere" law recently, which means you can now carry a gun to church, school, bars, the airport, anywhere your heart desires. Hopefully, it won't be long until Florida follows their lead. Is this a great country or what?

I'm not against such a law but what I fear is there will be no additional training for those who decide they will carry in these areas. Remember when you decide to use a weapon you own the bullet where ever it lands and the consequences after words.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

I'm not against such a law but what I fear is there will be no additional training for those who decide they will carry in these areas. Remember when you decide to use a weapon you own the bullet where ever it lands and the consequences after words.

Most of these shooters don't seem to need any training. They seem to be pretty good shots, like Adam Lanza who killed 26 people in a few minutes including 20 children, the Aurora theater shooter, the latest shooter in Oregon, the one before that in Santa Barbara CA, the one that shot the priest in Phoenix yesterday, the cop killers in Las Vegas, the cop killers in New Brunswick, Canada, and the shooter who killed two cops in Alaska in May.

Oh and also retired police captain Curtis Reeves who shot the young father in Wesley Chapel because he was texting his daughter's babysitter. Or how about Michael Dunn who shot the young black teen-ager because his music was too loud. They were all very good shooters.

The only one that comes to mind that might have needed practice was the man who accidently shot and killed himself while driving in Tennessee last week.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Most of these shooters don't seem to need any training. They seem to be pretty good shots, like Adam Lanza who killed 26 people in a few minutes including 20 children, the Aurora theater shooter, the latest shooter in Oregon, the one before that in Santa Barbara CA, the one that shot the priest in Phoenix yesterday, the cop killers in Las Vegas, the cop killers in New Brunswick, Canada, and the shooter who killed two cops in Alaska in May.

Oh and also retired police captain Curtis Reeves who shot the young father in Wesley Chapel because he was texting his daughter's babysitter. Or how about Michael Dunn who shot the young black teen-ager because his music was too loud. They were all very good shooters.

The only one that comes to mind that might have needed practice was the man who accidently shot and killed himself while driving in Tennessee last week.

You missed my point. I agree each of those shooters had learned how to use a weapon. I'm speaking about Joe who just decided he should own a gun and carry it in public. Never owned one, never shot one and now he carries one. I'm not sure who I would need to shoot first Joe who will shoot 20 people because he can't hit the broad side of a barn or the real person causing the problem.

[Duke-SRT]

I think the NRA is correct, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. We protect our money in banks with armed guards, we protect our VIP's with armed guards, why don't we protect our most cherished commodity, our children with the same. I am sure that there are teachers willing to be trained in the safe use of weapons, I say train them and let them carry them in schools. After all if they are teaching our children I would hope they are mentally compotent. Additionally there are new handguns being developed that can only me fired by a person with a bracelet coded to that gun, this would preclude any student that somehow got a hold of that gun from using it. Unfortunatley I don't see any other answer, You cannot remove all guns from the general public at this point, and I would not like to see that happen. To conquer a country first you must disarm its citizens.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Duke-SRT

I think the NRA is correct, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. We protect our money in banks with armed guards, we protect our VIP's with armed guards, why don't we protect our most cherished commodity, our children with the same. I am sure that there are teachers willing to be trained in the safe use of weapons, I say train them and let them carry them in schools. After all if they are teaching our children I would hope they are mentally compotent. Additionally there are new handguns being developed that can only me fired by a person with a bracelet coded to that gun, this would preclude any student that somehow got a hold of that gun from using it. Unfortunatley I don't see any other answer, You cannot remove all guns from the general public at this point, and I would not like to see that happen. To conquer a country first you must disarm its citizens.

I have to agree with you that at this point this needs to be the answer. Secure it first and then lets talk about fixing the problem. It is a shame that this needs to be done. We need to have a serious conversation about our continuing slide to more and more violence. At this rate we will be back to the Wild West sooner then you think. There are also many people that have firearms training already and with a little more training could be put into these locations on a temporary assignment until we figure it out. Just the presence of these individuals just may stop another incident in a school. Not the final answer but at least a start.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Duke-SRT

I think the NRA is correct, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. We protect our money in banks with armed guards, we protect our VIP's with armed guards, why don't we protect our most cherished commodity, our children with the same. I am sure that there are teachers willing to be trained in the safe use of weapons, I say train them and let them carry them in schools. After all if they are teaching our children I would hope they are mentally compotent. Additionally there are new handguns being developed that can only me fired by a person with a bracelet coded to that gun, this would preclude any student that somehow got a hold of that gun from using it. Unfortunatley I don't see any other answer, You cannot remove all guns from the general public at this point, and I would not like to see that happen. To conquer a country first you must disarm its citizens.

Weren't the eight police officers gunned down in the past two months 'good guys with guns'? Why would the two policemen having lunch at Cici's pizza in Las Vegas last week-end, or the three police officers in New Brunswick Canada, or the two state troopers killed in the hinterlands of Alaska not able to protect themselves, but a school teacher with a classroom full of students would be able to shoot to kill and protect those kids?

[Doctommft]

[quote=Dr Winston O Boogie jr;891678]

Originally Posted by Doctommft

So please explain how having armed guards to protect school children would eliminate 50% of the solutions. Do you have a list of proposed solutions so that you can show us which of them will eliminated by wanting armed guards?


I think that I'm broad minded enough to consider that armed guards should be a component of the solution.

I give up. Anyone who has a grade school reading level would understand. Dr. must be an honorary degree.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by Doctommft

I give up. Anyone who has a grade school reading level would understand. Dr. must be an honorary degree.

I note that there has been some discussion between you and Dr. Boogie regarding the meaning of your post, which if I understand correctly was, "Well here is what you wanted. If a creep knows that a school has a guard with a gun, he/she may think twice unless their goal is death by cop. You have eliminated 50% of proposed solutions to the problem. Very narrow of you."

Not to be taking sides, but I cannot parse your sentence. I simply don't understand what you are saying. I think I have a pretty good grasp of the English language and I simply don't get it.

1. What are the proposed solutions to the problem?

2. Which 50% have been eliminated and how were they eliminated by having armed guards?

3. What is "narrow" about what position?

Were you being sarcastic? If so, it still doesn't seem to make sense.

I'm not being confrontational or antagonistic, I just don't get it.

.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Weren't the eight police officers gunned down in the past two months 'good guys with guns'? Why would the two policemen having lunch at Cici's pizza in Las Vegas last week-end, or the three police officers in New Brunswick Canada, or the two state troopers killed in the hinterlands of Alaska not able to protect themselves, but a school teacher with a classroom full of students would be able to shoot to kill and protect those kids?

Good men with guns sometimes get killed by bad men with guns. That is a sad fact of life. However, it is also a fact that the killers are ultimately brought to justice by other good men with guns.

That has no bearing on the fact that if a gunman steps into a classroom with the intent to shoot children, his likelihood of success is much greater if the teacher is unarmed than would be the case if the teacher were armed.

That, too, is a fact.

.