I think every school should have a permanent police presence, number depending on size. I think that’s an entirely reasonable expectation.
Columbine and Virginia tech had permanent police presences. Turns out that people who commit mass shootings don’t tend to get dissuaded by the possible presence of other people with guns, concealed or otherwise.
3 Likes
That is in response to problems that the military had with accidental/negligent discharge – not having people walking around with loaded weapons was a corrective action to prevent people from dying.
edit to correct typo
4 Likes
Most schools do. They’re called School Resource Officers.
But let’s add more police officers, since clearly the solution is always more guns. Who pays for that? You? It’s easy to say “We should build a giant laser on the moon!” when you’re expecting someone else to foot the bill and do all the work.
But let’s assume “the Government” is tasked with arming schools. Suddenly they’re rolling out new taxes to pay for this armament. Uh oh. People HATE taxes. They already refuse to pay increased taxes to improve our healthcare and education systems, now you expect people to give up their hard-won wealth to pay for more police officers in those same underfunded schools. That’s gonna go over well.
But let’s assume that the cost isn’t an issue - we can double, or triple, or quadruple, the armed police presence in every school in the nation for no cost. Now when a “lone gunman” draws down at a school, they’re faced with something like half a dozen armed police officers.
Except those officers can’t be everywhere, as you yourself pointed out in a separate post. They can’t travel at the speed of light. By the time they can do anything, people are dead.
But let’s assume we can arm every teacher and faculty member for no cost. Now there’s a gun in every room and in every hallway. The “lone gunman” makes his move, and someone is there to respond.
They get shot. Chalk it up to the element of surprise. One corpse so far. But there are guns all around, in the neighboring rooms. They respond to the commotion, sweeping out into the hallway…
Two more shot, one dead, one wounded. A firefight errupts. Stray bullets overpenetrate the school walls and strike children. The “lone gunman” is up against dozens of armed responders, but he has cover and concealment. He also has superior firepower and more ammunition that the faculty.
Let’s give the children guns. Now they can join the firefight. I’m sure they’ll do fine.
5 Likes
And we’ve come full circle. please refer to my previous post -
And that’s why we see so many attacks on police precincts? No, sorry. The folks who want to kill as many as they can before they suicide seek out schools, malls, restaurants - environments where armed response will take several minutes to arrive, and they can expect the vast majority of people to be unarmed.
Hello, Gish Gallop narrative.
Again, you choose to paint every gun owner as an idiot. With this post you’ve gone past reason, and well into troll territory. Again, it may score you social currency with idiots, but it certainly doesn’t advance any reasonable argument.
I can see how response time doesn’t matter. Let’s outlaw all guns, including armed police, within a 100 mile radius of any school. Brilliant plan.
Who else is going to respond to the attack, other than the dedicated on-site military police forces?
The soldiers and staff present on the base, perhaps? You state that the problem is the restricted access to weaponry. In order for the grunts and desk jockeys to have access to guns, you need to allow (and even promote) active weapon carry at all times in all areas of the base.
That is the opposite of security. If everyone, everywhere in the base is carrying a weapon, it becomes very easy to get a hold of a weapon and start a firefight. It also becomes very hard to tell when something is wrong until bullets are already flying. Carrying a gun into an area where the only people who are supposed to have them are MPs is suspicious, and consequently difficult. Carrying a gun into an area where everyone is armed is completely unremarkable.
5 Likes
So now your point is that Ft. Hood is a relatively unarmed environment, once you’re past the gates? If that were true, and a shooter got loose you would expect to see a bunch of casualties. It might almost be called a massacre…
So your response to my points about 1) the untennable cost of arming schools and 2) the insanity of trying to respond to attacks with active firefights instead of just preventing the attacks in the first place is to be insulting?
First, claim I’m parroting talking points. Second, claim I’ve attacked gun owners. Third, call me a troll. Fourth, insult the intelligence of anyone who agrees with my arguments. Five, claim my arguments are irrational but fail to respond to them with logic or rationality. Six, seven, and eight: hyperbole, slippery slope, and putting words in my mouth. And nine, sarcastic insinuation of stupidity.
"Look, I came in here for an argument!
“Oh! Oh, I’m sorry! This is abuse!”
5 Likes
Actually, you were the one arguing that the attack was the result of there not being enough access to guns on site.
I’m not sure how you got so confused as to make an argument, then mistake it for being my argument, and then argue against it. (Although really you’re just insulting the argument, not actually arguing against it…)
3 Likes
A number of them are actually hoping to die in a firefight. i.e. Suicide by cop.
2 Likes
Yes that was, and is my response. I glad to see it wasn’t wasted upon you. Gish gallop rambling narratives which paint a variety of people as idiots will not be taken seriously. If actual points get lost in the ramble, you have only yourself to blame.
And I’ve already responded that your previous post was nonsensical, because a military base doesn’t exactly rank high on the list of “environments where armed response will take several minutes to arrive.”
However I do agree with you on this point: we seem to be talking in circles.
1 Like
Seems the real issue here is not that open-carry fanciers think criminals are lurking around every corner waiting to pounce (although maybe they do believe that), but that they believe Obama or the “impending One World Government” is plotting to take away their guns and these open-carry displays are somehow protecting their rights.
Look, when the jack-booted thugs of the New World Order begin going door-to-door to take away your guns there will be a lot of liberals standing by your side-- two of my best friends, dyed-in-the-wool liberals, own guns, they just don’t see any point in parading around in public with them.
5 Likes
I painted no one as an idiot. I gave rational examples of entirely possible and even likely outcomes of a variety of given scenarios.
The fact that those given scenarios are patently absurd could be seen as insulting, if not for the fact that the allowances of those givens were a form of leniency toward your own argumentation, which breaks down immediately without such givens being granted.
1 Like
You appear to be entirely without knowledge of the size and number of people at a military base. Are you picturing a medieval castle? A war-footing forward base? A base like Ft Hood is over 300 square miles in total. You’re talking about a medium size city here. 200,000+ people. Police response time is about what you’d expect from a medium size city.
Trained professionals are still human and do still make mistakes.
The difference is that untrained enthusiasts make them even more frequently.
3 Likes
The yahoos photographed in TFA? Yes, I would expect them to randomly fire at some perceived threat – especially the guy who is either giving his “powder penis” a blow job or is tickling his balls with it.
This guy has some good advice for these fellows: (he is talking about concealed carry, but the point is relevant)
Some of you may want to carry a concealed handgun, as I have done for over 30 years. Concealed carry of firearms for self-protection is more prevalent today than ever; 49 of 50 states currently allow concealed carry in some manner. I offer this advice: before you accept the risks and responsibilities that accrue with concealed carry, find a good defense lawyer, knowledgeable law enforcement officer and local prosecutor to discuss your responsibilities and the likely repercussions from actually using that firearm. If you choose to exercise those rights, you need to do so with full knowledge. Military bases do not allow concealed carry -- so don't even think about it!
3 Likes
Am I the only one around here that gives a shit about the rules?
4 Likes
I just know not to fuck with the Jesus:
2 Likes
