Fox tell Trump to arm Teachers

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You’re doing what every other ideologue does. Only talking about one side of the issue. Yes, Spence, there are useless cops out there. That doesn’t mean that police don’t add value. Similarly, armed guards in school can not prevent every death. But they might well save lives.

When evaluating an idea, you consider the pros and the cons. Not just the cons. You never learned that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't weigh both sides of an argument in a post doesn't mean I don't hold them in my mind.

That being said, when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

It's probably worth noting here that a big reason access to full auto firearms was restricted is because Congress at the time was concerned with their increasing use in violent crime. (and taxes)

It's also probably worth noting here that a big reason you rarely ever see full auto firearms used in violent crime today is because they're hard to get.

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

John, there have only been 2 homicides with legally held fully automatic weapons since they were controlled, the records are not easy to access. I was wondering how many with illegally held automatics?
No being a lawyer of any type, i wonder why if the 2nd A gives you the right to keep and bear arms you cannot have bombs, cannons, fully automatic weapons, etc.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

Blood on their hands is a bit of hyperbole, it may be fairer to say some gun owners are being told they don't need certain weapons or shouldn't have certain weapons.

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

So why don't they then? Crime with legally obtained full auto is statistically not even relevant. I haven't seen a stat on illegal full auto weapons but if it's out there it's pretty rare also.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Blood on their hands is a bit of hyperbole, it may be fairer to say some gun owners are being told they don't need certain weapons or shouldn't have certain weapons.


So why don't they then? Crime with legally obtained full auto is statistically not even relevant. I haven't seen a stat on illegal full auto weapons but if it's out there it's pretty rare also.

Spence, you actually wrote a word "fairer"🤡. Have you been hanging out with Wayne too much?

Also ,it would be fair to say a veteran police officer wouldn't engage the shooter. You used the word couldn't,which is a stretch if speaking truthfully.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Spence, you actually wrote a word "fairer"🤡. Have you been hanging out with Wayne too much?

Also ,it would be fair to say a veteran police officer wouldn't engage the shooter. You used the word couldn't,which is a stretch if speaking truthfully.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Multi-tasking.

I almost changed couldn't to wouldn't but thought it was pretty much the same thing considering it was his sworn duty.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Multi-tasking.

I almost changed couldn't to wouldn't but thought it was pretty much the same thing considering it was his sworn duty.

Can you think of a fairer word than coward?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't weigh both sides of an argument in a post doesn't mean I don't hold them in my mind.

That being said, when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1...

"You're jumping to conclusions"

Nope. Responding to your constant, consistent thoughtlessness.

"when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1"

What are the positives? What might the positives have been, if there was an armed soldier at Sandy Hook and at this school?

You see the lack of perfect guarantee, as a downside. There was no downside to having the useless cop in FL. There was no upside because he failed, but there was no downside, wither. He didn't make it worse.

Let's make it simple Spence. If I propose to put an armed soldier in the schools your kids go to, do you think your kids are more safe, or less safe?

No go onto Rachael Maddow's website and paste her answer as a response...

You are descending further and further into the intellectual abyss.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You see the lack of perfect guarantee, as a downside. There was no downside to having the useless cop in FL. There was no upside because he failed, but there was no downside, wither. He didn't make it worse.

Nothing is going to be perfect and I don't think most people have any issue with a trained officer providing school security, but as we've seen even this has to be part of a more comprehensive plan.

I'd assume that the killer in FL very knew the school had armed security and this did nothing to deter his intentions.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Nothing is going to be perfect and I don't think most people have any issue with a trained officer providing school security, but as we've seen even this has to be part of a more comprehensive plan.

I'd assume that the killer in FL very knew the school had armed security and this did nothing to deter his intentions.

People who are suicidal aren't going to be deterred by an armed guard. But they can be stopped by an armed guard.

You don't know what he knew, yet you leap to the conclusion which supports your side's ideology, and I for one am shocked, you never do that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

People who are suicidal aren't going to be deterred by an armed guard. But they can be stopped by an armed guard.

There is this unverified belief by gun controllers that there is no evidence that armed persons in schools would prevent mass shootings. Of course, the same gun controllers are silent when asked if there is any proof that gun free zones prevent mass shootings.

I thought I'd take a quick look online and found many articles and documentations of armed citizens ending or preventing mass shootings. Many of the armed citizens had military or police training or general gun training, one in the brief list linked here was a school principle. Most were not in schools, but the examples can easily be applied to schools. The article counters the idea which gun controllers pooh pooh, that some form of trained armed security as Trump proposes would not be effective. There are other articles and examples on the net, but I just posted this one from WAPO so that it could not be discounted as right wing propaganda:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ab592191b7af

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is this unverified belief by gun controllers that there is no proof that armed persons in schools would not prevent mass shootings.

Is that really what you meant to write? If so, I am perplexed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Is that really what you meant to write? If so, I am perplexed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good catch. Fixed it. Thanks. I guess my eyes was goin' crazy when I made the typo. Meant to say . . . unverified belief by gun controllers that there is no evidence that armed persons in schools would [rather than "would not"] prevent mass shootings.