"Police: Woman killed man who fired AR-15-style rifle into party crowd

[Guitar's Cry]

Not all teachers should be armed. Prolly most
aren't suited for the responsibility. But forcing
all teachers to be unarmed didn't save that
teacher in Texas.

Edit....
The open advertising that all school staff are
completely unarmed is possibly attractive to
misanthropes bent on mayhem. What purpose
does it serve to openly proclaim that an unprotected
facility full of vulnerable people is defenseless?

They are not defenseless. In fact, FBI statistics show unarmed civilians take down active shooter more often than armed:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3OtZUZzLicU1gNBRFKUFE2

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Of course you aren't. You think if we ban what you think is bad, then bad won't happen.

I am not making that argument either.

 

[Revoltingest]

Non-sequitor. A variety of things could have saved the teacher's life that day, and arming the teacher may not have helped either.

Non-sequitur?
It's quite relevant that an unarmed person attacked
by an armed person is poor mismatch. Had she
been armed, it could've ended the tragedy.

I notice that you say "arming the teacher".
That presumes the wrong approach. Arming isn't
something to be imposed upon them...it would be
a responsibility that some would actively pursue.

 

[We Never Know]

Was the off duty police officer able to shoot the gunman's head?

I wasn't there. For example the 19 police officers in Texas waited 1 hour and 20 minutes in the hallway until border patrol came in and took him out.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Were teachers mentioned in that post or was it referring to the American Revolution?

It was in response to discussing arming teachers:

I agree, there are too many guns in America to get rid of, but we could regulate them better.

The harm would be teachers have guns. Guns are weapons, and being in school increases the risk of them being used. There is also the possibility of teachers using the fear of guns for compliance, or kids needing to deal with the emotional impact of there teacher being harmed.

America would'nt be America without guns.
We would all be Brits.

 

[danieldemol]

How would Ukraine be doing without the US sending them guns/weapons for their army and civilians?

That just shows that like many countries in Europe Ukraine didn't have a large enough defence budget to take on their substantially larger neighbour.

Had they been sized on a par with and having the defence budget of the US (or even Russia) do you think they could not have supplied their own arms?

In my opinion.

 

[We Never Know]

It was in response to discussing arming teachers:

Maybe I was responding to this part

Guitar's Cry said: ↑
I agree, there are too many guns in America to get rid of, but we could regulate them better.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Non-sequitur?
It's quite relevant that an unarmed person attacked
by an armed person is poor mismatch. Had she
been armed, it could've ended the tragedy.

I notice that you say "arming the teacher".
That presumes the wrong approach. Arming isn't
something to be imposed upon them...it would be
a responsibility that some would actively pursue.

I suggested it is a non sequitor because it doesn't logically follow that (to change my wording) an armed teacher would have been saved, or that the teacher in question would've chosen to be armed in the first place.

 

[We Never Know]

That just shows that like many countries in Europe Ukraine didn't have a large enough defence budget to take on their substantially larger neighbour.

Had they been sized on a par with and having the defence budget of the US (or even Russia) do you think they could not have supplied their own arms?


In my opinion.

And if the US falls short, civilians have them covered with civilian weapons.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are not defenseless. In fact, FBI statistics show unarmed civilians take down active shooter more often than armed:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3OtZUZzLicU1gNBRFKUFE2

That's a lot of text.
Anything salient you can excerpt?

Let's assume your claim...
"...unarmed civilians take down active shooter more often than armed..."
This could be due to the fact that most mass shooting
events are targeted because the perps expect people
to be unarmed. But in light of recent shootings, unarmed
self defense isn't working too well.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Maybe I was responding to this part

Guitar's Cry said: ↑
I agree, there are too many guns in America to get rid of, but we could regulate them better.

Maybe. But you quoted both, and they were connected either way, since the argument appears to be that arming teachers is a better response than better regulation of firearms.

 

[We Never Know]

Maybe. But you quoted both, and they were connected either way, since the argument appears to be that arming teachers is a better response than better regulation of firearms.

I don't break post down and respond individually to each sentence.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That's a lot of text.
Anything salient you can excerpt?

Let's assume your claim...
"...unarmed civilians take down active shooter more often than armed..."
This could be due to the fact that most mass shooting
events are targeted because the perps expect people
to be unarmed. But in light of recent shootings, unarmed
self defense isn't working too well.

Yes, it is a PDF and hard to quote from my phone. Scroll down to "Resolutions" where it gives stats on civilian responses to active shooters.

The argument could be made about armed self-defense as well, since there were armed, trained police officers in that building and the armed security guard in the Buffalo shooting was killed.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I don't break post down and respond individually to each sentence.

So you were implying that we shouldn't regulate guns because of the Revolutionary War?

 

[Revoltingest]

I suggested it is a non sequitor because it doesn't logically follow that (to change my wording) an armed teacher would have been saved, or that the teacher in question would've chosen to be armed in the first place.

Life doesn't offer us guarantees.
It's analogous to vaccines, tis better to have
than to be unvaccinated. Sure, one could still
get sick & die. But the odds are better with it.
Same with a gun fight. I'd rather be armed than
unarmed....which is indeed "defenseless".

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no problem acknowledging the lady was a hero, I just question why we are relying on heroes that may or may not eventuate as opposed to legislation which would be permanently in place to save the children.
In my opinion.

We agree that many changes are needed to
improve things. But until government reaches
consensus on that, everyone should do what
needs to be done.

 

[We Never Know]

So you were implying that we shouldn't regulate guns because of the Revolutionary War?

I've asked you this question several times and you have avoided answering each time(unless I missed your answer).

"If teachers want to participate and train to carry, whats the harm?"

So until you answer that, Im done answering you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, it is a PDF and hard to quote from my phone. Scroll down to "Resolutions" where it gives stats on civilian responses to active shooters.

The argument could be made about armed self-defense as well, since there were armed, trained police officers in that building and the armed security guard in the Buffalo shooting was killed.

Cops have no legal duty to protect anyone.
Their goal is to stay safe. An armed person
who is attacked is already on site, & has more
of a motive to defend.
Not every armed person will win a gun fight
with a bad guy. But being armed improves
the odds. It's why cops are armed.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Life doesn't offer us guarantees.
It's analogous to vaccines, tis better to have
than to be unvaccinated. Sure, one could still
get sick & die. But the odds are better with it.
Same with a gun fight. I'd rather be armed than
unarmed....which is indeed "defenseless".

Have you ever had active shooter training? I have (being a teacher and all). I roleplayed both parts (active shooter and teachers). Armed teachers made little difference at the beginning because no amount of training prepares an individual to comprehend the situation, draw, and fire when someone begins shooting in a crowded hallway.

In fact, locking doors, throwing things, and swarming the shooter was pretty darned effective.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I've asked you this question several times and you have avoided answering each time(unless I missed your answer).

"If teachers want to participate and train to carry, whats the harm?"

So until you answer that, Im done answering you.

I did in post #42.

I agree, there are too many guns in America to get rid of, but we could regulate them better.

The harm would be teachers have guns. Guns are weapons, and being in school increases the risk of them being used. There is also the possibility of teachers using the fear of guns for compliance, or kids needing to deal with the emotional impact of there teacher being harmed.