America's Gun Violence

The Juggler

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No you can't....because the scenarios I laid out are going to happen.

It's as simple as looking at why the USA has these problems and no other country does.  You can argue your way out of that.

I can, easily. Here’s one:
Someone armed to the teeth goes up to a school, walks in and starts shooting.  Teacher pops out the door and shoots back...The shooter then either offs themseves or takes rounds and is immobilized.
or
Someone goes looking for a soft target and sees a sign saying that the school is armed...changes their mind.
or
Armed VOLUNTEERS at the school meet once a month with local law enforcement to go through exercises and work together on solutions together.  A situation starts to unfold and the teachers follow protocol and and training do not start shooting at each other...
See, anyone can come up with anecdotes...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-teacher-left-gun-in-bathroom-elementary-kids-found-it/

Hey great idea PJPOWER!!!

Did anyone get shot?  I feel that the odds of a random occurrence like this happening are outweighed by the deterrent factor of someone coming in and shooting up those students.  Sounds like the teacher got dealt with accordingly...

LOL....unreal

As are your anecdotal “what ifs”.  
Here’s one, what if that teacher that shielded the students had been concealed carrying?  Would that have increased or decreased the odds of protecting his students?

What if the gunman would have been prevented from owning an assault rifle?

Hey, that would have been awesome...but he wasn’t...and the likelihood (regardless of blame) is that someone just like him will still be able to 10 years from now...So, what can be done NOW that doesn’t rely on politics or political parties, or lobbying groups.

Third Request:

Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?

Please be very specific in your response.

(If you cannot answer, it's okay. Just say so)

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No you can't....because the scenarios I laid out are going to happen.

It's as simple as looking at why the USA has these problems and no other country does.  You can argue your way out of that.

I can, easily. Here’s one:
Someone armed to the teeth goes up to a school, walks in and starts shooting.  Teacher pops out the door and shoots back...The shooter then either offs themseves or takes rounds and is immobilized.
or
Someone goes looking for a soft target and sees a sign saying that the school is armed...changes their mind.
or
Armed VOLUNTEERS at the school meet once a month with local law enforcement to go through exercises and work together on solutions together.  A situation starts to unfold and the teachers follow protocol and and training do not start shooting at each other...
See, anyone can come up with anecdotes...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-teacher-left-gun-in-bathroom-elementary-kids-found-it/

Hey great idea PJPOWER!!!

Did anyone get shot?  I feel that the odds of a random occurrence like this happening are outweighed by the deterrent factor of someone coming in and shooting up those students.  Sounds like the teacher got dealt with accordingly...

LOL....unreal

As are your anecdotal “what ifs”.  
Here’s one, what if that teacher that shielded the students had been concealed carrying?  Would that have increased or decreased the odds of protecting his students?

What if the gunman would have been prevented from owning an assault rifle?

Shouldn't we be considering everything, including both of these solutions, simultaneously when it comes to protecting our kids??

Yes, we should!

rgambs

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

pjhawks

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

So let’s change it up, would you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing that guards there were not allowed to be armed?  I’m all for metal detectors too, btw.  
And it IS that complicated...otherwise it would have already happened...after Newtown...after Vegas...it’s a highly complicated issue in the US.

i would feel exactly the same as i do now. As i mentioned I've never gone to a show or game and thought 'wow i feel safe because there are guards here.' it's just not something i think about mostly because i think the chances of any guard at one of these games being able to stop at attack of someone with an assault rifle is minimal.  can you give me one example of someone with an assault rifle carrying out an event liek this being stopped before killing anyone?  

PJPOWER

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”.  I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.  

Second Request:

Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?

Please be very specific in your response. 

What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change?  And realistically how long would that take?  10 years, 20 years, 100 years?  Do you have any suggestion that would not take 10 years at a minimum to implement?  I, for one, will plan on sending my child to an elementary school where there is some sort of armed security to hopefully protect him if someone wanted to come in guns a blazin.  We can keep having the other debate, though, but I am currently focused on the NOW...not 10 years from now.

The Juggler

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”.  I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.  

Second Request:

Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?

Please be very specific in your response. 

What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change?  And realistically how long would that take?  10 years, 20 years, 100 years?  

It sounds like you know the reason, but are afraid to type it out...

If you vote out politicians who are owned by the NRA, it becomes easier to force change.

pjhawks

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

unsung

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No you can't....because the scenarios I laid out are going to happen.

It's as simple as looking at why the USA has these problems and no other country does.  You can argue your way out of that.

I can, easily. Here’s one:
Someone armed to the teeth goes up to a school, walks in and starts shooting.  Teacher pops out the door and shoots back...The shooter then either offs themseves or takes rounds and is immobilized.
or
Someone goes looking for a soft target and sees a sign saying that the school is armed...changes their mind.
or
Armed VOLUNTEERS at the school meet once a month with local law enforcement to go through exercises and work together on solutions together.  A situation starts to unfold and the teachers follow protocol and and training do not start shooting at each other...
See, anyone can come up with anecdotes...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-teacher-left-gun-in-bathroom-elementary-kids-found-it/

Hey great idea PJPOWER!!!

Did anyone get shot?  I feel that the odds of a random occurrence like this happening are outweighed by the deterrent factor of someone coming in and shooting up those students.  Sounds like the teacher got dealt with accordingly...

LOL....unreal

As are your anecdotal “what ifs”.  
Here’s one, what if that teacher that shielded the students had been concealed carrying?  Would that have increased or decreased the odds of protecting his students?

What if the gunman would have been prevented from owning an assault rifle?

I am prevented from owning cocaine.  But I gaurantee I can get it in less than an hour.

PJPOWER

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”.  I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.  

Second Request:

Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?

Please be very specific in your response. 

What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change?  And realistically how long would that take?  10 years, 20 years, 100 years?  

It sounds like you know the reason, but are afraid to type it out...

If you vote out politicians who are owned by the NRA, it becomes easier to force change.

So your plan is to change the mind of millions of gun owners into not voting for Republicans.  I have voted against Republicans on numerous occasions...but you are going to have to change the minds of MILLIONS!  That’s why it doesn’t really matter what I think.  That is not a very efficient quick solution.  But maybe 100 years from now.

oftenreading

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.  

unsung

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

It won't hurt.  A person is less likely to attempt such a despicable act if they know that there are armed guards.

When they know it is a "gun free zone" and they know that nobody there can stop them they have nothing but time on their side to do their fish in the barrel hunting.

PJPOWER

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

It could very well.  The distance you are talking about is 20 feet in some of these situations.  A handgun could be very effective.  Way more effective than trying to shield students with your body...

rgambs

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

A handgun is plenty deadly, and it's concealable.  

I think we are beyond the point where we say, "how effective will this be?" when it comes to protecting our kids.
I think we have come to the point where we say "is it possible this could save lives? Yes? Ok, then we damn well better try it!" when it clmes to protecting our kids.

I want mass casualty weapons gone too, but there are already millions out there and there is not enough political will to ban them anytime soon, period.  
So how do we protect the kids in the meantime?

unsung

Eliminate gun free zones.  Signs do not work.

PJPOWER

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

So let’s change it up, would you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing that guards there were not allowed to be armed?  I’m all for metal detectors too, btw.  
And it IS that complicated...otherwise it would have already happened...after Newtown...after Vegas...it’s a highly complicated issue in the US.

i would feel exactly the same as i do now. As i mentioned I've never gone to a show or game and thought 'wow i feel safe because there are guards here.' it's just not something i think about mostly because i think the chances of any guard at one of these games being able to stop at attack of someone with an assault rifle is minimal.  can you give me one example of someone with an assault rifle carrying out an event liek this being stopped before killing anyone?  

I cannot think of any situations like this where someone with an “assault rifle” ever came against a person with a handgun.  All it takes is 1 bullet to stop the maniac though.  

The Juggler

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”.  I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.  

Second Request:

Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?

Please be very specific in your response. 

What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change?  And realistically how long would that take?  10 years, 20 years, 100 years?  

It sounds like you know the reason, but are afraid to type it out...

If you vote out politicians who are owned by the NRA, it becomes easier to force change.

So your plan is to change the mind of millions of gun owners into not voting for Republicans.  I have voted against Republicans on numerous occasions...but you are going to have to change the minds of MILLIONS!  That’s why it doesn’t really matter what I think.  That is not a very efficient quick solution.  But maybe 100 years from now.

Gun owners are in the minority in this country. Sorry to disappoint you. They just own shitloads of guns.

There was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 that reduced the amounts of mass shootings quite substantially. Can you think of any other mass shooting off the top of your head other than Columbine in that timeframe? Me neither. How about since 2004? The ban worked. Bans in other countries work and they went even further. Look at Australia.

Ban assault weapons

Enforce stricter UNIVERSAL background checks....commit a crime or have mental issues--fuck you, you're not getting a gun.

I agree with more security at schools.

Make people have to pass a test to acquire a gun in the first place, similar to a drivers license that needs to be renewed every 5 years or so.

Better parenting

And if you want to get crafty, perhaps do cash for clunkers type of deal with those weapons similar to what happened, AND WORKED, in Australia.

Your solution seems to be throw your hands up in the air and say--lets just get more hands out in the general public! That is lazy and ridiculous. We are, supposedly, the greatest country on earth but cannot solve a problem with a solution that's worked all over the rest of the civilized world staring us directly in the face.

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No you can't....because the scenarios I laid out are going to happen.

It's as simple as looking at why the USA has these problems and no other country does.  You can argue your way out of that.

I can, easily. Here’s one:
Someone armed to the teeth goes up to a school, walks in and starts shooting.  Teacher pops out the door and shoots back...The shooter then either offs themseves or takes rounds and is immobilized.
or
Someone goes looking for a soft target and sees a sign saying that the school is armed...changes their mind.
or
Armed VOLUNTEERS at the school meet once a month with local law enforcement to go through exercises and work together on solutions together.  A situation starts to unfold and the teachers follow protocol and and training do not start shooting at each other...
See, anyone can come up with anecdotes...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-teacher-left-gun-in-bathroom-elementary-kids-found-it/

Hey great idea PJPOWER!!!

Did anyone get shot?  I feel that the odds of a random occurrence like this happening are outweighed by the deterrent factor of someone coming in and shooting up those students.  Sounds like the teacher got dealt with accordingly...

LOL....unreal

As are your anecdotal “what ifs”.  
Here’s one, what if that teacher that shielded the students had been concealed carrying?  Would that have increased or decreased the odds of protecting his students?

What if the gunman would have been prevented from owning an assault rifle?

I am prevented from owning cocaine.  But I gaurantee I can get it in less than an hour.

but you can't walk into a store and buy it...there are at least some barriers put up to make the purchase difficult

PJPOWER

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.  

They also know if NO ONE is armed what so ever...

The Juggler

unsung said:

Eliminate gun free zones.  Signs do not work.

Try harder.

PJPOWER

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...