If just say this bill gets passed and a teacher has ends up having a gun. A gunman walks in and tries this. The teacher pulls out his or hers and shoots the gunman before it escalates do you really think it would be this bad? Specially not to give someone the chance to walk from classroom to another classroom and do this (what the guy did today). You know what i mean? It would at least be 50/50 chance.
OK, I misunderstood your point. You were merely suggesting that adults at schools given the right to carry a concealed weapon. I agree with this 100%.
One smart dude once said in this forum, from the beginning, mankind had relied on weapons to protect his/her life, and what is theirs. I am against "gun free zones". Just like a lot of gun control used in America, it does not work(this is the part Non-Americans do not understand) unless it's heavily guarded, like Federal Buildings. Ban assault rifles. Ban handguns here. Ban this, ban that. Problem is, they are very little to not effective whatsoever. Yes, law abiding people will respect the "control". Criminals will still use the assault rifle, high cap magazines, and bring them into the so-called gun free zones. It's the law abiding people like you & I who will be left with two choices:
1) Run 2) Hide
The third choice, "Fight", it is off the table, because of this idiotic logic that everyone will respect this gun free zones, although in the real world, it actually takes away form of protection from the people who otherwise may have had a chance at taking down the shooter in self-defense.
I see the right to carry a firearm as a self-protection, but not a mean to end mass shootings. Even if I was conceal carrying a pistol, unless I'm presented with an safe & easy way to drop the shooter, my first decision will be to run to safety, letting the professional(Police) handle the assailant.
There is lots of research on that, here is something quick like...
http://www3.telus.net/parent/Pages/Research.htm
"Suicide-by-Cop" is not rare, but not the point I was making. I was referring to how so many millions of scums hate the police, but you never hear about them going into a police station to mass-murder the police officers, and how I believe that mass shooters are afraid of potential targets being armed themselves.
Sorry, but I found it flippant and disrepectful. The whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, as you put it, is hollow and meaningless because it assumes that Lanza would have carried out his attack and the results would have been no different if his weapon of choice was a novelty blow-up baseball bat instead of a 9mm handgun.
Hollow? Really? What do you know about Lanza that I don't? If not for the gun, he absolutely could not have murdered multiple children? I'm telling you right now, with my pocket knife & machete, if the victims were to be unarmed, I can go murder probably at least ten with very little to no planning. Or I can just go plow the kids with my car at the school bus stop. Novelty blow-up baseball bat? Come on, now who's being disrespectful to the victims?
Finally, answer me this: if there is no problem with the current structure for legally acquiring guns, and assuming that the gunman went through the proper channels to acquire the weapons he used, then how can you reasonably say a) that there is no problem with current levels of gun control, and b) that heightened levels of gun control would not have changed anything?
I actually support gun control. Just one's that would work. Unfortunately, much of the "control" in this country is aimed at law abiding citizens, criminals just ignore them & that's that.
If there were more restrictions in place, it stands to reason that it would be harder for the gunman to acquire the weapons. If it was harder for him to acquire the weapons, then following that same train of thought, it stands to reason that he may not have carried out the attack, or at least not carried it would the way he did - and twenty children might be alive today.
I think you, or anybody who is blaming this on the gun control is missing the point. He reportedly stole the guns from his mother, but that's also beside the point. As I commented earlier, if I wanted to kill number of young children, I am not talking out of my ass, with very little to no planning, I could get that done, provided that kids not be protected by someone with firearms, pepper spray, etc.
What about instead of guns, give the principal something less lethal... like a stun gun or something.
I actually think this is the best idea I've heard, so far. 👍 Tasers securely stored in every classroom, accessible only by school staff.
You know how many of those slashed people in China died in that attack?
Zero.
So yes, I don't think "it" (by it I mean 27 dead people) can be done by knife.
You must be joking.
If this man wanted to actually end their lives, in this attack, you honestly believe that he actually failed to kill at least one of them? After cutting up something like 20+?
Call me crazy, but from my perspective, this man just wanted to terrorize others, had no knowledge on human anatomy, or did not know how to kill with a blade.
Put me, or any physically capable adult male in a classroom with one teacher, group of kids. If I get past the teacher, if no outside help come in time, I could likely murder all of the children in that classroom with my machete & knife.
It makes me sick even just suggesting it, as I'm not crazy, or violent in that way. But I'm making a point, which is the obvious truth. If someone wanted to kill group of kids, it is easily done.
Yep, without going to far off topic,
Pretty sure I read they caught the guy as well as he was overpowered, again something which is easier to do against a knife. I also wonder about if a knife was used to end it all would you slit your throat? A lot less appealing than a gun shot to the head.
Still in shock about this incident tho. Just sooo sad.
Kids ten & younger? I might not even need a swiss army knife.
