So Rebel...you want armed guards in these places? Keeping in mind that the vast majority would have to be government regulated, government supplied and government paid for because the private sector can't possibly afford them all. Your taxes would almost certainly need to be raised. Then these guards would likely be the equivalent of the police or God forbid TSA.

Somehow...I don't see you on board with this at all.

(12-22-2012 11:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So Rebel...you want armed guards in these places? Keeping in mind that the vast majority would have to be government regulated, government supplied and government paid for because the private sector can't possibly afford them all. Your taxes would almost certainly need to be raised. Then these guards would likely be the equivalent of the police or God forbid TSA.

Somehow...I don't see you on board with this at all.

Most large Texas School Districts already have their own Police Force that run speed traps for School Zone Speeders, run the school crossing guards, conduct canine drug searches on campus, and provide Security at Schools and School Sporting Events. Been that way since the mid 80's.

Its not that difficult to have 3 officers per High School, 2 per Junior High and 1 per Elementary campus.

http://www1.pasadenaisd.org/education/st...ilid=12143

http://cms.springbranchisd.com/police/Po...fault.aspx

http://www.humbleisdpolice.org/

http://archive.austinisd.org/schools/police/

http://www.houstonisd.org//Domain/7973

Never said it was difficult. But it's also not free. Nor is it full-proof against a maniac with more powerful weapons and no conscience about using them.

(12-22-2012 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you can't stop at schools. You will need them at shopping malls, movie theaters and on and on.

Quit limiting concealed carry and you'll have them "at shopping malls, movie theaters and on and on." And even better, you won't know who it is that has them! The killer (assuming he's somewhat rational) won't be able to go "OK, so THAT's the guy I need to take out first." because he doesn't know who, or how many, will be able to stop him.

(12-22-2012 12:46 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you can't stop at schools. You will need them at shopping malls, movie theaters and on and on.

Quit limiting concealed carry and you'll have them "at shopping malls, movie theaters and on and on." And even better, you won't know who it is that has them! The killer (assuming he's somewhat rational) won't be able to go "OK, so THAT's the guy I need to take out first." because he doesn't know who, or how many, will be able to stop him.

What percentage of CCW folks have actually fired a weapon when confronted with an assualt weapon pointed at them?

Not saying this would not help, but to assume that every CCW owner will just calmly be able to unholster their weapon, disengage the safety and then pick the lunatic off with one clear shot preventing mass casualties is not at all based in reality.

Again, there was a trained armed person at the Gifford's shooting. He could not get a clear shot at the gunman without hitting an innocent bystander. In fact, he almost shot the wrong person.

A cop 7 minutes away has less of a chance to stop a shooter than someone on scene.

(12-22-2012 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What percentage of CCW folks have actually fired a weapon when confronted with an assualt weapon pointed at them?

Not saying this would not help, but to assume that every CCW owner will just calmly be able to unholster their weapon, disengage the safety and then pick the lunatic off with one clear shot preventing mass casualties is not at all based in reality.

Again, there was a trained armed person at the Gifford's shooting. He could not get a clear shot at the gunman without hitting an innocent bystander. In fact, he almost shot the wrong person.

It gives people a chance against a lunatic, instead of eliminating that chance. Even 1% chance (and at 0 cost to the taxpayer) is better than no chance.

It's the one of the only things being proposed that's even remotely related to protecting schools and other public places, and the ONLY one of them that doesn't cost the govt. a dime, all while preserving our constitutional liberties.

All this hubub for a statistical anomaly. I feel we'd be safer doing NOTHING than doing what many politicians are considering.

(12-22-2012 02:22 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What percentage of CCW folks have actually fired a weapon when confronted with an assualt weapon pointed at them?

Not saying this would not help, but to assume that every CCW owner will just calmly be able to unholster their weapon, disengage the safety and then pick the lunatic off with one clear shot preventing mass casualties is not at all based in reality.

Again, there was a trained armed person at the Gifford's shooting. He could not get a clear shot at the gunman without hitting an innocent bystander. In fact, he almost shot the wrong person.

It gives people a chance against a lunatic, instead of eliminating that chance. Even 1% chance (and at 0 cost to the taxpayer) is better than no chance.

It's the one of the only things being proposed that's even remotely related to protecting schools and other public places, and the ONLY one of them that doesn't cost the govt. a dime, all while preserving our constitutional liberties.

All this hubub for a statistical anomaly. I feel we'd be safer doing NOTHING than doing what many politicians are considering.

I have had a person shoot at me before. He wasn't packing an assault rifle, but he had a 9mm semi-automatic pistol which the gun control nuts want to classify as an "assault weapon."

Breaking glass woke me up in the middle of the night. I grabbed my Mossberg shotgun. He fired in my direction as soon as he heard the "clack clack" of the 12 gauge pump. His aim was way off the mark. Mine was more accurate. Didn't hit him though, but it was close enough to force him to disengage and get the hell out of my kitchen.

I could have followed him out the back door and nailed him in my back yard as he ran and tried to jump the gate, but I didn't. Too many legal hassles if I did, even though the Fing scumbag deserved to die and suffer a painful, agonizing death in the process.

(12-22-2012 03:25 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 02:22 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What percentage of CCW folks have actually fired a weapon when confronted with an assualt weapon pointed at them?

Not saying this would not help, but to assume that every CCW owner will just calmly be able to unholster their weapon, disengage the safety and then pick the lunatic off with one clear shot preventing mass casualties is not at all based in reality.

Again, there was a trained armed person at the Gifford's shooting. He could not get a clear shot at the gunman without hitting an innocent bystander. In fact, he almost shot the wrong person.

It gives people a chance against a lunatic, instead of eliminating that chance. Even 1% chance (and at 0 cost to the taxpayer) is better than no chance.

It's the one of the only things being proposed that's even remotely related to protecting schools and other public places, and the ONLY one of them that doesn't cost the govt. a dime, all while preserving our constitutional liberties.

All this hubub for a statistical anomaly. I feel we'd be safer doing NOTHING than doing what many politicians are considering.

I have had a person shoot at me before. He wasn't packing an assault rifle, but he had a 9mm semi-automatic pistol which the gun control nuts want to classify as an "assault weapon."

Breaking glass woke me up in the middle of the night. I grabbed my Mossberg shotgun. He fired in my direction as soon as he heard the "clack clack" of the 12 gauge pump. His aim was way off the mark. Mine was more accurate. Didn't hit him though, but it was close enough to force him to disengage and get the hell out of my kitchen.

I could have followed him out the back door and nailed him in my back yard as he ran and tried to jump the gate, but I didn't. Too many legal hassles if I did, even though the Fing scumbag deserved to die and suffer a painful, agonizing death in the process.

I believe someone shot at you but not sure I buy your story.

(12-22-2012 11:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So Rebel...you want armed guards in these places? Keeping in mind that the vast majority would have to be government regulated, government supplied and government paid for because the private sector can't possibly afford them all. Your taxes would almost certainly need to be raised. Then these guards would likely be the equivalent of the police or God forbid TSA.

Somehow...I don't see you on board with this at all.

Not really. Just allow those private citizens that work on those positions to exercise their 2nd amendment right. Cost? 0 dollars.

EDIT: when the hell did I talk about armed guards?

(12-22-2012 12:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Never said it was difficult. But it's also not free. Nor is it full-proof against a maniac with more powerful weapons and no conscience about using them.

True.


Timothy McVeigh killed a lot more people than Lanza did with a truck bomb built with common components.

Maybe we should restrict people from buying 10-10-10, diesel fuel, plastic barrels, and renting Ryder trucks.


Or maybe what we should do is recognize mental illness is a serious problem we need to deal with and quit blaming inanimate objects.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/let...ation.html

President George H. W. Bush's NRA resignation letter from 1995 - the same nutjob was president of the NRA back then? He's been around longer than Castro?