quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Well, by your example I would say someone "riding shotgun" was in some cases not a deterrent. I also fail to see the comparison between stagecoaches and schools. Secondly, the University I was attending, if there was trouble on campus, the city police was called, we had armed guards, but there were never around. My sister who also attended a University in another state told me the University calls there armed guards as an after thought. I would admit that finding proof that armed guards at school have any deterrent factor to be hard, if not impossible. I read that it cost each School district in the US about 15 million dollars to have armed guards, and schools are already having budget problems, and as I have pointed out, may not be cost effective. In more detail at Columbine one of the reason the armed guard stop shooting was alot to student got in the way, so again would armed guards really work.

You are correct in that sometimes it was not a deterrent. But how many times WAS it a deterrent? There is absolutely no way to know. But my own guess is that it worked more often than not. I'd be willing to bet that the owners of the valuables thought so as well, since they kept hiring the armed guards, and to not have it guarded at all would have been absolute stupidity.

Of course you don't see the the comparison, since to see the comparison you would have to admit to the error of your assessment of armed guards at schools. Your comprehensive skills seems to be very selective.

Sometimes armed guards may not be able to shoot. Sometimes they would be able to. One thing is for sure...if they are NOT EVEN THERE they won't have any effect at all. And to some extent, just having them present is going to prevent an encounter from even happening to begin with so that there is no need to shoot. But I'm sure you don't comprehend that either...or at least you won't acknowledge it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

OR - it could simply be that pistols are notoriously inaccurate, especially when snap-shooting...

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

If I had my way every school would have an armed security guard and every room would have a steel windowless, or bullet proof glassed, door that can be locked from the inside by teachers or remotely by security or the principle.

Butch

quote:

Of course I am of the opinion that nothing will make our children safer than removing certain classifications of weapons from circulation

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
I won't argue with anything that makes our children safer.
Of course I am of the opinion that nothing will make our children safer than removing certain classifications of weapons from circulation

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I won't argue with anything that makes our children safer.
Of course I am of the opinion that nothing will make our children safer than removing certain classifications of weapons from circulation


Now as long as we can agree,by that I mean I am satisfied the children are indeed safer,on that issue we can move along

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I won't argue with anything that makes our children safer.
Of course I am of the opinion that nothing will make our children safer than removing certain classifications of weapons from circulation


Now as long as we can agree,by that I mean I am satisfied the children are indeed safer,on that issue we can move along

I won't argue with anything logical that makes our children safer.

Common-sense logic tells me that, since each of the most infamous mass-shootings of children -- Virginia Tech, Columbine and Sandy Hook -- occured in a "Gun Free Zone", nothing will make our school children safer than removing "Gun Free Zone" signs from schools and mandating "Armed Guard Zone" signs.

Of course, I am of the opinion that, since abortions murder many times over more of our children than anything else -- currently an average of 3,300 each and every day -- nothing would make more of our children safer than repealing Roe v Wade.

So as long as we agree, and by that I mean I am satisfied that both the foregoing would make more of our children safer than anything else without affecting anyone's Constitutional rights, we can indeed move along. :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I won't argue with anything that makes our children safer.
Of course I am of the opinion that nothing will make our children safer than removing certain classifications of weapons from circulation


Now as long as we can agree,by that I mean I am satisfied the children are indeed safer,on that issue we can move along

I won't argue with anything logical that makes our children safer.

Common-sense logic tells me that, since each of the most infamous mass-shootings of children -- Virginia Tech, Columbine and Sandy Hook -- occured in a "Gun Free Zone", nothing will make our school children safer than removing "Gun Free Zone" signs from schools and mandating "Armed Guard Zone" signs.

Of course, I am of the opinion that, since abortions murder many times over more of our children than anything else -- currently an average of 3,300 each and every day -- nothing would make more of our children safer than repealing Roe v Wade.

So as long as we agree, and by that I mean I am satisfied that both the foregoing would make more of our children safer than anything else without affecting anyone's Constitutional rights, we can indeed move along. :-)

You are wrong in the Virginia Tech, they had armed guards, in fact they were looking for Cho after his first killing, so much for armed guards. Columbine also had an armed guard, the kids got there guns by having an adult friend buy the guns for them, smart move. As to Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza got his guns from his mother, who had them out for easy access, she at the time was prepare paperwork to have Adam commented, seem he was getting more aggressive and she could no longer control him, another smart move. Going back to Cho, he obtained his gun legally, so nobodys' 2nd Amendment rights were violated in these incidents, I am sure you are relieved by know that.

I would like to know why you think the repeal of Roe vs Wade makes kids safe?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
I won't argue with anything that makes our children safer.
Of course I am of the opinion that nothing will make our children safer than removing certain classifications of weapons from circulation

How is writing a law outlawing circulation of x, y or z going to do anything when x, y or z can be gained illegally? For x, y, and z to be no longer available to the Citizenry, law-abiding or not, x, y, and z would need to be purged from the Earth, including all means to make x, y, and z, on Earth. Not sure how you'd legislate Russia's manufacture of firearms, but give 'er a try if you think you can.

The issue isn't the tool. You can make a weak bomb with stuff you probably already have in your house. Its the person wielding the tool. Go to Cabela's, Bass Pro, Gander Mountain, or other similar store, and look at all the guns. Not a single one of them has killed a person due to it simply having been created. When someone pulls a trigger and fires the gun, it isn't the gun doing it, but the person pulling the trigger. A gun can not load itself. It can not aim itself. It can not pull it's own trigger. It is, in and of itself, inert.

If you were to die of asphyxiation due to a carbon monoxide source, what is responsible for your death, the carbon monoxide, or the source of the carbon monoxide (or responsible party for the carbon monoxide being there)? If a guy strangles someone else, is the rope to blame? Is the knife to blame as it is plunged?

What gun classification are you looking to outlaw? What guns would be legal?

I agree there needs to be some gun control regulation. I do not debate that at all. But, there comes a point in time where more is too much. Ill-defined categorization will get into the wrong hands and will be used against us in ways never intended (or never admitted to, for all you tin-foil hat people). Banning a "rifle" is too broad. Banning a "semi-automatic" gun is also too broad. It is somewhere within that semi-automatic category that we'll find our compromise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Short answer...it makes it harder.
Do you not agree that it should be harder ?
I mean seriously,can we stop with the bullshit....I suggest or propose something,one of you ding dongs come along and exhibit how it is not a full proof ,ironclad guaranteed,100% solution therefor it's a shitty idea ?
By that measure the development, and the legislation dealing with, seat belts was unsuccessful ?

quote:

I agree there needs to be some gun control regulation. I do not debate that at all. But, there comes a point in time where more is too much. Ill-defined categorization will get into the wrong hands and will be used against us in ways never intended (or never admitted to, for all you tin-foil hat people). Banning a "rifle" is too broad. Banning a "semi-automatic" gun is also too broad. It is somewhere within that semi-automatic category that we'll find our compromise.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)