TJ Wrote: Eye rolls are protected by the 1st amendment. Enjoy your feeling of safety while you're armed.

You're absolutely right, TJ. Just as firearms are protected by the 2nd.

As for, "enjoy your feeling of safety while you're armed". I sense sarcasm in that statement, so I'll respond as such. I've never understood the "if you carry a firearm, concealed or not, you're insecure or looking for trouble" point of view. Seems very ignorant to me. Not that that's exactly what you said, but it seems to be in the same thread.

Let me be absolutely clear:

I do not carry for enjoyment.

I do not carry to be the hero.

I do not carry to be tough. Actually quite the opposite, as a ccw license comes with strict "stay out of all trouble" rules.

I do not carry to tell/make known to others around me, ever.

I DO carry to protect myself and/or family if the instance ever calls for it. Which again, let me be perfectly clear, I do not ever want to be a part of. I'm not sure where you're from TJ, I sincerely hope it's somewhere nice that has never seen a day of trouble. But it was not always nice for my family and I growing up in Dallas TX. One (out of many) stories is a long string of gang initiations about 10 years ago. They would pull up to you at a red light and bump your car, just so you'd get out. They'd then kill you just for credit. This was happening all over the DFW. It also happened to my cousin on the highway. When he got out of the car to check for damages, they robbed him and slit his throat. Having a firearm on him would have given him a much higher chance to save his life. There is absolutely no denying that.

So where is the line for you, TJ? If this was happening in your town right now and you have the opportunity to protect your self and family by doing something that is 100% legal, would you? And remember, it's happening all around you. It's happened to some of your family already. Are you really telling me you would have to be insecure to carry a firearm with all of this happening around you? What would you do? Sarcastic one-liners or saying people shouldn't have guns won't help your situation at all.

Dockadams Wrote:

Meh, my Walmart already has one of those prowlers, you'll see him occasionally walking about the aisles with his second amendment strapped on his hip, he ain't a cop, he ain't a security guard, he ain't paid by anyone, he's just a dickhead showing everyone who sees him to not fuck with him or anyone in the store, because he's there to stop eeeevil. LOL. Look for more of that since Lepieeere came out and said the only thing that stops a bad guy wit a gun is a good guy wit a gun, yeah, right, like the security guard in Florida who stood by while the school was being shot to hell. /eyeroll

This is incredibly naive.

"he's just a dickhead showing everyone who sees him to not fuck with him or anyone in the store, because he's there to stop eeeevil. LOL."

First of all, a large majority of CCW (conceal carriers) DO NOT like open carry, including myself. We generally see it as showing off and unnecessary. But that doesn't mean they are all "dickheads". They are legally exercising their right to do so. Just as you exercise your right to do whatever you want today. Do you fear the "dickheads" open carrying? Are they causing you bodily harm? I would assume probably not. Because it's NOT the open carriers that are going on these shooting sprees. Yes, they may look silly sometimes, but who cares?

Who are you to say that he/she hasn't "stopped eeeevil" before? Do you know for sure that that person wasn't in the right place at the right time when an attacker called it off because they saw someone was armed? It's a small chance, but it's still a chance. You or I couldn't possibly know that. So why make fun of them?

What would you do if you were in this exact situation? Locked down in a classroom/gas station/grocery store/whatever, when a gunman came in and was slowly picking people off. Now say a genie appeared and offered you a firearm. Would you accept the firearm or not? This is obviously hypothetical, but I think it's a very fair question. Sounds to me like you wouldn't take the firearm because you wouldn't want to look stupid or you'd rather wait for someone else to figure it out.

The security guard at the school was a coward. He should have helped. But just because he didn't help does NOT mean all other security guards, police officers, concealed carriers, open carriers would do the same. There have been many cases where a security guard or ccw has saved lives by simply pulling their firearm. And oh yeah, there's also been maybe one or two cases where police have used their firearms to take down gunmen and saved lives. But who cares about that, right? According to you, anyone carrying a firearm is grouped in with this security guard. Lets just ignore facts and stick with LOLs and /eyerolls.

Dutch Wrote:

No, did people here ever learned the "cause and effect" rule? The cause is as was stated by Schmidt that "guns" should not be in the hands of disturbed people, neither should they be sold to civilians, like in other civilized countries. Like I said so many times the "second amendment" does not apply to the guns we have now but only to guns they had when this "amendment" was written; like "flintlocks". If people can't figure that out in this stupid country then I give up on the "brains" here.

Thus clean up the cause; band aids as protecting schools is putting the horse behind the wagon. As well cost again a fortune; education here has no priority; the army has instead. The world laughs at us, with our unbelievable nutty laws and non-laws.

Look at the list I published of how "corrupt" this country is; all of the GOP is in "bed" with the NRA and no one "blinks"

Saying these things does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. You can say that the U.S. is stupid. You can say that you "give up on the brains here". You can say the U.S. has nutty laws. You can say the world laughs at us. But it does nothing to help the current situation.

And no matter how many words you put in bold, you are wrong about the second amendment. It absolutely does apply to today's firearms. I don't agree with certain aspects of it, but it does. I don’t see any reason for a person to own an assault rifle, other than recreational and hobby purposes. Even then, I still don't think civilians should own them. They're just too militarized of a weapon. But they are legal.

And to your "clean up the cause":

Saying that figuring out a way to (band aid) protect schools in the meantime, perhaps with armed guards/staff, would be putting the horse behind the wagon is silly. By that logic, we shouldn't discuss ways to protect our schools at all because the problem is already here? The problem is here. No name calling, finger pointing, or figuring out which politicians are corrupt is going to fix that. Saying that the second amendment only applies to firearms of the time won't fix it. The guns are legal today and are doing harm, unfortunately.

We can all stand up and shout at the top of our lungs that we want the laws changed and/or ban these guns. But what will that accomplish? Our own government is at a point that it no longer cares about "the people". There have been unprecedented mass shootings, protests, millions of people saying they want them banned, but nothing has been done to stop it. So when you say that the constitution is stupid and that guns shouldn't be in civilian hands, do you honestly think that helps or will happen before the next mass shooting?

Here are some obvious steps in the right direction:

Guns should not be possessed by a person with mental health issues, period.

Assault riffles are too militarized for civilians, so ban them.

Implement much more rigorous background checks and ownership rules.

But according to the facts, this is the 18th mass shooting in 2018. That's almost two a week. So let's say by some act of god any of those began being discussed TODAY by congress. Do you honestly think (by the 2 a week numbers) that ANY of those would be discussed, hashed out, agreed upon and implemented before the next mass shooting? Congress can't even agree if our air needs to be clean. Do you really think they will agree on something as controversial as this in any sort of decent time? It’s absolutely pathetic, but it’s true.

And I should clarify that I am not saying political steps are obsolete. We 100% need changes throughout our entire political system. It's in an absolutely horrible position right now that isn't benefiting the county or its people whatsoever. But simply blaming politicians, saying everything and everyone is stupid, saying guns are bad or yelling to change gun laws does nothing in the meantime.

Schmidt Wrote:

We have discussed this topic before. I for one would not allow my child to go to a school where the teachers are armed. Here's an extract from a Time magazine article: Ready, Fire, Aim: The Science Behind Police Shooting Bystanders

"According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time

In a crowded hallway with kids running in all directions and screaming, I would expect that an armed guard would hit the suspect 18 percent of the time and more likely take down a few students in the process.

My opinion...

Youre absolutely right, Schmidt. The percentage is low. I’d expect even lower numbers when it’s a total surprise and not just an every day threat, like what police officers have. But if ‘Teacher A’ has a firearm in a locked down classroom when the shooter is coming into the door, the odds are much better for hitting the target and no one else.

But my point isn’t that they will be able to hit their mark. My point is that a shooter will most likely think twice about even trying. They will know that there IS armed staff at the school. That means they are less likely to succeed and are more likely to be met with someone who is trained for this exact scenario.

This is a big pro for police officers carrying firearms. The knowledge that the other person has a firearm keeps many at bay. Not that that’s always a good thing, but I’m sure you know what I mean.

It would be really interesting to see what would happen if it was announced that schools had these “secret armed” that I was referring to. And maybe posted a sign at the entrance that it was among the schools that have them. But NOT actually have them. Basically like a fake security camera.

I guessWhat can be done to stop the next school shooting? 18 shootings in 9 weeks demands action now. Put armed police or armed servicemen in schools now and start training for permanent armed replacements now.

Chet, what you propose is a "police State" as in Russia. As well is only a "band aid" which does not attack the "cause". Let's be honest: the system here is screwed up all the way, but the "corruption" here stops it from being fixed.

That’s not a “police state”. It may be a feature of a police state, but it in itself is far from it.

We have armed security at concerts, grocery stores, malls, cops, military, etc, etc. but that doesn’t make the U.S. a police state. And I should mention that I believe that the U.S. is/has been dangerously close to a police state before/currently. But having outsourced or school staff trained and possessing a firearm at school doesn’t make it so.

This situation is unprecedented. To me, it requires unprecedented action.

I think it would be a good idea to have schools interview and check for 1 or two teachers/staff that fit the profile of a “secret armed”. Meaning they would unknowingly interview certain staff for this profile. Once decided, they would have the staff members trained thoroughly with the firearm. The firearm would stay in a hidden safe inside the classroom that only the staff member and the principal would have access too, on both sides of the school. No other staff or students would know which staff members have the firearm. That is important, due to it is normally a current or ex student.

We can all argue that this problem is because of x, y, z, but that does absolutely nothing. We need to get proper defenses in schools first and foremost. Trying to ban all guns and/or arguing mental health gets us nowhere. We’ve all seen that.

Saying that armed staff is just a “bandaid” is not true. It could absolutely be the fix. We don’t know until we try. A shooter is much more likely to think twice about doing this if he has to go up against people trained with and possessing firearms. That second thought is incredibly potent.

It may just be a bandaid, as you say. But it’s much better to have a bandaid than to just bleed out. All while yelling out what everyone thinks the “cause” is.

no that was not was i was saying.

wwjd Wrote:

Schools could have "Gun" drills, but that would only mean that the student shooter would know exact what is going to happen once the "Gun" alarm is triggered. In this case, he used the fire alarm drilled to get students start exiting the classrooms.

Over on Fox News: "See, this is why we need to make it mandatory that all school staff carry guns"

me: "wouldn't mace, a stun gun, take down training, etc be better options'

That doesn't make any sense. The entire point of having the drills are to train both teachers and students how to react to a situation such as this, just like a fire alarm. Saying "gun drills would only mean the shooter would know...." implies that no one should be trained for any situation because it could be used in another way.

I have yet to see or hear of a gun drill that instructs people to walk out into the halls, let alone show their presence at all. It instructs teachers to account for all students, shut and lock the door, block the windows, and get everyone underneath their desks and out of sight. This is the exact opposite of a fire alarm.

By your thought process above we shouldn't train for fire alarms either, because of this exact situation. But it just doesn't make sense. Training is necessary.

And to, "wouldn't mace, stun gun, take down training, be better options". You say that as if you know that they are better options. They both are, and are not. It depends on the situation. You can't say without a doubt that any of those would be better defense than a firearm. A firearm has a much greater distance than any of those, so you'd think it would be the best defensively, but needs a trained eye for it to be useful.

I went to a school that had stabbings, shootings, other violence, quite frequently. They ended up placing 1 cop for 2 days a week, and armed staff the other 3 days. The weapons violence stopped immediately. Not that this is the cure all, but doing this cured our school simply because there was armed staff. No one wanted to use weapons violence anymore because it meant they were susceptible to it themselves.

Having staff (1 or 100, teacher or outsourced) trained and possessing a firearm on campus is absolutely better than not having any at all. And yes, you can say that cops are trained soo much more than citizens, but they aren't. Yes, they go through training. No, it's not as rigorous as some bring up when having this conversation. I have logged many, many more hours training with my firearm than any of my police officer friends have with theirs.

Yes, it's horrible that it's come to this. But training is now a must. Whether it be with a firearm, mace, or stun gun. Something needs to stand in the way or create a thought of fear before or when this happens.

The way the reporters are handling this is sickening.

At one point a kid was running out of the school terrified. A reporter stopped him for an interview....

Reporter: "Was it scary in there"

Kid: "yeah"

Reporter: "How scary?!"

Are you kidding me? These are kids. Most of them don't know how they feel about anything, let alone something as awful as this. And you're going to run up to them and ask them for an exact scare level?

They also showed footage of kids sitting on the curb crying.... Social media/media in general has turned people into selfish, self-righteous, horrible things. They'll do anything for a buck and the "look at me and what I am experiencing" attention.

The fact that this happened even though majority of the population, businesses, upper echelons, ect, are completely against it is absolutely beyond me....This was up to FIVE people. FIVE people in the world overturned something that is supposed to keep things neutral. How the hell did this happen.

There is still a slight glimmer of hope, though. wired.com/story/after-fcc-vote-net-neut...

The EFF will file an injunction to challenge this in court. Also, congress could begin an investigation into Pai and the FCC, there's quite a bit of dirt to dig up there.

The battle isn't quite lost.... There's still a few things that can stop this.

I'm honestly thinking it's a possibility that Trump comes out of nowhere to block/undo this. Then he'll claim that he's saving everyone from it. Even though he was for ending NN, I can totally see him pulling a 180 like he has so many times before. I'm praying he does what he's so good at for this in particular, if it's even possible.

Also, this makes it blatantly clear that we are no longer living in a democracy. When 80%+ of the population is strongly against this and it still gets passed, we are now under the control of those enormously tall metal and glass things that are now called "people". We are now officially somethings else.

It's like we're all living in a reality show. The President of the United States tweeted that he directed our Vice President to leave a football game if the players took a knee during our National Anthem. I feel like that sentence is the result of a Mad Libs game.

Earlier today our Vice President, Mike pence tweeted a photo of himself at the Colts vs 49ers game. Shortly after, Pence walked out of the game due to the protest of the National Anthem. Trump, which I should remind is our POTUS...., then tweeted in support of Pence, saying that he directed our VP to leave the game if there were any protests.

The tweet from Trump:

Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump

I asked @VP Pence to leave stadium if any players kneeled, disrespecting our country. I am proud of him and @SecondLady Karen.

2:16 PM - Oct 8, 2017

First of all Trump, Pence, everyone at the stadium, everyone at home, and everyone else around the world that keeps up with the U.S. knew that it was going to happen. This was Trump poking at the NFL. This was our President going out of his way to irritate everyone involved with the protest and the NFL. This was Trump using another high-up member of our government to make a completely pointless statement and purposely provoke the Americans he is supposed to be leading. This was absolutely planned, per Trump himself in his tweet. So at some point the leaders of our country were actually having this ridiculous conversation. Imagine that.

You know, I have a feeling that both Trump and Pence, once again our President and Vice President of the United States, have something else to do. I can't quite put my finger on what they could be doing other than going to football games and tweeting, but I'm pretty sure something needs to get done that's more important than those. Maybe natural disasters? Or maybe terrorism? Maybe millions of people starving and homeless? Maybe the situation in North Korea? Maybe our disastrous healthcare system? Maybe government employees using entire budgets to fly around the world in private jets to stargaze and go on vacation? I don't know.... Now that I say it out loud, I guess football and Twitter is where we all need to be focusing our attention.