Hmmm, try to get the news media to violate one of their most hallowed of credos, that "if it bleeds, it leads". Good luck with that. Best to try something more easily accomplished, such as faster armed response to stop the killing.
I agree it's an impossibility. But, your best suggestion is more evidence of your gun-rights bias. You complain about the fact that cops arrive after the fact, but isn't that exactly what your proposing. Faster armed response, regardless of who delivers it, is always after the incident.
Best would be proper gun control laws combined with a one strike your out policy. These would prevent some of the shootings BEFORE they happen.
So everyone who does carry a weapon must pass a quick draw test. If a teacher in a classroom has a gun, how fast can that teacher draw that weapon as a killer is kicking down the door, or just shooting through the door? The idea that if everyone is armed that will stop all shootings and shooters, is ridiculous.
"So everyone who does carry a weapon must pass a quick draw test. If a teacher in a classroom has a gun, how fast can that teacher draw that weapon as a killer is kicking down the door, or just shooting through the door?"
Anon, your requirement that any solution involving arming people to defend themselves being 100% effective and somewhat hypocritical since you don't have the same expectations of solutions that involve tightening gun restrictions. In fact, using your criteria, I could assert, though it would be inaccurate, that since the first assault weapon ban was in place during the time of the Columbine shooting, then that proves gun control doesn't work. As for your quick draw comment, is a school shooting, the gun would be out. Especially if there was already a lockdown in effect. And I doubt anyone would raise a fuss if a teacher put a few rounds through the door if someone were trying to kick it in during a lockdown. If teachers are known to be armed, then I'm pretty sure a good stand-down procedure would be put in place.
The point is, if every one was armed, it wouldn't stop a motivated killer. Your side claims if teachers (and students) were armed the killing would lessen. That's not the way it works in a real shooting situation and the "accident" level with everyone armed would would hurt, or kill more than a criminal shooter. It's the gun loons contention that all carrying guns would cause a 100% drop in these shootings. That's what I make fun of because it's a loony expectation. It won't happen.
"It's the gun loons contention that all carrying guns would cause a 100% drop in these shootings."
I've never suggested that Anon. I'm more into the faster intervention resulting in fewer casualties. This has been proven in several of these events, which also validates the active shooter response developed due to the large number of casualties at Columbine. FBI reports have also noted a significant percentage of these people opting for suicide when confronted.
"Of the cases that ended before the police arrived, 67 percent (34) ended with attackers stopping themselves via suicide (29 cases) or by leaving the scene (5 cases). In the other 33 percent (17) of the cases that ended before the police arrived, the potential victims at the scene stopped the shooter themselves. Most commonly they physically subdued the attacker (14 cases), but 3 cases involved people at the scene shooting the perpetrator to end the attack."
Hmmm, try to get the news media to violate one of their most hallowed of credos, that "if it bleeds, it leads". Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteBest to try something more easily accomplished, such as faster armed response to stop the killing.
If the media didn't publicize it, the gun banners would, body count and all.
DeleteI agree it's an impossibility. But, your best suggestion is more evidence of your gun-rights bias. You complain about the fact that cops arrive after the fact, but isn't that exactly what your proposing. Faster armed response, regardless of who delivers it, is always after the incident.
DeleteBest would be proper gun control laws combined with a one strike your out policy. These would prevent some of the shootings BEFORE they happen.
MikeB: "I agree it's an impossibility"
DeleteNot if you get rid of that pesky anachronistic first amendment.
MikeB: "Faster armed response, regardless of who delivers it, is always after the incident."
Not if it's coming from the victim.
Brilliant, TS. Let's arm all the school children, and everybody else while we're at it.
DeleteYou said "regardless of who delivers it" and it "is always after the incident". Now you mean only school children?
DeleteThat's just like you, TS.
Delete"Now you mean only school children?"
What I actually said was "school children, and everybody else while we're at it."
So everyone who does carry a weapon must pass a quick draw test. If a teacher in a classroom has a gun, how fast can that teacher draw that weapon as a killer is kicking down the door, or just shooting through the door? The idea that if everyone is armed that will stop all shootings and shooters, is ridiculous.
ReplyDelete"So everyone who does carry a weapon must pass a quick draw test. If a teacher in a classroom has a gun, how fast can that teacher draw that weapon as a killer is kicking down the door, or just shooting through the door?"
ReplyDeleteAnon, your requirement that any solution involving arming people to defend themselves being 100% effective and somewhat hypocritical since you don't have the same expectations of solutions that involve tightening gun restrictions.
In fact, using your criteria, I could assert, though it would be inaccurate, that since the first assault weapon ban was in place during the time of the Columbine shooting, then that proves gun control doesn't work.
As for your quick draw comment, is a school shooting, the gun would be out. Especially if there was already a lockdown in effect. And I doubt anyone would raise a fuss if a teacher put a few rounds through the door if someone were trying to kick it in during a lockdown. If teachers are known to be armed, then I'm pretty sure a good stand-down procedure would be put in place.
"I doubt anyone would raise a fuss if a teacher put a few rounds through the door if someone were trying to kick it in during a lockdown. "
DeleteI would.
The point is, if every one was armed, it wouldn't stop a motivated killer. Your side claims if teachers (and students) were armed the killing would lessen. That's not the way it works in a real shooting situation and the "accident" level with everyone armed would would hurt, or kill more than a criminal shooter. It's the gun loons contention that all carrying guns would cause a 100% drop in these shootings. That's what I make fun of because it's a loony expectation. It won't happen.
Delete"It's the gun loons contention that all carrying guns would cause a 100% drop in these shootings."
DeleteI've never suggested that Anon. I'm more into the faster intervention resulting in fewer casualties. This has been proven in several of these events, which also validates the active shooter response developed due to the large number of casualties at Columbine. FBI reports have also noted a significant percentage of these people opting for suicide when confronted.
"Of the cases that ended before the police arrived, 67 percent (34) ended with attackers stopping themselves via suicide (29 cases) or by leaving the scene (5 cases). In the other 33 percent (17) of the cases that ended before the police arrived, the potential victims at the scene stopped the shooter themselves. Most commonly they physically subdued the attacker (14 cases), but 3 cases involved people at the scene shooting the perpetrator to end the attack."
http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active-shooter-events-from-2000-to-2012
Look at that, there is even evidence that some were stopped by potential victims resisting physically. Some even had guns!
You haven't been listening to your own sides statements. That's what they say and it's disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.
Delete