Armed Individual at Colorado School May Have Prevented Mass Shooting

Funny how every time an ARMED person kills someone, it is either an "accident" or a "disturbed person!"

Doesn't that tell you something about the NEED for more gun control?

Duh!

 

DUH It tells me criminals don't follow the thousands of laws on gun control we already have, so more gun control would be a waste of time, cops can't be everywhere so we can't rely on them to be there in the exact moment we need them, and yes it does speak to the need for more gun control....It says it doesn't work. Every thing the kid did was illegal....short of an outright ban (which wouldn't work either) just what additional gun control laws would have stopped this or any other active shooter? It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy...Cops have proven this for years....it's time for citizens to have the same rights.

 

Not sure what you mean by "physical means". He was a student and would have had access that any unarmed student would have. It isn't like turning the school into a prison would have made him not there.

 

You do understand there is a difference between relying on a law to stop an evil intent and multiple people having a physical means to stop an evil intent, yes? A shotgun isn't a very concealable weapon....imagine a teacher with a CCH seeing a young man walking up to the school with a weapon.....now that is a physical means to stop something before it happens, this isn't a hard concept.

 

You do realize that a resource officer with a gun can kill someone as easily as a private citizen with a gun and enjoy the benefits of lesser scrutiny be given to their actions, don't you?

I oppose arming teachers. It is too risky that a gun will be snatched in a fight and teachers do not have the legal protections an officer does. I would sooner ban schools than to support arming teachers.

 

Do you realize that those guilty of the latest mass murders or attempt at mass murders were NOT CRIMINALS?
And how do you think "criminals" get their guns? Don't you think it's a LOT EASIER for criminals to get guns because guns are ALL AROUND us?

One of my acquaintance, a gun collector, is very proud of saying that he got robbed of his 23 firearms while he was on a cruise and, in spite of the alarm system installed in his Florida home, but that it was "no problem," since the insurance covered them, and he got another 26 firearms to replace those he lost!

What do you think happened to those guns? And what do you think the likelihood is that the same guy might receive another "visit" from "criminals" looking to get an arsenal?

Now. . .where would the kid have gotten those guns IF guns were not so readily available?

Sure. . .criminals will always find a way. . .they do in other countries also, where guns are more regulated. But in those countries, death by firearms is WAY lower than in the US, and "accidents" and mass murders are NOT the actions of "disturbed teenagers!"

 

Sure, I'm open to the possibility, but right now I'm not convinced that gun ownership increasing is the reason why. All I'm asking is that someone show me a direct correlation. Think of it like this, New York has strict gun laws, but New York city actually had it's lowest crime rate. Wouldn't that destroy the gun ownership idea?

What is my stance on gun ownership?

 

No....no I don't. Society has already proven we cannot provide enough police/resource officers to increase the odds of being available in the event a citizen needs them to provide physical force to defend them. Odds always improve statistically speaking when more of something is available. These are simple undisputable facts. One other fact that comes to mind is that for active shooters, it's typically the gun free zone where they are most comfortable.

I don't oppose arming any staff member willing to take a course to receive a CCH and you don't have any statistics of guns being snatched in a fight that would support your belief. Final point, teachers, citizens, Americans in general have the same legal protections as an officer does when responding to an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to themselves or others, look it up.

Banning schools is as silly as banning guns, ain't gonna happen so let's deal with reality.

 

1. I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate with collective anarchist leanings.
2. It's your job to prove your claim. Otherwise, it's an opinion.

 

Yes, my point exactly. No laws would have stopped them from acquiring the weapons they did. It wasn't the gun, it was the individual.

illegal narcotics are outlawed/banned/illegal, yet they are all around us as well. What on Gods green earth makes you think that the laws we already have in place preventing mentally ill/criminals from possessing weapons would be effective? What on Gods green earth makes you think a law banning the murder of a fellow human being would stop someone intent on evil from committing that murder? It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, evil is/has/and always will be with us.....the question is do you want to rely on the government passing laws to protect your life or do you want everyone to have the ability to protect themselves. It's the sheep/wolves syndrome.

How am I suppose to know the intention of a criminal? Is there some magic pill one could take that lets you know which bad guy would shoot you and which would just take your stuff and leave. If I asked do they have to answer honestly? Sheesh!

Don't know but what would have happened to those guns if the homeowner had pulled a gun and stopped the thief from robbing him....those guns wouldn't be a concern for you would they?

Same place they get their illegal narcotics

Yes evil will always find a way, thanks for making my point. You need to do a bit more open and honest research on other countries...check out my What's up with this Australia thread for proof of that and your facts about America have already been disproveen in many other threads...open yor mind.

 

I do not believe that ANY MATERIAL POSSESSION is worth a human life!

I much prefer losing my "TV" or my "COMPUTER" or my "CAR" or my "DIAMOND RING" than to take the life of ANYONE, and that includes the life of a thief.

There is NO excuse to take a life, unless there is IMMEDIATE DANGER to one's own life or to other people's life.

So, your comment about "a thief" or an "intruder" are absolutely not convincing me of anything but your apparent false equivalency between a "material possession" and a "human life!"

And I believe YOU need to do a little more research about what is happening in other countries. I have had PLENTY of experience in other countries, and I still have family (including a son in Australia) actually LIVING in "other countries!"

 

I would not kill someone to protect belongings. The training I have had emphasized that deadly force was to protect myself or another person from potential deadly harm. In the case of an intruder, I cannot know what his intentions are. I won't shoot him without warning, but will warn him that I will shoot. If he then presents a threat, I would protect myself and my family.

 

That's your own belief, not ours. only a sick mind would assume that taking guns away will cure the evil in this world. It is the mind, not the tool.......... I am prepared to shoot intruders and I don't give a rat's ass what they are there for. They are criminals looking to relieve us of either our lives or possessions. I have used my gun before for protection, and probably will again. The next time, I'll make sure he doesn't make it to the hospital.

- - - Updated - - -

That's your own belief, not ours. only a sick mind would assume that taking guns away will cure the evil in this world. It is the mind, not the tool.......... I am prepared to shoot intruders and I don't give a rat's ass what they are there for. They are criminals looking to relieve us of either our lives or possessions. I have used my gun before for protection, and probably will again. The next time, I'll make sure he doesn't make it to the hospital.