I never claimed that you said it, only that you BELIEVE it! Bottom line is that when there is NOT a gun around a lone shooter is always VULNERABLE to being tackled from behind. That YOU need a SWAT team when just a brave man like the coach is all that is actually needed says volumes.
What doesn't tell the full story, not all defensive shootings result in a death, in fact while it does happen a death is very uncommon, get it. Now look up the facts and educate yourself.
Once again as usual, you are totally incorrect, you are totally clueless as to what I believe. And the coach in Parkland tried that and was killed in the process, so don't preach about what you know nothing of it makes you look foolish and uneducated.
Kindly refrain from PROJECTING your own shortcomings onto others! Guns are NOT the answer to all your troubles in spite of what your posts revealing what you erroneously believe about them to be capable of doing.
BTW, there were 2 shooters at the Stem School in Colorado. They second shooter was stopped by an armed security guard in the school. And not stating this to take away the bravery of Kendrick Castillo. Just pointing out some additional facts. The school should be renamed to Kendick Castillo school of the gifted. Private security guard saved lives at STEM school shooting
Again you are making up lies, I never stated guns are the answer to my or anyone else's troubles. You are really out of facts and all you have left are flat out made up lies, how childish. My children grew out of doing that by the time they where 6 or so, it's a shame you are unable to do the same.
false assumption fallacy. what evidence do you have to substantiate your false assertion that “none of the gun obsessed don’t know this.” ? if you have been through any defensive handgun course, you know this. you obviously have not or you never would have posted such a fallacious claim.
i never carry my ak. but i do carry my 9mm, and my .357 almost everywhere i go (even church). if somebody starts shooting, i take whatever cover is available, assess the situation, wait until i have a clear shot, aim for center mass, take the shot, continue firing until the subject stops moving. if i am successful, the attack ends. if i am not successful, maybe i die. but why take away my resources? i’m a 125 lb. woman. how do you expect me to tackle a 200 lb. fat video game slob? or are you suggesting i should leave that to the menfolk?
That's because most mass shootings occur at gun free zones. The only ones that carry guns in those places are the people you don't want to have guns. thanks for the argument against gun-free zones.
I pass 2 private schools on my way to the office. Both have armed security escorting students from the car to the building. Do you oppose treating our children with the same importance as cash?
I'm not sure what you think is fallacious? I never took a defensive handgun class, but I did get a hunter safety card from the state. The general rule of thumb that the police use, is 21 feet. Any closer and a out of control subject is a threat. One practiced in the martial arts could be even more effective.
Same thing. You have to man up in such a situation. What would you do if someone was threatening your children? Unless you are a coward, you only have two choices, protect the kids, or take out the threat.
When is the last time you heard of someone being shot in a court room. Or the Capitol building in Washington DC?
straw man. those are not "gun free zones," rather they are security controlled environments. come on man, don't make it this easy to pick apart your ridiculous arguments. you spoil all the fun!
read it again, carefully this time. i am not disputing the 21-foot rule i am disputing the false assumption by the other poster that "the gun obsessed don't know," about the 21-foot rule when it is defensive shooting 101.
There have been a few teachers who did "man up". They're dead now. This kid was lucky. You think luck is a viable defense?
There are 350 million plus firearms in this country. How many are used for homicide and suicide again?
