When will the folks in charge learn?

[Captain]

Establishing "gun free zones" (like schools) has only made it possible for criminals to know where to go on a shooting spree....
It's mind numbing to me the logic of making schools and colleges gun free zones somehow makes them safer....
When it's been PROVEN time and time again that just the opposite is true.

[Thumper]

It's like the Libs thinking that if we simply "ban guns", it'll put an end to ALL shootings. These things sure seem to happen in multiples, don't they? Seems the past few years, schools are the big thing for nutbags to shoot up. They seem to change from time to time. Heck, use the phrase "going postal" around someone "younger" and they'll give you a blank stare. Who knows what the next "fad" will be.

[DeputyDog]

Yeah, they don't seem to go to a police station to do a shooting. Well, except for that one they just had in PA.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Yes, we all know that there were no school shootings before they were made 'gun free' zones.

Larke, I'm sorry but that kind of logic works about as well as its opposite number, which you're complaining about. Having guns at schools and churches and so on won't keep people from doing these shootings. In fact, there is no legislation that anyone could do to prevent them. But there is one thing that 'cons' have wrong for sure too, since you all want to blame everything on people's political beliefs, and that is that if you gave every single American a Saturday night special it wouldn't make one whit of difference in the amount of crime done with guns. It'd be nice if politics was the cause of all of this but it ain't politics, its the moral sickness that is in our American society as a whole. Our politics, like our crime, are symptoms of that problem and not the problem itself.

At least that's this 'liberal's' opinion.

BKB

[Captain]

Posthole, you and your way of thinking are 100% wrong and ARE the problem.
Just answer me one question.
What stopped the event in Florida early this morning.
A GUN

[Buckrub]

Posthole, every study done legitimately has proven that every area where gun ownership has risen, crime has decreased. Not the opposite.

Technology created guns. It created computers and cars and other stuff.

If you think having a gun won't help protect you, that's fine. But you don't get to tell me it won't protect me. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy and bulky.

[Big Skyz]

BBP, you have opened my eyes to a lot of things and different ways of thinking. Heck, I've even changed my mind a time or two because of your more liberal type thoughts. However, in this case I stand 100% with Larke, you couldn't be more wrong. I guaran-darn-tee you that if a shooting occurred in my school, and I had a weapon to shoot back with, that the event would come to a complete halt. It would happen much sooner than if I have to wait for the police to arrive, and a LOT less people would lose their life in the process. As it sits right now, my plan for such events is to get the heck out of my room/school, and run like Hell, because showing up unarmed to a gun fight is NOT on my to-do list!!!

[Big Skyz]

Removing double post

[Buckrub]

Good point BS.

Posty is in fact, and I don't mind saying so out loud, one of the smartest men I've ever had the pleasure to meet. Well read, well thought out, just smart. It's undeniable.

But, it's that very fact that makes some of his political views a head scratcher. This one is simply clear, via the laws of physics and the universe. Yet, he can't see it. I have tried to envision this point from his view. I honestly have. I can't get there. The fact that a man MUCH smarter than I can do so, makes me scratch my head.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Y'all need to calm the F down for one.

Yes, this gunman at FSU was stopped by a gun. A policeman with a gun. Not a citizen, not a teacher, not a student, but a policeman, which is who should have guns in those places. There's no evidence ANYWHERE that this gunman chose to do this shooting there, or any other place there's been a shooting for that matter, because it was a 'gun free zone'.

You seem to think that because you believe you should be armed, that others shouldn't be able to declare legal gun free zones. So if a church or a school doesn't want to allow firearms, you think this makes them fair game for shooters. You don't want to give anyone that choice. I say that is as much an infringement on liberty as banning the damned things.

If you feel safe carrying your piece, then that's fine. But if voters want to make their churches or schools or other public places gun free zones except for law enforcement, then I believe they have the right to do that.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Fine.

Then I have the right to ignore their "gun free" zones, so that I'll be safe. Police ain't gonna keep me safe, sir.

I am not trying to stop crime, which as you say will occur no matter what. I'm trying to stop criminals.

[BarryBobPosthole]

First off, I NEVER said having a gun wouldn't protect you. I personally believe that you have a ton of overconfidence as to how much protection it actually gives you but that's another topic for another day. What I did say is that if you totally eliminated gun free zones, tha these shootings at schools and other public places would neither be eliminated nor reduced. and I said THAT in response to the idiotic statement that Thumper made that liberal politics is the reason we have these shootings. A person doesn't have to be a liberal to not want people in public schools armed to the teeth. You want the janitor at your public schools to carry a piece then more power to you. I don't. That doesn't make you conservative, that doesn't make me liberal. It simply puts us in opposite sides of what we think will keep these shootings from happening. But seemingly, y'all seem to think that liberal politics is the fucking root of all evil and it pisses me off. I swear it's like playing cards with my sister's kids.

BKB

[Captain]

Fine. Then I have the right to ignore their "gun free" zones, so that I'll be safe. Police ain't gonna keep me safe, sir. I am not trying to stop crime, which as you say will occur no matter what. I'm trying to stop criminals.

Bucky not only do you have the right you have the obligation if you so choose to protect yourself and others in a gun free (puke) zone....

[Buckrub]

First off, I NEVER said having a gun wouldn't protect you. I personally believe that you have a ton of overconfidence as to how much protection it actually gives you but that's another topic for another day. What I did say is that if you totally eliminated gun free zones, tha these shootings at schools and other public places would neither be eliminated nor reduced. and I said THAT in response to the idiotic statement that Thumper made that liberal politics is the reason we have these shootings. A person doesn't have to be a liberal to not want people in public schools armed to the teeth. You want the janitor at your public schools to carry a piece then more power to you. I don't. That doesn't make you conservative, that doesn't make me liberal. It simply puts us in opposite sides of what we think will keep these shootings from happening. But seemingly, y'all seem to think that liberal politics is the fucking root of all evil and it pisses me off. I swear it's like playing cards with my sister's kids.

BKB

I get your point.

Gun carrying will not stop the crime from occurring.

But gun carrying might stop it from harming ME! Or those around ME! And that's all I can control, short of convincing folks via the internet of the error of their ways, a veritable impossibility! Thus, I control what I can control. And I say that in opposition to your statement that if everyone carried, these crimes would not be reduced one iota. The initial occurrences would not, but that obfuscates the issue. The continued proliferation of EACH one would indeed be curtailed.

[Buckrub]

See...you said this:
But there is one thing that 'cons' have wrong for sure too, since you all want to blame everything on people's political beliefs, and that is that if you gave every single American a Saturday night special it wouldn't make one whit of difference in the amount of crime done with guns.

Which is what caused us to jump.

Because of course it would make a whit of difference.........we can make the difference in a perp killing fifty vs. one or two. Those lives matter to me. And you are wrong in that statement, and we said so.

[Captain]

Let's see for starters posthole, Jeanne Assam had a pistol in her pocketbook when she attended Church services, when a man walked in and shot and killed 4 people in the church. She drew her gun and ADVANCED on the shooter and shot and killed him....
Saving God knows how many lives. Thank God she didnt check her gun in the gun free zone.

[Big Skyz]

You are being pretty narrow minded on this one. We don't have local law enforcement. The absolute closest officers are 20 miles away. So you are telling me that since you think the gun free zone is a good idea I should rely on law enforcement to save the day? I am sorry but you are simply completely wrong.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Right, and she wasn't just a parishoner, she was part of the church security team and was asked by the church to carry a firearm.

I suppose though, God only protects those who protect themselves just like he only provides only for those who provide for themselves. How Christlike it is to have armed deacons.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Amen.

[Captain]

You seem to think it matters WHO has the gun that stopped the event. It don't make a twit in Hell WHO had the gun. If you want to wait around on a police officer to stop someone from hurting you or your family members out in public I certainly support your choice. But I can tell you from personal experience 30 seconds is a lifetime in waiting on help, much less 10 or 20 minutes.
under our form of Government we the people have the right to defend ourselves by being armed. It's not up to the government to decide when and where I can defend myself. I can and will defend myself and love ones where ever I am.

[Buckrub]

I'll be very honest with a good friend, Posty.

I have read and re-read all of your posts here. I cannot summarize what your position is, exactly, on this issue.

[Buckrub]

Right, and she wasn't just a parishoner, she was part of the church security team and was asked by the church to carry a firearm.

I suppose though, God only protects those who protect themselves just like he only provides only for those who provide for themselves. How Christlike it is to have armed deacons.

BKB

Exodus 22:2-3 tells us: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

Now, that's a LONG time before Christ, but you've told me in the past that you think the Old Testament still applies. So??? Does it say or imply "and he is struck by a policeman only"?

[BarryBobPosthole]

Hey, I have no issue with schools or churches or whatever public place wanting to hire their own security. Its like Troy said in his post, every situation has its own needs. If Montana public schools needs armed protection and it isn't nearby, then I think its a fine idea to hire armed security. And that goes for any state. I don't think though, its a fine idea to just allow open carry (or concealed for that matter) for any Tom Dick or Harry who happens to be in that school. You DO realize that what you're saying would make it perfectly legal for any parent or guardian to come into that school fully armed any time they wanted. And then sit, armed, across the table from a teacher to discuss little Johnny's performance in school? You really think that's a grand idea? Sorry, I don't see it that way. there are other ways to address the issue other than simply arming everyone. Those other ways never make it to the table because those ideas are viewed as 'liberal'.

I'm tired of this topic just like I'm tired of getting slammed for my views on it. I'm as big a second amendment supporter as anyone but somehow that isn't enough. I'm not conservative enough I guess.

Good luck solving it with more guns.

BKB

[Captain]

I'll be very honest with a good friend, Posty. I have read and re-read all of your posts here. I cannot summarize what your position is, exactly, on this issue.

I can. His position is he think it's OK for the Government to declare an area Gun Free zone. And folks cannot carry a gun in there.
He also says that people will be people and some folks will continue to kill folks regardless of the law. (And I agree with that point)
To that I say the IF the ladder statement is true and the guys that will break the law and carry a gun into a Gun Free Zone for the purpose of killing folks, then All the law is doing is making sure there are no GOOD people there with a gun to stop him...
And if he sees anything wrong with that statement he is wacko....

[BarryBobPosthole]

Exodus 22:2-3 tells us: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

Now, that's a LONG time before Christ, but you've told me in the past that you think the Old Testament still applies. So??? Does it say or imply "and he is struck by a policeman only"?

I never said the old testament applies to anything. You're the one who keeps claiming there's a new covenant yet keeps quoting the old testament. Just like ye olde ten commandments. they don't count no more either, unless of course we're trying to appeal to conservative voters.

BKB

[Buckrub]

OK, then here's what Christ said.......

And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." (Luke 22:35-38, ESV)

Sounds like everyone is supposed to have a weapon, to me. You got one, Red?

[BarryBobPosthole]

Whether I got one, where I keep it, and what it is ain't nobody's business but mine.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Correct!!

Same for me. Even in a Gun Free Zone!

[BarryBobPosthole]

BBP, you have opened my eyes to a lot of things and different ways of thinking. Heck, I've even changed my mind a time or two because of your more liberal type thoughts. !

And by the way Big Sky, the reverse is true as well. I've learned more shit here than Carter's got little liver pills! And don't ever think I don't listen to y'all cause I do. Otherwise, how would I know the best way to hang a deer is head up!

BKB

[Captain]

[QUOTE="BarryBobPosthole;49036"]Hey, I have no issue with schools or churches or whatever public place wanting to hire their own security. Its like Troy said in his post, every situation has its own needs. If Montana public schools needs armed protection and it isn't nearby, then I think its a fine idea to hire armed security. And that goes for any state.[\QUOTE]
Why have to hire people. There are people already there. Good people.

[QUOTE="BarryBobPosthole;49036"]I don't think though, its a fine idea to just allow open carry (or concealed for that matter) for any Tom Dick or Harry who happens to be in that school. You DO realize that what you're saying would make it perfectly legal for any parent or guardian to come into that school fully armed any time they wanted. And then sit, armed, across the table from a teacher to discuss little Johnny's performance in school? You really think that's a grand idea?[\QUOTE]

Yes. Why would it not be????

[QUOTE="BarryBobPosthole;49036"]Sorry, I don't see it that way. there are other ways to address the issue other than simply arming everyone[\QUOTE]

Yep bigger government and more people on the payroll. We the people need to look after we the people. Not let the Government do it. That's mostly what's wrong now.

[Big Skyz]

Nope we won't be hiring security. No money to pay for it. However the government did decide to leave us helpless in the event of a deadly attack. Second, you seriously think I'm going to have to worry about fully armed parents showing up for parent teacher night. That crap falls apart real quick. Prior to Clinton's administration schools were not gun free zones. Never once, not once, did I ever have a parent show up with a firearm for any meeting. However I did have parents show up to show me the big buck in the back of their truck. They had rifles in the vehicle and the only reason they ever came out was to show what super cool new rifle or pistol they bought. My issue with gun free zones is that it's designed without exceptions and frankly it sucks and puts me and everyone in this school in far greater danger than before the law was passed. Perhaps your view would be different if you worked in a building where the police were 20 miles away and your building policy said you could not bring any kind of weapon to defend yourself, not even a 2" pen knife. Ya, welcome to my world.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Well I guess since my point of view is so damned obtuse that nobody can understand it let me just summarize:

The world can be a dangerous place and it is within our rights as people to take the steps we think are necessary to protect ourselves from that danger. One of those steps might be to ban all weapons from a designated place. If a town or a state or a federal government decides through its due process that making some place weapon free is the best course to take to provide protection of the public, then that is the law and that supercedes the person's individual liberty to decide for themselves. Try convincing American Airlines and Homeland Security that you have a right to protect yourself on your next flight for example. I also believe that the providers of public places, like schools, churches, and so forth have the right to have a say in how their security should work. that's why we have state laws.

Troy, I grew up in a rural school where it was common to have a shotgun or a rifle in the rifle rack of my pickup while it was parked at the school. Many early morning classes were missed because of hunting trips and guns were definitely in my and my friend's vehicles on those occasions. So were dead animals, likely. That doesn't make it right for today's environment. Where I have trouble making a connection is the thought that gun culture, like I grew up in, results in less crimes committed with guns than a total gun ban. Neither of those extremes makes a damn bit of difference and I've yet to see statistics to prove it although they are spoke about often.

So yeah, I believe in the right to protect oneself. I also think that the 'how' to protect oneself is what is at issue here. And its not a sin, by the way, to take either side. Its just a way of solving a problem is all it friggin is. Its not world peace, its not communism vs capitalism, its not the Cold War and our future is not at stake. Its one of many problems we raise to that level and because of it we can't even start to reach some kind of agreement. so CALM DOWN FRANCIS.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Tell all that to John Lott.

I simply do not, cannot, after CAREFUL consideration, accept a single tenet of your position on this.

[Captain]

I'm calm... Really and want to see your side or points...
But again you will not ANSWER my question.
I'll ask it again

You say the Government has the rights to create Gun Free Zones.
You also say that there are bad people that will not abide by that law and will take a gun into a Gun Free Zone with the intent to shoot people...
Then my question is:
WHAT GOOD DOES THAT LAW DO OTHER THAN MAKE SURE THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS THERE ARE UNARMED SO THE BAD GUY CAN SHOOT THEM?
Please answer that.

[Buckrub]

Oh.

And the Patriot Act and the NSA Data Collection are very good examples of laws that I'm SURE you'll be 100% in favor of, since they meet every bit of your criteria above, to make us safe. I know you love those laws.

And:
The world can be a dangerous place and it is within our rights as people to take the steps we think are necessary to protect ourselves from that danger. One of those steps might be to ban all weapons from a designated place.

Not possible. No matter how much you wish it so.

But if it IS possible, and if it IS valid, then another valid step might be for me to ignore that ban if it doesn't work. Right?

[BarryBobPosthole]

I'll try to answer that. We aren't as far apart on that part of it as you think.

Calling some place a gun free zone, and putting up a sign saying so is about the stupidest goddamned thing I've ever heard of as far as providing security goes. It might make sense in a church, where security is seldom an issue. But at a school or public building, if it's gonna be a gun free zone then you have to do things like provide armed security where its needed, provide a way to enforce the damn ban like simply having an armed security guard at the door. I don't want to hear the money excuse. There's money for that. Companies do it, almost all big companies protect their property that way. Sure, someone can force their way in and do, but its the public places with no physical security in place where we're vulnerable. If its a sign only, then its Dodge City. If we say we have to do this to provide security, then we need to do it the right way.

BKB

[Buckrub]

I guess I just cringe when I hear someone think that the Government is somehow the answer to every problem. All the Security in the world won't make me safe.

I'm done with this one, I did the best I could.

[quercus alba]

I'm all for guns, just not in schools or church. If a schools wants to hire armed security that's dandy but I don't want every trigger happy paranoid Tom Dick and Mary running around waving a Glock 40. Alcohol and drug related deaths in school children far outnumber shooting related deaths, Why aren't all outraged citizens marching in the street about that?

There is no answer that is going to be satisfactory to everyone. You can protect yourself and your family to some extent when they're in your presence but when they're not............

I don't want to go thru life looking over my shoulder. I try to take reasonable precautions and trust in the Lord to take care of the rest.

I totally understand what you're saying Posthole

[BarryBobPosthole]

Welcome to the Island of the Damned, QA.

BKB

[Big Skyz]

You said: " One of those steps might be to ban all weapons from a designated place. If a town or a state or a federal government decides through its due process that making some place weapon free is the best course to take to provide protection of the public, then that is the law and that supercedes the person's individual liberty to decide for themselves."

Are you listening to yourself when you write this stuff down? The only people that will abide by your flawed philosophy are those that never intended to break the law in the first place. So by your way of thinking some potential criminal is suddenly going to gain a conscience when he/she enters a weapon's free zone? Lunatic's, sociopaths, psychopaths, drunks, drug addicts/dealers, and gangs are all going to target areas other than schools and churches because, of course, our government declared it a weapons free zone. Honestly BBP if I were a member of ISIS I would be trying to recruit you as a motivational speaker.

Fareed Shabeeb: "Hey everyone come listen to this guy he wants to makes sure we have large groups of American's, enclosed in buildings, with absolutely no way to defend themselves. No armed security, no armed personnel, no weapons at all. I know right, he's serious. Yup he will explain how we can have anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes, or more to shoot, behead, and molest people with zero worry of anyone trying shoot us. No really, him and those that think just like him have convinced their government that this is a good idea. They even got it passed into law. No, I'm not kidding, the only thing we have to worry about is getting out of there before the police show up."

Another conversation from the local gangsta's: "Yo peeps, don't be hate'n and kill'n on de schoo's and churchiz. Dey are pop'a cap free zones."

[BarryBobPosthole]

Yep, we ALL know that's who commits these shooting crimes in public schools and churches. Its the pimps and hos and Muslims who are busting into these places and killing people. Isn't it?

Troy.......I'm not saying it'll prevent these shootings. I never did. But neither will allowing the public to carry firearms into them.

BKB

[Big Skyz]

QA: "If a schools wants to hire armed security that's dandy".

That would be a great idea except it won't ever happen. The tax payers would have to pay those wages. So by your way of thinking we hire full time security for every school in the nation. Some school's will be okay with one security guard others will require an entire staff. Now keep in mind this is to make sure our schools are safe in the extremely low percentage chance the school will be attacked. Yup lets sink millions and millions of dollars into a hiring more donut eating, work room lounge lizards, that 95% of the time have nothing to do. Nothing to do but collect a pay check that is. Yes, that's a great idea. How long do you think society/tax payers are going to want to keep dumping money into that idea before they pull the plug?

Here is a novel idea: How about we offer a stringent training program, through law enforcement, for a select number of staff that already work for the school system. No additional pay, no additional staff, just utilize what you have and increase their knowledge and training. I know, I know, makes way too much sense doesn't it.

As for the drugs and alcohol those issues are addressed in every school in the nation on nearly a daily basis. There are programs, counselors, support systems, training sessions for all of that. The fact of the matter is the drug and alcohol use during school hours is relatively low. Not saying it doesn't exist, it does, but it's minimal during school time. Now what happens outside of school is largely out of control, and that is where society has to step in and up.

[Big Skyz]

BBP I see you selectively left out the "lunatic's, sociopaths, psychopaths" mentioned in the same sentence. Slick move to twist my words into your thoughts. However with your view point on this issue that does not surprise me.

Yes we made schools and churches weapons free zones. So riddle me this batman (BBP), did it help reduce the number of shootings at either place by comparison to what it was before we made them weapons free zones? Have the shootings become more horrific, more frequent, and with higher numbers of casualties before or after the law was passed?

[quercus alba]

BS, I have absolutely no problem with that idea. Probably be much more effective. Course there wouldn't be a money crunch if politicians used a little restraint with our tax dollars. As far as the drugs and alcohol, I should have clarified that. I was referring to our judicial system not the schools.

[Big Skyz]

BBP since the obvious doesn't seem to click in your head on this subject. I will throw some facts at you, but we all know that both you and Buckrub don't let facts get in the way of your opinion on some things, but I'm going to try anyway. I took a minute and did some quick counting. I will admit I might be off on my numbers by 1 or 2 but that's about it. I was counting quickly but these numbers are very close.

Here are the number of times recorded by law that a firearm was discharge on a school campus. I've decided to start in 1970 since many of us have been around that long and were in school back then.

1970-1980: 26 (Remember this is when anyone could bring a gun to school.)
1990-2010: 96 (This was the era when the weapons ban came into place.)
2011-2014: 95 (This includes today's shooting.)

95 shooting school shootings in just the past 3 years!
What part of your way IS NOT WORKING do you not get???!!!

[BarryBobPosthole]

The part where you blame the problem on the lack of guns in the area is the part I don't get nor agree with. The solution to the problem lies elsewhere. It'd be nice and easy if to solve it all we had to do is allow guns everywhere. I think that's not going to solve anything to do with this. You do. That's where we differ.

BKB

[Captain]

I don't think it would solve the problem I KNOW a it would. 100% guaranteed. The NOT knowing where if there are "good" guns present IS the deterrent

[Buckrub]

I thought I was on BS' side, but hey!

I got Mother's car, at lunch, and this stewed on me all the time. Posty is like a brother to me, I'd drop everything and head there right now if he said he needed me.

But this attitude upsets me. While we discuss what SHOULD be, what "is" is letting perps walk into schools, some of them with my grandkids, and fire away. Pollyanna, Happy-Thought b/s aside, every school is A) NOT going to get security guards, and B) if they do, it'll be a while, and meanwhile innocent kids are at risk because of some irrational fear that one gun in the wrong hands somehow obviates a million of 'em in the right hands.

I am done with this. I am done with "The Government is our ONLY solution" and the pie-eyed b/s attitude that it takes to arrive at such a crazy solution!! After 238 years, you'd think folks would figure out the Government is not our Savior.

This sickens me. It truly, honestly does. Not because of this discussion..........but because 1/2 of this country believes this way, sincerely, and without any reason to.

Aggh.

[Big Skyz]

Let me make this simple for you. The only LACK of guns are NOT in the hands of those that plan to obey the law. The bad guys have as many or more guns than ever. I swear the only thing worse than bringing a knife to a gun fight is bring a liberal-left-winged-democrat and their ideology.

Hypothetical situation: You come by and visit me in the classroom and let's say your daughter is one of my students. Pscho-Sam shows up at school with his guns intent on killing as many people as possible. We hear him coming down the hall towards my classroom killing people all along the way. I secure my room as best as I can, lock the door and put the students where they are out of the direct line of sight with the window in the door. The shooter now turns and heads right for my door. He shoots his way through the door and enters the room. Kids are screaming, your ears are ringing from the shots being fired inside such close quarters. At this point you are absolutely terrified for yourself, your daughter, and everyone else in the room. You realize that you have absolutely no recourse or way to defend yourself. Your chances of not being injured or killed are exactly 0%. You can thank yourself and your government for how this is going to turn out. Now take this same scenario and let me have a firearm available only to me in my room. Is there any guarantee I would kill him before he kills me or anyone else? No there isn't, but honestly answer me this: Are my chances still zero?

[BarryBobPosthole]

Sorry, not buying it. And you can get as insulting as you wish. It ain't gonna give you any more logic.

BKB

[Buckrub]

What logic do you have? Where is any logic on your side?

How do you answer Troy's hypothetical? What is your answer to THAT specifically?

Saying Global, Big Word solutions isn't cutting it. Get real, man. Your Ivory Tower is crumbling. What is the real answer to real situations???

[Bwana]

Don't mean to throw water on the fire gents but it is pretty obvious that much like religion this is a topic that folks are pretty much stuck on their views and no amount of discussion is going to make one side "see the light." Time to move on.

[Thumper]

Well dang! I've been "working" all day (estate sales) and missed all the fun. I see Postie even kinda called me out in an early post but I wasn't here to respond. I honestly can't add anything that hasn't already been said.

To play the middle of the road just a bit ... I can understand a "little" bit of what P-hole is saying. To be clear, I'm not so sure I'd want STUDENTS carrying guns in the schools ... they still (GENERALLY speaking) lack the responsibility and discipline needed for an armed confrontation with a potential "assassin". I'd be all for the staff to be armed though (IF they want to be) and a prerequisite of a gun training course wouldn't be a bad idea. Hiring a guard or guards is not financially feasible ... heck, give that money to the teachers! Where do you draw the line? Hire a bazillion guards and put one on every school bus also? Nope, arm the driver if need be. (BTW ... we had a school bus shooting here yesterday ... by a 15 year old!) http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2014/11/17/search-for-suspect-who-shot-at-bay-area-school-bus/19202185/

The part I agree with P-hole on, is that times have changed. When I was in school, we too had guns sitting in the gun racks in the cab of half the pick-ups in the school parking lot. Times have changed here too. TODAY ... would anyone in his right mind leave a nice deer rifle in plain sight in their car sitting in a parking lot all day? I seriously doubt it would still be there at final bell (do schools still use bells?). The house I grew up in never had the front OR back door locked. Even if we did lock a door, a simple "skeleton key" is all it took to open it. Even my first house in California ... Los friggin' Angeles never had the door locked ... I bought the house, the owner said they'd have to have a key made for me because they lost theirs years prior and simply never locked their doors. I told them not to worry about it as I would be changing the locks anyway. I never got around to it! I lived there 10 years and never had a house key ... in fact, I changed the locks when I sold the house so I'd have a key to hand over to the next owner! I seriously doubt I'd do that nowadays ... ESPECIALLY in a place like L.A.! I never locked my car until maybe 20 years ago. Why? Times have changed ... plain and simple.

So with that, I agree with P-hole ... I disagree with the disarming of honest citizens and establishing gun-free zones in potentially dangerous areas.

[BarryBobPosthole]

what started this whole discussion is the fact that a shooter opened fire on some students at FSU, shot three and was killed within minutes by campus security. I don't need a made up scenario because this is the one we started with. Its been suggested that if the campus hadn't been declared a gun free zone by liberal pinko facist media loving pigs, that the well armed students at FSU would have risen up and blown the fucker away in seconds instead of minutes and nobody would have been hurt except the shooter. that is the lala land bullshit fantasy that you would have me believe would happen in this real life scenario. And I say that is pretty much a lala land bullshit fantasy.

The Federal Government approves this message.

BKB

[Big Skyz]

For a moment I'm going to not direct my comments towards BBP on this. Here is what has happened to me in a quarter century of teaching. For years I have been strongly opposed to weapons in the hands of school staff. However, as I see more and more of my students coming from unstable homes, with little, to no structure I start to worry. As I see students become more and more desensitized to violence by different medias whether it's music, movies, video games, internet, or what have you, I start to worry. When I see students less physically and emotionally upset when news breaks of another school shooting, I start to worry. When I realize that most of the school shootings have occurred in non-inner city schools, I start to worry. When I have a student or students in my class that verbally, out loud, express how they want to kill people, other students, or staff, I start to worry. When I think about the fact that most schools in this country have absolutely no way to defend themselves against an attack, (and that in my case, law enforcement is 20 miles away) I really, really, really, worry. With all that said, I'm no longer opposed to a few (read select) well trained staff having weapons available to them within the school. In fact, it flat out pisses me off that some people think it's perfectly fine to put my life, the students, and everyone I work with lives in an absolutely helpless-defenseless situation. You come into my home, uninvited and try to harm me or my family, you will be shot. Simple as that. Show up at my work and you are home free until "when or if" law enforcement catches up with you. Great message we are sending those that intend to harm others.

[Thumper]

BUT ... if they hadn't had to wait for security, the perp may have been dropped after his FIRST shot ... (or BEFORE!)

I know, I know ... just trying to make another point or two toward obtaining my official S.D. badge. :D

[Big Skyz]

I asked you a simple question would my chances still be zero? Hypothetical or not in regards to the situation I described, my REALITY, thanks to you and your kind, is that I currently have ZERO defense or recourse.

[BarryBobPosthole]

For a moment I'm going to not direct my comments towards BBP on this. Here is what has happened to me in a quarter century of teaching. For years I have been strongly opposed to weapons in the hands of school staff. However, as I see more and more of my students coming from unstable homes, with little, to no structure I start to worry. As I see students become more and more desensitized to violence by different medias whether it's music, movies, video games, internet, or what have you, I start to worry. When I see students less physically and emotionally upset when news breaks of another school shooting, I start to worry. When I realize that most of the school shootings have occurred in non-inner city schools, I start to worry. When I have a student or students in my class that verbally, out loud, express how they want to kill people, other students, or staff, I start to worry. When I think about the fact that most schools in this country have absolutely no way to defend themselves against an attack, (and that in my case, law enforcement is 20 miles away) I really, really, really, worry. With all that said, I'm no longer opposed to a few (read select) well trained staff having weapons available to them within the school. In fact, it flat out pisses me off that some people think it's perfectly fine to put my life, the students, and everyone I work with lives in an absolutely helpless-defenseless situation. You come into my home, uninvited and try to harm me or my family, you will be shot. Simple as that. Show up at my work and you are home free until "when or if" law enforcement catches up with you. Great message we are sending those that intend to harm others.

Well said, and I'm sorry to say this and pop a big bubble, but we are saying the same thing. I believe our public schools need security and whether that is through hiring private security or by having trained security volunteers, which is what that church lady Larke mentioned was, on the staff. What I am opposed to is the parents of those deranged kids being able to come into our public schools carrying openly or concealed or in any fashion. Except for the people who we know are trained to provide security, what's wrong with making it a gun free zone for everyone else? That seems to be like farting loudly in a quiet church, but that's where I am on it. And from reading your post, I think that's where you are too Troy.

and Thumper, bite me.

BKB

[Big Skyz]

Bwana no disrespect this isn't theology and religion, this is life and death. Definitely a hot button with me. My personal life, my students, and my own children are at risk every single day because even the most unintelligent dipwad in this nation can figure out that most schools are 100% defenseless.

[Thumper]

Sheeesh P-hole .. I was kinda-sorta agreeing with you ... ummm ... kinda .... sorta. ;)

[Big Skyz]

BBP after your last post we are more on the same page. The reason that I get so worked up is that the current system of weapons free zones has caused more harm than it has prevented. There has been as many school shootings in the last 3 years as in the previous 20. This is a fact not a theory. It is extremely disturbing and made even worse by the fact there is nothing in place to reverse the trend.

[BarryBobPosthole]

My first wife went to school in inner city Tulsa and I went to school in a small town farming community. She was used to the idea of armed police officers in the hallways of her school because she was there when the race riots were going on. To me, the idea of armed police in the hallways of a school were so foreign that I just never would have dreamed it. Hell, I grew up in Mayberry. We went to school with the black kids already. We didn't know what a race riot was. I only tell that story to just show that security in schools isn't something that is new. We had kids in danger in the 60's and 70's and we dealt with it by providing more professional security for our kids. Not by arming every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walks in or out of the place.

And to reverse the trend we need to figure out what we even CAN work on. This school security stuff is the symptom. The problem is those homes that those troubled kids you were talking about live at. That's where that behavior comes from. Until we learn to value the right things, we could all have bodyguards and we still wouldn't/won't be safe. That's what we should be arguing about, not friggin guns.

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

I've stayed out of this for the most part as I'm aggravated enough by douche-baggery at work today and don't need it from my virtual water cooler. But, my issue is the Federal government deciding a one-size fits all answer on this issue is appropriate. Clearly, what's appropriate in Big Sky's district is different from what's appropriate in an inner city and localities are perfectly able to figure this out on their own. Interestingly enough, the I looked up the history of the law and it was originally introduced by Joe Biden (of the fire a warning shot into the night fame) and signed into law by none other than...





Wait for it....











George Bush the Elder. Go figure.

[Buckrub]

That's where that behavior comes from. Until we learn to value the right things, we could all have bodyguards and we still wouldn't/won't be safe. That's what we should be arguing about, not friggin guns.

More pie in the sky Pollyanaisms.

Yes, we WILL be much safer with more bodyguards. Good gosh, man........are you that dense? Or just being obtuse?

Do you honestly, seriously, really think that the answer to TODAY and TOMORROW's safety in school issue for Troy and mine and your grandkids is to fix the troubled-home problem in America? And we ain't gonna argue about that, cause we all agree on that!! No arguments! It is indeed the guns that we NEED to argue about.

You protect yourself and your grandkids with words. Good luck, Mr. Ideology.

Sorry, but when kids are involved, I get hot.

[BarryBobPosthole]

By my count you are now:

a: sick
b: mad

And CD, you KNOW that neither of the Bushes were 'true' Republicans. Haven't you figured that out by now? It was the liberals that screwed it up man!

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

Don't get me started on folks questioning other people's "republicanism". Half the folks on the web would call Ronald Reagan, the Father of modern Republicanism, a RINO if he were still alive today.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Heck I know! He even gave amnesty to a bunch of Mexican illegals too! And did it without the congress damn him!

BKB

[Buckrub]

Yeah, he shoulda been more Republican, like JFK!!!

[BarryBobPosthole]

Ike was my favorite RINO Republican in modern history. Grew government and social programs out the wazoo and gave us Richard Nixon!

What a gift he had.

In fact, what Republican president have we ever had that shrank the size of government and reduced our deficits? Can you tell me who that might have been?
BKB

[Buckrub]

No President is capable of shrinking Government. And all fiduciary matters must originate in the House, not the Executive Branch.

So, it's a trick question. Answer is "nobody".

[BarryBobPosthole]

Well, the Democratic presidents have been the smallest spenders by a LONG shot since Eisenhower.

BKB

[Buckrub]

As I said, NONE of them are capable of spending a dime...........or saving a dime. It ain't their job.

And yeah, Jimmy was great at not creating the Dept of Energy and spending and having 17% inflation. A great guy!

P.S.
I never rank Presidents by the economy that existed when they were in office.......or by any monetary means. Right is right, no matter what it costs. And wrong is wrong, even if it's free.

[BarryBobPosthole]

You never accept any facts other than your own. Here's some actual facts on spending by president. Of course, none of them are to blame unless they are Democrats of course. But just so we know who the creators of 'you and your Government' are.
BKB

4002

[Buckrub]

That's unfair.

My statement is accurate. No President can spend a dime. They can PROPOSE, but not spend until appropriated. That was my point.

You don't remember, but I hammered 43 incessantly for spending too much and having too many 'programs'. Clinton was a passive recipient of a blowup technological economy, IMHO.

They all PROPOSE too much spending.....Democrats on wasteful social programs, and Republicans on wasteful wars.

Nonetheless, I'd challenge any chart that has Obama making money rather than spending it.

[Captain]

As usual, when common sense is pressed the spin is spun and move away from the subject.

To Everything, turn, turn, turn
There is a season, turn, turn. turn.....

[Buckrub]

And since you seem to love 'facts' but only when they make sense to you, here's a valid explanation of your 'facts'......but of course you'll pooh-pooh them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/05/24/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-which-president-is-the-biggest-spender-of-all/

[Buckrub]

It's ok, Cappy. I'll take on any and all subjects. I'm a multi-tasking uber-Conservative nutbag.

[BarryBobPosthole]

That's no valid explanation for anything. Are you kidding? Let's remove outlays from Defense from the calculations? As if defense spending is totally out of control of a president. Those are facts. Thats a bunch of massaged data put forth by a libertarian who makes his living appearing on TV. At least I presented data that was put forth by a real economist.

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

Dang, you're a uber-conservative nutbag? There we go agreeing again.

[BarryBobPosthole]

By my count you are now:

a: sick
b: mad

And CD, you KNOW that neither of the Bushes were 'true' Republicans. Haven't you figured that out by now? It was the liberals that screwed it up man!

BKB

Should I add 'chagrined' yet?

BKB

[Buckrub]

Yes I am.

And you did exactly as I predicted. Thanks. Makes me a correct type of uber-conservative nutbag.

And sure, add that......I enjoy being called names.

I must.

[Big Skyz]

Chicken Dinner sometimes you crack me up. :D

[BarryBobPosthole]

You're probably on a list somewhere too.

Enjoy your audit, Teabagger.
BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

Any time, Troy. Any time. usa2