More school shootings (but now's not the time to talk about it)

[rocket surgeon]

willie sutton jr. said, you know why we shoot up schools do ya?  it's because there ain't NO guns there...low hangin fruit baby. 

if they had armed guards-sorry it had to get to this, and metal detectors for that matter, people may, and i said may think twice before bringing daddy's side by side to school with them

[Pakuni]

willie sutton jr. said, you know why we shoot up schools do ya?  it's because there ain't NO guns there...low hangin fruit baby. 

if they had armed guards-sorry it had to get to this, and metal detectors for that matter, people may, and i said may think twice before bringing daddy's side by side to school with them

We've also seen mass shootings on military bases, concerts with armed security, nightclubs with armed security, schools with armed security, etc.
A study last year looked at 111 mass shootings since 1966 in which six or more people were killed. Of those 111, only 18 took place in locations where guns were specifically banned or restricted. So the argument that the potential presence of an armed civilian or guard acts as a deterrence is absolute nonsense.

[tower912]

Shhhh.    Don't let the facts get in the way of the narrative.   

[MU82]

We've also seen mass shootings on military bases, concerts with armed security, nightclubs with armed security, schools with armed security, etc.
A study last year looked at 111 mass shootings since 1966 in which six or more people were killed. Of those 111, only 18 took place in locations where guns were specifically banned or restricted. So the argument that the potential presence of an armed civilian or guard acts as a deterrence is absolute nonsense.

This is so idiotic.

Everybody knows the only solution is to hand each kid a Glock at the start of every school day and then collect it at day's end. Duh.

[Golden Avalanche]

willie sutton jr. said, you know why we shoot up schools do ya?  it's because there ain't NO guns there...low hangin fruit baby. 

if they had armed guards-sorry it had to get to this, and metal detectors for that matter, people may, and i said may think twice before bringing daddy's side by side to school with them

You are an extremely stupid individual.

[rocket surgeon]

You are an extremely stupid individual.

and you're a jack wagon-take a hike

pak-man, the only people who are allowed to carry guns on military bases are military police.  you knew that, right?  all of these mp's cannot be armed while off duty and their guns are returned to the armory when their shifts are over

[Pakuni]

and you're a jack wagon-take a hike

pak-man, the only people who are allowed to carry guns on military bases are military police.  you knew that, right?  all of these mp's cannot be armed while off duty and their guns are returned to the armory when their shifts are over

So, what you're saying is that the presence of an armed military-trained police force failed to deter a mass shooting.
Glad we could come to an agreement on this issue.

FWIW, you're wrong on who's allowed to carry weapons on military bases. But since this is a relatively new change, I'll cut you some slack.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/21/dod-releases-plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html

[TSmith34, Inc.]

pak-man, the only people who are allowed to carry guns on military bases are military police.  you knew that, right?  all of these mp's cannot be armed while off duty and their guns are returned to the armory when their shifts are over

Pakuni shows you statistics that disprove your point and you...dig in further, ignoring the evidence.

This is way I stopped debating with right wingers-- facts simply don't matter to them.

[MU82]

Pakuni shows you statistics that disprove your point and you...dig in further, ignoring the evidence.

This is way I stopped debating with right wingers-- facts simply don't matter to them.

Well, that's not fair. Many of them fully embrace alternative facts.

[rocket surgeon]

So, what you're saying is that the presence of an armed military-trained police force failed to deter a mass shooting.
Glad we could come to an agreement on this issue.

FWIW, you're wrong on who's allowed to carry weapons on military bases. But since this is a relatively new change, I'll cut you some slack.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/21/dod-releases-plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html

Thank you for this- noting the military base mass shootings were all prior to this directive.  Not doing happy dance as this could prove to be a bigger deterrent but crazies are still, well, crazy. This could save some lives. 

[rocket surgeon]

Pakuni shows you statistics that disprove your point and you...dig in further, ignoring the evidence.

This is way I stopped debating with right wingers-- facts simply don't matter to them.

You did notice that park merely pointed out the recent directive that was not in affect when the mass shootings occurred, right?  And I appreciated that bit of information

Yes, facts do matter, you can stop with the projection.  When pointed out to me, THE FACTS, I will always take them under consideration. Depends if my stance is an opinion or fact-based argument.  That what is nice about a MESSAGE BOARD such as scoop(get that sully?) I'm not so closed minded that I cannot stand to be corrected

[forgetful]

Thank you for this- noting the military base mass shootings were all prior to this directive.  Not doing happy dance as this could prove to be a bigger deterrent but crazies are still, well, crazy. This could save some lives.

Columbine had armed security.  The Pulse night club had armed security.  Mandalay Bay had armed security. 

Being a no-gun zone has zero bearing on where shooters target.  They target places where they can best achieve their goals, e.g. workplaces, schools, offices that are the source of their anger, or gay nightclubs if they are antigay, or police stations if they are anti-police, or movie places/concerts where everyone is sitting and lined up like fish in a barrel if they want to maximize casualties. 

If there are armed security, they plan to take them out first or position themselves opposite the security. 

Others being armed is only a deterrent if the people have any intention of getting out alive, and even then they can plan around security.  Most mass shootings involve people intent on also dying. 

Also, opinions also have to be fact-based arguments.  If your opinions are not based on facts or run contrary to fact, then they are either useless or wrong respectively. 

That is a problem these days, people think opinions can't be controverted by facts. 

[Pakuni]

Columbine had armed security.  The Pulse night club had armed security.  Mandalay Bay had armed security. 

Being a no-gun zone has zero bearing on where shooters target.  They target places where they can best achieve their goals, e.g. workplaces, schools, offices that are the source of their anger, or gay nightclubs if they are antigay, or police stations if they are anti-police, or movie places/concerts where everyone is sitting and lined up like fish in a barrel if they want to maximize casualties. 

If there are armed security, they plan to take them out first or position themselves opposite the security. 

Others being armed is only a deterrent if the people have any intention of getting out alive, and even then they can plan around security.  Most mass shootings involve people intent on also dying. 

Also, opinions also have to be fact-based arguments.  If your opinions are not based on facts or run contrary to fact, then they are either useless or wrong respectively. 

That is a problem these days, people think opinions can't be controverted by facts.

Or, they don't care if there's armed security because they have no intention of surviving. That's why the deterrent thing is nonsense. The threat of being shot isn't a deterrent for someone who intends (and often wants) to die.

[MU82]

Or, they don't care if there's armed security because they have no intention of surviving. That's why the deterrent thing is nonsense. The threat of being shot isn't a deterrent for someone who intends (and often wants) to die.

Correct.

Of course, additional gun laws probably wouldn't stop that person, either. That's the kind of thing the FNRA argues.

What laws reducing the number and availability of guns that can fire off a bazillion rounds a minute MIGHT do is reduce the number of deaths and injuries when these maniacs start firing.

For some reason, though, the all-life-is-precious people don't see it this way. They'd rather have MORE people armed with MORE guns. Which makes sense, given that they lobby in part for the gun manufacturers.

Hell, we're all just wasting our time here anyway. Months ago, even the FNRA backed making "bump stocks" illegal. Congress has been too busy giving out trillions to finance tax cuts for billionaires and extra weapons for the Pentagon, and The Very Stable Genius is too wrapped up in planning his taxpayer-funded military parade and defending wife-beaters.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

You did notice that park merely pointed out the recent directive that was not in affect when the mass shootings occurred, right?  And I appreciated that bit of information

Yes, facts do matter, you can stop with the projection.  When pointed out to me, THE FACTS, I will always take them under consideration. Depends if my stance is an opinion or fact-based argument.  That what is nice about a MESSAGE BOARD such as scoop(get that sully?) I'm not so closed minded that I cannot stand to be corrected

No, the statistics he quoted were not about military bases-- they were locations with armed security.  You ignored this and attempted to blow the entire thing off because of the timing of a particular rule on military bases.

You ignored the facts because they didn't fit your narrative.

[forgetful]

Or, they don't care if there's armed security because they have no intention of surviving. That's why the deterrent thing is nonsense. The threat of being shot isn't a deterrent for someone who intends (and often wants) to die.

Agree 100%.  See line after the bolded  .

[Benny B]

NM.... confused FNRA with FINRA.  Thought someone might have shot up the SEC over the weekend.

[MU82]

NM.... confused FNRA with FINRA.  Thought someone might have shot up the SEC over the weekend.

Certainly could have happened. Probably with guns fitted with bump stocks.

As you obviously know, the F is the same as Jimmy's middle initial. (Sorry Jimmy.)

[MU82]

ANNNNNND ... another one.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html

Right now, it doesn't appear anybody is dead, thankfully.

Making America great again, one mass shooting at a time.

More thoughts, more prayers.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

More guns needed.  If all the kids had been armed with M134's this never would have happened.

[GGGG]

ANNNNNND ... another one.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html

Right now, it doesn't appear anybody is dead, thankfully.

PROGRESS!!!

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Multiple deaths. Burn the second amendment.

[GooooMarquette]

Nobody would have died if everyone in the building was packing heat. They would have pulled out their guns, and the only person to be killed or wounded would be the perp...because that's just how guns would work if we didn't have any of those inconvenient rules.

[tower912]

Just another example of a European educational model that won't work here.   Absence of mass shootings in schools.

[Pakuni]

I just hope the shooter isn't an illegal immigrant. Imagine how much worse it would be for the victims' families then.