theclemsonkid
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/394081/when-you-say-youre-afraid-of-the-government-who-exactly-are-you-afraid-of/40#post_3508080
BTW, if that's not true about liberals wanting unarmed victims, why did the liberal's Lord and Savior(thanks Jamie Foxx for validating what I've said from day 1) say, "More guns in schools isn't the answer"? That right there is saying, "We should have unarmed victims in every school". There is no other way to interpret that
Look, if you want to take the LaPierre approach and think that an armed guard in every school in America is the answer, then you are by all means entitled to that opinion. Myself, on the other hand, think that is going to cause a lot more harm than good more than likely. The only way I would get behind that, is if they put a biometric thumb scanned safe in the school, to where the ONLY person who could get into it was the person trained to do so. And in theory, even if that were the case, I want to use a line that the pro-gun crowd LOVES to use.
"If someone wants to kill people, they will find a way".
So, you feel that if a kid like Adam Lanza has made the decision that he is going to kill scores of children and adults, that he would somehow be scared off by an armed guard? If that kid shoots his way into a school, with his AR-15 blazing, what is that armed guard going to do? More than likely just be another body to count at the end of the day. And probably a secondary source for the shooter to pick up another weapon and rounds. Also, if he knows there is an armed guard, and he REALLY wants to kill. He will find another way. That might be a bomb, he might wait till before/after school, he might shoot up a bus. The possibilities are endless. That's problem one.
Problem two, is what's going to stop the armed guard and/or carrying teacher from using the gun for something bad? It's proven fact that a gun is more than likely to be used for homicide, suicide, or an accidental shooting than it ever will be to fend off a school shooter. At that point, you have to decide, is a few dead guards at their own hand, and a handful of injuries or deaths worth the trade off for "safety"?
Lastly, the costs would be unattainable for most school districts. How in the world do you pay for a new armed guard position, when most districts now are laying off teachers, and forcing kids to pay out of pocket to play sports. It makes no fiscal sense.
And by the way, you way you frame things is assanine. "We should have unarmed victims in every school". Saying that is a slap in the face to 26 people who died in Newtown, and countless others who have been gunned down over the years. For to you even suggest that liberals actively want to put people in harms way shows how out of touch with reality you really are...
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/394081/when-you-say-youre-afraid-of-the-government-who-exactly-are-you-afraid-of/40#post_3508080
BTW, if that's not true about liberals wanting unarmed victims, why did the liberal's Lord and Savior(thanks Jamie Foxx for validating what I've said from day 1) say, "More guns in schools isn't the answer"? That right there is saying, "We should have unarmed victims in every school". There is no other way to interpret that
Look, if you want to take the LaPierre approach and think that an armed guard in every school in America is the answer, then you are by all means entitled to that opinion. Myself, on the other hand, think that is going to cause a lot more harm than good more than likely. The only way I would get behind that, is if they put a biometric thumb scanned safe in the school, to where the ONLY person who could get into it was the person trained to do so. And in theory, even if that were the case, I want to use a line that the pro-gun crowd LOVES to use.
"If someone wants to kill people, they will find a way".
So, you feel that if a kid like Adam Lanza has made the decision that he is going to kill scores of children and adults, that he would somehow be scared off by an armed guard? If that kid shoots his way into a school, with his AR-15 blazing, what is that armed guard going to do? More than likely just be another body to count at the end of the day. And probably a secondary source for the shooter to pick up another weapon and rounds. Also, if he knows there is an armed guard, and he REALLY wants to kill. He will find another way. That might be a bomb, he might wait till before/after school, he might shoot up a bus. The possibilities are endless. That's problem one.
Problem two, is what's going to stop the armed guard and/or carrying teacher from using the gun for something bad? It's proven fact that a gun is more than likely to be used for homicide, suicide, or an accidental shooting than it ever will be to fend off a school shooter. At that point, you have to decide, is a few dead guards at their own hand, and a handful of injuries or deaths worth the trade off for "safety"?
Lastly, the costs would be unattainable for most school districts. How in the world do you pay for a new armed guard position, when most districts now are laying off teachers, and forcing kids to pay out of pocket to play sports. It makes no fiscal sense.
And by the way, you way you frame things is assanine. "We should have unarmed victims in every school". Saying that is a slap in the face to 26 people who died in Newtown, and countless others who have been gunned down over the years. For to you even suggest that liberals actively want to put people in harms way shows how out of touch with reality you really are...
