Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: grrl
Your response is specious. People will know that some teachers have a concealed weapon, so how does that reality (and necessity) make it more like a school?
How does it make it less like a school? Unless, of course, you follow the inherently flawed doctrine of 'gun free zones are safe', and 'schools should be gun free zones'...in which case you are obviously incapable of thinking about it logically.
You're very good at assuming things, JLee. Yes, I'm not logical, because the answer is so obvious. :roll: Taken literally, those two doctrines are certainly true, but we don't live in such a simple world. What bothers me most about armed teachers is it adds another element of uncertainty. Yes, such a teacher could very well prevent a shooting, but what if that teacher is unstable, or as another poster suggested, their gun is seized by someone else? It's not an impossibility, just because the weapon is concealed, doesn't mean it will forever be a secret.
I've carried on school property/in school. They were none the wiser. Would you panic if you knew how many people were carrying concealed firearms all around you, in your ordinary everyday life? Why doesn't that knowledge make it 'less like a movie theater', 'less like a restaurant', 'less like a grocery store', etc?
I wouldn't panic, in fact, from some recent threads here I've gotten a better idea of how common it is. That doesn't bother me. Your other question though is harder to answer. All I can say is having guns makes it less like other public places because there is on reason schools shouldn't be obviously safe places. You can't control what happens in the general public, but can better control things in the microcosm of a school. That IS an expectation of many, but maybe I'm old-fashioned for thinking that way.
Originally posted by: grrl
You are assuming that Librescu would be armed, which would be a matter of choice for him. If he had had the option and declined, then nothing would have been different at Virginia Tech.
If he had had the option and accepted, then something may have been different. However, due to people with your mindset, we'll never know- and people still died.
Yes, assume you know my mindset and place blame on me, because we all KNOW that had Librescu been armed he would have downed Choi, one shot dead center to the forehead. Considering how random the VTech shooting was, for your theory to work in practice many, many people would have to be armed, many more than currently are. However, arguing the pros and cons of carrying guns is always circular. It's not as simple as 'when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns' or unproven claims that criminals will think twice if they believe their victim is armed. If that was true, the death penalty would be a deterent, which it is not.
Originally posted by: grrl
Why do you equate handgun training with training for a life/death situation? Does that really include the necessary elements of police training?
Think about it,
grrl. Dozens of police officers are killed every year by people without your "necessary elements of police training."
Don't underestimate the capability of a legally armed citizen.
That argument could go either way, if so many officers are being killed, how are half-trained civilians better equipped?
Originally posted by: grrl
Yes, I'm saying license to carry a concealed weapon does not guarantee the ability to effectively employ the weapon.
Perhaps not- but your chances are a hell of a lot better than having
nothing.
Edit: You don't even live here. Why don't you give that a shot first before you tell us how we should run things?
