Where a Redneck Jew, a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
And right before my first cup of coffee.
I really do not know how to process this. Are they saying that teachers will stop school shootings but not a mall or a movie shooting? If so, what is the mental process behind? Are teachers allowed to carry in school only and not anywhere else?
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
Comments are closed.
Most places selected (like malls) are gun free. Allowing a teacher to carry in a school would be limited to the school and not other gun free zones.
+1 Shootings at Malls, Concerts, and Movie Theaters is even more rare than shootings at schools…..but when there ARE shootings at places like this, they have the SAME policy as schools for lawfully held guns.
By their definition, arming people won’t stop mass shootings at all. Picture this: mass shooter begins firing and hits one victim. Another victim trips while running away and sprains his ankle. An armed citizen shoots would be mass shooter and puts him down before he can shoot anyone else.
You have a shooting where there are three people injured (including the shooter). According to the left, any shooting with three or more victims (wounded, not killed) including the shooter is a mass shooting. You, as the armed citizen didn’t prevent shit.
On the flip side, if the shooter pulls out a gun and you shoot him before he kills anyone, there was only one victim. Not a mass shooting, so it doesn’t count. Except as a gun violence death.
No matter what, the armed citizen didn’t matter.
Liberal Logic 101: If a law won’t stop ALL instances of [insert illegal activity], then it’s useless to stop ANY instances of [insert illegal activity].
Hence, a bill that could stop or prevent mass killings in schools should be scrapped because it won’t stop or prevent mass killings in other places.
By that logic, the highway patrol should be prohibited from operating speed traps to stop/prevent/catch speeders on freeways, since that won’t stop/prevent/catch speeders on residential streets (where the highway patrol has little-to-no jurisdiction).
The answer, of course, is to write a bill ending “gun free zones” in ALL PLACES, and allow licensed (where required) adults to carry everywhere they go. (I’ll still accept prohibitions in “secure” locations — courthouses, prisons, etc. — where there is actual security keeping them secure.) By their own logic, they should line up to support it.
Read closely: If the Left’s argument is that allowing teachers to carry firearms in schools is worthless to prevent or stop mass killings in other places because they still can’t carry there, that’s a tacit admission that allowing teachers to carry firearms in schools is an effective measure at preventing or stopping mass killings in schools. It logically follows that allowing people to carry firearms in other places prevents or stops mass killings in those other places.
Hold them to that.
It’s “for the children”, after all. 🙂
I really dislike the term ‘arming teachers’. I think it gives the wrong impression. The goal is not to arm teachers but to allow teachers to arm themselves. I also believe that any ‘reasonable gun laws’ that are proposed should immediately be preceded by eliminating gun free zones. If we are going to be reasonable, it needs to be reason from both sides. Gun free zones are where mass shootings occur. Getting rid of gun free zones and allowing armed citizens to carry will go a long way to reducing mass shootings.