More guns is NOT the answer or solution.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

1. Murder is illegal.

2. Getting shot at goes with the job for police officers.

3. Bowers was licensed to carry.

4. Next.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Tis a fallen world rooky

Thought you should be told of this concept from the days of old

a reply to: underwerks

Why, yes, yes they did.

One was a coward. ...and what sort of training did the others have, I wonder? Do you know? I'm asking in all seriousness.

Just having a gun, doesn't quite do the job of making one, or others, safer. One must have the willingness to protect, and the training to do so, odd as it sounds, safely.

I legally carry. Would you like to know the very first things I did? I invested in training. Lots of training. Still do.

a reply to: seagull

'm certainly as reliable as an ATS agent,

ATS agent?

Holy smokes how to I apply?

a reply to: neo96

What are you implying??

You're right, more guns is NOT the answer. More legislation ain't the answer either.

As for the ludicrous notion that armed citizens would just shoot anything that moves... one of the more well known of many weapons safety rules is "know your target and what lies beyond it"....

A2D

Always remember: when every second counts, the police are mere minutes away...

You'll have to lobotomize the human race to completely remove hate.

And what is positive leadership?

Its certainly not coming from the left side of the aisle.

ETA:

But it also then can equate to more people being shot as the armed community attempts to respond to a active shooter or shooters frantically without having all the facts or intelligence on who the shooter or shooters are.

This is the typical flimsy argument made by someone without solutions but lots of virtue signaling.
This would be a long post indeed if I linked all the CCTV footage of people taking down suspects without harming anyone else.

ETA2: This off-duty cop seemed a little "frantic" when the guy walked up. I'm surprised nobody was harmed with how close she was. /s

Get rid of the gunz that leaves the bombz.

Their illegal and didn't stop it.

So the obvious solution is to ban people.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: underwerks

Nobody with any sense is saying an armed guard is 100% proof against injury, it just slants the odds.

Other factors, training, willingness to defend the innocent, quality of equipment (IE revolver vs semi auto vs full auto etc), body armor or not.


No armed response= shooter has all the time between first shot and police arrive to kill, there is at least a chance with an armed guard that you get a faster response to either stop or lessen the impact of the shooter.

I’m talking about armed guards as a deterrent. For sure they stop shootings from being worse than they could have been, but these shootings shouldn’t even be happening in the first place. With the proper resources going towards mental health programs I think a lot of these shootings could be stopped before they begin.

And if the shooter plans to die anyway, an armed guard isn’t exactly a deterrent. As almost every mass shooting has shown. I’m not against guns, I collect guns. I just believe that the real cause of all this is the alienation and lack of empathy that seems to be everywhere these days. Armed guards are just a band aid on a much larger problem.

The only thing that will stop a bad boy with a gun is a good boy with a gun.

a reply to: underwerks

Why aren't you applying that 'logic' to the mad fake bomber.

Sayoc political.

Bowers 'nutz'.

Blah.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: underwerks

Nobody with any sense is saying an armed guard is 100% proof against injury, it just slants the odds.

Other factors, training, willingness to defend the innocent, quality of equipment (IE revolver vs semi auto vs full auto etc), body armor or not.


No armed response= shooter has all the time between first shot and police arrive to kill, there is at least a chance with an armed guard that you get a faster response to either stop or lessen the impact of the shooter.

I’m talking about armed guards as a deterrent. For sure they stop shootings from being worse than they could have been, but these shootings shouldn’t even be happening in the first place. With the proper resources going towards mental health programs I think a lot of these shootings could be stopped before they begin.

And if the shooter plans to die anyway, an armed guard isn’t exactly a deterrent. As almost every mass shooting has shown. I’m not against guns, I collect guns. I just believe that the real cause of all this is the alienation and lack of empathy that seems to be everywhere these days. Armed guards are just a band aid on a much larger problem.

How about good mental health programs, and everyone allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment right?

a reply to: underwerks

I'd argue that armed guards are just as good as a preventative measure as mental healthcare would be.

How would you determine who is a risk to be an active shooter to get them preemptive mental healthcare?......... I'll wait for you to figure that one out.

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: underwerks

I'd argue that armed guards are just as good as a preventative measure as mental healthcare would be.

How would you determine who is a risk to be an active shooter to get them preemptive mental healthcare?......... I'll wait for you to figure that one out.

AND

I know some here would consider "gun-nut" to be a good starting point...

Maybe the OP was referring to thugs and the mentally unstable. Shucks...surely not us law abiding, trained, & schooled in our states laws.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: underwerks

I'd argue that armed guards are just as good as a preventative measure as mental healthcare would be.

How would you determine who is a risk to be an active shooter to get them preemptive mental healthcare?......... I'll wait for you to figure that one out.

A2D

Off hand, I have no idea. But it isn’t some impossible thing that can’t be figured out. Especially when peoples lives are on the line.

The other option is just more of the same. Which obviously isn’t working.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I bet I'd be a risk.

Combat marine corps veteran
PTSD
Owns and carries
Dislikes government
Has social media accounts
"Conspiracy theorist"
Single, no kids
WHITE MALE

A2D

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: underwerks

Nobody with any sense is saying an armed guard is 100% proof against injury, it just slants the odds.

Other factors, training, willingness to defend the innocent, quality of equipment (IE revolver vs semi auto vs full auto etc), body armor or not.


No armed response= shooter has all the time between first shot and police arrive to kill, there is at least a chance with an armed guard that you get a faster response to either stop or lessen the impact of the shooter.

I’m talking about armed guards as a deterrent. For sure they stop shootings from being worse than they could have been, but these shootings shouldn’t even be happening in the first place. With the proper resources going towards mental health programs I think a lot of these shootings could be stopped before they begin.

And if the shooter plans to die anyway, an armed guard isn’t exactly a deterrent. As almost every mass shooting has shown. I’m not against guns, I collect guns. I just believe that the real cause of all this is the alienation and lack of empathy that seems to be everywhere these days. Armed guards are just a band aid on a much larger problem.

How about good mental health programs, and everyone allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment right?

That’s completely fine. I don’t believe taking away guns will help anything when the real issue is the mental illness that causes people to do things like mass shootings. Take away all guns, then we’ll see people driving cars into crowds of people, or bombs, or setting places on fire.

The tool isn’t the problem, it’s the people who are using it. The real issues need to be addressed. Putting armed guards around places doesn’t solve anything. I mean, the Fort Hood shooting happened at Fort Hood. Even on a military base with guns everywhere mass shootings still happen.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: underwerks

I'd argue that armed guards are just as good as a preventative measure as mental healthcare would be.

How would you determine who is a risk to be an active shooter to get them preemptive mental healthcare?......... I'll wait for you to figure that one out.

A2D

Off hand, I have no idea. But it isn’t some impossible thing that can’t be figured out. Especially when peoples lives are on the line.

The other option is just more of the same. Which obviously isn’t working.

How would the system not be abused for political purposes?