Proof more guns in school stop violence!!!!

On behalf of the second amendment and our dear constitution...

School shooting- liberals.... red pill

The following incident happened at a high school only minutes from my home in East Tennessee. I am sure that no one outside of our immediate region has ever heard the story, because the only person who was shot-and killed-was the gunman. These types of stories don’t fit the narrative of those who want “gun-free zones” and so are ignored by the national media. In this case an armed Security Resource Officer, Carolyn Gudger, became a local hero and saved an unknown number of lives by holding the gunman at bay until backup arrived.

I wonder why this was not covered????

emerging power series...

Springing into action, Gudger moved Cowan into an empty hallway and distracted him for 13 minutes as the school’s principal, its students and faculty escaped to safety without any serious injuries.
The standoff ended when two other deputies joined Gudger in the hallway and shot and killed the gunman when he refused to drop his weapon and surrender.

Again it was not covered...why would the national media not support this woman...

someone asked for proof ... well here is more proof... more guns do protect children in school

The funny thing is she stalled the shooter for thirteen minutes... I guess someone armed slowed down the process


on a side note....
the school had a program in place for this type of incident....
The resource officer was part of the plan....

Strange proof: the problem here was a man with a GUN.

The solutions was a county deputy and the police. I guess nobody ever wanted to disarm the police?

So...

I see your point, but! Ok a shooting happened at a school, so lets say they put more guns there, but what if a shooting takes place at a church killing 17 people, would more guns go there? Maybe a hospital? More guns there to?
Where do you draw the line?

reply to post by svetlana84


Most I have read however, points to the fact of knee jerk reaction of Liberals to say... No more guns will not stop school violence...

This proof that a person with a gun in a school stopped the violence...

You see another underlining thread to this ...

Mental illness... vietnam vet probably with PTSD..
on this part I am with the Liberals... the treatment of the mental disorders when someone is in your care or present for treatment is another check in the system. defunding the programs that treat inmates, vets, and free clinics makes no damn sense..

The part I disagree with the Liberals with is guns in school. An armed deterrence is you best defense...

This case illustrates along with a few others already mentioned that the aforementioned armed deterrence is a deployable strategy.. I also agree that the funds are not there...Cut the pensions and pay of the school board members..

so the money is there and the deterrence is proven to work... Its just that certain parts to this argument feel that certain social programs are more important then the safety of american school students...

reply to post by Athink24


remove the false concept of a gun free zone... it spells target rich environment... allow the citizens to have their god given inalienable right to bear without restriction...

I think I must take exception to your labeling the Vietnam Veteran with PTSD as the problem; or your implication that it's the Vietnam Veterans with PTSD causing the problems here. You clearly need to rethink and review what PTSD is, how it is acquired, and how many ways outside of combat that it happens.

No, you may not paint the soldiers who fight for the USA as the dark primeval force behind the massacres. I have PTSD, many if not 90% or more of us veterans who saw combat; or other life altering events have it. Besides you are painting the wrong generation of soldiers as well, most Vietnam Vets are in their late 50's-60's, of which most are hardly in any kind of shape thanks to Agent Orange and other crap to even be a threat.

FYI, Here is a link to get you started on learning about PTSD: www.mayoclinic.com...=causes

If you want to address the lack of mental health care in general, fine, be my guest. But you have no right to paint any Veteran as the cause for this tragedy, if you need to figure out where to start fixing this problem, look in the mirror.



M.

reply to post by ripcontrol


I did only read the 2nd link you provided, so i did not get your reply.

Now i read the other link and can only add: that s exactly the kind of story that makes me think stronger gun regulations are needed.

In no other country would a viet vet with PTSD AND a history of problems with law enforcers be able to obtain 2 guns, at least one of them a semi automatic.

I assume you are pro guns, and anti regulation. If that's the point, you should bring better stories than loonies who want to go shot people in school.

I am for good regulations, i have no probs with serious, sane and trained people owning guns for sports, hunting or self defense in their own homes.
But i really have problems with whackos running around with semis in schools.

reply to post by Moshpet


time out a second...

maybe I could have worded that better, but do not get your shorts ruffled...

I am a Vet myself...

The post

Mental illness... vietnam vet probably with PTSD..
on this part I am with the Liberals... the treatment of the mental disorders when someone is in your care or present for treatment is another check in the system. defunding the programs that treat inmates, vets, and free clinics makes no damn sense..

Is open to interpretation I can see now looking at it..

The VA turns away and refuses to treat some vets with PTSD... then the states do not traet them for a variety of reasons... in essence they fall through the cracks

The article I did not remember seeing treatment or VA records.... Most Vietnam vets suffer needlessly because point blank no one seems to give a hoot..

was not wanting to also add this further.... but seeing as how it is attached by the evidence...

since society does not care as whole due to diminishing responsibility transferred to the herd and not the individual

We are left with a choice... do we leave our young undefended or do we enable the protectors....

reply to post by svetlana84


We have a regulation in place...

2nd amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I believe people have the right to defend themselves against threats to them...

I believe the regulation states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

Please point to the named exception in the Second amendment...

it does not say

Exceptions
a)gun free zone
b)school zone
c)Government building
d)state building
e)city hall

or am I missing a text somewhere...

reply to post by ripcontrol


This was a suicide by cop scenario...and the perp was an unstable elderly man who needed a cane to get around.

The better question would be why someone with a history of mental illness was allowed to own multiple guns?

www.snopes.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


great find with the most info on the story I have seen

Snopes...

Yall should star indigo5's post

good find....

So far we have one set of proof.. a school resource officer stopped shooter

Is there more proof...


Well someone mention public places in general...

Clackamas Mall Shooter was Confronted by Concealed Carrier

I found it here on ATS
details

Shooter was stopped by someone with a CWP---

You mean an armed man stopped a murder rampage...

jist of the story

Clackamas Mall Shooting

On December 11, 2012, a shooting occurred at the Clackamas Town Center near Happy Valley, Oregon, United States. The gunman, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts, ran into the shopping center wearing tactical clothing and a hockey mask and opened fire on shoppers and employees with a stolen Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, firing as many as 60 shots, killing two people and seriously wounding a third person before committing suicide. Roberts had no connection to any of his victims, and it was believed to be a random act of violence.[3][4]

Looks to me that more and more the issue is if the people are armed they can protect themselves from killers

Originally posted by ripcontrol

Looks to me that more and more the issue is if the people are armed they can protect themselves from killers

Not sure about this logic....Or for that matter the logic that the second amendment doesn't afford for regulation.

"Well regulated militia"...and "bear arms"...

We need to define "arms"...at the time it was Muskets...can we all agree that US citizens should not be able to buy Anti-Aircraft weaponry? RPGs?...so we can rationally acknowledge that the term "arms" should be qualified.

"Well regulated militia"...lots to debate here...just well trained? or well "regulated"...regulations?...and militia, a state organized defense force?...or anyone. I support the second amendment, but not the the NRA's policy of Zero regulation....and only allow any regulation after a fight.

As far as everyone armed being safer than the other? Hmmm. Not sure how to approach that one. If we take it to the extreme with a an emperiment of the imagination...if everyone on the planet had a button in thier pocket that when pressed would instantly kill someone they pointed at...would more or fewer people die per annum?

More Guns = More Gun Homicides, Statistically Speaking

In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship between those factors — areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general. But studies haven’t been able to show a causal relationship — that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun violence. It’s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal relationship.

As Sorenson explained, scientists can’t conduct a random experiment. So, instead, researchers are left with statistical models, which are “very fragile,”

factcheck.org...

I reccomend the whole article at the link above for an unbiased analysis of the claims and rhetoric, but be warned it doesn't offer hard proof for either side of the debate.

In the end the only certaintity I have is that the debate IS WORTH HAVING...whatever the outcome might be, and anyone who begins the discussion with "shut-up" and "hell no"..I disagree with...and frankly that seems to be the position of the NRA. I think they will get more of what they want if they engaged in a rational, sane and open manner in the debate. They need to build credibility at large beyond simply counting on the appeal to emotion amongst gun owners....and that involves informed, rational discussion aimed at the entire country...as opposed to "They are going to take your guns!!" "Tyranny!!"

reply to post by ripcontrol


And whilst Gun advocates like to cite the (relatively) rare occassions when someone with a gun prevents tragedy and saves lives...

Here is a quick google

In 2008 there were 680 accidental shooting deaths in the United States, with more than 15,500 shooting injuries. Most disturbing, perhaps, is the number of children involved in accidental shootings. Every day approximately five children are injured or killed on a nationwide basis as a result of handguns.

www.thesurvivorsclub.org...

So I think contrasting those numbers might be insightful.

reply to post by Indigo5


Good point with the accidents.

Now, let s see the suicides:

FACT:Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S. In 2009, the U.S. firearm suicide total was 18,735 an 11% increase from the 2006 national gun suicide number of 16,883.

More than half of all suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms. In 2009, 51% of all suicides in the U.S. were committed with guns.

FACT: Homes with guns are 5 times more likely to experience the suicide of a household member than homes without guns.

Source

Plus you want to have the international view on it:

But here's the difference between the rest of the world and us: We have two Auroras that take place every single day of every single year! At least 24 Americans every day (8-9,000 a year) are killed by people with guns – and that doesn't count the ones accidentally killed by guns or who commit suicide with a gun.
Count them and you can triple that number to over 25,000. That means the United States is responsible for over 80 percent of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. Considering that the people of those countries, as human beings, are no better or worse than any of us, well, then, why us?

Source: Guardian

SO, 24 people dead every day vs. 1 incident which was solved by a LEO (who wears a weapon because of the job, not because of the loose gun laws.)
And again in the incident, the guy causing the problem, was a person with a GUN. The GUN was the problem.

reply to post by Athink24

I see your point, but! Ok a shooting happened at a school, so lets say they put more guns there, but what if a shooting takes place at a church killing 17 people, would more guns go there? Maybe a hospital? More guns there to? Where do you draw the line?

When i go to church (weddings, funerals etc) I carry.
When I go to the hospital, I carry.

I carry anywhere I can legally carry. That is why I try to stay safe and away from criminals safe havens A.K.A gun free zones.

reply to post by ripcontrol


How about this for starters

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck. • A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun. • A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard. • A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter. • A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened. • A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns. • A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun. • At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

I guess good guys with guns really do stop bad guys with guns.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by ripcontrol

 

How about this for starters

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck. • A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun. • A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard. • A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter. • A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened. • A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns. • A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun. • At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

I guess good guys with guns really do stop bad guys with guns.

No offense...But can I assume you "forgot" to provide a link to that excerpt because it is from a rah-rah gun site?

A rambling list of anecdotal stories without links or details does not have credibility. Often Gun-Rights advocates trade these stories, either fictional or with an itty-bitty grain of truth, and they grow and grow to fit the agenda.

Facts...numbers...stats...reality...whatever side of the debate you are on, you deserve to be discredited if you are unwilling to begin with the premise of truth and reality.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by ripcontrol

 

A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

Picked on to google at random to illustrate my point of agendized BS and long rambling lists that make it unlikely anyone would take the time to research the veracity of the claims.

NOT two students...TWO COPS...It was a law school filled with cops...AND despite that...An UNARMED civilian ceased the killing (Two dead - three wounded) after the gunman willingly dropped his weapon and began acting crazy.

Before Odighizuwa saw Bridges and Gross with their weapons, Odighizuwa set down his gun and raised his arms like he was mocking people.[12] Besen, a former Marine and police officer in Wilmington, North Carolina, engaged in a physical confrontation with Odighizuwa, and knocked him to the ground. Bridges and Gross then arrived with their guns once Odighizuwa was tackled.[5] Additional witnesses at the scene stated they did not see Bridges or Gross with their guns at the time Besen started subduing Odighizuwa.[13] Once Odighizuwa was securely held down, Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to detain Odighizuwa until police could arrive.

en.wikipedia.org...

Agendized BS...I hate those rambling lists of lies that propagandists spout out. If you can't win on the facts...bury them in half truths and lies...preferrably too many for them to discredit alltogether.

So, what are you saying?? Put armed guards in *every* school in the nation?? How many do we need per school? 1, 2, 4, 10? Where do they need to be stationed? Every entrance/exit? Columbine had an armed guard, and that didn't work out too well. I fail to see your point here.