Author Topic: another campus shooting this week? (Read 4620 times)

croduh · « **Reply #225 on:** February 17, 2008, 09:05:07 AM »

See Rule #7

lazs2 · « **Reply #226 on:** February 17, 2008, 09:40:51 AM »

elfie.. I don't have the list of crimes the CCW holders committed but I did give the numbers. It is like 0.02% of em lose their permit. No shooting by one was ever murder. this is pretty favorable even compared to cops.. much better than security guards. Only one shooting over a traffic incident and that was deemed self defense..

I have read that most violations were for carry in the wrong place.. either by mistake or... not. I am not sure there is a list of crimes but...

Common sense tells us that with the dozens of powerful and rabid anti gun groups who hate ccw and have unlimited access to the press... that if there were any serious violations or.. a rash of them.. it would be headline news and a subject of every oprah and 60 minutes and 20 20.

Let's look at fad crime.. skyjacking.. one guy did it then they all did.. todays nazi like indignities did not stop the rash of skyjaking.. praying for them to stop didn't do it. stricter gun control at airports didn't even slow it down.

Sky marshals with concealed guns stopped it.. not 50% of the passengers with guns.. not even 10%.. sometimes not even one. They weren't on every flight but the bad guys didn't know that. It stopped.

Now take school and mall and "gun free zones" shootings. It is a fad crime to a great extent just like skyjacking.. bad guys are not bright.

We simply went the wrong direction.. stricter gun control worked/works at schools about like it did for the skyjacking... diddly.

We skipped concealed carry/sky marshal for schools tho and went right to nazi "papers please" and "step out of the line" crap. That is not working cause not every school can do that.

CCW holders allowed to carry at school would be the sky marshal program. sometimes you would have one out of 50... sometimes none at all.. no one, including the bad guy would know the number tho.

and... even if he took a chance.. CCW at the VERY LEAST slow down the spree and make the shooter lose time and concentration.

Sooo... good points...

Many school shooters would simply be deterred... they would not want to face the possibility of an armed sheeple and the humiliating death at the hands of one.

The remaining dedicated nut jobs would be paranoid and have a fight.. they could not concentrate as well.. the death toll would be less the sheeple would have more time to gather the herd and flee.

bad points? none really..

the possibility of stray bullets? as oppossed to aimed ones at close range?

the possibility that some schools would be targeted because it was percieved they didn't have anyone willing to act like a moral human and carry... day care for instance.

I will ask you all.. would you feel better sending your kids to a school where a teacher or two had CCW's or not? I know I would. I worry that my grand daughter is at a school where no one can protect her.

lazs

Brownshirt · « **Reply #227 on:** February 17, 2008, 10:42:53 AM »

I think armed guards with full autos should be installed in the class rooms; that'd take care of this problem.

lazs2 · « **Reply #228 on:** February 17, 2008, 12:17:17 PM »

yes.. I imagine you do "think" that.. if it can be called "think" by any stretch of the imagination.

What I "think" is that you lack the ability to do so in any recognized way.

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #229 on:** February 17, 2008, 12:24:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Brownshirt
I think armed guards with full autos should be installed in the class rooms; that'd take care of this problem.

You'd need an army then

And hope that the armed guard isn't some nut.

Anyway, I did read that this was the 6th class shooting that week.

lazs2 · « **Reply #230 on:** February 17, 2008, 12:27:27 PM »

You guys do what you want... I will avoid "gun free zones" as much as possible.

I will really be ticked tho if my grand daughter is a victim of this idiotic gun free zone BS.

lazs

Elfie · « **Reply #231 on:** February 17, 2008, 01:40:43 PM »

Quote

Let's look at fad crime.. skyjacking.. one guy did it then they all did.. todays nazi like indignities did not stop the rash of skyjaking.. praying for them to stop didn't do it. stricter gun control at airports didn't even slow it down.

Sky marshals with concealed guns stopped it.. not 50% of the passengers with guns.. not even 10%.. sometimes not even one. They weren't on every flight but the bad guys didn't know that. It stopped.

That just might be the most convincing argument for dropping the gun free zone tag on our schools and allowing CCW.

Quote

Common sense tells us that with the dozens of powerful and rabid anti gun groups who hate ccw and have unlimited access to the press... that if there were any serious violations or.. a rash of them.. it would be headline news and a subject of every oprah and 60 minutes and 20 20.

So true. If a CCW holder committed a serious crime the anti gun folks would be all over it like stink on pewp.

trax1 · « **Reply #232 on:** February 18, 2008, 03:27:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Let's look at fad crime.. skyjacking.. one guy did it then they all did.. todays nazi like indignities did not stop the rash of skyjaking.. praying for them to stop didn't do it. stricter gun control at airports didn't even slow it down.

Sky marshals with concealed guns stopped it.. not 50% of the passengers with guns.. not even 10%.. sometimes not even one. They weren't on every flight but the bad guys didn't know that. It stopped.

That just might be the most convincing argument for dropping the gun free zone tag on our schools and allowing CCW.

I'm sorry but I don't think it is, comparing a skyjacker to a school shooter doesn't add up. A skyjacker is committing his crime for a monetary gain, a school shooter does not. A skyjacker is going into his crime knowing theres a chance of him dying and thats a big reason for them to rethink doing it. A school shooter is going into his crime knowing theres a really good chance that he's not going to survive his crime by either his own hand or by the hand of law enforcement. For the school shooter dying is something he's willing to do in order to carry out his crime, a skyjacker is doing it to make money, not to die. The risk of dying for a skyjacker is to great now for him to want to commit that crime, the risk of dying to a school shooter is something he is willing to do to carry out his crime.

Elfie · « **Reply #233 on:** February 18, 2008, 03:56:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by trax1
I'm sorry but I don't think it is, comparing a skyjacker to a school shooter doesn't add up. A skyjacker is committing his crime for a monetary gain, a school shooter does not. A skyjacker is going into his crime knowing theres a chance of him dying and thats a big reason for them to rethink doing it. A school shooter is going into his crime knowing theres a really good chance that he's not going to survive his crime by either his own hand or by the hand of law enforcement. For the school shooter dying is something he's willing to do in order to carry out his crime, a skyjacker is doing it to make money, not to die. The risk of dying for a skyjacker is to great now for him to want to commit that crime, the risk of dying to a school shooter is something he is willing to do to carry out his crime.

Ahem......9/11? There was no monetary gain there. Quite a few hijackings are/were done by Arab extremists trying to make some sort of political statement.

How many hijackings of American airliners have there been since Sky Marshals have been flying armed? Not one. Even though every flight doesn't have a Sky Marshal just the possibility of one being there has, so far, deterred hijackings of American airliners. Deterrence does work.

trax1 · « **Reply #234 on:** February 18, 2008, 04:04:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Ahem......9/11? There was no monetary gain there. Quite a few hijackings are/were done by Arab extremists trying to make some sort of political statement.

How many hijackings of American airliners have there been since Sky Marshals have been flying armed? Not one. Even though every flight doesn't have a Sky Marshal just the possibility of one being there has, so far, deterred hijackings of American airliners. Deterrence does work.

You really think thats it the sky marshals that have prevented the terrorist from trying it again, and only the sky marshals? I think it's more likely all the increased security to get on a plane, and the fact that they know no one on the plane would just sit by while anyone tried to hijack the plane.

And just so you know sky marshals have been on US airliners since before 9/11, so obviously it wasn't a detourant for them.

Elfie · « **Reply #235 on:** February 18, 2008, 04:55:11 PM »

Yes, Sky Marshals have been on US airliners since the late 60's or so. Since 9/11 the rate at which Sky Marshals fly on US airliners has been beefed up and highly publicized. I don't think many realized that US airliners had a chance to have a Sky Marshal on them prior to 9/11, it just wasn't publicized very well.

The increased security at airports still hasn't stopped things from being smuggled onto airliners. I don't recall the exact incidents or what items made it on board but I do recall that several of those incidents were discussed here in the O'Club.

Only 1 of the 4 hijacked airliners on 9/11 saw the passengers rise up against the hijackers, not a very good percentage. Most folks aren't going to do that anyways. Very commendable actions on the part of the passengers on the fourth airliner however.

Armed people can and do make a difference, not every time mind you, but they do make a difference whether you want to believe it or not.

trax1 · « **Reply #236 on:** February 18, 2008, 05:03:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie

Only 1 of the 4 hijacked airliners on 9/11 saw the passengers rise up against the hijackers, not a very good percentage. Most folks aren't going to do that anyways. Very commendable actions on the part of the passengers on the fourth airliner however.

You wanna know why that was, because before 9/11 when a plane was hijacked they didn't go flying the plane into buildings killing everyone, they reason the people on flight 93 did something to stop it was because they talked to family members on the phone who told them that the planes were being flown into buildings, so they knew if they did the usually during the hijacking by sitting there and waiting for it to be ended that they were all going to die. They had to stop it and couldn't do the norm for a hijacking by doing nothing. Now today if Muslim terrorist tried to hijack a plane do you honestly think that the people on the plane would do nothing? Ofcourse not, they would do what the passengers of flight 93 did and do whatever it took to regain control of the plane, and the terrorist know this, and thats why you will never see terrorist try to hijack another US airliner, not because they have more sky marshals, because they know that Americans will never just sit by and watch the plane be hijacked, they will do whatever it takes to end it, and I think that terrorist were well aware that sky marshals flew on some US airliners before 9/11.

Think about it, if you were on a airliner today, and Muslims tried to hijack it would you sit by and do nothing?

Elfie · « **Reply #237 on:** February 18, 2008, 08:12:43 PM »

Quote

Ofcourse not, they would do what the passengers of flight 93 did and do whatever it took to regain control of the plane, and the terrorist know this, and thats why you will never see terrorist try to hijack another US airliner, not because they have more sky marshals,

Of course you can't give any credit to armed personnel having any form of detterence. /yawn

trax1 · « **Reply #238 on:** February 18, 2008, 08:18:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Of course you can't give any credit to armed personnel having any form of detterence. /yawn

What I'm saying is that a sky marshal isn't the only reason for preventing hijacking, it's not as if you were to remove the sky marshals from U.S airliners that you'd start having skyjackings again, or is that what you think is preventing hijackings from happening?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #239 on:** February 18, 2008, 09:32:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by trax1
fact that they know no one on the plane would just sit by while anyone tried to hijack the plane.

.

There ya go.

Pre 9/11 your typical hijacking they just demanded to go from point A to point B.

People. even our own government rationalised that iwhile it was a very dangerous and deadly situation. If you just remained calm. There would be little if any loss of life.

The real danger to lives came not from Hijackings. but from bombs planted on planes

The Events of 9/11 changed all that.
And people will fight to save their lives.

They say when confronted with a Grizzly bear you can play dead and it might not eat you.
But if a Black bear attacks you. Fight for your life because if you dont he will eat you anyway.

Now I dont know if that saying about Grizzlies is true.
But t is safe to say that people will recognise a hijacker as a Black bear now.

the fact they know people are now willing ot fight back instead of just sit there is the deterrence.

The only other thing they can do now is just blow up the planes.

THERE is where security comes into play