For one classroom.
And since I can’t seem to participate in this thread without flagrant violations of the forum rules against me, I now bow out.
The validity of this claim really depends on whose research you trust.
You’re right he should never have been able to legally own a gun and the gov’t you put all your faith in failed repeatedly to prevent him from doing so.
He broke into her home where he didn’t live and killed her to gain access to the locked away weapons.
What was she supposed to do keep the key/combination locked away in a bank vault somewhere?
That’s 30 kids and a teacher who aren’t harmed. Now multiply that across a school with say a dozen armed faculty and staff.
That’s a much greater deterrent and should that deterrent fail an invaluable resource when one does occur enabling them to stop it before it becomes a mass shooting.
The facts don’t change based on who’s research you trust. As legal carry has expanded exponentially across the country the violent crime rate has been cut by half.
Even the CDC’s own numbers show around 2 million successful DGU’s each year and criminals when interviewed on the subject say overwhelmingly that they have been deterred from committing crimes based on the knowledge their intended subject proved to be armed.
Teachers are suppose to teach, not carry weapons. It’s not the job of teachers to be body guards either.
Arming security guards? Yes.
The problem with teachers is that the gun can get lost or stolen.
The CDC? The FBI?
Isn’t there some law that was passed that keeps the federal government from researching gun violence?
Could be wrong. Often am. Something rings a bell about research by government agencies on that topic.
Maybe it isn’t a law but more an issue of funding. Dunno.
Wow! 
Yeah, they … ONE person.
1 Like
Plenty of historical evidence that, armed with just a ruler, they maintained order in the classroom. Think of what they can accomplish with firearm!
While it will be weird and awkward for awhile, a future America in which its children are taught by armed teachers might regain the status that has been given away by liberal apologists.
I like it. You can probably get by just giving cops rulers then.
So better:
Educated
Suicide Rate
Temperament
Numbers
Knowledge
No brainer.
Not to mention immaterial.
Its so incredibly weird that this simple question has triggered you three and yet we all know full well that WR is happy and capable to speak for himself.
The reason I asked is that I’ve found WR’s posts on gun topics to factual, dryly to the point, with hard statistics, and sometimes even sourcing, which stands out compared to his conversation style on other topics which seems to be more naturally opinionated, free wheeling and lacking sourcing.
Seems to me that would occur when someone has a career relating to the topic, maybe a big financial stake in the gun industry, or some sort of professional connection to it.
I don’t accept that observation to be insulting, especially from people I didn’t direct the question to. Just as I wouldn’t accept it as insulting if WR simply told me my theory based on that observation was wrong and my question baseless.
I think you three should all check yourselves, because that simple question really seems to have triggered some unnecessary defensiveness and illogical appeals to emotion.
Do you know something I don’t but instead of answering the question you’re getting aggressive? Why?
If WR says “yes I do” and then vaguely explains, what did you think I was going to do?
Did you consider that it’s better for me, and all of us to know when we’re talking to a bonafide expert? Doesn’t seem like it.
For instance I don’t agree with all of Saifel’s opinions when he gives him, but you’ll notice I almost always throw a “like” for his awesome OP’s regarding legal issues to show acknowledgment/respect for a poster who obviously knows what he’s talking about taking the time to sharing with us news/information in what he has expertise in.
Yall wouldn’t receive the word of a professional in the industry differently than “some guy”?
Similarly, yall don’t want to know your building inspector also owns a commercial fire suppression company when he’s telling you your bulding’s sprinklers suck?
Edit to add: Hell, remember GoEagles? He was a journalist. Remember what would happen if he spoke on a journalisim topic? I do.
So far the only one displaying aggressive behavior is you. Why would you request anyone check themselves, this is a discussion forum?
I’m being aggressive? That’s simply not accurate. I just wrote out a polite thorough post explaining my question. If that’s triggering an emotion in you, why not ask yourself why?
Which leads us to check yourself: Check yourself is a common expression said from one who believes another is getting out of hand. I believe the illogical appeals to emotion in place of respecting the question is out of hand.
Um no. It appeared to me that you were trying to invalidate his opinion by insinuating that opinion was influenced by his financial interests. I then gave you my opinion and my personal interests in the matter. You’ve overblown the situation, and gotten yourself believing things are out of hand.
1 Like
It appears to me that you made an assumption on a first post in the thread and then ascribed a position to me I hadn’t taken.
I haven’t overblown anything. I’m not being aggressive. As you said this is a discussion forum. I stand by my question, it is relevant, though it doesn’t have to be answered. I’m not a subpoena. But how can an exchange of ideas can happen if questions are deemed insulting and disagreement is interpreted as hysterics? These are rhetorical q’s. My point has been made and my question remains…
…unless Sneaky isn’t pulling my leg. If he ain’t I’m starting like 20 more topics reallll quick.
I think the answer to your original question which caused all the ruckus is “yes.”
