Elementry School Shooting. Kids killed. Shooter dead.

[OC for ME]

A really dangerous job is a ref at a Pee Wee soccer game. I'd rather lead the Charge of the Light Brigade.

 

[Grapeshot]

Taken down already

Have you guys seen this ? http://www.examiner.com/article/lib...fathers-of-two-mass-murderers-were-to-testify

[h=1]404: Oops![/h] The page you are looking for could not be found, but don't worry. We have lots where that came from. If you are looking for something specific, try the categories below or visit our homepage.

 

[tirespeed]

I don't believe they took it down. I believe they renamed the title, as two articles come up in search, but only one is a good link. Here is the link to the story.

http://www.examiner.com/article/libor-scandal-reveals-frightening-connection-to-mass-shootings-of-2012

 

[marshaul]

I'm afraid that this statement might be taken as something other than sarcasm. Most cops regard the gun as a necessary tool of the trade, they don't like guns, don't like to shoot guns, won't clean their own guns, and never practice. The FBI reported once that over eighty percent of law enforcement bullets expended in emergency situations went unaccounted for, but they knew where the other twenty percent went. And of those, less than two percent hit the intended target, and those shots were mostly accidental and not because of good aim or practice. The gun-totin' civilian community is a much safer group to be armed than the police who are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders than Badguy; and in my experience, these are the most socially responsible, self reliant, civilized, and law abiding people on the face of the Earth. I think that cops should not be required to carry guns. In fact, no one who doesn't really want to learn how to use a firearm effectively should not be required to carry one, whether cops, federal agents, or military, because those are the really dangerous people.

+ ∞

 

[Gil223]

Can you say "Hypocrites"?

What I find interesting is that when Bill Clinton suggested armed police in schools, the left was all for it. Now, when it's the pro-gun NRA suggesting the same thing, it's "stupid", "ridiculous", etc. I see no reason for the outrage (other than creating the appearance of furthering a "police state"). Clark County Nevada - which encompasses most of NV, including Las Vegas - has had a "School Police Department" for over 20 years that I know of. Texas has School Police in some areas, as does Utah. To the best of my recollection, there has never been a mass shooting in any of those schools. How crazy would somebody have to be to plan a shooting spree where the odds of return fire were increased? Almost all colleges and universities have their own "Barney Fife" police force, but apparently they aren't seen as a serious threat by the BGs.
:shocker: Pax...

 

[nonameisgood]

I know a number of university police officers, and many are experienced officers who either wanted a safer workplace or just like working among the students. Haven't yet met Barney. Let's not bash UPD unnecessarily.

The Houston ISD had armed PD in the schools in proportion to the neighborhood needs as early as 1986. There were schools where the officers really didn't feel safe in the halls, and there was one jn every hall. At the same time, most Texas districts didn't.

 

[Sig229]

What I find interesting is that when Bill Clinton suggested armed police in schools, the left was all for it. Now, when it's the pro-gun NRA suggesting the same thing, it's "stupid", "ridiculous", etc. I see no reason for the outrage (other than creating the appearance of furthering a "police state"). Clark County Nevada - which encompasses most of NV, including Las Vegas - has had a "School Police Department" for over 20 years that I know of. Texas has School Police in some areas, as does Utah. To the best of my recollection, there has never been a mass shooting in any of those schools. How crazy would somebody have to be to plan a shooting spree where the odds of return fire were increased? Almost all colleges and universities have their own "Barney Fife" police force, but apparently they aren't seen as a serious threat by the BGs.
:shocker: Pax...

Pittsburgh has a school police force, but they are unarmed. How stupid is that?

 

[Gil223]

Pittsburgh has a school police force, but they are unarmed. How stupid is that?

That is unforgivably stupid!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Schools don't nessecarily need armed cops, that's a huge brain drain, potential underutilized. police officers need to be out on streets or in the community fighting the majority of crime. schools, despite recent and some high profile incidents, are one of the safest places possible for the little-uns

while SRO programs are good, putting cops at elementary schools is unneeded, kindergartners don't commit much crime and are not a real victimized demographic at school

however I think local school boards should seriously talk about hiring some form of armed security or allowing teachers to pack, however this needs to be a local decision, the State of Feds shouldn't force, or hinder, such options. but I think that local school boards, the people elected by that community in that area are the ones who need to be accountable to the public on such issues.

 

[Citizen]

Pittsburgh has a school police force, but they are unarmed. How stupid is that?

Hmmm. Well, maybe Pittsburgh has a good reason not to trust its school cops with guns.

 

[Citizen]

Mayors Against Illegal Guns Supports Open Carry

Heh, heh, heh.

Did you all see the ad by MAIG on the Recent Posts page? Top center.

At first I was annoyed by the ad (it urged people to demand Obama do something about guns).

But, then I realized they're paying to help support our forum! :banana:

 

[marshaul]

Pittsburgh has a school police force, but they are unarmed. How stupid is that?

Of all the police who should be armed...

 

[Gil223]

Here's a thought...

This is an excerpt from Ann Coulter's 12/20 column on Townhall.com, titled "We Know How To Stop School Shootings":

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

To read the entire article, see: http://townhall.com/columnists/annco...tm_campaign=nl

Yet, with such information readily available, and very likely pointed out to most - if not all - members of Congress, they continue to ignore the obvious. As more people are licensed to carry concealed handguns, the incidence of firearms-related crime declines. But those are the handguns people can't see! Let's take that out one step further, and include those who OC (at least some of whom - and perhaps many - CC without a government "permission slip". If OC was legal across the country, how many guns in plain sight would that be? I not only have no idea... I have no idea of how to get an idea! Realistically, even the vast majority of people who possess handguns and live in OC states do not carry. That comment is based upon my anecdotal experience here in Utah: I returned to Utah about 2.5 years ago, and have a Utah CFP (last year there were over 77,000 CFPs issued by the Utah BCI - that number is projected to increase by 50%-100% this year). I OC primarily in the summer, and CC primarily when the ambient air temp is below 60º. In those 30 months, and with the singular exception of Impact Guns where most customers (and ALL employees) are openly armed, I have seen only 2 other people OC'ing in Weber County (population 231,834) that works out to only about .00013% of the population (somebody please check my decimal point - I'm not real comfortable with it). The question now is WHY?

Why, when Utahan's have every legal right - both 2A and the Utah State Constitution - affirming our RKBA, and to openly carry those handguns in public, does only one person in (roughly) every 79,000 people choose to OC? My "stat" is, without a doubt horribly skewed, but I can only relate those acts which I have personally witnessed. (I could find no official stats on the number of handguns, or even total firearms, in Weber County.) Why on Earth are we not more obviously armed in public? There are numerous reasons, among which I believe are:
1. Most people do not wish to call undue attention to themselves. An openly displayed, holstered handgun will get people's attention, simply because it is not a common practice.
2. Most people do not want to increase their chances of unnecessary contact with LEOs. Not all LEOs are well-informed about OC laws. And, even among those who are informed, some do not believe we should have that right, and will hassle OCers if only for the sake of making them feel uncomfortable.
3. Most people do not wish to make other members of the public feel uncomfortable. (Granted, we are not responsible for the "feelings" of others, but that does not change the fact that seeing a handgun on the belt of someone other than LEOs or armed security personnel will make many people very uncomfortable.)
4. Those people who are not truly firearms "enthusiasts", yet own one or more firearms, may not even be aware that the law allows us to OC. (On a side note, Utah has no legal limit on the length of a knife blade, but I have seen nobody OCing a sword or machete. In which case I believe it is because very few people know about the absence of a length law. And, the preceding three reasons would apply to the lack of knife activity as well.)
5. Recent mass shootings have - understandably - made the public hyper-sensitive to the presence of firearms in public places.

I'm sure there are even more personal "reasons" not to OC, but none of them comes immediately to mind. Can you add to this list? If you can, you certainly may! What can we do to minimize these reasons of others? We can OC everyday it is practical, everywhere we go that it is not prohibited (in Utah we can CC in a school if we possess a Utah CFP), and every hour of the day. How many (besides those in this forum, obviously) will? Based upon personal observations, I would guess that much fewer than 1:1000 handgun owners would do so. So, the "problem" will continue to be a problem. Pax...

P.S. There was a two-day CFP (CCW) course held in Salt Lake City this past week, fees waived, for teachers and school staff who wish to carry handguns on school property. In Utah "We Know How To Stop School Shootings", or at least minimize the potential for their "success". (Utah teachers and staff are protected by the same state constitution - and related laws - as is the rest of it's citizenry)

 

[Sig229]

Hmmm. Well, maybe Pittsburgh has a good reason not to trust its school cops with guns.

Thats a good point actually.
Hell, I dont even trust the regular Pittsburgh police with guns.

I dont know what it is about this city....