TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S328 ... ml?cat=519" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just alerted. Reported shooter has been apprehended. Story unfolding currently.

Right on cue for the ongoing calls for gun control, ect. We almost need a spreadsheet to monitor the frequency of these incidents in gun free zones.

It seems that some of these so-called "Gun Free" safe zones are actually the least safe places to be...or am I stating the obvious?

Oldgringo wrote:It seems that some of these so-called "Gun Free" safe zones are actually the least safe places to be...or am I stating the obvious?

I understand your point. I think it's more about the media having written a "how to" manual for kids that are seeking the maximum amount of attention. It's copy-catting the copy-cats. And it's awful.

cb1000rider wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:It seems that some of these so-called "Gun Free" safe zones are actually the least safe places to be...or am I stating the obvious?

I understand your point. I think it's more about the media having written a "how to" manual for kids that are seeking the maximum amount of attention. It's copy-catting the copy-cats. And it's awful.

It's actually a "circle of death." The shooter shoots; the media sensationalizes; the copy-catter shoots; the media sensationalizes and suggests that its time for "sensible" laws; the copy-copy-catter shoots; the media demands that politicians so something, and politicians beat the drum for "sensible" laws; the commies get their panties in a twist; the NRA rides to the rescue and reason eventually prevails. Calm prevails for a while, during which time Diane Feinstein prepares a new bill to crush the 2nd Amendment......and because she knows that it is unconstitutional at its core and unacceptable to the majority of the voters and consequently won't ever have a chance of passage during a calm spell, she waits, Shelob-like in her lair, until the next "crisis" so that she can file the bill. Then begins another 6-12 months of frenzied accusations, liberals asserting that conservatives and libertarians love their guns more than they love their own children, lambasting America's "gun culture," and boasting (falsely) about the success of gun-repression in countries like Great Britain, charges of paranoia, declamations that the Founders could not have conceived of an AR15 and therefore the Constitution only protects our right to own a musket, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, until another period of calm eventually prevails.

6-12 months later, some new deluded crazy person or immature child brings a gun to school, and the cycle starts all over again. But each time, the fight gets longer, more dramatic, and more exhausting.

You see, they don't really care if they get guns banned now, or 10 years from now. They are patient. They know that if they can just keep up the assault in the media for long enough, the American people will eventually grow exhausted and give in. It's what democrats do. They do this, because they fundamentally love a big-brother run society than they do individual liberty.

The Annoyed Man wrote: You see, they don't really care if they get guns banned now, or 10 years from now. They are patient. They know that if they can just keep up the assault in the media for long enough, the American people will eventually grow exhausted and give in. It's what democrats do. They do this, because they fundamentally love a big-brother run society than they do individual liberty.

Yep...that's how they eventually got Obamacare passed. It's been a dream of theirs for many many years. Realistically, we are only one majority away of some kind of gun control laws...and they'll just keep chipping away every chance they get.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:It seems that some of these so-called "Gun Free" safe zones are actually the least safe places to be...or am I stating the obvious?

I understand your point. I think it's more about the media having written a "how to" manual for kids that are seeking the maximum amount of attention. It's copy-catting the copy-cats. And it's awful.

It's actually a "circle of death." The shooter shoots; the media sensationalizes; the copy-catter shoots; the media sensationalizes and suggests that its time for "sensible" laws; the copy-copy-catter shoots; the media demands that politicians so something, and politicians beat the drum for "sensible" laws; the commies get their panties in a twist; the NRA rides to the rescue and reason eventually prevails. Calm prevails for a while, during which time Diane Feinstein prepares a new bill to crush the 2nd Amendment......and because she knows that it is unconstitutional at its core and unacceptable to the majority of the voters and consequently won't ever have a chance of passage during a calm spell, she waits, Shelob-like in her lair, until the next "crisis" so that she can file the bill. Then begins another 6-12 months of frenzied accusations, liberals asserting that conservatives and libertarians love their guns more than they love their own children, lambasting America's "gun culture," and boasting (falsely) about the success of gun-repression in countries like Great Britain, charges of paranoia, declamations that the Founders could not have conceived of an AR15 and therefore the Constitution only protects our right to own a musket, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, until another period of calm eventually prevails.

6-12 months later, some new deluded crazy person or immature child brings a gun to school, and the cycle starts all over again. But each time, the fight gets longer, more dramatic, and more exhausting.

You see, they don't really care if they get guns banned now, or 10 years from now. They are patient. They know that if they can just keep up the assault in the media for long enough, the American people will eventually grow exhausted and give in. It's what democrats do. They do this, because they fundamentally love a big-brother run society than they do individual liberty.

The internet, while it has many great values also creates copy cats, spreads rumor, ect.

13 an 14 year old boys with access to pistols. Do I smell gangs, or reckless parents who don't secure their firearms?!

Beiruty wrote:13 an 14 year old boys with access to pistols. Do I smell gangs, or reckless parents who don't secure their firearms?!

I thought they said it was a shotgun. I suppose with the pistol grip? Reckless parents for sure. Not that it makes the shooting OK, but I would not be surprised to hear the other kids had been taunting this one.

Oldgringo wrote:It seems that some of these so-called "Gun Free" safe zones are actually the least safe places to be...or am I stating the obvious?

It should be obvious to anyone with common sense but unfortunately that's not so common these days.

nightmare wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:It seems that some of these so-called "Gun Free" safe zones are actually the least safe places to be...or am I stating the obvious?

It should be obvious to anyone with common sense but unfortunately that's not so common these days.

Yes on both accounts but a thought I had on this. Every teacher in the building could have had a gun and if this kid pulled his gun out and fired with no warning, I doubt the armed teachers would have changed anything. I am a advocate of armed teachers or at least security guards but it won't stop this kind of shooting from happening. It would go a long way towards keeping it confined to one or two students but an unexpected attack cannot usually be stopped before the bad actor gets off at least one shot. Metal detectors at the doors would have gone a long way toward preventing this. Notice I am using the word stop when talking about the incident after it has begun and prevent when discussing before the kid is able to get the gun into the school. It is a darned shame we have come to this but we are quickly learning that metal detectors at the entrances to school may one day be as common as the water fountain.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

nightmare wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:It seems that some of these so-called "Gun Free" safe zones are actually the least safe places to be...or am I stating the obvious?

It should be obvious to anyone with common sense but unfortunately that's not so common these days.

Yes on both accounts but a thought I had on this. Every teacher in the building could have had a gun and if this kid pulled his gun out and fired with no warning, I doubt the armed teachers would have changed anything. I am a advocate of armed teachers or at least security guards but it won't stop this kind of shooting from happening. It would go a long way towards keeping it confined to one or two students but an unexpected attack cannot usually be stopped before the bad actor gets off at least one shot. Metal detectors at the doors would have gone a long way toward preventing this. Notice I am using the word stop when talking about the incident after it has begun and prevent when discussing before the kid is able to get the gun into the school. It is a darned shame we have come to this but we are quickly learning that metal detectors at the entrances to school may one day be as common as the water fountain.

I'm not in favor of arming teachers because some teachers are not necessarily trustworthy. Sorry to generalize but it's true as it is with most groups. I see some merit to having better protection, including guns, when it comes to protecting our children, but I don't know how you figure that one out.

Regardless, I was cannot imagine the mother of all media circuses that would explode if a teacher was to ever shoot a child, even in justifiable situations.

Texsquatch wrote:I'm not in favor of arming teachers because some teachers are not necessarily trustworthy.

Even teachers who have been through the same qualification process you have been through? What makes people in your profession any more trustworthy than teachers? I'm against arming people in your profession because they aren't all trustworthy.

Texsquatch wrote:I'm not in favor of arming teachers because some teachers are not necessarily trustworthy. Sorry to generalize but it's true as it is with most groups. I see some merit to having better protection, including guns, when it comes to protecting our children, but I don't know how you figure that one out.

Regardless, I was cannot imagine the mother of all media circuses that would explode if a teacher was to ever shoot a child, even in justifiable situations.

And what is the definition of "child"? Generally, when someone hears the word "child", they picture a little kid. However, just as a for instance on how that word is abused, an infamous "study", often cited by antis, said "children" were in the most danger of being shot but proceeded to stretch that definition to include "youths" as children and included up to 20-something year old gang-bangers because they were "youths". So, if some 15, 16, 17 year old teenager takes a gun to school and proceeds to randomly apply said gun against his fellow teens, would it not be the better thing for an armed teacher, properly vetted and trained, to do what is necessary at that moment to conclude the situation and at least minimize the loss of life? I don't mean to be flippant or unnecessarily inflammatory, but this IS life and death we are discussing here.