Why good guys with guns are not the answer. Illustration.

[Mira]

[treestar]

1. Great point

That's such a weak argument, and the right wingers think it is so strong. Because as usual, they don't think it through.

[Scootaloo]

3. They believe the "bad guys" are easily identified by the black masks and striped clothing

Or, barring that, by the brown skin and any clothing at all.

[NashvilleLefty]

56. Today, they're all wearing hoodies

just ask Geraldo.

[RKP5637]

4. Years ago we used to call them the "block-thinkers." People that thought in RW blocks and

couldn't connect in their minds points a, b, c, d, ... etc.

Actually, not unlike what this post was speaking of >>> http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022184001

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. Except President Obama also has a Secret Service detail.

Why keep them if their so useless?

[demwing]

57. No one said the Secret Service is useless

in fact, in a photo 2 seconds AFTER Reagan was shot, there would have been a dog-pile of good guys on top of the bad guy. They don't need guns to tackle a bad guy, or to step in front of a bullet, but they're not useless.

[darkangel218]

61. But they shouldnt be armed to the teeth, thats bad.

Or maybe we should restrict what type of firearms they use to?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. And no magazines with more than 10 rounds

They have all those other SS officers for back-up and how many rounds do you need to bring down a single attacker anyway?

Hiding works good and there is always oven spray. Or so we're told.

[darkangel218]

85. Lmao!!

Hiding always works!! If we could try to just hide a lil better, there would be no crimes!!

So easy!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. And apparently criminals have more of a right to my body and my possessions than I do.

Only a depraved murderer would want to shoot a burglar, a rapist or a -- depraved murderer?



Cops should be the only people allowed to carry guns because only cops can be trusted to exercise the proper training and discretion with regards to the use of force with regards to public safety.



Anybody who says otherwise is just a paranoid, anti-government RW gun nut, as all right-thinking people will tell you.

[treestar]

118. A President is different from a school room full of kids

But the point is that having others around you armed doesn't mean you won't get shot.

[treestar]

117. They do much more than carry guns

Surveillance, checking out places ahead of time, etc. And add guns to that. A President can still get shot but the chances are much lower.

[Buzz Clik]

2. A couple of these guys were carrying Uzis.

They were all highly trained in using firearms at a moments notice in a defensive posture. Hinckley emptied his gun before anything could be done about him.

So, let's give guns to janitors and school teachers. That should solve everything.

[onehandle]

5. Yeah, but Reagan himself didn't have a gun.

Would have made all the difference.

[Dryclean]

34. Gufaw...Snort !

[woodrob12]

6. when I think of safety...

I think of kids around guns. what could possibly go wrong?

[KarenS]

7. Amen to that. Welcome =) n/t

[kartski]

8. Ask Pat Tillman

or any other friendly fire casualty, about being surrounded with good people with guns.

[WooWooWoo]

9. true, however

An assasination attempt isn't exactly a mass shooting, which I think is the point of the armed-teacher proponents.

[Mira]

10. I'm sorry, but, speaking of "points"

I don't get yours, even though I'm trying to wrap my brain around what you said.

[WooWooWoo]

13. well, an assasination attempt on a president

is an attack at an individual, not randomly spraying as many people as possible with bullets. You get a couple of shots off on Reagan and the secret service tackles you or shoots back at you.

You go into a classroom and kill children, then move on and keep killing as many as you can before the police arrive, that's a little different.

I'm not saying a gun in the classroom is a great idea or anything, just that saying the point of gun-in-school proponents isn't that a shooting would be prevented, but a mass shooting would be less likely because there would be someone there with the capability of taking out the shooter before they could fire off that many rounds.

[Mira]

15. OK in theory. Does what you say explain this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

There were armed guards on site during the Columbine catastrophic murders.

[LAGC]

23. From that article...

"Inclinations to intensify security in schools should be reconsidered," they wrote in a statement. "We cannot and should not turn our schools into fortresses. Effective prevention cannot wait until there is a gunman in a school parking lot. We need resources such as mental health supports and threat assessment teams in every school and community so that people can seek assistance when they recognize that someone is troubled and requires help."

Well said.

[Lurks Often]

35. Wrong

There was ONE police officer who was off site when the shooting happened.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm


On edit: Here is a case where having a School Resource Officer (police officer) worked:

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9025899

and per snopes, this is true and additionally, despite being ordered for a psychiatric evaluation, he ignored the order.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gudger.asp

Newtown, CT has TWO School Resource Officers, however they were/are assigned to the middle school and high school.

Chicago has hundred's of police officers or armed security in their schools.

[kmlisle]

32. And i say waht should they be able to carry "that many rounds" in the first place.

[JDPriestly]

40. But what if the gunman figured out where the armed person was and then started shooting at

a different end of the school.

The idea of one armed guard for an entire school is foolish. You would need one per classroom at least. Note that Reagan was surrounded by armed good guys.

Arming a guard or janitor is a horrible idea. If the person in the school put the gun down to say get on a ladder to change a light-bulb or to use the bathroom, how long do you think it would take for some crazy kid to grab the gun and start playing? It wouldn't happen often, but it would happen. It happens in homes across the country every once in a while.

And how would you prevent some crazy guard from showing the gun off to a couple of kids and giving them ideas?

An awful idea all the way around.

[WooWooWoo]

43. i never said it was a great idea

i'm just saying that there are effective logical ways to dispute the more-guns crowd's arguments, and the Reagan assasination attempt isn't one of them.

[billh58]

49. Of course the Reagan

incident is a perfect example of why your NRA "talking point" logic that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" is total bullshit. If Hinckley had been using an AR-15 instead of a pistol, the odds are that all of those armed "good guys" AND Reagan would have been killed.

Arming teachers, or posting armed guards at schools, is just a way of providing more targets for an armed lunatic to shoot at. The REAL answer is to take assault-type rapid fire weapons off the streets, and for the USA to join the rest of the civilized world by enacting civilized gun control laws.

Since most of the NRA/Gungeon crowd only focus on the last part of the sentence, I'd just like to remind you of the wording of the first part of the 2nd Amendment: "a well regulated militia" -- and not "a well armed militia."

[WooWooWoo]

55. why do you assume it's MY talking point?

I don't support guns in schools, and I certainly don't support the NRA.

What I do support, however, are good arguments.

[billh58]

67. And I was just pointing

out the flaws in your argument that the Reagan assassination attempt was a bad example about the "good guys with a gun" bullshit. It is, in fact, a perfect example of how Wayne LePew's and the NRA's talking points are designed to plant fear into the minds of the American people, and is no guarantee against a mass killing. And just fyi, the Reagan assassination attempt was a mass shooting.

It was indeed your talking point that having armed teachers or guards in schools would "reduce" the violence and possibly keep the number of fatalities down. That is NOT an acceptable solution because it is just as possible that more children would die from from "friendly fire." Armed guards didn't prevent the Columbine mass shooting, or even slow it down.

The answer is effective gun control, and NOT entering an arms race with the "bad guys."

[WooWooWoo]

109. again

it's not *MY* argument. It's the pro-guns crowd argument.

[ZombieHorde]

70. I was called a gun nut, or something similar, once for attacking a poor argument,

and I don't even own a gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. Calling an inconvenient truth a "NRA talking point" is also a popular incantation...

[ZombieHorde]

95. That may be, but now that the NRA has blamed video games for real-life violence,

I like saying that is an NRA talking point.

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. LOL! It is, isn't it? And just as accurate as anything else claimed to be one...

[oldbanjo]

104. How are you going to take the AR from the bad guy,

do you honestly think he will turn his gun in because of a law, get real this whole Idea is stupidity. The police want the assault weapons because the bad guys have them, I need one for two reasons first the bad guy has one and second the police have them.

[jehop61]

41. If I remember correctly

Wern't 4 or 5 people shot in that incident? Since when is that not considered a mass shooting?

[JDPriestly]

113. The mass murderer would attack the person with a gun first and then continue to do what he/she

wanted anyway.

Guns in classrooms won't help.

I suggest you watch Murder by Proxy. I think it gives a lot of insight into why we have so much anger and so many mass murderers in our country.

Our pyramid of power is a big problem.

People use guns to avenge their feelings of hurt and impotency in the face of the richer than they and powerful.

Remember, many of the mass murderers do what they do because they are suicidal and in complete despair.

I doubt that the threat of meeting up with someone holding a gun would deter these guys.

[pasto76]

12. but the conditions are similar

those kids in newtown were assassinated. shooting them 7 times is an assassination.

Everybody is doing their thing. Crazy person approaches, but is unidentifiable as crazy until the act. Crazy pulls the weapon and fires.

Doesnt matter if you are Secret Service or Teacher of the Year. Crazy had the drop on you.

[WooWooWoo]

14. yes, that's correct

but that's also not the point. You can't prevent a shooting in a school by arming the teachers or staff, but you might be able to prevent a mass shooting (ie, a shooting of dozens of people or more).

[July]

37. Are you distinguishing between Newtown and "a mass shooting"?

With 26 victims, how was it NOT a mass shooting? Your criterion of dozens or more also applies to Newtown, since more than two dozen people were killed.

[WooWooWoo]

38. no

I was making the point that comparing Newtown to the Reagan assasination attempt is illogical, since one was a mass shooting and the other wasn't, therefore, saying since Reagan had armed guards and still got shot is the same as saying that if Newtown had armed guards then 26 kids still would have been killed is possibly incorrect.

The argument was never that armed teachers would prevent someone from walking into a school and shooting kids. Only that it would make it less likely a shooter could go from room-to-room without meeting any resistence and possibly being stopped.

[JDPriestly]

114. No. You would just insure that the person carrying the gun would be shot if seen by the

intruder with a gun. It's a ridiculous idea.

[JDPriestly]

115. If you armed the custodians, you might increase the frequency with which armed custodians

attacked school principals.

I strongly urge you to see the movie Murder by Proxy. It deals with "going postal" and the reasons there is so much "going postal" in our society.

[A Simple Game]

22. The main thing a mass murderer will get from arming teachers

is they will be sure to shoot the teacher first when entering a classroom.

[AllyCat]

25. Before the armed teacher has a chance to rip off a shot into body armor

Arming teachers seems to have so many reasons it won't work, it is astonishing to me anyone is proposing it. Except for the crazy people.

[A Simple Game]

29. Then again if you are the shooter it's only logical to eliminate the biggest threat first,

and that would be the adults, armed or unarmed. Seems the teachers would be better off with bulletproof vests than guns.

[oldbanjo]

103. An armed teacher may have been able to keep the number of dead down,

as it happened they were defenseless.

[NinetySix]

16. Only one person was shot?

From Wikipedia:

On March 30, 1981, at approximately 2:25 pm local time,[2] Hinckley shot a .22 caliber Röhm RG-14 revolver six times at Reagan as he left the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C., after addressing an AFL-CIO conference.

Hinckley wounded police officer Thomas Delahanty, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy, and critically wounded press secretary James Brady. Hinckley did not hit Reagan directly, but seriously wounded him when a bullet ricocheted off the side of the presidential limousine and hit him in the chest.[6] Hinckley did not attempt to flee and was arrested at the scene. All of the shooting victims survived, although Brady, who was hit in the right side of the head, endured a long recuperation period and remains paralyzed on the left side of his body.[7]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.

I count four. And by the way, the name "James Brady" is forever associated with the gun control proposals that still bear his name.

How many does it take to qualify as a "mass shooting," anyway? The Boston Massacre, which in part precipitated the American Revolution, killed five.

[hack89]

18. You are right my bad. nt

[NinetySix]

20. I often see posts here which are corrected in response.

Not often do I see the person who is corrected acknowledge the error. It is very becoming, and reflects well on you.

The worst part about history is that it's so goddamned easy to forget. Perhaps that's why we end up making the same mistakes so often.

[hack89]

21. Thank you. nt

[JDPriestly]

42. And two of those wounded had guns. The idea is preposterous when it comes to protecting kids.

[booley]

66. according to the FBI

....at least 4 casualties are required for it to be considered a mass shooting.

[AngryOldDem]

17. Are you forgetting James Brady, Thomas Delahanty, and Thomas McCarthy?

In addition to Reagan?

Point is (to me), you had all these trained cops and Secret Service agents who were supposedly the good guys, and people still got shot. So why do people think that arming amateurs will have a better outcome?

[hack89]

19. You are right - my bad

Amateurs would not have a better outcome - that is why I do not support guns in school. In the home as a last line of defense is a different matter.

[stultusporcos]

24. Where are the good guys? I don't get it?

[cantbeserious]

27. Touche!

eom

[JackInGreen]

26. In juxtiposition all I can think

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

is the fact that that IS a picture of the moment before a would be assassin would attempt to take the life of a president.
It COULD have been a picture of the last moment before several men were laid waste by an assailant with an assault rifle.
Probably more or less the same results...and with a much higher body count.

[cantbeserious]

28. Yes - In That The NRA Now Supports A Worst Set Of Possible Outcomes

eom

[RoccoR5955]

47. How do you lay waist?

Just wondering.

[JackInGreen]

106. Bad spelling at too early an hour? But otherwise...turn of phrase

figure of speech, I tend to type 'In voice'? I think you got the point, Anon. But thanks for asking anyway...

Unless this is one of those instances where you'd like to call my grammar, spelling, or other communications operations into question as a matter of invalidating the statement
, in which case my response would be markedly less polite, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[RoccoR5955]

108. Just bringing it to your attention

And seeing if it isn't a moran post.
You know that trolls can't spell!

[JackInGreen]

119. Appreciated

Sorry for the snappish response, tensions run high.

[marshall]

30. And yet armed guards still trail our president

It boggles the mind.

[Soundman]

31. The op has got me thinking,

Have the good guys using their guns ever prevented an assassination attempt? Seems to me every attempt that has been foiled was done so by keen eyes and not by gun fire. It also seems to me when it comes to presidential assassination attempts (lethal or not) it is good guys with guns 0, bad guys with guns, what 5?

I would also add arming teachers is insane. All that would do IMO is make them the first target. Not too mention, how focused will the teacher been with the task at hand if they are also acting as body guards? And will being proficient with a fire arm become a new requirement for the job?

[SHRED]

33. "And the two guys without a gun were shot"

That will be a gun-nut's response.


--

[wiggs]

36. In RW world, you're in a theater or mall and half the people around you are

carrying. An incident occurs. A gun comes out and someone is shot and wounded. In the next instant, with adrenaline running through everyone's veins, more guns come out looking for bad guys to shoot. But the problem is that no one saw who shot whom...no one can tell who is a bad guy and who isn't. They can't even tell who is reaching for a cell phone and who is reaching for a gun. Everyone is yelling, threatening, running, pointing guns. Someone yells to calm things down but two nervous, scared new gun owners accidentally squeeze off two rounds hitting nothing. Then it's on. A guy with dark glasses and black rain coat gets shot just because he looks the part. The initial shooter thinks everyone is shooting at him and shoots the closest person with a gun...the buddy of the guy hit shoots the shooter and then gets shot by two others. A third shooter misses but hits a bystander and three others shoot him. Mall guards arrive and shoot those three. But the anarchist/survivalist buddy of one of them empties his guns on the three guards hitting one but missing badly enough to wound half a dozen before he's jumped.

Highly trained police officers make mistakes...shooting people when the victim moves the wrong way, when the officer is threatened or scared, when the officer thinks there's a gun but there isn't, when it's dark and unclear what's going on....it's going to happen even with training and experience. So when more people carry in more uncontrolled situations and when they don't have a fraction of the experience of trained officers it should be expected that there will be tragedies far exceeding what normally would have occurred.

[Flatulo]

87. Nice scenario - you must be a big fan of 'Reservoir Dogs'.

[geckosfeet]

39. Excellent point. Professional secret service people with guns no less.

I would though, prefer to have the option of being.

[1337kr3w]

44. Well

Arming teachers is not necessarily the answer. But maybe this picture is right, the president of the U.S. shouldn't have armed guards. I wish all the celebrities and politicians would give up their armed men. It would be one step closer in protecting this country from gun violence. I mean look at what happened in NYC when that nut shot an ex-coworker and two cops hit what 9 innocent bystanders.

[one_voice]

45. K, are you unarming..

everyone else as well?

Cuz I really don't know what planet you live on where you think the President shouldn't have armed protection, but 'regular folks' should have their guns. You really think that's a good idea?

[Agschmid]

107. That is completely unrealistic...

"the president of the U.S. shouldn't have armed guards"...

No he should, no question really about that currently. I think there are a *few* more important first steps to take.

Welcome to DU please make sure you read the TOS... etc.

[RoccoR5955]

46. There is only one "good guy" there

with a gun, and it's not Raygun!

[whopis01]

110. Which one is that?

[RoccoR5955]

112. The one who

was attempting to end the actor's career.

[Flatulo]

48. Hinkley was quickly subdued. Literally in seconds. Lanza was able to fire, unopposed, until guys

with guns showed up. Heroic teachers used their bodies as bullets to try to stop him, but were mowed down en masse.

I'm truly surprised that intelligent people think that this is a serious comparison. It isn't. In fact, it's downright stupid. If you believe this idiocy, then you must be in favor of disarming the Secret Service, the US military, and every law enforcement officer in the country.

[Zoeisright]

91. Didn't major in logical reasoning, did you?

I'm truly surprised that you don't think this is a serious comparison. The "conclusion" you draw is the exact opposite of the point. The fucking point is that Reagan still got shot with armed guards around him. And the other fucking point is that there are too many guns in this country, and too many dildos who think their little precious makes them safer.

If you believe the idiocy of arming teachers is the answer, you're dumber than I thought.

[Flatulo]

99. I never said that arming teachers was the answer. If you're going to attack my post,

please do me the courtesy of reading it completely first.

I do not advocate arming teachers. But I also do not approve of reflexive, illogical arguments that draw invalid conclusions from flawed analogies in an effort to sway weak minds.

If firearms were completely and utterly useless and in fact almost never used in a manner that causes innocent lives to be saved, as the graphic strongly suggests, then we would not allow police to carry them. We would instead send unarmed persons into the path of every gunman, because it would be the best possible tactic of resistance. Except is not. In fact, it's often suicide.

Simply parroting that "more guns equals more violence" is the lazy way out. It's much more complicated than that, and each situation is completely different.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. If you really believe this tripe... then let your actions speak louder than words.

If you're ever in a situation that traditionally warranted armed interdiction, hold true to your beliefs and DON'T call the police. After all, you don't need "good guys with guns" to show up anyways... 'good guys with guns' are not the answer, remember? And if you do call the cops, and the good guys with guns end up saving your life then you'll just have to live the rest of your life with the fact that you're a lying hypocrite.

Seriously, this OP is full of FAIL.

[Flatulo]

53. Agreed. This is truly one of the stupidest arguments I've seen.

It is exactly as stupid as saying that since some people die despite the attempts of doctors to save them, that all doctors are completely and utterly useless and should have their licenses to practice medicine revoked right after we shut down every hospital and clinic in the country.

Who thinks up this stupid shit anyway?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

58. "Who thinks up this stupid shit anyway?" ... I dunno man

but the fact that people this stupid don't forget to breathe occasionally and drop dead really makes me question the validity of Darwinism and evolutionary theory.

[darkangel218]

59. Like i said before, maybe we should fight home intruders with flowers and smiles.

That would work so well!!

Indeed a fail OP on all counts.

[pacalo]

111. This isn't about home intruders. OP's illustration refers to *armed teachers*.

That would also work so well, wouldn't it?

[Robb]

63. Whoosh.

The idea you missed is that maybe there are ways we can help foster a society with fewer "traditional" situations that garner armed response.

I swear, does your brain just shut off in these threads?

[darkangel218]

68. "foster a society with fewer situations that garner armed response"

That would be nice, but how are you going to achive that? Disarming LEOs or Secret Service or celebritys body guards to show example??


It won't work.

We need to invest in AFFORDABLE EDUCATION and ERADICATE POVERTY! And the desired social change will follow. Because at the present time its madness, and dissarming law abiding citizens and making them sitting ducks for the criminals is not an option.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

69. I fail to see any alternative to most active shootings other than armed response.

Do you see any other realistic responses to crazed armed shooters? Perhaps you should write a letter to Obama explaining that he should ditch guns to make a social policy statement and arm his Secret Service with flowers, poems, and pot.

Sorry, but this OP is absolute complete fail. The simple fact is that if Regan hadn't been surrounded by half a dozen trained guys with guns - he would have died that day. Immediate armed interdiction SAVED HIS LIFE. Do you deny that?

How bout this... when you get around to fostering that unicorn-utopia of a society where people are ACTUALLY safe instead of having to protect themselves, I'll join the strict gun-control team.

[Robb]

72. Do you believe the only way to fight terrorism

... is to go shoot terrorists?

Or would you want to put resources toward eliminating the conditions that foster the creation of terrorists?

THAT's the point.

(And IIRC the guy who sacked Brinkley wasn't armed. But I may be remembering that part wrong.)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. So you're saying that...

...while you're not against draining the swamp, some folks are better off not ignoring the alligators???

[Flatulo]

90. Addressing root cause is fine, but when someone is about to do bodily harm or murder, the best

option to stop them without loss of innocent life is to use force.

It's why the police are armed. It's why the people who resisted Adam Lanza by throwing their bodies at him lost their lives, while the armed response ended the rampage.

It seems to me that lots of people seem to be allowing their reflexive fear/loathing of firearms cloud their reasoning skills.

[paulkienitz]

52. they did protect him from the guy finishing him off

[billh58]

86. But not with

their guns. Hinckley was not shot in the process -- he was wrestled to the ground after shooting several people including Raygun.

[Flatulo]

94. While this is perfectly true, it is actually a minor point. If Hinckley had been a few

feet further away (and had been a better shot), he may not have been stopped by being rushed. In that case, the SS would have opened fire to stop him. Bet on it.

[lapfog_1]

54. One of my favorite scenes from West Wing

[aikoaiko]

60. And the secret service and police are still armed.

In all seriousness, I agree that armed guards or good guys with guns is not the only needed response to gun violence.

[LAGC]

64. Welcome to DU!

I can see you're out to make a quick impression on this site already...

[spanone]

65. perfect example....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. Reagan got shot.

As a result things have changed in the secret service. The Presidential Protective Division now carries pepper spray and Gitmo postcards instead of firearms.

[darkangel218]

73. ROFL!!!!

That was too good!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

76. Thanks. Compliments...

...are accepted, complaints are rejected and contributions are appreciated.


BTW, (off-topic) I've been wondering how to suggest to the mods for a new smiley. It would mostly look like the smiley. Its code would be ":pmp:" and would have the <rofl> smiley but would also have below it a yellow puddle. (peeing my pants) Any thoughts???

[darkangel218]

83. You could email them, although i dont think they will reply.

I've been mostly ignored, they might even have me blocked

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. BTW...

...you wouldn't be within the jurisdiction of one of my favorite LEOs (Grady Judd) would you???

[darkangel218]

84. No, im not, hes a county down from me

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

96. I just like the man's ability to express himself.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp

[booley]

75. comparing the two situations

In one we have one guy, armed with a revolver going after a specific target surrounded by a group of people trained and on guard for just this sort of thing happening.

On the other we have one or two guys often armed with more powerful fire arms then a revolver and/or more then one weapon going after random targets. In the case of a school, there is generally only one teacher per classroom and unlike the Reagan shooting, school personal are spread out from the potential targets (indeed , they are among the potential targets). Also teachers are not going to be "on guard" like the secret service is as not only do they have other primary responsibilities (since their job is to teach, not be a body guard) but statistically such shootings are still rare. Unusually common compared to other countries but out of the 300 million of us, very few of us will ever be directly involved in a school shooting. The mind set of a secret service agent and a teacher is probably very different when at work.

So no these two things are not directly comparable. If anything it shows that the "arming the teacher's" crowd have an even weaker argument since if guns would have protected anyone, it would have been reagan. If you want to say that guns can protect from other guns, this situation was set up for that.

And still Reagan got shot. And it wasn't the fact that his body guards had guns that stopped Hinckly (who fired 6 shots in less then 2 seconds). The people who first responded didn't even have guns themselves. Hinckly was punched and tackled to the ground. (not to mention how the secret service firing at Hinckly would have meant also firing into a crowd)

So no the Reagan shooting and most mass shootings are not directly comparable since in the latter, there is even less reason to think a "good guy" holding a gun would help. (and indeed in cases where someone else did have a gun, they don't seem to have helped until after the shooting was already pretty much over) But the argument is valid.

In most cases of mass shootings (and shootings in general) there are fewer factors favoring the "good guys" taking out the bad guys and more against that happening.

Yes guns can be useful in some situations. The Secret Service does carry them for a reason. As does the police and soldiers. You wouldn't want to be unarmed in a war zone.

But guns have far less utility then those proposing more people being armed seem to want to admit. Most of us aren't in a war zone. Very few of us go through our day thinking they have to watch that strange person who just walked by in case he needs to be shot. In many situations guns are at best a safety blanket. At worst part of the problem.

Indeed, considering how easy it is already for potential shooters to acquire guns legally and stay under the radar until it's too late, making all sorts of guns even more accessible would seem counter productive.

[Flatulo]

101. Now that is a good post. Clear headed and logical. nt

[GP6971]

102. Agree. Eom

[Publiuus]

77. Still pro gun

President Reagan was still pro gun after being shot.

[billh58]

81. Raygun was pro-gun,

pro-war, pro-foreign dictators, pro-racist, pro-misogyny, pro-neoconservative, pro-fascist, pro-corporate welfare, and the list goes on and on.

What, exactly, is your point?

[billh58]

79. Re: peecmkr45's post above:

"unoriginal, mocking, silly troll"...

[bobclark86]

88. Ah, anecdotal evidence...

always the BEST kind.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

98. Those "Good Guys With Guns" got Reagan out of there alive

and he recovered. Secret Service did their job.

No teachers will be trained to the same degree as Secret Service. At most, they'd be trained to the proficiency level of an Army cook or mechanic. Probably not even that much training.

[indepat]

100. Those who lie to us about guns not being the problem are essentially the same ones who lie

to us by saying insufficient revenue is not the problem, rather spending (on so-called entitlements) is the problem.

[leanforward]

105. Good guys with guns are not the answer

Yes the SS made the best of a bad situation. So does the Fire and Police Department. Everybody else simply increases the fog.

[cthulu2016]

116. Why can't we have some honest or sensible gun control arguments?

We have this perfectly common sense thing (gun control) but for some reason the bulk of people advocating this perfectly sensible thing do so with outlandish, intellectually dishonest arguments.

Why?

It is almost as if the dumber the analogy is, the more popular it is. (This is something we have seen with Republicans for years... the use of the worst possible, most self-refuting arguments as some sort of purity test.)

Does anyone think the Newtown shooting would have had the same death toll if a full Secret Service detail had been in the classroom?

Duh.

Arming teachers is a grotesque idea. The reasons to not arm teachers are many... but the idea that no armed person has ever shortened a shooting spree is not one of the reasons.

The graphic in the OP is particularly ridiculous if offered by somebody who wants large capacity clips banned. A secret service detail would have most assuredly stopped the Newtown shooting from methodically executing 20 children, though would perhaps not have stopped him from shooting the first few people.

The argument for limiting magazines is that though it might not prevent the first shooting, at least it would limit the shooter's ability to kill 30 people.