A solution to school shootings

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

I have to disagree. The signage, or lack thereof, is ineffective. Especially when the shooters figure out that the absence of the gun free zone sign does not mean there is an armed presence.

The deterrent to many personal crimes, robberies, etc, is the possibility that the proposed victim may be carrying a firearm. When conceal carry is instituted violent crime rates drop accordingly. But they do not disappear completely. There are still those elements among the criminal population willing to take the chance. I consider this proof enough that the criminal element is willing to take the chance and commit the crime anyway. As such, the most vulnerable among us deserve to be protected to the best of our ability.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: PatriotGames4u

I have to disagree. The signage, or lack thereof, is ineffective. Especially when the shooters figure out that the absence of the gun free zone sign does not mean there is an armed presence.

The deterrent to many personal crimes, robberies, etc, is the possibility that the proposed victim may be carrying a firearm. When conceal carry is instituted violent crime rates drop accordingly. But they do not disappear completely. There are still those elements among the criminal population willing to take the chance. I consider this proof enough that the criminal element is willing to take the chance and commit the crime anyway. As such, the most vulnerable among us deserve to be protected to the best of our ability.

That first part is my fault, I mean far more than just 'removing the signs', it's a literary device I use to mean undoing all that was done at the same time, including the signs and reversing the psyops.

I went into it in a previous thread but have been so busy bashing russia with my 5 iron everyday that I haven't done this topic justice with my posts in either thread, I just couldn't stomach using that focus on russia to stay silent on this issue.



That 2nd part I agree with 100%, with one limitation.

You accurately described an adult criminal, few of whom ever shoot up schools.

School age school shooter are absolute cowards, and the mindset is quite a bit different in significant ways.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Republicans in the House want to push a bill to establish best practices at the federal level for all schools. They would look at what works the best and push to to all schools as a standard, but Schumer wouldn't even let it go to the floor saying it would mean more guns in schools. Its like the left wants mass shootings in schools to continue.

a reply to: Xtrozero

How could one assume anything else.

Not only do they choose which shootings to cover, they quite handily are adept at their job with bills ready to go. Something that is exceedingly rare among folks who have the title of lawmaker.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Republicans in the House want to push a bill to establish best practices at the federal level for all schools. They would look at what works the best and push to to all schools as a standard, but Schumer wouldn't even let it go to the floor saying it would mean more guns in schools. Its like the left wants mass shootings in schools to continue.

Did you expect anything different from this By Any Means liar and traitor?



Nothing can be done until November.

Then it MUST be done.

originally posted by: JinMI

How could one assume anything else.

Not only do they choose which shootings to cover, they quite handily are adept at their job with bills ready to go. Something that is exceedingly rare among folks who have the title of lawmaker.

The problem I have is their fixes are already in place such as background checks. I bought a gun a year or so ago and it took like 40+ days for my background check to clear, holy hell. I had an expired concealed, so if that was current it would have been quicker, but I'm a person with 28 years in the military and multiple TS clearances, so what are they wanting to add...lol

The whole thing with person to person sale that no one tells anyone is that the seller is required to ensure the buyer is legal to buy, or the sale can be illegal and/or the seller can be held libel. I use FFLs for like 25 bucks to take care of all that, but if someone sells to a stranger they are rolling the dice, so once again what can you add if it is already illegal to sell to someone that can not buy?

Armed Librarians would need to use silencers 🤫

originally posted by: xuenchen
Armed Librarians would need to use silencers 🤫

I think what you all are missing here is that there are many liberals who support the Second Amendment and have firearms. Why is there this ridiculous stereotype that liberals all hate guns and wouldn't be caught dead with them? My Dad is a staunch liberal, and a Second Amendment supporter. He has a 357 Magnum that he takes with him everywhere. He feels that ordinary people who aren't criminals have the right to have a firearm and to protect themselves. I feel the same way, and am in the process of buying a firearm.

I think that many teachers would be perfectly fine to have and use a firearm to defend themselves and their students. Please don't paint all liberals with the same broad brush. If I were a teacher, I would be totally down with having a weapon and learning how to use it to defend myself and my students.

a reply to: ChiefD


Because of the idiots you keep 'electing', and what they keep doing 'on your behalf'.

No other reason.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ChiefD


Because of the idiots you keep 'electing', and what they keep doing 'on your behalf'.

No other reason.

How do you presume to know who I "keep electing"? Stereotype much? Typical attitude of someone who prejudges people. This is a large part of the problem. Keep being judgemental. You are out of touch.

The easiest way to prevent this is harden the targets. All doors should open in to the classroom. There should be a way to secure the door with a bar. All external doors remain locked with buzz in entry. And there should be cameras along with an operator which has door control access even internal doors. That way even if they get in you can still lock them into one area.

Final suggestion arming teachers they are already the first target

originally posted by: ChiefD

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ChiefD


Because of the idiots you keep 'electing', and what they keep doing 'on your behalf'.

No other reason.

How do you presume to know who I "keep electing"? Stereotype much? Typical attitude of someone who prejudges people. This is a large part of the problem. Keep being judgemental. You are out of touch.

You said 'liberals'.

No other reason.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Having read your posts before I assumed you had more in mind than just the signs.

But I have to stand by my beliefs that even if the psychology is different enough among younger aggressors compared to older, the fact still remains that the physical presence of armed guards is necessary. I look at it this way, even if you are absolutely correct that the mind of a younger shooter would be influenced by the possibility of an armed presence, how confident would you be if that younger mind were somehow compromised and not its usual self? Regardless of what state of mind the shooter is in, and that could be anything across the entire spectrum of emotional states, an armed presence would be the best solution.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Republicans in the House want to push a bill to establish best practices at the federal level for all schools. They would look at what works the best and push to to all schools as a standard, but Schumer wouldn't even let it go to the floor saying it would mean more guns in schools. Its like the left wants mass shootings in schools to continue.

And there you have it. The solution is within reach but this administration does not want to do it. If flies in the face of their true agenda and they simply cant have it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: JinMI

How could one assume anything else.

Not only do they choose which shootings to cover, they quite handily are adept at their job with bills ready to go. Something that is exceedingly rare among folks who have the title of lawmaker.

The problem I have is their fixes are already in place such as background checks. I bought a gun a year or so ago and it took like 40+ days for my background check to clear, holy hell. I had an expired concealed, so if that was current it would have been quicker, but I'm a person with 28 years in the military and multiple TS clearances, so what are they wanting to add...lol

The whole thing with person to person sale that no one tells anyone is that the seller is required to ensure the buyer is legal to buy, or the sale can be illegal and/or the seller can be held libel. I use FFLs for like 25 bucks to take care of all that, but if someone sells to a stranger they are rolling the dice, so once again what can you add if it is already illegal to sell to someone that can not buy?

In some states it doesn't matter who is selling and who is buying, the transfer has to be done in a licensed gun store. The forms have to be filled out and signed just as if you were purchasing from a brick and mortar store. The licensed intermediary is responsible for filing the transfer of ownership with the state. It is also a good idea for the seller and buyer to get a signed bill of sale with the sn on it. The seller should keep that for a minimum of ten years after the sale. If the firearm is used in the commission of a crime and you don't have a bill of sale for it, you become the prime suspect.

a reply to: Vroomfondel


Oh, I also want armed folks in schools, whether a uniformed cop, or a .38 in the USMC (Ret.) principal's desk (whatever the community and staff think is best for each school), just like it was before the By Any Means party put up those damn signs in an effort to win an election.


'Reversing the psyops' = ensuring that EVERY American of all ages knows for a fact that schools are no longer soft targets (which generally means 'someone is going to shoot back if you try')

a reply to: Xtrozero

One time in recent past I was out of the blue denied.

Went through the proper paperwork, including fingerprints at my expense.

Got it squared away as it was their mistake. Their mistake cost me time, money and privacy. This is not how it should work nor is it efficient.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xtrozero

One time in recent past I was out of the blue denied.

Went through the proper paperwork, including fingerprints at my expense.

Got it squared away as it was their mistake. Their mistake cost me time, money and privacy. This is not how it should work nor is it efficient.

But that's something we can all probably live with.

Pun intended.

We can replace the entire system next year while the Lost Our Minds party sits on the bench and learns how it's done, and why you never go By Any Means Necessary.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Maybe I could be convinced. However, right now, its infringement plain and simple.

In even a slightly less than perfect world I shouldnt have to prove my innocence.

Our govt had no issue or oversight sending automatic arms to civilians in other countries. While in the same breath demonizing lesser firearms here at home that we have a right to bear.