Armed Police Officer Stops School Shooting in Georgia

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by neoholographic
I guess guns aren't so bad.

Wait a sec, what was the cause of the problem in the first place?

Yes, a gun went to school with the intention of shooting someone.
Oh wait, that doesn't sound right.

Originally posted by GmoS719
Glad we had a good guy with a gun, it could of gotten alot worse.
Imagine if an unarmed person would have tried to stop him.
Now he's killed two innocent people why not kill more?

No one was killed, thankfully. Not sure where you got that killing an unarmed guard makes two people.

Originally posted by lonewolf10
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Yes but,
#1 you are never going to get rid of them
#2 so you are just going to have to deal with it.

No, actually I don't. My country doesn't have this problem.

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Probably a mentally disturbed individual.

With a ___?

Don't give me the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" rubbish, I'm not saying the gun went to school with the intention to kill. I'm tired of explaining how a tool can act act as a motivator, I doubt he would have done it with a knife, and if he did and succeeded the outcome would be much better than if he had succeeded with a gun.

reply to post by neoholographic


You guys all just jumped right into the same old debate without even asking for a LINK to the source quote...

WTH is wrong with you? :shk:

Unless the cop shot the kid, it doesn't matter that he was armed. If he simply wrestled him to the ground, ANY adult could have done that. But I don't know what happened, because there is NO LINK!

Edit: I support having armed security at schools.

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by GmoS719
Glad we had a good guy with a gun, it could of gotten alot worse.
Imagine if an unarmed person would have tried to stop him.
Now he's killed two innocent people why not kill more?

No one was killed, thankfully. Not sure where you got that killing an unarmed guard makes two people.

It was hypothetical.
Just saying it could have been alot worse if the armed guard hadn't been there.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by neoholographic

 

You guys all just jumped right into the same old debate without even asking for a LINK to the source quote...

WTH is wrong with you? :shk:

Unless the cop shot the kid, it doesn't matter that he was armed. If he simply wrestled him to the ground, ANY adult could have done that. But I don't know what happened, because there is NO LINK!

Edit: I support having armed security at schools.

edit on 2/1/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no
reason given)

Of course it matters if he was armed.
What makes you think the kid would have surrendered otherwise.

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by shivaX
Barack 'Hussein' Obama pushing for gun control is unacceptable.

What is the relevance of the 'hussein' quote in your statement, do you and many others that do this, not realise that it just discredits the rest of what you say and makes you appear Xenophobic?

Your fear tactics won't work here comrade, you will no longer be able to silence us with your queer scare tactics and ridicule.

How about responding the OPS's message and not attacking the OP?

reply to post by SpearMint


Spear, I figured you were smarter than that. Do you not understand that guns are only a tool? A tool that is necessary.


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

Lets not forget our government. If the military has Assault Riles, I have them too. We need to be able to compete with the government. You know, the whole point of the second amendment.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by lonewolf10
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Yes but,
#1 you are never going to get rid of them
#2 so you are just going to have to deal with it.

No, actually I don't. My country doesn't have this problem.

Then I am very happy for you that you live in such a wonderful place.
Enjoy that.

reply to post by GmoS719

Originally posted by GmoS719
Of course it matters if he was armed.
What makes you think the kid would have surrendered otherwise.

Have you read or heard that the kid "surrendered it" to the armed officer? Or are you just assuming that? See? I don't want to assume. I want the FACTS before I make up my mind. I know that's not very popular around here...

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by rickymouse

 

For the most part, I agree with you. There are dangerous aspects within our culture left mostly unchecked. This naivete will propagate violent uncooperative behavior, and in some ways reward it.

However, once we start talking about regulating food, and deciding who is or is not mentally fit for society... that's the scary part of totalitarianism. Not the guns-being-taken-away part.

Getting rid of the chemicals that are intentionally put into food to attract us that have negative effects on logical thinking should be looked at, some of these have been in our foods for eighty years and because they are before the deadline of around 1955 they cannot be removed unless it is proven by a reputable organazation that they are bad and approved by the FDA which has strong ties to chemical companies. At least Europe has the guts to ban some of these.

Half the chemicals added to food seem to be there because they calm us, including the foods that they say are good for us. I understand that that is necessary and it is done in every culture around the globe to promote civility amongst their people. Some of them are essential in our diet just because of that reason.

You are right though, who gets to decide who can have a gun. If you leave it to the local police department without specific rules a police officer may take your guns away just because he doesn't like something your kid said about his relative or friend.. People take advantage of power all the time. If the whole force had to agree they may agree because of their relationship or "of their kind" and still take your guns leaving you defenseless against criminals. Is that officer who doesn't like your family going to rush to your house if you are robbed?

I see gun ownership as a positive thing for citizens but agree that these impressive looking guns that may give some people a superiority complex do not need to be out there. I have guns and am a good shot. I would not shoot a person unless that person was a threat to my family or me. I am not going to challenge the police or the military either, these guys are not my enemy, they are fellow Americans doing their job. If I don't break the laws than hopefully the only reason I see them is on a friendly basis.

There is no doubt that these shootings have to stop and somehow the people doing them have to be identified before the fact somehow. That is the issue we need to work on. Someone is always going to snap but we need to find a way to help these people before it happens. We must make these acts against kids an unforgivable sin.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Have you read or heard that the kid "surrendered it" to the armed officer?

It seems like the kid ran out of bullets:

Sources within Atlanta Public Schools told Jones that after the shooting, the gunman emptied his clip

It also seems like the officer did not disarm the shooter until he was already in custody:

"When he was taken into custody, the officer actually took the gun off of the student," an officer said.

www.wsbtv.com...

So, thanks to a small volume clip, the shooter ran out of ammo, which allowed the officer to take nonlethal action.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace


So, thanks to a small volume clip, the shooter ran out of ammo, which allowed the officer to take nonlethal action.

That's pretty interesting. Kinda fits perfectly into magazine debate.

reply to post by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
So, thanks to a small volume clip, the shooter ran out of ammo, which allowed the officer to take nonlethal action.

Well, isn't that interesting? It's a good thing this kid only had a small capacity and was unable to do more harm. I know reloading is inconvenient for shooters, but it very well could have saved some lives here.

reply to post by neoholographic

I guess guns aren't so bad. Armed security guards and metal detectors at school are a good thing.

Replace "security guard" with police officers and I 100% agree.

I don't think you will find many people, besides maybe some Conservatives who have a fear of police, that will disagree with you.

Instead of ridiculing the NRA and Republicans who support armed guards at school, the President should have came out and said this is a good idea and tried to find common ground between them.

He did...or do you not remember this.

news.blogs.cnn.com...

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

I have literally heard no one opposed to putting police officers in schools...many people are against arming the teachers, janitors, or principles...but I haven't heard any push back against trained police officers.

The problem is that is all the NRA and the GOP want...just that and nothing else. They are a classic example of wanting to treat the symptom and not the problem.

reply to post by neoholographic


OP where does it say some random gun totters flailing his AK47prevented the shooting?

All i see is licensed Enforcement official that stops the shooting.


it should say "a gun nut was apprehended by a law enforcement officer" !

Originally posted by xedocodex
[

I have literally heard no one opposed to putting police officers in schools...many people are against arming the teachers, janitors, or principles...but I haven't heard any push back against trained police officers.

I don't agree with it. I feel school should be a place for kids to enjoy themselves while they learn, not feel like they're in a prison with police officers walking around every hallway. They'll never express themselves the way they should because they'll be afraid that the police will do something about it, sure it will protect them, but what if one of the cops decide they're not having a good week and they go crazy and start shooting the kids? Then you basically just put the problem into the school yourself.

reply to post by luciddream

Originally posted by luciddream
All i see is licensed Enforcement official that stops the shooting.

You didn't see that either. A small capacity gun stopped the shooting, not an armed officer, as the thread title states. The police officer only confiscated the gun AFTER the shooting stopped and the kid was in custody.

www.wsbtv.com...

reply to post by SpearMint


Actually, a nice remote triggered FAE in the school would whack pretty much everyone. And you don't even have to be there!

There's a lot of ways to kill large groups of people 'the easy way', you just haven't seen anyone really need to look for them yet. Later, will you be all for getting rid of gasoline, pool supplies, outdoor barbecues, oxygen tanks and what not? For the children.

edit to add: When I was a kid, and that's been a while but not THAT long ago, we didn't have these issues, and there were a lot more firearms out there. Our version of school gun control was 'either lock it in your truck, or you can put it in the principal's gun safe (YES - in his office!) - but no unsecured or loaded rifles or handguns'. That's because about 30% of us were carrying during deer season. Or we were on the school's shooting team.

No one got shot. No one had ever HEARD of anyone being shot at a school. Heck, as far as that goes, I'd have to give you about a 50% chance any male in the high school had a knife of some sort in his pants' pocket.

What's changed? It's definitely not the availability of rifles or ammunition.