A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

Not even likely, as you keep ignoring. "In a best case scenario" he could have saved some of them. Hell, I'll up it and say that best case scenario he could have saved all of them, but it isn't realistic. A more likely outcome of a single gun in a building that size is the same outcome. Twenty plus dead. You're ignoring that just because the shooter stopped for police dogs, police tactical units, a bomb squad, and a state police helicopter, he might not feel that intimidated by a fourth grade teacher or Paul Blart with a single 9mm and questionable training, and I'm being highly generous with the caliber for you on this one, because let's face facts in that there will never, eeeeeeeeeeeever, be a higher caliber weapon in a school just out of fear of piercing walls and causing more damage to the people they're meant to protect. You'll never get a .44. That is an example of an absolute truth. You're also assuming that if there was a gun on the premises that everything else would have played out exactly the same. I highly doubt that if there was a gun, the little creep would have gone through the front door, which would pretty much be where you stationed a guard. A roaming guard is only good if you've got multiple guards to cover a large portion of the area, and one in the middle makes him useless in all directions. Realistically, if there was an element of danger, he'd probably have had to think more thoroughly about it and most likely there would have been more blood shed, not less. Kid might have been mentally unsound, but I've yet to read anything where he was stupid. He was an honor student.

If you want to argue that when you say "likely" you now actually mean "in the best case scenario where everything lines up perfectly," then go ahead. But the likely outcome is that a single gun in Larry Daley's hands would have been pretty useless in Sandy Hook, or any similar sized facility.

Edited, Jan 16th 2013 10:13pm by lolgaxe

Says you? How do you know that someone else having a gun during the ordeal would not have provoked the gunner further and made him more aggressive? Or that the addition of the other gun causes someone to get hit by an added bullet fire (cause even the most trained people can make mistakes under pressure)? If we are going to play the what if game with the added guns, why ignore the negative possibilities (other than, it makes your point of view seem better).

Like the .44 Magnum, or the M40, and pump action shotguns tend to not have trigger disconnectors, so accidental (and rapid) discharge there. Granted, none of my examples are hundred year old, but I think the overall point that they're not any less lethal than modern tech is still valid.

Just to add, I prefer revolvers and bolt action rifles for the very reason that they're much more reliable weapons.

Got that right. See your posts for Exhibit A.

No, it's like saying "The absolute truth is that a good diet & regular exercise will likely stop heart disease." A much different statement and one no one would say unless they just wanted to be laughed at. As you know which is why you changed your example to not include your own language.

Sure, why not? You're just going to pout and huff and recite the party line anyway ("Idiots will claim... wait, what? The NRA said that? No, I never said idiots!...") so why not have fun mocking your self-important puffery instead? If I wanted to read some dipshit reciting rote stock excuses for firearms, I'd read the NRA's press releases.

Edited, Jan 16th 2013 11:44pm by Jophiel

No, that is not how English works.

I never said it "would have saved all those kids". I said there would have been "fewer dead kids, possibly even no dead kids"

No indication either approaches anything near reality, so it's sort of a moot point which one you meant. If you meant "it's within the realm of possibility that having armed teachers may or may not have lead to fewer death or injuries" that's pretty accurate. What you've actually stated is unprovable, untestable, unfalsifiable and useless. May as well have said "if more angles had been flying over the school that day, they would have caused that wicked gunman to accidentally shoot himself, saving countless lives"

What about, and I know this is wild, but say the school had made a trap where a lot of spaghetti fell on the shooter and knocked him out? That would have completely eliminated the threat.

We don't allow religion in public schools.

Bullet proof school uniforms are starting to seem practical.

Now gemme my happy pills.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/January/17/public-health-obama-gun-violence-proposal.aspx

There's a bunch of assorted articles if you're so inclined.

Most of those things are so common sense I'm surprised they weren't already being done.

E.g. "Allow federal officials to perform a background check before returning a seized gun."

I think there is no director of ATF because it's one of the many nominations that have been stalled in the Senate.