Anyone who thinks "gun free" makes bad people not shoot the place up is an idiot

 

Or that permitting guns in locked cars some how entices people to shoot others.:ohbrother:

 

RM just thinks everyone on campus should have dogs to thwart would be attackers rather than access to innocent people killers(guns).

 

Belittle me all you like.

 

Perhaps, Quick Acting Quincy is in the next room and upon hearing gun shots rushes to his car to get his gun in the locked car and is able to intervene saving countless lives.

 

If he's at UL he likely had to run all the way to PJCS and back. :lol:

Anyone who thinks "gun free" makes bad people not shoot the place up is an idiot

 

No one thinks that. Some of us feel that more guns increases the chances of a gun incident.

So if the law only says that they can have a gun locked in their vehicle and not in the class room' date=' what would be wrong with that RM? Or do you disagree with that as well?[/quote']

 

Not a fan, but much better than in the classroom.

How does the cops being minutes away to tens of minutes away help anything? Armed staff...that's the answer. Consider this law a step in the right direction.

 

Makes the staff targets. If I were a crazy guy with a gun, the first person I'd take out would be the person most likely to be armed.

 

No one thinks that. Some of us feel that more guns increases the chances of a gun incident.

 

Some of you have your head in the clouds thinking if guns aren't permitted by law abiding citizens, the world is safer. The world you want to live in is Chicago. How's that appeal to you?

Anyone who thinks "gun free" makes bad people not shoot the place up is an idiot

 

I would go that far, it ill say ignorant of the situation. As you are well aware, the law can't be everywhere at the same time.

 

When was the last time someone who has a conceal permit shot up a place? For the most part the law loves these people.

 

Makes the staff targets. If I were a crazy guy with a gun, the first person I'd take out would be the person most likely to be armed.

 

Better to shoot the kids right?

Makes the staff targets. If I were a crazy guy with a gun, the first person I'd take out would be the person most likely to be armed.

They don't usually do that with the cops, they usually shoot themselves because they're cowards so they'd likely shoot themselves once confronted. If not, they aren't going to take down the entire staff, the response would be much quicker than waiting for police.

They don't usually do that with the cops, they usually shoot themselves because they're cowards so they'd likely shoot themselves once confronted. If not, they aren't going to take down the entire staff, the response would be much quicker than waiting for police.

 

Hey! Lets not let facts get in the way here!

I will conclude my participation by just saying that I disagree. I haven't been personally negative toward any of you in this discussion. However, I am very wary of several of you. I have discussed this at length in the past, and you are welcome to look those up. But I am not irrational or naive. I have (like pretty much all positions I take) put a lot of time and thought into my conclusions. The fact that I didn't come to the same conclusion as you doesn't make my opinion a subject of derision. Happy to debate the merits of the issue. Not going to tolerate the hyperbole and derision though.

I will conclude my participation by just saying that I disagree. I haven't been personally negative toward any of you in this discussion. However, I am very wary of several of you. I have discussed this at length in the past, and you are welcome to look those up. But I am not irrational or naive. I have (like pretty much all positions I take) put a lot of time and thought into my conclusions. The fact that I didn't come to the same conclusion as you doesn't make my opinion a subject of derision. Happy to debate the merits of the issue. Not going to tolerate the hyperbole and derision though.

Hope you aren't including me, I don't see where I used hyperbole or derision. I know where you stand on the issue, we just disagree, I thought you and I were just debating our view of the subject.

I will conclude my participation by just saying that I disagree. I haven't been personally negative toward any of you in this discussion. However, I am very wary of several of you. I have discussed this at length in the past, and you are welcome to look those up. But I am not irrational or naive. I have (like pretty much all positions I take) put a lot of time and thought into my conclusions. The fact that I didn't come to the same conclusion as you doesn't make my opinion a subject of derision. Happy to debate the merits of the issue. Not going to tolerate the hyperbole and derision though.

:ohbrother:

Some of you have your head in the clouds thinking if guns aren't permitted by law abiding citizens, the world is safer. The world you want to live in is Chicago. How's that appeal to you?

 

Well played and I agree.