The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys

They just want to start there. Then they start including handguns as "assault pistols." These guys see opportunity to grab guns everytime this happens. And it doesn't happen often. But when it does, it occurs in a "Gun Free Zone." These were created by anti gun politicians, not the NRA.

Jesus Christ.

Even in the Old west they had gun free zone.. Other wise known as towns you couldn't enter and carry a gun.

BULLSHIT!

"Yes, Columbine Had Armed Guards?And They Saved Lives!"

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ves.htm?p=full

From the cited article:

"Yes, the critics respond, and there was an armed security guard at Columbine High School in 1999. Yet, 12 students and a teacher were killed by two armed intruders, as if that disqualified the solution of placing armed guards, possibly unemployed army veterans, at each of our nation's 100,000-plus schools.

Yes, there was, and it was the guard's presence and the resistance he and others offered that kept the carnage less than it might have been.

On April 20, 1999, Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff's deputy who had been policing the school for almost two years, was eating lunch when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold arrived at Columbine with their deadly arsenal and deadlier intentions.

Gardner said he got a call from a custodian that he was needed in the school's back parking lot. A few minutes later, he encountered Harris, and the two exchanged gunfire. The exchange with Harris lasted for an extended period of time, during which Harris' gun jammed.

The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before SWAT teams arrived, and before Harris and Klebold eventually killed themselves in the library."

Stop it with your liberal lies already!

There were armed guards in Columbine and that didn't change a damn thing.

I'm okay with the good guys having the firearms. We need to figure out way to prevent the mentally ill from getting them. That's the key.

I have no problems going to the airports here in the US and seeing what looks like armed soldiers. Hell, we should have United States Marines guarding our airports!

I do too, but truth of the matter is that it won't stop the mass type shooting. In just about every one of these cases the attacker could likely get the guns regardless if it were a little harder.

More training, stricter registration & focusing on criminals/unregistered guns will have the biggest effect on deaths & shootings. It's just not gonna solve these mass type shootings like the one in Conn.

Meaning I don't support a ban as a knee jerk reaction to a random mass shooting, but rather looking at the overall picture to see what could have the larger affect in curbing gun crime/violence.

P.S.: LOL at "training"
It ain't fucking brain surgery to shoot a gun and/or lock your gun up when you aren't using it. "training"

Guys, the Second Ammendment to the constitution says that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It doesn't specify that the "people" (which means the citizens of the United States) can only have a certain type of weapon.

And banning any kind of weapon is "infringing".

It's this simple...either the second ammendment will be stripped, or shut the fuck up.

P.S.: LOL at "training"
It ain't fucking brain surgery to shoot a gun and/or lock your gun up when you aren't using it. "training"

People like you will be the second group to go when the shit hits the fan. Owing a gun means nothing if you aren't properly trained in how to handle it. There is far more to it than pointing and squeezing the trigger. If you're not properly trained, somebody like me will roll up and take everything you have then bitch slap you with your own gun.

If there were no need for training then there would not be so many firearms training groups out there.