Which Sign Would Deter Potential Shooters?

T

TrippyHippy

free mind and open heart
Answer-To-Mass-Shooting-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Newton-Connecticut.jpg


My money is on the latter...
 
TrippyHippy said:
Answer-To-Mass-Shooting-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Newton-Connecticut.jpg


My money is on the latter...
Click to expand...

Yes the latter would deter some, but it would also deter most people in general. The types that shoot up schools aren't deterred by force, most go in knowing they might die, or end up killing themselves in the act. The deranged aren't always deterred by what might deter others.
 
Jade Dragon said:
Yes the latter would deter some, but it would also deter most people in general. The types that shoot up schools aren't deterred by force, most go in knowing they might die, or end up killing themselves in the act. The deranged aren't always deterred by what might deter others.
Click to expand...

It's still better than announcing the school as a sitting duck zone...

And at least the shooter wouldn't get as far with armed and trained security staff guarding our children.
 
Yeah, there were 2 cops at that Florida school. a crazy shooter does not expect to survive. Most of them shoot themselves in the end. They would ignore both signs. They are there to shoot people and most of the time, themselves.
 
Nordberg said:
Yeah, there were 2 cops at that Florida school. a crazy shooter does not expect to survive. Most of them shoot themselves in the end. They would ignore both signs. They are there to shoot people and most of the time, themselves.
Click to expand...

They don't expect to survive, but they do expect to have the chance to kill people. Put the bullet in the shooter's head for him, before he decides to kill all the other children.
 
TrippyHippy said:
They don't expect to survive, but they do expect to have the chance to kill people. Put the bullet in the shooter's head for him, before he decides to kill all the other children.
Click to expand...

Exactly how would you determine that? And who would be charged with killing people who have committed no crime ? You really thought that out, didn't you?
 
Nordberg said:
Exactly how would you determine that? And who would be charged with killing people who have committed no crime ? You really thought that out, didn't you?
Click to expand...

I could be in error; but he was talking about an armed "guard" shooting the criminal and nothing was said about killing people who have committed no crime.

Now if you can show me how someone walking into a school with an AR, would have a legitimate reason to be walking into the school with it.
 
Jade Dragon said:
Yes the latter would deter some, but it would also deter most people in general. The types that shoot up schools aren't deterred by force, most go in knowing they might die, or end up killing themselves in the act. The deranged aren't always deterred by what might deter others..
Click to expand...

So your saying you wouldn't be deterred by the latter? Interesting. I guess you would know...
 
You don't need either sign, in fact, the later would send the wrong message to kids that schools aren't safe. And don't expect teachers to carry, it's already a career most don't select due to its use as a political punching bag, so adding another wacky job requirement won't draw the best and the brighest

The solution is addressing the three hundred million guns out there, but we know that ain't going happen, so why not put a law enforcement officer in each school, which is common in urban schools. Not only does it provide protection, but builds a relationship between kids and cops, wouldn't kill all those suburban districts, which have you noticed the overwhelming number of shootings occur, to fork over a few bucks for the town sheriff to expand his force
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top