School shooting

[High Vasa]

I agree.
9/11 could have been totally stopped had the pilot been armed. That is a fact. A 50 dollar pistol could have done what trillions in the middle east failed to do so far. That's right, 50 bucks could have prevented the worst terrorist act in US history

Or it could've blown holes in the fuselage or destroyed the plane's controls and led to a series of air crashes.

Unlike in the movie Goldfinger, a handgun won't destroy a plane.

[Caffeinetopia]

I won't make any guarantees, but if the staff was armed, then we wouldn't be discussing this, the news wouldn't be filled with this topic because the shooters never would have chosen to attack the school. Why didn't they attack the local police station? Because the police station is armed. (Actually, the officers within the station are armed, not the station itself)

How do you draw this conclusion?

[High Vasa]

The trouble would still have been stopped with a well placed shot within the "snipers triangle" from the principal or a teacher.

And what's with this fantasy that an armed teacher (...or a "sniper", I'm not sure what you're talking about in this quote...) would have prevented this? Even if you treated the cafeteria like a prison and had armed guards and snipers, I would imagine the shooter would still be able to get off a few shots.

The knowledge that the staff was armed would have made the shooter think twice, or thrice, before even attempting this scheme. That is how guns prevent crime.

[Knowledge for All]

I agree.
9/11 could have been totally stopped had the pilot been armed. That is a fact. A 50 dollar pistol could have done what trillions in the middle east failed to do so far. That's right, 50 bucks could have prevented the worst terrorist act in US history

Or it could've blown holes in the fuselage or destroyed the plane's controls and led to a series of air crashes.

Absolutely not! No pilot would load a FMJ round into their pistol that would be used on a plane. Not all ammo is the same, don't jump to conclusions.

[High Vasa]

I won't make any guarantees, but if the staff was armed, then we wouldn't be discussing this, the news wouldn't be filled with this topic because the shooters never would have chosen to attack the school. Why didn't they attack the local police station? Because the police station is armed. (Actually, the officers within the station are armed, not the station itself)

How do you draw this conclusion?

Please site for me the many, many times a shooter has targeted a police station for his murderous rampage, (The Terminator Not withstanding). I can't seem to find any events.

[Hittanryan]

Or it could've blown holes in the fuselage or destroyed the plane's controls and led to a series of air crashes.

Unlike in the movie Goldfinger, a handgun won't destroy a plane.

Not a single shot, and not outright destroy, no. Bullets do tend to have a deleterious effect on, say, instrumentation and controls however. Cockpits aren't exactly the roomiest place for a firefight either.

[Jewbearia]

Just happen 25 min away from where im at its scary thinking it could happen to your school

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

How do you draw this conclusion?

Please site for me the many, many times a shooter has targeted a police station for his murderous rampage, (The Terminator Not withstanding). I can't seem to find any events.

Thats a totally disingenuous argument and you know it. When someone shoots up their school its because its personal. Thats why people don't shoot up police stations.

Most shooters also shoot themselves after, so clearly death is not a real good deterrent.

[Andaluciae]

I agree.
9/11 could have been totally stopped had the pilot been armed. That is a fact. A 50 dollar pistol could have done what trillions in the middle east failed to do so far. That's right, 50 bucks could have prevented the worst terrorist act in US history

Or it could've blown holes in the fuselage or destroyed the plane's controls and led to a series of air crashes.

Only if it's a 30mm bofors cannon...

Seriously, a 9mm or .40s&w pistol is not going to take out a plane. At all. Ever.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Hey folks. Back on topic.
You want to argue gun control, go do it elsewhere.

[Caffeinetopia]

How do you draw this conclusion?

Please site for me the many, many times a shooter has targeted a police station for his murderous rampage, (The Terminator Not withstanding). I can't seem to find any events.

You're basing that on the assumption that a shooter just wants to shoot up anyone, anywhere. I'm saying the fact that he didn't go into a police station or military base with a gun might have to do with the fact that he doesn't have any motive to.

[High Vasa]

Please site for me the many, many times a shooter has targeted a police station for his murderous rampage, (The Terminator Not withstanding). I can't seem to find any events.

Thats a totally disingenuous argument and you know it. When someone shoots up their school its because its personal. Thats why people don't shoot up police stations.

Most shooters also shoot themselves after, so clearly death is not a real good deterrent.

Are you saying that someone would not have a personal reason to be upset with the police?
And if the shooters usually shoot themselves after, why in this case is one in custody and one on the loose?

[Knowledge for All]

Unlike in the movie Goldfinger, a handgun won't destroy a plane.

Not a single shot, and not outright destroy, no. Bullets do tend to have a deleterious effect on, say, instrumentation and controls however. Cockpits aren't exactly the roomiest place for a firefight either.

So, when the terrorists were bashing down the cockpit door, the pilot wouldn't have the time to aim center mass in a very tight bottleneck? The terrorists didn't have guns - you do know that, I hope.

[High Vasa]

Not a single shot, and not outright destroy, no. Bullets do tend to have a deleterious effect on, say, instrumentation and controls however. Cockpits aren't exactly the roomiest place for a firefight either.

So, when the terrorists were bashing down the cockpit door, the pilot wouldn't have the time to aim center mass in a very tight bottleneck? The terrorists didn't have guns - you do know that, I hope.

The terrorists were armed (with boxcutters), but the pilots were unarmed. Most commercial airline pilots now store the cockpit axe close at hand. (I'm not sure why a cockpit has an axe, but they do.)

[Knowledge for All]

So, when the terrorists were bashing down the cockpit door, the pilot wouldn't have the time to aim center mass in a very tight bottleneck? The terrorists didn't have guns - you do know that, I hope.

The terrorists were armed (with boxcutters), but the pilots were unarmed. Most commercial airline pilots now store the cockpit axe close at hand. (I'm not sure why a cockpit has an axe, but they do.)

I know that, I was addressing the "firefight in the cockpit" ridiculousness.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Hey folks. Back on topic.
You want to argue gun control, go do it elsewhere.

>_<

[Hittanryan]

Not a single shot, and not outright destroy, no. Bullets do tend to have a deleterious effect on, say, instrumentation and controls however. Cockpits aren't exactly the roomiest place for a firefight either.

So, when the terrorists were bashing down the cockpit door, the pilot wouldn't have the time to aim center mass in a very tight bottleneck? The terrorists didn't have guns - you do know that, I hope.

The cockpits didn't have doors, which was part of the problem. Also, firing a gun in a very tight bottleneck with hundreds of people on either side? That sounds like a recipe to shoot a lot of bystanders without necessarily getting all of the hijackers.

[Caffeinetopia]

Thats a totally disingenuous argument and you know it. When someone shoots up their school its because its personal. Thats why people don't shoot up police stations.

Most shooters also shoot themselves after, so clearly death is not a real good deterrent.

Are you saying that someone would not have a personal reason to be upset with the police?
And if the shooters usually shoot themselves after, why in this case is one in custody and one on the loose?

Well, most of people who have reason to be upset with the police might be in jail.

Hey folks. Back on topic.
You want to argue gun control, go do it elsewhere.

>_<

I'm sorry, what are we supposed to be talking about? (I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm seriously asking)