Posted on 01/12/2013 1:35:19 AM PST by Kaslin
Just sayin'...
Somebody needs to disarm Sgt. Schultz and the rest of the libs.
"Gun Free Zone" signs should already be at the recyclers.
ADT or other security services should be the norm... With signage all around the facilities in plain view.
With cameras all around the campus, I bet child sex abuse goes down, too.
When we had a new priest come to our Church, he immediately replaced wood doors with glass doors in the offices. No one could ever accuse him, or any of the staff, of any hijinks because they were visible through the glass.
Cameras all around the Church were installed - for reasons set up above and for stopping thieves.
I think the insurance policy assigned credits for taking these actions, so the policy cost went down. Win-win. "An armed society is a polite society." (don't have attribution, sorry)
Why isn't there a database with these kinds of deterred mass shootings?
*snort*
And one is not likely to be set up unless someone like NRA, John Lott, etc. does it. Not already set up because it doesn't fit the anti's template.
That deserved a re-post.
He needs to be overwhelmed with emails.
Shouldn’t he be called Mr. Ed? Certainly he resembles the Southern exposure of a horse traveling North
Shouldn’t he be called Mr. Ed? Certainly he resembles the Southern exposure of a horse traveling North
No, we never had a liberal tell the truth unless is served his interest.
The criteria was more than four people killed. These idiots truly don’t get that four or more weren’t killed BECAUSE the shooters were stopped by civilians.
Schultz demonstrates that at some point, stupidity is criminal.
Note that to the Left, “use” in this case means “shoot”. In most instances where an armed citizen uses a gun to stop a would be mass killing, all he had to do was display his gun to the attacker. The Left is incapable of acknowledging the mere presence of a lawfully owned gun as a valid deterrent.
And of course, if there are not a lot of people killed then it does not count as a mass killing. As an example which the Hollywood Left might understand, note the end of the movie “Source Code”: the project was considered an abject failure because it was, in fact, a complete success in preventing mass death.
Using guns to stop “gun violence” is simply ruled out by the Left’s axioms. It is a fundamental rule, not open to debate.
In most instances where an armed citizen uses a gun to stop a would be mass killing, all he had to do was display his gun to the attacker. The Left is incapable of acknowledging the mere presence of a lawfully owned gun as a valid deterrent.
I've been looking for stats on this, on the fact that in most cases the sole display of a weapon by a lawful citizen stops an hell-bent killer. But I have a hard time finding them stats. It would help when debating lefties.
See, that’s the problem: it works.
Display gun, attacker gives up, nobody dead, nothing worth reporting, no statistics.
The Left’s axioms require deaths to justify their goals.
Yes, yes, yes. It makes sense. Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.