Ben Shapiro on the walkout

[Emptymag]

Protecting several thousand students with a few armed individuals will not make everyone safe, no more than walking the streets legally armed.

There might be a deterrence factor if schools are known to have armed individuals.

Are you being intentionally dense for the sake of argument?

Tell me how I'm wrong.
I did not claim that 3 people can protect the entire school.

I SAID that a school with ZERO armed security is "undeniably less protected" than a school with three armed security personnel.

Unless you live in an alternate, liberal universe, that statement can not be disputed.

[Gun]

Are you being intentionally dense for the sake of argument?

Tell me how I'm wrong.
I did not claim that 3 people can protect the entire school.

I SAID that a school with ZERO armed security is "undeniably less protected" than a school with three armed security personnel.

Unless you live in an alternate, liberal universe, that statement can not be disputed.

Do you feel safe, protected when you are armed?

I don't, but I know I have a fighting chance, as long as I'm able to fight to use my firearm.

Being armed won't stop a surprise attack.

[Emptymag]

Do you feel safe, protected when you are armed?

I don't, but I know I have a fighting chance, as long as I'm able to fight to use my firearm.

Being armed won't stop a surprise attack.

I think something is wrong with you, perhaps, if you can't see that having a gun gives you a better chance of being protected than not having a gun.

Who the fuck said anything about "stopping" a "surprise attack"?

You keep inserting shit that has nothing to do with what is being said. It's like talking to free.

[Gun]

I think something is wrong with you, perhaps, if you can't see that having a gun gives you a better chance of being protected than not having a gun.

Who the fuck said anything about "stopping" a "surprise attack"?

You keep inserting shit that has nothing to do with what is being said. It's like talking to free.

No, nothing wrong, just pragmatic, and understanding how unrealistic the the comment I quoted in post 6 was.

[GunLawyer001]

No, nothing wrong, just pragmatic, and understanding how unrealistic the the comment I quoted in post 6 was.

Actually, it looks an awful lot like someone trolling. If you aren't trolling, then figure out why it looks like you are.

As for the "gun free zones", these are the product of irrational minds, the kinds of people who see a correlation between "people walking around with open umbrellas" and "heavy rain", so they attempt to reduce rainfall by banning umbrellas.

Yes, they are that stupid.

Gun-free zones have been proven to be homicide magnets; that's why we have school shootings but nobody shooting up gun shows. if an unbalanced loser decides to gain fame and notoriety by killing a bunch of strangers, he's NOT going to pick a venue where he stands a good chance of being gunned down in the first 5 seconds. That's embarrassing, among the peers in Loony World, where a hefty body count will etch your name in blood for eternity. Does anybody think that the losers who shot up Columbine would have achieved the same level of enduring publicity through their available alternatives of "intensive video game playing" or "chronic masturbating"?

They say that "you want to solve the problem of too many guns by adding more guns!!!" In fact, the problem is the disparity of force between armed lunatics and unarmed students and teachers and staff. This is NOT like dealing with an epidemic of terrorists setting off hand grenades inside crowded elevators, by handing out more hand grenades to ensure complete mutual destruction; it's more like dealing with a surge of swordsmen by handing out swords and shields to the trustworthy folks. It's like building up your own air force when your blood enemies are building up their air force. The only way to counter force is with force, not through caucuses or conferences or circle-jerks or meaningful navel-gazing. You don't argue with a grizzly bear, you either flee or shoot him with something big.

[JenniferG]

Actually, it looks an awful lot like someone trolling. If you aren't trolling, then figure out why it looks like you are.

As for the "gun free zones", these are the product of irrational minds, the kinds of people who see a correlation between "people walking around with open umbrellas" and "heavy rain", so they attempt to reduce rainfall by banning umbrellas.

Yes, they are that stupid.

Gun-free zones have been proven to be homicide magnets; that's why we have school shootings but nobody shooting up gun shows. if an unbalanced loser decides to gain fame and notoriety by killing a bunch of strangers, he's NOT going to pick a venue where he stands a good chance of being gunned down in the first 5 seconds. That's embarrassing, among the peers in Loony World, where a hefty body count will etch your name in blood for eternity. Does anybody think that the losers who shot up Columbine would have achieved the same level of enduring publicity through their available alternatives of "intensive video game playing" or "chronic masturbating"?

They say that "you want to solve the problem of too many guns by adding more guns!!!" In fact, the problem is the disparity of force between armed lunatics and unarmed students and teachers and staff. This is NOT like dealing with an epidemic of terrorists setting off hand grenades inside crowded elevators, by handing out more hand grenades to ensure complete mutual destruction; it's more like dealing with a surge of swordsmen by handing out swords and shields to the trustworthy folks. It's like building up your own air force when your blood enemies are building up their air force. The only way to counter force is with force, not through caucuses or conferences or circle-jerks or meaningful navel-gazing. You don't argue with a grizzly bear, you either flee or shoot him with something big.

Swords? I'm in. Once the shooter is captured we use him for Sengoku era style Tamishigiri.

[GunLawyer001]

Swords? I'm in. Once the shooter is captured we use him for Sengoku era style Tamishigiri.

. . .

We managed to rack up huge body counts long before we tamed gunpowder and nukes and napalm, so I guess swords are pretty effective.

[Gun]

Actually, it looks an awful lot like someone trolling. If you aren't trolling, then figure out why it looks like you are.

Not even close. While it is true, gun-free zones are prime targets, if the zone is big, do you think a few guns should pacify everyone in that zone?

This is the problemI have with what I quoted, like the thought of being safe if I just carry a gun. A gun is no good unless I can use it when I need to use it, because it isn't a protection blanket.

[Yoder]

Protecting several thousand students with a few armed individuals will not make everyone safe, no more than walking the streets legally armed.

There might be a deterrence factor if schools are known to have armed individuals.

Are schools that have no armed police MORE safe? Maybe they should unlock all the doors and rip out the fire alarms too.

[Walleye Hunter]

I like Ben Shapiro's take on things. It's refreshing to hear the voice of reason now and then.