Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Kan (and anyone else)... seriously... read the following post with an open eye:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

It's a really long, but worth it...

It's a thorough and excellent overview of guns and gun control... In it, he lays out the reasons why the left calls for gun control, then eviscerates those arguments with facts and reason.

Good read, thank you

 azazel the cat wrote:
It's very easy to, uh, "eviscerate" arguments when nobody's going to edit your blog to ensure you don't make tired fallacy after tired fallacy. Specifically: believing anecdotal evidence trumps statistical analysis, nirvana fallacies and disingenuous conflations. In other words: the usual.


To anyone else: it's not worth it


There is nothing new in it; there are no insights that haven't been hashed out again and again.

Unlike many others he at least left the comments open so people with opposing views could rebut his position. Of course I'm sure you'll be able to deconstruct his argument, right?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kan (and anyone else)... seriously... read the following post with an open eye:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

It's a really long, but worth it...

It's a thorough and excellent overview of guns and gun control... In it, he lays out the reasons why the left calls for gun control, then eviscerates those arguments with facts and reason.

Good read, thank you

You're welcome!

 azazel the cat wrote:
It's very easy to, uh, "eviscerate" arguments when nobody's going to edit your blog to ensure you don't make tired fallacy after tired fallacy. Specifically: believing anecdotal evidence trumps statistical analysis, nirvana fallacies and disingenuous conflations. In other words: the usual.


To anyone else: it's not worth it


There is nothing new in it; there are no insights that haven't been hashed out again and again.

Unlike many others he at least left the comments open so people with opposing views could rebut his position. Of course I'm sure you'll be able to deconstruct his argument, right?

I don't think he can... hence why he blanked it with "tired fallacy after tired fallacy" statement.

I also thought it was relevant to the OP's post as THAT author states that "armed teachers" ALREADY exists in Utah. (did you see that Az and Kan?).

I did a google-fu search, and not once have I seen a teacher snapping by pulling out their CCW, or students getting their hands on it, or even "gasps" an attempt to shootup the schools.

 whembly wrote:
I did a google-fu search, and not once have I seen a teacher snapping by pulling out their CCW, or students getting their hands on it, or even "gasps" an attempt to shootup the schools.

I did like the point he made that with CCW laws going back decades we have yet to see the Wild West shoot out over minor disputes

If a trained security guard can do it, so can a history teacher.

 kronk wrote:
If a trained security guard can do it, so can a history teacher.

Well, of course dumb things can happen...

Here's the real question... what did the kids do with it?

This time? Nothing.

Next time? Get that kid that's been bullying him.

 kronk wrote:
This time? Nothing.

Next time? Get that kid that's been bullying him.

Okay... but you can't legislate or have policies on stupidity.

 whembly wrote:

 kronk wrote:
This time? Nothing.

Next time? Get that kid that's been bullying him.

Okay... but you can't legislate or have policies on stupidity.

I know. If we're going to pass laws for everyone of these "what if's" then we'd better not let anymore Saudi's into the country, because one time they flew some planes into buildings. Don't let anymore Chechnyan's in, because one time they blew up a marathon.

Those are at least things that have happened before. Instead we have people screaming about things that haven't even happened.

And there's never been a case of a monkey shooting a tourist, but I'm certainly not going to give the Chimpanzees at the Houston Zoo a bunch of loaded guns!

That could have amusing consequences. Green lit!

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I did a google-fu search, and not once have I seen a teacher snapping by pulling out their CCW, or students getting their hands on it, or even "gasps" an attempt to shootup the schools.

I did like the point he made that with CCW laws going back decades we have yet to see the Wild West shoot out over minor disputes

Is this dispute minor enough? It's based on being cut-off in traffic; NOT self-defense.The only reason this isn't the Wild West Shootout you're thinking of if because the kids that beat his ass aren't carrying. NSFW due to language.

whembly wrote:I don't think he can... hence why he blanked it with "tired fallacy after tired fallacy" statement.

I also thought it was relevant to the OP's post as THAT author states that "armed teachers" ALREADY exists in Utah. (did you see that Az and Kan?).

I did a google-fu search, and not once have I seen a teacher snapping by pulling out their CCW, or students getting their hands on it, or even "gasps" an attempt to shootup the schools.

Again, Wembly, I don't think I should need to repeat myself every single time you find a new blog post with the same old information. But I'll do it just once for you here:
1. He comes up with numbers like "average number of people shot in mass shootings stopped by officers versus civilians" without citing a source for his numbers. That means this numbers are bs. Additionally, he lists "mass shootings" at 2.5 when stopped by civilians; implying he has no idea if it would've been a mass shooting or not. If that's the case, then every time the police take down an armed suspect, that should count as a potential mass shooting that was prevented.

2. In the same paragraph, he implies causality without any evidence to support this alleged claim.

3. He makes the claim that every school in Utah has at least one capable, smart, blah blah handjob blah blah teacher with a CCW. He forgets to say how many schools have incompeted idiots with power fantasies, however. One does not preclude the other; it's very possible to have two competent CCW holders and two dumbasses like the gentleman shown in the linked video above.

4. The majority of his entire argument is based on the rhetoric of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" which is assinine; I've adressed this so often I'm sick of it. An example of his base assumption is found in the ridiculous "gun free zones are hunting preserves" line.

5. He lists 4 incidents that made the news, wherein his purpose is to show that the effects of not being a gun-free zone are better than not. Now, I hate these stupid "I'll-list-anecdotal-evidence-that-fits-my-own-personal-narrative" arguments, but this one is doubly hilarious because he not only pre-emptively starts crying about the librul media bias but he also contradicts himself in two ways:
A) He mentions an incident in Texas where the shooter was killed by an off-duty cop. An off-duty cop is not a civilian; so there goes his first few paragraphs about how the police aren't enough to respond in time and we need armed citizens.
B) He mentions how China is a gun-free country and someone went on a rampage with a knife; yet he fails to notice that there were zero fatalities.
C) The incident he describes in Oregon again fails due to the fallacy of implied causation. He has no proof that the shooter killed himself because he was confronted. In many "mass" shootings, the shooter targets one or two specific people then takes their own life (this was mentioned in an article I cited in another thread; I don't want to dig it up again, but it's in my post history)
D) While he hasn't contradicted himself on the Connecticut example, that's a solitary example. For every one he pulls up, I can pull up one that shows the exact opposite. That's why anecdotal evidence is valueless.

I can keep going, but I really don't want to as I've picked apart his argument quite a bit just to prove how easy it is, and I'm only at the Librul Media Conpiracy!!1! part of his giant article. Quite frankly, I think that when I pointed out the exact problems with his article for you, you couldn't easily used that as a lens with which to re-read the article and see exactly why it's the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh talking about poor people or Pat Roberts talking about homosexuals: either you already believe everything this guy says and this is porn to you, or you already disagree with some or most of what this guy says and this is a really tired and played out rerun.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Is this dispute minor enough? It's based on being cut-off in traffic; NOT self-defense.The only reason this isn't the Wild West Shootout you're thinking of if because the kids that beat his ass aren't carrying. NSFW due to language.

So one dispute now = Wild West type carrying of hand guns? And you're the person who complained about anecdotes vs evidence?

 kronk wrote:
And there's never been a case of a monkey shooting a tourist, but I'm certainly not going to give the Chimpanzees at the Houston Zoo a bunch of loaded guns!

Hey! Just because they are hairy and throw poo doesn't mean they are chimps. They could be my inlaws down for a visit.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Is this dispute minor enough? It's based on being cut-off in traffic; NOT self-defense.The only reason this isn't the Wild West Shootout you're thinking of if because the kids that beat his ass aren't carrying. NSFW due to language.

So one dispute now = Wild West type carrying of hand guns? And you're the person who complained about anecdotes vs evidence?

I noticed that too...

Azazel... you said your piece, I've said mine.

That doesn't mean you're right or I'm right... we both have opinions. I can provide counter arguments all day long and it'll be a circular argument till kingdom come...

Having said that, you can stay on your side of the 49th parallel.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Again, Wembly, I don't think I should need to repeat myself every single time you find a new blog post with the same old information. But I'll do it just once for you here:
1. He comes up with numbers like "average number of people shot in mass shootings stopped by officers versus civilians" without citing a source for his numbers. That means this numbers are bs. Additionally, he lists "mass shootings" at 2.5 when stopped by civilians; implying he has no idea if it would've been a mass shooting or not. If that's the case, then every time the police take down an armed suspect, that should count as a potential mass shooting that was prevented.

So how many mass shootings have CCWs stopped then? Its always going to be difficult to nail down an exact number specifically because they are often stopped in their infancy before the casualty rate is as severe as mass shootings that the Police stop. Or do you have a problem with extrapolating what could very easily have happened based on prior events - armed perpetrator in a gun free zone, Police not able to be on the scene for some time giving the perpetrator ample time to cause harm (Aurora, Columbine etc.). You are asking him to prove the impossible, whilst ignoring a reasonable line of argument

 azazel the cat wrote:
2. In the same paragraph, he implies causality without any evidence to support this alleged claim.

So you're disputing the fact that most mass shooting incidents don't happen in gun free zones? Can you give us the breakdown of mass shootings in gun free areas vs areas that permit concealed carry?

 azazel the cat wrote:
3. He makes the claim that every school in Utah has at least one capable, smart, blah blah handjob blah blah teacher with a CCW. He forgets to say how many schools have incompeted idiots with power fantasies, however. One does not preclude the other; it's very possible to have two competent CCW holders and two dumbasses like the gentleman shown in the linked video above.

And how many schools (a) have incompetent idiots with power fantasies, (b) how many of these incompetent idiots with power fantasies have CCW permits, and have a firearm in school? You keep asking for evidence and figures but you lack them yourself. You're taking a short clip of one incident, with very few details that would give it more context, and using it to extrapolate it to those carrying CCWs in a school. That incident showed what can happen in a situation where an argument escalates. Had there been nothing but tire irons, then that would have been the weapon used. That scenario is different to what the author talked about which was a mass shooting scenario - its not an argument escalating to violence. Its someone with a weapon and malice aforethought coming in to wreck havoc on innocent people.
Did you also miss the background checks and the training that the CCW teachers went through?

 azazel the cat wrote:
4. The majority of his entire argument is based on the rhetoric of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" which is assinine; I've adressed this so often I'm sick of it. An example of his base assumption is found in the ridiculous "gun free zones are hunting preserves" line.

So how do you stop someone with a gun, lots of ammunition and a desire to kill as many people as possible? Will harsh language suffice? You claim that the line is ridiculous after he gives many examples of shooting incidents in gun free zones, yet you don't give any figure that refutes his claim. Again, can you please show us the difference in mass shooting incidents that happened in gun free zones compared to zones that permit concealed carry.

 azazel the cat wrote:
5. He lists 4 incidents that made the news, wherein his purpose is to show that the effects of not being a gun-free zone are better than not. Now, I hate these stupid "I'll-list-anecdotal-evidence-that-fits-my-own-personal-narrative" arguments, but this one is doubly hilarious because he not only pre-emptively starts crying about the librul media bias but he also contradicts himself in two ways:

Agreed that he could have picked better examples. But concerning the media, was he railing against the "librul media bias", or the fact that what they routinely say concerning firearms is inaccurate (no pun intended)?

 azazel the cat wrote:
A) He mentions an incident in Texas where the shooter was killed by an off-duty cop. An off-duty cop is not a civilian; so there goes his first few paragraphs about how the police aren't enough to respond in time and we need armed citizens.

An off duty cop is not an ordinary civilian, but by the same token that ordinary cop was off duty and so his prompt response isn't enough to negate the fact that the police aren't there in enough time to respond.

 azazel the cat wrote:
C) The incident he describes in Oregon again fails due to the fallacy of implied causation. He has no proof that the shooter killed himself because he was confronted. In many "mass" shootings, the shooter targets one or two specific people then takes their own life (this was mentioned in an article I cited in another thread; I don't want to dig it up again, but it's in my post history)

You say that he has no evidence for his position, other than based on previous mass shootings and the fact that he did indeed shoot himself after being confronted, yet you also provide no evidence to show that he killed himself because he shot the people he was after and that was enough.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I can keep going, but I really don't want to as I've picked apart his argument quite a bit just to prove how easy it is, and I'm only at the Librul Media Conpiracy!!1! part of his giant article. Quite frankly, I think that when I pointed out the exact problems with his article for you, you couldn't easily used that as a lens with which to re-read the article and see exactly why it's the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh talking about poor people or Pat Roberts talking about homosexuals: either you already believe everything this guy says and this is porn to you, or you already disagree with some or most of what this guy says and this is a really tired and played out rerun.

In that article he doesn't mention "Librul Media Conpiracy", you do. In fact by doing so you prove his point later on about being vilified to shut down the debate. He is concerned with the inaccuracy and double standards in the media. having watched plenty of news coverage from various incidents over the years to say that the average journalist's factual knowledge of guns (compared to dramatic representations) is pretty minimal. Why do you think its a running joke that to a journalist every gun is an AK-47? He doesn't say that this is organised, or that someone is funding them. You have though. You then go on to ignore everything else he has to say concerning the media and its coverage. You ignored that because you could dismiss it as conspiracy theory.

Having read the article here's my take on it;

I have to say that I agree with him on a lot of points;
- People opposing gun control don't seem to know what the law is, but they can distort the wording of the Second Amendement and dream up any number of nightmare scenarios
- He is absolutely right about gun control being a lecture and not a discussion. When you set out your opposition to something with mis-information, "Won't somebody think of the children" or trying to vilify the other side then you aren't interested in an honest talk. And frankly Obama showed that when he talked about the Constitution limiting his powers before the vote and after he was defeated he tried to shame those who support people enjoying their legal right
- I absolutely agree on the "No Guns Allowed" areas too. Someone has a weapon (possibly illegally) and the intent to commit heinous crimes, will a sign really stop them? If they were effective then we wouldn't have so many mass shootings there?
- I agree with the media bias and how they attempt to characterise legal gun owners as would-be-mass-murderers, or apologists for them. Also most times when a pundit opens his/her mouth on the issue of gun control (s)he very often shows complete ignorance for how guns work, the legislation etc. and sensationalises it, often before the bodies are cold. And don't get me started on Piers Morgan Those committing mass shootings shouldn't be given their 15 minutes of fame so they can show they world that they aren't losers/their grievance was legitimate/whatever pathetic excuse they had, but that means that the news gets less views, their websites get less traffic etc. so its in their interests to not only publish every minute detail of the perpetrator's life but to then have their talking heads try to analyse it in painstaking detail
- Mental health issues should be left to the professionals. Its nice to see someone who knows where the limits of his expertise are.
- Gun control laws. Yup, the "we must do something, and quickly before people think too hard" brigade are just political vultures trying to push an agenda after a tragedy and not interested in rational debate. I can't disagree with him on anything there, especially pointing out that the mass shootings from CCW holders has never happened. If these advocates think that people's legal rights should be infringed because a small number of people break the law then I hope they don't drive or own a car. After all, think of the carnage caused by drink drivers.
- Assault weapons he is absolutely right about. The media and gun control/ban advocates can't define what an assault rifle is, other than a scary looking tacticool black rifle that is functionally identical to any other semi-automatic rifle. In which case this reaction is a moral panic, its not addressing a serious issue in a meaningful way.
- I hate the argument that "Well the 2nd Amendment was only supposed to cover muskets". You mean muskets which were the pinnacle of technology in their day? Those muskets?

Those opposed to guns and advocating for gun control seem to forget a very basic fact - the people who carry out these mass shootings are already intent on breaking the law, often will illegally held weapons and/or magazines. They are not likely to be dissuaded by gun control which punishes people who legally hold firearms. Every terrorist group in Northern Ireland was legally prevented from getting guns. Guess what, they got them by the boat load - from Libya, South Africa, Syria, Eastern Europe

I honestly think that some people seem to believe that if they repeat the same tired old arguments time and time again then by attrition, not logic or reason, they'll wear down or vilify their opponents enough until they cave in. I'm sorry that some people don't understand guns, gun law and how they function. However that isn't a reason to ban or restrict something because you're ignorant. I lived in a country where violence (often with firearms) was common, but I went out of my way to learn some things about firearms so it was less abstract.

Exalted Dreadclaw!

 Seaward wrote:

That's the most optimistic assessment I've seen yet, and I've been reading HuffPo.

You're assuming I wanted the bill to pass, which is foolish because I don't really care.

This is a case of the Senate pretending to do a thing, and asking two junior Senators to fall on their swords.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

- Gun control laws. Yup, the "we must do something, and quickly before people think too hard" brigade are just political vultures trying to push an agenda after a tragedy and not interested in rational debate. I can't disagree with him on anything there, especially pointing out that the mass shootings from CCW holders has never happened. If these advocates think that people's legal rights should be infringed because a small number of people break the law then I hope they don't drive or own a car. After all, think of the carnage caused by drink drivers.
- Assault weapons he is absolutely right about. The media and gun control/ban advocates can't define what an assault rifle is, other than a scary looking tacticool black rifle that is functionally identical to any other semi-automatic rifle. In which case this reaction is a moral panic, its not addressing a serious issue in a meaningful way.
- I hate the argument that "Well the 2nd Amendment was only supposed to cover muskets". You mean muskets which were the pinnacle of technology in their day? Those muskets?

Those opposed to guns and advocating for gun control seem to forget a very basic fact - the people who carry out these mass shootings are already intent on breaking the law, often will illegally held weapons and/or magazines. They are not likely to be dissuaded by gun control which punishes people who legally hold firearms. Every terrorist group in Northern Ireland was legally prevented from getting guns. Guess what, they got them by the boat load - from Libya, South Africa, Syria, Eastern Europe

If anyone recalls that shooting at the Oregon mall? Depending on the source you look at, the shooter was stopped when a legally carrying CCW holder merely pointed his pistol at the guy (Mr. CCW told news reporters that he felt he didn't have a clear enough shot to take down the actual shooter). Apparently, the shooter saw an armed person pointing a weapon at him, he turned ran a bit, and then shot himself, of course we'll never really know if this was due to facing death by someone else or not, but it definitely makes the case that honest and good people with CCWs CAN make a difference if placed in the situation.

I recently read an opinion piece on Fox news's website (yeah i know... i was bored at work with tons of time to kill) where the author basically boiled the gun control/pro-gun argument down and strongly suggested that if each side were less inflammatory (he used Jim Carrey's online presence, youtube videos, etc. you can find it yourself) towards each other, then an actual debate could happen. But this is also endemic of American Politics of today.

Did anyone think that Joe Biden looked uncomfortable in the vid?

 Cheesecat wrote:
Did anyone think that Joe Biden looked uncomfortable in the vid?

Could have forgotten his medication

 Cheesecat wrote:
Did anyone think that Joe Biden looked uncomfortable in the vid?

Probably heart broken that his shotgun advice will now go unheeded


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
If anyone recalls that shooting at the Oregon mall? Depending on the source you look at, the shooter was stopped when a legally carrying CCW holder merely pointed his pistol at the guy (Mr. CCW told news reporters that he felt he didn't have a clear enough shot to take down the actual shooter). Apparently, the shooter saw an armed person pointing a weapon at him, he turned ran a bit, and then shot himself, of course we'll never really know if this was due to facing death by someone else or not, but it definitely makes the case that honest and good people with CCWs CAN make a difference if placed in the situation.

Thanks for the extra info on the Oregon mall.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I recently read an opinion piece on Fox news's website (yeah i know... i was bored at work with tons of time to kill) where the author basically boiled the gun control/pro-gun argument down and strongly suggested that if each side were less inflammatory (he used Jim Carrey's online presence, youtube videos, etc. you can find it yourself) towards each other, then an actual debate could happen. But this is also endemic of American Politics of today.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Recently we aren't seeing any sort of middle ground, which gives an all or nothing feel to proceedings. That polarises the debate and society further and further.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Did anyone think that Joe Biden looked uncomfortable in the vid?

His facial expression was the laughing stock of the work center. He couldn't have done any worse of an acting job on that one. That was the hardest frown I've seen in my life.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I recently read an opinion piece on Fox news's website (yeah i know... i was bored at work with tons of time to kill) where the author basically boiled the gun control/pro-gun argument down and strongly suggested that if each side were less inflammatory (he used Jim Carrey's online presence, youtube videos, etc. you can find it yourself) towards each other, then an actual debate could happen. But this is also endemic of American Politics of today.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Recently we aren't seeing any sort of middle ground, which gives an all or nothing feel to proceedings. That polarises the debate and society further and further.

And sadly, I personally think that politicians in today's climate would be committing virtual seppuku for compromising on just about any major issue.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Is this dispute minor enough? It's based on being cut-off in traffic; NOT self-defense.The only reason this isn't the Wild West Shootout you're thinking of if because the kids that beat his ass aren't carrying. NSFW due to language.

So one dispute now = Wild West type carrying of hand guns? And you're the person who complained about anecdotes vs evidence?

You said that the wild west -style shootouts never happen over minor incidents. I gave you a piece of video evidence to directly prove you wrong. And now you are upset that I didn't show you a thousand videos.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
2. In the same paragraph, he implies causality without any evidence to support this alleged claim.

So you're disputing the fact that most mass shooting incidents don't happen in gun free zones? Can you give us the breakdown of mass shootings in gun free areas vs areas that permit concealed carry?

And now you appear to be smugly asking me to prove a negative, wherein the burden lies on the article author to prove the positive.


I'm always interested in an interesting debate, but I'm tired of this rerun and have no patience to explain in even more simplistic terms what a logical fallacy is. I never p[lanned to convince you of anything you don't want to accept; but I do enjoy creating the spectacle for the audience. Since I have already done that, I am now through engaging with you in this thread, as it is clearly no longer worthy of my time. Feel free to reply if you want the last word on it.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You said that the wild west -style shootouts never happen over minor incidents. I gave you a piece of video evidence to directly prove you wrong. And now you are upset that I didn't show you a thousand videos.

That's not what I said. I was echoing the words of the author of the article that you attempted to debunk when he said that CCW permits have not created the Wild West culture with weapons being drawn over minor disputes that some people feared. One example does not show a trend, no matter how much you may want it to. So unless you can show actual evidence that what the video showed is a growing and significant trend then you are using anecdotes as evidence in spite of your obvious disdain for such conduct. Also as previously stated that video shows a very different circumstance compared to the carrying of CCWs by trained and monitored teachers.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
2. In the same paragraph, he implies causality without any evidence to support this alleged claim.

So you're disputing the fact that most mass shooting incidents don't happen in gun free zones? Can you give us the breakdown of mass shootings in gun free areas vs areas that permit concealed carry?

And now you appear to be smugly asking me to prove a negative, wherein the burden lies on the article author to prove the positive.

I'm not smugly asking you to do anything. What I'm asking for is a breakdown of shootings in gun free zones vs zones where CCWs are permitted. That is not asking you to prove a negative, its asking you to back you your assertion with figures especially after you castigated another for not having figures to substantiate his position.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'm always interested in an interesting debate, but I'm tired of this rerun and have no patience to explain in even more simplistic terms what a logical fallacy is. I never p[lanned to convince you of anything you don't want to accept; but I do enjoy creating the spectacle for the audience. Since I have already done that, I am now through engaging with you in this thread, as it is clearly no longer worthy of my time. Feel free to reply if you want the last word on it.

I love these attempts at leaving a thread after an undignified scramble for the moral high ground.
Shame that your interesting debate recently has been to smear someone with who you disagree by trying to label him a conspiracy theorist, then by mis-representing an argument (as seen above) and hypocritically attacking someone for not giving evidence and then refusing to provide any figures yourself and attempting to wriggle out of it, as well as engaging in your own logical fallacies and deliberate distortions of facts in an attempt to substantiate your own argument.
So please cling to whatever illusions you have of moral supremacy and and cries of "Are you not entertained" while you are creating a spectacle for the audience

Just a hypothetical situation here:

Let's say you have a school that still follows the "gun free zone" rules has a mass shooter in the school, but a teacher that is otherwise legally carrying (as in, they'd be completely legal to conceal carry if not for physically being in the school), steps in and stops the shooting event with minimal casualties.

Would this teacher be fired for breaking rules (until the media circus forced the 'hero' to maintain their job), or would they be overall hailed as a hero, and more places look at taking a similar action/legalizing the concealed carry by teachers and administrators?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just a hypothetical situation here:

Let's say you have a school that still follows the "gun free zone" rules has a mass shooter in the school, but a teacher that is otherwise legally carrying (as in, they'd be completely legal to conceal carry if not for physically being in the school), steps in and stops the shooting event with minimal casualties.

Would this teacher be fired for breaking rules (until the media circus forced the 'hero' to maintain their job), or would they be overall hailed as a hero, and more places look at taking a similar action/legalizing the concealed carry by teachers and administrators?

Depends on the state.

Almost certainly fired. Maybe, maybe if they prevented all casualties whilst say being wounded themselves they might get enough public support to weather the storm, but otherwise I can't see them keeping their jobs in violation of school rules and the law.

Just a hypothetical situation here:

Let's say you have a school that still follows the "gun free zone" rules has a mass shooter in the school, but a teacher that is otherwise legally carrying (as in, they'd be completely legal to conceal carry if not for physically being in the school), steps in and stops the shooting event with minimal casualties.

Would this teacher be fired for breaking rules (until the media circus forced the 'hero' to maintain their job), or would they be overall hailed as a hero, and more places look at taking a similar action/legalizing the concealed carry by teachers and administrators?

Don't recall Joel Myrick being fired after a very similar instance to what you describe....

But that's also in the south, and not the "Civilized" parts of the country, where appropriate responses to murderers and predators are considered barbaric and unworkable.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just a hypothetical situation here:

Let's say you have a school that still follows the "gun free zone" rules has a mass shooter in the school, but a teacher that is otherwise legally carrying (as in, they'd be completely legal to conceal carry if not for physically being in the school), steps in and stops the shooting event with minimal casualties.

Would this teacher be fired for breaking rules (until the media circus forced the 'hero' to maintain their job), or would they be overall hailed as a hero, and more places look at taking a similar action/legalizing the concealed carry by teachers and administrators?

I know that in northern Indiana something like that did happen. A pharmacist drew his CCW weapon during a robbery when staff were allegedly being taken to a back room to be killed. His actions prevented any deaths and stopped the robbery, but because the company had a no firearms rule he was fired.