JEFFERSON CITY, Mo

[sirs]

Even an idiot would be able to notice no such claim was ever made, or even implied.  Care to try again? 

[sirs]

For those non-idiots who are actually able to grasp the english language, the trend that was occuring here was Kimba inquiring how such legislation that's being passed in Missouri, to help better defend schools from would-be mass murderers, who might target a school in Missouri, would combat issues such as gang shootings, that is seen in the more urban areas such as San Francisco or Chicago.  As was being discussed with Kimba, such legislation is likely negligible in lessening such acts, if such legislation were being proposed in Califorina or Illinois, unless it were being done on school grounds.  I then inquired to Kimba what his ideas might include in addressing such gang shootings.

Professor Deflection then returned to try and refute the supposed claim about how the Missouri legislation would be able to combat gang crime in places like Chicago.  That would have been a ludicrous claim to begin with, had it been made, since legislation is the pervue of the state that passed it, not another, without some built in form of reciprocity. 

Made all the more ludicrous that such a claim was was never made, or even implied, to begin with

[kimba1]

I really wish I have an answer. most likely those school already doing the gun free thing(assuming) but I`m hesitate saying it`s a failure for the idea to actively try to prevent student from bring weapons to school just don`t seem that bad an idea. I think joe clark  solved his school situation and maybe learn from that.
look up the movie "stand by me"

but I must point out the problem is not a school shooting problem but a local community problem that places the school at risk. which may make these solution not very effective. but totally not an excuse to not try to stop. I say it like this to prevent semantics.

[sirs]

I agree with you, Kimba, on this being more a community problem vs a school problem, and why this legislation in question, won't have much of an effect on the community, as that's not its design.  It's design is specfically to better defend the children in schools from would-be mass killer want-to-be's

Bottom line is that the "bad guy" (be it a gang member, pathological student, home invader, mugger, rapist, murderer, or terrorist) has no intention of abiding by any law already passed or being proposed, which is why "gun free zones" are nothing more than a PC pipedream.  The only folks that are going to abide by such regulations/laws is the already law abiding citizen

What may have a better impact, although it'll fuel the anti-gun anti-2nd amendment all the more, is more legislation to incentivize and train more law abiding citizens to safely carry a firearm....if they chose to (don't want to confuse anyone that I want to "arm everyone").  Such training will lead to situations where bad guys are confronted with a firearm almost immediately, vs getting a 5+minute head start in their killing spree.  That's one answer, although I'm open to other suggestions 

[Xavier_Onassis]

The school shooters at Columbine started off by spraying a large room with bullets.
There were armed officers on the premises, ut it did not prevent many deaths.

[sirs]

Never claimed it would stop every death...only more than there would have been.  I realize you don't have a problem with more children being killed....I do

[Plane]

Yeah, more guns in Missouri public schools will surely stop gang violence in Chicago.

  Probably not , what would ?

     How about gang free zones?

[kimba1]

that's kind of happening here but the problem is these gang are quite large and out right banning them will just provoke them. in san Francisco we had federal intervention to rid the larger organization. sadly local politics has stall any preventive measures to prevent them from returning. which they did. I laugh at this situation because I see it as decision by the local which do they prefer gays or gangs. looks like gangs was the answer and now their stuck with it.

[kimba1]

hmm
another thought popped up. a lot of these school spree shootings are fairly planed out . so potentially having armed staff may escalate the situation. meaning the first to go will be armed staffers ,remember these kids has all the time to plot this out and don`t forget if it`s a specific bunch of kids it can`t be hard to circumvent the staffers protection.

pretty much saying the football teams can`t party anymore.

[sirs]

Not sure how such legislation "escalates" the situation.  The bad guy doesn't want to get shot.  If anything they're going to avoid any armed response, especially if the guns are concealed.  IIRC many of these bad guys shoot themselves when the police finally arrive with their guns

[kimba1]

Since some of these spree killers tend to kill themselve then possibly dealing with the armed responders may noy be as much of a deterent . In the adult world we have death by cop situation. Teenagers are less inclined to have a sense of self preservation. The very reason the bulk suicide prevent is geared toward teenagers not adults.  i'm just speculating but the more thought I put on it this pops up . Crazy huh?

[sirs]

They kill themselves precisely because they're coming up against an armed deterrent

[kimba1]

I had the impression that was planned

[Xavier_Onassis]

It seems to me that those involved in mass shootings have already planned to shoot themselves rather then be taken prisoner. It is not a sane act, and they can clearly expect to be gunned down after any mass shooting.

Those using bombs generally do not seem to plan to kill themselves. Mad bombers are stealthy, mad shooters are suicidal.

An adequate deterrent would be one that prevented them from entering the school or whatever with guns, before they could shoot anyone.

[kimba1]

one thing that would make it worst is profiling and suspending a would be spree killer. pretty sure that would be a trigger.