Drolfille, my apologies for not engaging in the predetermined protocols to introduce myself to the forum. I'll have to go back and rectify that, but you missed the point. I get yours. Your not comfortable with people being armed around you period.
The quote button was not my friend 100% of the time, which is why I posted the way I did in this case. Besides, that makes reading a bit more tedious for others.
"Being a person holding a gun was her responsibility."
Eh, you make it sound like she got her experience/responsibility because she volunteered.
I'm not silly enough to think (nor did I state or imply) that if I stood to shoot at an armed gunperson (especially if they were still in FRONT of me) they wouldn't look at me and not try and take me out. They have already determined that I am among their group of victims - If I am faced with the choice of A) getting shot at while trying to run away (50% chance) or B) getting shot at while shooting at the gunman (50%), I'll take B. Regardless you do not have to stand to take a shot at someone. That's why people are taught to shoot prone (on their bellies) and in a kneeling position. If one were to crouch and lower their profile - which many did in this case, that affords you *some* albiet not great cover to conceal your intent. Be it running or pulling a weapon. I disagree with your position.
I'd say the chance of someone bursting into a classroom and firing on students is increasing by the day. Criminals and whackos are oppourtunists, they take the path of least resistence. Why do you think you don't hear about many places people are actually armed are attacked outside of war zones? This knucklehead still carried out his attack because he knew the police weren't actually sitting in the class room. He knew the odds were in his favor, being a prior student. He knew all the students were unarmed and he'd meet no resistence. Why do you think people attack malls? Same reasons. Why do you think people attack churches? Same reasons. I don't know about 1 in a million, but with those odds you better start playing the lottery.
"Staying alive is running, hiding, finding cover." -
That didn't help everyone. The only thing that made this less worse is the gunman taking himself out early because he didn't want to face the consequences.
"No. I wouldn't be armed either. The random chance that I would be in a classroom on a campus with a shooter, or any other similar situation (suicide by homicide essentially) is not high enough that I would carry, even if I were the best most controlled handler of a weapon in the country. I do believe this applies to everyone else around me as well, especially since none of them are the best, most controlled firearms experts either."
So by your thinking if I tried to punch you in the face, you'd let me. That's basically what your saying here, it's the same thing. If it is that's fine, I just want to clarify.
"The vast majority of college students on campus are 18-22. Special cases do not make the rule. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Same with the brain development. It's a fact. So yes, a minority of college students are "non-traditional" and a minority of those are ex-military and have specific firearms experience. This is rather irrellevant to the fact that I do not want the average college student carrying a weapon."
Glad to see your willing to allow the non-traditional and minority students to carry, a compromise then 
We agree.
I didn't mean to say I trusted the Police, lol. Nice catch, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, I clearly don't hold the position that Police are very accurate, any more so than an every day citizen with a permit and weapon would be. What I said is that they missed quite a bit and that's been documented. If the Police stand as good of a chance missing a shooter as well as a regular citizen who practices and carries, I'd still rather have a citizen being in that room trying to shoot back and potentially missing. That risk exists either way and is not exclusive to private citizens carrying weapons.
Threaded Mode
