Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
You want me to get psychological? There is a reason guns are the weapon of choice for violent crimes, especially among young men. It's the least personal way to kill someone. You need to get close enough to someone to see the life leaving their face to kill them with other methods. That's a level of intimacy most people are unable, or unwilling, to do. So no, without a gun, it's a VERY safe assumption that this victim is not assaulted.

I don't see what Obama or his family have to do with this, but the secret service has protected the first family for centuries. I don't see the relevance. They would have that armed detail with them wherever they go, whether that be school, church, the arcade, the park, or anywhere. You're sensationalizing. The fact is an armed police officer was unable to prevent this shooting. Since the Newport shooting, everyone's go to solution is having armed police officers on campus. Well here is a case study, and it didn't turn out the way the NRA says it would. So now what...?
He chose his victim. You're assuming his cowardice would have prevented the murder if he had not had access to a firearm. But you can't say definitely. Maybe he hated the other kid so much he wanted to see maximum carnage. Theres always a what if or a but, however, the fact is one kid wanted to kill another.

And I have no issue with SS protection for POTUS and his family, but isn't it convenient that the POTUS sends his kids to a school that already employed 11 armed guards BEFORE he sent his kids there.....so again, you're comparing one guard at a school, and i'm saying what happens when you multiply the armed guards? Want to bet the kid that shot the other kid in Cali might have rethought that strategy knowing there were more than one armed guard at the school? Whats and Buts.....

Don't be so quick to dismiss the case study until you've studied all the facets