
Originally Posted by
David88vert
As I mentioned earlier, location and situation determines which tool is best of the job. In your situation of 5 people above, the size of the room and placement of the individuals, along with their skills levels, as welll as your own skill level, would determine which is a better tool for that task.
A 10x10 room, with them spread out evenly all around, and you charging into the middle, does not mean you want a gun. Actually, if you have any combat skill, you would be more inclinded to choose a good long blade instead.
A gynasium or large lunch room (more in line with the Columbine situation), would call for a gun more.
Guns have a longer reach, but in tight quarters, then the knife has the advantage, due to its flexibility in use.
You have to use the right tool for the right situation. And to be clear, guns do have more situations where they are the better tool to use, but a blanket statement is not correct.
Your note of getting sick people off the streets is the part of a real approach to the problem. Planning for the worst involves placing armed individuals at schools to protect the students. The issue with that is it costs a LOT of money, and there is not a lot of extra money these days.
Let me make this clear to everyone. There is no problem with gun-free zones IF you address them correctly. Our courts are gun-free zones, yet we have armed baliffs to protect innocent people. Our planes are gun-free zones, yet we have sky marshalls. If you want to have a gun-free zone, then you have to provide adequate security for that venue. It's that simple. If you do not provide armed security on-site, then it should not be a gun-free zone.