Gun Control Debate #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, same, tbh. (bbm) That's the safest and most logical answer, imo.

I teased out how arming teachers interferes (even unintentionally) with effective, protective law enforcement and first responder roles — and the potential cascade of negative consequences all the way down the line.

Just thinking outside the box (in this case, the classroom) to see the whole picture. We can't allow a scenario in which a trained teacher, willing or otherwise, interferes with law enforcement's role, especially as the event is unfolding. Oh, man. No. Just, no. For everyone's sake.


I would much rather have dedicated staff who are just there for security. I'm not excited at the prospect of firearms in a workplace which was previously a gun free zone, but if they have to be there I'd much rather it not be the teachers being the carriers. That way if there was a shooting, the teachers could do their job of containing the children, getting the classroom locked and keeping everyone calm and quiet, and the security personnel could go do their thing.

Adding firearms to the mix impacts more than just the ones carrying. I feel it's disingenuous to imply only the teachers who would be armed would be affected, because introducing firearms and armed colleagues changes the protocols, expectations, and safety of all the school personnel.
 
Yup. Thank you, Blef. Officers focus on the person with the weapon. It's critical they do, obviously. They don't know what they're walking into or who the baddie is. More guns = more confusion.

Just to show how confusing these situations are, here is a story of a man who wrestled a gun from a potential shooter in Texas, and then the responding police officer shot HIM! How confusing would a scenario be if there are up to 3,000 terrified children and staff around.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/worl...the-police-arrived/ar-BBJHf6I?ocid=spartanntp
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you suggesting that because a) Dicks sold these guns after Sandy Hook, that b) Dicks is hypocritical/disingenuous to ever stop selling them?

Maybe they temporarily quit selling them in honor of the victims. It seems to me if you're taking a stand against something by not selling it then why start selling it again.

I never said they were hypocritical or disingenuous.
 
First: Overall, I agree with the intent of OP’s points — some key school personnel could have access to a firearm.

To succeed, however, I strongly believe that law enforcement's key leadership role as first responder — and all the justice-related stuff that goes with that — must remain intact.

But first, I’ll “play out the reel,” so to speak, on OP’s reasoning (quoted below).

1. Correct. Generally. People tend to overestimate skill and underestimate threat during highly emotional/stressful scenarios. For example, during an active shooter event.

2. Protecting a home from an intruder and engaging in one-on-one armed combat to “best protect” 3,000 students from high-octane firepower are completely unrelated scenarios. It’s dangerous to conflate the two. IMO

3. Logically, a teacher volunteer becomes the first responder — trumping law enforcement — just by being there. That puts fantasy land-levels of expectation and accountability onto a teacher, regardless of how confident or competent they are.

4. And probably most important: They aren't law enforcement officers. Period. From a law enforcement perspective, No. 3 (above) creates a cascade of justice-related failures in protocol, leadership, evidence, etc., all the way through the courts. Cases would not be prosecutable. Killers walk. Kiss justice goodbye!

__________________

Jumping off that, how about:

1. A qualified adult in a school could receive requisite training and ability to aid police and first responders, under law enforcement direction.

2. Create a resource pool — a “contact” list of trained, qualified citizen volunteers within a school from which LE can communicate and/or work with in some capacity under law enforcement’s discretion and direction only.

3. That way, laws, protocols, chains of command, evidence — everything — are preserved. That restricts the volunteer from inadvertently inheriting (or interfering with) law enforcement’s critical "first responder" role.

4. SOLUTION? A quasi "deputy" program in which a qualified civilian volunteer at a school who meets training and experience requirements works with a law enforcement agency — if/when specifically directed to do so by the relative law enforcement agency.

5. School districts and law enforcement agencies, like Broward County and Parkland, work this solution into their emergency response plans. It becomes a template of sorts that other districts can tweak and implement if they so choose.​

This seems like a more realistic — and justice- and safety-oriented — scenario to me.

This is not THE solution, but part of one, imo.

What’cha think, WS peeps?

If a teacher has to wait for direction from law enforcement then it's too late.
 
...So what you have is a system that preserves the "rights" of seriously mentally ill people to refuse or avoid care, above the "rights" of the rest of the public not to be hurt or injured by them....

God, it's so depressing.

Respectfully snipped by me, for space and emphasis. I also added the ellipses to indicate where I snipped.

Right now we have a system that preserves the "rights" of citizens to bear arms above the "rights" of the rest of the public not to be hurt or injured by them.

It is depressing!
 
Going to close this in about 5 minutes and start a new thread.
 
Maybe it is PR. If they took a stand after Sandy Hook they shouldn't need to take a stand now. IMO

Apparently they decided their stand after Sandy Hook was not strong enough and could be improved. What is wrong with them taking a second stand?

Did you see the CEO on TV interviews this morning? He was very good, and said he enjoys shooting his guns, particularly at clay pigeons. A gun owner (enthusiast?), who is able to make compromises for the good of society and schools is A-OK in my book.
 
Apparently they decided their stand after Sandy Hook was not strong enough and could be improved. What is wrong with them taking a second stand?

Did you see the CEO on TV interviews this morning? He was very good, and said he enjoys shooting his guns, particularly at clay pigeons. A gun owner (enthusiast?), who is able to make compromises for the good of society and schools is A-OK in my book.

I honestly believe the majority of gun owners are in this camp vs the ones who are staunchly in the NRA mindset of open rights with no regulations. I think the NRA camp is just most vocal.
 
Maybe they temporarily quit selling them in honor of the victims. It seems to me if you're taking a stand against something by not selling it then why start selling it again.

I never said they were hypocritical or disingenuous.

?? They did not start selling again in the Dick’s Sporting Goods. They were only sold after Sandy Hook at their Field and Stream branches (where they had always been sold, before/after) . Now they will no longer be sold in either.

It’s in the article linked above by me and in the statement from Dick’s store.
 
My point was that Dicks Sporting Goods banned assault weapons after Sandy Hook. Why did they lift the ban?


They never “lifted their ban”. They no longer sold assault weapons at Dick’s stores after Sandy Hook. But they continued to be sold in their off-shoot store, Field and Stream.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
1,254
Total visitors
1,385

Forum statistics

Threads
600,805
Messages
18,113,909
Members
230,990
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top