Gun Control Debate #3

[PrairieWind]

Look, the next school shooter is out there, sadly. We all know this. He has his gun and his ammo and his plan. He could strike tomorrow, or Monday. Will an AR15 ban stop him ? No. The next school shooter after him is already out there, he has his gun and ammo and is working on his plan, will the ban stop him? No. The next shooter after that is out there, he has his gun and probably his ammo and is working on a plan. Will a ban stop him? No. And so on and so on. There are millions of AR's already out there, banning them would take a generation to get them out of the hands of killers. But arming teachers that want to be armed could begin tomorrow. And it might, no guaranty, but might save a life in the next shooting, or two lives, and it might save lives in the next shooting. Why would we not do this? We can implement it now! If the teacher in Florida who was killed holding the door for students to escape had had a gun, how many lives could he have saved? Even if its just one, is that worth it? How many of the 17 dead would still be alive? This is a no-brainer to me?

I know the people posting here really do mean well. And I respect their opinions, I truly do. But not even allowing this to be considered seems crazy to me.

 

[flourish]

Look, the next school shooter is out there, sadly. We all know this. He has his gun and his ammo and his plan. He could strike tomorrow, or Monday. Will an AR15 ban stop him ? No. The next school shooter after him is already out there, he has his gun and ammo and is working on his plan, will the ban stop him? No. The next shooter after that is out there, he has his gun and probably his ammo and is working on a plan. Will a ban stop him? No. And so on and so on. There are millions of AR's already out there, banning them would take a generation to get them out of the hands of killers. But arming teachers that want to be armed could begin tomorrow. And it might, no guaranty, but might save a life in the next shooting, or two lives, and it might save lives in the next shooting. Why would we not do this? We can implement it now! If the teacher in Florida who was killed holding the door for students to escape had had a gun, how many lives could he have saved? Even if its just one, is that worth it? How many of the 17 dead would still be alive? This is a no-brainer to me?

I know the people posting here really do mean well. And I respect their opinions, I truly do. But not even allowing this to be considered seems crazy to me.

Yikes just arm them tomorrow? Wasn't training and background checks and such involved in that proposal? Have any teacher's unions weighed in does anyone know?

ETA unless you're a teacher I'm not sure you can really understand and truly appreciate the reality of the possibility. I'm not saying non-teacher's opinions don't count just that it's easier to say that when it isn't you.

 

[kittythehare]

Maybe so but I though the issue here is mass shootings and “assault rifles?” People aren’t committing suicide with assault rifles.

The issue is gun control..
School shootings are receiving most attention because of Parklands being so recent.
Gun control is all guns, improved regulations etc.. all types of shootings are of equal relevance, including suicide..
The problem seems to be that guns are more readily available than other weapons, I know you take care of your guns in a responsible manner, but lots of people do not..
Guns, access to guns, availability of guns.. everything about guns that can be tightened up to decrease the gun death tolls. To stop gun deaths . etc etc..

 

[PrairieWind]

Ok The Guardian, one of the most respectable broad sheet newspapers worldwide is wrong. Take it up with them. I'm done with arguing stats. I'd rather discuss how to stop the deaths than argue about numbers

Trust me, you're not the first one to be burned by their stats. Guilty of it myself, pretty sure.

 

[kittythehare]

Look, the next school shooter is out there, sadly. We all know this. He has his gun and his ammo and his plan. He could strike tomorrow, or Monday. Will an AR15 ban stop him ? No. The next school shooter after him is already out there, he has his gun and ammo and is working on his plan, will the ban stop him? No. The next shooter after that is out there, he has his gun and probably his ammo and is working on a plan. Will a ban stop him? No. And so on and so on. There are millions of AR's already out there, banning them would take a generation to get them out of the hands of killers. But arming teachers that want to be armed could begin tomorrow. And it might, no guaranty, but might save a life in the next shooting, or two lives, and it might save lives in the next shooting. Why would we not do this? We can implement it now! If the teacher in Florida who was killed holding the door for students to escape had had a gun, how many lives could he have saved? Even if its just one, is that worth it? How many of the 17 dead would still be alive? This is a no-brainer to me?

I know the people posting here really do mean well. And I respect their opinions, I truly do. But not even allowing this to be considered seems crazy to me.

I posted a link a few days ago from Malcolm Nance, veteran who underwent SWAT training.. he explained very well that a teacher with a handgun is no match to a semi-automatic rifle.. he believes it is a very bad idea and a very dangerous idea.
His explanation was graphic.. the deafening sounds of the attack rifle.. all of it convinced me it really is a non runner..

I think teachers cannot afford to delude themselves that a handgun can make a meaningful impression on a killer, whether that is in a school environment, or any crowded place..

If they're gonna be armed, they need to be armed with a similar weapon and be ace shooters to boot, not to mention multitasking while trying to calm hysteria in a room full of children/concert goers etc..

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Yikes just arm them tomorrow? Wasn't training and background checks and such involved in that proposal? Have any teacher's unions weighed in does anyone know?

ETA unless you're a teacher I'm not sure you can really understand and truly appreciate the reality of the possibility. I'm not saying non-teacher's opinions don't count just that it's easier to say that when it isn't you.

Ohio let's teachers carry a gun in the classroom. There is no shortage of willing teachers. They have a waiting list.

 

[fiver]

The issue is gun control..
School shootings are receiving most attention because of Parklands being so recent.
Gun control is all guns, improved regulations etc.. all types of shootings are of equal relevance, including suicide..
The problem seems to be that guns are more readily available than other weapons, I know you take care of your guns in a responsible manner, but lots of people do not..
Guns, access to guns, availability of guns.. everything about guns that can be tightened up to decrease the gun death tolls. To stop gun deaths . etc etc..

but that's really the tough part of the issue isn't it. what exactly to do.

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

Look, the next school shooter is out there, sadly. We all know this. He has his gun and his ammo and his plan. He could strike tomorrow, or Monday. Will an AR15 ban stop him ? No. The next school shooter after him is already out there, he has his gun and ammo and is working on his plan, will the ban stop him? No. The next shooter after that is out there, he has his gun and probably his ammo and is working on a plan. Will a ban stop him? No. And so on and so on. There are millions of AR's already out there, banning them would take a generation to get them out of the hands of killers. But arming teachers that want to be armed could begin tomorrow. And it might, no guaranty, but might save a life in the next shooting, or two lives, and it might save lives in the next shooting. Why would we not do this? We can implement it now! If the teacher in Florida who was killed holding the door for students to escape had had a gun, how many lives could he have saved? Even if its just one, is that worth it? How many of the 17 dead would still be alive? This is a no-brainer to me?

I know the people posting here really do mean well. And I respect their opinions, I truly do. But not even allowing this to be considered seems crazy to me.

You say, "even if it's just one, is that worth it?" in re armed teachers able to save "just one" life.

So I say in response, as soon as ONE (ETA: innocent) person is shot as a result of an accidental shooting (i.e., shooting a misidentified threat, poor aim, gun ends up in wrong hands, etc.) by one of these armed teachers, and we ask, "was JUST ONE worth it?" what will YOU say?

 

[PrairieWind]

I posted a link a few days ago from Malcolm Nance, veteran who underwent SWAT training.. he explained very well that a teacher with a handgun is no match to a semi-automatic rifle.. he believes it is a very bad idea and a very dangerous idea.
His explanation was graphic.. the deafening sounds of the attack rifle.. all of it convinced me it really is a non runner..

I think teachers cannot afford to delude themselves that a handgun can make a meaningful impression on a killer, whether that is in a school environment, or any crowded place..

If they're gonna be armed, they need to be armed with a similar weapon and be ace shooters to boot, not to mention multitasking while trying to calm hysteria in a room full of children/concert goers etc..

I disagree. I am a veteran and well familiar with firearms. In the confines of a building, a handgun gives a fighting chance. Just exchanging fire with the gunman distracts, delays him, buying time for children to escape.

 

[KaaBoom]

I keep reading that protocol has changed since Columbine. Officers have been trained to go toward the threat and not wait it out or negotiate with the gunman.

Florida police chief: 'Quit' if you won't run toward gunfire

https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida-police-chief-quit-if-you-wont-run-toward-gunfire

“If you are a police officer and you think to yourself for even one second that you will not be able to run towards the gunfire…please quit now. We won’t be mad. Innocent lives depend on us to act," wrote Atlantic Beach Police Chief Michelle Cook, adding #dontletthemdown.

She went on the explain that much has changed since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. At the time, she said, the practice was for police to arrive at a school, surrounding the building and wait for SWAT to respond. Cook said officers can't do that anymore.

"The most recent best practices that are coming out of alerts are that if you are the officer there and innocent people are dying and your backup is way off, you have an obligation to go in," she said. "And you have an obligation to use the best tactics and the best training that you've been keeping up with to make an effort to eliminate the threat."

Whether they are trained to wait for backup, or go in immediately is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anyone. They can stand there and watch someone get killed, and do nothing about it, and they are 100% within their legal rights. If the cop had taken this to court, he would have won, and would have kept his job.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

 

[flourish]

Ohio let's teachers carry a gun in the classroom. There is no shortage of willing teachers. They have a waiting list.

Note to self: don't move to Ohio

 

[bluesneakers]

Yikes just arm them tomorrow? Wasn't training and background checks and such involved in that proposal? Have any teacher's unions weighed in does anyone know?

ETA unless you're a teacher I'm not sure you can really understand and truly appreciate the reality of the possibility. I'm not saying non-teacher's opinions don't count just that it's easier to say that when it isn't you.

Guns in the classroom will lead to more deaths in the classroom. There's not one piece of information, not one statistic, not one study that says an armed teacher saves lives. But there is this:

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.

The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.

On a state-wide level, states with higher rates of household firearm ownership have been shown to have significantly higher homicide victimization rates.

And yes, it's easy for people who want to carry guns and who aren't teachers to decide what teachers should do.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Whether they are trained to wait for backup, or go in immediately is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anyone. They can stand there and watch someone get killed, and do nothing about it, and they are 100% within their legal rights. If the cop had taken this to court, he would have won, and would have kept his job.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

rbbm

This, exactly! That's why no one should give up their right to defend themselves. We are our own protectors. It also makes the case for arming teachers.

 

[PrairieWind]

Note to self: don't move to Ohio

Other states as well. Here it is left up to the school districts to decide. Some do, some don't.

 

[Tillicum]

Guns in the classroom will lead to more deaths in the classroom. There's not one piece of information, not one statistic, not one study that says an armed teacher saves lives. But there is this:



And yes, it's easy for people who want to carry guns and who aren't teachers to decide what teachers should do.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/

AFAIK no one is trying to force teachers to be armed in the classroom.

 

[bluesneakers]

Whether they are trained to wait for backup, or go in immediately is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anyone. They can stand there and watch someone get killed, and do nothing about it, and they are 100% within their legal rights. If the cop had taken this to court, he would have won, and would have kept his job.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

But if a cop tells you to shoot someone you better do it.

 

[kittythehare]

but that's really the tough part of the issue isn't it. what exactly to do.

I'd burn the lotta them.. but to respect your question.. first thing that comes to mind is a surge of on the spot inspections of homes with guns and stiff prosecutions for unsecured or partially secured guns.
-a limit to the numbers of guns a single person can hold at any one time.
-Traceability of all firearms
-age limit to 30.
-strict enforcement of background checks and an additional requirement for a medical certificate from a doctor , who has been the applicant's doctor for at least 10 years certifying sanity, basically.
- a similar letter from LE from every address applicant has lived for past 10 years.
-eyesight tests, hearing tests, mandatory upskilling tests following a prolonged, at least 6 month training course on all aspects of gun ownership prior to being granted the first gun.
- annual re-applications mandatory and retraining in full for a 6 month period every 4 years.
- very heavy, cast iron, bolted-to-floor double cased gun safes..
- a massive increase in police recruitment and a response time of 10-15 minutes top for remote areas. (means investment in choppers)

Still want it?
Prove it.
EARN the right to own a killing machine.

 

[bluesneakers]

AFAIK no one is trying to force teachers to be armed in the classroom.

This thread is filled with posts from people suggesting arming teachers is a good idea.

 

[Tillicum]

This thread is filled with posts from people suggesting arming teachers is a good idea.

Making suggestions on a discussion forum is a long way from forcing teachers to arm themselves in a classroom.

 

[bluesneakers]

Making suggestions on a discussion forum is a long way from forcing teachers to arm themselves in a classroom.

Right, so why did you say it? Perhaps you misunderstood my comment...

Guns in the classroom will lead to more deaths in the classroom. There's not one piece of information, not one statistic, not one study that says an armed teacher saves lives.

And yes, it's easy for people who want to carry guns and who aren't teachers to decide what teachers should do.

It's not like anyone posting here has the ability to force anyone to carry or not carry a weapon. We're just debating, discussing ideas and sharing facts. If you have a problem with the information I shared then it's okay to just say that, rather than try to twist my comment. Thank you.