Gun Control Debate #2

[rosemadderlake]

Please explain further. How can more bullets flying around in a panicked situation save lives and not cause more fatalities instead?

Especially if you have one or more shooters with something like an AR15 or something with a bump stock spraying bullets around, and a teacher armed with a 9mm? What good is a 9mm against that kind of firepower? Or should teachers have loaded AR15's too?​

Excellent Q. I wonder if there is a case where a teacher with a hand gun took out a mass shooter with an AR15?

Jumping off your post, Blef-

If we are going to protect the AR15, weapon of choice, I definitely think teachers should be armed and trained with them. So should malls, theaters, concerts, all soft targets need to be hardened. See where this goes?

If we are going to protect the AR15, every public venue, firework display, carnival, Disney Land, Coney Island, public playground, public spaces, need military security.

If we are going to protect high powered semiauto weapons, then we need to step up and level the playing field...

Is that what we want?

 

[kaen]

I totally understand and support your argument. We saw the guard in the Florida case criticised for not going into the school and taking out Cruz. Would teachers also be criticised if they froze and didn't shoot at rampage shooters in school too? I think it's a horrendous idea to put that on teachers.

Or, what happens if they kill more kids than the intruder? What if they neutralize the shooter and continue firing? What if they choose the wrong student to focus on? What if the teacher is unbalanced? Too many what ifs for me?

 

[rsd1200]

I've noticed a theme in some posts that I'm going to call "the good old days" theme. People saying "it wasn't like that in my day" and that society is much worse now. As a criminologist it is a recognised phenomena called declinism, that people tend to recall earlier times of their lives in a much more positive way than it actually was. I'm at work so I don't have the time or capability to link up to a bunch or empirical evidence, but I have a link here that explains it fairly easily.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo.../declinism-why-you-think-america-is-in-crisis

While school shootings are definitely on the increase, I just wanted to highlight this phenomena since some people have raised the "good old days" thing on here.

I lived in a much different time. There are many things that were "acceptable" in my era, that are not now acceptable. Period. Nor would I want them to be. Just because I went to bars and bought alcohol at 17, purchased tobacco at 14, and had my first pistol at 18, does not mean that I find that appropriate now.

Do I feel that parents should br their kid's bestie? No.

Should the age of cigs have been rsised? Yes.

Alcohol age enforced? Yes.

Firearm ownership raised unless theres a specific reason? Yes.

Do a scan of your kids computer and room? Absolutely.

I dont call that wishing for the old days, I call it being realistic, because most school shooters get their firearms from home or family.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I really can't see how having a firefight in a panicked situation would save any more lives. If you have students screaming, crying, running for cover, while bullets are flying from all angles how is that going to help. Instead of having 17 people killed like in Florida you could end up with 25 dead or more.

If my kids were locked in a classroom with a gunman at the door, I would want them to have a fighting chance. If that means an armed teacher then I'm fine with that. Bullets are flying anyway so I'd rather have a teacher armed with a gun rather than safety scissors and an eraser.

The security guard and the two deputies on scene first, did nothing to confront the shooter but if they were the ones being shot at they would likely have engaged the shooter. IMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I am amazed that people want to train teachers to carry while the same teachers have to shut the door, keep the kids safe and quiet and, then, take on a shooter. If a teacher has kids in the crossfire and kills those kids by mistake, what do we do and what does the teacher do? Highly trained officers are not accurate shots but teachers in classrooms with terrified kids and in a threatening situation are not going to do better. The idea that the answer is to make classrooms like the OK Corrale is an anathema to me. As a teacher, I would rather have my building as an armed fortress and be able to concentrate on teaching.

The president said arming teachers is a low cost solution. We should not be thinking about cost but effectiveness. There is no data that says an armed teacher is better than a well-secured, police protected building. But, we do know that one scenarios is low cost. Again, as a teacher, I have experienced lots of low cost solutions which have not really been low cost. No textbooks in classrooms. Not enough budget to help kids who are struggling. Fewer counselors/social workers and psychologists to help identify at risk students and work with all students to ensure healthy school social climate. Buildings in disrepair.

BBM

There is no data that an armed teacher is better or worse than anything you want to compare them to because there haven't been any in a school shooting event yet.

I have a feeling the mere fact that teachers are armed will prevent many school shootings from happening in the first place. No need to find out about marksmanship.

That's an ultimate win in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

If my kids were locked in a classroom with a gunman at the door, I would want them to have a fighting chance. If that means an armed teacher then I'm fine with that. Bullets are flying anyway so I'd rather have a teacher armed with a gun rather than safety scissors and an eraser.

The security guard and the two deputies on scene first, did nothing to confront the shooter but if they were the ones being shot at they would likely have engaged the shooter. IMO

BBM

The revelation that police failed to act while on scene in the latest school shooting reinforces my feeling that people can't always rely on police to protect them and therefore should be allowed to own/carry a gun to protect themselves.

Including teachers while at school if they wish. JMO

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I see some advocating for gun buy back programs. Maybe it would work in a perfect world. The people that participate in those programs are generally law abiding citizens. I don't see many criminals participating in the program.

Gun buybacks popular but ineffective, experts say

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/

Buyback campaigns more often than not end up with hunting rifles or old revolvers from someone's attic than with automatic weapons that criminals might use, analysts say.

Newtown Prompts Gun Buybacks, But Do They Work?

https://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169439243/newtown-prompts-gun-buybacks-but-do-they-work

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

School shooter Nikolas Cruz: A lost and lonely killer

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...hooting-nikolas-cruz-life-20180220-story.html

When Nikolas Jacob Cruz was born in South Florida 19 years ago, his adoptive mother Lynda was in the delivery room to watch him emerge. The nurse handed the baby to her. She was elated.

By the time he was 3, he was diagnosed with developmental delays. By the time he was 6, he'd suffered the trauma of witnessing his father's death. By the time he was 16, he was preoccupied with wars, death and killing, school records reveal. And he never made it to 20 in the outside world.

Lynda and Roger Cruz knew their new son had challenges, but neither lived to see what he was capable of.

Cruz sits in the Broward County main jail. He confessed to shooting 33 former classmates, coaches and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, the school he was kicked out of in his junior year. Seventeen of his victims died.

 

[MaryG12]

My apologies if this has already been posted, saw this in WaPo a few days ago:


Why school shootings are so rare in Israel, where guns are such a common sight




According to an Israeli government website, civilians must be over 27 years old to obtain a gun license, although those recently released from military service are also eligible. Israelis serve in the military from age 18 to 21.

Note: Israel population is 8.4 million

 

[rosemadderlake]

Or, what happens if they kill more kids than the intruder? What if they neutralize the shooter and continue firing? What if they choose the wrong student to focus on? What if the teacher is unbalanced? Too many what ifs for me?

We can keep millions of peeps safe on NYE in NYC. Why? Millions of dollars invested to have the best professionals watching over us. Peeps had a gun free celebration.

That's why they are the professionals.

What difference is there in a school of 3 or 4 thousand kids on any given day?

The professionals guard our banks, our jewelers, our government, all we hold valuable. They all work in a gun free workplace.

Our high tech corporations, Wall Street, Madison Ave retail work in gun free workplaces. Our sports events are gun free.

Why? Because of the professionals.

That this government wants to solve this problem on the cheap by adding the burden of safety instead of alleviating it to our already overburdened schools is a travesty. IMO.

But, if teachers in some schools are all for it, I say go for it, give it a try. But I wonder how the law will treat a mistake if a teacher shoots dead a perceived threat who is unarmed? Teachers take note.

 

[MaryG12]

I see some advocating for gun buy back programs. Maybe it would work in a perfect world. The people that participate in those programs are generally law abiding citizens. I don't see many criminals participating in the program.

Gun buybacks popular but ineffective, experts say

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/

Buyback campaigns more often than not end up with hunting rifles or old revolvers from someone's attic than with automatic weapons that criminals might use, analysts say.

Newtown Prompts Gun Buybacks, But Do They Work?

https://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169439243/newtown-prompts-gun-buybacks-but-do-they-work

There is a local antique store I love to visit which sells not only quite a few of these older guns and rifles but also a substantially large number of books on guns. So it makes sense that people are more willing to part with older models collected and gathering dust, rather than the newest one purchased at a gun shop/gun show.

MOO, I don't know that there are too many people in the nation willing to part with their new guns in exchange for money or gift cards.

 

[Spellbound]

I'm a history buff. I'm sorry you feel that I'm nitpicking. Air Force General Curtis LeMay didn't order the AR15 in 1960 for use in Vietnam did he?




https://gundigest.com/reviews/the-ar-16m16-the-rifle-that-was-never-supposed-to-be

We are history buffs in my home, too. Does it really matter who ordered AR15’S in 1960? The discussion here should be what can we do today, to protect our schools (and all of society) from the increasing violence with guns of all kinds. Am I mistaken?

 

[southernmimi]

Few will voluntarily give up their guns. It's a right and a choice to own them. I have in the past, but no longer own any type of gun. Having one in my home was never important to me, and I feel better with it being gone. However, I still believe it should always be an option.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

2016 story, but still interesting. (bbm)

Inside the Shadowy World of America’s 10 Biggest Gunmakers
Meet the moguls making a killing from gun sales in the United States.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/fully-loaded-ten-biggest-gun-manufacturers-america/

They are all white, all middle-aged, and all men. A few live openly lavish lifestyles, but the majority fly under the radar. Rarely is there news about them in the mainstream media or even the trade press. Their obscurity would seem unremarkable if we were talking about the biggest manufacturers of auto accessories or heating systems. But these are America’s top gunmakers—leaders of the nation’s most controversial industry. They have kept their heads down and their fingerprints off regulations designed to protect their businesses—foremost a law that shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products.

With this investigation, Mother Jones set out to break through the opacity surrounding the $8 billion firearms industry and the men who control it. While the three largest companies disclose some financials, the rest are privately held. Some are further shrouded by private-equity funds or shell corporations based in overseas tax havens.

We mined manufacturing data and import statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). We also examined obscure press clippings, court documents, private industry reports, and tax records from the Treasury Department. Together, the 10 companies we investigated produce more than 8 million firearms per year for buyers in the United States, accounting for more than two-thirds of the total market. (None of the companies responded to our requests for further information.)

Many of these companies’ top executives have donned the jacket bestowed to members of the Golden Ring of Freedom, an exclusive club for $1 million-plus donors to the National Rifle Association. Several have been the focus of criminal investigations and lawsuits over everything from arms trafficking and fraud to armed robbery and racketeering.

As the debate over gun laws has grown louder, sales have soared. In the year following the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the three largest gunmakers—Sturm Ruger, Remington Outdoor, and Smith & Wesson—netted more than $390 million in profits on record sales.

Shares in publicly traded Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson jumped more than 70 percent that year, benefiting institutional investors such as Vanguard, Blackrock, and Fidelity. The hedge fund that owns Remington Outdoor—maker of the assault rifle used in Newtown—saw the annual return on its investment grow tenfold.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

I second your emotion, Spellz. Thank you. :heartbeat:

We are history buffs in my home, too. Does it really matter who ordered AR15’S in 1960? The discussion here should be what can we do today, to protect our schools (and all of society) from the increasing violence with guns of all kinds. Am I mistaken?

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Everyone has an opinion, Ranch. Thank you for sharing yours here.

It matters to me. Is there a problem with that?

 

[Spellbound]

So only gun violence from semi auto rifles needs to be addressed?

Absolutely not, and I don’t think that is all we are trying to talk about here. But for some reason, many keep coming back to one subset. We need some stricter rules, but we also need the rules we have in place be followed withiut exception.

Almost no one is saying to remove all guns, all types of guns.

JMO

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Agreed. Home protection should alway be a option.

Few will voluntarily give up their guns. It's a right and a choice to own them. I have in the past, but no longer own any type of gun. Having one in my home was never important to me, and I feel better with it being gone. However, I still believe it should always be an option.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Absolutely not, and I don’t think that is all we are trying to talk about here. But for some reason, many keep coming back to one subset. We need some stricter rules, but we also need the rules we have in place be followed withiut exception.

Almost no one is saying to remove all guns, all types of guns.

JMO

The post I responded to was about semi auto rifles. It was not in response to everyone's opinion about all gun control.

In my opinion if we are to go with more gun control as an answer then the repeal of the Second Amendment needs to considered. JMO

 

[1&2&3]

What about installing bullet proof doors in classrooms? These should have locks that could be turned on without being at the door.

IMO,, it is more important for the teacher to help get the students settled in the safest place in the classroom while trying to calm them and reassure them. If teacher is not comfortable with a gun, worrying about handling the gun to protect her classroom, I am sot sure she/he would be their best in caring for the students.

I am one of those who would freeze knowing my responsibility was to get my gun and be ready to use it! I love children and would be 100% in doing anything possible to get my classroom in the safest situation possible. But don’t require me to use a gun!

Another thought. A crazy student sitting in a classroom could cause big problems knowing every teacher has a gun. He could take over the classroom demanding the teacher give him his gun. Is that what we want to fear?