DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on September 12, 2014, 07:51:48 PM
-
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri lawmakers expanded the potential for teachers to bring guns to schools and for residents to openly carry firearms, in a vote Thursday that capped a two-year effort by the Republican-led Legislature to expand gun rights over the objection of the Democratic governor.
The new law will allow specially trained school employees to carry concealed guns on campuses. It also allows anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry guns openly, even in cities or towns with bans against the open carrying of firearms. The age to obtain a concealed weapons permit also will drop from 21 to 19.
A more far-reaching measure that sought to nullify federal gun control laws had died in the final hours of the legislative session in May. Gov. Jay Nixon had vetoed a similar bill last year that could have subjected federal officers to state criminal charges and lawsuits for attempting to enforce federal gun control laws.
The new regulations, which this time garnered the two-thirds majority needed to override Nixon's veto, take effect in about a month.
-
Moronic.
Missouri has a legislature as bad as the one in Tallahassee.
-
Finally....some common sense entering a legislative body
-
There is no common sense to lowering the age to 19.
Schools are places of education, not shooting galleries.
The threat posed by this stupid law is worse than any possible good that could come from it.
The police are armed everywhere. Protecting schools is a job for the police.
More guns are sols and the NRA profits by it.
-
I can't count how many flaws are in this "analysis". 1st and foremost the ongoing tweaked notion that the gun somehow injects the gun owner in thinking they're in the old west, ready to draw and shoot anyone that doesn't spit straight. Doesn't seem to matter that the facts demonstrate the polar opposite. Doesn't matter that the facts demonstrate that nearly all the mass casualty killings occur in "gun free zones", which schools are designated as.
What "threat" exactly is there with this law?? That more legal gun owners will be in a position to better stop any subsequent murderer who has no intention of abiding by any law already in place. The only "threat" there is to the would be murderer, since the Police are still 5+ minutes away when the fist shot by the bad guy goes off. How many lives are you ready to sacrifice, in those 5 minutes, in order to make you feel better that less of the law abiding folks can defend themselves?? 10? 20? 40?
-
This strikes my intuition as a good idea.
More guns in responsible hands limits the potential damage that a crazy or malicious shooter can do.
This law does nothing to reduce the number of guns in irresponsible hands, but of course neither do laws that declare gun free zones.
Could you describe the mechanism and how it works to produce safety when a legislature creates a gun free zone?
I am assuming that a villain will bring the best weapon for his purpose totally regardless of the law.
-
There are police on the grounds of every large high school in Florida. There is no need to arm teachers. Perhaps this will not cause mayhem, but I do not see it making anyone safer. I see it as the Legislature sucking up to the gun lobby, the NRA and the gun nuts.
-
FACT is that they are NOT on every grounds, on every school. And since schools are designated "we're defenseless zones", there IS a need to arm someone, be it teachers, or security, or former/retired law enforcement. It makes the students safer since the fastest the police might be able to respond is AFTER a dozen students have already been slain. You might be ok with that, not me
-
No one has been slain in Missouri.
This was just done to suck up to gun nuts.
-
FACT is that children have been slain across the country, in these so called "gun free zones". Missouri is simply being proactive, and is only sucking up to common sense. It makes the students safer since the fastest the police might be able to respond is AFTER a dozen students have already been slain. You might be ok with that, not me
-
Not sure it works like that. The majority of school violence is considered not notable only when unaccepatable school violence occur (ex. Columbine ) is when we started to act and that year was a record low in violence. So possibly the issue of guns in school may have zero effect except make us think it work because only the school we care about are not effected .
-
I'm not following Kimba. Can you expand on this thought, so I might better understand what you're trying to say?
-
The thought started when i saw the news on the third school shooting after columbine and a very angry student said these incidents should only happen in the inner city where it belongs. So after all these years if hearing these incidents i kinda notice certain data that the overwhelming number of school incidents are the poor school with gang incidents and those shooting get no shock from the public. Meaning the solution being proposed here will probly not help those shootings and the school that do get armed teachers will get credit for being less likely having problem to start with. In fact just recall decades ago a crazy guy went to shoot up a bunch vietnamese children and it didnt make much of a news so i'll say this matter will only address certain schools and not the safety of all schools involve in that city.
Just thought of another problem are ethnic parents willing to send thier kids to a school allowed to shoot students. After the first shot this thought will happen.
-
It should be very strictly against the rules for students and teachers to shoot each other.
That being said , it does still happen, perhaps there is a way to effect the rate.
Would you lay odds that the next mass shooting occurs in a gun free zone?
-
[quote ]
.............vetoed a similar bill last year that could have subjected federal officers to state criminal charges and lawsuits for attempting to enforce federal gun control laws.....
[/quote]
This really struck me as interesting, arresting an FBI agent would be a radical act.
-
The question is what causes a gun free zone? All the school i know that has them are known to have gang activity nearby. It's doubtful arming the staff will rud that neighborhood of gangs. . Notice very little on this topic has been on the subject of gangs and gangs are a fairly common factor of school shooting. But as i said before not noteworthy school shooting though.
-
The question is what causes a gun free zone?
Legislation, Regulation, or Business decision
All the school i know that has them are known to have gang activity nearby. It's doubtful arming the staff will rud that neighborhood of gangs.
Such legislation being passed in Missouri is not designed to deal with local gangs. It has only 1 purpose, protect students from any potential threat of being killed by some person(s) who have some vendetta against the school, some students, the "system", or even the possibility of a terrorist act
Notice very little on this topic has been on the subject of gangs and gangs are a fairly common factor of school shooting.
See above statement, since again, it has very little to do with gangs in general, unless its gangs coming onto campus and killing students/faculty, which I haven't really heard of many such stories
But as i said before not noteworthy school shooting though.
And as I said, the legislation in question is really geared to trying to redefine "gun free zones" to would be Columbine-like killers.....that they really aren't
-
I'm saying since the focus is columbine type incidents maybe to lesser known types of shootings may not get stop. The gang shooting is basicly student against student type and a armed staff might not be able to catch that kid.
-
I doubt very seriously this will stop or even slow down gang shootings......outside of campus. Then again, that's not its purpose either. If there is some carry over, all the better I suppose
-
Oops miswrote. I meant stop shooting in schools caused by the gangs. But this is all speculation since we'll need a wait and see what happens in a few years. I'll say we'll see a dropoff due to the publicity than see if the students in question adapt and overcome the faculty later on.
-
That would be idiotic.
This law will make no one safer, and probably no one less safe. It is silly for legislators to waste their time on silly symbolic acts like this.
-
This law makes EVERY student safer, since it'll take as much as 5 minutes for the police to arrive, once the bad guy starts killing kids & teachers. You might be ok with offing some extra students to placate your blinding ideolgy, but not I
-
hmm
did not think of that , my situation doesn`t risk teachers very much only students. but mine is a lot more common than what is discussed here. the fact the spree killing is gets more attention than the student on student crime is the flaw .
-
You bring up a good point, Kimba, in the 1 on 1 gangland style attack, on another student/gangmember, vs what this legislation is more designed for, the prevention of mass killings, at the hands of a dedicated murderer, operating in a so called "gun free zone". The former probably doesn't get the attention it deserves. I mean, look at Chicago...murders by guns, every day, though I'm not sure many of those are on school grounds, yet you hardly hear a peep in the news. But if a Sandy Hook gets hit, its 24/7 news.
Bottom line, is the more legal folks are trained and in a position to stop a wound be assassin/killer, the less lives lost while everyone is waiting for the police to arrive...with their guns
-
Prison.
Is a gun free zone.
Is a knife free zone.
No weapon of any kind is allowed .
Patrols very regularly.
Thus ...
Prison is as safe an environment against the potential of assault as rules can make it.
-
I`m pretty sure if we only stop spree killings the data will hardly show much of a decline but it does look great on paper
-
Agreed....but it'll sure put a damper in the attempted spree killings. What do you suggest to dent the other more prominent gang shooting problem?
-
Yeah, more guns in Missouri public schools will surely stop gang violence in Chicago.
-
And who chimed in with that
deflection......oops, claim?? ::)
-
Just follow the idiotic conversation you clowns are having.
-
Even an idiot would be able to notice no such claim was ever made, or even implied. Care to try again?
-
For those non-idiots who are actually able to grasp the english language, the trend that was occuring here was Kimba inquiring how such legislation that's being passed in Missouri, to help better defend schools from would-be mass murderers, who might target a school in Missouri, would combat issues such as gang shootings, that is seen in the more urban areas such as San Francisco or Chicago. As was being discussed with Kimba, such legislation is likely negligible in lessening such acts, if such legislation were being proposed in Califorina or Illinois, unless it were being done on school grounds. I then inquired to Kimba what his ideas might include in addressing such gang shootings.
Professor Deflection then returned to try and refute the supposed claim about how the Missouri legislation would be able to combat gang crime in places like Chicago. That would have been a ludicrous claim to begin with, had it been made, since legislation is the pervue of the state that passed it, not another, without some built in form of reciprocity.
Made all the more ludicrous that such a claim was was never made, or even implied, to begin with
-
I really wish I have an answer. most likely those school already doing the gun free thing(assuming) but I`m hesitate saying it`s a failure for the idea to actively try to prevent student from bring weapons to school just don`t seem that bad an idea. I think joe clark solved his school situation and maybe learn from that.
look up the movie "stand by me"
but I must point out the problem is not a school shooting problem but a local community problem that places the school at risk. which may make these solution not very effective. but totally not an excuse to not try to stop. I say it like this to prevent semantics.
-
I agree with you, Kimba, on this being more a community problem vs a school problem, and why this legislation in question, won't have much of an effect on the community, as that's not its design. It's design is specfically to better defend the children in schools from would-be mass killer want-to-be's
Bottom line is that the "bad guy" (be it a gang member, pathological student, home invader, mugger, rapist, murderer, or terrorist) has no intention of abiding by any law already passed or being proposed, which is why "gun free zones" are nothing more than a PC pipedream. The only folks that are going to abide by such regulations/laws is the already law abiding citizen
What may have a better impact, although it'll fuel the anti-gun anti-2nd amendment all the more, is more legislation to incentivize and train more law abiding citizens to safely carry a firearm....if they chose to (don't want to confuse anyone that I want to "arm everyone"). Such training will lead to situations where bad guys are confronted with a firearm almost immediately, vs getting a 5+minute head start in their killing spree. That's one answer, although I'm open to other suggestions
-
The school shooters at Columbine started off by spraying a large room with bullets.
There were armed officers on the premises, ut it did not prevent many deaths.
-
Never claimed it would stop every death...only more than there would have been. I realize you don't have a problem with more children being killed....I do
-
Yeah, more guns in Missouri public schools will surely stop gang violence in Chicago.
Probably not , what would ?
How about gang free zones?
-
that's kind of happening here but the problem is these gang are quite large and out right banning them will just provoke them. in san Francisco we had federal intervention to rid the larger organization. sadly local politics has stall any preventive measures to prevent them from returning. which they did. I laugh at this situation because I see it as decision by the local which do they prefer gays or gangs. looks like gangs was the answer and now their stuck with it.
-
hmm
another thought popped up. a lot of these school spree shootings are fairly planed out . so potentially having armed staff may escalate the situation. meaning the first to go will be armed staffers ,remember these kids has all the time to plot this out and don`t forget if it`s a specific bunch of kids it can`t be hard to circumvent the staffers protection.
pretty much saying the football teams can`t party anymore.
-
Not sure how such legislation "escalates" the situation. The bad guy doesn't want to get shot. If anything they're going to avoid any armed response, especially if the guns are concealed. IIRC many of these bad guys shoot themselves when the police finally arrive with their guns
-
Since some of these spree killers tend to kill themselve then possibly dealing with the armed responders may noy be as much of a deterent . In the adult world we have death by cop situation. Teenagers are less inclined to have a sense of self preservation. The very reason the bulk suicide prevent is geared toward teenagers not adults. i'm just speculating but the more thought I put on it this pops up . Crazy huh?
-
They kill themselves precisely because they're coming up against an armed deterrent
-
I had the impression that was planned
-
It seems to me that those involved in mass shootings have already planned to shoot themselves rather then be taken prisoner. It is not a sane act, and they can clearly expect to be gunned down after any mass shooting.
Those using bombs generally do not seem to plan to kill themselves. Mad bombers are stealthy, mad shooters are suicidal.
An adequate deterrent would be one that prevented them from entering the school or whatever with guns, before they could shoot anyone.
-
one thing that would make it worst is profiling and suspending a would be spree killer. pretty sure that would be a trigger.
-
I had the impression that was planned
Probably.....when confronted with an armed response, many end up taking their own life
-
An adequate deterrent would be one that prevented them from entering the school or whatever with guns, before they could shoot anyone.
As if that wasn't already in place. Schools are already declared "gun free zones". Is that not enough of a deterrent??
-
Probably.....when confronted with an armed response, many end up taking their own life
as I stated the armed response will be factored in from now on and maybe required. meaning a student may need the responder`s weapon as part of the plan. we really don`t know who will be hired for this job. earlier we talked about using veterans in these school. those guys don`t exactly blend. look at how adult thought how columbine happened and noticed so many wrong conclusions. meaning teenagers thoughts are not predictable to us and pretty sure we don`t know what deters a nutjob teen.
-
We can come up with many a hypothetical, but one I would consider low is that the bad guy needs the guard's gun to begin with. Nearly every one of the school shootings in question didn't include the bad guy getting his gun after he got on campus. So while it might play a role in some elaborate plan, the easiet deterrent to that is that the gun be concealed, so the bad guy doesn't know who is or isn't armed, plus you have more than 1 armed person on campus.
This legislation is related to teachers being trained and legal to carry a weapon onto campus, not just guards. No teacher is going to wear their gun externally, as to broadcast that "they're packing". That's the great deterrent ocf CCW holders, and areas that allow for CCW carriers to enter/exit their establishment.....no one knows who has a weapon, so no one person can be targeted 1st, much less disarmed and their weapon used to kill in mass.
-
I doubt that this will prevent anyone from getting shot. It is just a sop thrown to the NRA and the gun nuts. After all, it will cost nothing to pass this law.
-
Your doubt is duly noted....as is the knee jerk derrogatories aimed at the
Oligarchy, oops, I mean Big Oil....oops, I mean Rubio...oops, I meant Cruz....ooops, I meant Reagan,...oops, its NRA this time.
Amazing how much more value I apparently place on a life saved, than you do.
-
There is too much variety in situations to come up with something that will always work.
Having an armed person in the way might have worked well at the Sandy Hook school , where several of the unarmed teachers behaved heroically and there was little ambiguity in the situation.
People planning bright futures do not commit suicide even if not rational.
Even when the attacker intends suicide by cop , they might go to a gun free zone because their blaze of glory will be more bloody as a wolf in the sheepfold than as a wolf attacking a lion pride. There are suicides who attack police stations or set themselves up where the police will come to them, but these get a lot less splash in the press.
-
Grabing the gun scenerio will be slim but the death by cop maybe potentionally be a factor. Remember that done by adults so we'll see if this will be attractive to teens.
Why must it be a teacher? Remember this will require a teacher to end a students life potentially. True that person is protecting others but that don't mean he or she can handle it. I notice no mention it be voluntary also
-
I cannot imagine requiring a teacher to go armed into a school against his will, or tellijg him that he cannot have the job unless he agrees to be packing heat.
-
Having a small percent armed is enough to have a positive effect, especially if it is hard to tell who the armed ones are.
-
Even police officers get help after they shoot a criminal and thier way more trained to end a life.. Taking a life may sound doable but when the situation arrive i got some doubt these teachers will do the job and likely get shot themselves.
Only a fraction of these teachers will actually do this and the odds are kind of bad he or she will be able. I think security guards are more inclined to shoot a teenager than a teacher.
-
I think you are right, kimba.
I do not think this law will save any lives.
-
I just think requiring teachers specificly to be trained to shoot minors is not a good idea. janitors maybe since their more likely to be unnoticed.
-
I cannot imagine requiring a teacher to go armed into a school against his will, or tellijg him that he cannot have the job unless he agrees to be packing heat.
I cannot imagine any law that would mandate that a teacher be packing heat, either, or lose their job if they didn't. Where in this law does it require such a leap of illogic??
-
I just think requiring teachers specificly to be trained to shoot minors is not a good idea. janitors maybe since their more likely to be unnoticed.
Where is this "requiring" part? From the little I've read, the law merely allows a teacher/faculty/staff to carry a firearm, with the requisite training. And if a teacher would rather not, they don't lose their job, if they chose not to carry a firearm or undergo the firearms training. It's no different than any other person defending them-self or loved one(s), just with an added layer of training involved.....which is a GOOD thing. The more people who can respect and safely handle a firearm, the safer EVERYONE is. And if its a minor who's aiming that gun at you, you better be ready to shoot them.
Its amazing this idea that the bad guy will sit and wait the extra several minutes for the police to arrive, before starting to kill others. I'm here to tell you, that's not going to happen. And remember, the teacher/staff/faculty aren't being trained to be a police officer. They're not going out on calls, and putting their life on the line every day. They're simply being trained to better defend the students, in the rare event of a wound be mass killer(s), entering the school, who aren't going to wait for the police to show up
-
I started by say staffer on this situation than teacher kept being said and I point why is teacher being used and point out not once is this being mentioned as voluntary. So now than we got this misunderstanding out of the way. We can address are these schools required to have armed staffers.
-
Since the initial posting of this thread made it clear that it was not just teachers, but was also not mandatory, I'm not sure why there was any confusion.....especially when I specifically referenced the point about the choice being provided the teacher/staff.
The law, as was referenced in the post simply makes the "gun free zone" of a Missouri school ground, no longer such a zone, since anyone that has a legal CCW will be allowed to enter said school grounds, and any teacher/staff that wish to legally carry, can do so, after the requisite training.
It's a win win win, since no one is being forced to carry a weapon, and those that chose to, will have added training in the safe handling of a firearm. And to to top it off, there's the potential for an immediate deterrent to any wound-be mass killer, vs the down-time waiting for the police to arrive.
I'm not seeing the down side here
-
It says trained employees but somehow teachers got mentioned later on.
But since its voluntary than potentially these school may have no one armed but the students wont know.
-
It says trained employees but somehow teachers got mentioned later on.
But since its voluntary than potentially these school may have no one armed but the students wont know.
That is true.
But I think it unlikely that, with the prohibition removed ,that there won't be at least a few armed persons on campus.
-
Somew of the armed teachers are sure to be members of *the horror! the horror!* TEACHERS UNIONS!!!!!
-
It says trained employees but somehow teachers got mentioned later on.
Teachers are indeed employees, and make up the largest number of employees for a school staff.
But since its voluntary than potentially these school may have no one armed but the students wont know.
You're catching on :) Though in all honesty, it would be advantageous that a school have some on staff. But even if they didn't, at least those who are legal CCW holders could be legally on the grounds at any one time....including a teacher
-
Somew of the armed teachers are sure to be members of *the horror! the horror!* TEACHERS UNIONS!!!!!
I'm sure they could be.......and??,,,,,,you have a problem with that?? ???
-
I cannot imagine requiring a teacher to go armed into a school against his will, or tellijg him that he cannot have the job unless he agrees to be packing heat.
I cannot imagine any law that would mandate that a teacher be packing heat, either, or lose their job if they didn't. Where in this law does it require such a leap of illogic??
Didn't think so. Yet another attempted effort to argue a point never made
-
So fucking what? I made the point. I get to make points just like you, fool.
This stupid law is just to get votes from gun nuts. It will not save anyone's life.
-
You made no point, since its a point no one else was making, or even supporting.
Your unsubstantiated opinion aside that this was supposedly some gift to "gun nuts", the fact you yourself conceded has no cost to the tax payer, but will provide an added level of defense for those children in an otherwise "defenseless zone", is all the good news I need to know
But you know, since neither of us are from Missouri or have spent any time there, I guess we can't really talk about it.......waste of time, right? *cue the knee jerk xo snark about anything to do with sirs is "obviously" a waste of time* ;D
-
maybe win win . as human beings we can`t always know all the variables. so we`ll see if this has unintended consequences like the very knowledge of a armed staff present will encourage suicide spree killer. I did point out adults do this with police officers.
-
The law did not indicate whether the school district would be allowed to demand that a particular employee be ordered to carry a concealed weapon or the school board would only accept volunteer pistol-packers. My point, which is a point because I SAY it is my point is that the pistol packers should not be ordered to bring their arms to class every day.
As kimba suggests, it is possible that the prospective assassins might well know who the pistol packers are and deliberately plan to take them out first. In small towns, everyone tends to know everyone's business. I recall the first place I ever taught was Randle Washington, and I knew within three months which families poached deer in Gifford Pinchot National Forest and which of the town's two lockers they kept their meat in. Everyone knew. I did not even have to ask. So I imagine such a place the School Gunslinger's identity would be no secret.
-
You can say its your point.....doesn't make it a valid point, since again your arguing a point no one is making or even supporting. I realize hard core liberals have a problem with the concept of freedom.....especially when firearms are involved. It seems the left thinks that support of the 2nd amendment is tantamount that those supporting the 2nd amendment are pushing that everyone MUST own a gun. Or that this Missouri law is tantamont to mandating that all teachers carry a gun or lose their job. Oy-vey. Absolutely ridiculous, if not ignorant, proclamations........which is why its done, because it is so ridiculous, that you make yourself appear to be refuting such an absurd action. Problem is, no one is supporting or calling for such an action to begin with :o
Kimba is at least arguing a somewhat valid hypothetical, but it hits a wall when the firearm in question is concealed. So, without some intimate confession by the person carrying the legally concealed weapon, provides precisely the kind of deterrent needed to make the bad guy think twice about even trying. Sure they can, but their odds of success are greatly lowered, now that the location is no longer a defenseless "gun free zone"
-
I really don`t see it as a wall because it really depends how well that person can conceal the weapon . how hard can it be to figure out the staffer who said previously he`s former military might be the one who might be the one. the question will be is the person whose willing to take the gun
indistinguishable. I`m in security and very few people has surprising personality. I know several teacher who refer to their time in korea or veitnam. now if those staffers had a trade off system then I would believe profiling will not be possible.
speaking of profiling "quiet guy who keeps to himself" kinda scarey how often that`s brought up. as a very bad joke that`s how I describe myself
-
It's a hypothetical, which I grant you is a possiblility. But to try and plan out some mass killing, by guessing who's armed, ignores who else is armed, not to mention what ammo is the person going to use once they have supposedly wrenched their weapon away. Folks who carry concealed rarely have more than 1 magazine with them, then what? Most of the mass killings involved folks arming themselves to the teeth with multiple magazines and rounds. If they're being targeted to be shot 1st, again requires quite the guessing game, as to who else might be legally armed.
The risk-reward for someone wanting to shoot up a school is turned completely upside down, in the face any number of staff who may or may not be carrying a concealed weapon. Far too many examples of situations where livees were saved by the presence of a person with a CCW, not to mention the tragic stories of lives lost where someone who legally could carry, was not allowed to bring their weapon on the premises, because it was a declared gun-free zone.
Despite any number of hypotehticals that could supposedly thwart said Missouri legislation, I'm going to error on the side that really does have a far better chance at protecting more students from thje potential of a mass killer want-to-be. I agree it's not going to be a huge number saved, but that's partly because school shootings are not common at all. The kids win, responsible gun owners win, and common sense wins. The only ones that lose is the bad guy....and wound-be anti-gun zealots
-
risk-reward
that`s the thing I wasn`t thinking in those terms. I`m thinking in a blaze of glory type thing and the use of the staffer for that factor . but I somehow thought of students being able to profile. now I just thought can student profile narcs in school. I think doubtful since the time frame is much too short . I doubt it`s feasible to have these officers stay in school that long.
-
I do not regard the idea of everyone swaggering around with a loaded gun to be related to the idea of freedom in any sense.
-
I do not regard the idea of everyone swaggering around with a loaded gun to be related to the idea of freedom in any sense.
That's too bad, since in America that's a conerstone to freedom, as espoused by our founders & the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the Unitied States. Topped only by the 1st amendment, that of the Freedom of Speech, that ironically you'd also try to squelch
Also putting aside that the notion isn't that everyone be armed, only that everyone has the freedom to chose to be armed
Perhaps envy is a problem you're having. Here's how you alleviate that. Exercise that same freedom, and choose not to own a firearm......problem solved
-
risk-reward
that`s the thing I wasn`t thinking in those terms. I`m thinking in a blaze of glory type thing and the use of the staffer for that factor . but I somehow thought of students being able to profile. now I just thought can student profile narcs in school. I think doubtful since the time frame is much too short . I doubt it`s feasible to have these officers stay in school that long.
Whatever the case may be, my guess is as long as there's no shootings, staffers with CCW's, could remain in that school indefinately, since again no one would know they had a concealed weapon, up until they actually had to use it in the defense of the children & school
Again, a win-win-win
-
we`ll see
note I say with as little cynicism . because my scenario I prefer not to happen but had to bring up due to things I`ve seen happened that seems somewhat tied to this topic.
but it is true I don`t recall a death by cop in over a decade.
-
Everyone should DEFINITELY NOT have the right to be armed.
EVERYONE? Including the nuts that gun down tykes in schoolyards? Demented ex-Marines popping off citizens from a bell tower?
Punks cruising through neighborhoods spraying their neighbors with bullets?
That is not freedom.
-
Somew of the armed teachers are sure to be members of *the horror! the horror!* TEACHERS UNIONS!!!!!
Hahahahaha!
That is pretty funny.
-
I can' t say thirrs no armed nutjob since I actually know someone who truely fit that profile thiers unconfortably alot more subtle and harder to prevent. I had two workplace homicides in my experiences and one job had a spree killer. Remember that hawaii ex-xerox employee killer ? Had alot of seminars on dealing with that for months afterwards.
-
risk-reward
that`s the thing I wasn`t thinking in those terms. I`m thinking in a blaze of glory type thing and the use of the staffer for that factor . but I somehow thought of students being able to profile. now I just thought can student profile narcs in school. I think doubtful since the time frame is much too short . I doubt it`s feasible to have these officers stay in school that long.
Two guys a day apart jump the fence at the white house.
If someone wants a big shootout there are already places to go and find armed response, what happens there?
The original idea of a school being a gun free zone is that with no guns no one gets shot, but how well does this idea really work? It isn't closed off like a bio dome.
If there are less than 300 spree shooters a year , then spree shooters are less than one in a million in the U.S. the problem is of small numbers, in large haystacks.
If we do nothing at all the casualties will probably remain pretty low.
If we encourage responsible persons to be armed and responsible about it , this will not save many lives in any obvious way. Whoever is deterred will never say so.
-
I can' t say thirrs no armed nutjob since I actually know someone who truely fit that profile thiers unconfortably alot more subtle and harder to prevent. I had two workplace homicides in my experiences and one job had a spree killer. Remember that hawaii ex-xerox employee killer ? Had alot of seminars on dealing with that for months afterwards.
If a nutjob wants to be armed , isn't he?
-
Everyone should DEFINITELY NOT have the right to be armed.
EVERYONE?
Yes, everyone LEGALLY allowed to. So when you want to produce the invention that can identify psychopaths who intend to kill, anyone that by law who can, can exercise that freedom. And ironically you can exercise your 1st amendment right to say the most ridiculous things
-
So you are okay with nutjobs having the constitutional right to go around with loaded guns.
-
Your parameters for a "nutjob" leaves far too wide the possibility that perfectly sane folks would be denied their 2nd amendment right to own a firearm. As I said, when you can invent the machine that can accurately point out someone who is going to murder someone, freedom takes prioroty
-
So you are okay with nutjobs having the constitutional right to go around with loaded guns.
Of course I am should I loose sleep over this forever? There is no preventing a true nut from making himself as dangerous as he pleases.
What I really want is for the reasonable people who are well armed to outnumber the nuts.
Disarming every nut is unrealistic, extremely so.
Arming all the reasonable people is pretty easy.
-
So you are okay with nutjobs having the constitutional right to go around with loaded guns.
What I really want is for the reasonable people who are well armed to outnumber the nuts.
Disarming every nut is unrealistic, extremely so.
Arming all the reasonable people is pretty easy.
BINGO !!