Donald Trump weighs in on the Oregon shootings: Teachers should have been armed to stop it
104 replies, posted
[quote]Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Saturday that had teachers been armed at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, the deadly shooting there this week would not have been as tragic.
Trump has previously cited mental health issues, not guns, as the biggest cause of shootings in the U.S. But his comments on Saturday are his most extensive and emotionally charged about firearms since he launched his campaign in June, as he spoke about his personal gun ownership and elicited his biggest applause of the afternoon in discussing gun rights.
[B]"By the way, it was a gun-free zone," he said at a campaign event in Franklin, Tennessee. "Let me tell you, if you had a couple teachers with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off."
[/B]
Trump went on to say he has a license to carry a gun in New York, and if someone attacks him, he will respond.
"In fact, I have a license to carry in New York, can you believe that? Nobody knows that," he said.
[B]"Can you imagine? Somebody says, 'There's Trump, he's easy pickings.' What'd you'd say?" Trump said, mimicking holding a gun with his hand.
[/B]
Nine people were killed and nine others were injured in Thursday's shooting. Law enforcement officials on Saturday said Chris Harper-Mercer, the shooter behind the deadly rampage, killed himself after exchanging gunfire with authorities.
Trump's suggestion for an armed presence on school grounds isn't new. In the aftermath of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting in 2012, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called for armed security at schools across America.[/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/politics/donald-trump-oregon-shooting-armed-teachers/index.html[/url]
all you had to do was shoot them in the legs and they'd be fine
:hammered:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Irrelevant snipe" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[I]"Take that kid out! He's got a bomb!"[/I]
-snip-
As much as I like the idea, I've seen the way some teachers get hot headed. Definitely should go through extensive training courses and psychological evaluations before doing this
To be fair even if you implemented a coherent and over the top gun control plan nation wide you'd still have events like this for decades to come and this community college only had 2 unarmed security guards from what I read.
My dad runs a small campus and he has armed guards during the day and even at night when no one is around.
Gun free zones do nothing; It will only punish law abiding citizens in the end, as no criminal will care about it anyhow.
Hey teen psychopaths, want to go on a killing spree? Now you don't even need to rob your uncles guns- there's one already in every single classroom only handled by someone without the proper experience.
[QUOTE=SniperComZero;48825542]all you had to do was shoot them in the legs and they'd be fine
:hammered:[/QUOTE]
What the fuck relevance does this have at all?
[QUOTE=General J;48825592]Hey teen psychopaths, want to go on a killing spree? Now you don't even need to rob your uncles guns- there's one already in every single classroom only handled by someone without the proper experience.[/QUOTE]
Stealing's already illegal though, he shouldn't be able to grab the gun cause it's against the law to steal. Unless, by some weird chance, psychos don't follow laws.
You know, after hearing and reading so many people thinking that adding more guns to the situation would solve the problem, what if it had the exact opposite affect?
What if, because everyone involved had a gun on them, they all ended up dying? Because to start, the shooter may not be entirely deterred from shooting, whether or not he knows everyone else has a gun, and he knows he's going to die anyway so he'll try his damnedest to take out as many people with him as possible. Now, everyone else has a pistol, and they've gone through the classes, they've visited the shooting range on occasion, but they don't know and they won't know what it's like to be in a high pressure situation like a shoot out. So, unlike the shooter who's going to go out guns blazing like he's already dead with his skewed and morbid mindset, everyone else involved gets hit and ends up either mortally wounded and/or dead because they panicked. Not that soldier guy who stopped him, but who's to say a stray bullet from another student wouldn't have just hit him in the skull and ended his pursuit of the shooter?
Sure, there'll be someone who knows how to use a gun properly, has good aim, and can take the pressure, but for the most part don't you think the average person would crack under the pressure? You know, not be able to use their gun and either get killed or accidentally kill someone else?
Why don't we address the more important issues instead of believing that adding more guns into the equation will settle things, because they won't. We should put more of a focus on mental health issues in this country, along with treating those with said issues and preventing them from doing any harm with their guns. We should also not put such a stigma on depression and mental health issues, and motivate these people to seek help and make it easier to access. A gun is only as dangerous as the person wielding it, really. Whether they're a top notch shooter or someone who is no longer willing to live, even worse if they decide to harm others along the way.
[QUOTE=SniperComZero;48825542]all you had to do was shoot them in the legs and they'd be fine
:hammered:[/QUOTE]
Who said this and where, now? certainly not Trump.
And why do people have to keep mentioning this? Obviously some user, in his innocent ignorance at some point in time, simply thought that shooting in the legs would disable a person, and not risk bleeding them out in just about 5 minutes if struck badly enough by the bullet. And then posted about it.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;48825649]Who said this and where, now? certainly not Trump.
And why do people have to keep mentioning this? Obviously some user, in his innocent ignorance at some point in time, simply thought that shooting in the legs would disable a person, and not risk bleeding them out in just about 5 minutes if struck badly enough by the bullet. And then posted about it.[/QUOTE]
American posters circlejerked about how it was apparently idiotic, despite shooting-to-wound and warning shots being practiced in some countries.
[QUOTE=General J;48825566][I]"Take that kid out! He's got a bomb!"[/I][/QUOTE]
I laughed harder than I should at this because the first thing I thought of was the clock fiasco
[QUOTE=General J;48825592]Hey teen psychopaths, want to go on a killing spree? Now you don't even need to rob your uncles guns- there's one already in every single classroom only handled by someone without the proper experience.[/QUOTE]
I hope you realize that such firearms will most likely be locked up in the school with very few with access to the key, right?
They won't be sitting on the teacher's desk, loaded for use.
ah yes, the best way to solve gun crime: more guns!!
Trump is a moron trying to appeal to a crowd of like-minded morons who think these kind of situations are easily preventable.
[QUOTE=Niklas;48825680]American posters circlejerked about how it was apparently idiotic, despite shooting-to-wound and warning shots being practiced in some countries.[/QUOTE]
Because if you know anything about basic biology you know it is fucking idiotic.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48825728]I hope you realize that such firearms will most likely be locked up in the school with very few with access to the key, right?
They won't be sitting on the teacher's desk, loaded for use.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying the teachers wouldn't be using them in place of laser pointers in the classroom to point out things up on the board?
[QUOTE=Niklas;48825680]American posters circlejerked about how it was apparently idiotic, despite shooting-to-wound and warning shots being practiced in some countries.[/QUOTE]
Just because "some countries" practice it doesn't make it inherently reasonable. If you think it's an appropriate practice, then argue for its actual merits. The fact that somebody somewhere happens to agree with you does not make you correct, it could just as well mean that both of you are wrong.
[QUOTE=Niklas;48825680]American posters circlejerked about how it was apparently idiotic, despite shooting-to-wound and warning shots being practiced in some countries.[/QUOTE]
Hitting a major artery even in a limb can cause somebody to bleed out within a few minutes unless given immediate medical treatment.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48825728]I hope you realize that such firearms will most likely be locked up in the school with very few with access to the key, right?
They won't be sitting on the teacher's desk, loaded for use.[/QUOTE]
Which begs the question: what good would they do at all? Do you expect teachers to abandon their students, run down the hallway unarmed while an active shooter prowls the building, and wait outside a looked room for whoever has the keys to show up? At which point, what? They do a tactical sweep of the building, ready to gun down any potential threats? These are schoolteachers, not commandos.
[editline]4th October 2015[/editline]
Stop this dumb limb shooting/police abuse argument. It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread other than the fact that the word "guns" was mentioned.
[QUOTE=Niklas;48825680]American posters circlejerked about how it was apparently idiotic, despite shooting-to-wound and warning shots being practiced in some countries.[/QUOTE]
Yes, sometimes, but shooting-to-wound is tad risky. Where you're likely going to need an ambulance in readiness just around the corner.
He's just blatantly appealing to the moronic republicans at this point, I doubt he actually believes this. So much for insane honesty.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48825796]Which begs the question: what good would they do at all? Do you expect teachers to abandon their students, run down the hallway unarmed while an active shooter prowls the building, and wait outside a looked room for whoever has the keys to show up? At which point, what? They do a tactical sweep of the building, ready to gun down any potential threats? These are schoolteachers, not commandos.
[editline]4th October 2015[/editline]
Stop this dumb limb shooting/police abuse argument. It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread other than the fact that the word "guns" was mentioned.[/QUOTE]
There is a story I read a few years back, I'll try to find it, where a principal of a school kept a handgun in his car (completely registered and everything) and because the school was a "gun free zone" he had to park 1000 feet from the premises. Despite this, when a gunman entered the school, he ran to his car, got his gun and shot the assailant.
It's not completely idiotic; if it comes down to letting the kids sit there waiting to be massacred or leaving them for a moment to grab a weapon to defend them, I think the latter would still be best.
People surely can't support this :idiotcull:
More guns to solve a gun problem? The fact that a politician, all be-it Trump, to even suggest having weapons in a place of education is testament to the extent of the issue.
[QUOTE=TAU!;48825643]You know, after hearing and reading so many people thinking that adding more guns to the situation would solve the problem, what if it had the exact opposite affect?
What if, because everyone involved had a gun on them, they all ended up dying? Because to start, the shooter may not be entirely deterred from shooting, whether or not he knows everyone else has a gun, and he knows he's going to die anyway so he'll try his damnedest to take out as many people with him as possible. Now, everyone else has a pistol, and they've gone through the classes, they've visited the shooting range on occasion, but they don't know and they won't know what it's like to be in a high pressure situation like a shoot out. So, unlike the shooter who's going to go out guns blazing like he's already dead with his skewed and morbid mindset, everyone else involved gets hit and ends up either mortally wounded and/or dead because they panicked. Not that soldier guy who stopped him, but who's to say a stray bullet from another student wouldn't have just hit him in the skull and ended his pursuit of the shooter?
Sure, there'll be someone who knows how to use a gun properly, has good aim, and can take the pressure, but for the most part don't you think the average person would crack under the pressure? You know, not be able to use their gun and either get killed or accidentally kill someone else?
Why don't we address the more important issues instead of believing that adding more guns into the equation will settle things, because they won't. We should put more of a focus on mental health issues in this country, along with treating those with said issues and preventing them from doing any harm with their guns. We should also not put such a stigma on depression and mental health issues, and motivate these people to seek help and make it easier to access. A gun is only as dangerous as the person wielding it, really. Whether they're a top notch shooter or someone who is no longer willing to live, even worse if they decide to harm others along the way.[/QUOTE]
It's really pretty gross how the mentally unwell are played as such an impassioned, purely charitable talking point but get the shaft as soon as someone suggests [I]adding[/I] guns instead of taking them. If anything Trump's a large part of that stigma by immediately moving on to his pro-gun argument without even beginning to specify what better mental health would actually entail, both plainly reducing them to nothing more than a bargaining chip and also giving the impression that they're America's problem child that no one knows how to handle. Now say what you want about the pro/anti-gun debate or whatever, but that's some pretty fuckin' flagrant manipulation right there.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48825835]There is a story I read a few years back, I'll try to find it, where a principal of a school kept a handgun in his car (completely registered and everything) and because the school was a "gun free zone" he had to park 1000 feet from the premises. Despite this, when a gunman entered the school, he ran to his car, got his gun and shot the assailant.
It's not completely idiotic; if it comes down to letting the kids sit there waiting to be massacred or leaving them for a moment to grab a weapon to defend them, I think the latter would still be best.[/QUOTE]
I don't have a terribly strong opinion either way on the subject of arming teachers. I see the potential merits, and I see just as many potential catastrophes, but if you [I]are[/I] going to have teachers armed, it makes considerably more sense for the weapons to be within reach in the classroom. Having unarmed teachers running through the halls to gun lockers while an active shooter prowls the building is a recipe for disaster. Rather than throwing up locked doors and dark rooms to thwart his efforts at finding targets until the actual police show up, you're actively herding people into his line of fire. Kudos to that principle I suppose, but he'd have simply been dead had he run into the gunman before reaching his weapon. It was all luck.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48825942]I don't have a terribly strong opinion either way on the subject of arming teachers. I see the potential merits, and I see just as many potential catastrophes, but if you [I]are[/I] going to have teachers armed, it makes considerably more sense for the weapons to be within reach in the classroom. Having unarmed teachers running through the halls to gun lockers while an active shooter prowls the building is a recipe for disaster. Rather than throwing up locked doors and dark rooms to thwart his efforts at finding targets until the actual police show up, you're actively herding people into his line of fire. Kudos to that principle I suppose, but he'd have simply been dead had he run into the gunman before reaching his weapon. It was all luck.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's that difficult to run [I]away[/I] from the sound of gunfire.
I don't exactly see how we can expect teachers to repell an assailant who is armed (and usually much better armed than the teachers)
It's too chaotic of a situation to be able to say "had a gun been here it would have stopped that person"
I think it's ironic that the right says guns don't kill people but does make the distinction that guns defend people, you still have to have someone compident behind that gun
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.