• Columbine survivor introduces bill to expand concealed-carry in schools
    129 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145916]Then people who survive school shootings have the right to push for teachers to be able to conceal carry as well, right?[/QUOTE] I don't think Lambeth is anti-gun.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145916]Then people who survive school shootings have the right to push for teachers to be able to conceal carry as well, right?[/QUOTE] That is in fact how rights work
Gun free zones are a stupid idea and we have seen the results. I think CC'ers should be allowed to carry in schools because why should their ability to defend themselves and others stop just because they enter a place of education? Gun free zones are targeted for a reason and I think this is a step in the right direction to deter and mitigate school shootings.
considering the relative intelligence of some of the teachers i've had in my life I wouldn't trust most of them with a butter knife much less a firearm. I can see this going wrong in so many ways especially if you're just entrusting[I]any[/I] person with a loaded gun. I've seen instructors be extremely careless and leave things like their own laptops and wallets in unlocked classrooms, it just takes one scenario for some kid to have the balls to try to steal it if the teacher ever leaves it unattended Even perfectly trained marksmen are capable of making mistakes
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53145545]Riller- precisely what magic barrier do you think currently exists to stop a deranged teacher from bringing a gun in? "Well gee I'd like to shoot up this school but it's a gun free zone!" Like, surely you can see that only people who follow the rules are going to respect the "no guns" rule? It's not like they are allowing AR-15s on campus. The point of a CCW is that nobody can see it, so if someone plans to do ill, it doesn't matter if they have a license or not...[/QUOTE] Wait a minute. Why is the teacher deranged?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53144996]Oh how I'd love to live in a country where it was hard for people to get guns; criminals and non. Like Japan, the UK, most of the EU, Korea etc. Americans who move to these countries say they feel much safer walking around at night than in the US.[/QUOTE] Either you live in gangland or you watch too much CNN/NBC/ABC. Wanna know what makes me feel unsafe walking down the street? It isn't firearms, it isn't drugs, it isn't gangs. [B]It's people driving while texting.[/B] I live somewhere where open carry is rather commonplace and yet I've never once felt that there was even the slightest hint of a longshot of a chance that I'd so much as hear a gunshot within a quarter mile of me, much less actually be on the wrong end of a firearm. But not a day goes by I don't see at least ten shitlords who are too busy paying attention to their fucking phones rather than the road. You wanna make American streets safer? Get people to put their goddamn phones down while driving. Smartphones kill more people in this country than guns do. [QUOTE=Riller;53145247]"across most of the US, you are as safe as in any other first world country" This statement, made by Grenadiac, is generally true. However, the term 'most of the US' obviously implies that in [I]some[/I] of the US, you are not as safe as an equivalent area in the EU. These are places include places like Detroit, certain LA neighbourhoods, from what I hear Chicargo, and middle-school classrooms. How is this so hard to understand? It's what I quoted. I responded to the thing I quoted. The comparison I responded to wasn't between 'Place A in US and place B in US', it was 'Place A in US and equivalent place B in other first world country".[/QUOTE] Wanna know something hilariously terrifying? [I]The vast majority of the people that make those cities unsafe are federally barred from possessing firearms in the first place.[/I] Convicted felons lose their right to bear arms. Hey, guess what gangbangers almost always are? [I]Convicted Felons.[/I] And, hey, riddle me this one as well: Where are the worst hotspots of gangland in the US? [I]Oh hey, would you look at that: Sections of LA, Chicago, Detroit, some parts of Nashville, Dallas, NYC.[/I] Middle school classrooms are perfectly safe, but there are places in the country where you're encouraged to run red lights because waiting for them will see you attacked by gangbangers that aren't allowed to have guns yet have them anyway. The sweeping majority of gun crime committed in the US is gang violence, and it is committed by people who are barred from posessing a firearm in the first place, people who acquired them off the black market, and who have rap sheets longer than a semi truck. But, hey, feel free to continue to scaremonger, to cry about how middle school classrooms are somehow unsafe. They're perfectly safe. And nothing you propose to make them safer is going to put the slightest dent in firearm violence because the bulk of it is committed by people who already have been banned from possessing guns in the first place.
[QUOTE=Shirt.;53147022]Wait a minute. Why is the teacher deranged?[/QUOTE] I don't know, the guy I was replying to suggested allowing teachers with CHLs to bring their carry guns into school would result in teachers snapping and shooting students.
[QUOTE=TestECull;53147203]Either you live in gangland or you watch too much CNN/NBC/ABC. Wanna know what makes me feel unsafe walking down the street? It isn't firearms, it isn't drugs, it isn't gangs. [B]It's people driving while texting.[/B] I live somewhere where open carry is rather commonplace and yet I've never once felt that there was even the slightest hint of a longshot of a chance that I'd so much as hear a gunshot within a quarter mile of me, much less actually be on the wrong end of a firearm. But not a day goes by I don't see at least ten shitlords who are too busy paying attention to their fucking phones rather than the road. You wanna make American streets safer? Get people to put their goddamn phones down while driving. Smartphones kill more people in this country than guns do. Wanna know something hilariously terrifying? [I]The vast majority of the people that make those cities unsafe are federally barred from possessing firearms in the first place.[/I] Convicted felons lose their right to bear arms. Hey, guess what gangbangers almost always are? [I]Convicted Felons.[/I] And, hey, riddle me this one as well: Where are the worst hotspots of gangland in the US? [I]Oh hey, would you look at that: Sections of LA, Chicago, Detroit, some parts of Nashville, Dallas, NYC.[/I] Middle school classrooms are perfectly safe, but there are places in the country where you're encouraged to run red lights because waiting for them will see you attacked by gangbangers that aren't allowed to have guns yet have them anyway. The sweeping majority of gun crime committed in the US is gang violence, and it is committed by people who are barred from posessing a firearm in the first place, people who acquired them off the black market, and who have rap sheets longer than a semi truck. But, hey, feel free to continue to scaremonger, to cry about how middle school classrooms are somehow unsafe. They're perfectly safe. And nothing you propose to make them safer is going to put the slightest dent in firearm violence because the bulk of it is committed by people who already have been banned from possessing guns in the first place.[/QUOTE] A single gunlaw saying you can't buy firearms until you are 21 would've stopped the shooting at the school.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53144996]Oh how I'd love to live in a country where it was hard for people to get guns; criminals and non. Like Japan, the UK, most of the EU, Korea etc. Americans who move to these countries say they feel much safer walking around at night than in the US.[/QUOTE] Cool, I live in a rural town with a decent number of guns and a low crime rate. I'll walk around at 3 in the morning without a care in the world. When a violent crime happens here, it's front page news. I can't say the same if I'd lived in a middle-income area of a major city, where criminals are abundant due to failures in our social and economic systems.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;53147226]A single gunlaw saying you can't buy firearms until you are 21 would've stopped the shooting at the school.[/QUOTE] Okay so what happens when a 21 year old shoots up a college? Do we move it to 25? 30? Some other arbitrary number? He was a depressed autistic sociopath with a shitty life. Maybe we should work a little harder at making sure fewer people have shitty lives. Better schooling and universal healthcare. The only reason he wasn't already getting help was because his adoptive parents were figuring out the insurance part of it. Otherwise he would have already been getting help for his depression.
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53145255]Personally, as a Brit, I feel safer here because I know the worst someone might realistically pull on me is a knife or a cosh if someone ever picked a fight.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500"]Yet gun crime is up in london..[/URL] [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("alt" - GunFox))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Kekwi;53147405][URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500"]Yet gun crime is up in london..[/URL] [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("alt" - GunFox))[/highlight][/QUOTE] This guy got banned but here's some interesting information about that which bears repeating: [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53138402]If you look at the stats from that article ([URL]https://public.tableau.com/profile/metropolitan.police.service#!/vizhome/MPSFY201617CrimeStatistics/NOTES[/URL]) that stat is actually a bit deceptive. That's gun crime as an umbrella term, where the Policing and Crime Act 2017/Firearms Act 1968 defines firearm to include some air rifles ([URL]https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms[/URL]), weapon attachments, among other crimes. So that gun crimes stat would include people using air rifles illegally or having tools that could be suspected for use in conversion of firearms the two stats that are more interesting are Gun Crime Lethal Barrelled Discharged, Gun Crime Personal Robbery and Homicide, which are 306, 567 and 110 respectively. I think it would be uncontroversial to say that 306 events of a lethal, barreled firearm being discharged in a year for a city the size of London is pretty outrageously low. (0.000034 per person in London on the first count) - and that homicide statistic is a grouped one, so it includes all other homicides, not just gun related homicides Depending on your definition of where London stops, it's either 8.8 million or 12 million, so London "alone" is a bit deceptive, because London can encapsulate 1/5-6th of the population of England, or 1/7-8th of the population of the UK in total - it's nearly an order of magnitude larger than the next biggest city (Birmingham) - so saying london "alone" to someone from the UK comes across as a bit weird.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=El Burro;53138698]This is it. Some seem to forget that our gun control policy is pretty much zero tolerance to the point where if you're caught by the Police in a public place even with an imitation, you'll be summonsed to court, given a large fine [I]and[/I] a conviction under the Firearms Act 1968. I had it happen to me in 2004, I was messing with some mates on a bit of derelict land near a park doing some target shooting with a pretty convincing imitation air pistol, somebody calls the rozzers and boom, I have a [URL="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/19"]Section 19[/URL] firearms offense on my criminal record. This would have been recorded as a gun crime offense, I imagine shit like this happens in London every other day.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kekwi;53147405][URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500"]Yet gun crime is up in london..[/URL] [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("alt" - GunFox))[/highlight][/QUOTE] [quote]The Met said although crime rates were rising they remained at a much lower level than five years ago.[/quote] Even though deltas hardly matter when talking about absolute statistics, even within that context your source still does not support your post.
[QUOTE=Riller;53145317]As for the proposition of arming teachers itself: It's fucking dumb. It's not gonna save anyone, and it's adding a new dangerous variable to the situation, opening up for the following scenarios off the top of my head: What if a student gets a hold of the gun? What if a teacher decides to misuse it? What if a teacher misidentifies the shooter in a situation? What if a teacher takes a shot that isn't clean and hits an innocent student? [/QUOTE] 1. Biometric safes. They're plentiful and cheap. 2. Teacher will just bring a gun anyways if they wish harm. 3. It's kind of hard to misinterpret someone with a gun and one without. 4. Low ricochet or nonlethal ammunition is a good option. Most kids will be kissing the ground, the shooter won't be.
Anecdotal, but girl at my school got tased for not having her school I.D on her, so I don't necessarily feel comfortable about the idea of this. For clarification: >Girl takes medication at lunch. >Hall Security / Monitor type spots this [I](Taking pills at lunch is against the rules.)[/I] >Guard tells her that's a no-no. >Informs him it was medication, but in a rude way. >He notices she isn't wearing / doesn't have her I.D. [I](Just did two things against the rules.)[/I] >Informs her that she now needs to go to the office / detention. >Essentially, tells him to fuck off. >Attempts to grab her arm to pull her up. >She pushes him away. >Taser. Can't imagine how this situation would be improved by the guard having a gun instead of a taser in this story. The girl could have just conformed to prevent this I guess, but the current state of American High School culture would not do wonders for students having [I]actually armed[/I] guards enforce batshit rules like no meds at lunch (some legit have to be taken while eating?), or not having your I.D present. I would even go as far to say that further enhancing the oppressive nature of schools that already exists would probably just inspire [I]more[/I] shootings to happen. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] The HS I went to was in a bleak town and an even more conservative pocket. With what I'd classify as "semi-hunting", and just personal knowledge of the access levels to firearms of my peers, I definitely feel like if my HS's already legendary shittiness was [I]further[/I] enhanced by armed guards and teachers I would have been scared every day that my school was just going to be the next one where a shooting would occur. And no, the idea of a glock strapped to Mr. Dinklefuck's waist would [I]not[/I] have inspired confidence of protection.
[QUOTE=General J;53147596]Anecdotal, but girl at my school got tased for not having her school I.D on her, so I don't necessarily feel comfortable about the idea of this. For clarification: >Girl takes medication at lunch. >Hall Security / Monitor type spots this [I](Taking pills at lunch is against the rules.)[/I] >Guard tells her that's a no-no. >Informs him it was medication, but in a rude way. >He notices she isn't wearing / doesn't have her I.D. [I](Just did two things against the rules.)[/I] >Informs her that she now needs to go to the office / detention. >Essentially, tells him to fuck off. >Attempts to grab her arm to pull her up. >She pushes him away. >Taser. Can't imagine how this situation would be improved by the guard having a gun instead of a taser in this story. The girl could have just conformed to prevent this I guess, but the current state of American High School culture would not do wonders for students having [I]actually armed[/I] guards enforce batshit rules like no meds at lunch (some legit have to be taken while eating?), or not having your I.D present. I would even go as far to say that further enhancing the oppressive nature of schools that already exists would probably just inspire [I]more[/I] shootings to happen. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] The HS I went to was in a bleak town and an even more conservative pocket. With what I'd classify as "semi-hunting", and just personal knowledge of the access levels to firearms of my peers, I definitely feel like if my HS's already legendary shittiness was [I]further[/I] enhanced by armed guards and teachers I would have been scared every day that my school was just going to be the next one where a shooting would occur. And no, the idea of a glock strapped to Mr. Dinklefuck's waist would [I]not[/I] have inspired confidence of protection.[/QUOTE] Tasers can [URL="https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/tased-in-the-chest-for-23-seconds-dead-for-8-minutes-now-facing-a-lifetime-of-recovery/"]fuck people up[/URL] pretty bad too [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] Also I thought about this some more and did some googling, I think isn't actually a solution at all. have some stats: in a national survey a whopping[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/teachers-guns-schools-survey-firearms_n_2773558"] 72%[/URL] of teachers said they wouldn't bring a gun to school, even if given the opportunity And even if they all did bring in guns, accuracy in general will leave a lot to be desired. New York City police have document how often officers actually end up hitting their target and at best, they manage to get up to [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html"]43%[/URL], at worst 17.4 percent. This initiative is a feel good measure that republicans and gun lovers will eat right up but in all likelihood won't prevent any deaths.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53147683] Also I thought about this some more and did some googling, I think isn't actually a solution at all. have some stats: in a national survey a whopping[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/teachers-guns-schools-survey-firearms_n_2773558"] 72%[/URL] of teachers said they wouldn't bring a gun to school, even if given the opportunity And even if they all did bring in guns, accuracy in general will leave a lot to be desired. New York City police have document how often officers actually end up hitting their target and at best, they manage to get up to [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html"]43%[/URL], at worst 17.4 percent. This initiative is a feel good measure that republicans and gun lovers will eat right up but in all likelihood won't prevent any deaths.[/QUOTE] That the majority of teachers wouldn't carry shouldn't prevent the people who do want to carry and are trained from being able to. I think bills like these should be sold more as letting existing CCL holders, or people interested in becoming one, carry their firearm on school grounds, rather than arming all teachers. One of the many criticisms I have of the NRA is that they use fear and distrust to push people who otherwise don't really have any practical reason to learn how to use a firearm safely into buying a gun, occasionally with tragic results. So I absolutely don't want or expect every teacher to be armed. As for accuracy, we know that CCL owners tend to use their firearms in a safer manner than police. I don't think there is any data on it but this would suggest they might also tend to be better marksmen with it. In any case, I'd prefer some measure of accuracy with a firearm over pencils and rulers if it comes to a gunfight. It's also why when I supported it in my post I mentioned annual vetting by the school district itself on top of the CCL training. Also, regarding all the posts about how you can't trust teachers not to lose their guns, or kids from grabbing them, or teachers from snapping and deciding to shoot up their school with their CCL firearm and not, you know, any other firearm that doesn't require actual training and a license to use, does anyone have any examples of this happening in states that allow teachers to carry already? I used to be under the same misconception but cursory Google searches show none of these worst case scenarios occurring
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53147713]As for accuracy, we know that CCL owners tend to use their firearms in a safer manner than police. I don't think there is any data on it but this would suggest they might also tend to be better marksmen with it. In any case, I'd prefer some measure of accuracy with a firearm over pencils and rulers if it comes to a gunfight. It's also why when I supported it in my post I mentioned annual vetting by the school district itself on top of the CCL training. [/QUOTE] It's not a safety thing, it's a matter of practice and simply being in ideal conditions. Olympic athletes can hit the target 9/10 times but they spend years practicing and are given the best possible situations to perform in.
As far as it being a feel good measure, I'm not going to pretend it's anything but a stopgap for a long term, more permanent solution. Teachers should absolutely not be expected to both teach and provide security if a gunfight goes down in their hallway. But it's something we can do now that gives them a chance to survive, and it's something we can do far cheaper than some of the other stopgap security proposals like metal detectors at every entrance and more resource officers.
Target rifles aren't all .22s...
[QUOTE=Bumbles;53147722] Like this Florida shooting was more of our FBI and police doing fuck all, because they knew he was an issue, and from I learned just recently from living here, since he was living in his parents house, regardless of age, his parents had every right to call the cops, have his guns removed, and arrested. I think it was something like 30 police visits and on an FBI list, and nothing happened.[/QUOTE] Reminds me of how understated the gun safe and shooters mother were in the Newtown shooting. Both sides want to go back and forth over gun control and gun free zones but I feel like many overlooked the simple problems at the home. So many more things could have prevented that tragedy without requiring legislation or public overture. [QUOTE=Bumbles;53147722] Arming teachers is stupid, lets be honest, we have all had fucking retarded teaches I wouldnt even trust them buttering toast or handling anything serious. I am for more school security, but let cops, hell even a PMC would be better.[/QUOTE] The problem with having cops (much less PMC's) operate as resource officers is that it's expensive. To the point where not all the schools in Broward county can afford to have more than one on premises at any one time, and even then they aren't there every day. Having just two teachers who are trained and equipped to handle a shooting situation would be infinitely cheaper and arguably as effective. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;53147732]It's not a safety thing, it's a matter of practice and simply being in ideal conditions. Olympic athletes can hit the target 9/10 times but they spend years practicing and are given the best possible situations to perform in.[/QUOTE] I thought it was a safety thing where the hypothetical is that instead of hitting a shooter they might hit a teacher or a student. If it's just as problem of doubting the accuracy of teachers being able to hit an active shooter, I think we have plenty of instances of private citizens stopping criminals with their own firearms, and like I said, I'd prefer any accuracy over none.
I wouldn't feel safe having a teacher with a gun.
[QUOTE=Riller;53145317] What if a student gets a hold of the gun?[/quote] Do you know how astronomically unlikely that is? There are cops in a bunch of schools already, what if a kid gets a hold of the cop's gun? Guess we shouldn't have cops in schools then. The teacher would be more likely to be killed by lightning on Mars than have a student take a gun concealed on their person, partially because how the fuck are they even going to know where it is, or even if the teacher has one? You seem to be missing the [i]concealed[/i] in concealed-carry. [quote]What if a teacher decides to misuse it?[/quote] The gun doesn't whisper things to them in the classroom that will make them more likely to kill people. If the teacher wants to kill their class, a CCW permit is going to have no bearing on that decision. It's worth noting that according to data from Florida and Texas, each with over a million permit holders, [url=https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-Report-from-the-Crime-Prevention-Research-Center-Final.pdf]CCW permit holders are 1/7th as likely as police to commit any kind of felony or misdemeanour.[/url] [quote]What if a teacher misidentifies the shooter in a situation?[/quote] This has almost never happened to a CCW holder, unlike a very public incident where [url=https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/lapd-officers-who-shot-103-rounds-two-innocent-women-violated-policy/357728/]LAPD SWAT shot 2 women more than 100 times[/url] because they thought the truck they were in was being driven my someone they were on a manhunt for. Police can misidentify the shooter too. [quote]What if a teacher takes a shot that isn't clean and hits an innocent student?[/QUOTE] CCW permit holders generally won't take shots that run the risk of hitting something else, most likely because they have to be even more accountable for their shots than police. [url=http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/women/Law-review-abstract.pdf]Some studies cite numbers that say police are 5.5 times more likely than a CCW permit holder to shoot the wrong person.[/url]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53147683]Tasers can [URL="https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/tased-in-the-chest-for-23-seconds-dead-for-8-minutes-now-facing-a-lifetime-of-recovery/"]fuck people up[/URL] pretty bad too [/QUOTE] Not if they are used right they won't. For starters, you never tase someone in the chest. It accomplishes little to nothing. The muscles located in the chest are stretched over a wide area and don't control locomotion. Proper taser probe placement splits a prong above and below the belt line in the back. Tasers paralyze anything between the two prongs, so close quarters tasing does little without an extra step (more on that in a second). Prongs should land in the lower back and the upper thigh. This will cause the pelvic muscles to seize and it will effectively disable the subject. In close quarters, you aren't going to get probe spread, so you aren't going to do anything other than hurt the subject. They will still be fully mobile. To counteract this, you would staple them. Place the gun directly against the subject and deploy the probes above or below the belt line before moving the gun to another location and pressing the muzzle (which has additional electrical contacts) against the subject on the other side. That is proper taser use in close quarters and is the only way it should be deployed in close. (It is called stapling because the taser cartridge has doors on the front that normally are ejected by a CO2 blast when it is discharged. Since they have nowhere to go at point blank, the prongs will basically staple them to the subject by shooting the barbs straight through the doors.) When used like this, tasing is safe. Nearly every officer in the field has been tased. A taser normally runs for five seconds before needing another trigger pull, though some are set to just keep going as long as the trigger is held. If you don't accomplish what you need to in five seconds, then chances are the tase deployment was fucked and you need to consider alternatives. Tasing is hard to do right, but is stupidly effective. That officer fucked up by not waiting for backup. You can hold a person in their car as long as is necessary from the relative safety of your cruiser. They are facing away from you and you can keep a long gun pointed at the car. Then he fucked up again when he tased someone improperly for passive resistance, which is a huge no no. Then he fucked up again when he rode the taser for far too long. And of course he fucked up by starting out being a prick. If you aren't talking people into cuffs most of the time, you are shitty officer. No exceptions.
NJ has almost red taped guns out of citizens hands, and they are looking to finish the job after the Florida shooting. A while back a woman who actually needed a gun to protect herself from her ex was killed after her permit was never processed over three months, when the law states it should be in one month. This is due to the “justifiable need” clause. She was stabbed to death in front of her own house. There is “common sense” gun laws and then there is the above which becomes pointless.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;53148094]NJ has almost red taped guns out of citizens hands, and they are looking to finish the job after the Florida shooting. A while back a woman who actually needed a gun to protect herself from her ex was killed after her permit was never processed over three months, when the law states it should be in one month. This is due to the “justifiable need” clause. She was stabbed to death in front of her own house. There is “common sense” gun laws and then there is the above which becomes pointless.[/QUOTE] I feel like there's a case to be made to prevent domestic abusers from owning guns but yeah bureaucracy totally fucked up there.
[QUOTE=Amplar;53147429]1. Biometric safes. They're plentiful and cheap.[/quote] I thought having a gun in a safe defeated the purpose? That's what people here on FP keep saying, anyway. Also, that still requires proper handling for the gun to [I]actually be in the safe[/I]. With the state of American schools, that's somewhat dubious. [QUOTE]2. Teacher will just bring a gun anyways if they wish harm.[/QUOTE] I said misuse, not go on shooting-spree. Having a gun available to a figure of authority has shown time and time again to be an easy recipe for bad shit to happen. It wouldn't be hard to imagine someone deciding to use it as a 'persuasive' tool if sufficiently fed up with a particular student. [QUOTE]3. It's kind of hard to misinterpret someone with a gun and one without.[/QUOTE] This would be expanded upon if you took the minute needed to read the rest of the post instead of making half-assed arguments against the introductory bullet-points (heh, bullet) [quote]4. Low ricochet or nonlethal ammunition is a good option. Most kids will be kissing the ground, the shooter won't be.[/QUOTE] Ditto. [editline]21st February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;53147203]Either you live in gangland or you watch too much CNN/NBC/ABC. Wanna know what makes me feel unsafe walking down the street? It isn't firearms, it isn't drugs, it isn't gangs. [B]It's people driving while texting.[/B] I live somewhere where open carry is rather commonplace and yet I've never once felt that there was even the slightest hint of a longshot of a chance that I'd so much as hear a gunshot within a quarter mile of me, much less actually be on the wrong end of a firearm. But not a day goes by I don't see at least ten shitlords who are too busy paying attention to their fucking phones rather than the road. You wanna make American streets safer? Get people to put their goddamn phones down while driving. Smartphones kill more people in this country than guns do. Wanna know something hilariously terrifying? [I]The vast majority of the people that make those cities unsafe are federally barred from possessing firearms in the first place.[/I] Convicted felons lose their right to bear arms. Hey, guess what gangbangers almost always are? [I]Convicted Felons.[/I] And, hey, riddle me this one as well: Where are the worst hotspots of gangland in the US? [I]Oh hey, would you look at that: Sections of LA, Chicago, Detroit, some parts of Nashville, Dallas, NYC.[/I] Middle school classrooms are perfectly safe, but there are places in the country where you're encouraged to run red lights because waiting for them will see you attacked by gangbangers that aren't allowed to have guns yet have them anyway. The sweeping majority of gun crime committed in the US is gang violence, and it is committed by people who are barred from posessing a firearm in the first place, people who acquired them off the black market, and who have rap sheets longer than a semi truck. But, hey, feel free to continue to scaremonger, to cry about how middle school classrooms are somehow unsafe. They're perfectly safe. And nothing you propose to make them safer is going to put the slightest dent in firearm violence because the bulk of it is committed by people who already have been banned from possessing guns in the first place.[/QUOTE] Missing the point entirely and then comparing guns to cars. A+ effort. Just because it seems impossible for some people to grasp, lemme reiterate one last time. [I]American classrooms are less safe than European classrooms.[/I] The point is how fucking absurd it is that you can't go to fucking school in America without the risk of getting shot. The risk is low, almost infinitely low, sure, but [I]it fucking happens[/I]. Do you people just not understand how not-normal it is that this happens? How god damn preventable it is? How basically every nation on earth except you guys got it down quite fine? That Onion-article that keeps getting people banned isn't satire on nothing, people.
[QUOTE=Riller;53145317]And last, but certainly not least: [I]Being well-armed does not prevent mass shootings[/I]. I'm not even saying that armed civilians don't prevent mas-shooters. I'm saying that nothing prevents them in the act. Think, for a moment, of the Fort Hood shooters. On a military base, with armed guards and combat-trained personnel, the first one still managed to shoot 45 people and the second shot 15. Afghan policemen and army recruits going rouge still account for dozens of coalition deaths every year in Afghanistan. These are spree-shootings against well-armed, well-trained soldiers who, at least in the case of the Afghanistan-incidents, are aware of a constant threat against them, and that still does not prevent the killings taking place. Now if you think a 42-year old divorced mother of two teaching maths to 13-year-olds can do better than the US military in a surprise attack against a probably more well-armed shooter, you must be god damn delusional.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry Riller, but this is factually completely wrong. Fort Hood, as well as most military bases, are gun-free zones where servicemen are not armed. The only people armed on a domestic base are MPs, and there are not a whole lot of them. The Fort Hood shooting was particularly deadly because there weren't any MPs nearby to respond. Trained military personnel or not (and let's be real, most of the people on-base have gone through Basic and that's it for their combat training), if you're unarmed there's not much you can do to defend yourself. Those green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan? Look up the body counts on those. There are no jihadi wannabes reaching double-digit body counts in an environment where every one of their would-be victims is an armed and trained combatant. It may not stop or fully deter the attacks, but it sure as hell limits their lethality. As for deterrence, here in the US at least, we have direct evidence that spree shooters deliberately target areas where nobody is armed- look at the Aurora theater shooting, which took place in the one theater for miles that bans concealed carry, or the comparative lack of shootings on college campuses that allow concealed carry. Over and over and over again we see mass shootings taking place in gun-free zones. I'm not saying any of this to justify arming teachers en masse, which I think is a horrendously terrible idea. Concealed carry for teachers who already have gone to the effort of getting a permit and demonstrating competence, maybe. But at least get the facts right- the idea that the presence of guns or lack thereof has no effect whatsoever on mass shootings is clearly wrong from even a cursory glance at the targets and outcomes of mass shootings.
[QUOTE=catbarf;53148627]I'm sorry Riller, but this is factually completely wrong. Fort Hood, as well as most military bases, are gun-free zones where servicemen are not armed. The only people armed on a domestic base are MPs, and there are not a whole lot of them. The Fort Hood shooting was particularly deadly because there weren't any MPs nearby to respond. Trained military personnel or not (and let's be real, most of the people on-base have gone through Basic and that's it for their combat training), if you're unarmed there's not much you can do to defend yourself. Those green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan? Look up the body counts on those. There are no jihadi wannabes reaching double-digit body counts in an environment where every one of their would-be victims is an armed and trained combatant. It may not stop or fully deter the attacks, but it sure as hell limits their lethality. As for deterrence, here in the US at least, we have direct evidence that spree shooters deliberately target areas where nobody is armed- look at the Aurora theater shooting, which took place in the one theater for miles that bans concealed carry, or the comparative lack of shootings on college campuses that allow concealed carry. Over and over and over again we see mass shootings taking place in gun-free zones. I'm not saying any of this to justify arming teachers en masse, which I think is a horrendously terrible idea. Concealed carry for teachers who already have gone to the effort of getting a permit and demonstrating competence, maybe. But at least get the facts right- the idea that the presence of guns or lack thereof has no effect whatsoever on mass shootings is clearly wrong from even a cursory glance at the targets and outcomes of mass shootings.[/QUOTE] Then wouldn't a possible solution still be country wide less guns, not more?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53148958]Then wouldn't a possible solution still be country wide less finds, not more?[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to ask. Could you rephrase?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.