• Donald Trump weighs in on the Oregon shootings: Teachers should have been armed to stop it
    104 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48826737]love how everyone talks shit on trump for being the disaster he is and are ra ra ra for bernie until it arrives at the gun issue and suddenly trumps ideas seem well-considered, really says everything about hypocrisy[/QUOTE] Because we have to agree with one candidate on everything, otherwise we're hypocrites. Trumps a fucking idiot, but he has some decent views on some things. Same with Sanders, most of his shit is good but some of it is bullshit. Your attitude is the attitude that breeds division, keeps both parties from being able to come to a conclusion. Your attitude isn't a republican exclusive attitude, it is shared by many who are against an ideal just because the opposing party has said ideal. For example, if the democrats want to do something the republicans have wanted to do for so long, the republicans will veto it with all their might. Point being, hypocrisy is saying one thing but doing another, not agreeing with one candidate on some issues, but supporting another.
exactly, hypocrisy is moving from candidate to candidate on single issues and not the overall ethics of their platform and character. you can't want to give teachers guns and seriously believe in a progressive candidate at the same time, it's utterly ridiculous.
[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] I think the guns are an option. In survival, there's two things you can do, [I]flight or fight[/I]. Flight is preferable, but you can't always get away. Plus, I don't like the idea of my second method of self-preservation being taken away. That's what some folks in America, even ones in positions of power, would like to do.
I don't get why people think arming teachers is a bad idea because they'll get mad and shoot someone. I carry a gun everyday and I've never drawn it. Ever no matter how mad I was. And I don't claim to have the same responsibilities as a teacher or the self control.
big congrats on never pulling a gun on someone, that's a great reason to give teachers guns
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48827050]big congrats on never pulling a gun on someone, that's a great reason to give teachers guns[/QUOTE] With that logic, a few people shooting up schools shouldn't be a good reason to ban all guns for everyone*. [editline]4th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Kommodore;48827007]exactly, hypocrisy is moving from candidate to candidate on single issues and not the overall ethics of their platform and character. you can't want to give teachers guns and seriously believe in a progressive candidate at the same time, it's utterly ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Yes you can, it's called compromise. I'm not going to switch candidates because they says one thing thats retarded. If that's true, than most of us might as well not support a candidate because nobody agrees on everything.
[QUOTE=Megadave;48827068]With that logic, a few people shooting up schools shouldn't be a good reason to ban all guns for everyone*.[/QUOTE] 294 shootings in which four or more people died this year
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48827007]exactly, hypocrisy is moving from candidate to candidate on single issues and not the overall ethics of their platform and character. you can't want to give teachers guns and seriously believe in a progressive candidate at the same time, it's utterly ridiculous.[/QUOTE] This is absolutely stupid. You can disagree with candidates on same issues and agree with them on others. Trump saying something doesn't automatically mean its wrong.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48827112] Trump saying something doesn't automatically mean its wrong.[/QUOTE] no but it's a pretty good indication
[QUOTE=Judas;48826347]I feel like the main flaw with this idea isnt just "solving gun violence with more guns" and more how expensive and time consuming it would be to give every teacher in america a firearm and the proper training for them to be responsible for the lives of all their students[/QUOTE] And all this pro-guns-in-school talk is coming from the same party that thinks teachers should earn minimum wage plus benefits. It's almost like they're [I]trying[/I] to make teachers vote against them essentially this "make teachers have guns in class" idea just makes them bigger targets to school shooters
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48827123]no but it's a pretty good indication[/QUOTE] You're being just as awful as people that dismiss anything Bernie says over the word "socialism". Like 99% of people probably don't agree with any of the candidates on every single issue. You're supposed to weigh what you value when you make these choices. [QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;48827159]And all this pro-guns-in-school talk is coming from the same party that thinks teachers should earn minimum wage plus benefits. It's almost like they're [I]trying[/I] to make teachers vote against them essentially this "make teachers have guns in class" idea just makes them bigger targets to school shooters[/QUOTE] Yeah, groups like the NRA and Republican party try to deflect gun regulation by saying its about mental illness while at the same time defunding education and funding towards helping the mentally ill. Its horrible.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;48826799]though accept they could have a mental episode just like any other human.[/QUOTE] People go on about the risk of a CCWer having a 'mental episode' and going from a law-abiding schoolteacher to a bloodthirsty murderer overnight, and then want cops instead. You are [URL="http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/"]more likely to get shot or killed unlawfully by a cop than a concealed carry permit holder[/URL]. There's nothing special about police, they're people too. What you really trust is the vetting process that ensures that most cops are psychologically sound and at least somewhat trained, but to get a concealed carry permit you have to go through a very similar process- not to mention people who actively want to get a CC permit are often more familiar, experienced, and practiced with guns than the substantial number of police officers who only shoot for qualification once a year. I work alongside law enforcement, and I've seen plenty of police officers do incredibly unsafe, inexperienced things with firearms- it's not the primary focus of their job. Having a dedicated police officer or two makes perfect sense for schools that deal with a lot of criminal activity and need someone to carry out arrests. As a protective measure it's not the most optimal and I seriously question anyone who thinks allowing already licensed teachers to carry is a riskier or less effective solution.
This is where we're at. This is fucking disgusting. The fact that we have to be so scared of those around us that we are honestly talking about giving guns to teachers is fucking disgusting. This country is such shit.
All of these shootings were premeditated though. It wasn't like the guy was lawfully armed and just snapped and killed 13 people. They planned and prepared. You guys acting like giving teachers guns is inviting teachers to start popping people. Guns don't corrupt people like that.
Are armed security guards and/or police in schools and colleges normal in countries other than the US? I have never heard about or seen any security anywhere in any school or college in Austria.
Yeah, arming teachers isn't a good idea. It would just add more chaos and risk to an already chaotic situation. Having a few armed guards, and like Big Dumb American suggested earlier in this thread, panic buttons, radios, etc, would be much more appropriate.
But then someone will argue "but da students can just steal the gun from the guard" and then we're back into the whole gun-free zone debate.
[QUOTE=Robber;48827561]Are armed security guards and/or police in schools and colleges normal in countries other than the US? I have never heard about or seen any security anywhere in any school or college in Austria.[/QUOTE] yes, but on college campuses they aren't always armed because of objections raised by the student body/professors/administration
It seems that people misunderstand what "armed teacher" means. If the gun is locked up in a storage cabinet somewhere on school grounds, are any of the teachers, individually, armed if the gun is in lockup? No. If the gun is at the teacher's desk and they're in the staff room getting coffee, is the teacher armed? No. The teacher is only armed when the gun is on their person, and with the gun being on their person it makes it a fair bit harder for a kid to steal it than if it were lying around their desk somewhere. Armed teachers means the teachers are actively carrying on their person a loaded firearm. It does not mean the school maintains an arsenal they can access somewhere, it does not mean the gun is somewhere in the classroom, it means the teacher has on their person and nowhere else but on their person a loaded gun. The guns don't need to be from the school, the guns don't need to stay in the school after school, the idea is that as long as the teacher is there, they are carrying a gun on their person to protect their students.
[QUOTE=Megadave;48827743]But then someone will argue "but da students can just steal the gun from the guard" and then we're back into the whole gun-free zone debate.[/QUOTE] That's why I said it'd be better to have a few, not just one >:)
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;48827785]It seems that people misunderstand what "armed teacher" means. If the gun is locked up in a storage cabinet somewhere on school grounds, are any of the teachers, individually, armed if the gun is in lockup? No. If the gun is at the teacher's desk and they're in the staff room getting coffee, is the teacher armed? No. The teacher is only armed when the gun is on their person, and with the gun being on their person it makes it a fair bit harder for a kid to steal it than if it were lying around their desk somewhere. Armed teachers means the teachers are actively carrying on their person a loaded firearm. It does not mean the school maintains an arsenal they can access somewhere, it does not mean the gun is somewhere in the classroom, it means the teacher has on their person and nowhere else but on their person a loaded gun. The guns don't need to be from the school, the guns don't need to stay in the school after school, the idea is that as long as the teacher is there, they are carrying a gun on their person to protect their students.[/QUOTE] Are you suggesting the american school system should become the wild fuckin west? in most cases having your staff armed and your students unarmed is going to make the students feel even less safe
I think the problem with guns being a deterrence to shooters is that it assumes that the gunman actually cares if he gets shot which doesn't usually seem to be the case to me, given that they're usually suicidal anyway. Also I have to wonder how many teachers actually have the nerve to engage with an active shooter if it came down to that. You can give an employee a gun but you can't make them into a minuteman, ready to run into a gunfight at a moments notice.
[QUOTE=xamllew;48828132]I think the problem with guns being a deterrence to shooters is that it assumes that the gunman actually cares if he gets shot which doesn't usually seem to be the case to me, given that they're usually suicidal anyway.[/QUOTE] It is obvious that these shooters care about whether or not they'll get shot, because almost every shooting is in a gun-free zone. High schools? No guns. Colleges? No guns. Church? No guns. Movie theater? Specifically a gun-free one when there were ample theaters allowing concealed firearms around. Navy yard? Nobody armed except MPs. Does it seem like a coincidence to you that all these mass shootings just [i]happened[/i] to take place in areas where there was no chance of anyone but police being armed? The only mass shooting I can think of off the top of my head that took place in an area where guns weren't heavily restricted was that guy who opened fire on random people in public in Chicago early this year... and got dropped by an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit. They don't care about dying, but they do care about dying before they can kill enough people for their act of terrorism to have the impact they want. Teachers don't need to be trained like Navy Seals and they don't all need guns; this pattern of areas targeted by mass shooters strongly suggests that even just some teachers having CC permits and being armed would present a deterrent.
[QUOTE=xamllew;48828132]I think the problem with guns being a deterrence to shooters is that it assumes that the gunman actually cares if he gets shot which doesn't usually seem to be the case to me, given that they're usually suicidal anyway. Also I have to wonder how many teachers actually have the nerve to engage with an active shooter if it came down to that. You can give an employee a gun but you can't make them into a minuteman, ready to run into a gunfight at a moments notice.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the idea is to give teachers a fighting chance if shooters reach them before police arrive, not turn them into impromptu SWAT teams. Training and arming the entire faculty is silly and impractical, but allowing qualified staff (CC license and training for whatever the local reaction plan is) can only increase their odds of survival.
[QUOTE=Del91;48826374]Don't know if anyone posted this yet, but oregon has a law that says anyone with a concealed carry license can take there gun in any public place, even gun free zones. There were actually several people at the school who were armed. They didnt want to get shot either.[/QUOTE] How many of them were in the single classroom that was attacked?
Ehh... it's a very touchy subject. Part of me thinks the adults and staff should be allowed to carry purely at their discretion... but the other part of me says it's an American school which means there can be a lot of retarded people, both students and staff. I'd have to go with Big Dumb American on this one. Armed guards who have actual proper training for these type of situations is probably the best way to go. The last place I worked at was very security conscious and went over what kind of options you have in an active shooter situation. They basically summed it up as running or hiding as the best options. Fighting as an option was not completely ruled out if you had no other choice, but it was by far the most risky option for obvious reasons. Another reason why I think arming teachers could end badly is due to police procedure. Basically the police found that attempting to control the situation and taking too much time setting up a secure perimeter around the building actually gives the shooter more time to kill people (go figure), so instead they now just rush in with entry teams and try to clear the entire building as fast as humanly possible. TL;DR When the police arrive on scene, they aren't going to know who the bad guy is, so being armed during an active shooting is not going to end well for any plain clothes civilian who runs into first responders. Hence why armed guards in uniform would probably be the best option. It's kind of morbid, but if the shooter attempts to target a guard first, everyone else will at least become alerted and know to GTFO.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;48828096]Are you suggesting the american school system should become the wild fuckin west? in most cases having your staff armed and your students unarmed is going to make the students feel even less safe[/QUOTE] The point of concealed carry is that it's concealed. Nobody is supposed to know you have a gun.
There'll be casualties whether or not people carry concealed firearms.
I'm cool with the armed security guard idea too. I never understood why colleges and schools don't have them universally. Some do but most don't. I also don't understand why large malls don't employ a couple armed guards and have them rotate in shifts so there is always one around amongst the regular guards. I absolutely trust the Police to handle an active shooter the problem is the police are always ten minutes away or more from responding and in that time a lot of people could die.
Why not hire armed security guards and metaldetectors instead
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.