White House backs off raising age for gun purchases, backs tigher background checks, arming teachers - Polidicks

[QUOTE=catbarf;53196424]I agree entirely, this shouldn't be the answer. I think it's stupid that the Trump administration's solution to deep-seated social problems is to just throw guns at the problem. But as far as allowing competent, licensed individuals who carry concealed- why not? All I've seen so far is what seems like unfounded speculation. Alabama, Oregon, Utah, Kansas, Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Wyoming all [b]already[/b] allow concealed carriers to carry firearms in schools. That's a full fifth of the United States that already allows firearms in schools. Have I missed all the stories about kids overpowering their teachers and stealing their guns, or teachers going off the deep end and killing their students? Where's the evidence that any of this is a reasonable fear? Seriously, yes, we should be addressing the myriad issues that result in mass shootings in schools. No disagreement there. I just think the opposition to concealed carry is generally reliant on hypotheticals that are demonstrably at odds with the available data. If anyone has an argument that goes beyond the 'what if a kid steals their gun???' speculation I'm all ears.[/QUOTE] Hey man, like I said, if the teacher is personally okay with it, I'm okay with it, but I won't force it as a decision on someone who doesn't want to be armed. Teachers exist to teach kids, to inform them of the world and to protect them, but that doesn't(or didn't used to mean) literally shooting the attackers. It's all just a distraction, a show, a parade at this point to keep the focus from the real issues. I'm not opposed and I'd try and explain why to anyone who was opposed to it, but it's just such a "last resort" type idea that I feel genuinely worried the issues that cause this will never be examined as much as they need to be.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53196424]I agree entirely, this shouldn't be the answer. I think it's stupid that the Trump administration's solution to deep-seated social problems is to just throw guns at the problem. But as far as allowing competent, licensed individuals who carry concealed- why not? All I've seen so far is what seems like unfounded speculation. Alabama, Oregon, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island all [B]already[/B] allow concealed carriers to carry firearms in schools, and Wyoming, Kansas, and Arizona allow it with some additional restrictions. That's a full fifth of the United States that already allows CCers to carry firearms in schools. We know there are teachers already carrying firearms at work. Have I missed all the stories about kids overpowering their teachers and stealing their guns, or teachers going off the deep end and killing their students? Where's the evidence that any of this is a reasonable fear? Seriously, yes, we should be addressing the myriad issues that result in mass shootings in schools rather than slapping band-aid 'solutions' on. No disagreement there. I just think the opposition to concealed carry is generally reliant on hypotheticals that are demonstrably at odds with the available data. If anyone has an argument that goes beyond the 'what if a kid steals their gun???' speculation I'm all ears.[/QUOTE] This seems like pushing for pro-gun laws rather than shooting prevention. The arguments coming up for this are more "Why shouldn't teachers be allowed to carry guns?" rather than "Is letting teachers carry guns going to prevent shootings?"

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53196447]I feel like it's basically going to move the "protector" role on to teachers, who are already underpaid for doing their jobs. Again, The first time a shooting happens in a school with armed teachers, the media and parents are going to ask "so why didn't you go after the shooter". Which is a BULLSHIT expectation, teachers signed up to teach, not go toe to toe with a gunman. This is another band aid solution to cover the gaping sucking chest wound that the country has, and I'm surprised more people haven't seen through it. Even as a staunch gun rights supporter, I can't support these actions. They aren't reform, they aren't a step in the right direction, they're deliberate actions being taken to avoid having to do the actual hard work of fixing the underlying problems the country has.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. I sincerely can't understand the "arm teachers" rhetoric. It acts under the assumption that school spree shootings [I]will[/I] happen no matter what, to the point that legislation needs to be pushed so that teachers can [I]put down violent students[/I]. Which is sickening. None of the teachers/professors that I know would likely be able to pull the trigger on one of their students, and I get the feeling that if they did, they'd pull it on themselves shortly after.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53196409]What happens if one of the teachers themselves decide to go fucking postal?[/QUOTE] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525]What happens when the pilot is suicidal?[/url] I'm not pro-arming teachers but I don't believe that's a valid argument given the high standards required for it. Especially if they go with Florida's standards, which require more range training than the army.

So they deride and mock the officer who didn't rush the shooter and now they expect the average joe to want to carry that responsibility? Lmao, nope.

[QUOTE=nox;53196545]So they deride and mock the officer who didn't rush the shooter and now they expect the average joe to want to carry that responsibility? Lol, get fucked.[/QUOTE] By the way, he wasn't the only one that didn't go in. None of the sheriff's on scene went in, and they had a reason: The Captain on the scene ordered them to stay back. Who knows what she was thinking, but she's the reason for the Sheriff Department's inaction. When the police arrived they went in immediately. [editline]12th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53196547]That's not saying much, considering the Army/Navy/Marines only require a single day to qualify.[/QUOTE] It's not for qualification, it's total, at least in SKEEA's experience: [QUOTE=SKEEA;53185272]132 hours of comprehensive firearms instruction is more than I get in an entire year in the Army. That's actually more than I have gotten in 3 years, and I'm trained to operate everything from pistols to grenade machine guns. Those will be some seriously trained freakin staff.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53196550]By the way, he wasn't the only one that didn't go in. None of the sheriff's on scene went in, and they had a reason: The Captain on the scene ordered them to stay back. Who knows what she was thinking, but she's the reason for the Sheriff Department's inaction. When the police arrived they went in immediately. [/QUOTE] Makes it all the more depressing that Trump didn't wait for information to come in before calling the man a coward. Idk about you but I don't want to be nationally humiliated for not having the fortitude to do something a vast majority of the population doesn't have the guts to do, that's on top of the personal guilt of knowing you could have made the difference.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;53196441]This seems like pushing for pro-gun laws rather than shooting prevention. The arguments coming up for this are more "Why shouldn't teachers be allowed to carry guns?" rather than "Is letting teachers carry guns going to prevent shootings?"[/QUOTE] If someone is already licensed and trusted by the state to carry a firearm for self-defense, I don't think they should be denied that privilege in a context where mass shootings are a known risk, without due cause. So, yeah, why shouldn't teachers be allowed to carry guns, if the stats show that the risks are grossly exaggerated or outright unfounded? But as for preventing shootings, I'm curious, maybe you can answer- we've had a significant number of school shootings, and a significant number of states have armed teachers, so how many of those shootings have occurred at schools with armed teachers? I'd think, based on the overwhelming tendency for mass shooters to target gun-free zones, that concealed carry is an effective deterrent to mass shootings, but I won't make that claim without data relevant to this context. Edit: Just to be clear, I don't support this as the Official Response to School Shootings. We need to be doing a lot more than allowing teachers to carry guns and calling it a day. But in the context of this specific policy, independent of anything else we're doing, I don't see a valid basis for much of the criticism I've seen. If anyone has stats that contradict what I've already posted, I'd be open to changing my mind.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53196584]how many of those shootings have occurred at schools with armed teachers? I'd think, based on the overwhelming tendency for mass shooters to target gun-free zones, that concealed carry is an effective deterrent to mass shootings, but I won't make that claim without data relevant to this context. [/QUOTE] If a shooter was worried about getting shot by someone else, they do it in a place where an armed police force literally doesn't exist.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53196396]Everyone keeps bringing up the “what if they overpower you and steal your gun” argument but [b]how often does that even happen?[/b][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=catbarf;53196584]So, yeah, why shouldn't teachers be allowed to carry guns, [b]if the stats show that the risks are grossly exaggerated or outright unfounded[/b]? But as for preventing shootings, I'm curious, maybe you can answer- we've had a significant number of school shootings, and a significant number of states have armed teachers, so [b]how many of those shootings have occurred at schools with armed teachers[/b]? I'd think, based on the overwhelming tendency for mass shooters to target gun-free zones, that concealed carry is an effective deterrent to mass shootings, but I won't make that claim without data relevant to this context.[/QUOTE] You can make stats say whatever you want. Think a little bit about the implications instead of making numbers fit your narrative. Mistakes happen, tragedies happen. Easier access to guns means more ways tragedies can happen. Imagine being a teacher, answering a student's question at their desk and having to always watch your back in case a teenager snaps whacks you in the back of the head with a blunt object with the intent of then stealing your gun. You could say, "well [i]statistically[/i] this never happens", but changing a few small variables could cause those situations to happen and cause dozens of kids to die. You're basically arguing that the risk of that happening is lower than the number of kill sprees stopped by armed teachers. I don't think it is, and even if it was, it's a solution that brings more guns in the equation, and more general anxiety of always having to watch your back in case someone steals your gun or some else's. I much prefer living somewhere where it's not even a thought that crosses my mind.

The arm the teachers idea just sounds so insane. Why are you in a situation where teachers need to be carrying firearms, like they are braving a warzone or living in the fucking wild west, when they are going to educate children for a living? What's stopping a potential shooter from executing their teacher at the very start of an attack while they are not on the look out for hostile targets- because that's not their job, teaching classes is? Also wouldn't this just mean that every teacher now becomes a priority target for a shooter, not just because they now pose more of a threat, but because for every staff member who gets shot during a school shooting- the shooter adds another weapon to their arsenal- extending the possible duration of the attack. Also, Jesus fucking dick you guys already have a horrible problem with people (especially black people) getting murdered by cops because they put a hand in their pocket, or pulled their pants up, at the wrong time. If your police force has such a huge problem assessing risk, then I imagine a lot of students are going to start sweating when the class is asked to get their exercise books out of their backpacks by a potentially armed teacher.

[QUOTE=Segab;53196631]You can make stats say whatever you want. Think a little bit about the implications instead of making numbers fit your narrative. Mistakes happen, tragedies happen. Easier access to guns means more ways tragedies can happen. Imagine being a teacher, answering a student's question at their desk and having to always watch your back in case a teenager snaps whacks you in the back of the head with a blunt object with the intent of then stealing your gun. You could say, "well [i]statistically[/i] this never happens", but changing a few small variables could cause those situations to happen and cause dozens of kids to die. You're basically arguing that the risk of that happening is lower than the number of kill sprees stopped by armed teachers. I don't think it is, and even if it was, it's a solution that brings more guns in the equation, and more general anxiety of always having to watch your back in case someone steals your gun or some else's. I much prefer living somewhere where it's not even a thought that crosses my mind.[/QUOTE] The main problem I’m having with this is we already have armed school resource officers where none of this is an issue, and they are open carrying as opposed to concealed carrying. I mean yeah more or less guns aren’t going to solve any of the underlying issues, but the arguments I’m hearing against teachers being allowed to concealed carry their personal weapons don’t seem to have any real basis aside from causing a political shitstorm. It’s like the same deal when people claimed that concealed carriers who attempt to stop mass shootings were going to be gunned down by first responders due to misidentification; but it never happened and some examples exist of the exact opposite happening. The most prominent example of the guy who interrupted the church shooter and getting a random stranger to give him a ride to pursue the shooter. Then when the cops arrived on scene, they pretty much just told the guy to hold position until they could get him out safely. Although that does seem like an exceptionally rare event where everyone did everything right.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Adding more guns to the equation Isn't likely to reduce the risk of a shooting happening or being deterred, and instead will only create more unstable environment within' the classroom and create more variables where things can go horribly wrong. A "tough" stance Isn't the solution whether Trump believes it or not. I still say more effort needs to be put into the underlying causes of the mental breakdowns that lead to those students making these inhumane actions. Students need better counseling, and Schools need to take a stronger stance on bullying. I myself was a troubled kid in school that felt like the world was out to get him and the environment created by other students certainly didn't help, and I would not have made it through if not for the school therapist and understanding teachers that helped mold me into the person I am today. I am an advocate for reasonable regulations on guns, sure, but at the end of the day the issue of school shootings is much more complex and requires closer examination. Allowing teachers access to guns and calling it a day isn't going to change things.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53196584]If someone is already licensed and trusted by the state to carry a firearm for self-defense, I don't think they should be denied that privilege in a context where mass shootings are a known risk, without due cause. So, yeah, why shouldn't teachers be allowed to carry guns, if the stats show that the risks are grossly exaggerated or outright unfounded? But as for preventing shootings, I'm curious, maybe you can answer- we've had a significant number of school shootings, and a significant number of states have armed teachers, so how many of those shootings have occurred at schools with armed teachers? [B]I'd think, based on the overwhelming tendency for mass shooters to target gun-free zones[/B], that concealed carry is an effective deterrent to mass shootings, but I won't make that claim without data relevant to this context. Edit: Just to be clear, I don't support this as the Official Response to School Shootings. We need to be doing a lot more than allowing teachers to carry guns and calling it a day. But in the context of this specific policy, independent of anything else we're doing, I don't see a valid basis for much of the criticism I've seen. If anyone has stats that contradict what I've already posted, I'd be open to changing my mind.[/QUOTE] Can you source the bolded claim? I've seen some [URL="https://everytownresearch.org/documents/2015/09/analysis-mass-shootings.pdf"]evidence[/URL] that the vast majority (>80%) of mass shootings do not happen in gun-free zones. As you've stated, this isn't a solution to the problem. [URL="http://neatoday.org/2013/01/15/nea-poll-educators-support-stronger-laws-to-prevent-gun-violence-2/"]It isn't even what educators want[/URL]. Why should we devote all of this time discussing what amounts to a red herring and politically charged issue? Why should we prioritize the needs, opinions, or wants of gun activists when we're talking about issues pertaining to education? Trump and Republicans [URL="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/15/school-safety-cuts-trump-administration-348968"]were about to cut funding[/URL] for school counselors and violence prevention programs. This is a program that provides funding to address the mental health issue gun rights activists claim is the underlying problem. Trump and Republicans keep going on about how[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/politics/trump-guns-school-shootings.html"] arming teachers and giving them bonuses[/URL] is a "cheap" solution to the problem: [QUOTE=Donald Trump]“You give them a little bit of a bonus, so practically for free, you have now made the school into a hardened target,”[/QUOTE] They're using this shit at a means to rile up their base and avoid actually dealing with the massive fucking holes we have in our social institutions, and using [I]money[/I] as a justification. They're hiding behind gun rights activists because it's convenient, and anyone falling for this shit is a god damn sucker.

Hey, just a thought: Arming teachers and selling backpacks made of bulletproof materials to send with kids to school in hopes of preventing mass casualties seems like something that would happen in a war zone, not the so-called greatest country in the world. But of course actually fixing the underlying issues is way too hard and takes too long and requires spending a lot of tax money on programs that won't show benefits for 5-10 years, so thoughts and prayers and more guns in schools it is.

The proposition from a NRA-backed government to purchase [I]more[/I] firearms, instead of finding a source and solution to school shootings, is so transparently evil it's laughable. And yet there are people who are convinced that, yes: more guns will keep people safe. Buy more guns, and subscribe to the NRA for lifetime membership benefits.

[url]http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/[/url] So I'm not sure of the continuing validity of this article, but if it stands true still then I find it very absurd to desire to arm lesser trained individuals in schools.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53196547]That's not saying much, considering the Army/Navy/Marines only require a single day to qualify.[/QUOTE] Maybe for the Army and Navy. For BASIC qualification Marines spend 2 weeks in boot on rifles, once in the fleet it's an annual 1 week on refresher. That's also not counting the entire month of combat training every Marine received, from the lowly clerk to your POG turned MARSOC Marine.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53196986]I was talking pistol, not rifle qual. I'm well aware of the fact that marines spend weeks on the range for rifle, after all, I had to be there while they did it.[/QUOTE] Pistol quality is still 3 days for Marine qualification, unless it gets expedited.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53196964][url]http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/[/url] So I'm not sure of the continuing validity of this article, but if it stands true still then I find it very absurd to desire to arm lesser trained individuals in schools.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind the goal here isn't to hand guns to every teacher or mandate that teachers have guns. It's to allow teachers who have CHLs to carry their weapons, which they are already licensed for and can legally carry anywhere else, in school. CHLs are typically better trained than cops at shooting.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53197007]Never seen one take more than a day tops. I dunno, its still less range time than a CCW holder should have at a bare minimum. I've got mine, and visit the range at least once a week to keep fresh, meanwhile requal is a yearly event.[/QUOTE] And what would you expect from a CCW holder? A handgun is a defensive tool, not offensive. At most the training just needs to commit certain actions to muscle memory and make sure they're accurate with them. A normal person doesn't kick down doors and jump in trenches. Even MARSOC doesn't spend much time on initial training for the guys who do use handguns as offensive weapons, most of their training is follow up to keep their skills sharp.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53197044]I expect people to go out and practice, especially if that defensive tool has the capacity to wound those who are innocent. Don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing against CCW, but the simple fact of the matter is, if you aren't out practicing, you really shouldn't have one, because at that point your gun is a liability, not an insurance policy.[/QUOTE] That I can agree with.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53197011]Keep in mind the goal here isn't to hand guns to every teacher or mandate that teachers have guns. It's to allow teachers who have CHLs to carry their weapons, which they are already licensed for and can legally carry anywhere else, in school. CHLs are typically better trained than cops at shooting.[/QUOTE] Trump and other Republicans are talking about providing paltry monetary compensation for carrying. They're trying to promote it. By trying to promote it and giving financial incentive to do so, you're pushing for carrying as a social expectation. How or why do you think that telling educators to arm themselves against students is supposed to foster a productive educational environment? IF gun legislation is supposed to be written by people competent in the field, shouldn't educational and public safety policy be written by people competent in those fields? IF educators are opposed to such measures, why the fuck are we focusing on arming teachers instead of protecting, enhancing, and utilizing public programs DESIGNED to tackle the alleged root causes of such shootings? Notice Trump has said nothing about maintaining SERV today. He didn't say shit about restoring Project Prevent in his proposed budget. He hasn't walked back calling to gut the Student Supports and Enrichment grant program. These are all programs designed to support students and minimize school violence, and Trump and DeVos have been calling to cut them all. I've been pretty firmly neutral or even pro-gun without owning one myself, but I'm seriously tired of this bullshit. If gun owners can't respect the wishes or rights of educators, then maybe educators shouldn't respect the wishes or rights of gun owners.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53195817]I don't see any valid reason to prevent teachers with concealed carry permits, let alone extensive education like under the Florida bill, from carrying at work. Licensed concealed carriers have a crime rate 5-6 times lower than police so all the fears of 'what if they get mad and shoot a kid' are statistically unfounded.[/QUOTE] there's no evidence it works to prevent school shootings and is just a way to attack schools being a gun free zone. this is just pulling an opinionated anecdotal solution out of one's posterior and dropping it soundly onto educators without even bothering to do any root cause analysis or pathology.

"Arming teachers" is a really bad way of wording it. It's more allowing people who are already armed, and have demonstrated their proficiency and safe handling with their arms, to carry on campus. I used to think it was a crazy suggestion too until I found out that many states have allowed it for years with no major incidents. Certainly none of the hypotheticals that usually spring to mind, like teachers snapping or students making a grab for the gun. That said, I don't support arming all teachers, or giving bonuses for people who carry. It should be entirely personal choice and no one should feel compelled to carry because they might get a small pay bump. It shouldn't be seen as "the fix" for school shootings, and teachers should absolutely not be obligated to have to intervene in a school shooting with their own guns, but as a stopgap I don't really see a problem with it.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53197156]The problem is, the "fix" for school shootings isn't being discussed, at all, in the slightest. So to trump, the NRA, and many conservatives THIS IS the fix. And people are seeing through this pathetic act of "see, we did something to fix the problem" while gutting the programs that are actively attempting to fix the problem.[/QUOTE] I would never argue that Trump, the NRA, and many conservatives have the publics best interests in mind.

[QUOTE=CunningHam;53196928]yet I have [b]never[/b] seen a single teacher say they're willing to kill for their students. [/QUOTE] Yet there are at least 10 states where teachers have concealed carry permits and are allowed to carry firearms in school, so I don't know what to tell you. Maybe, like a lot of concealed carriers, they don't want to advertise something that will get them branded bloodthirsty psychopaths by liberals, let alone bring on the wrath of hysterical 'I need to get my kids out of their classroom before they snap and go on a shooting spree!' parents. If I was a teacher and I had a CCW permit I sure as hell wouldn't be advertising it. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53197168]Of course not, but that's what the real "why this bill is bullshit" is about. [/QUOTE] I don't think anyone here has said anything to contrary- but that doesn't mean these 'oh no a teacher's gonna snap and shoot a student! a student's gonna knock them out and steal their gun!' fears are at all reasonable, in the face of clear evidence that stuff like that doesn't happen. As a measure for addressing mass shootings it's terrible, but as a policy in isolation I've yet to see a credible reason why it's a problem.

let's arm the teachers let's also arm the students let's also have foreign exchange students spy on other countries let's give random people responsibilities they're in no way ready to take, what can go wrong

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;53197439]let's arm the teachers let's also arm the students let's also have foreign exchange students spy on other countries let's give random people responsibilities they're in no way ready to take, what can go wrong[/QUOTE] Wow, it's like you haven't read any of the proposals at all.

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;53197439] let's give random people responsibilities they're in no way ready to take, what can go wrong[/QUOTE] But they aren't random people, they are people who already concealed carry. And it's not a responsibility they aren't ready to take - no one is forcing them to do this, they are ready and willing, and they know what they are agreeing to when they take on this responsibility voluntarily.