|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 22 2018 13:00 Leporello wrote:
I gotta go, but last point I'll make is, we're at a point where the mainstream NRA response to school shootings is to arm the teachers.
20 years ago, that would be unthinkable.
Anywhere else in the world, that would be unthinkable.
It should be everywhere, unthinkable.
No one here advocates for it, my guess is they just don't dare.
Some of us look for middle-ground everywhere. Stop. There is no middle-ground with America's gun-culture. "Bump-stock" bans are not middle-ground -- they're a scapegoat. If we're ever going to get meaningful gun-control in this country, people need to start being honest, instead of being polite to people who are refusing to acknowledge the realities of our gun-epidemic. It's not okay, on any level. If you can't admit the impact of the AR-15 on the Vegas shooting, for example, that's not okay. I don't care how much "knowledge" you think you have, you're being fundamentally ignorant.
Firearm homicide has been dropping for the past 20 years, so I'm not sure where you get this idea of a 'gun epidemic'. Factually you are incorrect.
|
The NRA stance on arming teacher is stupid, dangerous and will lead to smaller pool of possible employees in an already thin field. That organizations leaders has lost touch with reality.
|
On February 22 2018 13:00 Leporello wrote:
I gotta go, but last point I'll make is, we're at a point where the mainstream NRA response to school shootings is to arm the teachers.
20 years ago, that would be unthinkable.
Anywhere else in the world, that would be unthinkable.
It should be everywhere, unthinkable.
No one here advocates for it, my guess is they just don't dare.
Some of us look for middle-ground everywhere. Stop. There is no middle-ground with America's gun-culture. "Bump-stock" bans are not middle-ground -- they're a scapegoat. If we're ever going to get meaningful gun-control in this country, people need to start being honest, instead of being polite to people who are refusing to acknowledge the realities of our gun-epidemic. It's not okay, on any level. If you can't admit the impact of the AR-15 on the Vegas shooting, for example, that's not okay. I don't care how much "knowledge" you think you have, you're being fundamentally ignorant.
That you put the gun epidemic and the Vegas shooting together is part of the problem. The reason people care (these legislative 'efforts') about these mass shootings far more than they care about the more prevalent suicides is because of it's political value. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting people. That's just the narrative they feed their supporters.
I for one want to reduce gun violence as much or more than the next guy, I also recognize when someone's idea to do it is staggeringly ignorant and absent any comprehension of feasibility.
On February 22 2018 13:05 Plansix wrote:
The NRA stance on arming teacher is stupid, dangerous and will lead to smaller pool of possible employees in an already thin field. That organizations leaders has lost touch with reality.
Danglars lost points with me for not being able to acknowledge such a blatant example of his side doing exactly what he dislikes about the other on this issue.
|
On February 22 2018 12:56 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions. What if he chose to drive a car through the crowd? What if he got a bomb into that crowd? You're assuming that he stays at the same range if he has a different tool. There are other tools that can be used to kill more people quickly. We saw that happened when someone ran through a crowd with a vehicle. All evidence that I have seen points to the idea that an assault weapons ban/firearm ban in general does nothing to curtail the homicide rate within a country. Why people keep insisting on one makes no sense to me.
Are you familiar with the existence of a continent called Europe?
User was warned for this post
|
On February 22 2018 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:05 Plansix wrote:
The NRA stance on arming teacher is stupid, dangerous and will lead to smaller pool of possible employees in an already thin field. That organizations leaders has lost touch with reality. Danglars lost points with me for not being able to acknowledge such a blatant example of his side doing exactly what he dislikes about the other on this issue.
Arming teachers/volunteers/security on school campuses should absolutely be part of the discussion. And I’m not talking about forcing teachers to keep and train with a gun if they’re absolutely opposed. A story flashed across my news feed about high popularity of a gun training class for teachers, put on by a sheriff’s department after the tragedy.
I’m very opposed to a singular fixation on restricting guns without also looking at making schools less of a soft target to begin with. I don’t even have an ideological attachment to one side or the other on this one.
|
On February 22 2018 13:10 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:56 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions. What if he chose to drive a car through the crowd? What if he got a bomb into that crowd? You're assuming that he stays at the same range if he has a different tool. There are other tools that can be used to kill more people quickly. We saw that happened when someone ran through a crowd with a vehicle. All evidence that I have seen points to the idea that an assault weapons ban/firearm ban in general does nothing to curtail the homicide rate within a country. Why people keep insisting on one makes no sense to me. Are you familiar with the existence of a continent called Europe?
Ever since the firearm bans in UK homicide rates (total homicide not firearm homicide rates) have been essentially the same. But I guess arguing with facts is not a thing anymore.
Firearm bans SHOULD have a dramatic effect on homicide rates if we are to believe the 'liberal' side of the argument, especially after a decade. However, the truth is that they have almost no effect on the overall homicide rate within a country.
https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
|
So guns are not fundamentally necessary to secure our safety? We could ban them all tomorrow and by that argument crime would remain the same. Just fewer mass shootings.
Edit: I will tolerate a lot of stupid shit gun advocates, but arming school faculty in any way is critically stupid. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of schools and the role of teachers and faculty. Police are fine, but present other problems. Schools were soft targets for nearly 50 years and we never had this problem.
|
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight.
|
On February 22 2018 13:49 DucK- wrote:
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight.
The biggest thing here is that teacher's are not trained professionals on how to handle a firearm in a tense situation, especially in a highly crowded building. People do not understand how poor some people handle certain situations when put under immense stress.
|
On February 22 2018 13:59 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:49 DucK- wrote:
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight. The biggest thing here is that teacher's are not trained professionals on how to handle a firearm in a tense situation, especially in a highly crowded building. People do not understand how poor some people handle certain situations when put under immense stress.
Our cops are allegedly trained and they suck ass at it, no way a typical teacher would be better than a typical cop and/or the training/requirements would be tougher/even the same.
So yeah, Danglars is losing more points on the "I'm here for reasonable discourse" scale.
|
On February 22 2018 13:59 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:49 DucK- wrote:
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight. The biggest thing here is that teacher's are not trained professionals on how to handle a firearm in a tense situation, especially in a highly crowded building. People do not understand how poor some people handle certain situations when put under immense stress.
I think you might misunderstand the school environment if you think that is the biggest problem. The biggest fear is the student getting the gun, which the teacher could not wear on them reasonably. The teacher would need to keep it locked up and that wouldn't assure kids couldn't get to it. It gives every student in the school the ability gain access to a gun and ammunition on a daily basis. Mistakes will happen, it is unavoidable.
|
On February 22 2018 13:49 DucK- wrote:
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight.
I presume not all teachers are opposed to fight if an armed attacker comes to shoot up their students.
I have no issues if a teacher would rather prefer to lock the door and let more interested individuals confront an attacker.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 22 2018 15:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:49 DucK- wrote:
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight. I presume not all teachers are opposed to fight if an armed attacker comes to shoot up their students. I have no issues if a teacher would rather prefer to lock the door and let more interested individuals confront an attacker.
I'd be more concerned not with teachers being ineffective at fighting attackers, but the large number of guns on school campuses leading to issues. Like, imagine the most incompetent insipid forgetful teacher you ever had, and now that teacher is responsible for a gun every second of the day and if he leaves it on his desk and forgets about it, or if a student eyes the code (or where he stores the key) while he locks it up, or anything like that, bad things could happen.
I was reading about an incident earlier this year where a cop was at a school for some reason and while his gun was in the holster (improperly holstered) someone or himself touched it, hit the trigger, and the gun discharged. Thankfully, nobody was hurt. But this kind of thing will happen a lot more if you have tons of armed people around tons of kids 30 hours a week, and some of those armed people are really really really incompetent.
|
On February 22 2018 13:05 Plansix wrote:
The NRA stance on arming teacher is stupid, dangerous and will lead to smaller pool of possible employees in an already thin field. That organizations leaders has lost touch with reality.
I’m not sure if you were aware but all the evidence suggests that the more guns there are in a given place, the more safe that place is.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 22 2018 15:15 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:05 Plansix wrote:
The NRA stance on arming teacher is stupid, dangerous and will lead to smaller pool of possible employees in an already thin field. That organizations leaders has lost touch with reality. I’m not sure if you were aware but all the evidence suggests that the more guns there are in a given place, the more safe that place is.
That's almost certainly some kind of statistical artifact of the difficulty of getting gun permits or something. It's definitely the case that accidental firearm discharges in schools would go way up if we armed all the teachers. This seems obvious.
|
On February 22 2018 15:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:49 DucK- wrote:
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight. I presume not all teachers are opposed to fight if an armed attacker comes to shoot up their students. I have no issues if a teacher would rather prefer to lock the door and let more interested individuals confront an attacker.
It hasn't even been a week since cops shot a man that actually took the gun away from an attacker. More guns in schools is going to end in more people getting shot, even if less of them are by mass shooters.
|
It is pretty comical to hear republicans talk about the constitution in the gun debate, but never once will you hear them consider the import of the militia. To them, that portion of the constitution is superfluous. And of course, the best way to show that you love the constitution is to assume or imply that it contains a superfluous clause.
|
On February 22 2018 15:08 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 15:06 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2018 13:49 DucK- wrote:
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight. I presume not all teachers are opposed to fight if an armed attacker comes to shoot up their students. I have no issues if a teacher would rather prefer to lock the door and let more interested individuals confront an attacker. I'd be more concerned not with teachers being ineffective at fighting attackers, but the large number of guns on school campuses leading to issues. Like, imagine the most incompetent insipid forgetful teacher you ever had, and now that teacher is responsible for a gun every second of the day and if he leaves it on his desk and forgets about it, or if a student eyes the code (or where he stores the key) while he locks it up, or anything like that, bad things could happen. I was reading about an incident earlier this year where a cop was at a school for some reason and while his gun was in the holster (improperly holstered) someone or himself touched it, hit the trigger, and the gun discharged. Thankfully, nobody was hurt. But this kind of thing will happen a lot more if you have tons of armed people around tons of kids 30 hours a week, and some of those armed people are really really really incompetent.
That's all part of the consideration. Let's say it stays locked from the beginning of the semester, so teachers aren't keying it in and out regularly in front of students (drilled without students present). A group of trained (volunteer) teachers are a much more potent force to stop something like this compared to waiting for cops to arrive with 10+ dead before average response time. An attacker that can reasonably presume an easy free-for-all in his initial assault is a very different situation than an attacker that is confronted very soon after he breaks out the gun.
I agree that regular open carry of teachers or poor security of the firearm is a problem. I want to rate that alongside regulations that do very little, or the status quo, or very securely maintained guns available only during an active shooter event. Some current discussions involve laws that minimally affect Newtown/Parkland shooters.
|
On February 22 2018 15:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 15:06 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2018 13:49 DucK- wrote:
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight. I presume not all teachers are opposed to fight if an armed attacker comes to shoot up their students. I have no issues if a teacher would rather prefer to lock the door and let more interested individuals confront an attacker. It hasn't even been a week since cops shot a man that actually took the gun away from an attacker. More guns in schools is going to end in more people getting shot, even if less of them are by mass shooters.
And ineffective regulations and gun-free schools are going to end in more Parkland shootings. I'm aware that there are tradeoffs. I don't think this particular one is absurdly out of bounds.
|
I look forward to the police shooting the armed teachers defending the students. Because that is how smart this idea is. And students getting their hands on the gun, because more fire arms means more opportunities to obtain them through thief.
Wouldn’t it be great if listened to people in education in the manner we are supposed to listen to gun owners?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
