|
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 November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks.
Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get.
|
United States24682 Posts
On November 24 2018 12:07 ShambhalaWar wrote:
What I would say about your comments on whether or not something is a "bad argument"... I would say that when you interject those comments, to me they seem to detract from the discussion much more than facilitate or deepen it.
In my experience, sometimes those comment take the conversation to a place other than where it was. When this happens I don't experience the conversation as deepening.
We agree on the problem here but may disagree on the solution. When I see 'additional gun control advocate' X attack the character of 'gun rights activist' Y for completely invalid reasons, nothing good will come of it unless X is shown what was wrong with what they said. Y will understandably double down and the conversation further devolves into completely talking past each other and accusations of having said things that the speaker claims they never said. The same would be true of Y doing something similar to X, although that tends to get jumped on much more quickly in this thread for obvious reasons.
There have been previous times when a poster made an overall good post but messed up a couple of details and then their 'opponents' jumped on them for that and used it as an excuse to not address the actually GOOD points... that's wrong, and I should be more aware of that behavior when I do sometimes nitpick a bit because it may give the illusion that I am trying to discredit the good points when I shouldn't be.
I think a lot of my arguments in the past with liberal posters could have been prevented if I prefaced each of my posts with, "Just as a reminder, here is my position on gun control," but I always try to keep my personal position mostly quiet when discussing the principles behind political topics because they can color the way people I'm speaking with interpret my points. In the most extreme cases such as in this thread, my disagreement with some ridiculous pro-'control' arguments leads some posters to slide me into one of two possible camps, as they see it, then come at me guns blazing, no pun intended.
|
On November 24 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks. Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get.
It's one of the reasons why I wanted it to number one be volunteer teachers, number two be mandated training, and number three to only be used in cases of school shooters. I'm thankful that one school district has decided in favor of this. I hope their example inspires others. The case of Broward County Sheriff's Department and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School should not be repeated. They let students bleed out with an active shooter, and the sheriff deputy School Resource Officer took up a passive position outside a building. That for me is unacceptable.
All these pro-action supporters want to cast the opposition as some kind of status-quo supporters, but really they have their own qualms and preferences and predilections that figure in to where they decide to tackle the problem.
|
On November 24 2018 10:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2018 14:51 Gzerble wrote:On November 22 2018 10:20 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2018 17:15 Gzerble wrote:On November 20 2018 06:23 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2018 02:56 Gzerble wrote:On November 20 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On November 19 2018 20:47 Gzerble wrote:
OK, as someone not from the US, but who has lived in the US for at least a few years of his life, then I can honestly say... the way you see some other countries as "they're so crazy because they X" is how the rest of the world sees you and your guns. Listen, everyone likes firing guns. It's fun. No one is saying you shouldn't. But everyone is saying that a gun is a bigger responsibility than a car, and hence should be controlled more carefully. The US is pretty lax with cars, and that's fine. But there are regulations in the form of proper training before you are licensed, powerful documentation of who owns what that is easily accessible to all law enforcement, a testing procedure for licensing, an entire branch of law that is dedicated to "dos and don'ts" of driving, an entire branch of legal enforcement that is beyond active in such a way that every person who drives has seen them in action at least a few times while driving, and so on...
Yet people say "they won't take away my guns" as a reply whenever someone brings that up. That's insane. No one wants to take away your guns. You can still have them. No one should be giving you guns unless you've been trained in using them safely, no one should be giving you guns if you have a medical condition (physical or mental) that means you shouldn't have one, and no one should be giving you guns if you have a history of violent crime. There should be digital records that law enforcement can easily access as to who owns which weapon. There should be accountability, responsibility, and respect when dealing with guns. Guns are tools for killing, and they should be treated as such. If you argue with this I couls make a case for you not being psychologically fit to own a gun, in any other place in the world. Because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense.
Guns are made for killing. Sure, it's people using guns that kill people, but just like cars, drugs (medicinal or not), parachutes, and any other form of thing that has an inherently higher level of danger associated with its use, it should be regulated in such a way as to reflect that. I grant you that the craziness is largely from the clash of cultures. Gun rights defenders in this country typically look the same way at the low-rights states and other countries with extreme gun control measures. Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? Is it really preferable to live as a vassal of the state with a monopoly on arms, to avoid a few more deaths by guns (alleged)? I know a lot of people didn't grow up knowing an intimate friend that bought and carries a gun, or one that has brandished it in self defense to stop a crime on their person or on a neighbor. It's easy to suppose that the entire atmosphere is alien. Guns are the things that terrorists bring in to shoot up the Bataclan or a Brussels museum, not things that citizens own and carry for their own self defense. You're meant to video the theft and vandalism of your car from an upper floor of a building, because the burglars are armed with hammers. It's perfectly normal for two policeman and a man with a shopping cart to spend several minutes trying to neutralize a terrorist with a knife. Weird to me, normal to others. There is a lot to unpack in what you just wrote, so allow me to address it in order. Though while you quoted me, you did not argue on any of my specific points, but are attempting to derail the conversation to other things. Nothing you said argues that people should not have to learn gun safety to a minimal degree before buying a gun. Nothing you said changes the fact that legally speaking, guns are apparently less of a responsibility than strong cough medicine. But, hoping you will at one point address why my point of view is wrong other than "you're not American so you can't understand" (I grew up in the US by the way). I've seen a lot of people here with the two big punches you pull out here: "they're so crazy"/"the US is just flat out insane" as means of arguing that the debate is beyond the pale, and "as someone not from the US ... this is how the rest of the world sees you." It's like you're determined to hit the big memes in a big way. I have my fun with the trolls all the same, but it's a topic I view seriously and I think popping off these "literally insane" angles doesn't do you justice, doesn't do your whole side justice, and simply reinforces existing stereotypes held by gun rights defenders. To think you're doubling back to claim unaddressed points is well ... interesting. But we'll move on. I think it's insane that you're dodging the elephant in the room that is "people who are not supposed to have guns are getting them", as do most gun rights advocates. People who are not supposed to be getting drugs are getting them, but guess what, that's illegal, it's one of the things that the police tackles most seriously, the DEA is massive, and the US applies international pressure up to military action in certain cases to deal with it. Alcohol has an age limit, not anybody can sell medicines, and people have to learn and be tested to get a drivers license... this is what I call insanity: what the US as a country sees as common sense for things inherently less dangerous than guns doesn't apply to guns. Guns are the peak of humanity's personal killing tools, why are they not treated with respect for being such? You want to call that issue the "elephant in the room." You want to say it's a dodge to not address it as you would want it addressed. I think differently. As long as you have robust second amendment rights in this country, you will have criminals getting their hands on guns. You'll have suicide by gun. In some cases, they won't be stored properly under lock and key and some child or inexperienced adult will take and use them. I accept their mere existence as unfortunate side affects of my rights free from government compulsion. I debate legislation designed (purportedly or actually) to lower their chances of falling into the wrong hands with the impact on law-abiding citizens who just want to defend themselves in their stores or homes and in high-crime areas. There's nothing insane about it. That's why I brought up your two memes of "it's not debatable, it's just insane" and "as someone not from the US ... this is how the rest of the world views you." They're repeated like any rational thinking person MUST land on the side of high restrictions on use and storage and type of gun and magazine side, or it means they're just out of this world on their civic ideas. It's wrong, and dead wrong, and I maintain you're being cavalier with your rights and the rights of others. And you're cavalier with the life of others, beyond that, you just admitted going into a thread about mass shootings to say that you believe them dying is unfortunate but nothing should be done about it because them dying is worth it for the right of the people who shoot them to have guns. I'm sure you don't think about it that way, but you straight up said this right now. No no you're misreading me. You pointed out what you thought was an elephant in the room that gun rights defenders don't want to admit. People who are not supposed to have guns are getting them. This will absolutely be true in any society with a measure of gun rights for their civilian citizens. Eventually, the wrong people will get their hands on their guns. This is all horse trading on what measures are appropriate to diminish the chance, and the impact on larger society. No elephant at all.
"Working as intended" then? That's even worse. Also, Japan makes your "any measure of gun rights" point a lie.
Show nested quote +
I'm very critical on the "war on drugs," so I don't look kindly on your positive comparisons to how the US has tried to keep them from the wrong people. I also disagree with you on what's the true comparison between "common sense" stuff like alcohol age limits, the selling of medicines, and driver's licenses. Guns do have age limits and I agree with the principle. Not everyone should be in the trade of selling guns, which is why the Gun Control Act already requires licensing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives for people in the business of selling firearms. The penalty is 5 years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000 for god's sake man. You don't have some individual right to own and drive the car, that is a privilege bestowed by the state for people meeting sets of criteria like vision and insurance. There is no second amendment guarantee that you might keep and drive a car, but keeping and bearing arms is fundamental to your right of self defense and protections against future tyranny.
We differ on what we think is common sense and what qualifies as insane, and unless you're counting on some divine mediator to spell out my ideas aren't common sense and yours are, I suggest you put the elephants in the room back out to graze.
People are dead. People will die. This has happened due to people who should not have had guns getting them. This will happen due to people who should not have guns getting them. The title of this thread is about mass shootings, so this "elephant in the room" is literally the sole reason this thread exists, and letting it "graze" is diverting the discussion. You want a thread about mass shootings to ignore gunmen? We've been discussing for many pages the reasons for and against additional measures of gun control, based on the measures themselves and their broad impact. I'd expect an honest arguer to see this activity and not somehow conclude that it's an elephant in the room that one side wants to avoid. You can look to the whole of human history and see that sometimes in crises, the counterpush has led to problems that dwarf the originals. You shouldn't take arguments for and against certain measures as somehow proof that there's this elephant in the room. It's facile analysis. Show nested quote +First: Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? There is not one reliable (read: not funded by arms manufacturers) that shows any statistical improvement in personal defense by owning a gun in the US. You do not buy a gun for defense, you buy a gun to feel defended. You are more likely to be shot with a gun you own than with any other gun, they are absolute garbage for personal defense from a statistical (rather than anecdotal) perspective. There are extreme cases like shops in high crime areas and the such, and I was very careful to not argue that. You can bring anecdotes (this case, this city, this incident), but statistically the argument that guns offer personal safety is unsound. Statistically speaking, the defense they offer is not greater than the risk. This is because more gun owners exist that are badly trained and do not take gun safety seriously than there do those who actually used guns for defense successfully. This is because the US has garbage regulations. For every case you can bring of a successful defense, I can bring one of a kid getting their dad's gun and shooting someone or the such, and then we're back to the anecdotal rather than statistical, and you would have succeeded in derailing this conversation. I have no quarter to give people with gun suicides that drive up "shot by own gun" stats. I also don't like people with guns that brandish but are then disarmed. Same goes for people that fail to secure it. However, the actions of those that don't treat them seriously should not deny the lawful holders from continuing to have the right to use them in defense of home and person. Let's address the suicide problem and address any lack in securing arms against children getting them to drive the number home. Not disarm you so you have no means of effectual self defense within the home. Are you saying that people being suicidal is not a factor that should be considered before giving them a gun? That's what "no quarter" means. But even if you remove gun suicides, that statistic still holds. You haven't said that you agree that people who put guns where their kids can access them should not have guns. This is my entire point, that laws exist because of the people who ruin things for the rest of us. I can handle my booze like a champ, but some asshole drives drunk and kills people, and now there is a law in place and I have to take a cab. Society has been seen to work better with laws than without, because otherwise the edge cases will be everywhere, and the average well meaning person loses out. Why does this not apply to guns, as things like mass shootings (you probably know The Onion's headline about those), kids getting accidents due to negligence, and other things of the kind are not factors despite them being (unfortunately) statistically significant? No, I'm saying the statistic of "You are more likely to be shot with a gun you own than with any other gun" is a stupid statistic that lowers the credibility of anyone bringing it up. Bridges increase the likelihood of people committing suicide by jumping off bridges, so let's get an ordinance against building those. We can talk gun control with people that are schizophrenic and clinically depressed or deserving involuntary commitment as a topic unto itself. Just don't use statistics including suicide to dress up an argument unless you want to say they're suicidal because they own a gun. I'm fine with criminal punishments for people with guns that don't keep them out of the hands of their children. We can even talk punishments in terms of their deterrence. I'm not okay with citing the people that break "gun control laws" as evidence that we need more "gun control laws," nor statistics founded upon how ineffective they are. No, we need a gun control law that shows a strategy in which people will treat guns with respect. Current gun control legislation does not reflect the need to treat gun responsibility as a priority, hence accidents, ease of access, and most of all, criminals with ease of access to firearms. The laws are ineffective by design, as things like background checks have been turned to "just wait a while or travel to a neighboring state". You're pretending that the ease of buying guns and the lack of enforcement on regulations has nothing to do with people misusing guns. That's disingenuous at best. I`'m at risk of repeating myself here, so I'll have to leave the exchange as-is for posterity. Show nested quote +
Secondly, it's hard to imagine this issue as seen from someone trying to defend the last lingering rights to own and carry a gun such as are present in the United States. If you love societies that outlaw them, or ones that used to allow them but later confiscated them, who cares to follow the threats?
Last lingering rights? Now is the easiest time to get guns in the US since the Republican party passed regulations after the attempt on Reagan. Stop playing victim here (again, no one is coming to take your guns). I don't love societies that outlaw them. I'm a gun owner myself. I am not arguing to outlaw guns. I am arguing that maybe you should actually regulate guns so that people who have medical conditions (physical or psychological), people who are not trained in gun safety or have a history of ignoring gun safety, people with a history of violence, and so on, should not be given access to guns because they ruin shit for the rest of us. My governor signed several new gun control laws just a few months ago, on top of California's already tough gun laws. He signed into law more in 2016, one of which is under injunction by appeals court. So in California, now is the worst time even in a high-regulation state to try and own a gun. Additionally, there has been no relaxation of past gun control laws that made it harder for citizens to exercise their second amendment right without corresponding impact on criminal use. Just the march forward. Many cities and states are open about banning carry permits, or putting such onerous regulations on them to make it a miracle to obtain. These are on the rise nationally. It's actually a bad time and a hard time historically to purchase a gun. What I see is you complaining about regulations as to how to use your gun, not as to how to buy them. And again, this is anecdotal, because in some states you can literally buy a rifle legally out of someone's car. On average, the laws are getting more relaxed on the national level. These things fluctuate, but things like "bump stocks" and so on are ridiculous to me as a point of contention because anyone with experience doesn't need those to kill a lot of people, and I don't consider their regulation to be a part of what I'm getting at. The "what" is a lot less interesting than the "who", because it's people with guns that kill people, and maybe we should scrutinize those rather than brushing it off as a separate issue. Now that I'm rereading these parts, it looks like you're describing the long period up to today as "the easiest time to get guns in the US." Sorry. It's simpler to believe that "no one wants to take away your guns." Washington DC wasn't taking away your guns, but they made everyone use a trigger lock or disassemble their existing gun under threat of state punishment. It was only ten years ago that the narrowest of majorities (5-4) decided that those means of invalidating a gun owner's right to self defense within the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans choose for self defense. It wasn't a gun owner's dream scenario, it was actual legislation on the books for years, and it took a supreme court decision to restore that right. Again, you don't talk about my points at all, but rather point somewhere else. OK. So the Supreme court sided with gun rights in this case. Good. This doesn't address things like "who should have guns" at all, but rather "if you have a gun, is this restriction constitutionally reasonable". You've got some balls here, I'll give you that. You said that "no one wants to take your guns." But, provably, ten years ago they're coming into your house and putting trigger lock requirements on your guns and disassembly requirements on your guns. And on top of that, 4 justices thought it was totally peachy keen on your second amendment rights. We all narrowly had our rights preserved by the thinnest of margins on Heller and have been riding that marginal victory ever since (or trying to, since the right to "bear arms" is still trashed by legislatures from coast to coast). A trigger lock on your gun is not taking away your gun. I think of it as a less cumbersome replacement for a safe, which while extreme also minimizes the chances of tragic accidents, and again, it seems extreme, but unfortunately something needs to be done to address accidental firearm use (which for me would mean training and licensing, similar to vehicles). Your right to bear arms, just like your right to freedom of speech, still exists, but still should have common sense laws applied to them: you give a concrete threat of physical harm against some, and that is legally actionable despite "freedom of speech". You have the right to bear arms, but if you're an alcoholic with a record of shooting randomly when drunk then maybe you shouldn't. There's a military saying: "all these (safety regulations) are written in blood". I think that being blase about people dying due to accidents is shocking, and you offer no way to address that by arguing against gun regulations rather than arguing for common sense ones. The law also banned the purchase, sale, and transfer of handguns. It wasn't just the trigger lock, although I focus on it because that part of "bear arms" is usually where arguments go. It was a handgun ban. It stood one judge away from staying a handgun ban, because legislators came for your guns and succeeded. Except they didn't succeed, undermining your point completely. Let's go take away your rights for 32 years, then see how happy you are after you get them back. "Hey, you succeeded!" Maybe 32 years is kind of a small deal for you. Go wait that period before responding to me to prove eventual success is all that matters. Show nested quote +Legislators, with the backing of groups holding political power, feel perfectly at ease coming after your guns. That's why these cases make it to the Supreme Court ... because they're passed legislation. + Show Spoiler +That's why it's a grave injustice that the Supreme Court hasn't been hearing cases regarding carry (bear arms) ... because they've already come for your rights to bear those guns (see recent dissents in denying review. There would be no case against the law before the Supreme Court if legislators hadn't said a policeman could carry his gun in federal office buildings, but wasn't allowed to have one in his home. You attempted to make the point that "no one is coming for your guns" and you can still have them. I didn't sidestep a thing. Hell, you might even have had a view I shared if the Supreme Court agreed with you and voted 9-0. I grant you that ... it would be showing the world that everybody knows the second amendment makes only loonies think they can prevail upon your guns. There's this trick politicians do, where they pass laws/regulations they know are going to be struck down. For Democrats it is gun and environmental regulations, and for Republicans it is anti-abortion laws and removal of affirmative action ones. They either attempt to pass and fail, or pass and then have them struck down, and then they say "look, we tried, but the other side is against us and is taking away our rights". This is the story with most gun regulations in the US, and why they are constantly struck down. They're never seriously intended to pass, otherwise there would be congressional or senate votes on the subject. And on the national stage, the consensus is that no new regulation needs to be passed, and has been for about thirty years. I don't care if that was the intention, I care that it's the law of the land. Go find another playground if you want to be persuasive on the "just kidding" parts of "I'm coming for your guns, wink wink, it's the law, wink wink, we know it'll be repealed but you're currently in violation of the law" $1,000 dollars a day and currently transgressing duly passed laws. I'm not hand waving that away like you. Nope. If you're still chill with that happening, and reconciling it to your position, I think we're done on that topic. Except they didn't succeed, because intentions don't matter to the facts, and the facts are that these laws were struck down. Which you keep ignoring even after bringing up this example. They came after their guns in recent history, they succeeded in coming after your guns in recent history, but a bunch of clueless yahoos are drunk on the idea that narrow victories in recent history make the whole issue pointless. Congratulations, you are just another reason why people are vigilant about those who are coming after your guns. If it passed tomorrow, and took until 2040 to fight a repeal, I bet you'd still be there, confident that nobody came after your guns (cuz you succeeded! yay!) Show nested quote +
Maybe you like to use the AR-15 for your home defense weapons for it's comfortability and ease of firing. A Chicago suburb made any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine and the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds illegal to own, subject to $1,000 a day fine.
OK, I actually have used plenty of guns, and the AR-15 is absolute shit for home defense. It is not nearly as easy to aim and fire within corridors/rooms with furniture as a hand gun. There is a reason that hand guns are the weapon of choice for police, and that's just common sense. I've used the military version of the rifle during my military service, and it's a fine weapon, but it is shit for defense, and it is mediocre at best for hunting. It handles pretty well if you want a rifle that you can run with, that is decent in mid-range (25-100 yard) combat, and is very easy to aim well when you are physically spent. It has slower reaction time than guns especially in the under 25 yard range, and for defense, that's the main use case. You also do not need more than 10 bullets for defense, there's so much wrong with that attitude this that I doubt you even understand what weapon is supposed to do these weapons. You could have made a case for a shotgun for home defense, but the AR-15 and big magazines are two non-issues for both defense and for hunting. They're great for military assault and it looks awesome, and firing a lot of bullets at a range at a mid-high rate is sweet, and that's why I'm not arguing against owning them. But the "defense" argument here is utter shit, and anyone that has used a variety of guns should know this. I'm not a big guy for using the AR-15 in the home. That's the one I like shooting in the desert. Apparently you share my view. But I differ in you that I won't impose my preference on someone else by removing their ability to use their favored firearm (nonautomatic) in defense of person, family, and home. If this issue, and all your accusations of insanity matter enough to you, you can read people in this very thread that like aspects of the AR-15 and argue for its use (but you'll have to pour through a hundred pages in all likelihood). In real life, I'll try to convince them that a glock is your better bet, but to each his own. You have that right to choose differently, and I say the constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms in that fashion. Then it is disingenuous to bring up the "defense" argument when talking about the AR-15. It's a fun weapon, but being real the only real use it has is recreational or paramilitary. I believe people should have a right to use one as well, but there is a great case for AR-15s to have trigger locks inside of homes because they are recreational rather than defensive, and to be perfectly honest they're awesome so you know kids are gonna try and play with them. I'm not really going to repeat the primary disagreement here much more. You might think it isn't a real use. I just want to protect the people that think it suits them just fine. It includes a couple acquaintances and people in this very thread, should you later choose to read through the pages and argue with someone that thinks you're an idiot for its unsuitability and is willing to propose arguments why. Except that you don't sell someone a tractor when they want to buy a car to travel from their home in the suburbs to their job in the suburbs. You want to protect the right of people to buy the wrong tool for defense, then stop bringing up defense as the reason for the purchase. The real reason here is "the reason shouldn't matter, people should have access to guns", which is a legitimate point. But stop bringing up defense here because someone that misinformed making that kind of purchase is a danger that I believe should be addressed. Ban tractors then. Somebody might accidentally misuse them for transport. Show nested quote +Go tell that town's citizens that nobody wants to take away their guns. Have the bravery to confront the facts. Have a conversation in a suburb of high-crime Chicago that your semi-automatic rifle you previously lawfully owned is now illegal, and tell them nobody wants to take their guns. Putting words in my mouth must have been easy. I'm not arguing against AR-15s (they're cool and handle well), even though they are not the right tool for defense. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have access to semi-automatic weapons at all. I have never, at any point, argued that. My issue is not with the guns, it is with how they're regulated. If a man with a history of escalating spousal abuse has a gun, then I have an issue with him having a gun no matter what weapon he's using. Re-read your own words. You didn't say "I'm not coming for your guns." You said "No one is coming for your guns." When I'm documenting successful legislative efforts across the country, I'm telling you directly that people are coming for your guns, entire classes of guns, and they've been SUCCESSFUL. I'm trying to hold the snark back to a dull roar, but read your own points and your own words if you meant something different, because I can't read your mind and I know people have walked back extreme stances that they had no intention to make. And don't try and trot out the "putting words in my mouth" again. And I did not say to take away anyone's guns. The examples you gave are not of people "taking guns away", but rather attempting to limit their storage/handling. I feel those are ineffectual at best because they do not deal with the root cause, which is people who shouldn't have guns having guns. This is my point, and I think we can agree about that. Whenever there is a mass shooting, my reaction isn't "there should have been more people with guns", it's not "guns are bad", it's not talking about arms modification or owning a large arsenal, it is "that specific person should not have had access to a gun". That last one is something that needs to be addressed, but the discussion in the US so thoroughly avoids it that I can't help but see it as mind-boggling. You're responding to the section I had that referred to the city that would assess thousand dollar fines each day you had guns covered by the legislation. That was not storage/handling. That was for anyone that owned one in the city limits. It's currently under TRO for enforcement. Gun groups have filed for preliminary injunction. It was modeled on another city's similar gun ban. That ban was not heard by the Supreme Court (Scalia & Thomas dissented from the decision not to hear in 2015, and rightly so). If the supreme court does not strike it down, then it is constitutional, otherwise that law amounts to nothing. That's why the supreme court exists. And don't try and paint it as a bastion of anything other than constitutionalism. You're bringing up the exact kind of case I said: that a law has passed knowing it will be struck down and inneffectual. You're not guaranteed a favorable Supreme Court decision the next time somebody comes after your guns. That's why four justices disagreed. The cases involving infringements on the "bear arms" part of the second amendment weren't even taken up. Your faith in the Supreme Court backstop is misplaced. Show nested quote +Look to this very thread. Lots of pages, right? Read them, read all of them, and come back saying nobody wants to take your guns. Several people argue that the most prominent organization that fights to preserve gun rights is basically a domestic terrorist organization or are basically the devil"
....
You're saying some dangerously ignorant stuff. Now you go to other peoples' arguments. I didn't say any of those. I don't care about any of those. I am giving you the perspective of someone outside the US who has seen both Democrat and Republican leaders speak on the subject at varying lengths and have seen none of them talk about taking guns away. And yet, I'm saying dangerously ignorant stuff? I'll have to see if the points I made earlier are elaborated on further than the (...), if you need more evidence that yes, people are coming for your guns, I should hope to see you quote the omitted parts and respond to them. You're posting in a thread where people have said what guns they're coming for and what guns they aren't coming for. It varies from person to person. I also made a point about how dumb it is to say "because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense." Of course it's a political issue. You can refer to that paragraph should you want to argue further. I think it just aims to poison the debate by denying the legitimacy of political positions and what is and isn't common sense and reasonable (and GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES disagree on this currently as well). I think that people not seriously debating whether common sense things like regulating guns in a similar way to vehicles, by focusing on each person being trained in responsible use, a national database, the ability of the government to revoke a license after repeated attempts at breaking the law or changes to health... gun ownership is a responsibility, and I'm saying it should be a bigger responsibility than owning a car due to the fact that guns are designed to kill. The political debate avoids this like the plague, and the partisan positions ("guns are bad" vs. "don't take away my guns") completely ignore what should be a bipartisan solution to avoid tragedies that are far too common. edit: fixed some grammar I can go partway with you. The gun debate does tend to the extremes. I think the "don't take away my guns" has a shelf life, so it doesn't always have to be relevant. 1) People admit legislators have passed gun bans in the recent past 2) People recognize (for better or for worse) the second amendment will continue to protect your rights to own civilian weapons in common use 3) Any runaway legislative bodies doing otherwise are roundly condemned and get struck down 3-0 9-0 whatever. I think the debate should move away from AR-15s bans and handgun bans and more to debates over the kind of regulations you propose. What is effective and what targets guns that find their way into crimes. Adding a bit of snark here: while "don't take my guns" has a shelf life, "people are dead" unfortunately remains the same, because they're not coming back to life any time soon. You know, because people are dead. Likewise, unable to defend yourself with a gun and dead or seriously injured remains the same. It's a real shame the police didn't get there in time to stop the crime in progress, a real shame. Snark received and answered. Show nested quote +
Rights once taken away are hard to earn back. DC gun ban hung on a single vote. Chicago had gun bans up until five years ago. Chicago switched to a fun system of requiring live-fire training to own a gun, and banning all gun ranges within the city limits. That took until 2017 to reverse. Not 1997 not 2007 but 2017.
In four years, stuff like Chicago will be five years in the past and Heller fourteen years in the past and that argument will be less relevant. The databases aren't too bad, but for the presumption that they might eventually lead to gun confiscation efforts. I'm also more willing to yield on the carry permits for violent offenders, lawbreakers, attempted crimes, or mental health, as you say.
The rights taken away in the US are very easy to get back. After McCarthyism, the US bounced back just fine. In general, the US is a rather free place with some careful protections of rights, and historically has shown them to be resilient even when horrible abuses happened. The alarmism about how rights are taken away is something I find silly. The fact that these laws are not struck down immediately show that they are at least partially in line with the constitution. That's how the US legal framework is. McCarthyism is the reason "rights taken away in the US are very easy to get back?" Wow. Alright, well, you do you I guess. Show nested quote +
I hope for a track record of respect for gun owner's rights that will also help move past that debate. I've stated several times in this thread that generational churn will help, as newer voting citizens add their voices. Less doctrinaire focus on denying the right to own a gun and use it for defense of yourself, your family, and your possessions, and more focus on what actually keeps guns away from those that threaten violence or have shown serious mental instability. Maybe even the stupid need to call this and that Assault Weapons too. Whatever. I'm optimistic in the long term.
I don't think that this discussion will change. You can literally hear all politicians repeating certain talking points that are chosen for strategic reasons... and unfortunately, I've heard 30 years of this discussion going nowhere, while people keep waiting for old guys to die already. Change won't happen unless people force politicians to have honest debate, and that is something that is farther from reality than ever. I have no doubt that some talking points will outlive their use. If we get ten years, somehow, of rhetoric on why you absolutely have the right to own a gun to use in self-defense at home and about your person (and none of the AR-15s are the devil the NRA is the devil) I'm sure somebody in 11 years will try to bring up the now-forgotten time where gun rights were very much under threat. Today, I'm still of the view that the threat is real and debated gun control provisions tend incrementally to weaken the second amendment without much impact on mass shootings. That's current reality, as much as you'd like a one-judge margin to be proof it aint so, and thirty years of injustice ended not so long ago to be proof that you're safe and secure.
Again, saying that SCOTUS might disagree with you is saying that the constitution's modern interpretation might disagree with you. Don't bring up the constitution if you think the supreme court should not be the arbiter of this. Don't bring up personal defense if you think that guns that suck for defense should be freely accessible. Guns are fun, and they're awesome, and I believe people should have the right to have them. But saying that misuse of guns is not a relevant point to gun law is quite frankly insane.
|
On November 24 2018 14:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks. Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get. It's one of the reasons why I wanted it to number one be volunteer teachers, number two be mandated training, and number three to only be used in cases of school shooters. I'm thankful that one school district has decided in favor of this. I hope their example inspires others. The case of Broward County Sheriff's Department and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School should not be repeated. They let students bleed out with an active shooter, and the sheriff deputy School Resource Officer took up a passive position outside a building. That for me is unacceptable. All these pro-action supporters want to cast the opposition as some kind of status-quo supporters, but really they have their own qualms and preferences and predilections that figure in to where they decide to tackle the problem.
I read your qualifications. It's still a terrible idea.
1. Of course they would have to be volunteers, not even Ted Nugent can find a reading of the constitution that could compel teachers against their will. That said, the volunteers this would attract aren't going to be the best people to give access to a gun on school grounds anyway.
2. Is this training going to be more rigorous and continuing than police training? If not are you just accepting even worse ratios of missed shots and errant killings or simply waving them away?
3. You know you're going to have a hard time navigating what would be considered both reasonably secured and accessible in an emergency without conceding that long before arming teachers we should make gun owners store their guns in ways that would be comparable to however you plan on securing them in schools right?
If we were brainstorming ideas I'd write it on the board but such a absurd idea should be discarded as soon as the critical thinking part begins.
|
@micronesia
Can you point to times when I accepted faulty arguments from gun rights advocates here? If so, I should retract my support/acceptance.
As I explained, you are supporting their faulty arguments by completely ignoring them while nitpicking every argument that comes from the other side.
There's an argument to be made for devil's advocatism here, but when this goes on for years, ignoring superstartran and his 'left liberal assholes' ranting, insane usage of awful statistics, circular impossible discussions etc. while still going through and only ever picking holes in arguments coming from the other side, the effect is exactly the same as coming out and supporting the bad arguments from the gun rights people.
I know its shit to expect you to caveat all your posts with your position on gun control, that's not what I want, and I can understand why you don't want to get into arguments with those gun rights supporters that are impossible to argue with, but I'm talking about the effect of your posts, what it looks like to the people you are posting to; its not about any particular example of supporting anything but the cumulative effect of years of posting in the thread.
|
Greater economic equality = less violence. It's happening in the US because of massive inequality. You can discuss symptoms all you want but with greater fairness people would not do violence against each other, not like this anyway.
|
|
|
@Danglars
Maybe the first thing you'd want to do is check how many teachers (and it would be interesting to see geographical distributions as well) are willing to volunteer for a platform like the one you propose.
I can see the reasoning advocating for gun accessibility in schools, but a trigger is swiftly pulled (or showcased) in all types of situations other than a life defending one. Imagine the news coverage (and subsequent propaganda) when just one case of a teacher losing his shit occurs (or a student getting a hold of the gun; you'd be surprised how resourceful kids are when it comes to things they want to happen, partly because they're so impulsive)
You also need to account for the fact that these volunteer teachers might be fine wielding in zero threat situations, but when push comes to shove, you'll have invested in a platform that's going to be vastly underused I think. Is it worth it to have such a system in place when it's only used in 1% of the situations and not necessarily according to protocol? What if the teacher (eventually) stops the shooter, but multiple casualties happened. How do you assess which ones are from crossfire, which ones are from mistakes, which ones are from the killer? Do you just assume all injured/dead are from the shooter?
These teachers, while having had mandatory training as volunteers, are still not neccesarily able to deal with these high stress situations. Adrenalin does strange things to body and mind. You can't know how true to their training protocols they'll stay when being thrown in these situations. Even local police can't deal with these situations effectively, how are you going to make a case for teachers being drained by giving attention to children all day long?
You still need to follow up and to invest in these volunteers on a long term basis, and the interest must be reciprocal by the teachers. Once they start the program you need to make sure they keep following it, with a zero tolerance for nonchalance (i.e. confiscating with the slightest issues), which is something not many teachers will have the time nor the motivation to follow through with.
Ultimately I think you vastly overestimate how willing and capable these volunteers will be as well as how effective this platform would be. Just one case of mismanagement could not only have disastrous results for the local community, but would also be enough to abandon the entire platform, which would have taken a lot of time, effort and resources to set up in the first place.
|
On November 24 2018 01:23 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2018 19:20 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2018 13:14 micronesia wrote:Perhaps instead of democracy we should let you decide what to do.... based on some of the above you seem okay with that.
In case it's still not obvious to you somehow, I'm not defending any of the gun culture in America, aside from not accepting faulty arguments.
One of the major problems in America right now is that you don't have a working democracy. When 80% of the population is in favor of more gun legislations and still nothing happens, then something is seriously wrong. 100% Show nested quote +On November 22 2018 19:44 Jockmcplop wrote:
It would be much easier to believe that micronesia wasn't defending gun culture if he also refused to accept faulty arguments from the gun rights crowd.
1000% agree and https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/us/alabama-mall-hoover-shooting/index.html
Not a lot of places updated this story (this one from CNN included).
"New evidence now suggests that while Mr. Bradford may have been involved in some aspect of the altercation, he likely did not fire the rounds that injured the 18-year-old victim," Hoover Police Captain Gregg Rector said in a statement.
Police said they "regret that our initial media release was not totally accurate."
Rector said investigators now believe that more than two people were involved in the initial fight ahead of the shooting, and "this information indicates that there is at least one gunman still at-large, who could be responsible for the shooting of the 18-year-old male and 12-year-old female."
www.charlotteobserver.com
Even if he had shot the person it's not clear it wouldn't have been self defense. So in response police decided to summarily execute what appears to be an innocent man.
Apparently there is video of the police watching him die and refusing to provide first aid as well.
|
On November 24 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 14:50 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks. Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get. It's one of the reasons why I wanted it to number one be volunteer teachers, number two be mandated training, and number three to only be used in cases of school shooters. I'm thankful that one school district has decided in favor of this. I hope their example inspires others. The case of Broward County Sheriff's Department and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School should not be repeated. They let students bleed out with an active shooter, and the sheriff deputy School Resource Officer took up a passive position outside a building. That for me is unacceptable. All these pro-action supporters want to cast the opposition as some kind of status-quo supporters, but really they have their own qualms and preferences and predilections that figure in to where they decide to tackle the problem. I read your qualifications. It's still a terrible idea. 1. Of course they would have to be volunteers, not even Ted Nugent can find a reading of the constitution that could compel teachers against their will. That said, the volunteers this would attract aren't going to be the best people to give access to a gun on school grounds anyway. 2. Is this training going to be more rigorous and continuing than police training? If not are you just accepting even worse ratios of missed shots and errant killings or simply waving them away? 3. You know you're going to have a hard time navigating what would be considered both reasonably secured and accessible in an emergency without conceding that long before arming teachers we should make gun owners store their guns in ways that would be comparable to however you plan on securing them in schools right? If we were brainstorming ideas I'd write it on the board but such a absurd idea should be discarded as soon as the critical thinking part begins.
The ratio of misfire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was 0. Students bled out and died because of the cowardice of a single officer. I think that’s a pretty easy ratio to overcome, if you ask me. Right now the cops/sheriffs response (SRO included) are the only response.
Schools are a very sensitive location, and I think that the higher measures of gun control for stored weapons and who can access would be easily seen.
|
On November 25 2018 00:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 14:50 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks. Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get. It's one of the reasons why I wanted it to number one be volunteer teachers, number two be mandated training, and number three to only be used in cases of school shooters. I'm thankful that one school district has decided in favor of this. I hope their example inspires others. The case of Broward County Sheriff's Department and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School should not be repeated. They let students bleed out with an active shooter, and the sheriff deputy School Resource Officer took up a passive position outside a building. That for me is unacceptable. All these pro-action supporters want to cast the opposition as some kind of status-quo supporters, but really they have their own qualms and preferences and predilections that figure in to where they decide to tackle the problem. I read your qualifications. It's still a terrible idea. 1. Of course they would have to be volunteers, not even Ted Nugent can find a reading of the constitution that could compel teachers against their will. That said, the volunteers this would attract aren't going to be the best people to give access to a gun on school grounds anyway. 2. Is this training going to be more rigorous and continuing than police training? If not are you just accepting even worse ratios of missed shots and errant killings or simply waving them away? 3. You know you're going to have a hard time navigating what would be considered both reasonably secured and accessible in an emergency without conceding that long before arming teachers we should make gun owners store their guns in ways that would be comparable to however you plan on securing them in schools right? If we were brainstorming ideas I'd write it on the board but such a absurd idea should be discarded as soon as the critical thinking part begins. The ratio of misfire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was 0. Students bled out and died because of the cowardice of a single officer. I think that’s a pretty easy ratio to overcome, if you ask me. Right now the cops/sheriffs response (SRO included) are the only response. Schools are a very sensitive location, and I think that the higher measures of gun control for stored weapons and who can access would be easily seen.
You misunderstand. I mean that police miss more shots than hit their target and kill innocent people sometimes with those missed shots, sometimes like in the situation at the mall where police intentionally shot what turned out to be the wrong person.
Teachers will miss their target even more frequently and have an even higher frequency of shooting the wrong person. Additionally they will more frequently have all of the other accidents and mishandling police currently do.
That's what I'm talking about you accepting, waving away, or as it seems now, just hadn't even considered.
Of course you think schools should have higher standards. That wasn't my point. My point was you're imagining a fictional way to secure guns at school that would both be more secure than home storage but also practically accessible in a school shooting situation where someone bursts into a classroom and starts shooting.
It doesn't exist and even if it did it would make immensely more sense for something comparable (though possibly less restrictive) to be required for gun owners so the kids don't show up to school with their parents gun in the first place. Instead of arming teachers where if they used it, best case, we still have at least 1 dead kid.
|
On November 24 2018 21:40 Uldridge wrote:
@Danglars
Maybe the first thing you'd want to do is check how many teachers (and it would be interesting to see geographical distributions as well) are willing to volunteer for a platform like the one you propose.
I can see the reasoning advocating for gun accessibility in schools, but a trigger is swiftly pulled (or showcased) in all types of situations other than a life defending one. Imagine the news coverage (and subsequent propaganda) when just one case of a teacher losing his shit occurs (or a student getting a hold of the gun; you'd be surprised how resourceful kids are when it comes to things they want to happen, partly because they're so impulsive)
You also need to account for the fact that these volunteer teachers might be fine wielding in zero threat situations, but when push comes to shove, you'll have invested in a platform that's going to be vastly underused I think. Is it worth it to have such a system in place when it's only used in 1% of the situations and not necessarily according to protocol? What if the teacher (eventually) stops the shooter, but multiple casualties happened. How do you assess which ones are from crossfire, which ones are from mistakes, which ones are from the killer? Do you just assume all injured/dead are from the shooter?
These teachers, while having had mandatory training as volunteers, are still not neccesarily able to deal with these high stress situations. Adrenalin does strange things to body and mind. You can't know how true to their training protocols they'll stay when being thrown in these situations. Even local police can't deal with these situations effectively, how are you going to make a case for teachers being drained by giving attention to children all day long?
You still need to follow up and to invest in these volunteers on a long term basis, and the interest must be reciprocal by the teachers. Once they start the program you need to make sure they keep following it, with a zero tolerance for nonchalance (i.e. confiscating with the slightest issues), which is something not many teachers will have the time nor the motivation to follow through with.
Ultimately I think you vastly overestimate how willing and capable these volunteers will be as well as how effective this platform would be. Just one case of mismanagement could not only have disastrous results for the local community, but would also be enough to abandon the entire platform, which would have taken a lot of time, effort and resources to set up in the first place.
You can monitor the incidents in those school districts that started to allow teacher concealed carry on the school grounds in the wake of mass shootings (and some even before). Colorado with 30, and mandatory training. Texas with 172. USA Today figures. Missouri. 14 states arm teachers, 16 defer to boards. Ohio. Utah. Arizona (legal for teachers, but debated if any availed themselves). Florida allowed teachers to carry guns in the "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act" this year.
How many stories have you seen where teacher shoots student at school out of frustration, or student gets ahold of gun at school and shoots it? Do the statistics back up "the trigger is swiftly pulled in all types of situations?"
I hope the system is underused. School shootings are still rare events. Several states and many school districts have found their stock of willing and capable teachers and other school employees. I don't think your argument is born out in facts. I don't think advocating the status quo with teachers is the right decision.
|
On November 25 2018 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 00:43 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 14:50 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks. Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get. It's one of the reasons why I wanted it to number one be volunteer teachers, number two be mandated training, and number three to only be used in cases of school shooters. I'm thankful that one school district has decided in favor of this. I hope their example inspires others. The case of Broward County Sheriff's Department and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School should not be repeated. They let students bleed out with an active shooter, and the sheriff deputy School Resource Officer took up a passive position outside a building. That for me is unacceptable. All these pro-action supporters want to cast the opposition as some kind of status-quo supporters, but really they have their own qualms and preferences and predilections that figure in to where they decide to tackle the problem. I read your qualifications. It's still a terrible idea. 1. Of course they would have to be volunteers, not even Ted Nugent can find a reading of the constitution that could compel teachers against their will. That said, the volunteers this would attract aren't going to be the best people to give access to a gun on school grounds anyway. 2. Is this training going to be more rigorous and continuing than police training? If not are you just accepting even worse ratios of missed shots and errant killings or simply waving them away? 3. You know you're going to have a hard time navigating what would be considered both reasonably secured and accessible in an emergency without conceding that long before arming teachers we should make gun owners store their guns in ways that would be comparable to however you plan on securing them in schools right? If we were brainstorming ideas I'd write it on the board but such a absurd idea should be discarded as soon as the critical thinking part begins. The ratio of misfire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was 0. Students bled out and died because of the cowardice of a single officer. I think that’s a pretty easy ratio to overcome, if you ask me. Right now the cops/sheriffs response (SRO included) are the only response. Schools are a very sensitive location, and I think that the higher measures of gun control for stored weapons and who can access would be easily seen. You misunderstand. I mean that police miss more shots than hit their target and kill innocent people sometimes with those missed shots, sometimes like in the situation at the mall where police intentionally shot what turned out to be the wrong person. Teachers will miss their target even more frequently and have an even higher frequency of shooting the wrong person. Additionally they will more frequently have all of the other accidents and mishandling police currently do. That's what I'm talking about you accepting, waving away, or as it seems now, just hadn't even considered. Of course you think schools should have higher standards. That wasn't my point. My point was you're imagining a fictional way to secure guns at school that would both be more secure than home storage but also practically accessible in a school shooting situation where someone bursts into a classroom and starts shooting. It doesn't exist and even if it did it would make immensely more sense for something comparable (though possibly less restrictive) to be required for gun owners so the kids don't show up to school with their parents gun in the first place. Instead of arming teachers where if they used it, best case, we still have at least 1 dead kid.
News stories inform me that's been the current situation in some schools and districts. Biometric gun safes, concealed carry. Please refrain from using "fictional way to secure guns at school" when it's the actual way in use today.
The training for SRO's and the training for teachers (What do I do when multiple teachers are engaging the target at the same time?) includes the training on avoiding collateral damage. The proper response is still to engage the shooter as early as possible to minimize his or her intentional kills. If you don't like the police response ratio, and how many missed shots hit and kill someone, then you're in support of the only response currently active in society today. I'm leaning towards an earlier response that minimizes the shooter's unchallenged time period. He's the bigger danger than a trained teacher missing the shot and killing someone else.
|
On November 25 2018 01:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2018 00:43 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 14:50 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks. Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get. It's one of the reasons why I wanted it to number one be volunteer teachers, number two be mandated training, and number three to only be used in cases of school shooters. I'm thankful that one school district has decided in favor of this. I hope their example inspires others. The case of Broward County Sheriff's Department and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School should not be repeated. They let students bleed out with an active shooter, and the sheriff deputy School Resource Officer took up a passive position outside a building. That for me is unacceptable. All these pro-action supporters want to cast the opposition as some kind of status-quo supporters, but really they have their own qualms and preferences and predilections that figure in to where they decide to tackle the problem. I read your qualifications. It's still a terrible idea. 1. Of course they would have to be volunteers, not even Ted Nugent can find a reading of the constitution that could compel teachers against their will. That said, the volunteers this would attract aren't going to be the best people to give access to a gun on school grounds anyway. 2. Is this training going to be more rigorous and continuing than police training? If not are you just accepting even worse ratios of missed shots and errant killings or simply waving them away? 3. You know you're going to have a hard time navigating what would be considered both reasonably secured and accessible in an emergency without conceding that long before arming teachers we should make gun owners store their guns in ways that would be comparable to however you plan on securing them in schools right? If we were brainstorming ideas I'd write it on the board but such a absurd idea should be discarded as soon as the critical thinking part begins. The ratio of misfire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was 0. Students bled out and died because of the cowardice of a single officer. I think that’s a pretty easy ratio to overcome, if you ask me. Right now the cops/sheriffs response (SRO included) are the only response. Schools are a very sensitive location, and I think that the higher measures of gun control for stored weapons and who can access would be easily seen. You misunderstand. I mean that police miss more shots than hit their target and kill innocent people sometimes with those missed shots, sometimes like in the situation at the mall where police intentionally shot what turned out to be the wrong person. Teachers will miss their target even more frequently and have an even higher frequency of shooting the wrong person. Additionally they will more frequently have all of the other accidents and mishandling police currently do. That's what I'm talking about you accepting, waving away, or as it seems now, just hadn't even considered. Of course you think schools should have higher standards. That wasn't my point. My point was you're imagining a fictional way to secure guns at school that would both be more secure than home storage but also practically accessible in a school shooting situation where someone bursts into a classroom and starts shooting. It doesn't exist and even if it did it would make immensely more sense for something comparable (though possibly less restrictive) to be required for gun owners so the kids don't show up to school with their parents gun in the first place. Instead of arming teachers where if they used it, best case, we still have at least 1 dead kid. News stories inform me that's been the current situation in some schools and districts. Biometric gun safes, concealed carry. Please refrain from using "fictional way to secure guns at school" when it's the actual way in use today. The training for SRO's and the training for teachers (What do I do when multiple teachers are engaging the target at the same time?) includes the training on avoiding collateral damage. The proper response is still to engage the shooter as early as possible to minimize his or her intentional kills. If you don't like the police response ratio, and how many missed shots hit and kill someone, then you're in support of the only response currently active in society today. I'm leaning towards an earlier response that minimizes the shooter's unchallenged time period. He's the bigger danger than a trained teacher missing the shot and killing someone else.
So no one is against concealed carry at home, what do you have against biometric safes being required as well?
So you're simply accepting that teachers are going to screw up more often than police and maim/kill innocent children, lose their weapons to children, more frequently use guns for intimidation, injure/kill themselves and all the other problems that come with guns at schools to potentially slightly decrease response times.
Imagining that we somehow train these teachers to be remotely comparable to our trained and specifically employed people in responding to these situations (with what money?), you're neglecting the fact that every day there isn't a mass shooting but there is a gun in the classroom is more dangerous than if the gun wasn't there. Even if they are somehow more responsible than homeland security with their guns you're still going to end up having given some kids guns they wouldn't have otherwise been able to access.
So you'd be trading 1800 more dangerous days for 1 possibly safer day (imagining they were better than our police in every way) if a school had a mass shooter once every 10 years.
|
On November 25 2018 00:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 21:40 Uldridge wrote:
@Danglars
Maybe the first thing you'd want to do is check how many teachers (and it would be interesting to see geographical distributions as well) are willing to volunteer for a platform like the one you propose.
I can see the reasoning advocating for gun accessibility in schools, but a trigger is swiftly pulled (or showcased) in all types of situations other than a life defending one. Imagine the news coverage (and subsequent propaganda) when just one case of a teacher losing his shit occurs (or a student getting a hold of the gun; you'd be surprised how resourceful kids are when it comes to things they want to happen, partly because they're so impulsive)
You also need to account for the fact that these volunteer teachers might be fine wielding in zero threat situations, but when push comes to shove, you'll have invested in a platform that's going to be vastly underused I think. Is it worth it to have such a system in place when it's only used in 1% of the situations and not necessarily according to protocol? What if the teacher (eventually) stops the shooter, but multiple casualties happened. How do you assess which ones are from crossfire, which ones are from mistakes, which ones are from the killer? Do you just assume all injured/dead are from the shooter?
These teachers, while having had mandatory training as volunteers, are still not neccesarily able to deal with these high stress situations. Adrenalin does strange things to body and mind. You can't know how true to their training protocols they'll stay when being thrown in these situations. Even local police can't deal with these situations effectively, how are you going to make a case for teachers being drained by giving attention to children all day long?
You still need to follow up and to invest in these volunteers on a long term basis, and the interest must be reciprocal by the teachers. Once they start the program you need to make sure they keep following it, with a zero tolerance for nonchalance (i.e. confiscating with the slightest issues), which is something not many teachers will have the time nor the motivation to follow through with.
Ultimately I think you vastly overestimate how willing and capable these volunteers will be as well as how effective this platform would be. Just one case of mismanagement could not only have disastrous results for the local community, but would also be enough to abandon the entire platform, which would have taken a lot of time, effort and resources to set up in the first place. You can monitor the incidents in those school districts that started to allow teacher concealed carry on the school grounds in the wake of mass shootings (and some even before). Colorado with 30, and mandatory training. Texas with 172. USA Today figures. Missouri. 14 states arm teachers, 16 defer to boards. Ohio. Utah. Arizona (legal for teachers, but debated if any availed themselves). Florida allowed teachers to carry guns in the "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act" this year. How many stories have you seen where teacher shoots student at school out of frustration, or student gets ahold of gun at school and shoots it? Do the statistics back up "the trigger is swiftly pulled in all types of situations?" I hope the system is underused. School shootings are still rare events. Several states and many school districts have found their stock of willing and capable teachers and other school employees. I don't think your argument is born out in facts. I don't think advocating the status quo with teachers is the right decision.
I never said it was born out of fact. I'm simply extrapolating what I think is human nature. More troublesome areas exist, which might increase incidents. I don't think I've seen stories where teachers went for the gun to show their power, but I'm sure they exist or that those situations have happened.
And willing and capable, sure, but for how long? Will it just be a few dedicated teachers, or the entire staff?
I'm just cautiously sceptical about adding more firearms to the situation.
|
On November 25 2018 01:40 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 00:59 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 21:40 Uldridge wrote:
@Danglars
Maybe the first thing you'd want to do is check how many teachers (and it would be interesting to see geographical distributions as well) are willing to volunteer for a platform like the one you propose.
I can see the reasoning advocating for gun accessibility in schools, but a trigger is swiftly pulled (or showcased) in all types of situations other than a life defending one. Imagine the news coverage (and subsequent propaganda) when just one case of a teacher losing his shit occurs (or a student getting a hold of the gun; you'd be surprised how resourceful kids are when it comes to things they want to happen, partly because they're so impulsive)
You also need to account for the fact that these volunteer teachers might be fine wielding in zero threat situations, but when push comes to shove, you'll have invested in a platform that's going to be vastly underused I think. Is it worth it to have such a system in place when it's only used in 1% of the situations and not necessarily according to protocol? What if the teacher (eventually) stops the shooter, but multiple casualties happened. How do you assess which ones are from crossfire, which ones are from mistakes, which ones are from the killer? Do you just assume all injured/dead are from the shooter?
These teachers, while having had mandatory training as volunteers, are still not neccesarily able to deal with these high stress situations. Adrenalin does strange things to body and mind. You can't know how true to their training protocols they'll stay when being thrown in these situations. Even local police can't deal with these situations effectively, how are you going to make a case for teachers being drained by giving attention to children all day long?
You still need to follow up and to invest in these volunteers on a long term basis, and the interest must be reciprocal by the teachers. Once they start the program you need to make sure they keep following it, with a zero tolerance for nonchalance (i.e. confiscating with the slightest issues), which is something not many teachers will have the time nor the motivation to follow through with.
Ultimately I think you vastly overestimate how willing and capable these volunteers will be as well as how effective this platform would be. Just one case of mismanagement could not only have disastrous results for the local community, but would also be enough to abandon the entire platform, which would have taken a lot of time, effort and resources to set up in the first place. You can monitor the incidents in those school districts that started to allow teacher concealed carry on the school grounds in the wake of mass shootings (and some even before). Colorado with 30, and mandatory training. Texas with 172. USA Today figures. Missouri. 14 states arm teachers, 16 defer to boards. Ohio. Utah. Arizona (legal for teachers, but debated if any availed themselves). Florida allowed teachers to carry guns in the "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act" this year. How many stories have you seen where teacher shoots student at school out of frustration, or student gets ahold of gun at school and shoots it? Do the statistics back up "the trigger is swiftly pulled in all types of situations?" I hope the system is underused. School shootings are still rare events. Several states and many school districts have found their stock of willing and capable teachers and other school employees. I don't think your argument is born out in facts. I don't think advocating the status quo with teachers is the right decision. I never said it was born out of fact. I'm simply extrapolating what I think is human nature. More troublesome areas exist, which might increase incidents. I don't think I've seen stories where teachers went for the gun to show their power, but I'm sure they exist or that those situations have happened. And willing and capable, sure, but for how long? Will it just be a few dedicated teachers, or the entire staff? I'm just cautiously sceptical about adding more firearms to the situation.
I don't know about what specific combination of qualifiers was being referenced by Danglars but yeah, teachers have shot themselves and others on accident and on purpose, as well as use them for intimidation, lost guns to students, and pretty much everything else you would imagine would happen if teachers carried guns at school.
All of which happen with police, DHS, and pilots when they tried to arm them after 9/11. It is without a doubt going to increase if more teachers carry guns. No way around it.
|
On November 25 2018 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 01:40 Uldridge wrote:On November 25 2018 00:59 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 21:40 Uldridge wrote:
@Danglars
Maybe the first thing you'd want to do is check how many teachers (and it would be interesting to see geographical distributions as well) are willing to volunteer for a platform like the one you propose.
I can see the reasoning advocating for gun accessibility in schools, but a trigger is swiftly pulled (or showcased) in all types of situations other than a life defending one. Imagine the news coverage (and subsequent propaganda) when just one case of a teacher losing his shit occurs (or a student getting a hold of the gun; you'd be surprised how resourceful kids are when it comes to things they want to happen, partly because they're so impulsive)
You also need to account for the fact that these volunteer teachers might be fine wielding in zero threat situations, but when push comes to shove, you'll have invested in a platform that's going to be vastly underused I think. Is it worth it to have such a system in place when it's only used in 1% of the situations and not necessarily according to protocol? What if the teacher (eventually) stops the shooter, but multiple casualties happened. How do you assess which ones are from crossfire, which ones are from mistakes, which ones are from the killer? Do you just assume all injured/dead are from the shooter?
These teachers, while having had mandatory training as volunteers, are still not neccesarily able to deal with these high stress situations. Adrenalin does strange things to body and mind. You can't know how true to their training protocols they'll stay when being thrown in these situations. Even local police can't deal with these situations effectively, how are you going to make a case for teachers being drained by giving attention to children all day long?
You still need to follow up and to invest in these volunteers on a long term basis, and the interest must be reciprocal by the teachers. Once they start the program you need to make sure they keep following it, with a zero tolerance for nonchalance (i.e. confiscating with the slightest issues), which is something not many teachers will have the time nor the motivation to follow through with.
Ultimately I think you vastly overestimate how willing and capable these volunteers will be as well as how effective this platform would be. Just one case of mismanagement could not only have disastrous results for the local community, but would also be enough to abandon the entire platform, which would have taken a lot of time, effort and resources to set up in the first place. You can monitor the incidents in those school districts that started to allow teacher concealed carry on the school grounds in the wake of mass shootings (and some even before). Colorado with 30, and mandatory training. Texas with 172. USA Today figures. Missouri. 14 states arm teachers, 16 defer to boards. Ohio. Utah. Arizona (legal for teachers, but debated if any availed themselves). Florida allowed teachers to carry guns in the "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act" this year. How many stories have you seen where teacher shoots student at school out of frustration, or student gets ahold of gun at school and shoots it? Do the statistics back up "the trigger is swiftly pulled in all types of situations?" I hope the system is underused. School shootings are still rare events. Several states and many school districts have found their stock of willing and capable teachers and other school employees. I don't think your argument is born out in facts. I don't think advocating the status quo with teachers is the right decision. I never said it was born out of fact. I'm simply extrapolating what I think is human nature. More troublesome areas exist, which might increase incidents. I don't think I've seen stories where teachers went for the gun to show their power, but I'm sure they exist or that those situations have happened. And willing and capable, sure, but for how long? Will it just be a few dedicated teachers, or the entire staff? I'm just cautiously sceptical about adding more firearms to the situation. I don't know about what specific combination of qualifiers was being referenced by Danglars but yeah, teachers have shot themselves and others on accident and on purpose, as well as use them for intimidation, lost guns to students, and pretty much everything else you would imagine would happen if teachers carried guns at school. All of which happen with police, DHS, and pilots when they tried to arm them after 9/11. It is without a doubt going to increase if more teachers carry guns. No way around it.
Its not a practical suggestion, its an ideological one. The suggestion occurs because some people can't accept that fewer guns would decrease gun crime, and need to find a way of blaming something other than the fact that there are guns everywhere, so 'not enough guns' is perfect. Therefore, teachers should be armed.
|
On November 25 2018 01:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 01:04 Danglars wrote:On November 25 2018 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2018 00:43 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 14:50 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks. Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get. It's one of the reasons why I wanted it to number one be volunteer teachers, number two be mandated training, and number three to only be used in cases of school shooters. I'm thankful that one school district has decided in favor of this. I hope their example inspires others. The case of Broward County Sheriff's Department and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School should not be repeated. They let students bleed out with an active shooter, and the sheriff deputy School Resource Officer took up a passive position outside a building. That for me is unacceptable. All these pro-action supporters want to cast the opposition as some kind of status-quo supporters, but really they have their own qualms and preferences and predilections that figure in to where they decide to tackle the problem. I read your qualifications. It's still a terrible idea. 1. Of course they would have to be volunteers, not even Ted Nugent can find a reading of the constitution that could compel teachers against their will. That said, the volunteers this would attract aren't going to be the best people to give access to a gun on school grounds anyway. 2. Is this training going to be more rigorous and continuing than police training? If not are you just accepting even worse ratios of missed shots and errant killings or simply waving them away? 3. You know you're going to have a hard time navigating what would be considered both reasonably secured and accessible in an emergency without conceding that long before arming teachers we should make gun owners store their guns in ways that would be comparable to however you plan on securing them in schools right? If we were brainstorming ideas I'd write it on the board but such a absurd idea should be discarded as soon as the critical thinking part begins. The ratio of misfire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was 0. Students bled out and died because of the cowardice of a single officer. I think that’s a pretty easy ratio to overcome, if you ask me. Right now the cops/sheriffs response (SRO included) are the only response. Schools are a very sensitive location, and I think that the higher measures of gun control for stored weapons and who can access would be easily seen. You misunderstand. I mean that police miss more shots than hit their target and kill innocent people sometimes with those missed shots, sometimes like in the situation at the mall where police intentionally shot what turned out to be the wrong person. Teachers will miss their target even more frequently and have an even higher frequency of shooting the wrong person. Additionally they will more frequently have all of the other accidents and mishandling police currently do. That's what I'm talking about you accepting, waving away, or as it seems now, just hadn't even considered. Of course you think schools should have higher standards. That wasn't my point. My point was you're imagining a fictional way to secure guns at school that would both be more secure than home storage but also practically accessible in a school shooting situation where someone bursts into a classroom and starts shooting. It doesn't exist and even if it did it would make immensely more sense for something comparable (though possibly less restrictive) to be required for gun owners so the kids don't show up to school with their parents gun in the first place. Instead of arming teachers where if they used it, best case, we still have at least 1 dead kid. News stories inform me that's been the current situation in some schools and districts. Biometric gun safes, concealed carry. Please refrain from using "fictional way to secure guns at school" when it's the actual way in use today. The training for SRO's and the training for teachers (What do I do when multiple teachers are engaging the target at the same time?) includes the training on avoiding collateral damage. The proper response is still to engage the shooter as early as possible to minimize his or her intentional kills. If you don't like the police response ratio, and how many missed shots hit and kill someone, then you're in support of the only response currently active in society today. I'm leaning towards an earlier response that minimizes the shooter's unchallenged time period. He's the bigger danger than a trained teacher missing the shot and killing someone else. So no one is against concealed carry at home, what do you have against biometric safes being required as well? So you're simply accepting that teachers are going to screw up more often than police and maim/kill innocent children, lose their weapons to children, more frequently use guns for intimidation, injure/kill themselves and all the other problems that come with guns at schools to potentially slightly decrease response times. Imagining that we somehow train these teachers to be remotely comparable to our trained and specifically employed people in responding to these situations (with what money?), you're neglecting the fact that every day there isn't a mass shooting but there is a gun in the classroom is more dangerous than if the gun wasn't there. Even if they are somehow more responsible than homeland security with their guns you're still going to end up having given some kids guns they wouldn't have otherwise been able to access. So you'd be trading 1800 more dangerous days for 1 possibly safer day (imagining they were better than our police in every way) if a school had a mass shooter once every 10 years.
The cost of biometric safes works against the poor wanting to exercise their second amendment rights. If you're moving to a higher crime neighborhood, or your store has gotten robbed by gun wielding criminals, then purchasing a gun for your safety should be among your choices. Not gun + gun safe + waiting period + verifying gun safe + mandatory training class + extended background test + psych evaluation.
You're just doing the emotional argument for the rest. It's dumb. Show me the news stories of all these schools with armed teachers just fucking shit up. I might as well turn the more trolly posters here back on you, and say your fears governs your choice to maintain the status quo.
|
On November 25 2018 01:40 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 00:59 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 21:40 Uldridge wrote:
@Danglars
Maybe the first thing you'd want to do is check how many teachers (and it would be interesting to see geographical distributions as well) are willing to volunteer for a platform like the one you propose.
I can see the reasoning advocating for gun accessibility in schools, but a trigger is swiftly pulled (or showcased) in all types of situations other than a life defending one. Imagine the news coverage (and subsequent propaganda) when just one case of a teacher losing his shit occurs (or a student getting a hold of the gun; you'd be surprised how resourceful kids are when it comes to things they want to happen, partly because they're so impulsive)
You also need to account for the fact that these volunteer teachers might be fine wielding in zero threat situations, but when push comes to shove, you'll have invested in a platform that's going to be vastly underused I think. Is it worth it to have such a system in place when it's only used in 1% of the situations and not necessarily according to protocol? What if the teacher (eventually) stops the shooter, but multiple casualties happened. How do you assess which ones are from crossfire, which ones are from mistakes, which ones are from the killer? Do you just assume all injured/dead are from the shooter?
These teachers, while having had mandatory training as volunteers, are still not neccesarily able to deal with these high stress situations. Adrenalin does strange things to body and mind. You can't know how true to their training protocols they'll stay when being thrown in these situations. Even local police can't deal with these situations effectively, how are you going to make a case for teachers being drained by giving attention to children all day long?
You still need to follow up and to invest in these volunteers on a long term basis, and the interest must be reciprocal by the teachers. Once they start the program you need to make sure they keep following it, with a zero tolerance for nonchalance (i.e. confiscating with the slightest issues), which is something not many teachers will have the time nor the motivation to follow through with.
Ultimately I think you vastly overestimate how willing and capable these volunteers will be as well as how effective this platform would be. Just one case of mismanagement could not only have disastrous results for the local community, but would also be enough to abandon the entire platform, which would have taken a lot of time, effort and resources to set up in the first place. You can monitor the incidents in those school districts that started to allow teacher concealed carry on the school grounds in the wake of mass shootings (and some even before). Colorado with 30, and mandatory training. Texas with 172. USA Today figures. Missouri. 14 states arm teachers, 16 defer to boards. Ohio. Utah. Arizona (legal for teachers, but debated if any availed themselves). Florida allowed teachers to carry guns in the "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act" this year. How many stories have you seen where teacher shoots student at school out of frustration, or student gets ahold of gun at school and shoots it? Do the statistics back up "the trigger is swiftly pulled in all types of situations?" I hope the system is underused. School shootings are still rare events. Several states and many school districts have found their stock of willing and capable teachers and other school employees. I don't think your argument is born out in facts. I don't think advocating the status quo with teachers is the right decision. I never said it was born out of fact. I'm simply extrapolating what I think is human nature. More troublesome areas exist, which might increase incidents. I don't think I've seen stories where teachers went for the gun to show their power, but I'm sure they exist or that those situations have happened. And willing and capable, sure, but for how long? Will it just be a few dedicated teachers, or the entire staff? I'm just cautiously sceptical about adding more firearms to the situation.
I think there's enough states and districts to be able to show or deny the truth of (1) the trigger is swiftly pulled aka teachers can't be trusted to act appropriately and (2) the news stories are just going to be killer from a publicity sense. Find me the stories, and I'll validate your extrapolations on human nature. I think the nature of guns and all the brouhaha on their use conveys appropriate hesitancy to reach for it in only the most extreme situations and guard it carefully from disarming. Three years and two years without one public incident of misuse? You do realize that human nature spread throughout this many mini experiments for this long of time should at least produce one example of what you're saying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
