Arm the teachers, am I slow or is that idea completely insane

[cityboy-stl]

 

[gsdx]

^ Perhaps Trump et al had that in mind.

Ya think?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

@cityboy-stl NO. FUCKING. WAY. We get shot if they THINK we have a gun, let alone actually having one, and they're in a crisis situation FEARING FOR THE LIVES (the magical phrase that makes it ok to murder a brown-skinned person).

As most debates go, this gun thing is sort of being discussed in a white vacuum that is completely incognizant of the black American experience. It's easy for a white guy to say "Fuck yeah give the teachers guns," completely ignoring just how differently situations can go when a black person has a gun, is facing a gun, is perceived to have a gun et cetera. Reminds me just how much our lives don't really matter.

If I was a teacher? Fuck that! No way in hell, I don't care if you'll triple my salary. Nope, not THIS bitch. Call me a coward, fire me, I'll be an unemployed LIVE coward.

 

[TX-Beau]

Well, black people should know by now that if they don't step-n-fetch-it, they are guilty of the uppity, and we all know how that ends.

Which is exactly how the orang wants you to feel.

 

[TX-Beau]

fabulouslyghetto this won't end until all of you all go to the polls and speak. I have your back for what it's worth.

 

[TickTockMan]

from post #4060 over in the "Trump this" thread

View attachment 1254547

The truth is the Secret Service did everything right and it is because of them Reagan was shot. An escaped bullet went between the car and the door crack. The agents did what they were suppose to and put him in the car. They pushed him into the bullet.



Personally I like this one better.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

fabulouslyghetto this won't end until all of you all go to the polls and speak. I have your back for what it's worth.

I am sooooooooooooooooooo nervous about the midterms this year. So much is at stake and even though the right is fucking up all over the place, the democrats have a way of fantastically fucking up elections that were practically handed to them. I'm kinda feeling like it's gonna be 7 more years of a GOP government.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I am sooooooooooooooooooo nervous about the midterms this year. So much is at stake and even though the right is fucking up all over the place, the democrats have a way of fantastically fucking up elections that were practically handed to them. I'm kinda feeling like it's gonna be 7 more years of a GOP government.

Don't listen to the little voice of doom!

 

[Stardreamer]

I am sooooooooooooooooooo nervous about the midterms this year. So much is at stake and even though the right is fucking up all over the place, the democrats have a way of fantastically fucking up elections that were practically handed to them. I'm kinda feeling like it's gonna be 7 more years of a GOP government.

Sadly true.

 

[rareboy]

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

@raregirl

 

[Kulindahr]

Factual, albeit they're only as safe as the teacher is capable of neutralizing the threat. Which leave MUCH to be desired for teachers who aren't physically or mentally equipped to handle a gun in a crisis. In that vein armed guards sounds waaaaaaaaay more plausible than give every teacher a gun.

Armed guards tends to be the first target if there are any -- and as we just saw in Florida, if they aren't the first target they don't always act anyway.

As for being mentally equipped, according to a Recon Marine on one gun site, no one is ever mentally prepared for handling a gun in a crisis until they actually encounter the crisis, and then either they are or they aren't. It helps to train ahead of time, since that makes people a bit more ready, but until it actually happens, no one can say how they'll react.
I'd heard that before from trainers, but from a Recon Marine it's darned convincing!

I've trained for defending my home in case of an invader, but (especially now that my mom is gone) I really don't know if I could actually shoot an invader; teachers who train in their school for possible invaders will be in the same boat.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm curious. Who's going to pay for the training, the licence, the ammunition, and the gun?

Much simpler and less costly to make assault weapons illegal.

It's sad that children are going to school in the morning not knowing if they'll be going home in the afternoon or to a hospital in an ambulance or - yes - to a morgue.

No child should be forced to live with that much fear in their lives.

The NRA and NRA foundation have offered help in all three categories -- they're already training teachers and other school staff in a number of places around the country.

It's interesting that kids from inner city schools have said no one would ever try to shoot up their school, because there are students with guns there. That is freaky, but it shows that students understand the value of being able to shoot back.

 

[Kulindahr]

We could turn that into a whole new thread Maybe I'm wrong, in my head I picture mass hysteria, screaming, lots of bodies moving quickly, hardly the ideal situation for someone only casually trained in firearms to take down a shooter. Maybe if the kids are sitting calmly and the killer doesn't move, then yeah, easy target that only the most inept teaecher/bodyguard could fuck up (and still there's going to be that one)

A new thread? Not really; "if you aren't sure of your target, don't shoot" is taught in every basic handgun course as well as in hunter safety training.

But the situations we've seen where teachers get between students and the shooter show that in most cases there won't be any target confusion, especially in students have trained in evacuation procedures.

And as a teacher in one of my handgun training classes who actually did get between students and a shooter related, when you see someone who has shot one of your students, focusing to shoot becomes really easy thanks to adrenaline.

But as far as "there's going to be that one", that's why having more than one person armed is recommended.

But making these military-grade weapons unavailable to the public is far-fetched? Anyone saying teens should have the freedom to buy ar15s is saying teens shooting up schools is perfectly acceptable. If we made them illegal today, and no more were sold, where would these angry teens get their military-grade weapons? The prevailing school of thought seems to be they just go to the street corner and ask the AR15 dealer, because they're that easy to obtain.

Being from Chicago gun violence isn't a new concept, and people always use that as an example for gun control being ineffective, failing to acknowledge that most of Chicago's illegal firearms were purchased legally in neighboring Indiana and Wisconsin. If we're going to make suppositions, if the AR15 had been banned this shooting wouldn't have happened. The Texas church shooting wouldn't have happened. Are you saying that it's ok for these things to happen so long as you're allowed to have your military-grade weapon that sprays bullets?

Unhappily, even in California "they are that easy to obtain" -- in fact in some ways they're easier, because with all the gun control laws there's already an established black market and criminals know or can find out easily who to go to.

BTW, the price of a gun that "sprays bullets" starts with a federal background check with a $200 cost, then a federal license with another fee (I think it's $400, but I've never been interested in automatic weapons so I'm not sure), and then finding someone willing to part with one, followed finally by dishing out anywhere from $10,000 to $45,000 to buy it.

But no, if AR-15s were banned, it wouldn't have stopped any shooter, they'd just use a different weapon.

What we need is "militia control", which the Constitution provides for, starting with a national mental health program offering care to all and giving local authorities a way to screen for potential threats -- the Florida barbarian would have been cut off from guns about two years ago with such a system (yes, authorities have known that long that this kid was a danger... and all they did was file reports).

 

[Kulindahr]

The taxpayers, duh! If we just cut medicaid some more and welfare and maybe nix a few programs for battered women and children with cerebral palsy then voila! Teacher militia budget.

Yeah, right. Those people aren't conservatives in much of any sense of the word. in fact, if we want a "well-regulated militia", the opposite (of what you accurately say) is true: I could make a strong argument that support for women and children are essential to a "well-regulated militia".

I really wish some Democrat would wise up and introduce legislation that would make the Republicans put up or shut up about mental health -- even something as outlandish as having cheap government health care for gun owners (just watch the Republicans try to fight THAT!).

 

[Kulindahr]

Rigorously trained police have on more than two occasions hit bystanders, sometimes children during shootouts, and that's minus the environment of 1200 students screaming and running around. Soldiers in combat have hit their own. You're a very smart person, but I and others are not stupid enough to believe that there are absolutely zero risks associated with arming teachers and it does you no favors to pretend otherwise, that it's some wild stroke of the imagination to picture a teacher hitting the wrong person. What happens when their gun is aimed at the door, it swings open and a student looking for safety rushes in, you don't think a panicked teacher might think they're the shooter and hit them? You've always been a sensible, unbiased guy but this fairytale you're promoting that teachers+guns= full-proof solution is just.... silly.

I'm not claiming anything is "foolproof", only that the claims of emotional reaction and wild shooting are ridiculous, as are the portrayals of the students' actions. I can't think of a single school shooting where your description of "students screaming and running around" applied once a teacher was in a position to confront a shooter. And the door-opening situation would be contrary to the dominating policies at the moment: teachers are to lock doors and not let anyone through without verifying, which is why the suggestion someone made to shoot through the door would be effective

As for "rigorously trained police", until recently there weren't any, and I have my doubts that there really are many now for the simple reason that live-fire training is always a low priority in budgets. Trump has a point when he suggests teachers with military experience would be great, because they actually have had rigorous training.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh, I don't know. Gunshots being fired off. People screaming. People falling to the floor. Blood flying everywhere. It's statements like that which are causing the problem. We're not trying to take away your friggin' guns. We're trying to take away assault weapons which belong in a war-torn city and not a public school.

Please convince me why ANYONE needs an assault weapon. Go ahead.

The Second Amendment says we do -- militarily useful weapons are the very ones it protects; the Supreme Court has said so back when it ruled that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't protected by the Second Amendment because (at the time) it wasn't a weapon of a sort used by any military.

 

[Kulindahr]

Cuz they want one. No one needs one. It would serve their purpose to make this admission. I too am dumbfounded by this "Don't worry the teachers will be aight in a crisis." Hitting fellow soldiers happens so frequently there's a term for it, friendly fire. I cannot wrap my brain around how someone can expect me to believe that teachers are going to be better with a firearm than our best policemen and soldiers, whom we spend millions upon millions of dollars training for every kind of imaginable situation. And even then THEY still can't get it right 100% of the time.

Friendly fire occurs because there are numerous enemy soldiers and numerous friendly ones closely engaged with them. That doesn't apply to school shootings, and won't unless a group of shooters act together. They also happen because soldiers these days dress so they don't stand out, which makes soldiers look pretty much alike regardless of what side they're on.

Armed citizens are already better at hitting the right target than our police, by a factor of five (it used to be eleven, but over the past decade and a half police have gotten somewhat better trained). Teachers would be even less likely to hit the wrong target, since they know the people (students) involved.

 

[Kulindahr]

Or the teachers. Nobody has mentioned psych evals before we start passing out weapons to the same group that is in the news every week for fucking minors they're supposed to be educating. Or smoking meth. Or smoking meth with the minors they're fucking. I'd at least be willing to hear this idea out if they weren't so rigidly unrealistic about it, clearly speaking more from an emotional "OH NO THEYRE COMING FOR MY GUNS" standpoint than "How can we help our youth not get murdered at school?"

Nobody has to mention psych evals for the simple reason that under many state laws teachers would be acting as security personnel, and you can't get licensed as a security person without a psych eval (there are states which are exceptions, but the number is decreasing).

I watch this issue a lot, and I rarely see any "OH NO THEYRE COMING FOR MY GUNS" stuff. On gun sites, it's mostly "gun control has yet to show any evidence it works in the U.S., so how do we keep kids safe?" The "coming for our guns" is secondary.

 

[Kulindahr]

The pushback is intense.

Not everyone...in fact almost no one....is on board with this.

This is the most important moment in the gun debate since Sandy Hook. If the US rolls over and allows the militarization of its schools and turning them into hardened prisons for learning, America is dead. In that very moment. Because growing up and learning under this model will make them completely comfortable with state military oversight everywhere.

The very thing that all these right wing guns nuts are claiming that they need to have an arsenal for will be the very substance of their lives....a full military state under an authoritarian federal government.

This will only be the case if we post soldiers in the schools (as some have actually suggested... ). SO what you're doing here is a straw man argument, pure and simple.