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

[gsdx]

How many teachers actually assault students annually? Please, show me a figure that's higher than the number of actual school shootings.

How many students assaulted by their teachers are buried 6 feet underground?

 

[Kulindahr]

He doesn't get that there were people outside the school whose jobs it was to neutralise the shooter but stood there with their trigger fingers shoved up their asses. They were trained to kill. What chance does a teacher with a classroom full of panicking kids have?

That teacher has essentially no chance -- and you don't want him or her to! You're arguing FOR teachers to be killed.

The cowardly cops exercised a choice; the teachers weren't even given one because the law required them to be victims. But because the cops didn't do their job, you want to continue to require teachers to be victims? That's disgusting.

 

[gsdx]

That teacher has essentially no chance -- and you don't want him or her to! You're arguing FOR teachers to be killed.

I am doing no such thing. I am arguing to get weapons of war off the streets and out of the hands of mass murderers.

 

[Kulindahr]

Welcome to Trump High. We have the best teachers, the very best. We’re making high school great again. Take Earl here, he’s a shitty physics teacher, but he finished first in his class at marksmanship in his B.Ed. program. That’s the kind of quality we hire here at Trump High.

The US died at Sandy Hook. It slides more and more into “failed state” territory every day. About the only thing that could revive the corpse is those kids, the whole generation, just boycotting schools entirely from a given day. It’s not like their education can prepare them to contribute to, or benefit from, a “society” and they would be smarter for every class they skip at Trump High anyway.

With a youth revolution, an American election not controlled by the Russians, and a constitutional amendment, they might be able to prune away the tumour that has grown in the place of reason and disarm the everyday nut jobs that keep this charade going to finally live in peace.

Well, the youth seem wiser than you:

"Respondents aged 18-29 are the least likely in the country to support a renewed ban on assault weapons"

"According to Gallup’s version of the question in 2004, the notion that concealed guns made for safer spaces polled at 25 percent; 11 years later, it registered at 55 percent nationally. The greatest support came from those ages 18-29, at 66 percent, a full 10 points greater than the next highest scoring demographic."

source

 

[Kulindahr]

A story about something completely different.

“There are spike belts all over the roads and they keep puncturing my tires. We need to put a stop to this!!!!”


-What do you mean?

It’s rediculous, I cant drive anywhere safely and this is the third time this month I’ve had to have my tires replaced because those things just shred them! We should just get rid of them!

-WHAAAAATTT????!!!!!???!!!!!1!!!!1!!!

There is no fucking purpose to everybody running around laying spike strips across public roadways and we should just round them up and destroy them. The cost to everyone is too great. Thousands of people drove off the road and died because of spike strip mishaps last year alone!

-OKAY FIRST IF ALL I use them on my properteh to stop riffraff from quadding all over my private land!! Boy... if you don’t know where to dodge on my property, I’m gonna rip you a new tire hole, buddy!!! Oh yeah!! First you swerve left, then right, then left! Left again by the pine tree then-AND NEVER YOU MIND!!! All YOU need to know is anybody comes on my property is going to get their tires messed up!!!!!!! Tires messed up baddddd!!! It’s MY land!!!!!!1!!!1!

Oh for fucks sake. “It’s my properteh..” MKay fine. What about the public roads then? Why do we have to all keep dying just so you can stop a couple of douchebags from leaving tire tracks in your [STRIKE]weedy-overgrown-meadowy-bushy-scrubland thing[/STRIKE] lawn out behind your cabin?

-Two damn good reasons: first, I had to swerve around the spike strips on the road myself and blew two tires. The risk is real!! So, I rolled out a couple myself to catch the bastard that’s been laying them. I could have been carjacked! I could have died! I lay them out for self defence, to keep the neighborhood safe!! We all do! It’s the only way to catch these bastards and stop them from laying out spike strips. If we didn’t do it, nobody could drive anywhere!
Second: it’s my right!! The founding fathers said that I have a right to arm myself, and I already said I lay them out for self defence, that’s all the proof I need. It’s self-evident.

That’s ridiculous. You literally just said you need to stop your neighbours but you also admit you all do it. Don’t you think if anyone rolls out spike strips it should be limited to the police? I mean at least they have the training and the authority to stop whomever is sabotaging the roads. And you know, like, a police radio and so on..

-OH THATS ANOTHER THJNG!! You can’t just let the police have spike strips, that’s tyranny!! If anyone touches a spike strip they go mad with power so I need to keep mine handy if I ever need to stop a police car driven by a power-mad tyrannical authority figure who became mad with tyrannical power just by touching a spike strip. I always keep one in hand just for that eventuality! This is what the founding fathers wanted!!!”

Eventuality??!! That’s the most ridiculous tin foil hat conspiracy theory ever. And there were not even paved roads or tires back then that you could spike. You live in a country where you make the laws and hire the police and train the police according to the laws that you pass. How are they going to go mad with power unless you vote for power-mad morons? You’re just making their job harder and more dangerous. And if you even let things get that bad, good luck buddy with your spike strip stopping the police. If they wanted to that badly you are aware they can break out the tank.”

COMMUNIST!! Tyrannical communist traitor!! SHEEP!! Sheep! Sheep. Sheep!! Sheep sheep sheep sheep. Sheep!!!!

Happy driving, folks.

Just one point: we only "make the laws" and "hire the police" in a remotely theoretical way; the real choice is made by the 0.25% of the population who mostly fund the campaigns.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am doing no such thing. I am arguing to get weapons of war off the streets and out of the hands of mass murderers.

So you do want teachers to be armed?

Besides which, "weapons of war" are exactly what the Second Amendment protects, according to SCOTUS.

So what you're pushing for is a country run not by laws, but by how people's emotions are running at any given moment. That's exactly why the Founders didn't trust democracy.

 

[gsdx]

So you do want teachers to be armed?

You keep telling me that I'm saying what YOU want me to say. Stop putting your words in my mouth.

I'm done with this shit. It's your country, and the next school massacre will be on your head. Not mine.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

That teacher has essentially no chance -- and you don't want him or her to! You're arguing FOR teachers to be killed.

The cowardly cops exercised a choice; the teachers weren't even given one because the law required them to be victims. But because the cops didn't do their job, you want to continue to require teachers to be victims? That's disgusting.

You’re arguing for the continual mass slaughter of children. See how that works? The only difference was that your statement towards gsdx is not correct and mine is.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Because they have been different -- they've acted to protect their students.



Evidence?

And there have been acts by Police Officer to protect people but clearly that doesn’t always happen and will not with Teachers having a gun.

 

[luckynumbah7]

How many students assaulted by their teachers are buried 6 feet underground?

Couldn't say, but

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html

Suggests one in ten average for students abused by school personnel re;sexual misconduct. Can't think it would lesson with guns involved. The info was 'scrounged', it was actually researched for peer-to-peer, a third-party academic went about compiling the raw data within it for the teacher-student inappropriateness.

I got curious, since someone pointed out earlier there's no shortage of 'heat of the moment' shootings. I wonder how many holes through the head they can pass off until "they grabbed my gun, it went off" starts to sound suspicious.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I mean, if you give it more than a half second's thought, it's not a good idea to give guns to people who have so much power over their charges already. I doubt 'in flagrante delicto' situations are going to be made better with added weaponry.

 

[Dystopian]

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.

A different perspective from Justice Scalia's opinion for the majoriity in District of Coumbia v. Heller http://http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

 

[gsdx]

^ As I mentioned in the other thread, the NRA changed all that. It's amazing that so few people can change the thinking of so many, and the few and the many continue to try to change OUR thinking as well when their thinking is so illogical and deadly.

 

[Kulindahr]

You keep telling me that I'm saying what YOU want me to say. Stop putting your words in my mouth.

I'm done with this shit. It's your country, and the next school massacre will be on your head. Not mine.

No, it will be on the heads of those who insist that no one at a school be allowed to actually defend themselves.

 

[Kulindahr]

You’re arguing for the continual mass slaughter of children. See how that works? The only difference was that your statement towards gsdx is not correct and mine is.

Another lie. The only ones arguing for continued mass slaughter are those arguing against anyone in a school being able to defend themselves, which means everyone who thinks schools should be declared "gun free" zones. When a killer sees "gun free", he knows he's effectively being invited to kill everyone he can, because it's a guarantee that no one can act against him effectively for the ten or more minutes until the police get there.

And the deputies in this case who didn't do a thing just made school shootings more attractive to any future killers, bcause they added to the narrative of defenseless kids and teachers the elements of cops who do nothing (not that this is new; SWAT teams have regularly sat on their asses while kids were being killed).

The only way to stop a killer is to give people the means to do so. Refusing to do that is an invitation to more killers.


Oh, BTW -- gsdx had another lie in that post, that police are "trained to kill". That's false -- the only law enforcement officers trained to kill are the snipers on SWAT teams.

 

[Kulindahr]

And there have been acts by Police Officer to protect people but clearly that doesn’t always happen and will not with Teachers having a gun.

So because a solution isn't perfect you want it thrown out?

That's like saying that because brakes on cars sometimes fail, cars shouldn't have brakes, or that because fire extinguishers sometimes go bad, there should be no fire extinguishers.

The fact is that teachers have been facing and standing up to these killers. Giving them the means to do so effectively is only common sense.

 

[Kulindahr]

I mean, if you give it more than a half second's thought, it's not a good idea to give guns to people who have so much power over their charges already. I doubt 'in flagrante delicto' situations are going to be made better with added weaponry.

That's a great argument for police disarmament.

 

[Kulindahr]

A different perspective from Justice Scalia's opinion for the majoriity in District of Coumbia v. Heller http://http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

So by that ruling, AR-15s can't be regulated -- they're in VERY common use.

 

[gsdx]

No, it will be on the heads of those who insist that no one at a school be allowed to actually defend themselves.

I truly am relieved that I don't live in the country you want to make yours become.

Oh, BTW -- gsdx had another lie in that post, that police are "trained to kill". That's false -- the only law enforcement officers trained to kill are the snipers on SWAT teams.

Well, if they're not trained, please explain why they're to damned efficient at it? And if they're not trained, why is so much money and time spent training them?

Don't bother answering. Anything beyond this 'liar' shit is just baiting me into an argument.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, if they're not trained, please explain why they're to damned efficient at it? And if they're not trained, why is so much money and time spent training them?

Don't bother answering. Anything beyond this 'liar' shit is just baiting me into an argument.

They're good at killing because they're poorly trained. What they're trained to do is stop threats, but they get so little practice that they're terrible at recognizing a real threat and then bad enough shots that they keep shooting even after they've decided something is a threat.

And if you don't like having lies pointed out, then don't use them.