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

[gsdx]

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

They're only lies because you say they are. I don't call your opinions lies. Don't call mine lies.

 

[bankside]

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.

This implies that your “arm a teacher” plan will create exactly the chaos that everyone rightly anticipates, unless teachers spend every in service day at the target range.

You’ll need to get accustomed to having the delusions in your logic pointed out because there are many. Arming teachers is a ridiculous idea on its face, and then after careful reflection it is also ridiculous.

 

[ballcaphair]

I'd not argue this point, but I'd guess a few college students would change their major because. Well, you know.

 

[Dystopian]

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

"Dangerous and unusual" weapons speaks more to their nature rather than prevalence. Frankly, I had never seen an ar15, so I searched.

There is also a pistol

The ar15 is a semiautomatic version of the military's M16, sold to police and the public. A versatile weapon in common use, the rifle can accommodate an anti-tank grenade launcher.

I urge everyone to Google and see the ads for fully loaded and accessorized ar15's. There are many varieties of semi-automatic weapons available.


To state that these are not dangerous and unusual weapons is disingenuous at best. But they are very common.

 

[Dystopian]

Automatic weapons are "available to the public" only after:

1. For Machine Guns, the firearms must have been made prior to 1986. Since there are only a certain amount of these weapons still in circulation, the prices continue to rise as each year passes.

2. You must make sure it is legal to own these items in the state you reside in. These rules only address Federal Law, not State and Local Laws. (i.e.: don’t even apply if you are in places like New York City, Chicago, and most if not all of California).

3. You must be an American Citizen at least 21 years of age.

4. You must be of sound mind (not crazy or mentally incompetent).

5. You must not be an abuser of alcohol or illegal drugs.

6. You must not have been convicted of any felonies

7. You must pay a $200, one time, Federal Tax (also known as a Federal Transfer Tax or a Tax Stamp). Good ole’ Uncle Sam!

8. You must complete what is called a BATF Form 4 and submit to the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

The application requires that you get a signature from your Chief Law Enforcement Officer � stating that he or she has no knowledge that you intend to use the firearm... for anything other than lawful uses.

9. You will need to get fingerprinted and photographed and submit these with your BATF application.

10. Generally, you must wait about 3 months after you have submitted everything before it gets approved. The FBI has to process everything, verify your identity and background, etc.

Besides that, teachers are already having to face attackers; the only question is whether we require them to just die or allow them to be equipped to actually stop an attacker.

And being "left with neighbors, coworkers and anyone who wants to shoot up a church, a concert or any public venue" is a straw man argument; that's not going to change whether teachers are armed or not.


This boils down to a simple moral choice: since teachers do in fact have to deal with mass shooters, and since teachers do actually stand up and defend their students, are we going to side with the shooter and make sure he can't be stopped until the police arrive (if then), or are we going to give teachers a fighting chance to actually stop an attacker?
Morally, refusing to allow teachers to be armed is accessory to murder.

Thanks for the list of requirements 1-10, above: Like the man said, "Gee, how's that been working for you?" Evidently not all that well.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

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.

By your logic, because guns are so easily obtained by people who want them. Does that mean guns are also the invitation to do such things as mass shootings? That would make sense given your logic here that gun free zones are “inviting” this. Clearly they have to be part of the problem if gun free zones are “inviting” mass shooters.

Gun free zones wouldn’t be that invited if guns weren’t that easy to access.

Also this has nothing to do with brakes on cars or fire extinguishers. We’re not talking about those things so how is it “like saying” to them? You are making straw man argument here because your very own arguments are illogical or can’t stand on their own.

 

[Dystopian]

This boils down to a simple moral choice: since teachers do in fact have to deal with mass shooters, and since teachers do actually stand up and defend their students, are we going to side with the shooter and make sure he can't be stopped until the police arrive (if then), or are we going to give teachers a fighting chance to actually stop an attacker?
Morally, refusing to allow teachers to be armed is accessory to murder.

There is a moral imperative here. And the ethical and moral questions lie with the NRA and our legislators. It is counter intuitive that our government officials would take no action on the issue of gun control. Some may not act based off of an ideology, but it appears many of our elected officials tow the NRA line on gun control fearing the wrath of their base and loss of millions (literally, millions) of dollars in campaign contributions. This would mean that they wouldn't be reelected to come back and do it all over again. That would be bad for them and bad for the NRA. Good for school children...and teachers. Why wouldn't members of Congress, seeing tens of thousands of deaths annually and dozens if not hundreds of mass shootings, why would they not take action? Talk about accessory to murder. Marco Rubio. A hunter? A gun enthusiast?....nah. A Senator bought and paid for. A smart guy (cute, too) who I don't see as being aligned with the agenda of the NRA, especially, but who waffles and caves when asked about NRA campaign contributions. This latest tragedy at Parkland and the response of the survivors and the broader population has pulled back the curtain on the NRA and it's funding of political campaigns. The NRA does two things: Public relations and lobbying. It garners membership, the true believers and seeks to convince the public that guns are good, necessary and a wonderful hobby and sport, kind of like golf clubs. Further, weapons are needed to protect you and your property and family from outside dangers and from encroachment of a potentially dictatorial government. Better yet, their products are your inviolate RIGHT, under the Second Amendment. Not even the Trump Corp. has that sales pitch. Like Bob Mueller and so many other special prosecutors have show us...FOLLOW THE MONEY. I have heard no convincing reason for civilians to have military grade semiautomatic weapons in their homes. To not have them does not violate Second Amendment rights. More kids are killed at home and outside of school every year than in mass shootings. The gun industry, a 45 billion dollar industry that supports the NRA, which in turn funnels dollars into the campaign coffers of candidates who in turn agree to do nothing on the issue of gun control, are thereby passively allowing the mass slaughters that have become common in our Society. It is proposed that we move to make schools a battleground. Let them go down fighting! That does nothing for the rest of us, including children outside of school, and poses additional risks of having guns in that environment. Let's go at this problem from its root cause, and not make it even worse than it is. Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and bump stocks to the public.

 

[gsdx]

I've read a number of articles on police training and 'shoot to kill'. Police officers are trained in the use of 'deadly force' to stop a person who is a perceivable threat to the officer or to other members of the public. In that training, they are taught to aim at the 'centre (or 'center) mass', which is the largest mass visible to the officer. If all he can see is the head, that is the centre mass. If he can see the entire body, the torso is the centre mass. That's why there are target rings on the training targets.

They are, as I said, trained in the use of 'deadly force', with 'deadly' being the operative words. It most-often ends in death.

My wording was different, but the results of the training were the same.

I am not a liar.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I've read a number of articles on police training and 'shoot to kill'. Police officers are trained in the use of 'deadly force' to stop a person who is a perceivable threat to the officer or to other members of the public. In that training, they are taught to aim at the 'centre (or 'center) mass', which is the largest mass visible to the officer. If all he can see is the head, that is the centre mass. If he can see the entire body, the torso is the centre mass. That's why there are target rings on the training targets.

They are, as I said, trained in the use of 'deadly force', with 'deadly' being the operative words. It most-often ends in death.

My wording was different, but the results of the training were the same.

I am not a liar.

You're not a liar. It's a shitty argumentative tactic.

 

[rareboy]

How could anything possibly go wrong?

Teacher in custody after Georgia police respond to report of shots fired

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ter-georgia-police-respond-to-report-of-shots

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

The universe is literally telling us something.

 

[gsdx]

How could anything possibly go wrong?

Teacher in custody after Georgia police respond to report of shots fired

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ter-georgia-police-respond-to-report-of-shots

Job done then.

 

[Kulindahr]

They're only lies because you say they are. I don't call your opinions lies. Don't call mine lies.

I'm not saying anything about your opinion, I'm calling your "facts" what they are.

 

[Kulindahr]

This implies that your “arm a teacher” plan will create exactly the chaos that everyone rightly anticipates, unless teachers spend every in service day at the target range.

You’ll need to get accustomed to having the delusions in your logic pointed out because there are many. Arming teachers is a ridiculous idea on its face, and then after careful reflection it is also ridiculous.

No, it doesn't: teachers need to be trained for only one situation, their school.

As a Boy Scout leader pointed out on a gun site, if our school still had shooting teams, no one would be attacking schools because they would know that dozens of people would have the ability to stop them cold.

Switzerland has the right idea: train all the high-schoolers and run competition. The misuse of guns in their country is minimal because they do what liberals do on every issue except guns -- call for and establish education.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thanks for the list of requirements 1-10, above: Like the man said, "Gee, how's that been working for you?" Evidently not all that well.

Quite well, actually -- there have only been two crimes committed with them since 1936, both murders -- one by a policeman.

Yet police departments can buy all the actual assault rifles they want... and the federal government helps them do so.

 

[Kulindahr]

By your logic, because guns are so easily obtained by people who want them. Does that mean guns are also the invitation to do such things as mass shootings? That would make sense given your logic here that gun free zones are “inviting” this. Clearly they have to be part of the problem if gun free zones are “inviting” mass shooters.

Gun free zones wouldn’t be that invited if guns weren’t that easy to access.

Also this has nothing to do with brakes on cars or fire extinguishers. We’re not talking about those things so how is it “like saying” to them? You are making straw man argument here because your very own arguments are illogical or can’t stand on their own.

No, gun free zones are an invitation because they guarantee a supply of undefended victims.

And yes, guns are like the brakes on cars and fire extinguishers, because wen present they can stop attacks, regardless of the means the attacker is using.

 

[opinterph]

I'm calling your "facts" what they are.

Is that anything like brandishing?

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

No, gun free zones are an invitation because they guarantee a supply of undefended victims.

And yes, guns are like the brakes on cars and fire extinguishers, because wen present they can stop attacks, regardless of the means the attacker is using.

If you think guns are like brakes and fire extinguishers, then personally I don't think you should have a gun.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is a moral imperative here. And the ethical and moral questions lie with the NRA and our legislators. It is counter intuitive that our government officials would take no action on the issue of gun control. Some may not act based off of an ideology, but it appears many of our elected officials tow the NRA line on gun control fearing the wrath of their base and loss of millions (literally, millions) of dollars in campaign contributions. This would mean that they wouldn't be reelected to come back and do it all over again. That would be bad for them and bad for the NRA. Good for school children...and teachers. Why wouldn't members of Congress, seeing tens of thousands of deaths annually and dozens if not hundreds of mass shootings, why would they not take action? Talk about accessory to murder. Marco Rubio. A hunter? A gun enthusiast?....nah. A Senator bought and paid for. A smart guy (cute, too) who I don't see as being aligned with the agenda of the NRA, especially, but who waffles and caves when asked about NRA campaign contributions. This latest tragedy at Parkland and the response of the survivors and the broader population has pulled back the curtain on the NRA and it's funding of political campaigns. The NRA does two things: Public relations and lobbying. It garners membership, the true believers and seeks to convince the public that guns are good, necessary and a wonderful hobby and sport, kind of like golf clubs. Further, weapons are needed to protect you and your property and family from outside dangers and from encroachment of a potentially dictatorial government. Better yet, their products are your inviolate RIGHT, under the Second Amendment. Not even the Trump Corp. has that sales pitch. Like Bob Mueller and so many other special prosecutors have show us...FOLLOW THE MONEY. I have heard no convincing reason for civilians to have military grade semiautomatic weapons in their homes. To not have them does not violate Second Amendment rights. More kids are killed at home and outside of school every year than in mass shootings. The gun industry, a 45 billion dollar industry that supports the NRA, which in turn funnels dollars into the campaign coffers of candidates who in turn agree to do nothing on the issue of gun control, are thereby passively allowing the mass slaughters that have become common in our Society. It is proposed that we move to make schools a battleground. Let them go down fighting! That does nothing for the rest of us, including children outside of school, and poses additional risks of having guns in that environment. Let's go at this problem from its root cause, and not make it even worse than it is. Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and bump stocks to the public.

The NRA wants politicians to take action, by recognizing the dignity of the human individual and stop telling them their lives aren't worth protecting. That's what "gun-free" zones do: demote everyone working in them or required to spend time in them from citizen to target.

All controllers ignore the main verb of the Second Amendment: "infringed". It means to meddle even with peripheral issues that aren't essential to the right. Since rights come from the people, no "convincing reason" is needed for the people to exercise their natural rights, rather the opposite: there should be a convincing reason why they should allow government to have weapons nore potent than they do.

Schools are already battlegrounds; designating them as "gun free" did that.

Guns are "the root cause"? Really? Inanimate objects persuade people to become violent?
That claim just shows up the total irrationality of the gun-control position.

The root causes are the things that drive people to misuse weapons -- any weapons. One is lack of discipline, another is lack of respect for others, another is certain kinds of mental illness. The gun is just a tool. Since gun control doesn't care about the actual root causes, it's nothing but feel-good activity.

Let them have their ARs of whatever number. Just follow the Swiss model, and require those weapons to be registered with the local militia and stored by the local militia. That, and requiring training, would address two of the root causes, lack of respect for others and lack of discipline -- and, following the Swiss model again, it would allow for mental health screening for people wanting such weapons.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've read a number of articles on police training and 'shoot to kill'. Police officers are trained in the use of 'deadly force' to stop a person who is a perceivable threat to the officer or to other members of the public. In that training, they are taught to aim at the 'centre (or 'center) mass', which is the largest mass visible to the officer. If all he can see is the head, that is the centre mass. If he can see the entire body, the torso is the centre mass. That's why there are target rings on the training targets.

They are, as I said, trained in the use of 'deadly force', with 'deadly' being the operative words. It most-often ends in death.

My wording was different, but the results of the training were the same.

I am not a liar.

Yes -- they are taught to fire to stop the threat. Any officer who actually wants to kill when he shoots has no business being an officer (and every now and then one who does gets screened out through the after-shooting review process).

But that suggests another idea: regular citizens should have the benefit of the same analysis of the shooting and counseling that the police get.