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

[MakeDigitalLove]

There's no "straw man" involved: You asserted I shouldn't have a gun because you rejected a logical comparison. But if I hadn't had a gun back at that campout, kids would have been molested. Ergo, you would rather see kids molested.

And I bring it up because people who advocate taking guns away are supporting that very thing, that kids and others should be without protection. In the case of schools, that's actually obvious, because the U.S. didn't have many school shootings at all until after Congress decided to make schools gun-free zones.

So if taking Guns away means I’d rather see kids molested in that situation, doesn’t that mean, again by your logic, that you wanting guns kept around means you’d rather see children killed? Also the assumption here that guns are apparently the only way to stop molestation. That’s a head scratcher.

The funny thing about the type of logic you use is that it can easily be turned against you because it’s so ridiculous.

Saying me wanting to “take guns away” means I want to see children molested only reveals your very poor debating skills and attempt to deter the subject at hand. The topic doesn’t have to do with fire extinguishers or car brakes, it has to do with guns. But since your arguments are flimsy at best you need to deter the subject.

 

[opinterph]

To be clear, the prohibition of guns in the workplace is a societal norm. It is common sense, because employers don't want their employees shooting at each other...or them.

Do you know why the prohibition is a societal norm?

 

[Stardreamer]

If you going to arm teachers, you need to provide the right tool for the job.

 

[nyctopgam]

Not insane for the gun manufacturers. It's diabolical and ballsy: solve gun violence by selling more guns

The insane part is why there's been no counter proposal is working. Or why it should be counter and defensive in the first place.

 

[TX-Beau]

Not insane for the gun manufacturers. It's diabolical and ballsy: solve gun violence by selling more guns

The insane part is why there's been no counter proposal is working. Or why it should be counter and defensive in the first place.

The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens agree that we should have sensible regulation, the problem isn't that there is silence on the side of regulation, the problem is that politicians are afraid of the NRA. The reasons the politicians are afraid of the NRA is partly money, partly fear of the rabid right who have been allowed to set policy and who are batshit crazy in the first place.

 

[Kulindahr]

And this is the key part: because it’s safer for the child, it’s no longer discretionary. It becomes a moral imperative to discard the projectile weapon and whisk the child to safety with the transporter beam. To not do so is a sign of irresponsible parenting, or if you prefer the hyperbolic approach: if you would rather shoot a gun than beam the child up, you want the child to be molested.

Moreover, while we do not have a transporter beam, we have a moral imperative to consider whether there is any technology, or social arrangement, or innovation, to protect children from sexual abuse. And gsdx, contrary to the ad hominem straw man nonsense hurled back at you, I’m betting you feel there is a whole package of safeguards, social norms, institutions, laws, and even technologies that meet two criteria: they’re possible (unlike the transporter beam) and they’re effective (unlike the gun).

If that’s your position then you might agree with me that we do have a moral imperative to protect children from abuse, and it’s precisely because gun nuttery falls so far short of that duty that we have a responsibility to speak up. It’s because guns are such a poor implement at protection, such a makeshift halfarsed attempt at helping, tarnished with such a shoddy track record, that we’re compelled to oppose them.

But the gun was effective.

So your argument really establishes that until we have transporters, we need the guns.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah. One of the officers with whom I spent many a long night chatting was a trainer at a local police department of about 1,200 officers. He tried to convince me to join the force.

I too have received formal training. Mine came from 2 retired Secret Service agents who had worked together at the White House charged with protection of the First Lady. It was actually a 3-month class, with several meets at local firing ranges. We fired a variety of handguns, but qualification was with the .38 Police Special. Our targets featured a human silhouette, which was marked to indicate different zones that were weighted according to the likelihood that a shot to the zone would be fatal. If all shots fired into the target hit kill zones, we have “a perfect score.”




The term was “trained to kill.”

I suspect that Secret Service would in fact be trained to kill, given their task.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps their exploitation started with the guy standing on the other side of a ballistic missile launcher. We should let “the kids” speak. Better yet – listen to what they have to say.

The moment we let emotion run public policy, we are doomed.

If we take the objective content, that they should be protected, then the logical conclusion is to provide a means for stopping killers when they appear -- to not do so is to choose to leave them vulnerable, since these killers have preferentially attacked "gun-free" zones.

That done, we need to figure out how to prevent people from wanting to be such killers. Somehow, for starters, that means getting the media to stop glorifying them!

And if we think AR-15s (which have only been used in a dozen mass shootings in the last twenty years) are best considered military-suitable, then we need Congress to make use of its authority in Article I Section 8 and designate them so, and require them to be stored in secure militia arsenals when their owners aren't actually using them. That would not only be not unconstitutional, it would mirror the system the colonists actually used back in the day.

 

[Kulindahr]

The NRA knows all about exploitation, which is why they were deathly silent when a licensed teacher was shot dead by police. You'd think they'd be all over a story like that, right? Tax-paying, hard-working, gun-owning American murdered by police. Well, for some strange inexplicable reason they chose not to exploit Philando Castile's murder and turn it into their song and dance about gun rights. I haven't the foggiest why they didn't touch a story that was practically catered to them with a ten-foot pole.

Philando Castille was a double felon at the time he was shot. Do you really think anyone should step forward and defend him?

 

[Kulindahr]

Clearly, this debate is cycling, and both sides are running out of original arguments and it has devolved into personalities. Nikolas Cruz went to Dick's Sporting Goods to buy an AR (see, I am getting the terminology down). Dick's did everything required to determine that Mr. Cruz did not meet any of the criteria that would prevent the store from selling him what became his very own AR. Turns out Mr. Cruz is a very troubled young man. The police have had 20 complaints about his behavior through time. He's not insane. He's inappropriate. He got kicked out of high school. As we know, guns don't kill people. People kill people. Our laws permit them the tools they need to kill people. We are told this is their natural right. Mr. Cruz, 19, had the right, enshrined in our Constitution to purchase an AR to defend himself.

If Congress had acted on gun supporters' suggestions a number of years ago, Cruz could not have obtained that weapon; proposals were made that would have required his name to go on the NICS no-sale list.. In fact, given that the FBI and the local sheriff both knew he had said he was going to shoot people at a school, he could have been put on the NICS no-sale list with a little court action.

Not even the NRA believes the Constitution shelters someone who has declared their intent to be a murderer.

This blood is on Congress' hands, along with more that could have been prevented if simple measures that were recommended had been acted on.

 

[Kulindahr]

The risk / benefit equation does not support arming everyone, when all we have to do is prevent military grade weapons from being available to the public.

But SCOTUS has said that it is precisely military weapons that the Second Amendment protects, the phrase being "ordinary military equipment".

This is the spectre no one wants to face: what the Court has concluded that the Framers intended. And the only way to change things is to use the authority actually given to Congress.

 

[opinterph]

I suspect that Secret Service would in fact be trained to kill, given their task.

The shooting portion was a modification of the practical pistol course. The overall course was mostly classroom, but included firearms along with elements of tactical training as well. More than anything, it taught me to pay attention.

 

[Kulindahr]

The shooting portion was a modification of the practical pistol course. The overall course was mostly classroom, but included firearms along with elements of tactical training as well. More than anything, it taught me to pay attention.

It's a fairly common, indeed nearly universal opinion on gun sites that people who don't pay attention shouldn't carry guns.

 

[novastar]

Even a friend from high school was like "I'll pay for the firearm and training myself for my kids' teachers." Ummmm..... WHAT? What universe of reality am I living in because nothing about that seems remotely plausible or affordable since teachers already have to buy their own pencils and shit. It sounds like the plot to a really bad action movie by a Tarantino wannabe. What am I missing where this makes [STRIKE]zero[/STRIKE] -50 sense to me but others are ready to pay out of pocket to turn our teachers into some sort of militia?

Armed teachers...i remember some unbalanced teachers of mine and cannot imagine them with a gun.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Again.

Teacher accidentally fires gun in school, fragments hit 3 students, one student get hits in the neck but is fine. To top it off? No one was informed of this incident until the kid who was hit in the neck got home to his Father and they informed Police.

http://www.westernmassnews.com/stor...ntally-fires-gun-in-classroom-student-injured

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Again.

Teacher accidentally fires gun in school, fragments hit 3 students, one student get hits in the neck but is fine. To top it off? No one was informed of this incident until the kid who was hit in the neck got home to his Father and they informed Police.

http://www.westernmassnews.com/stor...ntally-fires-gun-in-classroom-student-injured

Well.... that didn't take long. I was JUST about to post this.

 

[Stardreamer]

Again.

Teacher accidentally fires gun in school, fragments hit 3 students, one student get hits in the neck but is fine. To top it off? No one was informed of this incident until the kid who was hit in the neck got home to his Father and they informed Police.

http://www.westernmassnews.com/stor...ntally-fires-gun-in-classroom-student-injured

What makes it even more interesting is the teacher was a reserve police officer, exactly the kind of teacher Trump proposes arming.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Well.... that didn't take long. I was JUST about to post this.

What makes it even more interesting is the teacher was a reserve police officer, exactly the kind of teacher Trump proposes arming.

As far as I know, this is the 3rd incident already with people who are supposed to know better. I’m sure there is mental gymnastics people will take to still propose guns in school though.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

As far as I know, this is the 3rd incident already with people who are supposed to know better. I’m sure there is mental gymnastics people will take to still propose guns in school though.

Gun cultures in America are clashing, poor, urban and brown people already devastated by gun violence aren't even really participating in this discussion because they're at risk for gun violence just walking TO school (or the mall, or at home eating a bowl of cereal, or the basketball court). Most of the "arm the teachers" is coming from adrenaline junkies and needle dicks whose only familiarity with guns is collecting or killing defenseless animals, they almost seem to view this like it's a living video game, the excitement with which they insist on more powerful weapons everywhere held by everyone is as infantile as it is disturbing.

 

[Dystopian]

But SCOTUS has said that it is precisely military weapons that the Second Amendment protects, the phrase being "ordinary military equipment".

This is the spectre no one wants to face: what the Court has concluded that the Framers intended. And the only way to change things is to use the authority actually given to Congress.

One could debate the scope of "ordinary military equipment." Tanks, hand grenades, F-16's, flame throwers could come under that umbrella, as well. Arming everyone is the same as arming no one, only more people get killed. It is clear that Congress must act. We will see where the midterms take us. Hopefully to a better, more productive place.