Teachers with guns ?

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Well the fact that there are more and more school shootings or reports of kids getting ahold of guns shows that it is not really working.

Toughen the laws up, make the parents more responsible for the actions of their child who steals the gun.

There is such a thing as a diminishing return, and parents being ignorant can't be cured. There are laws against those who leave their child in a hot car, but that still happens. Why some of you people think that making things tougher or doing more and more and more solves everything are the same people asking and not realizing the laws that are around.

 

[Grayfox]

How does one do that exactly? If a law isn't working, as you suggest, how does one change it so it does work?

From what i have read, none or very few parent got any kind of charges laid on them for letting their child get ahold of the gun.

Start charging people and handing out lengthy jail sentences and prevent them from ever owning a gun.

 

[Famine]

From what i have read, none or very few parent got any kind of charges laid on them for letting their child get ahold of the gun.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. That's the nature of law - cases can be difficult to prosecute because no jury wants to convict (particularly when the kid took its own life - it's regarded as punishment enough for the parent) and States don't want to waste money on million dollar showcase trials that collapse because of juror sympathy.

Start charging people and handing out lengthy jail sentences and prevent them from ever owning a gun.

In just about any State I can think of at random, a felony conviction IS prevention of owning a firearm. Well, legally, at least.

As things stand, you've suggested zero changes - merely suggested things that are already done.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

From what i have read, none or very few parent got any kind of charges laid on them for letting their child get ahold of the gun.

Start charging people and handing out lengthy jail sentences and prevent them from ever owning a gun.

Okay how do you propose that then? What is funny is that you knowing and seeing what you have, still think that things will flow smooth as possible. People are charged and it had to do a lot more with kids getting a hold of guns in houses and shooting family members, friends of family or themselves before school shootings were big.

Parents have been charged for these easily preventible accidents and as I explained with other forms of neglect that result in death of a child, it still doesn't stop the act of neglect in the future by other parties. To think that such common sense is easily adopted is far too accepting.

Also Famine is correct, federally those charged with a felony can't legally own or purchase a firearm. So there is legal prevention for that too Grayfox

 

[Stotty]

No it doesn't Famine wrote it out for you, not sure if you have him on ignore, or you think the safe bet is to argue it out with me. We could go for weeks if you wish, I can fit you in.

I can ignore him? Please tell me how

I'm not arguing, just debating... and you're a member of the Society we're discussing.

Um when I do talk about the homicide rate I'm only speaking of children, a big portion of the CDC findings was in regards to school mass shooting, and as I've pointed out twice already you can see that on their website. Also they give info on school shooting, and NBC (which is not very gun friendly) also showed these findings and how though it may seem there are more shooting, it doesn't correlate into more children dead. It actually shows that less kids are dying due to gun violence and at 2% likelihood of it happening to any child.

CDC website is not exactly user friendly if you don't know what you're searching for, do you have a link to the statistics/article? It would surprise me if Wiki was significantly wrong as it appears very detailed.

Also murder is a reality, it is no more sad in a school or toward an innocent child sleeping in a urban neighborhood via gang violence. People are always dying due to another person's ignorance, and that is a reality but I never dictated to allow it because it is reality you came to that conclusion about me, which is yet again you being naive. Sorry if you don't like the reality of people being callous, but at the same time why should everyone give up their right to own a firearm responsibly due to it? Knee jerk reactions or emotion based decisions never lead to smart long term outcomes.

Unfortunately you're right there, murder is a reality in all societies

However, child murder should surely be perceived differently to gangs shooting each other or people dieing in robberies? And yes, I'd consider anyone callous who looks at the mass murder of children as simply a fact of life.

Ultimately, whether I'm right or wrong, I don't hear any other solutions being proposed... except for 'let's give teachers guns'.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I can ignore him? Please tell me how

I'm not arguing, just debating... and you're a member of the Society we're discussing.

Well there is a feature that if you go to his profile page and click the drop down it allows you to ignore users who post on all threads that you view (any thread). I doubt it will work on mods though

CDC website is not exactly user friendly if you don't know what you're searching for, do you have a link to the statistics/article? It would surprise me if Wiki was significantly wrong as it appears very detailed.

Rule of thumb is usually to trust the locked or other corresponding icons that inform you a good page, the star is another good indicator. Did you go to NBC's website they have the broadcast from last night to see exactly what I'm saying (only know how to embed youtube) so you don't have to read.

Unfortunately you're right there, murder is a reality in all societies

However, child murder should surely be perceived differently to gangs shooting each other or people dieing in robberies? And yes, I'd consider anyone callous who looks at the mass murder of children as simply a fact of life.

Ultimately, whether I'm right or wrong, I don't hear any other solutions being proposed... except for 'let's give teachers guns'.

That's great you see me as a callous individual, because I realize that children die all the time just like adults and neither should happen due to homicide or a preventable accident. Also you obviously misunderstood my gang example since it had to do with a child or children dying.

 

[Famine]

Ultimately, whether I'm right or wrong, I don't hear any other solutions being proposed... except for 'let's give teachers guns'.

I gave you three... Well, one, but with two discreet steps divided across three paragraphs

The USA is a young country founded on conflict. Technically it's 50 young countries, 13 of them founded by people seeking to escape persecution and then established by conflict and the other 37 by frontiersmanship and survivalism. Fighting, specifically "it's him or me" fighting, is in its nature and it's not had time to grow out of it yet. It's not how they kill each other that's the problem but that they choose to at all, and in such numbers!

To some in the USA, a firearm is a vital tool for survival. To some it's a livelihood. To many it's a hobby and, to the very rare few, it's an implement through which to express their anger. It makes as much sense to wipe out the hobbies, livelihoods and very survival of so many simply because a few use guns to deadly effect as it would to apply the same logic to cars.

What needs addressing is the anger, not the implement - the decision to kill, not the method. A knifeman may not kill as many victims, but he still chose to take their life and it's little comfort to the one person who died that there were fewer others than if he'd wielded a firearm.


Giving the malcontented miscreants who perpetrate spree killings all the fame they wish does not do this. Plastering their name, face, life and deeds across global media achieves the exact opposite. You say the number of school shootings has increased while the number of victims has fallen, drawing a link between firearm ownership rates and shootings (which your other statistics do not support), but you don't draw the link between how many young men of no obvious other talent are perpetrating the shootings and the expansion of 24hr global news, giving them fame all round the world?

It's attitudes that need addressing. It's a lot harder than blaming guns and making laws against them - it's less tangible for a start - but it's the only way to go. Given that the victims in spree shootings are always disarmed and the perpetrators are always illegally carrying firearms, making laws to take more guns off people which don't affect the people illegally carrying them doesn't seem a sane solution.

 

[Danoff]

Giving the malcontented miscreants who perpetrate spree killings all the fame they wish does not do this. Plastering their name, face, life and deeds across global media achieves the exact opposite.

So very much this ^!

But how we go about doing that is somewhat beyond me. Recent generations especially seem interested in fame and notoriety by any and every means. We only seem more and more happy to indulge those who choose violence as the means.

To take it a step further, the more we react to terrorism, the more terrorism is seen as a successful way to hit America and the more terrorism is likely to be used as a tool in the future. The underpands bomber puts the TSA in our underpands... the next guy is going to use an obvious body cavity in hopes that the TSA will finally cross a line that makes us refuse to fly.

 

[FoolKiller]

Obama is drawing up his next anti-gun campaign? I hate to break it to you, but Obama has done virtually nothing with gun control. He's not out to take away guns, he just doesn't care about the issue.

Weird, I could have sworn he assigned Joe Biden to head up a group on the issue (he did), I could have sworn he had legislation backed by that group go to Congress but fail to get the necessary votes (it did), and that just last month he called for a renewed push for gun control (he did).

I don't know what you call creating a task force, using them to enter bills into Congress, and using his position to give speeches about how we need to change if not a campaign, or at least trying to do something about it. He's had one bill go up for a vote and lose and another get stopped in committee.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Weird, I could have sworn he assigned Joe Biden to head up a group on the issue (he did), I could have sworn he had legislation backed by that group go to Congress but fail to get the necessary votes (it did), and that just last month he called for a renewed push for gun control (he did).

I don't know what you call creating a task force, using them to enter bills into Congress, and using his position to give speeches about how we need to change if not a campaign, or at least trying to do something about it. He's had one bill go up for a vote and lose and another get stopped in committee.

Wasn't this the same group that complained about how congress shut down the gov't over a bill that has passed and they said "should deal with it, it is the law and we won". Same could be said for gun legislation, Obama and co. lost yet they insist on continuing because they want it their way, just like the republicans wanted Obama care to go the way they wanted.

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't really see why, with anything in life those who use responsibly will condemn those who don't and jeopardize it for all. Clearly you still don't know why we argue for gun rights if you cant understand this simple matter.

Hahaha, I was paying you a compliment for saying something wise. Unfortunately this post will feature no such compliment.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Hahaha, I was paying you a compliment for saying something wise. Unfortunately this post will feature no such compliment.

I know what you were doing but it is unnecessary if you've paid attention to what we've said from the get go. Just because we like guns and own them doesn't mean we think people should be unsafe and not take measures to ensure others are safe. Same goes for the fact that I like to go to the local track and run my car, but don't think doing the same illegally on the street is right and a multitude of other things.

 

[hogger129]

I don't think all teachers should be armed (especially the annoying union types). The choice should be there for those that want to be.

Besides, I think having a liaison police officer in schools is a better idea. At least they can call for backup.

 

[STI9]

Not being from America I may have a different perspective on this than Americans but however. I honestly don't see how gun ownership is such a big deal in the USA? Saying that it is constitutional is ridiculous. The constitution is over 2000 years old, times have changed.

Is the solution to a gun problem really more guns? Does this mean that teachers will need to be put through gun training, get a license and possibly a raise to reflect the increased risk in the workplace?

 

[Zenith]

Not being from America I may have a different perspective on this than Americans but however. I honestly don't see how gun ownership is such a big deal in the USA? Saying that it is constitutional is ridiculous. The constitution is over 2000 years old, times have changed.

Is the solution to a gun problem really more guns? Does this mean that teachers will need to be put through gun training, get a license and possibly a raise to reflect the increased risk in the workplace?

I really don't get people who scroll past verbose posts like the ones Famine posted over the last couple days and think "Nope! My perspective is far too special snowflake to even consider that the possibility that these posts debunk my opinions! Better go ahead and post this nugget of gold and allow these fools to bask in my intellect's glory."

 

[FoolKiller]

Not being from America I may have a different perspective on this than Americans but however. I honestly don't see how gun ownership is such a big deal in the USA? Saying that it is constitutional is ridiculous. The constitution is over 2000 years old, times have changed.

Have you actually read it or do you just assume old means out of date? I guess your country rewrites everything every 50 years?

By the way, is this a typo?

The constitution is over 2000 years old

Please say no.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Not being from America I may have a different perspective on this than Americans but however. I honestly don't see how gun ownership is such a big deal in the USA? Saying that it is constitutional is ridiculous. The constitution is over 2000 years old, times have changed.

Is the solution to a gun problem really more guns? Does this mean that teachers will need to be put through gun training, get a license and possibly a raise to reflect the increased risk in the workplace?

Well everyone that buys a gun should go through training...and yeah they would need to do so. But training isn't that expensive a CCW class doesn't take much. Why would they need a license and what work related accidents do you expect?

Also you should really read what Zenith posted. Since you do seem to have trouble reading what others have.

 

[BobK]

Is the solution to a gun problem really more guns?

First of all, it's a people problem not a gun problem. There's a story going around in several variations about a guy who placed his shotgun next to his doorway and despite numerous opportunities, the gun never fired itself at anybody. The problem isn't the guns, it's the people pulling the triggers.

Does this mean that teachers will need to be put through gun training, get a license and possibly a raise to reflect the increased risk in the workplace?

Nobody is suggesting anything like this, although gun control advocates do try to raise this red herring.

Meanwhile Oregon, or at least one of its school districts, joins the list of places where teachers are allowed to bear arms.

Article.

 

[Rage Racer]

If this is about giving guns to strong, male teachers who know how to handle a gun - yes.
But arming all teachers, even those who are not used to gun wielding, is just unsafe. And in case of emergency, it'll be a "cut the foresight off" (do you know that joke?).

 

[Imari]

If this is about giving guns to strong, male teachers who know how to handle a gun - yes.

I see what you did there. Would you like some cake with your sexism?

 

[Rage Racer]

I see what you did there. Would you like some cake with your sexism?

No, I didn't mean that. Of course, some women are good with guns, too. I said "male" just to... make in image, you know.
I mean, not all teachers should carry guns on their work.

 

[Imari]

No, I didn't mean that. Of course, some women are good with guns, too. I said "male" just to... make in image, you know.
I mean, not all teachers should carry guns on their work.

Fair enough.

In which case yes, I do know what you mean. Someone who is confident and competent should be allowed a gun.

 

[hogger129]

Not being from America I may have a different perspective on this than Americans but however. I honestly don't see how gun ownership is such a big deal in the USA? Saying that it is constitutional is ridiculous. The constitution is over 2000 years old, times have changed.

Is the solution to a gun problem really more guns? Does this mean that teachers will need to be put through gun training, get a license and possibly a raise to reflect the increased risk in the workplace?

So the ideas of life, liberty and property, and the ability to protect it is 'outdated?'

Well everyone that buys a gun should go through training...and yeah they would need to do so. But training isn't that expensive a CCW class doesn't take much. Why would they need a license and what work related accidents do you expect?

Also you should really read what Zenith posted. Since you do seem to have trouble reading what others have.

Requiring people to get training to exercise their Second Amendment rights would violate their rights. It would be a denial of their due process rights. Just like poll taxes, etc.

If this is about giving guns to strong, male teachers who know how to handle a gun - yes.
But arming all teachers, even those who are not used to gun wielding, is just unsafe. And in case of emergency, it'll be a "cut the foresight off" (do you know that joke?).

...and DON'T give them to union teachers.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Requiring people to get training to exercise their Second Amendment rights would violate their rights. It would be a denial of their due process rights. Just like poll taxes, etc.

First off there is a simple feature called edit button.

Now, there is no violation of the second amendment. People would be required to carry them at a work place so they have the adequate ability to take down an assailant. I rather you not try and tell me about the second amendment right since I'm one of the gun nuts here and have be wells studied on the matter. I say everyone should because it makes logical sense, rather than having stupid gun owners that allow the perpetuation from the left to keep up this nonsense that guns are "evil" or "scary". I would never force someone but I'd highly recommend they do, also when you go get a CCW you have to do training anyways so not really seeing the point for crying foul.

Might want to read my political positions on 2012 Presidential Election thread to see that I'm quite fond of peoples rights not being violated.

 

[hogger129]

First off there is a simple feature called edit button.

Now, there is no violation of the second amendment. People would be required to carry them at a work place so they have the adequate ability to take down an assailant. I rather you not try and tell me about the second amendment right since I'm one of the gun nuts here and have be wells studied on the matter. I say everyone should because it makes logical sense, rather than having stupid gun owners that allow the perpetuation from the left to keep up this nonsense that guns are "evil" or "scary". I would never force someone but I'd highly recommend they do, also when you go get a CCW you have to do training anyways so not really seeing the point for crying foul.

Might want to read my political positions on 2012 Presidential Election thread to see that I'm quite fond of peoples rights not being violated.

It's hindering the right.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's hindering the right.

How so in a school setting? In everyday public life sure, but unless you know of some supreme court ruling that says having a gun or weapon and not being allowed to carry it on private lands is unconstitutional, I'd like to read it.

However, I will agree solutions need to be set with people not guns and one such solution for smarter use is would be proper training and care. Why this all or nothing attitude is quite asinine, and both sides of the party line perpetuate this just on opposites. Care to explain though?

 

[LeMansAid]

I know what you were doing but it is unnecessary if you've paid attention to what we've said from the get go. Just because we like guns and own them doesn't mean we think people should be unsafe and not take measures to ensure others are safe.

Are you sure?
I was pointing out how different approaches might be viewed from the other side, and noting what approach makes sense to me. Just seems that gun proponents could afford to in general hold back on what can come across as emotion, and stick with the wisest conversations. Wisest for the end result, that is. Gun opponents don't really have the same consequences. They can say stupid, uninformed things and it will for the most part, be quickly forgotten.

They need to agitate, you need to diffuse.

There's now been a couple of times that I've brought this up, but many of you seem to be far too short sighted to even look at it properly. Nicksfix has made a post for each side on the topic of the recent shooting:

As we speak, Obama, Feinstein, Bloomberg and all the other R-tards in Washington are drawing up their next anti-gun campaign.

These parents may be facing charges. One can only hope so.

First one comes across as the typical chest beating. Second, as a statement from a responsible gun owner, that is angry that other gun owners are not being responsible. Which one likely feeds the agitation, and which one likely diffuses?

It's the art of distraction.

 

[Imari]

Requiring people to get training to exercise their Second Amendment rights would violate their rights. It would be a denial of their due process rights. Just like poll taxes, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some states already require training for a concealed carry permit?

Police officers, military personnel and other public servants are all required to have training to carry their weapons in public. Why should teachers be exempt?

 

[Keef]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some states already require training for a concealed carry permit?

Police officers, military personnel and other public servants are all required to have training to carry their weapons in public. Why should teachers be exempt?

Yes, states which allow concealed carry require a basic knowledge and training course. However, at least in Ohio as well as many other states, open carry is perfectly legal without any training at all. It's legal for me to carry a gun on my hip cowboy-style and take my dog for a walk in the neighborhood. Of course, it's not a good idea because most people are scared little girls who are unaware of the law and will call the cops on you, but it's perfectly legal.

 

[BobK]

But arming all teachers, even those who are not used to gun wielding, is just unsafe.

Right. That's why nobody is suggesting that all teachers be armed, or requiring any teachers at all to be armed. This has been pointed out several times before in this thread, most recently in the post just before your "arming all teachers" post; why do people keep bring it up?