Teachers in Florida to be permitted to carry guns

Deebles McBeebles

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wow, the responses from a non-gun culture country are comical

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

Speaking as a parent....

steddyeddy

Noveight wrote: »

Seems to happen a bit with their cops. Taking this from the top of my heady but wasn't there an incident where a mentally disabled man carrying a toy car was shot or shot at?

The phrase "trigger-happy" seems apt at times.

Indeed it is apt. My problem is the American reliance on guns as a solution for every problem. Cops use them in situations you describe when another solution would work and now teachers use them case of a mass shooting. It's normalising a weapon that America has a major problem with.

Candamir

A friend of mine lives in Texas. There was an incident about a month ago at her daughters middle school. Two girls (about 14 years old) got into a fight after school while waiting for the school bus. They stopped fighting, one girl went on her way. The school security guard approached the second girl, and she got lippy with him. He tasered her.
There was outrage among the school community.
The outrage was because somebody shared the video of the incident on social media. Nobody seemed to think there was anything amiss with a grown security guard tasering a 14 year old girl.

The culture over there is beyond help I think.

steddyeddy

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wow, the responses from a non-gun culture country are comical

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

I work in Colorado a lot of the time. Interestingly you seem to view the opinions of posters from a country without mass shootings as being inferior to one with a gun crime problem.

mcmoustache

Noveight wrote: »

Seems to happen a bit with their cops. Taking this from the top of my heady but wasn't there an incident where a mentally disabled man carrying a toy car was shot or shot at?

The phrase "trigger-happy" seems apt at times.

Or the australian rape victim who was shot by a cop, "fearing for his life" when she approached a patrol car.

mcmoustache

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wow, the responses from a non-gun culture country are comical

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

This non-gun culture country seems to have solved the problem of school shootings. How's the gun-fetish country doing?

Noveight

mcmoustache wrote: »

Or the australian rape victim who was shot by a cop, "fearing for his life" when she approached a patrol car.

Hadn't seen or heard of that story. An unthinkably needless, tragic and avoidable death.

Boom_Bap

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wow, the responses from a non-gun culture country are comical

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

Yeah I've used loads of guns. But that was on targets in a controlled environment and not a pupil in a chaotic environment.

alchemist33

So you're a student with a grudge and a lot of anger and you want to shoot someone, but for some reason you can't get a gun. Now, praise be to the NRA, Mrs O'Reilly has one. Problem solved!

Noveight

Surely the opportunity for absolute carnage as a result of arming teachers in the US is much greater than the odds of some middle-aged John Rambo teacher taking down a school shooter?

Hector Savage

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Through his policies and actions all while lying through his teeth. Like any dictator.

Really?
I think the idea is as stupid as any sane person, but calling Trump a dictator ?
There is no way back from that, it's pure hyperbolic nonsense.

Dictator!!

This is why he was elected!

Manic Moran

jmayo wrote: »

And when this doesn't work will it be suggested that the kids can carry in school ?

You make it sound like there aren’t already 9 states where students can carry legally, or that it hasn’t been a thing since 2007. (Granted, since the normal age limits apply, these students are invariably in colleges)

Or that at the before Columbine, kids taking their rifles to school (obviously not concealed carry) to go plinking with friends after class wasn’t a thing.

The problem is not the guns.

Grayson wrote: »

Not to mention all the gun nuts forget the phrase regulated militia.

If you look up the history of it, for most of the time the right to bear arms was never interpreted as the right of an individual to have the kind of weapons we see today. It was interpreted as the right for an organised militia to exist.

Yes and no. Regulated today means “subject to regulation”. In the late 18th Century, it meant “working”. Regardless, the right to arms was considered so fundamental at the time, there was no particular thought given to the concept that the government might try to prohibit it. A lot of States didn’t think it was worth mentioning. Some did, though, see below.

Your second paragraph is patently wrong, and is a common result of people forgetting that there was a seismic shift in Constitutional law in the mid 19th century. The 2A was inserted to prohibit the federal government from preventing the States calling up their militias, it had no legal force on the individual because the concept of the Federal constitution applying to the individual or the State was not invented until Incorporation, in the late 1860s. What counted for individuals were State Constitutions and they often used different phrasing. Pennsylvania’s Constitutional right to arms pre-dates the Bill of Rights, and the 1790 version (the current one) states “The right of the citizens to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”. There isn’t much wiggle room in that, and nothing about militias, regulated or not. A bunch more States have similar phrasing in the pre-incorporation era, for example Mississippi (1817 Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State), that particular verbiage also shows up in a number of other States about the same time (eg CT 1818, AL 1819, KY 1789, MI 1835, OH 1802) and so on. It is instructive to look at what the State constitutions were saying at a time when the Federal constitution only limited federal law. In the 20th century, State constitutions have become even more explicit, Delaware, for example (1987 “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”).

The militias were folks who showed up with what they had, some of which were better suited to hunting than combat, so legislation at the end of the 18th century started mandating that when folks showed up, they had to have militarily useful weapons.

greencap

hmm yes, amendment.

from the verb 'amend'.


to make minor changes to (a text, piece of legislation, etc.) in order to make it fairer or more accurate, or to reflect changing circumstances.
"the rule was amended to apply only to non-members"
synonyms: revise, alter, change, modify, qualify, adapt, adjust;

whisky_galore

TeaBagMania wrote: »

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

Gun curious.
Does that turn you on? Speak guns n ammo to me.

Robert ninja

I wouldn't want maths teachers being required to carry lethal weapons but having an actual security system, armed or not, is definitely needed. We have varying degrees of security solutions for jewelry/tech stores, banks, ATMs, parks and parking locations but aren't protecting our children who are more important than any of that. Some colleges have security offices and a few security staff.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Robert ninja wrote: »

I wouldn't want maths teachers being required to carry lethal weapons but having an actual security system, armed or not, is definitely needed. We have varying degrees of security solutions for jewelry/tech stores, banks, ATMs, parks and parking locations but aren't protecting our children who are more important than any of that. Some colleges have security offices and a few security staff.

"Our" children? You in the US or elsewhere?

We (as most western societies outside of the US) don't need security systems because we don't put our kids in danger in the first place.

How many mass school shootings have there been IN the US, compared to OUTSIDE the US? And why?

evolving_doors

Manic Moran wrote: »

You make it sound like there aren’t already 9 states where students can carry legally, or that it hasn’t been a thing since 2007. (Granted, since the normal age limits apply, these students are invariably in colleges)

Or that at the before Columbine, kids taking their rifles to school (obviously not concealed carry) to go plinking with friends after class wasn’t a thing.

The problem is not the guns.




Yes and no. Regulated today means “subject to regulation”. In the late 18th Century, it meant “working”. Regardless, the right to arms was considered so fundamental at the time, there was no particular thought given to the concept that the government might try to prohibit it. A lot of States didn’t think it was worth mentioning. Some did, though, see below.

Your second paragraph is patently wrong, and is a common result of people forgetting that there was a seismic shift in Constitutional law in the mid 19th century. The 2A was inserted to prohibit the federal government from preventing the States calling up their militias, it had no legal force on the individual because the concept of the Federal constitution applying to the individual or the State was not invented until Incorporation, in the late 1860s. What counted for individuals were State Constitutions and they often used different phrasing. Pennsylvania’s Constitutional right to arms pre-dates the Bill of Rights, and the 1790 version (the current one) states “The right of the citizens to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”. There isn’t much wiggle room in that, and nothing about militias, regulated or not. A bunch more States have similar phrasing in the pre-incorporation era, for example Mississippi (1817 Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State), that particular verbiage also shows up in a number of other States about the same time (eg CT 1818, AL 1819, KY 1789, MI 1835, OH 1802) and so on. It is instructive to look at what the State constitutions were saying at a time when the Federal constitution only limited federal law. In the 20th century, State constitutions have become even more explicit, Delaware, for example (1987 “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”).

The militias were folks who showed up with what they had, some of which were better suited to hunting than combat, so legislation at the end of the 18th century started mandating that when folks showed up, they had to have militarily useful weapons.

That's so true. It's the bullets that kill.

evolving_doors

Robert ninja wrote: »

I wouldn't want maths teachers being required to carry lethal weapons but having an actual security system, armed or not, is definitely needed. We have varying degrees of security solutions for jewelry/tech stores, banks, ATMs, parks and parking locations but aren't protecting our children who are more important than any of that. Some colleges have security offices and a few security staff.

Never mind maths teachers, everyone knows home ec. teachers are the real psychos.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

evolving_doors wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

You make it sound like there aren’t already 9 states where students can carry legally, or that it hasn’t been a thing since 2007. (Granted, since the normal age limits apply, these students are invariably in colleges)

Or that at the before Columbine, kids taking their rifles to school (obviously not concealed carry) to go plinking with friends after class wasn’t a thing.

The problem is not the guns.




Yes and no. Regulated today means “subject to regulation”. In the late 18th Century, it meant “working”. Regardless, the right to arms was considered so fundamental at the time, there was no particular thought given to the concept that the government might try to prohibit it. A lot of States didn’t think it was worth mentioning. Some did, though, see below.

Your second paragraph is patently wrong, and is a common result of people forgetting that there was a seismic shift in Constitutional law in the mid 19th century. The 2A was inserted to prohibit the federal government from preventing the States calling up their militias, it had no legal force on the individual because the concept of the Federal constitution applying to the individual or the State was not invented until Incorporation, in the late 1860s. What counted for individuals were State Constitutions and they often used different phrasing. Pennsylvania’s Constitutional right to arms pre-dates the Bill of Rights, and the 1790 version (the current one) states “The right of the citizens to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”. There isn’t much wiggle room in that, and nothing about militias, regulated or not. A bunch more States have similar phrasing in the pre-incorporation era, for example Mississippi (1817 Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State), that particular verbiage also shows up in a number of other States about the same time (eg CT 1818, AL 1819, KY 1789, MI 1835, OH 1802) and so on. It is instructive to look at what the State constitutions were saying at a time when the Federal constitution only limited federal law. In the 20th century, State constitutions have become even more explicit, Delaware, for example (1987 “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”).

The militias were folks who showed up with what they had, some of which were better suited to hunting than combat, so legislation at the end of the 18th century started mandating that when folks showed up, they had to have militarily useful weapons.

That's so true. It's the bullets that kill.

Was it Chris Rock who said, "no problem with guns - but it so that bullets cost $5,000 each. Then you'll see people being more careful about pulling the trigger..."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

evolving_doors wrote: »

Never mind maths teachers, everyone knows home ec. teachers are the real psychos.

Radical Irish activist in my case.

Robert ninja

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Our" children? You in the US or elsewhere?

Does it matter? Security should be a standard at any place with children, especially if it's state-funded. Can't think of anything more important for the government to invest in. Much better than what they're wasting it on right now.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We (as most western societies outside of the US) don't need security systems

This is on another level of naivety and self destruction. Shocking.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How many mass school shootings have there been IN the US, compared to OUTSIDE the US? And why?

School shootings or indeed any mass/random shootings are not a huge concern for most people. It's an incredibly unlikely situation to find one's self in even in the US. But none of this means security should be discounted from schools. "Hey we're not the US" is not an excuse.. for anything.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And why?

Why is for psychology and economic fields to study. While they do, schools should to be secured. I've seen better security in Tesco. Businesses seem invested in security staff and systems throughout the working day. Good luck convincing them it's not a worthwhile investment.
Or are €2 packets of crumpets more important than the future blood of this country?

Berserker

Fiery mutant wrote: »

“There is no ****ing way I would allow my kids into a school where the teachers carry guns, not under any circumstances.”

frag420 wrote: »

Fook no, what the hell are you smoking?

Just to add that teaching is one of the most stressful jobs out there, you really want someone under daily stress to be carrying a gun in the vicinity of your child, really?

It's the best solution, given that people are always going to have the right to own/carry guns in the US. A potential disastrous situation in a synagogue near San Diego was avoided last weekend because the patrons were carrying guns and they were able to shoot the attacker. Allowing trained teachers to carry them is the best solution.

alchemist33 wrote: »

So you're a student with a grudge and a lot of anger and you want to shoot someone, but for some reason you can't get a gun. Now, praise be to the NRA, Mrs O'Reilly has one. Problem solved!

Not getting a gun is not going to happen. Any chance you could come up with a viable solution to the problem? You've more of a chance of closing every pub in Ireland and banning alcohol on Paddy's day.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Robert ninja wrote: »

Does it matter? Security should be a standard at any place with children, especially if it's state-funded. Can't think of anything more important for the government to invest in. Much better than what they're wasting it on right now.

um... actual education??

This is on another level of naivety and self destruction. Shocking.

In context, I was referring to schools specifically.

School shootings or indeed any mass/random shootings are not a huge concern for most people. It's an incredibly unlikely situation to find one's self in even in the US. But none of this means security should be discounted from schools. "Hey we're not the US" is not an excuse.. for anything.

Actually it is. We have a society where people are far less likely to go off on mass murder rages and are less likely to have stashes of guns with which to do it. We may as well spend money on making schools meteorite-proof. Or on planning for alien invasions.

This is not niave. This is proven statistical reality.

You can argue that US schools are preparing and still unlikely to have to deal with it, but fact is that in the US the societal environments and availablilty of weapons makes it much more likely to happen in any given US community.

Why is for psychology and economic fields to study. While they do, schools should to be secured. I've seen better security in Tesco. Businesses seem invested in security staff and systems throughout the working day. Good luck convincing them it's not a worthwhile investment.
Or are €2 packets of crumpets more important than the future blood of this country?

Perhaps we already have.

As for Tesco - well, why not Tesco? Why is a mass shooting less likely to occur at a Tesco in Ireland than at a school?

Robert ninja

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

um... actual education??

Already taken care of. (not without problems ofc)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

IActually it is. We have a society where people are far less likely to go off on mass murder rages and are less likely to have stashes of guns with which to do it.

Again, "we're not the US" is not an argument, especially for something as despicable as excusing the lack of protection of the most vulnerable and important lives.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This is not niave. This is proven statistical reality.

You're arguing with nobody. I already said it's an unlikely thing to happen, even in the US. And it doesn't matter.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

As for Tesco - well, why not Tesco? Why is a mass shooting less likely to occur at a Tesco in Ireland than at a school?

I already agreed that shootings are a very unlikely thing to happen. Tesco aren't worried about mass shootings either, yet they and many other business invest in security solutions. Less net guns in the country doesn't mean there aren't things to protect your children from and no excuse for having no/weak security.
There are worse things one can imagine happening to your child than a swift bullet to the head. https://find.globalmissingkids.org/

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Robert ninja wrote: »

Already taken care of. (not without problems ofc)

Again, "we're not the US" is not an argument, especially for something as despicable as excusing the lack of protection of the most vulnerable and important lives.

You're arguing with nobody. I already said it's an unlikely thing to happen, even in the US. And it doesn't matter.

I already agreed that shootings are a very unlikely thing to happen. Tesco aren't worried about mass shootings either, yet they and many other business invest in security solutions. Less net guns in the country doesn't mean there aren't things to protect your children from and no excuse for having no/weak security.
There are worse things one can imagine happening to your child than a swift bullet to the head. https://find.globalmissingkids.org/

My argument isn't "we're not the US", my argument is "we're not a fear-ridden trigger-happy gun-culture" and THIS is a far more effective and reliable way of protecting not just children in schools but pretty much the entire population from mass shootings. Security can only react AFTER a threat appears and people are killed, prevention operates BEFORE and is always going to be a much safer tactic.

Beyond that - exactly what levels of security in schools are you advocating?

Tesco do not hire trained and armed guards to protect against mass shootings.

Wanderer78

Good guys with guns, yippie!

steddyeddy

So the hypothesis again after this event seems to be gun control won't work in America even if it works elsewhere. Even if it did work we don't care.

Robert ninja

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My argument isn't "we're not the US", my argument is "we're not a trigger-haopy gun-culture"

Which is the same thing so yes it is your argument. Keep repeating it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Security can only react AFTER

No that's Garda Síochána. Private security staff and systems are in place throughout the working day (and even after).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

prevention operates BEFORE and is always going to be a much safer tactic.

You're arguing exactly my point. Security staff, technology and utilities are the strongest deterrents against the unsavory.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Beyond that - exactly what levels of security in schools are you advocating?

Security manager and office with robust, non-net based camera system would be an ideal minimum in my opinion. That's what I've seen at some colleges. The managers usually assign more security staff from there and the IT departments usually help for technical support.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Tesco do not hire trained and armed guards to protect against mass shootings.

How many times do I need to say shootings are not a bloody issue for the overwhelming majority of the population? There's businesses all over the EU who have trained security professionals; unarmed, non-lethal or lethal gear. It all depends on the businesses' budget and what they're protecting. For us it's government budget and children. We should do better. I'm sure our politicians are loving your excuses though. More money for them to spend on private aircraft and premium lifestyle.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Robert ninja wrote: »

Which is the same thing so yes it is your argument. Keep repeating it.

Interpret as you wish. You still haven't countered it though - you just said it was "niave" without saying why.

No that's Garda Síochána. Private security staff and systems are in place throughout the working day (and even after).

You're arguing exactly my point. Security staff, technology and utilities are the strongest deterrents against the unsavory.

No this is reaction. If someone wants to go on a shooting spree they're going to take out several people even before the best security staff are going to be able to react.

Security manager and office with robust, non-net based camera system would be an ideal minimum in my opinion. That's what I've seen at some colleges. The managers usually assign more security staff from there and the IT departments usually help for technical support.

The infinitestimal low level of risk involed makes this pointless.

The problem here is that you haven't evaluated risk management. If the threat was there, I'd totally agree with you. And if the money is there, I'd put it into areas where children are more likely to be killed.

How many kids have been killed on Irish roads v how many are killed in schools? How many are likely to be killed in the next five?

How many times do I need to say shootings are not a bloody issue for the overwhelming majority of the population? There's businesses all over the EU who have trained security professionals; unarmed, non-lethal or lethal gear. It all depends on the businesses' budget and what they're protecting. For us it's government budget and children. We should do better. I'm sure our politicians are loving your excuses though. More money for them to spend on private aircraft and premium lifestyle.

The government is not going to fund Tesco's security costs to what you advocate. As for schools - taxpayers don't even like funding teacher salaries let along security staff! And if there ARE the funds, put them where the risk is.

Berserker

steddyeddy wrote: »

So the hypothesis again after this event seems to be gun control won't work in America even if it works elsewhere. Even if it did work we don't care.

Gun control isn't an option in the US. It's just not going to happen. That's the reality of guns and life in the US.

uck51js9zml2yt

Guns in the classroom. Unruley child gets the choice of detention or a knee capping.

This will end well.

steddyeddy

Berserker wrote: »

Gun control isn't an option in the US. It's just not going to happen. That's the reality of guns and life in the US.

The same was said about a lot of things in America. It's not going to happen isn't helpful dialogue.

Robert ninja

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Interpret as you wish. You still haven't countered it though - you just said it was "niave" without saying why.

It's naive to think we don't need security solutions for the most vulnerable and precious lives in our country because "we're not as bad". It's naive to think we don't need security because we're a western society, as if that makes us a utopia. Oh wait which country was it that had generations of sickening abuse of children at the hands of of an unsupervised organisation?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No this is reaction. If someone wants to go on a shooting spree they're going to take out several people even before the best security staff are going to be able to react.

Unlikely to happen so not concern for most of Irish people. If you feel that worried about it though then you're only arguing for stronger security.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problem here is that you haven't evaluated risk management. If the threat was there, I'd totally agree with you.

No threat to children? You're something else mate. Where is this utopian country because I'm moving there ASAP.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problem here is that you haven't evaluated risk management. If the threat was there, I'd totally agree with you. And if the money is there, I'd put it into areas where children are more likely to be killed.

You're getting into specifics of a fantasy situation. I simply want a minimum standard of security for this country's children. You're waffling about uneven spending that isn't even happening. How about we get some security before we worry about the possibility of disproportionate geographic funding.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Robert ninja wrote: »

It's naive to think we don't need security solutions for the most vulnerable and precious lives in our country because "we're not as bad". It's naive to think we don't need security because we're a western society, as if that makes us a utopia. Oh wait which country was it that had generations of sickening abuse of children at the hands of of an unsupervised organisation?

Strawman. Never said that.

Unlikely to happen so not concern for most of Irish people. If you feel that worried about it though then you're only arguing for stronger security.

Isn't shooting sprees exactly what you're trying to secure people against? Or have I misunderstood you? If I have then apologies - but what are you trying to protect people from?

No threat to children? You're something else mate. Where is this utopian country because I'm moving there ASAP.

Again, strawman.

You're getting into specifics of a fantasy situation. I simply want a minimum standard of security for this country's children. You're waffling about uneven spending that isn't even happening. How about we get some security before we worry about the possibility of disproportionate geographic funding.

I'm talking about risk evaluation. Or are you deeming that unnesecary?

suicide_circus

an american solution to an american problem. it might work.

Itssoeasy

I mean why not what's the worst that could happen ? FFS I mean my memories of school is that some of the teachers would get very stressed very easily. My point the last thing some of the teachers in my secondary school needed was a gun.

steddyeddy

So I presume they're expected to act as a form of defense in mass shootings. That's a lot of pressure to put on someone.

handlemaster

On a matter of time that the very guns been used by the teachers will somehow be used on the kids. This is america after all

StinkyMunkey

The NRA solution with everything is more guns, and more guns mean more gun deaths, just like more cars on the roads mean more traffic accidents.

Better gun control or less guns will lower gun deaths.

The logic behind arming everyone so no gets shot is pure insanity. Your essentially adding more fuel to a fire in an effort to but it out.

Faugheen

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

The NRA solution with everything is more guns, and more guns mean more gun deaths, just like more cars on the roads mean more traffic accidents.

Better gun control or less guns will lower gun deaths.

The logic behind arming everyone so no gets shot is pure insanity. Your essentially adding more fuel to a fire in an effort to but it out.

More gun deaths mean more people buy guns to protect themselves.

More gun deaths also mean more scare-mongering from the NRA that people's guns will be taken away, so people end up going out to buy as many guns as they can.

The NRA are one of the worst organisations on the planet.

Manic Moran

steddyeddy wrote: »

So I presume they're expected to act as a form of defense in mass shootings. That's a lot of pressure to put on someone.

How much pressure is on a teacher who is in a mass shooting incident to begin with? Even if they just hunker down, kids behind them, with the gun permanently aimed at the door, that is a much better survival chance for the people in that room than not.

Faugheen wrote: »

More gun deaths mean more people buy guns to protect themselves.

More gun deaths also mean more scare-mongering from the NRA that people's guns will be taken away, so people end up going out to buy as many guns as they can.

The NRA are one of the worst organisations on the planet.

When one gets past the hyperbole being spouted at the leadership levels, on the ground they do still do quite a lot for shooters. Not many organizations will teach firearms safety for free if you just call up and ask (but people who go “ugh NRA” don’t think or want to ask). 2017 tax year (the most recent available), they spent $3m on political support, $22m on lobbying, legal cases etc, and $140m on services. People only ever hear about the first two. I’m not a member because I disagree with the idiocy at the top and don’t wish membership to be confused with support of their stance, but the organization itself has much to commend it.

joe40

Are they actively arming and training teachers, or just making it legal for a teacher to have a gun in school.
Was this illegal beforehand. My impression of some American states is you can virtually carry your gun anywhere.
I don't know so can stand to be corrected

greencap

Berserker wrote: »

Gun control isn't an option in the US. It's just not going to happen. That's the reality of guns and life in the US.

but it already is in legislation, and working.

there are certain types of guns you cant buy.

so the realisation is there. its just down to lack of will or inability now.

greencap

suicide_circus wrote: »

an american solution to an american problem. it might work.

lol. nope. this will end in horrible disaster(s).

Faugheen

Manic Moran wrote: »

When one gets past the hyperbole being spouted at the leadership levels, on the ground they do still do quite a lot for shooters. Not many organizations will teach firearms safety for free if you just call up and ask (but people who go “ugh NRA” don’t think or want to ask). 2017 tax year (the most recent available), they spent $3m on political support, $22m on lobbying, legal cases etc, and $140m on services. People only ever hear about the first two. I’m not a member because I disagree with the idiocy at the top and don’t wish membership to be confused with support of their stance, but the organization itself has much to commend it.

Like give them the ability to buy guns so they can shoot up schools?

Like scare-monger people into thinking everyone’s guns are going to be taken away when there’s any suggestion of gun control when it’s absolutely not the case?

Like lobbying for the ability to use military style weapons such as AR15s which no ordinary civilian needs to have?

They can give out all the free safe-use lessons they want, but when that organisation looks at the survivors of school shootings in the face and say this isn’t the fault of guns, they lose all credibility.

The fact the NRA kicked up a massive fuss when Obama wanted the CDC to study gun violence tells me everything I need to know about them. Why, if they’re so concerned about the health and safety of Americans, would they be so angry about the idea of studying gun violence?

They’re a scummy organisation.

Manic Moran

Faugheen wrote: »

Like give them the ability to buy guns so they can shoot up schools?

Or do whatever lawful things may be done with a firearm. A substantial more firearms are bought to not shoot up schools, much as a substantial number of vehicles are not purchased as getaway cars, no matter how much Ford advertises the performance and handling of the Mustang.

Like scare-monger people into thinking everyone’s guns are going to be taken away when there’s any suggestion of gun control when it’s absolutely not the case?

Not everyone’s, no, it seems to be a case of salami tactics. Fortunately, the courts aren’t on board, so the California ban on anything other than limited capacity magazines was invalidated because it violated the Takings Clause, for example. That said, they do occasionally. cross into hyperbole. They are far from the only organization or opinion to do so, however. There have been a few posters in this thread putting forth a parade of horribles, without realizing that much of their parade is already legal and the horribles have not resulted.

Like lobbying for the ability to use military style weapons such as AR15s which no ordinary civilian needs to have?

There are many things which you probably don’t need to have. The reason that the AR-style firearm is the most popular rifle in the US yet is responsible for such a minuscule portion of firearms deaths is that it is the most universally suitable single firearm for a large variety of lawful roles. One AR can replace a few other rifles.

They can give out all the free safe-use lessons they want, but when that organisation looks at the survivors of school shootings in the face and say this isn’t the fault of guns, they lose all credibility.

What is incorrect in saying that though the number of families with firearms has decreased, though the restrictions on firearms have increased, that the number of spree shootings have also increased indicates that the problem is not the guns? Something changed societally in the US in the last two decades, and it was not the guns which have been there before the era of school shootings, and have been there afterwards.

The fact the NRA kicked up a massive fuss when Obama wanted the CDC to study gun violence tells me everything I need to know about them. Why, if they’re so concerned about the health and safety of Americans, would they be so angry about the idea of studying gun violence?

They aren’t. There is a common perception that the NRA has managed to get congress to prohibit the CDC from studying gun violence. There is not, and has never been such a prohibition and the CDC has published studies on anything from the effect of the 1994 assault weapons ban in 2003 to the most recent piece being a study on firearms homicides and suicides in major metropolitan areas, released November 2018. The prohibition, emplaced in 1996 after indications that the CDC had a goal of firearms control, is on the CDC from using funds advocating a political position on the subject. (The exact verbiage is “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control”).

They can research the hell out of firearms violence, nobody is stopping them. The brouhaha about 2013 over it was the attempt to remove this verbiage. The attempt failed, and Obama directed the CDC study anyway. It is also worth observing that though the CDC will claim issues that their funding is insufficient to do a lot of gun violence research and that they have to prioritize actual disease (Ebola, measles, the things they are good at), that is not a problem that the National Institute of Justice (Part of the DoJ) faces, and one can very well argue that that is the department which is supposed to be doing the research on criminal misuse of firearms to begin with. They certainly are making them, there is one undergoing right now (at the cost of a half million dollars) entitled “The Nature, Trends, Correlates and Prevention of Mass Shootings in the United States 1976-2018”, and there are over 20 other ongoing studies on firearms if you go the the NIJ’s Gun Violence page. Do you hear the NRA (or anyone else) objecting to the DoJ doing research on this or on any other firearms matter?

AllForIt

As long as any nutter can easily get their hands on a gun then teachers may as well have them as well. I really don't see why one would think it's better for nutter to have them and at the same time teachers not have them. That seems like the worst of both worlds to me.

Obviously the better solution is that civilian can't own guns but that is not the case in the US.

ceadaoin.

AllForIt wrote: »

As long as any nutter can easily get their hands on a gun then teachers may as well have them as well. I really don't see why one would think it's better for nutter to have them and at the same time teachers not have them. That seems like the worst of both worlds to me.

Obviously the better solution is that civilian can't own guns but that is not the case in the US.

Being a teacher and being a nutter are not mutually exclusive.

Charles Ingles

Great news Florida just became the safest place to send your children to school in America.
Florida will be a state free of mass shooting now

Faugheen

Manic Moran wrote: »

Or do whatever lawful things may be done with a firearm. A substantial more firearms are bought to not shoot up schools, much as a substantial number of vehicles are not purchased as getaway cars, no matter how much Ford advertises the performance and handling of the Mustang.

..and allow maniacs to get their hands on them to shoot up schools.

You can say ‘but look at the good things that happen’ all you want, but NRA policies and lobbying allow for the loss of human life, sometimes by the dozen.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not everyone’s, no, it seems to be a case of salami tactics. Fortunately, the courts aren’t on board, so the California ban on anything other than limited capacity magazines was invalidated because it violated the Takings Clause, for example. That said, they do occasionally. cross into hyperbole. They are far from the only organization or opinion to do so, however. There have been a few posters in this thread putting forth a parade of horribles, without realizing that much of their parade is already legal and the horribles have not resulted.

That has nothing to do what I said.

The NRA keeps telling people that their guns are being taken away anytime there’s any hint of gun control talk post a mass shooting, to stir up trouble.

Then their policies allow maniacs to shoot up schools, rinse and repeat.

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are many things which you probably don’t need to have. The reason that the AR-style firearm is the most popular rifle in the US yet is responsible for such a minuscule portion of firearms deaths is that it is the most universally suitable single firearm for a large variety of lawful roles. One AR can replace a few other rifles.

No ordinary civilian needs a military-style assault weapon, for anything.

Manic Moran wrote: »

What is incorrect in saying that though the number of families with firearms has decreased, though the restrictions on firearms have increased, that the number of spree shootings have also increased indicates that the problem is not the guns? Something changed societally in the US in the last two decades, and it was not the guns which have been there before the era of school shootings, and have been there afterwards.

The problem is guns because people have such easy access to guns.

You take away that extremely easy access to guns and these rates go down. It’s that simple.

Manic Moran wrote: »

They aren’t. There is a common perception that the NRA has managed to get congress to prohibit the CDC from studying gun violence. There is not, and has never been such a prohibition and the CDC has published studies on anything from the effect of the 1994 assault weapons ban in 2003 to the most recent piece being a study on firearms homicides and suicides in major metropolitan areas, released November 2018. The prohibition, emplaced in 1996 after indications that the CDC had a goal of firearms control, is on the CDC from using funds advocating a political position on the subject. (The exact verbiage is “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control”).

They can research the hell out of firearms violence, nobody is stopping them. The brouhaha about 2013 over it was the attempt to remove this verbiage. The attempt failed, and Obama directed the CDC study anyway.

And why hadn’t the CDC done any research before then? Because the NRA accused them of being biased and in favour of gun control.

You’re clearly not going to be convinced so I’ll leave it there.