Some people might find this interesting: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
Good Didn’t deter. Good guys with gun didnt work. Here is what I think would deter. Teachers and students open carry AR15.
That's fair, I shouldn't have said it was "proven", but the result of the studies done on the assault weapons ban tried between 1994-2004 concluded that while the ban succeeded in having fewer assault rifles used in things like school shootings, it did not result in fewer school shootings and did not decrease the lethality of those attacks. It also did not decrease the overall number or lethality of mass shootings as a whole. So, sure, it's not really "proven", but that's what the studies done on the assault weapons ban we had in this country about 14 years ago concluded.
No I understood your point. You're deliberately trying to make the focus on SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, and not MASS SHOOTINGS in general. Hence my sarcastic reply. LOL You're not fooling anybody. But again, you and simpleton Trump believe arming TEACHERS is a great idea. Now they're supposed to act as defacto security guards (while paying them minimum wage) in addition to their main responsibility- teaching? A lot of things can go wrong here. But obviously GUNS aren't a problem. Even though AR-15s were used in all of the most deadliest mass shootings: Las Vegas, Orlando Pulse Night Club, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas etc etc. You pivot and try to make it about school shootings only. Exactly how will a TEACHER with a handgun stop a mass shooter with an AR 15 anyways? Simpleton Trump and @Bobbythegreat
Almost exactly the same as my wife (with the exception of the last sentence of your first paragraph in that my wife is not a republican and did not vote for the Twit in Charge). My wife will be the first to throw her self in front of her kids. She is an amazingly strong and caring person who will do anything to protect them...but she will not carry a gun. She works in a school that is rural and roughly 95% Title 1. Too many things that can go wrong in a classroom of 7 yr-olds.
So far, I haven't heard one teacher or spouse of a teacher think the NRA's absurdist idea is a good one. Big surprise. It's just a deflection method, another obfuscation, hoping the fervor dies down again, until the next episode of This American Carnage (TM, 45).
Ehh I wouldn't make such a broad statement. There are definitely teachers in very rural conservative regions who want this. I think they are silly but they definitely want this .
I hear you, and I'm sure that there are supporters. My statement was about what I've heard. Just on this board and in my life and in an extended survey of teachers I know or that friends know (mainly suburban)... they all think it's both unworkable and completely stupid. It might actually be feasible in some rural areas and in small classrooms. But... how many mass slayings do we have in those areas? My point is: this is not a solution, and serious people know it.
Here's one perspective I saw on the news. http://abcn.ws/2oryxtl For the states that already allow teachers to carry, a lot require the administration to be aware and for them to go through psychological evaluations. I'm not in favor of Trump incentivizing teachers to carry, but I'm open to not banning it as long as there are safety measures in place.
Yeah that' it!! Have bullets flying in all directions. That'l keep our kids safe. "Better do your homework Jimmy, or mister Sampson is gonna bust a cap in yo ass!!"
How reliable is fingerprint sensor (FPS)? It's on almost every advanced phone and notebook. Fast and reliable. All semi-automatic guns should have a FPS, and an override to disable it. Keep your guns, have your protection in your house, even have your protection outside your house, but in gun free zones, they will be disabled. Still got millions of guns to worry about, but that can be handled over time. Trade-in for these new guns as one possibility.
Since we already went through this in the other thread, here's what the studies generally conclude: - The assault weapons ban, on its own, for a 10 year period, had mixed effectiveness. There are some statistics that point to a slowing of mass shootings during this period. And that crimes commited with assault weapons were down. But on the whole, it was "mixed" in terms of effectiveness. From a neutral scientific study: "The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines]." Eg. overall gun crime flat, but assault weapon crime down. Bear in mind, given the multitude of other factors that play into crime and gun crime, the fact that assault weapon crime specifically was down (bolded, underlined part), from an an ban on assault weapons, generally points to the fact that the ban worked. - Studies on the whole prove, apples to apples (eg. not comparing America to Guatemala) comparisons show a positive relationship between gun ownership per capita and gun deaths per capita. America's place on this chart (again, ELIMINATING countries that aren't applicable) is TO THE RIGHT (way way way way way more guns per capita) and UP (more gun deaths per capita). - The above relationship also generally holds true if you replace gun deaths with gun homicides. The main difference here is you're removing suicides by gun, with suicides by gun actually making up 50%+ of gun deaths. So the relationship still holds. But even ignoring that, we SHOULDN'T be ignoring gun suicides. We should ABSOLUTELY want to limit those, too. There are many studies with suicide survivors where they all say don't know what they were thinking, if only they could get by that moment, etc. Making suicides "harder", generally, should be a VERY important motivator for restricting access to guns. - Studies show there are outliers to all of this, which points to a MULTITUDE of other issues at play. Culture, socioeconomics, etc. Which is why you have pockets of first world countries where you might not see the relationship hold. - Studies have sown, repeatedly, that gun ownership DOES NOT result in increased safety. In fact we actually have some studies that point to the opposite (via accidental gun injuries and, more importantly, a mentality change - oh, I have a gun, I can take more risks). Some of these studies even point to the fact that crimes are deterred by gun ownership in something like 1% or less of all crimes in America. Eg. in most cases, gun owners do not have the ability to use their guns to deter crime. - Again, there are outliers to the above study, and certainly it is looking at it on a entire population / set basis, not individually. So you, or anyone, as an individual can say "yeah, maybe that's true on the whole, but there are outliers to that (where gun owners have ABSOLUTELY) used their guns to help protect themselves or others, or their or others property. And I want to be one of those outliers"... which is fine, but just bear in mind, stats aren't everything, but on the whole they say what they say. - Gun violence, and violence generally, isn't SOLELY about access to guns or weapons. There's LOT of factors involved. America is a violent country, on the whole, relative to other first world countries. And stats, as anyone who follows advanced sports analytics can tell you, can be misleading. If you look at sexual assaults per capita, you'll see see Sweden with the FAR lead. Sweden?? Wtf?? How does that make sense?? Well, Sweden also is a leading country when it comes to gender equality. And what you see is in countries with high gender equality, you see MORE reports of sexual assaults.. because its reported. In Sweden's case in particular, not only is this true, they also have a much broader definition of sexual assault, again by virtue of them being a more gender equal country... so you have much higher reporting of the actual sexual assaults that occur, and much higher classification of those crimes as sexual assaults. Of course, if you were just looking at the stats, you'd say "Sweden has a sexual assault problem"... which might still be true. But the point is, sure, all of these stats require further diligence... So, research it. FYI, there were links to all these studies in the prior thread (I provided) Things that weren't talked about at that point (between me and bobby... and any others): - Gun data isn't the most well researched thing. I've seen some studies on gun use to deter crime, for example, which has it in the 20k-30k times a year in America to others that have it in the 4 million times a year. Mind you, while there are truly studies that have that high a number, FBI statistics show TOTAL 2016 violent crime in America occurred 1.2 million times, with property crime occurring 7.9 million times. So no, there's absolutely no way there was 4 million cases of guns deterring crime, much less 2 million or 1 million... it's not logically possible, especially in light of all the other studies. The reason there isn't enough data here... is BECAUSE OF THE NRA, which uses its money and influence to restrict research - The use of armed guards / more security. Personally, I'm actually in favor of this relative to our schools. That said, again, the more this is discussed, the more we see how relatively little impact it would cause. We have stats that show in high pressure situations, ACTUAL police officers have something like a 20% hit rate. We have the fact that school itself HAD AN ARMED SECURITY OFFICER... a "good guy with a gun", and it was useless. Cause he was scared... understandably. Here's another one: http://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/...-situation-leaves-one-shot-another-in-custody The same day as the MSD shooting, a homeless guy in Amarillo holds a bunch of people hostage with a gun. A good guy, not armed, is able to get the gun and the homeless guy at bay. The police show up AND SHOOT the good guy. They note "it was a complex situation". - The GOP, right and pro gun folks position on these student activists. "Oh, they're just being emotional." "Oh, they're just kids, they don't understand all the issues!". Which is juxtaposed by this very same group of people wanting it to be ok for these kids to own guns. Which is laughable. It's like make up your mind. Either their emotional morons, as all teenagers are, which points to a clear policy which would be no guns at all until 21, or they're mature enough to own guns, in which case, STOP BELITTLING THEM. - Mental health. Yes, mental health is a HUGE issue. We should be taking every action to improve mental health. Not just because of school shootings, but generally. Mind you, the GOP will argue endlessly about how we should fund this (certainly not via the government, right??), but if there is agreement on more/better resources towards mental health issues, then let's pursue that. But also, BEAR IN MIND, mental health issues aren't unique to America. Other comparable countries have mental health issues. Some moreso, some less so. Also, mental health issues aren't unique to men. Women in America also have mental health issues. People in other countries are less likely to own guns. And women are less likely to own guns. So fewer mass casualties and gun deaths / homicides in those situations. Not surprising...
PART 2 -------------- Sorry for the long reply folks. This **** isn't rocket science, regardless of what the GOP, NRA and pro gun lovers might tell you. Facts that further NEVER come up, but are relevant: - The 2nd Amendment isn't an unlimited right. NONE of our rights are. They are all infringed upon. If you are PRO GUNs, but also okay with/in favor of some of the existing infringements, your position is moronic. Gun ownership is ALREADY restricted by the NFA (National Firearms Act). You can't own a working tank. Automatic weapons are illegal in certain cases. In reality, your position should be either (1) No gun restrictions at all, or (2) gun restrictions are ok, so when I argue for the need for guns, I'm definitely NOT going to bring up the 2nd amendment. The second amendment doesn't use the word guns. If you are ok with certain restrictions, then the argument is where the line should be drawn, not that a line should be drawn. - But what about the event we need to use our guns to stage a coup??? Lol, ok. Please, this is a dumb argument and should never be argued by anyone pro gun anywhere in America. A coup?? Against our military complex?? C'mon. - But what about our personal safety? Well, see study comments above. But, I'm not an idiot. I, or my family, might be in situations where a gun would be useful as defense at some point. Even if statistics say one thing, I might still rather be safe than sorry. But guess what. There's OTHER forms of weapons. That can be VERY effective. And there'd be A LOT of other forms of weapons that could be effective if there was $$$$$ involved. Which there would be if guns were way more heavily restricted. - But what about how difficult it will be to drive change in America. Yeah, no ****, this is hard. You have to start somewhere. - But what about cars? I've heard this one before. Everyone has. Cars can and have been used as weapons in mass casualties. And more people die in car wrecks than gun homicides, for sure. Well, cars, OBVIOUSLY, have a ton of other purposes. Guns are solely weapons. They aren't designed to be a can opener that oh by the way can also shoot things. They're designed to inflict violence. But beyond that, there's all kinds of rules and regulations already with regard to car ownership and use. And beyond all that, if cars became regular weapons in mass casualty events, you'd ABSOLUTELY see changes to the laws. Again, sorry for the length. I just think this is made way more complicated than it needs to be... I also have multiple children, who will eventually be in high school, and because I have more than one I will have at least one child in high school for like 10 straight years. Then of course there's college, and heck middle school and these days elementary school. Relative to arming teachers. In my view, you have to try some different things that what we're currently doing. So definitely, test it out, try it, see if its feasible. I've been around A LOT of public school teachers. And this is to in NO WAY denigrate them... those aren't exactly snipers or green berets. But sure, let's try it. But its possible to recognize this is a multi-faceted issue, with many approaches to improvement. But it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to make a logical, truly informed, intelligent case that guns and gun access aren't a huge part of the issue.
I realize you're being sarcastic...but it is a relevant point. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel about any of my teachers carrying a gun. My best guess is that I would've asked to be transferred to another class...and my parents would've demanded it.
Look the solution is easy. The first step it let private corporations bid to run schools and educate children, similar to how some prisons are ran. We can even have some corporations get into the bidding, so that they can stress the importance of skills for future employment. The second step is to have the corporations that run the schools sub contract out the need for private security to a security service. There can be 5-6 armed security guards and barbed wire fences to keep out intruders. It seems like over kill but we could even have an armed tower to ensure that no one breaks in. The third step is to have state standards for schools, as long as these standards are met the private corporations can have control of any courses taught or discipline. The fourth step is to not make school mandatory. If someone wants to drop out at 12, they should be able to.
