Florida High School Shooting

[[DHT]Osiris]

So this is your reason that the person I entrusted with my child's safety should not be allowed to defend my child? In Florida, multiple teachers sacraficed their lives and bodies to sheild kids from bullets. I would like them to have the option to shoot the bad guy insead of blocking the bullets with their body. What is the purpose of an armed guard? Why do they exist? Why do people pay money to employ armed guards? Why should we NOT protect our most precious and defenseless members of society with the best means possible?

Because as evidence from the fact that the guard at this school didn't intervene, having guns in schools does NOT ensure that an active shooter situation will be halted. Our 'most precious and defenseless members of society' should be protected by ensuring they don't get into a situation where they're being shot at, not adding more bullets in the air hoping the ones from the 'good guys' hit their mark.

 

[K1052]

Gun company stocks are tanking as Scott proposes new restrictions, companies start pulling away from the NRA, and other states consider new laws.

 

[realibrad]

Gun company stocks are tanking as Scott proposes new restrictions, companies start pulling away from the NRA, and other states consider new laws.

This may be it. Dead HS kids is apparently more of an issue than Sandyhook.

 

[pauldun170]

Because as evidence from the fact that the guard at this school didn't intervene, having guns in schools does NOT ensure that an active shooter situation will be halted. Our 'most precious and defenseless members of society' should be protected by ensuring they don't get into a situation where they're being shot at, not adding more bullets in the air hoping the ones from the 'good guys' hit their mark.

I'm losing track of talking points...

Is the current narrative that guns don't kill people, non-hero's kill people?
That the solution is to staff schools with more armed Heroes?

 

[vi edit]

Because as evidence from the fact that the guard at this school didn't intervene, having guns in schools does NOT ensure that an active shooter situation will be halted. Our 'most precious and defenseless members of society' should be protected by ensuring they don't get into a situation where they're being shot at, not adding more bullets in the air hoping the ones from the 'good guys' hit their mark.

And speaking as a parent of a 6 year old and a 10 year old, I don't really want my kids have to live in an environment where armed guards IN A GRADE SCHOOL is a reality. There is a much more holistic approach to this that must be taken.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm losing track of talking points...

Is the current narrative that guns don't kill people, non-hero's kill people?
That the solution is to staff schools with more armed Heroes?

Not sure which talking points you're looking for, I'm just stating what seems obvious to me. Adding firearms to schools doesn't guarantee a damned thing, and if I were putting money on it, I'd wager it would cause more issues than it would solve.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

And speaking as a parent of a 6 year old and a 10 year old, I don't really want my kids have to live in an environment where armed guards IN A GRADE SCHOOL is a reality. There is a much more holistic approach to this that must be taken.

As an uncle to three in that age range, I agree. The toughest thing grade schoolers should have to deal with is bullies, fights over women, and rejection. Not authoritarian police forces, active shooter training, and blood.

 

[pauldun170]

Not sure which talking points you're looking for, I'm just stating what seems obvious to me. Adding firearms to schools doesn't guarantee a damned thing, and if I were putting money on it, I'd wager it would cause more issues than it would solve.

Not looking for any talking points really.
I also had no disagreements with your post.

 

[IJTSSG]

Not sure which talking points you're looking for, I'm just stating what seems obvious to me. Adding firearms to schools doesn't guarantee a damned thing, and if I were putting money on it, I'd wager it would cause more issues than it would solve.

Lots of teachers are armed in Utah. How many issues have they had?

 

[Younigue]

So your argument is that we shouldn't protect our kids? As a parent, I can assure you that your argument fucking sucks. I want people whom I entrust with my children to protect them.

Then keep them home. When they are old enough put them in military school. Don't expect or even count on the average person (yes, even educators) to become soldiers or law enforcement to protect your children. They want to educate them not throw their lives in front of then. That doesn't mean they won't but even with a gun there is no guarantee they will. The armed officer on the premises with a military background probably believed he could and would, he did not. You're asking people with no inclination toward "serve and protect" to take a military or law enforcement oath by asking them not only to carry but to be someone they are not... or I'm assuming they would have chosen career paths where ending life was a distinct possibility rather than helping a life by educating it and helping it to thrive.

It took 6 minutes for that boy to kill 17 people. Any safe scenario where a teacher could access a gun (because I would hope the guns would be stored safely) would likely take that long. The guns certainly can't be in desks or purses.

These people entering these venues with the intention to perpetrate mass murder typically don't expect to survive it. Teachers with guns won't deter them.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Lots of teachers are armed in Utah. How many issues have they had?

Hell if I know. Probably not many, given that you're bringing it up. That doesn't translate to 'no issues' if a similar notion is deployed across the entire US. Not every state is Utah, nor are all residents identical to Utahians.

You are not going to convince me that arming a given percentage of teachers in tens of thousands of schools across the US is going to improve this situation.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So your argument is that we shouldn't protect our kids? As a parent, I can assure you that your argument fucking sucks. I want people whom I entrust with my children to protect them.

Problem is who is qualified enough? I'm sure there are a handful or two former Navy Seals or other expert marksmen around who decided to be school teachers. I'm perfectly fine with them being armed.
Reality is that would only apply to a handful or two of people across the entire US, plus Insurance, liability and basic stuff like where is the gun kept or what happens if it misfires or god forbid there is a shooting and what do the Police do when they show up and there are two guys with guns.

Full disclosure I have no kids.

 

[vi edit]

Hell if I know. Probably not many, given that you're bringing it up. That doesn't translate to 'no issues' if a similar notion is deployed across the entire US. Not every state is Utah, nor are all residents identical to Utahians.

You are not going to convince me that arming a given percentage of teachers in tens of thousands of schools across the US is going to improve this situation.

It's just going to change the tactics a bit. If someone wants to mow down a school they are just going to wait for a football game to end and open fire as people come through the stadium gates or in the parking lot. There's so many different approaches that somebody of that conviction can take that any and all hardening or arming won't solve. Hence the need for more intelligent, broad and long term solutions.

 

[pauldun170]

Lots of teachers are armed in Utah. How many issues have they had?

Just one incident where one of them shot them self in the leg back in 2014.
There have still been a couple of shooting incidents in Utah, but like most incidents they are disputes between individuals. Also rare.
Some people just don't know how to argue properly. If guns are legally available, there is NOTHING that is going to stop an argument from turning murdery on school grounds if one of the individuals is feeling murdery that day..

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It's just going to change the tactics a bit. If someone wants to mow down a school they are just going to wait for a football game to end and open fire as people come through the stadium gates or in the parking lot. There's so many different approaches that somebody of that conviction can take that any and all hardening or arming won't solve. Hence the need for more intelligent, broad and long term solutions.

Careful everyone, we've just had a sudden outbreak of common sense.

Better watch out or it could become epidemic. Then we'd really be in for it.

 

[pauldun170]

It's just going to change the tactics a bit. If someone wants to mow down a school they are just going to wait for a football game to end and open fire as people come through the stadium gates or in the parking lot. There's so many different approaches that somebody of that conviction can take that any and all hardening or arming won't solve. Hence the need for more intelligent, broad and long term solutions.

Nerd

 

[Younigue]

So teachers with guns... the death toll report in Florida would have been 26(?) dead, 9 due to friendly fire. No reason to mourn those deaths because their killers were heroes.

 

[Younigue]

@Pipeline 1010 , how do you suppose mourning would be different for a parent that lost their child to friendly fire?

 

[BoomerD]

Oregon just became the first state to expand laws to remove firearms from the possession of dangerous individuals. Many other states to follow.

Unfortunately, "dangerous individuals" will always find a way to get guns beyond the legal methods...

"GUNS" are not the problem...they're merely tools. However, ready access to those tools by people by people who are mentally unstable...or those whose intent is to use those tools to commit crimes.........

The USA will never get rid of guns. They're too deeply ingrained into our national being...and part of the US Constitution. Hell, I've known more than a few "gun nuts" who firmly believe that ANY type of gun control legislation is unconstitutional, since nowhere in that document does it give the government the right to decide WHO can have guns, where they can carry them, (beyond, perhaps private property) or even what kind of guns they can have.
We'll never legislate our way out of the school shootings problems by passing gun laws. There are too many guns, in too many hands, that are too freely available for those who know where to look...or those willing to use any method to obtain them...
I don't have the answers, hell, I wish I did...I'd be rich, but passing feel-good laws isn't gonna fix the problem. (look at Chicago...the city with the most stringent gun control laws in the nation...has the most gun-related killings each year.)

 

[Phynaz]

The positive outcome of this tragedy is it's looking like the one that will move the needle. I think it could be the last straw and finally gets some action.

 

[IJTSSG]

Hell if I know. Probably not many, given that you're bringing it up. That doesn't translate to 'no issues' if a similar notion is deployed across the entire US. Not every state is Utah, nor are all residents identical to Utahians.

You are not going to convince me that arming a given percentage of teachers in tens of thousands of schools across the US is going to improve this situation.

Is "no issues" a realistic goal? Nothing is risk free. I only bring up Utah because it appears to be working so far and plenty of people in this forum continue to throw up examples of other countries gun laws as examples of success. I guess my response to that should be "not all countries are American and not all people are Americans". Seems shortsighted.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Is "no issues" a realistic goal? Nothing is risk free. I only bring up Utah because it appears to be working so far and plenty of people in this forum continue to throw up examples of other countries gun laws as examples of success. I guess my response to that should be "not all countries are American and not all people are Americans". Seems shortsighted.

And I agree that not all countries are America and not all people are American. I'm usually one of the first to wave the banner of 2A rights/personal rights as well as rejecting the restriction of a tool due to the actions of those that use them for purposes such as this, but the notion of just flooding what should be a facility of learning with poorly trained faux-law enforcement personnel double-dutying as teachers and prison guards seems beyond asinine.

I specifically remember incidents from my HS of altercations between students and teachers that turned physical, how many of those would have ended up with a dead student or teacher if the teacher had been armed in those scenarios?

No issues may not be realistic but we're borderline no issues now, from a statistical standpoint. I cannot fathom a way in which we'd have less deaths/injuries due to pure *accidents* (much less maliciousness) if you've got even 5% of teachers in the US armed.

 

[Maxima1]

@Pipeline 1010 , how do you suppose mourning would be different for a parent that lost their child to friendly fire?

Because at least they wouldn't die in vain. You're making an irrational assumption that friendly fire will top deaths prevented, and you aren't considering that more security at school would deter some from even acting in the first place.

 

[brandonbull]

Yes, there was this instance of a young man named Nikolas Cruz.

He stated online publicly that he wanted to be a "professional school shooter".

He then purchased an AR-15 in February 2018, and used it that same month to kill 17 people at his former school.

He had no criminal record, and his online comments would not have been enough to incarcerate him, but should have been enough to prevent the purchase of firearms.

I thought he got it in Feb of 2017.

 

[realibrad]

Because at least they wouldn't die in vain. You're making an irrational assumption that friendly fire will top deaths prevented, and you aren't considering that more security at school would deter some from even acting in the first place.

How is she not considering it? If the argument is that more guns will make incidents that otherwise would just be a fight will turn into a shooting because now the person must protect the gun, you would expect deaths to happen right?