Florida High School Shooting

[brandonbull]

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 thought the RO was called away and then showed up after the shooting started.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I thought the RO was called away and then showed up after the shooting started.

No idea, the news moves quickly. I was lead to believe he was there (in some capacity) and simply failed to engage in one way or another.

 

[IJTSSG]

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.

I understand what you're saying. I have said in this forum that I am not a proponent of forcing teachers to be armed, nor am I a proponent of not knowing which teachers are armed. I think we should allow the teachers who want to be armed to be armed provided they can prove proficiency and we give them a safe place to store it. I also think that if we are serious about having armed security at our schools then we should pony up and pay for real, trained, security, not hope that ms. mathtchr is john rambo.

 

[momeNt]

Wanna bet this guy still has his gun

Should this guy be allowed free in society just not with a gun? Is he not capable of murder otherwise? Or is his capability of murder limited to 1 or 2 people, and not mass, therefore incarceration is overly burdensome, but removal of 2A rights is acceptable because it lowers casualty counts from 10+ to 1 or 2?

 

[momeNt]

Who said it could not be about other things "too"? The problem is many on the Right say that we should never infringe on rights, but, what if the person is mentally ill?

At some point if someone is deemed to be too much of a risk they may very well be removed from society. Everything is on a spectrum. Sometimes only some things need to be done depending.

Are you for something as simple as that?

I personally would feel most comfortable for anybody allowed to be free in society to have their full rights. You should either be a threat and incarcerated, or not a threat and free.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I understand what you're saying. I have said in this forum that I am not a proponent of forcing teachers to be armed, nor am I a proponent of not knowing which teachers are armed. I think we should allow the teachers who want to be armed to be armed provided they can prove proficiency and we give them a safe place to store it. I also think that if we are serious about having armed security at our schools then we should pony up and pay for real, trained, security, not hope that ms. mathtchr is john rambo.

And if the funding were available for such a thing, I'd prefer it being used to a) educate the kids going there, b) elevate the economic prosperity of the local community, and c) improve the mental counseling/diagnosis/health programs within the school. Creating an armed security force for all the schools in the US would easily cost enough to afford a-c and have some scratch left over for new Ballstorm stadiums. And it'd probably have a greater effect on preventing shootings.

 

[IJTSSG]

And if the funding were available for such a thing, I'd prefer it being used to a) educate the kids going there, b) elevate the economic prosperity of the local community, and c) improve the mental counseling/diagnosis/health programs within the school. Creating an armed security force for all the schools in the US would easily cost enough to afford a-c and have some scratch left over for new Ballstorm stadiums. And it'd probably have a greater effect on preventing shootings.

Deciding what tax money should be spent on is one of this country's favorite participatory, full contact sports.

 

[Maxima1]

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?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That teachers will get into fights and it'll turn into a shooting? The gun doesn't necessarily have to be carried. In fact, I think it's better if it was implemented to have them put it in some secured place. The risks with teachers is low. College graduates are less likely to run against the law, and teachers specifically have to go through more scrutiny than most of the public.It's ridiculous how some think giving teachers guns will lead to teachers going on rampages or students tackling them and getting the gun to shoot up the school.

But to answer the question, she flat-out said it would lead to the 17 dead AND several others dead due to friendly fire. So no, she's not considering it. It's more rational to assume that more deaths are prevented than people being so incompetent that friendly fire kills more.

 

[K1052]

(look at Chicago...the city with the most stringent gun control laws in the nation...has the most gun-related killings each year.)

Somehow this keeps surfacing. Chicago is well behind NYC, SF, LA, etc in stringent gun laws these days. The handgun ban has been gone for years and the state passed concealed carry in 2013.

On a rate basis the city also is lower than several other major US cities for homicides last year, 6th or 7th next to places like Indianapolis and Vegas IIRC.

 

[momeNt]

My guess is that someone in his situation, who has no criminal record but has made a credible threat, would probably be issued probation and required counseling. I doubt they would incarcerate someone who hasn't committed a crime, but would try to rehabilitate them.

That said, if you've got a history of unstable behavior and you threaten to shoot up a school, I have no problem taking away your right to purchase firearms. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The only reason you're defending Nikolas Cruz's right to buy an AR-15 is because you and I both know gun control is coming, and it's a slippery slope You're more worried about what's coming down the pipeline 6 months from now, a year from now, or 5 years from now.

I'd argue that if you really want to preserve as much of your status quo as possible, you might want to do everything possible to prevent the next Nikolas Cruz from purchasing an AR-15. The days of "shall not be infringed" are over; declining gun ownership guarantees infringement will happen, but the number of mass shootings going forward will dictate how much infringement will happen.

Well ya know, the bill of rights were meant to be ambiguous to allow for judicial review - it's not like 9 of the 10 of them contain the word "shall" which is super vague. Nowadays it means should, or subject to net utility benefits =D

You are making a great argument on why we need strong comprehensive gun control. We can't accurately target dangerous individuals so we have to broadly limit availability.

That likely is a terrible argument. Dangerous people have always existed since the passing of the bill of rights. Like I said before, we had 3 presidents assassinated prior to Kennedy, and it was only in response to Kennedy's that any gun control act was passed in response. Guns have been destructive and dangerous from the beginning, and everybody knew that.

 

[K1052]

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

Increasingly appears that way.

 

[realibrad]

I personally would feel most comfortable for anybody allowed to be free in society to have their full rights. You should either be a threat and incarcerated, or not a threat and free.

Well, the world is not as simple as that. I doubt you believe it is either. If that were the case, should children have all the rights of adults? What about people with the mental capacity of a child but the body of an adult.

The world is complex.

 

[realibrad]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That teachers will get into fights and it'll turn into a shooting? The gun doesn't necessarily have to be carried. In fact, I think it's better if it was implemented to have them put it in some secured place. The risks with teachers is low. College graduates are less likely to run against the law, and teachers specifically have to go through more scrutiny than most of the public.It's ridiculous how some think giving teachers guns will lead to teachers going on rampages or students tackling them and getting the gun to shoot up the school.

But to answer the question, she flat-out said it would lead to the 17 dead AND several others dead due to friendly fire. So no, she's not considering it. It's more rational to assume that more deaths are prevented than people being so incompetent that friendly fire kills more.

I do believe that was hyperbole to exemplify her point. That said, the underlying issue is that guns even just by accidents kill people. So how do you know if the net number will go down or up?

 

[jackstar7]

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.

Guns > Kids, right? I mean we can always have more kids...

 

[SMOGZINN]

That likely is a terrible argument. Dangerous people have always existed since the passing of the bill of rights. Like I said before, we had 3 presidents assassinated prior to Kennedy, and it was only in response to Kennedy's that any gun control act was passed in response. Guns have been destructive and dangerous from the beginning, and everybody knew that.

As technology has increased at an exponential rate, so the destructive and dangerous properties of guns have multiplied much faster in the last century than in the centuries before. When William McKinley (the president to be assassinated before Kennedy) was assassinated the semiautomatic pistol was a brand new invention and very rare, and in fact it was a revolver that was used to kill him.

So, while guns were dangerous and destructive from the beginning there is a massive difference between what a person can do with a Ferguson Rifle (a breach load ball and power rifle, and the most advanced weapon available at the drafting of the Constitution and could fire what was considered an amazing 10 rounds a minute) and a AR-15. At the writing of the constitution guns were basically one-two shot weapons before you entered into hand-to-hand combat. I doubt that the founding fathers would have had the same opinion on the ownership of firearms if they had known what firearms would become.

 

[soundforbjt]

What about people with the mental capacity of a child but the body of an adult.

The world is complex.

No need to bring Trump into this...

 

[Maxima1]

Link it up, surely you have the data to back up your assertions.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hamps...bens-says-when-armed-civilians-stop-mass-sho/

"One of the best sources we found is an academic study published in January in an FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin by Dr. Pete Blair, director of research for the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center (ALERRT) and an associate professor of criminal justice at Texas State University.

Blair said it’s logical to assume casualties would be lower when civilians intervene before police arrive, but his research documented very few incidents that were actually stopped because a civilian was carrying a gun."

Many cops are not interested in guns and are more akin to glorified counselors and social workers. I don't see why teachers with a cc permit would be wildly different. I find it amusing that many seem to think that the broken teens are better than either the teacher with a cc or a sworn officer. Some people just can't handle the cognitive dissonance.

You live in a fantasy world where you think a badge, a gun, or both means you are a hero.

I don't see cops as heroes even if they do it. They get paid to do it and extract rents from the public via their self-serving PR.

 

[aigomorla]

No need to bring Trump into this...

He wants the teachers to be armed.
That also means he wants a gunfight to break out in the hallways which brings out a higher risk of collateral damage.

Also Police officers train years to shoot at a suspect, and hit with relative accuracy.
You expect a teacher to be able to hit a suspect without putting bullet holes all around?

So yes, there is a need to bring trump into this, because he has clearly showed he doesn't think things straight when making idiotic comments like that.

Instead of gun control, he wants more guns in schools... do you really need a pHD in anything to understand how stupid that sounds?

 

[mdram]

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21714

When terrorists attacked a school in Maalot in 1974, Israel did not declare every school a gun-free zone. It passed a law mandating armed security in schools, provided weapons training to teachers and today runs frequent active shooter drills. There have been only two school shootings since then, and both have ended with teachers killing the terrorists.

 

[Maxima1]

I do believe that was hyperbole to exemplify her point.

Yeah, but it was clearly to drive the point that friendly fire was going to outweigh the deaths prevented. Otherwise it becomes similar to the Trolley problem if she conceded that more deaths are prevented than those killed from friendly fire.

That said, the underlying issue is that guns even just by accidents kill people. So how do you know if the net number will go down or up?

Teachers getting into fights, guns going off accidentally and hitting someone, etc. seem like a much less probable event and less significant event (by deaths or injuries) than an active shooter. But as I said, they don't necessarily have to carry it. It could be in a secured location somewhere in close proximity to them.

The more rational assumption is that it would deter some broken people from carrying it out (it's obvious that gun-free zones are targeted), and that friendly fire wouldn't result in more deaths than those prevented.

 

[soundforbjt]

He wants the teachers to be armed.
That also means he wants a gunfight to break out in the hallways which brings out a higher risk of collateral damage.

Also Police officers train years to shoot at a suspect, and hit with relative accuracy.
You expect a teacher to be able to hit a suspect without putting bullet holes all around?

So yes, there is a need to bring trump into this, because he has clearly showed he doesn't think things straight when making idiotic comments like that.

Instead of gun control, he wants more guns in schools... do you really need a pHD in anything to understand how stupid that sounds?

Guess I should’ve used a sarcasm tag.... Mind of a child in a adult’s body should’ve been a clue..

 

[aigomorla]

Guess I should’ve used a sarcasm tag.... Mind of a child in a adult’s body should’ve been a clue..

its very difficult to determine what is sarcasm in P&N over alphabets.

 

[realibrad]

Yeah, but it was clearly to drive the point that friendly fire was going to outweigh the deaths prevented. Otherwise it becomes similar to the Trolley problem if she conceded that more deaths are prevented than those killed from friendly fire.

We are talking in underlying arguments, and its all speculation. You cannot know if it will be a net reduction just as she cannot know her position fully. You two are arguing from ignorance which is fine in this context.

Teachers getting into fights, guns going off accidentally and hitting someone, etc. seem like a much less probable event and less significant event (by deaths or injuries) than an active shooter. But as I said, they don't necessarily have to carry it. It could be in a secured location somewhere in close proximity to them.

I would say that is reasonable in terms of mitigation, but not removing the full increase of an incident. I say that because we see what happens when someone keeps a gun in the house and how even though it was locked away, people get access to them.

The more rational assumption is that it would deter some broken people from carrying it out (it's obvious that gun-free zones are targeted), and that friendly fire wouldn't result in more deaths than those prevented.

Why? Its speculation at best. Further, the argument is broader than just friendly fire. I get that she did not expand upon that, but its clearly the context here.

 

[pauldun170]

I'm looking forward to PTA "bullet drives" for the Teachers.
Letters home asking parents to send in pencils, paper towels and ammo for the class.

Will teachers have to buy their own guns and ammo or will there be a stipend?

 

[jackstar7]

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

It's not that dead little kids wasn't worse, it's that the survivors couldn't speak out in the same way as these survivors are. The survivors from Sandy Hook are only 12-14 at this point.