I am about as pro gun as it gets but I can't imagine having school teachers with guns. I will admit I don't have the answer but arming teachers is not it.

This is right.

When these school shooting incidents happen, the first response is always to call for help (weaponized good guys.) It's common sense. And yet, there are people who simultaneously recognize this obvious fact, but insist it's a terrible idea to pre-emptively have weaponized good guys already trained, familiar with the building, and on site.

Many states technically allow teachers to carry, with varying levels of restriction. Some states effectively allow teachers to actually carry.

I would vote against turning it into a job requirement and think that is a silly overreaction (this is what the left seems to hear when the right talks about armed teachers), but simply let them carry if they want to do so and live in a constitutional carry state or have a CCW if they are in a shall-issue state. Laws banning or effectively barring carry on school premises have, shocker, not stopped massacres. Mass shooters don't shoot up gun conventions, shooting ranges, or armories for a reason. They pick locations with large numbers of people who are not armed. Allow those who want to to exercise their rights.

I doubt that’s true. Don’t have a poll. Can’t say for sure of course. Going off the same sense of the situations as are you.

There are literally parents of school shooting victims that are actively protesting for more gun control, no?

Ugh thank you for this. Whatever the solution is having kids in a classroom with a gun means we’ve truly lost.

Parents don’t parent in this day?

How could they? Many, MANY households are two income households, meaning kids are being shipped off to daycares and schools to be taught by strangers. Many other households are victims of victimless crimes & BS drug crimes locking one of the parents away, taking them from the home.

NYC has a massive youth criminal/gang problem. Chicago is just about the worst gun violence community around, many of which involve teens/young adults. These are some of the strictest gun control areas in the country, yet combine for the majority of gun violence in this country. 4th of July weekend saw dozens upon dozens of people shot. Do you think the parents are around in those communities, teaching respect, etc.?

Social Media is killing society. Kids see "trends" and don't give a damn who they harm as long as they get views & "clout". Music, TV, Movies, etc., are filled with trash lifestyles being idolized.

And both parents are probably working while this happens, or one of them is in jail for a BS reason. Then they and others wonder why little Johnny turns to crack, heroine, etc., goes through mental health issues, and shoots up a school or someone else.

But you keep focusing on the guns, because to you and some others, that's the problem.

Not focusing just on the gun. They are never to blame. The issue is whether certain restrictions will help give us a better society. Your post seems to look at the past in rose colored glasses. It also seems to blame single parents and kids getting into crack and heroine. These are not the characteristics of majority of school shooters. Outdated thinking in my view.

not arming all teachers..arming a few trained teachers who would get extra pay....

used to say that about having metal detectors at schools...people used to say it was like a jail, how can we have detectors at schools.....this also means that kids bring in arms/guns as well and we both know that metal detectors arent going to catch all...so if you know kids are going to have arms, why cant teachers........

How many kids do you have in school? And, if any, do you want them walking through metal detectors and then sitting in a classroom with a gun in it? That’s a shitty childhood in my view.

I understand and respect both sides

I personally do not want gun in schools (specifically not with the teachers). I prefer the metal detectors to walk thru and increased staffing of trained armed security.

Why are armed security a good idea, but those same people cannot be teachers?

If you look at all the schools in this country, a very tiny percentage of them have shooting incidents. Why should schools spend precious resources (schools are constantly under-funded, if you listen to some) having armed security sitting around, when 99.9% of them will never need to spring into action?

Let a few teachers and/or administrators go through a rigorous training program, same as a security guard or policeman, pay them extra for doing so, and then you have trained armed security at much less cost, since teaching is their primary job.

Because you’ve now introduced guns into every school where by your calculation 99.9% of them would never otherwise have an incident. Chances of a shooting have just gone up in every one of those schools with the introduction of guns. Plus, in an earlier post I shared a detailed report that showed armed guards had little to no impact and in many cases had a negative impact.

Are we concerned about school shootings or not? After all, 99.9% of schools never have an incident.

When there is an incident, the murdering will stop when good guys with guns stop the bad guy with the gun (or knife.)

Your solution: Call 911 and wait until help arrives, as kids are being killed.
My solution: Have help right there, on site and prepared.

Does it make more sense to have a fire extinguisher in your home, or keep it 5 miles away?

In at least two school shootings, there was armed trained security on the scene or who arrived before the shooter was in the building and they didn't engage. The one in Uvalde didn't have a good shot.
The one in Parkland seems to have left the area.

I'm not sure having armed teachers is a good idea. Back when I was in HS and some of the male teachers were veterans of either WWII or Korea maybe.
(Dad was the superintendent for secondary schools, and the principal the last couple years was if I remember it right a Marine reserve Colonel. I don't think either one would have gone for that plan)

I guess I'll never understand how some people think???:confused:
Imagine being a parent and knowing your child is in a school that is currently under attack by an assailant and praying like no tomorrow the cops arrive soon.
Talk about seconds feeling like hours.

I think fire prevention is the key. Just like the prevention of the attacks in the first place - preventing people from getting their hands on these weapons of mass killings. Fire prevention and a fire extinguisher are both good measures. Your proposal of putting guns in the school is like having a fire already burning in your house to prevent a fire. Seems silly. Will leave aside the fact that an armed guard can do more harm than good if they engage and for the money they make may not engage at all.

17 officers ran away from the shooter in Uvalde.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...young-boy.html


Just so we're clear, these aren't good guys with guns. If you're unwilling to protect innocent children after getting paid by taxpayers to "serve and protect" the community, you're a POS.

I believe teachers who wish to go through extensive, EXTENSIVE training to conceal carry on the job should be allowed to. I also believe there is a large enough segment of veterans that would be willing to defend schools to provide extra security.

The teachers union and government as a whole will be a hurdle when actually protecting our kids. Again, I will always go back to government officials/politicians receiving more protection than our kids ever have.

I have zero doubt your intentions are good here. But I think there are several drawbacks. First, a trained teacher with a pistol is going to be outgunned when these folks have assault rifles. Second, a trained teacher is bound to make a mistake and the gun may come out at the wrong time in the wrong situation. Third, a kid could get their hands on that gun so there’s a gun in use when there otherwise might not have been one. Fourth, the comparison to armed security for political figures seems misplaced because the sad reality of having to have guns around them versus kids is very different. Sending a kid to a school to sit in a room with a gun every day is a bridge many parents do not want to cross. Many would rather focus on keeping these assault rifles away.

Again, understood your intentions are good and maybe it would help. My views above show I do not agree but I am often wrong. My wife tells me daily.

The leaked video is disturbing. It's easy to judge from behind a keyboard, or from the next day. It's a lot easier to be the guy in the back of the stack rather than the first guy through the door. They were there within 3 minutes, they outgunned the shooter many times over. And they just sit there. One checks his phone to look at his Punisher wallpaper, some get hand sanitizer while they just sit in the hallway doing absolutely nothing. For well over an hour, they just sit there. I find it difficult not to consider them simply LARPing cowards, while their coworkers chose to arrest and detain parents instead of, you know, address the murderer. They are there, heavily outgun him, and just sit there as defenseless children are slaughtered. More effort was expended suppressing the parents of the victims than the psychopath. I find it difficult to think of these police officers as men at all.

One incident is not a valid data set, school shootings are incredibly rare mathematically even if that's not the narrative. This incident should be more of a human tragedy than used as a political bludgeon, but it doesn't seem to 'help' either side. With ~80 minutes to do whatever the hell he wanted, having a scary looking model of rifle becomes irrelevant. Whether semi-auto or bolt action or a muzzle loading musket, it doesn't matter in this situation. The advantages of an AR type rifle provide no real gain in this situation. Quicker shooting is very important in a gunfight; lightweight ammunition means a lot on a long hike in the field. it means essentially nothing in a closed off environment without a time factor against defenseless children. Meanwhile, the complete lack of any desire by the authorities to address the situation does not aid an argument that armed guards will help. I believe Parkland was the last such incident, and there to the armed wing of the state declined to actually do anything. That a paid security guard will choose to do what ~15 cops won't seems unlikely.

I do think a teacher who wants to carry should be allowed to; as the 2nd amendment allows. Unlike a security guard, a teacher who is armed in a s situation like this incident (which is truly incredibly rare statistically) does not have to be a hero and put themselves in harms way to take the chance of getting the bad guy. The teacher in the classroom will probably die if they do not shoot back; they are there and trapped like the kids. They can't just stand outside.

they showed video of the uvalde texas police officers walking around the hallways and also parkland shooting was lawsuit against officers for not doing anything, i find it hard to believe a teacher with personal relationship to students would act the same..

right, many of your arguments are standard arguments..........when someone doesnt like a position they usually cite that someones postion wont solve ALL....there is no 100%.......yeah a teacher can be out gunned but there may other situations where students may not attack a school at all because some teachers are armed and they dont know who is armed or from what locked door they are going to come from, plus there would likely be an armed guard...arent all armed guards also outgunned? Most police are outgunned in inner cities but we dont ban officers trying to do their job......can walk and chew gum at same time and still work on getting rid of certain assault rifles and have armed teachers

There are metal detectors at schools for a reason..and they dont catch all guns..so why have any metal detectors......but if students can sneak them through, why just let students haved guns and not the teachers..

as far as a student getting their hands on a teachers gun, this can also happen in anyone's house and why there is a gun locker...... i wont go on but you can be certain there are strong counter arguments to what anti armed teachers keep saying, meanwhile kids are getting killed ..

correct i think teachers would engage more......i do not agree with your analogy......fire does not stop fire, or by having fire it doesnt not prevent fire from burning down a building (though conrolled fires in a forest are done)

a Gun can prevent someone else's gun from killing someone or better yet, deter someone from bringing a gun as there will likely not be 30 minutes of wait time while a shooting spree is going on...

Exactly. The kids in that school, and fellow teachers, would be like his extended family.

No, it’s not that I think your solution isn’t perfect. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It’s that I think your solution would have a net negative effect. I’d prefer solutions that do more good than harm.

Then start proposing some.

My proposal don’t work for you folks. Requirements that every gun purchaser take a class and show proof he or she owns a safe. Maybe a law that parents of underage kids that gain access to their weapons and use them in a school can be thrown in jail, greater restrictions on assault rifles. As for the current weapons that are out there, these laws can be applied forward. If you own an assault rifle, go out and buy a safe or if your kid gets hold of it you are going to jail.

For the three hundredth time, assault rifles are already heavily, heavily restricted and cost tens of thousands of dollars and months of waiting times. The NFA bans any assault rifles not registered by January 1, 1986. You cannot go and buy an assault rifle at the store.

Troll better.

Owners of assault rifles have to have a safe and if their kid uses one in a school they go to jail. Address actual points. You’re the biggest troll on this site bar none.

I stated an actual, verifiable fact. See, you're just shitposting. You're the only one here who isn't even sincere.

What do you think about a law that say anyone who currently owns an assault rifle will go to jail if someone gets hold of it and uses it in a mass shooting? Address actual points. I feel like I’m talking to a (fairly dumb) wall.

I don’t see how a victim of theft should be treated as a perpetrator. When has this ever happened? I know you’re just trolling as your original reply and your stalking made clear, but you really should try harder. You’re still pretending not to even know what an assault rifle is after being told 50 times. There are very, very few of them and they are incredibly tightly regulated, a toy for the elite. The registration closed in 1986.

A kid gets an AR-15 from their home and shoots up a school. If their parents didn’t lock it up properly they face consequences. If an AR-15 isn’t your definition of an assault rifle, then substitute in an AR-15 and similar. Calling me a troll when you’re the single biggest troll on this site is amazing. Keep it coming.

It’s not MY definition of an assault rifle. There is a thing as actual reality. You don’t even know what it means and have steadfastly refused to even read. You have been told a fact and are, for the 30th time since you got triggered that I called PWCC a fraud ring, spazzing out when confronted with the actual fact.

You need help. Go and get it. You need a healthier obsession.

That would be a horrible law. Anybody with internet can break into pretty much any home safe in less than a minute. Safes are not that safe. A rare earth hockey puck magnet or 2 will open most in seconds. The ones with key pads are even easier to open.

We have discussed how worthless safes are in the past when used to keep high end cards away from robbers. A member posted several videos on how easy they are to open. It was pretty eye opening.

You need to learn how to address arguments and not go into attack mode when you realize you’re not so bright.

So when I sell a gun to someone it’s very apparent that someone will ill intentions may easily get it from them? Seems like a bad deal.

Again, you were told a fact. You keep ignoring that to pull crap out of your ass. That you want to ignore that you are factually wrong is your right, but to respond to a fact by calling the other person an idiot kind of proves the point. Get a better obsession.

Yes that is unfortunately how life works. Locks and safes only keep honest people honest.

Utopian ideas aren't real world solutions.

Let’s arm teachers and hope for the best. Good plan.

'
Lets not arm teachers and hope for the best when shooters come in.. (and also let students bring in arms who avoid the metal detectors)

.looks like its been working thus far....looks like a much greater plan.

It's like you guys need a translator while everyone is speaking english.
(Not uncommon between groups with no common specialized language)

So, a few definitions. and information.
Single shot- Each round must be loaded individually maybe with mechanical help, but it requires a person to do it.
Semi- Automatic- The gun loads the next round itself. But the operator still needs to pull the trigger. Most hunting rifles are made this way, and also many shotguns.
Fully automatic- Pull the trigger, it shoots until you let off or run out.
(selective fire not included for simplicity)

Assault weapon
One side- any gun with a set of possibly scary looking features. Pistol grips accessory mounting rails, that perforated tube grip thingy on the front etc.
Other side
a- There isn't really any such thing, no manufacturer calls their product that.
b- There are however guns that are fully automatic. And these have been heavily regulated for close to 90 years.

The key laws covering fully automatic.
1934 NFA. requires tons of paperwork, a then heavy tax on transfer, and registration, and an in depth background check. For all automatic weapons as well as a host of others, like shotguns with less than 18 inch barrels, weapons built as part of another object like a sword cane. and much more. Last I checked, only three crimes had been committed with an NFA registered firearm.

1968 Gun control act
Until this went into effect, it was possible to register a previously unregistered NFA weapon. So if you inherited grand uncle Eddies tommy gun you could make it legal. After? Not so much.
(A friend considered buying a sword cane, and NFA item, but it was not registered. He asked the ATF the question hypothetically what it would require to make it legal, and the answer was reams of probably unavailable paperwork, and even then they might not do it. )

1986 gun owners protection act.
Made transfer of fully automatic firearms illegal unless the firearm was legally owned prior to May 19 1986

Making Uncle Eddies Tommy gun worth a bundle of cash! Hope your relatives registered it...
-------------------------

In my opinion, the assault weapons bans we have had are basically banning things based on their appearance.
Many hunting or target shooting rifles are much more powerful than an AR-15, but are "safe" because they have no features that make them look like a modern military firearm.
Sort of like banning a car because it's a "sports car" which would also ban most Volkswagen Beetle based kit cars. but the Tesla performance models that look like a fairly ordinary car would be just fine.

I would bet anything that more than 50% of people who want to ban "assault rifles" think the "AR" in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle."

Your post is right, and I think most of the gun banning crowd are pretty ignorant of these facts.

I would support

More in depth background checks
Better reporting of problematic behavior so the current background checks could catch it. That failing seems to be very common in mass shootings.
Opening up the backround check system to the public. Mass currently requires a background check on private sales, but they must be done by a licensed dealer. A financial gift to the few remaining around here.

more support for mental illness both detection and treatment.
An easier path to restricting someone whose mental illness shows up in violent tendencies.

Redefining what a mass shooting is.
Currently it's any shooting with more than a certain number of victims. (I think it's 3, but could be wrong)
So many things are included in that, from the obvious ones where someone shoots at a random group at an event, to a gang shooting up a rival gangs corner, to someone taking out their own family to a brawl at an event leading to shootings.
All tragic, but all so very different and not worthy of being lumped together under the same heading.

“Assault Weapon” - a term made by banners that has no consistent definition or actual meaning, varying between jurisdiction and banning mostly cosmetic features, almost always rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what that thing even is or mechanically does.

“Assault Rifle” - an actual mechanical thing, a class of rifle that has largely supplanted the battle rifle in military service. An assault rifle is a rifle or carbine, that used a detachable box magazine (a clip is something different), an intermediate lower powered cartridge, and the ability to fire more than one round with a pull of a trigger. Civilian AR-15’s are, factually, not assault rifles.

I think my posts have pretty well identified the actual root causes of why we're seeing an uptick in school shootings/violence in society. It will takes a few generations to correct these issues, so in the meantime, my goal is to make sure any potential shooter is down/dead before the kids/teachers are. Fighting fire with fire in this case IS a viable solution.