Why gun violence research has been shut down for 20 years

[Syne]

Yeah, between the 39 visits by police, 2 reports to the FBI, 1 deputy on site and another 3 responding, none of which even entered the school, this is a huge argument why government shouldn't be the only ones with guns. The saying used to be "when seconds count, police are minutes away." But in this case, "when seconds count, police are cowering right outside." What would the outcome have been if the teacher who shielded students with his body could have shot back?

[Leigha]

I'm not really ''pro'' teachers carrying concealed guns around all day during school hours. That is actually a last resort, in my opinion. But, of what we do know in this situation, everyone failed this school that day. Not gun laws. So, we raise the age to 21...how would that have stopped the psycho who shot up that concert in Vegas? He was in his 60's, I think.

It's all just lip service and pandering. The government is little more these days that a sad reality show, and all of our misery is their script to play off of.

Gun laws need to be stricter in terms of people with mental health and abuse issues. They simply shouldn't be allowed to own one. If you are mentally ill, or have a history of it, sorry...you don't need a gun.

[Syne]

And if authorities had done their job, this guy wouldn't have had a gun, under existing laws against the mentally ill having guns.

I don't know why anyone would object to teachers with guns. Since we already trust them with our children, why shouldn't we be able to trust them with guns?
Or are people turning their kids over to people they don't trust with a gun? If that's the case, why do we trust them with our children?

[Leigha]

Trusting someone to teach kids math is a far cry from trusting that same person to be around your kid, armed with a weapon. I also can't help but think that if something were to happen in the classroom, maybe a kid gets a hold of the gun and shoots others.

Do you think that your run of the mill teacher is more qualified to take on a psycho in a killing spree, than the FBI and police? lol Maybe teachers should take over our military, too. Go through a little bit of training, Syne, and you too can take on a psycho with an automatic rifle on a killing mission, rampaging through a school.

Not trying to be flip, but come on.

[Magical Realist]

And if authorities had done their job, this guy wouldn't have had a gun, under existing laws against the mentally ill having guns.

I don't know why anyone would object to teachers with guns. Since we already trust them with our children, why shouldn't we be able to trust them with guns?
Or are people turning their kids over to people they don't trust with a gun? If that's the case, why do we trust them with our children?

You can't require anyone, teachers included, to expose themselves to a life endangering situation as an extra part to their job description. And going up against a guy with an AR-15 when you just have a pistol would be just that. The teacher would be required not to stay put and to protect their class, but to leave the classroom and hunt down the killer in the school halls. Only they would be seriously outgunned. And no matter how much they trained on their own time to become proficient marksmen, it would never match the pure killing advantage of the AR, which doesn't even require good aiming. All you have to do is hold down the trigger and wave the gun back and forth. Are teachers even psychologically constituted to kill with a gun? Probably not. These are empathic, gentle, cerebral people. Why would we impose on these gifted underpaid souls the extra duties that belong solely to well-trained law enforcement officers? We owe them better than that.

[Leigha]

I couldn't agree more with you on that, MR. It just isn't practical. Maybe a guy who would be a match for a teacher who is armed with a pistol, etc...but a person with an automatic rifle would out match any teacher who is packing just a pistol. Maybe if a few teachers were carrying, but still. It's too much to ask of teachers.

[Syne]

Trusting someone to teach kids math is a far cry from trusting that same person to be around your kid, armed with a weapon. I also can't help but think that if something were to happen in the classroom, maybe a kid gets a hold of the gun and shoots others.

Do you think that your run of the mill teacher is more qualified to take on a psycho in a killing spree, than the FBI and police? lol Maybe teachers should take over our military, too. Go through a little bit of training, Syne, and you too can take on a psycho with an automatic rifle on a killing mission, rampaging through a school.

Not trying to be flip, but come on.

Yet one of those teachers shielded students with his own body, and was the first line of defense for those children. So you're essentially saying you prefer that he have to die, without being a threat to the shooter, instead of possibly save more lives than he did. I'm guessing you don't know much about concealed carry if you think a kid getting a hold of a conceal weapon is at all likely.
The FBI and police are never there when a shooter starts an attack, but teachers are. And while this school's SRO didn't act, teachers in the classrooms with some personal attachment to students would. Any action is better than none at all.

And if authorities had done their job, this guy wouldn't have had a gun, under existing laws against the mentally ill having guns.

I don't know why anyone would object to teachers with guns. Since we already trust them with our children, why shouldn't we be able to trust them with guns?
Or are people turning their kids over to people they don't trust with a gun? If that's the case, why do we trust them with our children?

You can't require anyone, teachers included, to expose themselves to a life endangering situation as an extra part to their job description. And going up against a guy with an AR-15 when you just have a pistol would be just that. The teacher would be required not to stay put and to protect their class, but to leave the classroom and hunt down the killer in the school halls. Only they would be seriously outgunned. And no matter how much they trained on their own time to become proficient marksmen, it would never match the pure killing advantage of the AR, which doesn't even require good aiming.

Active shooters are the only thing that would require teachers to "expose themselves to a life endangering situation". No one would require all teachers armed, and even those who are would decide their own response, just like any other concealed carrier. The purpose of conceal carry is defense, and when hiding/running fails, it's the only option left (other than using others as human shields).
"Hunt down the killer" is a stupid straw man. No one has ever said that. No one expects a teacher, or any other concealed carrier, to go on the offensive.

All you have to do is hold down the trigger and wave the gun back and forth. Are teachers even psychologically constituted to kill with a gun? Probably not. These are empathic, gentle, cerebral people. Why would we impose on these gifted underpaid souls the extra duties that belong solely to well-trained law enforcement officers? We owe them better than that.

See, you don't even understand how an AR-15 works. It doesn't keep shooting if you "hold down the trigger". Thanks for continuing to show everyone how ignorant you are.
The only extra duty is an extra chance for them, and perhaps some of their students, to survive.

I couldn't agree more with you on that, MR. It just isn't practical. Maybe a guy who would be a match for a teacher who is armed with a pistol, etc...but a person with an automatic rifle would out match any teacher who is packing just a pistol. Maybe if a few teachers were carrying, but still. It's too much to ask of teachers.

You wouldn't defend yourself if you knew how and had the opportunity? That's all teachers should be afforded.
And one gun against ANY shooter is always better than zero guns against a shooter who can kill without fear of a response. All it takes is one good shot, in a chaotic environment where a single shooter cannot watch everyone.


But yeah, why should teachers and their students have any better chance for survival, huh?

[Magical Realist]

"Hunt down the killer" is a stupid straw man. No one has ever said that. No one expects a teacher, or any other concealed carrier, to go on the offensive.

That's what your boy Trump is proposing. Turning 20% of teachers into Rambos that can take out an active shooter. And that's insane.

See, you don't even understand how an AR-15 works. It doesn't keep shooting if you "hold down the trigger".

It took me 3 minutes to find this online. AR-15 with a bump stock modification..Easy peasy..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhdybpnCICQ

[Leigha]

Trusting someone to teach kids math is a far cry from trusting that same person to be around your kid, armed with a weapon. I also can't help but think that if something were to happen in the classroom, maybe a kid gets a hold of the gun and shoots others.

Do you think that your run of the mill teacher is more qualified to take on a psycho in a killing spree, than the FBI and police? lol Maybe teachers should take over our military, too. Go through a little bit of training, Syne, and you too can take on a psycho with an automatic rifle on a killing mission, rampaging through a school.

Not trying to be flip, but come on.

Yet one of those teachers shielded students with his own body, and was the first line of defense for those children. So you're essentially saying you prefer that he have to die, without being a threat to the shooter, instead of possibly save more lives than he did. I'm guessing you don't know much about concealed carry if you think a kid getting a hold of a conceal weapon is at all likely.
The FBI and police are never there when a shooter starts an attack, but teachers are. And while this school's SRO didn't act, teachers in the classrooms with some personal attachment to students would. Any action is better than none at all.

And if authorities had done their job, this guy wouldn't have had a gun, under existing laws against the mentally ill having guns.

I don't know why anyone would object to teachers with guns. Since we already trust them with our children, why shouldn't we be able to trust them with guns?
Or are people turning their kids over to people they don't trust with a gun? If that's the case, why do we trust them with our children?

You can't require anyone, teachers included, to expose themselves to a life endangering situation as an extra part to their job description. And going up against a guy with an AR-15 when you just have a pistol would be just that. The teacher would be required not to stay put and to protect their class, but to leave the classroom and hunt down the killer in the school halls. Only they would be seriously outgunned. And no matter how much they trained on their own time to become proficient marksmen, it would never match the pure killing advantage of the AR, which doesn't even require good aiming.

Active shooters are the only thing that would require teachers to "expose themselves to a life endangering situation". No one would require all teachers armed, and even those who are would decide their own response, just like any other concealed carrier. The purpose of conceal carry is defense, and when hiding/running fails, it's the only option left (other than using others as human shields).
"Hunt down the killer" is a stupid straw man. No one has ever said that. No one expects a teacher, or any other concealed carrier, to go on the offensive.

All you have to do is hold down the trigger and wave the gun back and forth. Are teachers even psychologically constituted to kill with a gun? Probably not. These are empathic, gentle, cerebral people. Why would we impose on these gifted underpaid souls the extra duties that belong solely to well-trained law enforcement officers? We owe them better than that.

See, you don't even understand how an AR-15 works. It doesn't keep shooting if you "hold down the trigger". Thanks for continuing to show everyone how ignorant you are.
The only extra duty is an extra chance for them, and perhaps some of their students, to survive.

I couldn't agree more with you on that, MR. It just isn't practical. Maybe a guy who would be a match for a teacher who is armed with a pistol, etc...but a person with an automatic rifle would out match any teacher who is packing just a pistol. Maybe if a few teachers were carrying, but still. It's too much to ask of teachers.

You wouldn't defend yourself if you knew how and had the opportunity? That's all teachers should be afforded.
And one gun against ANY shooter is always better than zero guns against a shooter who can kill without fear of a response. All it takes is one good shot, in a chaotic environment where a single shooter cannot watch everyone.


But yeah, why should teachers and their students have any better chance for survival, huh?

Not disagreeing that people should be able and ''allowed'' to protect themselves, and others if possible, but there are a lot of factors to take into consideration, that's all I'm saying. Why aren't they allowed? If we are seeing what happens when we have 'gun free' school zones, why would it even be a thought to not allow some teachers to carry a concealed weapon on campuses?

[Syne]

"Hunt down the killer" is a stupid straw man. No one has ever said that. No one expects a teacher, or any other concealed carrier, to go on the offensive.

That's what your boy Trump is proposing. Turning 20% of teachers into Rambos that can take out an active shooter. And that's insane.

No, he isn't. Saying teachers who are qualified should be able to carry at schools has nothing to do with making them "Rambos", and you're a moron if you think so.
Of course your idiotic straw man is insane. Doesn't seem to keep you from inventing them.

See, you don't even understand how an AR-15 works. It doesn't keep shooting if you "hold down the trigger".

It took me 3 minutes to find this online. AR-15 with a bump stock modification..Easy peasy..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhdybpnCICQ

That requires more than "All you have to do is hold down the trigger and wave the gun back and forth." So this seems like you're just backpedaling in an attempt to cover your obvious ignorance.

You wouldn't defend yourself if you knew how and had the opportunity? That's all teachers should be afforded.
And one gun against ANY shooter is always better than zero guns against a shooter who can kill without fear of a response. All it takes is one good shot, in a chaotic environment where a single shooter cannot watch everyone.


But yeah, why should teachers and their students have any better chance for survival, huh?

Not disagreeing that people should be able and ''allowed'' to protect themselves, and others if possible, but there are a lot of factors to take into consideration, that's all I'm saying. Why aren't they allowed? If we are seeing what happens when we have 'gun free' school zones, why would it even be a thought to not allow some teachers to carry a concealed weapon on campuses?

Those informed about guns have considered all the factors for decades. It's only those who are uniformed who are unsure about allowing armed teachers at schools. But the uniformed usually want extreme measures that would actually make people less safe, like gun-free zones".