Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
Are you for arming teachers then?
I am for allowing physically fit and emotionally stable teachers to arm themselves voluntarily under strict guidelines and supervision if they have passed a thorough vetting, testing, and training program which would be an abbreviated version of police academy standards.
My point was, how can we expect a teacher to hunt down the shooter when a trained cop was unwilling to do it. There's a difference between protecting the children (which too many teachers have done) and acting as a tactical response unit. I'm very supportive of having armed police in the school. My children's district already has cops in schools. But they train full time for these situations. Teachers do not. My wife and I agree that if teachers are armed in our school, they will be home schooled.
There are a lot of cops that aren't well trained.
I know a bunch of cops that don't practice shooting.
I know a bunch of cops that retired NEVER un-holstering their weapon.
The cop that was there at the Florida school resigned for a reason, he should have never been there in the first place.
Right, lots of cops shouldn't be cops and lots of teachers shouldn't be teachers yet now if they want to be armed at their profession as well they can. Both professions go through background checks, but the intensity of training requirements and type of background vary by state. So the same place that hires shitty cops is going to hire shitty teachers, right? Either way, how many wannabe cops are out there compared to wannabe teachers? Can we at least admit that there are plenty of teachers who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun either, but now we're saying let them bring it to school so they can engage the threat if they want? What a nightmare for school districts to sort that out from an admin perspective.
So what if your teacher who wants to carry a gun fails his mental health/psych check or training? What impact will that have on their teaching and their job security? This isn't a straw man theory, it's a strong possibility to consider. Any teachers on here that had to pass a pysch/mental health background to become a teacher? Serious question. All cops in MN have to pass a psych to get hired. You take an MMPI and meet with a pyschologist. Sometimes you even need to take the California Psych. Inventory. Are we going to ensure the same standard for our armed teachers.
It's fucking dumb that not all gun owners at least need to pass an initial pysch/mental health screening. It would decrease gun violence and suicide by so much.
There is a flaw to this thinking. Shooters on trial don't ever get to plea insanity because they aren't. So the screening wouldn't do much in stopping the shootings.
I do agree that teachers should not carry though.
The flaw here is in misunderstanding what an NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity plea) means. Although the legal standard varies somewhat from state to state, it only applies to extreme circumstances where an individual is so affected by symptoms of mental illness that they are unable to discern what they are doing or the wrongfulness of their actions. Typically this only applies when somehow has psychotic symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations. This is not the case in the vast majority of suicides or shootings, where issues like alcohol and drugs, depression, anger and jealousy are at play. These factors could potentially be assessed by psychological screening prior to gun ownership.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
Are you for arming teachers then?
I am for allowing physically fit and emotionally stable teachers to arm themselves voluntarily under strict guidelines and supervision if they have passed a thorough vetting, testing, and training program which would be an abbreviated version of police academy standards.
My point was, how can we expect a teacher to hunt down the shooter when a trained cop was unwilling to do it. There's a difference between protecting the children (which too many teachers have done) and acting as a tactical response unit. I'm very supportive of having armed police in the school. My children's district already has cops in schools. But they train full time for these situations. Teachers do not. My wife and I agree that if teachers are armed in our school, they will be home schooled.
There are a lot of cops that aren't well trained.
I know a bunch of cops that don't practice shooting.
I know a bunch of cops that retired NEVER un-holstering their weapon.
The cop that was there at the Florida school resigned for a reason, he should have never been there in the first place.
Right, lots of cops shouldn't be cops and lots of teachers shouldn't be teachers yet now if they want to be armed at their profession as well they can. Both professions go through background checks, but the intensity of training requirements and type of background vary by state. So the same place that hires shitty cops is going to hire shitty teachers, right? Either way, how many wannabe cops are out there compared to wannabe teachers? Can we at least admit that there are plenty of teachers who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun either, but now we're saying let them bring it to school so they can engage the threat if they want? What a nightmare for school districts to sort that out from an admin perspective.
So what if your teacher who wants to carry a gun fails his mental health/psych check or training? What impact will that have on their teaching and their job security? This isn't a straw man theory, it's a strong possibility to consider. Any teachers on here that had to pass a pysch/mental health background to become a teacher? Serious question. All cops in MN have to pass a psych to get hired. You take an MMPI and meet with a pyschologist. Sometimes you even need to take the California Psych. Inventory. Are we going to ensure the same standard for our armed teachers.
It's fucking dumb that not all gun owners at least need to pass an initial pysch/mental health screening. It would decrease gun violence and suicide by so much.
There is a flaw to this thinking. Shooters on trial don't ever get to plea insanity because they aren't. So the screening wouldn't do much in stopping the shootings.
I do agree that teachers should not carry though.
This is a great point that I was thinking about the other day. All these NRA people (and Trump) talking about "this psychopath", this "crazy person", etc. Do we think this person qualifies for an insanity plea? Will the NRA and Trump be supportive of that legal strategy? Is he crazy or not?
If the country's response to the growing epidemic is more guns- arming teachers- and that is the only response... then why not?
A couple things to that though: 1. It's the weakest response you could deliver. It's a feeble jab at the problem and to be honest... it's counterproductive and comical. 2. Teachers will not- even with exceptional training- become Chuck Norris and handle the problem like movies depict 'heroes with guns doing' (look at the performance of the sheriff in Florida. 3. 80% of the teaching staff are women. I'm not necessarily saying a woman is incapable of handling that responsibility, but typically speaking... men are usually assigned such a duty. The drawing pool is going to be pretty slim for some schools. 4. In some schools, the shooting can start in another section of the school. By the time the 'armed teacher' stops his/her lesson... gets to the quick safe... arms his/herself... races towards the scene... places themselves in a situation to take aim on the active shooter armed with a far more superior weapon... carnage has already occurred. And this is best case scenario! 5. I would anticipate a myriad of undesirable problems stemming from this course of action. These problems are far more likely to unfold than any situation where the 'armed teacher response' works as hoped for.
I'll go back to my previous suggestion: if you are not prepared to take assault rifles and their kin off the shelf and insist on selling them to anyone who wants one... then place navy seals in the schools. Take your soldiers off their bases and deploy them in your learning institutions to combat your heavily armed and disenfranchised psychopaths intent on mayhem.
Wow, here I thought you were going to list some data on armed teachers, but instead we got a list of assumptions based on inherent fear of guns and people using them defensively. I’ll check back later.
By the way... let's not use 'fear' too freely when gun advocates base every single one of their arguments on it.
Oh, I agree, there is plenty of fear on both sides of the debate. Otherwise we wouldn’t even be having the debate at all.
I don't think some people here know what a straw man argument really means. Might want to look it up before using it.
You are exactly right. There are many people that say using straw men arguments are effective tools for winning arguments. Well those people are wrong!
President Trump's phone call with a survivor of last week's mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida high school angered the student, who said her conversation with the president "didn't make me feel better in the slightest."
Samantha Fuentes, a Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student who was shot in both legs during last week's attack, recounted her call in an interview with The New York Times.
"He said he heard I was a big fan of his, and then he said 'I'm a big fan of yours, too,' " Fuentes told the Times.
"I'm pretty sure he made that up," she continued. "Talking to the president, I've never been so unimpressed by a person in all my life. He didn't make me feel better in the slightest."
Fuentes told the Times that Trump had called the gunman a “sick puppy” and said “‘oh boy, oh boy, oh boy,’ like, seven times.”
Fuentes's phone call with the president follows a "listening session" Trump held at the White House on Wednesday with parents of victims as well as survivors of last week's mass shooting that killed 17 people and wounded others when a 19-year-old alleged gunman attacked the school with an AR-15.
During the meeting, Trump was spotted holding hand-written talking points to address during the meeting, including one that simply read, "I hear you."
We’re going to be very strong on background checks,” Trump said Wednesday. “There are many ideas I have, there are many ideas that other people have, and we’re going to pick out the strongest ideas, the most important ideas.”
I don't think some people here know what a straw man argument really means. Might want to look it up before using it.
You are exactly right. There are many people that say using straw men arguments are effective tools for winning arguments. Well those people are wrong!
Great example! I like it! Might have to use that in philosophy class!
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
Are you for arming teachers then?
I am for allowing physically fit and emotionally stable teachers to arm themselves voluntarily under strict guidelines and supervision if they have passed a thorough vetting, testing, and training program which would be an abbreviated version of police academy standards.
My point was, how can we expect a teacher to hunt down the shooter when a trained cop was unwilling to do it. There's a difference between protecting the children (which too many teachers have done) and acting as a tactical response unit. I'm very supportive of having armed police in the school. My children's district already has cops in schools. But they train full time for these situations. Teachers do not. My wife and I agree that if teachers are armed in our school, they will be home schooled.
There are a lot of cops that aren't well trained.
I know a bunch of cops that don't practice shooting.
I know a bunch of cops that retired NEVER un-holstering their weapon.
The cop that was there at the Florida school resigned for a reason, he should have never been there in the first place.
Right, lots of cops shouldn't be cops and lots of teachers shouldn't be teachers yet now if they want to be armed at their profession as well they can. Both professions go through background checks, but the intensity of training requirements and type of background vary by state. So the same place that hires shitty cops is going to hire shitty teachers, right? Either way, how many wannabe cops are out there compared to wannabe teachers? Can we at least admit that there are plenty of teachers who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun either, but now we're saying let them bring it to school so they can engage the threat if they want? What a nightmare for school districts to sort that out from an admin perspective.
So what if your teacher who wants to carry a gun fails his mental health/psych check or training? What impact will that have on their teaching and their job security? This isn't a straw man theory, it's a strong possibility to consider. Any teachers on here that had to pass a pysch/mental health background to become a teacher? Serious question. All cops in MN have to pass a psych to get hired. You take an MMPI and meet with a pyschologist. Sometimes you even need to take the California Psych. Inventory. Are we going to ensure the same standard for our armed teachers.
It's fucking dumb that not all gun owners at least need to pass an initial pysch/mental health screening. It would decrease gun violence and suicide by so much.
There is a flaw to this thinking. Shooters on trial don't ever get to plea insanity because they aren't. So the screening wouldn't do much in stopping the shootings.
I do agree that teachers should not carry though.
This is a great point that I was thinking about the other day. All these NRA people (and Trump) talking about "this psychopath", this "crazy person", etc. Do we think this person qualifies for an insanity plea? Will the NRA and Trump be supportive of that legal strategy? Is he crazy or not?
It's not up to Trump or the NRA or you or I to determine if an accused is "crazy". None of them have any knowledge in that legal issue. Why would we care if Trump "supports" a particular legal strategy??
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Donald needs to have a big nosed Steve Martin hiding in a bush behind him. Steve could speak into teeny weeny little earphones and tell Donald what to say.
At least that way... Donald wouldn't come across as such a f**king idiot every time he opens his lips.
Donald needs to have a big nosed Steve Martin hiding in a bush behind him. Steve could speak into teeny weeny little earphones and tell Donald what to say.
At least that way... Donald wouldn't come across as such a f**king idiot every time he opens his lips.
That’s pretty funny, although I am not sure there is any way of Donald not coming across as an idiot. It’s who he is...President idiot.
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
Are you for arming teachers then?
I am for allowing physically fit and emotionally stable teachers to arm themselves voluntarily under strict guidelines and supervision if they have passed a thorough vetting, testing, and training program which would be an abbreviated version of police academy standards.
My point was, how can we expect a teacher to hunt down the shooter when a trained cop was unwilling to do it. There's a difference between protecting the children (which too many teachers have done) and acting as a tactical response unit. I'm very supportive of having armed police in the school. My children's district already has cops in schools. But they train full time for these situations. Teachers do not. My wife and I agree that if teachers are armed in our school, they will be home schooled.
There are a lot of cops that aren't well trained.
I know a bunch of cops that don't practice shooting.
I know a bunch of cops that retired NEVER un-holstering their weapon.
The cop that was there at the Florida school resigned for a reason, he should have never been there in the first place.
Right, lots of cops shouldn't be cops and lots of teachers shouldn't be teachers yet now if they want to be armed at their profession as well they can. Both professions go through background checks, but the intensity of training requirements and type of background vary by state. So the same place that hires shitty cops is going to hire shitty teachers, right? Either way, how many wannabe cops are out there compared to wannabe teachers? Can we at least admit that there are plenty of teachers who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun either, but now we're saying let them bring it to school so they can engage the threat if they want? What a nightmare for school districts to sort that out from an admin perspective.
So what if your teacher who wants to carry a gun fails his mental health/psych check or training? What impact will that have on their teaching and their job security? This isn't a straw man theory, it's a strong possibility to consider. Any teachers on here that had to pass a pysch/mental health background to become a teacher? Serious question. All cops in MN have to pass a psych to get hired. You take an MMPI and meet with a pyschologist. Sometimes you even need to take the California Psych. Inventory. Are we going to ensure the same standard for our armed teachers.
It's fucking dumb that not all gun owners at least need to pass an initial pysch/mental health screening. It would decrease gun violence and suicide by so much.
There is a flaw to this thinking. Shooters on trial don't ever get to plea insanity because they aren't. So the screening wouldn't do much in stopping the shootings.
I do agree that teachers should not carry though.
This is a great point that I was thinking about the other day. All these NRA people (and Trump) talking about "this psychopath", this "crazy person", etc. Do we think this person qualifies for an insanity plea? Will the NRA and Trump be supportive of that legal strategy? Is he crazy or not?
It's not up to Trump or the NRA or you or I to determine if an accused is "crazy". None of them have any knowledge in that legal issue. Why would we care if Trump "supports" a particular legal strategy??
My point is the pending hypocrisy. They are using "mental health" as the new issue to gaslight the argument on gun control. They have said over and over that this person should not have had a gun because he was mentally incapacitated (e.g. crazy, a nut, etc.). Well if he is all of those things, then he should plead insanity and the NRA and Trump should support such a thing. If he doesn't or if they criticize the plea (which Trump certainly would) it would lay bare the hypocrisy of the argument once more.
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
Are you for arming teachers then?
I am for allowing physically fit and emotionally stable teachers to arm themselves voluntarily under strict guidelines and supervision if they have passed a thorough vetting, testing, and training program which would be an abbreviated version of police academy standards.
My point was, how can we expect a teacher to hunt down the shooter when a trained cop was unwilling to do it. There's a difference between protecting the children (which too many teachers have done) and acting as a tactical response unit. I'm very supportive of having armed police in the school. My children's district already has cops in schools. But they train full time for these situations. Teachers do not. My wife and I agree that if teachers are armed in our school, they will be home schooled.
There are a lot of cops that aren't well trained.
I know a bunch of cops that don't practice shooting.
I know a bunch of cops that retired NEVER un-holstering their weapon.
The cop that was there at the Florida school resigned for a reason, he should have never been there in the first place.
Right, lots of cops shouldn't be cops and lots of teachers shouldn't be teachers yet now if they want to be armed at their profession as well they can. Both professions go through background checks, but the intensity of training requirements and type of background vary by state. So the same place that hires shitty cops is going to hire shitty teachers, right? Either way, how many wannabe cops are out there compared to wannabe teachers? Can we at least admit that there are plenty of teachers who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun either, but now we're saying let them bring it to school so they can engage the threat if they want? What a nightmare for school districts to sort that out from an admin perspective.
So what if your teacher who wants to carry a gun fails his mental health/psych check or training? What impact will that have on their teaching and their job security? This isn't a straw man theory, it's a strong possibility to consider. Any teachers on here that had to pass a pysch/mental health background to become a teacher? Serious question. All cops in MN have to pass a psych to get hired. You take an MMPI and meet with a pyschologist. Sometimes you even need to take the California Psych. Inventory. Are we going to ensure the same standard for our armed teachers.
It's fucking dumb that not all gun owners at least need to pass an initial pysch/mental health screening. It would decrease gun violence and suicide by so much.
There is a flaw to this thinking. Shooters on trial don't ever get to plea insanity because they aren't. So the screening wouldn't do much in stopping the shootings.
I do agree that teachers should not carry though.
This is a great point that I was thinking about the other day. All these NRA people (and Trump) talking about "this psychopath", this "crazy person", etc. Do we think this person qualifies for an insanity plea? Will the NRA and Trump be supportive of that legal strategy? Is he crazy or not?
The bigger, infuriating question is why in the fuck are they even bringing it up if they aren't willing to use their mental health concerns to limit his access to weaponry.
I don't think some people here know what a straw man argument really means. Might want to look it up before using it.
Oddly enough, you *almost just used one here, lol
Hey great, it's the worst offender. Can you explain the examples of straw men that have been apparently used so often in this arming teachers debate?
They often start with people saying “all of these gun nuts just think...”
That's not an example, try again.
Now we are going to argue the "strawman theory"?
Yes, if you are going to accuse people of using a false tactic, a fallacy not a theory, in a debate forum then you should be using it properly. Words and arguments matter.
I don't think some people here know what a straw man argument really means. Might want to look it up before using it.
Oddly enough, you *almost just used one here, lol
Hey great, it's the worst offender. Can you explain the examples of straw men that have been apparently used so often in this arming teachers debate?
They often start with people saying “all of these gun nuts just think...”
That's not an example, try again.
Now we are going to argue the "strawman theory"?
Yes, if you are going to accuse people of using a false tactic, a fallacy not a theory, in a debate forum then you should be using it properly. Words and arguments matter.
It was rhetorical and meant in jest. I forget that we can not portray that through text so that is my fault!
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Can we summarize the suggested actions (for either handling the gun problem in schools or public areas)? Not the reasons behind them, just strictly the actions themselves. At this point, I think I’ve heard:
1. Arm teachers with tasers 2. Arm teachers with guns 3. Deploy armed guards in schools 4. Deploy armed guards in public facilities 5. Ban guns 6. Ban assault type weapons 7. Increase gun control
Have I missed any?
Somehow, somefucking how because I don't know how to do this, but somehow stop kids from turning into bullies. My wife told me about an article by this guy who said he had planned a mass shooting at his school because he was sick to death of being bullied. The only reason he didn't carry out his plan was because he was too stoned. I don't know if all these details are correct but the point is if we stopped the bulling, some of these incidents wouldn't happen.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The straw man I keep mentioning, that keeps getting used still, is the assertion that we are talking about forcing librarians to carry AR-15's and that we want every teacher packing and ready to be a total badass commando. That's not what we propose, but it's easier to argue against than the idea of a select few vetted and trained volunteers in a controlled system. And then the slippery slope always follows, "what's next, kindergarteners with assault rifles?".
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
Are you for arming teachers then?
I am for allowing physically fit and emotionally stable teachers to arm themselves voluntarily under strict guidelines and supervision if they have passed a thorough vetting, testing, and training program which would be an abbreviated version of police academy standards.
My point was, how can we expect a teacher to hunt down the shooter when a trained cop was unwilling to do it. There's a difference between protecting the children (which too many teachers have done) and acting as a tactical response unit. I'm very supportive of having armed police in the school. My children's district already has cops in schools. But they train full time for these situations. Teachers do not. My wife and I agree that if teachers are armed in our school, they will be home schooled.
There are a lot of cops that aren't well trained.
I know a bunch of cops that don't practice shooting.
I know a bunch of cops that retired NEVER un-holstering their weapon.
The cop that was there at the Florida school resigned for a reason, he should have never been there in the first place.
Right, lots of cops shouldn't be cops and lots of teachers shouldn't be teachers yet now if they want to be armed at their profession as well they can. Both professions go through background checks, but the intensity of training requirements and type of background vary by state. So the same place that hires shitty cops is going to hire shitty teachers, right? Either way, how many wannabe cops are out there compared to wannabe teachers? Can we at least admit that there are plenty of teachers who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun either, but now we're saying let them bring it to school so they can engage the threat if they want? What a nightmare for school districts to sort that out from an admin perspective.
So what if your teacher who wants to carry a gun fails his mental health/psych check or training? What impact will that have on their teaching and their job security? This isn't a straw man theory, it's a strong possibility to consider. Any teachers on here that had to pass a pysch/mental health background to become a teacher? Serious question. All cops in MN have to pass a psych to get hired. You take an MMPI and meet with a pyschologist. Sometimes you even need to take the California Psych. Inventory. Are we going to ensure the same standard for our armed teachers.
It's fucking dumb that not all gun owners at least need to pass an initial pysch/mental health screening. It would decrease gun violence and suicide by so much.
There is a flaw to this thinking. Shooters on trial don't ever get to plea insanity because they aren't. So the screening wouldn't do much in stopping the shootings.
I do agree that teachers should not carry though.
This is a great point that I was thinking about the other day. All these NRA people (and Trump) talking about "this psychopath", this "crazy person", etc. Do we think this person qualifies for an insanity plea? Will the NRA and Trump be supportive of that legal strategy? Is he crazy or not?
The bigger, infuriating question is why in the fuck are they even bringing it up if they aren't willing to use their mental health concerns to limit his access to weaponry.
Maybe because our mental health system in general is broken. Are people really getting the type of treatment that they need? Coming from a background career in mental health/psychology, I can tell you that the system is flooded and there are plenty of people getting over-prescribed psychotropic medications. Many of these medications can result in psychotic behavior or suicidal/homicidal tendencies when in appropriately prescribed for the wrong mental health problems. The problem is that, for the vast majority, they probably do not cause psychotic or homicidal behavior and may actually reduce those tendencies (if they existed in the first place), but prescribed to the “wrong person”, can be devastating. I think that there is definitively either a lack of appropriate mental healthcare in the US, resulting from stigmas, perceptions of weakness, or just getting the wrong kind of treatment all together. I do not think that it makes sense to restrict the rights of someone simply because they are being treated for a mental health issue, though, as the vast majority of people getting treatment for depression or anxiety are probably not homicidal maniacs. We do need to do a better job at correctly evaluating those that are, though. I think that this is yet another place where the US healthcare system drops the ball compared to other countries.
The straw man I keep mentioning, that keeps getting used still, is the assertion that we are talking about forcing librarians to carry AR-15's and that we want every teacher packing and ready to be a total badass commando. That's not what we propose, but it's easier to argue against than the idea of a select few vetted and trained volunteers in a controlled system. And then the slippery slope always follows, "what's next, kindergarteners with assault rifles?".
You were using it in the proper context.
But the slippery slope argument is valid and should be considered and debated. At what point do we draw the line?
The straw man I keep mentioning, that keeps getting used still, is the assertion that we are talking about forcing librarians to carry AR-15's and that we want every teacher packing and ready to be a total badass commando. That's not what we propose, but it's easier to argue against than the idea of a select few vetted and trained volunteers in a controlled system. And then the slippery slope always follows, "what's next, kindergarteners with assault rifles?".
You were using it in the proper context.
But the slippery slope argument is valid and should be considered and debated. At what point do we draw the line?
Lol, I’m fairly confident that the line would get drawn by the gun control crowd and non-gun control crowd well before arming kindergarten students. The reason that the slippery slope argument is unproductive is that it can be applied to even the most minute aspects of the conversation. “What’s next, knives” for instance. It’s just a strategy best left in the trunk.
The straw man I keep mentioning, that keeps getting used still, is the assertion that we are talking about forcing librarians to carry AR-15's and that we want every teacher packing and ready to be a total badass commando. That's not what we propose, but it's easier to argue against than the idea of a select few vetted and trained volunteers in a controlled system. And then the slippery slope always follows, "what's next, kindergarteners with assault rifles?".
You were using it in the proper context.
But the slippery slope argument is valid and should be considered and debated. At what point do we draw the line?
Lol, I’m fairly confident that the line would get drawn by the gun control crowd and non-gun control crowd well before arming kindergarten students. The reason that the slippery slope argument is unproductive is that it can be applied to even the most minute aspects of the conversation. “What’s next, knives” for instance. It’s just a strategy left in the trunk.
A hospital is attacked, arm the doctors and nurses. Library attacked, arm the librarians. Another movie theater gets attacked, arm the kid who takes tickets and makes popcorn. Local hockey rink is attacked, arm the zamboni driver.
Eventually these soft targets will be hit and you know the NRA and idiots like Trump will be screaming for these places to have civilians protecting them with guns.
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
I've never criticized that police officer or used it as an example to prove anything... and I never will... everybody on here would shit their pants in that moment and has no idea how they would respond... I feel bad for the guy
Leaving it up to someone with a gun to stop a shooter, or shooters, is a crapshoot. You can get a hero type who would lay down their life when unarmed, a loose cannon type like a George Zimmerman that may shoot someone they perceived as a threat or a licensed cop milking his/her retirement who isn't in the least bit interested in taking on someone with an assault rifle. None of them are a solution to making schools safer. They're feel good responses from people who have seen too many movies where the good guy always wins under pressure. Focusing on the idea of arming more people allows for nothing to change while people get a false sense of security.
If all airports did after 9/11 was allow more "good guys" to carry guns on planes would that have been an acceptable solution to anyone here?
That last point there, that is a really great point. Im using that one
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
Are you for arming teachers then?
I am for allowing physically fit and emotionally stable teachers to arm themselves voluntarily under strict guidelines and supervision if they have passed a thorough vetting, testing, and training program which would be an abbreviated version of police academy standards.
My point was, how can we expect a teacher to hunt down the shooter when a trained cop was unwilling to do it. There's a difference between protecting the children (which too many teachers have done) and acting as a tactical response unit. I'm very supportive of having armed police in the school. My children's district already has cops in schools. But they train full time for these situations. Teachers do not. My wife and I agree that if teachers are armed in our school, they will be home schooled.
There are a lot of cops that aren't well trained.
I know a bunch of cops that don't practice shooting.
I know a bunch of cops that retired NEVER un-holstering their weapon.
The cop that was there at the Florida school resigned for a reason, he should have never been there in the first place.
Right, lots of cops shouldn't be cops and lots of teachers shouldn't be teachers yet now if they want to be armed at their profession as well they can. Both professions go through background checks, but the intensity of training requirements and type of background vary by state. So the same place that hires shitty cops is going to hire shitty teachers, right? Either way, how many wannabe cops are out there compared to wannabe teachers? Can we at least admit that there are plenty of teachers who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun either, but now we're saying let them bring it to school so they can engage the threat if they want? What a nightmare for school districts to sort that out from an admin perspective.
So what if your teacher who wants to carry a gun fails his mental health/psych check or training? What impact will that have on their teaching and their job security? This isn't a straw man theory, it's a strong possibility to consider. Any teachers on here that had to pass a pysch/mental health background to become a teacher? Serious question. All cops in MN have to pass a psych to get hired. You take an MMPI and meet with a pyschologist. Sometimes you even need to take the California Psych. Inventory. Are we going to ensure the same standard for our armed teachers.
It's fucking dumb that not all gun owners at least need to pass an initial pysch/mental health screening. It would decrease gun violence and suicide by so much.
There is a flaw to this thinking. Shooters on trial don't ever get to plea insanity because they aren't. So the screening wouldn't do much in stopping the shootings.
I do agree that teachers should not carry though.
This is a great point that I was thinking about the other day. All these NRA people (and Trump) talking about "this psychopath", this "crazy person", etc. Do we think this person qualifies for an insanity plea? Will the NRA and Trump be supportive of that legal strategy? Is he crazy or not?
The bigger, infuriating question is why in the fuck are they even bringing it up if they aren't willing to use their mental health concerns to limit his access to weaponry.
Maybe because our mental health system in general is broken. Are people really getting the type of treatment that they need? Coming from a background career in mental health/psychology, I can tell you that the system is flooded and there are plenty of people getting over-prescribed psychotropic medications. Many of these medications can result in psychotic behavior or suicidal/homicidal tendencies when in appropriately prescribed for the wrong mental health problems. The problem is that, for the vast majority, they probably do not cause psychotic or homicidal behavior and may actually reduce those tendencies (if they existed in the first place), but prescribed to the “wrong person”, can be devastating. I think that there is definitively either a lack of appropriate mental healthcare in the US, resulting from stigmas, perceptions of weakness, or just getting the wrong kind of treatment all together. I do not think that it makes sense to restrict the rights of someone simply because they are being treated for a mental health issue, though, as the vast majority of people getting treatment for depression or anxiety are probably not homicidal maniacs. We do need to do a better job at correctly evaluating those that are, though. I think that this is yet another place where the US healthcare system drops the ball compared to other countries.
I agree with you on the state of our mental health systems. There doesn't need to be a fear around people with mental health. I am more interested in the psychological health of gun owners. That's completely different than a mental health exam, but everyone (not in here, but publicly) keeps mentioning mental health like there's some clear path to insanity and crazy. That's why Dana Loesch's comments at the town hall were driving me crazy. She kept using extreme terms (monster, crazy, deranged maniac) to make it sound like it's as simple as labeling them such and stripping them of all rights. A civil commitment is one of the hardest orders to place against a person for a reason.
What I really want is the pysch tests and in person evaluation. That will deter and make it near impossible for people who are already at a crossroads. Beyond a sociopath, very few people would be able to fake those psych questions they ask you 10 different ways over the course of 500 other questions and then personally evaluate you. Now, if I am ok at 21 and can pass, that doesn't mean I'm ok at 31, so I think a periodic re-evaluation would need to take place. Maybe like a driver's license, every 4 or 5 years unless you commit a crime. Again, this would also require a registry of guns and gun owners. If you truly want to lower gun violence these steps would significantly reduce pre-meditated and emotionally motivated reaction incidents from occurring.
It's a hopeless situation...
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
I think the Second Amendment should be followed exactly as the Founding Fathers intended. Everyone with a modern gun should turn it in and get a musket exactly like the ones the FF were talking about when that amendment was written. That will take care of assault rifles.
Comments
The flaw here is in misunderstanding what an NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity plea) means. Although the legal standard varies somewhat from state to state, it only applies to extreme circumstances where an individual is so affected by symptoms of mental illness that they are unable to discern what they are doing or the wrongfulness of their actions. Typically this only applies when somehow has psychotic symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations. This is not the case in the vast majority of suicides or shootings, where issues like alcohol and drugs, depression, anger and jealousy are at play. These factors could potentially be assessed by psychological screening prior to gun ownership.
It's not up to Trump or the NRA or you or I to determine if an accused is "crazy". None of them have any knowledge in that legal issue. Why would we care if Trump "supports" a particular legal strategy??
At least that way... Donald wouldn't come across as such a f**king idiot every time he opens his lips.
That's not what we propose, but it's easier to argue against than the idea of a select few vetted and trained volunteers in a controlled system.
And then the slippery slope always follows, "what's next, kindergarteners with assault rifles?".
I do not think that it makes sense to restrict the rights of someone simply because they are being treated for a mental health issue, though, as the vast majority of people getting treatment for depression or anxiety are probably not homicidal maniacs. We do need to do a better job at correctly evaluating those that are, though.
I think that this is yet another place where the US healthcare system drops the ball compared to other countries.
But the slippery slope argument is valid and should be considered and debated. At what point do we draw the line?
Eventually these soft targets will be hit and you know the NRA and idiots like Trump will be screaming for these places to have civilians protecting them with guns.
What I really want is the pysch tests and in person evaluation. That will deter and make it near impossible for people who are already at a crossroads. Beyond a sociopath, very few people would be able to fake those psych questions they ask you 10 different ways over the course of 500 other questions and then personally evaluate you. Now, if I am ok at 21 and can pass, that doesn't mean I'm ok at 31, so I think a periodic re-evaluation would need to take place. Maybe like a driver's license, every 4 or 5 years unless you commit a crime. Again, this would also require a registry of guns and gun owners. If you truly want to lower gun violence these steps would significantly reduce pre-meditated and emotionally motivated reaction incidents from occurring.
Here's hoping the insanity will stop.