America's Gun Violence

There must be some kind of way outta here
Said the lobbyist to the chief
There's too much confusion
I can't get no release

Congress men, they reg my crypto
Come and take my gun
None were level on the mind
Nobody up at his word
Hey, hey

No reason to get excited
The NRA they kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke
But, uh, but you've been through that
And this is our desired profit
So let us stop talkin' falsely now
The hour's getting late, hey

All along the guardtower
PhysEd teach kept the view
While all the gunmen came and went
Barefoot dead students, too
Outside in the cold distance 
A Hillary did growl
Two gunners were approaching
And Obama began to howl

110 TX school districts already letting teachers be armed.
http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/tasb-110-school-districts-allow-teachers-to-carry-guns

To be a teacher in the United States, you should be required to:
1. Have an MA in education
2. Core college credits in your specialty area
3. Received, at a minimum, Distinguished Marksmen Badge (1% signing bonus if you also have Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge)
4. Be willing to counterattack a person with a semi or fully automatic weapon (with bump stock)
5. Be happy making $36K per year.  

What are the rules in Texas?  Is there vetting and training? Is it wild west style?  I absolutely wouldn't support that.

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

my2hands said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Hey unsung, here's one I'm surprised you haven't been ragging on. Student is providing fake information about scripted questions from CNN.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/22/shooting_survivor_colton_haab_cnn_gave_me_scripted_question_after_denying_question_about_armed_guards.html

So now we are back to not caring what the kids say?

Make up your minds.

You have no credibility here. Nobody gives a shit what you have to say. 

And yet you keep responding...

Yeah cool, I can go away and you can stand in a circle in your groups that just nod their heads in agreement.

Trust me, I prefer a good discussion, let me know if you ever are up for it.

We all have the same goals here, I hope to protect life, well at least this stage of life anyway.  We just have different ways of wanting to get those results.

Ha!  What a joke, you run from every debate you've ever started with a snide comment or bad Photoshop job.
You don't respond to any questions and you don't provide rebuttals, David Hogg would shred you to pieces on any topic.

Would he be able to film prior to the incident? I hear he has a track record for doing so.  Hopefully he will remember his lines.

You read, digest and regurgitate lies.  An aide to a FL (R) representative was promptly fired for pushing this conspiracy to the Tampa Bay Times.  

Part of the problem. Repubes can’t win on policy anymore. Hence the lies, hate, gerrymandered districts and Russian collusion. Let Team Trump Treason and his followers have Texas, Arizona and Nevada.
 

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

What are the rules in Texas?  Is there vetting and training? Is it wild west style?  I absolutely wouldn't support that.

No, the article I posted states what districts require for a teacher to be able to carry.  
And I do not know why some people here (not you rgambs) cannot get it through their skulls that teachers do not HAVE to carry, but they do have to jump through certain hoops if they VOLUNTEER to carry at a school that allows it.  Here is the quote I am referring to:
"If someone is approved to carry, they go through a psychological assessment very similar to a school marshal program that's allowed here in Texas,” Dockery said. “They also have to have a CHL and they would also go through training with law enforcement in our area."

No one is forcing them to carry...

HOUSE BILL NO. 1009 Chapter 1701 Texas Occupations Code, 83rd Legislature 2013. Sec.1701.260.(c). The training program shall include 80 hours of instruction designed to: (1) Emphasize strategies for preventing school shootings and for securing the safety of potential victims of school shootings; (2) Educate a trainee about legal issues relating to the duties of peace officers and the use of force or deadly force in the protection of others; (3) Introduce the trainee to effective law enforcement strategies and techniques; (4) Improve the trainee’s proficiency with a handgun; and (5) Enable the trainee to respond to an e m e r gen c y s i tu at io n r eq u ir i ng deadly force, such as a situation involving an active shooter.

WHAT IS A SCHOOL MARSHAL? School districts across Texas now have the option of training selected employees to be armed marshals. These marshals will serve to protect students from armed intruders in accordance with HB 1009. Individuals participating in this newly designed program will be a current district employee and already possess a current concealed handgun license. This training gives school districts another option for protection of students. WHO CAN BE A SCHOOL MARSHAL?  A current employee of a school district or an open-enrollment charter school,  has a current concealed handgun license,  appointed by the board of trustees of a school district or the governing body. A SCHOOL MARSHAL SE

WHAT ARE THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS? Participants will be required to complete an 80 -hour training through an academy licensed by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. This training will include topics in physical security, use of force and legal liability, firearms training, and law enforcement strategies and techniques. HOW DO I APPLY TO PARTICIPATE? Those interested in participating in the School Marshal Program should contact their school administration for their district selection process. School marshals will be appointed by the board of trustees of a school district or the governing body of an open -enrollment charter school.

ARE SCHOOL DISTRICTS REQUIRED TO HAVE SCHOOL MARSHALS? This is an optional program for school districts

WILL THIS LICENSE HAVE TO BE RENEWED? License renewal will occur every two years. A renewal course will also need to be completed which will include: a mental health evaluation, active shooter and emergency situation review, and further firearms proficiency training. 

https://www.tcole.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/school marshal brochure.pdf

tempo_n_groove said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the nation for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The deadliest bullet in the world is a .22 bullet.  When you see it up close it doesn't look like much but it's a killer.  Most people don't know or don't really care. 

Add .003 to that bullet and you have the .223 bullet.  The same bullet that is used in an AR-15.  Now everyone seems to care.

I don't understand your point and don't know what it has to do with the article. Can you explain?

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the nation for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The deadliest bullet in the world is a .22 bullet.  When you see it up close it doesn't look like much but it's a killer.  Most people don't know or don't really care. 

Add .003 to that bullet and you have the .223 bullet.  The same bullet that is used in an AR-15.  Now everyone seems to care.

You're missing the point. Do you think semi-auto rifles such as the AR15 should be owned by the public? Yes, a .22 handgun or long gun is deadly, but the argument here is for the gun and its magazine capacity. If an assault rifle fired .22 rounds it would still be something that should be banned. No one is saying stop selling .223 rounds.

Pointing out that a little .22 rifle can inflect a lot of damage too, 22 rifles can carry high capacity rounds also.  That was my point.

And yes you should be able to own an AR-15.  I'd make it more stringent to get though.

Did you read the article? No one here has argued that any type of bullet is more dangerous than another. All bullets can kill, but the gun they fire from makes a difference in how fast and efficiently they can kill. Do you agree or disagree with that?

I had a .22 pistol and rifle as a kid. One of the first things my dad taught me about was how far those .22 rounds travel and the risk a stray can pose if not aimed with the background in mind. I know not everyone here has a history of handling guns, but that doesn't make their point invalid.

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the nation for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The deadliest bullet in the world is a .22 bullet.  When you see it up close it doesn't look like much but it's a killer.  Most people don't know or don't really care. 

Add .003 to that bullet and you have the .223 bullet.  The same bullet that is used in an AR-15.  Now everyone seems to care.

I don't understand your point and don't know what it has to do with the article. Can you explain?

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the nation for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The deadliest bullet in the world is a .22 bullet.  When you see it up close it doesn't look like much but it's a killer.  Most people don't know or don't really care. 

Add .003 to that bullet and you have the .223 bullet.  The same bullet that is used in an AR-15.  Now everyone seems to care.

You're missing the point. Do you think semi-auto rifles such as the AR15 should be owned by the public? Yes, a .22 handgun or long gun is deadly, but the argument here is for the gun and its magazine capacity. If an assault rifle fired .22 rounds it would still be something that should be banned. No one is saying stop selling .223 rounds.

Pointing out that a little .22 rifle can inflect a lot of damage too, 22 rifles can carry high capacity rounds also.  That was my point.

And yes you should be able to own an AR-15.  I'd make it more stringent to get though.

Did you read the article? No one here has argued that any type of bullet is more dangerous than another. All bullets can kill, but the gun they fire from makes a difference in how fast and efficiently they can kill. Do you agree or disagree with that?

I had a .22 pistol and rifle as a kid. One of the first things my dad taught me about was how far those .22 rounds travel and the risk a stray can pose if not aimed with the background in mind. I know not everyone here has a history of handling guns, but that doesn't make their point invalid.

I did read the article.  Of course what you are using can make a difference in efficiency.

What I am also trying to drive home is that a person can be an effective killer with a 22LR and a 10rd clip.  For whatever reason the people that have gone on killing sprees have chosen an AR-15 rather than a handgun, AK, UZI or a 22LR which are all capable of inflicting enormous amounts of damage.

Again, I would make it harder to acquire the guns, not a complete ban.

I did read the article.  Of course what you are using can make a difference in efficiency.

What I am also trying to drive home is that a person can be an effective killer with a 22LR and a 10rd clip.  For whatever reason the people that have gone on killing sprees have chosen an AR-15 rather than a handgun, AK, UZI or a 22LR which are all capable of inflicting enormous amounts of damage.

Again, I would make it harder to acquire the guns, not a complete ban.

Efficiency makes a huge difference.  Reloading or even an extra split second between shots can save a life.  Sure Charles Whitman was effective with a rifle, but not nearly as effective as the shooters in Sandy Hook, Pulse, Vegas or FL.