America's Gun Violence

josevolution said:

CM189191 said:

To all you armed guard morons

There was an armed guard in Florida, paid handsomely

He cowered outside the building while students were slaughtered

'It's devastating': Cop stayed outside during Florida massacre while students died
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/365122002

Yep saw this what a damn shame , he lost his courage when he needed it most ...

rgambs said:

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??

my2hands said:

riley540 said:

I want to clarify that I don’t know where I stand on a ban on assault rifles. I’m just trying to state aruguments that have been brought up by people close to me. 

I believe people have a right to be upset, it’s terrible what has happened. But this wouldn’t be a debate if there weren’t two sides. I believe nobody wants school shooting, but I believe everyone has different ideas on how to stop them. 

In a thread that is left of center ( fair to say? ) I just want to offer a more right leaning view point, because that’s what I was around growing up. 

I do do not know where I stand on an assault rifle ban. 

Guns to protect from a tyrannical US goverment/military is horse shit. Literally a big steaming pile of horseshit that a 5 year old should realize is ridiculous 

If anyone has guns to protect them from the US government, I'm sorry, but that's just flat out dumb

brianlux said:

continued:

Finally, here's your counterarguments for the most common pro-gun arguments:
Pro-gun argument - assault weapons aren't an actual thing. Banning them won't make a difference.
Counterargument - none. This is true. Classifying a gun as an "assault weapon" is something people who know nothing about guns do. Having a bayonet stud (a place to mount a bayonet) used to be one way to classify a gun as an assault weapon. Last I checked, we don't have a bayonet problem in this country. Talk about banning semi-auto guns instead of made-up things like "assault weapons."
Pro-gun argument - 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms!
Counterargument - sure, it does, but there can be limitations. And in case anyone needs a history lesson, the individual right to bear arms has only existed since 2008. From the adoption of the Constitution until the DC v. Heller decision in 2008, the 2nd Amendment had never been interpreted to mean private citizens have a right to own guns. (Thanks, Scalia.) But that decision is now the law of the land and precedent for future court decisions. Nevertheless, even in Scalia's majority opinion, he asserts that there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment. Weapons allowed should be those in common use at the time. And limitations should be made on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, per previous precedent in United States v. Miller. I argue that semi-auto firearms should now be considered "dangerous and unusual," given their lethality.
Pro-gun argument - if law-abiding citizens get rid of their guns, criminals won't follow the law, and we'll be in more danger.
Counterargument - this is an argument against having laws. Since criminals don't follow the law, there should be no limits on anything. Also, when we do outlaw things, it can work. Purchases of large quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was restricted after the Oklahoma City bombing, and there hasn't been a similar bombing since. We outlawed fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. in the 20th century, and what has happened? We don't see violence with those types of weapons. Most weapons used to commit crimes are purchased lawfully. If we change the laws, it will work to reduce gun deaths.
Pro-gun argument - if we ban guns, people will just use knives or baseball bats
Counterargument - there are plenty of incidents around the world of mass stabbings or clubbings, etc. Show me one that is as lethal as a mass shooting.
Pro-gun argument - we need armed security guards in every school
Counterargument - do you trust the security guard won't become a mass shooter? The Texas church shooter was an Air Force veteran. The Pulse nightclub shooter was a security guard. Further, it's relatively easy to get the drop on a security guard. Shoot him first when he's not expecting, then keep going. That's what the Pulse nightclub shooter did. It's not difficult if you draw first. Columbine had armed security, too. Adding more guns to schools adds more risk, it doesn't reduce it.
Pro-gun argument - it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue *or* guns don't kill people, people kill people
Counterargument - The United States has the same rates of mental illness as other developed Western countries, but we're the only ones with this type of violence. The mentally ill are actually less likely to commit crime than those who aren't mentally ill, which many find surprising. Also, those who are mentally ill are more likely to become the victim of a crime than those who don't have mental illness. It's a common refrain to hear "anyone who would do that must be crazy." That's not true. Being a murderer doesn't actually mean you are mentally ill, which is why you hardly ever see successful insanity defenses in trials. And if "people kill people," then we really should stop giving all these people guns, right? We don't allow private F-22s or nuclear weapons, do we? Why? Because people would use them to kill other people. People use people-killing machines to kill people. Go figure.
Pro-gun argument - We, as a society, have turned our backs on God. This is why crime is getting worse. We need God/Jesus to heal people's hearts, not get rid of law-abiding citizens' guns.
Counterargument - Crime has actually decreased overall in recent decades. Things are getting better, not worse. Murder rates and violent crime overall have trended down as we've advanced as a society. Mass shootings have remained steady, though, because angry people have easy access to guns.
Pro-gun argument - we need guns to fight against the government in case it becomes tyrannical.
Counterargument - I doubt semi-automatic weapons will defeat a tyrannical government with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery, drones, advanced cyber capabilities, and nuclear weapons.
Pro-gun argument - gun registrations will make it easier for the government to disarm us
Counterargument - The registration is necessary to keep track of deadly weapons in case they are used in a crime, or in case a law-abiding citizen commits a crime that revokes their right to guns. There's over 300 million privately owned guns in America. If the government wanted to take everyone's guns, they'd do it the same way they would if there wasn't a registry: by going door to door and searching everyone.
I truly believe we need to do far more than anything advocated by most mainstream gun control organizations like Everytown and Moms Demand Action. We need to follow the lead of countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada. They've figured it out. Why can't we?”

Meltdown99 said:

I don’t he was a security cop ... he was making 76000 grand a year ... he was a regular cop assigned to that school ...

tbergs said:

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?

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

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.  

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

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.  

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

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.