Page 27 of 39 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 388

Thread: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

  1. #261
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Yep...typical liberal/socialist debate tactic again: When my ass gets handed to me, the best course of action is to double down. Use the tactic again. Maybe they'll forget that I'm a dumbass.

    Sorry, dude. Every time you open your mouth, you remind us.
    You can keep pulling pages from the playbook all you want, it won't change the fact you were wrong. You got embarrassed by the fact you are wrong, and now you're resorting to boring rhetoric to try and salvage your ego.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You people keep promising to keep me on your ignore list but you never do. You never ever do. You people keep clicking "view post" and then can't help yourself but to respond to something I say sooner or later.
    Your latest posts were far more respectful than most of your previous posts. Had it been the same type of post you had been posting previously, I would have ignored you. I'm on a few different forums and have been for many years. You're little more than a blip on my current radar. I replied because the tone of your conversation turned back to civil. If you no longer wish to discuss this civilly, then I'll ignore you.

    So really, everything affects your relationship with every child. I'm not seeing anything unique about guns here. Do you want to just ban every negative thing a child could ever learn about the teacher?
    I'm not sure how this is what you took my from statement. I can control whether or not a gun is in my classroom. I cannot control if another teacher was a stripper or if a fellow teacher is a homosexual. I can, however, control whether or not a gun is in my classroom.

    I'm genuinely confused as to how that was what you took from my statement.

    I'm gona brake a gun-culture rule here and level with you on handling: Guns are safe. We're talking about a gun in a holster. It's not gona fire. Relax. It's not going to fire. Even if bumped, even if the teacher is playing with the kids...it's a safe thing.
    And I'm going to level with you...guns are responsible for the death of 30,000 Americans every year. I have students who have been shot at and students who have lost parents to them. Perhaps a gun by itself is safe, but the moment a gun comes into a person's possession, there will always be a risk.

    Safer than a pocket knife, even, and I bet your school lets teachers have a pocket knife.
    Of course not.

    You're freaking out over nothing.
    I'm not freaking out about anything, I'm telling you that you clearly do not understand what it means to be a teacher.

    Oh so if someone has never served in the military then they should stfu about Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
    Did I say anything like that? Of course not. My statement was in response to your claim I did not have any credibility, not in support of your supposition that I believed you didn't have any credibility.

    Could you please, at the very least, be honest about what you're saying?

    I do dispute it, actually
    Then you cannot be an intelligent person. Please explain how it is possible for there to be people shot by guns when no guns exist. I would love to hear your answer.

    You cannot remove every gun from existence and prevent anymore from being created.
    I didn't say you could and even acknowledged you couldn't. But what I said was that if, theoretically, you could remove every gun from the world, no one would ever be shot. This is an indisputable statement. At which point, those who are against guns are entirely correct by default.

    And that's why you're wrong be default: you're pursuing something which is impossible.
    False. We're not pursuing something which is impossible. We're pursuing something which has evidence of working. No one who supports any level of gun ban believes all guns will be removed. No one believes gun homicide will drop to zero. For you to believe that's what people like me are saying is for you to not understand our argument. Our argument is that the more guns are removed from society, the fewer people will be killed by them. We'll never be able to remove gun crime completely, I agree with you that is an impossible proposition. But since it's not what anyone is arguing, there's no reason for you to argue against it.

    You do not choose to be shot at. When you are shot at, you have the right to defend yourself.
    You keep changing the context of our discussion. Is this because you have trouble remembering what we're discussing or because you're not being honest?

    Your choice to wear a gun is just that; it's your choice. You make the choice to wear a gun and if someone shoots at you, you still make the choice to pull your gun and shoot back. You can choose to wear a gun or not wear a gun. I could not choose my skin color. My friend John could not change his skin color. There is no choice.

    You equating gun rights to racism is ridiculously false. They are not even close to the same thing.

    You had your gun-free zone in Sandy Hook.
    Again, I've already said I'm completely okay with police officers on campus. How many times do I have to say it before you'll be honest enough to acknowledge it?

    You're supporting the laws which killed 20 children in Sandy Hook.
    Oh really? So when the law allows Adam Lanza's mother to purchase the weapons which killed those chlidren, you don't support those laws?

    You're cherry picking the laws you're wishing to blame. Again, your position is dishonest.

    You are being offensive and disrespectful simply be taking the anti-gun pov.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, it wasn't the people who weren't carrying guns which killed the children, but rather the person with the gun which killed the children. It seems to me the only difference between the two groups of people was the gun.

    The fact you think supporting less guns is offensive, when guns are killing 30,000 Americans every year, and 12,000 of those considered homicide, sure does say a lot about you and what I consider to be your irrationality when it comes to firearms.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    If no one is armed, ALL of the people in the school are at the shooter's mercy. They can't fight back because people like you won't allow them that opportunity.
    This is simply false. The people can fight back. The people should fight back. Will they be at the disadvantage in weaponry? Yes. Will they have the advantage in numbers? Absolutely.

    The problem isn't with the lack of guns, though as I said, I'm okay with officers at the school. The problem is that schools have always been trained to be passive in shooter situations, not aggressive. When the two kids terrorized Columbine high school, had the students been trained to fight back, far fewer of them would have been hurt/killed. If the students at Virginia Tech had reacted with aggression and not hid behind their desks, the shooter would have been subdued almost immediately.

    Schools are now changing tactics. I know many schools in my area are going through training which teaches students this very concept. More and more schools are now seeing the folly of being passive and are now resorting to aggressive actions when a shooter is in their vicinity.

    Well, if you could tell me the page # or post #, that would be extremely helpful and I definitely will check it out.
    I've actually said it multiple times in this thread, but I believe the first time was in post 185 in response to Goshin.

    No, if the teacher is armed, he/she has a fighting chance. If you leave them unarmed, they are all going to be dead.
    If an intruder breaks into a classroom, the teacher will be the first one dead, in almost every instance. Nobody expects someone to come into their class ready to shoot. The shooter would have the advantage because they know why they are there and they will be prepared. The teacher will be the first dead, because the teacher is the leader of the classroom. When Cho attacked Virginia Tech, the first person in the classroom he killed was the professor. When Lanza came into the elementary, the first people he killed were the adults in the area he was firing (which also happened to be the principal). The teacher goes first. It's just a basic concept of attack. You take out the leader and then focus your efforts on the rest.

    Wrong. The children wouldn't know unless you told them.
    The children would know. To think otherwise is just not being realistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    His posts are generally tl and not worth reading. The dynamic bit is psychobabble.
    I find it amusing you think you know better than I do about a relationship between a teacher and student.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    It's funny how people say "no, it will change the dynamic" and "the children will know" but don't explain how or why. They just make these matter of fact statements without backing them up in any way.
    And it's funny when you DO explain them, people don't bother reading them.

    See post #242. I've already explained it. The fact you didn't read it is your fault, not mine.
    Last edited by Slyfox696; 04-05-13 at 10:39 AM.

  2. #262
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:08 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,309

    Re: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

    I could use a little enlightenment. Isn't the well-to-do, armed, white, male the demographic most of the shooters come from. I can't see how installing an armed individual from this shooter demographic in the schools makes sense. Humor me here because I'm serious. This LaPierre guy that's head of the NRA evaded the draft because of a nervous condition. That would be a psychological problem, wouldn't it? Should he even be allowed to own a gun?

  3. #263
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I could use a little enlightenment. Isn't the well-to-do, armed, white, male the demographic most of the shooters come from. I can't see how installing an armed individual from this shooter demographic in the schools makes sense.
    High caliber reasoning right there. Maybe we should put you in charge of an inner-city police department.




    ps. I'm for allowing teachers to carry, not guards.

  4. #264
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,899

    Re: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I could use a little enlightenment. Isn't the well-to-do, armed, white, male the demographic most of the shooters come from. I can't see how installing an armed individual from this shooter demographic in the schools makes sense. Humor me here because I'm serious. This LaPierre guy that's head of the NRA evaded the draft because of a nervous condition. That would be a psychological problem, wouldn't it? Should he even be allowed to own a gun?
    Yeah,...your stereotyping has a point. Perhaps we should make sure that any armed individual in the school is poor, non-white and not a male. That would make it okay, I'm sure.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  5. #265
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

    Quote Originally Posted by mak2 View Post
    they told us auto was just so you didnt have to die with ammo left. Cause most generally you didnt hit anything.
    I doubt very seriously in a fire fight aiming is realistic.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #266
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    well, for starters, you can actually identify what you are saying. because this:



    Leaves the subjects as "that" and "some". It is all pronoun with no antecedent. Worked with "some" what? Police Officers? People who carry? People who carry and are properly trained? Police Officers who are poorly trained? You do not say, nor do you plainly indicate. I thought you taught this stuff.
    I know you're smart enough to handle basic English. When replying to a comment, the word "that" clearly refers to the idea you advanced. And some clearly means some people, as people are the subject of our conversation and not dogs, or cars, or beer.

    Then you need to say "I don't buy your premise." And then you could even identify which premise that was, thereby obviating the need for me to ask.
    There was no logical reason for you to ask. I think is is another of your attempts at distraction.


    Then it should be childs' play for you to pick up where he failed, and find any evidence whatsoever in the many, many, many cases we have of armed citizen response, of the tendency of civilians to fire into non-combatants at an equal or greater rate than police officers.

    ....but.... somehow... I sort of suspect you cannot.
    And exactly where have they been called upon to so? You're again asking for something based on ignorance. This is a reason argument. And the burden largely lies with you, the one claiming they are better.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #267
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Yeah, I heard that old saw, too. Since then I've come under precision fire and under automatic fire, and I have to say that the precision fire was more deadly (against us). Conversely, we are taught to take well aimed shots, and not to switch to 3-round-burst, as it is considered a waste of ammunition. Spray and Pray is a suppression tactic.
    Yes, a sniper is likely more accurate. But, snipers are fewer in number, and a very different situation than we're discussing here.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    You can keep pulling pages from the playbook all you want, it won't change the fact you were wrong. You got embarrassed by the fact you are wrong, and now you're resorting to boring rhetoric to try and salvage your ego.

    Your latest posts were far more respectful than most of your previous posts. Had it been the same type of post you had been posting previously, I would have ignored you. I'm on a few different forums and have been for many years. You're little more than a blip on my current radar. I replied because the tone of your conversation turned back to civil. If you no longer wish to discuss this civilly, then I'll ignore you.

    I'm not sure how this is what you took my from statement. I can control whether or not a gun is in my classroom. I cannot control if another teacher was a stripper or if a fellow teacher is a homosexual. I can, however, control whether or not a gun is in my classroom.

    I'm genuinely confused as to how that was what you took from my statement.

    And I'm going to level with you...guns are responsible for the death of 30,000 Americans every year. I have students who have been shot at and students who have lost parents to them. Perhaps a gun by itself is safe, but the moment a gun comes into a person's possession, there will always be a risk.

    Of course not.

    I'm not freaking out about anything, I'm telling you that you clearly do not understand what it means to be a teacher.

    Did I say anything like that? Of course not. My statement was in response to your claim I did not have any credibility, not in support of your supposition that I believed you didn't have any credibility.

    Could you please, at the very least, be honest about what you're saying?

    Then you cannot be an intelligent person. Please explain how it is possible for there to be people shot by guns when no guns exist. I would love to hear your answer.

    I didn't say you could and even acknowledged you couldn't. But what I said was that if, theoretically, you could remove every gun from the world, no one would ever be shot. This is an indisputable statement. At which point, those who are against guns are entirely correct by default.

    False. We're not pursuing something which is impossible. We're pursuing something which has evidence of working. No one who supports any level of gun ban believes all guns will be removed. No one believes gun homicide will drop to zero. For you to believe that's what people like me are saying is for you to not understand our argument. Our argument is that the more guns are removed from society, the fewer people will be killed by them. We'll never be able to remove gun crime completely, I agree with you that is an impossible proposition. But since it's not what anyone is arguing, there's no reason for you to argue against it.

    You keep changing the context of our discussion. Is this because you have trouble remembering what we're discussing or because you're not being honest?

    Your choice to wear a gun is just that; it's your choice. You make the choice to wear a gun and if someone shoots at you, you still make the choice to pull your gun and shoot back. You can choose to wear a gun or not wear a gun. I could not choose my skin color. My friend John could not change his skin color. There is no choice.

    You equating gun rights to racism is ridiculously false. They are not even close to the same thing.

    Again, I've already said I'm completely okay with police officers on campus. How many times do I have to say it before you'll be honest enough to acknowledge it?

    Oh really? So when the law allows Adam Lanza's mother to purchase the weapons which killed those chlidren, you don't support those laws?

    You're cherry picking the laws you're wishing to blame. Again, your position is dishonest.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, it wasn't the people who weren't carrying guns which killed the children, but rather the person with the gun which killed the children. It seems to me the only difference between the two groups of people was the gun.

    The fact you think supporting less guns is offensive, when guns are killing 30,000 Americans every year, and 12,000 of those considered homicide, sure does say a lot about you and what I consider to be your irrationality when it comes to firearms.


    This is simply false. The people can fight back. The people should fight back. Will they be at the disadvantage in weaponry? Yes. Will they have the advantage in numbers? Absolutely.

    The problem isn't with the lack of guns, though as I said, I'm okay with officers at the school. The problem is that schools have always been trained to be passive in shooter situations, not aggressive. When the two kids terrorized Columbine high school, had the students been trained to fight back, far fewer of them would have been hurt/killed. If the students at Virginia Tech had reacted with aggression and not hid behind their desks, the shooter would have been subdued almost immediately.

    Schools are now changing tactics. I know many schools in my area are going through training which teaches students this very concept. More and more schools are now seeing the folly of being passive and are now resorting to aggressive actions when a shooter is in their vicinity.

    I've actually said it multiple times in this thread, but I believe the first time was in post 185 in response to Goshin.

    If an intruder breaks into a classroom, the teacher will be the first one dead, in almost every instance. Nobody expects someone to come into their class ready to shoot. The shooter would have the advantage because they know why they are there and they will be prepared. The teacher will be the first dead, because the teacher is the leader of the classroom. When Cho attacked Virginia Tech, the first person in the classroom he killed was the professor. When Lanza came into the elementary, the first people he killed were the adults in the area he was firing (which also happened to be the principal). The teacher goes first. It's just a basic concept of attack. You take out the leader and then focus your efforts on the rest.

    The children would know. To think otherwise is just not being realistic.

    I find it amusing you think you know better than I do about a relationship between a teacher and student.
    And it's funny when you DO explain them, people don't bother reading them.

    See post #242. I've already explained it. The fact you didn't read it is your fault, not mine.
    You're not even using the quote code properly. That's just sloppiness.

    No, you cannot control whether or not a gun is in your classroom. If a sandy hook style shooting occurred in your classroom, you would have no control over the gun, because you are unarmed yourself.

  9. #269
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,992

    Re: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

    i have many questions about this program.

    1. what would be the recruitment standards for these gaurds?

    2. How many hours of training will they be required to take in order to be approved?

    3. What would their salary be?

    4. Who pays for the entire program.

  10. #270
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    i have many questions about this program.
    Going off of SD's Sentinel Program as my example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    1. what would be the recruitment standards for these guards?
    You have to be an employee of the school district and pass the exact same firearms course our police department uses. The application process to become an employee already includes an NICS and fingerprints. To get a SD CHP means getting another NICS. To enroll in the police department's firearms course requires another NICS and fingerprints.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    2. How many hours of training will they be required to take in order to be approved?
    Between 16 to 40 hours, including range qualification, depending on the specific course taken. Not all police departments take the exact same course. A school district will use whichever course their local police department uses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    3. What would their salary be?
    Salary doesn't change. The employee simply attains permission to carry a firearm. Their pay is identical to every other employee for that job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    4. Who pays for the entire program.
    The individual seeking permission to carry pays for the entire thing out of their own pocket.
    Last edited by Jerry; 04-05-13 at 03:25 PM.

Page 27 of 39 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •