• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass stabbing at US school.

More guns = more people shooting. That's not a solution.

Wrong again.

Having a gun does not require shooting unless necessary.

When used, it is used intelligently, not randomly blasting away.
 
Wrong again.

Having a gun does not require shooting unless necessary.

When used, it is used intelligently, not randomly blasting away.

No, require is the wrong word. It's like more cars mean more accidents. It's kind of a math thing. Whether it is an acceptable risk is a different issue, but it is correct to say more means more.
 
No, require is the wrong word. It's like more cars mean more accidents. It's kind of a math thing. Whether it is an acceptable risk is a different issue, but it is correct to say more means more.

It is exactly correct.
 
When used, it is used intelligently, not randomly blasting away.

"it IS used intelligently..."?

And how do you conclude that, that it IS? It might be/could theoretically be, in the right circumstances, in the right hands, with the right training. And the armed the teacher could put more people at risk, in the 99.999% of the time that there isn't a crazed shooter taking out children
 
None of my posts have been dishonest. Sarcastic, most definitely, but not dishonest. And it has nothing to do with some extreme agenda. It has to do with common sense. That common sense being that you cannot blame and ban an object from a group of people and expect the underlying problem to simply go away. Was Prohibition not evidence of this? Both of alcohol and drugs? Hell, the government can't even keep bombs away from those that are actually determined to have them. Timothy McVeigh and the Boston Bombers shold be enough evidence of that.
Sounds as though you are arguing for the right to bear arm to include bombs. How about atomic bombs?
 
Wrong again.

Having a gun does not require shooting unless necessary.

When used, it is used intelligently, not randomly blasting away.

There is no correctly when discharging a fire arm around kids. Schools are doing good things. Most schools can lock down a classroom to protect kids. They encourage kids to warn school officials if someone has a gun on grounds. And that has happened. Guns won't fix this problem. I don't want my children going to school knowing their teacher has a gun. It is not the right or even a good solution.
 
I don't really understand this sentiment. They're not cops, and what makes a person a good police officer are not (generally) going to be what makes a fine teacher. Screening reliable teachers able to safely use a firearm in a panic situation difficult. Training them properly would be expensive and ongoing. They'd have to carry their weapons at all times in order to predictably affect an event like this, which means teachers in a classroom, of kids from 6 to 17 or 18, looking over homework, packing a Glock on their hip. Like guns or not, the presence of an unconcealed weapon in a room changes the dynamic entirely. There is the problem of 500,000 or a million teachers in the 130,000 schools securing the weapons and making sure that students cannot get access to them.

What do you think millions of Americans with their concealed carry permits already do? Or are already prepared for? Or are committed to doing?

I do not recommend that all teachers be armed but I certainly support the ones that wish to be...some of which already have cc permits and are not allowed to do so on campus...be allowed to do so.
 
I didn't say that. But the skills needed for a gun toting teacher to ward off an attack, or take down the attacker, in a crowded space full of innocent, panicked bystanders are advanced skills even for a police officer, that require significant training to learn and continuous training to maintain. .

Who says? Do you have sources to back that up? How do you know what level of training is needed?

When a bunch of kids are hiding behind their desks and a nutcase is going room to room...you think a trained teacher couldnt stop them as they came thru the door?
 
And I've been around guns enough to know that 'concealed' isn't really concealed if you're spending hours with an individual. Kids will know week 1, if not first period day 1, they have an armed teacher.

.

Also very likely a poor assumption. Very poor. I"m pretty sure you dont know the people around you, in public, that are cc'ing. Just because you see a few clumsy ones doesnt mean there arent many more doing so well. You would NEVER know I cc.
 
"it IS used intelligently..."?

And how do you conclude that, that it IS? It might be/could theoretically be, in the right circumstances, in the right hands, with the right training. And the armed the teacher could put more people at risk, in the 99.999% of the time that there isn't a crazed shooter taking out children

It's a 2nd Amendment Right...you dont get to decide who's intelligent enough, just like you dont get to decide who's intelligent enough to vote, for example.

Millions of Americans are carrying firearms everyday and it's not 'blood in the streets.'
 
I didn't say that. But the skills needed for a gun toting teacher to ward off an attack, or take down the attacker, in a crowded space full of innocent, panicked bystanders are advanced skills even for a police officer, that require significant training to learn and continuous training to maintain. Or do you think we should just hand a Glock and a shoulder strap to the Geometry teacher, and wish him or her luck? It's also my opinion that doing so safely and effectively requires a unique personality (calm under fire, willing to move toward danger, and kill a child when necessary), more suited to those who choose to be cops than those who choose to work around and educate children.

And I've been around guns enough to know that 'concealed' isn't really concealed if you're spending hours with an individual. Kids will know week 1, if not first period day 1, they have an armed teacher.

Just seems simplistic to me - "Gun violence a problem? MORE GUNS is the answer!" - and the suggestions nearly always fail to even acknowledge the obvious and substantial downsides, much less weigh them against the expected benefits.

Obviously you are clueless regarding concealed carry and common sense.
 
Who says? Do you have sources to back that up? How do you know what level of training is needed?

When a bunch of kids are hiding behind their desks and a nutcase is going room to room...you think a trained teacher couldnt stop them as they came thru the door?

If we had real school choice, there could be schools in which teachers are armed, and some in which the teachers are not armed. Unfortunately, we have a one size fits all, and so some will not be happy.
 
If we had real school choice, there could be schools in which teachers are armed, and some in which the teachers are not armed. Unfortunately, we have a one size fits all, and so some will not be happy.

Well, should they be? Happy that is....
 
Also very likely a poor assumption. Very poor. I"m pretty sure you dont know the people around you, in public, that are cc'ing. Just because you see a few clumsy ones doesnt mean there arent many more doing so well. You would NEVER know I cc.

I see the people in public around me in passing, so I'm positive I miss 99% of those who are making ANY half-arsed attempt to conceal their handguns.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine working with someone daily, in the same office, wearing normal office attire, for weeks, without noticing that he's carrying a handgun.
 
If I had a choice (and kids), I'd rather them be taught by an armed, trained, and capable teacher.

I'm much more likely to believe a teacher to be a defender as opposed to an offender.
 
It's a 2nd Amendment Right...you dont get to decide who's intelligent enough, just like you dont get to decide who's intelligent enough to vote, for example.

Millions of Americans are carrying firearms everyday and it's not 'blood in the streets.'

You said a gun IS used intelligently, and I asked for some basis for that. You responded with a non sequitur regarding who has the right to CARRY a weapon or to vote. :slapme:
 
Obviously you are clueless regarding concealed carry and common sense.

So, it's common sense that any yahoo, who might have never before picked up a gun, can get 8 hours of training that's required in my state and be competent to take out a shooter in a crowded space, without putting the panicked innocent bystanders at risk? And it's also common sense that introducing 10 handguns in a school during the 99.999999% of the time that there is not a crazed shooter killing children introduces NO extra risk, either of an accident, a child getting access to that weapon, or the teacher themselves using it in inappropriate circumstances.

You should alert the local police agencies and let them all know the initial and ongoing training we put our law enforcement officers through is a waste of time and money! Cops should do fine with a bit of common sense.

And you should also probably alert the insurance carriers for the schools. They're too stupid to know that untrained teachers carrying guns does NOT add to the risk of loss, but instead often decline to even cover schools that plan to put handguns in the hands of untrained teachers.
 
I see the people in public around me in passing, so I'm positive I miss 99% of those who are making ANY half-arsed attempt to conceal their handguns.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine working with someone daily, in the same office, wearing normal office attire, for weeks, without noticing that he's carrying a handgun.


LOL

Just the implication that you think they are 'he's' says alot.

But many workplaces do not allow firearms so many people have to leave their firearms in their vehicles. Contrary to many people's views...most gun carriers observe the laws and also comply with their employers' requirements not to carry on premises...despite the risks that may carry for the individual.
 
You said a gun IS used intelligently, and I asked for some basis for that. You responded with a non sequitur regarding who has the right to CARRY a weapon or to vote. :slapme:

Well is the gun firing itself? I guess I didnt understand your post.
 
So, it's common sense that any yahoo, who might have never before picked up a gun, can get 8 hours of training that's required in my state and be competent to take out a shooter in a crowded space, without putting the panicked innocent bystanders at risk? And it's also common sense that introducing 10 handguns in a school during the 99.999999% of the time that there is not a crazed shooter killing children introduces NO extra risk, either of an accident, a child getting access to that weapon, or the teacher themselves using it in inappropriate circumstances.
.

Do you have any sources at ALL that show this is a problem? That this has caused any public harm at all???? How do you know they didnt grow up with guns, hunting, target shooting, etc? Guns were just part of many people's upbringing, esp. in the past.

Just because there's no 'mandated' training certainly does not mean people "dont get training." My state requires NO training for a cc permit. There are several other states the same. Some states require NO permit at all.

There is only one study that I know of (we've discussed this issue alot on gun forums because not even all gun owners agree on it)...that examines if states WITH mandatory training and those without have ANY difference in gun negligence or accidents (not crime...training has no bearing on crime).

There's a study of OR and WA, regarding OR requiring training and WA not. The findings were that WA has a higher population, higher population density, more guns, more CC permits, and fewer gun-related incidents than OR.

This does not mean that training is not important. Everyone agrees it is. It just indicates that 'mandatory' training does not make a difference in public safety....probably because gun owners are getting the experience they need one way or another.

Otherwise there is no data showing that states with mandatory training requirements have any lower rate of gun incidents.

There's no requirement in my state, as I said....and while I'm not 'into guns' I do like shooting and I actively train (not just target shoot, train)..mostly because it's fun.
 
Last edited:
LOL

Just the implication that you think they are 'he's' says alot.

Well, I made an assumption, based on a stereotype, confirmed by my fairly extensive time on trap, skeet and sporting clays ranges and the local shooting range, where 95% or so are men in my area.... My apologies.

But many workplaces do not allow firearms so many people have to leave their firearms in their vehicles. Contrary to many people's views...most gun carriers observe the laws and also comply with their employers' requirements not to carry on premises...despite the risks that may carry for the individual.

I own several guns as do almost all of my close friends, and many/most have CC permits. I'm quite confident most gun owners observe the law, etc. The point was I doubt I'd have trouble identifying a person carrying a weapon IF I was in close proximity with that person on a daily basis, interacting with him OR HER hours per day. Maybe I'm wrong....
 
At least there was no armed security at the school. That would be evil and would take money from salary raises for the school administrators.

Children's lives don't mean anything to school administrations. Their lives aren't worth $1 to protect. They are just a bothersome overpopulation herd to most of them.

... blaming the Administrators for not being able or willing to hire security is ridiculous. There are a few key strategic locations where some level of security is obvious and necessary (inner city schools), but we don't have the resources to turn every institute of education into an armed camp as a way of correcting the manic excesses of our culture and the violence it breeds.
 
Back
Top Bottom