Its seems Democrats find mass shootings politically advantageous...

It’s been more than 20-years since Columbine. Why haven’t Democrats offered a serious solution to the problem? Why do they decry the simple solutions that work? Is it because they see such mass murders as politically advantageous?

These shootings are now part of our society. It is what we have evolved to unfortunately. As Democrats like to say, you can’t go back to 1950.

So... why are Democrats not aggressively supporting the simple measures that will help protect the children?

Only having qualified armed individuals at schools will help deter at best, or limit the amount of carnage and suffering?

Once again, it has been 20-years since Columbine.

For those who say guns are not the answer... you’re living in some fantasy world. 1950 perhaps.

For those who claim repealing the 2nd amendment is the answer:

1. You want carnage, violence, rape to occur at a massive level... take guns from law abiding citizens, and leave them in the hands of criminals.

2. 100,000,000 people died in the last century in societies that took guns from their citizens. You cannot predict what will happen in America in 50, 100 or 300-years... when the society is disarmed.

It is long past due that Democrats wake up. These shootings in gun-free zones are the reality of our society. The only way to stop the worst offenders is to have qualified individuals armed and ready... to protect the children. Otherwise, one must really wonder why no action has been taken in the decades since Columbine.

Another gun rights activist on this forum was just bragging that NRA donations tripled after the Parkland shooting. If anyone has profited from the shootings it's the NRA.

zimmer said:

It’s been more than 20-years since Columbine. Why haven’t Democrats offered a serious solution to the problem? Why do they decry the simple solutions that work? Is it because they see such mass murders as politically advantageous?

These shootings are now part of our society. It is what we have evolved to unfortunately. As Democrats like to say, you can’t go back to 1950.

So... why are Democrats not aggressively supporting the simple measures that will help protect the children?

Only having qualified armed individuals at schools will help deter at best, or limit the amount of carnage and suffering?

Once again, it has been 20-years since Columbine.

For those who say guns are not the answer... you’re living in some fantasy world. 1950 perhaps.

For those who claim repealing the 2nd amendment is the answer:

1. You want carnage, violence, rape to occur at a massive level... take guns from law abiding citizens, and leave them in the hands of criminals.

2. 100,000,000 people died in the last century in societies that took guns from their citizens. You cannot predict what will happen in America in 50, 100 or 300-years... when the society is disarmed.

It is long past due that Democrats wake up. These shootings in gun-free zones are the reality of our society. The only way to stop the worst offenders is to have qualified individuals armed and ready... to protect the children. Otherwise, one must really wonder why no action has been taken in the decades since Columbine.

Click to expand...

I don't think I've seen too many Dems saying having qualified individuals who are armed in schools isn't the way to go...or A way to go, anyway. I think the disconnect is getting people to believe that teachers are qualified individuals. (I know you haven't specified that in your post). Putting qualified security personnel in schools, and putting infrastructure in place to ensure that anyone entering or exiting the school needs to pass by them for some kind of scrutiny is probably the best idea. Of course, you'll need to be creative, in terms of finding the funding, but I personally think this is the best solution.

Well then this begs the question, if Republicans find mass shootings so advantageous for Democrats, what effective proposals have THEY come up with to stop them?

If "Democrats find mass shootings politically advantageous," then Republicans find fear of losing guns politically advantageous while their complements over at the NRA find everything financially advantageous.

Cardinal said:

Another gun rights activist on this forum was just bragging that NRA donations tripled after the Parkland shooting. If anyone has profited from the shootings it's the NRA.

Click to expand...

The NRA donations DO increase, because ridiculous mindless douchebags attack gun owners, gun ownership, and the NRA after every incident. Every time. We dont LIKE knowing its coming...every single time...but we know its coming...every single time.

Cardinal said:

Another gun rights activist on this forum was just bragging that NRA donations tripled after the Parkland shooting. If anyone has profited from the shootings it's the NRA.

Click to expand...

They didn't profit off of shootings. That's a strawman.

The NRA profited because law abiding gun owners joined up to fight against the anti-gun rights zealots.

trixare4kids said:

They didn't profit off of shootings. That's a strawman.

The NRA profited because law abiding gun owners joined up to fight against the anti-gun rights zealots.

Click to expand...

Not a straw man. It's the title of the thread by the gun rights activist promoting the NRA's good fortune.

I suspect that both the pro rights people and anti rights people see a spike in donations after these events

It seems Democrats find the practice of Republicans defining what Democrats think to be even more repulsive than it already was.

OlNate said:

I don't think I've seen too many Dems saying having qualified individuals who are armed in schools isn't the way to go...or A way to go, anyway. I think the disconnect is getting people to believe that teachers are qualified individuals. (I know you haven't specified that in your post). Putting qualified security personnel in schools, and putting infrastructure in place to ensure that anyone entering or exiting the school needs to pass by them for some kind of scrutiny is probably the best idea. Of course, you'll need to be creative, in terms of finding the funding, but I personally think this is the best solution.

Click to expand...

Why do people believe teachers are incapable of being "qualified" to be armed? I'm not even clear on what "qualified" means. The physical requirements to pull a trigger are easily met and if we are saying teachers are not stable enough to handle a gun responsibility than what buisiness do they have teaching children anything?

I really see no problem whatsoever of requiring teachers to pass a gun safety course as part of the criteria required to earn a teaching degree.

IMO this is something that should be determined at a local level, community by community. If people want their children going to gun free zones in one district and the one next to them wants to have armed teachers, they should both be allowed to coexist in peace.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

zimmer said:

It’s been more than 20-years since Columbine. Why haven’t Democrats offered a serious solution to the problem? Why do they decry the simple solutions that work? Is it because they see such mass murders as politically advantageous?

These shootings are now part of our society. It is what we have evolved to unfortunately. As Democrats like to say, you can’t go back to 1950.

So... why are Democrats not aggressively supporting the simple measures that will help protect the children?

Only having qualified armed individuals at schools will help deter at best, or limit the amount of carnage and suffering?

Once again, it has been 20-years since Columbine.

For those who say guns are not the answer... you’re living in some fantasy world. 1950 perhaps.

For those who claim repealing the 2nd amendment is the answer:

1. You want carnage, violence, rape to occur at a massive level... take guns from law abiding citizens, and leave them in the hands of criminals.

2. 100,000,000 people died in the last century in societies that took guns from their citizens. You cannot predict what will happen in America in 50, 100 or 300-years... when the society is disarmed.

It is long past due that Democrats wake up. These shootings in gun-free zones are the reality of our society. The only way to stop the worst offenders is to have qualified individuals armed and ready... to protect the children. Otherwise, one must really wonder why no action has been taken in the decades since Columbine.

Click to expand...

in 20 years, when has democrats had all branches of the government and enough so to offset the blue dog democrats? And didn't Clinton do something with assault weapons ban that lead to a drop in mass shootings ?

Another stupid "democrats are to blame for everything" because they can't do enough to stop the scumminess of republicans

It seems Republicans are becoming ever more desperate to stop people from simply ASKING Democrats about their positions on the issues. If too many people just ask Democrats, how will Republicans be able to control the terms of the discussion?

trouble13 said:

Why do people believe teachers are incapable of being "qualified" to be armed? I'm not even clear on what "qualified" means. The physical requirements to pull a trigger are easily met and if we are saying teachers are not stable enough to handle a gun responsibility than what buisiness do they have teaching children anything?

I really see no problem whatsoever of requiring teachers to pass a gun safety course as part of the criteria required to earn a teaching degree.

IMO this is something that should be determined at a local level, community by community. If people want their children going to gun free zones in one district and the one next to them wants to have armed teachers, they should both be allowed to coexist in peace.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I think they are totally incapable. With enough training most people can do most things. But I think the amount of training that would be required to make folks feel comfortable with the idea would make having dedicated security staff more practical. I'd rather see all that training go into making the teachers better teachers. The primary goal of schools is still education, after all.

What's the problem of going with a security staff, rather than arming teachers, if it gets more buy in? I've seen almost no one on the gun control side complain about cops or military or security personnel being armed... If the goal is to protect the kids, why not take the path of least resistance? I assume there's something I'm missing here, and I'm sure it is valid enough to discuss...I just don't know what it is.

Sampson Simpson said:

in 20 years, when has democrats had all branches of the government and enough so to offset the blue dog democrats? And didn't Clinton do something with assault weapons ban that lead to a drop in mass shootings ?

Another stupid "democrats are to blame for everything" because they can't do enough to stop the scumminess of republicans

Click to expand...

https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/fl...4-assault-weapons-ban-didnt-prevent-columbine

zimmer said:

It’s been more than 20-years since Columbine. Why haven’t Democrats offered a serious solution to the problem? Why do they decry the simple solutions that work? Is it because they see such mass murders as politically advantageous?

These shootings are now part of our society. It is what we have evolved to unfortunately. As Democrats like to say, you can’t go back to 1950.

So... why are Democrats not aggressively supporting the simple measures that will help protect the children?

Only having qualified armed individuals at schools will help deter at best, or limit the amount of carnage and suffering?

Once again, it has been 20-years since Columbine.

For those who say guns are not the answer... you’re living in some fantasy world. 1950 perhaps.

For those who claim repealing the 2nd amendment is the answer:

1. You want carnage, violence, rape to occur at a massive level... take guns from law abiding citizens, and leave them in the hands of criminals.

2. 100,000,000 people died in the last century in societies that took guns from their citizens. You cannot predict what will happen in America in 50, 100 or 300-years... when the society is disarmed.

It is long past due that Democrats wake up. These shootings in gun-free zones are the reality of our society. The only way to stop the worst offenders is to have qualified individuals armed and ready... to protect the children. Otherwise, one must really wonder why no action has been taken in the decades since Columbine.

Click to expand...

So you support gun control?

OlNate said:

I'm not sure if I think they are totally incapable. With enough training most people can do most things. But I think the amount of training that would be required to make folks feel comfortable with the idea would make having dedicated security staff more practical. I'd rather see all that training go into making the teachers better teachers. The primary goal of schools is still education, after all.

What's the problem of going with a security staff, rather than arming teachers, if it gets more buy in? I've seen almost no one on the gun control side complain about cops or military or security personnel being armed... If the goal is to protect the kids, why not take the path of least resistance? I assume there's something I'm missing here, and I'm sure it is valid enough to discuss...I just don't know what it is.

Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to having schools with an adequate amount of armed security pressence. I think it's more practical and better resource management to offer continual training courses to teachers. Think of it this way, many teachers are trained in CPR and in crisis they can help someone. I rather have a doctor but in an emergency I'm glad I have someone around who has been trained in CPR rather than nobody.

Also you talk about expertise. Security professionals are better trained, more experienced, etc...
School shootings are very rare and if we had an ongoing continuing training program in place, much like a fire drill. If you happened to be one the statistically unlikely few that found yourself in the position of having to conform a shooter you would likely have years of training and you would likely have support.

Those are my arguments in favor of arming teachers.

What are your arguments against it?



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Liberals want to keep the issue at the expense of kids. They give a rats ass about the safety of the innocent and fight to keep wedge issues that give them a teet to suck on.

Cardinal said:

Another gun rights activist on this forum was just bragging that NRA donations tripled after the Parkland shooting. If anyone has profited from the shootings it's the NRA.

Click to expand...

The gun manufacturers sure love them. Keeps them in business.

TobyOne said:

Liberals want to keep the issue at the expense of kids. They give a rats ass about the safety of the innocent and fight to keep wedge issues that give them a teet to suck on.

Click to expand...

That's not true at all, pull your head out. You actually believe that caring about children is the exclusive domain of the Right? Sounds like you want to "keep the issue" at the expense of looking ridiculous.

Cardinal said:

Another gun rights activist on this forum was just bragging that NRA donations tripled after the Parkland shooting. If anyone has profited from the shootings it's the NRA.

Click to expand...

And Republican Conservatives who seem to be more interested in collecting guns than saving kids.

OrphanSlug said:

If "Democrats find mass shootings politically advantageous," then Republicans find fear of losing guns politically advantageous while their complements over at the NRA find everything financially advantageous.

Click to expand...

The NRA OWNS the Republican party from McConnell and Ryan on down.

trouble13 said:

I'm not opposed to having schools with an adequate amount of armed security pressence. I think it's more practical and better resource management to offer continual training courses to teachers. Think of it this way, many teachers are trained in CPR and in crisis they can help someone. I rather have a doctor but in an emergency I'm glad I have someone around who has been trained in CPR rather than nobody.

Also you talk about expertise. Security professionals are better trained, more experienced, etc...
School shootings are very rare and if we had an ongoing continuing training program in place, much like a fire drill. If you happened to be one the statistically unlikely few that found yourself in the position of having to conform a shooter you would likely have years of training and you would likely have support.

Those are my arguments in favor of arming teachers.

What are your arguments against it?



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Well, dang, Trouble, this is actually the best laid out case for arming teachers I've heard. You've actually moved me from "NO ****ING WAY" to "hmmm..." Not too shabby.

So, rather than coming at you as you've asked, with arguments "against", is it cool if I run my concerns past you, to see how your model would address them? I'm gonna assume the sale here, if you need to look at them as battle to the death arguments against, go ahead...hehe...

First concern would be the training specifically. You make a good point about drills and the statistical rarity of these shootings giving teachers a lot of time to drill before having to use these skills, if they ever have to at all. That works within both the statistical reality as well as common sense. But what would training look like? I could be totally wrong here, but my impression is that it isn't regular cops that rush in during an active shooter incident, but rather SWAT teams. Is that the case in most situations? If so, it implies that teachers would need training that exceeds that of regular police officers (albeit, only in the context of response to school shootings, vs. all the other stuff police have to learn). Is that realistic, in addition to all the other ongoing education requirements for teachers?

Next would be in the execution. In the unlikely event of a mass shooting, my understanding of the process is that the school goes into lockdown, and kids remain in their classes with their teacher until the lockdown is over. If the teacher is also a responder, that either means that a non-responder teacher or school staff must come and relieve the teacher so they can go hunt down the shooter, costing time and increasing risk in what should be a locked down school, or the teacher leaves a room full of scared and likely panicked children alone in an active shoot situation with no protection or supervision. This is, of course, assuming that you're not suggesting ALL teachers be armed...I don't think you're advocating for that, but if you are, let me know, as that would cause me to have additional concerns.

Next is screening / suitability. Given that there is about a 50/50 chance that a given teacher is suffering from some sort of mental illness due to stress (can cite if you like, just trying to give you a response quickly, but can find the study if you don't trust me...hehe), I would need to see initial psychological screening done, and ongoing evaluations to continue to monitor the teacher's mental fitness to be around firearms. Yes, I realize a teacher could snap and pick up a chair and beat a kid to death in the current state, and frankly I think, given the high rate of mental illness in teachers, psychological monitoring should be in place for all teachers, not just to protect the kids, but help the teachers as well...but as we increase the risk of danger we must also increase our care to do the most we can to prevent anything bad from happening, so if I have to prioritize who gets the testing and monitoring, I'll go with the folks with access to guns. That would have to be baked into this initiative.

Finally, there's the increase of risk in general. As you rightly point out, most (by far) schools will never go through a shooting, so are currently at zero risk. Introducing guns into that environment adds risk, however small even in best case scenarios. This would be true if the gun were in the hands of teachers or Seal Team 6 or the detention room crowd - to varying degrees, of course. Given that you are suggesting that to protect all kids, we must introduce risk to the vast majority of kids, where no risk was present, then you have a responsibility to demonstrate that the least amount of risk is being introduced into their environment possible. Do you think arming teachers is the lowest risk option, ahead of dedicated security staff, and if so, why?

Back to you, bud.

OlNate said:

Well, dang, Trouble, this is actually the best laid out case for arming teachers I've heard. You've actually moved me from "NO ****ING WAY" to "hmmm..." Not too shabby.

So, rather than coming at you as you've asked, with arguments "against", is it cool if I run my concerns past you, to see how your model would address them? I'm gonna assume the sale here, if you need to look at them as battle to the death arguments against, go ahead...hehe...

First concern would be the training specifically. You make a good point about drills and the statistical rarity of these shootings giving teachers a lot of time to drill before having to use these skills, if they ever have to at all. That works within both the statistical reality as well as common sense. But what would training look like? I could be totally wrong here, but my impression is that it isn't regular cops that rush in during an active shooter incident, but rather SWAT teams. Is that the case in most situations? If so, it implies that teachers would need training that exceeds that of regular police officers (albeit, only in the context of response to school shootings, vs. all the other stuff police have to learn). Is that realistic, in addition to all the other ongoing education requirements for teachers?

Back to you, bud.

Click to expand...

You ask some great questions. I will do my best to address all of them but if I skip any or dont adequately address anything feel free to ask a follow up question.

My first post was more principle than practice. This is how I envision it might be handled.

I would not make anyone uncomfortable with handling a firearm carry one (have acess to), it would be voluntary option, unless there were not enough volunteers. I would not fire any current teachers but as new openings came up I would make it a requirement. Kinda like when you sit in the emergency exit aisle of an airplane where the stewardess asks you if your ok with having that seat in the event of an emergency. I think there is a delicate balance to straddle between requiring a school to have some armed teachers and forcing people who are uncomfortable with firearms to be responsible for hiring them. For instance I would not object to any teacher who feels unsure to be given gun safety courses and firing range time and when and if they ever become comfortable enough to carry they could, and vice a versa if they ever felt they were feeling unsure of themselves they could turn their weapon in.

Training would be very specialized. I'm not trying to turn teachers into a swat team. I would not expect them to actively seek out a shooter and try to engage. Basic self defense is what the training would consist of so if the teacher finds the self in the unfortunate situtation of being In the shooters sights they have the ability and the tools to retaliate. So lock down protocols and whatever else they currently do would not change. The only difference would be is if the shooter got into the classroom they would not be sitting ducks. They would be armed with a counter force to repel an attacker.

Lastly your concern about risk assment. So obviously if you have guns there is a chance of accidental discharges and the more guns you have the greater the chance. I would recommend reasonable steps to minimize chances of that happening, like using trigger locks and storing them in secure locations. I don't think teachers need to be walking around with guns strapped to their hips.

Secondly the mere knowledge that teachers are in fact armed and trained on how to respond I think would serve as a detergent to potential shooters, making the amount of incidents decline overall.

Thirdly when there is a shooting, if there are armed adults who are trained on what to do, the casualty rates should also decrease.

All things considered I think the benefits outweigh the risks provided it's done in a responsible manner.

My problem with adding armed guards into schools is a couple of things.
1. The cost would be enormous to try and match the amount of area armed teachers would cover. If we have 50 classes and 15 of them have armed teachers in them there's a high probability the shooter is going to run into an armed adult sooner than a security guard trying to locate the shooter.

2. Secondly im not a fan of children growing up in a militarized environment with armed guards patrolling the hallways and creating a tense environment. There may be some benefits to it but my preference is to avoid putting that kind of stress into their lives.

Sorry about editing your post I had to because of character limits

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

Sorry about editing your post I had to because of character limits

Click to expand...

haha...all good, me too.


So, again, playing devil's advocate in order to help scrutinize your idea, a couple more concerns.

For starters, the idea that no teachers should be hired going forward if they are not willing to participate in the program is pretty problematic for me, on a couple levels. First and foremost, I think that teachers should be hired for their teaching ability, first, last, and foremost. If you change that to whether or not they are willing to use guns, does that not put the academic ability second, and is that the best choice for the kids? Especially given the statistical rarity of school shootings? Also, this would be fairly easy to game the system. "Are you willing to take gun training and carry a gun, in the event of a school shooting"... "Suuuuuure...?" They'd have to go through the training still, but are they the type you want holding a gun? Would they use it?

I also have a concern regarding the training you're suggesting. Basic self defense generally doesn't assume that the person is responsible for the safety of a class of children, it doesn't assume they are going to shoot in a room full of children. Furthermore, you'd need to drill the kids on appropriate behavior as well - not just what to do in the event of a lockdown, but what to do in the event of a lockdown where an active shooter tries to gain access to the class. You mentioned elsewhere that you don't like the idea of introducing stress into the lives of kids, but the preparedness required for this solution to work would require kids know what to do, and are well practiced in it. I never lived through the days of when bomb drills were practiced by children, but I've heard plenty of folks from that generation talk about the nightmares and fear those drills caused... And to add one more concern that this part of your response has made me think of, you are designing a security process around having the people with guns confront an active shooter in the place where kids are most vulnerable - the classroom. Does this make sense? Wouldn't it be better to train the teachers to go to the shooting, rather than waiting for the shooter to come to them, where they are surrounded by children?

Moving along to your risk management section... If the gun is trigger locked in a locked cabinet (I'm assuming that's what you mean by secure location, as outside of the classroom wouldn't work in your model), will it still be useful in the lightning quick timeliness of a school shooting? Perhaps something like this would be better:



(Biometric safe, but easy access - not an expert on these things, so I could be derping hard on a ****ty product, but the premise looked good, and a little more practical in an emergency situation - though not necessarily in a setup where teachers don't have their own dedicated classroom)

So, that mitigates accidental usage (provided the teacher follows their training) and theft of the firearm, but what about the mental health aspect? What about the statistical likelihood of dumbassery? Don't let me make you think that I'm using that guy in Georgia as a convenient talking point, but the fact that he exists points to a statistical reality. I think we still need to bat this around a little longer to be able to say due diligence was done to minimize the introduced risk.

I definitely see your point on the deterrent...but only to the extent of non-suicidal shooters. A lot of these folks go to these schools to die. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I'm under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm at work, and doing this between other tasks...hehe...which would be why I've made you wait so long for the response...hehe...it's literally taken me this long to write) that the majority of shooters end up killing themselves, either by their own hand, or by forcing the LEO's to do it for them. They might also look at the fact that teachers stay in class, rather than meeting them in the halls, as a bit of a lottery...15 out of 50 means the odds are in the shooter's favor.

Speaking of which, what if I'm a parent who wants their kid protected by one of the 15? If the gun carrying teachers cannot travel to the threat, that means there is uneven protection. How do you figure that one out, and what do you say to the parents that can't get their kid in the gun carrying teacher's class?

Holy **** I'm long winded, more to come...