Yet another school shooting.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I wasn't implying teachers/admin who are C&C carry in school.

I was saying no one should be "carrying" in school, the weapons should be locked up and used as a last line of defense by trained admin/teachers (who are so inclined) if there is an incident.

My suggestion would be argued as necessary and appropriate in my neck of the woods. Hell, there is a vast group here who would argue for school employees to open carry in schools...hell, all people, everywhere.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I guess its a possibility that there are no trained admin/teachers close by the secured storage. But if there were, I think better than nothing.

And i think this is a whole lot of "If" and overall this whole idea comes down to a) holding a high amount of inherent risk or b) being so watered down that you are basically implementing it for effect, for everybody to feel better having "done something".

It is like spending a ton of money on treating an illness while skimping on research for preventing said illness (via Vaccination for example or via eliminating certain risk factors proven to cause that illness) or spending a shit ton of money on national defense while skimping on spending for the State Department.
The latter, funnily enough, is the policy in the US right now. With the glorious explanation that there won't be much need for diplomacy because the major conflicts are soon to be solved anyway. And that's not my interpretation but that of the then-secretary of state explaining why he is cool with his agency being gutted.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by whomario

...or spending a shit ton of money on national defense while skimping on spending for the State Department.
The latter, funnily enough, is the policy in the US right now.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by whomario

And i think this is a whole lot of "If" and overall this whole idea comes down to a) holding a high amount of inherent risk or b) being so watered down that you are basically implementing it for effect, for everybody to feel better having "done something".

I do think (b) is a fair possibility. However, I don't agree with (a), I don't think there is a high amount of inherent risk.

Unless the costs (and opportunity costs) are prohibitive, all things held equal, I would prefer the last line of defense vs not.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do think (b) is a fair possibility. However, I don't agree with (a), I don't think there is a high amount of inherent risk.

Unless the costs (and opportunity costs) are prohibitive, all things held equal, I would prefer the last line of defense vs not.

My point is: Either you have people carry weapons with them, which makes it conceivably effective but adds a ton of risk: students grabbing the gun of an unsuspecting teacher, or he forgets to take it when going to lunch, or forgets to lock the cabinett/safe, teachers accidentily shooting students or themselves while running the hall looking for a gunman. Or you store them safely in a central place (or even multiple places, which then again adds risk of exposure/failure of the system) and have it already extremely watered down and pretty damn ineffective.

Why ? Your are again not only 1) adding a response time, but you are also now 2) asking unarmed teachers to run across campus/through a maze of corridors with an active shooter on the loose to get their weapon/munition. I'd say the odds he happens to currently be between the teachers/staff in question and the stored weapons/munition are considerable enough to warrant a thought or three.

We just saw a trained professional not being able to bring himself to take that risk while armed. And sure, you can put that down to the person being the problem. But you can also point out that it is an absolutely insane prospect that very little can prepare you for.

It also once again endorses Guns as the solution and not the problem. In which case, you stay pretty much screwed forever. If that's the choice, that's "fine". But i just hate this rhetoric of "yeah, but we'll be safe about the guns and then guns are gonna save lives, problem solved" as if that is a reasonable assumption given the data available. This isn't about believing, this is merely about being willing to consider the facts.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by whomario

My point is: Either you have people carry weapons with them, which makes it conceivably effective but adds a ton of risk: students grabbing the gun of an unsuspecting teacher, or he forgets to take it when going to lunch, or forgets to lock the cabinett/safe, teachers accidentily shooting students or themselves while running the hall looking for a gunman. Or you store them safely in a central place (or even multiple places, which then again adds risk of exposure/failure of the system) and have it already extremely watered down and pretty damn ineffective.

I am not for teachers carrying in the school.

I am for it being stored in a secured place where trained admin/teachers can access them if needed and when possible.

Why ? Your are again not only 1) adding a response time, but you are also now 2) asking unarmed teachers to run across campus/through a maze of corridors with an active shooter on the loose to get their weapon/munition. I'd say the odds he happens to currently be between the teachers/staff in question and the stored weapons/munition are considerable enough to warrant a thought or three.

I am not asking teachers to run across campus. They should follow their current training and shelter in place, lock classroom doors etc.

I think it is quite possible for admin people to be close by the secured weapons if there is an incident. Its not a given, but again better than nothing.

With that said, it would be interesting to read any analysis as to what the admin/teachers are doing if not already securing the classrooms and kids. e.g. are school admin suppose to secure in place also? I only know about teachers because of what my wife tells me.

We just saw a trained professional not being able to bring himself to take that risk while armed. And sure, you can put that down to the person being the problem. But you can also point out that it is an absolutely insane prospect that very little can prepare you for.

Agreed, no guarantee the trained admin/teachers who can access the weapons (without sacrificing student safety by not locking their classroom doors) will be effective. Last line of defense is better than nothing IMO.

It also once again endorses Guns as the solution and not the problem.

If you inferred that from my responses, I did not mean to say guns are the solution. Ease of access to gun, magazine size etc. are a problem as is mental health, lack of taking threats seriously, lack of resources to followup on threats etc. Gun are not the only problem.

[Atocep]

What you're describing is effectively putting an armory on a school campus. The chances of that equipment being properly stored, secured, and regularly inventoried is slim to none.

[NobodyHere]

Not to mention who's going to pay for it,

[Edward64]

Not sure, maybe we should ask TX (and I think MO) how they have made it work (or not) and how to make it more effective.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Not to mention who's going to pay for it,

Maybe one should ask the NRA and the weapons manufacturers and/or local stores selling it to pitch in. I mean, what better advertising ? Maybe i am too cynical on this, but i am really not sure this isn't going to be put forward as a suggestion at some point ...

[muns]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I have been to Baltimore, about 20 years ago now so I’m sure its changed, but I was basically forced by the hotel to take a taxi from my hotel to the Memorial Stadium rather than walk, which was my plan. Best advice I think I ever had!

In situations like this I can 100% see the need for a weapon as protection. However, and this is not a criticism of you, it’s another example of more guns to counter violence and gun issues.

There appears to be no strategy, or even will, to address the bigger issues and at least try to change society so that you don’t feel the need to arm yourself to protect your family.

That surely has to be a better aim for everybody - improve the lives and prospects of the poorest and improve the safety of the community in doing so.

As alluded to above, guns are not the only problem, but they are a symptom and part of the issues, and it seems to me that this cannot or will not be accepted by many even as a possibility

I can see why you feel the way that you do, and I think your premise has merit up until a certain point. Where I think it starts to fail is the assumption that people are either playing by the rules, or want to play by the rules.

In our community, our neighborhood association is doing some wonderful things and there is a will to address issues that are issues both within our community and Baltimore in general. However, not everybody shares that will, and there is also a sub sect of our community that could care less about rules, lives, and people in general. The mighty dollar and their worth/place takes precedence over everything/ anything else.

I don’t know how to combat that, and neither does Baltimore as we are once again, according to USA today, “America’s most dangerous city”.

To go back to what CU Tiger was saying, in order to level the playing field for people that are playing by the rules, they feel the need to arm themselves so that they are protected from the people that think/ do whatever the heck they want. I am the head of the household, so I feel the need to be the protector.

From my perspective, people ask me all the time why don’t you move. I wish it was as easy to say “sure I will just pick up (and her) and get out of dodge”, but it’s never that simple. So the easiest solution is to get a gun and deal with the shit as best as we can. I hope I never have to use the gun, and that nobody tries to come in (our 100lb dog is a giant help with that) but knowing that it is there makes living in the difficult situation bearable because I know I would have a fighting shot if something did go down based on the circumstances that we are in.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Atocep

What you're describing is effectively putting an armory on a school campus. The chances of that equipment being properly stored, secured, and regularly inventoried is slim to none.

Well this depends on the model. If you use the college model (because most colleges either have a police force or a security staff) then it should be doable.

It just goes back to who is paying for it and how much needs to be invested in this.

At my institution, we don't have a police force, but we try to have an off duty state, or local police officer on each shift. We don't store anything, but they do on their persons, and within their cars.

Not sure anybody wants to go that route, but we do have it for an educational setting already. It would just be bringing that model down to the lower levels of our current educational system and making adjustments for those school systems.

[Atocep]

I have very little faith in a public school system where most schools limit the number of copies a teacher can make to secure funding to do anything of this nature properly. And if the funding magically appears I then question our priorities when it comes to education.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I have very little faith in a public school system where most schools limit the number of copies a teacher can make to secure funding to do anything of this nature properly. And if the funding magically appears I then question our priorities when it comes to education.

Spot. Fucking. On.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I have very little faith in a public school system where most schools limit the number of copies a teacher can make to secure funding to do anything of this nature properly. And if the funding magically appears I then question our priorities when it comes to education.

It would have to be a mandate from the state/ federal govt, as I agree with you that if the schools are doing this themselves that it would get messed up.

But I don't want to act like it can't be done, and done properly. There would have to be a safety department created, just like there is a guidance dept, a maintance/ housekeeping dept etc. Teachers shouldn't be doing this.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by muns

I can see why you feel the way that you do, and I think your premise has merit up until a certain point. Where I think it starts to fail is the assumption that people are either playing by the rules, or want to play by the rules.

In our community, our neighborhood association is doing some wonderful things and there is a will to address issues that are issues both within our community and Baltimore in general. However, not everybody shares that will, and there is also a sub sect of our community that could care less about rules, lives, and people in general. The mighty dollar and their worth/place takes precedence over everything/ anything else.

I don’t know how to combat that, and neither does Baltimore as we are once again, according to USA today, “America’s most dangerous city”.

To go back to what CU Tiger was saying, in order to level the playing field for people that are playing by the rules, they feel the need to arm themselves so that they are protected from the people that think/ do whatever the heck they want. I am the head of the household, so I feel the need to be the protector.

From my perspective, people ask me all the time why don’t you move. I wish it was as easy to say “sure I will just pick up (and her) and get out of dodge”, but it’s never that simple. So the easiest solution is to get a gun and deal with the shit as best as we can. I hope I never have to use the gun, and that nobody tries to come in (our 100lb dog is a giant help with that) but knowing that it is there makes living in the difficult situation bearable because I know I would have a fighting shot if something did go down based on the circumstances that we are in.

As I tried to say, can totally understand the rationale for feeling the need to have a gun now, as things are around you, and my post wasn’t questioning that, or criticising you or any individual person for that - sorry if it came across that way.

It’s more at government level where changes need to be made that could maybe eventually mean things get to a position where that feeling of needing a firearm as protection goes away. Undoubtedly there will be people who don’t want to be helped, but some sections of that society will take up opportunities. Even if you lift up 5%, even a couple of %, it’ll have an impact, may set an example and make a few more people more receptive.

Agree it needs all sides to want to change things, not just gun-owners and non-owners, but also all levels of governance, all levels of society - it’s not a simple fix by any measure.

What is puzzling and frustrating to an outsider looking in is that there doesn’t seem to be any real desire from the people who could facilitate change to even try, leaving good folks (for want of a better description) with little choice. I can see that.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I am for more reasonable gun control, devil is in the details but in concept, absolutely.

On guards for schools ... I'm okay with a police officer patrolling school grounds. In my area, the elementary and middle school are literally side by side and there is one guard that patrols both.

Do we need multiple guards? Not sure but if the school district can afford it, why not?

Do we want select teachers trained to carry weapons? After speaking with my wife who is a teacher, I don't think its in many teacher's DNA to do this and definitely not packing all the time (e.g. concealed carry).

However, if there are school administrators or teachers who are so inclined to be the last line of defense, and the weapons are securely locked somewhere (e.g. principal's office) to be used in an incident, I would support it.

On the broader question as to whether this is a sign of our messed up society, absolutely.

There was a post earlier on what other developed countries have guards at schools and found this link.

Global school security measures vary, but no arming teachers - ABC News

I can get the need for feeling that more defensive measures are needed short-term, but as I’ve written above, they seem to me that they would be a short-term sticking plaster rather than addressing the larger issues.

No harm in sticking plaster solutions as long as they are just that, while at the same time there are other longer term drives to change attitudes, improve prospects, mental healthcare, control access to weapons, etc.

Changes would likely take a generation to take effect, maybe multiple generations, and wouldn’t be cheap. But there needs to be a will to do this, and as a Brit I don’t understand the inherent affinity to guns, how things have gotten to the current situation, or the lack of desire to even try and improve it (I mean literally I don’t understand, not using it as a term of criticism)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Changes would likely take a generation to take effect, maybe multiple generations, and wouldn’t be cheap. But there needs to be a will to do this, and as a Brit I don’t understand the inherent affinity to guns, how things have gotten to the current situation, or the lack of desire to even try and improve it (I mean literally I don’t understand, not using it as a term of criticism)

Agree. I told my daughter to not count on my generation to get this done. It gives me hope that I see students protesting (vs. previous shootings I think it was primarily parents) and can see her generation really making changes.

I do think the NRA control is on the wane but it will take time.

[muns]

Originally Posted by AlexB

As I tried to say, can totally understand the rationale for feeling the need to have a gun now, as things are around you, and my post wasn’t questioning that, or criticising you or any individual person for that - sorry if it came across that way.

It’s more at government level where changes need to be made that could maybe eventually mean things get to a position where that feeling of needing a firearm as protection goes away. Undoubtedly there will be people who don’t want to be helped, but some sections of that society will take up opportunities. Even if you lift up 5%, even a couple of %, it’ll have an impact, may set an example and make a few more people more receptive.

Agree it needs all sides to want to change things, not just gun-owners and non-owners, but also all levels of governance, all levels of society - it’s not a simple fix by any measure.

What is puzzling and frustrating to an outsider looking in is that there doesn’t seem to be any real desire from the people who could facilitate change to even try, leaving good folks (for want of a better description) with little choice. I can see that.

It's all good. I didn't take it as you were questioning me or criticizing me. Even if you were, its an internet board and with some of the colorful characters we have around here, it just comes with the territory.

I was just trying to explain how I felt about it, and that there are differences in circumstances depending on where people are from. The % points that you talk about are there, but there is a difference of how people view and or see and feel about those % points based on if you are from Baltimore or Pittsburgh or Chicago.

An un popular opinion I have is that wanting to change and putting the work in to change is too hard. People are comfortable and have made whatever situation they are in work. So if you are making money off drugs in Baltimore, its to hard to change and the reward (money) isn't enough to make/ force them to change. The old life, even with the higher possibility of being killed, is easier and more rewarding in many different aspects. Money, power, respect, family etc.

It's not just that aspect either. Our current systems in place (like the police) are also in need of some serious adjusting. The entire police department isn't bad, but there is enough of them out there that would rather rip off the drug dealers/ work with them to get their cut of the pie, rather than foster the respect and environments that are needed to for the city to flourish/ to get it under control. They have lost the confidence of the people, so the people do not call or use them when they should.

Granted these are all oversimplifications of what is occurring, but they are pieces of the puzzle that continue to help us go nowhere.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by AlexB

What is puzzling and frustrating to an outsider looking in is that there doesn’t seem to be any real desire from the people who could facilitate change to even try, leaving good folks (for want of a better description) with little choice. I can see that.

There is, by many. There was an assault ban weapon from 1994-2004. here is link to gun laws by state. Lots is being done by some, none by others.

[miked]

Surprised this was not posted, but this is an example of why these are bad ideas...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/ca...gun/index.html

If you took the human element out of these things, it would work great.

[Landshark44]

Atlantic City High in New Jersey....

Students were on lockdown all morning, reported assault weapons out by football field (where students were planning a walkout to support florida)

atlantic city lockdown - Twitter Search

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by miked

Surprised this was not posted, but this is an example of why these are bad ideas...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/ca...gun/index.html

If you took the human element out of these things, it would work great.

Yeah this is basically my biggest fear regarding bringing guns into the classrooms. You're probably going to get more kids shot by accident than kids shot in malice.

[digamma]

Data shows about 20-25% of gun firing incidents at school are unintentional firings.

[RainMaker]

If we just give up and decide nothing can be done about guns, the only solution to making schools safer would be to make them more like a fortress. Metal detectors at each entrance, armed guards waiting in case a weapon is found. You'd have to make the glass bulletproof throughout the school too and maybe have security scan cars as they enter school grounds.

I mean it'd be remarkably embarrassing as a country to have to do all that but we're kind of an embarrassing country as it is so why not.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If we just give up and decide nothing can be done about guns, the only solution to making schools safer would be to make them more like a fortress. Metal detectors at each entrance, armed guards waiting in case a weapon is found. You'd have to make the glass bulletproof throughout the school too and maybe have security scan cars as they enter school grounds.

I mean it'd be remarkably embarrassing as a country to have to do all that but we're kind of an embarrassing country as it is so why not.

Why?
Why is harsh punishment, so harsh that it IS a deterrent, not an option?

Why are the only options
A) Gun Free Eutopia
B) Military Fortress

Why is there not a middle compromise solution on both sides. Improved gun legislation is certainly a part of it. For sure. But improved criminal justice is (or should be) a part as well.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Why is there not a middle compromise solution on both sides.

I would argue that this is highly ironic coming from you.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Why?
Why is harsh punishment, so harsh that it IS a deterrent, not an option?

Why are the only options
A) Gun Free Eutopia
B) Military Fortress

Why is there not a middle compromise solution on both sides. Improved gun legislation is certainly a part of it. For sure. But improved criminal justice is (or should be) a part as well.

Pretty sure there's a miniscule percentage of people that's for taking away all the guns.

This is where the right needs to decide if they want to budge on the issue or not. So far the right's version of comprise on this issue is to draw a line where it is now and refuse to cross it. Then call the left unpatriotic for not wanting armed teachers and security guards in a place of learning for children.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Pretty sure there's a miniscule percentage of people that's for taking away all the guns.

Not sure how scientific or valid but ...

10% answered yes to "What share of Americans support outlawing all guns?"

42% answered yes to "What share of Americans support arming teachers?"

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...-polling-quiz/

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Why?
Why is harsh punishment, so harsh that it IS a deterrent, not an option?

Why are the only options
A) Gun Free Eutopia
B) Military Fortress

Why is there not a middle compromise solution on both sides. Improved gun legislation is certainly a part of it. For sure. But improved criminal justice is (or should be) a part as well.

We can't even get bump stocks banned in this country. The only major move on the federal level was to undo a regulation that was put in place to keep guns out of those with severe mental illness. The country has spoken. These kind of weapons are more important than elementary school children. It's just the choice the country made.

With that said, what's the next step? Since guns are off-limits in any capacity, we have to find a solution for how schools can stop being such soft targets. Turning them into mini fortresses seems like the only solution. Albeit an incredibly expensive and embarrassing one.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

There is, by many. There was an assault ban weapon from 1994-2004. here is link to gun laws by state. Lots is being done by some, none by others.

From a quick google search, the ban worked in slightly reducing mass incidents, and once expired mass shooting incidents rocketed up from previous levels

Here in the UK since Dunblane and Hungerford, bans on all handguns have resulted in zero mass shootings since (in all fairness, these are also the only two that have ever happened)

Which makes me wonder why the ban was allowed to expire, or if the benefits were initially felt to be too small, why the uptick in incidents hasn’t led to its renewal?

The highlight response is a ban that expired 14 years ago and had some success, but was proven to be more effective than not having it in place, based on the evidence of incidents since 2004 - that’s not a strong argument to leave things as they are.

Again, it strikes me a more holistic long-term approach is needed, not just guns and limitations, but the data from before, during and especially after the expiration of the assault weapon ban suggests that making these weapons harder to obtain does at the very least curtail, and likely hugely reduces, the number of mass shooting incidents.

[panerd]

I’ve asked it before in this thread but will ask again. Why does anyone expect the worlds largest arms dealer to do anything about its gun laws?

[PilotMan]

So one day after the puppy dies a Republican from Louisiana purposes legislation prohibiting animals in the overhead bin. No mention that it's already policy universally. He says he's outraged and something has to be done.

Literally seconds earlier he uses the "few shouldn't spoil it for the masses" argument against gun control regulations.

Just so you know. Cute bulldog puppies are much more important than schools and fixing non existent gun regulations.

[cuervo72]

Yep. People get pissed about dogs. Dead kids? Unavoidable.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So one day after the puppy dies a Republican from Louisiana purposes legislation prohibiting animals in the overhead bin. No mention that it's already policy universally. He says he's outraged and something has to be done.

Literally seconds earlier he uses the "few shouldn't spoil it for the masses" argument against gun control regulations.

Just so you know. Cute bulldog puppies are much more important than schools and fixing non existent gun regulations.

Come on, you are better than this.
Policy does not equal law.

It is already illegal to shoot people, to own guns as a felon, to possess guns on school property, etc etc etc....

[panerd]

Yeah CUTiger I’m actually on the opposite side of the gun debate than you but the lawmakers prefer puppies over children argument is stupid. If the lawmaker wanted to ban overhead bins then there might be some really really loose connection to the gun control debate. As it is it’s just a self righteous illogical argument that further isolates the two sides like most “discussion” from both sides. There are already laws/policies that forbid guns on school property, mass murder...

[cuervo72]

It's not about laws, it's about the fact that people have more empathy for animals than they do people, even children. There is a motivation to stop puppies from dying on planes where there is not for stopping school shootings.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I would argue that this is highly ironic coming from you.

Just as an FYI, you have formed an opinion of me so strongly that I feel you falsely equivocate me with the worst of your opposition. I'm not going to engage you on this.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We can't even get bump stocks banned in this country. The only major move on the federal level was to undo a regulation that was put in place to keep guns out of those with severe mental illness. The country has spoken. These kind of weapons are more important than elementary school children. It's just the choice the country made.

With that said, what's the next step? Since guns are off-limits in any capacity, we have to find a solution for how schools can stop being such soft targets. Turning them into mini fortresses seems like the only solution. Albeit an incredibly expensive and embarrassing one.

Couple key points:
- I am all for banning bump stocks. They serve no reasonable purpose.
- The proposed law got so diluted as to make it illegal to purchase replacement standard stocks for shotguns where the wood stock cracked. Both sides need to quit playing politics. A law banning bump stocks should be 1 page not 50.
- I've never said guns are off limits in any capacity. Frankly I think there are reasonable conversations about magazine capacity to be had as well as SOME other restrictions
- I've been trying to come up with a good answer to this question. While I know it wont please everyone this is my proposed (admitedly incomplete) solution:
1) Standardize and simplify gun laws. Im not saying lessen restrictions I am saying make the laws easy to understand to facilitate my #2. (One area I am talking about here - there is no single legal way to carry a gun inside a vehicle in NC and SC. The two border states (which I cross state lines 10+x a day doing my job) have differing laws. There isnt even a buffer zone, so it is technically impossible for me not to violate the law every time I cross the state line. If I stop as soon as I cross the state line I have technically broke the law those 5' or whatever.
2) Once the laws are clear and concise - If you commit a crime using a weapon (armed robbery, assault, etc) you lose your right to gun possession forever. The weapon used in commission of the crime is destroyed. No second strike. If you are found to violate this law and found in possession after losing the right to possession 1st offense 5 years in jail no possibility of parole. Second offense - life. Done.
3) The second piece to #2 is improper possession. I dont claim to have that answer, but we need it figured out. Too often now it is too quick to "Not my car", "not my gun" "didnt know that was there"...somehow that needs to be closed. With a possible caveat for a single exception for legitimate mistakes. (like example in #1 currently) or my son jumps in my truck to go to the garbage dump and goes through a license check and a dog smells a firearm...etc.

Punish the offenders. Make it punitive and preventative.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

It's not about laws, it's about the fact that people have more empathy for animals than they do people, even children. There is a motivation to stop puppies from dying on planes where there is not for stopping school shootings.

It’s just not logical. The same as the tired arguement of saying people who support a woman’s right to choose favor puppies over dead children. The situations in both scenarios aren't even remotely similar.

[CU Tiger]

Didnt mean to hit send there, wasnt finished but duty calls...

[stevew]

How much security would be enough to prevent something like this? 4-5 guards for a reasonable sized school? Metal detectors everywhere. Revamped entrances.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Just as an FYI, you have formed an opinion of me so strongly that I feel you falsely equivocate me with the worst of your opposition.

You literally called someone un-American and slightly treasonous for suggesting that gun owners voluntarily give up some of their security for a long term greater good. Not even a "I disagree with you" or even a "I think that's a foolish idea". No, straight to un-American and treason.

I think I accurately equivocate you with the worst of my opposition.

[Ben E Lou]

Alabama, you *always* deliver.

Teachers Shouldn't Carry Guns Because Most Are Women, Alabama Lawmaker Says

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You literally called someone un-American and slightly treasonous for suggesting that gun owners voluntarily give up some of their security for a long term greater good. Not even a "I disagree with you" or even a "I think that's a foolish idea". No, straight to un-American and treason.

I think I accurately equivocate you with the worst of my opposition.

And I stand by that statement. Anyone willing to forgo Liberty for Safety doesn't align with the founding tenents of this Country. I strongly believe that.

It's the old "People sleep peacefully only because rough men stand ready to commit violence in their name" bit...

But yes, that one opinion makes me the polar opposite in a gun debate. That opinion means I oppose any and all legislation. That I think full auto weapons should be legal. etc etc etc.

No. Its just another lazy false association.
I'll play the strawman, you blow me down and pat yourself on the back per usual.

[ISiddiqui]

By doubling down on your inane statement you show the utter silliness of you calling for a middle ground compromise.

[ISiddiqui]

I mean, seriously, it'd be akin to me saying people who don't want further restrictions on the purchasing of guns are happy with kids being killed once in a while, and then going "why can't we compromise on this. I mean I never said I wanted to ban all guns".

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

And I stand by that statement. Anyone willing to forgo Liberty for Safety doesn't align with the founding tenents of this Country. I strongly believe that.

You seem willing to forgo the life and liberty of the kids in Parkland in order to maintain your safety of arming yourself.

[Logan]

There are so many times I see people speaking of their different opinions, and in some cases when I couldn't possibly be any more in disagreement, I can understand the opinion and why they feel that way. With this though, I simply don't.

CU, one of your earlier posts was all about your responsibility as a man/husband/father to protect your family. You have weapons at many entrances of your house to aid in providing that level of protection. But you simply can't protect them all the time, and none of us can. Your wife and your children will go to school, to work, to the movies, to the mall, to a concert, etc and as husbands and fathers, all we want is for them to come home, hopefully with a smile on their face.

I simply do not believe that if, god forbid, your wife or children ever found themselves in one of these awful, horrifying situations when you were not with them, that your stance wouldn't change. I'm sorry, I just don't. I can't imagine any father hearing the news that there was a shooting at their child's school, racing down to the school not knowing what the fuck is going on, and having your thankfully healthy child run into your arms with tears pouring down their face after the experience they just went through, and your thought afterward is "eh, the status quo is just fine".

I truly, honestly hope I never find out that I was right.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Logan

There are so many times I see people speaking of their different opinions, and in some cases when I couldn't possibly be any more in disagreement, I can understand the opinion and why they feel that way. With this though, I simply don't.

CU, one of your earlier posts was all about your responsibility as a man/husband/father to protect your family. You have weapons at many entrances of your house to aid in providing that level of protection. But you simply can't protect them all the time, and none of us can. Your wife and your children will go to school, to work, to the movies, to the mall, to a concert, etc and as husbands and fathers, all we want is for them to come home, hopefully with a smile on their face.

I simply do not believe that if, god forbid, your wife or children ever found themselves in one of these awful, horrifying situations when you were not with them, that your stance wouldn't change. I'm sorry, I just don't. I can't imagine any father hearing the news that there was a shooting at their child's school, racing down to the school not knowing what the fuck is going on, and having your thankfully healthy child run into your arms with tears pouring down their face after the experience they just went through, and your thought afterward is "eh, the status quo is just fine".

I truly, honestly hope I never find out that I was right.

I appreciate your position. I actually had to ponder this earlier this (school) year. My daughter's middle school went on lock down after a convict crashed while evading police (after killing his spouse the night before) and running through the woods that were roughly a mile away. Police lost him, and knowing proximity to the school ordered it on lock down. I was 5 hours away with work. My daughter was texting me, scared shitless. She is 14. I jumped in the truck and left the job headed North. I called my brother and foster father who live an hour away each. By the time the school was released both were there, and may or may not have came armed for a fight.

Luckily the dude was caught in the woods and it turns out was not even the reason for the lockdown. The lockdown actually happened because of a coincidental fake threat of a gun call. But the above was what we "knew at the time"...further illustrates the fog "in the moment"

The take away?

You are damn right I hugged my daughter extra that night. I broke down when she said "The only thing I could think was I wish Daddy was here".

Never once did it cross my mind that guns should be banned. It did cross my mind that whoever terrorized those kids with the prank call both them and their parents should have been punished. Severely.

Again, we (you and I) are just wired differently. It isnt, in my eyes, good or bad - right or wrong. Just different. I'm a run towards guy, many are a run from. Neither is right. Its each's nature.

I dont believe in combating an enemy by regulating its disarmament. I think it is 100% impossible to obliterate guns in this country. Impossible. Based on that I choose to engage the enemy by out arming them.

That's really as simply as I can put it. Id rather die fighting than live running.

I will say this, if you could 100% guarantee me that all guns were gone from all criminals. I would consider to surrender everything but basic hunting fare that I own. Since you cant, I will arm and prepare to battle that enemy and I will wish that every single law abiding citizen do the same.

[RainMaker]

I know you think you sound like John Wick but I assure you it comes across the complete opposite.