NRA - Put Armed Good Guys In All Schools

[Big Jim P]

Idk about that, but it does help to have a working knowledge of your subject before you making sound decisions on their fate

I do have a working knowledge on the subject. I understand how to read charts and graphs. I understand gun crime rates and political lobbiests. I understand how gun policies work, and I know the history of gun policy.

I am not talking about types of guns. I wouldn't ever get into a debate about what model is better for this or what make is better for that. Because I don't know anything about that.

If you know so much about the history of gun policy, then explain to me why, when guns were commonly available (to a level that would make a modern person shit their very pants) there were almost no school-shootings?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I, quite honestly, do not see the problem with this.

I understand not wanting all the teachers to be carrying guns; there are numerous reasons for that to be a bad idea. However, what is wrong with trained government security personnel carrying weapons for defence, to secure the safety of students?

[Gauntleted Fist]

Does one need to understand scriptwriting, casting, shooting, and editing throughout pre-production, production, and post-production to criticize whether or not a movie was good or not?

No, but one should if they're going to tell someone how to make a movie.

Well then it's a good fucking thing we're not telling anyone how to build a gun.

[Sulamalik]

I, quite honestly, do not see the problem with this.

I understand not wanting all the teachers to be carrying guns; there are numerous reasons for that to be a bad idea. However, what is wrong with trained government security personnel carrying weapons for defence, to secure the safety of students?

Because throwing more guns at the problem won't make the underlying issue go away.

[Choronzon]

The NRAs idea is not stupid. They wish to defend our most precious resource: Children.

No, their idea is stupid. Their goal is to protect their precious boomsticks. Teachers are not bodyguards, and armed security on the premises would not help in any way (see Columbine, VT, and NIU).

If they cared about protecting the children they would have come up with something better than "more guns" and "blame violent video games."

Our gun policies are not working, because our gun policies enable the criminal be armed while putting up any number of roadblocks to the law-abiding.

If gun laws mean only the criminals have guns why do all other developing nations not have greater problems with roving gangs of armed thugs?

That argument does not hold up to reality.

Guns are not designed to kill. Some are, some aren't.

Then gun regulations should only address guns that are designed to kill.

[Choronzon]

I do have a working knowledge on the subject. I understand how to read charts and graphs. I understand gun crime rates and political lobbiests. I understand how gun policies work, and I know the history of gun policy.

I am not talking about types of guns. I wouldn't ever get into a debate about what model is better for this or what make is better for that. Because I don't know anything about that.

If you know so much about the history of gun policy, then explain to me why, when guns were commonly available (to a level that would make a modern person shit their very pants) there were almost no school-shootings?

Because there are other variables in play.

As I've said before, I don't think guns are the only problem.

[North Calaveras]

The NRAs idea is not stupid. They wish to defend our most precious resource: Children.

No, their idea is stupid. Their goal is to protect their precious boomsticks. Teachers are not bodyguards, and armed security on the premises would not help in any way (see Columbine, VT, and NIU).

If they cared about protecting the children, they would have come up with something better than "more guns" and "blame violent video games."

Our gun policies are not working, because our gun policies enable the criminal be armed while putting up any number of roadblocks to the law-abiding.

If gun laws mean only the criminals have guns why do all other developing nations not have greater problems with roving gangs of armed thugs?

That argument does not hold up to reality.

Guns are not designed to kill. Some are, some aren't.

Then gun regulations should only address guns that are designed to kill.

Our culture as well as our border with mexico makes it a differen't situation than other countrys, were a big mixing pot that also causes tension, there are many reasons why these things happen.

Besides, like i said before, this whole thing is blown sky high out of proportion when you look at the statistics of gun owners. Statistics are not in favor of more regulations.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I, quite honestly, do not see the problem with this.

I understand not wanting all the teachers to be carrying guns; there are numerous reasons for that to be a bad idea. However, what is wrong with trained government security personnel carrying weapons for defence, to secure the safety of students?

Because throwing more guns at the problem won't make the underlying issue go away.

If the people that want to shoot children in school are aware that there will be trained men carrying weapons there, that will shoot to kill them, I would say they would be less likely to do so; unless they are literally insane, in which case nothing will really stop them from causing harm somehow.

[Vareiln]

No, but one should if they're going to tell someone how to make a movie.

Well then it's a good fucking thing we're not telling anyone how to build a gun.

Really?

[Bafuria]

Then gun regulations should only address guns that are designed to kill.

The problem with that is that many guns not designed to kill are just as deadly as weapons that are designed to kill.
The ALFA revolver I posted earlier is designed to shoot paper targets, but it is just as dangerous as a S&W M&P revolver.

What you are proposing is comparable to banning battle axes but keeping equally dangerous fire axes legal.

[Sulamalik]

Because throwing more guns at the problem won't make the underlying issue go away.

If the people that want to shoot children in school are aware that there will be trained men carrying weapons there, that will shoot to kill them, I would say they would be less likely to do so; unless they are literally insane, in which case nothing will really stop them from causing harm somehow.

If the perpetrator would of been able to get the help he needed, do you believe this tragedy would of still occurred?

[Big Jim P]

The NRAs idea is not stupid. They wish to defend our most precious resource: Children.

No, their idea is stupid. Their goal is to protect their precious boomsticks. Teachers are not bodyguards, and armed security on the premises would not help in any way (see Columbine, VT, and NIU).

If they cared about protecting the children, they would have come up with something better than "more guns" and "blame violent video games."

Our gun policies are not working, because our gun policies enable the criminal be armed while putting up any number of roadblocks to the law-abiding.

If gun laws mean only the criminals have guns why do all other developing nations not have greater problems with roving gangs of armed thugs?

That argument does not hold up to reality.

Guns are not designed to kill. Some are, some aren't.

Then gun regulations should only address guns that are designed to kill.

Armed security should be every available adult.

Second point I will concede with this note: Most other developed nations have no history of gun-ownership, nor do they have a history of free citizens.

Third point: Define acceptable killing then we will define whether or not a gun should be banned.

[Choronzon]

Our culture

I'll give you that one

as well as our border with mexico makes it a differen't situation than other countrys

Western European nations have much laxer border security with each other. It would actually be easier to move guns there.

Also, we do not get our guns from Mexico. They get them from us.

were a big mixing pot that also causes tension, there are many reasons why these things happen.

Except most of these high profile shootings have been white people killing white people. And even if that had anything at all to do with it (it doesn't) then we'd still be seeing this shit in Europe, where anti-immigrant sentiment is running rather high.

Besides, like i said before, this whole thing is blown sky high out of proportion when you look at the statistics of gun owners. Statistics are not in favor of more regulations.

Actually, they are. There is a direct correlation between number of guns in the area and gun violence. States with tighter regulation seem to have lower rates of gun violence.

[Farnhamia]

Because throwing more guns at the problem won't make the underlying issue go away.

If the people that want to shoot children in school are aware that there will be trained men carrying weapons there, that will shoot to kill them, I would say they would be less likely to do so; unless they are literally insane, in which case nothing will really stop them from causing harm somehow.

A Jefferson County deputy showed up at Columbine in 1999 and exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold. He missed four times.

[SaintB]

I do have a working knowledge on the subject. I understand how to read charts and graphs. I understand gun crime rates and political lobbiests. I understand how gun policies work, and I know the history of gun policy.

I am not talking about types of guns. I wouldn't ever get into a debate about what model is better for this or what make is better for that. Because I don't know anything about that.

If you know so much about the history of gun policy, then explain to me why, when guns were commonly available (to a level that would make a modern person shit their very pants) there were almost no school-shootings?

Well, there were almost no schools...

[Zutroy]

Our gun policies are not working, because our gun policies enable the criminal be armed while putting up any number of roadblocks to the law-abiding.

Hold on a damn minute. Show me one jurisdiction where a mass shooting occurred that prevented law-abiding people from getting guns. And I don't mean some annoying background checks that may rub somebody the wrong way, but actually outright preventing them from having a gun altogether. See, I have a feeling that more people simply aren't interested in owning guns than you think.

[North Calaveras]

Our culture

I'll give you that one

as well as our border with mexico makes it a differen't situation than other countrys

Western European nations have much laxer border security with each other. It would actually be easier to move guns there.

Also, we do not get our guns from Mexico. They get them from us.

were a big mixing pot that also causes tension, there are many reasons why these things happen.

Except most of these high profile shootings have been white people killing white people. And even if that had anything at all to do with it (it doesn't) then we'd still be seeing this shit in Europe, where anti-immigrant sentiment is running rather high.

Besides, like i said before, this whole thing is blown sky high out of proportion when you look at the statistics of gun owners. Statistics are not in favor of more regulations.

Actually, they are. There is a direct correlation between number of guns in the area and gun violence. States with tighter regulation seem to have lower rates of gun violence.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 4169,d.cGE

So now were going to punish the majority for the acts of the minority, the minority who usually get these weapons ILLEGALLY

Makes no damn sense.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Really?

Please quote me saying I'm in favor of the federal assault weapons ban. Go on. I'll wait.

Oh, right. You fucking can't, because I am not those goddamn people. I own "assault weapons". I'm totally fine with people who are mentally competent, and capable of passing a background check, owning assault weapons. What I am not fine with is handgun usage in firearm related death, and high capacity magazines being so easily available. The first more than the second.

[Galloism]

If the people that want to shoot children in school are aware that there will be trained men carrying weapons there, that will shoot to kill them, I would say they would be less likely to do so; unless they are literally insane, in which case nothing will really stop them from causing harm somehow.

A Jefferson County deputy showed up at Columbine in 1999 and exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold. He missed four times.

Shameful.

It's a sad state of affairs, but lots of local and state police do not get enough range time to be sufficiently capable with their weapons for my tastes.

Civvies, on average, often tend to be better shots... sad to say. They usually have more range time.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

If the people that want to shoot children in school are aware that there will be trained men carrying weapons there, that will shoot to kill them, I would say they would be less likely to do so; unless they are literally insane, in which case nothing will really stop them from causing harm somehow.

If the perpetrator would of been able to get the help he needed, do you believe this tragedy would of still occurred?

No.

Which is a damn good reason to increase funding to education, and catch emotional and mental problems in childhood. Also increase programmes designed to help people with, well, problems they have.

Nice job avoiding my point, anyway.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

If the people that want to shoot children in school are aware that there will be trained men carrying weapons there, that will shoot to kill them, I would say they would be less likely to do so; unless they are literally insane, in which case nothing will really stop them from causing harm somehow.

A Jefferson County deputy showed up at Columbine in 1999 and exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold. He missed four times.

Damn poor deputy.

[Choronzon]

Armed security should be every available adult.

School staff members are not bodyguards.

Second point I will concede with this note: Most other developed nations have no history of gun-ownership, nor do they have a history of free citizens.
This is to a large extent true, at least to my knowledge.

Third point: Define acceptable killing then we will define whether or not a gun should be banned.

Define acceptable killing? That seems like a discussion that would need its own thread. To defending one's person or property, or to defend someone else's person or property are both acceptable reasons to kill. That work?

[Abatael]

If the people that want to shoot children in school are aware that there will be trained men carrying weapons there, that will shoot to kill them, I would say they would be less likely to do so; unless they are literally insane, in which case nothing will really stop them from causing harm somehow.

A Jefferson County deputy showed up at Columbine in 1999 and exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold. He missed four times.

He was also a terrible officer.

[Farnhamia]

A Jefferson County deputy showed up at Columbine in 1999 and exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold. He missed four times.

Shameful.

It's a sad state of affairs, but lots of local and state police do not get enough range time to be sufficiently capable with their weapons for my tastes.

Civvies, on average, often tend to be better shots... sad to say. They usually have more range time.

And there's no guarantee that these "armed good guys" would have all that much range time, either. Perhaps the first wave would, because they would be all gung-ho about it but after a while you'll be entrusting the schools to mall cops. Anyway, doing this would just create another Big Government Bureaucracy.

[Sulamalik]

If the perpetrator would of been able to get the help he needed, do you believe this tragedy would of still occurred?

No.

Which is a damn good reason to increase funding to education, and catch emotional and mental problems in childhood. Also increase programmes designed to help people with, well, problems they have.

Nice job avoiding my point, anyway.

I don't think you understand mine. Throwing more guns at this problem won't make school shootings go away. What we should be looking at is the prevention of this sort of behaviour, then it won't be necessary to turn schools into even bigger prisons.