Guns in Schools

[Uxupox]

Nowhere does it say that in American divisions troops from Afghanistan were redeployed to support efforts in Iraq in 2003-04.

Upon reflection, I did use the term "drawn down the forces" way too loosely and should've just said "let up the pressure" as I later did. Fair enough, and I'll take my chops on that. However, on the fact that Bush did prioritize Iraq and thus reduced the pressure (Thus giving the Taliban time to reform and become effective again), my link as well as yours does confirm that. He keep between 10 and roughly 25k troops in the operational zone, and the end result was severe overstretch and the crisis we saw starting around 2009 as the Taliban had years to rebuild.

The US forces in Afghanistan weren't overstretched since only the southern most provinces (still most populous in Afghanistan) were under the direct supervision of the United States while the rest was divided by ISAF.

[Oil exporting People]

The US forces in Afghanistan weren't overstretched since only the southern most provinces (still most populous in Afghanistan) were under the direct supervision of the United States while the rest was divided by ISAF.

There was only roughly 20,000 US troops for around six years, trying to hold down a country with a size and population roughly equal to Texas but with worse terrain. As that timeline shows, the results of such were predictable.

[Spirit of Hope]

I've held the stance for years that if a teacher, or other school employee, is able and willing to get a concealed carry permit they should be allowed to carry on school. If they meet those qualifications they are incredibly unlikely to illegally use their gun, and provide a quick response at no cost to any potential situation that may require the use of force.

I disagree. Concealed carry permits don't provide the same level of training and education that the path to law enforcement does. Not only are the requirements to acquire one inconsistent among the states, but those with concealed-carry permits lack the additional experience and training that police officers have in defusing tense situations and dealing with actual threats. Teachers are not equivalent to the police; not even with a concealed-carry permit.

I am not requiring that teachers act as police. I am simply saying that if a teacher is willing and able to get a concealed carry permit then they should be allowed to carry a concealed gun in school. The standard for the teacher would simply be the same as for any other concealed carry holder, that when someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them.

The concealed carry holders objective, which is the same as the teacher in this situation, is not to actively seek out a threat, but to respond when a threat presents itself.

It should be noted that cops aren't especially well trained when it comes to the use of their firearms, many police departments only require live training once a year. The officers who are good shoots are gun nuts outside of work, a teacher who is willing to concealed carry is almost certainly going to have at least a strong interest in guns, and potentially previous experience with them.

Furthermore, I highly doubt teachers would easily bring themselves to shoot at one of their students. Even if there was a threat in the building, they have to stay with and console their students; they wouldn't be able to actually go out and take down the assailant.

1) The threat to the school won't necisarily be one of their students, Sandy Hook wasn't carried out by a student of the school. Even in a situation where the threat is a student, doesn't mean the teacher and the student will have a relationship.
2) People can be capable of amazing things in a fight or flight situation, and a teacher willing to get a concealed carry permit and carry a gun on campus would probably have thought about this before making the decision.
3) I'm not asking them to seek out the assailant, but instead to act as a response to an immediate threat. If a shooter is coming into their room, what else should they do?

And of course, there is the problem of bringing guns into the classrooms themselves, where they could much more easily be stolen with malicious intent. A safe that can be observed by students, or, even worse, a firearm on the teacher's person, is not nearly as secure as a School Resource Officer room, which students must get permission to enter.

Concealed gun on a teacher is almost impossible to steal. There are several hurdles anyone with malicious intent must overcome.

First how does the bad actor know the gun is there, or if they know the person carries, the exact location the gun is being carried. I know people who concealed carry, you can't generally tell because a handgun isn't an obvious thing.

Second how do you get it, once you know it is there? A teacher isn't going to sit around and do nothing as a person attempts to take the gun off them. Even without a retention system it is rather hard to draw a gun quickly without training, especially if the gun isn't on you. Additionally retention systems exist for a reason, to make it harder to steal the gun. Any teacher carrying will almost certainly think of these issues and take steps to address them.

I will note that the state of Utah has allowed teachers to concealed carry firearms in schools for years. I don't think I have heard of any tragedies coming from Utah of students stealing a gun from a teacher, though I will admit I haven't actively researched to find examples.

I will reiterate my position, a common sense approach to the issue of a mass shooting at schools is to allow those teachers, and other school employees, who are willing and able to get a concealed carry permit to carry on the school campus. Concealed carry permit holders are generally those people who train and use guns the most, making them a self selecting group for better ability. At the same time it the ability to get a concealed carry permit usually means one is less likely to break the law. As multiple studies have shown, those with a CCL are less likely to have their license revoked than a cop is to be charged with a crime.

I suggest you read this, yes it is a blog post, but the authors credentials can be independently verified, as the author goes over all of your objections in detail. I've even quoted him in this post.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I really cannot see a connection between school gun clubs and Sandy Hook, which was an elementary school btw.
And I'M PRO-GUN CONTROL.

But not too pro gun control it seems...

Please don't use tragedies to try to score cheap points, it only makes your position look vile.

Oh yes, pointing out that putting guns in schools might lead to more school shootings is SOO beyond the pale. You're absolutely right I should just shut up since I'm sooo 'vile' I want to prevent mass shootings! How EVIL!!!!

You aren't vile, you just have no idea what you're talking about.

[Salandriagado]

That is why the US has the entire rest of its military.

In which insurgent groups have successfully waged a campaign against and still are.

Against a tiny fraction of it, in a war the US doesn't really give a shit about, on the other side of several thousand miles of ocean.

[Uxupox]

In which insurgent groups have successfully waged a campaign against and still are.

Against a tiny fraction of it, in a war the US doesn't really give a shit about, on the other side of several thousand miles of ocean.

Spends hundreds of billions. If we didn't give a shit about that we would not have troops in that region.

[Salandriagado]

Against a tiny fraction of it, in a war the US doesn't really give a shit about, on the other side of several thousand miles of ocean.

Spends hundreds of billions. If we didn't give a shit about that we would not have troops in that region.

That's "not bothering" levels of intervention for a power on the scale of the US. An actual investment would be a much, much bigger deal, much more expensive, and much more effective.

[Uxupox]

Spends hundreds of billions. If we didn't give a shit about that we would not have troops in that region.

That's "not bothering" levels of intervention for a power on the scale of the US. An actual investment would be a much, much bigger deal, much more expensive, and much more effective.

Such as?

[Salandriagado]

That's "not bothering" levels of intervention for a power on the scale of the US. An actual investment would be a much, much bigger deal, much more expensive, and much more effective.

Such as?

Several orders of magnitude more troops and materiel, a shift to a full war economy, etc.

[Uxupox]

Such as?

Several orders of magnitude more troops and materiel, a shift to a full war economy, etc.

Over 10 % of the total american military force was stationed in Afghanistan. A war economy has not been seen since WWII. The intervention that was used was right but the strategy was that it failed.

[Salandriagado]

Several orders of magnitude more troops and materiel, a shift to a full war economy, etc.

Over 10 % of the total american military force was stationed in Afghanistan. A war economy has not been seen since WWII. The intervention that was used was right but the strategy was that it failed.

Exactly. There hasn't been a war that the US has really cared about since WWII. Everything since then has been minor, and not involved any kind of full scale mobilisation. 10% is nothing. An internal rebellion that actually looked like it might go anywhere would be an entirely different thing.

[Uxupox]

Over 10 % of the total american military force was stationed in Afghanistan. A war economy has not been seen since WWII. The intervention that was used was right but the strategy was that it failed.

Exactly. There hasn't been a war that the US has really cared about since WWII. Everything since then has been minor, and not involved any kind of full scale mobilisation. 10% is nothing. An internal rebellion that actually looked like it might go anywhere would be an entirely different thing.

10 % is nothing? That's an entire army size against an insurgency that is well enough less than that. It is sufficient enough to be efficient against this type of enemy style of warfare. The lack of a commendable strategy is the concern here. The Taliban on the other hand has waged and still is waging a successful campaign of both terrorism and subversion against all forces in the region.

[Salandriagado]

Exactly. There hasn't been a war that the US has really cared about since WWII. Everything since then has been minor, and not involved any kind of full scale mobilisation. 10% is nothing. An internal rebellion that actually looked like it might go anywhere would be an entirely different thing.

10 % is nothing? That's an entire army size against an insurgency that is well enough less than that. It is sufficient enough to be efficient against this type of enemy style of warfare. The lack of a commendable strategy is the concern here. The Taliban on the other hand has waged and still is waging a successful campaign of both terrorism and subversion against all forces in the region.

Yes, 10% engagement is at the "barely worth the hassle" level of engagement.

[Uxupox]

10 % is nothing? That's an entire army size against an insurgency that is well enough less than that. It is sufficient enough to be efficient against this type of enemy style of warfare. The lack of a commendable strategy is the concern here. The Taliban on the other hand has waged and still is waging a successful campaign of both terrorism and subversion against all forces in the region.

Yes, 10% engagement is at the "barely worth the hassle" level of engagement.

In Iraq only 10 % of the forces was also used and they proved successful at beating the Iraqi armed force which was numbered ar around half a million. Overkill is something the us military tries to withdraw from and according to the levels of warfare designed by the US Military the level of force used both in Afghanistan and Iraq was deemed appropriate.

[Jamzmania]

Over 10 % of the total american military force was stationed in Afghanistan. A war economy has not been seen since WWII. The intervention that was used was right but the strategy was that it failed.

Exactly. There hasn't been a war that the US has really cared about since WWII. Everything since then has been minor, and not involved any kind of full scale mobilisation. 10% is nothing. An internal rebellion that actually looked like it might go anywhere would be an entirely different thing.

When you are a global superpower with a massive military, allies, and worldwide troop commitments, 10%+ seems like a pretty good investment for a low-population shithole.

[Salandriagado]

Exactly. There hasn't been a war that the US has really cared about since WWII. Everything since then has been minor, and not involved any kind of full scale mobilisation. 10% is nothing. An internal rebellion that actually looked like it might go anywhere would be an entirely different thing.

When you are a global superpower with a massive military, allies, and worldwide troop commitments, 10%+ seems like a pretty good investment for a low-population shithole.

Sure. But the point is that it is a low population shithole. Not a serious rebellion inside the United States itself.

Yes, 10% engagement is at the "barely worth the hassle" level of engagement.

In Iraq only 10 % of the forces was also used and they proved successful at beating the Iraqi armed force which was numbered ar around half a million. Overkill is something the us military tries to withdraw from and according to the levels of warfare designed by the US Military the level of force used both in Afghanistan and Iraq was deemed appropriate.

... what part of this is supposed to have any relation whatsoever to this discussion?

[Uxupox]

When you are a global superpower with a massive military, allies, and worldwide troop commitments, 10%+ seems like a pretty good investment for a low-population shithole.

Sure. But the point is that it is a low population shithole. Not a serious rebellion inside the United States itself.

In Iraq only 10 % of the forces was also used and they proved successful at beating the Iraqi armed force which was numbered ar around half a million. Overkill is something the us military tries to withdraw from and according to the levels of warfare designed by the US Military the level of force used both in Afghanistan and Iraq was deemed appropriate.

... what part of this is supposed to have any relation whatsoever to this discussion?

That a sub-component of the level of force(which is critical for both tactical and strategic mission sucess) was met.

[Blernovo]

Oh yes, pointing out that putting guns in schools might lead to more school shootings is SOO beyond the pale. You're absolutely right I should just shut up since I'm sooo 'vile' I want to prevent mass shootings! How EVIL!!!!

Because students being allowed to handle guns under the supervision of a qualified instructor, almost certainly at a range and not actually at the school proper itself, is comparable to a man killing his mother, and then drive to a school to carry out a mass shooting.

How about we just don't give kids guns? This isn't Somalia.

I mean as a past range instructor, who worked with middle school kids, I can say with confidence they aren't really in a situation to commit a mass shooting.

Appeal to authority much?

[Ifreann]

Because students being allowed to handle guns under the supervision of a qualified instructor, almost certainly at a range and not actually at the school proper itself, is comparable to a man killing his mother, and then drive to a school to carry out a mass shooting.

How about we just don't give kids guns? This isn't Somalia.

But then how will children defend themselves from their teachers?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because students being allowed to handle guns under the supervision of a qualified instructor, almost certainly at a range and not actually at the school proper itself, is comparable to a man killing his mother, and then drive to a school to carry out a mass shooting.

How about we just don't give kids guns? This isn't Somalia.

My rifle team wasn't anything like Somalia, weird.

[Kollin]

Because students being allowed to handle guns under the supervision of a qualified instructor, almost certainly at a range and not actually at the school proper itself, is comparable to a man killing his mother, and then drive to a school to carry out a mass shooting.

How about we just don't give kids guns? This isn't Somalia.

I mean as a past range instructor, who worked with middle school kids, I can say with confidence they aren't really in a situation to commit a mass shooting.

Appeal to authority much?

I mean given that you've shown little idea what you're talking about and your first post was pulling out the Ethos arguments and pointing to Sandy Hook, yeah i'd say his actual experience on the subject matter is relevant and should be considered with a degree of respect and understanding.

You appear to have neither, despite using far worse argumentative structures.

And now, for my own personal opinion on the matter.
Instead of teachers with guns why not just treat the problem that causes the shootings in the first place? Seems easier.

[Salandriagado]

Sure. But the point is that it is a low population shithole. Not a serious rebellion inside the United States itself.



... what part of this is supposed to have any relation whatsoever to this discussion?

That a sub-component of the level of force(which is critical for both tactical and strategic mission sucess) was met.

What the fuck do you think we are talking about? You seem to have forgotten entirely. I suggest you go back and read the discussion again to remind yourself.

[Uxupox]

That a sub-component of the level of force(which is critical for both tactical and strategic mission sucess) was met.

What the fuck do you think we are talking about? You seem to have forgotten entirely. I suggest you go back and read the discussion again to remind yourself.

So when presented with factual doctrine about the american
military about the points you deign to go back to the discussion.

[Big Jim P]

I'd be ok with guns in schools, as long as it's law enforcement officials who are carrying them. My school district has police officers from our town's local department stationed in all of its schools.

I've held the stance for years that if a teacher, or other school employee, is able and willing to get a concealed carry permit they should be allowed to carry on school. If they meet those qualifications they are incredibly unlikely to illegally use their gun, and provide a quick response at no cost to any potential situation that may require the use of force.

Anyone legally allowed to carry otherwise (assuming they had legitimate business being there), should be allowed to carry on school grounds.

[Big Jim P]

Civilian gun usage is generally a bad idea

The benefits far outweigh the costs. Please try again.