Trump suggests arming teachers & staff could prevent school massacres

a reply to: Aazadan

The only scenario you can think of for school security is guys in military gear walking around the halls?

Thank god you aren't on the board coming up with solutions.

First is a 15 billion dollar buyback program for AR's alone then it's armed guards with rifles.

How about getting a 2/3rd vote to amend the constitution what is your plan there?

Time to come back to planet earth and work with people for actual solutions that have a chance of passing

originally posted by: luthier
Again the way it works is guerilla warfare. You are imagining a scenario where people March to a battlefield and fight face to face.

The reality is you hide weapons. You store cashes and create Intel networks aND spies. You attack through asymmetrical means like surprise and leader ship assassination. You create a resistance by not simply giving up.

That's not how it works at all anymore. Guerilla Warfare is about causing economic damage and winning through attrition by making fighting too expensive. Guns and organized militia are no longer a cost effective way to do that. The next guerilla war against a developed nation on their soil will be all about electronics. Propaganda, hacking companies, hacking individuals, information leaks, disrupting power grids, and so on. Guns won't even come into play.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: luthier
It's far harder to kill your friends and family in a battle and this is how war and the actual battle is fought. Asymmetrically with the mind.

Not this time it's not. To quote a prominent poster from this very website when I asked them the other day if they would choose their child or their gun: "I can always have another kid, if guns are outlawed I can never have another gun". Or another poster from another website when I asked the question "The Constitution gives me the right to a gun, it doesn't give me the right to a family."

Sounds like hyperbole.

You used to be better at debate. This political issue has you blinded I guess.

Reality is the nation is split on the issue. It's one that needs compromise and in depth solution.

The solution ultimately is not bans on guns or armed guards.. it's why are American kids so messed up.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: luthier
Again the way it works is guerilla warfare. You are imagining a scenario where people March to a battlefield and fight face to face.

The reality is you hide weapons. You store cashes and create Intel networks aND spies. You attack through asymmetrical means like surprise and leader ship assassination. You create a resistance by not simply giving up.

That's not how it works at all anymore. Guerilla Warfare is about causing economic damage and winning through attrition by making fighting too expensive. Guns and organized militia are no longer a cost effective way to do that. The next guerilla war against a developed nation on their soil will be all about electronics. Propaganda, hacking companies, hacking individuals, information leaks, disrupting power grids, and so on. Guns won't even come into play.

Again total bs. Of coarse guns come into play particularly without power grids.

Again you are blinded by your political goal of banning guns.

Yes other types of guerilla warfare will be used. But it does not negate guns at all.

originally posted by: luthier
So you you seem to use math when it suits your argument but fail to use it when it doesn't.

15 million AR's is 15 billion dollars.

350 million guns is an outrageous number.

You don't have to remove 350 million guns. You also don't have to remove them all in one year. There's an average of 1 gun per person in the US. Yet only 1/3 of the poulation owns guns. Of that 1/3, 10% of them or about 3% of the population own 50% of the weapons. That means the "collectors" own an average of 16 guns each. The typical gun owner owns between 1 and 2 (closer to 2). Most shooters have been in the typical owner category owning just a couple weapons, or even 0 weapons and stealing from the typical owner category. As a result, you could eliminate those peoples access to weapons by targeting that 50%. That already halves the problem to 175 million guns. Furthermore you can budget over a decade, 175 billion over a decade is $17.5 billion per year. In terms of the federal budget that's 0.004%.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: luthier
So you you seem to use math when it suits your argument but fail to use it when it doesn't.

15 million AR's is 15 billion dollars.

350 million guns is an outrageous number.

You don't have to remove 350 million guns. You also don't have to remove them all in one year. There's an average of 1 gun per person in the US. Yet only 1/3 of the poulation owns guns. Of that 1/3, 10% of them or about 3% of the population own 50% of the weapons. That means the "collectors" own an average of 16 guns each. The typical gun owner owns between 1 and 2 (closer to 2). Most shooters have been in the typical owner category owning just a couple weapons, or even 0 weapons and stealing from the typical owner category. As a result, you could eliminate those peoples access to weapons by targeting that 50%. That already halves the problem to 175 million guns. Furthermore you can budget over a decade, 175 billion over a decade is $17.5 billion per year. In terms of the federal budget that's 0.004%.

Right. Not going to happen. Nothe getting funded and requires an amendment..

So how about real solutions..

originally posted by: luthier
OK. So 10 an hour in south Carolina is the same as Vermont?

A national average means nothing. It's you playimg with numbers to make an argument.

How many months in the summer can teachers work another job?

Do teachers have special programs for their loans?

National averages are important, because it's a standard basis for comparison. All wages are higher in Vermont. You only need to deviate from the average when you're talking about things like purchasing power for a teacher in Vermont vs Kansas. And then keep in mind that with higher wages, it inflates their loans so they can pay them off easier.

Normally zero. No one in their right mind is going to hire a teacher at a reasonable wage to work just 3 months. You're talking about minimum wage temp work at that point.

As far as special programs go, 10 years working for the government (and making loan payments) will get you loan forgiveness. But that only applies to federal loans, not private loans.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Aazadan

The only scenario you can think of for school security is guys in military gear walking around the halls?

Thank god you aren't on the board coming up with solutions.

First is a 15 billion dollar buyback program for AR's alone then it's armed guards with rifles.

How about getting a 2/3rd vote to amend the constitution what is your plan there?

Time to come back to planet earth and work with people for actual solutions that have a chance of passing

No amendment is needed. The Supreme Court has already settled that the 2nd is not absolute and that government has the right to restrict what weapons the 2nd applies to. Furthermore there have been 4 seperate federal court cases in recent years on the subject of weapons bans, and they all ruled unanimously that weapons bans were constitutional.

The only dissent on this point is from the NRA and lobbying money pressuring legislators to not do it. The courts have already ruled on the legality of it.

a reply to: Aazadan

So correct. All wages are higher in Vermont. All wages are lower in south Carolina.

36k in south Carolina is far different than in Vermont.

Teacher loan forgiveness programs are 5 years. There were 4 not sure about today.

And buddy there are lots of things teachers can do in the summer specifically because they are teachers...in many fields. I am married to research professor. My mother is a teacher.

Or not take the 3 moths off.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Aazadan

The only scenario you can think of for school security is guys in military gear walking around the halls?

Thank god you aren't on the board coming up with solutions.

First is a 15 billion dollar buyback program for AR's alone then it's armed guards with rifles.

How about getting a 2/3rd vote to amend the constitution what is your plan there?

Time to come back to planet earth and work with people for actual solutions that have a chance of passing

No amendment is needed. The Supreme Court has already settled that the 2nd is not absolute and that government has the right to restrict what weapons the 2nd applies to. Furthermore there have been 4 seperate federal court cases in recent years on the subject of weapons bans, and they all ruled unanimously that weapons bans were constitutional.

The only dissent on this point is from the NRA and lobbying money pressuring legislators to not do it. The courts have already ruled on the legality of it.

This is not true. You are talking about sales in the state and compliance issue not confiscation programs.

So in your case it's a complete moot point. Now you have to go state by state.

So you forsee that as a reality?

originally posted by: luthier
Right. Not going to happen. Nothe getting funded and requires an amendment..

So how about real solutions..

Cheaper to fund than a border wall. Addresses an actual problem. And as I just covered in an above post, it doesn't require an amendment. It does require Congress to get on board with the plan, but anything is going to require Congresses support so that's no different than any other solution.

On the subject of funding, the idea of armed guards also requires funding. Again, they're advocating for an armed guard in every classroom. There's 3.5 million full time public/private school teachers in the US. That means there's about 3.5 million classrooms in the US. There's 1.3 million active duty soldiers in the US. We would need an armed force that's nearly 3x the size of our military to police our schools. If we put 1 guard in every 5 rooms, that would still be 700,000 guards, for reference that's close to the size of the entire combined police forces of every single state in the US.

The logistics of adding this many guards is staggering. Where does the manpower come from? 700,000 guards at $10/hour (a number you thought would be far too low) is 14,560,000,000 or $14.5 billion per year You balked at my similar number which would require that much funding for a decade. Now you propose the same (or higher if we pay more) on a permanent basis for guards? The numbers don't add up and we haven't even gotten into issues yet like additional payroll taxes increasing that number, equipment needs, ammo needs, constant training, and so on. A very routine complaint among active duty police officers is that they don't get nearly enough gun range time. Suddenly, in a job which needs it just as much they're supposed to get it?

originally posted by: luthier
And buddy there are lots of things teachers can do in the summer specifically because they are teachers...in many fields. I am married to research professor. My mother is a teacher.

Or not take the 3 moths off.

Grade school teachers are not research professors.

a reply to: Aazadan

It does not solve a problem at all and it's unrealistic. It's a fairy tale whether you or I believe it.

So we get pipe bombs. We get poison, we get kids ramming people going to the bus.

Putting armed guards in every classroom is an equally unrealistic idea.

To bad unrealistic ideas don't make one good one.

a reply to: Aazadan

Nope. They aren't. But they can work summer camps.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Aazadan

The only scenario you can think of for school security is guys in military gear walking around the halls?

Thank god you aren't on the board coming up with solutions.

First is a 15 billion dollar buyback program for AR's alone then it's armed guards with rifles.

How about getting a 2/3rd vote to amend the constitution what is your plan there?

Time to come back to planet earth and work with people for actual solutions that have a chance of passing

No amendment is needed. The Supreme Court has already settled that the 2nd is not absolute and that government has the right to restrict what weapons the 2nd applies to. Furthermore there have been 4 seperate federal court cases in recent years on the subject of weapons bans, and they all ruled unanimously that weapons bans were constitutional.

The only dissent on this point is from the NRA and lobbying money pressuring legislators to not do it. The courts have already ruled on the legality of it.

So, lets say for the sake of discussion, the AR-15 is banned. Then what happens with the next shooter uses a semi-auto AK-47, or an SKS, or any other similar platform that "looks scary" will be used. So, how many times and how many laws do we need to ban each and every make and model? Heck, a regular semi-auto sporting rifle would do just as much (perhaps more if a larger caliber and fragmentation rounds used) damage and killing.

See, it is not the tool, it is the person.

Please, try to understand that. There are literally tens of thousands of those rifle platforms in the U.S. now. If it were the tool, then why to we not see tens of thousands of people murdering with them?

Answer that and you are getting closer to the real problem.

Saying that we need to arm teachers to prevent school shootings just shows that we have little to no clue why these things are happening.

I've never seen or heard it stated that these people do these sorts of things because there were no firearms to protect the students or teachers.

They do it for other reasons. Why we focus on firearms and not the other reasons just shows how many of you will use these tragedies to push your political agendas. And that goes for people on both sides.

As a side note, I'm not sure what Trump could do or say in this situation that would keep the critics at bay. It's a tough position and I would not want to be in it.

a reply to: Krakatoa

According to psychology and several studies you could put controls on how the media covers mass shooters and have close to a 50 percent reduction of copycats.

originally posted by: lordcomac
I didn't vote for trump, but if you don't believe trained, armed, and willing staff wouldn't put a quick end to a shooting, you're the nut.

Like the internet has said, there's never enough money for pencils and paper, but now there's money for glocks? I think the 'nut' is the person who's been brainwashed into believing that school shootings are a normal state of affairs.
More guns. Sure, that'll fix it.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krakatoa
According to psychology and several studies you could put controls on how the media covers mass shooters and have close to a 50 percent reduction of copycats.

And censorship of the free press...more guns and more censorship ...sure, that'll fix it.
Way to protect your freedoms, guys!!

a reply to: introvert

As a side note, I'm not sure what Trump could do or say in this situation that would keep the critics at bay. It's a tough position and I would not want to be in it.

True, but not thinking stupid thoughts out loud might help his case. Maybe he needs to study up a bit and listen to debates before he starts spouting off at the mouth, but I guess that's too much to ask.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krakatoa

According to psychology and several studies you could put controls on how the media covers mass shooters and have close to a 50 percent reduction of copycats.

That is true. And adolescents in particular are susceptible to copy-cat behavior.