Trump suggests arming teachers & staff could prevent school massacres

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I live in a state with almost no gun laws. Can carry with no licence. It's the least crime state in the country and schools and teachers are well funded.

So it's about culture and circumstance really.

But yeah I think arming teachers is not a great idea. If we all were in a civil service program or had mandatory military service it may be more reasonable but it just isn't what the problem is. The problem is the kids are messed up. The families are messed up and the culture is sick.

Gun bans and guards aren't going to solve that. Kids eat tide pods for god sakes.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

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.

It will not fix the problem, but it does bode well for those that stand to make money off of manufacturing firearms and could potentially sell those firearms to an "army" of teachers across the nation.

No wonder organizations like the NRA agree with putting armed people in schools. They get paid to represent manufacturers.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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.

You ban them all in one go. If I were writing gun legislation right now, this is what I would do (keep in mind that I'm not a gun nut, I'm sure I'm getting some of these terms wrong):

Phase out all handguns and semi automatic rifles and anything else I'm missing. The intent would be to hit everything that's not a bolt action hunting rifle with a small clip size, or a shotgun.

Phase 1 would involve banning all ammunition for weapons that aren't the above and instituting no questions asked annual buybacks for those weapons. Initially start buyback rates at 150% of market value, declining to 50% of market value at the end of the phase. Also, make buyback funds tax free and ban weapons transfers that aren't through licensed arms dealers.

Phase 2 would involve restricting the ammo for the allowed weapons. Gun ranges would only be able to use non lethal ammo on the ranges for practice, and each individual would get an ammo quota. Hunting weapons would be limited based on what tags hunters purchase and could be regulated by the state. Shotguns would be X rounds per year.

Phase 3 would be implemented after the buyback purchase and result in all non exempted weapons and ammo becoming illegal.

We protect banks, borders, casinos, money all with guns. Children get "gun free zone" signs.
But when they're in trouble, we call people with guns to go and save them.

It's sad, to think AND agree, that arming people/teachers or retired veterans - is the IMMEDIATE solution to protecting our children. What an effed up reality....but it seems the most ridiculously, shameful solution at this time.

IN THE MEANTIME, what can we do to mitigate the ACTUAL reason this stuff happens?

I mean 'Merika....when there was no one left to "war", they split into two teams and went to war against themselves.


...Long Road.


How do we do it?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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.

You ban them all in one go. If I were writing gun legislation right now, this is what I would do (keep in mind that I'm not a gun nut, I'm sure I'm getting some of these terms wrong):

Phase out all handguns and semi automatic rifles and anything else I'm missing. The intent would be to hit everything that's not a bolt action hunting rifle with a small clip size, or a shotgun.

Phase 1 would involve banning all ammunition for weapons that aren't the above and instituting no questions asked annual buybacks for those weapons. Initially start buyback rates at 150% of market value, declining to 50% of market value at the end of the phase. Also, make buyback funds tax free and ban weapons transfers that aren't through licensed arms dealers.

Phase 2 would involve restricting the ammo for the allowed weapons. Gun ranges would only be able to use non lethal ammo on the ranges for practice, and each individual would get an ammo quota. Hunting weapons would be limited based on what tags hunters purchase and could be regulated by the state. Shotguns would be X rounds per year.

Phase 3 would be implemented after the buyback purchase and result in all non exempted weapons and ammo becoming illegal.

Do have any solutions based on reality or are they all political positions?

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Lets bring back school uniforms. They can all wear very fashionable and functional body armor. Maybe even paint it in school colors.

originally posted by: angeldoll

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.

I, personally, would entertain the idea that the shooters name and photo/likeness should be prevented from being broadcast by news media. They can report on the story, but use a pseudonym to reference the person. That may reduce the infamy factor. But then, I am willing to bet that social media will expose the name by people close to the situation. But, at least the media could be seen as more responsible in this area. With more focus on reporting on the family and impact of the tragedy, it could reduce the popularity and anonymous (and mostly unspoken) impact it would have on impressionable people that may consider being (in)famous for once in their miserable lives.

Will it rid us of this scourge, no, unfortunately it will not. However, there is no single solution, but a series of smaller comprehensive solutions that will reduce it to being

a reply to: Krakatoa

Bingo. Not one solution.

Banning guns is about the least effective one possible.

originally posted by: luthier
Do have any solutions based on reality or are they all political positions?

I think gun control is very realistic. It has nothing to do with it being political either. It's the only logical solution left.

Lets think about this for a moment.

On average, crime is decreasing but mass shootings are increasing.
There are more guns in circulation now than ever before.
More guns have not helped the mass shooting problem.
Fewer guns is the only thing left to try.
The legality of limiting guns has already been settled.

I was being sarcastic when I just posted it, but short of putting everyone in body armor, what do you suggest? We just went over the logistics and cost of guards and we don't even know that would work. Gun control worked with fully automatic weapons, it works in other nations too (Switzerland and Australia to name two). All indications are, it would work here.

There is no other workable solution.

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.

So we leave schools unprotected while someone 'looks' for the reason? We know the reason and in this last case the FBI and DCF dropped the ball. Kid should have been Baker Acted.

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.

Sandy Hook...he passed up the high school with 'armed' security

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.

Until mental health issues are addressed we still need protection in schools.

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

On this we agree.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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.

You ban them all in one go. If I were writing gun legislation right now, this is what I would do (keep in mind that I'm not a gun nut, I'm sure I'm getting some of these terms wrong):

Phase out all handguns and semi automatic rifles and anything else I'm missing. The intent would be to hit everything that's not a bolt action hunting rifle with a small clip size, or a shotgun.

Phase 1 would involve banning all ammunition for weapons that aren't the above and instituting no questions asked annual buybacks for those weapons. Initially start buyback rates at 150% of market value, declining to 50% of market value at the end of the phase. Also, make buyback funds tax free and ban weapons transfers that aren't through licensed arms dealers.

Phase 2 would involve restricting the ammo for the allowed weapons. Gun ranges would only be able to use non lethal ammo on the ranges for practice, and each individual would get an ammo quota. Hunting weapons would be limited based on what tags hunters purchase and could be regulated by the state. Shotguns would be X rounds per year.

Phase 3 would be implemented after the buyback purchase and result in all non exempted weapons and ammo becoming illegal.

And it would be struck down as a violation of the 2nd amendment quite swiftly.

Look, I admire your fervor, but we do have a constitution to uphold and the protections to our rights that it affords. I do not think stomping on those rights is a good idea for the chance that it will help. Look at the 1930's of prohibition. A laudable yet misdirected attempt to ban the scourge of that time, alcohol. What was the result, it empowered and enriched organized crime to the point of them being able to make/import as much alcohol as they wanted, and pay off the politicians to look the other way. Ultimately it was deemed a failure after the temperance movement refused to accept that it was failing. They intentionally began to spike the alcohol with poison to try to make people sick, to stop them drinking. Well, it started a wave of deaths across the country until it was rightfully repealed in 1933.

Banning guns would accomplish the same, as more illegal weapons were manufactured and smuggled in across the open border. Enriching the gun cartels, where they could pay off politicians to keep them banned. While the killing would resume...since people willing to murder someone (or even children) are not going to let something like a ban stop them form fulfilling their sick fantasy to be famous. Then, more and more people will be defenseless, waiting minuted for the LEO's to arrive and count the bodies.

No thanks. I do not want to repeat a historic failure of a policy.

we have teachers and admin rushing at people with guns, their bravery and dedication to the children is beyond doubt... so why not give some (not all are needed to provide deterrence) the ability to do more than shield children with their bodies as they are shot dead.

a reply to: Aazadan

You have been fed talking points. They are not real. They are made to propagate hatred and keep these political platform in power because politicians are lazy and have no ideas.

Switzerland? Uh no guns are not banned. They have strict backround checks and have more per capita ownership than the US.

There is no causal evidence gun laws made crime drop. Can you show any that are much faster than the rate of decline they already were having?

Maybe you can't think of any other solutions but they are certainly there.

For one changing reporting could reduce them by as much as 50 percent with no cost to the public. Copycat is an actual thing.

This mass shooter was know to law enforcement. Changing law enforcement strategy and devoting some higher level federal enforcement to cover schools exclusively through regional offices like say the nsa does for terrorism. This is in fact domestic terrorism. But isn't yet classified the same.

Technology detecors, scanners, non lethal acoustic and stun weapons etc.

I also suggest teachers taking courses in recognition of behavior that may be recognized.

I suggest studying why American males do this. Why don't Guatemalan males do this like school shooters? Why not Russian?


I suggest protective orders for gun confiscation and purchase for families that can provide evidence a family member is mentally unstable and an evaluation period.

Things like that. Actual thoughtful ideas rather than political platforms with no real history of working in this country. Or really any other without drawing conclusions of causation. Nobody is like the US.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Where's the money going to come from to pay for the guns? Where's the money going to come from for the extensive training required to teach someone how to kill another human being without hesitation? Where's the money going to come from for the years of therapy that teacher will require after they kill one of their students? Where's the money going to come from the continue to pay that teacher's salary even though they're not coming in to work because they're terrified to look their students in the eye?

The schools don't even have enough money to provide chalk. But suddenly there's enough money to train and equip a death squad in every school?

a reply to: Irishhaf

Rushing to save kids doesn't mean they can operate a firearm under stress and not hit innocent kids.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Irishhaf

Rushing to save kids doesn't mean they can operate a firearm under stress and not hit innocent kids.

A important factor.

a reply to: luthier

Switzerland? Uh no guns are not banned. They have strict backround checks and have more per capita ownership than the US.

No they don't. The US has 112.6 guns per 100 citizens. Switzerland has 45.7. Also, they have more than just strict background checks for guns. Those checks also apply for purchasing ammo. Also, the concept of even open carry is pretty much nonexistent there. Generally only those who are in a security related line of work are given a carry permit.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Gun ownership not gun population. There are more gun owners in Switzerland than the US.

There are more guns per gun owner by large in the US.

a reply to: luthier

My mistake. Do you have those numbers? I'm having trouble turning them up.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Irishhaf

Rushing to save kids doesn't mean they can operate a firearm under stress and not hit innocent kids.

There was a mall shooting that was stopped by a guy that ignored the gun free zone and brought his handgun, he never fired a shot as soon as the shooter was confronted by an armed person the shooter committed suicide.

Also having nobody armed to confront an armed attacker recently ended up with 17 dead, so pick your poison a trained teacher maybe hitting a student or an attacker having free reign to kill anyone they see in the minutes it takes for the police to arrive.

Of the two situations 1 has a chance of minimizing the damage an attacker as fast as possible.