IGX

No one is suggesting arming every teacher. Allowing teachers to carry is entirely different, particularly if a state has a license/training scheme in place for CCW.

I understand some wariness on this. The law of unintended consequences - a teacher gets careless and lil' Timmy gets his hands on a gun, etc. - can't be ignored. But if the state is willing to let someone carry a loaded gun on their person every other hour of the day, there's a great deal of merit to letting them do so during work hours.

Hell, add in some extra mandatory training for teachers/on-campus carry if you wish - I guarantee plenty of trainers will be happy to donate time to make this training essentially free. Some of the big-name boys (former DEVGRU/Delta types who now make a living training people) have already stated a willingness to take part.

The Federal Flight Deck Officer program allows airline pilots to volunteer to train, qualify, and then carry to defend the airliner. A similar program could work for teachers.
Hardened doors to classrooms might also be a good idea.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:Right now anyone who is a felon or mentally ill and theoretically cannot purchase a weapon can buy one over the internet from a private unlicensed dealer, circumventing any background check. You cool with that? The NRA fights closing that hole.

To be clear, closing that loophole would only limit shootings by middle class whites. Shootings among the urban poor are generally done with unlicensed weapons, and there is not exactly a supply shortage of their weapons of choice (causing one would take a long time).

To be more fair, nafod is uninformed. You can't buy a firearm online without a background check. All you can do is arrange an in-person meeting. What the people who talk about closing this loophole don't have balls to admit is that universal background checks doesn't just stop Craigslist for guns. It stops the father from giving his son an old hunting rifle to his son. More importantly, these laws will either require registration, or be completely impotent.

johno wrote:The Federal Flight Deck Officer program allows airline pilots to volunteer to train, qualify, and then carry to defend the airliner. A similar program could work for teachers.
Hardened doors to classrooms might also be a good idea.

This would make more sense for college faculty and staff. Our campuses are far more porous than any elementary school building. The idea that any of them are "gun free" is absurd.

But anything that might help sell one more gun is automatically wrong, so we'll have to think of something else.

Sorry, double post.

baffled wrote:

Terry B. wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I said this before in the thread, ...regardless of your position on "reasonable" gun regulations..why the fuck do we not guard schools? I've seen armed guards at:

malls
banks
golf courses
ports
buses
grocery stores

But no schools? I can think of not much contained on the premises above that is really worth killing or dying for. Schools are about the clearest case of something worth killing and dying for.

Armed guards are reasonable and logical.

The idea of arming every teacher with any kind of weaponry their hearts desire to take down the "bag guys" is not.

Agree on point one, not so much on point two, though not enough to really argue it.

People who aren't comfortable with guns won't be any good with them. I would guess most teachers, at least out here in the People's Republic, are not going to be comfortable with a firearm.

I'd be good with armed guards at schools, but not like DARTH wanted, with returning vets hanging out with full auto assault rifles, head checkup or not. Most people don't get themselves off thinking about playing army.

Police or private security with a .40 and a backup piece should be plenty in almost every scenario.

If teachers were armed, it would take until a kid picks up a gun inadvertently put down, a gun accidentally went off or a teacher were overpowered in a fight of some kind before the shitstorm became worse than it already is.

Also, statistics related to accuracy of trained police officers in intense situations should make you question the wisdom of putting a gun in every classroom. Airline pilots, many of whom have military backgrounds, are armed are behind locked cabin doors with their weapons in the event of a worst case scenario, not running back through the cabin playing action heroes. Having teachers be armed is more like having every flight attendant packing.

The US doesn't utilize manpower as effectively as it could. You go to many countries and there is a guard of some kind sitting in the doorway of every apartment building, office tower and department store. Narrowing the entrance points to a school and having a single armed guard present who checks who is going in and out and has a phone on speed dial to the local police would have prevented most of the recent shootings. In Sandy Hook, the gunman didn't scale the back fence in the middle of the night - he walked in the front door, rifles over his shoulder and packing a large bag and apparently nobody thought that was unusual.

Of course, how much money would be made by hiring a single guard when you could have paramilitary troops surrounding the premises and scared people running out to local gun shows driving up the price of weapons.

Terry B. wrote:. . . In Sandy Hook, the gunman didn't scale the back fence in the middle of the night - he walked in the front door, rifles over his shoulder and packing a large bag and apparently nobody thought that was unusual.

He was confronted by unarmed staff and after killing them shot out a window and entered the building.

Pinky wrote: But anything that might help sell one more gun is automatically wrong, so we'll have to think of something else.

Well then, it's either Krav Maga or the Street Sword.

Ed Zachary wrote:

Terry B. wrote:. . . In Sandy Hook, the gunman didn't scale the back fence in the middle of the night - he walked in the front door, rifles over his shoulder and packing a large bag and apparently nobody thought that was unusual.

He was confronted by unarmed staff and after killing them shot out a window and entered the building.

He shot his way into the school, according to official reports but I haven't seen anything about anybody outside that he shot. From reading through such timelines, it's hard to envision anything realistic that would have prevented this, aside from identifying him years before this happened or limiting the kind of firepower he had.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012 ... index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fullpage/newto ... l-18014080

However, from skimming through the past several pages of this thread, I now believe that rather than gun control, civics classes for citizenship should be required. Many of you who profess to know the Constitution, or at least one amendment to it, apparently don't know that much about the rest of the political system. Nobody is going to sign an executive order and take away your guns and no bill doing so is going to make its way through the senate. You should feel foolish for being pawns in a larger economic game.

protobuilder wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:There is no such thing as a private unlicensed dealer. Those are called "citizens"; who want to sell or give their gun to somebody else. And no i don't want the goverment in any of my business that is clearly not theirs according to the constitution.

Don't like it? Change the constitution by amending it. Good luck.

While I like the libertarian sentiment, the 2d Amendment doesn't proscribe who can and can't transfer which weapons. Yes, they are citizens but there's a long list of things we can and cannot transfer and a long list of regulations regarding how and when we can do so.

No flip-flopping, bitch! Do you want to take guns away from the good people and piss on the Constitution or have every person patrolling the streets with their automatic weapons defending what is rightfully theirs - YOU HAVE TO PICK A SIDE!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7EfiSsQW2Y[/youtube]


Hit in the face & neck, Joe Shitbag left under his own power.
(But only a gun nut would want more than 6 rounds.)

johno wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed.

What law would realistically prevent a Sandy Hook type incident?
Given one or two adults in an elementary school classroom and a 20 minute police response?

Nafod, from your posts over the years, you seem like a pretty steady guy. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the questions above.

Well, I've got a day job, so maybe tonight. Three things, though:

1. I'm not reflexively against armed folks in schools. My son's 3rd grade teacher was a level-headed vet. I'd trust him. There was also a local elementary school teacher who shot and killed his family recently, great american up until that moment. I could see special gun safes located on premises, wired to local police station so if it gets opened the alarms go off. In case of fire break glass sort of thing. We have the technology to do a concealed carry holster that could do similar. There are options.

2. You aren't asking the right question. The right question is what steps do we take to reduce the frequency of shooting events of all kinds from one-off shootings to Movie Theatre massacres, and their severity when they do occur. Sandy Hook was the star flare going up.

3. Wayne LaPierre can suck my salty balls for standing there and telling us good guys that we need to buy a gun from him to protect ourselves from the bad guys he willingly sells guns to.

The important thing is that the federal response will create a significantly greater paperwork requirement for schools-- which will actually raise the cost of education in a way that doesn't benefit kids, and make having armed police in schools even less affordable for municipalities.

nafod wrote:You're right, lots and lots of kids get shot each year.

Up around 2,700 kids and teens killed each year

Triple that just getting shot, so figure 8,000 taking a round.

We can expect that today 8 kids/teens will get killed. A Sandy Hook every two and a half days, day in and day out.

Another 24 will suffer nonfatal wounds, including wounds that turn them into vegetables and paraplegics or cause the loss of a limb. They will disproportionately be black kids in urban environments, but also lots of white kids committing suicide. Wayne LaPierre's door guards will do nothing for them.

DDL, regarding your concerns on the Bill of Rights, the 2008 Supreme Court's ruling was a landmark, clearly breaking away from "well-regulated militia" and expressing the individual right to carry. It also recognized reasonable limits, as per Scalia's opinion.

Right now anyone who is a felon or mentally ill and theoretically cannot purchase a weapon can buy one over the internet from a private unlicensed dealer, circumventing any background check. You cool with that? The NRA fights closing that hole.

Wayne LaPierre can suck my salty balls for standing there and telling us good guys that we need to buy a gun from him to protect ourselves from the bad guys he willingly sells guns to.

This rubbish about "2,700 kids being shot each year", confusing selective fire M-4 carbines with pretend war toys, and that moronic comment you made last summer about carbon dioxide and climate change. You can sling that shit at your students. They're paying for it. So am I, unfortunately.

I belong to the NRA. So do many other people in this state. If you don't like it more urban locales are calling. Move on. See you!

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-seals-1st-stat ... 53716.html
NYS, in a matter of days, made a whole bunch of criminals.

"We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," said Ball who represents part of the Hudson Valley. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."

Gene wrote:This rubbish about "2,700 kids being shot each year", confusing selective fire M-4 carbines with pretend war toys, and that moronic comment you made last summer about carbon dioxide and climate change. You can sling that shit at your students. They're paying for it. So am I, unfortunately.

Yeah, fucking idiot, trying to cite numbers to confuse good ole' folks who know the TRUTH! I gots your back, my data-fearing friend - let's put him in his place.

According the CDC, in 2010 there were 369 kids between the ages of 1 and 14 killed by guns in the US and 2,331 kids between the ages of 15-19....carry the 1....and again.....2,700!

You hear that nafod - you said 2,700 killed EACH YEAR. When the data comes out for 2012 you are going to see the numbers are...up.

I hear that all the kids were "bad guys" though.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREA ... _RATES.pdf

Every gun I have except one and its a fucking 44 cannon, are illegal in NYS? WelI I don't give a fuck what they do with the 2nd Ammendment or NYS laws. I'll carry what I feel like carrying and when. They're my guns and I'm keeping them.

Terry B. wrote:According the CDC, in 2010 there were 369 kids between the ages of 1 and 14 killed by guns in the US and 2,331 kids between the ages of 15-19....carry the 1....and again.....2,700!

You hear that nafod - you said 2,700 killed EACH YEAR. When the data comes out for 2012 you are going to see the numbers are...up.

I hear that all the kids were "bad guys" though.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREA ... _RATES.pdf

The 15-19 group includes kids involved in criminal activity and suicides-- the lower age group not so much. The data does not show what percentage of those kids were killed in high crime neighborhoods or what percentage were killed with illegally owned firearms. From a policy perspective that report presents largely useless statistics.

Moar perspective:



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/teens.cfm

To make it more complicated:





http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homici ... #gunpctage

Re the 2012 data, I am not sure that higher numbers are likely or will be particularly useful. Chicago's numbers are significantly up over 2011 (about 20% I believe); because of Chicago's size, this will likely skew the data in a way that isn't particularly useful (FWIW, I believe that homicide rates in LA, Texas, and NYC are either down are stable). The homicide numbers from school and theater shootings are going to be a small percentage of the total numbers. Suicide numbers, to be perfectly honest, should really be considered separately-- that is primarily a mental health issue, and while handguns certainly make suicide easier, there is little evidence that tougher handgun restrictions would have a significant impact on suicide rates.

I'm all in favor of smart policy solutions, but a simplistic 'anti-gun' approach is likely to have little impact. Suicide reduction demands a largely mental health focused approach. Gross homicide reduction will demand heavily incarceration and law enforcement focused approach. Shootings by nutjobs reduction would also demand a heavily law enforcement centered approach (i.e. increased police presence at schools), a heavy mental health approach, and a anti-media glorification of shooters approach.

nafod cited 2,700 and Gene said that the number was bullshit. I had no idea so looked the number up and found that one of them was correct.

You may find this surprising but I am in complete agreement with you that an 'anti-gun' approach that is going to be able to get through Congress will have little, if any, impact and that a more comprehensive solution is the only thing that will have lasting results. However, I am just as certain that an "arm 'em all" will not have the effect that gun proponents are claiming.

Terry B. wrote:nafod cited 2,700 and Gene said

Stop right there.

Terry B. wrote:
According the CDC, in 2010 there were 369 kids between the ages of 1 and 14 killed by guns in the US and 2,331 kids between the ages of 15-19....carry the 1....and again.....2,700!

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREA ... _RATES.pdf

18 and and 19 year olds inflating the numbers for children that people are throwing around in the wake of Sandy Hook is not exactly honest statistics.

Terry B. wrote:

Ed Zachary wrote:

Terry B. wrote:. . . In Sandy Hook, the gunman didn't scale the back fence in the middle of the night - he walked in the front door, rifles over his shoulder and packing a large bag and apparently nobody thought that was unusual.

He was confronted by unarmed staff and after killing them shot out a window and entered the building.

He shot his way into the school, according to official reports but I haven't seen anything about anybody outside that he shot. From reading through such timelines, it's hard to envision anything realistic that would have prevented this, aside from identifying him years before this happened or limiting the kind of firepower he had.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012 ... index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fullpage/newto ... l-18014080

However, from skimming through the past several pages of this thread, I now believe that rather than gun control, civics classes for citizenship should be required. Many of you who profess to know the Constitution, or at least one amendment to it, apparently don't know that much about the rest of the political system. Nobody is going to sign an executive order and take away your guns and no bill doing so is going to make its way through the senate. You should feel foolish for being pawns in a larger economic game.

Is there anybody who's not a pawn in one larger economic game or another?

I live in a state where today a law was passed to s..l..o..w..l..y do away with guns that were legal yesterday. It's one step of an iterative process. I'm sure that most New Yorkers are pleased with the law feeling a new false sense of security. Those of us who love liberty can take a small measure of satisfaction that we raised enough hell to ameliorate an even more draconian outcome.

Almost nothing was accomplished to prevent another Newtown but we will have a whole new class of gov't created criminals from the honest, decent, hard working citizenry who refuse to either register existing weapons or dispose of existing high capacity magazines. But, some people will feel better and Andrew Cuomo has taken an early step towards the presidency in 2016. It's part of being a pawn in a larger political/economic game to take up your theme.

A quote from the consistently reprehensible Speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver

“The clear thing is we are going to ban assault weapons,” Silver said. “We are going to eliminate all of the loopholes that existed previously…It will ban assault weapons, period . Even the pre-1994 will not be able to be transferred.”

Terry B. wrote:

Gene wrote:This rubbish about "2,700 kids being shot each year", confusing selective fire M-4 carbines with pretend war toys, and that moronic comment you made last summer about carbon dioxide and climate change. You can sling that shit at your students. They're paying for it. So am I, unfortunately.

Yeah, fucking idiot, trying to cite numbers to confuse good ole' folks who know the TRUTH! I gots your back, my data-fearing friend - let's put him in his place.

According the CDC, in 2010 there were 369 kids between the ages of 1 and 14 killed by guns in the US and 2,331 kids between the ages of 15-19....carry the 1....and again.....2,700!

You hear that nafod - you said 2,700 killed EACH YEAR. When the data comes out for 2012 you are going to see the numbers are...up.

I hear that all the kids were "bad guys" though.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREA ... _RATES.pdf

The CDC data is partitioned into "children" and "youth". There is no mention of the word "Kids".

In the CDC report firearm homicides for children up to 14 accounted for 208 dead.

"Youth" were considered from ages 15 to 19. By legal definition "adults" are 18 years of age or older. The CDC is lying again.

One table included of "youth" deaths included those due to "Legal intervention". This number, which includes youth who were shot police, was 2,331. I think even the most ardent gun control supporter would not blame the NRA for anyone who was shot by police.

The "youth" figure that does not include those who were shot by police is 2,315. 2,315 plus 208 equals 2,523. This is not equal to 2,700, Terry.

The youth firearms homicide figure, Terry, was 1,554 youths. Which if we add the children's figure the total is not 2,700. It's 1,762 dead youths.

We cannot be sure out of that 1,762 which are under aged youth and children. The CDC didn't break out for individuals under 18.

We can be sure that Nafod's figure of 2,700 "children" is false. Your support of him really supported my claims.

Terry, please do your fucking homework. Don't make me have to do it for you and embarrass you again.

Turdacious wrote:

Terry B. wrote:nafod cited 2,700 and Gene said

Stop right there.

If you took the time to traffic in facts instead of half baked bullshit, Turd, I wouldn't have to do the heavy lifting in this thread.