Arming teachers bad cus in Parkand a singlular example exists of a cowardly RO not doing job, WTF?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Got a link or is this one of your fantasies?

`
As you wish - http://www.ncdsv.org/images/

Got a link or is this one of your fantasies?

`
As you wish - [URL]http://www.ncdsv.org/images/VPC_Arm-teachers-the-facts-argue-against-it.pdf

VPC_Arm-teachers-the-facts-argue-against-it.pdf[/URL]

OK. I read your stupid article. Now, where did that article get its information since no sources were cited. That means it likely is just another of their fantasies like citing one study who found that 20% of police officers were shot with their own weapons. Anyone with a room temp IQ knows that is bald-faced lie! Notice they did not cite the study either!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you morons want to know how to prevent school shootings?

The answer is simple though not easy to implement

Don't let people with guns into schools

VOILA no more school shootings

 

[Windparadox]

OK. I read your stupid article. Now, where did that article get its information since no sources were cited. That means it likely is just another of their fantasies like citing one study who found that 20% of police officers were shot with their own weapons. Anyone with a room temp IQ knows that is bald-faced lie! Notice they did not cite the study either!

`
Wow...a supposed teacher who can't read. Suit yourself.

 

[2aguy]

The gun lobby does not want to stop shootings.

Mass Shootings: Tragic For Victims, Great For Gun Manufacturers

No....moron......mass shootings work for democrats who want to ban guns....dead children are their best tool for getting weak minded people like you to vote them power....that is why they fight against ending gun free zones which draw mass shooters to our children.....

 

[2aguy]

Even the most trained accidentally shoot people.
Gun range instructor accidentally shoots man during training, police say

And Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.......

Bullshit ^

That is from the CDC moron. And that is only one study that shows a number that large...

The moron is gonna keep making you work to prove he's wrong.
He's unwilling to do ANY research on his own

Sorry, not up to me to prove that his supposed "1.1m CDC stat" is bullshit.
The studies vary, but the most generous stat I can come up with is around 100k successful defensive or crime stop uses per year.

The study you use isn't a gun self defense study, doesn't have the word "Gun" in it, and never asks a single question about gun use for self defense.....

However, all of these studies are actually gun studies.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

 

[2aguy]

Is it possible that we're getting a disparate message re. guns here... For instance, Lebron James recently came out against guns / 2A but also recently hired x 10 armed bodyguards to protect his home. All the plutocrats (aka Bloomberg) and 'Feinstein-ian' proponents of gun restrictions seem to have a double standard for themselves when their safety is involved, up in their ivory towers. The thing is, I'm applauding their decision to protect themselves and theirs via firearms; I'm just taking umbrage with the double standard that exists when it comes to what they seek to legislate for us the citizenry!

When it comes to school safety, what are the safest schools and why are they safe. There are the 'hoyty toyty' private, prep schools with armed guards that are quite safe. There are small town rural schools in the center of homogeneous communities, such as mine, where virtually everyone in the vicinity of the school has access to guns. Then there is everyone else out there with antithetical safety / firearm philosophies. The schools with guns in them and schools where the community is relatively armed are where I would send my children (if I had children).

Both ideological camps seem to have a fundamental disconnect when it comes to firearms. I have plenty of friends who get a visceral reaction when a inanimate firearm comes into view as they walk into my home. They may have never held or fired a firearm but they have this strong sense of apprehension and loathing by the mere thought or sight of one. Then there are those who are familiar with firearms, grown up with them or are just generally familiarized with them & view them as harmless chunks of metal and polymer inert / inanimate until manipulated into functionality.

The thing for the 1st camp to realize is that it is a tool, and like any unfamiliar tool it just takes a modicum of familiarization to utilize it safely and with rudimentary efficacy; it is not some monumental hurdle to be overwhelmed by. 2nd camp (myself included) needs to try to step into the shoes of camp #1 and realize that what is as common & familiar to us as the i-phone on our hip is really a misunderstood & formidable mental hurdle for others to wrap their heads around & even for the willing it doesn't happen over night. I've tought grandmothers and all sorts of a-typical firearm 'candidates' to shoot safely and effectively, though few are what I would call adroit or 'naturals', lol. Follow x 4 simple rules and in less than 5 min. of firearm familiarization the most unlikely novice should be shooting safely with some measure of efficacy, 'destroying' their target and nothing else.
- treat all guns as if they are loaded (even when you know they are not)
- never point gun at anything you are not willing to destroy
- keep your finger off the trigger until you have acquired your target
- make sure of your target and what is behind it

No one with an iota of sanity or credibility has proposed arming all teachers! Rather, allow voluntary carry of those teachers that come forward, have been vetted thoroughly & have demonstrated the rudimentary skills to be safe (note I said nothing about being an expert shot). The thing is, not every school in a given county might have such a teacher coming forth and being armed & this doesn't negate the efficacy of passing such legislation. Would be school shooters (cowards mostly) don't know if a given school would be a soft or hard target & believe me, that is HUGE... IMHO!

Fake rightwing news. Lebon didnt come out against guns. He said there was no need for people to carry them in public. He has guns of his own at home. He hired a security detail to protect his family due to his name being found on a list to be robbed. You people lie for no good reason or you stupidly believe the stuff you read at Breitbarf and Faux News.

Yes...he can be protected outside his home because he is rich and can hire 10 gun armed people to carry the guns for him...

the Father of 3 coming home from work, the single mother on the train....they can be raped, robbed and murdered because they aren't rich like Lebron....so they don't get to carry their own gun to stay alive for their families...

You moron.

 

[2aguy]

Even the most trained accidentally shoot people.
Gun range instructor accidentally shoots man during training, police say

And Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.......

And criminals use their guns so our homicide rate is 4-5x they of countries with strong gun control.

Moron....our knife murder rate is 5X higher than their entire murder rate, you doofus....

 

[2aguy]

And Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.......

Bullshit ^

That is from the CDC moron. And that is only one study that shows a number that large...

The moron is gonna keep making you work to prove he's wrong.
He's unwilling to do ANY research on his own

Sorry, not up to me to prove that his supposed "1.1m CDC stat" is bullshit.
The studies vary, but the most generous stat I can come up with is around 100k successful defensive or crime stop uses per year.

The cdc never did such a study. He is full of shit as always.

Moron, liar, you troll....the CDC did the research then refused to print it......

What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN



Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

=========



Reason article on the revised paper..



A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use



-------



Original version before he went back to revise it...

The actual paper by Kleck revealing the CDC hiding data..



SSRN Electronic Library

The timing of CDC’s addition of a DGU question to the BRFSS is of some interest. Prior to 1996, the BRFSS had never included a question about DGU. Kleck and Gertz (1995) conducted their survey in February through April 1993, presented their estimate that there were over 2 million DGUs in 1992 at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology in November 1994, and published it in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in the Fall of 1995. CDC added a DGU question to the BRFSS the very first year they could do so after that 1995 publication, in the 1996 edition. CDC was not the only federal agency during the Clinton administration to field a survey addressing the prevalence of DGU at that particular time. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) financed a national survey devoting even more detailed attention to estimating DGU prevalence, which was fielded in November and December 1994, just months after preliminary results of the 1993 Kleck/Gertz survey became known. Neither CDC nor NIJ had ever financed research into DGU before 1996. Perhaps there was just “something in the air” that motivated the two agencies to suddenly decide in 1994 to address the topic. Another interpretation, however, is that fielding of the surveys was triggered by the Kleck/Gertz findings that DGU was common, and that these agencies hoped to obtain lower DGU prevalence estimates than those obtained by Kleck/Gertz. Low estimates would have implied fewer beneficial uses of firearms, results that would have been far more congenial to the strongly pro-control positions of the Clinton administration.

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns



Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Those polls, Kleck writes,

are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: "During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?" Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

At any rate, Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the "weighted percent who reported a DGU...was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined."





Kleck figures if you do the adjustment upward he thinks necessary for those who had DGU incidents without personally owning a gun in the home at the time of the survey, and then the adjustment downward he thinks necessary because CDC didn't do detailed follow-ups to confirm the nature of the incident, you get 1.24 percent, a close match to his own 1.326 percent figure.

He concludes that the small difference between his estimate and the CDC's "can be attributed to declining rates of violent crime, which accounts for most DGUs. With fewer occasions for self-defense in the form of violent victimizations, one would expect fewer DGUs."

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.



This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

 

[2aguy]

There are some fundamental flaws in your logic.
- we do have millions of firearms in our nation and a Constitution that will render any meaningful reduction unconstitutional (Thank God) so lets start with that reality
- What is the better scenario, hypothetically, having an armed defender who fails or not having the armed defender in the first place?

What 'should' happen and what will happen re. school safety protocol will NEVER be fully realized. My local HS has a few hundred students with exactly x 21 doors or access points including shop doors where students learn to work on tractors, implements etc. These schools struggle to minimize the times where even a majority of these access points are sealed off at any given time. The majority of these schools in 'middle America' should, but won't, be seeing metal detectors, bullet proof glass and live stream security cameras any time soon, that's the reality.

We might have to choose between protecting our children or easy access to guns. Choice easy for me.

Moron....schools are safer now than they were in the 90s...... school shootings are rare ... like unicorns.

School shootings happen regularly. How many unicorns have your seen nut?

They don't happen regularly, and they have gone down as more Americans own and carry guns....

Every year multiple times. Countries with strong gun control don’t have this problem.

Wrong.....they have been lucky. Britain almost had 3 of them over the last few years....a massive increase, and only luck kept them from actually being carried out. Their gun control laws didn't stop anything.

And had those muslim terrorists in France targeted schools instead of a Rock Concert, not one French gun control law would have saved any lives.....

And guns in Europe are easy to get.....you know that because you have seen the information...they just don't have the nut cases targeting schools yet.....but it is coming...

 

[2aguy]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

Parkland had one armed guard for over 3,100 students and 12 buildings on campus...that is not a gun free zone......and if he had actually engaged the shooter, since he was at that building, lives would have been saved.

Killing one man before anyone can react is a different threat situation than someone attacking the entire crowd....and if you had done any actual research you would know that the rest of the NRA convention, and the Republican convention that year allowed carrying guns.....and there wasn't one shooting there...was there?

Also.....we know....this is fact....that mass public shooters target gun free zones ....we know this from their notes and from actual confessions from the ones who live after the attacks..

You don't know what you are talking about.....

 

[Sahba]

Got a link or is this one of your fantasies?

`
As you wish - http://www.ncdsv.org/images/VPC_Arm-teachers-the-facts-argue-against-it.pdf

Tks for your link, I always appreciate the exposure to partisanly crafted assertions as long as they do strive for objectivity. Just like polls, however, they are postulations - stabs at truth in an amorphous and nuanced world. I've grown weary of isolated examples used to prop up or tear down ideological assertions / positions. I.e. 'mom saves day' Georgia Mom Shoots Home Invader, Hides With Kids or 'child killed' 7-year-old accidentally kills himself after finding gun, authorities say

We're all capable of cherry picking isolated incidents to support our ideological assertions, this happens on both sides of the ideological argument, so I'm trying to pick on both equally. I think the most honest and effective way to collectively achieve the results we want is to talk the fundamentals, what are the probabilities or generalities in universal broad brush strokes when crafting policy... Do the costs (potential accident) out way the benefits (creating 'hardened' school) in pursuing selective armament of some teachers? Another thing to consider is the benefit of legislation passing, even if not every school has an armed individual among its staff. The mere possibility that the school might be 'hardened' is a significant discouragement to most (largely cowardly) would be shooters?. Tks, again for you post & link...

 

[DrLove]

And Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.......

Bullshit ^

That is from the CDC moron. And that is only one study that shows a number that large...

The moron is gonna keep making you work to prove he's wrong.
He's unwilling to do ANY research on his own

Sorry, not up to me to prove that his supposed "1.1m CDC stat" is bullshit.
The studies vary, but the most generous stat I can come up with is around 100k successful defensive or crime stop uses per year.

The study you use isn't a gun self defense study, doesn't have the word "Gun" in it, and never asks a single question about gun use for self defense.....

However, all of these studies are actually gun studies.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

Your sources are GunSite and SpringerLink?

 

[2aguy]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

I've always meant to ask but what do you mean by gun free zones? I ask because someone told me Ft Hood was a gun free zone which is obviously bullshit.

Fort Hood is a military fort so someone uninformed like you would assume that soldiers on base have guns...this is not true. Guns on a military base are kept in armories and only taken out for training or deployment.....the Military and civilian police are the only ones with guns.....the Fort Hood shooter picked a gun free zone area to attack..none of the soldiers and civilians there had guns.....it was only after the Military police arrived that he was stopped.....

It was a gun free zone.

 

[2aguy]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do

in schools.

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

You think gun-free zones are less safe. Yet there were no guns allowed at a Pence/NRA convention held in Dallas a few months ago.

Explain this.

You are wrong...again.....the Republican convention allowed people to carry guns...the NRA convention also allowed people to carry guns....please do some basic research instead of just posting off the top of your head.

 

[2aguy]

Bullshit ^

That is from the CDC moron. And that is only one study that shows a number that large...

The moron is gonna keep making you work to prove he's wrong.
He's unwilling to do ANY research on his own

Sorry, not up to me to prove that his supposed "1.1m CDC stat" is bullshit.
The studies vary, but the most generous stat I can come up with is around 100k successful defensive or crime stop uses per year.

The study you use isn't a gun self defense study, doesn't have the word "Gun" in it, and never asks a single question about gun use for self defense.....

However, all of these studies are actually gun studies.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

Your sources are GunSite and SpringerLink?

Moron......those are actual studies conducted by private and government researchers...you asshat.......and the Centers for Disease Control....really, are you that stupid, or do you just pretend to be that stupid when you post......?

How about the Department of Justice...you moron?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

OK. I read your stupid article. Now, where did that article get its information since no sources were cited. That means it likely is just another of their fantasies like citing one study who found that 20% of police officers were shot with their own weapons. Anyone with a room temp IQ knows that is bald-faced lie! Notice they did not cite the study either!

`
Wow...a supposed teacher who can't read. Suit yourself.

What did I not read? I saw a biased article with no facts to support it. I guess My degrees came from a diploma mill.

 

[KissMy]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Why does the teacher have to carry the firearm? You are making a gross assumption. Why can't the gun be locked away in the classroom?

Also, many teachers are veterans and others have experience with firearms.

I am a veteran with extensive training. When we did active shooter training, the principal even told the entire faculty he would be staying with me where he knew he would be safe. My assistant principal at one of the schools where I worked was a deputy sheriff before he became a teacher.

Try coming into my school if I and my fellow teachers were armed and see how long you last. I give you two minutes of walking around checking locked classroom doors before you bleed out on the floor.

Yea? Well the link that you accused me of not reading said that the person who accidentally discharged their gun happened to also be a reserve police officer trained in firearm use.

What happened there? Why was the gun not locked away in a non-emergency situation? Was that teacher more likely to kill a school shooter or an innocent student?

Is an unarmed teacher likely to kill a school shooter or get killed along with the students if they have no gun at all?

Unlike your supposition, mine has an almost 100% certainty, whereas your scenario has a microscopic chance of occurring.

Teachers are armed.

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

Which is more likely to happen?

Teacher steps in and saves the day.

Let's change your scenario to real life.

Teachers are not armed:

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher without a gun dies valiantly trying to defend students who are all killed anyway.
B) There is no other option. Teacher without a gun dies and students are all killed anyway.

Dear Clueless Retard: Mass school shootings are so rare, that far more will be killed by the million armed teachers guns.

Real Life Goes Like This!!!:

A) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
B) The gun is discharged accidentally killing a student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
C) Teacher steps in to break up a fight, shoots an unarmed student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
D) Riots break out from teacher shooting student. Many are killed, Town looted & burnt!!!
E) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher runs away, 30 people massacred!
F) The gun is discharged accidentally shooting teacher, who will now live off tax payers on disability.
G) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
H) The gun is discharged accidentally.
I) Psychotic shooter comes in. Teachers get shot before they can get their guns out.
J) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Teacher shoots Parent. Tax Payers & School Liable!
K) Psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots innocent people. Tax Payers & School Liable!
L) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
M) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher can't get to gun, many get shot.
N) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
O) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable
P) The gun is discharged accidental killing teacher, who's family will now live off tax payers for life.
Q) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Teacher shoots Parent. Tax Payers & School Liable!
R) The gun is discharged accidentally.
S) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable!
T) The gun is discharged accidentally shooting teacher, who will now live off tax payers on disability.
U) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable
V) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
W) A Teacher snaps from excess pressure, shoots 15 students. Tax Payers & School Liable!
X) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
Y) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Fight, Gun comes lose, Teacher killed. Tax Payers & School Liable!
Z) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and for once saves the day.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In an interview with Variety Parkland gun control activist Emma Gonzalez suggested arming teachers is a bad idea because her school had “a resource officer and he didn’t do jack sh*t.”
The resource officer referenced by Gonzalez is former Broward County deputy Scot Peterson, who arrived outside the scene of the Parkland attack roughly 90 seconds after it began and stayed outside until it was over, instead of going in to confront the gunman.

Lost on Gonzalez is the fact that armed teachers are there as a last resort. They are there to shoot the attacker if the deputy will not go in or in the event that the deputy cannot go in.

Are the anti 2Aers so simple minded as to think that the almighty 'Nanny State' is the best defense against unleashed homicidal terror. Is the notion of 'Personal Responsibility' so repugnant that it extends to the very lives of their children. What the F, If the principle tells a parent that he has an AR locked up in his office I would expect parents to be thrilled, wouldn't U!

Emma Gonzalez: Don't Arm Teachers, 'We Had a Resource Officer and He Didn't Do Jack Sh*t' | Breitbart

Arming teachers is idiocy because they have no idea what they're doing; what little training they get doesn't prepare them for an actual shooting event.

Indeed, armed teachers are more likely to kill or injure innocent bystanders and students.

Not as many that would be injured or killed with nobody to defend them.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Theowl32]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do

in schools.

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

You think gun-free zones are less safe. Yet there were no guns allowed at a Pence/NRA convention held in Dallas a few months ago.

Explain this.

You are wrong...again.....the Republican convention allowed people to carry guns...the NRA convention also allowed people to carry guns....please do some basic research instead of just posting off the top of your head.

Besides, the idiot missed the whole point. Most soft targets are not going to be attacked.

However if a person is committed to murdering on mass scale, they will choose a soft target over one that is well armed.

Unless it is an amazing coincidence that they just so happen to choose soft targets.

 

[2aguy]

Why does the teacher have to carry the firearm? You are making a gross assumption. Why can't the gun be locked away in the classroom?

Also, many teachers are veterans and others have experience with firearms.

I am a veteran with extensive training. When we did active shooter training, the principal even told the entire faculty he would be staying with me where he knew he would be safe. My assistant principal at one of the schools where I worked was a deputy sheriff before he became a teacher.

Try coming into my school if I and my fellow teachers were armed and see how long you last. I give you two minutes of walking around checking locked classroom doors before you bleed out on the floor.

Yea? Well the link that you accused me of not reading said that the person who accidentally discharged their gun happened to also be a reserve police officer trained in firearm use.

What happened there? Why was the gun not locked away in a non-emergency situation? Was that teacher more likely to kill a school shooter or an innocent student?

Is an unarmed teacher likely to kill a school shooter or get killed along with the students if they have no gun at all?

Unlike your supposition, mine has an almost 100% certainty, whereas your scenario has a microscopic chance of occurring.

Teachers are armed.

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

Which is more likely to happen?

Teacher steps in and saves the day.

Let's change your scenario to real life.

Teachers are not armed:

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher without a gun dies valiantly trying to defend students who are all killed anyway.
B) There is no other option. Teacher without a gun dies and students are all killed anyway.

Dear Clueless Retard: Mass school shootings are so rare, that far more will be killed by the million armed teachers guns.

Real Life Goes Like This!!!:

A) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
B) The gun is discharged accidentally killing a student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
C) Teacher steps in to break up a fight, shoots an unarmed student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
D) Riots break out from teacher shooting student. Many are killed, Town looted & burnt!!!
E) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher runs away, 30 people massacred!
F) The gun is discharged accidentally shooting teacher, who will now live off tax payers on disability.
G) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
H) The gun is discharged accidentally.
I) Psychotic shooter comes in. Teachers get shot before they can get their guns out.
J) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Teacher shoots Parent. Tax Payers & School Liable!
K) Psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots innocent people. Tax Payers & School Liable!
L) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
M) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher can't get to gun, many get shot.
N) Psychotic student grabs Teachers gun & shoots 15 students & teachers. Tax Payers & School Liable!
O) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable
P) The gun is discharged accidental killing teacher, who's family will now live off tax payers for life.
Q) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Teacher shoots Parent. Tax Payers & School Liable!
R) The gun is discharged accidentally.
S) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable!
T) The gun is discharged accidentally shooting teacher, who will now live off tax payers on disability.
U) Teacher tried to break up a fight, student grabs teachers gun, shoots people. Tax Payers & School Liable
V) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
W) A Teacher snaps from excess pressure, shoots 15 students. Tax Payers & School Liable!
X) The gun is discharged accidentally, striking student. Tax Payers & School Liable!
Y) Parent Teacher meeting gets heated, Fight, Gun comes lose, Teacher killed. Tax Payers & School Liable!
Z) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and for once saves the day.

Making things up is really silly......there are 14 states that already allow armed teachers....and nothing in your A-Z myth making has happened.....but please....keep typing...you can use the eye hand coordination practice...

So......outside of the fact that nothing you posted is actually happening in the 14 states that actually allow teachers to be armed...what else to you have?

Here’s all the states where teachers already carry guns in the classroom

Florida is on the verge of becoming the 15th state to arm teachers after Gov. Rick Scott signed an omnibus bill Friday allowing school staff to undergo law enforcement training to carry guns in the classroom.

Although the notion may seem radical, at least 14 states already arm teachers, according to a VICE News review of state laws and interviews with education department officials and school board associations around the country. Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington.


Another 16 states give local school boards the authority to decide whether school staff can carry guns, either explicitly or through legal loopholes, but officials said they didn’t know of any instances of armed teachers in those states.