|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> It was another /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1653676042 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 05/27/22 at 11:27:21 |
|
Title: It was another Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/27/22 at 11:27:21 Gun free zone. Arm The Teachers REEEE!! He wants to make teachers carry guns!! No.. The court decided long ago that students don't give up their first amendment rights when they get to school. Why do teachers ( I include all staff) give up Their right to self defense? Why do teachers Not have the right to protect themselves and the kids? Go ahead, dream up some potential tragedy and pretend that Because something Bad might happen, that the tragedies that we keep seeing played out,over and over, are just what we must accept. We've Tried it with the signs. It seems that people who are bent on murder just don't Care that it is against the law to take a gun in the school. I'm shokkt.. I'm trying to figure out something, anything, the left believe is a good answer to anything that actually Is.. Ohh Please, highlight Something, anything you people want that is not idiotic. It was bending the knee to your GW bullshit that Biden used as the excuse to wreck America being energy independent. Brilliant,, No criticism from the left .. That is dedication,, Who believes the schools our elite send their children to are unprotected?? The people who will write the law to take your guns send THEIR children where they can be protected. Change my mind.. Even IF they are such fools, that does not change anything. The obvious answer is Arm the teachers. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Eegore on 05/27/22 at 12:05:20 "Why do teachers ( I include all staff) give up Their right to self defense? Why do teachers Not have the right to protect themselves and the kids?" They don't. They have the right to defend themselves, but there are restrictions in some cases. Saying people give up their rights to defend themselves if they can't have a gun on them is intentionally misleading. If I punch someone on a plane they have to let me? They give up their right to stop me from punching them? Who believes the schools our elite send their children to are unprotected?? The people who will write the law to take your guns send THEIR children where they can be protected. We would have to define what you consider "Elite" but I can name multiple politicians that have children in schools in NY and CA for instance that are not "protected" specifically by guns. They have their kids in no-gun-zone schools with no evidence that secret bodyguards are secretly there with secret guns at the ready. As for arming teachers, that is not as simple as going out to the range for a week and tossing a gun in a teachers hand. Learning to acquire a target and successfully impact it while under fire takes a lot of specialized training. I agree that it would reduce the murder rate per-minute in school shootings. I would think hiring security details with individuals who choose to be armed, choose to take the training and can dedicate time to would be better, but the cost would be high. Its a trade-off: arming teachers means more firearms dispersed at lower cost, but considerably poor outcomes when tasked to use the weapon. Trained staff have better outcomes, but much higher cost. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/27/22 at 12:12:01 So, allow teachers to be armed or not? Some schools allow that. Near here I know of one. I'm not aware of any school shootings where that is true. It's not important that the teachers be the best. A shooter will be looking for a Safe Place to murder as many as possible. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Eegore on 05/27/22 at 12:33:59 Yeah if a town has 10 schools and one is no-gun-zone then that school should typically be the primary target. Arming teachers should be a deterrent, but from a practical defense standpoint they would not be, statistically, very useful. I imagine if all schools were armed, then shooters would go to hospital childbirth centers, daycares, YMCA with kids programs or other after-school activities like football games etc. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/27/22 at 13:26:05 So, because bad guys would just go somewhere else, meh.. Why do you seem against protecting the children? Why are you against teachers being able to protect themselves? You tried to pretend that because they wouldn't likely be as good at it as trained people, then it would be inefective. I don't think I would prefer to be defenseless even if I believed my best efforts would prove to be innefective. Every fight I got into I gave it my best, even when I thought my best was going to prove insufficient. Why deny anyone that opportunity? |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Serowbot on 05/27/22 at 13:30:21 Why is America the only country in the world that needs to arm teachers? While we're at it,... should we arm the teens that work at the mall? |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by pg on 05/27/22 at 13:31:51 7E6167607D7A4B7B4B73616D26140 wrote:
Absolutely, 'Here is your grade book and a Glock 19. Be carful now, Glocks don't have safeties and a 9mm fmj will likely go through two average sized humans if it doesn't hit bone. Next, Here is your gradebook and G19......' Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Eegore on 05/27/22 at 13:46:42 "So, because bad guys would just go somewhere else, meh.. Why do you seem against protecting the children? " I'm not. This is just you over-reacting to my assessment. Just because I think a shooter will go somewhere else doesn't mean I am pro-gun-free-zone. It means I think a shooter will go somewhere else. That's it. Everything else is you making stuff up that I never said. "Why are you against teachers being able to protect themselves? You tried to pretend that because they wouldn't likely be as good at it as trained people, then it would be inefective." I'm not. This is you over-reacting to my assessment based off decades of work in this specific field. Just because I think statistically teachers will not perform well under fire does not mean I think no teacher should be armed. You are fabricating the idea that I ever said anything along the lines that teachers should not be armed. I never said anything like that. "I don't think I would prefer to be defenseless even if I believed my best efforts would prove to be innefective. Every fight I got into I gave it my best, even when I thought my best was going to prove insufficient. Why deny anyone that opportunity?" I never said we should deny anything. This is you over reacting to my assessment. By using my actual words, not ones you make up that I never said, please provide any statement that I think teachers should be defenseless. This is another example of me stating my opinion on a section of a large topic, and since it is not exactly like yours, you pretend I am saying things I never did. Saying teachers consistently perform poorly under pressure is not equal to saying we should have gun free zones. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Serowbot on 05/27/22 at 15:44:42 Do teachers want to be armed? Aside from police officers, some Republican lawmakers also support the idea of arming teachers. The problem is many teachers do not want to be armed, and they are not interested in having a firearm in their classroom. A 2019 study conducted by California State Univerity at Northridge found that “the overwhelming majority [95.3 percent] do not believe teachers should be carrying a gun in the classroom.” Another concern for many was having to use the weapon, with under 6.5 percent saying they would be comfortable using the weapon in a case a shooter entered the school. When looking at those who were gun owners, only 11.5 percent said that they “believed being armed while teaching should be part of a teacher’s responsibilities.” Lastly, the researcher reported that a majority, sixty-four percent believed that the presence of firearms on campus could pose a greater threat to school safety. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by pg on 05/27/22 at 18:09:37 The only thing that is going to stop a bad guy with a gun is a oood guy with a gun. PERIOD..... With that said the only meaningful solution that is lawful will be to remove gun free zones, have key staff that are trained, licensed, and of course armed. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by MnSpring on 05/27/22 at 19:01:07 2E382F322A3F32295D0 wrote:
You must have special powers ! You can say something with absolutely no proof whatsoever. pull numbers and quotes out of thin air. (Basically just make $hit up) Yet JOG says something, shows where it came from, and get's yelled at ! |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Eegore on 05/27/22 at 21:25:40 "The only thing that is going to stop a bad guy with a gun is a oood guy with a gun. PERIOD..... " I think the general idea is to not have guns a bad guy can get. if a bad guy doesn't have a gun, you don't need a good guy with a gun. Unrealistic, but that seems to be the argument. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Eegore on 05/27/22 at 21:26:19 "Yet JOG says something, shows where it came from, and get's yelled at !" When JoG shows where it comes from, doesn't look at it, then tells people that do they are wrong, insults them and calls bullsh!t, that doesn't exactly make a lot of sense. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Serowbot on 05/28/22 at 06:13:53 19 good guys with guns standing behind a door listening to children be shot just feet away for 40 minutes. Those good guys?????? You could have a thousand guys behind that door,... but one... has to be the one to go through that door first. Good guys with guns has proven useless. Little children were looking that gunman in the eye... men with guns were hiding. Your bumper sticker is outdated. I'm disgusted. Something has to change. This is a last straw. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by WebsterMark on 05/28/22 at 06:25:34 If any of you are on Twitter, I would challenge you to look up this guy and read his thread. @moroskostas A thread on international homicide rate comparisons before I head off to bed. We often hear that the US has a high homicide rate due to its recognition of the individual right to bear arms. I’m going to challenge that premise in a few different ways. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by WebsterMark on 05/28/22 at 06:26:36 Take the 40 billion we are trying to send to Biden’s money laundering country and used it to secure schools. We do it at airports, do it on schools. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Serowbot on 05/28/22 at 07:28:45 Sure,.. then the shooters will start going to churches,... then malls,... then skate rinks, then bowling alleys,... public pools, then water parks... and on... Open the borders... we need to train 20 million more people to guard everywhere. Who pays for that, by the way? All so that we can have our playthings. The second amendment is an amendment you know. It's not written in stone. It can and will eventually be amended. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/28/22 at 08:07:12 You can SAY what will happen. But you were a Sign guy. How about we admit society has bad people in it? And protect the vulnerable and allow the adults to be able to protect themselves and people around them? You know, liberty.. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by MnSpring on 05/28/22 at 09:01:14 7D6B7C61796C617A0E0 wrote:
A-Yep, gotta BAN those evil ‘black’ guns. Ya know the ones that are, DESIGNED to be used for 300 feet and longer shots. That will surely STOP all the above shootings. Wait, Wait, those ‘evil-black’ guns are Banned. So the DFI FDS, (who never got a ‘participation’ TROPHY, and believe 2+2=5) will now be using Shotguns for the short range shootings you describe above. Well then CLEARLY, it will be necessary to BAN Shotguns. And on, and On, and On. Perhaps it is better to TEACH ????? Rather than say: “Well, maybe, could be, perhaps under certain circumstances, 2+2, could equal 3 or 5. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Serowbot on 05/28/22 at 09:11:20 5C7F426163787F76110 wrote:
You're going to teach the crazy people that do mass shootings? Oh good. New bumper sticker... The only thing that enables a bad guy with a gun, is bunch of good guys with guns. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/28/22 at 09:47:27 So, what is the answer, Row? Lay it out. I'm on record with my proposal. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by Eegore on 05/28/22 at 15:02:37 "Take the 40 billion we are trying to send to Biden’s money laundering country and used it to secure schools. We do it at airports, do it on schools." Theoretically this is correct. I find it interesting that we don't want to deal with more security at a hardware store, but concrete walls, armored school buses, roving security patrols etc. are ok at schools. If people did this at airports they would be just as successful. There is more armed staff in an airport, but think about it, most airports don't have armed point of entry and scanning just to get in. At DIA one could stand on the upper deck and shoot into the pit without ever passing law enforcement or security. Of course the presence of armed staff would deter non-suicidal gunman. |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by MnSpring on 05/28/22 at 15:39:16 2335223F27323F24500 wrote:
You sound JUST LIKE Hovis. Hmmmmm, I wonder ... ... ... ! |
|
Title: Re: It was another Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/29/22 at 19:22:37 If gun control Worked Chicago would be Mayberry |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |