Fox tell Trump to arm Teachers

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

fox new the day of the shooting was all about arming teacher and as if on cue Trump endorses guns for teachers to stop shootings and parroting the NRA taking points on Gun Free Zones

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43149694

Then says he didn't say it

“I never said ‘give teachers guns’ like was stated on Fake News @CNN & @NBC,” he posted on Twitter Thursday. “What I said was to look at the possibility of giving ‘concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience – only the best. 20% of teachers, a lot, would now be able immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions.”

Here we go again Trump says something clearly ... now we are going to be told what he ment.

got to love his cheat sheet clearly written for him not by him

Its actually that you hear what you want to hear.

This is what Trump actually said, which kind of echos what he said he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c7af90f414fb

"Your concept and your idea about — it’s called concealed carry — and it only works where you have people very adept at using firearms, of which you have many, and it would be teachers and coaches. If the coach had a firearm in his locker when he ran at this guy — that coach was very brave. Saved a lot of lives, I suspect. But if he had a firearm, he wouldn’t have had to run; he would have shot and that would have been the end of it.

And this would only be, obviously, for people that are very adept at handling a gun. And it would be — it’s called concealed carry, where a teacher would have a concealed gun on them. They’d go for special training. And they would be there, and you would no longer have a gun-free zone. A gun-free zone to a maniac — because they’re all cowards — a gun-free zone is, let’s go in and let’s attack, because bullets aren’t coming back at us.

And if you do this — and a lot of people are talking about it, and it’s certainly a point that we’ll discuss — but concealed carry for teachers and for people of talent — of that type of talent. So let’s say you had 20 percent of your teaching force, because that’s pretty much the number — and you said it — an attack has lasted, on average, about three minutes. It takes five to eight minutes for responders, for the police, to come in. So the attack is over. If you had a teacher with — who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Its actually that you hear what you want to hear.

This is what Trump actually said, which kind of echos what he said he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c7af90f414fb

"Your concept and your idea about — it’s called concealed carry — and it only works where you have people very adept at using firearms, of which you have many, and it would be teachers and coaches. If the coach had a firearm in his locker when he ran at this guy — that coach was very brave. Saved a lot of lives, I suspect. But if he had a firearm, he wouldn’t have had to run; he would have shot and that would have been the end of it.

And this would only be, obviously, for people that are very adept at handling a gun. And it would be — it’s called concealed carry, where a teacher would have a concealed gun on them. They’d go for special training. And they would be there, and you would no longer have a gun-free zone. A gun-free zone to a maniac — because they’re all cowards — a gun-free zone is, let’s go in and let’s attack, because bullets aren’t coming back at us.

And if you do this — and a lot of people are talking about it, and it’s certainly a point that we’ll discuss — but concealed carry for teachers and for people of talent — of that type of talent. So let’s say you had 20 percent of your teaching force, because that’s pretty much the number — and you said it — an attack has lasted, on average, about three minutes. It takes five to eight minutes for responders, for the police, to come in. So the attack is over. If you had a teacher with — who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly."

Thank you. It's being reported that he said that everyone at the school should get a howitzer if they want one. That's not even close to what he said. This is the state of the "news" today.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How about a national guardsman at every single school, every single day, just inside the front door, armed to the teeth. As I have said, I don't like the sight of that. But I like it more than the sight of tiny caskets being covered with dirt.

I would want someone more experienced, retired LEO, Guardsman with multiple years service. But not PFC Schmuckatelli.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I would want someone more experienced, retired LEO, Guardsman with multiple years service. But not PFC Schmuckatelli.

Agreed 100%.

I don't want ANYONE there with a gun. I have 3 kids in elementary school. But in this world, I'm not sure that's a responsible position to take anymore. Obviously experienced, trained people. But if we do that, there's a possibility that person could snap and kill everyone at the school. There are no perfect solutions, we have to find the least repugnant solution.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Its actually that you hear what you want to hear.

This is what Trump actually said, which kind of echos what he said he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c7af90f414fb

" A gun-free zone to a maniac — because they’re all cowards — a gun-free zone is, let’s go in and let’s attack, because bullets aren’t coming back at us.."

Two problems:
1. It wasn't a gun free zone. Guns didn't prevent Vegas, Douglas high, Fort Hood, Columbine...
2. Most of these crazed people are looking for a final shoot out, so the idea of "let's attack, because bullets aren't coming back" doesn't hold up.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Two problems:
1. It wasn't a gun free zone. Guns didn't prevent Vegas, Douglas high, Fort Hood, Columbine...
2. Most of these crazed people are looking for a final shoot out, so the idea of "let's attack, because bullets aren't coming back" doesn't hold up.

although not technically a gun free zone, only one allowed to carry was the security guard(s). How many did they have on campus vs how many buildings.

Vegas is not a school, lets stay on topic. that's a different argument.

Fort Hood is actually a Gun Free zone, not allowed to carry unless on security detail/duty. Most military bases are, that is why he killed so many UNARMED SOLDIERS

Columbine was a Gun Free zone.

and my post wasn't in response to arming teachers, it was in response to clarifying what Trump said in regards to arming teachers.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

although not technically a gun free zone, only one allowed to carry was the security guard(s). How many did they have on campus vs how many buildings.

Vegas is not a school, lets stay on topic. that's a different argument.

Fort Hood is actually a Gun Free zone, not allowed to carry unless on security detail/duty. Most military bases are, that is why he killed so many UNARMED SOLDIERS

Columbine was a Gun Free zone.

and my post wasn't in response to arming teachers, it was in response to clarifying what Trump said in regards to arming teachers.

I was responding to Trump's quote. Wouldn't have mattered if you out someone else posted it. I should have just quoted Trump.

Columbine had two armed guards.

No need to tell me what the topic is. Thanks. Whether you think mass shootings outside of schools are relevant to Trumps idea about soft targets is your opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Two problems:
1. It wasn't a gun free zone. Guns didn't prevent Vegas, Douglas high, Fort Hood, Columbine...
2. Most of these crazed people are looking for a final shoot out, so the idea of "let's attack, because bullets aren't coming back" doesn't hold up.

Were the shooters looking for or expecting bullets to come back? The Las Vegas shooter was in an upper story room of a building away from the festival. The festival itself was a gun free or weapons of any kind free zone (the shooter in the attack on the republican base ball game also was also operating outside of the kill area and was stopped by guards on the field using handguns.) Fort Hood massacre--the victims were not allowed to be armed on base. The armed guards at Douglas High and Columbine failed. Better security was required, lesson learned.

What is the evidence that gun free zones hold up? Aren't the vast majority of gun homicides a result of an armed person killing an unarmed person or persons rather than being a shoot out?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Were the shooters looking for or expecting bullets to come back? The Las Vegas shooter was in an upper story room of a building away from the festival. The festival itself was a gun free or weapons of any kind free zone (the shooter in the attack on the republican base ball game also was also operating outside of the kill area and was stopped by guards on the field using handguns.) Fort Hood massacre--the victims were not allowed to be armed on base. The armed guards at Douglas High and Columbine failed. Better security was required, lesson learned.

What is the evidence that gun free zones hold up? Aren't the vast majority of gun homicides a result of an armed person killing an unarmed person or persons rather than being a shoot out?

There were tons of armed police in Vegas. Arming every person at the Vegas concert wouldn't have prevented the massacre.

There were armed guards at multiple sites with school shootings and the armed guards didn't prevent the event, prevent death or limit the death.

So now we went from guards to multiple armed teachers.

Were the shooters looking for returned bullets? We can only go based on social media posts and post crime analyses It is often the case that the analysis indicates that the perpetrators plan to go down in a shootout with police. Would a shootout with teachers change that? I don't think we know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Were the shooters looking for returned bullets? We can only go based on social media posts and post crime analyses It is often the case that the analysis indicates that the perpetrators plan to go down in a shootout with police.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The last shooting the kid dropped the gun and blended in with the students to escape.

Not exactly what I call a blaze of glory
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device