Fox tell Trump to arm Teachers

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

One thing on this issue I haven't heard mentioned is if you have an armed teacher(s) and there's an active shooter they have to respond to...

...

Who's taking care of that classroom of kids?

A fair and pertinent question. There would need to be a protocol, and there are ways to deal with that. Have a plan where a teacher can't leave his class to engage a shooter until he knows that his kids are in another class first.

Having the military in the school, would also eliminate that concern.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A fair and pertinent question. There would need to be a protocol, and there are ways to deal with that. Have a plan where a teacher can't leave his class to engage a shooter until he knows that his kids are in another class first.

Sounds like a recipe for total chaos and inaction. The whole idea is so ridiculously stupid I can't even believe people are talking about it. Trump's remarks yesterday were laughable. I can't believe he really said you might have a teacher who had won a shooting contest so give them a bonus to carry in school.

Hell, even in FL a veteran police officer couldn't engage the shooter. You think a social studies teacher is just going to go all Rambo?

Even worse is taking the wrong actions...it's makes people think something has been done and they get complacent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like a recipe for total chaos and inaction. The whole idea is so ridiculously stupid I can't even believe people are talking about it. Trump's remarks yesterday were laughable. I can't believe he really said you might have a teacher who had won a shooting contest so give them a bonus to carry in school.

Hell, even in FL a veteran police officer couldn't engage the shooter. You think a social studies teacher is just going to go all Rambo?

Even worse is taking the wrong actions...it's makes people think something has been done and they get complacent.

You’re doing what every other ideologue does. Only talking about one side of the issue. Yes, Spence, there are useless cops out there. That doesn’t mean that police don’t add value. Similarly, armed guards in school can not prevent every death. But they might well save lives.

When evaluating an idea, you consider the pros and the cons. Not just the cons. You never learned that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You’re doing what every other ideologue does. Only talking about one side of the issue. Yes, Spence, there are useless cops out there. That doesn’t mean that police don’t add value. Similarly, armed guards in school can not prevent every death. But they might well save lives.

When evaluating an idea, you consider the pros and the cons. Not just the cons. You never learned that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't weigh both sides of an argument in a post doesn't mean I don't hold them in my mind.

That being said, when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

It's probably worth noting here that a big reason access to full auto firearms was restricted is because Congress at the time was concerned with their increasing use in violent crime. (and taxes)

It's also probably worth noting here that a big reason you rarely ever see full auto firearms used in violent crime today is because they're hard to get.

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

John, there have only been 2 homicides with legally held fully automatic weapons since they were controlled, the records are not easy to access. I was wondering how many with illegally held automatics?
No being a lawyer of any type, i wonder why if the 2nd A gives you the right to keep and bear arms you cannot have bombs, cannons, fully automatic weapons, etc.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

Blood on their hands is a bit of hyperbole, it may be fairer to say some gun owners are being told they don't need certain weapons or shouldn't have certain weapons.

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

So why don't they then? Crime with legally obtained full auto is statistically not even relevant. I haven't seen a stat on illegal full auto weapons but if it's out there it's pretty rare also.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Blood on their hands is a bit of hyperbole, it may be fairer to say some gun owners are being told they don't need certain weapons or shouldn't have certain weapons.


So why don't they then? Crime with legally obtained full auto is statistically not even relevant. I haven't seen a stat on illegal full auto weapons but if it's out there it's pretty rare also.

Spence, you actually wrote a word "fairer"🤡. Have you been hanging out with Wayne too much?

Also ,it would be fair to say a veteran police officer wouldn't engage the shooter. You used the word couldn't,which is a stretch if speaking truthfully.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't weigh both sides of an argument in a post doesn't mean I don't hold them in my mind.

That being said, when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1...

"You're jumping to conclusions"

Nope. Responding to your constant, consistent thoughtlessness.

"when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1"

What are the positives? What might the positives have been, if there was an armed soldier at Sandy Hook and at this school?

You see the lack of perfect guarantee, as a downside. There was no downside to having the useless cop in FL. There was no upside because he failed, but there was no downside, wither. He didn't make it worse.

Let's make it simple Spence. If I propose to put an armed soldier in the schools your kids go to, do you think your kids are more safe, or less safe?

No go onto Rachael Maddow's website and paste her answer as a response...

You are descending further and further into the intellectual abyss.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You see the lack of perfect guarantee, as a downside. There was no downside to having the useless cop in FL. There was no upside because he failed, but there was no downside, wither. He didn't make it worse.

Nothing is going to be perfect and I don't think most people have any issue with a trained officer providing school security, but as we've seen even this has to be part of a more comprehensive plan.

I'd assume that the killer in FL very knew the school had armed security and this did nothing to deter his intentions.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Nothing is going to be perfect and I don't think most people have any issue with a trained officer providing school security, but as we've seen even this has to be part of a more comprehensive plan.

I'd assume that the killer in FL very knew the school had armed security and this did nothing to deter his intentions.

People who are suicidal aren't going to be deterred by an armed guard. But they can be stopped by an armed guard.

You don't know what he knew, yet you leap to the conclusion which supports your side's ideology, and I for one am shocked, you never do that.