A thread on politics- have some balls and post

Remove this Banner Ad

When you look into killology, it was hard enough to get soldiers to shoot at the enemy only - about two percent of were actually aiming at the enemy during WW2 rather than posturing. At least until they really changed things in regards to military training pre Vietnam. One of the keys is shared responsibility for the killing or deferred responsibility to a commanding officer. Add in the fact that there have frequently been armed people who have decided not to act at the sight of mass shootings because they didn't want to risk confusing first respondents.
 
So now we are hearing that the armed sheriff who was at the school from the beginning decided not to go into the building and fight back with his hand gun....

That's called reality... but sure, give more civilians (i.e. the teachers) guns. They will instantly turn into Rambo and risk their lives... such dumb and unrealistic logic:mad::mad::mad:
 
Last two posts nailed it. Action movies have created a very distorted picture of active shooter situations and the likelihood of everyday people saving the day.

Not to mention the fact that in the majority of school shootings, the gunman fully intends to go down in a hail of gunfire or at the barrel of their own weapon. The deterrent factor of armed teachers is as pissweak as the likelihood of a teacher becoming an action hero.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TheBrownDog said:
Last two posts nailed it. Action movies have created a very distorted picture of active shooter situations and the likelihood of everyday people saving the day.

Not to mention the fact that in the majority of school shootings, the gunman fully intends to go down in a hail of gunfire or at the barrel of their own weapon. The deterrent factor of armed teachers is as pissweak as the likelihood of a teacher becoming an action hero.
Click to expand...
But teachers have acted valiantly and saved lives sacrificing their own in the process on a number of occasions in these scenarios.

I think you’re downplaying just how valiant humans can be especially when there’s kids involved.
 
What’s happening in Costa Rica? They seem like a really switched on country and thier President Solís seems like a very enlightened leader. I love a country that produces almost 100% of their power from renewables. If only they played Australian Rules Football.
 
Billy Puller said:
But teachers have acted valiantly and saved lives sacrificing their own in the process on a number of occasions in these scenarios.

I think you’re downplaying just how valiant humans can be especially when there’s kids involved.
Click to expand...

No, nothing of the sort. I’m not talking about valiance. I’m talking about the practical ability of an everyday shmoe to tactically bring down an active gunman in the chaos of a school shooting.

It’s a ludicrous suggestion. Not to mention the fact that it seems to place a pretty low premium on the lives of teachers.

I am protective of my students and definitely have an instinctual duty of care for them, but I’m not sure why this issue suddenly falls on teachers. Why should teachers be expected to risk orphaning our own children to save someone else’s just because politicians put the school shooting issue in the “too hard” basket? Teachers don’t sign up to be paramilitary troops. There is not the implied risk of combat that police and military openly accept.

And if we can’t rely on armed guards to do the job, as we saw in Florida, what do we expect from teachers. Feel sorry for the first forcibly armed teacher who gets publicly shamed for not bringing down a shooter due to being absolutely s**t scared.
 
TheBrownDog said:
No, nothing of the sort. I’m not talking about valiance. I’m talking about the practical ability of an everyday shmoe to tactically bring down an active gunman in the chaos of a school shooting.

It’s a ludicrous suggestion. Not to mention the fact that it seems to place a pretty low premium on the lives of teachers.

I am protective of my students and definitely have an instinctual duty of care for them, but I’m not sure why this issue suddenly falls on teachers. Why should teachers be expected to risk orphaning our own children to save someone else’s just because politicians put the school shooting issue in the “too hard” basket? Teachers don’t sign up to be paramilitary troops. There is not the implied risk of combat that police and military openly accept.

And if we can’t rely on armed guards to do the job, as we saw in Florida, what do we expect from teachers. Feel sorry for the first forcibly armed teacher who gets publicly shamed for not bringing down a shooter due to being absolutely s**t scared.
Click to expand...
I think you missentrepreted or I wasn’t clear. I’m not for forcibly arming but I’m sure there would be teachers to put their hand up for something like that and that they should have that option
 
Billy Puller said:
I think you missentrepreted or I wasn’t clear. I’m not for forcibly arming but I’m sure there would be teachers to put their hand up for something like that and that they should have that option
Click to expand...

No Billy, they should not have an option. I would not want my kids at a school where there is even one gun likely in a teachers possession..... there should never be guns in schools.

The way they are over there, if there was another incident and teachers had guns, it could quite easily become like the gunfight at the ok corral all over again.....with the kids caught in the middle.

No, just No.
 
MacMum said:
No Billy, they should not have an option. I would not want my kids at a school where there is even one gun likely in a teachers possession..... there should never be guns in schools.

The way they are over there, if there was another incident and teachers had guns, it could quite easily become like the gunfight at the ok corral all over again.....with the kids caught in the middle.

No, just No.
Click to expand...
There’s already guns in schools MM and I’m quite confident that wouldn’t happen with the way lockdown procedures work
 
There’s no middle ground having this conversation. All I’m saying is givin the choice if a teacher wants to be armed I think that’s appropriate.

I’m not let’s give the local McDonald’s clerk and the new intern a gun to protect themselves. As a few of you seem to be arguing. America is such a vastly different culture to ours.

Have to be realistic about the situation. There is no chance in hell that they’re gonna take the guns away. What other realistic measures can they implement? They’ll probably put in safe rooms, bullet proof windows in classrooms. Big ass sealable doors, more security at school.

America’s gun issues aren’t in the ‘too hard’ basket. They are in the impossible basket. The war on drugs has worked exceptionally well in every country. How on earth do you think a war on guns is gonna work, especially ina country like America!! Please someone give me a reasonable argument on how you’d go about it other than banning this or that.

You can’t do nothing and yes it might be on the very low end of risk control and it might work once out of 1000 times were a teacher having a weapon could help a situation. But hell wouldn’t you rather it work the 1 in a thousand then not do anything at all?

I see a lot of talk but not a whole lot of ideas on how to realistically fix the problem.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's criminal, that the conversation/focus is what may work at the last line of defense.
We have young (often too young to vote) social outcasts, with diagnosed mental health issues, able to walk into a Walmart and buy military style semi-auto (and devices to enable auto fire) weapons, virtually immediately the mood takes them, and shoot up a school. And the conversation is so defeatist that we may as well talk about how to hide better.
Little to no discussion about preventing the situation of the shooter, but rather how to deal with the inevitable, like they are just an unavoidable fact of life. No change to the creation or enabling of the situation? Just absolute acceptance that part of school life is the possibility a gunman might pick you out today.
If a wild and savage dog roamed your neighbourhood, and on a weekly basis randomly tore the throat out of a local child, we are talking about tougher throat guards, rather than stricter dog control. It's madness.

I get Billy's angle, that on a purely voluntary level, schools could allow a gun safe in classrooms, but this just misses so much consideration.
  1. That isn't actually what's been proposed, but to wedge this in as a watered down version of a terrible idea, might as well support the original proposal.
  2. On a voluntary basis, in the American culture, how much pressure would be on teachers to 'volunteer'? "Why don't you have a gun, Miss Jones?"
  3. What is being asked of civilians, is knowing when to shoot. Police have trouble with this. In some parts of the USA, when to shoot is influenced by the colour of the suspect. White guy puts hand in pocket gets yelled at. Black guy does same, and is gunned down. It's a choice/decision cops are faced with all over the world. Tazer or Gloch? At what point is it okay to gun someone down? You want civilians making those life/death decisions. Presumably you wait until a suspected shooter takes out a few students first. I mean you'd want to see blood first, right, in case they're shooting blanks as a prank. And make sure that's real blood, not just a bunch of drama students performing a poor taste bit of street theatre.
  4. What then becomes of the duty of care for the school over its students, when the teacher flips? What of the student, able to crack the safe or force the teacher to open it for him? What of the incompetence of the teacher who discharges the weapon while cleaning or showing it off?
In bygone eras, things were different. There was simply less care. We weren't safer, just less aware and careful of the possibilities. I'm hardly an old man from another time, but even when I was a teen in the 80's, we kept a semi-automatic .22 near the back door. It was there in readiness to shoot hawks that on occasion would try to attack our pet birds. A semi-auto rifle, not even in a cupboard, just leaning on the wall in the corner by the back door. It wasn't loaded of course (safety first) the magazine (full) was sat on the sideboard, 2 feet away. I survived, but I think we've evolved from keeping such things laying around for angst ridden, hormonal teenage boys. We've come to recognise the dangers of such behaviour.

Legislating control is the only way to make a difference. Because like me, there are millions of gun savvy, responsible people. Those people will continue to have guns, because they're not harming anyone. But what about the next guy? Sure you're a great gun owner, but the same rights are afforded to the next dickhead who is clumsy, or lazy, and has his stolen. The same rights are being afforded to the criminal, or the mentally unwell. The rapid fire rifle is useless for for hunting deer, or even shooting cans off a fence.

Too many in the USA are trying to figure out the best way to protect themselves from shooters, rather than reduce the number of shooters. Next they will provide subsidies for running shoes. If you can out run the guy next to you, your chance of survival is higher. That is how ridiculous things are there, and in this whole debate.
 
If we are designing policy where we allude to it being worth it if it works 1 in 1000 times we're not trying hard enough. Especially when there is the potential that in some of those other 999 cases the policy makes things worse.

The "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" reasoning always seems to ignore the "good person with gun kills good person without gun" part of the equation. I feel sorry for the armed teacher who accidentally kills an innocent child in the crossfire that would have been a good chance to survive otherwise. Explain that one to the parents.

If we are going to focus on an armed approach of treating the symptom instead of the cause, then do it properly. Load each school up with highly trained, armed professionals that can deliver something better than 1 in 1000 and are also tactically sophisticated enough to avoid friendly fire tragedies. But good luck getting Republicans to cough up the funding for such a proposal.
 
Billy Puller said:
There’s no middle ground having this conversation. All I’m saying is givin the choice if a teacher wants to be armed I think that’s appropriate.

I’m not let’s give the local McDonald’s clerk and the new intern a gun to protect themselves. As a few of you seem to be arguing. America is such a vastly different culture to ours.

Have to be realistic about the situation. There is no chance in hell that they’re gonna take the guns away. What other realistic measures can they implement? They’ll probably put in safe rooms, bullet proof windows in classrooms. Big ass sealable doors, more security at school.

America’s gun issues aren’t in the ‘too hard’ basket. They are in the impossible basket. The war on drugs has worked exceptionally well in every country. How on earth do you think a war on guns is gonna work, especially ina country like America!! Please someone give me a reasonable argument on how you’d go about it other than banning this or that.

You can’t do nothing and yes it might be on the very low end of risk control and it might work once out of 1000 times were a teacher having a weapon could help a situation. But hell wouldn’t you rather it work the 1 in a thousand then not do anything at all?

I see a lot of talk but not a whole lot of ideas on how to realistically fix the problem.
Click to expand...

They could ban all those high-powered automatic guns for a start.....why would an ordinary citizen need those? Just say NO, no more. The voting public will like that because they have had enough of the slaughter...

(I was reading the DailyMail about the latest massacre, got to the comments section under story and an american person had quite a bit to say about the second amendment and how it was written up in the days of muskets, but they don't have muskets now..)

They could then bring in very vigorous checking and double checking on a person before handing them a gun/licenses.....with heavy fines for the gun seller if not adhered to. People with a criminal record banned from having a gun.

That won't stop the serious criminal but it will stop some.....and at this stage it's better than nothing.


....and weaken/break the stranglehold the NRA has on politicians. Change the laws allowing contributions from them.
 
Last edited:
This may interest you TheBrownDog .... was reading the NewYork Daily, found an article about one of the teachers from the recent school atrocity. It was in relation to guns for teachers.....and her opinion that the only people that should have guns are the police and military and why she thinks that...

..as you know I can't put in the link and if you are so inclined, it should be easy to find.
 
Skoob said:
It's criminal, that the conversation/focus is what may work at the last line of defense.
We have young (often too young to vote) social outcasts, with diagnosed mental health issues, able to walk into a Walmart and buy military style semi-auto (and devices to enable auto fire) weapons, virtually immediately the mood takes them, and shoot up a school. And the conversation is so defeatist that we may as well talk about how to hide better.
Little to no discussion about preventing the situation of the shooter, but rather how to deal with the inevitable, like they are just an unavoidable fact of life. No change to the creation or enabling of the situation? Just absolute acceptance that part of school life is the possibility a gunman might pick you out today.
If a wild and savage dog roamed your neighbourhood, and on a weekly basis randomly tore the throat out of a local child, we are talking about tougher throat guards, rather than stricter dog control. It's madness.

I get Billy's angle, that on a purely voluntary level, schools could allow a gun safe in classrooms, but this just misses so much consideration.
  1. That isn't actually what's been proposed, but to wedge this in as a watered down version of a terrible idea, might as well support the original proposal.
  2. On a voluntary basis, in the American culture, how much pressure would be on teachers to 'volunteer'? "Why don't you have a gun, Miss Jones?"
  3. What is being asked of civilians, is knowing when to shoot. Police have trouble with this. In some parts of the USA, when to shoot is influenced by the colour of the suspect. White guy puts hand in pocket gets yelled at. Black guy does same, and is gunned down. It's a choice/decision cops are faced with all over the world. Tazer or Gloch? At what point is it okay to gun someone down? You want civilians making those life/death decisions. Presumably you wait until a suspected shooter takes out a few students first. I mean you'd want to see blood first, right, in case they're shooting blanks as a prank. And make sure that's real blood, not just a bunch of drama students performing a poor taste bit of street theatre.
  4. What then becomes of the duty of care for the school over its students, when the teacher flips? What of the student, able to crack the safe or force the teacher to open it for him? What of the incompetence of the teacher who discharges the weapon while cleaning or showing it off?
In bygone eras, things were different. There was simply less care. We weren't safer, just less aware and careful of the possibilities. I'm hardly an old man from another time, but even when I was a teen in the 80's, we kept a semi-automatic .22 near the back door. It was there in readiness to shoot hawks that on occasion would try to attack our pet birds. A semi-auto rifle, not even in a cupboard, just leaning on the wall in the corner by the back door. It wasn't loaded of course (safety first) the magazine (full) was sat on the sideboard, 2 feet away. I survived, but I think we've evolved from keeping such things laying around for angst ridden, hormonal teenage boys. We've come to recognise the dangers of such behaviour.

Legislating control is the only way to make a difference. Because like me, there are millions of gun savvy, responsible people. Those people will continue to have guns, because they're not harming anyone. But what about the next guy? Sure you're a great gun owner, but the same rights are afforded to the next dickhead who is clumsy, or lazy, and has his stolen. The same rights are being afforded to the criminal, or the mentally unwell. The rapid fire rifle is useless for for hunting deer, or even shooting cans off a fence.

Too many in the USA are trying to figure out the best way to protect themselves from shooters, rather than reduce the number of shooters. Next they will provide subsidies for running shoes. If you can out run the guy next to you, your chance of survival is higher. That is how ridiculous things are there, and in this whole debate.
Click to expand...
The footage I saw the guy one of the kids dad’s offered suggested exactly what I’m saying
 
If both political parties agreed to not take any money from the NRA, I think things would magically get better.

But, like pretty much every other solution, it won't happen in our lifetime.
 
If the gun laws were to be changed, I imagine it would be a very long time before there would be any effect. At least 5 years or so.

If teachers had to keep a gun in each classroom or whatever it is that someone has proposed, at some point you are going to get a teacher that is mentally unstable, loses it and takes out the gun and uses it.
 
If teachers are proposed to handle guns in classes they should be eligible for substantial bonuses that classify them additionally as security officers. If it were to happen their training in arms handling and crisis management must be paid for by the government and any teacher that qualifies and passes should receive a substantial increase in their annual pay without fixed terms. I would think any measures would be defensive and would ultimately just serve as a deterrent or at worst an armed adversary for against offenders. Not sure how it would actually impact a shooting situation though. I guess ideally they bunker down in the class and a teacher trained in firearm defence and crisis situations stands as protector of the class as they wait for law enforcement.
Out of interest does anyone know if there is protocol for students in the US when a shooting occurs, like a fire drill? Or does this make students open to exploitation by enterprising psychopaths? What are they supposed to do according to the school advisory?
 
pulpdriver said:
If teachers are proposed to handle guns in classes they should be eligible for substantial bonuses that classify them additionally as security officers. If it were to happen their training in arms handling and crisis management must be paid for by the government and any teacher that qualifies and passes should receive a substantial increase in their annual pay without fixed terms. I would think any measures would be defensive and would ultimately just serve as a deterrent or at worst an armed adversary for against offenders. Not sure how it would actually impact a shooting situation though. I guess ideally they bunker down in the class and a teacher trained in firearm defence and crisis situations stands as protector of the class as they wait for law enforcement.
Out of interest does anyone know if there is protocol for students in the US when a shooting occurs, like a fire drill? Or does this make students open to exploitation by enterprising psychopaths? What are they supposed to do according to the school advisory?
Click to expand...

They have lockdown procedures. We have them here too. We do two lockdown drills and two fire drills a year at my school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
The ADH... Look a Squirrel
Replies
15
Views
990
Grasshopper17
G

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top