• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump endorses guns for teachers "to stop shootings"

eso76

Member
That people in here are actually discussing this is just..I don't know, it's unreal.
This is pure madness.
 

Naudi

Banned
Turns out there was 4 cops there while the shooting was happening. All 4 stayed outside. If only they were teachers they could have stopped him and saved who knows how many lives.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Turns out there was 4 cops there while the shooting was happening. All 4 stayed outside. If only they were teachers they could have stopped him and saved who knows how many lives.

Link? Have only seen reports of one officer there during the shooting.
 

Joe T.

Member
Link? Have only seen reports of one officer there during the shooting.

(CNN) When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Full article here.
 

Naudi

Banned
Full article here.

Report later should be more concrete but 1 or 4 doesn't really matter now. Either way I wouldn't expect better results from a teacher, in fact I would expect worse... According to cheeto shit stain he's a coward and didnt love the kids lmao. Teachers are like Care Bears you see, their love will help them stop these active shooters.
 

Big4reel

Member
did school shootings happen from time to time in America during the early and mid 1900s and even before that? My friend made an argument how its just people changing because of the internet and how this isnt a gun issue.
 

Joe T.

Member
Doesn't seem to indicate much of a time line like we know for Peterson but it doesn't exactly look good. Do we know if the Coral springs police entered while the shooter was still active? The actual shooting did only last about 6-7 minutes all up.

Nope, haven't seen anyone mention details about how they handled the whole situation once arriving on the scene.

did school shootings happen from time to time in America during the early and mid 1900s and even before that? My friend made an argument how its just people changing because of the internet and how this isnt a gun issue.

They did, Wikipedia has a long list of them going back even to the days before the US declared its independence, but they've been happening with more frequency in the last few decades. One could probably make the argument that it's simply a matter of there being a much larger population, as good an incentive as any to find solutions for addressing the underlying issues that drive these people to kill. I do agree that it's not a gun issue, though - if it's not guns it'll be something else.
 
Last edited:

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
There seems to be a lot of graphs that could be used to point to mass killings.

Internet, games, medications etc. No smoking guns so to speak.
 

JDB

Banned
Turns out there was 4 cops there while the shooting was happening. All 4 stayed outside. If only they were teachers they could have stopped him and saved who knows how many lives.
It worries me that I can't tell if this is a serious post or not.
 

Rudelord

Member

Asking for clarification on your stance before telling your membership if they're pro 2nd is not a terrorist act, what the fuck. That's literally what the NRA exists to do - to inform their base who is or isn't pro 2nd.
 
Last edited:

camelCase

Member
Asking for clarification on your stance before telling your membership if they're pro 2nd is not a terrorist act, what the fuck. That's literally what the NRA exists to do - to inform their base who is or isn't pro 2nd.
Yes, a need that is exacerbated by the fact that guns legislation is a trophy item for any politician on the make. 10 years ago this was video games but thankfully that's mostly gone away.
 
Seems insane to me given that more guns in a place means more room for accidental shootings.
I know two guys (one police officer one relative) who shot themselves while maintaining or transporting their gun.

I'd love to see the stats about accidental shootings vs. mass shootings and which you're more likely to be involved in.
That alone should tell us if we need guns in schools or not.

I just turned down a job because guns would be present. I'm simply not comfortable and don't trust people to handle them the way they need to be handled. I have too much going on in my life.
 

mars20

Neo Member
Gun laws in Chicago is very strict only one gun at a time was allowed to be kept in a usable state. You must have an Illinois Permit to Carry a firearm in Illinois and yet in 2016, 771 people were killed in Chicago, its highest homicide tally since 1996 and the largest number of murder victims by volume of any U.S. city. Per capita, this wasn’t the highest rate in the nation—it ranked ninth among cities with a population of 250,000 or greater.

This is mostly untrue.
Sure, there would be some people out there who can still illegally buy guns; mostly gang members and high-income drug dealers.

For the average person, though, the cost of buying a black market weapon, much less finding a person who has access to them, would eliminate essentially any chance of ever getting their hands on a firearm.

Admittedly, so many people in the US own guns that the black market would thrive for quite a few years. We probably wouldn't see any significant change in gun-crime for a substantial amount of time. Once the gun-owners stopped selling their weapons, weapons were confiscated over time, guns wore down, etc., though, the issue would be all but eliminated. And yes, I realize that could take a very long time. It would still be a viable long-term solution, though.
 

I_D

Member
Gun laws in Chicago is very strict only one gun at a time was allowed to be kept in a usable state. You must have an Illinois Permit to Carry a firearm in Illinois and yet in 2016, 771 people were killed in Chicago, its highest homicide tally since 1996 and the largest number of murder victims by volume of any U.S. city. Per capita, this wasn’t the highest rate in the nation—it ranked ninth among cities with a population of 250,000 or greater.

I would say using "America's most segregated city" in which "an overwhelming majority of the city's 3451 shootings [during 2016] were gang-related" doesn't help your case. As I said, gang members would still have guns for a while, but it would still be a viable long-term solution.

And even if your example wasn't proving my point, citing one city as an example of an entire country is never a good idea.

Nobody is saying that guns will suddenly vanish over night. Obviously the process of removing weapons from the world is going to be a long and very drawn-out process. It's still better than doing nothing, though.
 
Gun laws in Chicago is very strict only one gun at a time was allowed to be kept in a usable state. You must have an Illinois Permit to Carry a firearm in Illinois and yet in 2016, 771 people were killed in Chicago, its highest homicide tally since 1996 and the largest number of murder victims by volume of any U.S. city. Per capita, this wasn’t the highest rate in the nation—it ranked ninth among cities with a population of 250,000 or greater.

Guns come from right outside the city and Indiana, you know this already.
 

Future

Member
With this logic you should have armed cashiers at every store, armed bus drivers, armed bank tellers and whatever else. There WAS an armed guard at the school. Didn't do shit. So I guess we should just arm as many people as possible thinking that maybe one of them will do shit? Because I'm definitely expecting all of these people to have adequate training in all of these professions that don't require any constant testing or maintaining of that skill set.

Sounds good if your priority is save guns at all costs. Absolutely absurd if you look at any other country in the world.
 
If a state decides to arm teachers, they have to live with the likelihood that someone will be shot accidentally, that a gun will fall into the hands of an impulsive teenager, or that a conflict between a teacher and student will escalate and become more violent than necessary. I wish people didn't have to learn the hard way, but if a state wants to ignore the accidental and "undetermined" gun death statistics, that's on them. Of course, the NRA line will become, "Well, we just need more training for the teachers." They have no shame.
 

Tumle

Member
I think arming a subset of teachers who voluntarily agree to become "guardians" of the students is brilliant. Of course they should have to pass strict background and training tests to qualify. I say give them a yearly bonus for the added responsibility and effort and the value/safety they'd bring to the table. Of course there would have to be protocol and standards on weapon types, ammo types, trigger locks, etc. I think in order to qualify for monetary compensation they should have to sign an oath saying that in the event of an active shooter situation they will respond with their weapon.

A neighbor of mine is both a teacher and a gun enthusiast and I would certainly feel more safe knowing that he was armed and present at a school where one of my children went. An ex-Marine and weapon's instructor attends mass at my Catholic church every Sunday with a loaded pistol ready to defend the church. Not everyone knows, but I do and the priest does. I'm glad he's there when I bring my family.
I’m sorry.. but I really can’t wrap my head around this mentality.. I’m not trying to be offensive.. but the way you say that you have a guy at church who is ready to spring into action if the church was attacked.. doesn’t put the picture in my head of a free Society.. sounds more to me like you live in the outskirts of Baghdad or something.. is it really that bad over there?
Should our governments give out warnings before we travel to the US?
The amount of paranoia..
 
I’m sorry.. but I really can’t wrap my head around this mentality.. I’m not trying to be offensive.. but the way you say that you have a guy at church who is ready to spring into action if the church was attacked.. doesn’t put the picture in my head of a free Society.. sounds more to me like you live in the outskirts of Baghdad or something.. is it really that bad over there?
Should our governments give out warnings before we travel to the US?
The amount of paranoia..

Because guns are so accessible you can die anywhere to anyone's whim. But, statistically that won't happen, which is why you are a bigger danger to yourself as a gun owner, than you are to a criminal or whatever. Accidents happen a lot, a whole lot, but still on an individual level, many people won't have accidents.

So no travel warning is necessary, but shit happens.

Hell, I know a gun enthusiast whose own kid died because he didn't put his gun away safely...he grieves about it all of the time and he's still for arming teachers. The U.S. is that kinda place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t see the problem if the Teacher gets training and wants too do it... but that has to be backed up with metal detectors and armed police and nobody should know what teacher has the gun and /or it should be on a fingerprint safe.

I don’t really understand the” I would rather have a shooter countinue killing until the police arrive instead of maybe a person with conceal and carry helping out”

You are not getting 250 million guns out of America...., we need to come up with salutions that adhere to that fact.
 
I don’t see the problem if the Teacher gets training and wants too do it... but that has to be backed up with metal detectors and armed police and nobody should know what teacher has the gun and /or it should be on a fingerprint safe.

I don’t really understand the” I would rather have a shooter countinue killing until the police arrive instead of maybe a person with conceal and carry helping out”

You are not getting 250 million guns out of America...., we need to come up with salutions that adhere to that fact.

Because there are guns in America, does not mean that you can't keep them out of the hands of existing or would be criminals. We don't try hard enough, and thus our results suck.

Just having defense at school or on buses isn't good enough, we should prevent action from kicking off wherever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

VAL0R

Banned
I’m sorry.. but I really can’t wrap my head around this mentality.. I’m not trying to be offensive.. but the way you say that you have a guy at church who is ready to spring into action if the church was attacked.. doesn’t put the picture in my head of a free Society.. sounds more to me like you live in the outskirts of Baghdad or something.. is it really that bad over there?
Should our governments give out warnings before we travel to the US?
The amount of paranoia..

We aren't so afraid of guns as you are. A law abiding citizen with a concealed permitted sidearm is a very safe and effective way of protecting people. We see it as tool to be used, if the need should arise, to stop not only violent gun crimes, but all manner of threats and violent crime. For example, it's the great equalizer for females when confronted by violent male criminals. If an unarmed woman fears for her life and is being stalked by an aggressive male, she has few options. If she unholsters a sidearm and threatens to open him up with a few hollow points unless he relents, that's effective (whether he complies and lives or doesn't and dies). Countless crimes have been prevented by armed citizens. It's not just about preventing (rare) mass shootings. Have you seen the statistics on violent assault, rape and murder in this country? They aren't so hot. These are wildly underreported by the fake news media in the US (and I suspect Europe) because they don't fit the lib agenda that "guns=bad".
 
Last edited:

Mohonky

Member
Well, looks like there's a shooter at Central Michigan University. Two people have already been shot and killed and the shooter is still at large

http://www.wnem.com/story/37631923/breaking-reports-of-shots-fired-at-cmu-campus-hall
Appears to be a domestic issue if other comments i have read are true; meaning its not a random kill everyone indiscriminately.

But still, glad i live in a country where such events are so scarce. I mean we do still have them in Australia but ever so rarely.
 

mid83

Member


An interest group attempting to gather information to inform their members about how a politician stands on a certain issue is now a terrorist act? Give me a break.

This overreaction to the NRA and 2nd amendment advocates overall is going to backfire. For the past few weeks all we've heard is that NRA members (and 2nd amendment advocates overall) are racists, white supremacists, accepting of child murder, and somehow share the blame for the Parkland murders. Besides throwing a ton of red meat at the left wing base, this is getting many Americans who usually aren't very vocal on this issue fired up. This is a losing battle for the left, but hey keep it up I guess.
 

mrkgoo

Member
We aren't so afraid of guns as you are. A law abiding citizen with a concealed permitted sidearm is a very safe and effective way of protecting people. We see it as tool to be used, if the need should arise, to stop not only violent gun crimes, but all manner of threats and violent crime. For example, it's the great equalizer for females when confronted by violent male criminals. If an unarmed woman fears for her life and is being stalked by an aggressive male, she has few options. If she unholsters a sidearm and threatens to open him up with a few hollow points unless he relents, that's effective (whether he complies and lives or doesn't and dies). Countless crimes have been prevented by armed citizens. It's not just about preventing (rare) mass shootings. Have you seen the statistics on violent assault, rape and murder in this country? They aren't so hot. These are wildly underreported by the fake news media in the US (and I suspect Europe) because they don't fit the lib agenda that "guns=bad".
I'm sorry I still don't understand the mentality.

Our violent assault, rape and murder statistics not so hot? So what has arming the citizens actually done? What if those statistics aren't so hot because of guns?

And I'll admit, I AM afraid of guns.
 
We aren't so afraid of guns as you are. A law abiding citizen with a concealed permitted sidearm is a very safe and effective way of protecting people. We see it as tool to be used, if the need should arise, to stop not only violent gun crimes, but all manner of threats and violent crime. For example, it's the great equalizer for females when confronted by violent male criminals. If an unarmed woman fears for her life and is being stalked by an aggressive male, she has few options. If she unholsters a sidearm and threatens to open him up with a few hollow points unless he relents, that's effective (whether he complies and lives or doesn't and dies). Countless crimes have been prevented by armed citizens. It's not just about preventing (rare) mass shootings. Have you seen the statistics on violent assault, rape and murder in this country? They aren't so hot. These are wildly underreported by the fake news media in the US (and I suspect Europe) because they don't fit the lib agenda that "guns=bad".

And here we go with the cowboy mentality of someone with a gun will solve everything, even if it's been proven time and time again that it only makes the situation worse. That woman is more likely to be disarmed than to use the gun as a deterrent, because the element of surprise is used to great effect in these situations. People are naturally going to try and weigh their options in any given situation, with one side already making up their minds. Most women don't like the idea of having to murder anyone who they find unsafe, because that'll get bloody pretty damn quickly. And shoot the wrong person? Self defense only goes so far. Chances are they will ruin their lives forever. Your mindset is naive and lacks any sort of cause and effect. I'm sure the answer you will come back with is that some people are bad and what will you do about a person who wants to do something bad. Your suggestion is murder.

Admit it, this comes from a personal stance for you. People who believe this kind of mentality fantasise about being a hero of the people, someone who will come running in and save the day against the bad guys.
 

Dr.Parity

Banned
We aren't so afraid of guns as you are. A law abiding citizen with a concealed permitted sidearm is a very safe and effective way of protecting people. We see it as tool to be used, if the need should arise, to stop not only violent gun crimes, but all manner of threats and violent crime. For example, it's the great equalizer for females when confronted by violent male criminals. If an unarmed woman fears for her life and is being stalked by an aggressive male, she has few options. If she unholsters a sidearm and threatens to open him up with a few hollow points unless he relents, that's effective (whether he complies and lives or doesn't and dies). Countless crimes have been prevented by armed citizens. It's not just about preventing (rare) mass shootings. Have you seen the statistics on violent assault, rape and murder in this country? They aren't so hot. These are wildly underreported by the fake news media in the US (and I suspect Europe) because they don't fit the lib agenda that "guns=bad".

Try again,

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crime
 
An interest group attempting to gather information to inform their members about how a politician stands on a certain issue is now a terrorist act? Give me a break.

This overreaction to the NRA and 2nd amendment advocates overall is going to backfire. For the past few weeks all we've heard is that NRA members (and 2nd amendment advocates overall) are racists, white supremacists, accepting of child murder, and somehow share the blame for the Parkland murders. Besides throwing a ton of red meat at the left wing base, this is getting many Americans who usually aren't very vocal on this issue fired up. This is a losing battle for the left, but hey keep it up I guess.

Nah. The NRA looks mighty corrupt these days, and lost popularity with their cold response to parkland and their authoritarian response to protests from survivors. This is also part of a larger issue with too many lobbyists and corporations controlling things.
 

xStoyax

Banned
I know for a fact that many teachers already carry guns to school and have been doing it for years. I know of at least 3 personally because I've seen them when I was in school. I never thought much about it, and the teachers packin were good people so I felt comfortable with it
 
This is good. There is more going on here then "muh guns". Leftists won't understand in general as they are either not conscious enough of reality (they eat everything CNN tells them happily) or don't posses the intelligence needed to understand deeper concpets and longer laid out plans.

Just lol
 

Sàmban

Banned
Reason #1245764 why this is a fucking stupid idea:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a99ae32e4b089ec353a1fba?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

Let’s give her a gun

I know for a fact that many teachers already carry guns to school and have been doing it for years. I know of at least 3 personally because I've seen them when I was in school. I never thought much about it, and the teachers packin were good people so I felt comfortable with it

See above. I can’t even count how many stories we’ve read about some teachers sexually assaulting their students and now we want to arm them. Yeah...I’d rather not take chances.
 
Last edited:
Wow, a teacher has a white nationalist podcast, interjects her leanings into the classroom, and makes tweets encouraging supremacists to infiltrate academia. They better fire her ass. Give her a gun, and how long before a POC gets shot by her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reason #1245764 why this is a fucking stupid idea:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a99ae32e4b089ec353a1fba?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

Let’s give her a gun



See above. I can’t even count how many stories we’ve read about some teachers sexually assaulting their students and now we want to arm them. Yeah...I’d rather not take chances.

I certainly wouldn't want her to be my nephew's teacher, but I think HuffPo is going to get into trouble for doxing her.
 

Apdiddy

Member
This is good. There is more going on here then "muh guns". Leftists won't understand in general as they are either not conscious enough of reality (they eat everything CNN tells them happily) or don't posses the intelligence needed to understand deeper concpets and longer laid out plans.

Let me unbox everything about this: This isn't good.

This isn't the work of someone playing fifth dimensional chess, this is the work of someone who is catering to the whims of a lobbyist group. There are no 'deeper concepts or longer laid out plans' with anything about this idea. Given a workforce that is predominantly underpaid, overworked, stressed out, and facing budget cuts every year and having to decide between keeping the arts or the school's football program as a result and allowing the teachers to bring guns with them? It'll make school shootings worst. Just last week, a teacher in Georgia barricaded himself in a classroom with a gun. Imagine if that teacher fired it at someone. It'll potentially go from being a school shooting to a workplace shooting, especially if a teacher has a breakdown and shoots his/her boss, the principal or their co-workers.

Anyone, even highly trained military and police officers, will miss their target. In a crowded area as well. And why would a teacher be willing to bring a gun to school even for this purpose? When the FBI or SWAT team arrives on a scene of a shooting, they will try to take out anyone brandishing a weapon. So an armed teacher will be their first target.

Now imagine Trump gets his way and we do have an armed teacher. That person guns down someone else with a gun who intends to cause harm to others.

Imagine this is in front of impressionable young men and women in a crowded hallway. Even if they aren't hurt, they would have to see this. Even if they didn't grow up around guns or did, the psychological trauma this would cause isn't good. They'll be in therapy the rest of their lives if they can afford it. Some may tell their parents, who'll pull them from public school. The rest who aren't rich have to go to public school where this is a fear in the back of their mind every day now. How can any of this be a good idea?

But I forgot, I'm not conscious enough of reality.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom