The Texas shooting shows the futility of arming teachers

You can't stop the proliferation of guns because it's already happened. It's in the past, so unless you have a time machine, the horse has already left the barn, so closing the door is pointless. There are already millions, possibly tens of millions of AR-15s in circulation. I have one, and because of people like you, have been thinking about picking up one or two more just in the unlikely event you get your way. And I'm not the only one, which is why the gun business is booming. I also have at least 12-15 30-round (i.e. "standard capacity") magazines, which is more than I'll ever need save a physical invasion of the US, but it is nice to preload a bunch of mags before going to the range rather than doing it there.

AR-15s have been available to the public since about 1963, so you're going to have to figure out how to travel back about 60 years to do anything about "the proliferation of guns", especially your most hated one. They were even available during the AWB era as they're defined by cosmetics, not functionality, so the manufacturers just made some minor adjustments, like removing the flash suppressor, which a user could easily replace should they want to. I've never fired one without a flash suppressor, so I don't know if it would bother me or not. But it's not like the presence of one makes the location of someone firing one invisible to begin with, so I don't get the problem.

 

Then take it up with them, or, review DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales. "The supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent. In both of these court cases, clear and repeated threats were made against the safety of children — but government agencies chose to take no action."

If reports are accurate, the police did more than not engage the shooter, they also prevented others from engaging the shooter. Do you know of any case law that authorizes the police not only not to protect, but, prevent parents from protecting their children from the threat the police refused to actively engage?

Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns in less than ideal circumstances all the time. And while the police who failed to follow their rules of engagement are not criminally liable they are certainly going to be evaluated for administrative penalties.

 

The problem with civilians doing a cops job, is the chances are 90% the police will kill the civilian because he is armed and “not one of us, so it must be him” mentality.

 

So, they refuse to actively engage the shooter, but they will shoot a parent that does? I think litigation is needed on this issue of the police not simply refusing to engage the shooter but actively preventing parents from both engaging the shooter or simply rescuing their children.

I think that the right to protect others and to actively engage a dangerous threat is an inherent one, and certainly protecting your children is.

Your thoughts?

 

When Australia implemented stricter laws, 40% of citizens owned at least one gun.

In the US, it's 44%.

So that's not an argument.

 

Prove it.

This should be of great relief to the families of the victims.

Because an administrative sanction to the police is exactly what is needed to reduce the number of mass shootings in this country.

 

I don't live in a binary world like you do, but we already have armed security guards in many schools, and it doesn't seem to matter, but thinking that a teacher, whose main focus is teaching -- and not to mention trying to do that job with all the bullshit hoops that conservatives want teachers to go through these days -- and expect them to be able to act like a SWAT team member at the drop of a hat? That's just plain STUPID! How many freaking hats do you want to force teachers to wear without adequate compensation?

 

Why are you whining to me about a 40 year old Supreme Court Ruling?

 

And you still fail to see the problem; he shouldn't have been able to buy two assault rifles designed for that very purpose that he used them for, because an assault rifle has only one purpose, to kill as many people as efficiently as possible. If you cannot agree on at least one of those two points, then you're for more dead children. That's the bottom line.

 

I don't care about you Supreme Court Ruling.

You live in a world where guns are supposed to increase the level of safety but you don't understand why cops are afraid to go after a crazy shooter.

I don't expect you to understand the huge contradiction.

 

I’d tell you to ask those two teachers if they wish they had a firearm to shoot back with instead of just their bodies to be used as human shields, I bet they would say yes. But they can’t, because they didn’t.

 

How much you want to bet ?

73 percent of teachers opposed being armed.

 

It absolutely is. Australians are very compliant, and very deferential to law enforcement. The same is not true in the US, especially when it comes to forced confiscation of personally owned firearms. And though some will cooperate, many others will not and there will be bloodshed. A LOT of it!

We are not Austrailia, and I for one am sick and tired of being told we should mimick them. That's never going to happen.

Not to mention... where will they look? The authorities, with a very few exceptions, have no idea where the 440M firearms in the country even are. Do you suggest they just literally go door to door? That's a good way to kick off a Civil War.

If your goal is to reduce firearm deaths, this is sure to accomplish the opposite.

 

So you confirm that the Conservatives are not pro law and order.

I've always known that.

However, if a gun buy-back program is implemented, there will be refractory people, but they will be few and far between because the political pressure to get to that point will have been enormous.

 

The cops don’t know who you are. If you raise you gun to shoot the bad guy, they may think you are aiming at an innocent.
It’s a crap shoot.

 

What is an assault rifle

 

The sentence makes no sense.

 

Maybe you should avoid speaking for the US. Many Americans vehemently disagree with your gun-totting mentality.

 

I'm not demanding any teacher wear any hat. The choice is and always has been up to them.

But it is ironic that you support an armed police force, armed guards for important people, bank guards....all for "important" stuff. But you holler about kids being protected with a gun?

 

How often does such a scenario actually play out? I've heard this stance before, but I've never even seen an example, much less any sort of statistic about it happening.

 

They are, until a law violates one of thier Rights. Then they'll do what it takes to put it right again. They'll first go through legal means to do so. But that only goes so far.

 

Ironic post is ironic. You tell him what other Americans think (IE: speaking for them) while telling him to not speak for Americans. And you're not even American yourself?

 

Okay we can go with “military style weapon” or “rapid fire rifle”. Whatever makes you comfortable

 

I am seeing more violation of “rights” from the right than any other source

“Don’t say gay” “Disney” “”anti abortion bills that declare personhood for fertilised eggs

 

Yeah because teachers know how dangerous that would be