1ºTravis Christopher The NRA isn't funded by the gun industry. Anyhow what does how any politicians recieve campaign money have to do with teachers being armed? Should we not allow them to invest their retirement in stocks because the Democrats get so much money from Wall Street. That makes just as much sense.
How about finding a credible source that says allowing qualified teachers and administrators will cause problems.
Here is Texas we actually pay for training and give them a bonus for carrying if they pass the courses, and they have to renew every year.
So if armed guards are not adequate why not take the Secret Service from the POTUS.
There have been many school shootings prevented, or stopped by armed guards, just because some people failed doesn't mean all will.
No I don't support red flag laws. There are already to report someone dangerous and check them out without taking away the 4th. and 5th. amendment. if you support red flag laws would you support putting the person reporting in prison without a trial if they are wrong and removing the judge that allowed a general warrant not allowing them to serve as a judge, attorney or getting any type of retirement? That would be just as fair as a red flag law.
2ºPatrick Henry 1. Where did I change what I said?You should really read comments more carefully.
2. Arming teachers? I'm not totally opposed to the idea, as a teacher, but doubt the Right will help fund this.
First, find credible sources saying that arming teachers will solve more problems than it will create. I haven't been able to find any.
A. Here are some reasons showing why this isn't the great solution some say it will be. https://www.everytown.org/solutions/arming-teachers/
B. We know the Right isn't known for funding public education well. Why do you think they'll support funding for arming teachers? Find evidence showing how the Right plans to help fund the arming of teachers. Who will pay for the training itself? Who will pay for the substitutes needed to cover classes while this training occurs? (A Tx. program requires 80 hours of training.) If not during a school day, who will pay the teachers for doing this outside of school hours? Who will purchase the guns and ammo? Who will pay for gun maintenance? Who will maintain the guns? Will additional insurance costs be involved? Who will pay for that?
C. Professional armed guards have proven to not be a consistent deterrent to school shooters, so why would Mrs. Sally, the preschool teacher, be more likely to deter or take down a shooter? A simple case study of the Parkland or Sante Fe tragedies sufficiently shows that the arming guards/teachers is an insufficient plan.
D. Uvalde had their own school police force. How did that work out? They didn't deter the shooter, who had attended school there before and who expected an officer to be there. Eventually, 370 officers from various agencies eventually showed up and did nothing for over 70 minutes while the shooter terrorized children and teachers in multiple classrooms, including my friend's loved ones. The officers not only stood outside the room doing nothing for over an hour, they also blocked streets and prevented ambulances from accessing the school. School busses that were closer transported injured students to hospitals. The officers even told a medievac chopper to not land at the school because there wasn't room. (There are large fields around the school.)
E. How exactly do you envision the armed teachers responding to an active shooter scenario? Do you want them to leave their students alone to go pursue the shooter? Do you want them to have a safe in their room to access the gun? Do you want them to wait by the door for the intruder to enter? (By the way, in all my research, I never found an instance where an active shooter completely breached a locked classroom door. Teachers should keep their doors completely closed and locked during class.)
F. It sounds like some people would rather have children surrounded by guns all day in classrooms rather than preventing the bad guys from accessing weapons to begin with. (The Giffords link I provided shows how risky that can be.)
G. The Right doesn't seem very interested in limiting who has access to guns, even proven violent criminals. They're fighting for convicted domestic abuse perps to have firearms. Why? The majority of mass shootings are domestic related.
https://finance.yahoo.com...-140136065.html
H. Also, doesn't arming teachers nationwide seem like a conflict of interest considering how the gun industry funds Republican campaigns?
I. Again, I'm not opposed to the idea, but I don't see the Right following through with this plan, just like they don't follow through with the mental health plan. They often blame mass shootings on mental health issues but then often cut funding for mental services.
If the Right supported their "solutions" to school shootings this would be different, but when it comes down to it they usually just offer, "Thoughts and Prayers." While those are important, action is also required. There are many examples in the Bible where God required action before He intervened. ex. Moses and his staff
3. We agree on being tougher on criminals.
4. You stated that many school shooters were known to law enforcement beforehand and had mental health issues. Does that mean you support Red Flag Laws? Also, does that mean you support funding mental health services for everyone? The Right often blames school shootings on mental health issues but then often cuts funding for MH services. Explain that.
3ºLinda Watson Rowe drinking and smoking are dangerous health risks that also affect others, especially second hand smoke. And even with laws kids still drink and smoke. I was 13 when I experimented with a cigarette (although I never actually began to be a smoker). And you don't get that you are either born however you are, or you begin to realize who you are. For example if you're straight, you're not going to be pushed to be gay. How about let each family as parents decide what is or isn't best for their children, after therapy, counseling and discussions? It is not your business or my business, or the governments business what a family decides. Bet you'd feel differently if we were to ban the bible or beliefs in God until children we're 18
4ºTravis Christopher The 2nd says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia.
The founders wanted us to be able to stand against a standing army, not have a standing army to oppress us.
As for schools, why do you think we should protect out politicians, celebrities, banks, events with guns but we our children with gun free zone signs. if they work so well why not have a portable sign for the president instead of secret service? If you think we should protect the POTUS with armed agents, why not our children?
Again how will taking guns from me stop a criminal?
5ºTravis Christopher I told you how they are funded here. They receive extra pay.
NRA makes no money off gun manufacturers.
The majority of teachers may not, but all it takes is a few. Remember the drag killer in Tennesse? She decided not to go to some other schools because there might be armed people there.
The reason the shooters choose the targets they do is they are easy targets. If they don't know whether there are armed people or not they won't go there.
And I can carry a gun, sit next to you for hours talking to you and you never know I have it.
6ºPatrick Henry 1. You really don't think there's a correlation between increased gun ownership and increased NRA membership?
2. Yes, like I said, I'm not opposed to arming guards and teachers. It's just an insufficient plan. Parkland and Sante Fe both had armed guards who did nothing to deter the shootings. Uvalde had their own police force. 370+ officers did next to nothing for over an hour. My friends lost kids in that tragedy. All those professional "good guys with guns" did nothing while kids were being shot but you expect a kindergarten teacher to do better. You statement that shooters won't attack a school with armed guards is historically false.
7ºKevin Woodward did you bother to read the whole article?? Didn't think so! " These were not genital procedures, the letter said.
"Contrary to some media reports, all were at least 16 years of age, none have received genital procedures and parental consent to these surgeries was obtained in all cases," VUMC's letter to Zachary states.
The AMA has cautioned states against banning gender-affirming procedures involving minors, saying: "We believe this legislation represents a dangerous governmental intrusion into the practice of medicine and will be detrimental to the health of transgender children across the country."
Boston Children's Hospital has faced similar criticism of its gender-affirming program. The controversy stirred protests and threats of violence against the hospital and its staff. Federal authorities arrested a woman last month who allegedly called in a bomb threat against the institution, according to USA TODAY.
Reporter Frank Gluck contributed to this story.
8ºPatrick Henry 1. My point was lost somewhere. I'm saying that the Republicans receive money from the gun industry. (That includes manufacturers, not just the NRA.) If tens of thousands of teachers purchase guns as part of the Right's school defense plan, you can't deny that the Right will financial benefit from receiving more funds from the gun industry. The gun industry isn't going to donate less to Republican campaigns after that boost. I'm saying that the Right has a conflict of interest there, which is yet another reason why no organization should be able to donate to any politician on either side.
2. I'm still waiting to hear which aspects of the multi-faceted plan you intend to contact your representatives about tonight. I won't be responding to unrelated comments until you address this question.
9ºTravis Christopher Your problem is you think everything has to be federal. As i said here is Texas we have allowed for several years for school districts to have programs to qualify teachers and pay them extra. This year we finally had enough Republican votes to make it statewide and now all teachers will be allowed to volunteer to take the training, and if they pass will be paid extra to carry, plus all training be paid, and they have to renew every year.
As fpr whether companies or political groups like unions should be able to donate to campaigns is a different argument. I'm just saying that allowing teachers to carry will help Republican coffers make as much sense as saying that allowing teachers to invest retirement savings will help Democrats. That argument makes no sense.
As for judges being able to remove children from homes, yes, but within the bounds of the Constitution. They can do the same with firearms. We don't need laws that remove the 4th and 5th allowing general warrants, suspension of Habeas Corpus, or the due process.
10ºFirst Republicans attacked black people, and I spoke out, even though I was not black.
Then Republicans attacked Hispanic people, and I spoke out, even though I was not Hispanic.
Then Republicans attacked Muslim people, and I spoke out, even though I was not a Muslim.
Then Republicans attacked Jewish people, and I spoke out, even though I was not a Jew.
Then Republicans attacked Asian people, and I spoke out, even though I was not Asian.
Then Republicans attacked women, and I spoke out, even though I was not a woman.
Then Republicans attacked gay people, and I spoke out, even though I was not gay.
Then Republicans attacked trans people, and I spoke out, even though I was not trans.
And Republicans attacked doctors, scientists, vaccines, the environment, gun control, the Capitol, democracy, education, equality, equity, empathy, electric vehicles, progress, and Disney because Disney spoke out too.
Republicans attack, and we speak out. Don't fall for the "both parties are bad" horsecrap that some people spew. Republicans and Democrats are literally opposites.