1ºTravis Christopher absolutely. Also, I would gladly volunteer my time at the local high school for security reasons. We’re trying to get that started around here. And if something ever happened no I would not just sit idly by and let kids get killed. And that is just outrageous that those police officers did that they all deserve to meet a cowards end. And I hope they get what is coming to them. I hope Broward county stripped them of their badges first and foremost. But you’re right there is not a serious piece of gun legislation that calls a total ban nor do I support a total ban or any ban. as a gun owner, Myself, that has multiple types of firearms, including an A.R. 15. The only type of legislation that I would truly support is the mental health checks. I don’t believe somebody who was clinically insane should be allowed to even own a fork. we already have extensive background checks every time you go purchase a firearm you do a background check both state and federal. If you have so much as a restraining order on your record, it’s going to be a no sell.
2ºGregory Upper Arming teachers? I'm not totally opposed to the idea, as a teacher, but there are questions that need answers.
First, are there 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. You can see the source for each incident.
https://www.everytown.org/solutions/arming-teachers
B. We know one party 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.
Some staff at Covenant in Nashville were armed. That didn't deter the shooter either.
D. You can't look at school shooters the same way you look at most other criminals. A bank robber, for example, intends to walk away alive, but many school shooters do not. Therefore, school shooters aren't as easily deteted. Again, Parkland and Sante Fe come to mind. They were known to have armed guards. One hid.
E. 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.)
F. 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.) Where is the research about potential strategies?
G. Again, I'm not opposed to the idea, but I don't see Republican leadership 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. Both parties would need to support this plan to sustain funding for it.
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
3ºIowa resident here. It happened about 40 mins from me. It was a student. 5 people were shot (one died... a 6th grader) and the student then self cancelled.
Iowa is a horrible place for kids to attend schools. Our government bans and enacts laws that suit her conservative Christian beliefs to where she does not allow anyone to feel safe being LGBTQ+. There are book bans for LGBTQ+ books and restrictions on students who choose not to identify as straight. Schools are no longer a safe place to be accepted. They are just all pressure cookers with not allowing or attempting to stop differences that take them outside of the box our government feels kids should fall in. People literally leave the state over this stuff...
No idea why the 17 year old did this horrific thing...but something clearly pushed him to think this was the only option before unaliving himself. It's so very sad.
4ºChristie Wilbur Chafee ok ..rather than making a useless glib quip...
make your case and present your ideas.....
what would do think should happen or can be done that would assuredly prevent these incidents from happening.....
What are the necessary steps....How would you legally impose and/or enforce such ideas.....how would it be effective....
And in these proposed solutions....please try not to preemptively/blanketly punish the whole of innocent society (99.999998% of whom have done absolutely nothing wrong) by taxing, reducing, restricting or eliminating the individual rights and freedoms of all people (without benefit of individual due process of law) based on the hanious acts of the smallest minority of criminals....
Go on now.....and Be specific
5ºColleen Nugent Spoden no the problem is liberals. Gun free zones. Mental illness. Liberals soft on crime policy. The highest rates of gun violence occurs in democratic controlled cities and states with the strictest gun laws. So gun laws don't stop criminals. Gun deaths don't even rank in the top 30 things killing Americans. 40 k a year die by firearms 2/3 are suicide. If you remove firearm suicide deaths that are self inflicted it doesn't even break top 50. Yes it's sad we have mentally ill people and criminals. But you cant blame an inanimate object. But yet big pharmaceutical killed over 600k last year. Alcohol killed 97k males and 43k females last year. But not one liberal wants to address the other 34 things more deadly than guns. It's just the black scary fullysemiauto thing with the exploding bullets.
6ºTravis Christopher
1) Majority of homicides are done by standard handguns and hunting rifles. SO you would have to ban those
3) The Washington law essentially bans carrying guns outside the house. Also semi automatic bans would include common handguns and rifles. Semi automatic guns aren't automatic. You have to pull the trigger each time
4) Even on this post Democrats have been calling for total gun bans. But even just banning semi automatic guns is a de facto total ban because many guns don't use hammers like the Old West or bolts or pumps on shotguns and rifles
5) Democrats believe in no ball release and lenient sentences even for violent criminals. that has something to do with it.
6) We have a plan to stop daily homicides which outweigh mass shootings. High bail and stronger sentences
7ºAs someone who lives close to Perry and has a friend with a kid at that school.. I want to say shame on anyone who has decided to bring this issue up as political gain. BOTH sides. These are kids, their tragedy and pain should not be being used as cannon fodder for either side. Especially just hours after the incident. You should be embarrassed. Every side wants to claim they want whatever to make a better life for their kids and yet here you are trying to turn it political as there are TEENAGERS BLEEDING OUT and parents praying their kids are going to be okay. Have the decency to let these families do what they need to do.
8ºZachary S. McLeish actually no. Both sides. I have said it to multiple parties from both sides. I don't care who, or what you believe in. My philosophy is as long as you are passionate on your stance I have respect for you. Just don't push down my throat. Live your life. Like what you believe does not affect me. We will all never be on the same page, that's a fact. I accept that and good for both sides for standing up for what they believe in. However both sides need to at least give these families and community the day to process the shock. Do it tomorrow.
9ºAmalai Joel the reasons we have a constitutional amendment giving us the right to own firearms for self defense and to protect us against the government if it becomes tyrannical. Also that we have a militia of trained and knowledge citizens. The well regulated part has nothing to do with being regulated by the state. It’s to protect homes and property example roof top Koreans during the LA riots are the perfect example of a well regulated militia they were law abiding gun owners protecting their property because the government could not do that job .
The reason the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution was because of the British and their tyrannical rule the founding fathers knew that the only way to keep a government in check. It also provides a safe guard for the other amendments. Because it’s the only one with shall not be infringed . Which is why anti gun laws are slowly getting destroyed in courts
10ºJeff Moulton
Not having problems for over 200 years with easy access to guns refutes your "not debatable" claim. All of these school shootings are a relatively new problem. Less than 40 years ago we had multiple guns on campus everyday at my school, zero shootings. What easier access to guns than to have them right there available to use all the time could there be?
Keep changing those tires dude. That is how we have went from no problem with guns on campus to risking being expelled if an item being eaten winds up resembling the shape of a gun while school shootings steadily increasing.