This could be the start of gun control......

i believe the school had about 3000 - 3500 students. That means about 100 or so teachers. Of that 100, I suppose maybe 20 or so would be willing to get training and carry a gun while at work.

No way could any school afford 20 full time guards of any sort on the job at any given time. Teachers are there while the school is open and can be on the ready.

The problem I see is convincing administrators and "other" teachers that this is a good choice.

I have dealings with about 6 educators on a regular basis. Of the 6, two agree and would have packed if allowed to do so. The remaining four are total and complete anti-gun libs and if not mistaken, one of them would rather take a bullet than give one back.

It is truly an uphill clime from the get go.

The casual acceptance of "there is nothing that we can do to stop this without making unacceptable changes to the culture of the institution of education" is the primary reason that I am no longer a public school teacher.

Mousegun said:

i believe the school had about 3000 - 3500 students. That means about 100 or so teachers. Of that 100, I suppose maybe 20 or so would be willing to get training and carry a gun while at work.

No way could any school afford 20 full time guards of any sort on the job at any given time. Teachers are there while the school is open and can be on the ready.

The problem I see is convincing administrators and "other" teachers that this is a good choice.

I have dealings with about 6 educators on a regular basis. Of the 6, two agree and would have packed if allowed to do so. The remaining four are total and complete anti-gun libs and if not mistaken, one of them would rather take a bullet than give one back.

It is truly an uphill clime from the get go.

Click to expand...

I would go along with that if by agreeing to extra training and responsibility said teachers would get substantial pay boost.

PabloJ said:

In order to limit such tragic events we would have to have more stringent requirement for purchase of firearms and ammunition along with rules for safe and secure storage of these items by law abiding gun owners once they have them. Since this isn't going to happen we are left with .....accept mass murder to defend.....

Click to expand...

Oh you mean like we already have pretty much in California?
I hate to say it but its only a matter of time before another incident happens in CA, where we already have all of these restrictions. Next step will be them going after a complete ban from owning. Who do you think will comply, yep the law abiding citizens.

If this debate occurs in the frame that the media and anti-gunners have put forth we will lose. The frame is that his was a "mass-shooting" instead of a mass murder. if the discussion is framed in this way the logical conclusion is to blame and ban the gun.

If the debate is framed as a mass-murder and that we have a broken society or broken boys in the society, we can get at the causes and solution to intervene in the 30 to 300 people who are in a position to commit this atrocity on any given day.

Focusing on the 8 million AR15s in the hands of law abiding gun owners is an easy solution for the emotional people crying for us to "do something". It just happens to be the wrong thing to do.

I doubt it. 500 people were shot in Vegas not long ago. Nothing happened. Pretty much forgotten. Something else will be in the headlines in a couple of weeks.

Politicians say what they need to say at the moment to ride the wave out. They know the routine.

This is an endless and fruitless discussion. For so many people this is an emotional, not a rational issue. They think of guns and think that their children may get shot. So emotionally they find it helpful to think if the guns were banned their children might be safe. I have given up, for the most part, trying to reason with the anti gun believers. One of my own daughters, who has three children in high school, is vehemently anti-gun (I have no idea how she got that way). I asked her what she would prefer right now if a crazed murderer comes into her children's school: armed staff and teachers who could oppose the shooter, or unarmed staff and teachers who can call 911 and wait for the police. Her answer: I don't want teachers in my children's classroom walking around with guns. This same daughter gets her news strictly from left wing media and late night talk shows. She truly believes the NRA should be classified as a terrorist organization and that politicians don't support gun control because they do not want to lose the big bucks that the NRA supposedly is giving out. Facts don't matter, only feelings do.Sigh.

Ask her if she believes that banning guns makes them evaporate.

Crazy people control, not gun control.

The only proposal I've heard that makes any sense in the context of the last shooting is that the age for purchasing a semi-auto rifle be raised to 21, as with handguns. I'm not personally in favor of it -- I believe that the legal age for everything should be 18 -- but at least it would have prevented this young man (he wasn't a kid) from legally purchasing his rifle. Whether it would have ultimately stopped him from getting one illegally and carrying out his massacre is another story. All the rest is just emotionally-driven noise.

The whole "NRA is a terrorist organization" is pure BS, as I'm sure any rational person can see. The next time a person says that, remind them that some people say the same thing about NARAL.

Liberals have a lot of nerve, calling the NRA a terrorist organization.

If the NRA was really a terrorist group, liberals would be supporting them like they do all of the other "resistance groups", "protesters", and "freedom fighters."

bikerdoc said:

Crazy people control, not gun control.

Click to expand...

"Crazy people" (in quotes) control is actually worse than "gun" (the inanimate object) control, because the universe of "crazy people" can be continually expanded, until virtually no one will be eligible to have a gun. Let's not go down this path.

The antigunners are working both sides of the equation. On the one hand they're focusing on the guns (the hardware) and trying to outlaw as many categories as they can. On the other hand they're focusing on the people who might own the guns, and trying to exclude as many as they can. Felons, domestic abusers (even though this applies retroactively), people dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, adjudicated mental defectives are disqualified already. Now they want to add unadjudicated mental defectives. (And that could conceivably include anyone who has ever seen a psychiatrist, for any reason.) Soon it will include anybody living in the household of a "mental defective" since any guns in the home are presumably accessible to all. Then, they could include mandatory "safe storage" requirements (with police inspections to make sure they are complied with), requirements for million-dollar liability insurance, and the list goes on and on. (Every one of these things has been proposed or implemented here or in other countries.This is not a fantasy.)

The ultimate Catch-22 will be when the psychiatric association classifies the mere desire to have a gun as evidence of a mental disorder. Want to have a gun? You are excluded! Mark my words, this is going to happen -- perhaps not in our lifetimes, but eventually.

Well, considering how ineffective and useless his contributions to his preferred candidate for the last presidential election was, who's going to miss his money?

It's time for donors to realize that their money ought not enable them to subvert our republic's political system.

If he's actually a republican, then he's not going to suddenly give his money to Democrat candidates, is he? If he does, then he wasn't a conservative, anyway, and he's welcome to throw his money away in the sinkhole that's become the DNC.

No doubt the planned Russian influence in the upcoming midterms will require some cash in order for the DNC to invest in it.

PabloJ said:

In order to limit such tragic events we would have to have more stringent requirement for purchase of firearms and ammunition along with rules for safe and secure storage of these items by law abiding gun owners once they have them. Since this isn't going to happen we are left with .....accept mass murder to defend.....

Click to expand...

How are the strict laws regarding the importation and distribution of hard drugs working? They are a complete failure, they never will work and neither will any laws that restrict law abiding citizens access to guns. Why do you think otherwise?

What deters the armed robber from robbing the liquor store, convenience store or the person on the street? John Lott claims it is the possibility of confronting a victim that has a gun, too.
Wouldn't there be a deterrent effect if the school had, possibly, people armed and ready to respond to defend the pupils?
Repeal the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 and publicize it vigorously. Like when the Orlando Sentinel sponsored gun handling classes for women during an upsurge in rapes. After the paper advertised these classes rapes dropped precipitously.

P5 Guy said:

What deters the armed robber from robbing the liquor store, convenience store or the person on the street? John Lott claims it is the possibility of confronting a victim that has a gun, too.
Wouldn't there be a deterrent effect if the school had, possibly, people armed and ready to respond to defend the pupils?
Repeal the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 and publicize it vigorously. Like when the Orlando Sentinel sponsored gun handling classes for women during an upsurge in rapes. After the paper advertised these classes rapes dropped precipitously.

Click to expand...

Why not? Nobody else seems to have good idea how to cope with this problem. What is needed are professionals with submachine guns to serve as meaningful deterrent. Unfortunately only boarding schools where the rich send their kids at $50,000 to $60,000 per year could afford them.

Marco Rubio thinks courts should be allowed to order the confiscation of guns from folks who raise "red flags".

" Rubio said on a Sunday morning show that state legislators should "absolutely" consider enacting a law enabling family members or law enforcement officials to ask a court to remove guns from a person who poses a danger. Rubio, who once served as Florida's House speaker, told Miami CBS affiliate WFOR that it's an "example of a state law" that could have helped prevent the Florida shooting."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...izures/ar-BBJhQt5?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

alsaqr said:

folks who raise "red flags"

Click to expand...

Mercifully, that's still not due process. No matter what the antis say.

typhun said:

Who do you think will comply, yep the law abiding citizens.

Click to expand...

And there are already rumbling in the Fourth Estate about the abysmal record of "law abiding' compliance in ban states.

A recent article from New York was hand-wringing over the fact that the registrations numbers were not nearly high enough, and no one seemed to care.

Which was even more (well amusing, to me) was that they then quoted discrepancies in MA and CT registrations.

And, they all miss the point that our Canadian neighbors gave up with many of their registration schemes when they determined that compliance was less than 30%.

The only thing worse than imposing pointless restrictions upon the law-abiding, is in making them have to decide whether to be come scofflaws or not.

P5 Guy said:

What deters the armed robber from robbing the liquor store, convenience store or the person on the street? John Lott claims it is the possibility of confronting a victim that has a gun, too.
Wouldn't there be a deterrent effect if the school had, possibly, people armed and ready to respond to defend the pupils?
Repeal the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 and publicize it vigorously. Like when the Orlando Sentinel sponsored gun handling classes for women during an upsurge in rapes. After the paper advertised these classes rapes dropped precipitously.

Click to expand...

The only thing I would add to that, is we as a society have to convince the media to stop glorifying these shooters, the ghoulish aspects of the body count, the evil black rifle nonsense, etc. The "72 virgins effect" only primes the next up and coming mass murderer, thinking he will have his "day of glory". If the media would stop pivoting the whole country's attention around the pathetic horrible killers, maybe the attraction might be lessened.

What I feel so many people overlook about the second amendment is that it wasnt put in place just for your “personal freedom”, but also to give the mass of our people the necessary tools to revolt against tyranny, that includes tyranny from our own government. When i hear someone say something like “nobody NEEDs an assault weapon”, it really grinds my gears. Maybe we dont need them right now, but there will likely come a time, and you may well wish you hadnt given them up so easy. Saying this is a cliche, but have you ever read a history book?!!!

What happened to socity? This never happened years ago.

Parents aren't raising kids in some sectors any more. Gaming systems, the internet, social media, netflix, and cell phones are raising the kids. The crazy ideas on the internet, political radicalization, screwball ideas, sexual predators, and trends like eating cinnamon and laundry detergent, prove that kids don't know what is real. Is it really any wonder that one in , what, 10 million kids wants to do a mass shooting for a day of "glory"?