Arming teachers already happening

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Awesome, then you'll point out where it's mentioned arms are being forced on teachers.

Conceded. It only says about relaxing legislation on permits. I mostly commented on pro-gun people thinking that arming teachers is a good idea, and I snarked that they just managed to find the solution that means they won't have to alter any laws or pay any more taxes.

I'll second that statement. Took me 16 hours to get certified to carry a handgun in CA. Not a whole lot is required for the upkeep by the state. However, my company maintains much tighter standards on firearms skills, since we have a lot of public contracts.

The idea of arming teachers, well if they practice as much I and a number of other CCW holders do, I'd feel somewhat ok. I don't think it's the right move. I'd favor placing a school resource officer at each school, or well trained security officers. With the current lack of police jobs, you can easily find hundreds or more, of police academy graduates wanting work.

On this, I don't disagree with Fenix either. But this all depends on these teachers to actually practice enough, and not just 'enough to get a permit'. Sorry if I don't trust most of them to do so, I just don't. I'd trust an actual professional much more.

The best outcome is that in a few weeks everyone forgets about the shooting and both pro and anti gun lobbies quietly drop their silly proposals.

Yes, like forgetting every shooting prevented every next one so far. Can we now have someone with a functioning brain?

[Iron Bridge]

The best outcome is that in a few weeks everyone forgets about the shooting and both pro and anti gun lobbies quietly drop their silly proposals.

Yes, like forgetting every shooting prevented every next one so far. Can we now have someone with a functioning brain?

What proposal can prevent these shootings? This man was probably mentally ill but not in such a way as to bring him to the attention of the authorities. He didn't buy the guns himself so no kind of background check could have helped. Mandating gun safes is more sensible but 1. as he got them from his mother chances are he could've got the key or combination just as easily as he found the actual guns and 2. mandating use makes it difficult to use a gun to defend one's home and may be unconstitutional straight away for that reason since District v Heller.

So other than banning every gun type, or at the very least all the semi-auto types including basically any handgun more recent than 1870s, and repossessing all hundreds of millions of such guns already in circulation, there is nothing that can be done. And that can't be done because it is blatantly unconstitutional. All the actual proposals will do nothing to stop spree shootings while either inconveniencing legitimate gun owners or filling schools with paramilitaries who are a waste of money at best and dangerous at worst. They offer negative net utility over doing nothing.

Moreover, I can't stress enough how utterly irrelevant spree shootings are to US gun crime stats. They are in the 0.1-0.01% range of the total. If you're going to get mad about gun control... don't get mad, look at evidence in a calm and rational manner. These events are magnified beyond belief by the media and our primitive brains cannot process the fact that things we hear about happening may only be 'common' in groups of billions, rather than hunting parties of 10s or 100s. It's equivalent to wanting to ban aircraft because of the (insanely low) rate of air crashes. Or, ahem, wanting to ban nuclear power because of Fukushima Daiichi.

[Stark]

Its almost as if political solutions to problems need to be relevant to the people involved!

Are you nine?

[TheFeniX]

Conceded. It only says about relaxing legislation on permits. I mostly commented on pro-gun people thinking that arming teachers is a good idea, and I snarked that they just managed to find the solution that means they won't have to alter any laws or pay any more taxes.

I don't think arming teachers is a good idea. As in, actually assigning teachers the responsibility of student protection outside their standard job description. Not only would there be legal issues, but it would also be next to impossible to actually change teacher job requirements for concealed carry, even if they weren't highly unionized. That's bad business and would open schools up to litigation concerning job classification discrimination. I do however find issue with current carry laws in many states. Namely, why the fuck can't I carry on UH campus considering it's in a shitty part of a city (Houston) with violent crime way above the national average? Add in that UH has been shit-canning security personnel for budgetary reasons and a CHL should really be part of the application process. Why can't professors carry if they want and are licensed?

I can almost wrap my head around me personally not being able to carry in a k-12 school and/or sporting events, even though I think it's a stupid law that puts me out sometimes. But I really don't see why a teacher who already has access to students and who is already properly licensed by the state to conceal carry a firearm can't carry in a State school. What's the angle? Work related stress? Then why hasn't something like this already happened in a state like Utah and why aren't CHL holders committing murders/multiple murders at a higher rate than the average citizen?

The only thing I know is that, since Texas CHL inception in 1996, there's been only 2 convictions of multiple homicides performed by CHL holders (as opposed to 18 in 2011 alone for non-CHL holders). I don't know the circumstances for either, even though I've been trying to dig something up on the one in 2011. But, I'm not buying the whole "CHL teacher flipping out and murdering students" argument.

[Simon_Jester]

The only thing I know is that, since Texas CHL inception in 1996, there's been only 2 convictions of multiple homicides performed by CHL holders (as opposed to 18 in 2011 alone for non-CHL holders). I don't know the circumstances for either, even though I've been trying to dig something up on the one in 2011. But, I'm not buying the whole "CHL teacher flipping out and murdering students" argument.

That's really only one sub-argument. But with millions of teachers in the country- figure a few percent of all teachers have a CCW, I'd eyeball it as roughly a hundred thousand teachers carrying guns on school property if we make that routine.

Sooner or later, something is going to go wrong- a teacher's gun gets stolen, there's an accidental shooting, or a teacher trying to respond to an actual shooting winds up hitting kids by accident. Or, remotely possibly, a teacher who decides they're in mortal danger and/or goes nuts ends up shooting a student.

The minute any of those things happens, we're going to see a tremendous public outcry. It'd be a disaster for the school system where it happened, and probably on the national level.

[TheFeniX]

Sooner or later, something is going to go wrong- a teacher's gun gets stolen, there's an accidental shooting, or a teacher trying to respond to an actual shooting winds up hitting kids by accident. Or, remotely possibly, a teacher who decides they're in mortal danger and/or goes nuts ends up shooting a student.

I really don't see the point in arguing that something might happen sometime somewhere somehow. I've seen variations of this argument for over a decade, even on this same forum, regarding concealed carry in general (or just access to guns and/or deadly force). Where's the data? And these type of issues do happen with civilians, but at a much lower rate than that of non-CHL holders (at least in Texas).

On a lighter note: Cops have the edge with your criteria in spades. Not to bag on cops because it's understandable considering their job, but I don't see what qualifies some of these jokers to protect an entire school as opposed to just protecting yourself as a teacher.

Maybe I'm a bit too close to this one as my wife is finishing up her degree and her teaching certification at UH to become a high school history teacher and I have to worry not only about Texas being a shit-hole for public education but also getting spammed by the UH alert e-mail system with "ROBBERY, RAPE, ASSAULT, also: Taco Tuesday." Yet allowing her to legally carry on campus would be an affront to learning because guns are bad. Except, you know, when cops have them or guys with 16 hours of training.

[Simon_Jester]

]I really don't see the point in arguing that something might happen sometime somewhere somehow. I've seen variations of this argument for over a decade, even on this same forum, regarding concealed carry in general (or just access to guns and/or deadly force). Where's the data? And these type of issues do happen with civilians, but at a much lower rate than that of non-CHL holders (at least in Texas).

There's no problem with normal CHL-holders committing crimes because even if their rates were as high as the general population, the crimes themselves are indistinguishable from normal crime. If a man shoots his wife, no one remarks very much on whether he had a CHL or not.

Teachers shooting students is rare. If it happens any time soon, in a conspicuous way, it'll be a national media scandal. It will be remarked on and have consequences that are far out of the ordinary.

I'm not opposed to concealed carry in general, but the liability issue in schools is just... ridiculously huge, because of how badly things can go wrong for the school when a child is injured.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

But, I'm not buying the whole "CHL teacher flipping out and murdering students" argument.

I agree with what Simon says about this. I don't really think I have anything to comment about the rest of your post.

[LaCroix]

The only thing I know is that, since Texas CHL inception in 1996, there's been only 2 convictions of multiple homicides performed by CHL holders (as opposed to 18 in 2011 alone for non-CHL holders). I don't know the circumstances for either, even though I've been trying to dig something up on the one in 2011. But, I'm not buying the whole "CHL teacher flipping out and murdering students" argument.

That argument is not quite right, even if you only count "MURDER", not the "capital murder", "manslaughter", "murder in sudden passion". Maybe under the view of "multiple murders", so "not quite"...

But the question is not absolute numbers, but general prevalence within the group - according to statistics (ignoring the upswing in obama years), you usually had about 1% of the Population with an active CHL) - thus, a CHL makes a person five times less likely to commit assault with a deadly weapon, but Deadly Conduct - which I believe sums up the problem with armed teachers most people have cited - is just as prevalent - 1% of the convictions...

[Dr. Trainwreck]

<snip>

So what you're saying is, essentially, "we can't do damn"? Well, I've already realized this about a dozen shootings ago. To tell you the truth, I've accepted that the lack of mental health care and high gun ownership will result in these shootings repeating themselves again and again. What the fuck, if so many Americans like it that way, it's their fucking country. If only the NRA would say, "yeah we like our guns and don't give a fuck about other people" then they'd be proper conservatives. But instead there is this bullshit, pointless gun control debate with the same fucking arguments over and over that never does any good. So what the fuck, let's just do nothing.

[Ziggy Stardust]

So what you're saying is, essentially, "we can't do damn"? Well, I've already realized this about a dozen shootings ago. To tell you the truth, I've accepted that the lack of mental health care and high gun ownership will result in these shootings repeating themselves again and again. What the fuck, if so many Americans like it that way, it's their fucking country. If only the NRA would say, "yeah we like our guns and don't give a fuck about other people" then they'd be proper conservatives. But instead there is this bullshit, pointless gun control debate with the same fucking arguments over and over that never does any good. So what the fuck, let's just do nothing.

The problem with gun control is a lot like the issue with rape. It never gets adequately addressed because their is a prevailing, and backwards, cultural mindset attached to the issue that is counterproductive. With rape, it is the often subconscious desire to "blame the victim;" it manifests itself all the time in various ways, sometimes quite subtly, and is a major roadblock to enacting better legislation and changing people's mindsets. With guns, it is the bizarre holiness with which Americans seem to hold them; guns = freedom, and you can't give up your freedom! That is why gun control is literally an untouchable issue in politics, because even attempts at curtailing the high accessibility of firearms is somehow twisted into "THEY'RE TAKING OUR GUNS AWAY!!!!"

It's why these debates always devolve into the two sides butting their heads, and usually getting bogged down in non sequitirs like "only people with ILLEGAL guns kill people!!!!!" or "laws that ban [this incredibly specific gun component or cosmetic attachment that nobody gives a flying fuck about] won't WORK!", while completely ignoring the fact that our cultural attitudes towards guns in general are what allow all of this to happen. And we see the same thing when rape is discussed: the conversation will focus on overly specific instances and "well, maybe she didn't exactly say "NO" clearly enough..." and such, instead of actually trying to address the issue.

(Sidenote: Just in the interest of fairness, I know this post comes off as more harsh to the anti-gun control folks than it does to the pro-gun control folks, even though the latter can be equally retarded. I just feel the need to state that the converse of some of the above is also true; some of the pro-gun control folks throw out really simplistic and stupid arguments that miss the point entirely)

[Simon_Jester]

It's why these debates always devolve into the two sides butting their heads, and usually getting bogged down in non sequitirs like "only people with ILLEGAL guns kill people!!!!!" or "laws that ban [this incredibly specific gun component or cosmetic attachment that nobody gives a flying fuck about] won't WORK!", while completely ignoring the fact that our cultural attitudes towards guns in general are what allow all of this to happen...

The overly specific instances are reflected in legislation, though.

When there was political will to ban semiautomatic rifles in this country in 1994, what got banned? Pistol grips and bayonet lugs. Why? Beats me. Ask the gun control advocates who voted for it at the time.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The overly specific instances are reflected in legislation, though.

When there was political will to ban semiautomatic rifles in this country in 1994, what got banned? Pistol grips and bayonet lugs. Why? Beats me. Ask the gun control advocates who voted for it at the time.

That's true, and I am not saying that these specific instances aren't importance from a strictly legislative sense, but in terms of actually debating the issue it always seems to be brought up as more of a distraction tactic than anything else.

Dumb-ass A: "We should ban all guns!"
Dumb-ass B: "Banning guns won't solve anything!"
Dumb-ass A: "Prove it."
Dumb-ass B: "Well, when those fascist pigs banned hyper-pneumatic cobalt 35 stirrup plunger springs and uber nickel platinum nitrogen-cooled hammer pawls the murder rate was COMPLETELY UNAFFECTED!!!!!11"

[Simon_Jester]

That doesn't match my experience. Just since Sandy Hook I've seen, to paraphrase:

"These nitwits don't have any understanding of the thing they're trying to ban! They ban irrelevant features of 'assault weapons' like bayonet attachment points that have nothing to do with how dangerous the guns are!"

A restriction like that is a sign that whoever wrote the law has something on their mind besides making people safer, because the restriction does nothing to increase safety.

[Zaune]

Annoying the sort of person who spends several hundred dollars on stupid "tacticool" after-market accessories for their AR-15 because they want to LARP as the protagonist of Medal of Duty 47: Operation Dead Horse and/or compensate for their crippling insecurity about the size of their penis?

Which is a worthy goal in and of itself, mind you, even if it doesn't do much to inconvenience would-be spree killers and terrorists.

[Simon_Jester]

It also can also annoy the sort of person who wants to own a WWII-era rifle like the SKS- hardly "tacticool."

[Lonestar]

It also can also annoy the sort of person who wants to own a WWII-era rifle like the SKS- hardly "tacticool."

My M1 that the government sold me would qualify as a assault weapon under Feinsteins proposed AWB(semi-automatic, bayonet lug) and would have to registered under NFA.

[the atom]

The issue with the banning of pistol grips and bayonet luges is that it's pretty much the only sort of stuff gun control advocates can get away with without being shot down because of fascism. It's a near-perfect setup for gun advocates because it makes gun control advocates look like ineffectual fools even when they do manage to get what they're after, while at the same time leaving groups like the NRA space to come down on them if they try to push for anything more substantial or meaningful then 'wishy washy feel good legislation'.