The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting

[Valerian]

There are two main problems with the idea of arming teachers / hiring retired cops or military personnel.  First, cops really aren't very good shots for the most part.  And it's no wonder when you're in an active situation, people running every which way and screaming -- of course even someone who's great on the target range is going to miss in those circumstances.  Hit rates can go as low as 28% in the field.  That would indicate that another shooter firing is only going to result in more confusion and very likely more casualties.

Second, the shooter doesn't care who they hit.  They can fire indiscriminately, into clouds of tear gas if necessary.  Anyone else -- teacher, police officer, whoever -- who's trying to protect potential victims, won't be able to fire without a very real chance of hitting one of the people they're trying to save.

The banning of ALL guns / knives in school areas and the installation of metal detectors seems like a better route to me.  Of course issues like bullying and general mental health should also be addressed, but those will of necessity be much longer-term fixes.  Metal detectors can start to work immediately.

[Lustful Bride]

That's fair. I can see the logic and even agree with it.

The banning of ALL guns / knives in school areas and the installation of metal detectors seems like a better route to me.  Of course issues like bullying and general mental health should also be addressed, but those will of necessity be much longer-term fixes.  Metal detectors can start to work immediately.

Gonna make schools feel even more like prison but it has to be down. Although it presents the problem of someone just using a 3d printed plastic gun to sneak it past the detectors but we are 50 years from having to worry about that.

There is also the issue of privacy. If bags need to an inspected it can lead to students feeling a loss of control.

[AmberStarfire]

That's an iffy subject. What is the determining factor? Because I have anxiety and depression, but I have absolutely no desire to shoot people, as I am rather against killing another human. I would argue that most people with psychological disorders feel the same. And what about people with no diagnosis? We have an atrocious health care system here, which leaves many people unable to see a doctor in order to get a diagnosis or help they need after being diagnosed. Mental health is already highly stigmatised in the US, so putting every single person with any sort of psychological diagnosis onto a master list which would prevent them from obtaining a firearm would open up a whole can of worms that would set back and tiny bit of progress that has been made to help remove the stigma of mental illness.

I own guns. I enjoy handguns. I enjoy rifles. But there are some types that people just have absolutely no need to own. And the ability of the average American over the age of 18 to own as many weapons as they can afford - to basically amass an armory - needs to be curtailed.

I just think if there's any doubt.. any question, the capability should not be there. Humans are fallible, and guns (especially semi-automatic, automatic weapons etc) are a risk in anybody's hands. You can minimize that risk, and people will feel they're not a risk, but there will always be some.

I can understand people not wanting to be put on a list, but even if it was as simple as a red light/green light system with no other saved information, it would be something. I'm wondering if some places already use that process in some way.

[Quick Ben]

I'm not American so I don't know the amendments, but I think that's the one that gives people a right to bear arms?

The thing is, if you felt (or feel) there was tyranny at the hands of a ruling government, would you use these weapons to deal with it?

I wonder if in some ways this is cyclical in nature. The government and police are more cautious and potentially forceful because so many people have guns/they're putting their lives on the line to a greater extent, and pro-gun people are more defensive of their rights, warier because of what the police can do etc, and it leads to greater tension? That said, I'm sure there are a lot of pro-gun people in both government and the police.

Having been to the US a few times, I can honestly say I felt less safe around the police etc there than I do here or in my home country. I'm not quite sure why it was, but they seem to exert a higher level of control and seem more.. tense. Over here, most police (garda siochana) don't even carry guns. My father and grandfather were both police officers at times in their lives, and as far as I know they did, but it isn't that. Maybe to some extent it's a sense of uncertainty, when you're in a different country, but there seemed to be a difference.

The right to bear arms, that's correct.

If the government ever tried to forces its will and restrict the freedoms of the people in the United States, I would hope that the gun-owners of America form up and actively rebel against such an act. Tyranny should not be tolerated. Ever. If there was ever such a scenario then I'd suspect that semi-automatics would certainly be needed in that fight. Automatics too, probably, but automatic weapons are very difficult to purchase not to mention highly expensive and it is illegal to sell any automatic weapon that was made after 1986 I believe. Can't recall the exact law at the moment.

And I can't speak for your home or your experience, but I've always felt fine around police. Someone licensed to carry whether it be police or a concealed carry permit holder just aren't things that bother me. I think this speaks for the unlimited differences in mentality from one person to the next. Also, level of tenseness most likely varies from area to area. I wouldn't want to be a police officer working in a city zone that has high violent crime rates.

[Quick Ben]

If I have been shot, I have been assaulted with a weapon and that weapon is a gun, regardless of type.

If I have been stabbed, I have been assaulted with a weapon, and that weapon is a knife, regardless of type.

If I have been beaten with a baseball bat, I have been assaulted with a weapon, and that weapon is a baseball bat, regardless of type.

I could continue.

My point is that anything can be considered an assault weapon, including a person's fist.

The difference, when it comes to firearms, is between semi-auto (single pew only) and fully auto (option for pew and pewpewpew).

That's what Retribution is pointing out. An assault rifle is an automatic. Classifying an AR-15 as an assault rifle is inaccurate because the AR-15 is not an automatic rifle. I think he meant more the assault rifle rather than assault 'weapon', but this is the semantics game that politicians might use to stir up a particular public emotion in order to advance an agenda against guns. Assault weapon wasn't in the terminology for firearms until 1989, and generally it's mostly a political term. That's just how I see it, anyway.

[Quick Ben]

Amazingly, an armed trooper arrived at the school about 90 seconds after the killer fired the first shots, but he just...stopped outside the school and took up post there, not entering while seventeen people were killed inside.  >:( The man has now resigned from his job.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-school-shooting-armed-officer-gunman-scot-peterson-nikolas-cruz-sheriff-scott-israel-a8224536.html

If this is what happens with people who are professionally trained to intervene and subdue a violent killer - and to use firearms if needed - how can Trump reasonably think that letting teachers have a gun in a drawer or concealed under their suit would change the game plan??

As a counter question, why would we only want officers of the law to carry firearms if this particular man didn't do his job to get inside and engage the shooter? It seems more reasonable to me to have more concealed carry teachers who've undergone the proper training than to place all our hopes in a single basket of a single person.

[Lustful Bride]

As a counter question, why would we only want officers of the law to carry firearms if this particular man didn't do his job to get inside and engage the shooter? It seems more reasonable to me to have more concealed carry teachers who've undergone the proper training than to place all our hopes in a single basket of a single person.

No thst sounds terrible. Teacher's are overwork and underpayed and expected to handle a classroom usually full of uncaring and disruptive youths .

They don't need the stress of a gun and having to handle it. The cop who didn't respond in time will have thst blood on his hands forever. But he is a police officer. He should be handling more simple things. Not a gun battle with someone in a school. He wasn't ready for something like that and froze up. Even soldiers freeze in combat sometimes.

A teacher freezing up will be worse. And if they panic it could lead to more civilian casualties.

[Lustful Bride]

Even with training most people are not fit or mature or responsible enough to handle a gun. Do we really want teachers being made to undergo training to fight and fire a weapon when most of them are struggling to keep up with education as is?

If the US were more similar to Israel and other countries with mandatory conscription and everyone having a base level of weapon knowledge and training then maybe. But I stress maybe.

Even allowing conceal carry teachers to carry a piece on them feels like a risk that might do more harm than good.

[TheGlyphstone]

As a counter question, why would we only want officers of the law to carry firearms if this particular man didn't do his job to get inside and engage the shooter? It seems more reasonable to me to have more concealed carry teachers who've undergone the proper training than to place all our hopes in a single basket of a single person.

Aiden had a fair point though, in that without said proper training, armed teachers just make the problem even worse. And who's going to pay for that training, with our education budget already overstretched and a shortage of qualified teachers even before you add 'marksmanship training' into the required skill set?

That's the ultimate paradox. Any attempt to increase safety without reducing gun accessibility requires money, which means taxes. The modern GOP is anathema to raising taxes in any form, so as long as they are in power this will not happen. Any attempt to increase safety without increasing taxes means reducing gun accessibility, which is again anathema to the GOP (or at least the majority subset of it that the NRA has by the financial balls). The overall preference of the Democrats, naturally, is to reduce gun availability first, but they cannot do that without achieving a legislative supermajority.

[Quick Ben]

No thst sounds terrible. Teacher's are overwork and underpayed and expected to handle a classroom usually full of uncaring and disruptive youths .

They don't need the stress of a gun and having to handle it. The cop who didn't respond in time will have thst blood on his hands forever. But he is a police officer. He should be handling more simple things. Not a gun battle with someone in a school. He wasn't ready for something like that and froze up. Even soldiers freeze in combat sometimes.

A teacher freezing up will be worse. And if they panic it could lead to more civilian casualties.

In the aftermath of the Maalot incident, Israel mandated armed security in schools and also provided weapons training to teachers. I'm not necessarily calling for mandatory gun ownership and training for teachers. It should also be important to note that Israel has had only two school shootings since 1974. Both ended with a teacher killing the shooter.

[TheGlyphstone]

In the aftermath of the Maalot incident, Israel mandated armed security in schools and also provided weapons training to teachers. I'm not necessarily calling for mandatory gun ownership and training for teachers. It should also be important to note that Israel has had only two school shootings since 1974. Both ended with a teacher killing the shooter.

Israel has a minute fraction of the number of guns available to its civilian population. It's also a smaller country in general, so the mandate to arm+train teachers would require less resources.

[Quick Ben]

Aiden had a fair point though, in that without said proper training, armed teachers just make the problem even worse. And who's going to pay for that training, with our education budget already overstretched and a shortage of qualified teachers even before you add 'marksmanship training' into the required skill set?

That's the ultimate paradox. Any attempt to increase safety without reducing gun accessibility requires money, which means taxes. The modern GOP is anathema to raising taxes in any form, so as long as they are in power this will not happen. Any attempt to increase safety without increasing taxes means reducing gun accessibility, which is again anathema to the GOP (or at least the majority subset of it that the NRA has by the financial balls). The overall preference of the Democrats, naturally, is to reduce gun availability first, but they cannot do that without achieving a legislative supermajority.

How do they make it worse? We're operating under a lot of hypotheticals and unproven theories here. Like I've stated in a previous post, armed teachers in Israel have twice killed an armed shooter since 1974, and those were the only school shootings they've had since easing the ability for citizens to acquire firearms.

Also, I've already stated that proper training should be required. I'm not calling for a teacher to buy a gun, not practice, and then when a shooter situation arrives to attempt a shoot out with zero expertise.

As for how to pay? Unsure. I don't know if I agree with it being a required thing for public schools because being federally run they should adhere to the standards of constitutional law. If a teacher does not want to conceal carry, then they don't have to. I'd say the teacher can purchase their weapon on their own time and is free to conceal carry on school grounds or campus grounds. But, if they're going to do that they'd have to have proof of passing certain psychiatric and fire-arm tests. And, these tests don't even need to be the sort that are tax-payer funded, they could be completely voluntary.

For private schools, that's up for the private schools to decide being private institutions and the right to decide how their establishment is run within the paramters of the law.

[TheGlyphstone]

Reread where the commas were in that sentence.

Without said proper training, armed teachers make the problem even worse.

First, you say training should be required. Then, you say the tests should be completely voluntary. By definition if they are required they are not voluntary.  Teachers do not get paid a lot, and there is already an ongoing issue where school districts can't afford to buy things like school supplies, and the teachers need to buy it out of their personal paychecks. The teachers are very unlikely to be able to afford it, the school districts sure can't afford it, and if the government cant afford it, then it's not going to happen.


and as far as Israel goes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#List_of_countries_by_estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita

If you tried implementing a fraction of those limits, the NRA would have a collective apoplexy. Israel's guns-per-capita ratio is 7.3 (# per 100 citizens); the US ratio is 101. The situation regarding gun availability isn't even comparable. It's a complete non-sequitur.

[Quick Ben]

Israel has a minute fraction of the number of guns available to its civilian population. It's also a smaller country in general, so the mandate to arm+train teachers would require less resources.

Yes, it's difficult to cross-study different countries. Despite the resources, the raw data seems to demonstrate that the measure has been a major success.

Again, I'm not leaning towards a mandate of armed teachers or security. I'm in favor of a teacher paying out of pocket for their own weapon and acquiring a concealed carry permit, then having the freedom to operate on school grounds with said permit. They should have to provide a sufficient amount of evidence that they're responsible and trained with the weapon's usage.

[TheGlyphstone]

Alright. That's a stance I could at least not completely disagree with. The idea of teachers needing marksmanship training is still a terrifying one, and I'm not convinced that extra guns will help, but it's better than the original/perceived position of just adding a .45 to the newly hired teacher starter kit. :-\

[Quick Ben]

Reread where the commas were in that sentence.

Without said proper training, armed teachers make the problem even worse.

First, you say training should be required. Then, you say the tests should be completely voluntary. By definition if they are required they are not voluntary.  Teachers do not get paid a lot, and there is already an ongoing issue where school districts can't afford to buy things like school supplies, and the teachers need to buy it out of their personal paychecks. The teachers are very unlikely to be able to afford it, the school districts sure can't afford it, and if the government cant afford it, then it's not going to happen.


and as far as Israel goes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#List_of_countries_by_estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita

If you tried implementing a fraction of those limits, the NRA would have a collective apoplexy. Israel's guns-per-capita ratio is 7.3 (# per 100 citizens); the US ratio is 101. The situation regarding gun availability isn't even comparable. It's a complete non-sequitur.

Training should be required if you're going to be a teacher with a concealed carry permit on PUBLIC school grounds. I'm pretty certain there are ways in which an individual can prove that they have gone through the required background checks and training without said things being a publicly funded affair. I used the term voluntary in the sense that if a teacher DOES NOT want to HAVE a fire-arm and teach, then they do not have to go through said training because they will not be equipped with a gun. If a teacher wants to conceal carry, then they need to acquire the permit, the gun, go through the approved background check, and then provide evidence they've gone through training from any number of private gun training facilities.

You can do it, you can not do it. It should be up to the individual.

[Quick Ben]

Alright. That's a stance I could at least not completely disagree with. The idea of teachers needing marksmanship training is still a terrifying one, and I'm not convinced that extra guns will help, but it's better than the original/perceived position of just adding a .45 to the newly hired teacher starter kit. :-\

Lol, I'm glad we could reach some middle ground here. Middle-ish. A quarter-way?

I should make it absolutely clear here that I am in in NO WAY in support of a teacher walking around with a firearm without any shred of evidence they know how to operate the thing. Generally, everything that's a 'mandate' (and goes against the constitution) I'm completely against.

[Oniya]

So, when I was sifting through the links on Glyph's earlier Cracked article on 'when the NRA lost its shit', I spotted another article where the author had reached out to an ex IRA-bomber, as well as a person who was stopped from becoming a school shooter.  It was - quite thought provoking, as it addresses not only the usual assumptions people make about these individuals, but comes up with an actual thing that they have in common.

Humiliation.

People who perceive this as their last option to 'be someone' - even if it's a 'bad someone'.

[Mithlomwen]

Training should be required if you're going to be a teacher with a concealed carry permit on PUBLIC school grounds. I'm pretty certain there are ways in which an individual can prove that they have gone through the required background checks and training without said things being a publicly funded affair. I used the term voluntary in the sense that if a teacher DOES NOT want to HAVE a fire-arm and teach, then they do not have to go through said training because they will not be equipped with a gun. If a teacher wants to conceal carry, then they need to acquire the permit, the gun, go through the approved background check, and then provide evidence they've gone through training from any number of private gun training facilities.

You can do it, you can not do it. It should be up to the individual.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue. 

[Valerian]

Training should be required if you're going to be a teacher with a concealed carry permit on PUBLIC school grounds. I'm pretty certain there are ways in which an individual can prove that they have gone through the required background checks and training without said things being a publicly funded affair. I used the term voluntary in the sense that if a teacher DOES NOT want to HAVE a fire-arm and teach, then they do not have to go through said training because they will not be equipped with a gun. If a teacher wants to conceal carry, then they need to acquire the permit, the gun, go through the approved background check, and then provide evidence they've gone through training from any number of private gun training facilities.

You can do it, you can not do it. It should be up to the individual.

As I mentioned earlier, even police officers, with (hopefully) plenty of practice on gun ranges and experience in the field, still have serious difficulties in hitting what they're aiming at in an active shooter situation.  I don't care how good someone is at firing bullets into a little paper target, when there's an active shooter firing indiscriminately (because, again, they don't care who they shoot), it is going to be extremely difficult to hit that shooter.  A random teacher who goes to the gun range once a month pulling a gun out in the middle of a crisis is likely to make the situation worse instead of better.  Even aside from the odds of hitting an unarmed student, there's also the very real possibility that police arriving on the scene will believe the teacher is the original shooter and take them out.

[Quick Ben]

As I mentioned earlier, even police officers, with (hopefully) plenty of practice on gun ranges and experience in the field, still have serious difficulties in hitting what they're aiming at in an active shooter situation.  I don't care how good someone is at firing bullets into a little paper target, when there's an active shooter firing indiscriminately (because, again, they don't care who they shoot), it is going to be extremely difficult to hit that shooter. A random teacher who goes to the gun range once a month pulling a gun out in the middle of a crisis is likely to make the situation worse instead of better.  Even aside from the odds of hitting an unarmed student, there's also the very real possibility that police arriving on the scene will believe the teacher is the original shooter and take them out.

This is more or less why I don't trust law enforcement to be the only entity with legal access and permission to use firearms.

On the second point, we're operating under a lot of presupposition there. I don't know if there's any reliable data that can sufficiently back up that claim. Also, I never said anything about a teacher going to a gun range once a month. I haven't detailed what standards would be needed for them to be concealed carry holders on school grounds, but once-a-month range practice would not pass my standard as a qualified public school concealed carry user.

[Quick Ben]

We'd also have to consider whether there's a quantifiable decrease in attempted school shootings when it's known that every school has the possibility of a teacher concealing a weapon. Psychologically, the attack becomes far more risky due to the possible threat of retaliation.

I'm curious as to what your own proposed solution might be, because I can't in good faith defend the idea that unarmed students and teachers should just sit down and deal with an active shooter by sitting still and doing nothing while also waiting during those crucial minutes where law enforcement has to be warned and then respond to the shooting.

To me, there NEEDS to be a means of self-defense for students and staff during an active shooter situation. I don't find it acceptable to be utterly stripped of defense.

[Lustful Bride]

We'd also have to consider whether there's a quantifiable decrease in attempted school shootings when it's known that every school has the possibility of a teacher concealing a weapon. Psychologically, the attack becomes far more risky due to the possible threat of retaliation.

I don't think there would be that much of a decrease to be honest. Most of these shootings tend to end with the person committing suicide. They aren't very caring about facing resistance.

[TheGlyphstone]

Retaliation doesnt dissuade shooters. To the contrary, many seem to expect or even embrace it, citing the sources echoed by Oniya's article. Theyre expecting to die, maybe even hoping for it, and taking as many people as they can with them.

[Valerian]

This is more or less why I don't trust law enforcement to be the only entity with legal access and permission to use firearms.

So you'd rather have everyone, including people with even less training be given full access to firearms?

On the second point, we're operating under a lot of presupposition there. I don't know if there's any reliable data that can sufficiently back up that claim. Also, I never said anything about a teacher going to a gun range once a month. I haven't detailed what standards would be needed for them to be concealed carry holders on school grounds, but once-a-month range practice would not pass my standard as a qualified public school concealed carry user.

I wasn't suggesting any sort of standard for what would constitute sufficient training with a gun.  I was saying that NO amount of training can prepare ANYONE for an active shooter situation that is very likely to turn into kill or be killed.

Psychological testing of the teacher has been mentioned, but you also have to find teachers who are going to be willing and able to put a bullet into another human being.  Even in self-defense that isn't easy for a lot of people to do.

I proposed a two part solution previously, but I'll repeat it now: make school areas gun-free zones enforced with metal detectors, and start working on longer-term solutions regarding mental health screening / treatment and reduced access to guns.  If armed shooters can't get onto the campus in the first place there's no need to worry about dissuading them psychologically with teachers who may or may not be armed.