Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who would volunteer? People have to work. They can't afford even 1 day per week to patrol schools. Their employers wouldn't put up with it.
That leaves retirees. I'm one and 1) I'm not interested 2) I'm too old for it. Most of us are the same.
Guard duty is training for military situations. The time is needed for that. It's 1 weekend/month and some time in the summer. I can't see how this can be wrapped into school duty.
Something as extreme as that is impossible to coherently respond to.
I do know I would be glad that at least they had a chance and weren't helplessly slaughtered 1 by 1.
I think it's a completely vacuous statement he made. Obviously one would feel bad. However, I can't think of a single time that has happened. Yes, I'm aware most schools do not have armed good guys but there are some. He's all alarmed about a hypothetical when the problem is active shooters with criminal intent.
I can show you polls that are the opposite. It depends on who's doing the polling. We all know how accurate the most important polls in the country were when they were telling us who was sure to win the presidential election. They couldn't even get something that important that right.
Let the people in each community decide for themselves. There are already communities that have done so with no problems.
Wow nice straw man argument. Way to jump the shark
What's to stop a teacher from doing it today? Tomorrow? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
A teacher can go postal today, or tomorrow or next year with or without legally being allowed to have a gun in school.
Having laws to allow responsible trained people to protect themselves and others will have no increase in crime but actually act as a deterrant.
Here's the thing. Laws only work to people who are willing to follow them. If someone wants to commit a crime a law won't stop them.
Criminals by their very nature disregard laws.
There are already laws against guns in school. It hasn't stopped a single criminal or shooting.
There are already laws against murder. Hasn't stopped a single criminal.
Then I'd like to get your take on why you think arming teachers is a good idea when YOUR policies only ensure they're qualified. If the law can't stop criminals from getting guns, what makes you think
1) you can get teachers trained? They're there to teach. Not shoot
2) teachers are already having to pay out of pocket for their school supplies, deal with rising health cares, and stagnant salaries, and now you want them to take on the 40 hours of training required to use a firearm, in addition to extra hours in how to deal with an active combat situation?
Your coming up with a crazy hypothetical scenario where there could be 10000 variables and your wanting to know if I would sue someone that hypothetically shot one of my kids in crossfire and because I can't respond to that you claim I haven't thought this through. Seriously?
Seriously. If you do not think that real life scenarios have 10000 variables you have been watching too many movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid
I don't live my life looking to blame others, I hope you don't either but since your first reaction was to inquire about lawsuits....I can make an assumption.
You never answered the question, just tried to deflect. WOULD YOU SUE? Remember George Zimmerman thought he was a "Good guy with a gun" but I do not think all people think of him that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid
Many conceal carriers also have personal insurance policies for that scenario.
And I tend to think I am a forgiving, understanding person and I don't look for fault in others.
Then why carry a gun? Surely if you feel the need you see fault in at least some others....
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid
I think it's a completely vacuous statement he made. Obviously one would feel bad. However, I can't think of a single time that has happened. Yes, I'm aware most schools do not have armed good guys but there are some. He's all alarmed about a hypothetical when the problem is active shooters with criminal intent.
I don't know what you're saying. They're not polling the "correct" people?
If a company specializing in polling can't figure out how to conduct a representative poll, then I don't trust them. All these big name "experts" were dead wrong (except for the L. A. Times running poll) about the most important poll in recent times. It doesn't matter what the specific problem is (sample size, questionnaire design, population sample, etc.), if it's not addressed, they get useless data. They've obviously been playing loose and fast with something or, worse, they're being deceptive by design.
I'll take that any day of the week over 17 kids being murdered in one episode.
This is the fantasy. You think that you get to order these things off of a menu and pick and choose, that is not how real life works. Accidental discharges kill people. Suicidal people kill people.
Seriously. If you do not think that real life scenarios have 10000 variables you have been watching too many movies.
You never answered the question, just tried to deflect. WOULD YOU SUE? Remember George Zimmerman thought he was a "Good guy with a gun" but I do not think all people think of him that way.
I'll tell you what the problem in this thread is. Several of our gun advocate posters spend way too much time with other who think exactly like they do. It becomes CJ thinking.
Yesterday I was watching footage of Trump's latest rally, and all I could think was that he was a coward, just cozying up to those who think like he does. He never talks to groups not a part of his base. So he lives much of a fantasy life in an echo chamber.
I don't know what you're saying. They're not polling the "correct" people?
If a company specializing in polling can't figure out how to conduct a representative poll, then I don't trust them. All these big name "experts" were dead wrong (except for the L. A. Times running poll) about the most important poll in recent times. It doesn't matter what the specific problem is (sample size, questionnaire design, population sample, etc.), if it's not addressed, they get useless data. They've obviously been playing loose and fast with something or, worse, they're being deceptive by design.
I have seen polls that poll only certain demographics, rather than a wide range of people. So I have to learn how polling was done to determine the validity of the poll.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
