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.
Seems like the anti-gun position is to let perfect be the enemy of good in terms of finding a solution here.
Just because a few of us are, frankly, trying to make you see how utterly dumb this proposal is doesn't mean we have no proposals. I just feel it's more important to shoot down this asinine theory that we more guns in the hands of civilians in schools.
Let's put more actual officers at the school in uniforms. That will let the LEOs who arrive on scene know who is on their side instead f arriving to find 5, 10, 15 or 20 people waving guns around.
Every school needs one officer who watches video monitors while another one (or however many the school needs) is on patrol. Yes, you need to set up video cameras in halls. That will cost money and I have no odea where it comes from after this latest tax cut, but it needs to come from somewhere.
I still worry about the training because it would seem a lot of the officers might have to be hired from private firms and I've already mentioned some of my personal experience with that.
There are solutions to at least curbing some of the school shootings out there. Good solutions, some that might not have been mentioned yet because of this Hollywood fantasy idea of arming teachers and volunteers and hoping each of them is John McClean.
Unless you think our children's lives aren't worth the extra expense. Maybe we can put an "opt-out" checkbox on the tax form, for people like you.
You guys just got through wetting your pants in joy in response to the tax cut and all of a sudden you're "spare no expense" when it comes to taking care of children. Give me a freaking break.
I'd happy pay more taxes to keep kids safe. And that includes food, shelter, education, and medical care, by the way.
But putting sensible gun control in place makes a hell of a lot more sense than some cockamamie plan to arm teachers or pull together a volunteer army of ex-military people to patrol the schools.
How many armed conflicts have you been in? Where were they? How many people were involved?
All these keyboard commandos picture themselves as Dirty Harry. In reality they'd probably be the first ones under the desk when the bullets start to fly.
Those are all great questions, and to be honest I don't have the perfect answer here, but they certainly aren't that difficult to solve for if you are an honest problem solver, rather than a roadblock to finding a good solution that helps reduce the risk.
Not a roadblock to finding a good solution, just a roadblock to a stupid solution based partly on my experience.
All these keyboard commandos picture themselves as Dirty Harry. In reality they'd probably be the first ones under the desk when the bullets start to fly.
No kidding. They think watching all the Die Hard movies makes them experts on armed conflict. They sound like a bunch of elementary school kids.
Chalk up another liberal hysteric who thinks our children's lives aren't worth the extra expense.
Maybe we can put an "opt-out" checkbox on the tax form for people like you.
Well, then, let's have Trump propose a whopping tax increase to cover the massive costs this would incur. And then let's see how eager the right wingers will be to support that.
Do you have any idea how expensive this kind of insurance would be? Imagine the lawsuits that would follow when (and it is inevitable) one of your "volunteers" accidentally shoots and kills a student or faculty member. No insurance company is going to cover these people. Or if they do, the cost would be prohibitive.
Stupid, stupid idea.
Nothing would satisfy you. You would sue the school if your little darling fell during a routine drill. You would sue the cops if your kid was nicked by flying ceramic tile during a shooter encounter.
You want no solution because of legal risks.
This is the result of too many lawyers in our midst.
TRANSLATION: I can't name anything wrong with the plan to hire trained armed guards at our schools to protect our children. But I hate it anyway, so I'll call it names and misrepresent what it actually is, and hope I can fool somebody into believing me somewhere.
Translation: I don't know **** about armed conflict but I like to pretend like I do.
Nothing would satisfy you. You would sue the school if your little darling fell during a routine drill. You would sue the cops if your kid was nicked by flying ceramic tile during a shooter encounter.
You want no solution because of legal risks.
This is the result of too many lawyers in our midst.
So to clarify, you are in favor of a massive tax increase to cover these costs?
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.
In reality they'd probably be the first ones under the desk when the bullets start to fly.