It’s true that about 99% of of my fellow teachers in Wyoming were gun owners. Recently the school board passed a policy allowing teachers to be armed. Initially, two teachers said they’d do it. After this year’s Violent Intruder training by experts, both changed their minds.
Even if a teacher is a crack shot, he or she is focused every day on TEACHING. Reaction time is bound to be slower, particularly when the shooter is a kid, as 95% are. That’s natural when your whole working life is consumed with teaching and helping kids.
But that’s when a shooter walks into that classroom FIRST. Unlike the cops you’re familiar with, our SRO was a crack shot with extensive sniper training. He and other LE’s said even a little chaos means dramatically less accuracy. Screams, kids running in all directions, kids bleeding on the floor, kids calling your name, AND you’re supposed to assess in a split second if that tall guy holding running toward you is a shooter or a student?
Then what is the purpose of repealing the 2nd? And how can we get rid of ALL school shootings with plenty of guns still in circulation?
All I have heard is “REPEAL THE 2ND!” that will solve all our problems!" with no details of who or why or what or anything.
Since you can have reasonable gun control laws without repealing the 2nd, the ONLY reason to repeal the 2nd is to pass draconian gun control laws. Come on it’s simple logic.
So, if not to pass draconian gun control laws, why repeal the 2nd?
Useless. Criminals dont have to register their guns.
A new idea to put burdens on law abiding gun owners, since criminals dont usually buy their guns from gunstores. They procure them illegally, so they wouldnt have insurance.
Already in force in CA and other states, and has done nothing.
It is not getting rid of ALL school shootings. It is reducing the probability of one. Right now, it seems that school shootings, and mass shootings in general is on the rise. Stopping and reversing that rise is the goal. Not stopping all gun violence.
There have been details as to things that could be done, but whenever they are brought up, it is said that hta would be a violation of 2A. That you have not heard these tings is not that they have not been said, extensively and repeatedly.
Name some reasonable gun control laws that would be effective and not cuase 2A’ers to have a conniption fit.
To be able to pass effective laws. You will note that there are many counties out there that do not have an amendment guaranteeing the right to guns. And yet, in many of those countries, a responsible person can still procure and use one. You try to exclude the middle, but by doing so, you ignore the many examples that exist between your extremes.
Who cares that some non-Judge says it would violate the 2nd? Tell me your reasonable measures that would actually reduce violent crime and/or school shootings.
I have several times here: increasing age to 21, banning bump stocks and banning the sale of extended magazines.
I have a few times, sometimes in direct response to your posts.
One of the big ones would be to require a background check for private sales. I would even accept a CCW holder to be able to show their CCW as a form of background check. But this selling to people that you don’t know thing is a loophole that needs to be closed.
Requiring that people secure their guns better would be useful as well. This last shooting would have been prevented if the father had put into place measures to keep his kid out of his guns.
If these require a gun registry to implement, then that is what is necessary.
A hefty tax on ammunition to pay into a victims fund of shooting victims and their survivors would not be remiss either. I would be happy to allow registered ranges to buy and sell “duty free” ammo for exclusive use on that range.
I wouldn’t mind seeing much heavier requirements for CCW’s, and require a permit for open carry. One of the problems with preventing mass shootings is that there is no way to prevent them from shooting people if they don’t break a single law until they start shooting people.
When you say “banning bump stocks” are you saying banning the sale, or banning the possession? If the latter, how are you going to enforce it? If the former, will you also ban homemade versions?
I’d go with a grading scale of lethality of weapons. This would be based on the different criteria of accuracy, accurate range and effective range, rate of fire, the damage that the bullet does to a body, and maybe some others that we can think up together.
Then it is easier to get a lower rated gun. If you want a .22 6-shot revolver, you should be able to get one unless you are specifically prohibited from having one. If you want to have something more powerful, then you should have to show proficiency and responsibility.
I’d make it easier to temporarily remove someone’s guns from their control and possession until they can be evaluated if they have a reason to suspect that they may be radicalizing.
There are a few other things I would, and have suggested. Do you think that many of those would get by a 2A challenge?
No, I’m not upset and I am not concerned, in this discussion, that cops make mistakes. I am curious why you seem to think teachers are more prone than cops, security guards, et. al. to “wrongfully” shoot someone.
Sure, and I am in favor and it is obviously Constitutional. As long as bequests can pass to family members without it.
They have that in CA, and it hasnt done anything I can see. And I am not sure it would have helped in this last case either. But it would be Constitutional, as long as it didnt go to DC extremes. You could require safety locks if there are kids in the house.
There is already a tax on ammo and guns and a Federal victims fund. Constitutional as long as it isnt prohibitive.
So far, very few crimes have been committed by CCW holders. I dont see the purpose here. Constitutional.
Sale. Constitutional.
Too subject to gun grabbers making all guns a “10” in lethality. Doubtful.
I don’t think that there is any inherent reason for them to be any more or less likely to wrongfully shoot someone under the same circumstances as a cop would. I am curious as to why you would think I think that. I also think that police should have more training in conflict resolution and violence reduction, in fact.
However, to start with, there being about 4-5 times as many teachers as there are cops, if they are not any more or less likely to wrongfully shoot people, then there will still be 4-5 times as many wrongfully shot people.
There is also the fact that a cop’s job is to evaluate and respond to threats. We see when they get it wrong, and we like to look into ways that they will do it wrong less often, but most of the time, they get it right. That doesn’t come from time on the range. That doesn’t come from being a good shot. That comes from doing the job every day.
Teachers are in contact with students all day, every day. That is a completely different demographic than cops are. There are a few problems with this. Teachers have been known to use excessive force when disciplining students, and adding a gun to that mix isn’t going to improve that. Would a teacher be in the wrong to shoot someone to break up a fight? I don’t know if there actually is an answer to that, but if the teacher doesn’t have a gun in the first place, then it is a question that is not asked.
There is also obviously the fact that, with them in contact with students all day, the students have potential access to the gun as well, whether it is through the teacher’s negligence, or from a student overpowering them and taking it.
These could be balanced against the lives saved from preventing school shootings, of course, but IMHO, I don’t think it would have any effect on school shootings, and have even less effect on mass shootings that don’t take place inside of a school.
Why? Wills and estates are complex things. When my grandparents died, I had quite a bit of paperwork that was involved in settling their estate, and then quite a bit more dealing with tax implications. Adding a trip to your local FFL to register the change in ownership would be a tiny part of estate liquidation.
The kid got the guns from his dad. If he could not have gotten the guns from his dad, then he would not have had them to shoot people with. How would that have no helped?
Do you consider DC extremes to be confiscation of ALL guns?
The victims fund does not pay out really anything. It certainly does not cover the costs incurred if you are harmed by being shot. It doesn’t cover the medical bills, leaving it either with the insurance or the hospital to pick up, meaning that everyone else picks up the tab. I think that shifting the expense of having guns in society to gun owners, rather than letting them socialize that expense to everyone else makes sense.
Like I said, have “duty free” ammo for registered ranges, with pretty stiff penalties for having it out of the store and range. You can plink at targets all you want with the cheap stuff, but you want to carry them in your gun, it’ll be a bit expensive.
Not just crimes, but accidents as well. And I am of the opinion that most CCW holders at this time are relatively responsible with their guns. they are the low hanging fruit. Most of the CCW holders that I know go far above and beyond what is required, which is good, as what is required is to bullshit in a classroom setting for a few hours, then go shoot some targets.
Ineffective then.
I’d be happy to have gun afficaindos in on rating guns. But you demonstrate the point, yet again, that it is not what is proposed that you are against, it is what you are imaging may be proposed in the future that prevents you from accepting what is being proposed now.
So is all of law enforcement and the justice system. Here we have a ton of kids in our county going to court and even to jail over making stupid jokes on social media, or saying something that people find threatening. I personally think that that is overreaction. I think that it would be better to simply make sure that the kids are alright, and maybe take guns away from them for a bit till it is clear that they have no intention on carrying out their joke.
As it is, with no way of doing anything about it without charging them with a crime, they are being charged with crimes in order to make sure that they do not have access to guns.
That was just a few blocks away from where I was going to Jr. High school. Why are we treating this as a new phenomenon? That was 39 years ago and I wasn’t under the impression (at the time) that it was the first-ever time it had happened.
–G!
It seemed to be the first time anyone wrote a pop song about it. :mad:
I would be happy for the gun folk to write that list themselves. But you’re too afraid of what might happen, so you claim “slippery slope” to almost everything. And nothing meaningful gets done.