I heard on the radio that he was shot very early on, but I doubt they’ve got a really detailed timeline released to the public yet, so there’s probably no way to confirm that, yet.
For this plan to prevent any school shootings, the shooter would have to have no knowledge that the teacher carried otherwise he would just start shooting in another part of the school where that teacher wasn’t there. Now if a high enough percentage of teachers carried so that there was a good chance that an armed teacher would be nearby no matter where in that large school he entered it would serve as a actual deterrent. The problem with this is that you would have to hire a certain percentage of teachers that are properly trained and willing to carry in school for such a purpose. Is this feasible?
And here I thought the problem was a mentally disturbed person was legally able to purchase an AR-15 and sneak onto a large high school campus.
This wasn’t meant as yet another gun control thread, so I’ll kindly request (in an unenforceable way, since I’m just a little ol’ poster) that posters try to stay on the topic of the proposal in the OP.
Sure it was. This “serious idea” is purely and obviously meant as a way to shame the anti-gun control types.
There already is a certain percentage of teachers that are properly trained and willing to carry in school. Certainly more would be better, but there already are some. In most states, either the laws or school policy don’t allow them to.
Ideally, the students (and everyone else) would not know which teachers might be carrying.
I think that offering alternate proposals because the one proposed has holes in it is in the spirit of this thread, but I’m just a little ol’ poster, too.
What percentage would that be? Maybe a rough estimate based of polls, if possible?
I don’t know that there have been any polls of teachers asking “would you carry in class if you were allowed?”, but there are something like 15 million CCW permit holders in the country. That’s 15 million out of roughly 250 million adults. Call it 6%?
I agree.
Please take general gun control, and discussion about the specific incident in Florida to another thread. iiandyiiii crafted a specific proposal that can be debated without being overtaken by the general discussion.
[/moderating]
It wasn’t meant to be at all, but I will definitely tone it down. My apologies all around.
OP had yet to show us an actual proposal, let alone the costs or benefits. What are we trying to accomplish, why, and at what cost?
deleted: just saw the Mod note.
Well, the OP didn’t but you can roughly extrapolate what the cost would be (not sure what it would accomplish or why we’d do it). According to a quick Google search, there were approximately 535 mass shooting deaths in the US in 2017 (up from the previous year). So, make it 600. Death benefits for the families of combat soldiers seem to be “death gratuityis a payment of $100,000” (100% tax free btw, according to the article), so that would be a payout of $54,000,000, give or take. There are also a death pension and healthcare, but not sure if the OP meant those as well or just the death payment. There is also a housing allowance, but that’s the same thing.
So…it would be something more than 54 million dollars that we’d be paying. Substantially more if we are talking about pensions, health care, and housing allowances. I got the military stats from this website and the mass shooting ones from this one.
The actual proposal – treat victims and families of victims of mass shootings like we treat the families of 9/11 victims, and/or soldiers wounded or killed in action and their families (it’s my understanding that they are treated similarly).
Why? Because regular mass shootings are uniquely American, so I think this uniquely American phenomenon perhaps deserves particular attention, and those victims/survivors/families of this uniquely American phenomenon deserve particular recognition due to their involuntary sacrifice for the uniquely American freedom to very easily legally obtain extremely deadly firearms. We should recognize that they aren’t dying for nothing, but rather dying so these weapons can be so easily acquired, and (perhaps) so America can continue with our unique cultural obsession with guns and gun violence, and such sacrifice, even when involuntary, should be recognized/honored/memorialized.
The cost? I’m not sure. Head-arithmetic doesn’t give me any number that wouldn’t be tiny compared to the federal budget.
If we are talking about what we gave the 9/11 victims families, according to this:
Taking the high end of that, we get around $4.2 billion. BTW, if you want to extend this to all people who were murdered by guns (not just mass shootings) then it’s $2 billion for the $100k payout and $77 billion for the 9/11 style payout. It’s a lot more if we are talking all gun deaths (most of which would be suicides), but you have to make some lines somewhere.
Okay, I didn’t know that – I’ll retract the comparison to 9/11 victims. My proposal should just be that they are treated similarly to families of veterans killed in the line of duty (and those wounded should be treated similarly to wounded veterans).
That’s getting into “I want to spend a couple of billion dollars just to prove a point!” territory.
No.
nm, saw mod note
I just like to quantify stuff so we can see what we are really looking at. Not sure how you’d quantify what the military gives to wounded veterans injured in a combat zone, as it varies a lot and is part of their healthcare. They do get some severance pay, social security disability, up to $100k payout (but not sure how they assess this) and some sort of monthly compensation (same here). This could be pretty expensive as well, even if we are only talking about the victims of mass shootings, so you’d need to figure out exactly what benefits you want to compensate and it might be a sliding scale (i.e., if you were just injured, would be different than if you were completely disabled).