In the mid-to-late 1960s some of the loudest voices for gun control were on the conservative right. Because cops were shooting down “negroes” during inner-city riots andd demonstrations, and some of them were starting to shoot back.
I’m actually feeling a teensy glimmer of hope, that this time will be different. The spontaneous student activism is unprecedented, and the speed at which Trump caved on the bump stock fix — which went nowhere after Las Vegas – is amazing. (It’s a pathetically inadequate response, but any response at all is an improvement.)
And we’re seeing pushback on social media. Those inevitable pro-gun memes are immediately slapped down with a quick “Russian bot!” defense that didn’t exist a few months ago.
“I knew nuns were tough, but not that tough!”
“Aw, don’t kid yourself guys; that nun’s broken off from established dogma.”
If thump gets crossways with the NRA, might that make some of his die-hard supporters desert him?
It’s actually a complete load of bollocks.
We had one of our own “Parkland” moments in Roseburg, Oregon, back in 2015. Nine killed, plus the gunman. Almost immediately, the gun free zone chorus started up: If only there had been an armed Good Guy with a Gun™ present! If only Oregon didn’t have gun free zones!
Well, we don’t. There was an armed Good Guy with a Gun™ on campus that day. It was the day he learned how generally useless having a CCW is in an active shooter situation on a campus.
He made an affirmative decision to stay put with his legal carry gun so he wouldn’t get accidentally shot by the SWAT team. Good call – both for him, and the SWAT team.
I’m going to guess most teachers chose teaching because they didn’t want to be cops. Arming teachers has always been a ridiculous notion. It just goes to show how far the NRA will go to protect their sales, and how little they value the human lives they put at risk to make them.
This is the tweet from this morning, where he slams the recent coverage of his statements as “fake news” and then immediately confirms the substance of that reporting. (He seems to do that a lot.)
So, suppose you give this responsibility to twenty percent of teachers. When something bad happens in one of the other eighty percent of classrooms, whose fault will it be?
Obviously the teacher’s, for not being armed. “This selfish teacher (probably a left-wing Hillary supporter) had access to training and firearms, and she REFUSED to take the necessary steps to defend her students! Our schools have no place for teachers who won’t accept their responsibility to attend military training and maintain a working firearm!”
I know this is a hypothetical, but how else could you possibly see it going? Shooters will probably know which teachers are packing, which will make the gun-less classrooms more attractive targets. A person can do a lot of damage in the time it takes for the armed teacher down the hall to rush over and break down the door. And when this happens, what do you think the response will be from the gun people, other than making it mandatory for teachers to carry concealed weapons?
I’m testing the waters on another forum, so far the answer seems to be “no.” They’re only ideologically opposed to additional gun restrictions if Democrats propose them. About half of them are on board with whatever Trump’s suggesting, and the other half doesn’t agree but they don’t particularly care either.
I was looking at my lottery ticket last night, and realized that if I won, then I could hire myself a bunch of liberal arts humanities majors to combat the trolls. Have them go out for 40 hours a week, refuse to take troll bait, and raise the level of discourse overall.
Well, I didn’t win (fortunately that just means the jackpot is bigger for when I win next week), so for the meantime, Soros should divert some of that money he is using to bus around illegal voters from poll to poll to take up this project.
As a natural enemy of trolls, and as unexpected saviors of our civilization, I think we should call them “Hobbits.”
It is obviously ridiculous.
You know why school shooters choose the schools they shoot up? Because they’re familiar with the school. Nikolas Cruz shot up the high school he went to. The Columbine shooters shot up the high school they attended. Seung-Hui Cho shot up the college he went to. The perpetrator of the Sandy Hook massacre, which still makes me want to puke, simply chose the most convenient school to his home. The school part of the Red Lake shooting was carried out at a school the murderer had attended. Oios University? Former student. Westside Middle School? Former students. Northern Illinois University? Former student.
School shooters ALWAYS target schools to which they have some connection or grievance, or in the case of Sandy Hook, because it’s just nearby. Always.
The one that keeps popping up for me is “NYPD hit accuracy is only 18%”
According to these, might be close to the truth. Perhaps math teachers will be more accurate…
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf (PDF)
Those are the same numbers I see, too. Anywhere from 15% to 30%. The FBI did a study years ago, too, but I’ve lost the link.
Consider, also, the 2012 Empire State Building shooting.
-Wiki
And if a teacher is like the one we nicknamed Ms. Petete because she was about the size of this brightly-colored penguin, it’s her fault for being too short to be elligible for the military. Literature teachers must all be graduates of the Citadel.
Bravo. 
If not armed teachers, then how about armed security guards? I mean, banks have armed security guards and bank robbery has completely disappeared, right?
Which makes me think of my 7th grade math teacher, who was a genuinely lovely man. Really nice, funny, kind. Then he had a horrible PTSD flashback during class where he was grabbing kids and shoving them to the floor and dragging them behind his desk for “cover” because it wasn’t safe. I hate to think what might have happened if he had a gun.
I never saw him again, for the record. He left teaching, which was a shame because he got kids excited to go to class.
I don’t know, if Ms. Petete aims straight she strikes the shooter right in the nuts. Win for all!
Do you mean robbery of banks, or robbery by banks? And if the second, does that imply that I have a legal right to armed resistance?
Hey, If I knew there was a chance of an imaginary Viet Cong attack, I’d be hopped-up, too.
You bastard, stop making me laugh. I was being serious for once!
As you noted, they got what they wanted, resulting in an ongoing national disaster, and everything they worked so hard for was completely lost less than two decades later. The NRA is in a sort of inverse position – protecting your freedom rather than taking part of it away – but “your freedom” is also oppression upon me, who chooses not to play with guns or carry them around.
Extreme positions tend to beget major backlash. The deeper the ammosexuals dig in, the stronger the opposition will become. It almost feels like the US is headed toward another civil war – over guns themselves.
Well dang, if a cop can’t even hit the Empire State Building, that IS pretty bad.