There have been 11 US school shootings this year. Is it time to arm teachers?

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,449
Reaction score
14,125
No school shootings if there ain’t no schools...

Let 'em get on with it. Arguably, it's Darwinian selection.

And—being devil's advocate here—such deaths are apparently acceptable to wider U.S. society just as deaths attributed to motor vehicles are in the UK and elsewhere. The recent tragic deaths of young people stood at a bus stop in Hayes hasn't yet resulted in anyone calling for a ban on cars.
 

Cuzza22297

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Posts
274
Reaction score
154
11 school shootings in 28 days and the bright idea to combat it is... MORE GUNS. You wonder what it takes before they see sense and remove their gun laws, as if innocent children losing their lives isn’t enough. Arming teachers has the potential to lower the victim count, but they’re not going to react with weapons before the person starts firing, there will still be casualties.

‘Some say only solution left’ - really? Because I can see a solution that would solve the problem of not just school shootings but the majority of mass shootings and gun crime in general and so can most others.
 
Last edited:

Old Man

Ex-Matelot
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Posts
2,072
Reaction score
1,113
11 school shootings in 28 days and the bright idea to combat it is... MORE GUNS. You wonder what it takes before they see sense and remove their gun laws, as if innocent children losing their lives isn’t enough. Arming teachers has the potential to lower the victim count, but they’re not going to react with weapons before the person starts firing, there will still be casualties.

‘Some say only solution left’ - really? Because I can see a solution that would solve the problem of not just school shootings but the majority of mass shootings and gun crime in general and so can most others.
Go on then, what's your solution?
 

ThreadpigeonsAlpha

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Posts
5,036
Reaction score
7,635
There’s already been shootings/violence prevented by teachers carrying their own weapons.

It’s a complicated situation but the only solution I can see is more training, more education and more screening.

We have to remember the attitude in the States is completely different to the UK. And they don’t have a history of sectarian/football violence.

Interestingly enough No one in the states gave 2 thoughts to the 2nd amendment before the 1960s. It was almost seen as an antiquated law.
The NRA was a gun club for target shooting and enjoyment. Regardless of your political allegiance or thoughts the story of how it has come to be is fascinating.

The Civil Rights movement was what sparked the current interest in it. The black panthers, one of whom read and interpreted the 2nd amendment to what people see today.
(It’s a constant battle of the wording between the “peoples” right, and the “people’s right to form a militia”)

The black panthers would openly carry their arms as was their right to. And to observe the police in their Duty, from a safe distance, which in Californian law was 10m. So they would follow and observe the police, in the interest of safety and because of the racial tensions between police and the black community.

Because of this people started to see and hear the 2nd amendment more and start to take interest in their right to bear arms. Which then spurred the NRA to begin to transform into what we see today, with the original founders and members wanting to move it and stop it becoming more politicised.

Then:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

“ that the second amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.”


The history behind it is fascinating and it’s interesting and as much as some of the UK can’t understand someone’s inherent right to self defence, people in the US can’t understand how defenceless we are in the protection of our families and against the government infringing our rights.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,449
Reaction score
14,125
One as yet unforseen consequence of arming teachers might be that of training and competence to safely load, unload and carry the weapons let alone the skills required to deploy, say, a handgun in a defensive manner. Despite what Hollywood suggests such competence requires rigorous continuous training to prevent skills from fading and consistent personal practice of drills. Without considerable investment injuries and deaths from NDs could feasibly outnumber those caused by hostile shooters.
 

ThreadpigeonsAlpha

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Posts
5,036
Reaction score
7,635
One as yet unforseen consequence of arming teachers might be that of training and competence to safely load, unload and carry the weapons let alone the skills required to deploy, say, a handgun in a defensive manner. Despite what Hollywood suggests such competence requires rigorous continuous training to prevent skills from fading and consistent personal practice of drills. Without considerable investment injuries and deaths from NDs could feasibly outnumber those caused by hostile shooters.

There was a video on YouTube that took gunowners who thought they were good and put them in everyday situations with simunition, to check and show them their reactions. It was interesting. It takes thousands of hours of constant and consistent training to get it sorted.
 

Cuzza22297

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Posts
274
Reaction score
154
Go on then, what's your solution?

Obviously don’t pretend to have a perfect solution but with a 2/3 majority and 3/4 of the states agreeing, US Congress would be able to repeal the 2nd Amendenment of the Constitution. Between 1987 and 1996, Australia saw 4 mass shootings that led the government to passing stricter gun laws and they haven’t had one since. This change in gun laws saw the Australian government purchase and destroy 600,000 guns, a number that is tiny compared to the figure I give for American owned guns below I’ll admit, but it shows it can be done to some extent.

Yes this does create issues, the main one being, how to round up all the guns? An estimate back in 2007 suggested that Americans owned 48% of the 650m civilian owned guns worldwide, that’s 312m and over a decade later you would assume this number has gone up rather than down. So, clearly this would take a considerable amount of time, effort and money. Perhaps it’s even past the point of no return? Stopping the supply would gradually decrease the number I’m sure. An appeal for those to sell their guns to the government might drop that number further? Particularly in the states less associated with gun violence. The obvious problem would be the old ‘well if their not selling theirs, why should I?’ and that’s something I don’t have an answer to, as door to door house searches does seem a bit extreme. Confiscation if seen by the police?

On the subject of the police, I feel for this to work they would have to set an example and stop carrying sidearms. This move would prevent those cases of unnecessary police gun violence. However, I accept it would only take an instance or two of a newly unarmed police officer getting shot and we’d be right back where we started.

If there is a need to blow off some steam by firing guns, then keep civilian gun ranges kept under close supervision (as I’m sure they already are). However, 2/3 of American gun owners say that the main reason for owning firearms is for personal protection, so essentially it’s a vicious cycle. If gun laws were made stricter and people were convinced there were less/no guns around would they be happy with the 2nd amendment getting repealed and getting rid of their guns?

I admit, getting 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states (as well as the majority of the public) to agree to this would be a serious challenge. The overriding point in my first post was, if 11 school shootings in 28 days can’t make them, what does it take? To me it just seems crazy that anyone can go and buy something as dangerous as a gun.
 

ThreadpigeonsAlpha

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Posts
5,036
Reaction score
7,635
Obviously don’t pretend to have a perfect solution but with a 2/3 majority and 3/4 of the states agreeing, US Congress would be able to repeal the 2nd Amendenment of the Constitution. Between 1987 and 1996, Australia saw 4 mass shootings that led the government to passing stricter gun laws and they haven’t had one since. This change in gun laws saw the Australian government purchase and destroy 600,000 guns, a number that is tiny compared to the figure I give for American owned guns below I’ll admit, but it shows it can be done to some extent.

And what about the figures that show violent crime and crime with weapons have increased? violent crime has been exponentially increasing since the 1996 gun ban after Dunblane?
France also has strict gun laws, and the attackers at Charlie hebdu used assault rifles?
Norway has strict gun laws, Anders Breivik managed to cause a horrendous amount of damage?
What about the US states that have Open and Concealled Carry, where the rates of violent crime are LOWER than the violent crime in states with strict gun laws?

Why should a government have to use tax payers money to purchase firearms just to destroy them, I pay my taxes to go towards education, healthcare and other essentials, not just to essentially burn.



Yes this does create issues, the main one being, how to round up all the guns? An estimate back in 2007 suggested that Americans owned 48% of the 650m civilian owned guns worldwide, that’s 312m and over a decade later you would assume this number has gone up rather than down. So, clearly this would take a considerable amount of time, effort and money. Perhaps it’s even past the point of no return? Stopping the supply would gradually decrease the number I’m sure. An appeal for those to sell their guns to the government might drop that number further? Particularly in the states less associated with gun violence. The obvious problem would be the old ‘well if their not selling theirs, why should I?’ and that’s something I don’t have an answer to, as door to door house searches does seem a bit extreme. Confiscation if seen by the police?

You will never stop the US from selling guns, it’s too lucrative. It’s too much of a money maker. They are however, going after the ammunition supply and thus creating a frenzy buying of current stocks of ammunition.
The Americans don’t think like us, they don’t like big government. They don’t beleive in a government restricting their freedoms. Quite rightly so. Their entire constitution is built on mistrust of the tyrannical rule by the British government.

A government should be scared of its people, not the other way around.


On the subject of the police, I feel for this to work they would have to set an example and stop carrying sidearms. This move would prevent those cases of unnecessary police gun violence. However, I accept it would only take an instance or two of a newly unarmed police officer getting shot and we’d be right back where we started.

This is just plain silly. You are asking police to go unarmed into the streets? Where the people have more of a right to bear arms and defend themselves than the people employed by the government to uphold the law and defend those who can’t defend themselves?
You do realise that the British police are now coming forward in increased numbers stating they want to be armed. That’s an incredible attitude change for British cops.

Again, you are looking at this situation as a typical Brit.
There’s plenty of footage where the UK police swarm a guy with a knife and use numbers and shields to disarm him, the Americans cannot even begin to comprehend to that way of thinking. A Knife can kill. (Look at the 21ft rule) the use of lethal force against an attacker with a knife is completely justified.


If there is a need to blow off some steam by firing guns, then keep civilian gun ranges kept under close supervision (as I’m sure they already are). However, 2/3 of American gun owners say that the main reason for owning firearms is for personal protection, so essentially it’s a vicious cycle. If gun laws were made stricter and people were convinced there were less/no guns around would they be happy with the 2nd amendment getting repealed and getting rid of their guns?

There’s a few arguments in this statement. If they repeal the 2nd Amendment, then what’s stopping them appealing the 1st, and then they end up under tyrannical rule again without the ability to defend themselves. What’s stopping them repeal other acts to get an agenda through?
We already have people being arrested for Facebook status’ and practically “thought crime”. Which brings us to the whole freedom of speech argument.


There is already a huge selection of civilian firing ranges, qualifications and situations to use a variety of different shooting techniques.
It’s not a vicious cycle, what’s so wrong in having the ability to defend yourself and your family from those who don’t regard the law as highly as you.

Put it this way, gun laws only work for those who follow the laws.
You are forcing the weapons into the hands of the criminals and removing the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.


A different angle, as you seem to be an advocate for “gun free zones” . Everyone outside it, knows that whoever is inside it, is unarmed and an easy target.

I admit, getting 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states (as well as the majority of the public) to agree to this would be a serious challenge. The overriding point in my first post was, if 11 school shootings in 28 days can’t make them, what does it take? To me it just seems crazy that anyone can go and buy something as dangerous as a gun.

More people are killed each year per 100,000 in traffic accidents in the US, there’s an increase in terrorism with vehicles being used as weapons, shall we ban cars too?

Drugs are illegal, that’s worked aswell hasn’t it?

See my bold. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

It’s not quite as simple as “Guns = Bad, Ban all Guns”
 
Last edited:

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,449
Reaction score
14,125
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

My earlier reference to Darwinian selection stands. Arguably the citizens of the USA just aren't killing each other fast enough. It is amusing (in a twisted way) that the US government invests so many tax dollars to fight terrorism when the real threat to US citizens' lives comes from... other US citizens. :confused:

I'll admit that I can't summon the energy to research and cite credible statistics but it's also highly probable that more people are killed by cars in the USA than by firearms. Why not ban cars?
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,449
Reaction score
14,125
The second video clip's closing statement—something along the lines of 'citizens left defenceless by the laws meant to protect them'—is puzzling.
From a practical point of view I don't understand how the UK law pre-Thomas Hamilton in any way permitted legal owners of handguns to use those weapons in self defence.
 

Old Man

Ex-Matelot
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Posts
2,072
Reaction score
1,113
Obviously don’t pretend to have a perfect solution but with a 2/3 majority and 3/4 of the states agreeing, US Congress would be able to repeal the 2nd Amendenment of the Constitution. Between 1987 and 1996, Australia saw 4 mass shootings that led the government to passing stricter gun laws and they haven’t had one since. This change in gun laws saw the Australian government purchase and destroy 600,000 guns, a number that is tiny compared to the figure I give for American owned guns below I’ll admit, but it shows it can be done to some extent.

Yes this does create issues, the main one being, how to round up all the guns? An estimate back in 2007 suggested that Americans owned 48% of the 650m civilian owned guns worldwide, that’s 312m and over a decade later you would assume this number has gone up rather than down. So, clearly this would take a considerable amount of time, effort and money. Perhaps it’s even past the point of no return? Stopping the supply would gradually decrease the number I’m sure. An appeal for those to sell their guns to the government might drop that number further? Particularly in the states less associated with gun violence. The obvious problem would be the old ‘well if their not selling theirs, why should I?’ and that’s something I don’t have an answer to, as door to door house searches does seem a bit extreme. Confiscation if seen by the police?

On the subject of the police, I feel for this to work they would have to set an example and stop carrying sidearms. This move would prevent those cases of unnecessary police gun violence. However, I accept it would only take an instance or two of a newly unarmed police officer getting shot and we’d be right back where we started.

If there is a need to blow off some steam by firing guns, then keep civilian gun ranges kept under close supervision (as I’m sure they already are). However, 2/3 of American gun owners say that the main reason for owning firearms is for personal protection, so essentially it’s a vicious cycle. If gun laws were made stricter and people were convinced there were less/no guns around would they be happy with the 2nd amendment getting repealed and getting rid of their guns?

I admit, getting 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states (as well as the majority of the public) to agree to this would be a serious challenge. The overriding point in my first post was, if 11 school shootings in 28 days can’t make them, what does it take? To me it just seems crazy that anyone can go and buy something as dangerous as a gun.
Thanks for that. As you've already opposed your own arguments, I'll take it that you don't actually have a workable solution.

I don't either, by the way.
 

Old Man

Ex-Matelot
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Posts
2,072
Reaction score
1,113
My earlier reference to Darwinian selection stands. Arguably the citizens of the USA just aren't killing each other fast enough. It is amusing (in a twisted way) that the US government invests so many tax dollars to fight terrorism when the real threat to US citizens' lives comes from... other US citizens. :confused:

I'll admit that I can't summon the energy to research and cite credible statistics but it's also highly probable that more people are killed by cars in the USA than by firearms. Why not ban cars?
Ban people.
 

Fibonarchie

Venerated Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Posts
968
Reaction score
623
You could not ban US weapons. It could never safely happen. A few years ago, I was very much in favour of it - until I came across a phrase (TPA posted a link to the video not long ago in the funnies thread) “Law abiding criminals”.
This encapsulates the issue so well. The weapons are already there so if a criminal wants one, he can have one. We then cannot take away the law abiding citizen’s right to match his enemy in arsenal.

People often compare the US and the UK but it’s a different comparison. Within reason (hang fire before pointing me to Rover’s post) the access to firearms here is pretty difficult. Certainly outside of major/organised crime, one can be quite confident of not running into an assailant with a firearm. For this reason, there is little need to carry one for self defence, particularly given laws regarding reasonable response. I do not agree much with British weaponary law (though that’s for another thread) but keeping away firearms is something I largely support.
Not so in America. Since firearms are so widely available, one must allow ones citizens to be carrying at an equal level in order to defend themselves. I truly believe that the thing with carry states having lower numbers of shootings is because those who would be potential shooters know that there could be others with the same weapons around. Not because those weapons actually kill the attacker but because it levels the playing field. Would I fight Connor McGregor? No. Would I fight him if I had a stick and he didnt? Probably. Would I fight him if I had a stick and he might have a stick? Probably not.

A particularly interesting statistic, I discovered only a week or so ago is that Switzerland has very similar gun laws to America (bar some stuff with explosive/fully auto weapons) and still had the worlds lowest homicide rate. Maybe, as America is only a few hundred years old, it just hasnt matured enough for big boy guns and they need to stick with air soft. ;)

I don’t fully subscribe to “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” but there is certainly a societal attitude that needs to be taken into account - and it seems America is lacking somewhat.
 

ThreadpigeonsAlpha

Royal Marines Commando
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Posts
5,036
Reaction score
7,635
You could not ban US weapons. It could never safely happen. A few years ago, I was very much in favour of it - until I came across a phrase (TPA posted a link to the video not long ago in the funnies thread) “Law abiding criminals”.
This encapsulates the issue so well. The weapons are already there so if a criminal wants one, he can have one. We then cannot take away the law abiding citizen’s right to match his enemy in arsenal.

People often compare the US and the UK but it’s a different comparison. Within reason (hang fire before pointing me to Rover’s post) the access to firearms here is pretty difficult. Certainly outside of major/organised crime, one can be quite confident of not running into an assailant with a firearm. For this reason, there is little need to carry one for self defence, particularly given laws regarding reasonable response. I do not agree much with British weaponary law (though that’s for another thread) but keeping away firearms is something I largely support.
Not so in America. Since firearms are so widely available, one must allow ones citizens to be carrying at an equal level in order to defend themselves. I truly believe that the thing with carry states having lower numbers of shootings is because those who would be potential shooters know that there could be others with the same weapons around. Not because those weapons actually kill the attacker but because it levels the playing field. Would I fight Connor McGregor? No. Would I fight him if I had a stick and he didnt? Probably. Would I fight him if I had a stick and he might have a stick? Probably not.

A particularly interesting statistic, I discovered only a week or so ago is that Switzerland has very similar gun laws to America (bar some stuff with explosive/fully auto weapons) and still had the worlds lowest homicide rate. Maybe, as America is only a few hundred years old, it just hasnt matured enough for big boy guns and they need to stick with air soft. ;)

I don’t fully subscribe to “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” but there is certainly a societal attitude that needs to be taken into account - and it seems America is lacking somewhat.

Let’s expand on the criminals being armed. The likelihood of coming across an armed criminal in the UK, while small, is still a risk.
And it’s not the guy in tapout gear and cuts about thinking he’s the big yin, giving it billy big balls that scares me, it’s the 17 year old junkie with an addiction and a screwdriver out to make a reputation for himself.

Guns are an escalation of force, when a situation needs violence to solve it. This is a perfect example of self defence with a firearm. Backed away until he could no longer, then dealt with the threat.

You don’t need to wait for a situation to have another gun. An assailant could have a hammer, a knife, a rolling pin, a chain, a gun. A firearm can be the escalation(or de-escalation) depending how it’s used. It’s not just a case of knife for knife etc.
In the UK you cannot carry anything for the purpose of “self defence” if you just happen to have a torch to hand though and you grabbed it, it’s a different story.

But again it’s what you can stand up and justify to a jury. That’s where the difference of attitude will make a difference.

Americans use the same argument, “Weapons of war shouldn’t be used on the streets, then how come the police have X, Y, Z”
Surely we have an inherent right to defend ourselves and our families? Rather than a justice system that fails the victims, the law abiding citizen and arguably rewards criminals and blatant breaking of the law?

Again, the 2nd amendment has only really come to its form that we see today since the 1960s, as an aggressive response to social/cultural situations.

A gun requires a person to operate it. Without a person a gun is just an inanimate object.
 

Jaguar2187

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Posts
141
Reaction score
57
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was so that ordinary citizens could defend themselves against an opressive government if one came to power, by having armed militias. Now when the constitution was drafted, I can see how that might have made sense. But today, it's not as if ordinary US citizens grouped into militias would actually be able to oppose the goverment or the military by force. Which would beg the question, why is it still necessary?
Owning handguns, I can understand. But why any ordinary citizen would need an assault rifle or heavy machine gun I really dont know.
 
Top