Common Sense Gun Legislation

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Your actions speak louder than your words...


How many of those teachers know anything about proper and safe gun handling or storage? Let alone how to even use a firearm?

Again, this shows us who the real sheep and and who are the real sheepdogs.


But, yet again, this is a VOLUNTARY thing. Nobody is being forced to do it. If you have a problem with someone else wanting to be able to protect themselves and the kids they teach, you should probably find another job because you don't really care about those kids that much.

Caring about the kids and staff by getting them behind a bulletproof wall is the best strategy going forward as is evidenced by Alabama educators/government reps. and by the majority of teachers in that survey I posted who say arming teachers would make the schools less safe. Just keep ignoring best practices and keep calling everyone sheep as that seems to be what works for you.

and a few posts back you claimed that this was all a trial basis, now you know for sure what the best choice is. You really need to consider your position, then speak. Trying to figure out what you mean on the fly isn't helping.

I know the best choice is not only sending in armed teachers to handle a shooter . Common sense.

a reply to: quintessentone

When did anyone say that arming teachers was the only option? Show me exactly who and when it was said

Now you're just floundering.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

When did anyone say that arming teachers was the only option? Show me exactly who and when it was said

Now you're just floundering.

We discussed your article that no other strategies were mentioned in the Tennessee case whereas in the Alabama case they are brainstorming many preparedness strategies, while not choosing to arm their teachers.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Your actions speak louder than your words...


How many of those teachers know anything about proper and safe gun handling or storage? Let alone how to even use a firearm?

Again, this shows us who the real sheep and and who are the real sheepdogs.


But, yet again, this is a VOLUNTARY thing. Nobody is being forced to do it. If you have a problem with someone else wanting to be able to protect themselves and the kids they teach, you should probably find another job because you don't really care about those kids that much.

Caring about the kids and staff by getting them behind a bulletproof wall is the best strategy going forward as is evidenced by Alabama educators/government reps. and by the majority of teachers in that survey I posted who say arming teachers would make the schools less safe. Just keep ignoring best practices and keep calling everyone sheep as that seems to be what works for you.

and a few posts back you claimed that this was all a trial basis, now you know for sure what the best choice is. You really need to consider your position, then speak. Trying to figure out what you mean on the fly isn't helping.

I know the best choice is not only sending in armed teachers to handle a shooter . Common sense.

what data do you base that off of?

a reply to: quintessentone

So then you are stating that Tennessee has no other plans to provide safety for their students? That is a pretty big assumption from someone who knows nothing about Tennessee legislatures and what they have planned.

The only thing you have brought up in Alabama was the non "bulletproof wall" fantasy.

originally posted by: quintessentone


If Police can only hit their targets 18% of the time, what would that percentage be for teachers?

Firstly, you're ignoring the fact that even in a worst-case scenario where the good guy misses a bunch of shots and hits bystanders, it is still going to be a better for the shooter to be opposed and potentially stopped than it is for the shooter to be able to rampage unopposed.

Even if you ignore the rest of this, at least try to understand that point.

Secondly, that number is based on one study of one department and is almost 20 years old. You're one of our "follow the science" posters. You're familiar with the concept of a sample size, I imagine?

Thirdly, that argument is overly simplistic, for a couple of reasons.

1) Notice every gun grabber site you can find that study cited on, they won't ever mention how many of those missed shots hit a bystander. Because the number is very small.

2) When you get firearms training, you're not just taught to point and shoot. You are also taught other important concepts, especially in tactical training, like knowing your background.

You don't try to hit your target when there are other people in the line of fire. This is why the number of bystanders struck by missed shots is small.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: PorkChop96

If Police can only hit their targets 18% of the time, what would that percentage be for teachers?

The RAND Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm-Discharge Review Process found only 18 percent of shots fired by trained police officers in gunfights hit their criminal targets. This suggests four or five of every six shots fired by comparably trained teachers would hit something or someone other than the targeted shooter.[7] Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, wrote, "although the perpetrators of mass school shootings have been almost exclusively white, there's little doubt that arming teachers will lead disproportionately to the killing—by teachers—of children of color."[8]

In a 2019 national survey of 2,926 teachers, more than 95% did not believe teachers should carry a gun in the classroom,[26] and concerns raised by teachers include how to keep the gun secured in the classroom, with one asking, "If a kid reaches for my gun, am I to shoot them?".

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm glad there are smart people out there making the final decisions.

This is another example of why teachers should be armed.
The more armed and trained good guys with guns the better the chances of stopping and slowing down a shooting.
It’s another situation where you really can’t depend on police being there.
Even if they are there you could get an unlucky bunch of chickensh*t cops who run away or wait until the shooting stops. Parkland and Uvalde.

There are no rational and logical arguments against arming teachers.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Your actions speak louder than your words...


How many of those teachers know anything about proper and safe gun handling or storage? Let alone how to even use a firearm?

Again, this shows us who the real sheep and and who are the real sheepdogs.


But, yet again, this is a VOLUNTARY thing. Nobody is being forced to do it. If you have a problem with someone else wanting to be able to protect themselves and the kids they teach, you should probably find another job because you don't really care about those kids that much.

Caring about the kids and staff by getting them behind a bulletproof wall is the best strategy going forward as is evidenced by Alabama educators/government reps. and by the majority of teachers in that survey I posted who say arming teachers would make the schools less safe. Just keep ignoring best practices and keep calling everyone sheep as that seems to be what works for you.

and a few posts back you claimed that this was all a trial basis, now you know for sure what the best choice is. You really need to consider your position, then speak. Trying to figure out what you mean on the fly isn't helping.

I know the best choice is not only sending in armed teachers to handle a shooter . Common sense.

what data do you base that off of?

From PC's article from page 1:

The bill does not specifically require teachers to be armed or to use their weapons in such an active-shooter situation. It also bars the school from disclosing which of its employees are carrying guns beyond school administrators and police. This information would also be withheld from parents of students and other teachers.

Before its passage, the bill’s proponents argued teachers and faculty could serve as a more immediate response force to a shooting situation. They said it could be particularly helpful in rural counties with limited law enforcement resources.

"It’s time that we look at the facts of the bill, that we are not trying to shoot a student, but protect a student from an active shooter whose sole purpose is to get into that school and kill people," Republican Sen. Ken Yager said.

The proposal is now ready for a House floor vote.

This bill isn't even voted on yet.

But if arming teachers in the situation above, e.g. rural communities without effective law enforcement, then it's better than nothing but along with that comes additional problems, such as stakeholders not knowing who is carrying - that's f##d up. Throw in these gun carrying teachers getting an okay from a psychiatrist then sure if that is the only choice, but other preparedness strategies need to be put in place first and not rely solely on an armed teacher saving the day.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

Secondly, that number is based on one study of one department and is almost 20 years old. You're one of our "follow the science" posters. You're familiar with the concept of a sample size, I imagine?

My mistake. It's 26 years old, published in 1998.

a reply to: quintessentone

Again, there is nowhere in this article that says this is the only thing they are looking in to.

This is the one at the forefront to combat those that seek to hurt the kids we place in public schools.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Again, there is nowhere in this article that says this is the only thing they are looking in to.

This is the one at the forefront to combat those that seek to hurt the kids we place in public schools.

And there is nowhere in the article that says that any other measures are being looked at, so this is my whole beef here. Put in place those preparedness strategies first that have a greater probability of saving lives than sending in an armed teacher without proper mental/strategic military training, unless it's in a rural community where they basically have no protection resources, then it's better than nothing.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Again, there is nowhere in this article that says this is the only thing they are looking in to.

This is the one at the forefront to combat those that seek to hurt the kids we place in public schools.

It's funny that they're all about physical security measures now.

Parkland had a security expert evaluate their school's physical security the year before that shooting. He made a plethora of recommendations for how they could improve their security. Some of them were cheap to implement. Some of them were simple procedural changes that they could implement immediately.

They did nothing.

Anything that doesn't involve limiting gun rights, gun grabbers aren't interested.

originally posted by: quintessentone
The corner bulletproof and storm proof walls are activated in 10 seconds.

And my 45 1911 responds at 830 feet per second. There is no debate.

originally posted by: MrGashler

originally posted by: quintessentone
The corner bulletproof and storm proof walls are activated in 10 seconds.

And my 45 1911 responds at 830 feet per second. There is no debate.

Alabama officials, the majority of teachers and many parents would disagree with you on that one.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Again, there is nowhere in this article that says this is the only thing they are looking in to.

This is the one at the forefront to combat those that seek to hurt the kids we place in public schools.

It's funny that they're all about physical security measures now.

Parkland had a security expert evaluate their school's physical security the year before that shooting. He made a plethora of recommendations for how they could improve their security. Some of them were cheap to implement. Some of them were simple procedural changes that they could implement immediately.

They did nothing.

Anything that doesn't involve limiting gun rights, gun grabbers aren't interested.

That parkland shooter was also on the FBI radar.
Previously to that he had been basically coddled and left to his own deeds by the school itself who was too scared of running afoul of Obama’s policy to not prosecute these specific criminal kids.
Barry’s school to prison pipeline program has single handedly cost many kids their lives.

a reply to: quintessentone

You are a broken record bud

You can't put anything and everything into one bill, they chose the option they saw as the greatest asset to the schooss to focus on and will go from there.

Cops don't get mental/strategic military training, why do we let them carry guns?

You are choosing to ignore fact to live in your fantasy world that a "bullet proof wall"(that doesn't exist) will save these kids. The thing that is going to save these kids is the shooter not making it to classrooms, and how do we accomplish that? Arm the people working at the schools.

What a wild concept, put a gun between the student and a threat and the student no longer has to worry about the threat.

But I guess we are using too much common sense for certian people in this thread to understand

a reply to: quintessentone

7% of 1% is not a majority, you need to go back to elementary school and learn basic math bud

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

7% of 1% is not a majority, you need to go back to elementary school and learn basic math bud

The study I posted above has the numbers, read it.

originally posted by: quintessentone
Put in place those preparedness strategies first that have a greater probability of saving lives than sending in an armed teacher without proper mental/strategic military training..........

You have no data to back up the claim that these methods have a greater probability of saving lives than arming teachers. That is pure conjecture.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

You are a broken record bud

You can't put anything and everything into one bill, they chose the option they saw as the greatest asset to the schooss to focus on and will go from there.

Cops don't get mental/strategic military training, why do we let them carry guns?

You are choosing to ignore fact to live in your fantasy world that a "bullet proof wall"(that doesn't exist) will save these kids. The thing that is going to save these kids is the shooter not making it to classrooms, and how do we accomplish that? Arm the people working at the schools.

What a wild concept, put a gun between the student and a threat and the student no longer has to worry about the threat.

But I guess we are using too much common sense for certian people in this thread to understand

You are a broken record too bud. Nothing changes here.