Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (2 Viewers)

[Chris Craig]

Yeah, I worked at a small private Montessori school. I was one of two males in the whole school. Guess which two staff members would have been likely tagged with getting that extra training? Nobody there wanted a gun in the classroom. We had a kid once accidentally stab gimself with an epi pen. Imagine if there were a gun in the cabinet? And you sure as hell couldn't reliably have it on your person with how grabby little 3 year olds are.

Exactly.

Yeah, I imagine teachers having them in locked desk drawers. That wouldn't turn out well.

And yeah 3 -5 year olds are grabby. They like to look at my key chain and badge lanyard. I get what you are saying.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yeah, I worked at a small private Montessori school. I was one of two males in the whole school. Guess which two staff members would have been likely tagged with getting that extra training? Nobody there wanted a gun in the classroom. We had a kid once accidentally stab gimself with an epi pen. Imagine if there were a gun in the cabinet? And you sure as hell couldn't reliably have it on your person with how grabby little 3 year olds are.

Understood. But nobody has proposed any teacher being forced into anything.

And my wife carries for self defense. Many women do.

And a 3 year old can't fire or grab a responsibly concealed firearm... Any time you have heard about that happening with somebody under 10 those parents should probably be banned from owning Firearms.

 

[RR7]

Understood. But nobody has proposed any teacher being forced into anything.

And my wife carries for self defense. Many women do.

And a 3 year old can't fire or grab a responsibly concealed firearm... Any time you have heard about that happening with somebody under 10 those parents should probably be banned from owning Firearms.

I'm not saying its a female thing. I say it knowing and talking to the women I worked with.

And I don't know why you want to infringe on those parents 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Chris Craig]

Understood. But nobody has proposed any teacher being forced into anything.

And my wife carries for self defense. Many women do.

And a 3 year old can't fire or grab a responsibly concealed firearm... Any time you have heard about that happening with somebody under 10 those parents should probably be banned from owning Firearms.

A small amount of teachers might be willing or want to do that. Yes, some of them would be women.

Yeah, but I would never want to even have a gun around them in the first place. I couldn't see doing that.

 

[Chris Craig]

I'm not saying its a female thing. I say it knowing and talking to the women I worked with.

That's where I thought you were coming from and that's where I was coming from.

 

[Phatguysrule]

So only some classes are safe then?

The whole school would be that much safer.

If that teacher were given the choice we could have maybe had 11 children saved...

Maybe more. Depending on how many victims there were afterward.

 

[RR7]

The whole school would be that much safer.

If that teacher were given the choice we could have maybe had 11 children saved...

Maybe more. Depending on how many victims there were afterward.

We've already had 2 school shootings happen where there was an armed officer on campus. Having guns in place didn't save those kids.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

The whole school would be that much safer.

If that teacher were given the choice we could have maybe had 11 children saved...

Maybe more. Depending on how many victims there were afterward.

Even saving one child would be worth it but i have to agree that putting more guns in schools could go very very wrong quickly.

 

[Chris Craig]

The whole school would be that much safer.

If that teacher were given the choice we could have maybe had 11 children saved...

Maybe more. Depending on how many victims there were afterward.

You can't assume he wanted to carry a gun.

But, sure if he did maybe. Sounds like the guy sneak attacked him coming from the other room rather than the hall. Not sure if he would have got shots off. Maybe.

 

[Chris Craig]

We've already had 2 school shootings happen where there was an armed officer on campus. Having guns in place didn't save those kids.

True

Two recent ones. If you go back. Many school shootings had school officers that were armed and it didn't matter a lick.

 

[barfo]

But I'd be willing to bet right now any one of those would pass.

Well, we can wait and see. When any of those things passes, please post here and I will happily agree you were right.

But until and unless that happens... I'm going to continue to think you are wrong.

Defund what? The work on the buildings would be done.

No. Republicans are likely to hold the purse strings by January. Even if they wrote a bill and passed it tomorrow (which you know isn't the way things work) there's no way every school, or even 0.1% of schools, would be completed by January.

Defund Mental Healthcare? That just hurts Republicans...

True, Republicans are mentally ill. But they don't realize it, so they are happy voting against their self-interest.

Are you suggesting just "thoughts and prayers" then?

Nope. I'm saying it's going to a long, multi-decade fight. One that is worth having.

Or are you just looking for a fight?

I was there at Mt Tabor at dawn... You stood me up...

No. I was there, you looked scared, so I took pity on you and didn't engage.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I'm not saying its a female thing. I say it knowing and talking to the women I worked with.

Yeah, I didn't think you intended to insult women.

And I don't know why you want to infringe on those parents 2nd amendment rights.

I don't know why you're making this argument, since I've already said literally dozens of times that people who are deemed to be dangerous should be banned from owning guns.

Kids that young can't load most guns. If adults are keeping guns cocked locked and ready to rock around young kids they are not safe and should be punished.

Accidents do happen while target shooting, etc, and that's why I support an appeals court to protect due process.

 

[RR7]

Yeah, I didn't think you intended to insult women.


I don't know why you're making this argument, since I've already said literally dozens of times that people who are deemed to be dangerous should be banned from owning guns.

Kids that young can't load most guns. If adults are keeping guns cocked locked and ready to rock around young kids they are not safe and should be punished.

Accidents do happen at while target shooting, etc, and that's why I support an appeals court to protect due process.

But to your earlier arguments, banning those people from guns will not matter, because there are 400 million in thr country, or they could just 3d print one at home for cheap. So what good is that law?

 

[Phatguysrule]

We've already had 2 school shootings happen where there was an armed officer on campus. Having guns in place didn't save those kids.

The whole point here is that teachers can't count on being saved, so we shouldn't be restricting their rights to defend themselves.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/do-armed-school-police-officers-prevent-shootings/

Armed campus police do not prevent school shootings, research shows
Multiple studies have found no association between the presence of armed officers in schools and the deterrence of violence.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has blamed others for politicizing the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, to advance discussions about gun access.

To Cruz, the answer is simpler.

“We know from past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus,” Cruz said in Washington on May 24, just hours after the shooting, before many details were known.
“Inevitably when there’s a murder of this kind, you see politicians try to politicize it, you see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn’t work. It’s not effective. It doesn’t prevent crime.”

And there is more-

"A 2021 study conducted by researchers from University at Albany and RAND examined data from U.S. schools between 2014 to 2018 to evaluate the impact of school resource officers. It found that school resource officers “do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools, but do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.”

In addition, that study found that school resource officers appear to protect students from “a non-trivial number of physical attacks and fights within schools,” which could have long-term academic and psychological benefits for students. But schools with resource officers also report more suspensions, expulsions, police referrals and student arrests — and those harsher disciplinary punishments disproportionately fall on Black students, male students and students with disabilities.

Is it true that we know from “past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus”?"



No.

Whether it’s anecdotal evidence or broad-based research, there is little to support Cruz’s claim. Let’s start with what happened in Uvalde, Texas.

I just don't think it's wise at all to put more guns in schools and from some of these studies it seems they simply don't help much.

 

[THE HCP]

I pray nobody on here's child has to smear the blood of their dead friends laying next to them on themselves to pretend to be dead.

 

[Chris Craig]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-assault-weapons-ban-1994-193107345.html

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

Before the 1994 ban:

From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.

Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.

During the 1994-2004 ban:

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.


Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2005 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

Saving hundreds of lives
We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.

Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.

 

[Phatguysrule]

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/do-armed-school-police-officers-prevent-shootings/

Armed campus police do not prevent school shootings, research shows
Multiple studies have found no association between the presence of armed officers in schools and the deterrence of violence.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has blamed others for politicizing the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, to advance discussions about gun access.

To Cruz, the answer is simpler.

“We know from past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus,” Cruz said in Washington on May 24, just hours after the shooting, before many details were known.
“Inevitably when there’s a murder of this kind, you see politicians try to politicize it, you see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn’t work. It’s not effective. It doesn’t prevent crime.”

And there is more-

"A 2021 study conducted by researchers from University at Albany and RAND examined data from U.S. schools between 2014 to 2018 to evaluate the impact of school resource officers. It found that school resource officers “do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools, but do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.”

In addition, that study found that school resource officers appear to protect students from “a non-trivial number of physical attacks and fights within schools,” which could have long-term academic and psychological benefits for students. But schools with resource officers also report more suspensions, expulsions, police referrals and student arrests — and those harsher disciplinary punishments disproportionately fall on Black students, male students and students with disabilities.

Is it true that we know from “past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus”?"



No.

Whether it’s anecdotal evidence or broad-based research, there is little to support Cruz’s claim. Let’s start with what happened in Uvalde, Texas.

I just don't think it's wise at all to put more guns in schools and from some of these studies it seems they simply don't help much.

I haven't seen any studies showing guns carried by licensed and trained individuals is harmful...

I get that police (and security) aren't properly trained with education in mind, but has there been any problem with these people losing control of their guns or kids getting them?

 

[Chris Craig]

I haven't seen any studies showing a guns carried by licensed and trained individuals is harmful? I get that police aren't properly trained with education in mind, but has there been any problem with these people losing control of their guns or kids getting them?

He's a cop. No one is trying to take a cops gun at school. A school full of armed teachers though, eventually it will happen.

 

[crandc]

The one thing that teacher did not say was he wished he had a gun.
Republican Congressman Biggs is outraged that a young girl testified, with her parents' consent.
Governor Abbott has called special legislative sessions to outlaw abortion, twice, ban transgender people from public spaces, ban teaching anything that makes white people uncomfortable, refuses to call special session on gun violence.

 

[Phatguysrule]

He's a cop. No one is trying to take a cops gun at school. A school full of armed teachers though, eventually it will happen.

I don't think we'll have schools full of teachers carrying guns.

In fact, schools could limit the number to only those who do best on the tests. Or a certain number per day. They could consult with a government professional on the best way to defend the school, so they have a plan in place. They could update that plan every year.

But they would be teachers. Highly educated people concerned about self defense. Not just somebody who took the easiest job they could find that paid a bit over minimum wage.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Most teachers aren't convinced. A 2018 Gallup poll found that 73% of American teachers did not want to carry guns in school.

Awesome. They shouldn't have to. But 27% who responded do want to. And that's a lot of highly educated people.

Jason Winder has been teaching high school history for five years in Uintah County, Utah. He carries a concealed firearm at school, which is legal in the state.

"It's not about being a hero, and it's not about seeking out an active shooter," Winder said. "It's about giving me the best tools to keep my students and myself safe. I can't speak for everyone, but a firearm in my hand will be a lot more effective at stopping someone trying to harm my kids than us hiding in a corner."

But some educators want an extra line of defense. Angelica Garcia works at schools in Saginaw County, Michigan. Teachers aren't allowed to carry guns, but she wishes she could.

"Last week showed us again that teachers can't rely on others to save us and our students in a threatening situation," she said. "No one came to the aid of those students or teachers."

At the very least, Garcia says, schools should have more nonteaching personnel armed and ready to intervene during an emergency. But, she adds, teachers who volunteer to be trained and to carry a gun would ideally be present in every wing of the school.

"You need them nearby to prevent the loss of life," she said. "I care about my students like they are my own children. If need be, I want to protect them, not just to sit there with a stapler in my hand like a sitting duck."

Other teachers say the focus should be on diagnosing mental illness and/or keeping school buildings secure.

 

[crandc]

When someone stood armed outside Kavanaugh's home, Moscow Mitch demanded Congress pass special protection for Supremacist Court justices today. Children not so much.
Senator Ron Johnson said Senate should not pass gun legislation because of Hunter Biden's laptop. Apparently Hunter's laptop entered a school and killed 19 people.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[Phatguysrule]

The military never used the AR15. In 1959 ArmaLite sold the design for the m16 to Colt, who marketed it to the military. After that, Colt released a semiautomatic design they called the AR15, and marketed it for civilians.

In the 70s Colt's patent expired on the AR15 and other manufacturers started selling them as well.

 

[THE HCP]

I hope nobody in here's kids were innocently slaughtered today while at school.

 

[HailBlazers]

I hope nobody in here's kids were innocently slaughtered today while at school.

Or overdosed from fentanyl while leanin with their friends.

 

[Chris Craig]

Or overdosed from fentanyl while leanin with their friends.

What happened to smoking some weed

 

[THE HCP]

Or overdosed from fentanyl while leanin with their friends.

Not sure what this means?

 

[Phatguysrule]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-assault-weapons-ban-1994-193107345.html

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

Before the 1994 ban:

From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.

Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.

During the 1994-2004 ban:

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.


Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2005 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

Saving hundreds of lives
We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.

Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.

Hundreds of thousands of Ar15s per year were sold throughout the "assault weapons ban"...
There was no ban on selling them. Just selling them with a flash suppressor, the telescoping stock, or bayonet lug.

That's why no study can actually show a causual relationship between the ban and any reductions in violent crime or murder rates. Or really even mass shootings.



We're spending all of this time and effort, not focusing on things like climate change, pollution, erosion, healthcare, etc... Literally costing millions of lives per year.

And we're focusing on possibly saving 12 lives per year from 1981 to 2017.

And when the ar15 of some configuration FINALLY is banned and there is no reduction in mass shootings we'll start the whole thing all over again.

This does not seem rational.