[Maru]

Yeeeah....

BREAKING: CNN Reports FOUR Broward County Deputies Waited Outside School As Children Were Massacred
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27523...es-ben-shapiro

Quoted @ CNN

When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

I posted another thread, there's some documentation going around that are obviously only rumors at this point, but apparently some of the media are looking into it. Supposedly Broward County Sheriff's Office had a policy to not arrest students (they had a specific quota), so that the school district got federal grant money for improving their stats.

It's apparently so rampant now that school police are not only in on the scheme, it's an open secret with criminals and gangs that they can use high school students to commit their worst stuff at certain times of the month... because they know it is almost guaranteed they won't arrest them.

Whatever their policy is, something isn't adding up about their response to all this.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Marches

Like ffs this forum is full of leftist ideal world escapist idiots that are trying to propose ideas that only work in the ideal world they created I can’t deal with this anymore

Take a chill pill and stop calling forum members idiots.
This is a discussion, not a council of war to save the world. Trump is not waiting to action our ideas.

[Ammi]

...if teachers were to be armed, they wouldn’t be just armed to protect...they would be armed to attack also...equally as much as a student would...a teacher could just as easily use a weapon against students or a colleague/parent etc..it’s just the dumbest of thought processes to add more weapons to an overused weapon system, that isn’t a ‘fix’ at all...and from the recent stories of there being more armed sheriffs outside who didn’t ‘act’...?...they were armed so it isn’t about the arming of and carrying of guns being the issue...it makes me wonder if the gun freedom in America is such now, that even trained officers are ‘reluctant’...that it’s all got to a situation where it’s deterring them from doing their jobs out of fear...or in some cases, the opposite...of over reactions from some, when firing an arm can be done to readily before assessments seem to have been made and where life could have possibly been preserved...so extremes could be starting to unfold and be created etc through a system/..a way of life which is just quite crazy...gun crazy...

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

That's not what I'm asking and it's also a guess on your part. I'd like to know their actual opinions on the proposal

Nearly every teacher I've talked to thinks the idea of having armed teachers in the classroom is insanely absurd and would cause them to quit the profession

[bitontheslide]

The other disadvantage to arming teachers is that then provides a ready supply of weapons within the school and that is sure to be abused by students, so it could easily put students at even greater risk. It would have to be armed guards or police.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

Nearly every teacher I've talked to thinks the idea of having armed teachers in the classroom is insanely absurd and would cause them to quit the profession

...it would be the same in any profession, wouldn’t it Macie...yeah, I’ll give you the waiter../..waitressing job, just carry this gun under the tray at all times in case of crazy customers who might open fire on you at any moment...yes ok, that sounds all very reasonable to me, I feel quite safe and assured now, how very thoughtful...well don’t thank me, thank Mr Trump...

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The other disadvantage to arming teachers is that then provides a ready supply of weapons within the school and that is sure to be abused by students, so it could easily put students at even greater risk. It would have to be armed guards or police.

..there were armed people present outside who didn’t act..so I don’t think ‘arming’ is the solution, whatever official role that person has...

[Ammi]

..guns have bred guns, have bred guns, have bred guns, have bred guns..and now the guns are killing the children......America learn and remove the guns.../...tighten control, don’t breed more guns...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The whole thing is like some black mirror episode... it's just so bizarre I'm just waiting everyday for the next crazy thing to happen :/

it actually is

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

Nearly every teacher I've talked to thinks the idea of having armed teachers in the classroom is insanely absurd and would cause them to quit the profession

That's not at all surprising, such a ridiculous idea

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

That's not at all surprising, such a ridiculous idea

It's going to get to a stage where America will be like a crazy apocalyptic place where every citizen , including kids carries a weapon of their choice from guns to knives you name it anything they can get their hands on .

It will be every man for themselves like the world is going to end , people will justify bashing someone's brain out as "self defense" .utter carnage !! . Schools are suppose to feel safe for students ,but if teachers carry guns then it's going to make kids feel uneasy .

[lime]

Originally Posted by Maru

Yeeeah....

BREAKING: CNN Reports FOUR Broward County Deputies Waited Outside School As Children Were Massacred
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27523...es-ben-shapiro

Quoted @ CNN



I posted another thread, there's some documentation going around that are obviously only rumors at this point, but apparently some of the media are looking into it. Supposedly Broward County Sheriff's Office had a policy to not arrest students (they had a specific quota), so that the school district got federal grant money for improving their stats.

It's apparently so rampant now that school police are not only in on the scheme, it's an open secret with criminals and gangs that they can use high school students to commit their worst stuff at certain times of the month... because they know it is almost guaranteed they won't arrest them.

Whatever their policy is, something isn't adding up about their response to all this.

You Know what Maru..you come across as a loving parent.I come from Africa so I know the importance of having a weapon...but your post that I have quoted comes across to me and many globaly as blame anyone but the gun laws....there is something wrong in America right now.....why must citizenes be militrised

[Maru]

Originally Posted by lime

You Know what Maru..you come across as a loving parent.I come from Africa so I know the importance of having a weapon...but your post that I have quoted comes across to me and many globaly as blame anyone but the gun laws....there is something wrong in America right now.....why must citizenes be militrised

I do think the gun laws need major improvement, for example, private sale should be handled through an intermediary so background checks are done. That is a major and often undiscussed loophole. It wouldn't have helped in Parkland though as it was an institutional failure, which is another issue. (edit)

For all the leaks and failures, the rallying cry seems to think the only solution is ban things and run and hide in a corner. Most by folk who have either never owned or are being quite judgemental (which is understandable) so they don't understand that most of the laws they've asked for are either already a law, using false terms or what they're asking is actually a full ban using theur logic... (edit) this is where advocates start to poo poo the stuff being said.. most ppl here want gun laws improved... just not the type the media outcry would have you think would be most effective (thats why some think their agenda is really to push for a total ban)

I do not want schools to give teachers the JOB of protecting the students. However, if a teacher already has a carry permit, then I'm open to them being able to bring it on campus as long as the holster is secure and they've passed background. I don't think it should be allowed across the board as one size fits all because that is assinine. It is legal here already but it should be up to the school to ban, etc if they don't want them on their campus like it is with local businesses...

There is no one size fits solution to this though. That's just too idealistic.

[Maru]

Wow

[lime]

Originally Posted by Maru

I do think the gun laws need major improvement, for example, private sale should be handled through an intermediary so background checks are done. That is a major and often undiscussed loophole. It wouldn't have helped in Parkland though as it was an institutional failure, which is another issue. (edit)

For all the leaks and failures, the rallying cry seems to think the only solution is ban things and run and hide in a corner. Most by folk who have either never owned or are being quite judgemental (which is understandable) so they don't understand that most of the laws they've asked for are either already a law, using false terms or what they're asking is actually a full ban using theur logic... (edit) this is where advocates start to poo poo the stuff being said.. most ppl here want gun laws improved... just not the type the media outcry would have you think would be most effective (thats why some think their agenda is really to push for a total ban)
I do not want schools to give teachers the JOB of protecting the students. However, if a teacher already has a carry permit, then I'm open to them being able to bring it on campus as long as the holster is secure and they've passed background. I don't think it should be allowed across the board as one size fits all because that is assinine. It is legal here already but it should be up to the school to ban, etc if they don't want them on their campus like it is with local businesses...

There is no one size fits solution to this though. That's just too idealistic.

I maru like many others have no plan to ban Americans from holding weapons..what is bizare to to us is the need to hold a Auto or a semi Auto weapon..they are military weapons

[Maru]

Originally Posted by lime

I maru like many others have no plan to ban Americans from holding weapons..what is bizare to to us is the need to hold a Auto or a semi Auto weapon..they are military weapons

Fully automatic weapons are already banned and have been since the 80's. Semi-auto are most handguns... all it is means is that you don't have to rack the weapon to fire another shot. It has nothing to do with being a "military" style weapon...

[Twosugars]

But why do Americans need guns in the first place? At what point, for an average civilian, is a gun necessary to lead their lives?

The argument that the country was founded on guns? That was back then and now is now. Back then they had native Americans to kill to steal their land. What's the excuse now?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

But why do Americans need guns in the first place? At what point, for an average civilian, is a gun necessary to lead their lives?

The argument that the country was founded on guns? That was back then and now is now. Back then they had native Americans to kill to steal their land. What's the excuse now?

It comes down to our founding philosophy.

The overarching ideal is not just about guns or even tyranny. 2A itself is about self-preservation (that could also mean feeding yourself) as much as it is linking to our founding desire to be independent of the state and hold the most power over the state. This means we are freer as individuals, but on the other hand, we are solely responsible for our way in life and consequences as individiauls. Because we are sovereign and therefore there isn't as high of a dependence on govt... so theoretically, it wouldn't need to grow any larger than is fundamentally necessary for society to function. This is where conservative ideals largely are based upon, this founding philosophy of individualism.

If we are dependent on ourselves for protection for example, then we don't need police the same way as we would need them in areas where there are stricter gun control. But in general, the idea is that more power (not necessarily defense capabilities) stays with the people, and less with the govt... 2A was put there to ensure that we wouldn't be lulled into a false sense of security again as a safeguard... like we were during the revolution. Many of the people in colonies wanted to pursue a new quality of life, one they crafted themselves, 100% on their own terms, to be completely free to make their own choices... and so the idea was that they did not want a big brother to be involved in how they conduct their business, thus has shaped our independent spirit as a nation.

For example, in states that have very strict gun laws, they tend to have a militarized police force, more laws, more regulations to accommodate. As they are more reliant on the state for those needs, their encroachment and footprint into daily life is much more palpable, their taxes are much higher, and their rights are fewer. And that tends to extend beyond security... it tends to lead to govt dominating other facets of life as well. (edit)

But many people here feel we should only be accountable for ourselves. We don't need a govt or other people to come in and tell us how to conduct our business. That's the concept of protecting the "good guys"... that just because there are a few bad guys, doesn't mean we want our rights to be removed. We can and should self-manage, as we had since founding and it's shaped our culture to be stronger as a result. So certain segments of govt growing too large or interfering in our lives is highly controversial as it contradicts basically the foundation of our traditions. Yes, there's a rise in certain crime as a result of this higher responsibility on the public, as we see more gun crime to some degree, more poverty due to being responsible for our own choices, etc... but there is no systemic failure if there is no overarching system in place there to help "manage" everything ... that's why these ideals are so contentious and controversial throughout public discourse... it's just people have forgotten why we have the rights we do or aren't being taught the significance of certain history (yay ****ty education) beyond "guns go bang" "so what if I don't like guns that go bang?", etc

Our constitution was never meant for this pseudo-socialist, 200 page bills, huge govt mess. That's why our system is so broken and people are so frustrated. It's also why some people are hanging onto the 2A and will never allow it to be repealed. There are a lot of us who maybe own one home defense weapon and are strongly pro-2A... just because we love our country how it was, we don't want this abomination it's become...

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Maru

It comes down to our founding philosophy.

The overarching ideal is not just about guns or even tyranny. 2A itself is about self-preservation (that could also mean feeding yourself) as much as it is linking to our founding desire to be independent of the state and hold the most power over the state. This means we are freer as individuals, but on the other hand, we are solely responsible for our way in life and consequences as individiauls. Because we are sovereign and therefore there isn't as high of a dependence on govt... so theoretically, it wouldn't need to grow any larger than is fundamentally necessary for society to function. This is where conservative ideals largely are based upon, this founding philosophy of individualism.

If we are dependent on ourselves for protection for example, then we don't need police the same way as we would need them in areas where there are stricter gun control. But in general, the idea is that more power (not necessarily defense capabilities) stays with the people, and less with the govt... 2A was put there to ensure that we wouldn't be lulled into a false sense of security again as a safeguard... like we were during the revolution. Many of the people in colonies wanted to pursue a new quality of life, one they crafted themselves, 100% on their own terms, to be completely free to make their own choices... and so the idea was that they did not want a big brother to be involved in how they conduct their business, thus has shaped our independent spirit as a nation.

For example, in states that have very strict gun laws, they tend to have a militarized police force, more laws, more regulations to accommodate. As they are more reliant on the state for those needs, their encroachment and footprint into daily life is much more palpable, their taxes are much higher, and their rights are fewer. And that tends to extend beyond security... it tends to lead to govt dominating other facets of life as well. (edit)

But many people here feel we should only be accountable for ourselves. We don't need a govt or other people to come in and tell us how to conduct our business. That's the concept of protecting the "good guys"... that just because there are a few bad guys, doesn't mean we want our rights to be removed. We can and should self-manage, as we had since founding and it's shaped our culture to be stronger as a result. So certain segments of govt growing too large or interfering in our lives is highly controversial as it contradicts basically the foundation of our traditions. Yes, there's a rise in certain crime as a result of this higher responsibility on the public, as we see more gun crime to some degree, more poverty due to being responsible for our own choices, etc... but there is no systemic failure if there is no overarching system in place there to help "manage" everything ... that's why these ideals are so contentious and controversial throughout public discourse... it's just people have forgotten why we have the rights we do or aren't being taught the significance of certain history (yay ****ty education) beyond "guns go bang" "so what if I don't like guns that go bang?", etc

Our constitution was never meant for this pseudo-socialist, 200 page bills, huge govt mess. That's why our system is so broken and people are so frustrated. It's also why some people are hanging onto the 2A and will never allow it to be repealed. There are a lot of us who maybe own one home defense weapon and are strongly pro-2A... just because we love our country how it was, we don't want this abomination it's become...

Thank you for the background, very interesting.
My original post was really rhetorical. I would not expect guns to be banned in America. Guns are ingrained in American culture and psyche.
I didn't know though that philosophical justification for A2 went beyond shooting natives and feeding yourself. Interesting.
As you say, in practice it hasn't worked too well. The government has slowly crept into people's lives anyway. So maybe it is time to rethink the issue?
Also, as I see it, police in US is not used much less as a result of self-defence capabilities of citizens than it is the case in Europe where citizens are unarmed.
I get the lofty ideals, but does it really work in practice?
I get that Americans are big on individualism, but surely, for a social species like us, a healthy mix of individualism and collectivism is the best solution?
Sure, too much collectivism gives you communism, but American model of individualism seems like a step too far in the other direction.

[The Slim Reaper]

Are you a libertarian Maru?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Thank you for the background, very interesting.
My original post was really rhetorical. I would not expect guns to be banned in America. Guns are ingrained in American culture and psyche.
I didn't know though that philosophical justification for A2 went beyond shooting natives and feeding yourself. Interesting.
As you say, in practice it hasn't worked too well. The government has slowly crept into people's lives anyway. So maybe it is time to rethink the issue?
Also, as I see it, police in US is not used much less as a result of self-defence capabilities of citizens than it is the case in Europe where citizens are unarmed.
I get the lofty ideals, but does it really work in practice?
I get that Americans are big on individualism, but surely, for a social species like us, a healthy mix of individualism and collectivism is the best solution?
Sure, too much collectivism gives you communism, but American model of individualism seems like a step too far in the other direction.

I wouldn't advise you take that at face value.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Thank you for the background, very interesting.
My original post was really rhetorical. I would not expect guns to be banned in America. Guns are ingrained in American culture and psyche.
I didn't know though that philosophical justification for A2 went beyond shooting natives and feeding yourself. Interesting.
As you say, in practice it hasn't worked too well. The government has slowly crept into people's lives anyway. So maybe it is time to rethink the issue?
Also, as I see it, police in US is not used much less as a result of self-defence capabilities of citizens than it is the case in Europe where citizens are unarmed.
I get the lofty ideals, but does it really work in practice?
I get that Americans are big on individualism, but surely, for a social species like us, a healthy mix of individualism and collectivism is the best solution?
Sure, too much collectivism gives you communism, but American model of individualism seems like a step too far in the other direction.

I think I would hit the post data character max in the forum database if I were to answer all those questions in a single post. Or maybe just the soft limit.

Indeed, it's a complex issue, and there is already encroachment. And some is desirable. However, for the most part, that's on a state-by-state basis. That's why Republicans have such a hard on for "let states decide their own laws" rather than allow for expansion of federal regulations, etc...

There's not many as federal (national) laws that govern our behavior actually as some would think. I would say the biggest encroachment is our social programs, but I think most people are OK with some degree of socialism (like disability, temporary welfare). Some states have more socialism than others, and that's fine. It's when we start getting into bigger policy discussions of how we regulate things up to the federal level... Democrats would tend to lean towards enlarging the overall state as an answer to solve problems. Republicans, the opposite, they try to keep it local. Texas is probably a good model for the "ideal" form of governing, because our economy is for the most part self-sustaining and so that model would be more feasible. While our property and sales tax is kind higher, our cost of living is not and we don't have an income tax. We also have a healthy amount of import/export... we are one of the few states that could probably secede and be fine... as long as we take care of our own problems, like flooding, wildfires, etc. Our economy did OK despite the recession. (and yes oil is part of that, but we tend to be big in energy in general)

I don't mind if we have some federal laws as an "interface" (i.e. require states to write some penal code). For example, we have severe and separate punishments for people who are caught drunk driving. (big no no here). There is no CAP laws (Child Access Prevention) federally so it would require states have a law on the books and not all do... and it may be because some states have so small of a population, the laws are possibly more localized (by town)... however, it's not like if a child harms themselves with a gun, there isn't a charge. (Negligent Homocide) But I would not be surprised if some homeowners think that wrongly keeping an arm that even has a remote possibility of falling into a child's hands is legal, and I think that there should be explicit legislature, or at least guidance to create these statutes... and to some degree, it is technically legal, until the child accidentally gets a hold of it and hurts themselves anyway... which seems to add to the issue of morons hiding guns in places where kids have access to. (I'd lose my sh*t if my husband did that or I saw a friend had a gun laying around in their home)

I am also a huge proponent for red flag laws and hope something like this eventually makes it's way to legislature...

Trump Weighs ‘Red Flag’ Orders to Take Guns Away Quickly
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...curb-shootings

[Tozzie]

Its a horrible idea. Teachers go into teaching to educate young people, not to possibly have to shoot someone dead, teachers aren't the military. They need to stop selling automatic rifles/guns. Trump is an absolute arsehole saying that. Beggars belief

[Maru]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Are you a libertarian Maru?

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I wouldn't advise you take that at face value.

I'll pass. Thanks.

[bitontheslide]

I think the teachers should all have to wear cowboy hats too and then they can have fastest draw contests to liven things up during quiet periods