Then what about the shootings in nightclubs? Arm the bartenders! Then what about shootings at concerts? Arm the musicians! Then what about shootings at press conferences? Arm the journalists!

Is your ideal world one where everyone walks around making sure their gun is bigger or more shiny than your neighbor? Sounds like a dystopian nightmare

That's the plan. The elites want to live in Star Trek while the rest of us live in Mad Max.

Edit: and people like OP are helping them achieve that.

Do you realize how many people die from accidental discharges? How much do you think that number increases when you put guns in the hands of people who have no interest in them?

So arm everyone! Except... not really.

So.... in other words what we already have now.

That’s your opinion, but 20 min after writing this that everyone being armed is safe, you qualified that not everyone should be armed. I think this kind of thinking, and you admit to it, is flawed. Everyone having a gun is an escalation and a dangerous arms race. It’s not a society I want to be a part of.

ha whatever bud;

Fact is the more guns there are the less shootings will happen.

Stop trying to grab guns from good people and trying to make them a bad hombre exclusive.

https://i.imgur.com/02q2VXs.jpg

how is what you said fact? Every other modern western nation has both less guns per capita and less shootings per capita than the US. Explain to me where you get your facts from? Or are you just going to say there’s thousands of times higher prevalence of mental illness in the US.

I’m all for a rational dialogue but don’t come at me putting words in my mouth and telling me your opinion is fact.

Charts galore below https://i.imgur.com/iIFWlJi.jpg https://i.imgur.com/cffVEnw.jpg https://i.imgur.com/L4StQCx.jpg https://i.imgur.com/chwpHq9.jpg https://i.imgur.com/PxYJ22N.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CU8BO8n.jpg

Teachers don't get paid enough to bust a cap in a student. You want them to educate our kids, be surrogate parents to our kids, in some instaces FEED our kids, AND potentially get PTSD when they blow fuckin little ricky's head off, thus probably ruining their own experience of career teaching before they even get tenure?

That's asking a lot of teachers, my friend. If you want them to do all that, at least make it 6 figure job, eh?

Everything is on fire! The only solution is more fire!

Often times, this is the only means to combat forest fires.

Maybe if there weren't more flamethrowers than trees, fires wouldn't be such a common occurrence.

There aren't more flamethrowers than trees. However, to carry the analogy, there are a lot of maniacs with flamethrowers. There will always, always be maniacs with flamethrowers on this planet. The answer, therefore, is not to restrict the number of flamethrowers. The answer isn't to take away the flamethrowers from the responsible people.

If that happens, then the only people with flamethrowers will be the criminal ones willing to hurt others with them.

What you want is flamethrowers in the hands of responsible individuals so that the irresponsible one’s won’t have easy targets to burn others with.

What happens if the only people with flamethrowers are ultimately the criminal and irresponsible ones? Then the non-criminal, law-abiding people will be even more vulnerable than they would ever otherwise be.

The answer is to arm everyone. That way the responsible people will be protected against the irresponsible ones. The irresponsible ones will likely always have flamethrowers regardless. They’ll get them illegally and irresponsibly. That’s what they are/what they do. You won’t be able to help that.

You have to protect yourself against them, however, and one of the best ways is to simply have your own flamethrower.

There aren't more flamethrowers than trees.

There are many more guns in America than there are Americans.

There will always, always be maniacs with flamethrowers on this planet. The answer, therefore, is not to restrict the number of flamethrowers

Then why is it the answer in literally every other first world country on Earth? Why does it work everywhere else, but it wouldn't work here?

If that happens, then the only people with flamethrowers will be the criminal ones willing to hurt others with them.

This is empirically false, based on every other country that's done it.

What you want is flamethrowers in the hands of responsible individuals so that the irresponsible one’s won’t have easy targets to burn others with.

What I want is no one to have flamethrowers, so no one gets burned.

The last thing we need is more guns out there, so more people will get killed. Giving guns to "the right people" isn't the answer, considering even the cops have a less than 20% hit rate in shootouts.

What happens if the only people with flamethrowers are ultimately the criminal and irresponsible ones?

There are multiple ways to ensure that doesn't happen, just like every other first world country that's does it.

The answer is to arm everyone.

That's a terrible answer, that will only lead to more gun deaths.

I

There are many more guns in America than there are Americans.

I see this point. I misinterpreted it mentally initially. I see that I was incorrect in that perspective now that you put it this way. Thanks for the revisualization. Appreciated.

Then why is it the answer in literally every other first world country on Earth?

Because “every other first world country on Earth” is double speak for “countries where the citizenry has been declawed and tamed by a government who could decimate them with relative ease if the people decided to protest any draconian legislation that the leaders of that country decided to enact”.

That type of “answer” is not the answer of a free and sovereign people. That type of “answer” is the answer of a slave species - a citizenry of sheep - and while I’m not saying that “Americans are free and powerful!” (hell no. Far from it in fact), I am saying that the little rights that exist in this country would likely go quickly by the wayside if the citizenry were to be entirely disarmed.

So no. What you think is “the answer in every other first world country on Earth” is, in fact, very much not the answer that you think it is.

You’re basically advocating for the declawing and defanging of every lion in Africa and justifying it by saying “Look at the lions in this zoo! See? They’re totally declawed and defanged and they never have any problems! They’re treated great! Therefore declawing and defanging lions is the way to go and every lion should see that as greatly desirable!”

Yeah. That’s basically taking all ability and choice to protect and defend itself away from the lion and giving it all to the zoo keeper.

Good for the zoo keeper, eh? Yeah. Sure. If that lion decides he or she doesn’t like something that zoo keeper’s doing though? Well, tough shit, pussy cat. You’re fucked. Whatever the zoo keeper demands, the lion is forced to do and is at the absolute mercy of.

So long as all the lions in the zoo are okay with being useless and laying about, doing nothing, and being fed and essentially being “zoo pets” imprisoned in zoo cages, then I guess they won’t have any problems with that arrangement though, eh?

However, there are the defanged, declawed lions in the zoo on one end, and then there are the fanged, clawed lions in the Serengeti jungle. One set is fat and lazy and useless and unable to help and defend themselves and therefore at the complete mercy of their handlers and zoo keepers…and the other set, even though they have to fend for themselves and life in the Sahara might not be easy at all, at least they can fight and work for their freedom and live their entire life in the vast open Serengeti, and sleep wherever they want, etc, etc.

It’s ultimately the question of the following scenario: Would you rather have all your basic needs taken care of where you never ever have to starve or want for any basic living requirements under the condition that you have to live the rest of your life confined to a one bedroom apartment that you can never, ever get out of or leave from? Or would you rather have the ability to go walk and run wherever you want with the open air as your backyard under the condition that you actually have to fend for yourself and find your own sustenance?

I think that a lot of people would prefer not to be imprisoned in a small one bedroom sized cell for the rest of their lives even if they get free room and board and a free lunch every day. I think you would agree with that.

The citizens of these “first world countries” you speak of are essentially zoo animals that get all their basic needs taken care of so long as they are nice, quiescent citizens and pay attention to whatever their government tells them to do. If their government decides to do something that citizenry doesn’t like, however? Well, tough shit, pussy cat. You’re fucked.

Again, I’m not saying that the U.S. citizen hasn’t been largely eviscerated at this point, but TPTB know that these particular animals (the U.S. citizenry) haven’t been entirely and completely declawed and defanged yet...so it wouldn’t be as easy to do just whatever they might want to them.

Why does it work everywhere else, but it wouldn't work here?

It doesn’t work like you think it does. It’s not working like you think it is. I just gave an analogy above illustrating this very point.

This is empirically false, based on every other country that's done it.

This is an argumentum ignorantium on your part - an argument out of ignorance; a fallacy. You are essentially saying that since you don’t know of any cases where citizens have been hurt by gun confiscation/as a result of being disarmed, then it has therefore never happened and there has never been a problem with it.

This is patently, empirically, and demonstrably false on your part, and I at least can site facts pointing to this absurdity.

What I want is no one to have flamethrowers, so no one gets burned.

Me too, bro. That’s exactly what I want. I don’t want anyone to get burned. So long as one person has a flame thrower, however, then that individual has power over anyone who doesn’t have a flamethrower - and that person who possesses that flamethrower thereby can exert undue force and influence over anyone who doesn’t have one.

In the case of a disarmed citizenry, then it’s really only the government that has all the flamethrowers…

...so you trust the government being the only ones who can have the flamethrowers?

Really? You didn’t see the factoid I linked above?

I certainly don’t trust Uncle Sham to be the only one who can have a flamethrower in the U.S., bro. Hell no.

We’ve seen just how absolutely horrible TPTB can be, have been, and absolutely are. It’s dangerous and foolhardy for a people to give their sovereignty and protection over to an entity/an organization that has proven itself over and over again to manipulate said citizenry - covertly and otherwise - for the purpose of theft and manipulation.

Not a good thing to continue handing your sovereignty over to such an organization like this over and over again.

So yeah. If EVERYONE were disarmed, then perhaps I’d be okay with that. However, so long as ONE individual is armed - regardless of whether that individual is a “citizen”, or a government official, or someone in the military - then EVERYONE should be armed.

A person has the absolute right to protect themselves against anyone regardless of who it is, and so long as there is the possibility that one can be harmed or threatened by another (regardless of whether that other is a citizen, the government, or the military), then you should be able to do what you can to arm and protect yourself.

II

The last thing we need is more guns out there

Incorrect. The last thing we need is more defenseless people. THAT’S the last thing we need. Therefore, the fist thing we need is for everyone to be able to KEEP themselves from being a victim. That means that the last thing we need is for less people to be disarmed against those who are armed.

so more people will get killed.

That is exactly what you are risking when you leave weapons only in the hands of a select few.

Giving guns to "the right people" isn't the answer

I cannot agree with you MORE. Therefore, and for that very reason, the government and the military and “the authorities” should absolutely NOT be the only entities allowed to be armed.

I’m actually agreeing with your stance, believe it or not.

considering even the cops have a less than 20% hit rate in shootouts.

That’s entirely beside the point, however, because accuracy isn’t a factor when it comes to overall and general citizen protection. Ultimately it’s about statistics, believe it or not. Accurate marksmanship or not, everyone being armed will in the long run make everyone else very responsible about A) gun ownership in general (since everyone will know just how serious and deadly the weapons are), and B) far less likely to commit any crime (since every would-be criminal would at that point know that everyone else is armed as well and can very well defend themselves - i.e. no easy pickings or victims).

There are multiple ways to ensure that doesn't happen, just like every other first world country that's does it.

Really? Please explain them then. It’s easy to say that. Far more difficult to actually prove. There as a matter of fact hasn’t been any first world country that has proven anything of the like. What’s been proven, as I explained and illustrated above, is that if a disarmed citizenry do what TPTB want, then they won’t get mangled and mowed down en mass. If they try to dispute anything that said PTB throw on the people, however? Then tough shit, pussy cat. You’re fucked.

The answer is to arm everyone.

That's a terrible answer, that will only lead to more gun deaths.

Quite the contrary. You are thinking in an extremely short term, superficial manner. If everyone were armed, what would likely happen is that there would be an initial spike in gun-related deaths, as entire populations would be armed, but then there would be an absolutely immediate realization by the citizenry that guns are not to be played with in the least, as real deaths and real people and real family members will otherwise get killed, and suddenly everyone in the society would realize just how serious and deadly and not-to-be-toyed-with are firearms.

Then what would happen is that the entire society would settle into a “universal gun ownership” mindset where everyone would know and understand that everyone else is armed, dangerous, and deadly, and everyone (and I mean everyone) will suddenly be respected as the potentially deadly and not-to-be-fucked-with person that they in fact are.

Once you have that level of ubiquitous respect across the entire citizenry, then almost NO crime will occur in that society. You would almost not need cops because no citizen who doesn’t want to get their ass shot dead will even think about attempting any crime - violent or otherwise - in the society. Why? Because literally anyone on the street could kill them if they try something criminal.

That kind of society will have almost no crime, and people would eventually get to where they respect (not “fear”, but respect) each other and everyone else.

It's awfully telling how you won't address the fact that stricter gun control works in every other first world country on Earth.

What makes America different? Why won't it work here like it does everywhere else?

Every single assertion you're making is in direct contrast to every country where it works, and not a single one of your points is backed up by reality in any way.

It's awfully telling how you won't address the fact that stricter gun control works in every other first world country on Earth.

It’s awfully telling that you have very little reading comprehension given that I absolutely did address that very thing.

What makes America different?

It’s not. That’s the very point.

Why won't it work here like it does everywhere else?

Sigh. I told you it would work here EXACTLY LIKE IT WORKS EVERYWHERE ELSE. Problem with that is that you apparently don’t realize just how it’s “working everywhere else”...and I don't think it's working like you think it is.

You’re a defanged pet and you don’t know it under those circumstances.

Every single assertion you're making is in direct contrast to every country where it works, and not a single one of your points is backed up by reality in any way.

This is literally the absolute most willfully ignorant response to every single point I made which directly addressed everything you pointed out that you could have possibly made.

EDIT: I'll give the benefit of the doubt here and say that perhaps you didn't notice that here you're only responding to the second part of the entire response I left you. My response was ultimately so long that I had to cut it into two parts, and the first part was sent after the second part. Perhaps you should read that part as well.

Read the "EDIT" I made in my previous response to you.

The actual method to combat them is to gut a deep perimeter of any fuel, preventing the fires expansion in that direction. Fire is just a tool to do it. Fire itself doesn’t combat fire

No thanks.

http://slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increase_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

Also what good would arming a bunch of people without the training do?

Also also, how would you stop responding law enforcement from thinking armed teachers are the perpetrator?

The Sheriff’s deputy who didn’t engage the shooter was suspended without pay and publicly shamed by the President today.

If we arm teachers and they do not engage the shooter for whatever reason, will they lose their (teaching) jobs and also be shamed by the President?

More importantly, what about WHEN (not if) an armed teacher accidentally shoots an innocent student or another armed teacher during the heat of the moment? Or when SWAT enters the building and kills the teacher who is there holding a gun?

How do you keep the students safe if their teacher is out shooting the bad guys? Kids don’t make rational choices when they are scared and they cry and try to run.

It would be great if your answer was the solution but an intelligent person would think through all of the risks and consequences before parroting the idiot in the White House.

1. Since the kids were running out of the building as evidenced by the fact that the shooter mingled with them in order to escape, what good would it have done to go charging in? Would anyone with a gun been able to tell the innocent students from the bad one?

2. Your argument goes both ways. It’s more likely that you’d have 4-5 dead teachers since the teachers are out-gunned.

3. You obviously don’t have kids. If you do, shame on you.

4. He kids are safe behind locked classroom doors staying quiet with the lights off. Any training will tell you to get out if you can and if you can’t, hide.

5. I do.

You’re probably right that arming teachers may work some of the time and, yes, they may save some lives. Your solution fails to solve the root cause of the problem that cheap, high-powered, assault weapons and high capacity magazines are widely available (either legally or illegally) to people who want to kill as many people as possible.

I believe that school shooters expect to die by cop or self-inflicted shot, therefore, an armed teacher potentially taking them out at some point isn’t really a deterrent. All it creates is a battlefield in our schools with, in my opinion, too much risk.

Good luck to you and yours; I truly hope none of our kids have to experience this situation.

There were FOUR armed deputies standing outside the school throughout the event. They did not engage. Fuck arming teachers. This is the most important responsibility we bestow on law enforcement, and they failed miserably. On multiple levels.

You want to somehow make cops not cowards?

Uh yeah, that's a pretty basic requirement for law enforcement.

In the real world, teachers aren't protecting the school any more effectively.

How about we train the police so that they are capable? You know, because it's like their entire job.

this is stupid. next we are arming students.... and THAT does not work out well....

the culprit was local law enforcement not being effective. if it's wasn't some wacko kid, it could've been wacko Islamists, or whatever comes up in the future. there are more than enough mechanism to keep public order, the problem is when they fail.

we do not need more laws, rules ... we need to FIX their already in place.

Yeah! More guns! That’s definitely the answer. /s

You’re fucking delusional.

Not long ago in Madison, Wisconsin, a lot of the nation went out of their way to vilify teachers for having the audacity to still have a fairly strong union, pay and retirement. It could be argued that they have one of the most important jobs in the world, but there were many foaming at the mouth to cut their pay, they also slammed them for every conceivable reason and this was during the Obama admin. Now, teachers will be expected to not only be low-paid slaves with no retirements, they can expect to have classroom sizes that have never been seen before in some areas, and they will also need to become Annie Oakley's in the minuscule event that a mass murder spree happens. Not only that, but god help them if they don't kill the perp and leave every kid unscathed. Insanity. It's only an opinion, but I doubt kids will learn as well or as readily when surrounded by armed people like a prison.

Anyone who thinks your standard teacher could ACTUALLY and effectively use a gun, ACCURATELY during and actual school shooting event is a total fucking idiot. Or even have the mindset to kill another person. Trained police officers and soldiers have difficulty firing under a live fire event. Now you’re expecting miss McCleavy the 50 year old eccentric art teacher to go John Wick on an active shooter? Get. Fucking. Real.

Okay “balls” so balls are now a requirement to be a teacher. Tell me have you ever had a weapon pointed at your face? Have you ever been in a life or death firefight? What kind of combat experence do you have to so expertly deduce the fact that we just need to hire teachers with “balls”????
This is an unreasonable expectation to put on the backs of our teachers. “Balls” are not enough. I know, because I’ve been in that situation and seen grown, trained men, lock up. Professional training, combat experence, and mental conditioning on par with law enforcement or combat operatives would be needed on the teachers behalf, which utterly moronic to suggest.

Tell me have you ever had a weapon pointed at your face?

I have been held up at gunpoint with a weapon to my face and let me tell you, the only thing I thought about was doing whatever they wanted so I would stay alive.

These people floating the idea of 'arming teachers' have watched waaayyyy too much TV.

Like you said, my high school art teacher had a hard time telling kids in her class to quiet down. Now you're expecting her to go Rambo on a psychopath with an AR-15?

Just a complete unrealistic fantasy, and it's truly an embarrassment that its actually being purported as a legitimate solution.

Strange isn't it how the people calling for arming teachers are the ones with zero experience of using weapons in a military or law enforcement role, Cadet Colonel Bonespurs for instance, while us who DO know what's it's like to feel the chill of fear are the ones saying it's a ridiculous idea.

very true

well now, there's a stupid fucking idea.

yeah! arm everybody! janitor, groundsman, even the good ol' preacher man. then when this happens again and kids are killed in the crossfire, who do we arm then??

I think the solution is to arm the students.

Arming teachers won't stop the bloodshed, all it is going on do is create bigger targets.. These shootings are about grievances with the school admin, teachers, coaches, or kids and these shooters go in expecting that they won't come out of it alive.

Actually I'd argue that most these guys have no problem surrendering to law enforcement as evidenced. They go on some killing spree then just give up after a short standoff or whatever. Armed teachers would make targets but nothing the hitler youth couldn't handle. It's really sick that now our taxpayers have to pay to house/feed this shitbag Nicholas Cruz for the rest of his life in prison. Keep in mind he's 19, I'd call for public execution and throw his ass in a landfill for free. #Merica

I'm 100 pro guns. But my super left mom-n-law, who is a teacher actually had a great point. How traumatizing would it be for a teacher to have to shoot down a student they've trying so hard to nurture? How traumatized would the students be after watching a favorite teacher have to shoot down a kid?

Its a hard call, to say what's wrong or right for this situation. My personal thought is to put retired law enforcement(who want to work with less risk) and , mentally capable and responsible vets. Especially vets. Idk. But I get how arming teachers could be hard.

You are 100% correct. It's typical female emotion, with no logic or reason. Liberal "men" have been emasculated via soy and the birth control chemicals in the food and water...

Let's arm the teachers with bazookas!

The people that allowed him to become a killer should all be charged - the school, his psychiatrists/nurses/counselors/coaches/mentors. Others should be held responsible.

Exactly for example that football coach that died, I'm sure he would've been able to resist if he was armed. It would have been a shoot out until police arrived instead of a massacre. I don't think every teacher needs a gun, maybe just dominant figures with good morals like coaches, principals and history teachers! Also I think it's important that there is good communication with law enforcement if there is an event to prevent friendly fire and confusion.

Edit: Also this security guard that didn't respond should really be ashamed of himself, it's your civic duty to protect these people! #shame #coward #noballs

First of all, I can’t imagine anyone would be giving AR-15s, the current weapon of choice, to the teachers. So now you have a rifle vs an assault weapon.

In that same thought, what was the deputy armed with? How many shots did he have? Did he have a vest on? Fuck you and the President for calling him a coward.

Also, this sub is totally becoming r/politics. Sorry to all for adding to the mess...

-Bitch ass nigga

What does this even mean?

Dude! I just saw your dick... this poor sub...

[deleted]

So you’re blaming white peoples’ parenting style?

I agree!