Yes, very weird.

How is it weird for journalists to research and report on possible downsides of a law after it is proposed?

I mean if a President suggested lowering the driving age to 12 would it really shock to find people reporting kid-related driving accidents the next day? It's not a conspiracy, it's their job.

the only interesting thing here is that guns are still legal, obviously people love to shoot them at children.

/s

The begning explination would be that:

A) Such stories are now topically relevant, so are making national news now

Or

B) After the suggestion was made some teachers decided it was a good idea and started bringing their guns to school, resulting in more accidents involving guns where there hadn't previously been guns to have accidents with.

But there could be more to it I suppose.

Probably a bit of both.

Outside of a gun fight where stress kicks in, or loading/unloading the gun, negligent discharges by people trained to properly handle a gun are exceedingly rare. They train you that guns are not taken out of their holster unless someone is trying to kill you, and guns don't just go off in their holsters. That means the only time you could have a negligent discharge is when they are loading or unloading the gun, which would not occur inside a school.

That's exactly what these idiots were doing.

the were drawing their weapon to defend themselves? oh, no, they pulled em out against rule numero uno to show off. if you carry, and you pull in anything other than life threatening scenario, you should see hard time.

It's a good thing gun owners have never at any point been known to just show off their guns and take them out of their holsters for reasons other than to defend themselves /s.

OK. And its not like car owners aren't known to speed or drive drunk. Do you mind if I ban your car because some people are stupid?

Well, cars are vital to living in modern day America and society literally wouldn't function without them. Guns are not. Shitty comparison.

Guns are not? Ok

So you ban all guns. Hmm... Howcome guns are still around after you ban them? Whats going on?

Oohhh that's right, black market.

Guns also stop people with knives.

And the ever obvious tyrannical government.

Pro gun comments downvoted en mass in a conspiracy thread? You really think people are buying this shit?

Gun bans have worked in every first world country that has implemented them. Only a complete moron would think that they wouldn't work in the US.

Except that as soon as guns are banned violent crimes committed with other weapons increases. There are also a lot of situations where non violent crimes increases as well. It makes a lot of sense if you think about it. If you know every house that you are gonna rob has an owner that owns a gun and may be home you will think pretty hard in many situations whether or not you really want to rob them. If you know they don't have a gun and they aren't physically fit person then what is gonna stop you? Other than not being a shit bag that is.

Such a non sequitur reply.

Sure! Sources please. Etc...

Yeah and one is a constitutionally guaranteed right, while the other is a privilege that damages the biosphere and disadvantages the poor. Shitty comparison indeed.

Yeah and one is a constitutionally guaranteed right, while the other is a privilege that damages the biosphere and disadvantages the poor. Shitty comparison indeed

I wish people would stop defending things by invoking the constitution. "Constitutionally guaranteed rights" are literally just things that the founding fathers thought were important. So defending your position by saying it's a constitutionally guaranteed right is the same as saying "this is important because some old guys who lived two hundred and fifty years ago said it was". Sure, they were some pretty smart people, but that's not sufficient to make your case.

You've got to have another reason. A real one.

Your freedom is speech is now revoke. Go to Camp 187A for reprogramming due to wrong thought.

Brought to you by: kids save America from guns. TM pending

Yes, the first and second amendment are basically the same thing. Great argument. You just did exactly what I warned against.

It's borderline frightening how little critical thought some people have.

Those dudes knew what they were doing for us when they freed us from the monarchy. If the government does not fear the people, it will not remain under their control.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that if you want to argue in favor of a constitutional right, you need to come up with a reason that isn't "these guys said it was the right thing to do". The founding fathers weren't magical, all-knowing deities; they were people, and people make mistakes all the time.

America wouldn't exist without guns. We would still be British otherwise. Guns are vital to our society in that regard.

No, but I like knowing that you have liability insurance. I wonder what the equivalent would look like for fun ownership.

Do you mind if I ban your car because some people are stupid?

Someone who does those things can be banned from driving... and they must have a license to operate a motor vehicle or they can be imprisoned.

I like your idea of treating guns like cars.

We already do Kiwi, people can lose their guns for their criminal actions such as what Nicholas Cruz was doing prior to his shooting. The laws simply weren't enforced, so we don't need even more

American gun culture is at odds with gun safety.

i have to believe that some of these instances are orchestrated... using kids who really DONT have a voice or exposure to the world yet has always been a powerful political tool.

They happen on their own, it'd be a waste of time and money to orchestrate them. I grew up in rural America, surrounded by guns, and it was my experience that it only takes a couple beers before people start brandishing and showing off.

Keep believing what you see on TV. LOL Anontifa, yeah all news is completely organice

Lmao yet another anti gunner with their exaggerated or more likely in the case of someone with your teen communist username totally made up personal anecdote where gun owners are drunk irresponsible rural hillbillies pulling out their guns and putting people in danger.

It's no wonder you people and your bullshit aren't taken seriously by any thinking people. Of which, by the way, consist of the majority of the country, even though they're the minority of the people who have similar views to you.

I'm fine with guns, just against American gun culture. You don't need to rely on my anecdotes to know it's toxic and childish, just look at advertisements for guns and the kind of merchandise (bumper stickers, t shirts, etc) they sell for gun enthusiasts. It's all stupid as fuck and lacks the sober respect that lethal weapons deserve.

Hipster superiority complex - check

Bullshit dehumanizing made up concern troll stories - check

Bullshit displaying total ignorance on the topic and talking like a tier 1 expert anyways - check

Pretending to be open minded whilst saying the most close minded bullshit talking points of a dishonest narrative - check

Hating on America by comparing it to shithole countries that have a single good thing about them - check

Advocating for liberal SJW cult bullshit (rape culture, imagining Nazis, everything is racist white supremacy, toxic masculinity, America is an evil racist imperialist etc.) - check

Calling European hell holes where guns are legal wonderful gun free utopias - no check, better collect that one

You're an "I can't be trusted with a gun so can anyone else, but I own one anyways" anti gunner award contender.

Your anecdotes are obvious made up bullshit lmao. No one except the most gullible retards are going to believe some anon antifa anti gun crusader, that says guns are a toxic masculinity old white men supremacist prop, is telling the truth when they say gun owners are drunk savages that rely on irresponsibly brandishing guns to intimidate people to maintain their self esteem. The people in your stories obviously aren't human and you obviously wanted them to not look human because that's the kind of person you are.

"American gun culture" Shut up you Antifa scumbags are the ones not to be trusted with even a bike lock.

Antifa, which tends to be made up of anarchists, communists and socialists are pro gun.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” — Karl Marx

But what do you know about any of that since you get your info from fake news.

And yet we have an Antifa whom I am responding to proving you wrong. LOL socialists are pro-gun, not the Bernie Sanders kind which covers most of you.

Maybe because Bernie is a state capitalist. Where do you get your definitions from? Glen beck?

He is a democratic socialist. I know you want to play the "it's not real socialism game" but by your definition there is no real socialism to be found on this entire planet save among a few pigmies in Uganda.

Show me where in his platform he talks about seizing the means of production. You know? The core tenant to socialism.

Modern socialists still follow a lot of the communist playbook. Most at this point know that seizing the means of production by the state would be disastrous, so they find with other more subtly destructive policies like public education, welfare, government healthcare, excessive regulations and government retirement plans for all. They settle for seizing the profits of production and redistributing it.

I'm super pro-gun, just anti American gun culture.

We should arm the homeless, the uninsured, the unemployed, the poor, the LGBT community, etc.

Ok you say you guys are so pro gun, but when it comes to this gun control issue you folks are no where to be seen. All the people on the front lines fighting for the 2nd amendment are the right wing. But as soon as a Trump supporter has a rally, there you are ready to start a riot. Useless!

Great comment. America's unique gun culture is underplayed as part of why gun violence in the US is so much worse than other countries with similar ownership rates. Also why I doubt the pissant* gun control measures that are proposed would make much difference.

The fact that more guns is presented as a realistic answer to gun violence says a lot.

*not to say that I want the type of gun control laws that would actually make a difference. Just that you would need to seriously diminish the second amendment with shit like gun confiscations before it would do anything.

That quote is at least half bullshit. Japan was occupied post ww2 by America and as such we didn't want their society to be able to put up a revolt against us. They didn't even really have a military force for a long time. Yakuza did have firearms though and that's one of the reasons they were able to put such a stranglehold on large segments of the society. There was Samurai code which has been played up in movies fro a long time. Yeah, samurai code, be honorable to your master. Ninja and Ronin glorification didn't really take hold until the 80's, go figure. We can go back and forth all day dropping sources, Occam's razor favors what I'm saying. Hopefully somebody with more knowledge steps in, otherwise correct me where I'm wrong.

Read the article, the assessment was based on talking to actual Japanese youths. Your speculative historiography is interesting and all, but you can't ignore the actual, on-the-ground investigation that reveals it to be more complex than that.

Cause that was a thing before the U.S. occupied Japan too. Yeah, real honorable, die for an emperor/dictator that brainwashes the populace into believing he is a leader descended from heaven

This is just fucking stupid, sorry. It's actually super honorable to give your life for a cause as opposed to pushing a button to drop a bomb from a thousand feat.

Anecdotal comment: the only time anyone ever "shows off a gun" to me was in a private setting. Never remotely in public my entire life by anyone. I live in Texas.

West central illinois. I see people brandishing/showing off guns on the daily.

I live in the rust belt, where Alcohol + Bonfire = No gun remains holstered

I recognize your username. I said it was a shame that your username couldn't be accompanied by an anime profile picture. I say it again.

An article from the site that said r/conspiracy was an alt right subreddit and originator a "neo-nazi-logism." Liberalism and its hosts evolve to levels of retarded never before seen.

I think the image of "machismo, bellicosity, and swagger " is mostly selection bias. We never hear news stories or anecdotal accounts about responsible owners. Movies and pop culture never show us a gun owner that owns their weapons for 80 years without incident, and resolves their problems without weapons.

I believe the vast majority of "average Americans" that own guns are safe and responsible. From memory, there are approximately 100 Million gun owners. If the "average" owner wasn't a safe, responsible owner, there would be more than 50 Million unsafe gun owners, showing off their weapons and swaggering around armed. In that situation I suspect the number of accidental shootings would be orders of magnitude higher than it is.

I have to disagree. Advertisements for guns lean heavily on the machismo and other things I mentioned. Shit like t-shirts, bumper stickers, and similar "gun pride" memorabilia is exactly the same. The market is driving all of this. This shit sells because gun owners want it. I could also point you to all the gun-toters on my facebook feed who echo this attitude constantly but that'd be anecdotal.

Exactly. The weapons should be locked away whether its in the classroom or in another part of the school and it should mean jail time if someone even thinks about touching it outside of an actually emergency.

it should be armed officers, not locked away, not teachers/admins.

That would be ideal, schools can't even afford teachers though.

Easy, just cut the salaries of the administrators who do jack shit other than suck up a government wage.

‘schools can’t even afford teachers though’

I don’t often call people out, however for you I will make an exception. I don’t think you have any idea of what you are talking about here.

School teacher salaries come from the taxes a city or town levies upon its residents who own real estate. The schools, in coordination with their teachers unions, present a budget of operations to the city school board, based on teachers salaries and the remaining school operations costs. (Federal school funding is also factored in, but for our purposes, we will not include that for simplicity sake). The school board reviews and/or approves and then sends to the City for approval by the Taxpayers.

After all of that, when you look at comparative salary packages comparing public school teachers to other professions in the U.S., Teachers are paid reasonable salaries. (when you factor in that teachers do not work year round, then teachers are paid exceptionally well).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/08/07/low-teacher-pay-and-high-teacher-pay-are-both-myths/

http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/25/why-we-shouldnt-raise-teacher-pay/

fuck off. train the teachers. you twits really think cops are superhuman, not completely untrustworthy, i don't know how you can be that dumb.

fuck off. train the teachers. you twits really think cops are superhuman

no... i think cops are cops and should stay cops. teachers are teachers, thats why theyre not on the frontlines. im cool with programs involved to train and compensate teachers who opt for it, but no, your overall understanding of my position seems way off base.

"frontlines" yeah ok buddy. Tell me about the darkies too why don't you, it's quite apparent how your mind works already.

ok, so besides terminology, any other objections to what i wrote mr steamy cheeks?

yeah. It's moronic. People carry sidearms or keep guns in the home fro reasons of defence, but oh no, can;t have a government employee in a government building required to carry to protect the children of citizens required to be under the states care during the school year while guys filling ATM machines in seven elevens are heavily armed. Yeah, that makes sense.

so you never read the part where i was saying allow the teachers who want to, but still would like the added bonus of a legit officer? our positions arent that far from eachother, stop being so angry at me for nothing.

You trust cops, i don't, it's not nothing. "frontlines" yeah, oh ok, more like chickenshits looking for an excuse to be a bully instead of a hero.

ok, fine, private security? i dont care, armed guards deaignated as such. the resource officer for the school near me is a great dude. the prison guards are fucksticks, ill say that in full generalization, 7/10 or higher. resource officer, chill dude, for sure would die for the kids. but i dont care, arm and train the janitors and call them security/cleanup or whatever. but damn, i dont want ALL teachers to be REQUIRED to be armed and trained. the few that have served and are willing and capable should be trained and compensated for sure. but come on, most teachers around me dont care for guns, i couldnt imagine their reaction to be forced to... theyd likely quit in an already underserved area.

So, what, you want it to cost twice as much when the school is staffed anyways? You seem to think there is a difference between one human being doing a job and another and can;t even express why. "I don't want teachers protecting kids, I want the Janitor to do it" Fucking take a logic course, you're fucking embarrassing.

no, dont just fly off the rails and troll, who gives a fuck what it costs. content to throw money at all sorts lf losing investments in this country, at least this would be the only net positive. youre an irritable lil twat arent you?

Only when talking to people who can't think their way pout of a paper bag.

? thats quite hypocritical of you... seeing as how easily you get triggered over misperceptions without thinking your shit through....

See, this is what i mean, you can;t logic at all, you are all about the feels.

lol, nah man, you were wayyyy ahead of me on that race. good troll tho

well, you are easily as dumb as the other fucks you're bitching about.

Removed. Rule 10.

fuck you, die in a fire.

Removed. Rule 4.

Go sodomize yourself with a rusty razor.

Removed. Rule 4.

False.

The most recent case was a teacher conducting firearms training who was clearing his weapon. He wasn't just showing off... he was trying to teach the very rules you think will always prevent incidents like this.

what? that was not on the curriculum. him trying to do a "good" thing in the wrong setting still makes it wrong. it was against the rules of the campus, and its against the understood guidelines of proper firearm safety. dude was a dumbass and should see time, litigation, and revocation of his permit.

indeed he was showing off

They train you that guns are not taken out of their holster unless someone is trying to kill you

Not exactly. You take your gun out of your holster when there is a distinct possibilty you may have to use it instantly.

For example, see all the YouTube videos of cops pointing guns at imbiciles in cars going "GET OUT OF THE CAR! GET OUT OF THE CAR! GET OUT OF THE CAR!"

Most of the time, the dude in the car is not, at that moment, "trying to kill them".

That may sound like nit picking, but I don't think it is.

Another example would be, if someone is preparing to enter a home where the door has been kicked in. Anyone with any kind of training entering that house will have his gun drawn, even though nobody at that moment is trying to kill them.

And yet we have multiple incidents where this has happened. Gee I wonder

No, we have news stories from organizations known to be controlled by the CIA alleging that this has happened, in spite of the extremely low probability that it would happen. Do you hear about police officers having lots of negligent discharges outside of a gun fight or loading/unloading their gun? No, because they know not to take their guns out of the holster unless someone is trying to kill them.

DEA Police Officer Shoots Himself While in a Classroom Filled With Children https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNa5n2I_DUw

Off Duty Kentucky Cop Accidentally Shoots Himself in Elevator https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_a7VAKHkY8

Gun fail: Cop accidentally shoots himself while testing 38-caliber handgun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUonA66btgI

Man injured after police officer accidentally discharges firearm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFP8zsOkkX8

And that's just with a few minutes worth of research on Youtube.

1. Fed goons should not have guns, I agree. They should have been disarmed as soon as Lon Horiuchi murdered Vicki Weaver, who was unarmed and carrying a baby. Edit: I thought

2. Had his gun out, trying to impress that white girl.

3. Had the gun out. Still blameworthy for both him and the clerk, because neither checked the gun, and he pointed it at himself. But not a holstered gun.

4. Is that in Africa? In any case, the officer drew the gun in response to a threat. Sounds like he shouldn't have drawn it, but adrenaline makes people do stupid things, and armed teachers aren't going to be confronting angry African mobs very often.

You can't just No True Scotsman every example of dangerous gun handling. It's a reality.

Putting more guns in classrooms, especially in the hands of relatively inexperienced teachers, increases the chances of these incidents occurring in those classrooms.

Yes, handled absolutely perfectly these things would happen, but the reality is that absolutely prefect handling is unrealistic.

This is like abstinence education - yeah, practiced perfectly it works flawlessly. But it simply doesn't work out that way.

Cognitive dissonance much?

At least attempt to write an argument. Reported.

Reported for what? Hurting your precious feelings?

In the latest incident lt was during a demonstration about how to disarm someone in an administration of justice class ( aka: learn to be a cop). So, no, the teacher was not "showing off".

Then it's a completely different situation from having teachers carry holstered guns. Negligent discharges can happen when you handle guns, which is why you don't handle guns in schools. It's like complaining about armed students on a campus because some cadet shot himself in the leg in ROTC.

All the points you make are true. The problem is, you don't have to be trained to buy/carry a gun in most states. I'm in WA, I could go buy a hand gun and open carry with no clue how to even use or operate it

You don't require training to get a drivers license.

You don't need training to get a motorcycle license.

I don't think we should require training, I think we should encourage people to get training on their own. I would actually like to see a class in high school that teaches responsible gun ownership and shooting, an elective class. This way the population can take it if they might want a gun later on in life which can establish basic education and hopefully they will retake a class later on in life.

You have to pass a test to get both the things you named which requires passing a written exam showing you have knowledge of safety guidelines and you literally have to pass a driving test showing you know how to operate the vehicle. Bad example

Reading the book and taking the driving exam doesn't mean a person knows what they're doing and that they should be allowed to drive. We know there are a ton of terrible drivers on the roads that constantly break the laws and just suck at driving.

The point being one should instill good habits with real instruction while the other can be your cousin who is a terrible driver themselves.

Final point.

One of these is a guaranteed protected right while the other isn't. While forcing training is a noble and good idea, you will also be removing peoples ability to protect themselves. Which is likely a 2A violation.

Some states (including WA, personal experience here) require official drivers education too. Two month class with six supervised drive sessions, in addition to fifteen hours out of class signed off by parent/ guardian in those two months.

If you're trained at all even an ND won't do much but property damage because the gun will always be pointed in a safe direction.

I'm not sure that's true. I've lurked in gun forums and subs in the past. Stories of accidental discharges are really common. Most, luckily, seem to end without any physical harm.

No idea how you'd ever get a good idea what proportion of gun owners have experienced one, but I don't think it's super rare. And the consequences can be pretty significant.

Stories of accidental discharges are really common.

I explained this. Negligent discharges do happen, but they happen in places like police locker rooms or inside homes where people are cleaning or messing around with their guns. They don't happen with trained police or permit holders who have holstered guns. And if you unholstered your gun in a school and someone wasn't trying to kill you, you fucked up.

Eh, training doesn't help. Even with training concealed handgun owners only use their gun in self defence 3% of the time the use their guns. In 2015 this resulted in over 700 total dead from over 500 incidents with only 16 of the killings considered actual legal self defense.

"In America’s endless debate about gun rights versus public safety, there should be no disputing the hard facts in a new report on gunshot fatalities showing that at least 722 nonself-defense deaths since 2007 were attributable to individuals with legal permits to carry concealed weapons. "

That means they're including every single suicide and shooting accident of any permit holder.

"But a methodical gleaning of eight years of news accounts by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, found that in research involving 722 deaths in 544 concealed-carry shootings in 36 states and the District of Columbia, only 16 cases were eventually ruled lawful self-defense — even though this has been a major gun rights selling point for the new laws."

They're probably taking only the 16 cases where the shooting went to a jury, which almost always means they hit/killed the bad guy. In almost all defensive encounters, the mere drawing of a gun causes the bad guy to go away. A tiny percentage of the time shots are fired, and even fewer times is the bad guy hit/killed.

Scholars that do credible research, not this obvious nonsense have concluded that defensive gun use is probably over a million times a year, and dissuades far more crime than police. Which is why the states with the worst gun laws also have the worst crime.

Did you even read this article? Because it's patent nonsense that is blatantly cherry-picking data. I'm having trouble even assuming good faith when you cite garbage like this.

I'm sure there are studies which show school gun accidents by licensed owners somewhere out there, should be easy enough to determine if the average has increased in the last few months.

If it’s B, it shows a lack in firearms training and competency.

People who own weapons NEED familiarization and safety training. Safety rules are absolutely paramount in the handling of weapons.

1. Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot
2. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire
4. Keep the safety on until you intend to fire.
5. Know your target and what lies beyond.

A sidearm should always be loaded and chambered. The only reason to pull it out is if you intend to use it. Just showing it is a breach of safety unless it’s needed.

"State of the art new cafeteria, tablets for every student, and brand new clearing barrel in every teacher's lounge."

ever since ive heard that first one told as:

dont point the gun at anything you dont want to destroy.

ive repeated it like that. i believe the specific language of destroying conveys the significant weight that simply shooting does not.

Yeah, you 'shoot' the actual gun. The language places the emphasis on the interaction with the gun. Not the resulting destruction.

Destroy is the wording I've always been taught also.

I like. Will change.

That's why I don't know if I have the guts to appendix carry

So make the training mandatory and extensive, and prohibit ownership by anyone who doesn't complete it.

Concealed carry requires exactly that. Anyone carrying without a license is breaking the law.

Wrong. Arizona doesn't even require a license for concealed carry, same as other states.

Indiana just wants $175.

According to the link I shared, Indiana is not an unrestricted concealed carry state.

No but they don't test at all, just pay the fee and don't be felon.

In my state of Oregon it's required. Along with alot of other states, so I'm not "wrong".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

It's actually alot more strict than you're making it out to be.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 159936}

In many countries you have to demonstrate some level of proficient handling, knowledge of safety and prove secure storage. Then you get a (revocable) permit to purchase and possess guns.

That doesn't seem that unreasonable really, but then I don't have any emotional attachment to guns, so it's easy for me to say.

I was told "Even if a magical ghost came and chambered a round and it goes off, still no one gets hurt because you had it pointed in a safe direction."

This absurd explaination stuck with me.

Of course the question is... What is a safe direction? In a school it's bet possible there is no safe direction. A sufficiently powerful rulings may easily travel through walls etc.

In the most recent "teacher fires gun like an idiot" story the round hit the ceiling, and still three kids received some injuries, including one hit by a bullet fragment.

Obviously you handle a gun as safely as possible, but it's still got a lot of potential for harm if something goes wrong.

Thus my point brandishing the sidearm when it’s not needed is underlined.

This guy Marines...

Or boy scouts. Or has literally any semi formal training. I mean...there are only 5 rules.

Or a Seabee.

Great idea except the latest one in California IS a firearms safety instructor... and 3 students were injured... and apparently class resumed afterwards? WTACTUALFUCK?

The fact that there are rules which need to be followed for this to be safe is why giving guns to teachers is a bad thing. People will be lax with rules, particularly regarding things that they didn't want to do.

I mean there are rules to be followed in order to do lots of things safely.

But many of those things have rules that are actually enforced as laws, so there's that.

Most people voluntarily do things. When people are forced to do things they don't want to do, they generally don't follow the rules as closely.

Why a license to own a gun is not a thing I have no idea (oh wait, the NRA doesn’t want a hurdle between them and money).

I don’t want people to lose their rifles but a simple license that does a basic psych evaluation, requires a gun safety class, and a background check is a pretty solid compromise. All gun owners I’ve spoken to agree with this. It can double for your CCW license and hunting license (a portion of the fees go to Fish and Game).

Most places with licensing require personal references too. Usually including a relative. Seems sensible.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means you dont need permission. A license is literally asking Gov permission. Explain to me where that concept is vague to you?

Ok then how come felons can’t have guns. Seems like their rights are being infringed.

They absolutely are. The government cannot grant rights.

Except the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. The 2nd isn’t unlimited. It’s obvious certain people shouldn’t have guns and licenses doesn’t preclude anyone of sound mind and judgement from having a gun. Honestly it will help end the debate and can actually create more freedoms for responsible gun owners - no wait period, no need for additional background checks, CCW, etc

I know you won’t accept the Supreme Court Decision because you seem like a constitutional purist but the constitution also states the Supreme Court decisions are law

So, you're not really just wanting to be able to own firearms... you want to make it so that you can own a firearm even if you're mentally ill, violent, or just plain ignorant of gun safety...

Does it concern you that if you had to prove you were not violent or mentally ill, or not a responsible gun owner... that you'd fail the test?

If so, why should the rest of us give a shit if your rights are taken away?

lol I own guns.

Of the top of my head, the most recent two stories I've seen of accidental/negligent discharges in schools were a school resource officer (aka cop) and a teacher who was also a part time officer.

So it should be safe to assume both had significant firearms training.

Also most of the stories I can recall making it to major media in the past were also cops. I guess this is because until recently it was unusual to have armed teachers (and still is, in most places).

The "arm the teachers" proposals I've seen seem to provide for a fairly basic firearms course in order for teachers to be certified to carry in school. Therefore it seems safe to assume that incidents like these will scale roughly linearly in relation to proportion of armed staff in schools.

I'll pretty certain if arming teachers becomes a widespread practice it won't be long until we see students killed accidentally by a teacher. And at some stage probably deliberately.

Or the controlled gun grabbing news media is high lighting these stories to push their agenda... NO they would never do that amIright lefty?

B is irrelevant. A teacher wouldn't bring a personal gun to school to educate kids. Do you understand how fucking insane that sounds? There is an actual process for gun handling through schools and it wouldn't increase this quick after an event(in my opinion). A makes sense as well, I would completely attribute the stories to that.

A is definitely a large part of it. I was surprised by the number of school shootings in the US so I did some research and found that most school shootings in the US, most of them are gang killings or "idiot teacher fires gun" or "idiot cop leaves safety off."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/third-grader-fires-officer-gun-special-education-school-article-1.3802420 <- this one was my favorite.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/ <- and here's an okay rundown. It has a list on the bottom that is now way out of date but you get the picture.

\ reads r/conspiracy

\ uses snopes link as evidence

This is such an important point. I have had some good discussions with some anti gun people on Twitter about this topic. When any same person hears the "a gazillion school shootings alread this year!" argument and then sees what they actually count you can recognize how disingenious it is. My favorite was a school where a stray round went through an office window. Nobody got hurt and no motive was ever found. It's not that that's a good thing to happen but to compare it to 17 dead kids is just incredibly dishonest.

My guess would be a flat rural area from Gramps put hunting with his bad eyesight. So banning "assault rifles" wouldn't do nearly as much good as improving access to education and training at least on par with the BMV.

Banning rifles wouldn't do a lick of good, and the way the FBI tracks rifles that includes both action, lever action, anything. They're only used in 2.4% of homicides. For reference, 5x as many people are stabbed to death and over 20x are shot with handguns. More people are beaten to death with bare hands and feet every year. From 2010 to 2015 they were used in an average of 298 homicides a year compared to over 6,000 with handguns.

Since this is a conspiracy sub I hope everyone would ask why the anti gun crowd is up in arms about the weapon that is the least likely by far to be used in a murder. Not only why that one but if they really, really think they're not going to wait a few months after any theoretical ban to realize they didn't actually change gun violence rates at all and start pushing for complete disarmament.

So you are saying we need to ban knives too?

Sure, because that isn't such a simple device that prisoners aren't able to make them out of incredibly mundane things they're allowed in the most strictly controlled environments on earth. You'd need to ban any hard material.

That's been a raging success in the UK where they've had to enact strict knife laws and go on national campaigns to "Bin That Knife" when their gun bans failed to lower their homicide rate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbings-rise-knife-crime-statistics-uk/amp/

This might be the worst analogy or example I've heard from a pro gun person. 1st. You use an environment with absolute NO TOLERANCE to guns. There are less guns in prisons than in Amish country. So the number of inmates that get their hands on guns is astonishingly LOW. So you're actually making a point FOR stricter gun control. In fact, 99% of shootings inside prisons are by armed guards. Or by the inmates taking the guards guns and using them against them. More points for less guns in prisons. In America, when prison guards have guns the results is 1 shooting every 10 days on average.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons, which houses the Unabomber, the shoe bomber and a Boston Marathon bomber among its nearly 200,000 inmates, has “always operated under the principle that firearms are not routinely carried within the institution,”. None of them—including the large prison systems of Texas and Ohio—reported using guns for everyday inmate management.

You've made a great point for more gun control and less guns. But you think that since less than 1% of inmates are able to make a shitty, unreliable "gun-type" weapon, that this supports your notion that engineered, manufactured guns should be allowed to flood society? This thinking is what's keeping killers armed. Think about it.

Lol man it's late at night and this response made me laugh because I was talking about knives, which the person before me was referencing. Look up shivs. It's incredibly easy to make a deadly bladed weapon out of almost anything.

Just the assault knives who clearly have no other purpose but to kill people.

We should really look at banning murder.

knives don't kill nearly as many as firearm do.

Not all murders are equal. Most murders happen to be drug related or domestic situations. The anti gun crowd is up in arms about weapons of mass murder, where the killing is indiscriminate. That’s pretty clear, I think.

It's understandable and it's not a good thing, mass murder. However, I am in disagreement on how they want to solve the problem, mainly going after rifles. The VT shooter killed 33 people with small caliber pistols.

Most mass murders use rifles. If more used handguns then they'd go hard on handguns. If they used nerve agent I suspect you'd see a strong anti nerve agent movement.

No, if you go by what mass shootings are defined by they still use handguns more often. The big ones that make the news, yes they use rifles. The most recent definition from the FBI that they use to get their statistics is "four or more people shot at once". Fatalities are not required in that, just to clarify.

Most media outlets use this definition

"FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter"

Unfortunately four is a relatively low body count compared to what we see in places like Vegas, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, and Parkland. Over 400 people were shot in Vegas alone.

It'd be nice if they showed us anything about Vegas. That whole thing is still surreal.

I would like to point out that the VT shooter killed 33 people with a Walther p22 and a 9mm glock. Rifles are not a requirement for killing a lot of people at once.

VT was an outlier. If it happens again you'll see mass movements against handgun purchases too.

I have no problem believing we know most everything of value about Vegas. I suspect we won't see footage for a while because the casino doesn't want to publicize the tragedy and affect revenue or show inadequacies in their security response or the high roller access they probably provided the shooter, but it will likely come out in court if they face civil suits from the survivors and families of victims, unless they settle to keep it out of the press.

It was an outlier but I'm still of the position that the infamy the media gives to the shooter is led to blame than the availability of certain rifles or not. I personally feel that the 2A is too precious to compromise on because the potential downside to disarmament is worse than the alternative. The only real test to know if gun bans work is to examine the homicide rate of a society before and after, and after examining the results of the UK and Australian gun ban that's not a route I want to go down.

It's especially telling that they handed in about 662,000 weapons combined during their initial buybacks and we have at LEAST 300 million. I would wager we have closer to 400 million considering they don't track rifle parts and many people put their own together.

You know, this is unrelated to our current discussion, but the more I think about it...if it was really just one shooter why the hell didn't Paddock use an actual automatic weapon? Bump stocks are stupidly inaccurate at that range, even for a large crowd, to the point where former SOF guys have even said he could have killed more people just using a semi-auto. So why not automatic? Hell, they're legal to own if you can afford the 20k. They're just never used in crimes because they're owned by rich hobbyists. You'd think a millionaire wanting to slaughter a large crowd of people on a suicide mission would be the ideal type to actually use one.

At that range and crowd density it’s not about accuracy, it’s about how much lead you can send down range. He’d fire a gun until it jammed or the barrel overheated, then switch to a new one. No need for a full automatic when you’ve got essentially unlimited guns and ammo with bump stocks and are essentially shooting fish in a barrel.

Considering how far away he was that seems like it would be enough to make the bump stock inaccuracy a factor though. Probably would have been able to put more down range with a belt fed weapon too. Ah well, it was just a random thought.

Yo, that’s not true. Most homicides don’t classify the gun used. In 2016 alone, of the 15,070 homicides committed, 7105 were hand gun related and a whopping 4,166 cases were “other.” There’s no reliable way you can spout off those numbers and not be disingenuous, intentionally or not.

Gotta fact check, yo. We’re here for truth not propaganda. These facts are readily available and I would encourage you to fact check your politically aligned news sources. The truth is out there.

You're wrong.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12

Why are you saying I’m wrong and then linking 2014 when I explicitly said 2016. See “Firearms (type unknown)” and unless you believe that most officers can’t distinguish what their own fucking weapon is, it’s likely a type of rifle.

I listed 2014 as an example of the different tables they provide. I had mentioned 2010 to 2015 and you 2016 so I didn't feel it was necessary to link every single year to show you. Here's the expanded data from navigating your own link.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

If you want to, there's other tables in there that expand upon this and even show how many of those homicides were ruled justified.

I have no idea what you meant talking about the officer distinguishing his own weapon. Do you think they don't have m16s in the trunk or are unfamiliar with different firearm types? Do you think they're the ones poking around and examining the bodies? I am not being a smartass fyi. I genuinely have no idea what you were implying. Unless you think officers are eyewitnesses to most murders or they're examining the bodies I don't see the relevance.

You said that "Most homicides don't classify the gun used" when they actually do have that data for 80% of them, which would mean for most they actually do classify it.

The truth doesn't seem very vague. When you have a known type of murder weapon for 80% of murders involving firearms and one type of weapon is only in 5% of the known types it's a pretty sure bet not much is going to change if you could determine the last 20%. Additionally, if you look at the table you linked where it's broken down by state it shows that half of the "unknown firearm" types come from California, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and Indiana, home to some of our most dangerous cities because of gang violence. Considering most gang violence does not involve rifles I would wager that it won't change the ratio at all.

I think that making it more difficult to get assault rifles would help. These shooters bought theirs legally. Make it tougher for them to get one. And let's see what happens. Oh wait. in the 10 years since the assault weapons ban was lifted, mass shootings are up 30%+.

And most "mass shootings" still use handguns.

60% use AR-15 types

Where did you get that? I've been looking into this in the past few weeks using FBI, DOJ, etc... type places to compile as many solid numbers as I can. It's always nice to have new numbers as I try to get it all together. I got really tired of so many spouting off nonsense a few weeks ago and decided to start digging hah.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-the-ar-15-became-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice-w451452

I don't have time to the read the whole thing right now. I searched for "60", "percent", "sixty", and a few other terms but didn't see where it says that number for the mass shooters. Maybe it's just because I need sleep. Do you mind quoting the relevant part? That's quite the long article.

I read the whole thing. It doesn't say 60% use AR15s, unless I missed it.

Since this is a conspiracy sub I hope everyone would ask why the anti gun crowd is up in arms about the weapon that is the least likely by far to be used in a murder. Not only why that one but if they really, really think they're not going to wait a few months after any theoretical ban to realize they didn't actually change gun violence rates at all and start pushing for complete disarmament.

Being no US american I can maybe answer the question: The USA is rather special as a) there is a strict believe that guns provide an equalizer and b) that an assault-weapon-derivate plattform like the Ar-15 gained such commercial success.

Within a conspiracy sub the second part might be just as important: The sales of AR-15 variants went from 61,000 in 2001 to 1,27 million in 2012 (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-the-ar-15-became-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice-w451452). With that decade we also saw a rise of the truther/"freemen" movement as well as the rise of the tea party.

I don't know if the rentless propaganda that "they" want to steal US americans "freedom" and "weapons" by e.g. the NRA is driven mostly by the want to hike the gun sales or if they truly believe that a weapon designed for urban warfare is a neccessity within their political scopes but by now we have a lot of AR-15s out in the open and a truly divided society.

And, if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

The Freeman movement is just a bunch of weirdos. I haven't seen anything to associate them with firearms more than any other group.

I think that not being an American you don't relate to how those of us in rural areas grew up around guns. They're literally everywhere. Every old man has a gun case and they hand them down to their kids. You start teaching them early and instill a healthy respect for it. As such, rural areas in the USA homicide rates are comparable to the European rates anti gun people want to emulate.

I used to grab my dad's 22 rifle at 10 years old and go off by myself to hunt prairie dogs. You could do it on anyone's land and they'd be thankful because they're a nuisance. The holes they make tend to break livestock's legs.

One misunderstanding is that a rifle like the AR15 is designed only for urban warfare, like you say. This is just untrue. Many hunting rifles are the same exact same in function. Any semiautomatic is the same thing, whereby the gun pulls the next round into the chamber for you after it elects the spent casing. In fact, many states won't let you hunt with an ar15 because the round isn't deadly enough and will just wound a deer and make it suffer. The only difference between an ar15 and a wood stock rifle like this one (https://www.durysguns.com/shop/remington-7400-30-06-sprg-used-gun-inv-199208) is that the wooden one is waaayyyy more deadly but most people will look at it and go, "Oh, that's just fine." It shoots just as quickly, as accurately but has a larger round. But the ar15 gets a bad rap because it is made of polymer and is made to be modular so you can put stuff onto it. It's used a lot because it's popular, that's it.

The reason it's popular is because it's very customizable (like different butt stocks for different size people), you can switch parts in and out of different manufacturers to slowly upgrade, it ranges from cheap to super expensive so there's one for every budget, and it's super easy to maintain. The thing is people look at it like because there's tons of ar15s that it's one gun. It's not. It's less like comparing a Ford to a Volkswagen and more like if every car company could make it's own Charger with swappable parts. Toyota might make a cheaper Charger while Ferrari makes an expensive one but if they both get into a crash it was two Chargers that crashed.

The mistake people make is assuming that most gun owners want to use the gun outside of hunting or target shooting. Do you want to have to, say, pick up a knife and stab someone to save someone else's life? No, because most normal people don't want to do with that. I don't want to have to do that with my gun either. I had to when I was a kid. Luckily I didn't have to fire, I just chambered a round and yelled at the person breaking in that I have a gun and they left, but I can assure you, in that moment that gun weighs 10,000 lbs.

They're only seen as a "thing" by the left largely. In smaller towns and rural areas nearly everybody owns a gun or two and it's not even a thing. We also don't have the rampant crime problems they do in the cities with gang violence despite owning the majority of long guns.

The NRA gets a bad rap. It wouldn't be around if it wasn't for the donations that come from mostly blue collar Americans who feel it's important to hold on to our constitutional values. It still doesn't crack the top 150 lobbyists list because most people just take it for granted. Hence, gaining 500,000 new members when people realized how rabid the left is for taking them away. The right to bear arms was important enough our Founding Fathers made sure it was the second right recognized by the Constitution and all of their personal writings and letters from the time indicate it's intent was to ensure the populace was armed enough to only be governed with consent. They had just overthrown a government they didn't consent to and thought it important we maintain the same option in order to preserve our other rights. With countries like Sweden and the UK becoming increasingly Orwellian we feel the need to ensure we don't go down the same path.

Tldr; The ar15 is a meme, we were founded by gun owners who fought off a government and wanted us to be able to do the same, and with the way the rest of the world is Americans aren't keen on giving up our ability to go the same route.

The only difference between an ar15 and a wood stock rifle like this one (https://www.durysguns.com/shop/remington-7400-30-06-sprg-used-gun-inv-199208) is that the wooden one is waaayyyy more deadly

Except, the Remington typically has a magazine capacity of 4 to 10 rounds rather than 20 to 30 rounds.

I'm not intending to be. For military purposes the Ar15 is obviously a superior choice. If you wanted to slaughter a bunch of people in a crowded situation it arguably has no advantage, though. Although it's close, the 30-06 would kill more of the people it hits then a 5.56, hence 5.56 not being allowed for hunting in some states and the much larger number of wounded than dead during mass shootings with 5.56. The AR15 military advantage comes from the ability to carry much larger amounts of ammo as well as a wounded enemy being more valuable than a dead one, in that it takes away even more enemies from the fight to help him.

The 5.56 is easier to shoot over long distances for shooters that haven't learned to account for the 30-06s trajectory but most of these occur at such close distances that becomes a nonfactor. Likewise for magazine capacity. 10 to 30 rounds doesn't matter much when it takes less than 3 seconds to eject and load a new magazine.

I don't mean to make the case that an ar15 is an ineffective weapon. I'm trying to point out that any perceived advantage it has for a mass shooting is actually inconsequential. Like I've touched on before, the VT shooter used a .22 Walther PPK and a 9mm Glock and killed twice as many people as Cruz. When you're in a close, crowded situation, which every one of these but Vegas has been, the fact is any firearm is deadly enough even in the hands of a low skilled to kill a lot of people very quickly if they're unarmed.

So you ask why I would be upset if I had to give up my AR15? Would you not be upset if something you enjoyed having was taken away for reasons that you know are demonstrably wrong by a bunch of people who are riding what you view as a wave of hysteria and all the while trying to frame you as the nut? That wouldn't piss you off? That a bunch of people who have mostly never even shot a weapon want to try and tell you about weapons? Not saying you personally don't but that's a large part of the anti gun crowd.

As long as guns exist, they're going to be used by bad people for bad things. We only have two examples of countries with similar societies going from owning guns to not owning guns, the UK and Australia. The UK's homicide rate actually went up for over a decade, reversing a downward trend decades long, and they had about .05% as many guns as us. They then had such a knife attack problem that they had to make crazy knife laws and do large public awareness campaigns encouraging people to turn in their knives. Australia's buyback temporarily halted what was already a lowering homicide rate. So one country stayed the same and one got much worse. Yeah, they have cut down on the amount of murders done in "Mass shootings" but now you're more likely to be murdered overall.

One misunderstanding is that a rifle like the AR15 is designed only for urban warfare, like you say. This is just untrue. Many hunting rifles are the same exact same in function.

Do you wanna tell me that the AR-15 wasn't designed for urban warfare when it so clearly was designed as an assault weapon for just that?

he only difference between an ar15 and a wood stock rifle like this one (https://www.durysguns.com/shop/remington-7400-30-06-sprg-used-gun-inv-199208) is that the wooden one is waaayyyy more deadly but most people will look at it and go, "Oh, that's just fine." It shoots just as quickly, as accurately but has a larger round.

yeah, thats the reason why the military prefers wood stock rifles.. oh wait.

It's used a lot because it's popular, that's it.

My point was that this poluarity is due to massive propaganda and advertisment.

The NRA gets a bad rap. It wouldn't be around if it wasn't for the donations that come from mostly blue collar Americans who feel it's important to hold on to our constitutional values. It still doesn't crack the top 150 lobbyists list because most people just take it for granted. Hence, gaining 500,000 new members when people realized how rabid the left is for taking them away.

I would just wish if the rest of the constutational values would defended with just half the frevor.

With countries like Sweden and the UK becoming increasingly Orwellian we feel the need to ensure we don't go down the same path.

Open your eyes. Look at the amount of citizens in prison, look at the non-existent privacy rights, look at the disenfranchised and poor and then come back and call sweden orwellian in comparison to the USA ..

idiot.

Have you even shot a rifle? You have no clue what you're talking about. Here, bullet style everything wrong with your assertions.

• Many militaries do use wood stock. The comparison is used because of the "big scary black gun" meme you people fall for from the antigun crowd.

• 30-06 is a more dangerous round than a 5.56 when it comes to killing rather than wounding. Many states don't allow 5.56 for deer hunting and this is why ar15 mass shootings have larger injury counts than deaths

• The military chooses the m16, which isn't even the same as an ar15 except for looks, because it's modular so they can add accessories easily and the 5.56 is large enough to incapacitate but not always kill. An injury in combat takes 3-4 people out of a fight while a death takes one. The smaller round also lets a soldier carry more ammunition which can be useful when you're spending days away from a fresh stock.

• All of these except Vegas have occurred in close, crowded situations where any perceived advantage to an ar15 goes out the window. The deadliest school shooting in history was done with two small caliber handguns, a .22 Walther PPK and a 9mm glock when 33 people died at VT. Any situation where a large group of unarmed people are up against any gun can result in a catastrophe. The type of gun used will not even be one of the biggest factors. The environment will determine more.

I've actually used an m16, an m4, an ar15, many traditional hunting rifles and many handguns. Harping on about one type of weapon, especially basing it on "hurr durr the military uses it" just makes it obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Have you even shot a rifle? You have no clue what you're talking about. Here, bullet style everything wrong with your assertions.

Steyr AUG and a few hunting rifles.

VT. Any situation where a large group of unarmed people are up against any gun can result in a catastrophe. The type of gun used will not even be one of the biggest factors. The environment will determine more. [...] Harping on about one type of weapon, especially basing it on "hurr durr the military uses it" just makes it obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm harping on the massive rise of sold AR-15 as compared to hunting rifles/shotguns. And I've yet have to hear a really good reason for it.

This is a good comment. Thanks :)

My favorite was a school where a stray round went through an office window

Yeh ok, don't compare this to mass shootings, but it's still very relevant to the gun debate.

I find it disturbing how you play this down, speak about it casually.

My favorite

Nobody got hurt and no motive was ever found

It's not that that's a good thing to happen

Jesus christ someone shot at a school, by accident or not.

I am not down playing anything. You'll notice I even said it's not a good thing but my entire point was how this particular factoid was being disingenious and used by people who are trying to make it sound like Parkland level events are happening daily here.

A stray round hitting a school should still be considered a school shooting no matter the intentions, it still has just a chance of killing schoolchildren

If it fits the fit the definition, of course. Most school shootings were not mass shootings, however, and that's the point. Any incident where a firearm is discharged at a school counts, so included in that count are many suicides on campus with a gun, as well as targeted attacks with one victim, even if it was nonfatal. Lately many people have been using this very broad definition of school shooting with its high number of incidents to insinuate that events like Parkland happen all of the time when they are an extreme stastical outlier.

Okay

Lately many people have been using this very broad definition of school shooting with its high number of incidents to insinuate that events like Parkland happen all of the time when they are an extreme stastical outlier.

Would you mind giving examples? I'm guessing you mean in the media. I haven't experienced this, but that's probablybecause I'm not from america

It's just a little factoid you hear spouted is all. Guns are currently a hot topic here. It's especially annoying when it's done by the chicken little type who seem to think America's schools are deadlier than Baghdad circa 2003.

Here's the first example I found on YouTube using it in the media and it's not a one. Not the most egregious example but you can see how they title it "18 Shootings on U.S. School Campuses in 2018". Then they open with the voiceover, "It's becoming a familiar sight" while showing footage from the Columbine, Sandy Hook and Parkland, attempting to associate the number 18 in this year alone to the 3 deadliest over 2 decades, when the actual familiar sight is a much different scenario. It's become this annoying little factoid that gets repeated on social media a lot.

https://youtu.be/e9QB_9HgbN4

In 8 out of the 18 shootings at least one person was shot

Yes, that's true and I am not downplaying a kid getting shot. I'm just trying to prevent people from making it seem like there's been 18 Parklands.

Pea shooter? Pistol? Bb gun?

I'm guessing there aren't many people releasing school shooting stats who include pea shooters and bb guns.

It is when the headline reads that a kid was arrested for bringing a gun to school, only to read the whole article to find out at the bottom of a long winded article "it was later determined to be a bb gun".

Again, are they included in statistics? Or are you just commenting on shitty journalism.

It all aids in fueling the wild imagination of the sheep.

The statistics show these incidences as drops in the ocean of tragedies after all.

You're right, we should take immediate action against stray bullets everywhere.

Will someone please think of the children!?

I completely agree, and think you have hit the nail on the head. Won't someone please think of the kids?!

How about that bullet is registered, so they know who bought it. And then when some maniac/idiot shoots at a school (accident or not), they can arrest them.

Usually that's up to forensics, which is often a whole lot slower than our nation's kneejerk reactions.

I don't follow.

The time it will take to discover the user of said gun will give way to multiple news articles demanding action before anything actionable has been discovered.

We, as a nation, are too instant gratification driven to accept those terms.

I don't see what you're saying. You're saying that since most "school shootings" don't involve mass killings, that they're perfectly acceptable? And that since only the mass shootings are what's focused on we shouldn't count the other negligent discharges of firearms that happen thousands of times a day in America, let alone in our SCHOOLS? What reality bubble do you live in? Turning our schools into something closer to prisons vs turning them into something closer to college campuses is our choice . But the gun-clinger crowd keeps suggesting we move closer to watchtowers and barbed wire fences.

No, nobody wants that. Not gun owners, not not-gunowners everybody just wants their children to be safe. Please don't polarize the issue.

Everybody wants peace, but the way the two sides think it's achievable is vastly polarized. I'm just arguing for my point of view and why I think the other side is wrong headed.

It comes across as though you are an echo chamber for celebrities and politicians who make these statements while being surrounded by their own ARMED security detail.

What we need to do is find a middle ground that we can agree on and stick to it without a compromise battle where one side is willing to budge and the other is not, which leads to a case where one party wants 100% of the widgets and the other only wants to share 75% of their widgets. This cycle gets repeated next election, same side wants 100% and screams "THERE IS NO COMPROMISEING WITH THESE PEOPLE". So the sharer bends to 80% of the widgets. Wash rinse and repeat untill one side gets their way. Both sides of the isle are guilty of this.

I am a liberal gun owner, (I want to be able to show up at my gay cousins wedding with a joint in my hand and a pistol in my pocket) before you tell other people I want to have barbed wire around kindergartens you should ask me or people like me first.

... Also if you think there are no guns on university campuses you are sadly mistaken, plenty of universities have their own armed police force https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police without being surrounded by concertina wire and sandbags.

We need to talk not just preach.

We also need better public health programs, but that's a different situation entirely.

I like you. We should get a drink sometime and chat.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 159996}

I don't like to hang out with people who think that mixing drugs, alcohol and guns is a good, or safe idea. Society has NO WAY of telling whether you're a "responsible" gun owner or an idiot who likes to mix drink and guns. And why should they have to?

Trained security that is on the job is better than anonymous strangers packing heat.

Also, why do you feel a need to bring a gun to a wedding? You come across as an insane gun toting American with to rationality.

I don't see what you're saying. You're saying that since most "school shootings" don't involve mass killings, that they're perfectly acceptable?

I bet $5 you aint going to no shit neighborhoods, where all the violence at, the really bad areas, and plead with the gangs and drug dealers to stop shooting each other. Maybe some will listen to you, but some going to shoot at you, shoot you.

The reality is, you are just writing things to intentionally get people angry. You are on the nets so you can easily see the reality in which humanity lives, it's perpetual war. Been that way since...

As long as the US hegemony continues to proxy wars and hides its deeds from its people by branding it capitalism, I don't feel comfortable with it. There are probably 180ml+ people on the US soil that feel the same way.

It sucks that kids kill kids. It sucks that gangs got to be gangs and drug dealers got to be drug dealers, and it sucks that cia-crack started the last two. And it sucks that a guy was blowing people up in Austin.

What are you going to do to stop these things from happening; any suggestions?

People been killing for history. So why help them do it better?

What are you going to do to stop these things from happening; any suggestions?

Yeah making it harder for gang members, drug dealers to get guns in the first place. That's a start.

What's your solution? Arm the children? Arm the homeless?

Yeah making it harder for gang members, drug dealers to get guns in the first place.

How?

Yeah making it harder for gang members, drug dealers to get guns in the first place. That's a start.

How?

limiting thenumber o fblack market guns

How?

closing the choke points.

That's funny!

Good luck, you'll need it when you go talk to the gangs!

Where do gangs get their guns from?

While you are in the city asking the gangs and drug deals to stop shooting each other, that's one of the questions you could ask them.

I find this logically flawed. If the government is racist, why would they GIVE innercity blacks guns? If guns are what can be used to overthrow the government, why GIVE them to the oppressed? If guns really really were the one thing that we need for SAFETY, why are they giving them guns to make them less safe???

Also, dumb question, wouldn't YouTube be FILLED with cell phone videos of thse crates?

Who owns the trains ? Who owns the crates? Make THEM more responsible for their security and transport. Guns sholdn't be this easy to steal. period. Laws need to hold the MAKERS of guns more responsible.

k

Name calling is the last resort when you're out of arguments.

Tighter gun regulation is the answer, not looser. Hope this helps.

Also; how will gun legislation stop people from blowing other people up with explosives?

whataboutism. What about cars? whatabout bombs. whatabout knives? Just because gun legislation can't stop people from jumping off buildings onto other people doesn't mean we shouldn't enact it.

And, what will stop you from being a headcase? Seriously, get off that cross. People need that wood for building bridges.

can't stop people from jumping off buildings onto other people

Has someone actually done that to kill or terrorize a person?

I can be a headcase all I want, if I can't get a gun, then I can't shoot people. That's the point.

You missed the point. The point is that a law shouldn't be held a failure for things it wasn't written for.

a law shouldn't be held a failure for things it wasn't written for.

So you are going to just forget about the 35+ years of legislation that has already put massive restriction on the dealer for sales regulation, that have failed, but are not being followed through by government agencies, laws? Why would the government look to kill a massive amount of its taxed income?

All you are doing is asking for more feel-good-legislation that the legal departments and dealers may not uphold[*Pretty much 35+ years up to now]. I've been watching it over 40 years. Fuck. You can't even get government to do the right things anyways, and, that alone is going to bite us in the ass. And, when it does, you will be thankful for people that know how to use firearms and that they know who the enemy is.

The easier thing to do would be to move to where there are less guns, or just less people.

No matter how much legislation you put in the way, there are going to be mass killings; gun or no.

Why would the government look to kill a massive amount of its taxed income?

The ATF has been handcuffed by NRA supported legislation to limits it's reach to enforce the laws you refer to.

All you're saying is that you don't trust Government to ever do the right thing so therefor you must become a vigilante and uphold justice yourself.

Holding dealers more accountable is part of the new common sense gun control I support. They are the gatekeepers of these deadly weapons. Let's hold them to that.

The thing that's been "biting us in the ass" the last 20 + years has been all those people that DON'T know how or care to know how to use a gun. We allow them the same easy access to them, why? So that you don't have to wait a week for your 8th gun? Get real.

Limiting guns in criminals hands is the goal. Never forget that.

Now matter how many rape laws you pass there are always going to be rapists. By your logic we should make rape easier. again, you're logic is flawed.

Limiting guns in criminals hands

"Train car theft in high crime areas.[Cargo at rest is cargo at risk]"; is something that the city of Chicago knows about and has been trying to cure. Did you know that most of the firearms shippments that move around the US are in boxcars? Yet, we never hear about the average of 3 box cars a quarter getting raided by criminals. What is important about this, the city of Chicago says, "that the criminals seem to know what boxcars to go for".

I provide the link later when I run across it again.

Again. Then hold the train operators responsible. Change the laws so that you can't transport them this way. Tighter regulation is the answer, not looser.

hold the train operators responsible.

You should go tell them that.

We need gun insurance.

"a gazillion school shootings already this year!"

Twice that sir.

I fall on the anti gun side and I absolutely hate this sensationalism. It totally undermines what we’re trying to argue if you misrepresent what is actually going on.

When you throw out these numbers right after a mass shooting, everyone automatically associates “school shooting” with mass shooting. Purposefully leading on examples that you gave and trying to misrepresent them to be something worse than they are.

I fall heavily on the other side from you, but I very much appreciate that you would at least approach the conversation without all the sensationalism and misrepresentation that mocks journalism these days.

Upvoted for your ability to think with logic and reason. Im very pro 2A but I am always open to discussion especially when its something that can make things better and actually work. Alot of what people spout, and ill admit its both sides, is just nonsense and misinformation. Thanks for actually taking the time to seperate bullshit from facts.

You should be careful. Pretending to be moderate is one of the canned techniques socialists use against their enemies.

I'm definitely more conservative leaning. More libertarian than anything. But if you're not willing to at least listen to the other side and find common ground with what is reasonable and listen to the unreasonable to be able to point out why, then you're part of the problem.

If you are libertarian then you have my utmost respect. However, we are in a bad situation right now-- well, for the last 60+ years. We are told "just this one little law" or "just this one little rule" over and over again, as a tactic to start the process of removing rights (it's not just gun control-- same tactic is going on over free speech: you just can't say this one little hateful thing, etc).

So we can't keep pretending the other side is acting in good faith. It's not. There might be good socialists-- rare little creatures, like albino harts-- but the vast majority that anyone in this country has interacted with have either been the useful idiots--unknowing foot soldiers for an army they don't understand-- or the artful deceivers.

Regardless of which you are chatting with, they are not arguing in good faith. And the white harts are too rare to gamble on-- don't treat the ones who are actively trying to hurt you like the one in the million sincere ones who would be willing to treat you like a fellow human being.

Agreed. And the reason I agree with you is this. Think about every law thats been passed. Think back as far as you can remember. When is the last time a law was passed that actually gave you a new right? Every law that gets passed either restricts or denies you some right. And 99.9% of the time there is some monetary motivation behind passing the law.

I don't know why you'd be surprised. People, in general are idiots. They do dumb, thoughtless things. ALL. THE.TIME. so no matter what variable you put in their situation, they will do something stupid with it. Be it alcohol, a car, a swimming pool, a child etc. But instead, we think that giving them a GUN will somehow make them mature and responsible. But they don't. because thye are idiots.

I never cease to believe how stupid and ignorant so many people are in general.

We can't make anything idiot-proof. Humanity just makes a better idiot.

I dunno, man. Seems a bit too logical for my taste.

they haven't actually put up anything for allowing guns in schools yet, as of now those should be "gun free zones"(how they word that on the signs around schools where I am) in most states.

There’s no way that wouldn’t ever be newsworthy no matter what

Good thing they've still been in the news, just not on the front page of Reddit.

Top thought mate!

Benign explanations make me so mad. I'm going to rage hard now. Bbl.

Could also be teachers deliberately misusing guns to sway the national opinion, because they were either forced, coerced, or did it of their own free will.

There could be a lot more reasons too, I'm sure.

Yeah, I'm sure a bunch of teachers are just itching to get fired from their jobs in order to make a political statement.

Option A isn't benign in and of itself. You've effectively just said "a few of the media conglomerates that control everything we see and hear decided it was in their interests to overrepresent a particular narrative in national news coverage" which is waayyyyyyyy worse than you're letting on.

News stories don't get pushed by traditional media as much anymore. Now it's mostly social media. So these stories have spread because people were interested in them.

A was my guess. Tried to Google stories from before but can't seem to find them that might just be because it wasn't a huge news story before the Orange Cheeto decided to start trying to arm the teachers. Anyone with more patience or Google fu want to give it a try?

Our country is large enough that if you yet hard enough you can find plenty of anecdotal evidence to support just about anything.

Did you forget what subreddit you're in? There's definitely more to this - agenda.

Such stories are now topically relevant so, while they were happening at the same rate before they are making national news now

Oh thank god someone with a rational explanation is the top rated comment.

Bullshit. You're missing out on the conspiracy here bro! /s

Addendum to B: The first ones to do it were the kind of dipshits to run into it without thinking because the TV told them it was patriotic.

topically relevant

Nope...sorry. Any conceivable excuse to eradicate the 2nd Amendment is viewed by the entire US News Media as more relevant than them obtaining enough oxygen for their next breath.

The US News Media has 3...and only 3...reasons for existing:

1) Propagandizing 24/7 in favor of Israel.

2) Justifying the elimination of gun ownership by citizens so we can be mass exterminated by the government Israel Controls if we fail to voluntarily support them.

3) Justifying exceptions to free speech that are so vague and all encompassing that the net effect is that no one is allowed to criticize Israel without being accused of antisemitism and this will eventually be followed by criminalizing "hate speech" and executing anyone who says one word in opposition to Israel's plans for global domination.

Any of these 3 are continuously "topically relevant" and if they happen to produce profit in the process, then that is great too, but if it doesn't happen, then they don't really care.

Also, people are often more on edge after an event.

If I go walking somewhere after it's snowed and is icy, if I slip, I then walk slower as I'm wary of slipping again.

Same thing with this, if teachers are now taking guns to school, they're also likely being hyper on edge.

A moment of clarity on this sub in the last year?

Oh my.

I'm leaning to A. Distinctly I remember a video year ago of a cop shooting himself in the leg while giving a lecture on gun safety at a school. This was years ago, but never caused much uproar.

Yes.

No, it just seems awfully coincidental.

When the president tells everyone that we should have guns in schools, some teachers start bringing them.

You know what doesn't happen when there aren't any guns around? Accidental shootings. You know what will happen if you put guns in schools? Accidental shootings.

I wonder what the schools that have had armed teachers are doing that they haven't been in the news before Trump started talking about it. We should find out what they are doing in terms of safety.

When the president tells everyone that we should have guns in schools, some teachers start bringing them.

You're literally making things up. The teacher was authorized by law to carry a firearm because he was trained to do so. It would be a felony otherwise.

You know what doesn't happen when there aren't any guns around?

Implying that guns will disappear because you write a law saying so. According to this logic, marijuana does not exist in the United States.

You know what will happen if you put guns in schools?

Guns only shoot when people are handling them. People with any training know you don't draw a gun in public unless someone is trying to kill you (it's against the law in many places). So, no, trained teachers are not going to be playing with their guns in a school and then have a negligent discharge.

Implying that guns will disappear because you write a law saying so.

Not even close. I'm not advocating for a ban - I'm saying that if you choose to put guns in schools, there will be accidents. Never mentioned anything about banning or outlawing guns...

Guns only shoot when people are handling them. People with any training know you don't draw a gun in public unless someone is trying to kill you

Yet we have a trained professional that drew his firearm in a classroom, and a student was hit with a bullet fragment.

I believe what most people are arguing for when they say we should arm teachers is, there should be a gun safe on campus that a handful of well trained teachers, who have had extra training and have been tested for mental stability, have an access code. In the case of a shooter, these teachers would be able to reach the firearms and protect the students as if they were law enforcement. I'm sick of the image of every teacher having a gun at their hip or in their desk unlocked and ready to be shot by whoever.

So you're saying that we should have professionals, who are trained in the use of firearms, standing by ready to respond to an emergency.

We're not talking teachers with guns in the classroom, but you know, the guys placed in a safe location nearby, where they can be accessed in what... 5 minutes (hear the shots, secure your classroom and students, get to the gun locker, open it, inspect the weapon, load the weapon, return to the area, find the perpetrator)?

Maybe we can take it one step further and just have a bunch of the teachers designated as permanent security. We could train them to deal with this type of issue, provide them with guns, and to be safe, uniforms. To make response time best we could group them together, maybe have them on patrols. And if we need to reach them! Let's have a dedicated phone line... but scrap the 7 or 10 digits... just use three.

Hey, 5 minutes is pretty good. If the Police could do that I think there would be few deaths at shootings. That is half the time of the national average response time for law enforcement.

So first line of defense should be civilians? Are we going to give them full benefits and pensions? Are we going to load these lockers with service pistols or assault rifles? How long does it take to fit body armor? How about the coms? Will they work and be trained to work in teams? If a teacher decides, "Fuck this shit," and bolts, are we going to impose sanctions on "deserters"?

It sounds like you'd like to turn educators into a paramilitary unit. I think you're living in the clouds on this one.

Assault rifles? body armor? really? no one is arguing to make teachers a paramilitary. You are going to extremes and making this an argument no one here is making.

I mean, it sounds like you're down for arming teachers, but don't want to invest in their training or safety?

If you are reading my comments in this thread you would know otherwise.

You are falling into your same problem you accuse me of. Arguing against something that both doesn't have to be the case. 1. Just because you don't think what I said is the case, does not mean others aren't picturing that as other comments have said my ideas are a new perspective to them. 2. Even if there are guns in certain classrooms with teachers trained as they ought to be, those guns would be locked up. The guns in the classroom would make the response time minimal (a lot quicker than the 10 minute average after the call has been made to the police. especially when you consider call time) Them in the classroom or in the school in general when locked up appropriately may increase the risk of an accident by a tiny percent particularly if opening the safe when it is uncalled for would result in jail time. 2b. No one said 10 teachers would all have guns. You are assuming the teachers would be disorganized and that would result in mistakes, that simply is irrational. You give a set of people weapons in a school, you also have protocol as to where and how those people are to operate. Teachers also can easily been given IDs that identify them and say open doors on campus using strips that can't be counterfeited by a 19 year old with a desire to shoot up his old school? 3. There is a small amount of 19 year old kids that can pass as a 30 year old as you suggest. And a 19 year old isnt going to pass as a 30 year old colleague of mine who I see daily and have meetings with. So that eliminates teachers accidentally shooting each other. 4.Properly trained teachers aren't anymore likely to shoot a kid than police would be in the same situation, but the teachers would roughly have 15-20 minutes of a jump start according to every result in a google search. (not peer reviewed I know but it says something) 5. what about schools in rural areas that have no designated police force? Response time being over an hour? What do you do then?

But according to your own post this fool was trained to handle it and still shot someone on accident.

That was not what I said. I said he was well-trained so the narrative we're being fed is preposterous. Trained people don't play with guns in schools, therefore the claim that someone who was trained was playing with his gun in a school is false.

Also, he was a cop. If you want to argue police shouldn't have guns, go right ahead.

They shouldn't. They've given up their right to with their actions.

Not entirely true. If you're arguing that cops who have acted irresponsibly, especially at the cost of somebody's life, to be disarmed, then that's a conversation. But it sounds like you're saying all cops should not have guns because of a small minority that do stupid shit.

He's no true Scotsman!

Dude I was totally going to slam this guy and you just did it perfectly. Thank you.

The guy who just fired a gun off in California was a reserve officer and a safety trainer. He still made a mistake and discharged his weapon. Just because you have training doesn't mean you will never fuck up. You ever see that video from like a decade or so ago of that DEA agent showing guns to students in a classroom and he makes a big speech about how he is trained so he is the only person in the room who is qualified to handle the guns he is showing and then literally within 10 seconds he accidentally shoots himself in the foot with one of the guns he is holding? That shit happens. The more "trained" you are the more complacent you can become because you feel like you wouldn't make a mistake because you are so cautious and you have handled guns a million times. Once it starts becoming second nature to handle a gun it also starts to get to a point where you can become complacent and make a mistake.

He still made a mistake and discharged his weapon.

Literally ignoring the whole thread and premising your argument on the very narrative we are questioning. "But of course we need to blindly trust the government, because this narrative made up by the media that is controlled by the same government!"

You ever see that video from like a decade or so ago of that DEA (or ATF) agent showing guns to students in a classroom and he makes a big speech about how he is trained so he is the only person in the room who is qualified to handle the guns he is showing and then literally within 10 seconds he accidentally shoots himself in the foot with one of the guns he is holding?

I agree, we need gun control for fed goons.

Who said anything about trusting the government. People in the government are the ones saying "teachers should be armed" because they want that sweet, sweet NRA money to keep coming to them. How often do we see news stories about teachers who aren't even mature enough to keep themselves from fucking their students? But we want to train and arm these people? And then once they are trained and armed what separates them from being the same as the "fed goons" who you say we need more gun control for? They will then be teachers who are armed and trained in firearms the same as the police are and they are given special authority to carry a weapon and use it as necessary inside a school. So basically our teachers will be cops thinking at any moment they may have to play hero and shoot an intruder. What could go wrong?

Carrying a concealed weapon shouldn't be illegal for the common people, and teachers should be welcome to carry on campus if and if only if they pass stringent psych evaluations and are trained to follow strict rules, including never letting any students know about the weapon unless absolutely necessary. Merely allowing the gun to be noticed without a need should be a serious policy violation.

You're literally making things up. The teacher was authorized by law to carry a firearm because he was trained to do so. It would be a felony otherwise.

Look at how well this trained shooter did...

Implying that guns will disappear because you write a law saying so. According to this logic, marijuana does not exist in the United States.

Lets do away with all laws, eh?

The whole premise of your argument is that people who are trained and responsible will not accidentally discharge in a school. We have two examples of trained (thus hopefully responsible) people doing exactly that.

If you increase the number of teachers with guns and encourage those who wouldn't normally want to to start carrying firearms, you're basically asking for this rate to increase exponentially.

coincidental? suuure, the event last month had nothing to do with it. We have directive from the idiot in chief already to arm them. They're just doing what they're told isn't that what you guys want? to protect the kids?

You know what doesn't happen when a school is defended by armed adults? Mass school shootings. You know what happens when you ban all guns from the vicinity of school grounds? Mass school shootings.

I could have sworn there were armed law enforcement officers in Florida, but that didn’t seem to stop anything.

Actually, the United States is the only country that experiences mass school shootings at such an epidemic level. The rest of the world didn’t turn schools into fortresses in order to avoid the same fate.

User name checks out.

Lol you are fucking dumb

You know who doesn't give a fuck and brings their own gun, most school shooters

Very convenient for the media to report

Well the last two were also cops/SROs, so if the media still cared about police violence they would have spun the stories that way.

Cops. Exactly the kind of people who would want to have the guns while the rest of us have none. No motive there.

Yup, noticed it. I could have predicted it at this point, too. These things happen way to predictably to be considered mere coincidences. Its all staged propaganda in order to manipulate the gullible public. Once you begin to see it, its sort of like breaking out of the matrix.

Redpill me oh wise one

People like you really piss me off. Virtually every president since LBJ has called for a one world government. Yet you people sit here and pontificate over whether the news might be lying to you today. It’s lying to you all the fucking time, because it’s owned by people who want a one world government. Do you idiots ever read books or listen to speeches? FFS they tell you what they’re going to do. “Red pull me wise one” how about you read a fuckin book or try to stretch that attention span for longer than 2 minutes.

Damn all these flavors and you choose to be salty it was a joke m8

You prolly shouldnt say 'piss' you might lose all of your Good Boy Points for that

All this information and you choose to be stupid.

Oof I was being sarcastic, don't get triggered man I'm W O K E A F I know what's going on 😉

You're not being sarcastic, you're being an ass.

I don't mind when jokes poke fun st something I care about, when its actually funny. You're just excusing your shitting on somebody with "u mad bro" abort button.

Who exactly did I shit on? I jokingly asked to be red pilled then this guy kirked off on me??? like what?

What does the one world government have to do with the idiotic idea of arming teachers?

I'm not making the connection...

It has to do with disarming a populace before you can control them in totality. Right now we are in a sort of conditioning phase where they get people more and more use to government control, slowly, one law at a time.

I can't do that, you have to do it yourself. I didn't see it for a long time, and now I wonder how I didn't see it before. Look for themes that all of the MSM push. They will sometimes push it subtly, and other times it will not be so subtle. But the way they manipulate information to influence the reader to think a certain way about a certain issue is obvious. What amazed me the most is that they have even stooped to the level of just making up news to push their narratives.

I mean, arming teachers is the stupidest fucking idea I've ever heard.

Is it possible that because the POTUS gave the idea credibility, it's now more on the nation's mind and therefore when obvious news about it's stupidity comes out, people are more aware of it?

I mean, could it not just be a result of the national consciousness being aware of armed teachers because the most powerful man in the nation has given it more relevancy?

There's nothing stupid about allowing someone to be armed. If someone isn't comfortable or trained with a gun, they absolutely shouldn't be armed. I concealed carry all the time. If I were a teacher, I would definitely do so. And no matter how stupid you may think it is now now, if you were in a situation with an active shooter, you would be incredibly thankful if someone like me was there.

Arming an educator is a dumb idea. Sorry, it just is. As the news reports show, accidents will happen with guns. Why add additional danger within a classroom? Teachers are there to educate children, adding a weapon to thier responsibilites is too much. Do you remember high school? Do you remember the amount of drama and stress that can occur in a school? Adding teachers with guns is adding additional gasoline to a grease fire. As these latest news reports show.

I'm happy for you and your comfort level with your weapon. I'm not here to say you don't deserve to have one. But I don't care how well trained you are, if you are going to be an educator in the classroom, you should not be walking around with a gun strapped to your waist or wherever you're gonna conceal it.

And no, I'm sorry, but you having a gun does not make me feel more comfortable. It may make you feel more comfortable, but it does not make me feel that way.

Again, I'm not here to take away your gun. If you feel confortable having one in your house, or when you are driving in your car, cool. I have a bunch of friends that carry protection. But don't bring it into my kid's schools.

So you think its dumb because accidents may happen? So concealed carry is dumb as well then, because I could be carrying in a mall and an accident might happen where somehow my gun shoots people.

I disagree. These kinds of accidents are incredibly rare and should never happen with a tiny bit of training. Better to allow someone the chance to defend themselves and others, rather than sit there like helpless lambs to the slaughter.

Personally, I think your opinion is dumb as well.

If a mall allows you to carry your weapon, then fine. But if the mall's policy is to have no guns in the mall, then you can't bring your gun in there.

Again, I'm not advocating the removal of your right to self defense. I'm saying that there is no reason for teachers to have guns. It's a stupid idea, and most people agree. These news stories about idiot teachers hurting themselves or students because of having a gun is clear evidence that it's a bad idea. trump is a fucking moron for thinking this was a good idea.

Did you know that your more likely to hurt yourself with your own gun then from being shot by another person? Again, you're adding more chances of mistakes to happen. It's a dumb idea.

As for your notion that in an active shooter situation, I'd be happy that there was another person with a gun... Maybe. Or maybe I'd be even more freaked out about being caught in the cross fire.

This notion of a good guy with a gun in a public space is stupid. This isn't the OK Corral. This isn't a war zone. Your right to own a fire arm and protect yourself in your own personal space (your car, your home) does not allow you to come into a public space strapped. Sorry. But that's how I feel. And I sure as shit will go down kicking and screaming before a teacher is armed in any school my kids attend.

I'll be honest, your reasoning just doesn't make logical sense to me. If you think that school shootings are a threat that we need to protect against, it makes sense to allow teacher to have a means of defense if they chose to take that responsibility.

You seem to think the threat of an accidental misfire is greater than the potential defense offered by allowing teachers to have arms. I'm not sure either of us can be convinced, and you calling it dumb or moronic or whatever isn't really strengthening your argument.

I'm not calling you dumb or moronic. I'm calling the idea dumb.

Yeah, we're clearly on different sides of this debate. I'm not sure how long ago you were in high school, but I clearly remember it. I just think adding a gun into a school is throwing a match into a powder keg.

There are other solutions to school shootings besides creating a war zone environment. This NRA solution that the president is pushing is just plain dumb.

Again, just to be clear. I'm not against your right to own a gun for your personal safety. That's your choice. But there's no need for them in schools.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

And no matter how stupid you may think it is now now, if you were in a situation with an active shooter, you would be incredibly thankful if someone like me was there.

So do you plan to shoot the school shooter and how exactly do you plan to identify him?

If I were a teacher and I heard gunshots, I would take out my gun, peek out the door and see if the shooter heads my way. Its not complicated, really. Its also not a guaranteed defense (if the shooter just breaks into the class without warning, for example), but its a lot better than nothing.

How would you know that they were the shooter and not another good Samaritan like you trying to shoot the shooter? It's not like in a movie where you instantly know who the bag guy is.

I'm a veteran, so I know how to use my judgement in these sorts of situations. So far I've never killed the wrong person, and I'll try my best to make sure that never happens.

What's really concerning about arming teachers is a good number of them are on anti-depressant, anti-anxiety medications.

Exactly! You have these over worked, over stressed teachers that are making about 30 to 40 thousand a year... And you want to give these people guns???

It's the dumbest fucking idea I've ever heard

It's the dumbest fucking idea I've ever heard

if i wanted to help another country tear itself apart from the inside, i'd definitely try to push the idea of arming their teachers. just sayin'

HA This was my first thought upon reading that headline.

If any of you people think the news is anything but a vehicle to push a one world government agenda onto the masses you’re retarded. End of story. If you’ve been here for any amount of time and you still have any faith in the news at all you are a stupid person.

There's plenty of other shit they push. It's called money interests.

Wrong. They sacrifice money on media outlets like the NYT and Twitter which don’t make any money. They do do things in the interest of money often but making as much money as possible is not their primary goal, a one world government is. How many Rockefellers and Bush’s have to say it before you believe it?

What's wrong with a single worldwide government?

I thought the exact same thing.

Havent there been 2? That isnt almost weekly, thats twice.

Well the MSD shooting was only two weeks ago

It was February 14...

Ok, so 2 weeks ago twice

I'd say people are just paying attention to it more now. In every thread someone posts that video of the DEA agent accidentally shooting a pistol in class, which happened a while ago. None of this stuff is new, here are some other references:

2014 - Idaho professor accidentally shoots himself in the foot in chemistry class

2011 - Long Island Professor Accidentally Shoots Self in Leg Outside Class

2014 - Teacher charged with accidentally shooting gun at school, resigns

Arming Teachers debate in 2012 after Sandy Hook

Agreed. The POTUS is the most talked about, most powerful man in the nation. When he brings up an idea it's gonna be on the national radar for a while.

Especially when his idea is so ridiculous, people are gonna remember it. And when the obvious results of arming teachers happens, it's gonna get publicity.

These stories are a result of the power of the Presidency's ability to have an idea become a huge discussion nationwide. Nothing more.

And furthermore, it will not happen. Well not nationally, maybe some state or district in a state will try it, but won't be a thing. Schools are public and funded by taxpayers. We are not going to want our kids going to a school where teachers are packing heat. No way. Won't happen. I would say if anything comes of this (besides new gun laws which likely won't end school shootings but needs to happen) will be more security or metal detectors or something new that will be invented. Like a machine that can smell bullets or gun powder. Maybe schools will be built in the future with bullet proof windows and doors and an instant super lock down system.

The POTUS is the most talked about, most powerful man in the nation.

LOL

leader of the free world and while the talk may not be good he is talked about more basically if you can end the earth with the push of a button you are 100% the most powerful man in the nation

The guy has the nuclear football, I dont know why you wouldnt think that comes with a good modicum of powe.r

lol and JFK was the most powerful man in the world until Oswald got him right? that's just so cute how you guys think the President is the man who calls the shots as if he acts solely out of his own personal agenda and isn't ultimately an actor who answers to the deep state cartel. this is demonstrably, a retarded thing to believe of course. you need only look at organizations like PNAC, or the banking lobby, or any extremely powerful lobby to see whose agenda is playing out regardless of President.

Thats cute.

3 years ago

OBAMA IS DESTROYING AMERICA

Today

Psssshhhh the president has no real power, what are you guys worried about lol?

hmm sorry I seem to have no recollection of ever having made either of those statements. can you point me towards an example in my comment history or something somewhere? thanks.

Im summarizing the general conservative apathy happening right now.

It was a big deal now its not, dont be obtuse. Its never a very good debate tactic.

So in the example of the thread we are talking about the President has the power to ban bump stocks with the swing of a pen.

DO you not think this is power? He has the ability to launch a nuclear strike (Note how you just never bothered to respond to that, I wonder why?). He can veto legislation, is the commander of our armed forces... Wait, why exactly am I explaining the executive branch to you?

Go read a book.

Trump doesnt have to appoint war criminals as the head of the CIA, he chose to. Trump doesnt have to appoint bankers and lobbyists, he chose to.

general conservative apathy? sorry, not a conservative, not a trump supporter, not aligned anywhere with either the left or right side of the distraction. Obama had all the same types in his cabinet, as did Bush, as do all lapdog presidents who ultimately carry out exactly the same overall agenda. I find your mass media fueled cognitive dissonance of thinking you know exactly who you're talking to hilarious, thank you.

Lol okay, good chat.

well I mean, if you're gonna hold inconsistencies against me, at least make sure they're my own inconsistencies and not those of whichever group along the political divide you don't like just because they also happen to not be dumb enough to think the president is the highest political power there is. the partisan mentality is seriously warped, can't even discuss the obvious without someone shouting "conservative!". snap out of it.

Ah so you have no real opinions and any criticism against what you say is waived away with "But im not"

Well in that case I voted independent and havent owned a TV in more than a decade.

this all started with me giving you an opinion. depends on the issue. I dont like to adhere myself to labels and the wholesale ideological positions that go with them. would rather think for myself about things.

I dont like to adhere myself to labels and the wholesale ideological positions that go with them. would rather think for myself about things.

Right because then you would have to support an actual position and have actual criticisms to add.

You purposely put yourself in a position where anyone who challenges you isnt challenging you just this pseudo intellectual persona youve developed.

Its transparent as fuck and eventually youll realize that to be a part of the conversation youll have to form a real opinion besides "This sucks"

"bla bla bla I'm right you're wrong as per my endless red herring drivel." you're arguing that the president is the absolute of political power. it's such an intellectually bankrupt stance to take that it doesn't merit a serious discussion .

simply because I said he really obviously is not,

Right you just said it, you have nothing to back it up. I explained a few powers to you and you dont even bother to bring it up you just move on as if I said nothing.

Later.

read my earlier post again. study the PNAC and other think tanks whose policies are enacted regardless of come and go politicians. follow the corporate and financial lobbies for whom the same can be said. study what happens when presidents break step with what Eisenhower was calling the military industrial complex. anyone who thinks the president rolls in to office in these circumstances and does what he wants is a blithering imbecile. level up or choose a different sub. this is a debate far past settled for those who are genuinely here to discuss conspiracy.

THats a very long winded way of saying

Ive seen a few documentaries and dont know shit about the branches of government.

Again you fall back to the "You just dont get it maaaaan."

Cool, end of story.

The president has power you just fail to understand it.

When I was in high school, 2009ish, a student stole a gun from a teachers car during a school day. All the schools in the town went on lock down and luckily nothing else came of it. Not quite the same, but if that happened now it it probably be a news head line. I agree that it is just being way sensationalized at the moment.

Interesting. Remember "The Summer of the shark" a few years ago? The news reported a shark attack and people tuned in and then they reported all of the shark attacks because it got ratings., They compared the number of attacks to previous Summers and there were actually fewer shark attacks that particular Summer and the news just sensationalized it.

My point is that most of the time sensational journalism is not meant to push an agenda but more self serving for the media itself.

The problem I have with this sub is that literally everything is a "conspiracy" here. I feel like you can't claim conspiracy on everything or you lose what little credibility you have.

We're not here for credibility. We're explorers of the occult (in the old sense of the word, "the hidden"). That means a lot of garbage will get posted and evaluated. It's up the individual to discern their own truth.

and evaluated

As long as you're okay with it being properly identified as garbage in the comments, I think that's probably fine.

It’s up the individual to discern their own truth.

Truth is truth, regardless of the individual.

Yeah but unless we both have the power of omniscience, your truth probably won't line up with mine.

Then one of you doesn't have the truth. It's not like the truth is unknowable. One of you is wrong, and one of you is right.

In a universal sense, sure... how ever, outsiders / public generally won't get all of the facts pertaining to sensitive subjects. This gap is generally where this sub focuses, hence different "truths" or "best guesses based on substantiating evidence". In the face of contradicting evidence, until one is disproven, then both can potentially be true.

Ohh, I see what you're saying. I agree.

Do you think that 9/11 was carried out because OBL hot tired of hearing about shark attacks?

The problem I have with this sub is that literally everything is a "conspiracy" here. I feel like you can't claim conspiracy on everything or you lose what little credibility you have.

Probably literally the only sub on reddit where you shouldn't have a problem with that lol

I love your username, sincerely.

whether or not they intend to push an agenda or just want good ratings, they are pushing An Agenda, which is a problem if its not a good agenda.

I feel like you can't claim conspiracy on everything or you lose what little credibility you have.

That's what this sub literally is meant for though. As long as there is a conspiracy theory to be found, THIS is the place to share them. It's like complaining that the DotA2-subreddit is too game-centric.

sensationalism journalism

Teachers firing guns on school grounds would always make the news, regardless of timing or political climate.

The problem I have with this sub is that literally everything is a "conspiracy" here.

This is a very active conspiracy sub, what do you fucking expect?

I feel like you can't claim conspiracy on everything or you lose what little credibility you have.

This myopic way of thinking is lazy and divisive.

Make the local news, but not the national news. Not till it was brought into the conversation.

ie media is literally a fake reality matrix.

Have your point back. Dunno if I fully agree, but I get what you're saying. The media makes people see a fake reality not in line with actual reality. When they cherry-pick stories based on what riles people up, people think boring things never happen, and think every school is a murder den filled with sexy, pedophile teachers and crack cocaine-smoking seventh graders.

The Summer of the shark

Obviously there's a media agenda there. They created the meme and ran with it for the ratings. A clear-cut conspiracy involving multiple news agencies of which there are so few.

Why come into a conspiracy forum and belittle the idea of conspiracies? The MSM proliferates conspiracy theories all the time and is in and of itself a conspiracy.

Propaganda and the agendas they promote are the price we pay for a free society, free press and free market. Any crackpot can get on the internet and spout nonsense (me included). It is up to the individual to process the information and determine if it is logical, coincidental or just bad fucking luck. I read this subreddit regularly and while I don't agree with most posts, I respect that a lot of people on this sub put a lot of time and effort into their theories and posts. All I am saying is that not every theory on here is an actual conspiracy. Just because this is a conspiracy sub doesn't mean you can't question a theory or call horse shit, horse shit.

Yet in trying to debunk an MSM conspiracy theory, you promoted another one yourself.

I don’t see how that’s “obvious” at all.

A few years ago? It was 2001.

In that case, either Gary Condit or the sharks planned 9/11 to throw everyone off their trails. Lol

Listening to the Gary Condit story developing on Howard Stern was amazing.

Yep. At least once a day now on Twitter one of the headline stories and trending hashtags will be about an incident involving a gun and labelled as an "active shooter".

Personally, I find the media's treatment of the entire situation to be as much of a cause as anything for the big ones like Cruz. People like to mention that Germany hasn't had a school shooting because they beefed up their gun laws. They also disallowed the media from reporting from reporting the shooter's name and making them famous. We make ours into the new Charles Mansons. There have been more than a few psychologists who have said as such.

We have much deeper problems than the availability of guns. Everyone knows who Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, or Nicholas Cruz are. Nobody can name John Keller or Ken Bellau, two guys who saved tons of lives in Katrina. And I don't mean to suggest I'm any better. I always have to Google their name before making this point.

The 24/7 news cycle is cancer.

everything is a conspiracy here

It's called /r/conspiracy. That's the point.

I remember clowns in the woods. They were maybe stealing kids, but no kids ever got stolen. Then clowns were seen in woods all over the country. Then clowns started getting threatened outside of the woods, just doing their job. Where did all the woodland clowns go, and what were they really up to?

I have them in my basement. I call it the clown basement. You haven't heard about it yet, because it hasn't hit the news, but once it does the media will be in a frenzy why so many clowns are being abducted and stashed away in basements.

Promo campaign for the remake of IT, but once people died the promoters did their best to distance themselves.

People died?

Not people, clowns.

Hmm.. Maybe not. There definitely severe beatings, stabbings, and arrests.. but as for actual deaths, I'm not finding any reliable reports atm, I'll come back with an edit if that changes.

Remember "The Summer of the shark" a few years ago?

I think you're showing your age there, the summer of shark attacks was in the late 90s. So almost 20 years ago.

I'm totes against conspiracy shaming.

Remember this is actually media too. Anything typically relevant will rise like oil to the top. We got to sniff out the sense through it all

Because that’s what happens. There’s no conspiracy.

...what happens?

People can accidentally or just perform stupidly with something. Americans are idiots, so, things like this can happen and do happen. It’s another reason to ban guns for majority of citizens.

What happens is there is a lot of hype now about schools being unsafe. People who have guns may feel the need to be strapped, when before, they would have thought having a gun at work in a school was not OK. So, more guns in school, more accidental gunfire. People are jumpy as fuck these days.

Almost like maybe arming teachers was a bad idea.. hmm.. 🤔. Armed security is enough, as long as they act honorably.

You guys pick up on outliers and use that to make policy. Confirmation bias all the way with you leftists.

You aren't counting the school shooters who chicken out, knowing that teachers are armed and able to stop them. Or those who are stopped mid shooting.

Accidents always happen, whether it is a cop a security guard or your grandpa out shooting his .22. That's life, deal.

Talk about picking outliers with your grandpa comment huh? Lol Rather have it be at home due to negligence or an accident than at a school full of kids right? Armed security is deterrent enough, multiple depending on school size and demographics, but arming teachers creates a conflict of interest.

You are entitled to your opinion. I see no issue with well trained persons including teachers being armed. It is also cheaper than hiring more security guards

I’d suggest a mental exercise exploring all the potentials for arming teachers messing with the academic focus of the school, it’s effect on student teacher relations, and overall safety. An opinion is only as valuable, and as valid, as the thought behind it. Not saying I’m right and your wrong in black and white terms, and I think your last sentiment is agreeable.

Well most of the nutters will say something stupid before doing something stupid. Case in point Nicholas Cruz. We could just improve the way we enforce the already existing law and do it better. Cruz should have lost his right after his threats and his frequent problems with police which showed him to be a danger to society.

Any teacher threatening students with his gun should lose his privilege to carry it. Any teacher with a history of rage issues or who is frightening his students should be disqualified.

Many different ways to do it, I don't think there is a satisfying answer to all. But I can say for certain those who want to take guns will not meet any compromise with my side.

If we want to get deeper than the immediate security issue, we as a nation must figure out how to make schools better places and students happier and healthier people. We could do a lot to improve on that, but I think that is far less likely thing to happen.
Standard practice for say a depressed student is to take him to a psychiatrist who will give him drugs that can increase the chances of him killing himself or others. Instead of trying the dozens of other therapies that can improve mood and health naturally.

How about the issue that with a bunch of people discharging firearms (around kids no less), the first responders won't know who is the teacher and who is the shooter? And that people have stress responses under fire that are unpredictable... like the cops are Parkland during the shooting who simply did not enter the building, even with their guns, while the shooting was happening.

I just don't buy it. Even if the "teachers carrying guns" wasn't sensationalized we've literally seen ZERO accidental discharges in a school before Parkland. How many have we had since? 2 or 3? That shit would make the news every single time. Sorry but this wreaks.

I get that if you want to carry as a teacher, you should be able to. But to mandate it? My friend is like 5'0", 95 lbs., and can't even kill a spider. And now you're gonna give her a .45 and tell her to put down a human being? Or if the teacher's black and the cops are on the scene. Bet you that pig is putting that teacher down if a weapon is out.

It’s simple, don’t want to carry you don’t have too, but if you want you can.

"Arming teachers" is not saying give every teacher in the country a gun. What people who actually stop and think about it are asking for are a handful of teachers in each school to undergo training, an extra background check, and a mental stability check, that then will be given access codes to a gun safe on campus in case of a shooter on campus. The guns will not be freely accessible and if touched at any time other than an emergency while students are on campus should result in jail time like carrying on campuses results in such.

Thanks for the further perspective, fam. Nobody that I've spoke to has mentioned the details you have.

No, I'd call it unfortunate.

Acting like we didn't immediately get hit with the "Good guy stops shooter because he had a gun" stories right after Parkland.

Good guy stopping a bad guy is a lot different than teachers firing off guns in class, come on now...

I'm not saying there isn't an agenda on both sides because of course there is, but it's a terrible comparison.

This is the first thing I thought of too.

So many good goys following the mainstream narrative here. Keep watching you cable news guys, its all 100% legit news no bias guys!

Exactly

Highly, trained ninja level professionals should be the only ones allowed to carry guns, period:

https://youtu.be/WzHEOSyMqug

I immediately had the same thoughts and reaction about it. And to happen in Komiefornia of all places was just the cherry on the top.

Smith-Mundt and Mockingbird in full effect.

Shit has been “awfully coincidental” since they 80’s

Are we going to be saying things seem “coincidental” until we are all locked in FEMA camps?

When does it become real?

or, just hear me out, its because it is topical due to the school shootings? im guessing from your post that you think that teachers should be armed?

Some teachers should be armed, but only after extensive training. They should also receive a pay increase after successfully completing firearm training, and most teachers have time for such training during summer break.

The number I heard is 80 hours of training. When the teachers in my district work outside contractual hours, the rate is $40/hour. That's a fuckload of money. Consider that our district "can't afford" to have summer school, so kids can't fail a grade unless they don't pass the Regents in high school. They also "can't afford" to have a human being stationed at the front doors to check visitors. Or have dyslexia remediation classes, or have classes fewer than 30 students in some courses.

Where is this money supposed to come from? Raise property taxes? Hahaha. The people who support arming everyone tend to be the same people who bitch about taxes.

We could cut off welfare to illegal aliens and use the savings from that to cover training.

Budgets don't work that way. Schools are funded via property taxes, supplemented via state funding allocated specifically for education. Welfare comes from a different budget line. Don't forget this isn't a one time 80 hour training. These people need to maintain their training. Their vision will need to be checked. Their mental health status will need to be monitored (IME teachers do tend to slowly go crazy over time). A database of who is armed and who has kept up with their training hours will need to be maintained. The guns could be a tax write off, except that the Trump budget just eliminated the $250 teacher discretionary tax credit to cover all the money teachers pay out of pocket for school materials. You wanna pony up for my Glock, my bullets, my hours at the range, etc?

Hidden costs and unfunded mandates are endemic in all school reforms.

The guy in the article above was extensively trained.

Great way to sway the public against armed teachers.

Yup I said the same thing!

Topical information becomes topical. C'mon guys.

It beyond coincidence.

Every time I watch Dear Wolfgang, regarding Sandy Hook and all the effort to restrict guns and the work the Gov't has gone to to shut him up, all considering the use of legalized propaganda today, you better believe that the media is working very hard to show things like this in a negative light.

And... The sheep still won't get it. They will continue to push the same narrative that MSM is telling them to. Total mind control.

No, it's not interesting. The only reason these stories are reaching you is because they are relevant to current events. If they weren't you wouldn't hear about them unless you went looking.

It's not really interesting its more like expected

Not really. You don't remember having any idiot teachers?

I imagine it's supply and (the perception of) demand. It may not be happening any more or less than usual, but it's what people are talking about $o they're going to report it.

Interesting as it highlights how utterly fucking backwards America is, yes.

Glad I'm not the only one seeing that

I think it is because these stories are more relevant and therefore are now national news instead of being local news. It is probably also because these teachers think packing heat is a good idea since there is a government push to arm them.

Because the focus is now on those stories?!

...yeah, those stories should be ignored, right? /s

It good to see the Men in Blue taking a break from shooting unarmed citizens

He was a part time cop nonetheless

Follow the narrative plebeians.....

People are just dumb.

Those have always existed

I think it’s dumb because in the article it mentions that no one said anything or did anything until the kid got home. Did he just sit in class with a wound in his neck spurting blood for the whole day?

Nah it's not coincidental. I tried to talk about this over there to no avail. Basically, they're going to throw news articles at you with the reasonable conclusion being that we can't protect our kids and The guns need to be confiscated. The teachers can't have guns because they'll have accidents and the cops can't protect them (remember the Hoggs kid excusing the Florida officers from not intervening because "nobody wants to do that job") because assault weapons. The only conclusion that is desired to be left is to take away the guns. If there were super top-notch drones that could take a shooter out in seconds, you'd see articles saying "drone attacks student during lunchtime". They want the guns, and they want em bad.

I was just talking with my cousin about this. Seems fishy as hell.

Schools are gun-free zones ... the teacher's aren't allowed to have guns there so any teacher packing right now is likely breaking the law which isn't the ones we'd like to see volunteer for concealed carry.

Who gives a fuck.

There is absolutely no defense to the notion of arming teachers. It will lead to injury and death to innocents.

I asked the two security guards at my school, one is US Mil, and the other from German Mil, "How much training would it take to safely deploy guns among the teachers?" Just the training question, mind you. Something these burly tatted gents have expertise in.

The german one just started laughing, my prediction is that he would simply say "no." But the American just started shaking his head and said, so they're all going to clock the range time weekly at least too, right?

His take was that in the end, these things only last 1-3 minutes, and in that time, getting any class k-12 out the fucking door is a full time job. It's a numbers game. You're going to have more teachers getting lazy, fooled, or undertrained every day than you're going to have teachers that ever even get put into the position of having a clear shot on a confirmed shooter. Keep in mind the statistics on how often these things really happen. If you don't have meteor insurance, you can shut the fuck up.

Worry about something that counts.

Unfortunately; the world is full of shit that needs your attention. You've got you've head up, just maintain the swivel.

Push the narrative at any cost....

How come nobody has suggested less lethal ammo, at least for the first couple of bullets?

It's not coincidental, its a logical outcome. Reasonable people who legally carry a handgun should always be on alert of the status and location of the firearm, and be highly attentive of any situation where the firearm could be commandeered. But you certainly have people who think they know firearms well enough to not need to practice firearm safety by the book.

In contrast, teachers need to be approachable and students should feel comfortable around their teachers. Obviously those two mindsets are at odds. With a firearm in such close proximity to so many people, it introduces a potential powder keg. Situations are more likely to go from 0-100 real quick, whereas if a firearm wasn't present, it'd only go 0-20. The fact that a teacher is carrying would certainly come up in class. Kids will test the teachers to see what if they'll draw for anything less than another firearm (hello seven-figure payout). It's only a matter of time before a kid takes a firearm from a teacher, whether by overpowering them, pick pocketing, or stealing it.

I'm not making any point about how school violence should be handled or whether teachers should be armed; it just makes me sad and disappointed that it's the a realistic conclusion.

Media manipulates the mindset of the masses

They will not stop untill all guns are removed. They need to prevent a civil war at this point. Economy of US is set up for a trade war, this is not going to be pretty for the citizens of US and in order to keep the rich elite power, they want to disarm the populace in order to prevent a revolution of some kind.

accidental gun deaths happen all the time. it only makes logical sense that having guns in classrooms full of children would cause accidental gun deaths too

It's probably because teachers really feel this is a bad idea and it's a way of pushing that sentiment. Source, cousin an aunt are teachers.

That guy who shot himself in the leg was false flag?

0 Kids killed by "idiot" armed teachers

17 Kids killed this year by madmen

I'll start to change my opinion on armed teaches when those numbers get closer to each other

Who didn't expect this to happen?

I figured a slight increase in accidents was probably related to a larger increase in teachers bringing guns.

Can not trust the news. They are just pushing narratives to the mindless masses. Look up “project mocking bird” - it’s obviously still going on.

I heard about at least 3 different incidents where [idiot] cop fires off gun in the classroom this week.

Nra getting more creative with their defensive tactics via mass media

This sub is so disappointing sometimes

In regard to armed teachers and police arrival times - Do you know why they do not want that?

1. If it's a false flag by the C.I.A./F.B.I./D.O.D. (most times that's exactly what it is) they can't control the narrative. Ideally these attacks are mainly to pull on the heartstrings of Americans to give up their 2nd amendment. Ever notice how shootings went from random places to high schools, to black churches, then to gay nightclubs, then to elementary schools. Connects dots people.

Once a country gives up it's ability to defend itself - Its All Downhill from there. False flags do not mean no one dies. 9 -11= FF w/deaths. Sandy Hoax= FF w/out deaths.

Since barry soetoro repealed the Smith Mundt Act which prohibited our gov from using propaganda against it's own citizens mass shootings have went up 500%. That act was established to fight Nazi Commie Propaganda. Sorry guys. Todays Dems are history's nazi's. Is this a coincidence? https://imgur.com/a/vyDDy

Am I trying to sway you to republican? Hell No. Bushes are All Anti-American Globalist Terrorists. I am just giving you facts. You do want you want.

1. Secondly the attacks are to PUNISH Americans for NOT taking our daily does of brainwashing. In doing so you cost the elite time and money off of their AGENDA. We make a huge Pedo or Drug bust - they answer back with a public shooting. This is what Trump, the Q Team, and the White Hats are dealing with on a daily basis. Doesn't matter if u hate them, they are fighting for u. In time hopefully many will see that.

   Imagine when one of the alphabet agencies operatives or their "patsies" gets taken out by a teacher and is killed before he harms someone? The MSM would be literally running from kids that are trying to publicly THANK the Teacher from saving them like at Parkland. This will prove arming teachers works better than calling the cops. The deep state cannot have that. That would be a huge wound and their MAIN TOOL for gun grabbing will be demolished almost overnight.

   1. Showing that an armed citizenry can do better than cops. Many cops (NOT ALL) are corrupt and manipulate their crime stats in order to receive federal funding (OUR MONEY). If armed people were to keep saving other people it would prove we really do not need as many cops as we do. Then the public will eventually want downsizing of the DS. They cannot have that. They want a huge police state complete with facial scanners and drones everywhere. In order to achieve mass control you have to paint the illusion of mass chaos. Then the patient will not only willingly accept their arsenic, they will beg you for it. "Everything is a Rich Man's Trick" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aySN0FGJYpM&amp;feature=youtu.be

This problem can be cut by 70% or better overnight. Slash the alphabet agencies by 70% and watch all of these public shootings and bombings all but disappear. They create problem,to get a reaction,to offer you a solution. It just so happens the solutions make them TRILLIONS and Burn the Constitution and Our Rights. Connect Dots People.

If our Government has done nothing but grow 10 fold in scale,scope,and reach then why are these types of bombings and shootings also growing? Why has their funding went up exponentially yet all of our problems continue to expand as well? By the time you can catch on, it will be too late to reign them in.

In closing I will say that yes some legit public shootings do happen. However it is very rare for some bullied kid, a scorned boyfriend, or mental case to have the access, and the balls, the skills, and be able to actually pull it off. If they do we should look into the other constant factor with many of these shootings (psychotropic drugs). Oh lets not do that.Big Pharma doesn't want that because again don't want to harm that gravy train.

We are being played people. "It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled" - M. Twain.

The Answer is C: Some anti-Trump, anti-gun jackass teacher purposely "accidentally" shot his gun to demonstrate...LITERALLYHITLERTRUMPNRANRA!

This is stupid. The Left is manipulating kids to push the narrative to disarm the populace...which is stupid. And the Right are antagonizing them instead of meeting them halfway. Now comes the dumb part: If you want to protect the schools just throw a rock at the White House. While you're getting your ass handed to you contemplate why there isn't a two block radius around schools with guard posts, car stops, and rotating security details. These idiots have lost their damn minds.

It happened once...

This isn't Conspiracy.

This is how the news cycle works and follows the public interest.

We live in a constant battle between Statistical Truth and Anecdotal Truth.

Because of the focus on the issue, these anecdotal cases of teacher mishaps with guns will receive hyperfocus of media.

It is the case with the mass shootings themselves, they are actually down, and our country is safer (statistically), but statistics have rarely been able to compete with raw and vivid anecdotal truth.

Well to be fair most of my teachers were braindead when it came to common sense. I hold my gun loving bio teacher dear because he taught us how to actually use one and be safe with it.

I hate this shit. We have one side shouting IF YOU CARE AT ALL ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT YOU'RE A CHILD KILLER BY PROXY and the other side shouting WE JUST NEED TO ARM OUR TEACHERS AND INSTALL GUN RACKS IN EVERY CLASSROOM YEE-HAW and few people are actually trying to spot the source of this problem (likely the over-prescription of antidepressants).

It's not surprising at all. People react to the news. What I'm betting is that some teachers are secretly bringing guns into schools now all the time. And some of that small percentage are idiots.

“Accidentally”! 1st rule of gun safety - never put your finger on the trigger unless you plan on pulling the trigger. There is no excuse.

This is not a conspiracy, this is Instant Karma.

The media is just a speaker for the shadow government.

It’s a false flag for sure the pizzagate wants to take your guns.

Teachers are underpaid and overworked in America, it's no wonder they're making these kinds of mistakes.

Now start arming up the kids too....

Wow it’s almost like the news is more relevant now 🤔

Could (figuratively) arming every man, woman and teen in the states be a perfect excuse for marshal law? If things took a severe turn for the worst within America, that is.

I doubt they're made up, maybe now is the only time news outlets felt they should print them outside of local news?

No shit, that’s how the news works

https://imgur.com/a/v9Zzn

Being played on Australian radio..

It's little shit like this that really makes me believe in conspiracies.

No, it's not interesting. It's relevant. We just got of missed those stories as they weren't very big but now they are relevant because of Cheetos stupid suggestion to arm teachers. It's to point out how dumb the idea is.

Stories? There's been more than one already??

It's a hot button topic. It's like how when elections are approaching all media talks about the candidates. It what's people are interested in hearing about.

There are all kinds of videos on youtube of cops discharging weapons in classrooms filled with kids. Some of them are hilarious.

Strange how no is talking about how he was a politician and a police officer, only the teacher angle.

Because it's not even a specific rifle - it's a platform. Multiple vendors make them from cheap to expensive, the parts work together so you can upgrade, you can customize it greatly with folding buttstocks, grips, etc..., it's replaced for many people the traditional wooden rifle for a lot of reasons like that. It's an awesome tool to have.

There's nothing stupid about allowing someone to be armed. If someone isn't comfortable or trained with a gun, they absolutely shouldn't be armed. I concealed carry all the time. If I were a teacher, I would definitely do so. And no matter how stupid you may think it is now now, if you were in a situation with an active shooter, you would be incredibly thankful if someone like me was there.

Easy, just cut the salaries of the administrators who do jack shit other than suck up a government wage.

What's really concerning about arming teachers is a good number of them are on anti-depressant, anti-anxiety medications.

Good guy stopping a bad guy is a lot different than teachers firing off guns in class, come on now...

I'm not saying there isn't an agenda on both sides because of course there is, but it's a terrible comparison.

Exactly! You have these over worked, over stressed teachers that are making about 30 to 40 thousand a year... And you want to give these people guns???

It's the dumbest fucking idea I've ever heard

They shouldn't. They've given up their right to with their actions.

He's no true Scotsman!

Wrong. They sacrifice money on media outlets like the NYT and Twitter which don’t make any money. They do do things in the interest of money often but making as much money as possible is not their primary goal, a one world government is. How many Rockefellers and Bush’s have to say it before you believe it?

So you are saying we need to ban knives too?

Not all murders are equal. Most murders happen to be drug related or domestic situations. The anti gun crowd is up in arms about weapons of mass murder, where the killing is indiscriminate. That’s pretty clear, I think.

Yo, that’s not true. Most homicides don’t classify the gun used. In 2016 alone, of the 15,070 homicides committed, 7105 were hand gun related and a whopping 4,166 cases were “other.” There’s no reliable way you can spout off those numbers and not be disingenuous, intentionally or not.

Gotta fact check, yo. We’re here for truth not propaganda. These facts are readily available and I would encourage you to fact check your politically aligned news sources. The truth is out there.

I think that making it more difficult to get assault rifles would help. These shooters bought theirs legally. Make it tougher for them to get one. And let's see what happens. Oh wait. in the 10 years since the assault weapons ban was lifted, mass shootings are up 30%+.

It's understandable and it's not a good thing, mass murder. However, I am in disagreement on how they want to solve the problem, mainly going after rifles. The VT shooter killed 33 people with small caliber pistols.

People been killing for history. So why help them do it better?

What are you going to do to stop these things from happening; any suggestions?

Yeah making it harder for gang members, drug dealers to get guns in the first place. That's a start.

What's your solution? Arm the children? Arm the homeless?

No, if you go by what mass shootings are defined by they still use handguns more often. The big ones that make the news, yes they use rifles. The most recent definition from the FBI that they use to get their statistics is "four or more people shot at once". Fatalities are not required in that, just to clarify.

Most media outlets use this definition

"FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter"

Where did you get that? I've been looking into this in the past few weeks using FBI, DOJ, etc... type places to compile as many solid numbers as I can. It's always nice to have new numbers as I try to get it all together. I got really tired of so many spouting off nonsense a few weeks ago and decided to start digging hah.

Since this is a conspiracy sub I hope everyone would ask why the anti gun crowd is up in arms about the weapon that is the least likely by far to be used in a murder. Not only why that one but if they really, really think they're not going to wait a few months after any theoretical ban to realize they didn't actually change gun violence rates at all and start pushing for complete disarmament.

Being no US american I can maybe answer the question: The USA is rather special as a) there is a strict believe that guns provide an equalizer and b) that an assault-weapon-derivate plattform like the Ar-15 gained such commercial success.

Within a conspiracy sub the second part might be just as important: The sales of AR-15 variants went from 61,000 in 2001 to 1,27 million in 2012 (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-the-ar-15-became-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice-w451452). With that decade we also saw a rise of the truther/"freemen" movement as well as the rise of the tea party.

I don't know if the rentless propaganda that "they" want to steal US americans "freedom" and "weapons" by e.g. the NRA is driven mostly by the want to hike the gun sales or if they truly believe that a weapon designed for urban warfare is a neccessity within their political scopes but by now we have a lot of AR-15s out in the open and a truly divided society.

And, if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

It is when the headline reads that a kid was arrested for bringing a gun to school, only to read the whole article to find out at the bottom of a long winded article "it was later determined to be a bb gun".

‘schools can’t even afford teachers though’

I don’t often call people out, however for you I will make an exception. I don’t think you have any idea of what you are talking about here.

School teacher salaries come from the taxes a city or town levies upon its residents who own real estate. The schools, in coordination with their teachers unions, present a budget of operations to the city school board, based on teachers salaries and the remaining school operations costs. (Federal school funding is also factored in, but for our purposes, we will not include that for simplicity sake). The school board reviews and/or approves and then sends to the City for approval by the Taxpayers.

After all of that, when you look at comparative salary packages comparing public school teachers to other professions in the U.S., Teachers are paid reasonable salaries. (when you factor in that teachers do not work year round, then teachers are paid exceptionally well).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/08/07/low-teacher-pay-and-high-teacher-pay-are-both-myths/

http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/25/why-we-shouldnt-raise-teacher-pay/

This is a good comment. Thanks :)

Maybe because Bernie is a state capitalist. Where do you get your definitions from? Glen beck?

At that range and crowd density it’s not about accuracy, it’s about how much lead you can send down range. He’d fire a gun until it jammed or the barrel overheated, then switch to a new one. No need for a full automatic when you’ve got essentially unlimited guns and ammo with bump stocks and are essentially shooting fish in a barrel.

Yes, that's true and I am not downplaying a kid getting shot. I'm just trying to prevent people from making it seem like there's been 18 Parklands.

It all aids in fueling the wild imagination of the sheep.

The statistics show these incidences as drops in the ocean of tragedies after all.

West central illinois. I see people brandishing/showing off guns on the daily.

"bla bla bla I'm right you're wrong as per my endless red herring drivel." you're arguing that the president is the absolute of political power. it's such an intellectually bankrupt stance to take that it doesn't merit a serious discussion .

I live in the rust belt, where Alcohol + Bonfire = No gun remains holstered

I'm super pro-gun, just anti American gun culture.

We should arm the homeless, the uninsured, the unemployed, the poor, the LGBT community, etc.