The Great Gun Debate

[eclark53520]

And the rest of the people that defended themselves outside their homes?

Logistically possible, sure. Most local governments are already strapped for cash due to over spending, I'm not sure what a full time armed guard costs, but I'm confident most local governments and schools probably can't afford another several people on their payroll to combat something that is statistically highly unlikely.

How about this, we provide an incentive(what...we can hash that out) for teachers and school officials to become certified to be armed on school grounds. Top notch training(weapons, tactics, etc) for those who are interested in becoming a steward of safety in our schools. Incentives could be higher pay...obviously this would be the easiest way to invite teachers to prepare to defend our children.

Obviously we as a society would need to get over the 'no guns on school property' mentality for this to work. I'm not sure that's attainable, however, assuming these teachers go through some serious training and skills testing, it could be palatable to the majority...??

Even if there isn't a high percentage of teachers that do this, just the possibility of resistance on school grounds could curb the amount of these happenings. If they are brazen enough to to try it, there are skilled people armed and ready to stop the threat. Assuming of course there's a teacher in the school willing to become certified.

 

[Dogfish Head]

Teachers don't get paid enough in this country and are being stripped of even more rights in some states. I highly doubt anyone cares about arming teachers. (Might be a touchy subject for the Wisconsin people here)

 

[eclark53520]

Teachers don't get paid enough in this country and are being stripped of even more rights in some states. I highly doubt anyone cares about arming teachers. (Might be a touchy subject for the Wisconsin people here)

They don't, and this would be a great way to increase their salary. Two birds, one stone.

 

[nututhugame]

I don't know if anybody saw Obama speak tonight. A line in his speech rang particularly true and I am paraphrasing:

"The cost of our freedoms should not be the lives of our children."

That's not exact but you get the idea.

Jim, I gotta ask... why did this whole thing not resinate with you so much in any of the other shootings? Because this time it is children? If so, is that because for some reason their life is worth more?

I appreciate Obama's concern, however I am not convinced that some of what he said is not just a prelude to an attempt to implement more gun laws Believe me, there is politics involved here. I have a question in response to the line you paraphrased. Then why is it OK for the cost of freedom for other nations to be the lives of our mothers and fathers? `

 

[Dogfish Head]

They don't, and this would be a great way to increase their salary. Two birds, one stone.

Well that's the problem. The same people who are stripping teachers of power and salary would then be the ones with the backing to want to empower them with gun training. In our two sided political climate, it just isn't going to happen.

 

[BigJim13]

Jim, I gotta ask... why did this whole thing not resinate with you so much in any of the other shootings? Because this time it is children? If so, is that because for some reason their life is worth more?

I appreciate Obama's concern, however I am not convinced that some of what he said is not just a prelude to an attempt to implement more gun laws Believe me, there is politics involved here. I have a question in response to the line you paraphrased. Then why is it OK for the cost of freedom for other nations to be the lives of our mothers and fathers? `

Yes because it's children. And keep in mind Obama has been the best president for fun owners in awhile, including Bush.

I have no doubt that some if it is politics but guns haven't been a big issue in the Obama admin, I think it's more about 4 shootings of this nature during his presidency and because it was in a school AND 20 children are now dead.

 

[eclark53520]

I'm not sure why it wouldn't. This pretty much pleases both sides IMO. One side gets teachers that are paid more while gaining protection of their children. Sure they don't like guns in schools, the training, skills tests should mitigate those fears. Those on the other side get their weapons rights preserved and their children protected. Sure they have to pay teachers more, but I'm sure that's well worth the price.

I'm not sure I see a down side here.

 

[eclark53520]

And keep in mind Obama has been the best president for fun owners in awhile, including Bush.

What do you mean by 'best'?

 

[BigJim13]

What do you mean by 'best'?

It's almost a non issue with his admin. To my knowledge he has not rolled back or pushed through any additional gun laws.

 

[eclark53520]

Thus far, you're correct. I'm not sure I agree that doing nothing means you're the best, although, it does definitely make him not the worst. He doesn't have to worry about getting another term this time though. Passing anti-gun laws are typically political suicide and he's well aware of that. He is a professional at politics.

 

[BigJim13]

I would be surprised to see any meaningful new gun law come from this.

Sadly, I doubt much changes.

 

[Dogfish Head]

Thus far, you're correct. I'm not sure I agree that doing nothing means you're the best, although, it does definitely make him not the worst. He doesn't have to worry about getting another term this time though. Passing anti-gun laws are typically political suicide and he's well aware of that. He is a professional at politics.

All politicians are professionals. Even if they don't seem like it. George Bush had the best politicians working for him you could buy, with Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

 

[eclark53520]

All politicians are professionals. Even if they don't seem like it. George Bush had the best politicians working for him you could buy, with Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

What I mean is he is a career politician. Meaning he has nothing else to do in his life than be a politician. Which is the way it is for most politicians these days. Being the president/mayor/governor/etc was supposed to be a public service, not a career. That's another discussion for another day however. Doesn't really matter to the gun debate.

 

[nututhugame]

I would be surprised to see any meaningful new gun law come from this.

Sadly, I doubt much changes.

That's because there really can be no meaningful gun laws. There already are a ton of gun laws and when they were passed people thought they were meaningful.

Here's approximately the scenario... If guns were banned tomorrow and every registered gun had to be turned in to the local police station by (enter arbitrary date) and following that the police would go around to confiscate every gun on their list that was not turned in, here is what would happen. Maybe 25% would comply initially and I think I am being generous there. Then at the door to doors another 3% would comply with some of their guns while claiming that they sold the others a long time ago. The rest would either refuse or lie. That doesn't even figure in all of the not registered guns that are out there owned by both criminals and the good guys. Then what?

 

[VtDivot]

I don't like putting that responsibility on the teacher. There job is difficult enough. Some form of police or military - the only people who I feel need to be carrying a weapon.