straightUp Loc: California

I honestly don't think that on average a teacher or ex-military dad with a gun will be all that effective in protecting the children, especially against a suicidal assailant with an assault weapon.

So, I'll answer with four points...

1. teach the kids what to do in the event of an attack to increase their own chances of survival.
2. have schools and local police establish quick response plans.
3. ban high-capacity weapons to decrease the chance of high-capacity murders.
4. accept the reality that life is dangerous and unpredictable and that safety is NEVER guaranteed.

That last point means all we can really do is mitigate risk, not prevent it. That being said, I think my suggestions offer some help in reducing the potential for casualties. I think arming teachers and parents is asking for trouble because then we're relying on factors that are far more unpredictable. For instance in one of those recent shooting incidents there WAS an armed guard on campus and he froze. Also, I don't have a high degree of confidence that a minimally trained civilian, such as a teacher, an NRA member or even an ex-military dad won't get jumpy and shoot someone by accident. In fact, I think that's more probable than the attack they are supposed to be ready for.

'cause, ya know... another source of more gun deaths per year than assailants with assault weapons are accident shootings and I know for a fact that the NRA has its fair share of excitable Barney Fifes.

And this is why I bring the police into this is because it's already their job to protect and serve. Teachers teach, policemen protect (in most cases). Many police officers ARE ex-military but when it really comes down to it the police are better trained to deal with civilians than the military is. Also, the police are active, meaning they continue to be tested and certified for their effectiveness. Ex-military could mean some guy did one tour in Vietnam and has since turned into a fat and senile old man.

I know a lot of ex-military dads would love to be a hero but this is about mitigating risk to the children in very real terms not satisfying the fantasies of gun-owners that want to be heroes. If an ex-military dad wants to stand around campus with his gun ready for that .001% chance of an attack, I would suggest he join the police, get the training he needs and become part of a coordinated and well-regulated effort.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

High capacity "weapons"?
Does this mean we should also make it illegal for Mexicans to drive a motor vehicle?

Sorry.....couldn't resist that one.....

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Or Muslims

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Do they sardine em in like our south of the border friends too?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

No... They just use the trucks as weapons...

Rose42

Your suggestions have been proposed by others for some time.

People are fearful over the relatively few deaths caused by ‘assault’ weapons. Drugs, swimming pools and parents each kill more children. Its a study in how to use emotion to manipulate the public. Its never been about saving lives. Its always been about control.

And another correction. The police are reactive and can’t protect in the initial stage of an attack. And one more...many of them are not well trained particularly with weapons. They do their best for the most part but there’s only so much they can do. Many vets are much better trained. And they know it.

Rose42

I am on a phone and its too tedious to copy all those replies.

I will repeat you are naive. You demonstrate ignorance on what drives the anti gun lobbies. Its not a personal insult but its a bit amusing you think it is. You have an excessively high opinion of yourself.



Sadly the joke is on you. You are being used. And people will still kill each other because guns aren’t the problem.



Back atcha slick. You would do well to dial back the pretentious arrogance

straightUp Loc: California

Well, I guess we should ban white people like this bonehead...



from driving cars too...



Or are we conveniently forgetting that white people can be terrorists too?

straightUp Loc: California

No, that would be racist, right?

Yes, everyone knows that a car can be a used as a weapon. But this gets back to my point about things that provide benefits that outweigh the risks. Unlike an assault weapon a car can get you to work, school, the hospital... So it's not just about whether something can be used as a weapon (which just about anything can) it's a matter of whether it has ANY other purpose. If not then why keep it around?

Also, in case you forgot - cars are very much controlled. You can't own one without registration and you can't operate one without a license. Odd how no one has a problem with that.

straightUp Loc: California

Yeah, I know.


I don't think they're as fearful as they are fed-up with the lame-ass excuses people come up with the keep assault weapons on the market.


Again, what difference does that make? Did you not understand my point about how stupid it would be to stop cancer research just because cancer is not the #1 cause of death in the U.S.?

Besides, drugs, swimming pools and parents all have other uses and that presents a trade off. In contrast assault weapons have ZERO utility other than killing people. That's a big giant elephant in the room that you are refusing to acknowledge.


That sounds like paranoid delusion to me.


What exactly are you correcting? Did I say the police were preventative?

Uh, no.

But you know what else is reactive and can't protect in the initial stage of attack? An armed teacher. Think about it. These assailants don't call in ahead of time and whether a teacher is packing or not doesn't make any difference - he isn't going to know about the attack until the first shot is fired and if the assailant has a military-grade weapon, an entire clip can be emptied before the teacher is ready to fire his first shot.


That may be the case out in Boss Hogg country, but where I come from, the police (LAPD) deal with situations that would make a lot of vets pee their pants. So it goes both ways. But ultimately, it's the purpose of the police, not the military to deal with civilian disturbances. And when it comes to protecting our children I'd rather have an active duty police officer than a some vet that may or may not even remember his 5 weeks of training back in 1972.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Nobody said anything about banning anyone from driving... This dipshit should be executed...

Muslim is not a race

They come in white,black, yellow and anything in between...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Not supposed to own a gun without a licence either, are you?

And plenty of folk drive without them...

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Niether is Mexican...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Ah... But... But... But.... Southern ignorance should prevent y'all from realizing that

What... What... What if y'all aren't a bunch of uneducated hicks

Dear Lord

Your viewpoints might be based on valid concerns and supported by logical reasoning

(lefties are fleeing to their safe spaces and stroking their comfort pets..)

straightUp Loc: California

"Does this mean we should also make it illegal for Mexicans to drive a motor vehicle?" - archie bunker

BTW, "Mexican" isn't a race either.

So, while I agree that negative references to nationality or religion isn't technically "racist" I don't really see how the treatment is any different. I suppose I could have called it "bigoted" which covers it all, but "racist" just happens to be a more common word for covering that kind of demographic isolation, including many books about how "racist" the Nazis were against the Jews, yet another religious reference.

Now, I know you and archie were just joking around so I don't want to belabor this but I'd still like to make a point about the use of the term "racist" since we're here.

I think in many cases the technical error is more on the side of the person using terms like "Mexican" or "Muslims" because we know they really mean Latino people or Arab people. But like the term "bigoted" these more accurate terms are often not the first to come to mind.

Language is shifty bro.