The problem is lunatics legally purchasing a weapon design to easily kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Enough with all the goddamn obfuscating.
Printable View
I can hear Fieger licking his chops from here.
Trauma from every brandishing event at a student in school, high 6 figures.
Trauma and perment ear damage from every accidental discharge in a school per student in the room, mid 7 figures.
Injury or death of a student not armed in a public school from teachers weapons, 8 to 9 figures especially if they were "trained properly".
He probably is already shopping for another Caribbean Island to buy himself off the tax payers of Michigan. Only bigger, much bigger this time around.
I'll put here and expand upon what I posted on the other thread.
My mom is a teacher.
An excellent teacher.
She's taught rich kids.
She's taught poor kids.
She's taught immigrants.
She still does.
They're incredibly lucky to have had her as a teacher.
Tell her she should carry a gun to work and they wouldn't have been so lucky.
Put guns in schools — whether in the hands of teachers or security guards at the doors — and she'd look for a school where she could teach without them.
If she were choosing a profession, and schools were militarized as some are now proposing, she'd almost certainly pick some other.
Not because teaching isn't her calling,
But because she believes weapons have no place in a school setting.
I know a lot of teachers.
And most of them think the way she does.
Does it make sense to make the professioneven moreso unattractive?
Putting guns in schools would deprive students of many good teachers.
We have a hard enough time recruiting good teachers as it is.
And before someone says she must not be tough enough,
She's always beeninfamously among the toughest of the faculty.
I've seen her rush into a brawl to break it up without a thought whether she had backup.
She had only me, visiting her at school that day, running behind her.
But she's never laid a hand on a child except to pull him out of a fight.
She wouldn't.
She enforces discipline with her example, her tone of voice when necessary, her unyielding adherence to high standards, and her generous faith in her students that they too can rise to those standards.
And it works.
She's pragmatic about guns.
She recognizes their obvious military and law enforcement purposes.
She respects the right of hunters:
She grew up eating venison;
I loved the bear skin rug her brother had in front of his fireplace.
But she thinks guns in schools are for cowards.
And they are.
Besides, whether we should have guns in schools is just deflecting our attention from the real question:
How do we keep weapons from individuals who cannot be trusted with them?
Or from a legal standpoint:
What weapons does the 2nd Amendment provide the right to bear, and under what conditions?
Our current patchwork of laws allow weapons that are too powerful in the hands of too many and without sufficient precautions.
That's the root of the problem, and that's what we should be discussing.
There are common sense measures we can take to make gun ownership safer.
I'm trying to picture the 6'8" 350 linebacker getting pissed off and eyeing the gun carried by the Wally Cox type teacher.
Yeah. That'll go well.
And does anyone remember one of these events in a big city school? All I can remember are in rural, suburban or sub-urban [[under 50,000 population) cities.
I'm not aware of any in a Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Phoenix, Boston type town.
I guess the blue bus and squad car parades are over. DPD continues to make wonderful crossing guards @ the coliseums, and the rest of us outside the Green Zone continue to fend for ourselves. Armament seems to be his mantra. This isn't the first time Craig's encouraged this sort of thing.
Perhaps we should just outlaw all guns, regardless of the Constitution. After all, that's how we got rid of illegal drugs.
I was referring to the mass raids he used to do when he first became Police Chief. There would be long lines of various Law Enforcement vehicles, with the DPD blue bus in the center of it, sirens going, lights a-flashing heading toward their destination. They raided a complex near my residence once. Quite a spectacle, and circus, rolled into one.
Australia provides a model of how the United States could reduce gun violence and mass shootings. They managed to eliminate mass shootings through the prohibition of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, buy-back programs and amnesty for those who turn their illegal weapons in. They also have 28 day waiting periods, increased background checks and the requirement of having a reasonable reason to own a gun [[i.e. hunting).
If the United States as a nation believes so strongly in the "right to bear arms" [[an outdated philosophical and legal concept, and never one of the inalienable rights), than it will have to accept that mass shootings are just a fact of life. The sad thing is that the NRA already has accepted this, and doesn't care. What this says about a nation is that the right to have weapons designed only for the purpose of killing takes precedent over the right to life.
Ah, the Russian bot red herring arrives.
No one wants to "outlaw all guns", obviously. No one wants to rewrite the Constitution.
Reasonable people want some safety rules re. war weaponry. No one cares about hunting weaponry, handguns, weekend target practice, etc.
And your analogy is absurd and nonsensical, and contradicts your premise.
Maybe we look even closer to home? After all, an island nation that is a thousand of miles from anywhere with some of the world's strictest customs and border controls isn't exactly a mirror image of the U.S . Our neighbor to the South has gun control laws that are far more stringent than those in Australia. How's it working out for Mexico?
I think its pretty well established that there is not much correlation between gun control laws and crime rates.
There is correlation, to be sure, in a great many cases. Canada and Western Europe do have low crime rates and gun control. But correlation is not causation. There are many factors. Gun control is only one.
As to Chief Craig and arming teachers...
I'm doubtful as to the success of this approach -- especially when the rather liberal teachers of America would have to support it to make a difference.
But I applaud Craig for his progressive thinking. Even though violence against school children is way down, it is still unacceptable that sick people see schools as easy targets with a guarantee of notoriety for the perp.
Craig may not be right. But its also certain that gun control is not the answer too. Look at Canada. Gun violence is common in drug wars in Surrey, BC, for example. Gun Control is part of the solution, but its not the only answer. We have to be open to different ideas. Craig seems to be open to innovation and progress -- whereas the teacher community its stuck in the mud.
You honestly think comparing America to a developing country is a fair comparison?
By that logic, Somalia is a free for all where there are effectively no guns laws because there is effectively no government. It's also awash in firearms. How's that working out for them? Also do you think that's a fair comparison to make?
Putting aside the fact that Mexico is a third world country with regions basically at war, almost all the guns in Mexico are from the U.S.
In short, Mexico has a gun problem, because the U.S. has a gun problem. Guns are super cheap and plentiful in Mexico because of us.
No first world country on the planet has remotely similar gun laws as the U.S. No first world country has remotely similar violence as the U.S. If you think these points aren't related, then I don't know what to say.