17 killed in shooting at high school in Parkland, Florida

What are you arguing? That the gun owners of America will defend the rights and freedoms of all citizens? What is there to argue with a faux patriot who thinks dying from a police officer is an "accident?"

Putting more guns in schools will lead to more school shootings. It's not a what if. It's what will happen. Arming teachers is a stupid idea put out there by right wing idiots.

@bigfootpart2: Here's an interesting read: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

That was pretty much devoid of any meaningful statistics. The FBI keeps statistics. There are around 30,000 gun related deaths in the US every year. Only about 200 are self defense related. Guns are almost never used for self defense.

@ruthaford_jive: I got no problem with that.

@SUD123456:

You: Are you personally emotionally distressed because of this latest incident? Because if so, you may not want to make important decisions.

Me: No, I am not personally distressed. Do I feel for the grieving families? Of course. Not the same thing though.

You: If you aren't, then is it fair to say that you are capable of and should make informed decisions?

Me: Your point? There are degrees of distress, mind you.

You: Now apply the same logic to your leaders/lawmakers.

Me: I do. And I expect them to remain logical, and not give over inherent rights because people are hurting and in pain. That’s ridiculous. Those rights transcend each of our individual lives. A hundred years from now, future Americans will have those same rights. There’s no need to take them away because statistically rare terrible things happened in the past.

You: Your 'logic' is absurd. It is nothing more than your own knee jerk reaction to the possibility that a public policy choice might be made that you don't support. Perhaps you are indeed emotionally distressed but for a different reason.

Me: No, it’s not. Also, enacting some policy because something horrible happened and emotions are roiling is the definition of knee-jerk. Is part of your argument that my point is moot because I agree with my point? That’s silly. Of course I do, or I wouldn’t be making it. Also. There are degrees of distress. We’re all anxious, distressed or on edge to some degree quite often and have to make choices, but intelligent people let themselves cool off before making far reaching life choices. Having your kid die from a psychopathic SOB would end up on the very high end of the emotional distress spectrum. Making decisions (especially collective, national level decisions) with that level of distress is foolish.

You: Virtually all public policy choices are made when a series of events forces the issue into public consciousness. There is an infinite number of things that gov't could do, but only a handful actually make it anywhere. Ever wonder why?

Me: Just because something happens, doesn’t make it right. I don’t expect perfection, since we are inherently flawed creatures. I do expect a modicum of reason to be used instead of reactions based off raw emotions. What you are advocating for is literally a knee-jerk reaction, despite claiming I am reacting in such a fashion.

@bigfootpart2: The level of stupid in your post is impressive. Comparing a GUN (AR-15) to tanks and nukes, wow, just wow. It's not the first time that ungodly dumb tatic has tried to be used, yet no matter how many times it's brought up it's no less stupid then it was the previous time. Here's a hint, a tank, nuke, etc, AREN'T guns.

@drunk_pi: I was arguing that teachers should be allowed to carry.

You argued that mistakes and accidents would happen, thinking it would be a dumb idea. You also put your article in that reply.

I then argued (after reading your article) that worrying about potential mistakes was foolish, because accidents and mistakes are a part of life. Then I predicted that you would say that those police shootings weren't accidents, which would then make your initial point (that accidents would happen) pointless, since according to you those police shootings were intended and not accidents.

So... why use an article about police accidentally shooting people, to argue that accidents would happen if teachers had guns, if according to you those very police shootings weren't accidents? So, like I said. Which is it. Are you trying to prove your initial point (that teachers having guns would result in accidents) or your second point (that the shootings in your article by cops weren't accidents, but because of police corruption.)

Also. How am I a faux patriot? Because I disagree with you and respect and support the 2nd amendment?

@joebones5000: <sigh> The report and findings are from the CDC, pal.

@drunk_pi: Cuckservative? Looks like you lost the argument. Also, I'm a Libertarian, which means I have liberal and conservative leanings. Also, whose telling them to shut up?

You're arguing for idiotic concepts that have no place in real life. Armed teachers? That's a terrible fucking idea due to the amount of problems that can arise such as accidental discharges, teachers shooting kids, kids disarming teachers, and so on. Here's a better idea and something that every country has done: Ban or severely limit guns. It works.

Also, what article are you talking about? While some police shootings have been "accidental," its cost has been significant due to the loss of life, especially if the person shot was not armed or was of mistaken identity. This doesn't help your argument that accidental shootings just "happen."

And no, you're a faux patriot because you legitimately believe in your own bullshit that 2A supporters will oppose a tyrannical government. It hasn't nor will it ever happen. Your type doesn't give a crap about those who legitimately oppressed because you care more about jerking off to your AR15s than the lives of your fellow Americans.

@drunk_pi:

You: You're arguing for idiotic concepts that have no place in real life. Armed teachers? That's a terrible fucking idea due to the amount of problems that can arise such as accidental discharges, teachers shooting kids, kids disarming teachers, and so on. Here's a better idea and something that every country has done: Ban or severely limit guns. It works.

Me: No, it doesn’t. And calm down child, your stupidity is showing.

You: Also, what article are you talking about? While some police shootings have been "accidental," its cost has been significant due to the loss of life, especially if the person shot was not armed or was of mistaken identity. This doesn't help your argument that accidental shootings just "happen."

Me: You’re right. It wasn’t your article, it was another guy’s. I think you replied to my reply of his. Anyway, all of the left’s arguments are the same and meld into one another after a while so it’s hard to distinguish one fool from another. I’ll give you that one.

You: And no, you're a faux patriot because you legitimately believe in your own bullshit that 2A supporters will oppose a tyrannical government. It hasn't nor will it ever happen. Your type doesn't give a crap about those who legitimately oppressed because you care more about jerking off to your AR15s than the lives of your fellow Americans.

Me: My type? What type is that?

And yet, if you wanted to face off in a guerrilla war against a tyrannical US government you would potentially be facing off against powerful heavy weapons like tanks and nukes that a gun would be no match for. The idea of taking down a tyrannical government with an AR-15 is delusional nonsense. You would need heavy weapons. Heavy weapons that would be even more insane for civilians to own than AR-15s.

Well this is awkward

"If you had a teacher who was adept with the firearm, they could end the attack very quickly," he said, stating that schools could arm up to 20% of their teachers to stop "maniacs" who may try and attack them."This would be obviously only for people who were very adept at handling a gun, and it would be, it's called concealed carry, where a teacher would have a concealed gun on them. They'd go for special training and they would be there and you would no longer have a gun-free zone," Trump said. "Gun-free zone to a maniac -- because they're all cowards -- a gun-free zone is 'let's go in and let's attack because bullets aren't coming back at us.'

It works in Israel, so I guess their teachers are better than ours.

@JimB: Teachers in Israel don't Cary guns.

Stop getting your news from Facebook

Even if they did carry guns, which they don't (this claim is based on debunked fake news), Israel has compulsory military service. Meaning the teachers are all or nearly all ex soldiers.

As a country we don't do it PERIOD. We just whine.....the right...when it happens again and people call for restrictions. Maybe it is time to change that amendment.

that is not gun ownership.

If there are literally more guns in the private hands then in the past then gun ownership has gone UP not down.

ownership is not depended on number of people who own a gun, its number of guns.

your trying to obfuscate the 'reality' here

They are all, however, war tools. Which citizens don't need what with the well regulated militia the amendment says we have the right to have.

I'll make this very simple. What is going on is a small number of gun nuts are hording guns. Members of that 3% that own 50% of the guns typically have 20 or more guns. Gun ownership is not as widespread as the NRA and gun lobby want you to believe. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not own guns, and that majority is growing over the years. You have more and more guns in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

The majority of Americans also want restrictions on gun ownership. But the politicians are paid by the NRA.

the problem with your spin on 'gun ownership' is that pro-violence groups use that to their advantage and it distorts the reality.

What pro-violence groups are you talking about?

the pro-violence group that is outspoken!

not to be confused with pro-gun group which is also an abstraction, its is different but its real pro-violence groups are real and highly active.

A way to tell the difference is that if a persons first reaction to solving a problem is a violent solution then they are pro-violent

I mean there is an easy solution to all of these school shootings: we should be protecting our children how we protect our banks and we protect our banks with armed guards. Every elementary and high school should have an armed private security force. Every entrance should be guarded by guards and with a metal detector which would give both students and the faculty staff peace of mind. A blanket gun ban with NEVER happen in America because it is protected by our constitution and forcing teachers to carry guns will never work since the vast majority of them are liberal and want nothing to do with a gun. However, in addition to the security presence, if teachers want to volunteer to get a license to carry, then they should go that route. Until we do this, there are going to be more and more shootings and sorry, but we are probably never going to be able to prevent crazy people from obtaining weapons, but the solution above is the next best thing. We can debate this until the end of time, but only an armed security presence will deter and prevent these kinds of tragedies.

At my high school, we had a private security team and we also had a sheriff liaison and guess what? We NEVER had a school shooting EVER. Again the solution is easy, but liberals often heavily oppose such solutions like this and they would rather just talk about it instead of performing actions. Actions speak louder than words and it's time to nip this problem in the butt once and for all.

That would be a creepy but solid solution. Problem is funding?

The problem isn't funding, we could take some money from the defense budget and problem solved. But what's more important? Funding or protecting our children?

I don't disagree there. Shit if they raised our taxes for this a little bit, to ensure safety I would gladly pay for that shit, instead of michigan taxes for roads that never get fixed.

most teachers have to pay for their own school supplies.

but we are excited about giving them guns so that they can use violence to solve a violent problem but still have them pay for their own school supplies.

and people have a problem with my phrase 'pro-violent'?

oh and there is a little bit of a problem of kids stealing said guns

-kids would get a hold of the teachers' guns and go on shootings sprees

-teachers would have "mental health issues" themselves and go on shootings sprees

-during a school shooting, the police wold mistake the armed teacher for an active shooter and shoot the teacher

-teachers are not cops or soldiers. Trying to take down an active shooter, they would kill innocent bystanders

Arming teachers is an extremely dumb idea for a lot of reasons. The right wing pundits suggesting this are a bunch of morons.

This? Why on earth isn't the school providing this?

I wonder where the money for guns will come from.

because its the united states is the only answer I can think of.

but yeah and we are talking about basic school supplies for the kids

Take the tax break back off the wealthy..................

Everyone got a tax break

You liberals don't know how guns work do you?

I said that giving teachers guns wouldn't be the solution because most teachers would be opposed to it, but you act like if some of them had a gun then they would just leave it on a desk unattended. That is actually illegal and if a kid gets a hold of it, the said teacher can be charged with criminal negligence. No kid is going to be grabbing a gun that is holstered around a teacher's waste- give me a fucking break.

Again, I said that a private security force would be the answer, not giving teachers guns- I said that some teachers can get a special license to carry while on campus, but a vast majority of teachers would be strictly opposed to this so just let a private and trained security company handle this.

Also LJS9502_basic, you do realize that everyone got a tax break right, except for the lowest tax rate which has remained at 10% and except for I think people that make between 200k-400k because their tax rate actually got increased. Do your homework and get your facts straight.

@mighty-lu-bu: Are you having problems understanding my post? Because apparently you are since you've veered away from it.

@LJS9502_basic: It was an idiotic post- "take the tax break off the wealthy?" Everyone got a tax break except for the lowest tax bracket and the bracket from 200k-400k. Didn't steer away from anything, that's why I addressed it because it was so moronic.

What's moronic is your inability to understand my post. It wasn't that complicated. Try again. I'll wait.

Keep waiting bub.

@mighty-lu-bu: Well at least we've established you didn't understand it.

I probably know more about guns and can probably outshoot anyone in this thread. I used to be a competition shooter. I used to reload my own ammo. I support gun control. The "liberals know nothing about guns and have probably never shot one dur hur" argument is so dumb. Some of us support gun control because we know exactly what we are talking about when it comes to guns.

I don't use that piece of trash. Try looking up the action Isreal took to protect their students from terror attacks.

@JimB: it didn't involve giving teachers guns.

Every time there's a mass shooting in a school the same fake news story resurfaces about teachers in Israel having guns.

https://www.snopes.com/is-armed-teacher-students-israel/

It's obviously bullshit.

Well for someone who knows about guns then you of all people would know that if a gun is holstered then a kid simply isn't going to get a hold of the gun and go on a shooting spree. I am surprised that you didn't use any of your gun knowledge when you typed that statement and I am a bit baffled by how you came to that ridiculous conclusion. Also, when was the last mass shooting that was committed by a teacher? I can't think of one off of the top of my head. Remember, I said that schools should hire private armed security guards because there would be no way to force teachers to carry guys because a vast majority of them are liberals and they don't want anything to do with guns. If there are certain teachers who want to get a special license to carry on school grounds that's one thing, but the solution here isn't arming teachers, it is hiring private guards which is what I said initially which makes all of your arguments pretty invalid.

I don't want private guards either. Orlando mass shooter Omar Mateen who killed 49 people was a private security guard. Those companies are sketchy as hell when it comes to background checks. Putting mall cops with guns in schools is a terrible idea.

I would be fine with more armed real police officers or sheriffs deputies protecting schools. Arming teachers is dumb. Hiring private security is dumb. Real cops only please.

Also lol at you thinking liberals are all limp wristed sissies who can't handle guns.

the irony is currently they want to give these 'limp wristed sissies' guns and expect them to be good at it simply because they are in a position of authority over the children.

Thats right!...everything in the school system is the fault of incompetent teachers they say...so lets do what? give those people guns?

its almost like politicians are TRYING to get more people killed