Topic: Colorado school Shooting! (case sealed) (Read 899 times)

https://mises.org/wire/confronting-myths-about-arming-teachers

^^^ That's a generalization. There are some really good schools, and the people who really care for their kids, investigate their options, and then send their kids there. Charter and parochial schools are a couple of examples of generally good schools.

The education system is trash anyways and I'm not even talking about the violence.  Wasted so much time in school learning useless things and doing pointless projects which did nothing for my life.  I would of been better off dropping out at 10 years old and doing real world things.

Teachers armed in schools is really happening.

Usually there are a few students who are respected, and are very responsible. After testing, some of these should go armed to back up the teachers. If such is done, these students will become even more respected and responsible.

Both, armed teachers and armed students, will make the schools bastions of strength against terrorism.

It's the medical druggie shooters who do most of the school terrorizing... blacks or any other race.

1st world democratic countries, ignore the Banana Republics, unless of course the bar is so low you want to be on par with them...

Exactly. The point is every school will have a handful of these people seconds away to react. It doesn't need to be everyone. Watch a couple would-be school shooters get ended before taking any lives a few times and suddenly it will get a lot less glamorous and a lot more scary in the minds of these deranged individuals. Suddenly it stops happening as much, and when it does less people are hurt because they don't get to go on an unchecked rampage for 30 minutes to an hour.

There's a mindset that comes first, before anyone should do concealed carry. Otherwise he becomes a target for punks to take the gun away.

The right solution is to eliminate "gun free zones," and make them "zones where you don't know who is carrying but you damn sure know they are there and they are going to shoot you dead."

Like "Air Marshalls." They exist, but good luck identifying them.


Behavior suppressing pills are obviously behind sudden breakout into psychotic behavior that to a fair degree results in mass shootings. This is not getting the attention it deserves.

Is there really no special interest money in politics around the world? I feel like that can't be true (Maybe just cause I'm in America, I feel that what happens here regarding politics is normal)

The gun show loophole and other gun control ideas are an interesing topic, though I don't think people notice that most of these mass shootings that occurred in the US wouldn't have been stopped by any gun control solutions proposed. Check the source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9ff8dbe61b07)

We have an issue of enforcement in this country, not an issue of the laws we have.

Actually, even by rate per 1 million: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people america isn't close to the top. Sure a lot of shit happens in america and some measures are needed but I can assure you it's not because of police LOL, I know you think they are bad because you don't know how to look at statistics but it's actually the black population that does most of the killing in America.

^^^ Actually, America is the place where illegal and disgusting things seem to be tolerated because the government leaders have hired an abnormally high number of police. Guns among the populous should be increased in places that have high numbers of police.

America is the country where illegal and disgusting things are tolerated. Because if they do really care about this incident, they will banned guns for individuals to have it for personal possession a long time ago. The accessibility of guns should be taken seriously by their government and it should only be allowed on places that has low number of policemen.

Literally no one said everyone should be carrying guns. Also there is either a right to bear arms or not, if there is a government entity picking and choosing who can and can not own firearms then it is not a right any more is it? It becomes a privilege granted not a right implicit and exercised. There are a TON of sources here. Sorry not really buying your excuse that gun control laws do not have a counterproductive effect. California is clearly the most strict laws with some of the worst results. Texas though largely pro-gun has some very left leaning pro-gun control areas within its city centers. An interesting thing to note is a lot of these places are filled with the refugees from Commifornia. They move to other states and proceed to vote in all the same failed polices they just ran from.

Another excellent example of this is Chicago, where as the state regulations are not super restrictive, but within Cook County the restrictions are exceptionally strict even on a nation wide level yet it has some of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation. In effect it is not a genuine examination of the regulations to only look at state level statues because localities and counties find ways to achieve this same counterproductive effect regardless. The same can be said for New York City and I am sure many other locations. Again regarding training, we are talking about certifying qualified individuals to assert their 2nd amendment rights at work or school (in the cases of higher ed). This does not necessitate some kind of entitlement to extra pay or occupational benefits, this is simply a matter of enabling trained and qualified citizens the ability to do so if they choose. All the other horse shit about special advantages and unpaid training is just a red herring attaching other frivolous stipulations unnecessarily.

Can a commercial plane crash? yes but unlikely

Can a public place be shot up by someone? yes but unlikely


The percentage of this happening to you is so low sometimes it not even worth worrying about.


I would not want guns in the hands of normal teachers, that is a recipe for disaster.  I've had some seriously deranged teachers before.

My point about statistics was just that living in fear of dogs is the same as living in fear of school shootings. If we were discussing the danger of living in the city, I would have chosen my phrasing more carefully.

I'm in a gun unfriendly area now, but I grew up out in the sticks where every kid went through hunters safety as a manner of coming of age tradition. I do think that the entire debate is moot, at least from the direction we are approaching it now. I think there are a few incorrect assumptions with thinking that everyone carrying guns is a good idea, but thats not super relevant. Funny enough, I was going to look up the statistics on the locations of school shootings just to have something to reference with my next thought, but I really couldn't find any that were reliable. Every list that I found included too many or too few details to actually be useful. I believe that school shooting locations have very little to do with state gun laws. Given that the data was inconclusive, it appears that both California and Texas are towards the top of the list for number of school shootings. Funny though, both states have massive populations and plenty of congested hell cities (cough Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, New York). I'm taking a blind guess at this, but I suppose Texas and California each probably account for ~10% of non snow related car crashes too, guess that makes them unsafe to drive in.

I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement that there is a correlation between over medication of children and incidents. Besides the obvious effect that antidepressants and such have strong side effects on adolescents, its another important indicator. Medication is not a treatment for mental health problems. There are very few cases where someone is just born with a chemical imbalance, and a pill just fixes that. Tossing someone a pill doesn't fix the problem, you need to get to the root of the problem or the pill doesn't do anything. I see the rate of medication as a sign that some parents are shirking the well being of their kids and ignoring critical warning signs that can evolve into mental health problems. I'm not saying that sad kids are the cause of all of our problems, we made it through the grunge era, but it definitely lends credence to my thoughts on dealing with mental health before anything else.

*edit* sorry missed your point about training. A handful of companies have tried the, "we aren't making anyone do anything, they are doing it of their own free will" defense, and it never seems to work out. Employees that don't want to volunteer are pressured into doing so because they become less job competitive. A guy who volunteers to work an extra 10 hours without being paid will have an advantage over the guy who doesn't volunteer, so when budget cuts come along, guess who's staying? As a result, the guy who doesn't want to volunteer will end up doing so. There are laws for this reason to keep employers from manipulating their employees into nonpaid overtime. Its been a major problem in transportation and medical fields.

I never said anything about not getting training, the point was the state wouldn't make carrying the gun (or the training required to do so) mandatory, therefore it would not fall under unpaid work. I know you live in an area with pretty strict gun controls, but visit Arizona or Texas some time. Tons of people walk around all day with guns on their hips and they don't jump up and shoot people on their own. If the threats of a school shooting are statistically insignificant then this entire debate is moot. High levels of carrying is a deterrent and in itself a form of making school shootings harder, which would most certainly be more likely to prevent it in the first place if they know they will not be able to rack up a body count before they join the pile. All kinds of studies have already shown video games and movies don't result directly in more violence. You know what studies have shown results in violence though? All the meds that the vast majority of shooters have been pumped full of. It is very good of you to decide for others they should feel safe because "statistics". Next time some one tries to jump me when I am in Chicago I will show them the stats maybe they will go away.

I have not heard of that. One solution would be to give teachers a safe harbor if they have certain credentials and take certain precautions, so to prevent them from getting sued frivolously.

Otherwise, if additional training is unavoidable, schools will need to find the funding. I don't know where this money will come from, and the answer is probably different from district to district -- some can probably come from the federal government (and state governments) via grants. At the end of the day, difficult choices will need to be made. In most cases, either taxes will need to be raised, or other programs will need to have their budgets cut to pay for this training.

Well, it is speculation on my end, I cannot fathom not requiring the training I mentioned before, but your guess is as good as mine at this point.

Armed amateurs are more dangerous than mass murders. The number of accidents prone to happen from millions of armed amateurs is surely higher. As much as its played up as an imminent threat to the existence of humanity, the chances of being involved in a school shooting are still statistically insignificant.  The numbers of them occurring is certainly increasing, but as I mentioned before, I think there are far better methods available to reduce them than removing guns. I support people's rights to own guns, but there is a time and place for everything. I don't think that turning the country back into a Clint Eastwood western movie is the solution. Going to the grocery store should not become an arms race.

As I said before when I was defending gun ownership, guns are just a tool of convenience. If school shootings became difficult due to sentry turrets or whatever else, people would just move onto the next most convenient method. You don't stop shooters by shooting them first, you stop them from deciding to become shooters in the first place. I'm not the sort to point fingers and blame violent movies or video games or anything else, but just something to think about. Most countries in the world normalize sex rather than violence. A movie will receive a higher rating due to violent content rather than sexual content, whereas in the US, its the reverse. I'm not claiming thats the cause of anything, just a portion of my basis for being against normalizing violence. You shouldn't need a gun to feel safe in public, you should feel safe knowing that unreasonable violence is a statistical outlier, and the majority of people will be able to receive treatment for whatever would drive them to commit violence in the first place.

Actually most states have qualified immunity for police, so as long as they were not completely negligent it is usually irrelevant, but this is another topic. There would be no mandate to get this training, so your logic about unpaid work training is flawed. The school is not mandating anyone do this necessarily but permitting it, so there is a huge difference. Again you avoided my question. Which do you think is better, a well meaning armed teacher there instantly, or police there in 5 to 20 minutes? Which is more dangerous, an unchecked mass murderer, or an armed amateur?

I'm not sure about that. Assuming that the option was viable, formal military and police training would still probably require a few more pieces to be legal. In many jurisdictions, police officers are required to have liability insurance policies to cover them from being sued into oblivion when they make a mistake that their department wont cover. I think it would probably be a hard sell to get a policy without extensive ongoing training. I can't imagine teachers wouldn't be required to have one if they were allowed to carry guns.


You can't legally have an employee undergo unpaid work related training, so the school board would need to cover that or be at risk of lawsuits. I don't know for certain that the state would have to pay for everything, but based on employment laws, I can say with relative certainty that teachers wouldn't be allowed to provide for themselves.

You can't just put a responsible gun owner in charge of protecting lives, they need to be thoroughly trained so they don't put those lives they are responsible for at greater risk. Google says police academy training costs around $5k and takes 840 hours, followed by field training with a senior officer, and certification exams before officers are allowed to uphold public safety. Again, realistically assuming that the idea is plausible, teachers would need to go through similar if not greater levels of training as police officers as dealing with minors is not a simple situation. I'm sure there are specialization certifications on how to deal with violence around minors. Lets also not forget the routine psychological analysis, not sure what that costs, but I'm sure its cheap. There is a reason that someone you are trusting your life to is required to jump through so many hoops, otherwise they pose a risk to your safety. Even if you think the regulations are stupid, thats not the point of what we are discussing. I could be pro teachers with guns, but that wouldn't change anything I've said so far so its just my interpretation of the legal impossibilities that stand in the way.


I'm not accusing anyone of bringing it up, but I just wanted to mention it in case the conversation would have otherwise gone in this direction. Vigilantism is the worst possible solution. I would bet my life that under absolutely no circumstances would teachers simply be allowed to bring guns to school at their own discretion. It is such a huge legal liability that we are better off talking about nearly anything else.