I don't think you are capable of working this out logically, because your anti-gun bias blinds you.

In this scenario, Ms. Sanders has experience with guns, has volunteered, and has passed psychological and proficiency tests. She is very accurate. Now, where does she keep her gun? On her person, at all times. Hip holster or shoulder holster. And it's loaded.

Why do you even posit that her gun would be locked up or disassembled? Of course that wouldn't work! That's just idiotic.

We don't equip teachers with hoses, but we certainly equip teachers with fire extinguishers. Do you think teachers are incapable of putting out fires? Why do you have such a low opinion of teachers? Hell, I put out a car fire one time, about 10 minutes before a firetruck arrived. (Actually, I have done it three times -- twice with my own car.) It is exactly the same idea -- a civilian in a position to respond immediately can have a far greater impact on a situation, when the problem is still small enough to handle, than the professionals who can't get there until a lot more damage has occurred.

Seriously, this compartmentalization fixation you have is bizarre. Cross-training happens all the the time. I don't see you suggesting that firemen can't be medics, or that cops can't fight fires. Those are not their primary jobs, perhaps, but that doesn't mean they aren't fully capable of doing them.

You obviously have no military experience. Besides your irrational opposition to guns, your lack of military experience is revealed in your steadfast insistence that jobs be segregated. People in the military, if they serve for at least one full enlistment, are trained in multiple jobs, and they have to do those jobs in a competent manner. I have been a combat engineer, gas turbine systems tech, Russian linguist, analyst, firearms instructor, and classroom teacher. I also have training in firefighting and first aid.

If you apply this strict compartmentalization to all people in all occupations, then you need to learn that your perspective is highly abnormal. If you only apply it to teachers and cops, you are inconsistent, and not being logical at all.

I'm not anti gun, I'm just sick of having a higher homicide rate by firearm (per 100,000) than:

United States: 3.7
Costa Rica 3.32
Uruguay 3.24
Argentina 3
Barbados 3
Montenegro 2.06
Peru 1.87
Moldova 1.04
Israel 0.94
India 0.93
Canada 0.76
Serbia 0.62
Luxembourg 0.6
Greece 0.59
Uzbekistan 0.58
Croatia 0.57
Kyrgyzstan 0.53
Switzerland 0.52
Malta 0.48
Portugal 0.48
Republic of Macedonia 0.45
Belarus 0.38
Italy 0.36
Kuwait 0.36
Ireland 0.36
Ukraine 0.35
Estonia 0.3
Belgium 0.29
Finland 0.26
Lithuania 0.24
Cyprus 0.24
Georgia 0.23
Bulgaria 0.23
France 0.22
Denmark 0.22
Netherlands 0.2
Sweden 0.19
Austria 0.18
Slovakia 0.18
Latvia 0.18
Qatar 0.18
New Zealand 0.17
Spain 0.15
Hungary 0.13
Taiwan 0.13
Czech Republic 0.12
Hong Kong 0.12
Australia 0.09
Singapore 0.07
Germany 0.06
Chile 0.06
Slovenia 0.05
Norway 0.04
United Kingdom 0.04
Romania 0.04
South Korea 0.04
Azerbaijan 0.04
Poland 0.02
Japan 0.02

My main point of discontent is not that they are incapable of handling a fucking weapon it's that I don't want more fucking weapons in the god damn school. A point that you continue to gloss over because you believe more weapons solve all violence. We have 300M fucking weapons in this country and still have fucking serious firearm violence problems.

I don't have military experience, I was too busy running a successful business when I was 18. I solve problems for a living, I don't fight fire with fire.

Congratulations on having multiple jobs. I mowed lawns when I was 14 but I'm not a part time grounds keeper now. I expect teachers to be teachers, not part time militia members. If they are, great... let's keep it out of the classroom.

I realize this completely. If someone wants to murder someone they're going to do it.


Why can't we just do it like Canada: 0.76 firearm, 1.6 all -- In Canada, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register. The buyer of a firearm in a private sale in Canada is obliged to pass official background checks before taking possession. Neither of these are true in the US.

How is it misleading? People arguing against arming teachers don't acknowledge the possibility that armed teachers could theoretically, feasibly stop a shooting in progress, or even prevent school shooting from happenings in the first place. Roland simply presented the fact that guns have been used numerous times to stop mass murder from being more massive.

The fact is that there is an easy solution. It's just unacceptable to many people because of their political beliefs.

I'm not glossing over it. It's quite obvious what you want -- no guns at all anywhere. If you can't have that, you'd prefer to keep them in the hands of police and military. And you want to keep guns out of schools at all costs.

Nowhere did I say I believe more weapons will solve all violence. But I do believe more weapons in the hands of good guys can solve a lot of it. You steadfastly refuse to admit a gun in the hands of a civilian can help in any situation.

You don't want guns in school? Too fucking bad. Most of the time you get what you want. But then some wackjob loses his final screw, and marches into a school and kills people. And then there's a gun in a school, regardless of what you want. THAT IS THE PRICE YOU PAY for keeping guns out of the hand of good guys in school. It appears to be a price you are willing to accept.

20 students dead. 6 teachers dead. One armed teacher could have saved most of those people. You want to oppose the one thing we could implement immediately, wouldn't cost much, and could save lives once the shooting starts, then own up to the cost of it. The next school shooting deaths are on you.

I wouldn't mind seeing private sellers having to do the same FBI/NICS background check that gun stores have to do when selling a gun. That would be extremely easy to implement at gun shows.

I'm not glossing over it. It's quite obvious what you want -- no guns at all anywhere. If you can't have that, you'd prefer to keep them in the hands of police and military. And you want to keep guns out of schools at all costs.

Nowhere did I say I believe more weapons will solve all violence. But I do believe more weapons in the hands of good guys can solve a lot of it. You steadfastly refuse to admit a gun in the hands of a civilian can help in any situation.

There are times when fighting fire with fire is the right thing to do. I mean that literally. When fighting a brush fire, lighting a backfire can be a very helpful technique. And in those cases where it is necessary, not fighting fire with fire can be a bad mistake, causing far more damage. I mean that literally and metaphorically.

You don't want guns in school? Too fucking bad. Most of the time you get what you want. But then some wackjob loses his final screw, and marches into a school and kills people. And then there's a gun in a school, regardless of what you want. THAT IS THE PRICE YOU PAY for keeping guns out of the hand of good guys in school. It appears to be a price you are willing to accept.

20 students dead. 6 teachers dead. One armed teacher could have saved most of those people. You want to oppose the one thing we could implement immediately, wouldn't cost much, and could save lives once the shooting starts, then own up to the cost of it. The next school shooting deaths are on you.

You are still equating homicide rates with firearms and this is just not how it works. There are cultural and other reasons for it. The saying that guns don't kill people, people do is a truth you seem to not want to face. Canada's homicide rate is .84 without guns and .76 with guns. In other words, they actually have more homicides done by people with other means. Now, you can take away all the guns in America, but you won't get the homicide rate down, you just swap the figures around and you have a lower homicide rate by guns and a higher percentage done by other means. People don't kill people because there are guns, they kill people because they want them dead. Guns are just one way to accomplish that.

I really don't have an issue with background checks or adding them to the private sellers, because people who shouldn't have them (mentally unstable, felons etc) shouldn't be purchasing them, but it in itself nor any other gun control measures, won't change the homicide rate.

I'm not anti gun, I'm just sick of having a higher homicide rate by firearm (per 100,000) than:

Guns certainly make it easier to kill people. And killing someone with a firearm is certainly less personal than using your bare hands or a knife, necessitating that that person actually really wants to kill that person, not just because they are present and it's easy.

I guess I should say intellectually misleading. Using anecdotal evidence to support a "solution" is not valid - whichever side is being "supported" by the "evidence." In this case, gun control advocates are saying that if these guns were not available, this would not have happened. No way of proving this, though I disagree with that premise as well. You can't stop crazy. You argue that if one of these teacher's had a gun this could (would?) have been prevented. Anything is possible - not able to be proved. Both can be supported with anecdotal evidence.

As a High School teacher, I find the arming of teachers to be problematic. Even assuming training - this is not part of a teacher's job. I know too many teachers who would be gung ho to get the training and be an absolutely inappropriate choice to carry a loaded firearm on campus. Studies show (to lazy to find, so take it or leave it) that firearms are just as likely to be used against the gunowner as to be used in defense of him/her. (Could be a misleading stat as child uses against parent or spouse against spouse?) Having a 100# teacher carrying a firearm in a setting with some of the students is not safe, in my opinion. Even I, a 250# man, often have my back to 1/4 of the class at any one time. I would not want to have to worry about keeping a weapon secure during the day. I just think that adding more firearms to a school setting is asking for more trouble than it would prevent.

Are you going to have teachers wear it on their hip? Locked in a desk?

It was only earlier this year a kid in a Seattle school got shot because some kid thought it was cool to bring a gun to school. Kids are fucking retarded.

In this scenario, Ms. Sanders has experience with guns, has volunteered, and has passed psychological and proficiency tests. She is very accurate. Now, where does she keep her gun? On her person, at all times. Hip holster or shoulder holster. And it's loaded.

Why do you even posit that her gun would be locked up or disassembled? Of course that wouldn't work! That's just idiotic.

We compared the United States to the other First World countries. We looked at both genders and all ages, but here are the statistics for 5- to 14-year-olds. A child in the United States compared to a child in Finland or France or New Zealand is not 20 percent more likely to be killed in a gun homicide, or 50 percent more likely, or twice as likely, or five times as likely. It’s 13 times higher.

Our gun suicide rate for these children is eight times higher. Our non-gun suicide rate is average.

These are often people who aren’t criminals in the normal sense. They look more like suicidal people, and that’s what they are. In every one of these mass shootings, the person has either committed suicide or suicide-by-cop, or was immediately arrested and incarcerated forever. So the notion that you might, by arming other people, deter anything is crazy. For these people, this is their last basic act on earth.

We say, “OK, you have a gun in the house. It may or may not protect you against crime. It probably increases the likelihood that someone in the house will be murdered. But there are other things. It also increases the likelihood of suicide. It increases the likelihood of gun accidents. We can’t find any corresponding benefit from having a gun.”

That’s what a lot of these [shootings] are: suicides where someone goes out in a blaze of glory.

But they all have guns. It’s so incredible that on the same day we had this horrific shooting in an elementary school, a guy in China [wielding a knife] tried to kill lots of elementary school students. And nobody died. Why? Because they have fewer mental health problems? No. It’s the access to guns. Guns make interactions much more lethal.

This is a good read, the Professor of Public Health at Harvard's take on gun control

And the ban on automatic weapons and larger clips lowers the suicide rate how exactly? Unless you want to ban guns, this entire argument is pretty much a moot point. Banning guns is NOT an option here.