So now they're worried about how to pay for big government.
That's a total farce.
You cleaned up a lot of the mess Malabar. Unlike the typical big government mandate, the best solution is to have these questions resolved locally and with volunteers.
Notice the attempt at re-framing the argument to make it something it never was. It was clearly stated the better ideas would include armed resources that aren't teachers, and have those teachers who wished to participate do so voluntarily and anonymously as a supplement to dedicated non-teacher resources. Typical hyperbole fantasy, because their argument doesn't hold water.
(03-23-2018, 09:51 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2018, 09:18 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]lol Not an obstacle?
There are 3.2 million teachers across america. So thats 300 dollars for a safe and gun. Then what about the training? Who is paying for that? How long should a teacher train for before being considered competent enough to shoot an active shooter? 6 months? A year? Can't have teachers using their own guns as well because that's a safety concern for the counties. Gotta make sure all guns are the same.
So we got 300 bucks at minimum for gun and safe. Then whatever it costs to train someone for 6 months (I have no clue how much this would cost but doing anything for 6 months isn't cheap) so let's just say another 300 bucks per person. 600 bucks total to train 1 teacher.
Now let's say we only train half the teachers in America. So 1.6 million. So that means we need $960 million dollars.
There are a lot of straw men in that argument.
First off, you wouldn't arm every teacher. You wouldn't require any teacher to carry a gun, only allow it. If no teacher at a particular school chooses to carry a gun, so be it.
Any teacher who chooses to participate would use their own gun. There is no cost to the school budget.
A teacher would have to have a concealed carry permit. No other training is necessary.
The idea here is not to have armed teachers shooting school invaders, the idea is to deter the invaders from trying because they would expect armed resistance, maybe even from several different directions. As long as the number and identities of armed teachers is unknown, the invader would be walking into what could be a quick death. There's a reason why burglars in the US don't enter homes when they believe homeowners are present, they may get shot. That possibility protects homes without guns as well as those with guns.
I would want any teacher who wants to carry a gun to school to be thoroughly screened, not only for the ability to handle a weapon safely, but also for mental and emotional stability. I remember too many teachers who should never ever be allowed to carry a gun to school.
And I'm pretty ambivalent about them being allowed to carry them around in the halls of the school, unless those guns had biometric identifiers that only allowed that particular person to pull the trigger. Otherwise, some crazy student could snatch that gun away and start shooting.
(03-22-2018, 03:50 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2018, 06:47 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]What’s your argument then?
I'd say my argument is two fold. First of all, if you celebrate the death of another person (and the wounding of two) because it helps prove a point in a political discussion, you need to stand up and admit you've failed as a human being. Second of all, if school shootings are such a persistent issue that arming teachers is considered to be a viable countermeasure, you need to stand up and admit you've failed as a society.
I rejoice in the fact that the shooter was killed, not because of the politics, but because it's what should happen when people act that way.
School shooting aren't that persistent, they just get all the coverage. In fact, one might infer that the rise in shootings is in direct correlation to that coverage. "Arming teachers" isn't about buying them guns, it's about ending the prohibition on the free exercise of rights of those who wish to arm themselves.
(03-23-2018, 09:18 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2018, 09:24 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Great to hear you're on board.
Single handgun safes start a less than $100 at Walmart or on Amazon. Not exactly a budget buster.
I would anticipate most teachers/school personnel would wish to carry their own. If not, prices start at about $200. Again, not an obstacle.
lol Not an obstacle?
There are 3.2 million teachers across america. So thats 300 dollars for a safe and gun. Then what about the training? Who is paying for that? How long should a teacher train for before being considered competent enough to shoot an active shooter? 6 months? A year? Can't have teachers using their own guns as well because that's a safety concern for the counties. Gotta make sure all guns are the same.
So we got 300 bucks at minimum for gun and safe. Then whatever it costs to train someone for 6 months (I have no clue how much this would cost but doing anything for 6 months isn't cheap) so let's just say another 300 bucks per person. 600 bucks total to train 1 teacher.
Now let's say we only train half the teachers in America. So 1.6 million. So that means we need $960 million dollars.
When will those of you on left actually listen to the message? No one is suggesting arming all teachers, but rather allowing a small percentage to carry guns at school. I expect only those already proficient would be considered. 5% is probably a much more realistic figure.
Why are their own guns a safety concern and why must the guns be all the same? This isn't a military situation where identical weapons and ammo are critical. I'd much rather have each teacher carrying what they're already comfortable with.
Why are you fixated on safes? If I'm the one carrying, I want it on me at all times.
Hey look, your 960 million has dropped to 48 million!