Today's mass shooting in the US

In any situation where you're faced with someone who has a gun and is actively trying to kill you or others around you, it would be better for you to have a gun than not have a gun. If someone right now was trying to break into your house to kill you, everyone here would take a gun if offered. It's easy to sit and conjure up a worst case scenario and suggest people won't be trained to high enough standards to be effective, but ultimately that's compared to a zero chance of survival when you're unarmed and in imminent danger of being shot. You're arguing to deny a human being a basic fighting chance rather than being a sheep to the slaughter. In an ideal world no one in America would have a gun, no one would go into schools and start shooting kids, but currently that isn't the case and America will not take away everyone's guns anytime soon.
 
Roar87 said:
In any situation where you're faced with someone who has a gun and is actively trying to kill you or others around you, it would be better for you to have a gun than not have a gun. If someone right now was trying to break into your house to kill you, everyone here would take a gun if offered. It's easy to sit and conjure up a worst case scenario and suggest people won't be trained to high enough standards to be effective, but ultimately that's compared to a zero chance of survival when you're unarmed and in imminent danger of being shot. You're arguing to deny a human being a basic fighting chance rather than being a sheep to the slaughter. In an ideal world no one in America would have a gun, no one would go into schools and start shooting kids, but currently that isn't the case and America will not take away everyone's guns anytime soon.
Click to expand...

That's a decent point for the situation you used as an example - someone trying to break into your house to kill you. It's not a decent point for a complex of buildings full of innocent people and an unknown small number of killers (probably one, but maybe 2 or 3) with an unknown number of armed people in unknown locations and probably moving. In that situation, it's more likely that one or more of the armed people hunting the killer(s) will mistakenly kill other people. "Friendly fire" (a horrible term, but it's the one used) is a real problem with well trained and well organised professional soldiers. With lightly trained and completely disorganised civilians it's far more likely. In addition, it would make things far harder for the armed police or military when they arrive and that would create an additional way in which it's likely that more people will die. The police go in...to face an unknown number of armed people, none of whom they can recognise. One or more of those people are the killer(s) and the majority are teachers. Some of whom will be shot by the police as a result. It would happen. Repeatedly.

It's nowhere near as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
 
Roar87 said:
In any situation where you're faced with someone who has a gun and is actively trying to kill you or others around you, it would be better for you to have a gun than not have a gun. If someone right now was trying to break into your house to kill you, everyone here would take a gun if offered. It's easy to sit and conjure up a worst case scenario and suggest people won't be trained to high enough standards to be effective, but ultimately that's compared to a zero chance of survival when you're unarmed and in imminent danger of being shot. You're arguing to deny a human being a basic fighting chance rather than being a sheep to the slaughter. In an ideal world no one in America would have a gun, no one would go into schools and start shooting kids, but currently that isn't the case and America will not take away everyone's guns anytime soon.
Click to expand...
The fact that there are restrictions in place for not allowing certain US citizens to own a firearm, such as convicted felons & mentally unstable persons, shows that the 2nd Amendment can be bypassed when it suits them, effectively denying these citizens the right to defend themselves.

Angilion said:
That's a decent point for the situation you used as an example - someone trying to break into your house to kill you. It's not a decent point for a complex of buildings full of innocent people and an unknown small number of killers (probably one, but maybe 2 or 3) with an unknown number of armed people in unknown locations and probably moving. In that situation, it's more likely that one or more of the armed people hunting the killer(s) will mistakenly kill other people. "Friendly fire" (a horrible term, but it's the one used) is a real problem with well trained and well organised professional soldiers. With lightly trained and completely disorganised civilians it's far more likely. In addition, it would make things far harder for the armed police or military when they arrive and that would create an additional way in which it's likely that more people will die. The police go in...to face an unknown number of armed people, none of whom they can recognise. One or more of those people are the killer(s) and the majority are teachers. Some of whom will be shot by the police as a result. It would happen. Repeatedly.

It's nowhere near as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
Click to expand...
If I were a teacher proficient in the use of a gun and it was expected of me to be one of these 'guards' the first thing I would demand is immunity from prosecution if I accidentally/negligently injured or killed anyone caught in cross-fire.
 
enkoda said:
[..] If I were a teacher proficient in the use of a gun and it was expected of me to be one of these 'guards' the first thing I would demand is immunity from prosecution if I accidentally/negligently injured or killed anyone caught in cross-fire.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't bring them back to life, nor would it make you feel any better about having killed someone you were supposed to be saving or one of your coworkers. Nor would it be of any use to the teachers killed by the police armed response team because they were stalking around a school with a gun in their hand during a school shooting spree and the police mistook them for the killer(s).

Also, why should you be immune from prosecution when other people aren't? Like the police, for example.
 
If I was expected to be the last line of defence against someone intent on killing as many children/teachers as possible, I would want some kind of legal protection if, in the heat of a distressful and traumatic armed assault, I inadvertently killed a student/teacher while saving the lives of others - collateral damage if you like. Since it isn't going to happen it's a moot point really, but seeing as America already has some rather 'interesting' laws regarding personal safety it's something I would insist upon.
 
Yeah, going in like a hero and accidentally wounding or shooting dead some innocent is going to get you sued into the next universe in america.

What
a
stupid
flipping
idea.

typical of many over there though. how dumb can they get.
 
I'm not sure if people think the idea is that teachers would be expected to perform a counter terrorist style operation in a school and clear rooms etc, to me it would be that teachers would lock themselves and students in a class room and have access to a gun to defend themselves in the same way any civilian might in their own home. They aren't replacing a SWAT team or something ridiculous.
 
Roar87 said:
I'm not sure if people think the idea is that teachers would be expected to perform a counter terrorist style operation in a school and clear rooms etc, to me it would be that teachers would lock themselves and students in a class room and have access to a gun to defend themselves in the same way any civilian might in their own home. They aren't replacing a SWAT team or something ridiculous.
Click to expand...

This.

There are many silly people here who think otherwise.
 
Dunno last bit I read on it said it would be non-teaching school staff and they would be expected to engage the shooter.

EDIT: Changed a bit since I read it - originally excluded teachers entirely but now added a caveat:

  • Introduces a voluntary armed "guardian programme" for schools, named after Aaron Feis, a coach who died in the Parkland shooting. It allows school personnel to be armed, subject to school district approval and specialist training
  • Classroom teachers are excluded from carrying arms unless they have a security forces background
Click to expand...
 
Roar87 said:
I'm not sure if people think the idea is that teachers would be expected to perform a counter terrorist style operation in a school and clear rooms etc, to me it would be that teachers would lock themselves and students in a class room and have access to a gun to defend themselves in the same way any civilian might in their own home. They aren't replacing a SWAT team or something ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Well yes, because that's what was proposed by Trump - he wanted 20% of teachers armed to deal with active shooter scenarios. If he'd said armed security personnel that's a different matter....but he didn't. Even so, according to Rroffs' post above there could still be armed teachers.
 
Another shooting last night resulting in three dead women at a veterans home. The shooter himself being a former client at the home which dealt with ptsd.

Perhaps he played too much fallout 4 or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom