Hardening schools should be tried. Give teachers/staff the option to carry.  Health services only go so far as many go un-diagnosed (like the Ulvade shooter). We harden many other places of value, so why not our schools. 

Anyone who is protected by guns, should not have  a say in disarming the people until they too give up their armed protection.  Like politicians, it's easy to talk when you have an army protecting your work place and in public (depending on what position they are). Or how about HPD, as long as the officer is inside the station, they do not need to be armed.  So like Japan or even our military stationed in the USA, you need to get your gun from the armory, and only when it's needed.  Ex-chief  Ballad's statement for denying CCW applicants are to call 911.

"These are troubled individuals and not necessarily evil". This statement is worry some because it sounds like providing an excuse.  Which is pretty much the statement that the Ulvade shooters mom made. Maybe she read the same book?

With many of these shooters there are signs that aren't acted upon so it's not always a matter of just people who no one knew had a problem.

Again I am not against hardening schools, to me it is just a measure that would have limited effectiveness

I don't see why saying they are troubled instead of evil provides any sort of excuse. Blaming evil adds nothing to the discussion, we can't fight evil. However when we see these people as troubled now that gives us avenues to work on the problems. Bullying, problems at home, depression, substance abuse, etc. All things we can address. Calling them evil just demonizes them, makes us feel better in judging them, it doesn't do anything else. I would say we can call their acts evil but when it comes to the individual we need to see that something is wrong inside and sometimes it can be fixed before these things happen.

I wouldn't consider it appeasement, what I am talking about is image management. Why manage our image? Because if the far left gets enough votes our gun rights will get taken away, plain and simple. Whether through a change to the second amendment or through liberal justices on the SCOTUS if they get enough support we stand to lose some or all of our gun rights.

To me part of that image management means coming up with and/or supporting ideas to help address the problem. Part of that should include some level of gun control legislation. Some may chide it as another compromise of our rights but I look at it as a balancing act. No right is absolute which means we have to figure out where to draw the line, balancing the necessity of firearms against the risks that come with them.

I am not against hardening schools, I am saying that it looks heartless to the other side. As for why I say it's not a good solution, it's because it is a reactionary measure not a preventative measure. During Columbine there was an armed officer on campus and it did not dissuade the shooters and some shooters have attacked hard targets before. It's a Band-Aid, it helps but it's not a solution. Our problems with gun violence didn't start when guns became available, there are other factors at work and that is what we need to address for a solution.

I don’t care what you “consider” it to be, at the end of the day that’s exactly what your doing. “Image managing” by submitting to their misplaced outrage by passing laws that would not have done anything to stop any of the mass shootings. The logic of every single gun control bill that they want to pass could be used over and over again to pass more gun legislation. You are not talking to rational people who want some sort of middle ground on gun control. They want it all, and like a child throwing a tantrum the more you give into their irrational behavior the worse they become.

I never once said anything about hiring an armed guard. I don’t believe an armed officer would do any good in this situation. The shooter would simply target him first or plan around him. The correct answer is allowing teachers to CC if they so choose. In a bunch of these mass shootings there were people who were licensed to carry that could’ve stopped the shooting but were prevented from carrying on campus. Parkland and columbine come to mind. Taking into consideration that CCW holders are among the safest and most law abiding demographic in the nation makes this a simple and logical solution.

Also no right is absolute? Rights that aren’t absolute are called privileges. Every right is absolute, otherwise what is the goddamn point of a right.

You keep worrying about the “far left” but I’m more worried about “gun owners” like you.

I don’t care what you “consider” it to be, at the end of the day that’s exactly what your doing. “Image managing” by submitting to their misplaced outrage by passing laws that would not have done anything to stop any of the mass shootings. The logic of every single gun control bill that they want to pass could be used over and over again to pass more gun legislation. You are not talking to rational people who want some sort of middle ground on gun control. They want it all, and like a child throwing a tantrum the more you give into their irrational behavior the worse they become.

I never once said anything about hiring an armed guard. I don’t believe an armed officer would do any good in this situation. The shooter would simply target him first or plan around him. The correct answer is allowing teachers to CC if they so choose. In a bunch of these mass shootings there were people who were licensed to carry that could’ve stopped the shooting but were prevented from carrying on campus. Parkland and columbine come to mind. Taking into consideration that CCW holders are among the safest and most law abiding demographic in the nation makes this a simple and logical solution.

Also no right is absolute? Rights that aren’t absolute are called privileges. Every right is absolute, otherwise what is the goddamn point of a right.

You keep worrying about the “far left” but I’m more worried about “gun owners” like you.

We can't pretend public opinion doesn't matter. At the end of the day people get to vote for the direction of the country. We can dig our fox holes and hold fast and it will do absolutely nothing when they get enough votes to get their way.

It's a false narrative that they all just want to take away all our rights. There are plenty of moderates who believe in some private firearm ownership. The far left scares people about guns and the far right scare people about gun control. Don't fall for either.

Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets. Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner. That's good but it is still a bandaid. It's like treating heart disease by only carrying around an defibrillator.

Yes, rights are not absolute. Find me any right listed in the constitution that does not have some limit. We could argue around the middle ground but sooner or later you would have to admit some line has to be drawn.

We can't pretend public opinion doesn't matter. At the end of the day people get to vote for the direction of the country. We can dig our fox holes and hold fast and it will do absolutely nothing when they get enough votes to get their way.

It's a false narrative that they all just want to take away all our rights. There are plenty of moderates who believe in some private firearm ownership. The far left scares people about guns and the far right scare people about gun control. Don't fall for either.

Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets. Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner. That's good but it is still a bandaid. It's like treating heart disease by only carrying around an defibrillator.

Yes, rights are not absolute. Find me any right listed in the constitution that does not have some limit. We could argue around the middle ground but sooner or later you would have to admit some line has to be drawn.

Like I said, I’m more worried about people like you. Who cares about some fringe leftist who wants to yank our second amendment when we have people like you who will just give it to them?

Nice strawman I never said they wanted to take all our rights I said they want all our guns. If you actually read what I wrote I said that the logic they’re using for gun control can be applied to all guns over time. Look at your president now talking about how 9mm will blow the lung out of the body. So rifles that shoot 5.56 and handguns that shoot 9mm are too dangerous to own now, and you wanna compromise with these people? Good grief.

These are mentally deranged individuals not special forces operators. You call the shooter “rational” yet think they would gung ho into an area where he could immediately be met with lethal resistance. There’s nothing rational about that. There’s a reason the overwhelming majority of mass shooting occur in gun free zones.

The entire constitution is absolute I don’t know where people get this idea that it isn’t. Since you wanna play this silly game, how absolute is the 19th and 13th ammendment?

We can't pretend public opinion doesn't matter. At the end of the day people get to vote for the direction of the country. We can dig our fox holes and hold fast and it will do absolutely nothing when they get enough votes to get their way.

It's a false narrative that they all just want to take away all our rights. There are plenty of moderates who believe in some private firearm ownership. The far left scares people about guns and the far right scare people about gun control. Don't fall for either.

Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets. Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner. That's good but it is still a bandaid. It's like treating heart disease by only carrying around an defibrillator.

Yes, rights are not absolute. Find me any right listed in the constitution that does not have some limit. We could argue around the middle ground but sooner or later you would have to admit some line has to be drawn.

Rights are ABSOLUTE!
The line is where my exercise of my rights interfere with your rights.
Occam's razor, the simple explanation is usually the best.
Needless complexity should be eliminated.
 

With many of these shooters there are signs that aren't acted upon so it's not always a matter of just people who no one knew had a problem.

Again I am not against hardening schools, to me it is just a measure that would have limited effectiveness

I don't see why saying they are troubled instead of evil provides any sort of excuse. Blaming evil adds nothing to the discussion, we can't fight evil. However when we see these people as troubled now that gives us avenues to work on the problems. Bullying, problems at home, depression, substance abuse, etc. All things we can address. Calling them evil just demonizes them, makes us feel better in judging them, it doesn't do anything else. I would say we can call their acts evil but when it comes to the individual we need to see that something is wrong inside and sometimes it can be fixed before these things happen.

Just law firearm safety, there needs to be multiple measures in place in case 1 or 2 or 3 fail. 

Madison Stone Douglas, the shooter "was left behind".  He begged to return back to SPED after showing a huge decline in academics after being transferred to regular classes.  The system failed him.  IMO, this could have prevented the situation, because he then stopped coming to school. (downward spiral)

Columbine, the shooters were bullied and on anti depressants (which means mental help sought). So only real failure here would be if the bullying was reported and not stopped.

Sandy Hook, the shooter killed his mom and stole her guns. No real system failure.

MIT shooter, college level, IDK much details on the why. But this was the largest active shooting deaths until the Vegas shooting. 2 pistols used, 9mm and 22LR.

Ulvalde, no system failure, unless his bullying was reported and nothing was done.  He had no mental health professional help sought and no felonies.

So as you can see with the school shootings listed above, sometimes there is a system failure and sometimes there isn't. So evil needs to be met ASAP. Which is why giving staff the choice to be armed IMO is the best and least cost effective thing to try.  There are groups out there who will train teachers for free. Like the Ohio situation after MSD. They trained over 300 teachers in a month, all free.  I can guarantee if there was a magic machine that could go back in time and give the teachers who died an option to either have a gun, gun free zone sign, or a phone when the active shooter shows up, all of them would choose a gun.

Like I said, I’m more worried about people like you. Who cares about some fringe leftist who wants to yank our second amendment when we have people like you who will just give it to them?

Nice strawman I never said they wanted to take all our rights I said they want all our guns. If you actually read what I wrote I said that the logic they’re using for gun control can be applied to all guns over time. Look at your president now talking about how 9mm will blow the lung out of the body. So rifles that shoot 5.56 and handguns that shoot 9mm are too dangerous to own now, and you wanna compromise with these people? Good grief.

These are mentally deranged individuals not special forces operators. You call the shooter “rational” yet think they would gung ho into an area where he could immediately be met with lethal resistance. There’s nothing rational about that. There’s a reason the overwhelming majority of mass shooting occur in gun free zones.

The entire constitution is absolute I don’t know where people get this idea that it isn’t. Since you wanna play this silly game, how absolute is the 19th and 13th ammendment?

It's like that girlfriend that tells you, "if you love me then you'll...."
And when you don't do it,  they give you the,  "you must not love me then" bullcrap.

Best to be firm & non negotiable,  because they know no bounds

It's a false narrative that they all just want to take away all our rights. There are plenty of moderates who believe in some private firearm ownership. The far left scares people about guns and the far right scare people about gun control. Don't fall for either.

Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets. Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner. That's good but it is still a bandaid. It's like treating heart disease by only carrying around an defibrillator.

Yes, rights are not absolute. Find me any right listed in the constitution that does not have some limit. We could argue around the middle ground but sooner or later you would have to admit some line has to be drawn.

1) What rock you been under, if the left had their way, ALL guns would be banned.
2) Armed teachers is circular thought. So if they would be targeted 1st, then we need tanks outside the schools and barbed wire. Like Cuban banks have.
3) Enough has been taken away of the 2nd amendment that any further bans need to stop.

Not all of us have the option to being armed at work, or surrounded by a 90% armed staff.  So maybe you need to think about how the rest of us regular folk are doing (I don't mean this in a mean or sarcastic way).

Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner.

If that's the perspective your holding,  then it's clear why you can't find the answers your looking for. 

Short of the minority report(thought crimes), you can't prevent people from doing bad things, no matter how hard you try. 

Like you said,  all you can do is end it sooner.
The sooner a law abiding citizen arrives with a firearm,  the sooner it will be ended.

It's like that girlfriend that tells you, "if you love me then you'll...."
And when you don't do it,  they give you the,  "you must not love me then" bullcrap.

Best to be firm & non negotiable,  because they know no bounds

Exactly. The problem with debating a “middle ground” especially with someone who doesn’t believe that rights are absolute is that that middle ground will constantly change. Automatic weapons were a “middle ground” now semiautomatics are the new “middle ground” on and on and on we go.

Exactly. The problem with debating a “middle ground” especially with someone who doesn’t believe that rights are absolute is that that middle ground will constantly change. Automatic weapons were a “middle ground” now semiautomatics are the new “middle ground” on and on and on we go.

There is no "middle ground".  It's just how much less we get taken away.  Middle ground would mean both sides benefit, just benefit less.

If you're negotiating how much of YOUR rights get taken away, and the other side gives up NOTHING in return, that's NOT a negotiation.

It's surrender.

Each time law abiding gun owners give up on an issue -- mag capacities, so-called Assault Weapons, waiting periods, taxes on guns and ammo, limits on how many guns you can buy each month, where you can or can't have a gun, whether or not states must issue carry permits, accessories that change nothing about a gun's function, etc., etc... -- the other side offers nothing in return.

Acquiescence means you voluntarily give up something with no expectation of any quid pro quo.

We can't pretend public opinion doesn't matter. At the end of the day people get to vote for the direction of the country. We can dig our fox holes and hold fast and it will do absolutely nothing when they get enough votes to get their way.

It's a false narrative that they all just want to take away all our rights. There are plenty of moderates who believe in some private firearm ownership. The far left scares people about guns and the far right scare people about gun control. Don't fall for either.

Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets. Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner. That's good but it is still a bandaid. It's like treating heart disease by only carrying around an defibrillator.

Yes, rights are not absolute. Find me any right listed in the constitution that does not have some limit. We could argue around the middle ground but sooner or later you would have to admit some line has to be drawn.

You can't have a rational, logical, constructive discussion on guns with people who don't know anything about guns other than slogans, emotions and lies.

The MSM has lied to their audiences for so long about so many issues, those consumers of that information will never admit that they are wrong or don't understand the issues involved.

"I'd answer your question, but then I'd have to explain it," is the problem.  Lots of good examples on some podcasts of Liberals who flat out called someone a liar when presented facts that opposed their own beliefs fed to them by the MSM.  When provided actual video evidence that was impossible to refute, some still dismissed it as fake, and others took days and several times viewing the videos to finally understand that they've been lied to for years, and they willingly believed whatever lies they were fed.

How is ANYTHING we say on the pro-2A side of the argument going to sway those kinds of people?  And there are millions of those people out there.

the person you are debating with has certain rights that we regular citizens dont have, so he lacks our perspective. Any bans likely wont affect him.

the person you are debating with has certain rights that we regular citizens dont have, so he lacks our perspective. Any bans likely wont affect him.

Not only that but he has been trained to see us as the enemy and is disingenuously seeking a force advantage.

You can't have a rational, logical, constructive discussion on guns with people who don't know anything about guns other than slogans, emotions and lies.

The MSM has lied to their audiences for so long about so many issues, those consumers of that information will never admit that they are wrong or don't understand the issues involved.

"I'd answer your question, but then I'd have to explain it," is the problem.  Lots of good examples on some podcasts of Liberals who flat out called someone a liar when presented facts that opposed their own beliefs fed to them by the MSM.  When provided actual video evidence that was impossible to refute, some still dismissed it as fake, and others took days and several times viewing the videos to finally understand that they've been lied to for years, and they willingly believed whatever lies they were fed.

How is ANYTHING we say on the pro-2A side of the argument going to sway those kinds of people?  And there are millions of those people out there.

Charlie kirk vids are a good example.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Like I said, I’m more worried about people like you. Who cares about some fringe leftist who wants to yank our second amendment when we have people like you who will just give it to them?

Nice strawman I never said they wanted to take all our rights I said they want all our guns. If you actually read what I wrote I said that the logic they’re using for gun control can be applied to all guns over time. Look at your president now talking about how 9mm will blow the lung out of the body. So rifles that shoot 5.56 and handguns that shoot 9mm are too dangerous to own now, and you wanna compromise with these people? Good grief.

These are mentally deranged individuals not special forces operators. You call the shooter “rational” yet think they would gung ho into an area where he could immediately be met with lethal resistance. There’s nothing rational about that. There’s a reason the overwhelming majority of mass shooting occur in gun free zones.

The entire constitution is absolute I don’t know where people get this idea that it isn’t. Since you wanna play this silly game, how absolute is the 19th and 13th ammendment?

Me give it to them? I am trying to stop people like you from taking the whole ship down with you.

Of course some of the arguments they could come up with could be used to take all firearms but it is a myth that those on the left all want to take all of our guns. You are just demonizing the other side with positions like that, not making any friends against the moderates.

Most of these events are planned, they make rational choices. Get guns, ammo, armor, etc. And yes, sometimes they attack targets known to have armed presence, look at Columbine, an armed cop was present and it didn't stop them. Being mentally deranged doesn't mean irrational, you are creating a false dichotomy there.

For the 13th amendment wouldn't really apply here to this conversation because that ended a practice, it didn't enshrine of right. As for the 19th amendment that is similar, it didn't enshrine a right so much as it prevented the restriction of voting based on sex. Nonetheless let's use voting here as an example. People are not allowed to vote under 18, felons are not allowed to vote in some jurisdictions, and people with certain mental handicaps are also not allowed to vote in certain jurisdictions. Let's take the fourth amendment, you don't have an absolute right against someone searching your property. Under exegent circumstances cops can search your property without first obtaining a warrant.

If the second amendment is an absolute right then that means a person of any age, of any mental capacity, any criminal record, even an incarcerated person would and should be able to own any arm they want. Unless you are prepared to defend that position then you are admitting there are limits

Just law firearm safety, there needs to be multiple measures in place in case 1 or 2 or 3 fail. 

Madison Stone Douglas, the shooter "was left behind".  He begged to return back to SPED after showing a huge decline in academics after being transferred to regular classes.  The system failed him.  IMO, this could have prevented the situation, because he then stopped coming to school. (downward spiral)

Columbine, the shooters were bullied and on anti depressants (which means mental help sought). So only real failure here would be if the bullying was reported and not stopped.

Sandy Hook, the shooter killed his mom and stole her guns. No real system failure.

MIT shooter, college level, IDK much details on the why. But this was the largest active shooting deaths until the Vegas shooting. 2 pistols used, 9mm and 22LR.

Ulvalde, no system failure, unless his bullying was reported and nothing was done.  He had no mental health professional help sought and no felonies.

So as you can see with the school shootings listed above, sometimes there is a system failure and sometimes there isn't. So evil needs to be met ASAP. Which is why giving staff the choice to be armed IMO is the best and least cost effective thing to try.  There are groups out there who will train teachers for free. Like the Ohio situation after MSD. They trained over 300 teachers in a month, all free.  I can guarantee if there was a magic machine that could go back in time and give the teachers who died an option to either have a gun, gun free zone sign, or a phone when the active shooter shows up, all of them would choose a gun.

Like I said I'm not against teachers being armed. I support the practice as long as it comes with a set of regulations and required training. I am pointing out that it is not a comprehensive solution. I called it a Band-Aid and I think it is but Band-Aids have their places in first aid kits so don't think just because I said it's a Band-Aid mean it's useless

1) What rock you been under, if the left had their way, ALL guns would be banned.
2) Armed teachers is circular thought. So if they would be targeted 1st, then we need tanks outside the schools and barbed wire. Like Cuban banks have.
3) Enough has been taken away of the 2nd amendment that any further bans need to stop.

Not all of us have the option to being armed at work, or surrounded by a 90% armed staff.  So maybe you need to think about how the rest of us regular folk are doing (I don't mean this in a mean or sarcastic way).

1) the left is not a monolithic group.
2) sorry I don't follow what you're getting at here.
3) this is too generic of a statement. Clearly we have States with significantly different gun laws.

If we can't find some way of reducing these mass shooting then I think we are eventually going to lose more of our gun rights. So I think we need a better answer than just armed teachers. I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances. If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions

You can't have a rational, logical, constructive discussion on guns with people who don't know anything about guns other than slogans, emotions and lies.

The MSM has lied to their audiences for so long about so many issues, those consumers of that information will never admit that they are wrong or don't understand the issues involved.

You can, it's all in how you talk to people. Some people are harder to break through to than others but it can be done. I can tell you that insulting them just ends up fulfilling your prophecy.