Armed Teachers: Yes or No

No, because the goal wasn't to merely change the weapon that criminals were using, the narrative was that it would decrease the rate and the lethality of gun crime, it did neither.

If you banned assault rifles again over this school shooting where 17 were killed would you be claiming success if the next school shootings were with handguns instead of "assault rifles" if the shootings are as lethal as the Douglas high shooting? I mean, by your logic, you would.

 

You realize that you come across as a simpleton when you dodge the discussion to make a feeble ad hominem right? Citing trolls doesn't make you come across any better.

If this is an accurate portrayal of the best you can manage, I truly pity you.

Pushing false narratives and then throwing a b**** fit when your false narrative falls apart under scrutiny isn't a good look.

 

So it appears there were four armed good guys at the school.

 

they are traitorous cowards and you are calling them good guys. One has resigned in disgrace, two are under investigation, Coral Springs are the good guys. You disgrace them by calling these cowards that.

 

We're not joking, breh

 

I laughed. You're going to train a teacher how to safely take down an active shooter in a couple of days. Sounds legit. Why do we need SWAT when we have trained teachers with glocks? Derp.

 

Those fancy lerbal professors would think of theory and communism while they're getting shot up by crazies.

Sad

Or maybe?

 

#Brown Hat

 

You need to read this ASAP...

 

LOL....1 day training. Hmm.....there are US soldiers who have trouble dealing with Rife fire after YEARS of training.

BTW....what is going to happen to that teacher that kills a student in by accident/or in cross-fire?

 

No interest in having any guns in my classroom, period.

 

Well, from the investigation, you apparently can't rely on the armed guards or police to protect the schools.

 

Huh? If the perpetrator was forced to use knife or small pistol because of the ban, it's not a failure.

 

If the rate at which the crimes were being committed remained the same and the lethality of the crimes remained the same, then yes, it would be a failure. If you kill 17 people with a handgun it's not better than if someone killed 17 with an "assault weapon" simply because the weapon of choice was different. That's what studies into the assault weapon ban is telling us happened, so yes, that's absolutely a failure. .

 

This should end this debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html

And you want to arm teachers. That is the dumbest thing ever. Look at cops and how well they train. At best they have a 40% accuracy rating. And Trump wants to arm teachers. How dumb can he be? Or better yet how dumb can his followers be if they actually think this is a good idea?

 

Yeah, but what if you give the teachers AR-15s.

 

These data disagree with whatever data you are using. I am not sure where your "absolute" is coming from.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2018/02/awb.png

“The original intent of the assault weapons ban was to reduce the carnage of mass shootings,” Klarevas said. “And on that front the data indicate that it worked.”

"Klarevas has compiled data on gun massacres involving six or more fatalities for the 50 years before 2016. His numbers show that gun massacres fell significantly during the time the assault weapons ban was in place, and skyrocketed after the ban lapsed in 2004. A separate mass shooting database compiled by Mother Jones magazine shows a similar trend."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.69eafe89b319

 

There'd be a huge law suit and it would end the massive mistake of allowing them in schools.