I think you watched too many John Wick and Jason Bourne movies. Too bad the average American with a handgun is at a severe disadvantage against the average american with an AR 15. But hopefully you are around for the next mass shooting so you can save them with your superior skills and be a real hero.
I'm so happy I am no longer having to explain why someone would desire a carbine for home defense. I was told for years on the forum I was a fool and they were pointless.
You need to spend more time at the gun range to get to @Bobbythegreat level. He can take them down with a .45.
"You probably got the quote from a 2013 source, but it was BASED on his 10 yr "before and during" studies concluded in 1994." Are you disputing that? "Quoting him later from that 1994 report does not change its import." I am not disputing WHEN the quote was made. I am disputing your assertion that nothing significant and favorable resulted from the ban anchored on that 1994-2004 report (comprised of 10 year data), whereas, the author of the report: 1. Revised his conclusion decades later (probably hindsight with more data) 2. Corroborated by separate analyses with 30 years data edit: 1994 report should read 1994-2004 report
A couple of points, 1. We aren't talking about "the average American" here, we're talking about a kid and we're talking about a cop....or me. In either scenario the kid likely has less training than the average American and the cop or me has more training than the average American. 2. We're not talking about video games like Call of Duty, PUBG, or Fortnite. In reality it only takes one accurate shot be it from an AR or a .45 (or whatever). Accuracy and training is what matters. I'm not sure why that's over your head, but you have some REALLY strange ideas about guns.
His opinion is largely based on the research he did into the gun ban which was between 1994-2004. It wasn't my assertion that the gun ban essentially resulted in nothing favorable of note, it was his based on his knowledge of the data.
A kid that prepared and planned for a mass shooting has less training than the average American? Quite the assumption there Most likely they were law-abiding gun nuts who obtained the weapons legally, up until the crime. Its safe to say their level of training is on par with the rest of gun enthusiast population.
But @Bobbythegreat would have came running down the hallway with his .45 neutralized the less-skilled shooter with the AR 15.
So in your mind, the average American has training on par with a 19 year old kid, that take goes right along with the take that a bump stock makes you unstoppable in a shootout. If I was a cop at that school? Yeah, possibly. How is that so hard for you to understand?
I'm a teacher. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. Aside from the whole gun debate itself, my big thing is that anywhere else that needs security, they hire people to do it. At the airport, they don't ask baggage handlers and ticket agents to carry guns. They're not asking athletes to provide security at sporting events. There's security at the capitol, congressmen aren't themselves armed. So why the **** are you asking people like me to put my life on the line by doing something I'm not remotely trained to do. That by itself is just ****ing stupid. That's not my job. Here's what one of my colleagues posted on social media today. Reasons I don’t want to arm teachers: 1. Being a good shot, or as the President puts it, “talented” with guns, does not mean someone also has the mental or emotional skills needed to take action under extreme circumstances. (Case in point, the Sheriff Deputy on site in FL couldn’t even do this.) 2. Shooting at a shooter has the potential to increase fatalities, as fleeing students and teachers are caught in the crossfire. 3. Students may find, purposely or on accident, teachers’ firearms, and harm themselves or others (accidentally, or on purpose). 4. The presence of guns in an educational environment is antithetical to any and all known theories on teaching and learning. 5. Schools can be a socially-charged environment, being that they are populated by adolescents. The presence of guns has the potential to escalate commonplace confrontations into deadly situations. 6. First responders won’t know the difference between “good guys with guns,” and an actual shooter. 7. Armed teachers have the potential to intimidate students and colleagues, increasing issues such as bullying or sexual harassment. 8. Data show that more guns in a given environment increase the statistical probability of gun violence. 9. Shooters often kill themselves after shooting others. An armed conflict is unlikely to deter someone who intends to commit suicide. In fact, it makes that particular task easier for the shooter. 10. The cost of firearms, training, and recertification, plus the bonuses suggested by the President, will inevitably take money away from overall funding for schools. 11. We’re asking teachers to violently engage with and possibly kill a shooter. Not only does this put them in an extremely dangerous position, but it has the potential to permanently damage their mental health, should they actual achieve the intended goal. 12. Guns will turn teachers into guards, instead of the mentors that our kids need them to be. 13. Charging teachers with protecting the school, possibly with their lives, is an unreasonable expectation to place on educators. Are there any other jobs, outside of law enforcement or the military, that reasonably ask an employee to risk their lives and shoot at someone? 14. My own children are in public school. Will I know which of their teachers have guns? Can I be 100% sure that none of these teachers will use their gun to harm my child? And lastly, I am a teacher, and I don’t want a gun in my studio or classroom. Note, this has nothing to do with gun control or the second amendment. This simply has to do with whether arming teacher is a good idea or not.
I agree. While they did allow pilots to carry handguns, the way to secure a school has more to do with armed guards and restricted entry. As a teacher though, if a teacher carried in their daily lives for protection, why not allow them to carry at work? 2. The current SOP against active shooters is to engage and shoot. Even if only a single person. It is shown to reduce deaths and is the suggested method for everyone. So if you disagree with shooting at a shooter you are just off base. 4. so this person is against securing schools because firearms (among other things) are what is needed. 5. BS used to argue against all CCW nationwide. Heard same about open carry which fizzled into a dud. 6. procedures in place already for this. 7. sexual harrassment? How little does this person think of their fellow teacher? This has everything to do with the second amendment. You are taking away the right of a teacher to defend themself. You need better reasons than this. I have no doubt that most teachers are against it but they are not really in charge of these things. Most teachers are probably against all CCW.
Cherry picked data from that report can both completely support and debunk this, though I am not asserting that in absolute terms. Later other analyses and his own hindsight suggested a different conclusion. "One of the main reasons why the assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing..." I misread it as "your assertion" anchored on outdated and debatable conclusion because the author did not assert that, IMHO.
But he did. Sure he then said that maybe it would have done something if it lasted longer or if there were other things added to the ban, but the starting point was always that the ban effectively did nothing positive unless you consider having criminals use other weapons to commit crimes a positive development.
From the 2014 speech his conclusion was that bringing the ban back would likely have “nontrivial, notable benefits for society” despite the limitations of around 2 million grandfathered assault weapons remaining in play under that ban. Mostly he doesn’t make any grand statements for either side to claim definitive victory.
Because @Bobbythegreat says so, 19 year old mass shooters are less trained than the average American. Even though they're cut from the same cloth as the typical law abiding gun nut.
But according to Bobby the Great he would do better than trained cops. Bobby you do know that at best cops on record have like approximately 40 percent accuracy rating in live shootings and that’s using the most favourable statistics around . Bobby you think you can better? Lol. So having teachers, who would be a lot less trained, is the answer to mass shootings. Lol. Really? You guys actually think that? Also another point who is going to pay for increased liability for the teachers who carry the guns? What exactly is going to happen in a gun fight with the shooter if the teacher misses and kills bystanders? What then?
I'm sure there are people doing it now, but no thanks. Just a little too easy imagining racist teachers of all races murdering their opposite race students. Less cynically I imagine school shooting prevention gets quickly reframed to fending off belligerent students and then later breaking up or "ending" fights. Honestly makes me wish I'd gone to law school.
I suspect a teacher may pull their gun to "calm down" a situation they've lost control of, such as a fight in the classroom, and **** can go wrong very quickly. Expect alot of lawsuits..
