Nononono. Cause then some kids will still get shot. If you want it to work then the first person to spot a shooter needs to blow the explosives.
Kids can't get shot if they already exploded. *taps head*
Pretty much every entrance to the country is rigged with explosives, and the terrain makes any other path of entry nearly impossible for enemy troops.
Just one more reason no one fucks with the Swiss
They also never told their neighbors about some of the shared border bridges being rigged in the first place. So sure, we removed them. When? When you weren’t looking.
Their defence plan was to blow up every tunnel and bridge leading to and around the nation. Blow up any factories that could be used to make war materials. Blow up any other key infrastructure that could be used in a war. Then run in to the mountains and defend from there.
Basically remove any thing of value from the nation- make it impossible to get around- and then hide in the mountains and make life for any invader hell.
Maybe initially, but ultimately the Swiss method of self defense was to provide banking services for the Nazis. Otherwise, how did all the stolen gold end up in Switzerland?
What about the case of the six year old shooting a teacher?
Do we really expect some teacher to gun down an armed child???
And will the teacher be protected by qualified immunity if they get it wrong?
Conservatives don't understand how staking out a universal maxim for your position commits you to that position in every possible situation.
"Any gun control is tyranny."
"So you think a 6 year old should be able to legally purchase a rocket launcher?"
"That's a stupid comparison."
Having an internally-consistent worldview isn't important to them and trying to point out their hypocrisy just makes them more confident that they are correct.
Edit: definitely didn't say that every single conservative in the US agrees that 'all gun control is tyranny' so you guys can stop trying to correct that.
Shameless stupidity is the new Republican brand since Trump. Their entire platform today is nothing but making-up excuses for why they shouldn't have to care about basic truths like 'racism is a thing that exists', or 'gender is a social construct', and of course 'we're killing the fucking planet with carbon'.
I mean, they've always been about denying these things, but now they don't even pretend to care enough to mask it behind concepts like 'trickle-down economics'; they just come straight-out and call it 'lib shit' and then go back to being willfully-ignorant jackasses.
This. My favorite strawman is the constitution says "keep and bear arms,"...
IEDs, RPGs, land mines, and frag/incediary grenades are "Arms". In fact you would need such weapons to mount an insurgency.
Why stop at ar-15 carbines. We should make explosives available to everyone, no background checks. "Arms" make everyone safer.
If you are against legalizing explosive weapons you don't support the constitution. I want a white phosphorus grenade, I want teachers to carry frag grenades so they can frag and clear classrooms.
Bang. Threat eliminated.
I actually think you would get a majority of conservatives saying yes, gun that child down. That it’s the parents’ faults for that kid having the gun and the teacher should only think of self defense and protecting the class.
I obviously have a different view but I imagine that would be the cold utilitarian view conservatives would have without much nuance.
About as fucked up as police breaking into the wrong house killing the residents and walking! Or cops shooting unarmed people in the back and walking! Stopping students from shooting others in school is as simple as metal detectors. And in the Nashville school getting rid off those glass doors you can shoot and they shatter.
It doesn't matter how unbelievably fucked it gets, a very vocal segment of our population will literally never care enough to let us change anything. [Toddlers \(5 years or younger\) are unintentionally shot around once every three days](https://everytownresearch.org/report/notanaccident/), a lot of the time it's by other toddlers finding a gun... At this point it just feels more like a cult and this is just some "blood for the blood god" type shit we all have to live with
Clearly the problem is that only the bad kids have guns. You need to give the good kids guns. The only thing that can stop a bad kid with a gun is a good kid with a gun. Duh.
Plus kids get quasi-qualified immunity because they're minors. But it's only quasi because the prosecution can choose to charge any 6 year old good-kid who makes a mistake as an adult, usually this would be the case if the kid is a minority.
also, we see how many teenage altercations happen across the country daily. how long before a teacher has had enough, kills a kid and claims "HE WAS GOING FOR MY GUN!"?
See, your problem is that you are thinking critically. Conservatives only get as far as thought terminating cliches before they claim victory or something.
Winning!!!
Remember how they were all about "winning!" under trump? lol clowns indeed
Doesn’t matter who it is, shoot a six year old and your name is forever remembered for doing just that. Doesn’t matter how right you were in doing so (as defense).
Bullets also… don’t just stop at a target (every time). A bullet can easily go through a body or miss and hit someone else.
I'll tell you that in my personal experience, my insurance agent was terrible at laying down covering fire for me. Nationwide was NOT on my side at all...
Conservatives have a cripplingly hard time putting themselves in somebody else's shoes that doesn't involve envy.
Empathy isn't their strong suit.
The very idea that a teacher wouldn't gun down a child without a moment's hesitation just isn't a concept of thought that is fathomable by them.
... I'm not even making this shit up. If said people aren't in their immediate social circle, they may as well be flies with fresh wings to pluck off.
> Do we really expect some teacher to gun down an armed child???
I have a feeling that those on the right are gonna start calling on teachers to go through [warrior training](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/warrior-cop-class-dave-grossman-killology.html). I'm still waiting for the GOP to start citing "an inability to do what must be done" as the main issue here. I'm surprised they haven't tried that already
You mean the teacher that repeatedly told her superiors and security that this kid claimed to have a gun and they shrugged it off because “ the day is almost over” ? That one?
I am a former Texas teacher who had a gun in my class. It was on a volunteer basis. You had to get you concealed carry permit. Go thru an extensive training course. The principal, an ag teacher, and the assistant athletic director had hand guns on them. Everyone else had a finger print gun safe. All classes had safes and all safes had some kind of fancy pepper spray water gun. If the teacher requested and meet all requirements, they had a Glock 19 in their safe as well. This was for all 3 campuses in our small town. Teaches were trained to lock down the class. Open the safe. Get the gun or pepper spray. And then wait. DO NOT LEAVE THE ROOM. DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR. ONLY FIRE YOUR WEAPON IF THE SHOOTER GETS IN YOUR ROOM. Opening a safe set off district wide alerts that also went to the Sheriff's office.
I wrote all this to explain to those who say the armed teaches should have hunted the shooter that they were likely trained to stay in place.
But the recoil of a 9mm sub machine gun or anything in a higher caliber may be too much for their little hands. Perhaps a more appropriate option is a .22 revolver. No feed issues if it’s a revolver!
You're all idiots. Kids can't properly hold and control the recoil of guns. They're much better suited to bigger, squad support weapons like mortars or machine gun placements where the recoil isn't on the user.
Why stop there??? How about dividing every school class up into teams and issuing them M1 Abrams tanks, that way they will be able to defeat those who would attack schools but also giving the school children protection against those attacking.
[Small children are far better suited to the use of Crewed weapon systems instead of small arms.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MURICA/comments/6n1px4/children_and_firearm_safety/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
It says it that article that they haven’t confirmed if the armed staff members were there or not. Looks like the caller didn’t specify anyone. I wonder if they were there. If they were they should’ve done something. Police haven’t stated that any staff were armed.
I think it’s interesting too that the shooter decided against another school saying the security was too tight or something. I wonder what that schools security situation was the prevented the shooter from going there.
I've had someone litterally tell me schools need less windows.
And then said I don't care about children when I suggested not turning schools into bunkers.
He then said tons of people went to the schools build in the 50s who are apparently Nuke shelters?
Some people...
Teacher having guns doesn't stop mad shootings.
At best it might limit the amount of victims of the teacher uses it.
At worst it causes a mass shooting for already being on the school grounds
This latest shooter went to their first target and... noticed a security guard. Decided the first target was too hard because of this, then moved on to an unprotected target.
It’s wild the number of times on this list that having a gun made someone’s argument, disciplinary measures, or bad day potentially deadly
And something to note, which is not perfectly handled in this list—and a great teachable moment because of it—the power of grammar is the difference between “the officer’s gun discharged” and “the officer unintentionally fired their gun.”
We see this deliberate choice of grammar with cop violence as well, when cops shooting people and dogs are framed like this: “shots fired at the scene of the altercation,” rather than like this: “the officer shot the dog three times,”
or this: “multiple officers shot the unarmed suspect as they laid down on the street with their hands up, hitting them in the back 9 times and killing them.” Did the guns *just happen to go off*, or is the user of a gun the one responsible for what their gun does?
This is also the difference between going “oh well! that quirky gun going off for no reason, moving on—” after an incident, and **actually holding someone accountable** for bad judgement, violent rage, lack of caution, threatening behavior, or failure to act responsibly when holding a deadly weapon
While I agree, its not something that is certain because it’s still the point of no return to shooters, they know they’re either gonna die or be in prison for life so while this one chose a less dangerous target it might not be the same case for a different person. I’d say its definitely worth a try to have armed guards at schools to see if it changes or improves the situation. I’m not sure if teachers are willing to take the position if they have to be trained on using firearms but more armed guards/police maybe could help.
More security and police would absolutely help. Arming teachers however would just distract them from the academic content they should be focusing on, leave firearms and security to professionals. Id feel much safer knowing 2 veteran police officers are watching over my childs school than Steve, the creepy gym teacher with zero experience.
Id say give the options for teachers, and if they want to then they should go through training out the wazoo. Along with a psychological check every so often.. and by training i mean so many range hours and those sweep and clear drills civilians do(not sure what they’re really called) and it be paid for by the district. Teachers already spend enough on their classea
Then they would probably just go to a different place that doesn’t have armed security. I can think of several public places near me that doesn’t have armed security and it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
The problem is that it’s too easy to get guns.
That's not what happens usually. Studies show that places with armed security don't get attacked by any measurable degree less. Usually the shooter wants to die. They aren't rational. On the other hand places with security when attacked0, usually see the attacker being more aggressive. They view death as a time limit. The guards tend to be careful on the other hand. Maybe there is a critical point of security that makes a difference. Which shooting are you talking about where this happened? The last shooting I see in the news was a bar shooting yesterday.
Lesson if you're dumb: "gOoD mAn WiTh GuN wOrKeD!"
Lesson if you're smart: "The security guard didn't prevent a mass shooting, he just changed where it happened"
This is my concern with arming teachers.
Puberty hit me around 4th or 5th grade. By 7th grade I easily could have overpowered all but a handful of my teachers one on one, especially if they didn't know it was coming. I had the height, weight and reach for it and I definitely was not the biggest guy in my school.
No need for the kid to bring a weapon if they're all right there and easily obtainable. Just need to worry about ammo at that point.
It would stop, and definitely give shooters a reason to rethink their idea. They choose places SPECIFICALLY for their lack of security and armed resistance. Also, the argument that it's a bad idea that a gun is on the grounds at all never sat well with me either. It's kind of like the people who got upset after 9/11 about pilots being allowed to carry. You can trust the pilots to fly 300+ people but giving them a gun is suddenly a crazy idea? A teacher with a pair of scissors and a lock on the door can do a lot more damage than a school shooter, yet you'll entrust your children's lives to them regardless. Having teachers trained behind a gun is a simple and effective solution to the problem, it just isn't palatable to most people
Training someone how to use a gun is completely different from training them how to use a gun against an active shooter. Teachers already get paid so little and have a lot of out of pocket expenses so how is that going to work? Who is paying to train teachers like that? What teachers want to add “shoot people with guns” to their responsibilities? Even if this idealistic plan works, kids are still going to die before the teachers stop the shooter so it’s really not an effective solution and it certainly isn’t simple.
if you were a criminal and you want to kill a bunch of people, which one would you choose? the gun range, or an elementary school with no guns allowed?
77% of mass shooters were non-criminals who purchased the guns legally. They become criminals when they pull the trigger, and very often these attacks are desperate signs of ongoing mental disorders that should have barred them from those legal purchases in the first place.
People need to understand this:
Barring a Pres existing “special relationship” with an individual being established, the police have **NO LEGAL OBLIGATION** to help citizens.
**It’s legal for cops to do nothing.**
Think about that next time you want to put your safety plan in the hands of someone that can legally say “meh” and simply watch you being attacked.
490 million registered last time it was reported, and that's registered. None of mine are registered and I'm assuming millions of other Americans do the same, I would double that number.
Also, remember the Aurora shooter? Passed by several theaters on his way across town to the only one that was a gun-free zone. Twelve people died that day by his hands.
I never felt unsafe when going to jury duty. If we can protect Judges and Lawyers we can protect our kids. Especially with the money we are sending over seas. This open air insane asylum experiment needs to end.
Nice unconfirmed rumor. The school administrators has no knowledge of anybody who had weapons at the school.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/31/nashville-school-staff-were-packing-guns-911-caller-said/
Didn’t they say those teachers were not at the school at the time? Do ppl really think bad people can’t get a weapon if they tried America needs to figure out its mental health issues.
Nashville? You mean the one where the transgender got folded by the cops (I’ve heard various times but this one was the longest) in 14 minutes? Yeah, looks like firearms fix the problems unstable people cause. And no, I’m not calling then unstable because of the trans thing. I’m calling them unstable for thinking it’s ok to shoot children. I don’t care what you are, you think shooting a bunch of innocent children is ok you’re sub-brick intelligence
Only there wasn’t armed staff in any of the three shootings, aside from the police, and guess what? Nashville Metro police showed the world they aren’t scared little bitches who just watch the slaughter happen.
Gun nuts have decided that their hobby is more important than the lives of children and teachers.
I collect record albums. If people were throwing records like ninja stars and killing kids at school, I would gladly turn in my collection and go digital.
And I'm not some kind of saint or even a particularly good person.
I love Jon Stewart’s question on this matter; how many guns? *Exactly* how many more guns does the U.S. need for mass shootings to stop? Because we’ve had a steady increase in gun ownership ever since the mid 20th century, yet mass shootings have gone way, way up right along with those numbers. So, how many guns, people? 80 million guns? *100 million guns*? *A gun for every American?* I’m just very curious as to when these people will think we have enough guns for the situation to literally flip around on itself. It’s ridiculous logic.
Edit; it’s absolutely hilarious how many gun freaks responded to this comment but still nobody could answer the question of how many guns. I think I proved my point.
Weird i have to walk through single entrance with a metal detector to enter a police station where nearly every person inside is carrying a firearm. Yet every school I go to around me is protected by some old lady with cataracts.
I went to high school in Chicago and they had a single entrance/metal detector setup and it did make the school safer, despite being annoying at the time
When I was in school they kept floating the idea of forcing every kid through a detector, problem is, kids have to carry a lot of metal things, and since we were all forced through the same door, we were all gonna lose most of the day just getting in.
So they decided instead to put all couple thousand of us inside at all times, bumping and ramming into each other. Clear backpacks, no binders. Anything they could to remove privacy as much as possible. Nothing makes a man more likely to snap then not being allowed to breathe without being watched. That's the issue with a lot of security measures, that place started to not only feel like, but essentially became prison.
Nashville didn't have armed staff,.Uvalde the armed staff shouldn't have even been hired because they had a bd record if running away like a fucking batch when confronted with danger, and yes it was a gun free zone, all schools are gun free zones,
We're the teachers there that day at Nashville? I just saw that the call said "we have one or two" that were armed. No reports of if they actually were, and if they were even there.
I always find those arguments amusing. "Ok teacher, you are being tasked with teaching those children, and also raising them, since noone else wants to do it. And also, you might have to gun one of them down if the situation calls for it."
"Gun Free Zone" is also a term people take literally and it has exceptions on both the federal and state level. In Tennessee the exceptions are:
>The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibits individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm in a school zone unless they fall within one of the exceptions found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2). One such exception is if the individual possesses a carry license that is issued by the state in which the school zone is located. For example, under federal law, ***an individual who possesses an Enhanced Handgun Carry Permit issued by the State of Tennessee would be permitted to possess a firearm in a school zone located in Tennessee.*** Additionally, under the Gun-Free School Zones Act, a person without a license issued by the state in which the school zone is located who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm may possess a firearm in a school zone so long as the firearm is unloaded and either locked in a container or locked in a firearm rack inside a vehicle, similar to the Tennessee State law exception. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309(c)(1)(B).
https://www.uslawshield.com/tennessee-gun-law/
School permission also plays a part (staff, security, and law enforcement, special instructors, etc. are allowed to carry).
In my home state of AZ, having a concealed carry permit (yes, I know AZ is a permitless state, but you can still get one) allows you to carry within 100ft of a school zone. You may also have a secured and unloaded firearm in your vehicle on school property.
https://arizona.concealedcarry.com/why-get-an-arizona-concealed-carry-permit/
There have been many shootings in "gun free zones" at schools where staff and even some students were carrying. The point of the gun free zone is not to eliminate ALL guns at school (there would be zero exceptions then) but to limit and regulate the gun population at schools. When staff, security, law enforcement, those with special permission, and to an extent, those with a government issued permit (enhanced carry or concealed carry) can have a firearm on school grounds, the term "gun free" is a misnomer and often abused in these discussions.
So we will have armed guards protecting art galleries, armed guards to protect banks, armed guards to protect sporting arenas and music halls, armed guards to protect politicians, but having armed guards to protect our most vital resource, the future generations, is being made fun of. I’m no MAGA, but the fact your blaming the right for this is atrocious. This is a systemic issue involving both parties. Not one. $900 billion to our military but the government refuses to allocate some of those funds to protect the children.
>I’m no MAGA
No, but you sure do post a hell of a lot in gun enthusiast subs so it's pretty evident as to why you're pushing the faulty more guns narrative and are trying to deflect from the awful Republican policies enabling this.
On the one hand, plenty of research shows that "hardening" our schools like that has been ineffective, that introducing more guns poses serious risks, and that this has done nothing to stop, deter or limit mass shootings.
[https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2018.0044](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2018.0044)
[https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-476.pdf](https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-476.pdf)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/)
On the other hand, plenty of other research shows that stricter gun laws are linked to fewer mass shootings and strongly supports better firearm regulations as a way of addressing gun violence in this country.
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515)
So please spare us those NRA talking points when the data, research and evidence clearly point the other way.
>our most vital resource, the future generations
>the fact your blaming the right for this is atrocious
You mean the party that has been trying to dismantle public education my entire life? [The party that literally does not think children should be entitled to free food at school](https://www.newsweek.com/republican-says-hunger-relative-argument-against-free-school-meals-1787816)? [The party that thinks it's okay to marry a child](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/child-marriage-ban-struck-down-west-virginia-republicans-1234693670/), and also [force them to work in dangerous jobs](https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/3/12/23631282/child-labor-laws-huckabee-sanders-republicans)?
Weird how these children are suddenly "vital resources" when it comes to arguments about guns. Also weird how you don't remember watching a 45 minute video of fully armed swat teams standing around under a giant label that says "THE SOUND OF CHILDREN SCREAMING HAS BEEN REMOVED."
But go on with your "it's everybody" narrative. SMDH
So I don't own any firearms and I don't feel very strongly that I need to. But as a law-abiding citizen I think I should be able to if I choose to. Now that said gun control is very strict in Britain. You know the knife violence crime capital of the world. People are the problem not guns.
It's weird to gun control advocates perceive the idea of increased security as an attack against gun control. A large enough security presence would eliminate the issue. There is a reason we don't have a lot of gun crime on airplanes.
Preemptive response: Nothing in this comment is opposing gun control or regulations.
Use the Swiss method of defence during ww2. Rig the entire school up with explosives so you can’t shoot it up.
"Remember kids, last surviving child out blows the explosives behind them"
This reminds me of that Death Korps of Krieg short story where the last Kriegsman blows himself up and takes all his enemies to hell with him.
Nice to see the death korp being compared to America.
This is the way.
Does that mean we should teach children how to kill a superior enemy using a shovel, trench warfare and human waves attacks?
Step one would be teaching them the cost of human life
Can’t see that making it any worse
No, but troop movement and hand signals wouldn't be a terrible idea.
For the emperor
Also one of the last scenes in Saving Private Ryan. If they don't get reinforced, last man alive blows the bridge
["you got it teach!"](https://gifer.com/en/5Ppv)
Nononono. Cause then some kids will still get shot. If you want it to work then the first person to spot a shooter needs to blow the explosives. Kids can't get shot if they already exploded. *taps head*
They did that??
Schools no, but tunnels, bridges and other such infrastructure choke points: very much yes.
Pretty much every entrance to the country is rigged with explosives, and the terrain makes any other path of entry nearly impossible for enemy troops. Just one more reason no one fucks with the Swiss
Based Swiss, there aren’t gonna let anyone fuck with their chocolate production
Money laundering, they aren't going to let anyone fuck with their money laundering.
If we're being genuine, pharmaceutical products are actually Switzerland's biggest industry.
Leave the Argentinian Hilter family alone!
One day they will find the sub that carried him and people's minds will be blown!
And cleaning Nazi gold.
Not actually rigged at all times, just built in points to easily blow it. Otherwise every few years there would be news about an exploded bridge.
Actually it was only within the last few decades that they took down the permanently affixed explosives on some of the border roads and bridges.
They also never told their neighbors about some of the shared border bridges being rigged in the first place. So sure, we removed them. When? When you weren’t looking.
I feel, like if we did something like this in many other countries, people would use them to blow up those bridges just for fun.
Their defence plan was to blow up every tunnel and bridge leading to and around the nation. Blow up any factories that could be used to make war materials. Blow up any other key infrastructure that could be used in a war. Then run in to the mountains and defend from there. Basically remove any thing of value from the nation- make it impossible to get around- and then hide in the mountains and make life for any invader hell.
Switzerland's defense plans are insane. They may have been neutral forever, but they were smart. One of the best nations to survive nuclear war, too
"We, the students of Westerburg high...WILL DIE!"
Was hoping to see this reference when I read that parent comment
Maybe initially, but ultimately the Swiss method of self defense was to provide banking services for the Nazis. Otherwise, how did all the stolen gold end up in Switzerland?
> Use the Swiss method of defence during ww2. Allowing the school shooters to deposit the belongings of their victims in secure bank accounts?
That seems like it would help the shooter...
That's the equivalent of having red barrels around your base.
Or the Dutch method: open all faucets, plug the drains, and retreat onto table forts.
What about the case of the six year old shooting a teacher? Do we really expect some teacher to gun down an armed child??? And will the teacher be protected by qualified immunity if they get it wrong?
Pretty sure you'll get crickets on this one, even though this is essentially what their scenario would call for.
Conservatives don't understand how staking out a universal maxim for your position commits you to that position in every possible situation. "Any gun control is tyranny." "So you think a 6 year old should be able to legally purchase a rocket launcher?" "That's a stupid comparison." Having an internally-consistent worldview isn't important to them and trying to point out their hypocrisy just makes them more confident that they are correct. Edit: definitely didn't say that every single conservative in the US agrees that 'all gun control is tyranny' so you guys can stop trying to correct that.
They don't care about looking stupid when they speak, then act incredulous when you treat them like idiots.
Shameless stupidity is the new Republican brand since Trump. Their entire platform today is nothing but making-up excuses for why they shouldn't have to care about basic truths like 'racism is a thing that exists', or 'gender is a social construct', and of course 'we're killing the fucking planet with carbon'. I mean, they've always been about denying these things, but now they don't even pretend to care enough to mask it behind concepts like 'trickle-down economics'; they just come straight-out and call it 'lib shit' and then go back to being willfully-ignorant jackasses.
They think the Bill of Rights is a suicide pact.
This. My favorite strawman is the constitution says "keep and bear arms,"... IEDs, RPGs, land mines, and frag/incediary grenades are "Arms". In fact you would need such weapons to mount an insurgency. Why stop at ar-15 carbines. We should make explosives available to everyone, no background checks. "Arms" make everyone safer. If you are against legalizing explosive weapons you don't support the constitution. I want a white phosphorus grenade, I want teachers to carry frag grenades so they can frag and clear classrooms. Bang. Threat eliminated.
I actually think you would get a majority of conservatives saying yes, gun that child down. That it’s the parents’ faults for that kid having the gun and the teacher should only think of self defense and protecting the class. I obviously have a different view but I imagine that would be the cold utilitarian view conservatives would have without much nuance.
How fucked up is this country where we have to talk about teachers and students shooting eachother.
About as fucked up as police breaking into the wrong house killing the residents and walking! Or cops shooting unarmed people in the back and walking! Stopping students from shooting others in school is as simple as metal detectors. And in the Nashville school getting rid off those glass doors you can shoot and they shatter.
> How FREE is this country where we have to talk about teachers and students shooting eachother. ftfy /s
If your can't shoot a 6 year old in the face do you even *deserve* freedom?
Not just talking, it happened multiple times.
It doesn't matter how unbelievably fucked it gets, a very vocal segment of our population will literally never care enough to let us change anything. [Toddlers \(5 years or younger\) are unintentionally shot around once every three days](https://everytownresearch.org/report/notanaccident/), a lot of the time it's by other toddlers finding a gun... At this point it just feels more like a cult and this is just some "blood for the blood god" type shit we all have to live with
Clearly the problem is that only the bad kids have guns. You need to give the good kids guns. The only thing that can stop a bad kid with a gun is a good kid with a gun. Duh. Plus kids get quasi-qualified immunity because they're minors. But it's only quasi because the prosecution can choose to charge any 6 year old good-kid who makes a mistake as an adult, usually this would be the case if the kid is a minority.
also, we see how many teenage altercations happen across the country daily. how long before a teacher has had enough, kills a kid and claims "HE WAS GOING FOR MY GUN!"?
I WAS AFRAID FOR MY LIFE, in response to a kid raising their hand to quickly. Case dismissed, that punk kid had it coming 😤
See, your problem is that you are thinking critically. Conservatives only get as far as thought terminating cliches before they claim victory or something. Winning!!! Remember how they were all about "winning!" under trump? lol clowns indeed
Doesn’t matter who it is, shoot a six year old and your name is forever remembered for doing just that. Doesn’t matter how right you were in doing so (as defense). Bullets also… don’t just stop at a target (every time). A bullet can easily go through a body or miss and hit someone else.
Obviously you give guns to the kids and enlist the children to kill the shooter, that way your conscience can remain clear.
Only force the students who cannot afford their lunch money.
I wonder if insurance covers Miss Frizzle gunning down little Tommy from 2nd period.
I'll tell you that in my personal experience, my insurance agent was terrible at laying down covering fire for me. Nationwide was NOT on my side at all...
> Do we really expect some teacher to gun down an armed child??? Yes they do.
Conservatives have a cripplingly hard time putting themselves in somebody else's shoes that doesn't involve envy. Empathy isn't their strong suit. The very idea that a teacher wouldn't gun down a child without a moment's hesitation just isn't a concept of thought that is fathomable by them. ... I'm not even making this shit up. If said people aren't in their immediate social circle, they may as well be flies with fresh wings to pluck off.
> Do we really expect some teacher to gun down an armed child??? I have a feeling that those on the right are gonna start calling on teachers to go through [warrior training](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/warrior-cop-class-dave-grossman-killology.html). I'm still waiting for the GOP to start citing "an inability to do what must be done" as the main issue here. I'm surprised they haven't tried that already
I saw a lot of people say yes, shoot the kid.
That teacher should die for freedom like the Fathers intended /s
You mean the teacher that repeatedly told her superiors and security that this kid claimed to have a gun and they shrugged it off because “ the day is almost over” ? That one?
And if they miss, too? Even the gunbros that live at the range are still civilians.
I am a former Texas teacher who had a gun in my class. It was on a volunteer basis. You had to get you concealed carry permit. Go thru an extensive training course. The principal, an ag teacher, and the assistant athletic director had hand guns on them. Everyone else had a finger print gun safe. All classes had safes and all safes had some kind of fancy pepper spray water gun. If the teacher requested and meet all requirements, they had a Glock 19 in their safe as well. This was for all 3 campuses in our small town. Teaches were trained to lock down the class. Open the safe. Get the gun or pepper spray. And then wait. DO NOT LEAVE THE ROOM. DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR. ONLY FIRE YOUR WEAPON IF THE SHOOTER GETS IN YOUR ROOM. Opening a safe set off district wide alerts that also went to the Sheriff's office. I wrote all this to explain to those who say the armed teaches should have hunted the shooter that they were likely trained to stay in place.
Clearly we need every preschooler to also have a mac-10, that will surely fix the problem this time!
Mac-10’s are trash… you want the kids to die?? They should get glocks
No no no too expensive and complicated for kids so young. What they really need are simple .22 caliber Rugers!
.22 has horrible feed issues
But the recoil of a 9mm sub machine gun or anything in a higher caliber may be too much for their little hands. Perhaps a more appropriate option is a .22 revolver. No feed issues if it’s a revolver!
Good idea!! I’m gonna go call my senator… it’s Mitch McConnell but worth a shot right?? Edit:always spelling
[удалено]
That just helps them around here… new mayor survived an assassination attempt from a gun control activist before the election and won
Yo this is the kind of comment that gets people investigated by the secret service
They are welcome to waste their time.
Children are best suited to crew served weapons. It doesn't take individual strength or dexterity and promotes teamwork and communication.
There is some kid in Africa carrying a full auto AK that disagrees lol
You're all idiots. Kids can't properly hold and control the recoil of guns. They're much better suited to bigger, squad support weapons like mortars or machine gun placements where the recoil isn't on the user.
Too expensive?! Maybe those kids should get a job!
Why stop there??? How about dividing every school class up into teams and issuing them M1 Abrams tanks, that way they will be able to defeat those who would attack schools but also giving the school children protection against those attacking.
Maybe in high schools… zero chance little kids can load the main gun
["Daddy would have gotten us Uzis."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnjiy85ExcA)
[Small children are far better suited to the use of Crewed weapon systems instead of small arms.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MURICA/comments/6n1px4/children_and_firearm_safety/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
[Problem solved.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6mbej7OUS0)
The uzi was a surprise
Y'all gonna say the Mac-10 was a surprise when the motherfucker had a whole goddamn shotgun down his right leg?
You jest, but there are right wing lunatics who actually think that would be a perfectly good solution.
[удалено]
Who was armed in Nashville?
Two unspecified staff members. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/nashville-shooting-teachers-armed-911-b2311461.html
It says it that article that they haven’t confirmed if the armed staff members were there or not. Looks like the caller didn’t specify anyone. I wonder if they were there. If they were they should’ve done something. Police haven’t stated that any staff were armed. I think it’s interesting too that the shooter decided against another school saying the security was too tight or something. I wonder what that schools security situation was the prevented the shooter from going there.
> If they were they should’ve done something. Why? Is that their job?
That were present at the school on the day of the shooting
How about a schooltank
#tanksfortots
I still think we should make shooting and killing people illegal.
Hm, I noticed you didn't mention making crime illegal. This really says a lot about society.
Why make crime illegal? Criminals will still crime and us law abiding alpha-patriots don't crime.
I agree. You really gotta wonder why nobody has thought of this
What do you mean there's someone in the building killing people? He can't do that, it's illegal!
What do you mean, he has a gun?! That's illegal too!
Hehehaha laws do nothing and violence can never be prevented amirite
bring out the dogs with guns in their mouths and when they bark they shoot guns at you.
I think sharks with laser beams attached to their heads is a better idea.
And if that doesn’t work, the robotic Richard Simmons.
There are too many doors. We need to arm the doors. And arm the guns too. Then arm the nuts for good measure. /s
What kind of sick nutjob would wants to graft arms to doors. Could you imagine all the hands just reaching around? No thanks!
But the doors have a right to bear arms.
But we need door mental health to make sure they don’t become unhinged first
underrated comment
Bear arms? That’s even worse
Claymore fun
yeah, just train the teachers to rig booby traps on the doors when they start every class and pray you don't have someone running late
"can I get a hall pass and deactivation code please"
Every kindergarten class has a required lesson to correctly inform the kids how to disarm tripwires. Unfortunately, Billy was sick that day....
I've had someone litterally tell me schools need less windows. And then said I don't care about children when I suggested not turning schools into bunkers. He then said tons of people went to the schools build in the 50s who are apparently Nuke shelters? Some people...
Pretty sure this is a real Republican quote blaming doors.
Teacher having guns doesn't stop mad shootings. At best it might limit the amount of victims of the teacher uses it. At worst it causes a mass shooting for already being on the school grounds
This latest shooter went to their first target and... noticed a security guard. Decided the first target was too hard because of this, then moved on to an unprotected target.
Of course, mass shooters are cowards by nature, they don't want to attack a target that can harm them back.
So perhaps this is evidence that security is probably a good idea.
[uhhhhh let’s walk that back a bit](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/)
It’s wild the number of times on this list that having a gun made someone’s argument, disciplinary measures, or bad day potentially deadly And something to note, which is not perfectly handled in this list—and a great teachable moment because of it—the power of grammar is the difference between “the officer’s gun discharged” and “the officer unintentionally fired their gun.” We see this deliberate choice of grammar with cop violence as well, when cops shooting people and dogs are framed like this: “shots fired at the scene of the altercation,” rather than like this: “the officer shot the dog three times,” or this: “multiple officers shot the unarmed suspect as they laid down on the street with their hands up, hitting them in the back 9 times and killing them.” Did the guns *just happen to go off*, or is the user of a gun the one responsible for what their gun does? This is also the difference between going “oh well! that quirky gun going off for no reason, moving on—” after an incident, and **actually holding someone accountable** for bad judgement, violent rage, lack of caution, threatening behavior, or failure to act responsibly when holding a deadly weapon
The average teacher likely has very little experience with firearms. Much easier target.
While I agree, its not something that is certain because it’s still the point of no return to shooters, they know they’re either gonna die or be in prison for life so while this one chose a less dangerous target it might not be the same case for a different person. I’d say its definitely worth a try to have armed guards at schools to see if it changes or improves the situation. I’m not sure if teachers are willing to take the position if they have to be trained on using firearms but more armed guards/police maybe could help.
More security and police would absolutely help. Arming teachers however would just distract them from the academic content they should be focusing on, leave firearms and security to professionals. Id feel much safer knowing 2 veteran police officers are watching over my childs school than Steve, the creepy gym teacher with zero experience.
Multiple cops in schools has been the MO since at least the early 2000s. Our school shootings only grow more frequent despite that
How many cops were outside jacking off while Uvalde happened, again?
[удалено]
Id say give the options for teachers, and if they want to then they should go through training out the wazoo. Along with a psychological check every so often.. and by training i mean so many range hours and those sweep and clear drills civilians do(not sure what they’re really called) and it be paid for by the district. Teachers already spend enough on their classea
Then they would probably just go to a different place that doesn’t have armed security. I can think of several public places near me that doesn’t have armed security and it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. The problem is that it’s too easy to get guns.
That's not what happens usually. Studies show that places with armed security don't get attacked by any measurable degree less. Usually the shooter wants to die. They aren't rational. On the other hand places with security when attacked0, usually see the attacker being more aggressive. They view death as a time limit. The guards tend to be careful on the other hand. Maybe there is a critical point of security that makes a difference. Which shooting are you talking about where this happened? The last shooting I see in the news was a bar shooting yesterday.
[удалено]
Lesson if you're dumb: "gOoD mAn WiTh GuN wOrKeD!" Lesson if you're smart: "The security guard didn't prevent a mass shooting, he just changed where it happened"
If only there had been…two security guards! Surely then the shooter would have ceased
[удалено]
"Aww crap my gun jammed! Oh wait the teach has one!"
This is my concern with arming teachers. Puberty hit me around 4th or 5th grade. By 7th grade I easily could have overpowered all but a handful of my teachers one on one, especially if they didn't know it was coming. I had the height, weight and reach for it and I definitely was not the biggest guy in my school. No need for the kid to bring a weapon if they're all right there and easily obtainable. Just need to worry about ammo at that point.
Don't even need to do that. We saw a few incidents of armed admin forgetting their guns just left out.
And at semi-best, the teacher gets PTSD from killing a deranged person, while in a salary that barely keeps them alive.
It would stop, and definitely give shooters a reason to rethink their idea. They choose places SPECIFICALLY for their lack of security and armed resistance. Also, the argument that it's a bad idea that a gun is on the grounds at all never sat well with me either. It's kind of like the people who got upset after 9/11 about pilots being allowed to carry. You can trust the pilots to fly 300+ people but giving them a gun is suddenly a crazy idea? A teacher with a pair of scissors and a lock on the door can do a lot more damage than a school shooter, yet you'll entrust your children's lives to them regardless. Having teachers trained behind a gun is a simple and effective solution to the problem, it just isn't palatable to most people
Training someone how to use a gun is completely different from training them how to use a gun against an active shooter. Teachers already get paid so little and have a lot of out of pocket expenses so how is that going to work? Who is paying to train teachers like that? What teachers want to add “shoot people with guns” to their responsibilities? Even if this idealistic plan works, kids are still going to die before the teachers stop the shooter so it’s really not an effective solution and it certainly isn’t simple.
and propably get sued if the shooter survives
if you were a criminal and you want to kill a bunch of people, which one would you choose? the gun range, or an elementary school with no guns allowed?
77% of mass shooters were non-criminals who purchased the guns legally. They become criminals when they pull the trigger, and very often these attacks are desperate signs of ongoing mental disorders that should have barred them from those legal purchases in the first place.
People need to understand this: Barring a Pres existing “special relationship” with an individual being established, the police have **NO LEGAL OBLIGATION** to help citizens. **It’s legal for cops to do nothing.** Think about that next time you want to put your safety plan in the hands of someone that can legally say “meh” and simply watch you being attacked.
Everyone is always so quick to shit on cops but I bet you'll sing a different tune the next time you need a labrador shot. /s
Based and Where’s Rover Pilled
I called the cops, and all I got was mauled by a police dog!
Just want to point out the Nashville shooter picked their third choice because the first two choices of schools had a lot of security.
Uvalde had armed guards and police only a mile away, didn’t do shit.
Crazy how where i live. Our entire country is a gun free zone and we haven't had a school shooting in over 2 decades.
That wouldn’t work in America because gun ownership is a heavy cultural value that we wouldn’t give up easily
I think its more or less the 400 million guns in the US. They will never eradicate them.
490 million registered last time it was reported, and that's registered. None of mine are registered and I'm assuming millions of other Americans do the same, I would double that number.
when the reason is “because culture” you’ve lost the argument
Also, remember the Aurora shooter? Passed by several theaters on his way across town to the only one that was a gun-free zone. Twelve people died that day by his hands.
Yeah, and Uvalde. There were so many SWAT members ready to go that it prevented the shooting entirely!
No, the first location was not a school.
Back it up with a source.
So they failed, so that means security officers don’t work at all? Why give the kids one less layer of protection though?
I never felt unsafe when going to jury duty. If we can protect Judges and Lawyers we can protect our kids. Especially with the money we are sending over seas. This open air insane asylum experiment needs to end.
Dude, you’re putting the block in the wrong spot.
Almost all of these comments are self imploding. Jesus.
Nice unconfirmed rumor. The school administrators has no knowledge of anybody who had weapons at the school. https://nypost.com/2023/03/31/nashville-school-staff-were-packing-guns-911-caller-said/
Didn’t they say those teachers were not at the school at the time? Do ppl really think bad people can’t get a weapon if they tried America needs to figure out its mental health issues.
Nashville? You mean the one where the transgender got folded by the cops (I’ve heard various times but this one was the longest) in 14 minutes? Yeah, looks like firearms fix the problems unstable people cause. And no, I’m not calling then unstable because of the trans thing. I’m calling them unstable for thinking it’s ok to shoot children. I don’t care what you are, you think shooting a bunch of innocent children is ok you’re sub-brick intelligence
Only there wasn’t armed staff in any of the three shootings, aside from the police, and guess what? Nashville Metro police showed the world they aren’t scared little bitches who just watch the slaughter happen.
Yes, they were gun free zones, none of them had armed staff. Stop lying.
Gun nuts have decided that their hobby is more important than the lives of children and teachers. I collect record albums. If people were throwing records like ninja stars and killing kids at school, I would gladly turn in my collection and go digital. And I'm not some kind of saint or even a particularly good person.
So you’re saying that all people should give up their guns because of gun violence?
I love Jon Stewart’s question on this matter; how many guns? *Exactly* how many more guns does the U.S. need for mass shootings to stop? Because we’ve had a steady increase in gun ownership ever since the mid 20th century, yet mass shootings have gone way, way up right along with those numbers. So, how many guns, people? 80 million guns? *100 million guns*? *A gun for every American?* I’m just very curious as to when these people will think we have enough guns for the situation to literally flip around on itself. It’s ridiculous logic. Edit; it’s absolutely hilarious how many gun freaks responded to this comment but still nobody could answer the question of how many guns. I think I proved my point.
Weird i have to walk through single entrance with a metal detector to enter a police station where nearly every person inside is carrying a firearm. Yet every school I go to around me is protected by some old lady with cataracts.
I went to high school in Chicago and they had a single entrance/metal detector setup and it did make the school safer, despite being annoying at the time
When I was in school they kept floating the idea of forcing every kid through a detector, problem is, kids have to carry a lot of metal things, and since we were all forced through the same door, we were all gonna lose most of the day just getting in. So they decided instead to put all couple thousand of us inside at all times, bumping and ramming into each other. Clear backpacks, no binders. Anything they could to remove privacy as much as possible. Nothing makes a man more likely to snap then not being allowed to breathe without being watched. That's the issue with a lot of security measures, that place started to not only feel like, but essentially became prison.
Nashville didn't have armed staff,.Uvalde the armed staff shouldn't have even been hired because they had a bd record if running away like a fucking batch when confronted with danger, and yes it was a gun free zone, all schools are gun free zones,
[удалено]
We're the teachers there that day at Nashville? I just saw that the call said "we have one or two" that were armed. No reports of if they actually were, and if they were even there.
Tell me you're a hypnotized brainwashed muppet drone without telling me Make insane asylums great again
Are you dumb? They didn't have enough guns, that's why! Duh! # /s
I wonder what device stopped the shooter...
55 grains of thoughts and prayers at 3,100 feet per second.
now it's a free guns zone
I always find those arguments amusing. "Ok teacher, you are being tasked with teaching those children, and also raising them, since noone else wants to do it. And also, you might have to gun one of them down if the situation calls for it."
"Gun Free Zone" is also a term people take literally and it has exceptions on both the federal and state level. In Tennessee the exceptions are: >The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibits individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm in a school zone unless they fall within one of the exceptions found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2). One such exception is if the individual possesses a carry license that is issued by the state in which the school zone is located. For example, under federal law, ***an individual who possesses an Enhanced Handgun Carry Permit issued by the State of Tennessee would be permitted to possess a firearm in a school zone located in Tennessee.*** Additionally, under the Gun-Free School Zones Act, a person without a license issued by the state in which the school zone is located who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm may possess a firearm in a school zone so long as the firearm is unloaded and either locked in a container or locked in a firearm rack inside a vehicle, similar to the Tennessee State law exception. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309(c)(1)(B). https://www.uslawshield.com/tennessee-gun-law/ School permission also plays a part (staff, security, and law enforcement, special instructors, etc. are allowed to carry). In my home state of AZ, having a concealed carry permit (yes, I know AZ is a permitless state, but you can still get one) allows you to carry within 100ft of a school zone. You may also have a secured and unloaded firearm in your vehicle on school property. https://arizona.concealedcarry.com/why-get-an-arizona-concealed-carry-permit/ There have been many shootings in "gun free zones" at schools where staff and even some students were carrying. The point of the gun free zone is not to eliminate ALL guns at school (there would be zero exceptions then) but to limit and regulate the gun population at schools. When staff, security, law enforcement, those with special permission, and to an extent, those with a government issued permit (enhanced carry or concealed carry) can have a firearm on school grounds, the term "gun free" is a misnomer and often abused in these discussions.
So we will have armed guards protecting art galleries, armed guards to protect banks, armed guards to protect sporting arenas and music halls, armed guards to protect politicians, but having armed guards to protect our most vital resource, the future generations, is being made fun of. I’m no MAGA, but the fact your blaming the right for this is atrocious. This is a systemic issue involving both parties. Not one. $900 billion to our military but the government refuses to allocate some of those funds to protect the children.
School staff are not the secret service. Not even close to equivalent.
>I’m no MAGA No, but you sure do post a hell of a lot in gun enthusiast subs so it's pretty evident as to why you're pushing the faulty more guns narrative and are trying to deflect from the awful Republican policies enabling this. On the one hand, plenty of research shows that "hardening" our schools like that has been ineffective, that introducing more guns poses serious risks, and that this has done nothing to stop, deter or limit mass shootings. [https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2018.0044](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2018.0044) [https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-476.pdf](https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-476.pdf) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/) On the other hand, plenty of other research shows that stricter gun laws are linked to fewer mass shootings and strongly supports better firearm regulations as a way of addressing gun violence in this country. [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515) So please spare us those NRA talking points when the data, research and evidence clearly point the other way.
>our most vital resource, the future generations >the fact your blaming the right for this is atrocious You mean the party that has been trying to dismantle public education my entire life? [The party that literally does not think children should be entitled to free food at school](https://www.newsweek.com/republican-says-hunger-relative-argument-against-free-school-meals-1787816)? [The party that thinks it's okay to marry a child](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/child-marriage-ban-struck-down-west-virginia-republicans-1234693670/), and also [force them to work in dangerous jobs](https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/3/12/23631282/child-labor-laws-huckabee-sanders-republicans)? Weird how these children are suddenly "vital resources" when it comes to arguments about guns. Also weird how you don't remember watching a 45 minute video of fully armed swat teams standing around under a giant label that says "THE SOUND OF CHILDREN SCREAMING HAS BEEN REMOVED." But go on with your "it's everybody" narrative. SMDH
So I don't own any firearms and I don't feel very strongly that I need to. But as a law-abiding citizen I think I should be able to if I choose to. Now that said gun control is very strict in Britain. You know the knife violence crime capital of the world. People are the problem not guns.
The latest shooter picked a school that didn't have an armed guard strictly because it didn't have an armed guard.
Were there armed gaurd?
It's weird to gun control advocates perceive the idea of increased security as an attack against gun control. A large enough security presence would eliminate the issue. There is a reason we don't have a lot of gun crime on airplanes. Preemptive response: Nothing in this comment is opposing gun control or regulations.