Are armed teachers a better solution than armed cops?

Florida thinks yes, that's the case. Trained and armed cops have failed to take action however teacher will defend their student.

Good luck

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

floridian here
floridian are the stupidest population in the us

holy fuck future historians will find current day America funny

At least future historians will remember us

You know the saying: Those who can't do, teach.
Most public school teachers are unionized babysitters with lukewarm IQs. I wouldn't trust them with firearms. And the NEA wants nothing to do with this either.
Improve infrastructure and set up a taskforce of professionally trained officers. Armed guards, multiple per school, dependent on population. Most school deputies are neutered desk cops who are looking for an easy gig on their way to retirement. For the majority of them, this seems to be the case. They spend afternoons breaking up the occasional fight, but that's about it. The moment they're faced with an active-shooter situation, however, they scamper away from action and claim "they don't pay me enough for this shit."
Gonna be shitty living in a country with metal detectors, monthly drills and armed guards at every suburban/urban school in the nation. But that's where we're at right now.

>Improve infrastructure and set up a taskforce of professionally trained officers. Armed guards, multiple per school, dependent on population.
That would absolutely work. I also wonder why semi-automatic riffles weren't banned or why not sell them to only 24+ guys for example.

>floridian here
I know that florida is known for shit load of stupid bikers, basically every forum in one or another way related to motorcycles constantly mocks bikers from florida.

The age restriction is a diversion used to appease anti-gun nuts.
Up until relatively recently, you could purchase alcohol at 18 years of age. Then, they changed to drinking age to 21. Did that stop alcoholism or deaths attributed to drunk driving? Did it even lessen the occurrence of alcohol-attributed incidents? I feel like you already know the answer to this.
In rural areas of the US, kids go hunting at the age of 16, and learn to use weapons responsibly. It's also curious that these mass shootings seem to disproportionately occur in urban, and especially suburban areas, where firearms ownership is low and people are chaotically unstable due to the proverbial rat race.
Outright banning semi-automatic riffles is so pie-in-the-sky. It's laughable to even a suggest such a thing here in the States.
Trump is suggesting a massive investment in our infrastructure. Why not rebuild our schools to make them safer in the process? And why not employ, and train, and pay decent wages for school security. Are we really that allergic to creating new positions to solve modern problems? Maybe we're just broke and stupid.

>Did it even lessen the occurrence of alcohol-attributed incidents?
yes actutally

Future America is unlikely to be much different, user.

>I also wonder why semi-automatic riffles weren't banned or why not sell them to only 24+ guys for example.
Because you don't magically gain all your rights as an American citizen at the age of 24.

>Humans
>Future
user I...

Some people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

While it is a sad fact of life that the people trying to ban guns almost never own one and thus have no idea what the hell they're talking about, luckily we have the 2nd Amendment that more or less says "fuck your democracy, we're keeping our rights anyways".

>Outright banning semi-automatic riffles is so pie-in-the-sky. It's laughable to even a suggest such a thing here in the States.
Full automatic firearms are banned for an obvious reason, a mad man can kill too much people and it would be much harder for cops to fight that guy.
Semi-automatic firearms still have high enough rate of fire to be a serious threat. Why not make them available to older and more mature guys?

Florida has raised or going to "raise the minimum age to buy any firearm, including semiautomatic rifles, from 18 to 21" and I fully support that. Why not just raise minimum rage for owning a semi-automatic firefarm to let's say 24-26?
Younger guys are paying underage fee if there are under like under 25? and renting a car in the US, it's completely normal, being younger your chances to fuck up are much higher.

>While it is a sad fact of life that the people trying to ban guns
Don't steer the thread away, no one is going to ban the guns. Civilians aren't allowed to own a full-automatic guns and yet no one is complaining. Banning or raising age limit for semi-automatic guns doesn't differ that much from banned full-auto guns.

>Because you don't magically gain all your rights as an American citizen at the age of 24.
Should I have written 25 instead of 24 or what? I don't get your point.

> Hey user, I know you're a really good analyst, so you must be good with numbers. We need you to also work an extra 2 hours a night because we don't want to pay for more accountants. That's not a problem, right?

> Pay you extra? Oh, user. You're so silly.

Fucking cheapskates.

Aren't you going to finance all that "let's train and arm teachers" nonsense anyway? I mean you are paying taxes and fed/state will divert some of the tax money to schools for this very reason.

We can't even pay enough to hire enough educators as it is. Florida had a labor shortage of educators at over 5000 last year.

So no. I don't think it will get funded.

Nah, just at 18. Or maybe 21. Or maybe 35.

Guys... guys... guys listen... what if you... listen here... what if you both introduced stronger background checks... and gave weapons to teachers as well...

>Florida had a labor shortage of educators at over 5000 last year.
Ouch, neglecting schools and public education like that sounds harsh. Why don't florida get some $$$ from fed budget to deal with that?

>linguistics teacher spells "differentiate" wrong
yeah, this is the person I want defending my life

They do, some. Education is largely state and locally funded here though. Florida allocated $2.0x10^10 for education last year. That comes out to about $8,000 per student,which is below the national average of $10,000 a child.

I'm not sure what it is in France, so maybe that's staggeringly low or annoyingly wasteful. Honestly though, the money isn't even the worst problem, in my personal opinion. Bail out now if you don't want anecdotes.

Very few kids (outside of East Asian immigrants anyway) consider a free education a useful benefit. It's something you have to slog through before you go to college or earn a full paycheck. The kids know they aren't going to lose it unless they do something criminal. Because of that, teachers have zero respect, no authority, but full responsibility for the child's failure.

That is the classic recipe for unhappy workers. We could pay $65,000 a year and most people would still avoid the position.

School boards are a bunch of greedy Jews who would rather cut school funding than cut there own.

>You know the saying: Those who can't do, teach

Floridians deserve it

that would only allow terrorists to get guns because other gun owners wouldn't want to put up with background checks

>aaREEEEEEEEEEEE WHY DO LE MERIKKKANS GET TO KEEP THEIR GUNZ!!!
Why are yuropoors like this?

The big problem right now is there is no consistency in what gets reported to the FBI. The FBI does all the background checks and while they do there jobs local PDs fall down on actually reporting things to the the FBI. For instance the the Texas shooter had been discharged from the Air Force for bad conduct which should have been enough for him to have failed a background check. Yet the Air Force never reported it to the NICS

To be fair the teacher will at least be in the school instead of standing outside like the cops.

Right to vote: 18
Right to drink: 21
Right to hold office of Presidency: 35

> The kids know they aren't going to lose it unless they do something criminal. Because of that, teachers have zero respect, no authority, but full responsibility for the child's failure.
In Russia any misbehaving kid gets bad marks just for disobedience the teacher / misbehaving. Too much of that shit and your score drops too low, then you aren't allowed to go to the next grade. You'll be likely expelled and your parents will likely to have pay for you to enter the another school and you'll have to study in the same grade again. That applies to public / free schools. Basically you have either to study and be good enough or GTFO.

I also realize I just mistook your flag for France, so my bad. In my defense, if I turn my head 90deg and ignore the white and blue stripe order, hopefully you can see where I went amiss.

Hmmn I wonder if we had something to study regarding armed teachers as opposed to hypotheticals....oh yeah that's right 18 states allow teachers to carry.

>>You know the saying: Those who can't do, teach
We have the same saying here. It translate about the same: those who can't do anything / can't achieve anything - teach.

Tax cuts needed to go to political donors

That money could be going to a poor megacorp instead.

Pro tip: Those fuck ups can't teach either.

what corp are you alluding to? T****?

Right to shoot up schoolchildren: 1

Please enlighten me if that policy results in teachers actually carrying guns and preventing/killing mass shooters.

Republican Political Donors

google "florida man"
we have a drug problem and a lot of drifters

not enough data to know, all of those states are empty

>I also realize I just mistook your flag for France
i can understand ireland vs italy but holy shit dude

>I also wonder why semi-automatic riffles weren't banned
i mean the thing is that the second amendment isnt really about a right to own guns so much as it is about a right to rebel, and with the military as powerful as it is semiautomatics would be necessary for that. it's kind of a weird amendment

If I'm a teacher, I would unironically slide my jacket back to reveal my gun anytime a student gave me shit.

You must be fuckin' blind dude.
>doesn't know the RUSSIAN flag
>claims to be American

...

>brandishing every week
pretty sure they're just gonna take it as you being a pussy bitch who feels threatened all of the time.
At least, that's what would happen if you tried that shit as an armored truck driver for garda and the like.

But there already were armed cops in the Florida shooting. And what did they do?

Yes, letting those holy terrors know exactly where you keep your pistol every day is just a capital idea. Go for it.

my school (im a senior im 18) has 2500 students and like 200 staff but only 2 cops and they're both fatasses

>Why not rebuild our schools to make them safer in the process? And why not employ, and train, and pay decent wages for school security.
you do understand that normal countries dont have this fucking problem right?
You know what would make schools safer?
Not giving children the right to bear arms

Children dont have the right to bear arms, you dumb addition symbol

>Children dont have the right to bear arms
How old do you need to be to buy a gun?

18, and 21 to carry

Then there you go
Children have the right to bear arms in America

?

He's implying 18 year olds are not mentally fit to handle firearms, utterly ignoring the fact kids younger than 18 used to volunteer for wars and lied about their age.

>google "florida man"
Damn some of those mug shots are hilarious.

>You must be fuckin' blind dude.
>>doesn't know the RUSSIAN flag
>>claims to be American
I have an urge to post a mug shot I got while googling for "florida man"

>my school (im a senior im 18) has 2500 students and like 200 staff but only 2 cops and they're both fatasses
>How old do you need to be to buy a gun?
>18, and 21 to carry
>Children dont have the right to bear arms, you dumb addition symbol

Couldn't resist the urge, sorry guys.

people at the age of 18 and 21 are still basically children in developed countries
but in reality even placing a higher age restriction on gun sales wouldnt result in a safer environment because of how easy it would be to get one from a re-seller.
what a sensible state (and by extension a people) would do is restrict gun SALES altogether until such time that you develop a suitable gun culture and psychological support framework in the country as to be able to handle it responsibly
but then again, ironically, Americans have so little faith in their democratic system (which they still insist on preaching about) that such an act would create outrage and a sentiment of government conspiracy because people would believe that such a measure would be irreversible.
Do you see the conundrum?

>comparing an army scenario with trained soldiers under strict supervision from a bygone era to the current reality of loose gun control for civilians
WEW

>He's implying 18 year olds are not mentally fit to handle firearms, utterly ignoring the fact kids younger than 18 used to volunteer for wars and lied about their age.
He is implying that there are enough of young guys you are not mentally stable, who are easily provoked and having easy access to fire arms results in mayhem.
When I was 14 I was drying my uncle's car every time I visited him, he was living in rural area. Usually I spent whole summers there. That doesn't mean that if some kids can handle a car and be responsible then all of them are like that.

>moving the goalposts
wew

how have I moved the goalposts?
You havent refuted a single argument (of two separate ones)

>restrict gun SALES altogether until such time
>develop a suitable gun culture and psychological support framework in the country
This would never happen so the restrictions would be indefinite. Ratchet effect at its finest.

> army scenario with trained soldiers under strict supervision
They weren't under strict supervision, it was the war. The difference is they had discipline. The problem isn't guns, the problem is definite lack of discipline. Ironically also caused by the schools.

Funnily enough, kids as young as 16 can drive in America and a car can kill just as well as a gun.

Most law abiding citizens that buy guns are responsible you overreact to news stories while having zero experience with american gun owners (i know lots because i live in texas)

THE SHOOTER CANNOT HARM YOU IF YOU DISABLE HIS HAND

Also you have to ask yourself what use I would have in attempting to trick you in a debate
I literally have no skin in the game
>This would never happen so the restrictions would be indefinite.
I see no rational reason why it wouldnt.
>They weren't under strict supervision, it was the war.
Yes they were. Besides you're comparing a hostile scenario where you HAVE to kill or be killed to regular life.
>Funnily enough, kids as young as 16 can drive in America and a car can kill just as well as a gun.
Except cars arent assault weapons
>Most law abiding citizens that buy guns are responsible
That's not the point. The point is that the ease with which an individual can procure a weapon doesnt equate to the level of gun responsibility within the society

Good point, but banning guns will not increase gun responsibility. A school gun safety class (don't tell me this is impossible my dad had one these when he was a kid) would be better.

>I see no rational reason why it wouldnt.
Then you are simply naive. Anti-gunners would never allow such a suitable culture and psychological support framework to emerge if it meant guns are coming back. They'd either sabotage the effort or move goalposts so what would happen is an indefinite restriction of firearm sales.

>Yes they were
No, they weren't. They were under supervision but that supervision was to make sure they follow orders and not run away. Such supervision amounted to yelling at them if they handled themselves irresponsibly but otherwise, they were on their own.

>regular life
Which is regular until it suddenly becomes kill or be killed scenario

>cars aren't assault weapons
Please stop talking like an NBC news reporter. A car can very well be a weapon as Elliot Rodgers or Olga Hepnarová demonstrated.

Its already been seen that teachers will defend their students

>school gun safety class would be better.
That's a great start but you have to understand that this alone wont serve as a deterrent against mentally unstable people or criminals who can still easily get all the firearms they desire on the street.
Also the issue goes much deeper than that and has to do with the way people relate to such weapons.
You have to place some form of tighter restrictions on a federal level like much harsher licensing and background checks, as well as a limit to the number of firearms one can own and full accountability on possession that would inhibit re-sellers.
And even those, in my mind, are only half-measures. You need to stop it from being so readily available. And a good way to do that, I think, is temporarily banning all sales (not possession, mind you) and installing a hefty penalty for them to help get the issue under control by creating an atmosphere where the weapons are treated with the seriousness that they inherently carry.

None of those restrictions would stop irresponsible people from owning guns and will just inconvenience normal gun enthusiasts

>Then you are simply naive. Anti-gunners would never allow such a suitable culture and psychological support framework to emerge if it meant guns are coming back. They'd either sabotage the effort or move goalposts so what would happen is an indefinite restriction of firearm sales.
Sounds like a figment of fantasy.
If you have trust in the democratic system then this isnt an issue
>Which is regular until it suddenly becomes kill or be killed scenario
Like I said you cant seriously treat using weapons of war in war and using weapons of war in regular life equally.
Did children in war use guns to kill people?
Yes they did. Hell, they still do in Africa. Not sure why you think that this would serve as a justification for children to still own and use firearms in everyday life.
>A car can very well be a weapon
Sure it can. So can a pair of scissors or a paperclip. Yet neither the car nor the paperclip are portable machines designed to kill people at rates that the gun can afford. You simply cant treat them equally.

As far as I understand the problem most/all mas-shooters are mentally unstable, easily provoked and all firearms were easily available for them. Also it's looks like 99% of mas shooting were done with semi-automatic fire arms.
To help with mas shooting you have to
1) filter mentally unstable people (generally the younger the guy the more unstable and irresponsible he is, check any Sup Forums thread when kids are spitting insults)
2) filter easily provoked guys, again the younger the guy / the dumber the guy more easily it's to provoke him
3) make it hard to get a hold of firearms.
4) try to reduce number of semi-automatic firearms available to civilians. You can hunt with plain bolt-action rifle just fine.

Why are Americans so cringy about guns? Someone please send in a U.N. coalition to seize them by force. Or just nuke us.

>None of those restrictions would stop irresponsible people from owning guns
Well I think it would help restrict their supply and the availability of these weapons to such people
>just inconvenience normal gun enthusiasts
Not that much really. But thent that's a utilitarian question for your society. Are you prepared to temporarily slightly inconvenience the few to help make sure that the many are safer and better off?
I understand the possible perils of such a line of thought when taken to the absolute extreme but to me it seems that this isnt the case here.

>If you have trust in the democratic system then this isnt an issue
I don't. have a brief read of Mencken to discover why.

You keep using the word children as though it means they are irresponsible. They might be. But the law considers them adult enough to make their own decisions and as such they should have the same rights as those older than them. Even that 21 year drinking age is an affront.

A car can do the same or more damage than a gun. Yes, one is specifically designed to kill while the other is not but the potential is roughly the same as the trucks of peace have demonstrated.

Furthermore, restrictions on the sales in the US won't do anything good or cost effective. The country is full of guns already and has large uncontrollable border both with Mexico and Canada. The guns are a part of the local culture, especially in the more rural states. Trying to take them away will not decrease shootings, it will just make the pool of illegal firearms larger.

Drop the proxy

>But the law considers them adult enough to
Law is written by humans and it's constantly evolving. There is nothing wrong in rising age limits if we see that there are more and more irresponsible guys at 18-21 range. Also if we see that civilians are starting to abuse the law and using semi-automatic fire arms to commit mass shootings than why not to update the law to address that issue?

>They might be. But the law considers them adult enough to make their own decisions and as such they should have the same rights as those older than them
And I dont (and neither should you). There are many such restrictions already>A car can do the same or more damage than a gun.
Not really. Maybe only in some terribly specific scenario that you've cooked up in your mind where the people are lying down with their limbs tied on a highway.
>Furthermore, restrictions on the sales in the US won't do anything good or cost effective.
They wont? Why not?
Seems like they did in the other places where it's been done.
A crackdown on gun re-sellers will undoubtedly help massively, borders or not.
>Drop the proxy
Bit ironic dont you think?

>Furthermore, restrictions on the sales in the US won't do anything good or cost effective.
Cost effective who who?
Last time I checked the last mass-shooting were done with legally acquired semi-automatic rifle. Obviously if he had a plain old bolt-action rifle then rate of fire would be way lower, there would be less wounded and he would be killed faster. Also rising lower age limit would help, as it would cost way more $$$ to get a hold of a rifle and it would be much harder than going to a gun store.

Yeah I loved the cost-effective part too kek
It's like trying to argue with a thinly veiled NRA lobbyist

>There is nothing wrong in rising age limits if we see that there are more and more irresponsible guys at 18-21 range. Also if we see that civilians are starting to abuse the law and using semi-automatic fire arms to commit mass shootings than why not to update the law to address that issue?
Because the issue is not the law, the issue is responsibility. If it's dropping, THAT is the thing that needs to be done something about. Also, how else are the people going to learn responsibility if nobody expects it of them?

>There are many such restrictions already
Which should also be dropped.
>Not really
Yeah, really. One swipe of a crowded side-walk can leave atleast 10 people dead/maimed for life. Sure, a gun COULD take more if the shooter is skilled but a skilled driver might take down more people.
>Seems like they did in the other places where it's been done.
Like? Go ahead, name some and I'll explain why those countries are specific and why it won't work in the US.
>Bit ironic dont you think?
Why? If you think I'm American, I'm not. I just happen to know a bit.

Have you any idea of the cost such legislature entails if it were to be effective and not just a band-aid to appease gun-grabbers? Not to mention the legal ramifications.

>I don't.
Well you either live in an authoritarian state or you dont.
If you're afraid of not having the right to buy guns returned to you because the society you're in decided against it then you're being disingenuous and are essentially advocating a dictatorship of the few yourself.
If not then you dont have anything to fear.
Either way the issue is easily solved by passing a bill that would temporarily prohibit selling and/or re-selling firearms with a sufficient date (say 10 years) in mind.
>Which should also be dropped.
I think they shouldnt.
What now? I've given way more justification for my point of view than you have.
>Sure, a gun COULD take more if the shooter is skilled
A gun could take way more. Skilled shooter or not.
>Like?
Like Australia for one
> I just happen to know a bit.
Thats not usually the reason one is suspected of being an american here

>Have you any idea of the cost such legislature entails if it were to be effective and not just a band-aid to appease gun-grabbers?
Yes Im sure law enforcement in other areas costs a lot of money too. Is that a reason not to have it?
What a silly point.

Yes. I unironically believe that an armed society is a polite society. I despise the fact we are not allowed to defend ourselves in this country.

Though the Florida shooting is a mix of retarded local police forces and federal agencies, and a failure by the school to spot obvious mental health and bullying issues.

>Which should also be dropped.
Here is your photo. I'm done with you.

>i mean the thing is that the second amendment isnt really about a right to own guns so much as it is about a right to rebel, and with the military as powerful as it is semiautomatics would be necessary for that. it's kind of a weird amendment
Sounds interesting, I've really never carefully read the constitution of the US and amendments, will check what's there.

If the legislature were to really address the issue, it would mean taking guns that are already out there amongst people. Restricting sales won't do much. Taking guns away from people, especially from people who don't want their guns taken is going to be nasty, costly and dictatorial in nature.

>society decided against it
The exact point why democracy should be curtailed as much as possible. The less power people have over other people the better. Not to mention the whole argument ignores the reality of politics and media.

>more justification
You've given only proof that you don't trust people to have responsibility for themselves
>A gun could take way more
Debatable, depends on the situation.
>Australia
Ah, an island with sparse population miles away from everything without significant firearm industry. Yes, very similar to the US. Next.
>if you like guns, you are American

The age of adulthood should be universal is what I'm saying.

>The age of adulthood should be universal is what I'm saying.
It doesn't take one day to become a mature person. It's takes years and everyone grows up gradually.

>It doesn't take one day to become a mature person. It's takes years and everyone grows up gradually.
Cool but how are going to make a law that reflects that? Not to mention how rites of passage disappeared from our society so people can't be sure if they are children or grown ups.

Anyone who thinks the cops will protect you is an idiot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

>Cool but how are going to make a law that reflects that?
Example:
>Right to vote: 18
>Right to drink: 21
>Right to hold office of Presidency: 35

That's really extreme. 14 hours of rape and humiliation. And cops get away with doing nothing. Purely insane

Exactly. It's been proven in case law that American Police have no legal pressure to actually assist or face punishment for lack of assistance.

In the end, your safety is in your own hands and anyone who advocates gun control is uniformed cattle.