|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 9, 2015 10:59:52 GMT
Carson's plan for the school shooting problem is to give kindergarten teachers guns. To retrieve a locked gun in a calm situation would take at least 30 seconds to a minute or more. In a panic, you simply aren't going to be able to get the thing out if a shooter is near. If you have time to get it out, it is either not secured well enough or you have the time to get your students to safety rather than getting yourself killed. He is just an idiot.
It really doesn't matter in the long run who wins. The men with the money will continue buying everyone, tis only a change of pain on a big pile of dog crap.
Unrelated, I FREAKING LOVE GEORGE CARLIN!!
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 9, 2015 16:28:01 GMT
Giving... teachers... guns.... the fuck?
Also, I'm not entirely sure it is unrelated.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 9, 2015 22:57:41 GMT
I wish I was kidding. This is how low politicians are these days.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 9, 2015 23:33:37 GMT
"So if one of your students starts shooting people, I want you to shoot him."
"...What?"
"Well, to save other students, you have to shoot and probably kill your other student."
"...Couldn't I just try to... I dunno... talk them down?"
"No, you can't take the risk that they won't listen. I need you to shoot your student."
"...No."
Is hopefully how conversations like that would go.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Oct 10, 2015 0:34:28 GMT
I think that "shoot them" is a pretty reasonable response, all things considered.
|
|
|
Post by zaealix on Oct 10, 2015 0:39:23 GMT
So one of two things also come of that situation. 1. It becomes mandatory for teachers to have gun licences. Something that I doubt even Renard or WordWeaver would approve of... or, and this sadly is the more realistic scenario simply due to the sheer amount of work granting those skills to our current workforce of teachers and adding it to their curriculum... 2. Loooooots of civvies with guns they really shouldn't be wielding.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Oct 10, 2015 0:49:50 GMT
I don't think it would be right to make it mandatory for teachers to have firearms. It wouldn't be right to make someone carry a firearm if they aren't comfortable with firearms to begin with, it's not like teaching is a profession where people know that they'll be handling weapons (like joining the military or police), and I don't think teachers should be put in a position where they're forced to confront a gunman; I know they're supposed to be responsible for the safety of their students, but being required to get into a gunfight with an armed attacker seems like a bit much to ask. Again, it's not like teaching is one of those professions that people get into expecting that they'll have to put their life on the line.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 10, 2015 3:29:39 GMT
It's the same reason the idea of having a gun in your house for protection doesn't usually work out in real life. If there are any kids, or chance of kids around you have to keep the things locked up (also, otherwise the felone might break in and take them!) so to get to them you have to unlock them etc and hope you don't get shot while you do this.
The odds of it really helping rely on things playing out just perfectly.
With mass shootings, the idea that someone will pull out a gun and shoot the gunman is also unrealistic (which is why it never seems to happen, even when there are people with guns around, like at the last shooting.)
If you are near the killer when he starts, you would have to quick draw or he will shoot you if he sees you going for a weapon. If you aren't present when it starts, you won't know whats going on and wont know who to shoot or if you need to shoot. If you see another person with a gun, do you blast them? They might be another person like you, trying to shoot bad guys. Or they might be the bad guy and shoot you instead. Also when the police arrive, if they see you running around with a gun or shooting at someone, they are probably going to think you are one of the psychos and shoot you. This is why people are advised to flee or hide as their first option when these things start happening.
The odds of your weapon actually helping you or anyone else are really really slim in that situation. People watch too many movies and get a fantasy in their head of saving the day and shooting the bad guy, but real life is rarely so simple.
Noticiably, the last time a lunatic mass murderer got stopped by civilians was those guys in france who kicked the shit out of him when his weapon jammed on a train. They didn't have guns when they did that.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Oct 10, 2015 4:25:26 GMT
This is a good point; I'm pretty sure police are supposed to give warning before they fire, but that's not going to happen if they think you're about to shoot them or someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 10, 2015 4:31:31 GMT
No, they'll know if you are not the shooter even if you have a gun. Well, so long as you aren't Black or Arab.
Now, to be clear, if I thought it would help protect my students, I'd get in a gunfight with some random gunman at the drop of a hat. BUT, could I shoot one of my students if they started going on a rampage? No, I couldn't bring myself to do it and I don't think most teachers could either.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Oct 10, 2015 4:51:27 GMT
But I have a beard...
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Oct 10, 2015 6:15:37 GMT
Why is it always assumed that the bad guy with the gun has an advantage over a good guy with a gun?
How is it better if the only people in a given situation with a gun is the one with ill intent and the police officer who is five miles away?
Should it be mandatory that all teachers carry a firearm? No. I would never advocate that. Should it be an option available to them? Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 10, 2015 7:42:44 GMT
The bad guy has the advantage because they've already decided that they are ready and willing to kill. Unless they have serious training, the good guy lacks the preparedness and will (no matter what they might think themselves). The bad guy also has the advantage of not being likely to mistake the good guys for one of them, whereas the good guys, who lack information, don't actually know who the bad guy is. The Good Guys also need to be careful not to shoot other people, whereas the Bad Guys are not bound by that at all.
Also, a gun in a classroom is terrible idea for many reasons. Mostly the impact such a thing would have upon the students.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 10, 2015 14:29:54 GMT
Yeah I have to go with Canuovea on this one.
If I walked up to you and point a gun at you, even if you are carrying the best gun in the world, I have the advantage because my gun is already pointed at you! I've started shooting before you even knew there was a fight!
In the chaos of a shooting, the good guys don't know exctly whats happening, the bad guy does. The good guys cant just shoot everyone they see without asking questions or trying to understand the situation, or fire wildly endangering civilians...the bad guy can just blast anyone he comes into his line of vision.
The bad guy has a MASSIVE advantage of information and opportunity.
Unless he announces his plans and goes to one end of a long street for a quick draw shoot out when the clock strikes high noon, it's not a fair fight!
There was at least one guy at the college who WAS carrying a concealed gun AND had served in the military. What did he do? He evacuated with everyone else. Why? He explained that if he went into that situation it would make it more difficult for police and potentially get himself killed.
When the police arrive, we need to make it as obvious as possible who the crazed gun man is! This is the opinion of a guy who had a gun who was actually there. Havng more people taking out guns and firing at each other in that kind of confused, dangerous situation is just going to make things worse most of the time.
In other news, I also think Bernie Sanders is a total dead loss. Yeah I'm a liberal bleeding heart socialist lefty so you would think I would like him. But I just watched the footage of the Black Lives Matter women storming the stage and demanding he give them the mike. The guy gave in, let them have the mike, they proceeded to insult all his supporters as racists and refuse to leave the stage, forcing Bernie to cancel the event. I wouldn't want someone that weak and spineless as commander in chief. What happens when Iran make demands, or Russia wont back down? Will he meekly leave the stage? Can you imagine Obama acting this way? When pro immigration protesters started trying to disrupt one of his rallies, Obama just had them thrown out. Now I don't think anyon is goign to argue Obama is known for being Mr Anti Immigration, he probably agreed with the protestors points to some extent, but having some leadership he threw the fuckers out. Fault him all you wnt for other stuff, but you can't seriously imaigne him letting someone take his microphone off him! (He would probably call in a drone strike!) Same for my arch nemesis Hillary! When the same protesters tried this shit with her rally, security didn't let them in the building. Even the walking punchline Trump wouldn't stand for such foolishness! Sanders looked like a confused, doddering old man and I really wouldn't trust him to run a lemonade stand let alone a super power. (Someone might come up the lemonade stand and start taking him earnings off him and pressumably he would stand back and look kind of confused the whole time.)
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 10, 2015 14:39:42 GMT
To be fair, angry independent black women who don't need no man are a frightful sight and terrible foes even when alone or just small groups. Even I can't imagine facing a horde of them and I'm sitting on a medieval arsenal (not literally, I'm actually sitting on a chair).
|
|