Should schools teach students how not to be killed by police?

We all saw in Iraq how a true invasion requires going street to street, house to house. Invasions aren't won with bombs. They are won one house at a time. Having a well-armed public is a last line of defense, and a powerful line of defense, were the US ever invaded. No army in the world would laugh at 300 million guns. Not even the Chinese. We have the ability to arm every man, woman, and child, in a worst case.

People always want to think things like this can't happen. But it could one day. There is nothing new under the sun. And knowing there are 300 million guns is a definite deterrence to invasion. But if effective weapons of war are banned from ownership, then guns don't offer much deterrence or defense if we were invaded.

I do think we need better controls on the sale of weapons. A free-for-all starting at age 18 is just insane.

 

America is lucky in that it won't be invaded. Rather, the military and police will be hollowed out through Political Correctness. No invasion necessary.

 

It does not mater what the NRA says. Normal semi automatic deer rifles you have to pull the trigger each and every time you want to fire a bullet and the AR 15 you have to do the same thing pull the trigger one time get one shot, hold the trigger down you still only get one shot. Military guns switched to auto, hold trigger down and empty the clip, many shots one pull of the trigger.

 

Why do we need high capacity magazines?

 

Renee -- you don't need a high-capacity magazine for deer-hunting. In fact, not even a low-capacity one. You really should get your animal with the first shot -- and make it a head shot so he doesn't bolt and you have to plow through the brush to deliver the coup de grace. So you'll find most real deer hunters use bolt-action rifles, where magazine capacity is irrelevant. But there are rare situations where you might want to put a lot of rounds into him quickly ... and if you look through the lovely weapons shown here, the 'top ten rifles for deer hunting', you'll see one of those scary-looking ones among all the other typical deer rifles.

People who want serious military-style weaponry -- or as serious as they can get, short of crew-served weapons -- are probably motivated by several different things, some of which they may not even be aware of. But one of them is probably this, and this is where I think they're right, and you probably don't: it's called the 'precautionary principle', and relates to how sure we can be that our republic, providing a pretty good chance in life to everyone, and reasonable security to us, will continue as such ... especially since it's not always there for us now.

While I don't think AR15s would be a match for laser-guided bombs -- and note, with reference to someone's post above, that in Iraq the insurgents were fighting Americans, who actually have reasonably-civilized 'Rules of Engagement',. and even there the amateurs lost -- whereas in Syria, where if you snipe at a Russian-advised platoon of regime soldiers, they just call in an airstrike with a couple of 500 kilo bombs and eliminate the sniper and everyone else within a couple of hundred meters - ----- anyway, an AR15 and a couple of hundred rounds of ammo, especially if you AND a few of your friends and neighbors have them -- might come in mighty handy in some of the scenarios we can imagine in the future, if America becomes more and more like the Third World. [Open Borders and No (legal) Guns: the liberal dream.]

Because, as old Bismarck said, all the great questions of mankind are ultimately settled not by votes, but by blood and iron. And if you aren't entirely confident that the blood and iron of the state will always be there to defend you, or be in the hands of people who will defend you, then it can't hurt to have the ability to wield a bit of iron, and take a bit of blood, yourself. Even in the short run, it happens that law-abiding citizens find that they need the firepower that, in an ideal world, would be only in the hands of the state.

This is a personal choice -- you choose to rely on the guns of the police and military to protect you. Others are less optimistic.

 

Why do you need to post on this forum? Why do you need alcohol? Why do you need a candy bar and soda pop? Why do you need a cup of coffee?

A person does not need a high capacity magazine, unless a person does. No one EVERY needs to post on this forum, alcohol, candy bar, soda pop or coffee. Since those are not needed, all those should be banned.

 

I can’t believe you actually use that as an argument for guns that have killed so many people
Duh! High capacity magazines are used to kill people in large numbers in a couple of minutes. That’s why people can’t own grenades tho they may want them .
I’m gonna caffeine a school and kill those kids with talking too fast
I’m gonna drink too much and slur in my classroom, they’ll suffer
I’m gonna hold kids hostage while I belch from the soda pop

 

How about this as a compromise?

To own anything more powerful than a shotgun or bolt-action rifle, you have to be on active service in the military, or in the Reserves. For citizens too old or physically unable to pass the requirements for active duty, a special status will be created, whereby you can do your service picking up cigarette butts or cleaning latrines. (But with no guarantee you might not be sent to bring transgender bathrooms and Harvard-style Unfreedom of Speech to some distant tribal battlefield where they are yearning for freedom.)

Current weapons are grandfathered in as okay. You can only sell yours to someone else who already owns one, or to the state, at a slightly above-market price. Or to a veteran.

Members of the reserve can keep their small-arms weapons at home, in a special hardened locker supplied free by the state. If you're the squad SAW man, you've got your automatic weapon at last.

Death penalty for possession of a non-authorized weapon, or selling one to a non-authorized person.

In short, only vets can have access to serious weapons for killing lots of people.

This should satisfy those on the Left who have recently discovered a hitherto-unknown-to-them reverence for the armed bodies of the state, like the CIA and FBI. And those on the Right who are worried about domestic tyranny or an invasion will be happy to see the massive expansion of the armed forces, who will now return to the original ideal of the 'citizen soldier'.

 

It really doesn't matter much if he had 5 round mags or 30 round mags. The mags can be changed in a matter of seconds, really wouldn't have changed much at all.

 

The American rifle during WWII and Korea was the M1 Garand, with an eight-round clip (not magazine) which you loaded from the top. It was self-ejecting on the last round, which sounds like a typically American innovation -- automate everything. (At the time of its design, protruding mazazines, as all modern weapons have, were deprecated for various reasons, so the designer of the M1 made the clip flush with the weapon. Good for manual-of-arms movements but otherwise not an improvement.)

But on the frozen soil of Europe, the ejected clip made a distinct sound when, after flying up, it hit the ground. This told the German enemy that the American shooting at them was going to have to insert a new clip, or even load an empty one, which meant that was the time to rush him.

Or so the story goes, but like all 'war stories', it should probably be taken with a grain of black powder. ( I originally heard this tale told about fighting in Korea, but the Wiki article says the story first originated in World War II.) In any case, when the M1 was replaced by the M14, the new weapon had a 20 round magazine and it was not self-ejecting.

If we were starting over, we might have a different attitude towards allowing almost anyone to easily get their hands on a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine. But we are where we are, and there are millions of these things out there now. It doesn't seem feasible to me to restrict their ownership effectively enough to keep them out of the hands of a determined madman.

And consider this: a rifle is definitely superior to a handgun, in terms of killing power. But suppose all high-capacity-magazine semi-auto rifles vanished overnight. That would still leave high-capacity semi-auto handguns. A Glock .40 has a fifteen-round magazine capacity, and can kill a wild boar. Definitely enough firepower to devastate a school -- and they are easily concealed.

But I suppose an AR15 looks more scary.

 

That is exactly why the gun grabbers are going after the AR, simply because it looks scary or looks like a military version. Also it is easier to confuse the public about it because so many people just don't know much about them and can be misled easily.

 

Perception is everything, of course. Surely some enterprising gun manufacturer will bring out a semi-automatic rifle which is encased in a fluffy pink bunny-rabbit doll ... maybe with a digitalized sound-generator so that when fire it, it goes LOVE!-LOVE!-LOVE!-LOVE!

Ironically, when the AR15 -- in its M16 variant -- first was issued to the troops, there were complaints that it didn't look like a proper rifle, but rather like a Mattel toy. (Maybe that's where the problem originates: didn't all American boys have plastic Mattel machine guns when they were little? So ban the toy machine guns, and give all little boys toy single shot bolt-action rifles. Come to think of it, I got my first bolt-action single shot rifle when I was about 8 or 9 years old, although it was not a toy ... although my Dad was a hardline FDR Democrat and if he had shot at anyone, it would have been a Republican..)

 

What type of question is that? No, schools should not teach students how to no be killed by cops because that is the parents' job. Parents should be concerned with the well-being of their child or children, period. It is easy to make a child, that really takes no effort at all, but to educate, rear them properly, cloth them, feed them, takes a concerted effort on the part of the parentage. I know of plenty of children who have been traded by their parent or parents because the child or children are categorized as an end to a mean. Most of the children, many of them are currently adults, have been "traded" by the parent so that they receive SSD, SSDI and the like. To me, such practice is evil and the parent or parents should never have engaged in behavior that brought the child or children into being. Some parents are real piece(s) of you know what. Rear the child properly and you will not have to worry about them being killed or murdered by cops.

 

It is well known that plenty of cops join police agencies for a license to kill, so it behooves parents to teach their child or children to stay clear of them at all costs, and if they must interact with them. Make the contact brief and always be right about what you do and what you say, and keep the contact to a minimum.

 

No, not innocent. Just not worthy of being shot.

 

Sorry that the reverse to what is needed, those parents shuld demand better police, not live with this.

 

Then it should be banned

 

Only if you’re black

 

Bet you don’t think you have a prejudiced bone in your body.
What contempt for the poor.

 

Those victims of the mass shootings in school, church, concert know too much about them..

 

It's liberals who have blood on their hands. It's their policy -- fueled by fuzz-brained sentimentality, as exhibited here -- that kept Cruz out of jail and able to buy a weapon.

Ann Coulter says it all:

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-02-28.html#read_more
THE SCHOOL-TO-MASS-MURDER PIPELINE
February 28, 2018

Nikolas Cruz's psychosis ended in a bloody massacre not only because of the stunning incompetence of the Broward County Sheriff's Department. It was also the result of liberal insanity working exactly as it was intended to.

School and law enforcement officials knew Cruz was a ticking time bomb. They did nothing because of a deliberate, willful, bragged-about policy to end the "school-to-prison pipeline." This is the feature part of the story, not the bug part.

If Cruz had taken out full-page ads in the local newspapers, he could not have demonstrated more clearly that he was a dangerous psychotic. He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other "red flags."

Over and over again, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School reported Cruz's terrifying behavior to school administrators, including Kelvin Greenleaf, "security specialist," and Peter Mahmood, head of JROTC.

At least three students showed school administrators Cruz's near-constant messages threatening to kill them -- e.g., "I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass," "Im going to watch ypu bleed," "iam going to shoot you dead” — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.

All the school had to do was risk Cruz not going to college, and depriving Yale University of a Latino class member, by reporting a few of his felonies -- and there would have been no mass shooting.

But Cruz was never arrested. He wasn't referred to law enforcement. He wasn't even expelled.

Instead, Cruz was just moved around from school to school -- six transfers in three years. But he was always sent back to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in order to mainstream him, so that he could get a good job someday!

The moronic idea behind the "school-to-prison pipeline" is that the only reason so many "black and brown bodies" are in prison is because they were disciplined in high school, diminishing their opportunities. End the discipline and ... problem solved!

It's like "The Wizard of Oz" in reverse. The Wizard told the Scarecrow: You don't need an education, you just need a diploma! The school-to-prison pipeline idiocy tells students: You don't need to behave in high school, you just need to leave with no criminal record!

Of course, killjoys will say that removing the consequences of bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior. But that's not the view of Learned Professionals, who took summer courses at Michigan State Ed School.

In a stroke of genius, they realized that the only problem criminals have is that people keep lists of their criminal activities. It's the list that prevents them from getting into M.I.T. and designing space stations on Mars. Where they will cure cancer.

This primitive, stone-age thinking was made official Broward County policy in a Nov. 5, 2013, agreement titled "Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline."

The first "whereas" clause of the agreement states that "the use of arrests and referrals to the criminal justice system may decrease a student's chance of graduation, entering higher education, joining the military and getting a job."

Get it? It's the arrest -- not the behavior that led to the arrest -- that reduces a student's chance at a successful life. (For example, just look at how much the district's refusal to arrest Nikolas Cruz helped him!)

The agreement's third "whereas” clause specifically cites "students of color" as victims of the old, racist policy of treating criminal behavior criminally.

Say, in the middle of a drive to cut back on the arrest or expulsion of "students of color," how do you suppose the school dealt with a kid named "Nikolas Cruz"? Might there be some connection between his Hispanic last name and the school's abject refusal to do anything about Cruz's repeated criminal behavior?

Just a few months ago, the superintendent of Broward County Public Schools, Robert W. Runcie, was actually bragging about how student arrests had plummeted under his bold leadership.

When he took over in 2011, the district had "the highest number of school-related arrests in the state." But today, he boasted, Broward has "one of the lowest rates of arrest in the state." By the simple expedient of ignoring criminal behavior, student arrests had declined by a whopping 78 percent.

FOOTBALL COACH: "When I took over this team a year ago, we were last in the league in pass defense. Today, we no longer keep that statistic!"

When it comes to spectacular crimes, it's usually hard to say how it could have been prevented. But in this case, we have a paper trail. In the pursuit of a demented ideology, specific people agreed not to report, arrest or prosecute dangerous students like Nikolas Cruz.

These were the parties to the Nov. 5, 2013, agreement that ensured Cruz would be out on the street with full access to firearms:

Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent of Schools

Peter M. Weinstein, Chief Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit

Michael J. Satz, State Attorney

Howard Finkelstein, Public Defender

Scott Israel, Broward County Sheriff

Franklin Adderley, Chief of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department

Wansley Walters, Secretary of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

Marsha Ellison, President of the Fort Lauderdale Branch of the NAACP and Chair of the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board

Nikolas Cruz may be crazy, but the parties to that agreement are crazy, too. They decided to make high school students their guinea pigs for an experiment based on a noxious ideology. The blood of 17 people is on their hands.

 

Ann coulter!! Lol

 

Yes, when Ann Coulter is more intelligent than a typical liberal, it ought to worry you.
But in this case, all she is saying is common sense: tell young thugs they won't be punished because it might keep them out of Harvard, and ... not being as stupid as the people who thought this idiotic idea up ... they'll carry on, and get worse.

 

You were stating the AR 15 is the same that the military uses, which shows you don't know much about them either. Explain to us what new law would have prevented any of the shootings?

 

What exactly should be banned and how would it have prevented anything?