Florida Approves Bill Allowing Classroom Teachers To Be Armed

And yet such is not happening in the manner that is being desired on the part of yourself, as the firearms culture of the united states is only growing stronger, and becoming more deeply entrenched than ever before. Such is the nature of what government opposes. The more it is opposed by those in charge, the greater the people at large fight against such because they do not wish to be told what to do.

 

If firearm-related restrictions cannot actually be enforced, then they are neither sane, nor cheap. And any proposal to try and reduce the number of currently legally owned firearms, that is actual confiscation of private property from individuals who have done nothing wrong, stands no chance of ever passing in the united states, thus making it neither sane nor cheap.

 

Yes, of course. Funerals are dirt cheap in comparison.

https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where.html​

There are more than 130,000 schools, public and private, in this country.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84​

What's your point? Guns are costing us a lot of money. Fact.

Who are you talking to? Not me.

I would make firearms RADIOACTIVE for felons, and for those who use deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, to commit crimes.

 

Well she was standing separate from the students and her gun was not deployed. Take her out and you have a target rich scenario

It must be sad to live where knowing how to deal with an active shooter is a normal part of growing up

 

So, so, sad.

 

If they cannot be enforced..........

Then you make a leap from that to “confiscation”

 

Funerals are cheap but America is paying a massive price in health care to survivors.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700838/

The real question is

Can America afford this cost?

 

Cannot or will not? Make possessing a handgun in an urban area without a license to carry one a serious felony. Use a firearm to commit a property crime? Serious jail time. Etc.

Yeah, sure, let gangbangers carry guns with impunity. Dumb.

 

Different matter. Guns, protecting against them, prosecuting and jailing those who use them to commit crimes, and patching up gun violence survivors is very costly.

Financially? Yes. Socially? Questionable.

 

Or the often less competent security forces on campus and other public places. Sure.

 

And apparently none of them comprehend the basic notion of locking the entrances and exits to prevent unauthorized entry. The latest mass shootings have all been committed by individuals who simply walked in right off the streets, long after classes had already begun, simply because the doors had not been locked.

As are a great many other things and even individuals currently in modern society, yet nothing is being done about them either. Chiefly because any effort at addressing such problems is simply too cost prohibitive, thus suggesting it is far easier to simply allow crime to be committed and prosecute the offenders after the fact, rather than attempting the preemptive approach to the problem.

Indeed you.

Such is already covered by existing firearm-related restrictions. Both at the state level, and the federal level. The punishment for using a firearm in the commission of a crime are significant. Yet prosecutors almost never pursue such charges. They would much rather obtain a conviction on lesser charges via a plea bargain, than actually do their work.

 

One cannot discuss the firearm-related restrictions of the nation of Australia, without discussing how privately owned firearms were confiscated from their legal owners. Or at least the ones that were actually found.

And yet, despite all of that, the nation of Australia is still experiencing mass shootings, despite supposedly removing all of the firearms it deemed as capable of being used for mass shooting purposes.

 

Such is already the case in the united states, from one state to another. Such is already codified into existing law. So why is such proving insufficient to address the problem?

Are gang bangers made up of individual who legally own firearms and who have done nothing wrong? If such is not the case, the comparison presented on the part of yourself is nothing short of off topic nonsense and drivel.

 

Or perhaps students will be more inclined to behave themselves, be mindful of the rules, and not act out in class, if they know their educator may shoot them for feeling threatened. Actions have consequences, and those who cannot abide by the rules of society will learn such, one way or another.

Now then. Are there any documented examples of educators or security guards who have been physically overwhelmed by students and forcefully deprived of their firearms? Any examples at all that can be presented as evidence that such can, does, and has already occurred? Or is it nothing more than empty hypothesis?

 

BS. I taught school for more than three decades, so I think I have a pretty good idea of the dynamic between students and teachers. We know teachers aren't as yet carrying firearms on school grounds in large numbers. Finally, I provided info on the gun situation in schools...

https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where.html​

I only said it could become part of the problem. Thank goodness there are people willing to consider all the angles in looking at workable solutions, not people like you who don't.

Now, why is that? People who think evil teachers are brainwashing students are prepared to let those same teachers carry in schools. Could it be we have other agendas in play than protecting students who are not exactly being slaughtered at school? 130,000 K-12 schools in America and two deaths so far this year....

So, what's your contribution to the discussion? Not much from what I can see.

 

More speculation.

Except such is not actually known, it is only assumed.

Could. Meaning it is hypothesis. Meaning it is being admitted that there is no actual evidence to support the claim being made.

Simply because a potential solution is disliked, does not mean it is incorrect.

If there is no overwhelming need to consider teachers being allowed to be armed while at facilities of learning, then there is simultaneously no need to consider implementing new firearm-related restrictions in a desperate effort to try and prevent school shootings.

Calling out those who present nothing but nonsense and wishful thinking devoid of anything relating to the real world.

 

Because we don't actually enforce our laws.

If we don't require gun permits, gangbangers can carry guns with impunity.

You're full of yourself. Why is a mystery.

 

Nice! This will save many lives. We have guns protecting our politicians. We got guns protecting our airports. We got guns protecting our courthouses and judges. Why wouldn't we have guns protecting our most sensitive asset, our future?

The argument against this doesnt make any sense.

A mass shooter who is looking to kill as many people as possible wouldn't go to a heavily armed place where I will be instantly shut down instantly. They will got to heavily populated gun free zones.

The path of least resistance is the path most taken

 

You sure do. Stop the guns and you will not need all these armed protectors.

 

Here some quotes for you:

"Thosewho would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin

A lesser crime of illegal weapons possession will not stop those who are willing to commit a high crime of murder.

I can only imagine:
"Gee, I dont care about conmittng murder. That's nothing. Illegal weapons possession? That's too much!"



Leftist pretend that guns make people want to kill each other.
As if you will be compelled to kill by merely owning a gun.
Guns aren't the problem. People are. And there are plenty ways to kill. Chemicals. Knives. Poison. Trucks. Cars. Especially cars. More people die to car accidents than die by any mass shooting. Why dont we relabel cars as "assault cars" because people use cars to assault other and ban them



You can't blame a tool. If tools are to blame, then blame pens for misspelling words as well.

Not least it would set a terrible precedent to infringe upon our other constitutional rights. If it's fine to violate the second amendment, why not our other constitutional right? We already see this with our freedom of speech as well as religious freedoms

 

Speculation by people who know something about what they're speculating.

Not exactly. Only 15 states allow teachers to carry weapons and many of those are just getting started with setting out processes for training teachers, districts setting out their rules, and so on.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-teachers-already-have-guns-1519347813

Non sequitur. You make snap judgments, dismissing potential complications to have things fit neatly into your world view, and then you lecture about accepting unpleasant truths. So much for self-awareness.

That may be objective reality, but we're faced with a lot of people being whipped up by the media across the political spectrum. I taught school, cared about my students, and would have been sad if one if them had been murdered. But that doesn't mean I should be stampeded into generalizing from personal concerns or experiences.

One of us backed up his comments with some evidence, one didn't. I'm the former, you're the latter.

 

How do you stop a criminal from not getting a gun?

 

"Florida Approves Bill Allowing Classroom Teachers To Be Armed"

I predict this will last until the first innocent child is accidentally killed by a teacher or a teacher is caught harassing\intimidating students with the gun

 

Restrict the availability