Teachers in Florida to be permitted to carry guns

steddyeddy · 03-05-2019 02:56PM

My career guidance counselor asked what I want to be after high school in America.

Apparently alive wasnt the answer he was looking for.

Grayson · 03-05-2019 03:02PM

whisky_galore wrote: »

It would be fine if they were restricted to flintlock muskets, the weapon they had in mind at the time.
They're still living in a wild west gun fantasy, an almost sexual fanatical attachment to guns hard to find anywhere else.

Not to mention all the gun nuts forget the phrase regulated militia.

If you look up the history of it, for most of the time the right to bear arms was never interpreted as the right of an individual to have the kind of weapons we see today. It was interpreted as the right for an organised militia to exist.

Grayson · 03-05-2019 03:03PM

declan2693 wrote: »

Ah yes and Obama did a too prevent anything

To be fair obama tried to change some of the laws. Admittedly the changes he tried to bring in were tiny and he still failed.

topmanamillion · 03-05-2019 03:04PM

One of the many flaws of arming teachers is they are teachers, the majority have no military training and most won't have shot at anything bigger than a tin can.

An armed teacher is more likely to hide under a table than rushing out into a corridor to confront a deranged gunman/gunmen.

The way they do it is not all teachers are armed.
And they don't advertise which ones are to provide those ones becoming a target.

steddyeddy · 03-05-2019 03:05PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

How shouldn't it?

Fairly simple logic here:

Student or someone comes into school armed with a gun or weapon with the intent of murdering people and the teacher shoots them before they cause any harm.

But it's the gun culture adding to the increased homicide rate. Making guns more acceptable rather than questioning the role of gun culture in mass shootings isn't the way to go.

Boom_Bap · 03-05-2019 03:07PM

topmanamillion wrote: »

One of the many flaws of arming teachers is they are teachers, the majority have no military training and most won't have shot at anything bigger than a tin can.

An armed teacher is more likely to hide under a table than rushing out into a corridor to confront a deranged gunman/gunmen.

The way they do it is not all teachers are armed.
And they don't advertise which ones are to provide those ones becoming a target.

I also think that teachers don't go in to the profession to murder a student.

EDIT: Murder may be a harsh work, shoot, I don't think they go in to the profession to shoot a student.

Neyite · 03-05-2019 03:09PM

FFS.

RIP to the inevitable black kid shot taking his calculator out of his backpack so.

mcmoustache · 03-05-2019 03:23PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Several comments I have to make here.

6) The bottom line is that there is no reason to believe that things can get any worse. There is already an armed individual actively and intentionally attempting to kill everyone he can find, and past evidence indicates that they are likely to find dozens. If the armed teacher responding goes wrong, the worst that happens is an innocent person dies. If there is no armed teacher, what’s the worst that happens? If there is one, what’s the best that happens?

Good, well-thought-out post there but I'm not so sure about things not getting worse. For example, how likely is it that a teacher shoots a student because they mistakenly thought that the student had a gun or because something else spooked them?

While school shootings are something of a pastime over there, they are rare events. Accidental shootings aren't too common either but numerous enough, all the same.

I would wonder if the lives saved would offset the additional numbers of people accidentally killed by teachers, either due to mistaken identity or carelessness.

Noveight · 03-05-2019 03:29PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

For example, how likely is it that a teacher shoots a student because they mistakenly thought that the student had a gun or because something else spooked them?

Seems to happen a bit with their cops. Taking this from the top of my heady but wasn't there an incident where a mentally disabled man carrying a toy car was shot or shot at?

The phrase "trigger-happy" seems apt at times.

TeaBagMania · 03-05-2019 03:31PM

wow, the responses from a non-gun culture country are comical

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

Deebles McBeebles · 03-05-2019 03:32PM

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wow, the responses from a non-gun culture country are comical

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

Speaking as a parent....

steddyeddy · 03-05-2019 03:32PM

Noveight wrote: »

Seems to happen a bit with their cops. Taking this from the top of my heady but wasn't there an incident where a mentally disabled man carrying a toy car was shot or shot at?

The phrase "trigger-happy" seems apt at times.

Indeed it is apt. My problem is the American reliance on guns as a solution for every problem. Cops use them in situations you describe when another solution would work and now teachers use them case of a mass shooting. It's normalising a weapon that America has a major problem with.

Candamir · 03-05-2019 03:33PM

A friend of mine lives in Texas. There was an incident about a month ago at her daughters middle school. Two girls (about 14 years old) got into a fight after school while waiting for the school bus. They stopped fighting, one girl went on her way. The school security guard approached the second girl, and she got lippy with him. He tasered her.
There was outrage among the school community.
The outrage was because somebody shared the video of the incident on social media. Nobody seemed to think there was anything amiss with a grown security guard tasering a 14 year old girl.

The culture over there is beyond help I think.

steddyeddy · 03-05-2019 03:33PM

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wow, the responses from a non-gun culture country are comical

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

I work in Colorado a lot of the time. Interestingly you seem to view the opinions of posters from a country without mass shootings as being inferior to one with a gun crime problem.

mcmoustache · 03-05-2019 03:34PM

Noveight wrote: »

Seems to happen a bit with their cops. Taking this from the top of my heady but wasn't there an incident where a mentally disabled man carrying a toy car was shot or shot at?

The phrase "trigger-happy" seems apt at times.

Or the australian rape victim who was shot by a cop, "fearing for his life" when she approached a patrol car.

mcmoustache · 03-05-2019 03:37PM

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wow, the responses from a non-gun culture country are comical

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

This non-gun culture country seems to have solved the problem of school shootings. How's the gun-fetish country doing?

Noveight · 03-05-2019 03:39PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

Or the australian rape victim who was shot by a cop, "fearing for his life" when she approached a patrol car.

Hadn't seen or heard of that story. An unthinkably needless, tragic and avoidable death.

Boom_Bap · 03-05-2019 03:40PM

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wow, the responses from a non-gun culture country are comical

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

Yeah I've used loads of guns. But that was on targets in a controlled environment and not a pupil in a chaotic environment.

alchemist33 · 03-05-2019 03:42PM

So you're a student with a grudge and a lot of anger and you want to shoot someone, but for some reason you can't get a gun. Now, praise be to the NRA, Mrs O'Reilly has one. Problem solved!

Noveight · 03-05-2019 03:45PM

Surely the opportunity for absolute carnage as a result of arming teachers in the US is much greater than the odds of some middle-aged John Rambo teacher taking down a school shooter?

Hector Savage · 03-05-2019 03:49PM

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Through his policies and actions all while lying through his teeth. Like any dictator.

Really?
I think the idea is as stupid as any sane person, but calling Trump a dictator ?
There is no way back from that, it's pure hyperbolic nonsense.

Dictator!!

This is why he was elected!

Manic Moran · 03-05-2019 09:14PM

jmayo wrote: »

And when this doesn't work will it be suggested that the kids can carry in school ?

You make it sound like there aren’t already 9 states where students can carry legally, or that it hasn’t been a thing since 2007. (Granted, since the normal age limits apply, these students are invariably in colleges)

Or that at the before Columbine, kids taking their rifles to school (obviously not concealed carry) to go plinking with friends after class wasn’t a thing.

The problem is not the guns.

Grayson wrote: »

Not to mention all the gun nuts forget the phrase regulated militia.

If you look up the history of it, for most of the time the right to bear arms was never interpreted as the right of an individual to have the kind of weapons we see today. It was interpreted as the right for an organised militia to exist.

Yes and no. Regulated today means “subject to regulation”. In the late 18th Century, it meant “working”. Regardless, the right to arms was considered so fundamental at the time, there was no particular thought given to the concept that the government might try to prohibit it. A lot of States didn’t think it was worth mentioning. Some did, though, see below.

Your second paragraph is patently wrong, and is a common result of people forgetting that there was a seismic shift in Constitutional law in the mid 19th century. The 2A was inserted to prohibit the federal government from preventing the States calling up their militias, it had no legal force on the individual because the concept of the Federal constitution applying to the individual or the State was not invented until Incorporation, in the late 1860s. What counted for individuals were State Constitutions and they often used different phrasing. Pennsylvania’s Constitutional right to arms pre-dates the Bill of Rights, and the 1790 version (the current one) states “The right of the citizens to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”. There isn’t much wiggle room in that, and nothing about militias, regulated or not. A bunch more States have similar phrasing in the pre-incorporation era, for example Mississippi (1817 Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State), that particular verbiage also shows up in a number of other States about the same time (eg CT 1818, AL 1819, KY 1789, MI 1835, OH 1802) and so on. It is instructive to look at what the State constitutions were saying at a time when the Federal constitution only limited federal law. In the 20th century, State constitutions have become even more explicit, Delaware, for example (1987 “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”).

The militias were folks who showed up with what they had, some of which were better suited to hunting than combat, so legislation at the end of the 18th century started mandating that when folks showed up, they had to have militarily useful weapons.

greencap · 04-05-2019 01:11AM

hmm yes, amendment.

from the verb 'amend'.

to make minor changes to (a text, piece of legislation, etc.) in order to make it fairer or more accurate, or to reflect changing circumstances.
"the rule was amended to apply only to non-members"
synonyms: revise, alter, change, modify, qualify, adapt, adjust;

whisky_galore · 04-05-2019 03:40AM

TeaBagMania wrote: »

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

Gun curious.
Does that turn you on? Speak guns n ammo to me.

Robert ninja · 04-05-2019 07:29AM

I wouldn't want maths teachers being required to carry lethal weapons but having an actual security system, armed or not, is definitely needed. We have varying degrees of security solutions for jewelry/tech stores, banks, ATMs, parks and parking locations but aren't protecting our children who are more important than any of that. Some colleges have security offices and a few security staff.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 04-05-2019 09:02AM

Robert ninja wrote: »

I wouldn't want maths teachers being required to carry lethal weapons but having an actual security system, armed or not, is definitely needed. We have varying degrees of security solutions for jewelry/tech stores, banks, ATMs, parks and parking locations but aren't protecting our children who are more important than any of that. Some colleges have security offices and a few security staff.

"Our" children? You in the US or elsewhere?

We (as most western societies outside of the US) don't need security systems because we don't put our kids in danger in the first place.

How many mass school shootings have there been IN the US, compared to OUTSIDE the US? And why?

evolving_doors · 04-05-2019 09:19AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

You make it sound like there aren’t already 9 states where students can carry legally, or that it hasn’t been a thing since 2007. (Granted, since the normal age limits apply, these students are invariably in colleges)

Or that at the before Columbine, kids taking their rifles to school (obviously not concealed carry) to go plinking with friends after class wasn’t a thing.

The problem is not the guns.

Yes and no. Regulated today means “subject to regulation”. In the late 18th Century, it meant “working”. Regardless, the right to arms was considered so fundamental at the time, there was no particular thought given to the concept that the government might try to prohibit it. A lot of States didn’t think it was worth mentioning. Some did, though, see below.

Your second paragraph is patently wrong, and is a common result of people forgetting that there was a seismic shift in Constitutional law in the mid 19th century. The 2A was inserted to prohibit the federal government from preventing the States calling up their militias, it had no legal force on the individual because the concept of the Federal constitution applying to the individual or the State was not invented until Incorporation, in the late 1860s. What counted for individuals were State Constitutions and they often used different phrasing. Pennsylvania’s Constitutional right to arms pre-dates the Bill of Rights, and the 1790 version (the current one) states “The right of the citizens to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”. There isn’t much wiggle room in that, and nothing about militias, regulated or not. A bunch more States have similar phrasing in the pre-incorporation era, for example Mississippi (1817 Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State), that particular verbiage also shows up in a number of other States about the same time (eg CT 1818, AL 1819, KY 1789, MI 1835, OH 1802) and so on. It is instructive to look at what the State constitutions were saying at a time when the Federal constitution only limited federal law. In the 20th century, State constitutions have become even more explicit, Delaware, for example (1987 “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”).

The militias were folks who showed up with what they had, some of which were better suited to hunting than combat, so legislation at the end of the 18th century started mandating that when folks showed up, they had to have militarily useful weapons.

That's so true. It's the bullets that kill.

evolving_doors · 04-05-2019 09:20AM

Robert ninja wrote: »

I wouldn't want maths teachers being required to carry lethal weapons but having an actual security system, armed or not, is definitely needed. We have varying degrees of security solutions for jewelry/tech stores, banks, ATMs, parks and parking locations but aren't protecting our children who are more important than any of that. Some colleges have security offices and a few security staff.

Never mind maths teachers, everyone knows home ec. teachers are the real psychos.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 04-05-2019 09:25AM

evolving_doors wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

You make it sound like there aren’t already 9 states where students can carry legally, or that it hasn’t been a thing since 2007. (Granted, since the normal age limits apply, these students are invariably in colleges)

Or that at the before Columbine, kids taking their rifles to school (obviously not concealed carry) to go plinking with friends after class wasn’t a thing.

The problem is not the guns.

Yes and no. Regulated today means “subject to regulation”. In the late 18th Century, it meant “working”. Regardless, the right to arms was considered so fundamental at the time, there was no particular thought given to the concept that the government might try to prohibit it. A lot of States didn’t think it was worth mentioning. Some did, though, see below.

Your second paragraph is patently wrong, and is a common result of people forgetting that there was a seismic shift in Constitutional law in the mid 19th century. The 2A was inserted to prohibit the federal government from preventing the States calling up their militias, it had no legal force on the individual because the concept of the Federal constitution applying to the individual or the State was not invented until Incorporation, in the late 1860s. What counted for individuals were State Constitutions and they often used different phrasing. Pennsylvania’s Constitutional right to arms pre-dates the Bill of Rights, and the 1790 version (the current one) states “The right of the citizens to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”. There isn’t much wiggle room in that, and nothing about militias, regulated or not. A bunch more States have similar phrasing in the pre-incorporation era, for example Mississippi (1817 Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State), that particular verbiage also shows up in a number of other States about the same time (eg CT 1818, AL 1819, KY 1789, MI 1835, OH 1802) and so on. It is instructive to look at what the State constitutions were saying at a time when the Federal constitution only limited federal law. In the 20th century, State constitutions have become even more explicit, Delaware, for example (1987 “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”).

The militias were folks who showed up with what they had, some of which were better suited to hunting than combat, so legislation at the end of the 18th century started mandating that when folks showed up, they had to have militarily useful weapons.

That's so true. It's the bullets that kill.

Was it Chris Rock who said, "no problem with guns - but it so that bullets cost $5,000 each. Then you'll see people being more careful about pulling the trigger..."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 04-05-2019 09:33AM

evolving_doors wrote: »

Never mind maths teachers, everyone knows home ec. teachers are the real psychos.

Radical Irish activist in my case.

Teachers in Florida to be permitted to carry guns

Comments