Florida teachers to be armed with guns despite anger from Parkland shooting survivors

Activists say gun law change will put more lives in danger

A year ago, in the wake of horrific tragedy, Florida lawmakers reached a compromise that had once seemed politically impossible: they passed an array of gun restrictions after a young man killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

Part of that compromise allowed certain school employees, but not classroom teachers, to carry firearms on campus.

Then, late last year, a state commission investigating the Parkland shooting came to a conclusion that made even some of its members uncomfortable: Some of the deaths at Stoneman Douglas High might have been prevented if faculty inside the building had been armed.

Based on that conclusion, state lawmakers are now poised to lift Florida’s ban on arming classroom teachers, allowing them to receive the same voluntary training as other staff to carry weapons in school. On Tuesday, the state Senate approved the change, which now heads to the more conservative state House for what is expected to be final passage.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-gun-control-teachers-parkland-shooting-school-firearms-a8883791.html

Florida...

The USA's insane asylum..

They should build Trump's border fence around that state, and leave the inmates in charge.

I have a question...again, which will make me unpopular.  Why the impulse to arm the teachers, when the student fit the equation that 'good guys' cancel out 'bad guys'?  They should arm certain students, and leave the teachers alone.

This is particularly so when, in six months, thousands of those 18-year old’s will be in the armed services, handling weapons, including AR-15's for real.  If 18-year old's are mature enough to defend our country, they are certainly able enough to defend a school.

Teachers have selected a path that leans toward growth and nurturing, hardly good killer instincts.  They are precisely the personality you don't want in a fire fight.  Arm the students…it just makes sense.

Original Quill wrote:I have a question...again, which will make me unpopular.  Why the impulse to arm the teachers, when the student fit the equation that 'good guys' cancel out 'bad guys'?  They should arm certain students, and leave the teachers alone.

This is particularly so when, in six months, thousands of 18-year old’s will be in the armed services, handling weapons, including AR-15's for real.  If 18-year old's are mature enough to defend our country, they are certainly able enough to defend a school.

Teachers have selected a path that leans toward growth and nurturing, hardly good killer instincts.  They are precisely the personality you don't want in a fire fight.  Arm the students…it just makes sense.

Are you really suggesting army training is the same as students in a school, in regards to weapons?

Seriously?

Neither the teachers or the students should be armed. This is just a recipe for disaster

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I have a question...again, which will make me unpopular.  Why the impulse to arm the teachers, when the student fit the equation that 'good guys' cancel out 'bad guys'?  They should arm certain students, and leave the teachers alone.

This is particularly so when, in six months, thousands of 18-year old’s will be in the armed services, handling weapons, including AR-15's for real.  If 18-year old's are mature enough to defend our country, they are certainly able enough to defend a school.

Teachers have selected a path that leans toward growth and nurturing, hardly good killer instincts.  They are precisely the personality you don't want in a fire fight.  Arm the students…it just makes sense.

Are you really suggesting army training is the same as students in a school, in regards to weapons?

Seriously?

Neither the teachers or the students should be armed. This is just a recipe for disaster

The suggestion is every bit as good as arming teachers. As far as 'raw material' goes, the kids are a better population to arm than the teachers. And, in a couple of months they will be doing it for real anyway. It's not as if age is holding them back.

Of course, the idea of placing guns in schools in any capacity is absurd on any grounds, and that's my basic premise. But, narrowing the question to 'who should be armed', I ask this question: why just teachers?

Teachers are chosen because they are traditional authority figures; but is that really smart? Some of the students may have a lot better aptitude for a fire fight than teachers.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Are you really suggesting army training is the same as students in a school, in regards to weapons?

Seriously?

Neither the teachers or the students should be armed. This is just a recipe for disaster

The suggestion is every bit as good as arming teachers.  As far as 'raw material' goes, the kids are a better population to arm than the teachers.  And, in a couple of months they will be doing it for real anyway.  It's not as if age is holding them back.

Of course, the idea of placing guns in schools in any capacity is absurd on any grounds, and that's my basic premise.  But, narrowing the question to 'who should be armed', I ask this question: why just teachers?

Teachers are chosen because they are traditional authority figures; but is that really smart?  Some of the students may have a lot better aptitude for a fire fight than teachers.

Considering I am against arming the teachers, your point makes as little sense in regards to arming the students

For a start, students are generally under 18 and most people who join the army are over 18

They are also taught discipline in the army and how to use weapons, in defense of others

Students would have no such training and any person under 25 is more prone to emotional controls of their actions. Making for irrational decisions.

So to your view and the view to arm teachers, I find complete insanity

Laters

This is a step in the right direction, next time the Democrats stage a false flag operation to turn public opinion against guns in an attempt to disarm the population - a good guy with a gun is gonna stop the killing.

Long overdue

smelly-bandit wrote:This is a step in the right direction, next time the Democrats stage a false flag operation to turn public opinion against guns in an attempt to disarm the population - a good guy with a gun is gonna stop the killing.

Long overdue

What false flag would that be?

You alt right fanatics are really nothing more than unhinged paranoid wackadoodles

Wow. Trained adults being armed.

Scary.

Maddog wrote:Wow. Trained adults being armed.

Scary.  

Citizens being armed, even scarier.

How many Uk schools, have armed teachers or armed guards?

Go figure

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Are you really suggesting army training is the same as students in a school, in regards to weapons?

Seriously?

Neither the teachers or the students should be armed. This is just a recipe for disaster

The suggestion is every bit as good as arming teachers.  As far as 'raw material' goes, the kids are a better population to arm than the teachers.  And, in a couple of months they will be doing it for real anyway.  It's not as if age is holding them back.

Of course, the idea of placing guns in schools in any capacity is absurd on any grounds, and that's my basic premise.  But, narrowing the question to 'who should be armed', I ask this question: why just teachers?

Teachers are chosen because they are traditional authority figures; but is that really smart?  Some of the students may have a lot better aptitude for a fire fight than teachers.

There are plenty of schools where students can carry as long as they are old enough. Since you have to be 21 to carry handguns in most places, those schools are called colleges.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:Wow. Trained adults being armed.

Scary.  

Citizens being armed, even scarier.

How many Uk schools, have armed teachers or armed guards?

Go figure

How many women in the UK have shot a rapist.

Go figure?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Citizens being armed, even scarier.

How many Uk schools, have armed teachers or armed guards?

Go figure

How many women in the UK have shot a rapist.  

Go figure?

Whataboutism

Again how many schools in the Uk have armed teachers and armed guards?

How many have been raped in school?

How many women armed, have failed to stop rapists?

Does carrying a gun, stop someone being raped?

The answer is emphatically no

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The suggestion is every bit as good as arming teachers.  As far as 'raw material' goes, the kids are a better population to arm than the teachers.  And, in a couple of months they will be doing it for real anyway.  It's not as if age is holding them back.

Of course, the idea of placing guns in schools in any capacity is absurd on any grounds, and that's my basic premise.  But, narrowing the question to 'who should be armed', I ask this question: why just teachers?

Teachers are chosen because they are traditional authority figures; but is that really smart?  Some of the students may have a lot better aptitude for a fire fight than teachers.

Considering I am against arming the teachers, your point makes as little sense in regards to arming the students

What I'm interested in is: why?  What are reasons for arming teachers, and not senior high students?  Remove passions from the argument.  What difference does it make?

phil wrote:For a start, students are generally under 18 and most people who join the army are over 18

What difference does a few weeks or months make?

phil wrote:They are also taught discipline in the army and how to use weapons, in defense of others

And that is true.  But the question is, why teachers and not students?  My point is that age alone does not justify the difference.  Many teachers don't have Army training; so if a teacher is capable of learning, surely the 18-year old student is capable of learning.  Military records prove it.

phil wrote:Students would have no such training and any person under 25 is more prone to emotional controls of their actions. Making for irrational decisions.

What guarantee is there that teachers will have the training?  And, if there is a program to train them, an 18-year old can go through the same training.  Proof is in the fact that many of them will go into the Army within weeks of graduation.

phil wrote:So to your view and the view to arm teachers, I find complete insanity

For the record, my personal view and those of those who think teachers should be armed, are diametrically the opposite.  I oppose any guns, whether in schools, churches or fire stations.  Proponents are proposing teachers should be armed.

But you still don't answer the question: why teachers, and not students?  I'm not picking on you, phil.  Anyone can answer: what is the 3 - 4 years difference between teachers and kids, that permits teachers be armed but not students?

If I were confronting the NRA, I would also ask: wouldn't more guns be the answer?

Maddog wrote:Wow. Trained adults being armed.

Scary.  

its not really neccassary though shrieking "this is a gun free zone" as your body is used as a bullet catcher is much more effective way of preventing mass shootings.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Citizens being armed, even scarier.

How many Uk schools, have armed teachers or armed guards?

Go figure

How many women in the UK have shot a rapist.  

Go figure?

we dont do guns in the uk

its all about the knives bruv

and the acid

much better than guns

smelly-bandit wrote:

Maddog wrote:Wow. Trained adults being armed.

Scary.  

its not really neccassary though shrieking "this is a gun free zone" as your body is used as a bullet catcher is much more effective way of preventing mass shootings.

We have plenty of gun free zone schools and no mass school shootings on a regular bases like the US

Yet you want to increase the risk, by having access to more guns

The insanity of the alt right is hilarious to read

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The suggestion is every bit as good as arming teachers.  As far as 'raw material' goes, the kids are a better population to arm than the teachers.  And, in a couple of months they will be doing it for real anyway.  It's not as if age is holding them back.

Of course, the idea of placing guns in schools in any capacity is absurd on any grounds, and that's my basic premise.  But, narrowing the question to 'who should be armed', I ask this question: why just teachers?

Teachers are chosen because they are traditional authority figures; but is that really smart?  Some of the students may have a lot better aptitude for a fire fight than teachers.

There are plenty of schools where students can carry as long as they are old enough.  Since you have to be 21 to carry handguns in most places, those schools are called colleges.  

Kaitlin Bennett, she open carries on campus and id trust her to protect me over and snwoflake pussyhat beta male anti gun liberal

this is the fucking stupidity of people who dont know anything about guns and yet seem to have all the opinions about guns

watch it, its cringeworthy , its didge, its quill, its ben all wrapped up in one

smelly-bandit wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are plenty of schools where students can carry as long as they are old enough.  Since you have to be 21 to carry handguns in most places, those schools are called colleges.  

Kaitlin Bennett, she open carries on campus and id trust her to protect me over and snwoflake pussyhat beta male anti gun liberal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHLupBh-7oQ

Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself.

The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people. In 2016, the country had 47 homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero.

The National Rifle Association often points to Switzerland to argue that more rules on gun ownership aren't necessary. In 2016, the NRA said on its blog that the European country had one of the lowest murder rates in the world while still having millions of privately owned guns and a few hunting weapons that don't even require a permit.

But the Swiss have some specific rules and regulations for gun use.

Business Insider took a look at the country's past with guns to see why it has lower rates of gun violence than the US.

Switzerland is obsessed with getting shooting right. Every year, it holds a shooting contest for kids aged 13 to 17.

Zurich's Knabenschiessen is a traditional annual festival that dates back to the 1600s.

Though the word roughly translates to "boys shooting" and the competition used to be only boys, teenage girls have been allowed in since 1991.

Kids in the country flock to the competition every September to compete in target shooting using Swiss army service rifles. They're proud to show off how well they can shoot.

Accuracy is prized above all else, and a Schutzenkonig — a king or queen of marksmen — is crowned.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerland-high-rates-gun-ownership-why-doesnt-no-mass-shootings-a8230606.html

but apparently more guns = more shootings ..........................debunked

smelly-bandit wrote:but apparently more guns = more shootings ..........................debunked

So let me get this straight

In Switzerland, they have 2 million privately owned guns

Which is one in four people owning a gun

In the US its 265 million owning a gun

With a population of 330 million

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/

There are more guns in the US than people

The US has some of the highest gun crimes in the world

So clearly more guns, means more shootings

I love it when an imbicille never checks the facts

i bet all the anti gun nuts round here think the AR in AR15 stands "assault rifle"

*chortle* that gets me every time

smelly-bandit wrote:i bet all the anti gun nuts round here think the AR in AR15 stands  "assault rifle"

*chortle* that gets me every time

I am not even anti-gun, why would I be, when i support our armed forces

I am even pro hunting

I am against civillians walking around with a weapon designed to kill multiple people from a distance

Its a no brainer to keep these out of the hands of people in public

Even this Gun owner thinks Kaitlin Bennett is a complete dickhead 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98nFKcHH83o

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The suggestion is every bit as good as arming teachers.  As far as 'raw material' goes, the kids are a better population to arm than the teachers.  And, in a couple of months they will be doing it for real anyway.  It's not as if age is holding them back.

Of course, the idea of placing guns in schools in any capacity is absurd on any grounds, and that's my basic premise.  But, narrowing the question to 'who should be armed', I ask this question: why just teachers?

Teachers are chosen because they are traditional authority figures; but is that really smart?  Some of the students may have a lot better aptitude for a fire fight than teachers.

There are plenty of schools where students can carry as long as they are old enough.  Since you have to be 21 to carry handguns in most places, those schools are called colleges.  

If a state can require a teacher to carry a gun, it can change the laws to allow senior high students to carry guns.  I'm looking for a realistic answer, not mere avoidance.

Why is all right to arm teachers, and not senior students?  The answer appears to be: teachers are authority figures.  My answer is, a gun makes anybody an authority figure!

If it's between 'good guys' and 'bad guys', as the NRA argues, why not increase the number of 'good guys' by arming students?

i like the louder with crowder youtube experiment, its shows just how ignorant people are

they wanna ban the AR becasue it "looks scary and tactical" but think the 5.56 round it fires is acceptable, and then say that the .308/.338 (which ever one it is on the table) is ok but the round that it fires should be banned

such stupidity

its nothing but emotion gun control

hands up everyone who can tell me the diffence between these two rifles??



and

https://www.thedailybeast.com/current-state-of-the-nra-according-to-its-own-members-theyre-fcked?ref=home

smelly-bandit wrote:i like the louder with crowder youtube experiment, its shows just how ignorant people are

they wanna ban the AR becasue it "looks scary and tactical" but think the 5.56 round it fires is acceptable, and then say that the .308/.338 (which ever one it is on the table) is ok but the round that it fires should be banned

such stupidity

its nothing but emotion gun control

I agree. The Armalite weapon is no worse than any projectile weapon. The difference is totally cosmetic, once the mechanism has been reduced to semi-automatic.

But that doesn't mean it's an emotional argument. After all, guns do kill. The answer seems to ban all projectile weapons, and then make exceptions for hunters and people who have undergone severe training courses, and have a purpose.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:i like the louder with crowder youtube experiment, its shows just how ignorant people are

they wanna ban the AR becasue it "looks scary and tactical" but think the 5.56 round it fires is acceptable, and then say that the .308/.338 (which ever one it is on the table) is ok but the round that it fires should be banned

such stupidity

its nothing but emotion gun control

I agree.  The Armalite weapon is no worse than any projectile weapon.  The difference is totally cosmetic, once the mechanism has been reduced to semi-automatic.

But that doesn't mean it's an emotional argument.  After all, guns do kill.  The answer seems to ban all projectile weapons, and then make exceptions for hunters and people who have undergone severe training courses, and have a purpose.

  
+1

Spot on

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:i like the louder with crowder youtube experiment, its shows just how ignorant people are

they wanna ban the AR becasue it "looks scary and tactical" but think the 5.56 round it fires is acceptable, and then say that the .308/.338 (which ever one it is on the table) is ok but the round that it fires should be banned

such stupidity

its nothing but emotion gun control

I agree.  The Armalite weapon is no worse than any projectile weapon.  The difference is totally cosmetic, once the mechanism has been reduced to semi-automatic.

But that doesn't mean it's an emotional argument.  After all, guns do kill.  The answer seems to ban all projectile weapons, and then make exceptions for hunters and people who have undergone severe training courses, and have a purpose.

It is emotional gun control

Guns don't kill

People kill people, so what happens when the hunter goes rouge?? What happens when the cop gets stiffed by his wife and goes out locked and loaded??

No matter how tough the criteria, peopels situations change and a person who passes your test today could snap 5 years later

London Bridge attack was one man with a van, the German Christmas Market attack, again one man with a van same as France.

So by your logic we should ban all vehicle except for specially vetted people.

Your argument is emotional since it plays the numbers game, ie since vehicle as a weapon attacks are low its not feasible to ban vehicles but gun crime in America is sky high (especially in sanctuary cities)so therefore its logical to ban guns.

Therefore the logic is : if thousands of people were killed by mad bastards using vehicles instead of gun then vehicles should be banned and guns would be ok.

You're emotional and trying to solve the problem by removing the tools, that won't solve the problem it will simply forces those who want to kill, to find other tools

Remember 911??thousands dead and not a single shot fired

Imagine how many would have died if the London Bridge Terrorists had of had guns

Hundreds more would have easily died

As guns can kill from a distance

Guns are designed for one purpose

To kill

Hence restricting guns makes perfect sense

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:
Citizens being armed, even scarier.

How many Uk schools, have armed teachers or armed guards?

Go figure

How many women in the UK have shot a rapist.  

Go figure?

How many women in the USA have shot a rapist ?

How many women in the USA have shot innocent people because they imagined a rapist or stalker was out and about  ?

How many women in the USA have shot themselves in the foot, leg or side when getting their gun to shoot at some noise or shadow that scared them  ?

Go figure, figure, and figure some more...

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
I agree.  The Armalite weapon is no worse than any projectile weapon.  The difference is totally cosmetic, once the mechanism has been reduced to semi-automatic.

But that doesn't mean it's an emotional argument.  After all, guns do kill.  The answer seems to ban all projectile weapons, and then make exceptions for hunters and people who have undergone severe training courses, and have a purpose.

It is emotional gun control

Guns don't kill

People kill people,  so what happens when the hunter goes rouge??  What happens when the cop gets stiffed by his wife and goes out locked and loaded??

No matter how tough the criteria, peopels situations change and a person who passes your test today could snap 5 years later

.............
...........
........

If a hunter went for rouge instead of cammo' paint,  you should seriously be questioning his motives !!!

smelly-bandit wrote:i bet all the anti gun nuts round here think the AR in AR15 stands  "assault rifle"

*chortle* that gets me every time

I haven't seen any of your imagined "anti gun nuts" on this thread, as yet.

Simply two anti-social pro-gun-freedoms nutbags, with twice as many rational thinkers lined up against their selfish and twisted desires to some day owning their own 'weapons of mass destruction'..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:


It is emotional gun control

Guns don't kill

People kill people,  so what happens when the hunter goes rouge??  What happens when the cop gets stiffed by his wife and goes out locked and loaded??

No matter how tough the criteria, peopels situations change and a person who passes your test today could snap 5 years later

.............
...........
........

If a hunter went for rouge instead of cammo' paint,  you should seriously be questioning his motives !!!

Camouflage only works against the human eye which is why the military use camouflage, its also the reason hunters were hi vis vests to alert other hunters, so long as they are skillful it makes no difference what they wear.

Animals tend to be alerted by sound scent and movement

Next time you try to be clever, try to be a little bit clever

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


If a hunter went for rouge instead of cammo' paint,  you should seriously be questioning his motives !!!

Camouflage only works against the human eye which is why the military use camouflage, its also the reason hunters were hi vis vests to alert other hunters, so long as they are skillful it makes no difference what they wear.

Animals tend to be alerted by sound scent and movement

Next time you try to be clever, try to be a little bit clever

So then, young komrad Smellykins...

Your excuse for wearing rouge is to alert other hunters..

Also gives them something to laugh at, as well.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How many women in the UK have shot a rapist.  

Go figure?

Whataboutism

Again how many schools in the Uk have armed teachers and armed guards?

How many have been raped in school?

How many women armed, have failed to stop rapists?

Does carrying a gun, stop someone being raped?

The answer is emphatically no

It's hardly whataboutism.

A firearm is a tool that equalizes people. It often gives a potential victim an advantage over their attacker.

Do you realize how many people, engaged in crime, are stopped by armed citizens in the US?

You act like the majority of gun uses are kids being killed in schools.

And as always, I support your right to never touch a firearm. But I'm not into imposing my beliefs on others.

smelly-bandit wrote:hands up everyone who can tell me the diffence between these two rifles??



and

The one on the bottom is very scary. Black gun bad. Very bad.

Of course the actualy mechanics of the weapon are irrelevant. What's important is my feelings. And I feel the bottom one is scary.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Whataboutism

Again how many schools in the Uk have armed teachers and armed guards?

How many have been raped in school?

How many women armed, have failed to stop rapists?

Does carrying a gun, stop someone being raped?

The answer is emphatically no

It's hardly whataboutism.

A firearm is a tool that equalizes people. It often gives a potential victim an advantage over their attacker.  

Do you realize how many people, engaged in crime, are stopped by armed citizens in the US?

You act like the majority of gun uses are kids being killed in schools.  

And as always, I support your right to never touch a firearm.  But I'm not into imposing my beliefs on others.  

How is rape connected to arming teachers?

Hence whataboutism

So how many women in the us armed forces are sexually assualted and raped each year?

In 2017 6,679 sexual assualt charges were made. The previous year 6,172

Many of these women are armed

How did being armed stop the sexual assualt and rapes?

See how your argument is sinking faster than the Hood?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's hardly whataboutism.

A firearm is a tool that equalizes people. It often gives a potential victim an advantage over their attacker.  

Do you realize how many people, engaged in crime, are stopped by armed citizens in the US?

You act like the majority of gun uses are kids being killed in schools.  

And as always, I support your right to never touch a firearm.  But I'm not into imposing my beliefs on others.  

How is rape connected to arming teachers?

Hence whataboutism

So how many women in the us armed forces are sexually assualted and raped each year?

In 2017 6,679 sexual assualt charges were made. The previous year 6,172

Many of these women are armed

How did being armed stop the sexual assualt and rapes?

See how your argument is sinking faster than the Hood?

Soldiers are not armed while not in a combat zone.

That's why the Ft Hood shooter was so effective. He had a higher chance if meeting armed resistance off the base.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

How is rape connected to arming teachers?

Hence whataboutism

So how many women in the us armed forces are sexually assualted and raped each year?

In 2017 6,679 sexual assualt charges were made. The previous year 6,172

Many of these women are armed

How did being armed stop the sexual assualt and rapes?

See how your argument is sinking faster than the Hood?

Soldiers are not armed while not in a combat zone.  

That's why the Ft Hood shooter was so effective. He had a higher chance if meeting armed resistance off the base.  

Really, they dont train with guns then?

Or own guns when off duty?

You sure you want to claim that as true?

Anyway let me dumb this down for you

Is the likelyhood of people getting shot by accident, through panic, anger etc, going to increase the more people have guns or the less people have guns?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Soldiers are not armed while not in a combat zone.  

That's why the Ft Hood shooter was so effective. He had a higher chance if meeting armed resistance off the base.  

Really, they dont train with guns then?

Or own guns when off duty?

You sure you want to claim that as true?

Anyway let me dumb this down for you

Is the likelyhood of people getting shot by accident, through panic, anger etc, going to increase the more people have guns or the less people have guns?

Yes they train with weapons.

Unless they have Concealed Carry permit they can't carry concealed. They can't open carry at all.

You are far likely to meet an armed response from people shopping at Wal-Mart than from soldiers on a military base.

I don't need anything dumbed down either.

Have nice day sweetheart.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Really, they dont train with guns then?

Or own guns when off duty?

You sure you want to claim that as true?

Anyway let me dumb this down for you

Is the likelyhood of people getting shot by accident, through panic, anger etc, going to increase the more people have guns or the less people have guns?

Yes they train with weapons.

Unless they have  Concealed Carry permit they can't carry concealed. They can't open carry at all.

You are far likely to meet an armed response from people shopping at Wal-Mart than from soldiers on a military base.  

I don't need anything dumbed down either.  

Have nice day sweetheart.  

They are going to have guns on their property are they not and many are sexually assualted in their homes as well

Opps

Well I knew you would run away from answering as the answer is very simple

More guns, means more people getting shot, which is the case in the US

Like I say, i dont mind people owming guns for hunting but with strict licience laws


Anyway, here is the real kicker for you

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

This evidence has been slow to accumulate because of restrictions placed by Congress on one of the country's biggest injury research funders, the CDC. Since the mid-1990s the agency has been effectively blocked from supporting gun violence research. And the NRA and many gun owners have emphasized a small handful of studies that point the other way.







 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Its obvious if you do basic maths to understand this, but hey, for some reason. Many Yanks simple cannot grasp this

Russe wrote:Guns don't kill

Of course they do. That's a silly, careless statement. What you mean to say is that the people who control the guns provide the intention to kill.

This ignores the thousands of accidental shootings that take place every year in the US. You carelessly leave a gun unattended on a table, and your 3-year old daughter picks it up out of curiosity and shoots herself.

By way of analogy, automobiles driving the wrong way on a one-way street don't kill, the drivers do. It's the same 'detached' argument. But we have laws against driving the wrong way on a one-way street. We should have laws against irresponsible gun ownership.

yes quill, but......darwin at work??? I mean what kind of stupid, brain dead idiot LEAVES A LOADED WEAPON unattended, or come to that ANY firearm????

ffs peoples stupidity IS NOT reason to prevent others from owning something. this kind of attitude is why so many good useful medical items and materials are virtual unobtainium in britain for a start....(cos someone might misuse them and injure themselves) its why DIY is now becoming regulated out of use, its why ...well the list grows weekly

Victorismyhero wrote:yes quill, but......darwin at work???  I mean what kind of stupid, brain dead idiot LEAVES A LOADED WEAPON unattended, or come to that ANY firearm????

ffs peoples stupidity IS NOT reason to prevent others from owning something. this kind of attitude is why so many good useful medical items and materials are virtual unobtainium in britain for a start....(cos someone might misuse them and injure themselves) its why DIY is now becoming regulated out of use, its why ...well the list grows weekly

This is very true, except of course when it comes to the US and this is very important Victor

In 2016, 3,143 children died due to firearms. Of these 35% (1,100) used guns to commit suicide and 4% (125) died from accidents

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/guns-kill-twice-many-kids-cancer-does-new-study-shows-n950091

This does not even include the numbers of injuries from guns, which is normally 3-4 times the number of deaths

That is just way to high a number mate of gun related deaths/injuries and is the second leading cause of death in children in the US

So there is clearly an ongoing problem year to year with the number of injuries and deathss to children through guns. All of which i put down to many parents being irresposnible with their guns within their households. Hence why the US requires stricter gun laws.

Look, I can understand the argument of guns within a household, but again they should be out of reach of children and this is clearly not happenning in too high a number of cases.

Nobody should be allowed to carry guns in public. People should only be allowed a gun, based on strict gun laws and through aspects like hunting

Its odd when smelly keeps using Switzerland as his argument. Yet they have many different stricter laws to the US and nobody is allowed to carry in that country. They do have the highest gun deaths in Europe.

https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

Victorismyhero wrote:yes quill, but......darwin at work???  I mean what kind of stupid, brain dead idiot LEAVES A LOADED WEAPON unattended, or come to that ANY firearm????

You restrict them to protect the rest of us.  When you have no laws restricting purchasing or possession of firearms, you are making a statement that you invite the stupid in along with the responsible.

Victor wrote:ffs peoples stupidity IS NOT reason to prevent others from owning something. this kind of attitude is why so many good useful medical items and materials are virtual unobtainium in britain for a start....(cos someone might misuse them and injure themselves) its why DIY is now becoming regulated out of use, its why ...well the list grows weekly

Perhaps, but it is reason to sort the stupid from the responsible.  You are making the same old RW argument: that all regulation is bad.  But regulations are essentially public protections aimed at making the public domain safer.  All laws are public protection of some sort.  Would you like to do away with criminal law, and permit murder and larceny?  In civil law, we have stop lights at intersections to sort traffic don't we?  What is wrong with organizing things to sort out the irresponsible, untrained and ignorant, and keep them away from guns?