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

First topic message reminder :

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

This is one of the most stupid ideas yet.

How long till a teacher gets pissed off with a student and cracks? How long till a disgruntled student overpowers an armed teacher and kills them and other students?

But...Florida.

Original Quill wrote:

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.

its emotional gun control

there is no such thing as an "accidental shooting" in civillian life, accidental shootings only happen in military theatres and those are called blue-on-blue or freindly fire incidents and even those are deliberate acts on the wrong target.

a gun doesnt accidentally go off, all firearms have inbuilt saftey features and modern wepaons have multiple, the glock has something like 3 safeties that all need to be engaged before it fires. a gun being fired requires a deliberate act of loading cocking and pulling the trigger they dont just fire themseleves willy nilly.

and whats an "irresponsible gun owner"?? who decides that??? you need to be careful because the 2nd amendment is as valid and important as the first and the rest, just because YOU dont like guns doenst mean you get to remove the rights of the millions of gun owners

what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" dont you understand??

this is the rights that YOUR constitution gives its citizens, if you want to start tampering with it then how long till they remove something you do care about?? like free speech??

phildidge wrote:

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

For smelly

phildidge wrote:

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

Love for smelly to explain how he thinks the above number of deaths/injuries are okay?

Original Quill wrote:

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?

and what system would you propose to do this sorting??

how do you ensure that a responsible gun onwer today doesnt become and threat tomorrow???

in the forces, everytime we get a higher up come down to speak to us we always get told the same thing - dont say "this is shit"

say "this is shit because....................."

all youre doing is saying "this is shit" and expecting someone else to come up with an idea to make it better

thats why its emotional gun control

Russe wrote:ts emotional gun control

And how do you feel about robbery? After all, the lord helps those who help themselves.

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

You also have a government registry of everyone who owns a gun, the guns must be locked up (by law) and owners must not only get ammo from government depots, they must account for every last bullet fired.

So there's no comparison to America. In Texas, I bought two guns with cash from private individuals and that was legal.

Also, I hope the teachers will be wearing safety vests at all times; otherwise next time there's a school shooting, teachers will likely be shot by police.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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.



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?

and what system would you propose to do this sorting??

The same as getting a driver's license.  Testing on Motor Vehicle Code, and then an outdoor testing.

Russe wrote:how do you ensure that a responsible gun onwer today doesnt become and threat tomorrow???

Perhaps testing every three years, as they do with motor vehicles.

Russe wrote:all youre doing is saying "this is shit" and expecting someone else to come up with an idea to make it better

The idea is right there for the taking.  Use the Department of Motor Vehicle model, hire some experts, give classes, test, and retest, and issue citations for those who don't follow the rules.  Then insist that firearms be used only for hunting or target shooting...and not be carried around indiscriminately.

There are plenty of solid proposals for sensible gun control in the U.S. -- polling has found that background checks with no exceptions, limiting the amount of ammo that can be loaded into a gun at one time and banning those convicted of violent crimes from gun ownership are very popular proposals even in very conservative regions.

Get rid of guns. End of.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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.

its emotional gun control

there is no such thing as an "accidental shooting" in civillian life, accidental shootings only happen in military theatres and those are called blue-on-blue or freindly fire incidents and even those are deliberate acts on the wrong target.

a gun doesnt accidentally go off, all firearms have inbuilt saftey features and modern wepaons have multiple, the glock has something like 3 safeties that all need to be engaged before it fires. a gun being fired requires a deliberate act of loading cocking and pulling the trigger they dont just fire themseleves willy nilly.

and whats an "irresponsible gun owner"?? who decides that??? you need to be careful because the 2nd amendment is as valid and important as the first and the rest, just because YOU dont like guns doenst mean you get to remove the rights of the millions of gun owners

what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" dont you understand??

this is the rights that YOUR constitution gives its citizens, if you want to start tampering with it then how long till they remove something you do care about?? like free speech??

Ha, neither my Sig nor my Rock Island Armory .45 automatics had any safety feature whatsoever other than, don't rack in a round until you're ready to shoot something.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

and what system would you propose to do this sorting??

The same as getting a driver's license.  Testing on Motor Vehicle Code, and then an outdoor testing.

Russe wrote:how do you ensure that a responsible gun onwer today doesnt become and threat tomorrow???

Perhaps testing every three years, as they do with motor vehicles.

Russe wrote:all youre doing is saying "this is shit" and expecting someone else to come up with an idea to make it better

The idea is right there for the taking.  Use the Department of Motor Vehicle model, hire some experts, give classes, test, and retest, and issue citations for those who don't follow the rules.  Then insist that firearms be used only for hunting or target shooting...and not be carried around indiscriminately.

And you started off so well

I could happily support a vetting system that includes people having to do training on their chosen firearm before they receive it, a good idea., it's gives the owner the skills to use it proficiently and everyone else the confidence that the owner knows how to use it.

Its satisfies the control mob whilst not denying citizens access to their firearms.

Unfortunately you go back to your anti gun stance at the end by trying to control where and how guns are to be used.

Let me be brutally honest with you Quill, you will NEVER achieve the kind of gun control you want, you will start a civil war and destory your country before you take peoples guns away

The second problem is the "shall not be infringed" but will not change, if you try, see above reference civil war.

The reason it won't change is the "give them an inch and they will take a mile" principle, once you gun control advocates get a small compromise you won't stop there, your ideas won't stop the shootings and all you will do is call for more control

Didn't know you were so adept at predicting the future, smelly!

eddie wrote:Get rid of guns. End of.

And how will that be achieved??

Russe wrote:Let me be brutally honest with you Quill, you will NEVER achieve the kind of gun control you want, you will start a civil war and destory your country before you take peoples guns away

The second problem is the "shall not be infringed" but will not change, if you try, see above reference civil war.

I think in the wake of a massive Trump defeat, there will be enough momentum to carry several issues, including gun control. People are tired of their children being gunned down, and having politicians respond with 'condolences' and 'prayers', but no action.

As for the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court has never said that regulation of guns is impermissible.  The case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

The Heller decision involved an outright ban on handguns.  A more limited version, requiring shooting enthusiasts to have regulations, and be in possession of firearms only when pursuing their purpose, would seem quite reasonable.

Original Quill wrote:

Russe wrote:Let me be brutally honest with you Quill, you will NEVER achieve the kind of gun control you want, you will start a civil war and destory your country before you take peoples guns away

I think in the wake of a massive Trump defeat, there will be enough momentum to carry several issues, including gun control.

As for the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court has never said that regulation of guns is impermissible.  The case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

The Heller decision involved an outright ban on handguns.  A more limited version, requiring shooting enthusiasts to have regulations, and be in possession of firearms only when pursuing their purpose, would seem quite reasonable.

And you were doing so well Quill

Your trump derangement syndrome is a real handicap,its a pity.

What happens when certain states and regions refuse to comply??

Like I say - civil war

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Russe wrote:Let me be brutally honest with you Quill, you will NEVER achieve the kind of gun control you want, you will start a civil war and destory your country before you take peoples guns away

I think in the wake of a massive Trump defeat, there will be enough momentum to carry several issues, including gun control.

As for the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court has never said that regulation of guns is impermissible.  The case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

The Heller decision involved an outright ban on handguns.  A more limited version, requiring shooting enthusiasts to have regulations, and be in possession of firearms only when pursuing their purpose, would seem quite reasonable.

And you were doing so well Quill

Your trump derangement syndrome is a real handicap,its a pity.

What happens when certain states and regions refuse to comply??

Like I say - civil war

Vs.



That would be over quick!

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think in the wake of a massive Trump defeat, there will be enough momentum to carry several issues, including gun control.

As for the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court has never said that regulation of guns is impermissible. The case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

The Heller decision involved an outright ban on handguns. A more limited version, requiring shooting enthusiasts to have regulations, and be in possession of firearms only when pursuing their purpose, would seem quite reasonable.

And you were doing so well Quill

Your trump derangement syndrome is a real handicap,its a pity.

What happens when certain states and regions refuse to comply??

Like I say - civil war

How I am doing is irrelevant. The topic is guns, remember?

The one thing I agree with you on, is the possibility of a second civil war. Gun possession is only one of the facets that divide north from south in this country.

I've done my part by promoting an amicable partitioning of the US, between the West Coast—a power of its own—and the south.

To understand, recount the history: the US was made up of two entirely different cultures, thrown together by a common purpose of casting off the yoke of the British. But once that purpose was achieved, the north and south had nothing in common.

The nation immediately divided, with Washington and New Yorker's Hamilton and John Jay taking one side (the Federalists), and Virginians Jefferson and Madison taking the other side (the Democrats).

In the north, Hamilton pursued creation of markets, and a National Bank—abstract concepts in the extreme—as well as manufacturing and mercantile interests. And in the south, the southerners, such as Jefferson and Madison, pursued their slave-based plantation lifestyle.

The two have never gotten along, nor has the seam ever closed, through a civil war, reconstruction, Jim Crow laws, lawful peonage, separate but equal, segregation, and and many ruses in between. Amid it's culture, the south acquired penchants for guns, killing and other cultural trinkets...all to make up for losing.

Whether it starts over racism, or sub rosa ideas such as guns, the divisions are poised to happen. So, I agree that civil war is at issue.

I am one of the few trying to get people to appreciate the reality of it all, and to sit down and make the division amicable. Right now, I argue with people, not who are pro-north or pro-south, but with incredulous minds who think it will never happen. So I am happy to see someone who appreciates the schisms, I’m only sorry that you seem to relish violence, in lieu of a peaceful solution.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

And you were doing so well Quill

Your trump derangement syndrome is a real handicap,its a pity.

What happens when certain states and regions refuse to comply??

Like I say - civil war

Vs.



That would be over quick!

Yeah you guys gonna lose bad

The military would be fighting for the government, smelly. The fat guy would be up against Seal Team Six.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:There are plenty of solid proposals for sensible gun control in the U.S. -- polling has found that background checks with no exceptions, limiting the amount of ammo that can be loaded into a gun at one time and banning those convicted of violent crimes from gun ownership are very popular proposals even in very conservative regions.

We have thousands of pages of gun control already.

No thanks.

If you don't want a gun, don't own one. See how simple that is?

The US goes around the world saying the answer to nukes is nuke control.

But it can't see that the same reasoning applies to guns and gun control.

It's a contradiction.

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:There are plenty of solid proposals for sensible gun control in the U.S. -- polling has found that background checks with no exceptions, limiting the amount of ammo that can be loaded into a gun at one time and banning those convicted of violent crimes from gun ownership are very popular proposals even in very conservative regions.

We have thousands of pages of gun control already.  

No thanks.  

If you don't want a gun, don't own one.  See how simple that is?

The first bit of common sense gun control I've seen

Original Quill wrote:The US goes around the world saying the answer to nukes is nuke control.

But it can't see that the same reasoning applies to guns and gun control.

It's a contradiction.

Bloody hell you can't even get your shit analogies right

The nuke is the bullet.

The gun would be the sub/bomber/launcher the fires it.

Get it right

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:There are plenty of solid proposals for sensible gun control in the U.S. -- polling has found that background checks with no exceptions, limiting the amount of ammo that can be loaded into a gun at one time and banning those convicted of violent crimes from gun ownership are very popular proposals even in very conservative regions.

We have thousands of pages of gun control already.  

No thanks.  

If you don't want a gun, don't own one.  See how simple that is?

And cleary you need more laws when around a thousand teenagers commit suicide with them each here. Over a hundred each year shoot themselves accidentally. Due to the fact as seen countless Americans are irresponsible with guns. Let alone the few thousand children murdered each year with guns.

So society has a right to demand far stricter gun laws

How simple is that?

Unless you hunt or shoot in a sports parameter, there is no reason to carry/own a gun

More guns, means more deaths

It's a balancing act - freedom vs. safety. Guns have clearly become too unsafe in the hands of the people who own them today, and that calls for stricter regulations.

Nobody would be arguing in favor of gun regulations if everyone used them responsibly.

if guns were mexicans, then gun control is like trumps wall only not so beautiful.

didnt realise democrats were so gunophobic

black gun lives matter you bigot fucks!!!!

smelly-bandit wrote:if guns were mexicans, then gun control is like trumps wall only not so beautiful.

didnt realise democrats were so gunophobic

black gun lives matter you bigot fucks!!!!

You fucking clueless moron...

Do you ever read anything before you go off on your half-cocked trolling efforts..

All you do on here is continually post up your senseless fascist, racist, nazi, sexist diatribes --  and then claim some idiotic imagined victory by how many people you trigger into calling you out over your proven idiocy.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The US goes around the world saying the answer to nukes is nuke control.

But it can't see that the same reasoning applies to guns and gun control.

It's a contradiction.

Bloody hell you can't even get your shit analogies right

The nuke is the bullet.

The gun would be the sub/bomber/launcher the fires it.

Get it right

Waffle. Evading the point.