Highly Trained Armed Security In Schools - Reallocate IRS Funds to Do It

Quote by Chryses

It only takes one, doesn't it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Pim_Fortuyn

And yet the US has way more school shootings than any other western country.

Quote by Chryses

... chuckling ... Which is what the OP tries to address, isn't it? Even if that approach is not to your taste.

I'll return tomorrow to read your reply.

It’s not addressing the issue, though. It’s completely dancing around it.

Quote by Chryses

... chuckling ... Which is what the OP tries to address, isn't it? Even if that approach is not to your taste.

I'll return tomorrow to read your reply.

The discussion had moved over to DOD schools in other countries, where there are stricter gun laws -> way less guns -> way less school shootings than in the US.

You bringing up a totally unrelated political assassination that happened 21 years ago is indeed chuckling material.

Republicans like to say, "criminals don't care about gun laws", but they refuse to acknowledge that every illegal gun was once legal. Most criminals can't just make a semi automatic long rifle in their garage. It's why gun related deaths are almost nonexistent in countries where most guns are illegal.

There's no getting around that fact no matter how much mental gymnastics they want to do.

Quote by Magical_felix

Republicans like to say, "criminals don't care about gun laws", but they refuse to acknowledge that every illegal gun was once legal. Most criminals can't just make a semi automatic long rifle in their garage. It's why gun related deaths are almost nonexistent in countries where most guns are illegal.

There's no getting around that fact no matter how much mental gymnastics they want to do.

There was once an assault weapons ban nationwide. That ban was allowed to expire. Most of these shootings are done by single individuals. It should be no surprise to anyone that these are the weapons of choice for these shooters. Ban them again, or at the very least, require the purchaser to have someone (not a family member) sign, under the penalty of perjury, that they know this person and that he/she can be trusted to have such a weapon. In addition, they will have to write on the form how long they have known this person. Make it so that the signee has to be there in person and provide an ID.

A friend would do this for a friend they trusted. Not so for someone they just became friends with, and certainly not for a stranger.

After the shootings at Virginia Tech, some of the students were asked about the classmate who did the shootings. No one seemed to know him. He was the quiet guy who never said a word to no one. If had to get someone to sign for him, I don't think he could have done it. He didn't seem to have anyone who knew him.

Quote by ElCoco

That's all it takes, and stricter gun laws won't get rid of all of them.

No one's making the claim that one could get rid of them all.

But having less firearms around reduces the chance that one will be used at a school, or mall, or church, or…

Quote by ElCoco

Switzerland?

there are more gun deaths in a day in the US than there have been in Switzerland for the past 100 years. I think i'd feel pretty safe there about not getting randomly gunned down.

It would be much less expensive for every school district in America to be awarded enough money yearly - to hand out bullet-proof torso and leg outerwear and helmets with audio speakers inside of them - to each student before the start of every school year. Parents who earned above $250k a year would have to purchase this expensive gear for their children, parents below this mark of combined income - would only pay a few hundred dollars a year for these new school uniforms.

Families could probably see a cost benefit all following years by reusing/handing down older Kevlar protection clothing to younger children in their homes.

Or, we could just say - Fuck A Bunch Of That - to the idea of bussing students to buildings where their safety is out of parental control and forced onto the pursestrings of the nation. Just provide free high speed internet to all families of school aged children - and year long online learning commences.

Think of the cost savings - NO MORE INFRASTRUCTURE to worry about, saving the cost of brick & mortar school facilities. No cost of energy to cool down or heat up such facilities. More land could be reclaimed for expensive rental apartments to be constructed in the place of buildings for education purposes. Who needs school buses and the costs associated with transportation? We could totally axe out free school lunches for indigent.

If we do this correctly, the country's wealthy class can benefit tremendously - and probably work out loopholes later - where their children could attend actual physical school buildings and continue to rub shoulders with privileged people of their proper socio-economic class.

If we do this right - we can bring back a world wide South Africa of the 1970-80s, except keep the elite in power and enslave all the rest of us mooks. Especially those of us with a dozen handguns and long rifles per family.

As long as we're broaching stupid fucking ideas and going-nowhere-fast solutions, let's discuss all alternate reality situations.

Quote by ElCoco

That's my point. Gun laws in Switzerland are very liberal. And yet you'd feel pretty safe there about not getting randomly gunned down.

There are way more guns per capita in the US than in Switzerland.

Quote by ElCoco

That's my point. Gun laws in Switzerland are very liberal. And yet you'd feel pretty safe there about not getting randomly gunned down.

In order to be granted a weapon license in Sweden you are required to be at least 18 years of age. You also need to be law-abiding and well-behaved, and must be able to certify the purpose of your need to possess a weapon. The most common purposes are hunting and target shooting. Guns can only be obtained after 6 months assessment at a certified club and then gun owners are monitored by the police every 24 hours.

There is a registry check if you have done any crimes or are suspected of any crimes. And it can be things like driving too fast or being too drunk in a restaurant, for instance, or in a bar. Those kinds of things would make the police check if you have a gun. Such misdemeanors could result in both guns and licenses being forfeited

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for many American mass murderers. In Sweden, it's only available for purchase by sports shooters.

So, yeah. Not like America.

Quote by gffphann

There was once an assault weapons ban nationwide. That ban was allowed to expire. Most of these shootings are done by single individuals. It should be no surprise to anyone that these are the weapons of choice for these shooters. Ban them again, or at the very least, require the purchaser to have someone (not a family member) sign, under the penalty of perjury, that they know this person and that he/she can be trusted to have such a weapon. In addition, they will have to write on the form how long they have known this person. Make it so that the signee has to be there in person and provide an ID.

A friend would do this for a friend they trusted. Not so for someone they just became friends with, and certainly not for a stranger.

After the shootings at Virginia Tech, some of the students were asked about the classmate who did the shootings. No one seemed to know him. He was the quiet guy who never said a word to no one. If had to get someone to sign for him, I don't think he could have done it. He didn't seem to have anyone who knew him.

There was spike in mass murders once the assault weapons ban expired.

Your idea isn't bad but honestly it should be more like cars. There should be requiring training involved before getting a license. I would say a psych test too but that would be abused.

The thing is that the cat is out of the bag, it's too late now.

Quote by ElCoco

That's all it takes, and stricter gun laws won't get rid of all of them.

Yet, getting explosives is very difficult and you need specialized licenses and they have meticulous paper trails.

But by your logic, since someone can just make an explosive and use it in a terrorist attack anyway then there is no point in making explosives inaccessible to most people.

Quote by Chryses

The bullet from a gun that killed the Dutch politician demonstrates that more restrictive gun laws do not prevent gun homicides, even in countries like the Netherlands, which has had them for quite a while now.

This example is directly applicable to the issue of school shootings, as broached in the OP. That the School Guardian Act doesn’t conform to your preferred approach does not invalidate its potential.

What are the gun deaths per capita of the Netherlands compared to say Florida or Texas or any southern state?

If Americas could buy dynamite at walmart then there would be more dynamite attacks. Refusing to acknowledge that is hilarious. Just makes you look stupid.

Quote by sprite

In order to be granted a weapon license in Sweden you are required to be at least 18 years of age. You also need to be law-abiding and well-behaved, and must be able to certify the purpose of your need to possess a weapon. The most common purposes are hunting and target shooting. Guns can only be obtained after 6 months assessment at a certified club and then gun owners are monitored by the police every 24 hours.

There is a registry check if you have done any crimes or are suspected of any crimes. And it can be things like driving too fast or being too drunk in a restaurant, for instance, or in a bar. Those kinds of things would make the police check if you have a gun. Such misdemeanors could result in both guns and licenses being forfeited

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for many American mass murderers. In Sweden, it's only available for purchase by sports shooters.

So, yeah. Not like America.

Sweden or Switserland?

Quote by Chryses

The bullet from a gun that killed the Dutch politician demonstrates that more restrictive gun laws do not prevent gun homicides, even in countries like the Netherlands, which has had them for quite a while now.

This example is directly applicable to the issue of school shootings, as broached in the OP. That the School Guardian Act doesn’t conform to your preferred approach does not invalidate its potential.

More restrictive gun laws do prevent many gun homicides. If not you could have easily picked a recent school shooting here in the Netherlands with multiple gun deaths instead of having to resort to an incident where a single person was killed 21 years ago here in the Netherlands.

Quote by ElCoco

You beat me to it.

Sure did.

Quote by Tantaleyes

It's also a male issue, at least here in the US.

True, but there are more than twice as many firearms per capita than there are men, in the US. Men also have more rights than firearms, so all the more reason to tackle this issue by reducing firearms instead of men.

Quote by noll

True, but there are more than twice as many firearms per capita than there men, in the US. Men also have more rights than firearms, so all the more reason to tackle this issue by reducing firearms instead of men.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

That's why we give people guns.

Quote by Magical_felix

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

That's why we give people guns.

But what about men?

Access to firearms based on how many friends one has seems pretty discriminatory. Also, making one individual responsible for what another individual may do in the future seems like a judicial nightmare.

Not all school shootings take place in the US. This happened today in Europe: Boy, 13, kills eight children and security guard in Belgrade school shooting.

- Of all countries in Europe, Serbia has the most firearms per capita.

- The security guard was (one of) the first being shot.

- The boy had 2 firearms and 2 petrol bombs. He opted for the firearms for his killing spree.

- While Serbia has very strict gun laws, experts have warned repeatedly about the dangers of the vast amounts of firearms left in the country after the war and civil unrest of the 1990s.

Quote by noll

Access to firearms based on how many friends one has seems pretty discriminatory. Also, making one individual responsible for what another individual may do in the future seems like a judicial nightmare.

I can see why he thought that because for certain licenses you need letters of recommendation like that. Since republicans won't ever stop taking donations from the NRA the only thing you can do is make more hoops for people to jump through to try and weed out the unserious people. But it's flawed, like, if your friend has autism, would you write a letter for them? I mean I don't think I would but because someone has autism should they not have access to guns? I don't know, in my opinion? Probably not. Or like say a brother in law? Since statistically your brother in law is more likely to shoot your sister than defend her with a gun, shoot himself or get it stolen... like I wouldn't write one for him either I don't think. But most people won't think about those things, you'll still have no hesitation from Billy Bob writing a letter for Hoyt Clyde, well.. probably Billy Bob's nephew writing one on his fancy typing TV machine and Billy Bob signing it.. and at the end of the day stupid people will still have guns. Honestly it should be like having a drivers license, you should have to have schooling and training and pass a test and keep up your license over the years to own guns. BUT the NRA doesn't like that and the republicans will never go against the NRA because the NRA gives them money and the republicans have no shame or morals. All there is to it.

Quote by Magical_felix

I can see why he thought that because for certain licenses you need letters of recommendation like that. Since republicans won't ever stop taking donations from the NRA the only thing you can do is make more hoops for people to jump through to try and weed out the unserious people. But it's flawed, like, if your friend has autism, would you write a letter for them? I mean I don't think I would but because someone has autism should they not have access to guns? I don't know, in my opinion? Probably not. Or like say a brother in law? Since statistically your brother in law is more likely to shoot your sister than defend her with a gun, shoot himself or get it stolen... like I wouldn't write one for him either I don't think. But most people won't think about those things, you'll still have no hesitation from Billy Bob writing a letter for Hoyt Clyde, well.. probably Billy Bob's nephew writing one on his fancy typing TV machine and Billy Bob signing it.. and at the end of the day stupid people will still have guns. Honestly it should be like having a drivers license, you should have to have schooling and training and pass a test and keep up your license over the years to own guns. BUT the NRA doesn't like that and the republicans will never go against the NRA because the NRA gives them money and the republicans have no shame or morals. All there is to it.

I'd say ongoing requirements to show that you're still fit to own/carry a gun would indeed seem like the right approach (if you believe regular people need to have guns, which I don't). This should involve professionals who take those exams/do the assessments, not just anybody IMO.

Quote by noll

I'd say ongoing requirements to show that you're still fit to own/carry a gun would indeed seem like the right approach (if you believe regular people need to have guns, which I don't). This should involve professionals who take those exams/do the assessments, not just anybody IMO.

Have to vote out all the republicans for something like that even get proposed on a national level. Nothing individual states do matters because we have open borders between states. Has to be Nationally. Like in San Jose, I believe it is, gun owners now have to carry insurance, like you do for a car, but one county doing that doesn't make a difference.

Quote by Magical_felix

Have to vote out all the republicans for something like that even get proposed on a national level. Nothing individual states do matters because we have open borders between states. Has to be Nationally. Like in San Jose, I believe it is, gun owners now have to carry insurance, like you do for a car, but one county doing that doesn't make a difference.

One no, but many might. And many often starts with one.

Swiss gun laws became stricter because of the Schengen Treaty, as other signatories didn't want the free travel of people and free transport of goods to mean that they'd be flooded with Swiss firearms. And Switzerland wanted the benefits of Schengen.

lol so dumb...Doesn't even know how to rig an online poll properly. He split the vote 3 to 1... lol. So stupid.

He should have made it:

Rifles

Handguns

Shotguns

Mental Health/wokeness

The right to bear arms is not the right to purchase bullets. Just regulate the hell out of bullets and clips, and raise the price exorbitantly high! But first, get all Republicans out of office, because they're sabotaging all progress and fairness.

Quote by Beffer

The right to bear arms is not the right to purchase bullets. Just regulate the hell out of bullets and clips, and raise the price exorbitantly high! But first, get all Republicans out of office, because they're sabotaging all progress and fairness.

The right to bear arms is everyone’s right to possess whatever necessary to defend oneself and family from harm.

.

Beffer, you making this about politics does nothing to address the real issue—mental stability issues, and the ability of criminals to acquire guns illegally.

.

The current gun laws put in place are nearly perfect to stop owners from being a criminal mass shooter. When a said “legal” owner is involved it has been because the ball was dropped by some government agency along the rioting out of unstable or criminal people.

.

Your hatred of the republicans is beneath your intellect, I thought… sad.

Meh, LushStories doesn't discriminate against Republicans, Incels, GQP or mouthbreathing redneck racists who hate liberals, socialism and free elections.

Ya'll are welcome here too. Although, your proclaimed ideas will probably get laughed at and argued into the nothingness of the internet.

Free market sarcasm, man. Can ya dig it?