{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/24/2018 10:59:35 PM
11
The notion that putting a cop in every school is better than arming teachers is ludicrous. Yes, you need trained individuals, of course you do. But, a teacher can be trained to handle a gun just as well as a police officer can. And they're already there, you don't have to pay a person for being there. And worst of all, if that police officer is wearing a uniform, he's simply the first person a school shooter guns down. The shooter wouldn't even need a gun to get started, he'd just need a kitchen knife or a claw hammer to take down the cop, and then run amuck with his gun.
The advantage of arming teachers and staff is that (1) they conceal their weapons; no one knows who they are except those who need to know. (2) There's more than one per school, so a would-be shooter faces multiple adversaries. (3) They're already there, you just pay them a little extra because they have to wear holstered firearms (something compact but potent like a Glock 19 or SIG M18) and soft body armor. You could put three in a school for less than 50% the price of one cop, and that includes rigorous annual training and more shooting practice than most police are required to do.
English
-
First of all, the teachers don't seem to agree. Second, where is the budget for this extra training going to come from? Third, arming teachers is not solving school shootings. It is a statement that we don't care to try to stop school shootings.
-
1. Most don't. A handful will be perfectly happy to. 2. Where are we going to find the money to put a cop in every school? That's 2-3x more expensive. 3. There is no solution to school shootings. Guns are here to stay. Crazy people are out there. Until we get that through our heads and start taking measures to oppose school shooters, massacres like Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Parkland are here to stay as well.
-
That's simply not true. School shootings do not happen in other first world nations like they happen in the United States. You can't say something is unstoppable when there has been no significant effort to stop it.
-
Taking away 270 million guns from 300 million Americans is a logistical impossibility. Do you have another alternative?
-
Never said anything about taking away guns. Start with a registry and tighter background checks.
-
I'll go along with the latter. Background checks should be mandatory. Not sure about registration, that information has been used for confiscation in the past.
-
You can make that claim when the DMV takes away your car.
-
And when does the DMV go around taking away cars?
-
They don't, despite having access to a registry of every legally owned vehicle in the United States.
-
However, it HAS happened with guns, when that sort of firearm was banned in that locale. The owner was presumably compensated, but they still were involuntarily deprived of their property. And, if it was their only gun, forced to rely on law enforcement for protection. Which is an iffy proposition, given police response time vs. time required to commit a violent crime.
-
Can you provide any examples?
