Troll

"Troll

insult?
you can't debate without being crass?"

 He can, but he wont.


"TEACHER SHOOTS STUDENT FOR REFUSING TO GO TO THE OFFICE"

 This potential exists and I would look at it this way:

 I prioritize actual event over probable event in like-situation circumstance.  So in this discussion I would say we are responding not to probable events, but actual school shootings.  So I would attempt to arm whoever is the closest adult to the classrooms as I am not aware of a superior cost-effective and legal method of dealing with an active shooter than using a firearm in return in close proximity with rapid response.

 I say this because we know school shootings are happening in increased frequency on an annual timeframe segment per capita but we are speculating that teachers will murder children with firearms in fits of rage.  I would address the current problem that we know exists while mitigating ones that may arise.  

 Also I would not only arm teachers, I would modify law, access and evaluation for firearms, and also work on the psychological impact of children over time to reduce the potential for them to become shooters in the first place.  But for todays problem, not tomorrows, I only know of one efficient method and that's armed adults nearest children.

 That being said I would based off of hundreds of active shooter exercises that I have personally conducted say that the likelihood of a teacher shooting a student as a peripheral casualty to an active shooter event is considerably higher than a teacher shooting a child out of anger.  Rapid fire events require considerable training and most people fail which is why special response teams and the military doesn't let everyone into those programs.  When a shooter is moving, shooting, people are running around, throwing chairs etc. its not that easy to hit a target.  Most training today is at a range on a paper non-moving target and does not increase in difficulty.

 So from an actual self-protection standpoint the risk to children remains high, but from a deterrent standpoint the risk is lowered as most criminals choose easy targets.  Unarmed targets.

thumperclone wrote on 12/21/18 at 04:55:10:

there needs to be a way to weed out the unstable from having weapons

Saying that statement, means 1 of just two things.

1. You have not bought a firearm since 1968.
(Or it was from a trunk, in a back alley, in the middle of the night)

2. You are Lying

In 1968 a 'law' was passed. and today, their many, Many, MANY, more.

To repeat from a previous post:
‘What is really Scary is”
The ultimate goal is NOT crime control
It is to remove the right to keep and bear arms,
so NOBODY has any Guns.

(Well except, 'officer', NOOR)

thumperclone wrote on 12/21/18 at 04:55:10:

arm teachers like the one that lost his temper and slapped a student
TEACHER SHOOTS STUDENT FOR REFUSING TO GO TO THE OFFICE

Yep, the, potential Sure does exist.
The SAME way, (And MANY times more)

Like you driving down a road, and a Drunk/Texting/High driver of another car hits your car, and KILLS you.

Like a fire stating in your home, and you are asleep, and NEVER wake up.

Like you falling down the steps, and Breaking your NECK.

And  1,000.000 words more.

Now, who, is selling, ‘FEAR” ?

As is, “arming teachers”, will cause …….

"just trying to approach the topic in a logical manner
adding more guns to the mix is:
asinine, brainless, foolish, inane, moronic, and senseless!"


 What is an immediate alternative at this point.

 As in tomorrow morning how can we protect children from a gunman when we don't know where/when or how its going to happen?

 If given the opportunity to provide equal deterrent to Redlands, Appleton, Central and Grand Mesa tomorrow morning what is a method that isn't having every law enforcement officer in Grand Junction patrol just those few schools all day.

 I assume the closest adult is the primary source of safety for school children but I could be wrong, or overlooking something.

thumperclone wrote on 12/21/18 at 15:55:11:


So you're admitting you wouldn't call the cops because THEY would
Bring GUNS.
You're admitting that having police in every classroom and hallway would be a mistake, because they have guns
Is that correct?

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 12/21/18 at 16:55:08: