Another mass shooting

[Deleted User 863]

Just a reminder that there are nearly 131,000 public and private K-12 schools in the US. It would take more than a half million armed and trained persons to put 4 in every school. That is a larger number of people than those who are actively serving in the US Army all over the world.

The cost of doing so would be disgustingly enormous, the risks of gun accidents would increase significantly and as has proven out numerous times already, it is not a deterrent in preventing these attacks nor is it an effective way to prematurely end these attacks. the only thing that it accomplishes is that it allows pro gun people to not have to do anything different and it increases gun sales for the manufacturers who produce these weapons of war.

I bet if we imposed large taxes on firearm sales and ammo sales that it would fund a decent portion of that. As well as not over policing certain areas. If we are going to over fund the police let's do it for a good cause.

Let's do the math on it instead of speculating.
500,000 school security guards @ $50,000 salary per year = Annual salary of $25 billion
I assume that we'd also have to cover the cost of arming them and continually training them.

There is no chance that even a 50% tax on US gun and ammo sales would be "a decent portion" of that cost and there is a 0% chance you could pass a tax even remotely close to that number.

Glad you've got it all figured out.

My guess is a large portion of schools already have a police officer or security guard. So you don't need 500,000 MORE of them. We also have plenty of other officers that can be reallocated.

And we have plenty of money to reallocate from other areas of government spending that aren't as nearly as important as protecting schools.

You're doing exactly what you bitch about the "other side" doing. Just saying "nope, won't work". Rinse. Repeat.

There is no magic law we can pass to make guns not exist. Making that your only priority is foolish. Even if guns stopped being sold tomorrow that isn't THE fix.

It's going to take multiple laws, multiple strategies, and a whole lot less worrying about what it costs to protect school children.

My kids school already has some of the measures being suggested by various people.

[Deleted User 863]

and, if your lunatic kid shoots up the school with a gun he got from home, you suffer the consequences.

my kid. my responsibility.

or suffer the consequences.

Well said.

1) The kid supposedly bought the gun/s himself. I don't know where he kept them but does it really matter? He supposedly bought and owned them legally.
2) The kid wasn't a minor. At what age do you feel your child becomes an adult and is responsible for his/her own behavior?
3) How do you feel about spouses? Your wife is an alcoholic, she gets drunk, gets in a car and kills someone, you should go to jail?

1) He isn't a kid. This isn't the first time this has happened.

2) He isn't a kid, so MICH comment doesn't apply to this situation.

3) A car isn't a gun. But sure, if a 12 year old takes their parents car and intentionally kills someone then their parents should have some responsibility....A wife can own her own car. If your wife gets drunk, steals your gun, and kills people then yes the husband should he held responsible in some way. Don't own a gun if the risk is something you're not willing to take. Or lock the gun up. There are numerous affordable gun safes that require a fingerprint or a code to open. A responsible gun owner has their guns locked away so that only they can access them.

[Deleted User 863]

Just a reminder that there are nearly 131,000 public and private K-12 schools in the US. It would take more than a half million armed and trained persons to put 4 in every school. That is a larger number of people than those who are actively serving in the US Army all over the world.

The cost of doing so would be disgustingly enormous, the risks of gun accidents would increase significantly and as has proven out numerous times already, it is not a deterrent in preventing these attacks nor is it an effective way to prematurely end these attacks. the only thing that it accomplishes is that it allows pro gun people to not have to do anything different and it increases gun sales for the manufacturers who produce these weapons of war.

I bet if we imposed large taxes on firearm sales and ammo sales that it would fund a decent portion of that. As well as not over policing certain areas. If we are going to over fund the police let's do it for a good cause.

Let's do the math on it instead of speculating.
500,000 school security guards @ $50,000 salary per year = Annual salary of $25 billion
I assume that we'd also have to cover the cost of arming them and continually training them.

There is no chance that even a 50% tax on US gun and ammo sales would be "a decent portion" of that cost and there is a 0% chance you could pass a tax even remotely close to that number.

Also,

You randomly pick out 4 per school.
And ignore that private schools can be made to pay for their own security if they want to be allowed to operate. We have rules/regulations for private schools already that must be followed for them to operate. We can add a few more to save even 1 childs life.

Conveniently assume there are 0 schools with cops/security already.

And randomly pick out 50% tax. Why not 1000% tax?

Just to argue and be contrarian. And provide no worthwhile suggestions to what you think would actually help stop this.

My ideas would very likely stop at minimum 1 incident. If it stops 1 single incident then it's worth it in my opinion.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Well said.

1) The kid supposedly bought the gun/s himself. I don't know where he kept them but does it really matter? He supposedly bought and owned them legally.
2) The kid wasn't a minor. At what age do you feel your child becomes an adult and is responsible for his/her own behavior?
3) How do you feel about spouses? Your wife is an alcoholic, she gets drunk, gets in a car and kills someone, you should go to jail?

1) He isn't a kid. This isn't the first time this has happened.

2) He isn't a kid, so MICH comment doesn't apply to this situation.

3) A car isn't a gun. But sure, if a 12 year old takes their parents car and intentionally kills someone then their parents should have some responsibility....A wife can own her own car. If your wife gets drunk, steals your gun, and kills people then yes the husband should he held responsible in some way. Don't own a gun if the risk is something you're not willing to take. Or lock the gun up. There are numerous affordable gun safes that require a fingerprint or a code to open. A responsible gun owner has their guns locked away so that only they can access them.

To me, he WAS (past tense - he's dead) a "kid". A "kid" by definition is a young person.
God forbid your 18 year old kid drives drunk one day and kills someone while driving his/her car that you bought for him/her. You think you and your wife should go to jail? I'm not saying you and your wife shouldn't bear some responsibility but did you knowingly and willingly contribute to the crime that your child committed?

[Deleted User 863]

1) The kid supposedly bought the gun/s himself. I don't know where he kept them but does it really matter? He supposedly bought and owned them legally.
2) The kid wasn't a minor. At what age do you feel your child becomes an adult and is responsible for his/her own behavior?
3) How do you feel about spouses? Your wife is an alcoholic, she gets drunk, gets in a car and kills someone, you should go to jail?

1) He isn't a kid. This isn't the first time this has happened.

2) He isn't a kid, so MICH comment doesn't apply to this situation.

3) A car isn't a gun. But sure, if a 12 year old takes their parents car and intentionally kills someone then their parents should have some responsibility....A wife can own her own car. If your wife gets drunk, steals your gun, and kills people then yes the husband should he held responsible in some way. Don't own a gun if the risk is something you're not willing to take. Or lock the gun up. There are numerous affordable gun safes that require a fingerprint or a code to open. A responsible gun owner has their guns locked away so that only they can access them.

To me, he WAS (past tense - he's dead) a "kid". A "kid" by definition is a young person.
God forbid your 18 year old kid drives drunk one day and kills someone while driving his/her car that you bought for him/her. You think you and your wife should go to jail? I'm not saying you and your wife shouldn't bear some responsibility but did you knowingly and willingly contribute to the crime that your child committed?

If you can't keep the gun you own out of the hands of others who are going to commit crimes you are knowingly and willingly assisting in a crime in my opinion.

Cars are not guns. Dumb analogy (respectfully) imo.

[Deleted User 863]

1 side is all like: well the bad guys will still have guns and the bad guys will get guns illegally..

The other side is all like: anything short of no guns allowed won't help.

[DrPepper]

I think guns and cars are a fair analogy. Both can be deadly in the wrong hands. Both can be useful in knowledgable hands. Both can have unfortunate accidents. Both can give weak people with complexes a power trip. Both can malfunction. Both require upkeep. Both have big lobbyists. Both have sport followings.
I don't think I should be responsible for crimes committed when someone else steals my car, gun, knife, or dog.

[zsn]

Mmmmmm, no. One side is a wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA which is wholly owned by the gun manufacturers.

The other side wants at least EVERY gun purchase to go through a background check.

The former side won’t allow even a vote on the latter position. Tyranny of the minority, because a huge majority support the latter position

[DrPepper]

1 side is all like: well the bad guys will still have guns and the bad guys will get guns illegally..

The other side is all like: anything short of no guns allowed won't help.

I call bs. No one has legitimately said no guns allowed. You are listening to the red hats again.

[Deleted User 863]

1 side is all like: well the bad guys will still have guns and the bad guys will get guns illegally..

The other side is all like: anything short of no guns allowed won't help.

I call bs. No one has legitimately said no guns allowed. You are listening to the red hats again.

I'm listening to twocoach say numerous reasonable ideas won't stop 100% so they aren't worth it.

I can sit and say the same thing about every single idea other than someone magically making guns not exist.

Time to do something. Anything. Try everything. What do we have to lose? Other than more children.

[Deleted User 863]

Mmmmmm, no. One side is a wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA which is wholly owned by the gun manufacturers.

The other side wants at least EVERY gun purchase to go through a background check.

The former side won’t allow even a vote on the latter position. Tyranny of the minority, because a huge majority support the latter position

I agree with a lot of that.

But again, that's just a starting point. 1 aspect of a multi layered strategy needed to stop these from happening.

A lot of these school shootings aren't stopped by background checks.

And ftr, I am in favor of background checks (extensive ones). I'd even be in favor of banning more of the guns that aren't currently banned.

Hell, if you told me it'd save a bunch of childrens lives, and not make the rest of the country's citizens significantly more unsafe, I would probably be in favor of full on gun bans.

[Deleted User 863]

I think guns and cars are a fair analogy. Both can be deadly in the wrong hands. Both can be useful in knowledgable hands. Both can have unfortunate accidents. Both can give weak people with complexes a power trip. Both can malfunction. Both require upkeep. Both have big lobbyists. Both have sport followings.
I don't think I should be responsible for crimes committed when someone else steals my car, gun, knife, or dog.

How many kids using cars to drive thru schools killing as many children as possible?

[DrPepper]

My governor wants the age to buy an AR15 raised to 21. That seems reasonable to me.
The most recent TX killer was barely 18.
Let that frontal lobe develop a little more. I suppose those insurance companies would say make it age 28 for the males to own a gun on their own.

[Deleted User 863]

That's a start. I guess.

No mass shooters above the age 28? 21?

[DrPepper]

Are you trying to be reasonable, or produce a reasonable doubt so that you do not have to do anything?

[Deleted User 863]

Are you trying to be reasonable, or produce a reasonable doubt so that you do not have to do anything?

I think I've been pretty reasonable throughout this thread.

There is also nearly nothing I can do to influence systemic change other than to vote accordingly.

[DrPepper]

Well you know that there have been mass shooters over the age of 28 so it was a stupid question. I had to assume you were being a smart aleck.

If referring to "school" shootings in the US, the average age was 18.

[DrPepper]

You could run for office. You could join a campaign. You donate to a campaign. You could research for a campaign. You could join a cause. You could educate yourself on things.

[seahawk]

One of the news shows tonight featured the attorney for the Sandy Hook parents who sued Remington. He explained that the gun industry introduced a marketing campaign aimed at young males to get them to purchase assault style weapons like the AR15. The campaigns used video games and internet ads that featured these guns to hook at-risk males. The market went from something like $100,000 to $2.1 million.

https://apnews.com/article/sandy-hook-s ... 275a4df403

[Overlander]

Hey, who was it that argued with me on .com for weeks that arming teachers is a good idea?

Probably not a good argument to have with a man who was shot from behind by an inept local police.