posted by like_that

My point is try to come off as informed or educated on the subject, before you throw out bullshit buzz words.  This is why nobody takes gun control advocates seriously, and it is probably why you get "attacked" immediately.  If you're going to come to the table with an argument, don't come with bullshit and grandstand on it.  Pro gun supporters are all about truth and facts.  Assault weapons have been banned since the 80's btw. 

To answer your question, because it's a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.  A pistol could have done more damage (see the VT shooter).  The AR15 was ALREADY BANNNED and gun crime was HIGHER during that ban.  I can't emphasize that enough.  It already has been proven by data that the AR15 is not the problem.  Just because there are a few lunatics that use it doesn't mean all of a sudden millions of law abiding citizens should have their 2nd amendment rights chipped away.   Now if your question is why would anyone need an AR15,  I counter that by why do you feel the need to exercise your first amendment rights by providing your uninformed opinion? 

Same question I asked laley.  Do you care about all gun crime, or do you choose to cherry pick a small percentage of the crime made by a small percentage of a specific type of gun?  If that is all you care about, why do you have a hierarchy on the type of murders being committed? One would assume if you cared about lives you would care about all lives being taken.   Now if you do care about all lives being taken by guns, I have already proposed a solution that would help more so than banning a specific type of gun that you think looks scary or passing "common sense" gun laws. 

I had no idea assault rifle was a buzzword.  And you're right, I am not informed.  That's why I asked the question I asked.  You and others have answered it and I see your points.  

posted by like_that

My point is try to come off as informed or educated on the subject, before you throw out bullshit buzz words.  This is why nobody takes gun control advocates seriously, and it is probably why you get "attacked" immediately.  If you're going to come to the table with an argument, don't come with bullshit and grandstand on it.  Pro gun supporters are all about truth and facts.  Assault weapons have been banned since the 80's btw. 

To answer your question, because it's a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.  A pistol could have done more damage (see the VT shooter).  The AR15 was ALREADY BANNNED and gun crime was HIGHER during that ban.  I can't emphasize that enough.  It already has been proven by data that the AR15 is not the problem.  Just because there are a few lunatics that use it doesn't mean all of a sudden millions of law abiding citizens should have their 2nd amendment rights chipped away.   Now if your question is why would anyone need an AR15,  I counter that by why do you feel the need to exercise your first amendment rights by providing your uninformed opinion? 

Same question I asked laley.  Do you care about all gun crime, or do you choose to cherry pick a small percentage of the crime made by a small percentage of a specific type of gun?  If that is all you care about, why do you have a hierarchy on the type of murders being committed? One would assume if you cared about lives you would care about all lives being taken.   Now if you do care about all lives being taken by guns, I have already proposed a solution that would help more so than banning a specific type of gun that you think looks scary or passing "common sense" gun laws. 

I am not informed on these weapons and that is the reason I asked my question.  I didn't know that "assault rifle" was a buzzword.  People on here have answered my question from their perspective and that's what I was looking for.  

posted by like_that

Same question I asked laley.  Do you care about all gun crime, or do you choose to cherry pick a small percentage of the crime made by a small percentage of a specific type of gun?  If that is all you care about, why do you have a hierarchy on the type of murders being committed? One would assume if you cared about lives you would care about all lives being taken.   Now if you do care about all lives being taken by guns, I have already proposed a solution that would help more so than banning a specific type of gun that you think looks scary or passing "common sense" gun laws. 

I care about violent crime the same as everyone else.  I also think - as most people probably do - that murder of children is especially reprehensible.  

posted by like_that

To answer your question, because it's a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.  A pistol could have done more damage (see the VT shooter).  The AR15 was ALREADY BANNNED and gun crime was HIGHER during that ban.  

That's how I've always understood it, though admittedly never really examined the data.  Then the other day I see an article about how the AR ban WORKED (it was HuffPo, of course).

Guns, like abortion, are simply political wedge issues.  Nothing meaningful will happen on either side, it's mainly just an opportunity for politicians to bloviate and grandstand to pander to their base because no one really cares about the facts or practical solutions.

Guns are really the perfect example of how most people are WILLFULLY ignorant.  I always laugh when people cry about politicians lying - it's because you only care when the other side is lying and completely ignore it from your team.  That dog don't hunt.

Just stopped in to say that I don’t know much about guns.

posted by SportsAndLady

The left argument has now turned to “see! Armed guards don’t work! Look at this one example!” 

I don't consider myself apart of the left and my views on guns probably are more aligned with the right. But, I think this is worth considering when we discuss arming teachers. Here's a cop who was equipped and trained and basically chickened out. 

posted by jmog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your point is completely nullified when you actually know what the rifle is as I described above.  The main difference between AR-15's and most new hunting rifles is all how it looks, nothing else.

Except that the mini 14 is hardly a hunting rifle. Nice try though

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I care about violent crime the same as everyone else.  I also think - as most people probably do - that murder of children is especially reprehensible.  

So you're anti abortion right?

posted by Devils Advocate

 

Except that the mini 14 is hardly a hunting rifle. Nice try though

 

It's widely used for hunting. Coyotes in particular. Deer in some states.

posted by friendfromlowry

I don't consider myself apart of the left and my views on guns probably are more aligned with the right. But, I think this is worth considering when we discuss arming teachers. Here's a cop who was equipped and trained and basically chickened out. 

I don't think arming teachers is a solution, either. 

And that cop that chickened out is probably more representative than all the internet heroes you see on the subject - even trained cops/military armed with just a handgun and 9 bullets might not be willing to run toward a guy with hundreds of rounds and semi-auto rifle.  You probably can't get close enough to engage accurately, and I wouldn't think school hallways offer much in the way of cover.

I think the solution is to lock the schools down and install metal detectors.  Let a couple local police patrol for 30 minutes in the morning and afternoon while students are at risk coming and going (because I assume if a shooter can't get inside, then he's going to attack in the morning when everyone is getting off the bus).

posted by friendfromlowry

I don't consider myself apart of the left and my views on guns probably are more aligned with the right. But, I think this is worth considering when we discuss arming teachers. Here's a cop who was equipped and trained and basically chickened out. 

i feel for this guy because he is going to take a ton of heat.  He was ineffective during the shooting and he is now giving cops a bad name.  But when push came to shove, he lacked the impulse to go towards the danger.  Maybe he believed he had what it took and this is the first time he'd ever been tested and it turned out he did not have it.  The fault here is not on this cop who reacted in a way many human beings would have instinctively.  Maybe his chief should have done more to screen a cop stationed at a school (i.e. look for real life experiences that indicate the person reacts positively to danger).  

This guy failed - no doubt about it.  But he's  being scapegoated by a failed system it seems.  I am totally disgusted that his chief has completely thrown him under the bus as well.  This is a "we failed" not a "he failed" situation.  That's what true leaders do.

posted by friendfromlowry

I don't consider myself apart of the left and my views on guns probably are more aligned with the right. But, I think this is worth considering when we discuss arming teachers. Here's a cop who was equipped and trained and basically chickened out. 

He was a government agent that many on the left want to be the only people with access to certain arms. F. That. Noise.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

This guy failed - no doubt about it.  But he's  being scapegoated by a failed system it seems. 

In what way? He took a job whose main role is to protect the students in that building from harm.

posted by gut

I don't think arming teachers is a solution, either. 

I'll disagree in part. As you correctly wrote "a solution" not "the" (there IS no "the solution"), I don't see the downside of teachers experienced with guns and trained in the situations that could occur being armed.

posted by gut

I don't think arming teachers is a solution, either. 

And that cop that chickened out is probably more representative than all the internet heroes you see on the subject - even trained cops/military armed with just a handgun and 9 bullets might not be willing to run toward a guy with hundreds of rounds and semi-auto rifle.  You probably can't get close enough to engage accurately, and I wouldn't think school hallways offer much in the way of cover.

 

I think the solution is to lock the schools down and install metal detectors.  Let a couple local police patrol for 30 minutes in the morning and afternoon while students are at risk coming and going (because I assume if a shooter can't get inside, then he's going to attack in the morning when everyone is getting off the bus).

Many schools are locked down right now.   It's easy to get buzzed in or let in by another student or guest.  

posted by SportsAndLady

The left argument has now turned to “see! Armed guards don’t work! Look at this one example!” 

Meanwhile, the right's arguments are moving from "these kids who are pissed at being shot at are actually paid actors!!!!!!!!" to "these kids who are pissed at being shot at are assholes who have the audacity to speak impolitely to/about GUBMENT OFFICIALS!!!!!!!!!"

It's highly likely even if he wasn't chickenshit he woild not have been close by to do anything.   Schools are spread out, different wings,    unless they are in nearly every wing and building it won't do much

posted by Devils Advocate

 

Except that the mini 14 is hardly a hunting rifle. Nice try though

 

Ruger Model 44, Remington Model 750, Ruger Model 99, etc. All semi-automatic hunting rifles that fit the same "difference" compared to an AR-15 as I mentioned above.

The Mini-14 is mostly known as a "ranch rifle" but is also a hunting rifle. The main difference is a ranch rifle typically is used to scare/kill unwanted animals that make their way onto a farm/ranch. So while you aren't in the woods "hunting" it is the same basic use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

You may want to read this to show that I am correct.

posted by queencitybuckeye

In what way? He took a job whose main role is to protect the students in that building from harm.

For starters, his own chief said he should have "killed the killer".  Maybe he could have, maybe he wouldn't have been able to get a shot at him even if he wanted to.  Point is, he is an unfortunate side story in all of this.  This friggin chief is a loser for calling his own guy out.  

posted by queencitybuckeye

I'll disagree in part. As you correctly wrote "a solution" not "the" (there IS no "the solution"), I don't see the downside of teachers experienced with guns and trained in the situations that could occur being armed.

We won't know until it happens. If it happens. 

posted by thavoice

Many schools are locked down right now.   It's easy to get buzzed in or let in by another student or guest.  

 

That's been my experience.  My daughter's former grade school was locked down.  The rent-a-cop would've buzzed in a drunk gorilla if it came to the door.  There needs to be a recognized procedure, strictly enforced, for letting anyone into a school.  

I remember when I was a kid and they left the doors wide open on warm days to let the air in.  Hard to believe we now have to treat schools more like jails.  Such is life.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

For starters, his own chief said he should have "killed the killer".  Maybe he could have, maybe he wouldn't have been able to get a shot at him even if he wanted to.  Point is, he is an unfortunate side story in all of this.  This friggin chief is a loser for calling his own guy out.  

I don't assume he would have been successful.  I am confident he didn't even extend effort to do what he is tasked to do. I would call him out too. He deserves the criticism as a public servant way more than his Chief does for offering it.

posted by thavoice

Many schools are locked down right now.   It's easy to get buzzed in or let in by another student or guest.  

 

Well, that right there is a serious problem.  Defeats the purpose if people don't follow the procedures in place.

It does make you wonder, though - we pretty much have stopped foreign terrorists, but we can't stop domestic nutjobs from shooting up our schools on a regular basis.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

For starters, his own chief said he should have "killed the killer".  Maybe he could have, maybe he wouldn't have been able to get a shot at him even if he wanted to.

All maybe's are possible, but his failure to do anything guaranteed the outcome.

posted by friendfromlowry

We won't know until it happens. If it happens. 

I've been looking for stats on how many school systems have armed teachers.