Hundreds of teachers sign up for free gun training in Ohio

[VanceMack]

Well, the current situation involves a lot of people pretending that it is impossible to deny the mentally ill their rights to handle and purchase weapons. Tossing guns at teachers is their way of declaring that all is lost. But the fact is that had the Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Florida shooter not been handed weapons with a smile, all three shootings may not have even happened. And without these three very high profile disasters, the current discussion of arming the teacher would not exist.

A reaction is not a solution to the problem.

please feel free to point to anyone, anywhere that is advocating that mentally ill people should be able to buy firearms. The Sandy Hook shooter didn’t buy firearms. He killed his mother to gain access to her gun safe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PoS]

You seem to have a serious problem with honesty. Have you found where I claimed what you stated yet? When you honestly reply, then answer my question please otherwise let's just stop here. I have no interest in bandying hot air if you an't be honest.

The dishonest one here is you.

You made a claim that America has massive amounts of violent crime and school massacres, I proved you wrong with statistical facts.

You made a claim that the way to solve this issue is to prevent mentally ill people from getting access to firearms, I asked you for details on how to do it and you run away.

Here is a direct quote just in case youve no doubt forgotten.

No, the way forward is to prevent people with mental health problems getting their hands on such weapons in the first instance. Or at least limit it.

Looks like you cant elaborate on your own statement. Game, set, and match.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Another cowardly exit.

When one eats **** with the pigs........ If a jack ass brays and I bray back then I am a also a jackass.

Your posts are just too stupid for me to waste my energy on. Trolling? :roll:

 

[ludin]

No..guns are not the issue. And nobody, declared a ban on guns. But that's where your brain went, huh? Look up the word "ideology." Ideology is why you fail to be able to hold a conversation on the issue and ideology is why you are absolutely petrified of the liberal army that is on its way to take your toys. Allow me to help you into the discussion...

Maybe you should read more before commenting on other people. They are already calling for semi automatic rifle bans and what they deem assault rifle bans even though they are not assault rifles.

- Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) had autism and was diagnosed with developmental challenges before the age of three. When he was thirteen, he was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome by a psychiatrist. Throughout his teens, he was medicated and his father actually believed that his son suffered from undiagnosed schizophrenia. In the mean time, his mommy taught him all about how fun guns are because she was a "responsible" gun owner. Had he not simply stole his mother's unsecured guns, there is no law to prevent a guy like him from simply walking into a store and buying one.

That is the system that failed because there are already laws on the books that prevent mentally ill people from getting weapons but it has to be entered in the background.

- James Holmes (Batman premier shooting) was seeing a psychiatrist and he was on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Holmes had informed a social worker, that psychiatrist, and a second psychiatrist who joined for two out of seven sessions, that he was thinking about killing people. His mental state deteriorated and they informed campus police. But there was and is no law to prevent a person like him from buying his weapons (which he did). After the shooting, his attorneys, with the aid of multiple psychiatrists who diagnosed him with some form of schizophrenia, argued that he was mentally ill.

Again the failure of his psychologist to follow proper protocols and report it. That would have been flagged in his background check.

- Nikolas Cruz (Parkland) was transferred between schools six times in three years because of his behavior issues. In 2014, he was transferred to a school for children with emotional or learning disabilities. Later, the Florida Department of Children and Families investigated him in September 2016 for Snapchat posts in which he cut both his arms and said he planned to buy a gun. State investigators reported Cruz had depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. They assessed that he was not a risk. And the funny thing is that it wouldn't have mattered anyway. There is no law that prevented him from walking into a gun shop and buying his AR-15 (which he did).

Yes there is. Please see above.

All three were a matter of public record. The database is not the issue because we would rather protect the mentally ill's right to privacy than the public's safety from his right to buy a gun. So, instead of declaring that I don't know what I'm talking about, as a defensive posture because your feelings were hurt, open your mind and discover a few things. And thank you very much for presenting a post that absolutely represents that mindless attitude to ignore the issue.

Yes you need too as you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about.
Their psychologist were well within their right to report that they were a danger to themselves and others in fact they have an obligation to do so.

The state agency they report too is supposed to report it to the FBI background system.
In fact in all those cases the cops could have stepped in and taken him to see a doctor as well.

The system failed because the people involved failed to do their do diligence.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Well, the current situation involves a lot of people pretending that it is impossible to deny the mentally ill their rights to handle and purchase weapons. Tossing guns at teachers is their way of declaring that all is lost. But the fact is that had the Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Florida shooter not been handed weapons with a smile, all three shootings may not have even happened. And without these three very high profile disasters, the current discussion of arming the teacher would not exist.

A reaction is not a solution to the problem.

Oh, for ****'s sake. Nobody is claiming that it's impossible to deny guns for people that are mentally deficient. Just stop with that false garbage already. AGAIN, It is ALREADY illegal for a person that is mentally deficient to own or posses a firearm.

Possession of a firearm by the mentally ill is regulated by both state and federal laws.
Federal Law

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
To purchase a firearm a person has to fill out a BATF form 4473 and have a background check. It is a felony to lie on the BATF form 4473.

Florida Law:

Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 790.065.

Upon receipt of a request for a criminal history record check, the Department of Law Enforcement shall, during the licensee’s call or by return call forthwith:

Review any records available to determine if the potential buyer or transferee:

Has been adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution by a court, and as a result is prohibited by state or federal law from purchasing a firearm.

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 790.06.

The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall issue a license to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms if the applicant:

Has not been committed to a mental institution, under chapter 394 or similar laws of any other state.

From CNN even:

How is a person with mental illness blocked from buying a gun?
Under federal law, a person can be tallied in a database and barred from purchasing or possessing a firearm due to a mental illness under two conditions: if he is involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, or if a court or government body declares him mentally incompetent.
When is someone considered committed?
In many states, including Florida, law enforcement can take an individual to a mental hospital against his or her will for an initial evaluation. If after 72 hours the doctors observing the individual want to continue that treatment, then they can petition a court for permission, even against the patient's wishes.
That -- a court order allowing a person's continued involuntary institutionalization -- is one thing that should stop an individual from purchasing a firearm.
If the person was taken in for mental treatment involuntarily but was not requested to be held past 72 hours, he is not blocked from buying a gun.
In Florida, if the court chose to commit even an underage individual, he would fail a background check on that basis.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html

 

[Infinite Chaos]

The dishonest one here is you.

You made a claim that America has massive amounts of violent crime and school massacres, I proved you wrong with statistical facts.

Firstly you still haven't found where I state that there is a school shooting on a daily basis.

Secondly please find the post where I claim "violent crime and school massacres."

I don't expect an honest response or link to that post but feel free to surprise me.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I almost agree with you here but still demand due process of law be used to remove anyone's constitutional rights. I am not about to let allegations, hearsay or anonymous tips be used by "experts" to place folks on the NICS "no gun" list. If a judge can be convinced that he is dangerous (and he has a chance to defend himself and face his accusers) then fine but, until then, he has his rights.

Good point - but please explain to a non American how this would work in the US.

Taking Cruz for example, he made statements about his proposed actions, he also fitted a profile (we're happy to profile muslims and others) of angry teenager removed from different schools and already had met the armed officer on the school.

Who would be responsible for starting that due process of law? It didn't work in his instance and without looking further, how many others have gone on kill people from their old school that should also have been better checked?

 

[VanceMack]

Good point - but please explain to a non American how this would work in the US.

Taking Cruz for example, he made statements about his proposed actions, he also fitted a profile (we're happy to profile muslims and others) of angry teenager removed from different schools and already had met the armed officer on the school.

Who would be responsible for starting that due process of law? It didn't work in his instance and without looking further, how many others have gone on kill people from their old school that should also have been better checked?

One of the answers is to begin prosecuting people for making terrorist threats. It should be enough if there is evidence to support the statement was made to arrest and try someone for conveying a terrorist threat like "I'm going to shoot up the school." Since the last school shootings there have been several arrests made of kids that made similar threats. Likely, nothing will happen to them. That should change. There should be zero tolerance for such actions.

 

[PoS]

Firstly you still haven't found where I state that there is a school shooting on a daily basis.

Secondly please find the post where I claim "violent crime and school massacres."

I don't expect an honest response or link to that post but feel free to surprise me.

Post #82

How many other western nations with high gun ownership have the same number of mass shootings or even has to consider armed law enforcement officers on school grounds as an ordinary everyday occurrence?

I'm not claiming 100% deterrence but your focus is on a symptom, not the source of the problem.

Now, why don't you have the guts to answer my question since you proclaim to know all the answers.

You made a claim that the way to solve this issue is to prevent mentally ill people from getting access to firearms, I asked you for details on how to do it and you keep running away, just like that chicken cop.

No, the way forward is to prevent people with mental health problems getting their hands on such weapons in the first instance. Or at least limit it.

Now please, if you are man enough, go ahead and elaborate.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

How many other western nations with high gun ownership have the same number of mass shootings or even has to consider armed law enforcement officers on school grounds as an ordinary everyday occurrence?

I'm not claiming 100% deterrence but your focus is on a symptom, not the source of the problem.

Post #82~

OK, I requoted myself or your convenience. I even bolded the bit about having permanent or everyday occurrence of armed staff on school grounds which is not the same as saying shootings are an everyday occurrence.

I repeat my questions.

"Firstly you still haven't found where I state that there is a school shooting on a daily basis.

Secondly please find the post where I claim "violent crime and school massacres."

 

[Lursa]

And what's going to happen the first time a student steals a teacher's gun and decides to use it?

Or do you somehow imagine that teenaged boys in high school wouldn't do such a thing?

How do they steal it if they dont know it exists?

Concealed means concealed. Also, they've posted pics of a handgun safe, just the size of a handgun, bolted to the underside of a desk, opened only by fingerprint.

 

[Lursa]

You are deadly accurate with a weapon at a firing range. That does not mean that you would be deadly accurate with a weapon in a gun fight. Even trained police have very low hit rates in gun fights. Personally, I have known a lot of guys that were dead on at the range, but couldn't hit **** when hunting. I am not saying that is you, I am just pointing out there is a difference here. Police have an 18% hit rate in gun fights. There is nothing to suggest that teachers would be anywhere near that good. Point being, carry or not, I don't give a ****, but its a false sense of security. Armed teachers is not a substitute for stronger security in schools and more armed resource officers.

There is training where you shoot from behind cover, you move while shooting, exchanging magazines, etc. It's really fun actually. And not that hard to become fairly proficient. It's timed, there are many safety rules to remember and lots of people watching. It all adds a measure of stress that helps people understand better what they'll need to compensate for in a real-life situation.

I dont think we should do away with school security but I also see this as a good protective measure for individual classroooms.

 

[Lursa]

To kinda, sorta illustrate your point. Once at a retail counter at a gun range I recognized a woman who had been in a concealed carry class I had taken a month before. When I recognized her she was holding a Glock, if I remember correctly, and talking to the sales guy behind the counter. Not wanting to interrupt I stood back for a moment until I could say hi to her.

As I stood there she held the gun looked it over, back and forth, and said to the sales guy, "Now where do you put the batteries in this?"

Slowly I "found" something interesting at another counter and moved away before she turned and recognized me.

Did it have a laser sight or tac light on it? She may have been asking about that.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Did it have a laser sight or tac light on it? She may have been asking about that.

Good point. No, however, it didn’t.

 

[vash1012]

Give me an example of any system that is perfect or foolproof. If that is your goal you will never find it. I already answered all of the other questions in my previous posts as to training and funding.

I dont need to prove a system is perfect for it to be better than our system or our system with some extra armed teachers. We can look at the experiences of literally every other first world country in the world to see that there are better systems to prevent these kinds of things from occuring. There is not one shred of evidence mass shooters avoid places because someone might be armed there. There is especially not one shred of evidence a mass shooter with an AR15 and tactical gear is going to care about a teacher with a concealed handgun who trains once a year. I don't oppose arming teachers IF the states are willing to do the necessary things to make that happen. I oppose putting this out there without it being part of a broader initiative because its an aesthetic bandaid that won't work, but enough people will say "hey we did something" to prevent something that actually might be effective from being passed.

 

[danarhea]

If teachers have guns, then will librarians have silencers?

 

[Crosscheck]

If teachers have guns, then will librarians have silencers?

Rules are rules.

 

[PoS]

OK, I requoted myself or your convenience. I even bolded the bit about having permanent or everyday occurrence of armed staff on school grounds which is not the same as saying shootings are an everyday occurrence.

I repeat my questions.

"Firstly you still haven't found where I state that there is a school shooting on a daily basis.

Secondly please find the post where I claim "violent crime and school massacres."

I just did that. You claimed it was an ordinary occurrence, so stop lying. The word "as" does not mean "as if."

And you continue to fail to elaborate on your wondrous plan to stop all mentally ill people from getting guns. Your posts are nothing but lies, damned lies, and evasion. Stick to the European section.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ You claimed it was an ordinary occurrence ~

You really seem to have a problem with understanding written English.

 

[PoS]

You really seem to have a problem with understanding written English.

Keep up your cowardly evasion, because that's all you can do.

 

[Old Sarge]

If we did arm some teachers the odds are slim to none that they would ever have to react and fire their weapon. Heck the majority of cops serve 20 years without ever firing their weapons except at the firing range. So all this hoopla about how teachers are going to start blasting away is simple liberal fear mongering.

 

[American]

If we did arm some teachers the odds are slim to none that they would ever have to react and fire their weapon. Heck the majority of cops serve 20 years without ever firing their weapons except at the firing range. So all this hoopla about how teachers are going to start blasting away is simple liberal fear mongering.

There's no hoopla about teachers blasting away. There's only hoopla about teachers being trained to carry inside the school, nothing more. I would prefer armed police or deputized vets.

 

[Old Sarge]

There's no hoopla about teachers blasting away. There's only hoopla about teachers being trained to carry inside the school, nothing more. I would prefer armed police or deputized vets.

While I agree with you relying on just those resources doesn't seem to be working any longer. Many educators have a military background when I say teachers I am including school staff also, at this point we need to do something without making our children feel like prisoners when in school. I am open to any and all ideas.

 

[Lursa]

I dont need to prove a system is perfect for it to be better than our system or our system with some extra armed teachers. We can look at the experiences of literally every other first world country in the world to see that there are better systems to prevent these kinds of things from occuring. There is not one shred of evidence mass shooters avoid places because someone might be armed there. There is especially not one shred of evidence a mass shooter with an AR15 and tactical gear is going to care about a teacher with a concealed handgun who trains once a year. I don't oppose arming teachers IF the states are willing to do the necessary things to make that happen. I oppose putting this out there without it being part of a broader initiative because its an aesthetic bandaid that won't work, but enough people will say "hey we did something" to prevent something that actually might be effective from being passed.

You dont believe that a teacher with a handgun, from behind desk or other hardened cover, can cover the doorway and prevent and/or discourage a shooter from entering? (Door would initially be locked, they'd have to shoot their way in)

I write 'discourage' because it would be easier for the shooter to just move on.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Keep up your cowardly evasion, because that's all you can do.

I answered your questions when other people asked me the same. All you have to do is go back in the thread.

You on the other hand are doubling down on a failure to comprehend plain and simple English and instead of acknowledging your misunderstanding have gone into attack mode but to no avail. You made a moronic interpretation of my words and are oping bluster will get you through. It doesn't, it just shows your lack of English comprehension skills.