DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Another Mass Shooting Thread. Cause....

People are the people who might prefer to be armed instead being used for target practice. Do you think the people illegally carrying in public now are training? Your, still ambiguous, training requirement seems to only burden people who would obey the law.




I think you overestimate both the amount of times police have used their guns in the field and how much training they are required to receive. It seems to me school staff that carry can comply with the same training requirements.


The SRO in Uvalde wasn't in the building, he was worthless in this incident. His highly elite training saved no one. Someone in a classroom that could have returned fire would have been nice, maybe even someone that participated in the same highly elite training.


S'ok.. The post formatting here can be tedious at times, especially when you try to break up a response or have other responses interleaved.

I'd be good with outlawing murder.

That sorts it all out.

As you know, that works really well too...

smh.

I would believe it's reasonable to think law abiding citizens should be more responsible than the criminals. That's pretty much the only thing that separates us from the criminals. To use the excuse, "Well criminals don't have to do that" seems to indicate we don't expect more from the good guys than the bad guys. There's a host of things criminals don't do that the rest of us do. And should do.


I think you underestimate their ability and training. We're never going to agree on this one.


Ah, using a single incident where there was only one resource officer who wasn't doing his job. That's the exact same human error element I'm talking about with having teachers with no real world experience in these situations carrying a gun.

Laws only work for responsible people willing to follow them. Just like locks only keep out honest people. If someone wants to break in bad enough, a lock won't stop them. So I guess we should stop using locks too.

</sarcasm>

Let me see if I understand your logic:

Citizens should be required to engage in arbitrary and ambiguous training to prove they are safe to carry a weapon in public for their own, and those around them, defense.

Teacher cannot be trained properly to carry a weapon in a school for their, and those around them, defense. Only police can be properly trained for that.

Do I have your view correct, it would seem I do from your previous statements, but I wanted to be clear.

Somehow this is what you garner from expecting people to act in a responsible manner. It seems very odd that this is how you describe accountability.


A retired police officer or retired military have handled weapons for decades. No amount of training will replace that experience.


You're not even close to being clear concerning my statements. .

You say I am not clear but you really don't explain the disconnect in your logic. You have already started to deflect and twist.

Do you mean police (or military) that have decades of experience or do you mean brand new police or military, you were never clear on that to start with.

How do you know teachers don't have decades of handling firearms? Do you know people have left the military and gone on to be teachers right? You know that is possible.

I've stated retired military or retired police several times. Now you may find a rare occasion here or there that stipulation may nob have been included but that wouldn't be an honest description of what I've been saying all along


So you are saying the same thing I am. Retired military or police officer. Just because they so happen to be teachers after they retire from the military or from the police force and become a teacher, doesn't change the fact they are retired military or police. Speaking of twisting.

j/c:

Sound familiar?

But no I wasn't saying what you are saying.

I'm saying anyone can be trained effectively, not just your small list, that you make more and more specific. (Now retired is a qualifier)

I'm also saying you were excluding all teacher without regard as to where they came from because it doesn't fit your narrative.

So no, I was not saying what you were saying, you are trying to twist it.

Retired military and retired police are still exactly that no matter if they are currently teaching. Being trained is not the same as having extensive experience handling and carrying a gun and having to engage people with said gun.

I'm not making it "more and more specific". I've said retired military and retired police over a long period of time in such debates.

There are about 19 million veterans in America. While not all would be qualified due to age and impairments, that's a huge amount of people. Every town, city, county and state has law enforcement agencies with many retirees. Let's not pretend there aren't enough people to fill the positions. If you wish to have an honest discussion on the topic, please attempt to do so.

Ok, let's use your retired military group.

My partner's ex husband was in the military and retired. He never touched a firearm the entire time. He was an attorney, he was stationed on a ship. But he is a great candidate solely due to being retired military.

You keep conferring on large groups of people abilities or or weaknesses that just do not mesh.

How many career police have fired their service weapon in a an encounter with someone armed (hint, most haven't)? How many train enough to qualify in their periodic qualification? How many people in the military are issued a weapon on a daily basis? Your arguments are solely based on the idea that police and military are all extensively trained and that really is not the case. Some are, certainly, but especially for the police it is the exception not the rule.

And again, you have said some sort of ambiguous training should be required for people to carry in public. I would think that carrying in a public situation is more demanding than a school. You are more likely out side of a school to need the arms, and you have a potential for a lot more happening at one time than in a school. I get it, you can't possibly fathom that people who work in schools could possible be capable of handling the situation. People who can do nothing else teach, it is a very popular misconception. I've know a great many teachers I would trust to be armed and protect students. I've know a few I wouldn't trust with a straw and spitball. No one has suggested not vetting them.

When an active shooter is in the building the people in the building are the first responders. Everyone outside the building is secondary. Teachers have to be there day in and day out. Adding additional armed and uniformed personal is not a bad idea, it is an incomplete solution.

You must have either missed my comment or chose to ignore it, your choice. My quote....


If you wish you can add your other qualifiers but I certainly was not including "all veterans".

I think people who are not experienced in carrying and handling a weapon over a long period of time are not as qualified as people who have. It's pretty simple no matter what great lengths you go to in order to indicate otherwise.

How many times in your life have you needed a firearm to protect yourself in a public setting? How many times has that need come up?

Just a note: most cops don't ever use their weapon in the line of service. they get training, no doubt.

Military people? Ask some combat vets, they could better answer, but I think when they are fired on, they go all out returning fire, damn the target.

Actually I'm sure troops are trained to avoid friendly fire incidents. Even Swish just posted not log ago that during combat they were told to use their rifles on semi auto mide to insure more accuracy. I'm going to take it from him since he was actually engaged in combat.

And while many cops never use their guns, would you say it sounds much safer to have people experienced for decades in carrying and handling a weapon verses someone who has not? I'm just trying to use a more common sense approach here. It is after all our children here we're talking about protecting.

I don't know where you get your 19million number from and I don't care. We can use it. Of that, what percentage meets your desired qualifications? Keep in mind we are striking anyone that doesn't have combat experience and anyone who is not physically and mentally capable of handling the job (or course you would require a proper and complete psyche eval too right?). Now that you have disqualified a fairly large chunk of this group, you next have to decide how many of them want the job. From the remaining group, how do you plan to spread them out evenly amongst the schools? There is no guarantee that your remaining group will be evenly distributed in a way to accommodate the schools. For sure there will some percentage it works for, but what about the rest? You've consider how to close the shortfall right?

I'd be willing to bet every single teacher that would volunteer and would pass the relevant training is already close to their school. And you dismiss the idea that teachers might have been carrying all their life. Just because someone is a teacher doesn't mean they have zero firearms experience.

Existing teachers and staff actually are common sense. It just doesn't fit your narrative that unless you've survived Iwo Jima you can't protect kids.
.

And the virtual back-hands continue.....

Yes, it sounds familiar.

The sad thing is, it makes me realize the issues facing this country are the same as they've always been.

When was that from, mid 1970's?

Take any political topic - the arguing never stops, and nothing gets fixed, on any topic. Gov't., congress - they can fix anything, all they need is more money. And nothing is ever fixed, but they still need more money to fix it for real, this time.

Exactly.

And yeah, it's probably from the early to mid 70s. This one is from 1972. Kinda like the arming teacher argument, I suppose.

To be fair I don't really believe politicians want to fix anything. They merely want a campaign issue to talk about, point out how the other guy doesn't care or can't fix it then get back to the trough of feeding off the public.

If there isn't something to fix what do we "need" them for?

Like I said, the hot topics today are the same as they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Or more.

The only people that win are the politicians.

I think we are all kinda making similar points. These issues have been plaguing us for as long as I can remember. Folks argue passionately on one side or the other and nothing gets done. A lot of huffing and puffing and nothing of real substance. I'm pretty much to the point I don't care anymore about what any of them say because they don't do crap. Think about it, this was a huge topic 50 years ago. Has it gotten better or worse? I know the answer to that one because I was in my teens in 1972.

Aye.

Must be nice though, you can create a problem, not fix and keep your job, and get fat off the public.

I might have gone that route except I have some morals.

how many good guys with guns prevented Reagan and one of his staff from getting shot?

This professor also wrote a book about an alternate history where the south won.

she brings up a really good point about how she also grew up with guns on the back of pickup trucks, but the difference was there wasn't a whole culture built around guns.

now, we have a a demographic who literally use firearms as an identity, from a social aspect instead of just sport and self defense like it use to be.

funny i never heard the "i grew up when" crowd ever mention that aspect. yall always seem to leave that part out for some reason...

They kept him from dying, that's a win.

Had they not been there to protect him how much easier would it have been to finish the job?

the doctors kept him from dying. the good guys with guns didn't do anything to prevent the shooting at all. the other guy that got shot was paralyzed for life, correct? i'd hardly call that a win.

I honestly had no idea just how bad and pervasive a problem that type of self-interest is within the Government until I actually started working within it. We see them grandstanding in public, but the stuff they actually do - which is sadly all public information - is horrifically corrupt.

So had the good guys with guns taken a lunch break you think Reagan would still be alive? Yes, the doctors did their job, but they wouldn't have had a job to do if the good guys with guns hadn't intervened to start with.

They stopped the bad guy with a gun from continuing to shoot. Just because you are a good guy doesn't mean you are a mind reader. There's really no way they would have know ahead of time that Hinckley was going to start shooting. It was unfortunate for Brady. I suppose Brady would have to say if living paralyzed was better than dead.

the doctors wouldn't need to have that specific job to do if the good guys with guns stopped the shooting in the first place. that's the whole point of having the firearm, defense and deterrence. i'm sure doctors would like to practice their profession that doesn't involve sewing up bullet holes wounds.

come on bro...

So how would the good guys with guns have stopped Hinckley? Come on bro, bad people do bad things and the good guys have to REACT. Reaction takes place after an action. Come on bro really.

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around some of these silly arguments.

Are you saying we don't need "good guys with guns?" Or presidents don't need security? Do you think they should crouch around with guns waving everywhere because until every shooting is prevented they are useless?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: County commissioners from here went to DC to testify - quite a number of years ago. They said it's unreal what is put on tv, and what happens in real life. As in, the politicians fighting each other? Well, they go out to eat together when the camera's are off.

Same with a local hog farmer, and when I say local, he is. When I say hog farmer, I mean 10's of thousands of hogs, yearly. He couldn't believe how friendly all the congress people were with each other - after hours.

My dad actually got requested to show up in DC to possibly testify about HMO's, and well, stuff pertaining to that. He never did get called to congress to testify, but he's said the same things - the fight for the t.v., but they're best buds after hours.

What I said earlier, in this thread or a different one - the same damn issues we have going on now are the same damn issues that have been going on for 20, 30, 40 or more years. Gov't. hasn't fixed a damn thing, other than to make more people poor. And for congress to get rich.

i guess the same way you expect barriers to stop school shooters. or how we expect good guys with guns to go stop bad guys with guns from shooting up children.

magic.

there are no good guys with guns. there's just guys with guns.


about a silly as people claiming that no president has control over gas prices, until biden becomes president. or no president controls oil production, until biden became president.

or how good guys with guns are needed to stop bad guys with guns...until parkland and Uvalde happened.

apparently there are no silly arguments. just arguments.

i guess the same way you expect barriers to stop school shooters. or how we expect good guys with guns to go stop bad guys with guns from shooting up children.

magic. [/quote]

Ahh I see where you are going with this. So I don't expect barriers and good guys with guns to manipulate reality such that shootings never happen. I expect barriers to slow down a shooter, make them waste time on an inanimate object like a door. My partner's school already has locked doors and high impact windows. Shooting the windows won't magically make them disappear (unless you use 9mm and believe the window is a lung).

Most mass shootings are stopped when the good guy with a gun shows up. Sometimes the shooter takes themselves out, sometimes the good guy does, sometimes the shooter (believe it or not) tries to walk away. But until the good guy shows up they are free to do what they will. Barriers may mean that the good guy has a chance to get there before undefended people are hurt. It might not, but frankly, not being willing to lock the doors of a school to keep out people seems to beg the same question anti gun people ask why do you want children dead just to save a couple of dollars on a lock?"


People are good, people are bad, I think most try their best and some just want to watch the world burn. You may live your whole life trying to help others (good guy) and then get drunk one night go out and kill someone driving (bad guy). Matter isn't just a solid, there are four states (five if you want to count it that way). Just because water is solid in January doesn't mean it won't be liquid in April. If you are doing bad you are a bad guy, if you are doing good you are a good guy.




So you are butthurt because someone ridiculed Biden so you are off taking pot shots at people who haven't said anything about that?

To be honest the good guys with guns weren't the guys that showed up and waited outside. Those were bad guys with guns that just looked like good guys with guns.

right but by the time the good guys show up - IF they show up - the body count is already there.

if a mass shooter gets 5-6 bodies, then turns the gun on himself, you consider that the good guys with guns stopped the shooting?

do you think those who are victims of gun violence, like the kids in Uvalde and their parents, would agree with you? im just trying to figure out the logic here. this isn't aimed specifically at you, but for the longest time, i've been told on this board that feeling bad for migrants coming over here escaping violence doesn't do anything to help the victims of violence from illegal immigrants.

im just trying to figure out why it's somehow different when we as americans commit the violence.

i'm not sure where the butthurt comments come from, but if you want to do the insults back and forth again, you know i'm more than happy to oblige.

all i ever ask on this board: what's the standard?

That's why I keep pointing out the people on the scene are the first responders. I know it sounds cliche, but when seconds count the police are minutes away.


Not at all. He was the bad guy and continues to be. Statistics show most mass shootings are stopped by the shooter. The greater ratio of those are stopped when the shooter encounters resistance from someone else with a gun. My best guess on that is you have a suicidal person who is angry with everyone else for being suicidal doing these acts. When they realize they aren't going to be the ones to end themselves, or they worry they won't get ended just stopped, they take the bullet express. There are times when the shooter walks away, maybe they got tired, maybe they vented the rage, but that isn't something you wait on. The Aroura CO shooting, he stopped and waited for the cops. If I recall the drum magazine jammed and he just walked out. He is still an evil piece of crap.


To be far, I don't believe the phrase gun violence. It is rhetoric. It is human violence. Humans make the violence. We never talk about baseball bat violence, or knife violence or shoe violence. Guns do not create or impel violence. It is all human, and violence has been part of being human since we crawled out of the mud.

I don't speak for anyone in Uvalde or anywhere else. I speak for me, I don't know if they agree. Just because they had a horrific experience does not make their opinions weigh more. It doesn't even make them right. One might argue that getting emotional on the topic makes one less logical about the whole thing. But I have never spoken to any of them except the one I live with. She is still a firm believer in your right to carry arms, or to not carry arms as you choose. She has said multiple times she wished she had been armed that day, even though in the end only one person was shot and he survived.



I'm not quite sure what you mean. I've never had a discussion about migration here, much less with you.

Keep in mind we have a media driving attention and shaping the narrative. America is a horribly dangerous place. We have a homicide rate of 4.96. El Salvador is 61.7, Honduras 41.0, Venezuela 49.9.

Homicide is not murder of course. Homicide is a human killing another human, it may be justified it may not be. We are much lower in homicide rate than a lot of the southern countries. Take that for what you will.







You seemed upset that people are picking on Biden and then vented about good guys with guns, in essence taking that out on me since it was pointedly directed at me. I'm happy to have a rational conversation, but I'm not willing to have something that has noting to do with me tossed at me.