National POLL: Support For Gun Control Measures

[American123]

so then is there a pro-gun solution to preventing or mitigating mass or school shootings?

Yep, super easy. Let people who are willing to be armed on school campus and are already "background checked" to work around children - be armed so they can shoot back rather than be fish in a barrel for some evil POS.

See exhibit A: 92% of mass shootings occur in places legally designated "gun free zones."

Make it very clear to the public that staff is armed and trained to kill people who come onto campus attempting to harm others.

 

[Mikej]

School Shooters: Understanding their path to violence is key to prevention

Psychologists and the FBI say they are getting a better understanding of the mix of factors that lead some kids to open fire on a classroom. The shooting can be an act of desperation fueled by anger.

www.npr.org

Man, you know, I've got plenty of anger from all this crap going on in, and to, America. But the top thing in MY mind is my right to keep and bear arms! All I can do is yell and curse at the radio, and TV. And rant here. But you need to be careful doing that even. And it's going to get worse I believe, with the powers that be monitoring internet stuff. Being a firearms owner is a responsibility I take very seriously. I take my responsibility of driving a vehicle very serious too. I don't want to lose either, and act accordingly.

 

[Member 53328]

Yep, super easy. Let people who are willing to be armed on school campus and are already "background checked" to work around children - be armed so they can shoot back rather than be fish in a barrel for some evil POS.

See exhibit A: 92% of mass shootings occur in places legally designated "gun free zones."

Make it very clear to the public that staff is armed and trained to kill people who come onto campus attempting to harm others.

There would have to be procedures put in place. I'm all for teachers carrying guns but I think there would have to be measures put in place before doing so… I know a handful of people who carry/own firearms that I would NOT trust to shoot back accurately and quickly or get in a physical altercation with my child in the room. I don't know what training/tests/liabilities would look like but there are plenty of kids who can overpower teachers simply due to size and strength. What happens when a CHILD (elementary to high school) overpowers a teacher and removes their firearm. Like everyone here has pointed out there is no simple fix and guns are NOT the issue. With every solution there are corresponding risks.

If you really wanna put guns in the hands of teachers they also better be physically fit, mentally prepared, trained in medical etc…..

Then you will have to deal with some teachers being ok with it while other (left leaning) teachers will protest against it and use the new policy to weaponize politics against the teachers that do carry.

 

[Member 75076]

The reality is that finding a permanent fix to these lone wolf style mass shootings is not easy, at least in regards to not totally eviscerating the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle in regards to gun ownership because we have hundreds of millions of guns floating around in the country and even if there was a total ban on all firearms enacted today, it would take decades to round-up enough of them for a total ban to have any impact. We also don't have the privilege of just "banning" guns a la Australia and England because we share a land border with central America, which is not known for being a particularly stable, and I'm willing to bet the cartels would very quickly get into the business of running guns across the border like they do now with drugs. We also have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms so there are limits to what can be done in regards to legislating civilian ownership of guns.

There is no denying that the current system to buy a gun is broken. It is far too easy for some random unhinged individual to get access to a firearm. Before anybody pipes up about having to complete a background check, we all know that doesn't do sh*t. You get the 4473 then fill out your name and address, mark yes to the first question, no to the following 11, leave the final box blank, then sign and date. Congrats, you've completed the background check to buy a gun. Unless you have some kind of record on paper, you're going to walk out with that firearm in your hand that same day. I don't believe it should be like that.

I'm not opposed to waiting periods for first time buyers (unless they have a copy of a police report regarding a threat to their life or safety) and requiring mandatory education for the same on safe storage, handling a firearm, self defense laws, etc. I also don't think people under the age of 21 should be able to purchase semi-automatic firearms until they hit 21 years of age. Most 18 year-olds are freaking retards. Yes, there are definitely sharp ones out there but they are in the minority. I also don't care for the argument about being able to enlist in the military at 18 but not own a semi-automatic rifle. For the record, I shipped off to boot camp when I was 17, which last time I checked is below even the age to vote. I also am not opposed to red flag laws, as long as they respect due process and ensure the accused gets their day in court to present their side of the story.

From the people I've talked to, it seems a good chunk of gun owners aren't against restrictions like those I just outlined, but we don't trust the government will oversee them in a fair and reasonable way. Guns are only a small part of the equation here. We also need to address mental health and broken homes because they are equally responsible for these attacks, but I will save that rant for another day.

 

[American123]

There would have to be procedures put in place. I'm all for teachers carrying guns but I think there would have to be measures put in place before doing so… I know a handful of people who carry/own firearms that I would NOT trust to shoot back accurately and quickly or get in a physical altercation with my child in the room. I don't know what training/tests/liabilities would look like but there are plenty of kids who can overpower teachers simply due to size and strength. What happens when a CHILD (elementary to high school) overpowers a teacher and removes their firearm. Like everyone here has pointed out there is no simple fix and guns are NOT the issue. With every solution there are corresponding risks.

If you really wanna put guns in the hands of teachers they also better be physically fit, mentally prepared, trained in medical etc…..

Then you will have to deal with some teachers being ok with it while other (left leaning) teachers will protest against it and use the new policy to weaponize politics against the teachers that do carry.

You seem to be stipulating a lot of expectations compared with the current situation where teachers and students are expected to be "fish in a barrel."

We as a society already throw crazy money at all kinds of crap. Teachers (who are willing) could receive some training relevant to what you described above.

Some teachers wouldn't need it though because they already passionately train and can shoot better than most of the nay-sayers on this forum.

For the record though, there are plenty of self defense shootings every year where the defender did not have significant training and the attacker lost.

 

[Koda]

Yep, super easy. Let people who are willing to be armed on school campus and are already "background checked" to work around children - be armed so they can shoot back rather than be fish in a barrel for some evil POS.

See exhibit A: 92% of mass shootings occur in places legally designated "gun free zones."

Make it very clear to the public that staff is armed and trained to kill people who come onto campus attempting to harm others.

I completely agree with this and getting rid of all GFZs but this proposal is rife with pitfalls.
Most importantly, the pro-gun community shouldnt propose this as a solution to school shootings, its not, and claiming it is will only get it rejected. I do think hardening the target will mitigate school shootings because mass shooters know they can inflict more casualties in GFZs and will seek those out first, but there isnt any evidence it will eliminate school shootings.

the other problem here is many teachers are simply not capable or the type to defend themselves with lethal force. Most public school teacher demographics typically dont support guns or lethal self defense... my observation in Oregon anyways. Some will, but for the idea to work I think we would need more than 1 or 2 armed teachers up for the task.

Im just pointing out the arguments, not rejecting the idea. To me, their is not only no excuse to let those willing arm themselves its unconstitutional for a public employee to be barred from exercising their constitutional rights on the job. But thats another subject.

 

[Member 53328]

You seem to be stipulating a lot of expectations compared with the current situation where teachers and students are expected to be "fish in a barrel."

We as a society already throw crazy money at all kinds of crap. Teachers (who are willing) could receive some training relevant to what you described above.

Some teachers wouldn't need it though because they already passionately train and can shoot better than most of the nay-sayers on this forum.

For the record though, there are plenty of self defense shootings every year where the defender did not have significant training and the attacker lost.

They're fish in a barrel cause America refuses to make schools hard targets. It's more cost effective and more "inviting" or "safe" for the children if they are left as soft targets. We all know that if we put the amount of time, money and resources into protecting our children as we do our money we would be seeing these events occur less often. But that's too "militarized" for the average American.

 

[Koda]

There is no denying that the current system to buy a gun is broken. It is far too easy for some random unhinged individual to get access to a firearm. Before anybody pipes up about having to complete a background check, we all know that doesn't do sh*t. You get the 4473 then fill out your name and address, mark yes to the first question, no to the following 11, leave the final box blank, then sign and date. Congrats, you've completed the background check to buy a gun. Unless you have some kind of record on paper, you're going to walk out with that firearm in your hand that same day. I don't believe it should be like that.

the form might be meaningless but maybe what needs to change is the names on the list when the state runs the check. Thats the part that rejects prohibited persons, but does it always work? And how do we get nutjobs on that list if they arent a convicted violent criminal yet?

 

[American123]

I completely agree with this and getting rid of all GFZs but this proposal is rife with pitfalls.
Most importantly, the pro-gun community shouldnt propose this as a solution to school shootings, its not, and claiming it is will only get it rejected. I do think hardening the target will mitigate school shootings because mass shooters know they can inflict more casualties in GFZs and will seek those out first, but there isnt any evidence it will eliminate school shootings.

the other problem here is many teachers are simply not capable or the type to defend themselves with lethal force. Most public school teacher demographics typically dont support guns or lethal self defense... my observation in Oregon anyways. Some will, but for the idea to work I think we would need more than 1 or 2 armed teachers up for the task.

Im just pointing out the arguments, not rejecting the idea. To me, their is not only no excuse to let those willing arm themselves its unconstitutional for a public employee to be barred from exercising their constitutional rights on the job. But thats another subject.

I think if it were an option legally, the amount who were willing would increase, but I think you may be focusing too much on the volume. Right now the public awareness is that if you want to go shoot up somewhere with no resistance, a school is a prime target. It's one of the few places in society that legally there are no guns allowed. Who follows those laws? - only people who are not a problem and but not the people who plan to shoot up the school.

If it was public knowledge that there are armed teachers (but who they are is not advertised) that would be something everyone with this plan would have to consider. They would know. "I could be shot as soon as I step in the building." But instead they know they have lots of time until police arrive, and even more so while they set up a perimeter. These people are going there to slaughter. Laws banning inanimate objects will not stop people with evil intent. In China they've experienced mass stabbing attacks at schools. Stopping evil (which is what this is) requires violence - hence why people call 911 to get someone to arrive with a gun to do that. My suggestion is to significantly decrease the time in which someone with a gun is there to do that.

There are already plenty of school districts and schools in the US where staff are legally allowed to carry guns, or an armed security force is already employed - so I view many of your concerns as lacking merit.

The president's kids or grandkids will never have to worry about this because guaranteed there is a significant armed presence and security procedures in place of where they are going to school.

 

[American123]

They're fish in a barrel cause America refuses to make schools hard targets. It's more cost effective and more "inviting" or "safe" for the children if they are left as soft targets. We all know that if we put the amount of time, money and resources into protecting our children as we do our money we would be seeing these events occur less often. But that's too "militarized" for the average American.

You can't harden schools enough, it's not possible. To do so would make them prisons. That's not a comprehensive solution.

 

[Member 53328]

You can't harden schools enough, it's not possible. To do so would make them prisons. That's not a comprehensive solution.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mike-force/id1510253966?i=1000563947239 if you got time it's worth a listen. If not no worries.

Here's the YouTube version.

 

[Koda]

I think if it were an option legally, the amount who were willing would increase, but I think you may be focusing too much on the volume. Right now the public awareness is that if you want to go shoot up somewhere with no resistance, a school is a prime target. It's one of the few places in society that legally there are no guns allowed. Who follows those laws? - only people who are not a problem and but not the people who plan to shoot up the school.

If it was public knowledge that there are armed teachers (but who they are is not advertised) that would be something everyone with this plan would have to consider. They would know. "I could be shot as soon as I step in the building." But instead they know they have lots of time until police arrive, and even more so while they set up a perimeter. These people are going there to slaughter. Laws banning inanimate objects will not stop people with evil intent. In China they've experienced mass stabbing attacks at schools. Stopping evil (which is what this is) requires violence - hence why people call 911 to get someone to arrive with a gun to do that. My suggestion is to significantly decrease the time in which someone with a gun is there to do that.

There are already plenty of school districts and schools in the US where staff are legally allowed to carry guns, or an armed security force is already employed - so I view many of your concerns as lacking merit.

The president's kids or grandkids will never have to worry about this because guaranteed there is a significant armed presence and security procedures in place of where they are going to school.

I think you have a good point on not needing volume, but to clarify these arent my personal concerns Im just parroting the response Ive had given to me discussing this with anti-gun people. I personally think its insane to prohibit teachers from carrying in todays school shooting trends.

I will let the anti-gunners explain their arguments better than me. And the extensive training issue is bogus too.

Arming Teachers Wrong Response to School Shootings: Ex-FBI Agent

"It is not hard to learn to shoot a gun…What takes far longer, however, is learning to respond properly to an active shooter," argues Tracy Walder.

www.newsweek.com

 

[fstdraw]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME, ONLY 28 TOTAL VOTERS ON THIS SURVEY? THAT'S THE SADEST COMMENTARY OF ALL.

 

[Lilhigbee]

There are 28 people on this forum that support some of this BS?? THAT is the saddest commentary of all!!

 

[fstdraw]

I think some of the poll questions are legit. It is after all a poll and not a vote.

 

[American123]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mike-force/id1510253966?i=1000563947239 if you got time it's worth a listen. If not no worries.

Here's the YouTube version.

I'll listen to it later for sure, but my initial question is related to outside activities like recess, lunch, fire-drills or alarms being pulled, etc. Even if you made the physical building into fort knox, the kids are still outside large amounts of time throughout the day. In terms of overall lethality, an individual classroom getting slaughtered is not the worst thing that could have happened. There are several locations and times of day where the casualty rate could be far higher at a school (which I don't care to advertise) and in my experience, none of the suggestions to harden schools would prevent that situation. We are just lucky that these evil people aren't to tactically minded.

A 20 ft concrete wall with armed guards in outposts elevated every 50 yards around the entire campus perimeter and 1 entrance with multiple armed security personnel at that choke point would realistically prevent these situations in the school itself, if the idea to arm teachers / school staff is still off the table, but like I said, unless you make a school a prison, you can't harden it enough.

Even the people making a big deal about an unlocked door ignore the basic facts that most classrooms have windows to the outside large enough for a person to climb through. If someone is committed to terrible violence, shooting through and or climbing through a window is not too much additional hassle.

 

[jjfitch]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mike-force/id1510253966?i=1000563947239 if you got time it's worth a listen. If not no worries.

Here's the YouTube version.

Sorry I don't have time to watch the entire video!

SHOTS FIRED ON THE PREMISIS OR WITHIN AN OCCUPIED SCHOOL MEANS THE FIRST RESOPNDERS HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE EVERY REASONABLE (within their training and ability) ATTEMPT TO ELIMINAE THE THREAT! PERIOD!!!

The fact that the on-site commander changed the scenario, he reversed all the training since Columbine After Action Report is an unspeakably, irresponsible mistake and I hope he is held accountable!

"The police response to Columbine was heavily criticized at the time, leading to a drastic change in active shooter incident response nationwide. Immediate action rapid deployment (IARD) tactics replaced scene containment, leading to departments training and equipping personnel for solo officer response."

(Immediate action rapid deployment (IARD) is a police tactic where first responders, typically regular officers, actively confront a developing high-risk crisis!)

I pray for the families and hope that first responders everywhere recognize their responsibility and get to use their IARD training and experience to do their job despite the lack of awareness of the onsite supervisor!

Yes, I'm a retired LEO!

 

[dancinghippos]

Israeli schools were under attack from terrorist for decades. They did something about it: In 1974, they hardened their schools. They did not demand that their own citizens give away their means of self-defense. They improved security by learning from previous attacks. They have had only 2 successful school attacks since. American politicians throw money at anything, but they are stingy for protecting our children? There are 115,000 primary and secondary schools in the US. For $57 Billion, each could get a half-million dollars in physical and human security upgrades.

Israel learned early that begging for mercy doesn't cut it. Now they shoot back and attacks have dropped to nearly zero.

 

[dancinghippos]

The majority of gun crimes come from a relative handful of repeat offenders. They are already forbidden from owning guns, but they have them, laws or not. Criminals who ignore murder and robbery laws will not obey gun laws.

How do we know those laws don't affect crime?
Ask any police officer if laws registering or banning so-called "semi-automatic" weapons or large magazines affect crime. They will say NO. PoliceOne, an organization of 450,000 active and retired officers, surveyed 15,000 members on gun control policies. 71% of them said a ban on so-called "assault weapons" would have no effect on violent crime. 20% of the respondents said it would make crime worse. The numbers were even more striking when asking about magazine size restrictions.
This is a link to a summary page:

PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives

Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted

www.police1.com

In 1994, Congress passed laws restricting semi-automatic guns and magazines. They required a study of the law's effects on crime, and added a 10-year sunset provision. Researchers from both sides studied the results and concluded there was no effect on crime. Congress let the law expire because it did no good.

Gun control laws only hurt victims, especially in marginalized communities where gangs and violence hurt people the most. Wealthy white liberals feel virtuous by pushing these laws on poor communities, but they only hurt the people who live there. Muggers and dealers will be armed no matter what the laws are. Residents are afraid to call police. A gun puts someone at even odds with a mugger. When people don't know if you are armed or not, they won't risk it.

You may not be worried about self-protection today. Don't forbid yourself from changing your mind. If an ex gets violent or people from a nearby encampment show up in your home, or someone hates your lifestyle, you protect yourself and your family. When seconds count, the police are 10-20 minutes away.

If these laws worked, Chicago and Mexico would be the safest places on earth. If the police could protect you, the Uvalde and Parkland children would still be alive. In the most famous school shooter events in the decade, police did not interview the shooters when they posted promises to commit a school shooting. And they did not intervene while the shootings were in progress. Instead, they restrained others from entering the buildings until SWAT arrived too late.

Police write good reports, but if they aren't already standing next to you, you are on your own. If you need protection, you can't wait. Don't sign away your rights to protect yourself in the future. You know they won't stop with these laws. They never do. You don't want to pay with your rights for the crimes of a handful of repeat offenders who should have been in jail.

 

[dancinghippos]

When these things happen, all the emotion clouds judgment. The left depends on that and is ready to capitalize on the tragedy. When you point out the foolishness of disarming innocents because of the crimes of crazy people and the failure of police to do their jobs, you get nonsense back like "how can you talk like that at a time like this?"