Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 346424 times)

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2300 on: February 23, 2017, 12:30:35 PM »
No. Belief does not equal logic. But the argument that an armed teacher could stop a shooter is more reasoned and less emotional than "I feel scurred around big mean guns." I specifically said that it wasn't likely to have an effect on shooting rates, only that it is a reasoned argument as opposed to an emotional one.

I have not seen as many arguements of " I would feel better with more guns in my school." I see plenty of "Guns could stop school shootings" arguments. The status of this being completely factul or not does not detract from this being a reasoned arguement and not an emotional one. On the other hand i see mostly emotional arguements for gun control- golden1 listed several, with zero reason based arguements. In fact, their whole point was that gun proponents are not emotional enough, which I think is silly and unhelpful, whether it is true or not.

Sure, "guns could stop school shootings" is completely factual the same way that "metal detectors could stop school shootings," or "anti-bullying campaigns can stop school shootings," or "[insert theory here]." All of them are plausibly true and all of them have plausible scenarios in which they would fail to stop a shooting. None of them are clearly the most reasoned/logical approach because there is not enough data to back any of them up that definitively.

I don't disagree that anti-gun folks tend to make emotional appeals and are generally harsher with them. My point is that pro-gun folks also make emotional appeals, they are just different. golden1 and others are more along the lines of "how can you stand for children to be murdered and do nothing?" Pro gun folks are along the lines of either "guns = FREEDOM!" which is obviously emotion based, or more subtly, "I believe I am safer and can make others safer when I have a gun," which sounds reasonable, but is still based within the same emotion used by the anti-gun folks, fear. 

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the above. Fear for the safety of you, your family, and society is a great reason to seek effective solutions. But it's a bit condescending for you to imply that you have the logical high ground in the debate, so to speak, just as it is obnoxious (and I will say, objectively more mean-spirited) for others to come in and accuse you of being indifferent to murdered children.
Shooting and killing someone that is trying to kill Innocent people stops them that's a fact. Now there are many factors that determine if a person can accomplish that. Metal detectors, anti-bullying campaigns etc. may deter but will not stop someone determined to do harm to others. Unfortunately there are things that can only be solved by violence. Mass shootings not ending until the shooter(s) meeting resistance is what many of them have in common. Generally the sooner they are met with resistance the less people they are able to kill or injure.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 12:34:22 PM by jamesvt »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2301 on: February 23, 2017, 12:43:59 PM »
Shooting and killing someone that is trying to kill Innocent people stops them that's a fact. Now there are many factors that determine if a person can accomplish that. Metal detectors, anti-bullying campaigns etc. may deter but will not stop someone determined to do harm to others. Unfortunately there are things that can only be solved by violence. Mass shootings not ending until the shooter(s) meeting resistance is what many of them have in common. Generally the sooner they are met with resistance the less people they are able to kill or injure.

No, a proposed scenario is not a fact. There is no difference between what you said is a "fact" and me saying: An anti-bullying campaign can lead to a disturbed child getting the emotional support he needs before he decides to shoot up a school, thus preventing the action just as effectively as if he was taken out by an armed teacher. More so, because he gets to live too and the entire student body is better equipped to handle conflict appropriately for the rest of their lives, to the benefit of society as a whole.

Or here's another "fact" for you. A disturbed student who did not originally intend to plan a mass shooting reaches a breaking point (say due to bullying) while within reach of an armed teacher who, surprised by the sudden turn, finds the student in control of their weapon, thus setting off a school shooting that wouldn't have happened at all.

Now again, I am not actually trying to argue the above is particularly likely (school shootings in general are not particularly likely), or against the idea that guns can prevent violence. I only aim to point out that what you guys are calling "facts" are also emotion-based arguments.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2302 on: February 23, 2017, 01:02:55 PM »
You're not doing a very good job of arguing both sides only argue from emotion. In fact, you've pointed out quite well that one side is looking at ways to actually accomplish a goal, and the other side is worried about feeling like something has changed.

At no point have I argued that these proposed policies are effective, only that they are argued from a base of reason. Reasonable debates will allow policies to be disscused constructivley. Arguing emotionally that guns in school would not be good because they would frighten a parent, for example, does not help the situation or assist in solving the problem of gun deaths.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2303 on: February 23, 2017, 01:05:50 PM »
Dead people not killing others is not a fact? It's not a proposed scenario, it happens all the time. People that are shooting people stop shooting people when someone kills them. 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2304 on: February 23, 2017, 01:18:37 PM »
What happens when an armed teacher accidentally shoots a student or another teacher?  I could go so far as to accept a trained armed guard in a school, but I don't want teachers to be required to carry.  If we HAVE to have guns in schools, then at least make sure they are in the hands of properly trained people.

As far as my reasons being "purely emotional", I believe yours are emotional as well.  You believe that trained teachers would be superior to no guns in schools at all, but there are no statistics to back that up. 

Quote
Shooting and killing someone that is trying to kill Innocent people stops them that's a fact. Now there are many factors that determine if a person can accomplish that. Metal detectors, anti-bullying campaigns etc. may deter but will not stop someone determined to do harm to others. Unfortunately there are things that can only be solved by violence. Mass shootings not ending until the shooter(s) meeting resistance is what many of them have in common. Generally the sooner they are met with resistance the less people they are able to kill or injure.

It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all.  And hardly any one dies.  Sure you will find the occasional knife attack, but people are injured, not dead. 

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  Thinking that violence is necessary leads you to violence.  Thinking that violence is unacceptable leads you away from it.  We have seen societies where there is little to no gun violence.  It can happen.  It has happened.  THAT is a fact.  You have chosen violence over an alternative that you know exists.  You need to own that. 

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2305 on: February 23, 2017, 01:27:35 PM »
You're not doing a very good job of arguing both sides only argue from emotion. In fact, you've pointed out quite well that one side is looking at ways to actually accomplish a goal, and the other side is worried about feeling like something has changed.

At no point have I argued that these proposed policies are effective, only that they are argued from a base of reason. Reasonable debates will allow policies to be disscused constructivley. Arguing emotionally that guns in school would not be good because they would frighten a parent, for example, does not help the situation or assist in solving the problem of gun deaths.

What are you talking about? I've pointed out that there are reasonable solutions to this problem that do not involve arming teachers and reasonable inferences regarding why arming teachers could potentially have negative side effects. You are trying to claim that the anti-gun crowd only has one argument: "guns are scary!" which is demonstrably not the case.

Meanwhile, all you are essentially arguing is "guns can theoretically stop scary things from happening," which I'll admit is more constructive than the above strawman, but you've ignored the other reasonable proposals from the anti-gun side. All I'm saying is both sides are arguing from emotion (again, fear). Doesn't mean both don't have good points to be made.

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2306 on: February 23, 2017, 01:30:49 PM »
It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all. 

How do we accomplish this, ask the magical gun fairy to make them all go away?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2307 on: February 23, 2017, 01:30:56 PM »
It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all.  And hardly any one dies.  Sure you will find the occasional knife attack, but people are injured, not dead. 

So much for the "no one is saying we should ban all guns." Arguement...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2308 on: February 23, 2017, 01:36:15 PM »
See, you think you aren't emotional, but you are.  I NEVER said I wanted to ban all guns.  I was saying that that is a predictable way to virtually eliminate mass shootings.  Please stop pretending your arguments aren't emotionally based.  You immediately read what you wanted to think I was saying into my statement, even when I stated above that I was NOT for repealing the second amendment.  Cast the beam out of your own eye, gun lover. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2309 on: February 23, 2017, 01:39:16 PM »
You're not doing a very good job of arguing both sides only argue from emotion. In fact, you've pointed out quite well that one side is looking at ways to actually accomplish a goal, and the other side is worried about feeling like something has changed.

At no point have I argued that these proposed policies are effective, only that they are argued from a base of reason. Reasonable debates will allow policies to be disscused constructivley. Arguing emotionally that guns in school would not be good because they would frighten a parent, for example, does not help the situation or assist in solving the problem of gun deaths.

What are you talking about? I've pointed out that there are reasonable solutions to this problem that do not involve arming teachers and reasonable inferences regarding why arming teachers could potentially have negative side effects. You are trying to claim that the anti-gun crowd only has one argument: "guns are scary!" which is demonstrably not the case.

Meanwhile, all you are essentially arguing is "guns can theoretically stop scary things from happening," which I'll admit is more constructive than the above strawman, but you've ignored the other reasonable proposals from the anti-gun side. All I'm saying is both sides are arguing from emotion (again, fear). Doesn't mean both don't have good points to be made.
I have never said guns can stop scary things from happening. I never said that one side used only emotion based arguements. I said one side uses them, and they are unhelpful in actually solving the problems. The guns in school was merely an example- of course there are reasons against having armed teachers running around blasting at defensless children in an emergency, but debate and discussion will decide if this is an acceptable policy, not calls that it should not happen because some people may be uncomfortable with their kids teachers having guns.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2310 on: February 23, 2017, 01:46:26 PM »
See, you think you aren't emotional, but you are.  I NEVER said I wanted to ban all guns.  I was saying that that is a predictable way to virtually eliminate mass shootings.  Please stop pretending your arguments aren't emotionally based.  You immediately read what you wanted to think I was saying into my statement, even when I stated above that I was NOT for repealing the second amendment.  Cast the beam out of your own eye, gun lover.
I merely quoted what you typed. I did not apply emotional value to it, or remark on how it made me feel. I did not use emotionally loaded language such as "gun lover".  That is on you. 

If we agree that no one wants to ban guns, then bringing it up is not productive discussion. Discussing the NRA Eddie Eagle program, and how it could reduce gun deaths in the USA if brought into every school as standard curriculum would be one example of productive, positive discussion. Name calling is not helpful, in my opinion.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2311 on: February 23, 2017, 01:47:17 PM »
Are you saying this isn't trying to evoke an emotion?:



Linking gun ownership with religion and patriotism is a direct appeal to emotional reasoning, not logical. 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2312 on: February 23, 2017, 01:48:01 PM »
Gun lover isn't a name, it's a description of your emotional reasoning behind gun ownership.  Also, I was bringing up gun banning in a totally different context, which if you weren't being so emotional, you would have been able to understand.  And I also find you idea of putting guns in the hands of teachers to be inflammatory and not constructive.  It is not something that would be accepted by most parents. 
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 01:50:34 PM by golden1 »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2313 on: February 23, 2017, 01:52:59 PM »
I have never said guns can stop scary things from happening. I never said that one side used only emotion based arguements. I said one side uses them, and they are unhelpful in actually solving the problems. The guns in school was merely an example- of course there are reasons against having armed teachers running around blasting at defensless children in an emergency, but debate and discussion will decide if this is an acceptable policy, not calls that it should not happen because some people may be uncomfortable with their kids teachers having guns.

OK, I agree with the parameters defined by this post. Although I still think it's clear that both sides are using emotion-based arguments (even if you feel that you personally are not), but that distinction is not super important either way and is probably a red herring to pursue much further.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2314 on: February 23, 2017, 02:05:31 PM »
Gun lover isn't a name, it's a description of your emotional reasoning behind gun ownership.  Also, I was bringing up gun banning in a totally different context, which if you weren't being so emotional, you would have been able to understand.  And I also find you idea of putting guns in the hands of teachers to be inflammatory and not constructive.  It is not something that would be accepted by most parents.
Calm down.

Yes linking guns to patriotism is an emotional appeal. I have not engaged in this.

Putting guns in teachers hands was not my idea. I did not advocate for such a thing, suggest it as an option or bring it up originally, which if you had read my posts instead of getting so distressed at such an "inflammatory " thought, you may have realised this.

This is my point: it is hard to have productive discussion when one side presents a solution and the other side says "can't do it, it's inflammatory. " this is exactly the emotional arguments that bog down the discussion without producing compromise.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2315 on: February 23, 2017, 02:20:29 PM »
I have never said guns can stop scary things from happening. I never said that one side used only emotion based arguements. I said one side uses them, and they are unhelpful in actually solving the problems. The guns in school was merely an example- of course there are reasons against having armed teachers running around blasting at defensless children in an emergency, but debate and discussion will decide if this is an acceptable policy, not calls that it should not happen because some people may be uncomfortable with their kids teachers having guns.

OK, I agree with the parameters defined by this post. Although I still think it's clear that both sides are using emotion-based arguments (even if you feel that you personally are not), but that distinction is not super important either way and is probably a red herring to pursue much further.
Cool.

Sorry if I was unclear in my position originally. Helps to have someone ask questions if I don't make my argument concisely from the beginning.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2316 on: February 24, 2017, 06:17:39 AM »
Other potential practical ideas that come to mind with guns - let's give another shot at solving it technologically.  Yes, I know earlier attempts at a "smart gun" were a disaster.  But if I can open my phone almost instantly with my fingerprint, surely we can figure out something for a gun, right?  I mean, I know it doesn't solve every problem, but it might slow the sale of illegal guns.  The paranoid right will probably worry about registering fingerprints in a federal database, so make it like Apple is doing and have the gun companies hold on to that data themselves.  I'll have to do some research into what could possibly be done to make guns safer. 

I thought a lot about the "emotion" angle last night, and it occurs to me that you can't really separate emotion from these types of debates entirely, and you probably don't want to.  I mean, most people who have had a gun related death in their friend or family circle tend to gravitate toward gun control.  Many of these people become activists.  Those who have been able to save family members or themselves from assault would naturally be anti-gun control.  It just makes sense to integrate what you know into these debates.  Most people really don't pick a side out of thin air, debate it analytically and come up with an answer.  They start from a certain emotional place and then find rationales to back up their experience.  When you are saying that people need to pull back and look at the facts, you are never going to get anywhere, because you invalidating peoples strong emotions about the experiences guns have in their lives.  It matters. 




jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2317 on: February 24, 2017, 06:42:28 AM »
What happens when an armed teacher accidentally shoots a student or another teacher?  I could go so far as to accept a trained armed guard in a school, but I don't want teachers to be required to carry.  If we HAVE to have guns in schools, then at least make sure they are in the hands of properly trained people.

As far as my reasons being "purely emotional", I believe yours are emotional as well.  You believe that trained teachers would be superior to no guns in schools at all, but there are no statistics to back that up. 

Quote
Shooting and killing someone that is trying to kill Innocent people stops them that's a fact. Now there are many factors that determine if a person can accomplish that. Metal detectors, anti-bullying campaigns etc. may deter but will not stop someone determined to do harm to others. Unfortunately there are things that can only be solved by violence. Mass shootings not ending until the shooter(s) meeting resistance is what many of them have in common. Generally the sooner they are met with resistance the less people they are able to kill or injure.

It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all.  And hardly any one dies.  Sure you will find the occasional knife attack, but people are injured, not dead. 

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  Thinking that violence is necessary leads you to violence.  Thinking that violence is unacceptable leads you away from it.  We have seen societies where there is little to no gun violence.  It can happen.  It has happened.  THAT is a fact.  You have chosen violence over an alternative that you know exists.  You need to own that.
I never said I wanted teachers required to carry, I think people that can legally carry everywhere else should be able to do so at schools too. A teacher that carries outside of school should be able to carry at school if they want to.
Other potential practical ideas that come to mind with guns - let's give another shot at solving it technologically.  Yes, I know earlier attempts at a "smart gun" were a disaster.  But if I can open my phone almost instantly with my fingerprint, surely we can figure out something for a gun, right?  I mean, I know it doesn't solve every problem, but it might slow the sale of illegal guns.  The paranoid right will probably worry about registering fingerprints in a federal database, so make it like Apple is doing and have the gun companies hold on to that data themselves.  I'll have to do some research into what could possibly be done to make guns safer. 

I thought a lot about the "emotion" angle last night, and it occurs to me that you can't really separate emotion from these types of debates entirely, and you probably don't want to.  I mean, most people who have had a gun related death in their friend or family circle tend to gravitate toward gun control.  Many of these people become activists.  Those who have been able to save family members or themselves from assault would naturally be anti-gun control.  It just makes sense to integrate what you know into these debates.  Most people really don't pick a side out of thin air, debate it analytically and come up with an answer.  They start from a certain emotional place and then find rationales to back up their experience.  When you are saying that people need to pull back and look at the facts, you are never going to get anywhere, because you invalidating peoples strong emotions about the experiences guns have in their lives.  It matters.
Your fingerprint scanner on your phone doesn't work all the time in all conditions instantly. It should never be on an item that may be used in a life or death situation. I'm not against companies trying to develop the technology. I however very much against it be required by law.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 06:44:38 AM by jamesvt »

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2318 on: February 24, 2017, 08:14:24 AM »
Other potential practical ideas that come to mind with guns - let's give another shot at solving it technologically.  Yes, I know earlier attempts at a "smart gun" were a disaster.  But if I can open my phone almost instantly with my fingerprint, surely we can figure out something for a gun, right?  I mean, I know it doesn't solve every problem, but it might slow the sale of illegal guns.  The paranoid right will probably worry about registering fingerprints in a federal database, so make it like Apple is doing and have the gun companies hold on to that data themselves.  I'll have to do some research into what could possibly be done to make guns safer. 

I thought a lot about the "emotion" angle last night, and it occurs to me that you can't really separate emotion from these types of debates entirely, and you probably don't want to.  I mean, most people who have had a gun related death in their friend or family circle tend to gravitate toward gun control.  Many of these people become activists.  Those who have been able to save family members or themselves from assault would naturally be anti-gun control.  It just makes sense to integrate what you know into these debates.  Most people really don't pick a side out of thin air, debate it analytically and come up with an answer.  They start from a certain emotional place and then find rationales to back up their experience.  When you are saying that people need to pull back and look at the facts, you are never going to get anywhere, because you invalidating peoples strong emotions about the experiences guns have in their lives.  It matters.

You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, convince enough gun owners that this is a good idea to get this to happen. Absolutely never.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2319 on: February 24, 2017, 08:15:33 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool. 

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2320 on: February 24, 2017, 08:15:38 AM »
What happens when an armed teacher accidentally shoots a student or another teacher?  I could go so far as to accept a trained armed guard in a school, but I don't want teachers to be required to carry.  If we HAVE to have guns in schools, then at least make sure they are in the hands of properly trained people.

As far as my reasons being "purely emotional", I believe yours are emotional as well.  You believe that trained teachers would be superior to no guns in schools at all, but there are no statistics to back that up. 

Quote
Shooting and killing someone that is trying to kill Innocent people stops them that's a fact. Now there are many factors that determine if a person can accomplish that. Metal detectors, anti-bullying campaigns etc. may deter but will not stop someone determined to do harm to others. Unfortunately there are things that can only be solved by violence. Mass shootings not ending until the shooter(s) meeting resistance is what many of them have in common. Generally the sooner they are met with resistance the less people they are able to kill or injure.

It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all.  And hardly any one dies.  Sure you will find the occasional knife attack, but people are injured, not dead. 

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  Thinking that violence is necessary leads you to violence.  Thinking that violence is unacceptable leads you away from it.  We have seen societies where there is little to no gun violence.  It can happen.  It has happened.  THAT is a fact.  You have chosen violence over an alternative that you know exists.  You need to own that.
I never said I wanted teachers required to carry, I think people that can legally carry everywhere else should be able to do so at schools too. A teacher that carries outside of school should be able to carry at school if they want to.
Other potential practical ideas that come to mind with guns - let's give another shot at solving it technologically.  Yes, I know earlier attempts at a "smart gun" were a disaster.  But if I can open my phone almost instantly with my fingerprint, surely we can figure out something for a gun, right?  I mean, I know it doesn't solve every problem, but it might slow the sale of illegal guns.  The paranoid right will probably worry about registering fingerprints in a federal database, so make it like Apple is doing and have the gun companies hold on to that data themselves.  I'll have to do some research into what could possibly be done to make guns safer. 

I thought a lot about the "emotion" angle last night, and it occurs to me that you can't really separate emotion from these types of debates entirely, and you probably don't want to.  I mean, most people who have had a gun related death in their friend or family circle tend to gravitate toward gun control.  Many of these people become activists.  Those who have been able to save family members or themselves from assault would naturally be anti-gun control.  It just makes sense to integrate what you know into these debates.  Most people really don't pick a side out of thin air, debate it analytically and come up with an answer.  They start from a certain emotional place and then find rationales to back up their experience.  When you are saying that people need to pull back and look at the facts, you are never going to get anywhere, because you invalidating peoples strong emotions about the experiences guns have in their lives.  It matters.
Your fingerprint scanner on your phone doesn't work all the time in all conditions instantly. It should never be on an item that may be used in a life or death situation. I'm not against companies trying to develop the technology. I however very much against it be required by law.

Out of curiosity, if a teacher carries in the school, do you think that the school should be required to tell their parents and students of this? (Let's keep the response to "in a public school" just for the sake of simplicity.)
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2321 on: February 24, 2017, 08:18:43 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool.

In theory. In practice, it's a complete non-starter. This is not an issue that will be dealt with rationally with people on both sides of the debate working together. I would literally figuratively bet my entire life savings on it. The NRA will fight tooth and nail against it. Gun owners will be absolutely against it. Even if the technology were "perfected" there is no way this will ever become a thing, probably in any of our lives.

EDITED to change one word because get away from my money, y'all.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2322 on: February 24, 2017, 08:23:41 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool.

In theory. In practice, it's a complete non-starter. This is not an issue that will be dealt with rationally with people on both sides of the debate working together. I would literally figuratively bet my entire life savings on it. The NRA will fight tooth and nail against it. Gun owners will be absolutely against it. Even if the technology were "perfected" there is no way this will ever become a thing, probably in any of our lives.

EDITED to change one word because get away from my money, y'all.

If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it. 

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2323 on: February 24, 2017, 08:27:36 AM »
I figured gun control was never going to happen once it became apparent that 27 dead kids wasn't enough to move the public needle.  It's a reflection of our societal collective narcissism that we still elevate the rights of the individual to protect oneself with a gun over the collective right to feel safe in a public space, or the collective right of children to be safe while being educated.  That ship has sailed. 

So my new theory is that liberals need to become gun nuts in order for gun control to become a reality.  I would bet cash money that if liberals started hoarding guns en masse, or showing up to these town halls with assault rifles, then attitudes might change.

.

Define "gun control" (your words).  It seems like you are using that phrase in place of "seize all privately owned firearms" (my words)

I am always in control of my firearms when I handle them or transport them or carry them.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2324 on: February 24, 2017, 08:32:30 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool.

In theory. In practice, it's a complete non-starter. This is not an issue that will be dealt with rationally with people on both sides of the debate working together. I would literally figuratively bet my entire life savings on it. The NRA will fight tooth and nail against it. Gun owners will be absolutely against it. Even if the technology were "perfected" there is no way this will ever become a thing, probably in any of our lives.

EDITED to change one word because get away from my money, y'all.

If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.
Exactly. I've never understood why people are so afraid of the NRA - get out and vote and override them. Go soend more money than them; they don't have that many members. It's a simple boogie man for gun restriction enthusiasts who don't have enough public support for their unpopular and unworkable proposals.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2325 on: February 24, 2017, 08:33:44 AM »
If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.

Why on earth would the military and police want to adopt this technology? I see no upside, only the possibility of catastrophic consequences in the case of a bad battery, a loose wire, a dirty fingerprint, a poor internet connection, etc.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2326 on: February 24, 2017, 08:39:59 AM »
If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.

Why on earth would the military and police want to adopt this technology? I see no upside, only the possibility of catastrophic consequences in the case of a bad battery, a loose wire, a dirty fingerprint, a poor internet connection, etc.

I'm not arguing they should, but if it's not ready for them, why would anybody use it?

Despite the fact that neither the military or police is using this tech, gun control enthusiasts continue to tout it as a solution.  If it's so great, they would have already adopted.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 08:43:08 AM by Midwest »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2327 on: February 24, 2017, 08:44:34 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool.
Exactly what Kris was saying; you will never be able to convince enough rational gun owners that this failed technology is usuable. If it ever improves, perhaps.

My biggest concern is that it is not effective in reducing gun deaths- the vast majority of deaths are caused by the rightful owner of the gun. This hypothetical  technology would not stop any of those.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2328 on: February 24, 2017, 08:46:06 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool.

In theory. In practice, it's a complete non-starter. This is not an issue that will be dealt with rationally with people on both sides of the debate working together. I would literally figuratively bet my entire life savings on it. The NRA will fight tooth and nail against it. Gun owners will be absolutely against it. Even if the technology were "perfected" there is no way this will ever become a thing, probably in any of our lives.

EDITED to change one word because get away from my money, y'all.

If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.

Right. But they won't ever think this particular tech is an improvement. So the market will not demand it.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2329 on: February 24, 2017, 08:56:26 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool.

In theory. In practice, it's a complete non-starter. This is not an issue that will be dealt with rationally with people on both sides of the debate working together. I would literally figuratively bet my entire life savings on it. The NRA will fight tooth and nail against it. Gun owners will be absolutely against it. Even if the technology were "perfected" there is no way this will ever become a thing, probably in any of our lives.

EDITED to change one word because get away from my money, y'all.

If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.

Right. But they won't ever think this particular tech is an improvement. So the market will not demand it.

Military/police will ignore a huge improvement in weapons tech?  Cops gun can't be utilized by robbers?  If it's that good, I think police/military would adopt.  The problem, thus far, is that they don't believe it's ready.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 09:25:30 AM by Midwest »

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2330 on: February 24, 2017, 09:21:26 AM »
Out of curiosity, if a teacher carries in the school, do you think that the school should be required to tell their parents and students of this? (Let's keep the response to "in a public school" just for the sake of simplicity.)
I think the school should. I do not think they should say which teacher has decided to csrry.

Personally (and I always have to say that I'm a gun owner, so I don't get knee-jerk reactions from people who assume I'm a "gun control freak" and dismiss me out of hand), if I had a kid in a school who told me that one or some of their teachers were carrying but wouldn't tell me who it was, or if it was a teacher my child had, I would not want my kid in that school.

"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2331 on: February 24, 2017, 09:31:36 AM »
if I had a kid in a school who told me that one or some of their teachers were carrying but wouldn't tell me who it was, or if it was a teacher my child had, I would not want my kid in that school.

In states that have "shall-issue" concealed carry (about 40 of them now), somewhere between 2-4% of the population chooses to get concealed carry permits. People at movie theaters, grocery stores and shopping malls peacefully going about their business while legally armed. How is a teacher carrying any different, other than the fact that you'd know about it? Would an armed security guard at the school be preferable?

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2332 on: February 24, 2017, 09:51:29 AM »
if I had a kid in a school who told me that one or some of their teachers were carrying but wouldn't tell me who it was, or if it was a teacher my child had, I would not want my kid in that school.

In states that have "shall-issue" concealed carry (about 40 of them now), somewhere between 2-4% of the population chooses to get concealed carry permits. People at movie theaters, grocery stores and shopping malls peacefully going about their business while legally armed. How is a teacher carrying any different, other than the fact that you'd know about it? Would an armed security guard at the school be preferable?

I'm just going to repeat what I said. I asked the OP (JamesVT) who was talking about having teachers carry whether he thought the school should notify the parents that a teacher was carrying. Metric Mouse said the school should, but that they shouldn't say who it was. I said that if the school told me someone was carrying but would not tell me who it was, I would not want my child in that school.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2333 on: February 24, 2017, 10:04:45 AM »

I said that if the school told me someone was carrying but would not tell me who it was, I would not want my child in that school.

I read the exchange. I'm just curious how having your child sit in a classroom with a firearm is different than sitting in a movie theater or a restaurant with one.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2334 on: February 24, 2017, 10:12:08 AM »

I said that if the school told me someone was carrying but would not tell me who it was, I would not want my child in that school.

I read the exchange. I'm just curious how having your child sit in a classroom with a firearm is different than sitting in a movie theater or a restaurant with one.

If the school is literally telling me that there's an armed teacher, there's an implication that this teacher and the school see his or her being armed as something that is related to school safety. In other words, it's implicitly saying that the teacher is there, as a teacher, armed with the consent and approval, and even the desire, of the school. At that point, yes, I very much want to know who it is who thinks that they are armed explicitly as part of their job.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2335 on: February 24, 2017, 10:36:58 AM »
Out of curiosity, if a teacher carries in the school, do you think that the school should be required to tell their parents and students of this? (Let's keep the response to "in a public school" just for the sake of simplicity.)
I don't think people should have to tell anyone they are carrying. If they made it mandatory to notify the school/parents that someone is carrying on school grounds only people with no ill-intentions would do so.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2336 on: February 24, 2017, 10:41:28 AM »

I said that if the school told me someone was carrying but would not tell me who it was, I would not want my child in that school.

I read the exchange. I'm just curious how having your child sit in a classroom with a firearm is different than sitting in a movie theater or a restaurant with one.
Reactions like Kris's are common, even though all data on licenced concealed weapon carriers are much less likely to harm someone than the average population. In the USA, one is much more likely to be harmed by a police officer, or by their own weapons than by a ccw permit holder. This is one reason many ccw instructors decry open carry despite its advantages.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 11:07:29 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2337 on: February 24, 2017, 11:06:15 AM »

I said that if the school told me someone was carrying but would not tell me who it was, I would not want my child in that school.

I read the exchange. I'm just curious how having your child sit in a classroom with a firearm is different than sitting in a movie theater or a restaurant with one.
Reactions like Kris's are common, even though all data on licenced concealed weapon carriers are much less likely to harm someone than the average population. In the USA, one is much more likely to be harmed by a police officer, or by their own weapons than by a ccw permit holder. This is kne reason many ccw instructors decry open carry despite its advantages.

Like I said, and will restate: I see a difference between someone licensed to carry who decides to exercise that right, and this happens to be occurring in a school (provided that school hasn't said it bans guns on the premises), and a teacher who is carrying with the knowledge of the school as an armed protector. I do not see your statement above as particularly relevant here.

I have a good friend (actually a friend of my husband's) who has a carry permit and carries all the time. He's a very nice guy, but a tiny bit of a nut. Also, he has a palsy and though he used to be quite a good shot, his aim has deteriorated considerably over the years. If this person was a teacher in my child's school and the administrators of this school had actively agreed with this teacher that he was going to be a conceal carry teacher in the service of protecting the children, I would want to know. Because this guy's aim could actively endanger my kid in the event of an active shooter in the school.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2338 on: February 24, 2017, 11:09:26 AM »
Out of curiosity, if a teacher carries in the school, do you think that the school should be required to tell their parents and students of this? (Let's keep the response to "in a public school" just for the sake of simplicity.)
I don't think people should have to tell anyone they are carrying. If they made it mandatory to notify the school/parents that someone is carrying on school grounds only people with no ill-intentions would do so.

What if it turns out that the teacher who is armed is a threat?

Really, we need to arm all children from kindergarten up.  Maybe reduce the trigger pull so that their tiny fingers can work the weapons.  It is the only path to safety.  There are many reasons that four year olds should be packing:
- It's their second amendment right.  Are you trying to limit their rights?
- More guns always makes everything safer.  Bullying should disappear after the first few years of culling occur.
- Taking guns away from children/imposing metal detection screening in schools just ensures that the children are defenseless prey for any bad guy.  Guns are the great equalizer.
- Preventing children from packing at school means that only the criminal children who don't follow rules will have guns.
- Sure, some four year olds aren't emotionally ready to be carrying a gun all the time, and they don't have to.  If you don't want your kid carrying, don't buy him a piece.  But I'm going to arm my son.  We can't limit all four year olds just because some are irresponsible.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2339 on: February 24, 2017, 11:11:42 AM »
Out of curiosity, if a teacher carries in the school, do you think that the school should be required to tell their parents and students of this? (Let's keep the response to "in a public school" just for the sake of simplicity.)
I don't think people should have to tell anyone they are carrying. If they made it mandatory to notify the school/parents that someone is carrying on school grounds only people with no ill-intentions would do so.
What if it turns out that the teacher who is armed is a threat?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2340 on: February 24, 2017, 11:14:58 AM »
Right.  That's why children all need weapons.  Otherwise they can't defend themselves against teachers will ill-intentions.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2341 on: February 24, 2017, 11:21:18 AM »
Right.  That's why children all need weapons.  Otherwise they can't defend themselves against teachers will ill-intentions.
Good points. I think all teachers should be barred from posessing firearms. A teacher with a gun is simply too dangerous; they could walk into class any day and just start shooting. Our kids will be much safer if teachers are stripped of any guns they own, and outlawed from purchasing new ones.
Then four year olds will be safe and not need guns either.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2342 on: February 24, 2017, 11:24:14 AM »
Right.  That's why children all need weapons.  Otherwise they can't defend themselves against teachers will ill-intentions.
Good points. I think all teachers should be barred from posessing firearms. A teacher with a gun is simply too dangerous; they could walk into class any day and just start shooting. Our kids will be much safer if teachers are stripped of any guns they own, and outlawed from purchasing new ones.
Then four year olds will be safe and not need guns either.

No, that'll never work.  Criminal teachers won't obey your laws.  We need to arm toddlers.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2343 on: February 24, 2017, 11:31:41 AM »
Like I said, and will restate: I see a difference between someone licensed to carry who decides to exercise that right, and this happens to be occurring in a school (provided that school hasn't said it bans guns on the premises), and a teacher who is carrying with the knowledge of the school as an armed protector. I do not see your statement above as particularly relevant here.

I have a good friend (actually a friend of my husband's) who has a carry permit and carries all the time. He's a very nice guy, but a tiny bit of a nut. Also, he has a palsy and though he used to be quite a good shot, his aim has deteriorated considerably over the years. If this person was a teacher in my child's school and the administrators of this school had actively agreed with this teacher that he was going to be a conceal carry teacher in the service of protecting the children, I would want to know. Because this guy's aim could actively endanger my kid in the event of an active shooter in the school.
I guess i fail to see the difference. You seem to be saying that it would be better if schools allowed licenced weapon holders on campus, including teachers, and didn't know or care who they were? I guess I  disagree; I would like armed teachers to be even more trained than the average ccw permit holder.

My thoughts are that if a school decided that it would allow teachers to be armed, that I would want to know the training requirements and qualifications; if these were acceptable, and the carrier passed the requirements, i wouldn't care if it was the palsied old man or the heavyset librarian or the 20 year old 85 pound girl who just got her degree - as long as they can make the shots and handle the stress and complete the combat course, I would have to say that I probably don't know that person's capabilities as well as I might think I do by looking at them.

If the requirements were "buy gun, add bullets" i would not be comfortable with that loose of requirements being the threshold for a school setting. Of course, I think there are much better ways to secure a school, but that is beside the point.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2344 on: February 24, 2017, 11:33:23 AM »
Right.  That's why children all need weapons.  Otherwise they can't defend themselves against teachers will ill-intentions.
Good points. I think all teachers should be barred from posessing firearms. A teacher with a gun is simply too dangerous; they could walk into class any day and just start shooting. Our kids will be much safer if teachers are stripped of any guns they own, and outlawed from purchasing new ones.
Then four year olds will be safe and not need guns either.

No, that'll never work.  Criminal teachers won't obey your laws.  We need to arm toddlers.
Damn criminal teachers. What if we just outlawed all guns? There must be a way to save the children. Maybe some kind of technology to disable teacher's hands so they can't use guns? That would protect other people's rights. Gosh, this is so hard.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2345 on: February 24, 2017, 11:38:21 AM »
100% of school shootings have occurred in schools where toddlers were not legally allowed to carry.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2346 on: February 24, 2017, 11:38:27 AM »
Smart guns aren't necessarily a "failed" technology.  There is more than one angle of attack.  Fingerprint scanners have come a long way.  What about facial recognition, voice recognition or some other method?  I hope that you wouldn't be opposed to any sort of research that might make your gun safer or harder to steal and abuse.

I agree that cops would be a good place to start with some of these smart weapons.  Many cops are pro-gun control and might be willing to test it out.  If the weapons are proven to be effective and safer, then people might adopt them. 

One thing that maybe was not addressed in earlier threads is 3D gun printing and how to combat that? This is one of the reasons why I think gun control is kind of a lost cause at this point.  Even if we DID confiscate all the guns, one could be made with a pattern, some plastic, and a few small parts. 


Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2347 on: February 24, 2017, 11:40:32 AM »
Like I said, and will restate: I see a difference between someone licensed to carry who decides to exercise that right, and this happens to be occurring in a school (provided that school hasn't said it bans guns on the premises), and a teacher who is carrying with the knowledge of the school as an armed protector. I do not see your statement above as particularly relevant here.

I have a good friend (actually a friend of my husband's) who has a carry permit and carries all the time. He's a very nice guy, but a tiny bit of a nut. Also, he has a palsy and though he used to be quite a good shot, his aim has deteriorated considerably over the years. If this person was a teacher in my child's school and the administrators of this school had actively agreed with this teacher that he was going to be a conceal carry teacher in the service of protecting the children, I would want to know. Because this guy's aim could actively endanger my kid in the event of an active shooter in the school.
I guess i fail to see the difference. You seem to be saying that it would be better if schools allowed licenced weapon holders on campus, including teachers, and didn't know or care who they were? I guess I  disagree; I would like armed teachers to be even more trained than the average ccw permit holder.

My thoughts are that if a school decided that it would allow teachers to be armed, that I would want to know the training requirements and qualifications; if these were acceptable, and the carrier passed the requirements, i wouldn't care if it was the palsied old man or the heavyset librarian or the 20 year old 85 pound girl who just got her degree - as long as they can make the shots and handle the stress and complete the combat course, I would have to say that I probably don't know that person's capabilities as well as I might think I do by looking at them.

If the requirements were "buy gun, add bullets" i would not be comfortable with that loose of requirements being the threshold for a school setting. Of course, I think there are much better ways to secure a school, but that is beside the point.

There is absolutely nothing that says a school that allows teachers to be armed will do their due diligence as to whether that teacher is better trained than the average CCW holder. And for the record, I agree with you. I don't think the average CCW holder has the training necessary to be truly reliable or effective in a situation where that person is essentially going to be expected to be a first line of defense.

And no, I was not in any way saying that it would be better if schools allowed licensed weapon holders on campus, including teachers, and didn't know or care who they were. I think the school needs to make clear what their policy is. If they ban weapons, then parents know weapons are banned. If they do not ban weapons, then parents need to know that and I guess at that point they make their own decisions. If a school knows a teacher is carrying and is expecting therefore for that teacher to be part of their protection force, I think they need to inform the parents. Because at that point, I as a parent want to know who it is and what their training is. I want to know that that person isn't just being used as a corner-cutting inadequately trained cheap security person.

"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2348 on: February 24, 2017, 11:52:24 AM »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2349 on: February 24, 2017, 11:58:11 AM »
Smart guns aren't necessarily a "failed" technology.  There is more than one angle of attack.  Fingerprint scanners have come a long way.  What about facial recognition, voice recognition or some other method?  I hope that you wouldn't be opposed to any sort of research that might make your gun safer or harder to steal and abuse.

I agree that cops would be a good place to start with some of these smart weapons.  Many cops are pro-gun control and might be willing to test it out.  If the weapons are proven to be effective and safer, then people might adopt them. 

One thing that maybe was not addressed in earlier threads is 3D gun printing and how to combat that? This is one of the reasons why I think gun control is kind of a lost cause at this point.  Even if we DID confiscate all the guns, one could be made with a pattern, some plastic, and a few small parts.
Fingerprint scanners don't work if you are wearing gloves, if your hands are wet or dirty. Facial recognition doesn't work well or at all in no/low light situations. Voice recognition doesn't work if there are loud noises around. Last but certainly not least all those thing even when working properly don't work instantly. I've stated I'm not opposed to research I just don't think there should be laws requiring guns to have said technology.