I'm in favor of bringing back the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. Never should have elapsed.

YES, YES, YES, exactly what ElDiabloJoe said!

Hmmm. Not sure what rebutting that a 5 round bolt action rifle is adequate for home protection has to do with arming teachers.

My thoughts on arming teachers are mixed. Do I think you should take the average teacher, send them through a firearms class and give them a gun? No I don’t. Do I feel that if someone has life experience with firearms in a stressful environment, such as former LEO or military, which there are some who left those professions to become teachers? Then I think it’s something to consider.

I think hardening the target is something concrete that we can do now. Where we moved from they had converted the schools to single entry. They also had a Resource Officer(s) that was basically a Deputy Sheriff with a different patch on his/her uniform.

So yes there are things we can do now and many school districts have already taken action.

I guess it does. :1rotfl:

Media...stop glorifying the shooter!
 

It seems like the shooters all want their 15-minutes of fame and the media caters to them. First thing they do is to interview all his friends, family, classmates, we learn about his interests, social media posts, red flags that were missed, where he lives, his manifesto if he had one...MAKES THEM FAMOUS!

STOP IT! Just say there was an unidentified shooter and keep him anonymous until it's time for their trial (or identifying their body).

(putting my soapbox away now, thanks for listening to my rant, I feel better)

Clint

Nobody is going after firearms that are used for hunting or home defense unless you believe some Entertainers on television. It was Eisenhower (I liked Ike) who was quoted “I dislike those on the far right and left who throw rocks at those of us in the middle.”

Nicely put. WE working together need to take practical steps to stop these shootings from happening again and again. My former Villages' neighbors lost their granddaughter in the Parkland shooting. She was the last student murdered. He shot through another student to kill her-- ending both their lives. They moved to be closer to one of their kids. Losing their granddaughter tore them apart and still does probably with each of these new tragedies. And we just keep creating more victim families to deal with this trauma. PRACTICAL solutions. Whatever works while keeping with the values of the US Constitution. I do not think that the Founding Fathers would have wanted a weapon of war in anyone's hands except for those fighting in wars.

School Security
 

Which school, A or B, is attacked by a deranged, cowardly, gunman?
School A: Gun Free Zone, unlocked doors, random security presence, no armed teachers allowed
School B: One point of entry – door locked, armed security on regular staff, some teachers armed (if trained and comfortable to carry)

Sorry, my reply got onto the wrong post, I guess I need more practice :)

I can 100% agree with this position. I am concerned that arming teachers will result in the shooter targeting the teachers first in ALL cases regardless of if the teacher is armed. But, I can certainly compromise and go along with a test of that and see how it works.

I can completely agree with this one with out hesitation. I do not believe it will solve the root cause, but it will almost certain result in a major reduction of school shootings.

I completely agree with you on this one also.

So, as we can see there are things we can do now that both sides can agree on (most of my liberal friends also agree with your list. These are the same things we could have done 20 years ago, and haven't. These are the same things we could do now and aren't.

I also expect we can both agree that banning one specific weapon or type won't work. And banning an entire class or all weapons are not going to happen. There is no practical or workable way to do that. And suggesting it just results in a distraction from doing what we can.

Maybe we need to get our electors to listen to you and me or throw them out and replace them with someone that does. From where I stand neither side (electors) is interested in doing these things.

Thank you for you post, it was constructive and pointed out a mistake I made. I appreciate your reply.

Me or him?

If me, I am simply posting my position on other peoples posts. It's called a conversation. I certainly do not want to sound like a lecture, but I also don't want to do drive by one liner posts that contribute nothing related to the topic of the thread.

I KNOW I sometimes wonder off topic, we all do at times.

I usually say, "this is my opinion" or something to that effect, and I do not claim to have knowledge without specifying the provenance of that information.

If you feel I am "lecturing" please PM me with an example of why. If it is simply because I posted 100 replies to posts that I disagree the position or the content, well, that is called a discussion in my world.

No need to apologize. I am sure most people can agree with most of what you said.

Media, sadly, is in it for the money. Back "in the day" news was a public service. Today it is a major money making profit center for each and every media outlet.

Since there is no longer a publicly funded media - like the BBS in Britain or PBS used to be here, we are left with for profit media (news). And well, it shows. Money is God to almost all for profit companies. How what they do impacts peoples lives is of little importance to them, only what makes the most money. If they are public companies they are required by law to do/say what makes the most money, or they can be sued by stock holders. There is no law allowing stock holders to sue them for lying just to make money.

I don't know how to solve that.

We could go to a socialist society and heavily regulate or completely control news media, or we can live with what capitalism gives us and vote with our dollars. Or the last option (it seems to me) is a Democratic Socialism that regulates all for profit companies to some degree depending on how their actions impact society.

We seem to need to make a decision ... or not.

Excellent question, even though I don't think you posted it as a question.

Here is a study by Rand (link below) that shows there is not enough evidence to say if gun-free zones help or not.

It does point out that gun-free zones do help control access with guns, by providing (generally) entry screening to keep bad guys with guns from getting in to the area.

But your two options are not the only two. I suggest a third.

3. Locked doors (auto lock in closing), Trained and armed security guards at single point of entry, locked class rooms with supervisor overrides, and possibly some armed teachers, no unauthorized guns allowed in the area.

Letting "others" come in with guns is more likely, in my opinion, to cause more problems in an active shooter situation than they will help. Since "others" are not required in many states to be qualified and trained to use their weapons in active shooter situations. there is no way to know if the "other" is trained and capable of dealing with finding themselves in that situation.

The Effects of Gun-Free Zones | RAND

(Metaphor: Would you be in favor of letting anyone bring their car into a NASCAR race? Or is it a good idea to have races be a consumer car/driver free zone?)

EDIT: If the school was NOT gun-free, then the shooter in Texas could have just walked into the front door with two AR-15s. He has a right to open carry. So, All the locked docks and security could not legally stop him from entering unless they had credible evidence that he was a danger. How do you KNOW which open carrying citizen is not crazy?

Thank you, I think this is one of the more concise and practical posts here. Better than mine for sure.

PREE---cisely! It has been demonstrated time and again that the majority of these shootings are copycat.

And man! Are those AR-15s SCARY lookin'! You tote one of those into a school and you're gonna get INSTANT respect, not to mention your name and face on every major news medium in the country for at LEAST two weeks. Gotta use the gun that is getting the most negative attention to guarantee that type of "coverage".

So go ahead, media. Pour on the breathless outrage and over-the-top hysteria. Motivate even more of these loonytune kids to do the same thing. Because that is EXACTLY what is happening.

Deleted.