Colorado school Shooting! (case sealed)

[TECSHARE]

Someone wanting to carry out a mass shooting wants to inflict maximum damage to his victims, and going to a gun free zone will mean the shooter has an extended time until he encounters any kind of resistance to his attack. If a shooter were to go into a school in which all the teachers have guns, he would be stopped nearly immidiately, which is not what he wants, so he will not even try.

I am not a fan of the idea of arming teachers. First, teachers would be required to go through at least similar levels of training as police in order to make that viable. The whole, give a vigilante good guy a gun and a 30 minute seminar on how to operate the safety and you are good to go is simply not the case. It might be some people's wet dream to be able to shoot a home invader, but for people who aren't deranged, there is a lot psychologically that goes into actually making the decision to shoot someone, even in a life or death situation. If you put someone who isn't extensively trained into a situation where they are in possession of a weapon and afraid for their life, you end up with bad results. No matter how heroic someone is, it takes a lot of training to be able to go against your body's fight or flight response to behave calmly and not make mistakes. Lets say that somehow every school has a teacher that has been in a combat position in the military or something, who is going to fund them? From my experience, teachers are constantly fighting the government for budget, because they are paying for chalk/whiteboard markers out of pocket. I can't see there being the budget for guns, ammo, training, extra wages for time spent training, hazard pay?

While its possible, for the sake of staying on a single point, I'm not going to entertain the thought that the teachers themselves could snap during a bad day, overreact, and shoot an aggressive student that challenges their authority. I bet no one here has ever had an experience with an authoritarian, power tripping teacher. Just something else to think about.

What about the fact that there are already a lot of police and military already trained working in schools as teachers? It might take a lot of training, so what? Is the benefit of protecting children not worth it? Who says the state pays for it? You know damned well you cant even get a concealed carry permit with a 30 minute course in most states let alone a permit to be armed on school grounds, this is total hyperbole. You know teachers already have access to firearms outside of school right? If they wanted to snap and shoot the place up nothing is stopping them currently. The most important question of all though you need to ask yourself is, which do you think is safer, an armed teacher doing their best with training on the scene the instant violence breaks out, or police five to twenty minutes away? A lot of lives can be taken in five to twenty minutes (average police response time).

[1714781368]

1714781368

[SaltySpitoon]

What about the fact that there are already a lot of police and military already trained working in schools as teachers? It might take a lot of training, so what? Is the benefit of protecting children not worth it? Who says the state pays for it? You know damned well you cant even get a concealed carry permit with a 30 minute course in most states let alone a permit to be armed on school grounds, this is total hyperbole. You know teachers already have access to firearms outside of school right? If they wanted to snap and shoot the place up nothing is stopping them currently. The most important question of all though you need to ask yourself is, which do you think is safer, an armed teacher doing their best with training on the scene the instant violence breaks out, or police five to twenty minutes away? A lot of lives can be taken in five to twenty minutes (average police response time).

It doesn't matter if the benefit is worth it, there just wont be funding for it. If we can't get kids dry erase markers, you think a comptroller is going to allocated part of the budget to pay for guns? The federal government cares even less about public schools than the state, even if it wasn't a political hurdle, it would still be a financial one. Teachers don't get paid all that much, you would have to offer them significant compensation for their additional overtime work as well. Lets not forget the mandatory psychological screenings, and stricter standards for background checks. Police officers also own firearms outside of work, but they aren't allowed to bring their own from home. All of their maintenance, ammo, shots fired etc are accounted for. I don't imagine the laws would give teachers fewer restrictions on firearm use than police officers.

There are a lot of real considerations before just getting straight to the ideological, good guy with a gun beats bad guy with a gun. How many teachers are going to open themselves up to the liability? Good teacher with a gun misses and shoots a student for example, are they guilty of manslaughter because they haven't undergone years of psychological training to prevent them from misfiring when in the heat of the moment? Just being good at a firing range isn't the same as having someone shooting back at you.  As far as I know, most middle/high schools already have an on duty police officer to deal with sexual misconduct, drugs, fights, etc. It would be easier to keep them trained to the same standard as beat cops, so you don't have the same thing that happened in Lakeland.

Even assuming arming teachers was a good idea, the policy would be too controversial to enact. You aren't going to get that kind of reform without it being an overwhelming majority vote. I don't imagine having 50% of students removed from school by their parents, and non stop teachers strikes would be that great for school systems.

[BADecker]

What States Allow Teachers To Be Armed? It's A Controversial Proposal.

Almost four years ago, tragedy struck a small town in Connecticut. On Dec. 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton and opened fire, killing 20 children and six adults. In the weeks following the shooting, there was an outcry for an adjustment to American's gun laws. One proposal floated at the time, The Huffington Post reports, was that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons into their classrooms, in case they need to protect themselves and their students. The response to this solution was wide and it is still a heavy point of discussion to this day. There are those who believed teachers bringing guns to school would make their children safer, and others who were staunchly opposed. After a school shooting on Wednesday in Anderson County, South Carolina, the debate is back on in earnest. Currently, nine states allow teachers to carry guns in the classroom, and that number may continue to rise.

These states — which include Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, and Colorado — allow teachers to carry a concealed weapon on school and university campuses.

And Arizona has allowed concealed carry all over the State without a license since July of 2010.

[TECSHARE]

What about the fact that there are already a lot of police and military already trained working in schools as teachers? It might take a lot of training, so what? Is the benefit of protecting children not worth it? Who says the state pays for it? You know damned well you cant even get a concealed carry permit with a 30 minute course in most states let alone a permit to be armed on school grounds, this is total hyperbole. You know teachers already have access to firearms outside of school right? If they wanted to snap and shoot the place up nothing is stopping them currently. The most important question of all though you need to ask yourself is, which do you think is safer, an armed teacher doing their best with training on the scene the instant violence breaks out, or police five to twenty minutes away? A lot of lives can be taken in five to twenty minutes (average police response time).

It doesn't matter if the benefit is worth it, there just wont be funding for it. If we can't get kids dry erase markers, you think a comptroller is going to allocated part of the budget to pay for guns? The federal government cares even less about public schools than the state, even if it wasn't a political hurdle, it would still be a financial one. Teachers don't get paid all that much, you would have to offer them significant compensation for their additional overtime work as well. Lets not forget the mandatory psychological screenings, and stricter standards for background checks. Police officers also own firearms outside of work, but they aren't allowed to bring their own from home. All of their maintenance, ammo, shots fired etc are accounted for. I don't imagine the laws would give teachers fewer restrictions on firearm use than police officers.

There are a lot of real considerations before just getting straight to the ideological, good guy with a gun beats bad guy with a gun. How many teachers are going to open themselves up to the liability? Good teacher with a gun misses and shoots a student for example, are they guilty of manslaughter because they haven't undergone years of psychological training to prevent them from misfiring when in the heat of the moment? Just being good at a firing range isn't the same as having someone shooting back at you.  As far as I know, most middle/high schools already have an on duty police officer to deal with sexual misconduct, drugs, fights, etc. It would be easier to keep them trained to the same standard as beat cops, so you don't have the same thing that happened in Lakeland.

Even assuming arming teachers was a good idea, the policy would be too controversial to enact. You aren't going to get that kind of reform without it being an overwhelming majority vote. I don't imagine having 50% of students removed from school by their parents, and non stop teachers strikes would be that great for school systems.

Again, you are automatically assuming the state will have to pay for it. Teachers are not hobos, the ones who want to do this training certainly would have it be within their means. This is not a requirement, so trying to pretend like the state should be on the hook for everything automatically makes no sense. How about we start with allowing those that choose to, to do so? Just like any other gun owner, you are liable for every action you take with a firearm, regardless of how much or little training you have had.

[Siren]

Actually this same question I have in mind since US is one of the most strict country in the world regarding rules and laws so what we have here is a total destructive news

How can these youngsters can easily accumulate high powered guns and ammunition in this country?

^^^ Of course, once all the shooters are there, they will find that all the other shooters with guns are there. So, it won't be a gun-free zone any longer.

Search for it. There have been for a long time, a number of schools in the USA where the teachers go armed. And they do it by State orders.

Is this really happening?teachers go armed?so it’s not impossible for students to have also? Lol

[Quickseller]

Someone wanting to carry out a mass shooting wants to inflict maximum damage to his victims, and going to a gun free zone will mean the shooter has an extended time until he encounters any kind of resistance to his attack. If a shooter were to go into a school in which all the teachers have guns, he would be stopped nearly immidiately, which is not what he wants, so he will not even try.

I am not a fan of the idea of arming teachers. First, teachers would be required to go through at least similar levels of training as police in order to make that viable. The whole, give a vigilante good guy a gun and a 30 minute seminar on how to operate the safety and you are good to go is simply not the case. It might be some people's wet dream to be able to shoot a home invader, but for people who aren't deranged, there is a lot psychologically that goes into actually making the decision to shoot someone, even in a life or death situation. If you put someone who isn't extensively trained into a situation where they are in possession of a weapon and afraid for their life, you end up with bad results. No matter how heroic someone is, it takes a lot of training to be able to go against your body's fight or flight response to behave calmly and not make mistakes. Lets say that somehow every school has a teacher that has been in a combat position in the military or something, who is going to fund them? From my experience, teachers are constantly fighting the government for budget, because they are paying for chalk/whiteboard markers out of pocket. I can't see there being the budget for guns, ammo, training, extra wages for time spent training, hazard pay?

I am sure some number of teachers already have the requisite training to be able to safely carry a gun in a school, and there are probably more teachers who are generally interested in this training but have not gotten around to obtaining said skills. [/quote]

Also, every teacher doesn't need to have a gun, teachers only need to have the option to carry a gun in the school. The goal is not necessarily for the teacher to win a gunfight with an attempted mass shooter, the goal is to deter the mass shooter from going to the school in the first place.

[SaltySpitoon]

I am sure some number of teachers already have the requisite training to be able to safely carry a gun in a school, and there are probably more teachers who are generally interested in this training but have not gotten around to obtaining said skills.

Also, every teacher doesn't need to have a gun, teachers only need to have the option to carry a gun in the school. The goal is not necessarily for the teacher to win a gunfight with an attempted mass shooter, the goal is to deter the mass shooter from going to the school in the first place.

I'm not sure about that. Assuming that the option was viable, formal military and police training would still probably require a few more pieces to be legal. In many jurisdictions, police officers are required to have liability insurance policies to cover them from being sued into oblivion when they make a mistake that their department wont cover. I think it would probably be a hard sell to get a policy without extensive ongoing training. I can't imagine teachers wouldn't be required to have one if they were allowed to carry guns.

Again, you are automatically assuming the state will have to pay for it. Teachers are not hobos, the ones who want to do this training certainly would have it be within their means. This is not a requirement, so trying to pretend like the state should be on the hook for everything automatically makes no sense. How about we start with allowing those that choose to, to do so? Just like any other gun owner, you are liable for every action you take with a firearm, regardless of how much or little training you have had.

You can't legally have an employee undergo unpaid work related training, so the school board would need to cover that or be at risk of lawsuits. I don't know for certain that the state would have to pay for everything, but based on employment laws, I can say with relative certainty that teachers wouldn't be allowed to provide for themselves.

You can't just put a responsible gun owner in charge of protecting lives, they need to be thoroughly trained so they don't put those lives they are responsible for at greater risk. Google says police academy training costs around $5k and takes 840 hours, followed by field training with a senior officer, and certification exams before officers are allowed to uphold public safety. Again, realistically assuming that the idea is plausible, teachers would need to go through similar if not greater levels of training as police officers as dealing with minors is not a simple situation. I'm sure there are specialization certifications on how to deal with violence around minors. Lets also not forget the routine psychological analysis, not sure what that costs, but I'm sure its cheap. There is a reason that someone you are trusting your life to is required to jump through so many hoops, otherwise they pose a risk to your safety. Even if you think the regulations are stupid, thats not the point of what we are discussing. I could be pro teachers with guns, but that wouldn't change anything I've said so far so its just my interpretation of the legal impossibilities that stand in the way.


I'm not accusing anyone of bringing it up, but I just wanted to mention it in case the conversation would have otherwise gone in this direction. Vigilantism is the worst possible solution. I would bet my life that under absolutely no circumstances would teachers simply be allowed to bring guns to school at their own discretion. It is such a huge legal liability that we are better off talking about nearly anything else.

[TECSHARE]

I am sure some number of teachers already have the requisite training to be able to safely carry a gun in a school, and there are probably more teachers who are generally interested in this training but have not gotten around to obtaining said skills.

Also, every teacher doesn't need to have a gun, teachers only need to have the option to carry a gun in the school. The goal is not necessarily for the teacher to win a gunfight with an attempted mass shooter, the goal is to deter the mass shooter from going to the school in the first place.

I'm not sure about that. Assuming that the option was viable, formal military and police training would still probably require a few more pieces to be legal. In many jurisdictions, police officers are required to have liability insurance policies to cover them from being sued into oblivion when they make a mistake that their department wont cover. I think it would probably be a hard sell to get a policy without extensive ongoing training. I can't imagine teachers wouldn't be required to have one if they were allowed to carry guns.

Again, you are automatically assuming the state will have to pay for it. Teachers are not hobos, the ones who want to do this training certainly would have it be within their means. This is not a requirement, so trying to pretend like the state should be on the hook for everything automatically makes no sense. How about we start with allowing those that choose to, to do so? Just like any other gun owner, you are liable for every action you take with a firearm, regardless of how much or little training you have had.

You can't legally have an employee undergo unpaid work related training, so the school board would need to cover that or be at risk of lawsuits. I don't know for certain that the state would have to pay for everything, but based on employment laws, I can say with relative certainty that teachers wouldn't be allowed to provide for themselves.

You can't just put a responsible gun owner in charge of protecting lives, they need to be thoroughly trained so they don't put those lives they are responsible for at greater risk. Google says police academy training costs around $5k and takes 840 hours, followed by field training with a senior officer, and certification exams before officers are allowed to uphold public safety. Again, realistically assuming that the idea is plausible, teachers would need to go through similar if not greater levels of training as police officers as dealing with minors is not a simple situation. I'm sure there are specialization certifications on how to deal with violence around minors. Lets also not forget the routine psychological analysis, not sure what that costs, but I'm sure its cheap. There is a reason that someone you are trusting your life to is required to jump through so many hoops, otherwise they pose a risk to your safety. Even if you think the regulations are stupid, thats not the point of what we are discussing. I could be pro teachers with guns, but that wouldn't change anything I've said so far so its just my interpretation of the legal impossibilities that stand in the way.


I'm not accusing anyone of bringing it up, but I just wanted to mention it in case the conversation would have otherwise gone in this direction. Vigilantism is the worst possible solution. I would bet my life that under absolutely no circumstances would teachers simply be allowed to bring guns to school at their own discretion. It is such a huge legal liability that we are better off talking about nearly anything else.

Actually most states have qualified immunity for police, so as long as they were not completely negligent it is usually irrelevant, but this is another topic. There would be no mandate to get this training, so your logic about unpaid work training is flawed. The school is not mandating anyone do this necessarily but permitting it, so there is a huge difference. Again you avoided my question. Which do you think is better, a well meaning armed teacher there instantly, or police there in 5 to 20 minutes? Which is more dangerous, an unchecked mass murderer, or an armed amateur?

[SaltySpitoon]

Actually most states have qualified immunity for police, so as long as they were not completely negligent it is usually irrelevant, but this is another topic. There would be no mandate to get this training, so your logic about unpaid work training is flawed. The school is not mandating anyone do this necessarily but permitting it, so there is a huge difference. Again you avoided my question. Which do you think is better, a well meaning armed teacher there instantly, or police there in 5 to 20 minutes? Which is more dangerous, an unchecked mass murderer, or an armed amateur?

Well, it is speculation on my end, I cannot fathom not requiring the training I mentioned before, but your guess is as good as mine at this point.

Armed amateurs are more dangerous than mass murders. The number of accidents prone to happen from millions of armed amateurs is surely higher. As much as its played up as an imminent threat to the existence of humanity, the chances of being involved in a school shooting are still statistically insignificant.  The numbers of them occurring is certainly increasing, but as I mentioned before, I think there are far better methods available to reduce them than removing guns. I support people's rights to own guns, but there is a time and place for everything. I don't think that turning the country back into a Clint Eastwood western movie is the solution. Going to the grocery store should not become an arms race.

As I said before when I was defending gun ownership, guns are just a tool of convenience. If school shootings became difficult due to sentry turrets or whatever else, people would just move onto the next most convenient method. You don't stop shooters by shooting them first, you stop them from deciding to become shooters in the first place. I'm not the sort to point fingers and blame violent movies or video games or anything else, but just something to think about. Most countries in the world normalize sex rather than violence. A movie will receive a higher rating due to violent content rather than sexual content, whereas in the US, its the reverse. I'm not claiming thats the cause of anything, just a portion of my basis for being against normalizing violence. You shouldn't need a gun to feel safe in public, you should feel safe knowing that unreasonable violence is a statistical outlier, and the majority of people will be able to receive treatment for whatever would drive them to commit violence in the first place.

[Quickseller]

I am sure some number of teachers already have the requisite training to be able to safely carry a gun in a school, and there are probably more teachers who are generally interested in this training but have not gotten around to obtaining said skills.

Also, every teacher doesn't need to have a gun, teachers only need to have the option to carry a gun in the school. The goal is not necessarily for the teacher to win a gunfight with an attempted mass shooter, the goal is to deter the mass shooter from going to the school in the first place.

I'm not sure about that. Assuming that the option was viable, formal military and police training would still probably require a few more pieces to be legal. In many jurisdictions, police officers are required to have liability insurance policies to cover them from being sued into oblivion when they make a mistake that their department wont cover. I think it would probably be a hard sell to get a policy without extensive ongoing training. I can't imagine teachers wouldn't be required to have one if they were allowed to carry guns.

I have not heard of that. One solution would be to give teachers a safe harbor if they have certain credentials and take certain precautions, so to prevent them from getting sued frivolously.

Otherwise, if additional training is unavoidable, schools will need to find the funding. I don't know where this money will come from, and the answer is probably different from district to district -- some can probably come from the federal government (and state governments) via grants. At the end of the day, difficult choices will need to be made. In most cases, either taxes will need to be raised, or other programs will need to have their budgets cut to pay for this training.

[TECSHARE]

Actually most states have qualified immunity for police, so as long as they were not completely negligent it is usually irrelevant, but this is another topic. There would be no mandate to get this training, so your logic about unpaid work training is flawed. The school is not mandating anyone do this necessarily but permitting it, so there is a huge difference. Again you avoided my question. Which do you think is better, a well meaning armed teacher there instantly, or police there in 5 to 20 minutes? Which is more dangerous, an unchecked mass murderer, or an armed amateur?

Well, it is speculation on my end, I cannot fathom not requiring the training I mentioned before, but your guess is as good as mine at this point.

Armed amateurs are more dangerous than mass murders. The number of accidents prone to happen from millions of armed amateurs is surely higher. As much as its played up as an imminent threat to the existence of humanity, the chances of being involved in a school shooting are still statistically insignificant.  The numbers of them occurring is certainly increasing, but as I mentioned before, I think there are far better methods available to reduce them than removing guns. I support people's rights to own guns, but there is a time and place for everything. I don't think that turning the country back into a Clint Eastwood western movie is the solution. Going to the grocery store should not become an arms race.

As I said before when I was defending gun ownership, guns are just a tool of convenience. If school shootings became difficult due to sentry turrets or whatever else, people would just move onto the next most convenient method. You don't stop shooters by shooting them first, you stop them from deciding to become shooters in the first place. I'm not the sort to point fingers and blame violent movies or video games or anything else, but just something to think about. Most countries in the world normalize sex rather than violence. A movie will receive a higher rating due to violent content rather than sexual content, whereas in the US, its the reverse. I'm not claiming thats the cause of anything, just a portion of my basis for being against normalizing violence. You shouldn't need a gun to feel safe in public, you should feel safe knowing that unreasonable violence is a statistical outlier, and the majority of people will be able to receive treatment for whatever would drive them to commit violence in the first place.

I never said anything about not getting training, the point was the state wouldn't make carrying the gun (or the training required to do so) mandatory, therefore it would not fall under unpaid work. I know you live in an area with pretty strict gun controls, but visit Arizona or Texas some time. Tons of people walk around all day with guns on their hips and they don't jump up and shoot people on their own. If the threats of a school shooting are statistically insignificant then this entire debate is moot. High levels of carrying is a deterrent and in itself a form of making school shootings harder, which would most certainly be more likely to prevent it in the first place if they know they will not be able to rack up a body count before they join the pile. All kinds of studies have already shown video games and movies don't result directly in more violence. You know what studies have shown results in violence though? All the meds that the vast majority of shooters have been pumped full of. It is very good of you to decide for others they should feel safe because "statistics". Next time some one tries to jump me when I am in Chicago I will show them the stats maybe they will go away.

[SaltySpitoon]

I never said anything about not getting training, the point was the state wouldn't make carrying the gun (or the training required to do so) mandatory, therefore it would not fall under unpaid work. I know you live in an area with pretty strict gun controls, but visit Arizona or Texas some time. Tons of people walk around all day with guns on their hips and they don't jump up and shoot people on their own. If the threats of a school shooting are statistically insignificant than this entire debate is moot. High levels of carrying is a deterrent and in itself a form of making school shootings harder, which would most certainly be more likely to prevent it in the first place if they know they will not be able to rack up a body count before they join the pile. All kinds of studies have already shown video games and movies don't result directly in more violence. You know what studies have shown results in violence though? All the meds that the vast majority of shooters have been pumped full of. It is very good of you to decide for others they should feel safe because "statistics". Next time some one tries to jump me when I am in Chicago I will show them the stats maybe they will go away.

My point about statistics was just that living in fear of dogs is the same as living in fear of school shootings. If we were discussing the danger of living in the city, I would have chosen my phrasing more carefully.

I'm in a gun unfriendly area now, but I grew up out in the sticks where every kid went through hunters safety as a manner of coming of age tradition. I do think that the entire debate is moot, at least from the direction we are approaching it now. I think there are a few incorrect assumptions with thinking that everyone carrying guns is a good idea, but thats not super relevant. Funny enough, I was going to look up the statistics on the locations of school shootings just to have something to reference with my next thought, but I really couldn't find any that were reliable. Every list that I found included too many or too few details to actually be useful. I believe that school shooting locations have very little to do with state gun laws. Given that the data was inconclusive, it appears that both California and Texas are towards the top of the list for number of school shootings. Funny though, both states have massive populations and plenty of congested hell cities (cough Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, New York). I'm taking a blind guess at this, but I suppose Texas and California each probably account for ~10% of non snow related car crashes too, guess that makes them unsafe to drive in.

I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement that there is a correlation between over medication of children and incidents. Besides the obvious effect that antidepressants and such have strong side effects on adolescents, its another important indicator. Medication is not a treatment for mental health problems. There are very few cases where someone is just born with a chemical imbalance, and a pill just fixes that. Tossing someone a pill doesn't fix the problem, you need to get to the root of the problem or the pill doesn't do anything. I see the rate of medication as a sign that some parents are shirking the well being of their kids and ignoring critical warning signs that can evolve into mental health problems. I'm not saying that sad kids are the cause of all of our problems, we made it through the grunge era, but it definitely lends credence to my thoughts on dealing with mental health before anything else.

*edit* sorry missed your point about training. A handful of companies have tried the, "we aren't making anyone do anything, they are doing it of their own free will" defense, and it never seems to work out. Employees that don't want to volunteer are pressured into doing so because they become less job competitive. A guy who volunteers to work an extra 10 hours without being paid will have an advantage over the guy who doesn't volunteer, so when budget cuts come along, guess who's staying? As a result, the guy who doesn't want to volunteer will end up doing so. There are laws for this reason to keep employers from manipulating their employees into nonpaid overtime. Its been a major problem in transportation and medical fields.

[Indamuck]

Can a commercial plane crash? yes but unlikely

Can a public place be shot up by someone? yes but unlikely


The percentage of this happening to you is so low sometimes it not even worth worrying about.


I would not want guns in the hands of normal teachers, that is a recipe for disaster.  I've had some seriously deranged teachers before.

[TECSHARE]

My point about statistics was just that living in fear of dogs is the same as living in fear of school shootings. If we were discussing the danger of living in the city, I would have chosen my phrasing more carefully.

I'm in a gun unfriendly area now, but I grew up out in the sticks where every kid went through hunters safety as a manner of coming of age tradition. I do think that the entire debate is moot, at least from the direction we are approaching it now. I think there are a few incorrect assumptions with thinking that everyone carrying guns is a good idea, but thats not super relevant. Funny enough, I was going to look up the statistics on the locations of school shootings just to have something to reference with my next thought, but I really couldn't find any that were reliable. Every list that I found included too many or too few details to actually be useful. I believe that school shooting locations have very little to do with state gun laws. Given that the data was inconclusive, it appears that both California and Texas are towards the top of the list for number of school shootings. Funny though, both states have massive populations and plenty of congested hell cities (cough Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, New York). I'm taking a blind guess at this, but I suppose Texas and California each probably account for ~10% of non snow related car crashes too, guess that makes them unsafe to drive in.

I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement that there is a correlation between over medication of children and incidents. Besides the obvious effect that antidepressants and such have strong side effects on adolescents, its another important indicator. Medication is not a treatment for mental health problems. There are very few cases where someone is just born with a chemical imbalance, and a pill just fixes that. Tossing someone a pill doesn't fix the problem, you need to get to the root of the problem or the pill doesn't do anything. I see the rate of medication as a sign that some parents are shirking the well being of their kids and ignoring critical warning signs that can evolve into mental health problems. I'm not saying that sad kids are the cause of all of our problems, we made it through the grunge era, but it definitely lends credence to my thoughts on dealing with mental health before anything else.

*edit* sorry missed your point about training. A handful of companies have tried the, "we aren't making anyone do anything, they are doing it of their own free will" defense, and it never seems to work out. Employees that don't want to volunteer are pressured into doing so because they become less job competitive. A guy who volunteers to work an extra 10 hours without being paid will have an advantage over the guy who doesn't volunteer, so when budget cuts come along, guess who's staying? As a result, the guy who doesn't want to volunteer will end up doing so. There are laws for this reason to keep employers from manipulating their employees into nonpaid overtime. Its been a major problem in transportation and medical fields.

Literally no one said everyone should be carrying guns. Also there is either a right to bear arms or not, if there is a government entity picking and choosing who can and can not own firearms then it is not a right any more is it? It becomes a privilege granted not a right implicit and exercised. There are a TON of sources here. Sorry not really buying your excuse that gun control laws do not have a counterproductive effect. California is clearly the most strict laws with some of the worst results. Texas though largely pro-gun has some very left leaning pro-gun control areas within its city centers. An interesting thing to note is a lot of these places are filled with the refugees from Commifornia. They move to other states and proceed to vote in all the same failed polices they just ran from.

Another excellent example of this is Chicago, where as the state regulations are not super restrictive, but within Cook County the restrictions are exceptionally strict even on a nation wide level yet it has some of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation. In effect it is not a genuine examination of the regulations to only look at state level statues because localities and counties find ways to achieve this same counterproductive effect regardless. The same can be said for New York City and I am sure many other locations. Again regarding training, we are talking about certifying qualified individuals to assert their 2nd amendment rights at work or school (in the cases of higher ed). This does not necessitate some kind of entitlement to extra pay or occupational benefits, this is simply a matter of enabling trained and qualified citizens the ability to do so if they choose. All the other horse shit about special advantages and unpaid training is just a red herring attaching other frivolous stipulations unnecessarily.

[MidKnight]

America is the country where illegal and disgusting things are tolerated. Because if they do really care about this incident, they will banned guns for individuals to have it for personal possession a long time ago. The accessibility of guns should be taken seriously by their government and it should only be allowed on places that has low number of policemen.

[BADecker]

^^^ Actually, America is the place where illegal and disgusting things seem to be tolerated because the government leaders have hired an abnormally high number of police. Guns among the populous should be increased in places that have high numbers of police.

[Astargath]

^^^ Actually, America is the place where illegal and disgusting things seem to be tolerated because the government leaders have hired an abnormally high number of police. Guns among the populous should be increased in places that have high numbers of police.

Actually, even by rate per 1 million: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people america isn't close to the top. Sure a lot of shit happens in america and some measures are needed but I can assure you it's not because of police LOL, I know you think they are bad because you don't know how to look at statistics but it's actually the black population that does most of the killing in America.

[squatz1]

1) Nothing will ever change in the US until they get special interest money out of politics (like the rest of the developed world has done).
2) The common response from Muricans (especially in this nut house lol) is going to be MOAR GUNS, if those poor kids at school were armed
    with their own military hardware they could protect themselves against the crazies....

The US can't even pass legislation to close a well known "gun show" loop hole, something roughly 90% of Americans want.

Is there really no special interest money in politics around the world? I feel like that can't be true (Maybe just cause I'm in America, I feel that what happens here regarding politics is normal)

The gun show loophole and other gun control ideas are an interesing topic, though I don't think people notice that most of these mass shootings that occurred in the US wouldn't have been stopped by any gun control solutions proposed. Check the source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9ff8dbe61b07)

We have an issue of enforcement in this country, not an issue of the laws we have.

[Spendulus]

.....
....I think there are a few incorrect assumptions with thinking that everyone carrying guns is a good idea, but thats not super relevant. Funny enough, I was going to look up the statistics on the locations of school shootings....

There's a mindset that comes first, before anyone should do concealed carry. Otherwise he becomes a target for punks to take the gun away.

The right solution is to eliminate "gun free zones," and make them "zones where you don't know who is carrying but you damn sure know they are there and they are going to shoot you dead."

Like "Air Marshalls." They exist, but good luck identifying them.

.....

I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement that there is a correlation between over medication of children and incidents. Besides the obvious effect that antidepressants and such have strong side effects on adolescents, its another important indicator. Medication is not a treatment for mental health problems. There are very few cases where someone is just born with a chemical imbalance, and a pill just fixes that. Tossing someone a pill doesn't fix the problem, you need to get to the root of the problem or the pill doesn't do anything. .....

Behavior suppressing pills are obviously behind sudden breakout into psychotic behavior that to a fair degree results in mass shootings. This is not getting the attention it deserves.

[TECSHARE]

.....
....I think there are a few incorrect assumptions with thinking that everyone carrying guns is a good idea, but thats not super relevant. Funny enough, I was going to look up the statistics on the locations of school shootings....

There's a mindset that comes first, before anyone should do concealed carry. Otherwise he becomes a target for punks to take the gun away.

The right solution is to eliminate "gun free zones," and make them "zones where you don't know who is carrying but you damn sure know they are there and they are going to shoot you dead."

Like "Air Marshalls." They exist, but good luck identifying them.

.....

I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement that there is a correlation between over medication of children and incidents. Besides the obvious effect that antidepressants and such have strong side effects on adolescents, its another important indicator. Medication is not a treatment for mental health problems. There are very few cases where someone is just born with a chemical imbalance, and a pill just fixes that. Tossing someone a pill doesn't fix the problem, you need to get to the root of the problem or the pill doesn't do anything. .....

Behavior suppressing pills are obviously behind sudden breakout into psychotic behavior that to a fair degree results in mass shootings. This is not getting the attention it deserves.

Exactly. The point is every school will have a handful of these people seconds away to react. It doesn't need to be everyone. Watch a couple would-be school shooters get ended before taking any lives a few times and suddenly it will get a lot less glamorous and a lot more scary in the minds of these deranged individuals. Suddenly it stops happening as much, and when it does less people are hurt because they don't get to go on an unchecked rampage for 30 minutes to an hour.