And here I am at a university where students protested because administration wanted to arm our campus police with a conceal carry pistol because previously, they had no weapon.
Look it up - Rochester Institute of Technology.
@bowlnmike, I also live in the Roc *fist bumps*
@bowlnmike, I think colleges need to look harder into the people they accept.
@bowlnmike, shít I got friends there. Kinda strange that the campus police aren't armed to begin with
@bowlnmike, Out of curiosity, are campus police real police, or private security?
I can kinda see their point - if they chose a university in part because it was gun-free, I can understand them being against changing that. I'm not saying they're right, just that I can see why they might be protesting against it.
@Nellybert , It is a subdivision of the county sheriff. They are actual police, doing all functions of police. The only thing they can't do is arrest, but they can detain you and turn you over to county sheriff.
They handle all investigations for state troopers and county sheriff aren't allowed to enforce laws directly at the University, they must go through campus police.
@Stalker Ent, Well, it's weird because 90% of the university police are retired cops and sargeants, only working for their grandkids free education.
@bowlnmike, Ah, ok, thanks. American law enforcement confuses the heck out of me at times. We basically just have Police, they can arrest you essentially anywhere.
I never knew that your university campuses were off-limits to the cops like that.
@bowlnmike, I used to go there! Got kicked out. I didn't know I had ADHD and severe depression at that time.... Haha. Haha. Haha. Hhahahahahahahahah 😭
@bowlnmike, I'm applying to that school... oh god
You're right. Screw all the kids in all the OTHER classrooms. Best course of action is just to hope the cops show up and kill the guy before he kills too many kids and teachers. OR, we allow their to be a slim possibility that the teacher could take down the shooter and end it early instead of the whole school just being cannon fodder.
Edit: this was supposed to be a reply
@FonzerellaSticks, I can see an argument against it though - firstly, it may put teachers in a position they don't want to be in as they may be pressured in to carrying a weapon they don't want. Secondly, it potentially puts a firearm in a place that it can be accessed by schoolchildren.
Not saying they're right, just that I can see their side of it.
@Nellybert , there is no easy answer, either way someone will be unhappy. But teachers aren't REQUIRED to carry, it's simply an option. And again, I believe that if the teachers keep the firearm on their person, in a holster, either on their leg or on their hip, there's very little chance a child would get to it. There's holsters that are made with a safety latch that make it so someone can't just walk up and take the gun your gun from you. Not every teacher has to be strapped to the teeth but I think that if it's allowed, it would definitely make someone think twice before shooting up a school if they know the teachers are all packing.
@Nellybert , in any case, it's definitely a more reasonable option than a "bulletproof blanket"
@FonzerellaSticks, As most school-shooters seem to plan it as a murder/suicide thing, I'm not sure it would be a deterrent really. And could put pressure on teachers to carry when they don't want to (I.e. From pro-gun parents who support the idea), so I think you'd need the head/board/governors (whatever the setup there is) to absolutely back to the hilt any teacher who refuses to carry.
@Nellybert , personally I believe at the age of 15 everyone should be taught to properly handle a firearm. Respect for firearms directly stems from knowledge and exposure. A lot of the problems with gun control come from a lot of misinformation both for and against gun control. If everyone was educated on how to properly handle a firearm we would probably already have a solution to this problem.
@FonzerellaSticks, I can see another problem not mentioned yet. When a teacher brain goes bad and wants to shoot at school, he will be allowed in, carrying, and nobody will react until it is too late. Also, in a shooting, how other carriers know who is the real bad guy? Confusion in armed environment is a hell of a concern for me.
These are for storms. That's why the kids are in the hallway. If there is a shooter the kids have to be in a locked classroom.
Why is it that roughly 50% of americans have the same reaction to mass shootings? The answer is not add more guns. That will never work. You have been doing that for the past few centuries and having more and more gun related deaths. Compare those stats to every other country in the world that does not allow its citizens to walk around armed. The logic speaks for itself
@Kaotick13, Compare violent crime in the US to violent crime elsewhere and you'll see it's no different. Guns don't make people commit more violent crime. Saying there's more gun deaths is irrelevant because that's a natural result of having more guns. Look at the actual crime rates and you'll see the US is no different than any other large western country.
@CriTiKa1, of course violent non-gun crime is rampant. But the easy access to guns that America allows makes it so much easier for somebody who does want to incur violence, so much easier for them to slaughter more people than they'd be able to if they weren't allowed access to guns. Hence why you have stuff like Columbine, Sandy Hook, the Orlando gay club shooting and you'll have many more to come until the access to them is restricted in such a way like Australia or the UK.
@Henry VIII, To be fair, the UK has mass shootings too. Specifically, we've had three. One in 1987, one in 1996 and one in 2010. .
@Nellybert , Oh of course, Dunblane, Hungerford and the Cumbria shootings. I won't try and deny them, all tragic. However that's 3 in 30 years. I'm fairly sure the Americans out-perform us on that one
As an Australian I just say to take away the guns and there would be no more shootings.... we managed to do it so i'm sure Americans can too.
@Dad pls, it seems anything anti-gun on here gets voted down. They're too arrogant and trigger happy to ban guns. There will continue to be mass shootings that are played off as nothing. Even when children in schools are killed still they think the answer is more guns. It's saddening.
@Dad pls, Considering we have more guns than you have citizens, no.
@Dad pls, yes because taking guns away from law abiding citizens is going to stop criminals from getting guns.
@The Poll Man, it would make it a lot harder and more expensive. Black market weapons arent just sold on street corners for $200 you know.
@Kaotick13, they literally are, you moron. Anyone with some good machining knowledge can make a perfectly functional .380 acp pistol with some basic garage tools and $25 worth of scrap metal. Sell that illegally on a street corner for $$75 and you've made 150% profit on each sale. That's why people who think you can "get rid of guns" are so incredibly ignorant.
@Dad pls, Anyone with some good machining knowledge can make a perfectly functional .380 acp pistol with some basic garage tools and $25 worth of scrap metal. Sell that illegally on a street corner for $$75 and you've made 150% profit on each sale. That's why people who think you can "get rid of guns" are so incredibly ignorant.
@Captain Swordsman, not that ignorant, it isn't much of a stretch to believe that what effectively ended mass shootings in Australia could work in other countries like America
@Robenstein, Australia was already on a decline of gun deaths and mass shootings before the handgun ban, and it has less africans being raised by single moms than the US does, but we don't talk about those things, because gun control.
Is any body else concerned at the facts school shootings are so common it's created a industry that relies on them?
@Dreadnought , or is there an industry that relies upon making you think that they're so common that you should be concerned?
@Dreadnought , isn't funny that allowing teachers and administrators to carry weapons would eliminate the need for said industry?
@Lie Ren Licks Taint, kids already bring their own guns to school. Intentionally putting guns in schools just allows kids easier access to them unless they're locked up to the point where they wouldn't be any more effective than just calling the cops
@TheWhiteWolf, that's why you keep it on your hip in a safe holster. Kids aren't gonna steal your gun unless they really fight you for it
@TheWhiteWolf, really? So a gun safe like most people already have at home that would easily fit inside a teachers desk is slower and less efficient than calling the police and waiting 3-5 minutes min for a responding officer while the shooter has time to kill defenseless people? You know that teachers in Israel are required to carry right? Why don't they have any problems?
@Lie Ren Licks Taint, yes, really. Guy burst in with a gun, first thing now is he shoots the teacher. You no longer have a gun. Say you keep them with the admins in the office. You're still not gonna stop the initial shooting. If you look at shootings in the past shooters clear at most 2 rooms and the school is entirely locked down and police are there. The possibility of an armed teacher stopping a shooter in any time greater than police could already is fallacious. If you want to set up a police sub-station in or near the school then you'd have a reasonable and effective solution with much less risk
@FonzerellaSticks, open carrying makes the teacher an immediate target, if they aren't already one. They'd just be the first to be shot by the person who already has their gun drawn and aimed
@TheWhiteWolf, so logically don't let them defend themselves? If every teacher is armed they won't make it into two rooms without someone returning fire. Look up school shootings that have been stopped by teachers and administrators who carried weapons in their vehicles, because there are several. If a principal has time to leave the building, retrieve his personal firearm from his vehicle and return to stop the shooter before police arrive that is plenty justification for me. Look up the pearl high shooting.
@TheWhiteWolf, You're right. Screw all the kids in all the OTHER classrooms. Best course of action is just to hope the cops show up and kill the guy before he kills too many kids and teachers. OR, we allow their to be a slim possibility that the teacher could take down the shooter and end it early instead of the whole school just being cannon fodder.
@Lie Ren Licks Taint, you completely ignored my alternative. Have a dedicated officer in or near the school at all times, someone properly trained to deal with an active shooter, not just someone with a ccw, and you get the same result without putting 30 guns into a school, in the hands of people that may not be physically capable of properly handling a gun
@FonzerellaSticks, see my response to lie ren. Short of arming every teacher in every room, which leads to even more problems than I've already outlined, the largest school shooting in the US in the last 70 years was Virginia tech, 32 fatalities. That's well below a single classroom student capacity. Even including injuries it's still below what most schools classrooms are at. Having a person who's sole job is to deal with a shooter, like a cop stationed on the schools grounds, if have no issue with that. That would make a huge amount of sense
@TheWhiteWolf, what if the officer is killed before he even get a a chance to respond? As you claim a person with a gun would be the main target for anyone shooting up a school, what's to stop them from targeting the officer stationed there, not to mention how much that would cost for each and every school to have their own resource officer, which actually do already exist incase you don't know. By the way I see you neglected to comment on the real life example I provided.
@ReeseBobby, that's called the 24 hour cable news industry
@TheWhiteWolf, wouldn't the dedicated officer who is open carrying be target #1? Because that is the exact same argument you tried to use when teachers are carrying.
@TheWhiteWolf, have you considered not being a liberal POS that hates self defence, liberty, and everything the USA stands for?
@Captain Swordsman, USA! USA! USA! 🇺🇸
@ReeseBobby, ignoring the other comments about how to prevent them (that's an entirely different argument), are you saying school shootings aren't so common and that we shouldn't be concerned about them? Or are you saying that we shouldn't be concerned about the gun aspect of them?
(Help, why am I being downvoted? I'm just trying to understand his comment)
@Lie Ren Licks Taint, because Israel isn't as fvcked up as the US
@Lie Ren Licks Taint, there probably aren't problems from teachers in Israel because everyone in their country has to serve in the military.
@Captain Swordsman, you're an idiot. I have no problem with anyone dining guns and I own many of my own. Schools however are funded publicly and should adopt policies based on the ideas of the paranoid few
@ORGANIC, possibly except and officer is TRAINED to know what to do when under attack. Your average teacher with ccw doesn't have anything on a fully trained, or better yet specialist trained, officer, in an enclosed area where a shooter cant just simply barge into
@Lie Ren Licks Taint, you're example is an instance where the shooter had already stopped shooting and was starting to flee. The only reason he wants able to just drive off was because another student boxed his car in. Even still, that principle was army reserve, more training than just some teacher with a ccw
@TheWhiteWolf, boy you sure are popular
@Medic135, I see that. People sure are willing to listen to others opinions
@TheWhiteWolf, I won't say anything about the economical parts and whether or not it's a good use of tax money, but to say having armed teachers wouldn't help is just wrong. As far as training goes, the teacher certainly wouldn't be as capable as a police officer but that being said, most school shooters aren't exactly trained either. If the school shooter couldn't get in the door without being shot at then there would be a lot less victims, let alone people actually trying to shoot up schools.
@TheWhiteWolf, while I disagree with most of your premises, I agree with you that the logical first target would be the armed staff (sworn or educational). The flaw is that there is little that can be done to stop the initial attack in any scenario, but trained weapon carriers will increase the likelihood of stopping the attacker sooner, thus minimizing the casualties. Armed staff that were not initial victims would be able to respond swiftly and/or defend classrooms from being attacked if the attacker moves through the campus. This could be the difference between a few victims and many victims- and those are lives saved.
@Lie Ren Licks Taint, I think that would be a terrible idea- at my school we always had two police officers on duty who would carry guns and tasters. At one point three kids jumped one of them in the hallway and stole his gun. He (luckily) managed to use his taser to stop the kid from killing anyone but regardless- putting more guns in schools, especially in the hands of teachers or administrators who aren't trained, would make shooting the kid that made you mad so much easier
@Lie Ren Licks Taint, knowing some of the kids at my school, if there was a gun in a locked safe some kid would find a way to open it
@TheWhiteWolf, welcome to Funny Pics!
@ajr12100, also as a fun story that involves picking a lock- a kid at my school once stole a teachers keys and came back at 2 am. He went to a vending machine, somehow got an outline of the key that opens it (don't know what he used to do that) and then 3D printed 10 of those keys using our school's printer. He then stole all the snacks in the machine- and when the snacks were replaced the next week he sold the keys for $70 a pop.
@Captain Swordsman, but I thought liberals get offended by differing opinions? I thought liberals call others names simply for disagreeing with them? Seems like you're a liberal
@aGuyWithAnAxe, what do you do when a teachers loses his cool and shoots the kids though? There was one study hall teacher at my school who sent a kid to the hospital because the kid had been talking sh!t to him and throwing pencils. At the middle school there was also a science teacher who would pick a fat kid every year and make him stay after class every day to do push-ups. If they refused he'd push them against the wall and punch them (he's not in prison, but it took 8 years for any kid to come out and tell anyone about what was happening- I wouldn't feel safe giving people like him a gun around kids).
@ajr12100, probably the best thing to do is not hire people like that in the first place, but since that's not practical in real life there isn't a great solution besides more rigorous teacher training. I'm not saying this should be a thing, I just like to exchange viewpoints, and I'm a fairly pro-gun person
@TheWhiteWolf, mass shooters are looking for easy targets to prey on the weak. Why are there no mass shootings at police stations even with how much hate cops have gotten in the past few years? Because you'd be a moron to do so. These insane people who want to kill people because they are emotionally unstable just want to make as big an impact as quickly as they can. If you had one school that advertised their teachers were all armed (realistically I think it should be optional, not obligated) vs another school that was a "gun free zone", where do you think the shooter is honestly going to go?
@aGuyWithAnAxe, I'm fairly pro gun as well, but I guess I just don't agree with the "everyone gets guns" mentality in America where people who are mentally ill can legally buy guns, and anyone can illegally get one with a $70 fake ID.
I don't agree with the idea that using guns is a good way to stop shootings- why not just evaluate people who want to buy guns for mental wellbeing? You have to take a test to get a license to drive to make sure you're mentally capable of understanding the signs on the road and whatnot- why can't we make people who want a gun take a quick exam to prove they're not insane?
@ajr12100, I fully support getting a gun legally and I won't talk about the mental illness factor because there's probably a few factors I don't really know about that play into it, but you look at places like Chicago where there are limitless gun restrictions and some of the worst armed crime rates in the country. In comparison, Texas, where it's fairly easy to get a gun and a large portion of their population concealed carry, no one gets 10 feet after committing a serious crime without being shot by someone watching, so there are much fewer armed crimes
@ajr12100, so you're saying don't even arm police in schools? Fantastic logic! I swear to God everyone including yourself where you are from are fücking retarded. Jesus christ the more I hear you talk about your life the more brain dead I feel. So logically to to protect people from getting shot we should let them hid in groups under armed while someone has open season on them? Haha alright man.
@Lie Ren Licks Taint, i never said police should not have guns- I just pointed out that any guns can be stolen if a kid is determined enough. Having a cop with a gun isn't a solve all solution, but it's far better than arming teachers
@aGuyWithAnAxe, the reason Chicago has high gun crime is because of Indiana. In my home town (northwest Indiana area) we have fun shows where you can go buy a gun with any ID. There's no background check, no waiting period. My friend has bought guns without an ID before as well just by taking to a vendor and being friendly.
If Indiana had restrictions at gun shows (like enforcing background check laws) then the gangs in Chicago would have a lot less guns and be spending a lot more for the ones they do have.
@ajr12100, I think it'd be a lot harder for the gangs to get them, but there will always be a way for bad people to get guns. You can order every single part of a gun online except the lower receiver, which you can buy an unmilled version of and mill in the holes yourself. Boom, you have an unregistered gun without having to go through any sort of law. A gang could easily set up somewhere to mill in lower receivers and assemble guns on their own. The only people gun restrictions keep guns away from are people who want to buy guns legally and use them safely.
@ajr12100, you said the people trained to handle weapons and the situation was disarmed by highschool students, that's saying the people who are supposed to deal with it can't even do their job. So what do you suggest? Just let people shoot unarmed people? You relize that buying a gun out of state is illegal right? Same with using a false identity, and shooting someone? Criminals will break the law so logically we should punish the people who do it right and take away their weapons so that the people who break the law can hurt them easier?
@aGuyWithAnAxe, but isn't making it harder for gangs to get guns important? None of the restrictions on guns I support would really impact a law abiding citizen (sure, waiting three days for a background check is a pain but is it honestly a huge deal?)
If a gang had to assemble their own guns suddenly they lose men on the street because they need someone to assemble the guns. Suddenly instead of paying $300 per gun from Indiana you're paying $800 per gun. Now, that won't stop then big players- but I guarantee that low time drug dealers wouldn't waste the money- not when $800 is two weeks profit. Now you have less guns, so the police are able to bust the low time dealers without having to have a full on SWAT team raid which saves money and makes police safer.
@ajr12100, yeah that's definitely important, my point is just that no matter how many restrictions are put on guns there is nothing that will completely stop gun violence like some left wing politicians would promise. I'm not saying that every other joe should be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with an AR15 without so much as a background check, just that putting more restrictions isn't the solution to gun violence.
@Lie Ren Licks Taint, I was just giving an example of how a gun in a school could be used for harm regardless of who has it- i'm sure that and officer being in a school prevents more than it causes.
My point is... If buying a gun out of state is illegal- so why is it so easy? Because Indiana doesn't enforce background checks or waiting periods it allows criminals to buy guns. I'm advocating for background checks and a waiting period- I have not and never will say that law abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. I'm saying that a law abiding citizen should be willing to endure the terrible experience of waiting 3 days to a week to buy a gun so that criminals who are trying to buy guns will be discovered and unable to (easily) supply gangs with guns.
Can you give me one good reason why an average gun owner is incapable of showing his license and then waiting 3-5 days before taking a gun home?
@ajr12100, sure it may be an inconvenience but it would undoubtedly lower the amount of fatal shootings, and save the lives of innocent people and police who are shot on duty- I think most people would agree waiting 5 days is worth it when the alternative is a dead child or dead officer
@Blue Shirted Guy, I don't get offended or call people names for disagreeing with me (find the last time I got offended by someone thinking that Pepsi is better than Coke, for example). I call people names when they call for policies that will result in death, lack of freedom, and only takes ten minutes of light research to completely refute, like stricter gun laws.
@ajr12100, dude you can literally make a working .380 ACP pistol with basic garage tools and $25 worth of scrap metal. If all the factory guns were taken away the gangs would just hire educated white people to make their guns for $150 a pop, and everyone on the criminal side (gun maker abd gangsters) is even better off financially.
@Captain Swordsman, there's a difference between a .380 pistol and a semi auto rifle or full auto weapon.
But if it's so cheap and easy to make guns, why aren't they just making them now? I feel like you underestimate the difficulty or cost of making a gun at home
EDIT: not to mention most gangbangers want bigger and badder weapons to intimidate rivals
@ajr12100, 1) Since the passing of the National Firearms Act in the 30w, there has been ONE known murder with a registered machine gun. 2). It's not that hard to make full-auto weapons either. The AK-47 was designed so that drunken illiterate potato farmers could make them with world war 2 era tools. The reason no one is making them now is that that people who know how to make them are law abiding citizens, and the gangbangers who would use them are drunken and illiterate, but not potato farmers, and generally don't trust people outside their gang.
@Captain Swordsman, so if gangbangers can't get guns legally (or use loopholes to get them illegally like buying over a state border) then suddenly a law avoiding citizen will start making guns for $150 a pop?
You made the point above that gangs would just hire educated white people to make the guns for cheaper if factory made ones were unavailable, but then you contradicted yourself by saying that those who do know how are law abiding and therefore wouldn't make them
@Captain Swordsman, the problem with your #1 point is that at gun shows in my town, a vendor won't enforce any laws involving background checks, IDs, or registration. They'll just hand you a gun if you sweet talk them or hand them a fake ID. I'm not advocating for getting rid of machine guns, I'm advocating for making it harder for criminals to buy any gun by either creating new laws, or at least enforcing those already in place.
@Captain Swordsman, and while there's only been one known murder with a registered machine gun, there are many with illegally modified automatic weapons. For example, a tech-9 with a backwards firing pin. Any gang member could come into Indiana from Chicago and buy a tech-9 at a gun show with only a fake ID because no one bothers to do a background check to find out if the person buying the gun is even real and then modify it to become fully auto
@ajr12100, I said that the people who currently know how are law abiding. If factory guns became unavailable people could start learning. The reason this isn't happening right now is because gangbangers would rather get their glock brand glocks since they can.
@ajr12100, Too bad "M-M-MUH EVIL INDIANA GUN SHOWS" do background checks on gun purchases, or you might have a point about the Chicago thing.
@Captain Swordsman, maybe the law says they do but in practice I've watched as my dad, and one of my friends have bought guns with no Backgroud check and no ID respectively
@ajr12100, how about instead of trying to make it harder for gangs to get guns, which is literally impossible, we just make it so that every law-abiding citizen has a gun, therefore any time a gang member tries to do gang member shjt, they'll just get blown away by a storm of LED
@Captain Swordsman, the you have the problem of mentally ill citizens, and people that just plain shouldn't have a gun- look what is happening in the Philippines where killing drug dealers is encouraged- there have been hundreds of innocent people killed and framed, along with thousands of small time dealers. Just because someone is in a gang doesn't mean they deserve to die- often they become trapped and a gang is their best option. The American justice system is (supposed to be at least) based on rehabilitation, if we killed all the gang members and criminals we would lose out on some of the best people in our country- such as Ryan Blair, several famous actors (can't recall their names, I'm sure you could google it), not to mention my mom's cousin was in a gang and he is a major part of the reason BRACA 2 breast cancer is no longer a big deal.
And making it harder for gangs to get guns is actually feasible. Many other countries have done it. For example, the Swiss
@ajr12100, have very lax gun control laws, but those they do have ensure criminals don't have guns. Guess what? The gangs don't have guns, but plenty of citizens enjoy the experience.
In the U.K. Gun violence is almost nonexistent, although their citizens don't really have guns either.
There are ways to stop gangs from getting guns without taking away guns from law abiding citizens
@Blue Shirted Guy, not a liberal,but sure seems like a snowflake
They can shoot inside it
Again as someone who makes body armour, I can't imagine a "bulletproof blanket" would stop anymore than a handgun, and from what I recall most of the school shooters have used rifles.
Even I want nothing to do with this argument.
Just give each child one grenade.
Apart from the fact they are storm/earthquake blankets.. but ever let the truth get in the way of a good story..
Or use it as a shield
Form a legion with the bulletproof blankets and rush the gunman as a unit