Political Roundtable Part XVIII

[bealwithit]

Trump endorses guns for teachers to stop shootings
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43149694
This is such a terribly stupid idea. It sounds like a possible solution when put very simply: Good guy with gun shoots bad guy with gun, therefore preventing more deaths.

But when you do a reality check, I mean... so many questions about something like this.
1) How do we pay for arming so many teachers? How many will be suitable for one school? Does it depend on school size?
2) What if a school has no teachers willing/qualified to do the job? Is the school then partly held responsible in the event of a shooting because they didn't have an armed teacher? (The thought of that makes me want to puke)
3) How much training is enough? 6 months? 1 year? Where are they trained? Who trains them? Should they have to have monthly training after completing the initial training? Obviously mental requirements would need to be met, but would they need to meet physical requirements too? Who tests for these things?
4) Would they be just handguns? Could the teacher select any gun they want?
5) Where are the guns kept? If it is a handgun, does the teacher keep it on their person either holstered or some other way? Will gun lockers have to be purchased and placed in the classroom? If holstered, what if there is an incident where a student subdues a teacher and takes their gun? Would guns then be required to be kept it lockers?
6) Would teachers also be given bulletproof vests or other proper equipment? Would they be allowed other weapons as well such as tasers?
7) How does law enforcement know which teachers are armed in the event of a shooting? How would they be able to be informed of such a thing? Would they be given a picture or description of which teachers are armed? What if a teacher is shot by law enforcement by accident?
8) Would law enforcement even want teachers to be armed?
9) How is a teacher expected to subdue the gunman? Are they going to be encouraged to hunt for the shooter themselves, leaving their classroom full of students unattended? Or are they supposed to arm themselves but stay in the classroom and see if the shooter attempts to enter their classroom? If the latter, how does this idea solve the problem at all? Couldn't the shooter by chance just never attempt to enter that particular classroom?
10) Would teachers who choose to arm themselves be paid more than other teachers? What about liability insurance? Hazard pay?
11) Would this even be an effective deterrent to avoid the shooting from happening in the first place? If someone is going to enter a school with a gun, they are likely not particularly worried about coming out of the ordeal alive.

There's more but I don't think I need to keep going with questions. There are a lot of flaws in this idea.

Instead, let's try to apply it a situation.

Okay, shooter comes into the school and starts shooting people in the hallway. Armed teacher on that floor of the school has a class at the time, and must first direct all of his/her students to shelter in place or whatever the school's protocol is for school shooters. The teacher calms their students down and goes to their gun locker to retrieve their weapon. In this time, the shooter has already began moving around the school, possibly away from where the teacher's classroom is located. What does the armed teacher then do? Go out into the hallway and begin looking for the shooter or stay with the kids? During all of this, if the shooter is armed with something like a semi-automatic rifle, he/she has probably already shot multiple people.
How exactly does an armed teacher solve anything here? If anything the situation is made more dangerous by the possibility of a teacher going out into the hallway and being shot/killed, then having a classroom full of terrified students that could be massacred by a shooter.

[closg00]

Manafort is in neck deep with Russian billionaire mafiosi. He will stay quiet one way or another. I imagine he will be assassinated soon just in case.

I was wondering why he went all mafia made man, he is under threat of his life perhaps

[gtn130]

Trump endorses guns for teachers to stop shootings
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43149694
This is such a terribly stupid idea. It sounds like a possible solution when put very simply: Good guy with gun shoots bad guy with gun, therefore preventing more deaths.

But when you do a reality check, I mean... so many questions about something like this.
1) How do we pay for arming so many teachers? How many will be suitable for one school? Does it depend on school size?
2) What if a school has no teachers willing/qualified to do the job? Is the school then partly held responsible in the event of a shooting because they didn't have an armed teacher? (The thought of that makes me want to puke)
3) How much training is enough? 6 months? 1 year? Where are they trained? Who trains them? Should they have to have monthly training after completing the initial training? Obviously mental requirements would need to be met, but would they need to meet physical requirements too? Who tests for these things?
4) Would they be just handguns? Could the teacher select any gun they want?
5) Where are the guns kept? If it is a handgun, does the teacher keep it on their person either holstered or some other way? Will gun lockers have to be purchased and placed in the classroom? If holstered, what if there is an incident where a student subdues a teacher and takes their gun? Would guns then be required to be kept it lockers?
6) Would teachers also be given bulletproof vests or other proper equipment? Would they be allowed other weapons as well such as tasers?
7) How does law enforcement know which teachers are armed in the event of a shooting? How would they be able to be informed of such a thing? Would they be given a picture or description of which teachers are armed? What if a teacher is shot by law enforcement by accident?
8) Would law enforcement even want teachers to be armed?
9) How is a teacher expected to subdue the gunman? Are they going to be encouraged to hunt for the shooter themselves, leaving their classroom full of students unattended? Or are they supposed to arm themselves but stay in the classroom and see if the shooter attempts to enter their classroom? If the latter, how does this idea solve the problem at all? Couldn't the shooter by chance just never attempt to enter that particular classroom?
10) Would teachers who choose to arm themselves be paid more than other teachers? What about liability insurance? Hazard pay?
11) Would this even be an effective deterrent to avoid the shooting from happening in the first place? If someone is going to enter a school with a gun, they are likely not particularly worried about coming out of the ordeal alive.

There's more but I don't think I need to keep going with questions. There are a lot of flaws in this idea.

Instead, let's try to apply it a situation.

Okay, shooter comes into the school and starts shooting people in the hallway. Armed teacher on that floor of the school has a class at the time, and must first direct all of his/her students to shelter in place or whatever the school's protocol is for school shooters. The teacher calms their students down and goes to their gun locker to retrieve their weapon. In this time, the shooter has already began moving around the school, possibly away from where the teacher's classroom is located. What does the armed teacher then do? Go out into the hallway and begin looking for the shooter or stay with the kids? During all of this, if the shooter is armed with something like a semi-automatic rifle, he/she has probably already shot multiple people.
How exactly does an armed teacher solve anything here? If anything the situation is made more dangerous by the possibility of a teacher going out into the hallway and being shot/killed, then having a classroom full of terrified students that could be massacred by a shooter.

Applaud the effort here, but I think the actual power players in the gun lobby agree with you - their proposals are totally asinine and unrealistic, and they know it.

They just want to sell more guns.

[nate33]

Trump endorses guns for teachers to stop shootings
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43149694
This is such a terribly stupid idea. It sounds like a possible solution when put very simply: Good guy with gun shoots bad guy with gun, therefore preventing more deaths.

But when you do a reality check, I mean... so many questions about something like this.
1) How do we pay for arming so many teachers? How many will be suitable for one school? Does it depend on school size?
2) What if a school has no teachers willing/qualified to do the job? Is the school then partly held responsible in the event of a shooting because they didn't have an armed teacher? (The thought of that makes me want to puke)
3) How much training is enough? 6 months? 1 year? Where are they trained? Who trains them? Should they have to have monthly training after completing the initial training? Obviously mental requirements would need to be met, but would they need to meet physical requirements too? Who tests for these things?
4) Would they be just handguns? Could the teacher select any gun they want?
5) Where are the guns kept? If it is a handgun, does the teacher keep it on their person either holstered or some other way? Will gun lockers have to be purchased and placed in the classroom? If holstered, what if there is an incident where a student subdues a teacher and takes their gun? Would guns then be required to be kept it lockers?
6) Would teachers also be given bulletproof vests or other proper equipment? Would they be allowed other weapons as well such as tasers?
7) How does law enforcement know which teachers are armed in the event of a shooting? How would they be able to be informed of such a thing? Would they be given a picture or description of which teachers are armed? What if a teacher is shot by law enforcement by accident?
8) Would law enforcement even want teachers to be armed?
9) How is a teacher expected to subdue the gunman? Are they going to be encouraged to hunt for the shooter themselves, leaving their classroom full of students unattended? Or are they supposed to arm themselves but stay in the classroom and see if the shooter attempts to enter their classroom? If the latter, how does this idea solve the problem at all? Couldn't the shooter by chance just never attempt to enter that particular classroom?
10) Would teachers who choose to arm themselves be paid more than other teachers? What about liability insurance? Hazard pay?
11) Would this even be an effective deterrent to avoid the shooting from happening in the first place? If someone is going to enter a school with a gun, they are likely not particularly worried about coming out of the ordeal alive.

There's more but I don't think I need to keep going with questions. There are a lot of flaws in this idea.

Instead, let's try to apply it a situation.

Okay, shooter comes into the school and starts shooting people in the hallway. Armed teacher on that floor of the school has a class at the time, and must first direct all of his/her students to shelter in place or whatever the school's protocol is for school shooters. The teacher calms their students down and goes to their gun locker to retrieve their weapon. In this time, the shooter has already began moving around the school, possibly away from where the teacher's classroom is located. What does the armed teacher then do? Go out into the hallway and begin looking for the shooter or stay with the kids? During all of this, if the shooter is armed with something like a semi-automatic rifle, he/she has probably already shot multiple people.
How exactly does an armed teacher solve anything here? If anything the situation is made more dangerous by the possibility of a teacher going out into the hallway and being shot/killed, then having a classroom full of terrified students that could be massacred by a shooter.

The concept you are overlooking here is deterrence. There's a reason why there are so many school shootings and nearly as many mall shootings or town festival shootings.

Bad guys know that everyone in a school is a sitting duck. Just the possibility that there are two or three teachers who are trained and armed may prevent a shooting from happening in the first place.

[gtn130]

Like why are automatic weapons banned? Isn't that alone quite an admission of something? Why were guns banned at the RNC in 2016?

People argue in bad faith!

[cammac]

Mueller is so far ahead of Trump and his cadre of lawyers that it is almost a joke.
If any of the people receive a Presidential Pardon who are involved in financial matters it means nothing.

Individuals like Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Paul Manafort will need to think twice before accepting any offer of a pardon. Especially if their actions involved financial wrongdoing, these individuals must contemplate not only federal prosecutors coming after them but also state attorneys general like New York’s Eric Schneiderman. The dilemma for these Trump campaign affiliates is not simply that a presidential pardon would fail to erase the risk of a state prosecution but rather that their acceptance of such a pardon may significantly increase the prospect that state prosecutors will both pursue a case and secure a conviction. Let me be more specific as to the reason why: Individuals run a significant risk that acceptance of a pardon would be used by state prosecutors as an admission of guilt—bolstering the potential success of any prosecution for related crimes in New York and elsewhere.

[nate33]

HUSH MONEY????
One of the central characters in the Trump infidelities is being paid $15,000 a month by the RNC for consulting? Guess its for him to teach the Repugs to be more desecrate in there affairs ,nude photos and abortions for girl friends. Keith Schiller the Trumpster's body man just got a sweet deal. Mueller unlike Ken Star has not gone after the many publicized sexual assaults and consensual affairs.

According to an RNC official, Schiller is being paid for security consulting on the site selection process for the 2020 Republican National Convention. Schiller's fee comes out of the RNC's convention fund, and not its campaign fund, the official noted.

Campaign finance watchdog groups, however, were quick to cry foul.

"These sorts of party accounts are notorious for being operated as slush funds – lightly regulated and ripe for abuse," said Stephen Spaulding, former special counsel at the Federal Election Commission and now chief of strategy at the nonpartisan advocacy group Common Cause

"Trump's bodyguard's firm is getting a fat payout from the RNC and its deep pocketed donors," said Spaulding, who noted that individual contributors "can give a whopping $101,700 per year to the RNC's convention account."

Already, Schiller's $15,000 monthly "site selection consulting fee" is more than he made working in the White House, where his annual salary was $165,000. It's also more than Schiller made working for the Trump campaign, which reported paying KS Global Group $10,000 a month starting in July of 2016.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/21/1743512/-RNC-is-using-a-slush-fund-to-pay-Trump-s-former-bodyguard-15-000-per-month-for-consulting

This won't move the needle for Nate et al - it's actually probably a good thing somehow.

But email server management and FISA warrant application process are the greatest cases of corruption in human history

This is rich. Do you really want to examine the wealth gained by various Democrat operatives for doing BS work funded by donors? You may as well post an article that avers "water is wet".

[bealwithit]

The concept you are overlooking here is deterrence. There's a reason why there are so many school shootings and nearly as many mall shootings or town festival shootings.

Bad guys know that everyone in a school is a sitting duck. Just the possibility that there are two or three teachers who are trained and armed may prevent a shooting from happening in the first place.

I actually did mention the deterrence angle in my post. Does someone who is ready to shoot up a school and go to jail/die from law enforcement really care that Coach Dave and Mr. Jones the science teacher have a glock on them? Probably not. Need to remember that the perpetrators of these shootings are normally mentally ill/disturbed people who are not thinking rationally.

Also, there was an armed guard at the Florida school. The shooter clearly did not care.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/armed-guard-florida-school-encountered-rampaging-gunman-article-1.3822777

I would support a police officer being on-duty at a school, btw.

[gtn130]

The concept you are overlooking here is deterrence. There's a reason why there are so many school shootings and nearly as many mall shootings or town festival shootings.

Bad guys know that everyone in a school is a sitting duck. Just the possibility that there are two or three teachers who are trained and armed may prevent a shooting from happening in the first place.

Do you have to always carry water for Trump? Have some self-respect, man

That said, the society you're advocating for here is completely and laughably dystopian.

"Sorry kids Mrs. Anderson is running late to 4th period today because she had to execute little Mikey after he pulled out his handgun and waved it at the class. Stay safe everyone!"

Sounds like a great vision for society you have there, Nate.

Also find it hilarious how we blame all these gun incidents on MENTAL HEALTH, yet we assume these people are perfectly rational actors who will be deterred by others having guns. Makes sense! Very consistent!

[gtn130]

This is rich. Do you really want to examine the wealth gained by various Democrat operatives for doing BS work funded by donors? You may as well post an article that avers "water is wet".

Nate, buddy, you're the one who cares deeply about these things - not me. I'm literally here pointing out how you're FURIOUS about EMAILS and FISA APPLICATIONS yet nobody cares about security clearances for the Trump admin or hush money for Trump employees.

Turns out people with a modicum of integrity react proportionately to the CRIME at hand instead of concern trolling all over the internet

[cammac]

HUSH MONEY????
One of the central characters in the Trump infidelities is being paid $15,000 a month by the RNC for consulting? Guess its for him to teach the Repugs to be more desecrate in there affairs ,nude photos and abortions for girl friends. Keith Schiller the Trumpster's body man just got a sweet deal. Mueller unlike Ken Star has not gone after the many publicized sexual assaults and consensual affairs.




https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/21/1743512/-RNC-is-using-a-slush-fund-to-pay-Trump-s-former-bodyguard-15-000-per-month-for-consulting

This won't move the needle for Nate et al - it's actually probably a good thing somehow.

But email server management and FISA warrant application process are the greatest cases of corruption in human history

This is rich. Do you really want to examine the wealth gained by various Democrat operatives for doing BS work funded by donors? You may as well post an article that avers "water is wet".

Give examples!
Nate you are such a BS artist!
This is a example how the ALT RIGHT which your are a proud member of manipulates followers.
You and SD20 love your conspiracy theories and this is how some of the falsehoods are perpetrated!
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/the-conspiracy-theory-that-wont-end-enough-is-enough/ar-BBJqXgJ?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartandhp
Sorry was unable to do a "quote" but story is worth the read.

[nate33]

We have this debate every time. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

1. America will always have guns. There are 300 million guns already out there, and in rural areas, guns are needed for self defense because the cops are too far away.

2. With guns available at least in some places in America, bad guys will always have access to guns. Gun control legislation will only be heeded by good guys. As much as you liberals think that new laws will change this fact, it won't. States and municipalities with more strict gun control laws tend to have higher homicide rates.

3. So the best way to reduce these incidents is deterrence and intervention. For deterrence, we should allow good guys to have guns in more places. For intervention, we need to take steps to investigate incidents where mentally disturbed individuals do alarming things that indicate they are on a path of destruction and intervene before they can do real harm. Clearly in this case, the signs were evident that Cruz was a mentally disturbed individual.

[nate33]

This won't move the needle for Nate et al - it's actually probably a good thing somehow.

But email server management and FISA warrant application process are the greatest cases of corruption in human history

This is rich. Do you really want to examine the wealth gained by various Democrat operatives for doing BS work funded by donors? You may as well post an article that avers "water is wet".

Give examples!

How's this for starters?

Watch on YouTube

[cammac]

We have this debate every time. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

1. America will always have guns. There are 300 million guns already out there, and in rural areas, guns are needed for self defense because the cops are too far away.

2. With guns available at least in some places in America, bad guys will always have access to guns. Gun control legislation will only be heeded by good guys. As much as you liberals think that new laws will change this fact, it won't. States and municipalities with more strict gun control laws tend to have higher homicide rates.

3. So the best way to reduce these incidents is deterrence and intervention. For deterrence, we should allow good guys to have guns in more places. For intervention, we need to take steps to investigate incidents where mentally disturbed individuals do alarming things that indicate they are on a path of destruction and intervene before they can do real harm. Clearly in this case, the signs were evident that Cruz was a mentally disturbed individual.

One question NATE what would be your views if this mentally disturbed person by your definition happened to be Muslim. Bet your reaction would be 180 degrees different.

[gtn130]

This is rich. Do you really want to examine the wealth gained by various Democrat operatives for doing BS work funded by donors? You may as well post an article that avers "water is wet".

Give examples!

How's this for starters?

Watch on YouTube

[cammac]

This is rich. Do you really want to examine the wealth gained by various Democrat operatives for doing BS work funded by donors? You may as well post an article that avers "water is wet".

Give examples!

How's this for starters?

Watch on YouTube

Concrete example just gave example how conspiracy theories are made.
Give me one example of a unqualified attendant in the Obama Administration landed a cushy job in the DNC.
Especially one who potentially could have very embarrassing information on Obama!

[bealwithit]

2. With guns available at least in some places in America, bad guys will always have access to guns. Gun control legislation will only be heeded by good guys. As much as you liberals think that new laws will change this fact, it won't. States and municipalities with more strict gun control laws tend to have higher homicide rates.

?
I'm looking for this, but I can only seem to find the opposite or conclusions not being totally clear.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/nyregion/florida-shooting-parkland-gun-control-connecticut.html
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard2016/

And if you wanna say Giffords is biased... it's probably because she got shot in the head.

[gtn130]

1. America will always have guns. There are 300 million guns already out there, and in rural areas, guns are needed for self defense because the cops are too far away.

This isn't remotely true. A buyback program would remove 99% of guns.

Year 1: government buys back guns at 2x market value
Year 2: government buys back guns at 1.5x market value
Year 3: government buys back guns at market value
Year 4: most guns are illegal

2. With guns available at least in some places in America, bad guys will always have access to guns. Gun control legislation will only be heeded by good guys. As much as you liberals think that new laws will change this fact, it won't. States and municipalities with more strict gun control laws tend to have higher homicide rates.

What?

“Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide,” David Hemenway, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center’s director, wrote in Private Guns, Public Health.

3. So the best way to reduce these incidents is deterrence and intervention. For deterrence, we should allow good guys to have guns in more places. For intervention, we need to take steps to investigate incidents where mentally disturbed individuals do alarming things that indicate they are on a path of destruction and intervene before they can do real harm. Clearly in this case, the signs were evident that Cruz was a mentally disturbed individual.

Yes, here we go. Mentally disturbed individual who is also a perfectly rational actor and will make game theory optimal expected value calculations when deciding which public space to gun down. LOGIC

[cammac]

Nate defending the ability of teachers having guns I assume its because what the Trumpster wanted.
Guess what Nate he never said that!
Well at least he didn't say that!
Well maybe he did! But was taken out of context! Fake media!
I'm so confused!

President Trump in a series of tweets early Thursday denied that he suggested giving teachers guns to prevent mass school shootings, instead saying he would consider giving trained teachers concealed weapons.

Question I assume the teachers would need to buy the guns themselves?
Could they get a tax reduction? Currently they couldn't!

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/375012-trump-i-never-said-give-teachers-guns

[bealwithit]

We have this debate every time. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

1. America will always have guns. There are 300 million guns already out there, and in rural areas, guns are needed for self defense because the cops are too far away.

2. With guns available at least in some places in America, bad guys will always have access to guns. Gun control legislation will only be heeded by good guys. As much as you liberals think that new laws will change this fact, it won't. States and municipalities with more strict gun control laws tend to have higher homicide rates.

3. So the best way to reduce these incidents is deterrence and intervention. For deterrence, we should allow good guys to have guns in more places. For intervention, we need to take steps to investigate incidents where mentally disturbed individuals do alarming things that indicate they are on a path of destruction and intervene before they can do real harm. Clearly in this case, the signs were evident that Cruz was a mentally disturbed individual.

1. Yeah, I have never advocated for taking away 300 million guns. In a perfect world, I would love to get rid of every single gun in America, but that is a fantasy that we will never see. Back to reality, I have no real issue with truly responsible gun owners who have valid reasons to own a gun. I myself am highly interested in owning a gun in the future and will be going to a range to learn a bit next month.

2. Saying that bad guys won't heed to new gun laws is not really an argument considering we have laws for all sorts of things that people break all the time. Should we never create any new laws for... anything? Don't try to fix any problems? Guess we don't need a wall then.

3. Deterrence only does so much. It creates a perception of safety for a one or a few teachers to be armed in a school and could theoretically help in some situations, despite all of the issues with the idea that I laid out a couple posts ago of which you never responded to. I still don't feel like it is a realistic or effective solution. Deterrence still does not prevent a mentally unwell person from doing a shooting, because they are not going to care. They are not thinking clearly or rationally. This is the key.
And of course, people who could be on the path to do something like shoot up a school should be flagged and monitored closely.