Yeah open warfare in the streets is not, in fact, the solution to this problem.
When criminals have guns and are willing to use them being able to defend yourself is your final option. Making it known that your group isn’t a soft target makes them second guess trying it.
That's absolutely not how criminals make choices, and you're parroting the same line of shit people spew when they say we should arm teachers.
No, I think it's pretty different.
Whether there is justification for gun ownership for "self-defense" or not, it is entirely different for someone who has a reasonable risk of being targeted for violence to have a gun than for teachers to have a gun in crowded schools with the expectation they might kill a school shooter.
To point specifically the biggest differences:
Crowded school filled with terrified children vs someone's home or small business
Self-defense against single-target hate crimes vs policing against a terrorist incident
Voluntary self-defense which still allows for skill and responsibility requirements vs ~~mandating ~~arming people who might not even be comfortable armed (and might feel pressured)
EDIT: I have crossed out "mandating" because I was informed there are no current bills trying to mandate arming schools. I believe my point stands without it. If someone has a reference of a mandate, I will un-cross-out it if I see it.
I am yet to see a single proposal to mandate that any teachers be armed against their will. Every single proposal is simply to set up a permitting and training program for any teacher that desires to. It's very similar to the program to arm airline pilots that want to, except they become deputized federal agents and are provided the gun, ammo and training free of cost. A shootout in a plane is also far riskier than one in an open classroom.
A teacher who is willing to be armed, and eager to be armed, is even worse imo
Millions of completely normal people carry a gun every day. You don't know because they only come out in actual emergencies and the media rarely covers them. If the only thing preventing someone from being armed in any given situation is their adherence to an honor system saying they legally can't then only people intending to break the law are armed. Meanwhile, the people that follow the rules never turn out to be the issue.
No one who walks around with a gun every day is a person I consider "normal"
Everyone is one bad day away from making bad choices and those choices are significantly more dangerous if you have a gun
Would you consider cops "normal?" Because legal concealed carriers are about 6x less likely to commit a crime than a police officer. They also stop more crimes and make fewer mistakes leading to fewer accidents. It's a natural knee jerk hypothesis to assume that the presence of a gun would make a bad day turn deadly but it just doesn't happen. The bottom line is that only a small subset of the population actually acts on those intrusive thoughts, and they aren't the general law abiding public; they are the criminal element that already exists and arms themselves regardless of the law.
No I don't think cops are "normal" at all - they're literally the exception of every concept of normality because we have given them a monopoly on violence on purpose.
Depending on which state you live in, you likely pass and interact with people that are armed that you have no clue about, because they are just normal people.
I am aware that more people are armed than I would like. I find that fact to be disturbing and those people to be weird.
There just isn't that much to be that afraid of for 99% of people.
Fair enough. Then I don't like the term "arm teachers". I'm sure I've seen talk of mandating (or letting schools mandate) before, but it's immaterial because I think my point still stands without it.
It's a fair point, I have never seen a single proposal that works that way. It isn't part of the job description and I don't think anyone would expect it to be. Every single proposal and policy I've seen implemented simply have an option for teachers to pursue to be allowed to carry under various terms.
Agreed. If they really aren't working that way, I leave out that point, but leave in my other 2 points.
There are issues with the other points as well. A school classroom isn't actually inherently riskier than say a store, in fact it's easier to defend in a given active shooter scenario. Defenders have a huge tactical advantage over an attacker, the point isn't to have a dozen armed teachers running around in the chaos trying to chase down the shooter. The same shelter in place/lockdown is still the best move. The difference is that if the shooter makes it into a room that happens to have an armed teacher, they are now challenged and very likely to be neutralized. The goal and training programs still have teachers lock the doors and hide the kids out of sight in a safe corner, the difference is the teacher then takes up a different point with a clear shot on the entrance so that if an attacker comes in they can be instantly engaged from cover. The biggest challenge here is figuring out the best location for the students and the defender, but this can all be sorted out long before an actual attack occurs, once an ideal location is chosen for each teacher all they need to do in the moment is follow the plan.
As far as preventing terrorist incidents, this is literally the point of terrorism. To find a soft target and create chaos and fear. If you harden the target and let it be known that it won't be easy or successful to their goal, it is an extreme deterrent. There are numerous mass shooter manifestos that specifically state their targets were chosen based on being gun free. There are tons of other things that can and should be done to prevent them from happening at all, but in the moment during one that is actively being committed, the absolute best outcome is for them to face in place resistance as soon as possible.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Generally speaking, the biggest risk is a crowded room with out-of-control people. Considering many school shooters are former or current students as well, it's a real hogan's alley mistake waiting to happen with live people. There's a reason that people trained to shoot in crowded areas are very highly trained on picking targets and temperament control so as not to make a tragic split-second decision. Police, in general, are trained NOT to shoot into crowded areas, though they sometimes do and sometimes tragedy ensues.
But I'm not sure we have to agree on this. My point was that *they are not apple-to-apple comparable scenarios. *I think I have shown this fairly well. You're describing some very specific tactical training (that teachers may or may not be receiving) that clearly depict the differences. If I owned a small store in a small town where only one or two customers are in the store at a given time, it's simply a different scenario even if you think it's more dangerous. If I live alone, anyone forcing their way into my house at night is a definite risk. No false positives. That leaves out some legal complication (which I might actually agree with you on), but the point is depicting the differences.
As far as preventing terrorist incidents, this is literally the point of terrorism
So you do not believe the "terrorism" variable is different in any way between a school shooter and someone coming to murder you for a gay pride flag?
The issue with that point of view is that it's based on a limited knowledge and understanding of a topic. It's a fair hypothesis but the thing about general hypotheses is that they should be updated when challenged by a more in depth understanding of the topic. In real world scenarios when shit hits the fan it isn't quite like in the Avengers when alien portals open over the street and people run in every direction. The basic shape and function of schools makes them highly compartmentalized. Short of being in a cafeteria, gym or assembly hall there really isn't much room for people to be running in all directions. Even then, in both cafeterias and auditoriums the natural response to an event like a shooting is to drop lower for cover, unless you're the shooter. Add in the fact that a single teacher shooting back at the primary person standing that has everyone moving away from is likely to end in a better outcome than not having a teacher there to do so and the tactical risk analysis tips heavily in favor of allowing properly vetted armed bystanders. In real world events armed bystanders are actually very effective with only a few cases of the attackers out gunning or police misidentifying the actual shooter.
While armed intervention is somewhat rare, it's because the vast majority of non gang related, random public shootings specifically occur in gun free zones. Take an extremely rare statistical event and then filter out >90% of events where a legal armed intervention is even possible and the data pool is close, but not quite zero. In cases where an armed bystander is present and able to engage they are highly effective. I do not have links handy but last I saw it was greater than 90% of cases with armed intervention available they were able to neutralize or impede the attacker appreciably. Now with schools, like airlines, having unique challenges that make them sensitive, I am all for offering advanced training as part of the process for allowing faculty to carry. This training absolutely should include tactics to avoid the hypotheticals you are concerned with. That being said, a large portion of people that carry every day don't just strap on a gun and go out into the world. We are the ones that do train and learn tactical scenarios and learn how to maximize defensive advantages. I don't carry a gun because I'm scared of the world, I carry one because I want to be as prepared as I can be for any situation. It's why I have a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, tire patch kit and jump start battery in my car as well. None of those things are useful without training and understanding of how they work. When it comes to guns I have had both formal and informal training in basic usage, function, repair and tactical employment. I have carried while around town in restaurants, bars, hospitals, amusement parks and movie theaters. I have also carried on airplanes and at airports and have specific training on how to defensively use a gun on an aircraft. I'm likely much more trained than the average, but I am not alone and the vast majority of my experience is purely voluntary and with the people I meet along the way I am by no means an isolated case. Armed teachers shouldn't be the primary method of preventing school shootings, but they absolutely are the best option to stop them.
Terrorists are bullies that take it to truly evil levels. They prey on the weak to force their opinions on others. A school shooter and the asshole in this news article are both evil, it's just a matter of how they chose to exert their evil on others. Who knows what his actual thoughts or motivations were, something tells me that the lack of any info on him from authorities means he doesn't meet the cliche MAGA asshole they would love to pin it on so they're just letting the shock of the crime run its course rather than diffuse what is a powerful political tool for furthering their own goals. Whatever his motivations or demographic were, he's a monster that society failed to allow him to develop those views, as a last resort I just wish that for someone that evil there had been enough of a deterrent to prevent him from trying once he got the idea in his head.
You seem to be letting the topic drift from "whether these two things are different" to "I think teachers should be armed". I'm not really here to discuss the latter topic. Everything you said here, whether I agree or disagree, reinforces the only point I'm trying to make - that the two scenarios are not apple-to-apple and should not be compared as such. You appear to agree with me, fully.
Tangentially, I find it interesting you think teachers should not need specialized training after you have now twice described very specific tactics you think they should employ. But as I say, I'm not really here to press my opinion on teachers being armed because I think it's a nuanced and complicated issue. Also as YOU say, it is far more important to focus on steps that keep potential shooters from choosing to walk into a school with a gun in the first place.
It absolutely is how criminals make choices, they prey on those that are weaker based on their assumed advantage. Arming teachers is also the best way to stop school shootings that are actively occurring. Armed minorities are harder to oppress and mass shooters select gun free zones for a reason.
I never said it would prevent every single crime, criminals are generally dumb and some try really dumb shit. A lot of the time when they do so they end up dead fairly quickly. A successful armed robbery of a gun store during business hours is extremely rare. When it comes to risk vs reward they are super attractive targets, but only the most desperate and stupid of criminals actually attempt it.
https://www.pinkpistols.org/
Yeah open warfare in the streets is not, in fact, the solution to this problem.
When criminals have guns and are willing to use them being able to defend yourself is your final option. Making it known that your group isn’t a soft target makes them second guess trying it.
That's absolutely not how criminals make choices, and you're parroting the same line of shit people spew when they say we should arm teachers.
No, I think it's pretty different.
Whether there is justification for gun ownership for "self-defense" or not, it is entirely different for someone who has a reasonable risk of being targeted for violence to have a gun than for teachers to have a gun in crowded schools with the expectation they might kill a school shooter.
To point specifically the biggest differences:
EDIT: I have crossed out "mandating" because I was informed there are no current bills trying to mandate arming schools. I believe my point stands without it. If someone has a reference of a mandate, I will un-cross-out it if I see it.
I am yet to see a single proposal to mandate that any teachers be armed against their will. Every single proposal is simply to set up a permitting and training program for any teacher that desires to. It's very similar to the program to arm airline pilots that want to, except they become deputized federal agents and are provided the gun, ammo and training free of cost. A shootout in a plane is also far riskier than one in an open classroom.
A teacher who is willing to be armed, and eager to be armed, is even worse imo
Millions of completely normal people carry a gun every day. You don't know because they only come out in actual emergencies and the media rarely covers them. If the only thing preventing someone from being armed in any given situation is their adherence to an honor system saying they legally can't then only people intending to break the law are armed. Meanwhile, the people that follow the rules never turn out to be the issue.
No one who walks around with a gun every day is a person I consider "normal"
Everyone is one bad day away from making bad choices and those choices are significantly more dangerous if you have a gun
Would you consider cops "normal?" Because legal concealed carriers are about 6x less likely to commit a crime than a police officer. They also stop more crimes and make fewer mistakes leading to fewer accidents. It's a natural knee jerk hypothesis to assume that the presence of a gun would make a bad day turn deadly but it just doesn't happen. The bottom line is that only a small subset of the population actually acts on those intrusive thoughts, and they aren't the general law abiding public; they are the criminal element that already exists and arms themselves regardless of the law.
No I don't think cops are "normal" at all - they're literally the exception of every concept of normality because we have given them a monopoly on violence on purpose.
Depending on which state you live in, you likely pass and interact with people that are armed that you have no clue about, because they are just normal people.
I am aware that more people are armed than I would like. I find that fact to be disturbing and those people to be weird.
There just isn't that much to be that afraid of for 99% of people.
Fair enough. Then I don't like the term "arm teachers". I'm sure I've seen talk of mandating (or letting schools mandate) before, but it's immaterial because I think my point still stands without it.
It's a fair point, I have never seen a single proposal that works that way. It isn't part of the job description and I don't think anyone would expect it to be. Every single proposal and policy I've seen implemented simply have an option for teachers to pursue to be allowed to carry under various terms.
Agreed. If they really aren't working that way, I leave out that point, but leave in my other 2 points.
There are issues with the other points as well. A school classroom isn't actually inherently riskier than say a store, in fact it's easier to defend in a given active shooter scenario. Defenders have a huge tactical advantage over an attacker, the point isn't to have a dozen armed teachers running around in the chaos trying to chase down the shooter. The same shelter in place/lockdown is still the best move. The difference is that if the shooter makes it into a room that happens to have an armed teacher, they are now challenged and very likely to be neutralized. The goal and training programs still have teachers lock the doors and hide the kids out of sight in a safe corner, the difference is the teacher then takes up a different point with a clear shot on the entrance so that if an attacker comes in they can be instantly engaged from cover. The biggest challenge here is figuring out the best location for the students and the defender, but this can all be sorted out long before an actual attack occurs, once an ideal location is chosen for each teacher all they need to do in the moment is follow the plan.
As far as preventing terrorist incidents, this is literally the point of terrorism. To find a soft target and create chaos and fear. If you harden the target and let it be known that it won't be easy or successful to their goal, it is an extreme deterrent. There are numerous mass shooter manifestos that specifically state their targets were chosen based on being gun free. There are tons of other things that can and should be done to prevent them from happening at all, but in the moment during one that is actively being committed, the absolute best outcome is for them to face in place resistance as soon as possible.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Generally speaking, the biggest risk is a crowded room with out-of-control people. Considering many school shooters are former or current students as well, it's a real hogan's alley mistake waiting to happen with live people. There's a reason that people trained to shoot in crowded areas are very highly trained on picking targets and temperament control so as not to make a tragic split-second decision. Police, in general, are trained NOT to shoot into crowded areas, though they sometimes do and sometimes tragedy ensues.
But I'm not sure we have to agree on this. My point was that *they are not apple-to-apple comparable scenarios. *I think I have shown this fairly well. You're describing some very specific tactical training (that teachers may or may not be receiving) that clearly depict the differences. If I owned a small store in a small town where only one or two customers are in the store at a given time, it's simply a different scenario even if you think it's more dangerous. If I live alone, anyone forcing their way into my house at night is a definite risk. No false positives. That leaves out some legal complication (which I might actually agree with you on), but the point is depicting the differences.
So you do not believe the "terrorism" variable is different in any way between a school shooter and someone coming to murder you for a gay pride flag?
The issue with that point of view is that it's based on a limited knowledge and understanding of a topic. It's a fair hypothesis but the thing about general hypotheses is that they should be updated when challenged by a more in depth understanding of the topic. In real world scenarios when shit hits the fan it isn't quite like in the Avengers when alien portals open over the street and people run in every direction. The basic shape and function of schools makes them highly compartmentalized. Short of being in a cafeteria, gym or assembly hall there really isn't much room for people to be running in all directions. Even then, in both cafeterias and auditoriums the natural response to an event like a shooting is to drop lower for cover, unless you're the shooter. Add in the fact that a single teacher shooting back at the primary person standing that has everyone moving away from is likely to end in a better outcome than not having a teacher there to do so and the tactical risk analysis tips heavily in favor of allowing properly vetted armed bystanders. In real world events armed bystanders are actually very effective with only a few cases of the attackers out gunning or police misidentifying the actual shooter.
While armed intervention is somewhat rare, it's because the vast majority of non gang related, random public shootings specifically occur in gun free zones. Take an extremely rare statistical event and then filter out >90% of events where a legal armed intervention is even possible and the data pool is close, but not quite zero. In cases where an armed bystander is present and able to engage they are highly effective. I do not have links handy but last I saw it was greater than 90% of cases with armed intervention available they were able to neutralize or impede the attacker appreciably. Now with schools, like airlines, having unique challenges that make them sensitive, I am all for offering advanced training as part of the process for allowing faculty to carry. This training absolutely should include tactics to avoid the hypotheticals you are concerned with. That being said, a large portion of people that carry every day don't just strap on a gun and go out into the world. We are the ones that do train and learn tactical scenarios and learn how to maximize defensive advantages. I don't carry a gun because I'm scared of the world, I carry one because I want to be as prepared as I can be for any situation. It's why I have a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, tire patch kit and jump start battery in my car as well. None of those things are useful without training and understanding of how they work. When it comes to guns I have had both formal and informal training in basic usage, function, repair and tactical employment. I have carried while around town in restaurants, bars, hospitals, amusement parks and movie theaters. I have also carried on airplanes and at airports and have specific training on how to defensively use a gun on an aircraft. I'm likely much more trained than the average, but I am not alone and the vast majority of my experience is purely voluntary and with the people I meet along the way I am by no means an isolated case. Armed teachers shouldn't be the primary method of preventing school shootings, but they absolutely are the best option to stop them.
Terrorists are bullies that take it to truly evil levels. They prey on the weak to force their opinions on others. A school shooter and the asshole in this news article are both evil, it's just a matter of how they chose to exert their evil on others. Who knows what his actual thoughts or motivations were, something tells me that the lack of any info on him from authorities means he doesn't meet the cliche MAGA asshole they would love to pin it on so they're just letting the shock of the crime run its course rather than diffuse what is a powerful political tool for furthering their own goals. Whatever his motivations or demographic were, he's a monster that society failed to allow him to develop those views, as a last resort I just wish that for someone that evil there had been enough of a deterrent to prevent him from trying once he got the idea in his head.
You seem to be letting the topic drift from "whether these two things are different" to "I think teachers should be armed". I'm not really here to discuss the latter topic. Everything you said here, whether I agree or disagree, reinforces the only point I'm trying to make - that the two scenarios are not apple-to-apple and should not be compared as such. You appear to agree with me, fully.
Tangentially, I find it interesting you think teachers should not need specialized training after you have now twice described very specific tactics you think they should employ. But as I say, I'm not really here to press my opinion on teachers being armed because I think it's a nuanced and complicated issue. Also as YOU say, it is far more important to focus on steps that keep potential shooters from choosing to walk into a school with a gun in the first place.
It absolutely is how criminals make choices, they prey on those that are weaker based on their assumed advantage. Arming teachers is also the best way to stop school shootings that are actively occurring. Armed minorities are harder to oppress and mass shooters select gun free zones for a reason.
Were these criminals preying on the weak?
I never said it would prevent every single crime, criminals are generally dumb and some try really dumb shit. A lot of the time when they do so they end up dead fairly quickly. A successful armed robbery of a gun store during business hours is extremely rare. When it comes to risk vs reward they are super attractive targets, but only the most desperate and stupid of criminals actually attempt it.