So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?JXL said:Oldbear83 said:So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?JXL said:cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said:I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?cowboycwr said:The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.redfish961 said:
To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?
While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.
Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.
All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.
That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.
For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.
Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?
I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.
I don't accept that notion.
There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.
It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.
There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.
It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.
As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....
Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.
How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?
I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?
As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.
Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.
Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.
I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.
NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.
Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.
No constitutional right is absolute.
As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'
If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
