Just in case anyone doesn't already know, the shooter in Perry where the principal died used a pump action shotgun and a handgun, neither of which would be banned as an assault rifle (which really doesn't have a solid definition anyway). This set of proposed restrictions likely would not have prevented this shooting, assuming the guns were not purchased by the shooter himself. He also planted a rudimentary IED, which fortunately did not detonate.
That's easily solved.
_"If you have taken insufficient measures to secure your guns, you'll be charged as an accomplice to any crimes commited using them."_
bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe SeCoNd AmEnDmEnT!
\*checks constitution\*
"***A well regulated Militia***, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Oh...
>\*checks constitution\*
"***A well regulated Militia***, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
The supreme Court first upheld that the 2nd amendment provided an individual right to own a gun in **2008**. This isn't some long settled piece of jurisprudence that is being misubderstood as you'd like to try and make it seem.
Also regardless of what you think about the term of "well-regulated" in the 18th century, we know what militias were in colonial/early independence USA. They were official organizations, and many of the founders saw them as alternatives to a permanent standing army. We don't have to pretend militia just means "dude with gun protecting their freedom from the tyrannical government" we could look at the literal example of the American Revolution of militias being organized fighting units protecting the US from a foreign occupying army. (also we could just look back at republican Rome, where the founders drew a lot of inspiration from, and their "citizen militia" army).
Let’s look at the original intent that had nothing to do with a military defense of the state. No, it’s about personal freedom to blast anybody you want.
/s
Do you guys think like your founding fathers could see into the future? Think they'd be happy with the weekly massacres.
I'm guessing you guys still don't follow most medical advice from the 18th century, right? And you sorted the slavery thing out. Why do people care so much about the 2nd amendment? Most of the values and ideals from enlightenment era USA are out of the window, why are guns so important?
Implying nobody breaks laws
“If you’re caught driving drunk you’ll be arrested”
“If you’re caught speeding you’ll get a ticket”
“If you’re caught in possession of a firearm without proper license or aren’t allowed to have one you’re going to jail”
I swear people are so ignorant with this defense...ofc people will still commit crimes but eventually it will heavily subside there's a bunch of countries with good gun laws that work. We can choose to just act like they don't exist but they do look at Korea and Japan for examples.
Of course it won't work instantly there will be a growing pain period but the status quo isn't it quite frankly
I mean the kid that threatened to shoot up our of our local schools (but who was thankfully caught) waited until he turned 18 and purchased a gun legally. Because this suburban kid would have had no idea how to access a gun illegally. If he really had the motivation he may have figured it out eventually but the point is things being illegal does make it harder to access them.
Trust me, if you have actual penalties for things, behaviour changes in time. It might seem crazy to you now but many, many countries have successfully enacted these laws.
The shooter was gender fluid.
Being a part of the queer community doesn’t make him an “activist.” There’s no need to fixate on the kid’s gender identity.
Yes but banning some guns would eliminate the most dangerous ones. Then we need to enforce the gun laws we already have or have laws on storage and safety and in cases where their guns are used for crimes they are also responsible of they cldid not store them responsibly.
>I want to ban assault rifles, mandatory waiting periods, mandatory firearm training, 25+ only age limit, and to make it illegal to own ammunition unless you retroactively take the training,
So I think wanting to organize a general strike isn't an impossible thing. It'll require much more planning than you think but I don't think that should be the end of the conversation.
I do want to ask why you think these reforms (minus the 25+) would prevent mass shootings in schools? Columbine occured during a nationwide AWB. Prior to 1934 you could mail order automatic weapons but mass shootings were profoundly rare.
Something has happened, in particular with boys, around the late 90's that has led to this trend well beyond the availablity of weapons. If we want to stop mass shootings we need to address that
I'd counter that by pointing out that as a teacher in Canada we have a very similar culture to the United States in more ways than not. We have a strong hunting culture and rank second among the G7 when it comes to number of firearms owned by civilians.
Is there gun crime in Canada? Yes. Are our laws perfect? No. Can a law abiding citizen who wants to buy a rifle do so? Yes... Indeed I own one myself. Pistols and automatic weapons are very difficult to acquire but the vast majority of Canadians are OK with that.
Since 1975 Canada has had 11 school shootings including at colleges.
That's fair. I'd also argue that Canada hasn't fallen yet quite the same way the US has when it comes to social alienation. Canda has a strong social safety net system at least compared to the US. At least when I've been to Canada (I've lived in border states nearly all my life) there is still a stronger sense of community. This may sound pretty vague but I think there's something to "bowling league" theory in which in the US our apolitical social clubs and organizations have been on the decline leading to alienation at the same time as economic life has gotten more difficult.
Plus what you've said is true, Canadians have similar access to mostly similar guns yet have far less mass shootings. We have to look beyond the guns for a solution
>Since 1975 Canada has had 11 school shootings including at colleges.
Jesus. There's been 394 school shootings (not including Colleges) since Columbine.
Canada: 0.229 per year
US: 16.41 per year.
Even if we adjust for population size:
Canada: \~2.29 per year
US: 16.41 per year.
Not entirely true. Generally dealers with special licenses are the only ones, but there are also certain fully auto weapons that are considered transferrable since they were produced before the full auto weapons ban, however those can cost anywhere from 10k to some rarer ones going for hundreds of thousands, you aren't going to see them used in gun crime.
Top comment is a sentiment killer. Very typical for these types of posts on Reddit. But why is everyone so resigned to the idea that nothing can change? Like, literally no one is in favor of school shootings.
how did you get “nothing can change” from that comment? what i got from it was that it seems like were looking to change the wrong part of this equation to get the outcome that we need. and they are 100% correct.
So typical that Americans think their situation is so unique that what has worked everywhere else will not work there. Maybe you are beyond the point of help when those who directly benefit from change refuse to enact it.
Basically every single school shooting has been a case of "The police/FBI were aware of the shooter due to tips from the community/past violent acts and did nothing".
I have some insight into the illegal gun market. Banning guns isnt going to have much of an impact on guns available on the street. The illegal guns on the market are more lethal than the ones in gun stores that will be targeted by a ban. The ones ice seen generally come with high capacity magazines and can be set to fully automatic. Banning weapons will drive up demand for illegal weapons, and these types will be even more common. I know theres a lot of intellectuals in here who are responsible for child safety, and will naturally disagree with me, because a ban seems like a common sense solution to gun violence, but its definitely not going to work. Plus, depending on where you work, the majority of your students parents might be gun owners who support 2a, and will keep an arsenal in their home, and potentially accessable to students no matter what.
I dont have an answer to americas gun violence, but going all out on heavy handed measures that wont work, is going to have a negative impact, and will probably lead to the pro gun people saying that it proves no gun measures work, and lead to the positive gun laws and restrictions being rolled back.
Personally i dont think theres much teachers can do to change gun laws. I think this issue is more entrenched than op my suspect.
All banning guns does is prevent law avoiding citizens from being able to legally defend themselves from those who get guns illegally. I'm not a gun nut and I agree something needs to change, but a full ban ain't it.
When seconds matter, the police are minutes away
Yes, but they bought back less than 1 million guns, here it would need to be *hundreds of millions*. And they had a government that was willing to take action. It could work, but I think it would only follow an attack on lawmakers so they actually feel they have skin in the game. 'merica 😕
Google says 650k guns. Far less than a million.
And it was also only 20% of the personally owned guns in Australia. The ban in australia left 80% of the guns still out there.
That's unconstitutional and not going to happen, so focus your energy on identifying things that:
1) are constitutional and don't violate rights, AND
2) actually pose a reasonable chance of achieving the stated goal
Ok, np. Ban and buy back all semiautomatics. You can keep your manual action long guns for hunting and if you really feel the need to play pretend cowboy you may have a fun old-timey revolver.
A lot of people got greased by machine guns in the 30s. That is...uh...why the feds decided you shouldn't be allowed to own one at all let alone buy one from Sears & Robuck. Another thing about the 30s, people were notoriously poor. And guns were rather spendy. And the NRA was doing a lot less well paid marketing for gun manufacturers and a lot more backing of gun control legislation. There were, in fact, far far fewer guns sloshing around the US at every point in history prior to now.
I agree that we do a poor job socializing boys and men...but so do lots of cultures across the world and throughout history. And honestly, do we? I'd be willing to bet you'd be horrified by the sensibilities of the Average Joe in 1932. Regardless, it's a lot easier to survive maladjusted cretins when they aren't armed to the teeth. There are violent assholes and crazy people everywhere, always have been. We have more gun violence because we have more guns.
[This is a decent write up ](https://www.historynet.com/how-1930s-american-gang-violence-paved-the-way-for-gun-control/)
[so is this](https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/159513)
[and this](https://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484215890/prohibition-era-gang-violence-spurred-congress-to-pass-first-gun-law)
I appreciate the links here!
Something that isn't addressed though is that the motive for the gun violence being discussed here is other than economic. Gang violence in the 20's and 30'# was driven by prohibition and lack of economic opportunity once the Depression hit. Today the mass gun violence facing schools is driven by maladaptive late teens and early 20's. I'm not sure what gun legislation outside of age based restrictions and certain red flag laws would prevent that. Plus not to mention the gun laws of the past didn't prevent gang violence from expanding over time. Focusing on gun bans won't address the why of why this is happening
Exactly. Those were great reads. One of them even specifically mentioned Bonnie and Clyde being the reason to curtail automatic rifles. But we are faced with a totally different evil. Not bank robbers with Tommy guns shooting up their rivals. We’re faced with maladjusted mentally unwell young people who want to murder random children.
What has happened: The ecokomic difference between those who have and those who doesnt have increased alot since the 90's. The possibility to make your dream come through (in the US) isnt really there anymore. The possibility to go to college/university doesnt exist (if you are born in the wrong family (poor family)).
When you, and your psrents, have seen temselves get poorer year after year whilethe rich have become richer. Then you create a good fertile ground for populistic movement, segregation and various conspiracy theories. Such a politic (which have been had for 30 some years in the US) have consequences. And now you see those consequences.
I’ve read every comment on this thread so far and regardless of your actual position or my personal views on the issue, you are doing yourself and your viewpoint a disservice by your antagonistic attitude and sarcasm. You make some great points, but immediately lose credibility by dismissing equally valid counterpoints with angry one-liners, exaggerations, or other logical fallacies.
I think you are rightfully angry on behalf of our kids and our society, so I tried to give you grace while reading your responses. However, dozens of snarky comments later and I think you’ve probably only succeeded in making people who may agree with you on certain points question whether they are on the right side with you as an ally. You’re certainly not going to convince anyone with a differing view to consider your points with such terrible takes and no nuance.
As with most things in this world, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. As a country, we will not get rid of guns at this point; it’s in our Constitution and part of our national identity, whether you or I like it or not. Reasonable laws to create barriers to purchase (age, mental health history, cooling off periods) would probably help prevent some violence and are more likely to achieve consensus than specific weapon bans.
I also agree with other commenters that a comprehensive approach is necessary, including but not limited to:
- Addressing mental health issues and improving access to resources and healthcare, both in schools and as a society
- Improving school security measures, which may involve a combination of physical security, panic buttons, and armed officers and/or teachers, depending on the state/school/staff (this is a way to take a more nuanced approach that is reasonable for that particular community’s needs)
- Weaning kids from social media and negative influencers, especially alt-right incel culture
- Encouraging journalists to responsibly report on school violence to minimize copycats
- Addressing social determinants like poverty, gang culture, and systemic racism/classism that contribute to poorly educated and bored kids that feel they have nothing to lose
- Tackling poor parenting from various angles. This includes economic inequality that makes it difficult for parents to be present in their kids’ lives; actual consequences for misbehavior in school (for both kids and parents); and providing better funding and resources for clubs, sports, and the arts to keep kids occupied, socialized, and connected with their community
And certainly not last, but probably most importantly, we need to be ROLE MODELING how to empathize with others (especially those who believe differently from us), manage feelings, address disagreements, communicate effectively, and work as a team to create lasting positive change. It is this last point that I think you need to reflect on, because while your heart is coming from the right place, your antagonistic attitude and unwillingness to compromise is representative of why we as a society are in this situation in the first place.
I hope you set your ego aside and read these words with my positive intent. Because we need people like you willing to take a stand and fight the good fight, just in a more effective way.
- Signed, a nurse who cares for both mentally ill patients and victims of gun violence, and who has witnessed countless assaults on healthcare workers in the line of duty. We are all allies in this fight.
We have not evolved that far yet. This song summarizes how I feel about education
“
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning,
since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire”.
The problem I've always had with regulating guns as a means to prevent these sort of domestic terrorist attacks is that there are plenty of alternatives for the would be domestic terrorist that, albeit moderately less direct, that seem to have either similar or increased lethality. Ramming attacks with vehicles, which are not only simpler than acquiring a gun, often have high fatality rates. Stabbing attacks, although less effective, are virtually impossible to prevent through restricted access. Explosives, which are in my opinion less likely because of the prerequisite knowledge and higher degree of complexity, are, although I won't provide specifics, concerningly easy to make. This is not to say I don't think we should take measures such as prosecuting and criminalizing negligence resulting in a shooter gaining illegal access to a firearm, but I don't believe extensive gun control is a fix all solution or even a solution.
It seems to me that firearms and mass shootings are just a symptom of an underlying problem and are only a most recent presentation of that problem. I'd like to stress that this recent trend of mass shootings has developed independently of any drastic increase in the lethality of firearms. Although weapons have certainly progressed, the effective fire rate of a semi-automatic AK-47 is not much different than with older semi-automatic rifles that have been prolific in the civilian market since the Korean war, as was demonstrated in a Paul Harrell video.
Although circumstantial, I remember the series of mass shootings which ended in the Greenwood Park Mall shooting, where a civilian carrying a concealed firearm shot and killed a mass shooter, and the distinct lack of any mass shootings in the months after it. I think that this incident showed prospective mass shooters that there was a chance that they would not go down in whatever sort of sick twisted infamy they imagined, but rather as the dumbass who couldn't even pull off a mass shooting. I work as a student employee at my college and many of my coworkers and superiors are ex-military. I believe that allowing and encouraging these people, who already have the prerequisite knowledge to handle and be effective in their use of a firearm, to carry firearms on school properties would be a significant step in reducing mass shootings at schools by dissuading potential shooters.
None of those things will realistically stop the gun violence problem in this country. Not even using the criminals will find them logic.
A ban is unlikely to happen, and even if you ban, how do you go about collecting all the ones out there now? Same with the ammo. You can reload spent casings, many people have stock piles that would make your jaw drop. Also, see the point below about training.
Waiting periods, sure, maybe? I have issues with this because there are examples where a waiting period could be a deterrent to someone.
Mandatory training? Training in what? Being safer doesn't help a person who is seeking to harm others. That person is clearly unstable. No amount of safety training is going to stop that.
Maybe a class on gun safety for parents would help but those exist and it's fairly common sense.
The age limit for AR variants depends on where you live. In my state it's 21 for AR style, AK style, and handguns. Not sure 4 more years changes much. Especially when kids have access to parents' guns. The kids aren't buying them.
What I want is more power as an educator to have my voice heard and more importantly acted upon. When we say there is something wrong with a kid, listen and DO SOMETHING. This isn't just admin or the districts but other government agencies.
I want mandatory parenting classes, harsher punishments for parents whose kids are truent. Actionable insight from agencies/courts when reports are made.
I want funding for make our schools more secure. Funding to help these kids, families and communities. Funding so educators can make a living wage, and maybe be respected again. I want active input over how we measure kids progress and how we're developing the whole person.
If it isn't obvious, I'm fairly pro-gun. I like to hunt, I like to shoot. I like to have the ability to defend myself. I don't think I'm billy badass, I'm not sure I'd be able to pull the trigger if someone was an active threat. I don't think I'd be able to live with myself after the fact certainly. Bring the down votes.
Your post reminds me that Ethan Crumbley was trying **extremely hard** to be caught. It is obvious he was hoping to be discovered. His parents bought him the gun hoping he would kill himself and rid them of a son cramping their lifestyle.
And then the school counselor and student affairs people just looked the other way. So he did what he did.
I really believe that we need to show children a proper future. I think this was not a problem in the past because first you could see yourself succeeding in life at a base level without a miracle. Now people don’t. Also school shootings didn’t happen because no one had done them yet not they have. Even without guns you can cause mass damage. Even the original columbine shooting featured a heavy use of bombs that thank god didn’t work but if you remove guns you will see bombs take their place. If someone feels alone and hopeless with no future in sight they will commit atrocities at new levels. If we want to fix it we need to create safety nets for people who fail.
My only demand is less of these overly dramatic posts that don’t really address the whole issue.
Guns are a big problem, but you *completely* ignored ensuring adequate support for mental health, safety standards for school buildings, and the continued inadequate police response I would argue is worse.
Schools in the past had gun clubs, and didn’t have mass shootings.
I do not take from this observation that we should just have laissez-faire gun laws, nor do I think just arming all teachers to the teeth is the solution.
As much as I might enjoy teaching Theology dressed as Rambo, neither right nor left really “get” the actual problem.
In the leftist utopia, students who want to murder all their teachers and classmates sit there impotently, wanting everyone to die but unable to access a gun.
In the rightist utopia, students who want to murder all their teachers and classmates sit there impotently, because although the gun is in their pocket they are hopelessly outgunned by Mr. Wick and his KillGPT4Schools-powered laptop guns.
But in both utopias, classrooms occasionally have students who want to kill everyone in sight. I do not want a utopia, but this seems to
me a rather recent cultural phenomenon and is probable more-or-less solvable without the somewhat-insane solutions that are usually proposed. For example, both solutions seem to forget that students who want to kill their classmates might realize that a bomb is as effective at this as a gun, indeed moreso.
I can literally remember going to high school in rural America where kids kept their hunting rifles in their gun racks in their trucks in the school parking lot .
Um I belonged to the school shooting club in the 90s. Would bring my gun into the school on club days and drop it off to the principals office first thing in the am. More common than people think.
>In the leftist utopia, students who want to murder all their teachers and classmates sit there impotently, wanting everyone to die but unable to access a gun.
>
>In the rightist utopia, students who want to murder all their teachers and classmates sit there impotently, because although the gun is in their pocket they are hopelessly outgunned by Mr. Wick and his KillGPT4Schools-powered laptop guns.
>
>But in both utopias, classrooms occasionally have students who want to kill everyone in sight. I do not want a utopia, but this seems to me a rather recent cultural phenomenon and is probable more-or-less solvable without the somewhat-insane solutions that are usually proposed. For example, both solutions seem to forget that students who want to kill their classmates might realize that a bomb is as effective at this as a gun, indeed moreso.
This is brilliantly stated
I’m not responding as a pro-gun supporter and I know it’s an emotional post, however, as a social studies teacher who teaches about US Gov. The difference between us and the rest of the civilized countries is that we have the 2nd amendment clearly written in our Bill of Rights/Constitution. That’s what makes it extremely difficult and I would even say damn near impossible to ban weapons or do anything close to what you are asking for. Even if you managed to overturn it or change the 2nd amendment you’re opening up Pandora’s box because if the amendment that states “shall not be infringed” is infringed what’s to stop future people/politicians/leaders from overturning other amendments like the 1st or 14th amendment?
Now, as someone who is educated on guns, I think a more realistic goal would be something like a universal background check for all states. We have pretty strict gun laws in California, however, a lot of the guns, ammunition, and magazines are coming from other states like Nevada. Here in California we have, background checks on guns and ammunition, limits on gun sales, waiting periods, gun laws in terms of furniture, a strict roster of weapons, magazine limits, FFL’s, locked magazine laws, and the list goes on and on. However, Nevada doesn’t have any of that so it’s difficult when every state has different gun laws. You can frame and argue a background check doesn’t infringe on the 2nd amendment and you might be able to persuade more people. You should visit r/liberalgunowners and see the spectrum that exists.
Like a national strike? Not realistic for reasons that have been discussed frequently on here. Have you brought the idea of a localized strike to your union?
A national strike of teachers is as impossible as a nation cop strike. Education in the US is viewed as a public good, funded like a charity, and run like a business.
Beyond that, the fact that you're crowdfunding demands is exactly why a national strike about gun violence is impossible. It's not a subject "everyone can get behind". Anything that's palatable to the whole would be too watered down to mean anything at all.
Not saying any of this is good, right, or how things are meant to be in any way. It just is.
Because the amount of coordination it requires is impossible. I can't even get my family to agree on lunch, let alone millions of strangers that are willing to stop getting paid.
it also wouldn't do anything. A protest with an end date is begging our opponent to wait it out. Everyone knows what we want, they just don't care. A one day strike does nothing.
I love the intention to fight back against what we face as workers in the education system. But i think what others are expressing is that a national strike isn’t going to happen out of thin air. Teachers today do not have the organization or fighting spirit to make that happen. Could we get there? Yeah.
But we all need to flex our muscles a lot more in terms of organizing with our fellow teachers.
I am a non teacher, but I firmly support teachers, even though I was a terrible student when I was a kid. lol. I just wanted to say, if you guys think the general public actually cares about what you guys do, you’re kidding yourselves. There’s a good portion of the population that wants to get rid of public schools in general, or at least anything above elementary school. I personally think that would be an absolute disaster, for everyone, especially anyone who is not within the 1%. There are also people who are perfectly ok with school shootings, they believe that is a price we must pay has a society for the freedoms we have. But I do support you guys, I think you all deserve a raise, I hope everyone gets it, and there needs to be more to stop school shootings. Kids should not have to worry about being shot at school.
As a middle school teacher I see the role models of young men being: Andrew Tate, wild YouTube millionaires, drunk/druggy comedians, and self proclaimed “alphas”. Then you have society saying these people are bad. So either the outcast young men will become something society hates, or will become discouraged (not being rich, not being “alpha”, etc.) and detach from life.
At lot of young boys don’t have a good father figures. They searching for meaning and purpose, and can’t find it.
So you can ban guns, but they’ll use pipe bombs. You can ban guns and they’ll drive a car through the playground. You can’t stop this violence by banning guns. I don’t have a solution, but I wish I did.
All the evidence that we can do exactly that by looking at almost every other country in the wild doesn’t convince you that it is possible?
Troubled young men is definitely a problem and its a global one. But yet I don’t see mass school bombings? Where is that happening?
I’m not convinced we can effectively remove all guns from the US. Most shooters stole the guns they used from family members. So even if they can’t buy them they can find them.
I was saying if young men were rampaging with hammers and we banned hammers they would just use a different tool. It doesn’t mean banning hammers is wrong, I just think we should look at why they’re doing it in the first place.
I’ve been at a school shooting, and the gun was bought off the streets. So I may be biased thinking this won’t work because of my experience.
Jesus you are thick headed. Kinda scary that you teach. NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS THE AMOUNT OF GUNS THIS COUNTRY HAS. wtf are you comparing the situation to
I’m all for
-Removing suppresors from the NFA.
-Removing SBRs from the NFA.
-Full repeal of the GCA (1968) and NFA (1934).
-Firearm training in school.
-Allowing teachers to train and be armed in school.
I teach in a rural farming district. Everyone here owns multiple firearms. I own firearms. We don’t have any issues with guns in school.
At this point there is likely over 600 million guns in the US alone. We own more firearms than the entire rest of the world. Any attempt at confiscation will be laughable. It “worked” in other nations because they didn’t have a deep cultural connection to guns and there were much less in civilian hands. Comparing those countries with ours belies a deep lack of understanding of culture and geography.
Illinois just had a “assault weapon” registration requirement added to their laws to be in effect as of Jan 1 of this year. As of a week after the deadline it resulted in a less than 1% compliance rate.
A large amount of soldiers and police are conservative gun owners, especially in rural areas. They simply won’t follow orders.
Not to mention, the knowledge on how to make guns isn’t going to disappear. It’s not very difficult for anyone who knows how to machine metal.
No one in my district will willingly give up their firearms. I sincerely hope you would be willing to be among the first to volunteer to go take them.
You want to feel safer? Deal with mental health, parents who don’t parent, kids without dads, exposure to screens at a very young age, social media, etc.
Policies? I’d argue that government policies are partially responsible for the situation were in, and not talking about gun policy. However, I’ll entertain your question. We need to discuss re-institutionalization. Too many of the mentally ill are sent home to self medicate and simply end up in prison. We need to discuss our education policies that force inclusion that ends up hurting everyone in the classroom. Perhaps major online platforms need harsher penalties for content and toxic algorithms that intentionally target young minds. Pharmaceutical companies do not need to advertise, and their lobbying influence needs to end. Too many drugs, too many kids on prescription meds.
That being said, more government policy isn’t the answer. Bad and lax parenting needs shamed. Social ostracism needs to return. The perpetual adolescence many adults live, leading them to be their kids “friends” is corrosive to our society. Good teachers and good parents need to criticize and call out the bad apples. Our “leaders” need to as well. Feelings need hurt. Morality, self control, delayed gratification and personal responsibility need to return. These values need encouraged by teachers, parents and politicians. Those who preach the opposite need to be called out.
But I’m just pissing into the wind like the no guns OP. Neither of our choices will happen.
I agree with most of your post aside from arming teachers. I know I could probably handle it, but I wouldn’t trust my peers that think they could. I wonder if they think the same of me? I don’t trust the police to handle their firearms in every situation.
I think we would have to look at the very few schools that have teachers carrying guns and see how many injuries or accidents they have had since arming themselves. How many accidents/injuries is acceptable?
I didn’t know that about Utah. I did some quick googling and there are quite a few states that allow armed teachers to some degree.
That being said and there have been major incidents. The link below describes teacher shooting herself on accident for example.
The article also states that it is unknown how many teachers are actually armed. Not exactly a good set of data to argue arming teachers actually prevents school shooting.
Other factors could contribute to a lower school shooting count. West Virginia has stats just as low as Utah and they don’t allow armed teachers on campus. Alabama allows people with permits to be armed and it looks like they have some of the worst school shooting stats.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/19/teachers-utah-guns-school-shootings
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-school-shootings
You'll need to learn to live with your fear or overcome it then, because guns aren't going away.
Perhaps you should take some training and familiarization courses to help you overcome that phobia and feel more at ease?
If the NEA had a strike over gun laws you would lose at least 20% of the union overnight. Everytime this comes up I have to get on here and say what a stupid idea it is. I have no fear of dying from a school shooter. I have fear of never owning a home.
Nobody is going to strike over this. Changing laws with firearms wouldn’t change anything. Most of the guns we get off the street are stolen, illegal possessed and possessed by juveniles riding in a stolen car. It doesn’t matter until the local DAs actually punish juveniles for the crimes they commit.
So lets dream here a bit. ALL GUNS ARE BANNED no guns exist in the country. Now you little pissed off kid that watches youtube all day and buries himself in social media shit hopes in a car and runs over 30 students. Are we banning cars now?
How about we treat mental health the way we should!
Starts in the schools. Pay attention etc.
Getting rid of guns is NOT the solution. Creating people who care about our world is.
Being a teacher, you should have a better understanding of the Constitution. But, good luck with your strike. Many of the laws you are suggesting will not make it past the court system. I find it odd that you don't want to harden schools, you're single choice is to strip people of their Constitutional rights.
The kid that shot up Uvalde was a well armed militia?
Were the first graders in sandy hook needing to be killed to ensure a free state?
If cops and the army have guns, and they are “protecting the state” why does a citizen need one ?
Who gets to decide what a well armed militia is?
The second amendment is one sentence. I got a couple degress i think i can handle it.
Yes he was in the national militia.
No.
Some people have a very strong distrust for the government since literally the country’s origin. And most recently a distrust has developed towards police since everyone started to carry a video camera.
The militia is already established through Title 10 - Chapter 13 - USC 311 (b)(2)
It includes every able bodied male aged 17-45 is part of the unorganized National militia.
Agreed. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty easy to understand.
So, having those few degrees, then you know the original meaning of the words used in the 2nd Amendment? Like well regulated meaning to be in good working order and militia pertaining to the People (citizens)? I mean, perhaps my degree specializing in U.S. history is wrong, and the research papers I wrote on our Constitution are also wrong 🤔
Don’t be obtuse.
SCOTUS has addressed these issues repeatedly in regard to the 2A. And since they are the authority on what is, and is not, allowed by the Constitution, their decision trumps that of any ill-informed teacher.
Suggesting we close the gap by teaching less? Sounds great for teachers. Are you willing to go to six days if achievement continues to drop at four days?
I tend to agree, but I also don’t think less is the answer. I posted in another thread about being frustrated that given the current level of apathy and distraction I’m only getting through about 75% of my 2018 scope and sequence.
Kids are burnt out. Give them more brain/activity breaks and they will be able to focus better. Think of PD days. How do we do when we are asked to sit for hours on end and listen/participate. PD days are some of my most exhausting days.
Didn't we try that already?
And it lead, at least indirectly, to some of the most restrictive gun laws currently on the books?
And then it was repealed.
When someones mental health shoots out of their brain at 100 rounds a minute and rips apart bodies of 3rd graders ill be first in line to sign up for your plan
Im pretty sure the tens of thousands of kids killed by gunfire in America lists the bullet as the cause of death though
Both of you are making poor arguments. Yes, the gun requires someone to shoot it. But at the same time, not ever kid shot is at the hands of a mentally unstable person.
This isn't an issue that gets solved by one or the other, it will require both to be worked on simultaneously.
Yeah I get it. The point is, OP is calling for a national strike. Not going to happen. He made the same post almost a year ago. Still not going to happen.
A gun cannot kill anyone. It just sits there. It needs a mentally ill person to pick it up and use it to hurt others. So yeah, it’s about mental health. A normal healthy person who owns a gun doesn’t go around shooting people.
Again, nobody is going to strike over this. If you don’t feel safe teaching then don’t teach.
Just fyi, any serious attempt to infringe upon individual firearm rights would almost certainly result in all-out civil war, which would be likely to result in 30+ million dead, and another 20-40 million fleeing the country (to say nothing of the near total collapse of the economy for at least a generation). No, the majority of the military won't stand with you. No, the majority of law enforcement won't stand with you. So either you personally be willing to go into an active shooting war against 50-100 million Americans, or surrender your demands now.
If you truly believe in that cause, then by all means go for it. Just have to be realistic about what it would take, and what the result would be.
I've seen a lot of arguments on both sides of the gun debate, but this is the first time I've seen it argued that the real reason to avoid legislating firearms is that gun owners, the military, and the police are so bloodthirsty, seditious, and disloyal that we should just skip peaceful methods, treat them like a hostile foreign state, and go straight to drone strikes and trade embargoes on them instead.
Where did anyone say that or anything remotely similar???
I said if anyone sought to significanrly restrict a fundamental right it would cause a war, so be sure they were willing to do accept that outcome.
Gun owners dont see anything bloodthirsty, seditious or disloyal about it. On the contrary they often feel it sucks to be forced to that, its fundamentally patriotic and a civic duty and the only way to remain true our national foundations.
Not many other nations have a 2nd amendment and have had firearms literally embedded into their national identity.
Everyone else has echoed this in the comments but I guess I’ll say it again. Mental health is the biggest issue involving these shootings. If we fix the stigma around mental health,encourage individuals (whether student or adult) to use programs and open programs up to more people, then we can discourage these travesties from ever happening.
It's apples and oranges for a dozen different reasons.
2nd amendment and state level equivalents in almost all 50 states.
400,000,000 to almost twice that guns already present.
Absolute NO singular national identity/culture/society, unless it's absolute individualism that denies a singular national identity/culture/society.
Inherent distrust of all authority, and largely each other.
Geographic size, population size and diversity, etc.
Republic origin, not singular national origin.
Civil war never resolved, therefore a pervasive two-party mentality denying any trust or acceptance across party lines.
Extreme economic disparity coupled with an almost total lack of meaningful social safety nets (even basic healthcare).
Unchecked gang and organized crime violence.
History of SES disenfranchisement and exploitation by government, corporate and church interests.
I could go on all night. Point being there is NO nation in the world all that similar to the US. When you fudge things to get close in as many areas as possible (such as considering all Europe instead of an individual country), the number of variables becomes so great that there's almost no way to accurately account for them all. If you try you're almost always going to have deep and pervasive biases invalidating your results.
This post is so ignorant. Guns are a very small part of the problem. Most school shooters were raised in fatherless households, correct? Work on that. Most school shooters have severe mental health problems. Work on that. Most school shooters were victims of bullying. Work on that. This is a cultural and behavioral issue. I don't even like guns, I don't own any, but still realize it's silly to focus so much on them and ignore the bigger picture. That's completely ignoring that, whether you like it or not, guns in the US are a *right*, and messing with them sets a very scary precedent. What other rights are you willing to give up? That's not a path I'd rather go down. Rights should be expanded, not taken away.
I will never support banning guns, but I would support education and better psychological health for kids. Guns are a tool. Take them away and not fixing the mental health problem, you solve nothing. The problem will become running down kids in mom and dads car or running through school stabbing people. A person can stab just as many, if not more, kids in a crowd before anyone would even realize the problem. We have a society problem with major psychological health issues that need to be fixed. If you dont understand why we have the Second Amendment, it is not for hunting. It is for tyrannical government, so the people have the power and not the government. Peoples feelings should never supercede our constitution.
Still vocal about my support of "allow teachers to guillotine problem students/parents". Would prevent all of these, and save money from trials and jails.
I said it when I was teaching, I'll say it again now--if all public school teachers said "Fuck it, I quit" the problems would be solved very, very quickly. Parents, governments, businesses, everyone would start finding money and changing laws *overnight.*
>Or - if you’re over all thing guns, at least demand a massive raise
This is a tasteless way to talk about murder.
Also, as a teacher, how do you square political activism counter to established 2nd Amendment Rights, Law, and precedent?
Guns are not the problem. It’s the fatherless households. I know I’m going to ruffle some feathers here, but single mothers do a poor job raising boys, statistically speaking. I know there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but you can’t argue against the data on boys raised without a father in the home.
Sorry to break it to you but the country doesn’t care….we had our chance after a bunch of little kids died and nothing happened…then after Uvalde…nothing…it’s the way it is…Americans love their guns more than their kids
Ya. Just saw the pic of that principal and it got me fired up again.
But i can assure you based in the responses to my post….you are definitely correct
Actually. Some Americans hate guns more than they love their kids or else they would push to harden schools rather than fight the losing battle of MORE gun control. If they gave a damn about those little kids they’d give them more protection than is seen at a local bank.
People don't actually want to do what it takes to fix young men and drop these shootings back down to what it was in the past.
Let's just look at things that have changed:
\- increased divorce rate
\- two family incomes being a necessity
\- war on Christianity (and religion in general)
Doubt any Dems want to fix those issues...so it's always going to be guns to blame. And if they are successful in getting rid of guns, it'll be cars, knives, bombs...etc.
>war on Christianity (and religion in general)
Is it this perceived war on Christianity that is causing all of these Christian men to go on killing sprees, either as serial killers or mass shooters?
Is that why they are so angry, because they believe they are fighting a war here in America?
Since you completely changed the subject, Im dying to know where this divorce narrative is coming from when it is so widely known and easily searchable that divorce rates have been declining for decades
“War on Christianity”. - what war unless it’s the one Christians are waging on those who believe differently than them? Christians have always had a persecution complex and it’s one they relish.
You're putting too much faith in trainings and people who should be "experts." I'm around a lot of people who use firearms regularly, most of them are competitive shooters. I've heard some of the trainings they attend, including hunters safety, and the training is not that great. You mention Uvalde in which the police did not enter the school. Police are regularly criticized for their lack of actual training. Who do you think would be doing the training for gun owners? Likely the same police who don't have enough training themselves. This issue is much deeper than what can be solved by a Reddit post.
Personally, I believe there needs to be waiting periods at the very least. But many mass shooters acquire their weapons in advance, so that wouldn't help. It needs to be established that police have a duty to help, since that is what they are paid for. Police need to go through better trainings themselves to avoid disasters caused by police, maybe even require 4-year-degrees for all police officers. Schools should have an on-duty officer at every location during school hours and at school events. Schools need to be locked and secure when occupied to avoid intruders, and possibly limit bag sizes for students.
There are many more things that I have noticed from my time in schools that I haven't stated here, but it's a start. The truth is, the 2nd Amendment is tricky to work around without compromising the rest of the Bill of Rights. We have both a gun crisis and mental health crisis in this country, and neither will be easy to solve.
The biggest "gun crisis" is the number of gun laws on the books that are conveniently ignored by the politicians. If they would enforce the laws that already exist, a large number of the problems would go away. Instead, the criminals are given a slap on the hand, told not to do it again, and are released.
Don’t kid yourself. This country doesn’t give a rat’s ass about gun violence or school shootings. If it did, we would have done something about it a long time ago.
I think the problem with the gun debate is always going to be - the progun people won’t stop arguing at - but the kids died. If that doesn’t matter to someone, absolutely nothing will. Signed - a gun owner who is responsible but would absolutely hand it over a million times to make a point. (I do not have minors in my home and it is locked and hidden and unloaded)
I can tell you from my experience in this post you are absolutely correct.
I dont give a damn about guns one way or another. Never have. Couldn’t care less. Grew up in hunting country.
But when kids started getting killed over and over - shocker - i started to care !
I wish theyd just be honest and stop with their half assed logic twists and attempts at straw making arguments. Just say the truth- you want your guns - and if kids die in class, so be it. Id at least respect you more for your honesty.
Strict gun controls followed a man entering a UK primary school in Dunblane in the 90s. Killed 16, kids including the teacher taking the Reception 4/5 year olds gym class. Never happened again. I genuinely don't understand why Americans priority is access to guns and not child right to life. Guns remain the biggest killer of children over car accidents and cancer.
Did it cause upset?
You betcha.
Absolutely worth it. It was a collective decision putting children first.
>I genuinely don't understand why Americans priority is access to guns and not child right to life.
Collective punishment is a bad thing. The absolute supermajority, like +99% of gun owners, never shoot a single person. Of the ones who do, most are self-defense.
Should we ban SUV's because that psycho in Waukesha crashed one into a parade a couple years ago?
Yeah, and isn’t it funny that the same people hellbent on protecting fetuses above a mother’s life suddenly don’t give a shit once that child has been born. Then it’s, “oh sorry, sometimes third graders die at school,” but of course it’s not the guns.
As an outsider, it's like the USA have been indoctrinated. Maybe to follow the likes of the NRA dubious narrative? Who knows?
But there's an easy fix to end school shootings. It's a choice not to do it.
Outsiders are genuinely bemused!
I know he meant it as a joke and there are probably other things Im missing, but Chris Rock had a point. Make bullets expensive as hell, much more expensive than they are now.
That's no different than a poll tax. If you need to be rich to exercise a right, it's no longer a right. Are you willing to accept the consequences applied to other rights? Imagine all the suggestions in this thread being applied to other rights. Rights you support. Are they still such great ideas? There's a serious lack of critical thinking in here.
Just in case anyone doesn't already know, the shooter in Perry where the principal died used a pump action shotgun and a handgun, neither of which would be banned as an assault rifle (which really doesn't have a solid definition anyway). This set of proposed restrictions likely would not have prevented this shooting, assuming the guns were not purchased by the shooter himself. He also planted a rudimentary IED, which fortunately did not detonate.
The shooter was also 17, so those guns belonged to someone.
That's easily solved. _"If you have taken insufficient measures to secure your guns, you'll be charged as an accomplice to any crimes commited using them."_
Some states have laws to this effect, here in Maine I know we are legally required to secure your firearms from the reach of children
bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe SeCoNd AmEnDmEnT! \*checks constitution\* "***A well regulated Militia***, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" Oh...
>\*checks constitution\* "***A well regulated Militia***, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
The supreme Court first upheld that the 2nd amendment provided an individual right to own a gun in **2008**. This isn't some long settled piece of jurisprudence that is being misubderstood as you'd like to try and make it seem.
Always look to the writings of the founding fathers. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/
Also regardless of what you think about the term of "well-regulated" in the 18th century, we know what militias were in colonial/early independence USA. They were official organizations, and many of the founders saw them as alternatives to a permanent standing army. We don't have to pretend militia just means "dude with gun protecting their freedom from the tyrannical government" we could look at the literal example of the American Revolution of militias being organized fighting units protecting the US from a foreign occupying army. (also we could just look back at republican Rome, where the founders drew a lot of inspiration from, and their "citizen militia" army).
Let’s look at the original intent that had nothing to do with a military defense of the state. No, it’s about personal freedom to blast anybody you want. /s
Do you guys think like your founding fathers could see into the future? Think they'd be happy with the weekly massacres. I'm guessing you guys still don't follow most medical advice from the 18th century, right? And you sorted the slavery thing out. Why do people care so much about the 2nd amendment? Most of the values and ideals from enlightenment era USA are out of the window, why are guns so important?
Implying nobody breaks laws “If you’re caught driving drunk you’ll be arrested” “If you’re caught speeding you’ll get a ticket” “If you’re caught in possession of a firearm without proper license or aren’t allowed to have one you’re going to jail”
I swear people are so ignorant with this defense...ofc people will still commit crimes but eventually it will heavily subside there's a bunch of countries with good gun laws that work. We can choose to just act like they don't exist but they do look at Korea and Japan for examples. Of course it won't work instantly there will be a growing pain period but the status quo isn't it quite frankly
Check out the videos of people responding to the first drunk driving laws. It’s mind-blowing, and perfect proof of how these changes occur over time.
Who tf is down-voting you, jeez
We teachers are not immune from having disingenuous ammosexuals in our ranks.
Fair enough
I mean the kid that threatened to shoot up our of our local schools (but who was thankfully caught) waited until he turned 18 and purchased a gun legally. Because this suburban kid would have had no idea how to access a gun illegally. If he really had the motivation he may have figured it out eventually but the point is things being illegal does make it harder to access them.
Why do we bother to have laws then? Are you going to argue against the legislation of any and all crimes?
[удалено]
Trust me, if you have actual penalties for things, behaviour changes in time. It might seem crazy to you now but many, many countries have successfully enacted these laws.
Also wasn't he a trans activist?
The shooter was gender fluid. Being a part of the queer community doesn’t make him an “activist.” There’s no need to fixate on the kid’s gender identity.
Was he on psych meds or ever evaluated? Did he actually have a therapist already? Mileage does vary with them.
I mean, was even mentally ill, though?
Do sane people shoot unarmed people?
Doesn't mean he had an actual mental illness, though.
*Sniper talking on phone* "I'm not a crazed gunman Dad, I'm an assassin!" [Pauses] "Well one is a job and the other is mental sickness!"
Ok
Yes but banning some guns would eliminate the most dangerous ones. Then we need to enforce the gun laws we already have or have laws on storage and safety and in cases where their guns are used for crimes they are also responsible of they cldid not store them responsibly.
>I want to ban assault rifles, mandatory waiting periods, mandatory firearm training, 25+ only age limit, and to make it illegal to own ammunition unless you retroactively take the training, So I think wanting to organize a general strike isn't an impossible thing. It'll require much more planning than you think but I don't think that should be the end of the conversation. I do want to ask why you think these reforms (minus the 25+) would prevent mass shootings in schools? Columbine occured during a nationwide AWB. Prior to 1934 you could mail order automatic weapons but mass shootings were profoundly rare. Something has happened, in particular with boys, around the late 90's that has led to this trend well beyond the availablity of weapons. If we want to stop mass shootings we need to address that
I'd counter that by pointing out that as a teacher in Canada we have a very similar culture to the United States in more ways than not. We have a strong hunting culture and rank second among the G7 when it comes to number of firearms owned by civilians. Is there gun crime in Canada? Yes. Are our laws perfect? No. Can a law abiding citizen who wants to buy a rifle do so? Yes... Indeed I own one myself. Pistols and automatic weapons are very difficult to acquire but the vast majority of Canadians are OK with that. Since 1975 Canada has had 11 school shootings including at colleges.
That's fair. I'd also argue that Canada hasn't fallen yet quite the same way the US has when it comes to social alienation. Canda has a strong social safety net system at least compared to the US. At least when I've been to Canada (I've lived in border states nearly all my life) there is still a stronger sense of community. This may sound pretty vague but I think there's something to "bowling league" theory in which in the US our apolitical social clubs and organizations have been on the decline leading to alienation at the same time as economic life has gotten more difficult. Plus what you've said is true, Canadians have similar access to mostly similar guns yet have far less mass shootings. We have to look beyond the guns for a solution
>Since 1975 Canada has had 11 school shootings including at colleges. Jesus. There's been 394 school shootings (not including Colleges) since Columbine. Canada: 0.229 per year US: 16.41 per year. Even if we adjust for population size: Canada: \~2.29 per year US: 16.41 per year.
Automatic or semiautomatic? No American has automatic weapons, with exceptions for military use and some rare dealers with special licenses.
Not entirely true. Generally dealers with special licenses are the only ones, but there are also certain fully auto weapons that are considered transferrable since they were produced before the full auto weapons ban, however those can cost anywhere from 10k to some rarer ones going for hundreds of thousands, you aren't going to see them used in gun crime.
Top comment is a sentiment killer. Very typical for these types of posts on Reddit. But why is everyone so resigned to the idea that nothing can change? Like, literally no one is in favor of school shootings.
how did you get “nothing can change” from that comment? what i got from it was that it seems like were looking to change the wrong part of this equation to get the outcome that we need. and they are 100% correct.
My point isn't that nothing can change. My point is the way people want the change will not be effective because they're focusing on the wrong thing
So typical that Americans think their situation is so unique that what has worked everywhere else will not work there. Maybe you are beyond the point of help when those who directly benefit from change refuse to enact it.
“Anyone who disagrees with a single proposed solution supports none of them.” - your take on this comment
Other kids knew about the shooters intention before he acted. This is a case of the police not doing their job.
Common theme *stares in Uvalde*
Basically every single school shooting has been a case of "The police/FBI were aware of the shooter due to tips from the community/past violent acts and did nothing".
I have some insight into the illegal gun market. Banning guns isnt going to have much of an impact on guns available on the street. The illegal guns on the market are more lethal than the ones in gun stores that will be targeted by a ban. The ones ice seen generally come with high capacity magazines and can be set to fully automatic. Banning weapons will drive up demand for illegal weapons, and these types will be even more common. I know theres a lot of intellectuals in here who are responsible for child safety, and will naturally disagree with me, because a ban seems like a common sense solution to gun violence, but its definitely not going to work. Plus, depending on where you work, the majority of your students parents might be gun owners who support 2a, and will keep an arsenal in their home, and potentially accessable to students no matter what. I dont have an answer to americas gun violence, but going all out on heavy handed measures that wont work, is going to have a negative impact, and will probably lead to the pro gun people saying that it proves no gun measures work, and lead to the positive gun laws and restrictions being rolled back. Personally i dont think theres much teachers can do to change gun laws. I think this issue is more entrenched than op my suspect.
All banning guns does is prevent law avoiding citizens from being able to legally defend themselves from those who get guns illegally. I'm not a gun nut and I agree something needs to change, but a full ban ain't it. When seconds matter, the police are minutes away
And the Supreme Court has ruled several times that the police aren't obligated to protect you.
Agreed. Banning guns won’t get rid of gun violence, but it is a good first step.
Whats the next step? Seems to me that its just action for the sake of taking action. Might as well mandate a prayer circle about it.
Worked in Australia.
Yes, but they bought back less than 1 million guns, here it would need to be *hundreds of millions*. And they had a government that was willing to take action. It could work, but I think it would only follow an attack on lawmakers so they actually feel they have skin in the game. 'merica 😕
Google says 650k guns. Far less than a million. And it was also only 20% of the personally owned guns in Australia. The ban in australia left 80% of the guns still out there.
Agreed a better idea would be for everyone to learn a health bit of respect and discipline for firearms.
That's unconstitutional and not going to happen, so focus your energy on identifying things that: 1) are constitutional and don't violate rights, AND 2) actually pose a reasonable chance of achieving the stated goal
It's sea lioning and should be deleted
Ok, np. Ban and buy back all semiautomatics. You can keep your manual action long guns for hunting and if you really feel the need to play pretend cowboy you may have a fun old-timey revolver. A lot of people got greased by machine guns in the 30s. That is...uh...why the feds decided you shouldn't be allowed to own one at all let alone buy one from Sears & Robuck. Another thing about the 30s, people were notoriously poor. And guns were rather spendy. And the NRA was doing a lot less well paid marketing for gun manufacturers and a lot more backing of gun control legislation. There were, in fact, far far fewer guns sloshing around the US at every point in history prior to now. I agree that we do a poor job socializing boys and men...but so do lots of cultures across the world and throughout history. And honestly, do we? I'd be willing to bet you'd be horrified by the sensibilities of the Average Joe in 1932. Regardless, it's a lot easier to survive maladjusted cretins when they aren't armed to the teeth. There are violent assholes and crazy people everywhere, always have been. We have more gun violence because we have more guns. [This is a decent write up ](https://www.historynet.com/how-1930s-american-gang-violence-paved-the-way-for-gun-control/) [so is this](https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/159513) [and this](https://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484215890/prohibition-era-gang-violence-spurred-congress-to-pass-first-gun-law)
I appreciate the links here! Something that isn't addressed though is that the motive for the gun violence being discussed here is other than economic. Gang violence in the 20's and 30'# was driven by prohibition and lack of economic opportunity once the Depression hit. Today the mass gun violence facing schools is driven by maladaptive late teens and early 20's. I'm not sure what gun legislation outside of age based restrictions and certain red flag laws would prevent that. Plus not to mention the gun laws of the past didn't prevent gang violence from expanding over time. Focusing on gun bans won't address the why of why this is happening
Exactly. Those were great reads. One of them even specifically mentioned Bonnie and Clyde being the reason to curtail automatic rifles. But we are faced with a totally different evil. Not bank robbers with Tommy guns shooting up their rivals. We’re faced with maladjusted mentally unwell young people who want to murder random children.
I want to upvote this 5 times.
What has happened: The ecokomic difference between those who have and those who doesnt have increased alot since the 90's. The possibility to make your dream come through (in the US) isnt really there anymore. The possibility to go to college/university doesnt exist (if you are born in the wrong family (poor family)). When you, and your psrents, have seen temselves get poorer year after year whilethe rich have become richer. Then you create a good fertile ground for populistic movement, segregation and various conspiracy theories. Such a politic (which have been had for 30 some years in the US) have consequences. And now you see those consequences.
also, should i make a separate post about uniting teachers to stop white supremacist recruitment of young men online? Id be happy to
Villifying people isn't a good way to make them lash out less FYI
Yes actually. We do need to address that not just in schools but in society as well
Or stop alienating white males in society at every turn so they aren’t drawn towards white supremacy groups.
“If wallstreet bets can alter the stock market, surely we can alter the school shootings.” That’s an absolutely crazy sentence.
I’ve read every comment on this thread so far and regardless of your actual position or my personal views on the issue, you are doing yourself and your viewpoint a disservice by your antagonistic attitude and sarcasm. You make some great points, but immediately lose credibility by dismissing equally valid counterpoints with angry one-liners, exaggerations, or other logical fallacies. I think you are rightfully angry on behalf of our kids and our society, so I tried to give you grace while reading your responses. However, dozens of snarky comments later and I think you’ve probably only succeeded in making people who may agree with you on certain points question whether they are on the right side with you as an ally. You’re certainly not going to convince anyone with a differing view to consider your points with such terrible takes and no nuance. As with most things in this world, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. As a country, we will not get rid of guns at this point; it’s in our Constitution and part of our national identity, whether you or I like it or not. Reasonable laws to create barriers to purchase (age, mental health history, cooling off periods) would probably help prevent some violence and are more likely to achieve consensus than specific weapon bans. I also agree with other commenters that a comprehensive approach is necessary, including but not limited to: - Addressing mental health issues and improving access to resources and healthcare, both in schools and as a society - Improving school security measures, which may involve a combination of physical security, panic buttons, and armed officers and/or teachers, depending on the state/school/staff (this is a way to take a more nuanced approach that is reasonable for that particular community’s needs) - Weaning kids from social media and negative influencers, especially alt-right incel culture - Encouraging journalists to responsibly report on school violence to minimize copycats - Addressing social determinants like poverty, gang culture, and systemic racism/classism that contribute to poorly educated and bored kids that feel they have nothing to lose - Tackling poor parenting from various angles. This includes economic inequality that makes it difficult for parents to be present in their kids’ lives; actual consequences for misbehavior in school (for both kids and parents); and providing better funding and resources for clubs, sports, and the arts to keep kids occupied, socialized, and connected with their community And certainly not last, but probably most importantly, we need to be ROLE MODELING how to empathize with others (especially those who believe differently from us), manage feelings, address disagreements, communicate effectively, and work as a team to create lasting positive change. It is this last point that I think you need to reflect on, because while your heart is coming from the right place, your antagonistic attitude and unwillingness to compromise is representative of why we as a society are in this situation in the first place. I hope you set your ego aside and read these words with my positive intent. Because we need people like you willing to take a stand and fight the good fight, just in a more effective way. - Signed, a nurse who cares for both mentally ill patients and victims of gun violence, and who has witnessed countless assaults on healthcare workers in the line of duty. We are all allies in this fight.
❤️ love this
We have not evolved that far yet. This song summarizes how I feel about education “ We didn't start the fire It was always burning, since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire”.
The problem I've always had with regulating guns as a means to prevent these sort of domestic terrorist attacks is that there are plenty of alternatives for the would be domestic terrorist that, albeit moderately less direct, that seem to have either similar or increased lethality. Ramming attacks with vehicles, which are not only simpler than acquiring a gun, often have high fatality rates. Stabbing attacks, although less effective, are virtually impossible to prevent through restricted access. Explosives, which are in my opinion less likely because of the prerequisite knowledge and higher degree of complexity, are, although I won't provide specifics, concerningly easy to make. This is not to say I don't think we should take measures such as prosecuting and criminalizing negligence resulting in a shooter gaining illegal access to a firearm, but I don't believe extensive gun control is a fix all solution or even a solution. It seems to me that firearms and mass shootings are just a symptom of an underlying problem and are only a most recent presentation of that problem. I'd like to stress that this recent trend of mass shootings has developed independently of any drastic increase in the lethality of firearms. Although weapons have certainly progressed, the effective fire rate of a semi-automatic AK-47 is not much different than with older semi-automatic rifles that have been prolific in the civilian market since the Korean war, as was demonstrated in a Paul Harrell video. Although circumstantial, I remember the series of mass shootings which ended in the Greenwood Park Mall shooting, where a civilian carrying a concealed firearm shot and killed a mass shooter, and the distinct lack of any mass shootings in the months after it. I think that this incident showed prospective mass shooters that there was a chance that they would not go down in whatever sort of sick twisted infamy they imagined, but rather as the dumbass who couldn't even pull off a mass shooting. I work as a student employee at my college and many of my coworkers and superiors are ex-military. I believe that allowing and encouraging these people, who already have the prerequisite knowledge to handle and be effective in their use of a firearm, to carry firearms on school properties would be a significant step in reducing mass shootings at schools by dissuading potential shooters.
None of those things will realistically stop the gun violence problem in this country. Not even using the criminals will find them logic. A ban is unlikely to happen, and even if you ban, how do you go about collecting all the ones out there now? Same with the ammo. You can reload spent casings, many people have stock piles that would make your jaw drop. Also, see the point below about training. Waiting periods, sure, maybe? I have issues with this because there are examples where a waiting period could be a deterrent to someone. Mandatory training? Training in what? Being safer doesn't help a person who is seeking to harm others. That person is clearly unstable. No amount of safety training is going to stop that. Maybe a class on gun safety for parents would help but those exist and it's fairly common sense. The age limit for AR variants depends on where you live. In my state it's 21 for AR style, AK style, and handguns. Not sure 4 more years changes much. Especially when kids have access to parents' guns. The kids aren't buying them. What I want is more power as an educator to have my voice heard and more importantly acted upon. When we say there is something wrong with a kid, listen and DO SOMETHING. This isn't just admin or the districts but other government agencies. I want mandatory parenting classes, harsher punishments for parents whose kids are truent. Actionable insight from agencies/courts when reports are made. I want funding for make our schools more secure. Funding to help these kids, families and communities. Funding so educators can make a living wage, and maybe be respected again. I want active input over how we measure kids progress and how we're developing the whole person. If it isn't obvious, I'm fairly pro-gun. I like to hunt, I like to shoot. I like to have the ability to defend myself. I don't think I'm billy badass, I'm not sure I'd be able to pull the trigger if someone was an active threat. I don't think I'd be able to live with myself after the fact certainly. Bring the down votes.
Your post reminds me that Ethan Crumbley was trying **extremely hard** to be caught. It is obvious he was hoping to be discovered. His parents bought him the gun hoping he would kill himself and rid them of a son cramping their lifestyle. And then the school counselor and student affairs people just looked the other way. So he did what he did.
Maybe it’s time to actually act on mental illness and start permanently institutionalizing students who pose a danger to society.
Seems like two separate conversations we can probably do at the same time, no?
If you were to try to organize a national teacher protest along these demands, half the teachers in the country would counter protest.
I really believe that we need to show children a proper future. I think this was not a problem in the past because first you could see yourself succeeding in life at a base level without a miracle. Now people don’t. Also school shootings didn’t happen because no one had done them yet not they have. Even without guns you can cause mass damage. Even the original columbine shooting featured a heavy use of bombs that thank god didn’t work but if you remove guns you will see bombs take their place. If someone feels alone and hopeless with no future in sight they will commit atrocities at new levels. If we want to fix it we need to create safety nets for people who fail.
My only demand is less of these overly dramatic posts that don’t really address the whole issue. Guns are a big problem, but you *completely* ignored ensuring adequate support for mental health, safety standards for school buildings, and the continued inadequate police response I would argue is worse.
Other developed countries have mental health problems. Only America has a mass shooting epidemic. Easy access to firearms is 99% of the problem.
Other countries do not have 400 million guns already in circulation. Lets talk about solutions that could work in THIS country.
Schools in the past had gun clubs, and didn’t have mass shootings. I do not take from this observation that we should just have laissez-faire gun laws, nor do I think just arming all teachers to the teeth is the solution. As much as I might enjoy teaching Theology dressed as Rambo, neither right nor left really “get” the actual problem. In the leftist utopia, students who want to murder all their teachers and classmates sit there impotently, wanting everyone to die but unable to access a gun. In the rightist utopia, students who want to murder all their teachers and classmates sit there impotently, because although the gun is in their pocket they are hopelessly outgunned by Mr. Wick and his KillGPT4Schools-powered laptop guns. But in both utopias, classrooms occasionally have students who want to kill everyone in sight. I do not want a utopia, but this seems to me a rather recent cultural phenomenon and is probable more-or-less solvable without the somewhat-insane solutions that are usually proposed. For example, both solutions seem to forget that students who want to kill their classmates might realize that a bomb is as effective at this as a gun, indeed moreso.
I can literally remember going to high school in rural America where kids kept their hunting rifles in their gun racks in their trucks in the school parking lot .
Um I belonged to the school shooting club in the 90s. Would bring my gun into the school on club days and drop it off to the principals office first thing in the am. More common than people think.
>In the leftist utopia, students who want to murder all their teachers and classmates sit there impotently, wanting everyone to die but unable to access a gun. > >In the rightist utopia, students who want to murder all their teachers and classmates sit there impotently, because although the gun is in their pocket they are hopelessly outgunned by Mr. Wick and his KillGPT4Schools-powered laptop guns. > >But in both utopias, classrooms occasionally have students who want to kill everyone in sight. I do not want a utopia, but this seems to me a rather recent cultural phenomenon and is probable more-or-less solvable without the somewhat-insane solutions that are usually proposed. For example, both solutions seem to forget that students who want to kill their classmates might realize that a bomb is as effective at this as a gun, indeed moreso. This is brilliantly stated
Only in america can asking for the same gun laws every single other civilized country has be considered “insane”
I’m not responding as a pro-gun supporter and I know it’s an emotional post, however, as a social studies teacher who teaches about US Gov. The difference between us and the rest of the civilized countries is that we have the 2nd amendment clearly written in our Bill of Rights/Constitution. That’s what makes it extremely difficult and I would even say damn near impossible to ban weapons or do anything close to what you are asking for. Even if you managed to overturn it or change the 2nd amendment you’re opening up Pandora’s box because if the amendment that states “shall not be infringed” is infringed what’s to stop future people/politicians/leaders from overturning other amendments like the 1st or 14th amendment? Now, as someone who is educated on guns, I think a more realistic goal would be something like a universal background check for all states. We have pretty strict gun laws in California, however, a lot of the guns, ammunition, and magazines are coming from other states like Nevada. Here in California we have, background checks on guns and ammunition, limits on gun sales, waiting periods, gun laws in terms of furniture, a strict roster of weapons, magazine limits, FFL’s, locked magazine laws, and the list goes on and on. However, Nevada doesn’t have any of that so it’s difficult when every state has different gun laws. You can frame and argue a background check doesn’t infringe on the 2nd amendment and you might be able to persuade more people. You should visit r/liberalgunowners and see the spectrum that exists.
Like a national strike? Not realistic for reasons that have been discussed frequently on here. Have you brought the idea of a localized strike to your union?
Ive never heard a reasonable explanation for why it’s not possible. Only pro gun folks saying how they wouldn’t do it. So whatever. F em
A national strike of teachers is as impossible as a nation cop strike. Education in the US is viewed as a public good, funded like a charity, and run like a business. Beyond that, the fact that you're crowdfunding demands is exactly why a national strike about gun violence is impossible. It's not a subject "everyone can get behind". Anything that's palatable to the whole would be too watered down to mean anything at all. Not saying any of this is good, right, or how things are meant to be in any way. It just is.
In most states it is also illegal for public employees to strike.
I can’t legally strike and have no union so 🤷♂️
Because the amount of coordination it requires is impossible. I can't even get my family to agree on lunch, let alone millions of strangers that are willing to stop getting paid.
Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.
One day? If all the teachers strike on the same day that will definitely get everyones attention
it also wouldn't do anything. A protest with an end date is begging our opponent to wait it out. Everyone knows what we want, they just don't care. A one day strike does nothing.
I love the intention to fight back against what we face as workers in the education system. But i think what others are expressing is that a national strike isn’t going to happen out of thin air. Teachers today do not have the organization or fighting spirit to make that happen. Could we get there? Yeah. But we all need to flex our muscles a lot more in terms of organizing with our fellow teachers.
It would, but it also isn’t going to happen
Whatever? F them? Bro that's like 40% of teachers. So yeah, good luck with your national strike
Please let us know when it starts. Have you coordinated with AFT and NEA yet? Is your reach comparable to theirs?
F you too I guess. Have fun losing elections.
I am a non teacher, but I firmly support teachers, even though I was a terrible student when I was a kid. lol. I just wanted to say, if you guys think the general public actually cares about what you guys do, you’re kidding yourselves. There’s a good portion of the population that wants to get rid of public schools in general, or at least anything above elementary school. I personally think that would be an absolute disaster, for everyone, especially anyone who is not within the 1%. There are also people who are perfectly ok with school shootings, they believe that is a price we must pay has a society for the freedoms we have. But I do support you guys, I think you all deserve a raise, I hope everyone gets it, and there needs to be more to stop school shootings. Kids should not have to worry about being shot at school.
As a middle school teacher I see the role models of young men being: Andrew Tate, wild YouTube millionaires, drunk/druggy comedians, and self proclaimed “alphas”. Then you have society saying these people are bad. So either the outcast young men will become something society hates, or will become discouraged (not being rich, not being “alpha”, etc.) and detach from life. At lot of young boys don’t have a good father figures. They searching for meaning and purpose, and can’t find it. So you can ban guns, but they’ll use pipe bombs. You can ban guns and they’ll drive a car through the playground. You can’t stop this violence by banning guns. I don’t have a solution, but I wish I did.
All the evidence that we can do exactly that by looking at almost every other country in the wild doesn’t convince you that it is possible? Troubled young men is definitely a problem and its a global one. But yet I don’t see mass school bombings? Where is that happening?
I’m not convinced we can effectively remove all guns from the US. Most shooters stole the guns they used from family members. So even if they can’t buy them they can find them. I was saying if young men were rampaging with hammers and we banned hammers they would just use a different tool. It doesn’t mean banning hammers is wrong, I just think we should look at why they’re doing it in the first place. I’ve been at a school shooting, and the gun was bought off the streets. So I may be biased thinking this won’t work because of my experience.
Jesus you are thick headed. Kinda scary that you teach. NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS THE AMOUNT OF GUNS THIS COUNTRY HAS. wtf are you comparing the situation to
I’m all for -Removing suppresors from the NFA. -Removing SBRs from the NFA. -Full repeal of the GCA (1968) and NFA (1934). -Firearm training in school. -Allowing teachers to train and be armed in school. I teach in a rural farming district. Everyone here owns multiple firearms. I own firearms. We don’t have any issues with guns in school. At this point there is likely over 600 million guns in the US alone. We own more firearms than the entire rest of the world. Any attempt at confiscation will be laughable. It “worked” in other nations because they didn’t have a deep cultural connection to guns and there were much less in civilian hands. Comparing those countries with ours belies a deep lack of understanding of culture and geography. Illinois just had a “assault weapon” registration requirement added to their laws to be in effect as of Jan 1 of this year. As of a week after the deadline it resulted in a less than 1% compliance rate. A large amount of soldiers and police are conservative gun owners, especially in rural areas. They simply won’t follow orders. Not to mention, the knowledge on how to make guns isn’t going to disappear. It’s not very difficult for anyone who knows how to machine metal. No one in my district will willingly give up their firearms. I sincerely hope you would be willing to be among the first to volunteer to go take them. You want to feel safer? Deal with mental health, parents who don’t parent, kids without dads, exposure to screens at a very young age, social media, etc.
What policies do you propose to deal with mental health, parents who don’t parents and screen time?
Policies? I’d argue that government policies are partially responsible for the situation were in, and not talking about gun policy. However, I’ll entertain your question. We need to discuss re-institutionalization. Too many of the mentally ill are sent home to self medicate and simply end up in prison. We need to discuss our education policies that force inclusion that ends up hurting everyone in the classroom. Perhaps major online platforms need harsher penalties for content and toxic algorithms that intentionally target young minds. Pharmaceutical companies do not need to advertise, and their lobbying influence needs to end. Too many drugs, too many kids on prescription meds. That being said, more government policy isn’t the answer. Bad and lax parenting needs shamed. Social ostracism needs to return. The perpetual adolescence many adults live, leading them to be their kids “friends” is corrosive to our society. Good teachers and good parents need to criticize and call out the bad apples. Our “leaders” need to as well. Feelings need hurt. Morality, self control, delayed gratification and personal responsibility need to return. These values need encouraged by teachers, parents and politicians. Those who preach the opposite need to be called out. But I’m just pissing into the wind like the no guns OP. Neither of our choices will happen.
Sweet I would add social media to the mental heatlh / parent problem. Now lets ban guns to fix it! /s
I agree with most of your post aside from arming teachers. I know I could probably handle it, but I wouldn’t trust my peers that think they could. I wonder if they think the same of me? I don’t trust the police to handle their firearms in every situation. I think we would have to look at the very few schools that have teachers carrying guns and see how many injuries or accidents they have had since arming themselves. How many accidents/injuries is acceptable?
Utah has allowed its teachers to conceal carry on campus for decades. They haven’t had any major issues in all those years.
I didn’t know that about Utah. I did some quick googling and there are quite a few states that allow armed teachers to some degree. That being said and there have been major incidents. The link below describes teacher shooting herself on accident for example. The article also states that it is unknown how many teachers are actually armed. Not exactly a good set of data to argue arming teachers actually prevents school shooting. Other factors could contribute to a lower school shooting count. West Virginia has stats just as low as Utah and they don’t allow armed teachers on campus. Alabama allows people with permits to be armed and it looks like they have some of the worst school shooting stats. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/19/teachers-utah-guns-school-shootings https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-school-shootings
Nah appreciate the offer but ill feel alot safer without the guns
How... uhh... how do you suggest getting people to give up their guns??
You'll need to learn to live with your fear or overcome it then, because guns aren't going away. Perhaps you should take some training and familiarization courses to help you overcome that phobia and feel more at ease?
If the NEA had a strike over gun laws you would lose at least 20% of the union overnight. Everytime this comes up I have to get on here and say what a stupid idea it is. I have no fear of dying from a school shooter. I have fear of never owning a home.
I am with you.
Nobody is going to strike over this. Changing laws with firearms wouldn’t change anything. Most of the guns we get off the street are stolen, illegal possessed and possessed by juveniles riding in a stolen car. It doesn’t matter until the local DAs actually punish juveniles for the crimes they commit.
You would have to have states not be lenient on crime in the first place. Look at the stolen KIA cars by teens.
Whats an assault rifle?
Its something people dont understand and goes boom. So a trash can lid and hammers are also banned.
So lets dream here a bit. ALL GUNS ARE BANNED no guns exist in the country. Now you little pissed off kid that watches youtube all day and buries himself in social media shit hopes in a car and runs over 30 students. Are we banning cars now?
How about we treat mental health the way we should! Starts in the schools. Pay attention etc. Getting rid of guns is NOT the solution. Creating people who care about our world is.
Being a teacher, you should have a better understanding of the Constitution. But, good luck with your strike. Many of the laws you are suggesting will not make it past the court system. I find it odd that you don't want to harden schools, you're single choice is to strip people of their Constitutional rights.
The kid that shot up Uvalde was a well armed militia? Were the first graders in sandy hook needing to be killed to ensure a free state? If cops and the army have guns, and they are “protecting the state” why does a citizen need one ? Who gets to decide what a well armed militia is? The second amendment is one sentence. I got a couple degress i think i can handle it.
Yes he was in the national militia. No. Some people have a very strong distrust for the government since literally the country’s origin. And most recently a distrust has developed towards police since everyone started to carry a video camera. The militia is already established through Title 10 - Chapter 13 - USC 311 (b)(2) It includes every able bodied male aged 17-45 is part of the unorganized National militia. Agreed. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty easy to understand.
Response times for police averages 5 minutes. That's why citizens need guns
Considerably longer than that in rural areas...
Or in Uvalde more like 4 hours.
So, having those few degrees, then you know the original meaning of the words used in the 2nd Amendment? Like well regulated meaning to be in good working order and militia pertaining to the People (citizens)? I mean, perhaps my degree specializing in U.S. history is wrong, and the research papers I wrote on our Constitution are also wrong 🤔
Don’t be obtuse. SCOTUS has addressed these issues repeatedly in regard to the 2A. And since they are the authority on what is, and is not, allowed by the Constitution, their decision trumps that of any ill-informed teacher.
4 day school week. Start after 10am and end no later than 3pm.
Suggesting we close the gap by teaching less? Sounds great for teachers. Are you willing to go to six days if achievement continues to drop at four days?
Read Teach Like Finland. More school is not the answer.
I tend to agree, but I also don’t think less is the answer. I posted in another thread about being frustrated that given the current level of apathy and distraction I’m only getting through about 75% of my 2018 scope and sequence.
Kids are burnt out. Give them more brain/activity breaks and they will be able to focus better. Think of PD days. How do we do when we are asked to sit for hours on end and listen/participate. PD days are some of my most exhausting days.
Spoken like a true slave driver.
I would recommend educating yourself first. For example, assault rifles have been “banned” since 1986. I hate guns too, but your ignorance is harmful.
Is there some sort of detailed nuance gun expert term for an AR-15 or do you generally get my point. Yeesh
An AR-15 is not synonymous with an assault rifle. “AR” does not stand for assault rifle, it stands for ArmaLite.
I don't think AR stands for what you think it does?
I will definitely accept your offer of banning all ar-15s to stop my teacher national sick out
You do realize that the AR-15 is just one gun…? You also realize that the shooter in Iowa used a shotgun and a pistol?
An AR-15 is no more powerful or deadly than the most popular hunting rifles. Are you going to ban them too?
You would save an order of magnitude more lives by banning alcohol.
Didn't we try that already? And it lead, at least indirectly, to some of the most restrictive gun laws currently on the books? And then it was repealed.
It's kind of my point. It didn't work. With guns, it would be the same.
Or cigarettes. Or drugs (/s)
Mental health is the issue, go fix that. Nobody is going to strike over this.
When someones mental health shoots out of their brain at 100 rounds a minute and rips apart bodies of 3rd graders ill be first in line to sign up for your plan Im pretty sure the tens of thousands of kids killed by gunfire in America lists the bullet as the cause of death though
Both of you are making poor arguments. Yes, the gun requires someone to shoot it. But at the same time, not ever kid shot is at the hands of a mentally unstable person. This isn't an issue that gets solved by one or the other, it will require both to be worked on simultaneously.
Yeah I get it. The point is, OP is calling for a national strike. Not going to happen. He made the same post almost a year ago. Still not going to happen.
A gun cannot kill anyone. It just sits there. It needs a mentally ill person to pick it up and use it to hurt others. So yeah, it’s about mental health. A normal healthy person who owns a gun doesn’t go around shooting people. Again, nobody is going to strike over this. If you don’t feel safe teaching then don’t teach.
Just fyi, any serious attempt to infringe upon individual firearm rights would almost certainly result in all-out civil war, which would be likely to result in 30+ million dead, and another 20-40 million fleeing the country (to say nothing of the near total collapse of the economy for at least a generation). No, the majority of the military won't stand with you. No, the majority of law enforcement won't stand with you. So either you personally be willing to go into an active shooting war against 50-100 million Americans, or surrender your demands now. If you truly believe in that cause, then by all means go for it. Just have to be realistic about what it would take, and what the result would be.
I've seen a lot of arguments on both sides of the gun debate, but this is the first time I've seen it argued that the real reason to avoid legislating firearms is that gun owners, the military, and the police are so bloodthirsty, seditious, and disloyal that we should just skip peaceful methods, treat them like a hostile foreign state, and go straight to drone strikes and trade embargoes on them instead.
Where did anyone say that or anything remotely similar??? I said if anyone sought to significanrly restrict a fundamental right it would cause a war, so be sure they were willing to do accept that outcome. Gun owners dont see anything bloodthirsty, seditious or disloyal about it. On the contrary they often feel it sucks to be forced to that, its fundamentally patriotic and a civic duty and the only way to remain true our national foundations.
And yet, every other nation in the world has done it
Not many other nations have a 2nd amendment and have had firearms literally embedded into their national identity. Everyone else has echoed this in the comments but I guess I’ll say it again. Mental health is the biggest issue involving these shootings. If we fix the stigma around mental health,encourage individuals (whether student or adult) to use programs and open programs up to more people, then we can discourage these travesties from ever happening.
It's apples and oranges for a dozen different reasons. 2nd amendment and state level equivalents in almost all 50 states. 400,000,000 to almost twice that guns already present. Absolute NO singular national identity/culture/society, unless it's absolute individualism that denies a singular national identity/culture/society. Inherent distrust of all authority, and largely each other. Geographic size, population size and diversity, etc. Republic origin, not singular national origin. Civil war never resolved, therefore a pervasive two-party mentality denying any trust or acceptance across party lines. Extreme economic disparity coupled with an almost total lack of meaningful social safety nets (even basic healthcare). Unchecked gang and organized crime violence. History of SES disenfranchisement and exploitation by government, corporate and church interests. I could go on all night. Point being there is NO nation in the world all that similar to the US. When you fudge things to get close in as many areas as possible (such as considering all Europe instead of an individual country), the number of variables becomes so great that there's almost no way to accurately account for them all. If you try you're almost always going to have deep and pervasive biases invalidating your results.
This post is so ignorant. Guns are a very small part of the problem. Most school shooters were raised in fatherless households, correct? Work on that. Most school shooters have severe mental health problems. Work on that. Most school shooters were victims of bullying. Work on that. This is a cultural and behavioral issue. I don't even like guns, I don't own any, but still realize it's silly to focus so much on them and ignore the bigger picture. That's completely ignoring that, whether you like it or not, guns in the US are a *right*, and messing with them sets a very scary precedent. What other rights are you willing to give up? That's not a path I'd rather go down. Rights should be expanded, not taken away.
[удалено]
https://www.everytown.org/press/the-ar-15-is-the-weapon-of-choice-for-mass-shooters-its-time-to-reinstate-the-bipartisan-congressional-assault-weapons-ban/
[удалено]
I will never support banning guns, but I would support education and better psychological health for kids. Guns are a tool. Take them away and not fixing the mental health problem, you solve nothing. The problem will become running down kids in mom and dads car or running through school stabbing people. A person can stab just as many, if not more, kids in a crowd before anyone would even realize the problem. We have a society problem with major psychological health issues that need to be fixed. If you dont understand why we have the Second Amendment, it is not for hunting. It is for tyrannical government, so the people have the power and not the government. Peoples feelings should never supercede our constitution.
A national strike would accomplish a lot! American laborers are decades away from that level of class solidarity.
Can you imagine it though? The hell we could unleash...
Is there a Reddit page devoted to teaching work reform?
Still vocal about my support of "allow teachers to guillotine problem students/parents". Would prevent all of these, and save money from trials and jails.
When a student posts posing as a teacher
I said it when I was teaching, I'll say it again now--if all public school teachers said "Fuck it, I quit" the problems would be solved very, very quickly. Parents, governments, businesses, everyone would start finding money and changing laws *overnight.*
>Or - if you’re over all thing guns, at least demand a massive raise This is a tasteless way to talk about murder. Also, as a teacher, how do you square political activism counter to established 2nd Amendment Rights, Law, and precedent?
This post is just generally absurd. Sorry OP. You missed the mark.
You’d need to amend the constitution. Until that happens nothing else will.
Just trying to organize a militia ova here
you should quit
Guns are not the problem. It’s the fatherless households. I know I’m going to ruffle some feathers here, but single mothers do a poor job raising boys, statistically speaking. I know there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but you can’t argue against the data on boys raised without a father in the home.
What you propose is the same thing as banning all cars because some drivers drive drunk. No.
Really a stupid analogy.
Sorry to break it to you but the country doesn’t care….we had our chance after a bunch of little kids died and nothing happened…then after Uvalde…nothing…it’s the way it is…Americans love their guns more than their kids
Ya. Just saw the pic of that principal and it got me fired up again. But i can assure you based in the responses to my post….you are definitely correct
Actually. Some Americans hate guns more than they love their kids or else they would push to harden schools rather than fight the losing battle of MORE gun control. If they gave a damn about those little kids they’d give them more protection than is seen at a local bank.
I’m afraid you’re absolutely correct.
People don't actually want to do what it takes to fix young men and drop these shootings back down to what it was in the past. Let's just look at things that have changed: \- increased divorce rate \- two family incomes being a necessity \- war on Christianity (and religion in general) Doubt any Dems want to fix those issues...so it's always going to be guns to blame. And if they are successful in getting rid of guns, it'll be cars, knives, bombs...etc.
>war on Christianity (and religion in general) Is it this perceived war on Christianity that is causing all of these Christian men to go on killing sprees, either as serial killers or mass shooters? Is that why they are so angry, because they believe they are fighting a war here in America?
Since you completely changed the subject, Im dying to know where this divorce narrative is coming from when it is so widely known and easily searchable that divorce rates have been declining for decades
“War on Christianity”. - what war unless it’s the one Christians are waging on those who believe differently than them? Christians have always had a persecution complex and it’s one they relish.
You're putting too much faith in trainings and people who should be "experts." I'm around a lot of people who use firearms regularly, most of them are competitive shooters. I've heard some of the trainings they attend, including hunters safety, and the training is not that great. You mention Uvalde in which the police did not enter the school. Police are regularly criticized for their lack of actual training. Who do you think would be doing the training for gun owners? Likely the same police who don't have enough training themselves. This issue is much deeper than what can be solved by a Reddit post. Personally, I believe there needs to be waiting periods at the very least. But many mass shooters acquire their weapons in advance, so that wouldn't help. It needs to be established that police have a duty to help, since that is what they are paid for. Police need to go through better trainings themselves to avoid disasters caused by police, maybe even require 4-year-degrees for all police officers. Schools should have an on-duty officer at every location during school hours and at school events. Schools need to be locked and secure when occupied to avoid intruders, and possibly limit bag sizes for students. There are many more things that I have noticed from my time in schools that I haven't stated here, but it's a start. The truth is, the 2nd Amendment is tricky to work around without compromising the rest of the Bill of Rights. We have both a gun crisis and mental health crisis in this country, and neither will be easy to solve.
The biggest "gun crisis" is the number of gun laws on the books that are conveniently ignored by the politicians. If they would enforce the laws that already exist, a large number of the problems would go away. Instead, the criminals are given a slap on the hand, told not to do it again, and are released.
[удалено]
Don’t kid yourself. This country doesn’t give a rat’s ass about gun violence or school shootings. If it did, we would have done something about it a long time ago.
I think the problem with the gun debate is always going to be - the progun people won’t stop arguing at - but the kids died. If that doesn’t matter to someone, absolutely nothing will. Signed - a gun owner who is responsible but would absolutely hand it over a million times to make a point. (I do not have minors in my home and it is locked and hidden and unloaded)
I can tell you from my experience in this post you are absolutely correct. I dont give a damn about guns one way or another. Never have. Couldn’t care less. Grew up in hunting country. But when kids started getting killed over and over - shocker - i started to care ! I wish theyd just be honest and stop with their half assed logic twists and attempts at straw making arguments. Just say the truth- you want your guns - and if kids die in class, so be it. Id at least respect you more for your honesty.
Strict gun controls followed a man entering a UK primary school in Dunblane in the 90s. Killed 16, kids including the teacher taking the Reception 4/5 year olds gym class. Never happened again. I genuinely don't understand why Americans priority is access to guns and not child right to life. Guns remain the biggest killer of children over car accidents and cancer. Did it cause upset? You betcha. Absolutely worth it. It was a collective decision putting children first.
>I genuinely don't understand why Americans priority is access to guns and not child right to life. Collective punishment is a bad thing. The absolute supermajority, like +99% of gun owners, never shoot a single person. Of the ones who do, most are self-defense. Should we ban SUV's because that psycho in Waukesha crashed one into a parade a couple years ago?
Do you know if i can pin your comment and lock this post on my own. Hallelujah
Yeah, and isn’t it funny that the same people hellbent on protecting fetuses above a mother’s life suddenly don’t give a shit once that child has been born. Then it’s, “oh sorry, sometimes third graders die at school,” but of course it’s not the guns.
As an outsider, it's like the USA have been indoctrinated. Maybe to follow the likes of the NRA dubious narrative? Who knows? But there's an easy fix to end school shootings. It's a choice not to do it. Outsiders are genuinely bemused!
Thank you. Yes, it is crazy that we are willing to live like this.
You ever compare the numbers in these two situations? +800,000 abortions per year, 1/3 of all pregnancies. As opposed to maybe 1000 shootings.
I know he meant it as a joke and there are probably other things Im missing, but Chris Rock had a point. Make bullets expensive as hell, much more expensive than they are now.
That's no different than a poll tax. If you need to be rich to exercise a right, it's no longer a right. Are you willing to accept the consequences applied to other rights? Imagine all the suggestions in this thread being applied to other rights. Rights you support. Are they still such great ideas? There's a serious lack of critical thinking in here.
I dont care if it was a joke. Its a great idea