BBC news link - copy and past -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43066226

quote -

"At least 17 people are dead after a 19-year-old man opened fire at a high school campus in Parkland, Florida, police have said.
The suspect has been named as Nikolas Cruz, 19, and is a former student at the school who had been expelled.
As the attack unfolded students were forced to hide as police swooped in on the building.
It is one of the deadliest school shootings since 26 people were killed at a Connecticut school in 2012".

This is so terrify. 17 people killed by 19 y.o man

It's the 18th shooting this year of 2018.

for the United States

Stop mourning them there is nothing we can do for the dead or their mourning familes
We need to come up with a way to prevent this kind of thing on the future

The sign on the school door says "no weapons past this point" or something similar, so the most dangerous thing you'll find is probably a pocket knife therefore there is nothing for a student or teacher to retaliate with

My point is arm and instruct treachers to use firearms if they match a certain mental profile

Or hire joblesd veterans and give them two jobs
Job 1:Normal school job
Job 2:If anything every occurs unlock the gun case in your quarters and protect students and staff

-7
Have you ever considered the fact that arming teachers could worsen the problem? I understand that you're saying the ones with a certain mental profile but things can happen to people that can make them go crazy. As a high school student, I can say that I would NOT feel comfortable knowing that my teachers are carrying firearms. That would make me feel more unsafe than I already do at school.

Unfortunately, when I heard about this event, I (and probably a lot of people) thought to my self, "It's just another school shooting". And I know that sounds messed up but mass shootings are becoming some kind of sick social norm that most people are numb to. I personally think that the problem isn't the lack of defense that students and staff have against the attacker, but the amount of publicity that mass/school shootings receive. Studies have shown that mass shooters do what the do for attention, and they receive their attention from the news and all of the people sharing their posts. If we were to stop publicizing mass shootings so much, not only would it STOP giving them what they are looking for, it would also stop making it seem like a thing to do. Every day when I walk on campus I think to my self, "I hope my school doesn't get shot up today!". Since Sandy Hook, there's been an average of one school shooting a week, and that number is rapidly increasing.

I don't even know why he did it anyways. Why would you shoot up a school just because you got expelled? When they showed the video and audio clip of the shooting when the student was recording also, it felt like a dream and deja vu to me which was very weird. Hopefully, the chance of school shootings will die down soon.

>>7
The schools are underpaying theuir teachers due to the lack of funds and you want them to spare some money to hire bodyguards? Might as well abolish the general education and train the students to use firearms instead.
And if someone suddenly opens fire in a criwded place, how do you know which one to shoot? It’s not like the gunman will yell “Here I am! Shoot me!” Why do you think the kid in the news were able to escape from the scene and only got caught an hour later? Because people are confused and they don’t know who to look for. So if you arm the teachers, they’d have guns but since they don’t know who to shoot, those guns might as well be decorations.

And to quote your president, shootings ‘apparently’ happen because people are ‘mentally ill’. Do you know that A LOT of teachers can be considered mentally ill? And you want to arm them? Good luck convincing people.

Thank you for continuing this debate I thought it hit a dead end

Back to the discussion though, in areas where teachers fear the Taliban assaulting students, teachers are commonly armed the point is that it is not that the teachers have to fire the gun or hit an assailant but it is that they now pose a threat to the assailant

A perfect example you are locked in a room with a weapon of some sort, all you have to do to escaped is open one of the two doors and kill the spider inside.

Door 1:Small and fast
Door 2:Small, fast, and venomous

The point I'm trying to make is that one of the two has a higher likelihood of leading to death or harm to the attacker, therefore they will go for the weakest and easiest to deal with if it is a necessity

Okay, this is coming from someone who lives in a third world country, but do you know what you guys need? Gun control. Seriously. It fucking works.

School shootings are sinking into America's culture. It's a catch-22. Shootings have to get coverage so a deadly tragic event isn't swept under the rug and to keep schools hyperaware, but at the same time the coverage, like :[ said, makes shootings seem like a good idea for twisted people.
And this probably goes even further since our country's leaders (cough cough the president) are blaming this shit on the "mentally ill" instead of the easy accessibility of guns.

Giving guns to teachers is NOT a good idea. They have enough on their plates already, why should they have to worry about the ramifications, training, moral issues, possible theft, carrying it, being prepared to lay their lives down for their students? It's a lot to expect. I did read a little about the use of "soft cops," retired law enforcement agents who stay in the school and get to know everyone, as Truth suggested.

>>12
The US is a warmonger, but it’s not a war-torn country. People are used to peace unlike areas where Taliban is active. Even if you arm the teachers, do they have enough resolve to gun down someone before they are shot? Even then, how are you gonna find the time and budget to train the teachers?

Furthermore, in the case of Taliban, the attackers are most likely to be adults who have no business being within the school grounds, and therefore easily identifiable. That gives time for the teachers to ready themselves and pinpoint the target. If the shooter is among the hundreds of students they teach, how are they going to know?

>>7

As an American myself, I honestly don't think that'll do any good.

1)Teachers have enough to deal with. But if we arm them they'd have to go through training on top of all the other stuff they have to do? Besides what if a teacher just cannot bring themselves to carry a gun? Or shoot someone? Besides as >>8 mentioned, if anything that would make me feel more unsafe. Especially since I knew a few teachers with really, really bad tempers.

2)Even if they did have guns, from my experience teachers don't know what's going on half the time anyway. At my school alone we had 2 lock downs and one bomb threat and every single time the teachers where just as confused as the students. The teachers didn't even know why something was happening until after it happened.

3)My school and just about every school I've seen (not saying that's every school in the states though) have police officer's stationed at the school. These people are trained, and are there for this reason. Yet shooting keep happening. So how are teachers going to do what the police can't?

*Trump endorses guns for teachers to stop shootings*

BBC new - copy and past -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43149694

Quote -
"US President Donald Trump has said arming teachers could prevent school shootings like that which left 17 people dead last week in Florida.
A staff member with a gun could end an attack "very quickly", he said.
Mr Trump floated the proposal - long-championed by the powerful NRA gun lobby - as emotional survivors of the 14 February massacre urged him to take measures to stop similar attacks."

but what would happen if another school shooting happens and it's not a kid but the teacher who does the damage

Motive of the teacher: What if the teacher is in a bad mood and a kid pisses off the teacher and all a teacher gotta do is blame the student for "self defense"

There are a lot of issues in that law because it can cause chaos between parents since they wouldn't let there son or daughter near a weapon that kill without proper training. And besides what protection would a teacher give a student, in the heat of the moment the teacher might just protect itself.

Maybe they should just do something easy like...Set up smart Metal Detectors made in a way they can identify a gun or gun part,or a bladed weapon by the shape detected.

>>20
Who’s gonna pay for that fancy metal detector?

Gun control is the answer.
Not getting even more guns by arming teachers.
I live in Sweden where we have VERY strict laws around guns and we haven’t had a school shooting since 1961 where one victim died.

>>21
Honestly thats a dumb question,it's cheaper and more effective to buy than paying a guard constantly...granted a good guard never hurts.the one they had in this incident was a stain to the profession for not doing anything at all.

Also...a detector wouldn't cost that much...Honestly the programming would be the hardest part and all you have to do is get someone that knows what they are doing...betting someone on 4Chan could program one even.

>>22
While in your country that would work very well I might add,in this one the second amendment of our constitution kinda means every third household has a weapon,the right to bear arms was so people could protect themselves FROM the government should it ever turn into something bad like an Authoritarian or Dictatorship... 50 years ago they didn't have the problems of mass shooting in achools and guns were just as common then. The problem is they've taken both faith(pick your religion) and morals out of society.Parents these days don't try to instill lessons into their children so they don't make the same mistakes.Parents these days simply try their best to get the kid out of their house once their legal age. Frankly,the generations these days act like trash and their education is just as bad.

Ugh...promised myself I wouldn't get into a debate and now I've typed this hot mess...

Well,got my sun screen..bring on the flame war I've likely triggered.

>>21
Dumb? Cheaper?
Use your brain idiot.
A school has multiple entrances so if you want metal detectors, you’d have to set it up in several places and PAY THE STAFF who guards over it. A shooter’s not gonna care about some alarm bells once he storms in and start shooting people.

If you’re just gonna put one metal detector in the main gate, it’s gonna create a foot traffic bottleneck. So you’d have to set up at least a few. Not to mention the. maintenance cost and repair cost once they start getting vandalized.

>>24
Forgot to mention this.
If a school has an extra budget of several thousand dollars to splurge on useless metal detectors, I’d demand a pay raise for the teachers and better class equipments.

Can someone explain to me why semi-automatics, bump stocks, and extended magazines are still legal? And also why on Earth would one need such terrifying mass-murdering potential for anything but mass-murder?

Personally, I just think we should have a better control over guns and such. Though that won't stop these crimes entirely, it might help to make it more of a rare thing.

Most older dollars ie members 7+ years in the community own guns and taking guns from people using them for good won’t help hahah

The kid was actually 18 - and a student of the school the kid was also using a gun not registered with the nra meaning it was ether baught illegally or made and sold by an illegal personal producer the thing we need to figure out is why kids are shooting school s pre 1950 there was not a single shooting and schools let students carry guns up till the 1960s now that we have disarmed the schools shootings happen

I think that if we increased the number of guns and the ease to get them that thing like these would decrease large scale gun related incidents would decline

What I mean by this is if you look at the nationwide average 51 out of 1,000 people have a concealed carry permit

I'm sure you all remember the story of the church being shot up as a civilian retaliated with his rifle no doubt decreasing casualties meaning that the chance that someone who could fight back and had the courage to do so was astronomically low but if the number of firearms distributed to capable hands would increase likelihood of someone intervening in a tragic gun related incidents

There’s nothing to back up that claim. Even if large incidents do end up decreasing, what about the small ones? Numerous studies have shown the positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide by guns. The more gun owners there are in the area, the more gun homicides there are.

And you keep talking about increasing the number of guns, but who would carry them? Shoukd every teacher and store employee be armed now? Doesn’t matter how many guns there are, if these ‘good guys with guns’ are never around when shootings happen, it’s bull. As I’ve mentioned earlier in relation to school shooting, arming teachers are impractical. Given these considerations, gun control seem to be the most practical solution unless you have a better idea. No ifs and analogies. Concrete plans.

Neko I think your missing the bigger picture which is If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. Now that doesn't mean I disagree with you, gun control would work but only in a perfect world and if that were the case we wouldn't need to consider gun control. However even as much as I've preached about less laws and more guns, I still know that there are limits to what someone needs for protection or hunting. There is almost no reason for someone to buy an RPG or a dozen grenades.

That being said most gun crimes are committed with handguns and states with the highest gun laws have the highest rate of firearm homicide meaning that criminals will get guns while law abiding citizens are prevented to by laws meant specifically to protect them

However I would like to apologize as you said I have only proposed ifs and pieces of sentiment and have not proposed any immediate solution

Then again considering the vastness of the problem at hand there may not be any immediate solution, of course there will be ways to reduce casualties but it is inevitable that someone somewhere will make guns and sell guns this could be from overseas or in your neighbor's garage the fact of the matter is with modern day technology almost anyone could make a gun and quite cheaply at that

You have to keep in mind the additional costs for the Government in order to ensure that the new laws were properly followed, not only by standard citizens, but also by illegal gun markets with the latter being immensely difficult to control. And because of how the US is, there's a million different ways to smuggle something into the country that's a lot harder to find then a gun. Look to the cartel, they've been doing it for years.

Plus, you have to keep in mind the checks and balances involved with American Lawmaking in regards to the constitution. Yes, it can be amended and that might work, however that is a massive move that has very obvious divisions on. It doesn't take a genius to see these lines. But even still, there are ways, if you put experienced minds together, of overcoming the majority of these incidents and both reducing the likelihood they will occur as well as limiting their impact. It may not stop them completely, but it can definitely lighten the outcome.

Looks like my comments seemed a bit heated :/
Apologies.

Gun control doesn’t equal outlawing guns though. It can just be reducing the number of guns in the distribution bit by bit. If not guns, then the ammo. Then again, the public most likely won’t approve this idea.
The idea that ‘only bad guys will have guns if we impose gun control’ is simply silly. If you’re a law abiding citizen, you are more likely to depend on armed policemen more than the guns you have stored under the bed anyway.

And yes, violent crimes might escalate the first few decades after gun control, but if you keep destroying the guns in circulation, it will most likely subside afterwards. But with the cultural problems and policy makers changing every few years, I really doubt that the US have enough patience or guts to try this move. In the end there’s simply way too many firearms in the distribution to do anything substantial.

No, Neko that is a terrible idea and what you stated is the end game of banning guns. That is a horrible idea as there are people who actually enjoy firearms. Plus since when is it ok to cherry pick parts of the bill of rights cause you dont like it. Its all or none and no more. The bill of rights is there for a reason and no government would start becoming tyrannical until the general populous is disarmed. I carry a firearm as im licensed as when seconds matter the police are minutes away.

Cherry picking the bills is what everyone do all the time since they are similar to the bible when it comes to ambiguities.

‘no government would start becoming tyrannical until the general populace is disarmed’
What age do you live in? Tyranny is not limited to weaponry. There are economic policies, immigration policies, etc. that can’t be solved with guns. What good will hunting rifles do when the government starts rising the price of water and electeicity by threefold?

Guns are made to kill things, so if people are using guns to kill stuff for entertainment that's already kind of a bad thing. I understand that for hunting it can be a cultural thing or for survival, and guns can be used for self-defense, but neither of those situations requires semi-automatic rifles, much less a gun with bump stocks. Semi-automatic guns just shouldn't be allowed to the general public.

Guns like any other tool are used for what the person behind it does. Guns can be used for offense and defense so dont give my that bs that they are only for hunting. Gun deaths are not in the top 10 of fatalities in the US. For one i have no need for a fake gun in my collection as that would just be a paper weight. The bill of rights is just that and its all or none. take it or leave it but if applying draconian ideals saying the 2nd is outdated then the 1st does not apply to the internet or cell phones.

Etsuna can you tell me what a bump stock does without googling it?

In all seriousness this is a very important matter and discussing it like this allows us to speak in complete and blunt honesty.

To Truth, a bump stock moves in and out to reduce recoil making repetive shots easier to keep on target. If I'm not mistaken this Florida shooting had nothing to do with one since he had none, but the Vegas shooting was so recent with one people want to do something and bump stocks an easy target to ban since everything else is so divided on the stance of guns.

States like Texas have some of the most leniant gun laws and least gun crimes because of it. There are guns everywhere here and stopping law abiding citizens from having won't stop criminals and malicious people having them. It'll only stop regular citizens from defending themselves

Legion I feel like you and I share many opinions, however that question was meant for Etsuna because of comment 42

*SLASHER IS LURKING THE IKEBUKURO NEIGHBOURHOOD*

Albeit inadvertently slasher has brought up a good point, that being that edged weapons can cause massive amounts of damage in the right hands. While they didn't say this directly it is implied by their name.

Also Neko as to comment 39 no apologies are needed you are standing for what you believe and that is an admirable quality however your sentiment is appreciated