This topic has been locked by a moderator.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
The blue elephant in the room.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
+1
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain. Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
The blue elephant in the room.
determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
Which is why it’s not enough to just call this a “mental health” problem.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Lol goodbye Hope Hicks.
Also, Dick’s Sporting Goods is ending their sales of “assault-style” weapons.
determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
Which is why it’s not enough to just call this a “mental health” problem.
It shows the insufficiency of the existing structure to address mental health issues. So you change that structure. And you focus on helping troubled students if they’re not necessarily prone to violence.
At least you have Trump in your corner, for now.
The blue elephant in the room.
determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
Which is why it’s not enough to just call this a “mental health” problem.
It shows the insufficiency of the existing structure to address mental health issues. So you change that structure. And you focus on helping troubled students if they’re not necessarily prone to violence.
And you stop selling these kinds of guns to people. Any people.
At least you have Trump in your corner, for now.
Hahahahaha. Trump lives in a circle.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
The blue elephant in the room.
determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
Which is why it’s not enough to just call this a “mental health” problem.
It shows the insufficiency of the existing structure to address mental health issues. So you change that structure. And you focus on helping troubled students if they’re not necessarily prone to violence.
And you stop selling these kinds of guns to people. Any people.
By “these kinds of guns” you mean semiautomatic rifles? Not handguns, as the teacher had?
The blue elephant in the room.
I didn’t really pay attention to the specifics of the current case, guilty as charged. I was talking about the Parkland shooting.
I’d prefer that yes, we ban citizens from buying any gun. But I’m a realist. I’d settle for semi-auto rifles. Which also won’t happen. But I can wish.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment. Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.
The blue elephant in the room.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.
Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.
And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.
We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.
As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.
I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.
determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
Which is why it’s not enough to just call this a “mental health” problem.
It shows the insufficiency of the existing structure to address mental health issues. So you change that structure. And you focus on helping troubled students if they’re not necessarily prone to violence.
And you stop selling these kinds of guns to people. Any people.
Can’t you understand that stopping human beings from doing bad things, is much easier than introducing a few sensible regulations to reduce the risk if they do. Perhaps somebody should just tell these people to behave themselves from now on? I bet nobody has thought of trying that.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.
As TM2YC suggests, we can’t stop bad things from happening. I don’t recall hearing a story about a teacher bringing a gun to school and shooting a student. That would be weird if such a thing were vanishingly rare even with the ready access to guns.
Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.
And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.
The question is how you do that without violating law abiding people’s rights.
We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.
As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.
I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.
I don’t think there’s any justification for the handgun in the classroom. As to whether the teacher should own one (assuming he legally owns/is licensed), we need to know more. Setting the 2nd Amendment aside, requiring people to provide justification for firearm ownership runs headlong into due process and equal protection issues. I’m not sure how that shakes out but it’s a legal issue that would need to be addressed.
The blue elephant in the room.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.
As TM2YC suggests, we can’t stop bad things from happening. I don’t recall hearing a story about a teacher bringing a gun to school and shooting a student. That would be weird if such a thing were vanishingly rare even with the ready access to guns.
Sure, but if you can get rid of a rare but bad thing without downsides, I say go for it.
Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.
And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.
The question is how you do that without violating law abiding people’s rights.
You’re not law-abiding if you still have a gun after it’s been made illegal. Circular, yes, but all laws are like this. Law-abiding murderers became criminals when murder was outlawed, unless they stopped doing it.
We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.
As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.
I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.
I don’t think there’s any justification for the handgun in the classroom. As to whether the teacher should own one (assuming he legally owns/is licensed), we need to know more. Setting the 2nd Amendment aside, requiring people to provide justification for firearm ownership runs headlong into due process and equal protection issues. I’m not sure how that shakes out but it’s a legal issue that would need to be addressed.
I ran the due process/equal protection argument past the DMV but they still wouldn’t give me a license until I passed the test – and a car actually serves a practical purpose in addition to being a deadly weapon.
Mrebo said:
I don’t recall hearing a story about a teacher bringing a gun to school and shooting a student. That would be weird if such a thing were vanishingly rare even with the ready access to guns.
Any subset of people would be rare… except the “owns lots of really powerful guns” set (That’s all of them).
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.
As TM2YC suggests, we can’t stop bad things from happening. I don’t recall hearing a story about a teacher bringing a gun to school and shooting a student. That would be weird if such a thing were vanishingly rare even with the ready access to guns.
Sure, but if you can get rid of a rare but bad thing without downsides, I say go for it.
Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.
And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.
The question is how you do that without violating law abiding people’s rights.
You’re not law-abiding if you still have a gun after it’s been made illegal. Circular, yes, but all laws are like this. Law-abiding murderers became criminals when murder was outlawed, unless they stopped doing it.
We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.
As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.
I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.
I don’t think there’s any justification for the handgun in the classroom. As to whether the teacher should own one (assuming he legally owns/is licensed), we need to know more. Setting the 2nd Amendment aside, requiring people to provide justification for firearm ownership runs headlong into due process and equal protection issues. I’m not sure how that shakes out but it’s a legal issue that would need to be addressed.
I ran the due process/equal protection argument past the DMV but they still wouldn’t give me a license until I passed the test.
A test may pass master. But if instead there’s a “good enough reason” standard (or as Australia says, a “genuine reason”), then we may run into issues. Consider if you needed to demonstrate a “genuine reason” to obtain a driver’s license and DMV bureaucrat decided your reason wasn’t lacking. In that situation I think there’s a good case for a due process violation.
The blue elephant in the room.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.
As TM2YC suggests, we can’t stop bad things from happening. I don’t recall hearing a story about a teacher bringing a gun to school and shooting a student. That would be weird if such a thing were vanishingly rare even with the ready access to guns.
Sure, but if you can get rid of a rare but bad thing without downsides, I say go for it.
Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.
And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.
The question is how you do that without violating law abiding people’s rights.
You’re not law-abiding if you still have a gun after it’s been made illegal. Circular, yes, but all laws are like this. Law-abiding murderers became criminals when murder was outlawed, unless they stopped doing it.
We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.
As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.
I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.
I don’t think there’s any justification for the handgun in the classroom. As to whether the teacher should own one (assuming he legally owns/is licensed), we need to know more. Setting the 2nd Amendment aside, requiring people to provide justification for firearm ownership runs headlong into due process and equal protection issues. I’m not sure how that shakes out but it’s a legal issue that would need to be addressed.
I ran the due process/equal protection argument past the DMV but they still wouldn’t give me a license until I passed the test.
A test may pass master. But if instead there’s a “good enough reason” standard (or as Australia says, a “genuine reason”), then we may run into issues. Consider if you needed to demonstrate a “genuine reason” to obtain a driver’s license and DMV bureaucrat decided your reason wasn’t lacking. In that situation I think there’s a good case for a due process violation.
The Constitution already specifies a “genuine reason” – being a member of your state’s well-regulated militia, a.k.a. the National Guard. But I don’t mind expanding the explicit Constitutional mandate to cover additional Constitutionally unspecified reasons, such as hunting and varmint control, though. Because I recognize guns do have practical value, in these specific capacities. But if the courts say we can’t add these additional reasons to the constitutional one because of due process or whatever, I suppose we could live pretty easily without them.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
My question is, are we sufficiently confident in our ability to vet the hundreds of thousands of teachers across the country, that we think kids would actually be safer when we allow the teachers to voluntarily carry guns into the classroom? I am not that confident. Rather, I believe that the likely outcome is that while there might be fewer mass shootings by intruders (although I am not even sure about that), it would be offset by a greater number of shooting incidents involving the teachers’ firearms.
Also, people can become crazy over time. We’ve all seen incidences of people starting out fine, and slipping gradually into mental issues. This “vetting” would have to be done constantly.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
My question is, are we sufficiently confident in our ability to vet the hundreds of thousands of teachers across the country, that we think kids would actually be safer when we allow the teachers to voluntarily carry guns into the classroom? I am not that confident. Rather, I believe that the likely outcome is that while there might be fewer mass shootings by intruders (although I am not even sure about that), it would be offset by a greater number of shooting incidents involving the teachers’ firearms.
Also, people can become crazy over time. We’ve all seen incidences of people starting out fine, and slipping gradually into mental issues. This “vetting” would have to be done constantly.
I think there might be confusion: I think armed teachers is a bad idea.
The blue elephant in the room.