Gun Control

[rawhide]

Where did it say that the teachers/employees in that school district would rather have a pay raise than receive firearms training?

 

Or that they were doing this in lieu of better pay/benefits?

 

Granted, most everyone wants a raise; but maybe these teachers feel the program increases the security provided for the students. IDK

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Arming teachers, in my opinion, is a bit of an overreaction.

 

For the armed teacher to be any bit effective in the case of a school shooting taking place, he/she needs to have the gun on him/her at all times. What good does a gun do the teacher if it's in his/her desk and the armed shooter comes into their room. Certainly he/she isn't going to make a dash for it--if he/she does, they'll more than likely be shot and potentially killed. What about an early warning system? Excellent point. But that early warning system is more than likely going to be the first gun shot itself, at which point somebody is already injured or killed. There is going to have to be for lack of better term "acceptable" amount of lives lost in instances such as school shootings. There is really no way to save everyone.

 

So the question turns to best minimizing the acceptable lives lost. And you can certainly do that by arming teachers. It makes sense that a person is less likely to attack a room of armed people versus a room of unarmed people. Or does it? Chances are, the shooter is so psychologically disturbed that he or she doesn't really care about the "armed" status of his/her potential victims. So that argument by the NRA/others is fallacious at best. The death toll will be less, because somebody who is armed will likely shoot back at the shooter, ending his reign of terror; but not because the shooter, in his mind, is going to think, "maybe I shouldn't attack those people."

 

But here's where the effectiveness of arming teachers really needs to be evaluated. The mere presence of a weapon has a tremendous psychological effect, even on a person who's mind is fully developed. That effect is magnified numerous times on children. What needs to be researched (yes NRA, I'm looking at you), is the effect that having an armed teacher has on learning. If it is detrimental in any way to learning, then given the frequency with which school shootings occur, maybe it's not a good idea after all. If the opposite is true, then by all means, arm them.

 

Of course, that won't get anywhere because the NRA is so scared of people doing any research related to gun use, because it might violate the Holy Grail of Constitutional Amendments, the 2nd Amendment.

[rawhide]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.single.html

 

That was not a NRA funded study. #4 & #7

[walksalone]

[The Dude]

http://www.washingto...ns-or-move-out/

 

Colorado renters told to toss guns or move out

[Junior]

http://www.washingto...ns-or-move-out/

 

Colorado renters told to toss guns or move out

 

 

I see no issue. Some landlords won't let you have dogs or smoke. Some won't let you have guns.

[carlfense]

I see no issue. Some landlords won't let you have dogs or smoke. Some won't let you have guns.

but . . . GUNS! The boycotts and protests are coming. This guy hates freedom.

[The Dude]

http://www.washingto...ns-or-move-out/

 

Colorado renters told to toss guns or move out

 

 

I see no issue. Some landlords won't let you have dogs or smoke. Some won't let you have guns.

I didn't realize those where constitutionally protected rights.

[StPaulHusker]

http://www.washingto...ns-or-move-out/

 

Colorado renters told to toss guns or move out

 

 

I see no issue. Some landlords won't let you have dogs or smoke. Some won't let you have guns.

I didn't realize those where constitutionally protected rights.

 

And they would be if the renter OWNED the house. But since somebody else does, they make the rules.

[Junior]

http://www.washingto...ns-or-move-out/

 

Colorado renters told to toss guns or move out

 

 

I see no issue. Some landlords won't let you have dogs or smoke. Some won't let you have guns.

I didn't realize those where constitutionally protected rights.

 

Constitutionally protected rights are not absolute. For example, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You cannot walk into the Gap and protest about their sweatshops in Maylasia, you'll be removed. This is no different.

[StPaulHusker]

http://www.washingto...ns-or-move-out/

 

Colorado renters told to toss guns or move out

 

 

I see no issue. Some landlords won't let you have dogs or smoke. Some won't let you have guns.

I didn't realize those where constitutionally protected rights.

 

And they would be if the renter OWNED the house. But since somebody else does, they make the rules. Plus they aren't telling the renter they can't own a gun. They are telling them they can't store it in the house they are renting.

[The Dude]

http://www.washingto...ns-or-move-out/

 

Colorado renters told to toss guns or move out

 

 

I see no issue. Some landlords won't let you have dogs or smoke. Some won't let you have guns.

I didn't realize those where constitutionally protected rights.

 

Constitutionally protected rights are not absolute. For example, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You cannot walk into the Gap and protest about their sweatshops in Maylasia, you'll be removed. This is no different.

Reckless endangerment and disturbing the peace are illegal.

 

I always assumed having a right to bear arms would include keeping them in your place of residence. I'd never considered the right applies exclusively to home owners.

[EbylHusker]

If it's in the lease that you can't maintain firearms in the residence, and you signed it, then you have no way to fight it except violating the lease. I believe some states do not allow a "no guns" clause into some rental property leases, but that's a state issue, not a federal one. Your constitutional right to bear arms also does not extend to entering a shop that clearly prohibits you from carrying firearms, federal buildings, universities, blah blah blah. While none of these are instances of a home, you are still leasing another person's private property. You do not own it. Read the lease carefully.

 

Edit - And after reading the article, it sounds like it's a new rule being imposed on already existing leases (but the article is actually vague there). If that's the case, it still comes down to the wording of the lease about implementing new rules. Even though the lessee actually has a lot of "private property" rights regarding their unit, chances are slim a court would side with them. And most people are not going to pay for a lawyer anyway, especially in an apartment complex like that. End result? Really nothng you can do anyway.

[The Dude]

I appreciate the well-reasoned and mature response, EblyHusker.

[carlfense]

http://www.washingto...ns-or-move-out/

 

Colorado renters told to toss guns or move out

 

 

I see no issue. Some landlords won't let you have dogs or smoke. Some won't let you have guns.

I didn't realize those where constitutionally protected rights.

Constitutionally protected rights are not absolute. For example, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You cannot walk into the Gap and protest about their sweatshops in Maylasia, you'll be removed. This is no different.

Not to mention that the constitution protects you from government action . . . and not action by a private landlord/employer/etc. (Absent certain things like FHA, ADA, etc.)