Bamaro said:

An armed teacher would have done a much better job.

Click to expand...

Instead of worrying about the political talk being used why not focus on a deputy not doing his job? At least in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RTR91 said:

Instead of worrying about the political talk being used why not focus on a deputy not doing his job? At least in this thread.

Click to expand...

That was my point

RTR91 said:

Instead of worrying about the political talk being used why not focus on a deputy not doing his job? At least in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Thank you!

As usual.......one of the reasons we don't get anywhere in trying to figure out how to make improvements on the best protocol in these incidents is too many want to politicize things.

And it's both sides --- and even those who aren't on one side or the other! And it includes the president to some degree for all those who think I side with everything he does. I do not.

Makes you want to just throw your hands up and walk away......

It gets worse.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201636649.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bazza said:

And it includes the president to some degree for all those who think I side with everything he does. I do not.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is it's more of a Brokeback situation?



:biggrin: :wink:

TIDE-HSV said:

What keeps to occurring to me is that, if you're going to use LEOs, then they need to be equipped with the school shooter du jour weapon and they need to be fit and short of retirement age...

Click to expand...

And ideally you would need more than one. It's a lot easier for two or more to coordinate and move in on a target together than for one going in blind not knowing how many or what kind of firepower he is facing.

So if a trained armed professional failed to help, what makes anybody think that armed teachers will do much better, if at all?
That is NOT the answer.

Bamaro said:

So if a trained armed professional failed to help, what makes anybody think that armed teachers will do much better, if at all?
That is NOT the answer.

Click to expand...

Serious question here:

If a trained armed professional failed/refused to help, what makes anyone think we can depend on police at any time at all to defend our children? And why shouldn't we have the ability to defend them ourselves?

This entire case tells you why many people want the ability to carry arms.

And there is this strange juxtaposition of "conservatives" not trusting the police against "liberals" thinking everyone should trust the police to offer protection. This is not always the case for either. Just an observation of inconsistencies on "both" sides.

So just so I have the latest narrative correct.....


there had been how many reports on the guy?
the FBI missed it
the Broward Sheriff missed it
the Broward sherriff's deputy missed it.



BUT...


the NRA is to blame.........??????

Arming teachers is not solving the problem, it's admitting defeat.

What really needs to happen is we go back over every detail of this incident and:

1. Find out where we failed with our existing system
2. Fix those breaches
3. See where improvements can be made with our existing system
4. Implement said improvements
5. Keep this process completely transparent to all students, parents, and staff members of that school the ENTIRE way
6. Set up an independent body to audit said system...and then someone to audit the auditors

At this point - I don't trust law enforcement to do their jobs without having an outside entity as auditor.

Sorry it has come to this - but it is what it is.....

Bamaro said:

An armed teacher would have done a much better job.

Click to expand...

RTR91 said:

Instead of worrying about the political talk being used why not focus on a deputy not doing his job? At least in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Bamaro said:

That was my point

Click to expand...

Glad to see you're following your own point from 15 hours ago...

Bamaro said:

So if a trained armed professional failed to help, what makes anybody think that armed teachers will do much better, if at all?
That is NOT the answer.

Click to expand...

Bamaro said:

Arming teachers is not solving the problem, it's admitting defeat.

Click to expand...

Bamaro said:

Arming teachers is not solving the problem, it's admitting defeat.

Click to expand...

So is bringing in more "school resource officers", no? I have a huge problem with that, too. They cause far more problems than they solve, IMHO. And they can't even be relied upon to save children when the chips are down.

NationalTitles17 said:

Serious question here:

If a trained armed professional failed/refused to help, what makes anyone think we can depend on police at any time at all to defend our children? And why shouldn't we have the ability to defend them ourselves?

This entire case tells you why many people want the ability to carry arms.

And there is this strange juxtaposition of "conservatives" not trusting the police against "liberals" thinking everyone should trust the police to offer protection. This is not always the case for either. Just an observation of inconsistencies on "both" sides.

Click to expand...

I don't think conservatives (well, until Deputy Dawging It yesterday) are saying don't trust the police - they're making the point the cops aren't omnipresent.

And each situation, of course, is different. Cops are no different than any other occupation. 5-10% of them shouldn't have the job.

selmaborntidefan said:

I don't think conservatives (well, until Deputy Dawging It yesterday) are saying don't trust the police - they're making the point the cops aren't omnipresent.

And each situation, of course, is different. Cops are no different than any other occupation. 5-10% of them shouldn't have the job.

Click to expand...

Yeah, let's face it: "both sides" are schizophrenic. It's always been this way. Trust and honor the police except in some situations vs don't trust the police except in some situations. That deputy shattered everyone's confidence in police.

NationalTitles17 said:

Serious question here:

If a trained armed professional failed/refused to help, what makes anyone think we can depend on police at any time at all to defend our children? And why shouldn't we have the ability to defend them ourselves?

This entire case tells you why many people want the ability to carry arms.

Click to expand...

I hear your point, but I don't think anyone has said that people shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

I do wonder what the statistics are for a lone officer with a handgun, a few bullets, and no body armor taking down an assailant with an AR pattern rifle and extra magazines. Sure, it was his job. But he also was woefully underprepared for that situation. And now the philosophic approach I'm hearing is not that we should prevent kids from obtaining these weapons to begin with, but that we need to have more guards and more weapons in our schools.

From another angle, I suppose it's a really good thing we decided to ban fully automatic rifles in the past. Had we not, this upward trajectory of everyone wanting incrementally more powerful weaponry wouldn't be capped at things like an AR-15. The NFA seems to be a solid argument that banning certain weapons is ultimately a very effective strategy. But since we haven't made any enduring moves to control these AR pattern rifles, we're in a situation now where people are seriously suggesting that the best strategy to prevent school shootings is to arm teachers and have multiple officers patrolling hallways fully decked out in ARs and Kevlar. The same folks who claim to only seek freedom now advocate turning our schools into prisons. SMH.

Bamaro said:

So if a trained armed professional failed to help, what makes anybody think that armed teachers will do much better, if at all?
That is NOT the answer.

Click to expand...

NationalTitles17 said:

Serious question here:

If a trained armed professional failed/refused to help, what makes anyone think we can depend on police at any time at all to defend our children? And why shouldn't we have the ability to defend them ourselves?

This entire case tells you why many people want the ability to carry arms.

And there is this strange juxtaposition of "conservatives" not trusting the police against "liberals" thinking everyone should trust the police to offer protection. This is not always the case for either. Just an observation of inconsistencies on "both" sides.

Click to expand...

Agree with both of these.
Teachers are, as a group, highly anti-gun, and would be ineffective, if not a danger themselves, if forced to carry firearms. That is assuming the idea is even constitutional and that they even agree to do it, which I have my doubts about. If such a mandate went into effect, I think we would see massive retirements and teachers fleeing the profession. All for a dumb idea. No thanks.

There's no sense in mandating teachers be armed, and no sense in making it harder for ordinary citizens to protect themselves, either.

Even if we could depend on the police, which we can't, we still have the right, recognized (not granted) by the Constitution, AND the many laws built within the framework of that Constitution, to protect ourselves. It is the one right which ensures that all the others cannot be taken away at a whim. Yes, gun violence is a problem, but it is not such a problem that the solution is to eviscerate liberty. If we do that, then this great country is ruined.