Shooting at high school in Parkland, Fla.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Utrommaniac

Dick's Sporting Goods, meanwhile, is stopping the sale of "assault style" weapons and will no longer sell guns to anyone under the age of 21.

I'm wondering how that last part is supposed to work. If you're 20 years old and perfectly legal to own guns, you walk into Dick's... they tell you "No, sir, I can't sell you any guns"? How is that not discrimination? How is it much different from saying, "We refuse to sell guns to African Americans" or "We refuse to sell guns to men with mullets"?

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

And just sitting there going, "You can't arm teachers! That's a stupid plan!!!"... really? It's kind of like, arguing with someone who says, "I disagree with you," (it could be on anything) without offering their own opinion to counter. I mean, what's your better plan to protect students during actual shootings, if you're going to sh** on my plan?

Originally Posted by Utrommaniac

And now...my list of reasons why arming teachers is a bad idea

• Not every school can afford to arm their teachers
• Not every teacher can afford to even manage upkeep guns, let alone by them
• Not every teacher is physically or mentally equipped to be trusted with gun
• Adequate training takes a very long time
• EVERYTHING that happens to Jordan Klepper here. Training is strenuous, it doesn't guarantee being prepared for an active shooter, the chances of shooting a student on instinct, being mistaken for the shooter by the authorities and getting shot at by them...
• Regardless of the rules, there are teachers who will more than likely threaten their "out of control" students with their gun or even actually use them.
• Schools shouldn't have to be made into potentially warzones so students can safely learn...and such an environment would be likely to make them anxious. Because it's not like our teenagers have enough anxiety as it is from all their schoolwork.

OK, you don't like that plan. What's your alternative plan to stopping in-progress school shootings?

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I'm wondering how that last part is supposed to work. If you're 20 years old and perfectly legal to own guns, you walk into Dick's... they tell you "No, sir, I can't sell you any guns"? How is that not discrimination? How is it much different from saying, "We refuse to sell guns to African Americans" or "We refuse to sell guns to men with mullets"?

Isn't the age restriction for buying alcohol in the US 21? If anyone under 21 isn't considered mature enough to buy beer, why would fire arms be any different?

[Utrommaniac]

I'm actually in agreement with your hypothetical suggestions.

Having some more restrictions on gun access (not selling to anyone under 21, selling at specific places that aren't Bass Pro Shops or Dick's Sporting Goods), make it a little more difficult for strangers or expelled students to enter a school without notice (most schools already have a policy that parents need to stay in the front office if they are picking up a student or dropping something off for them), making it easier and cheaper for underage people to admit themselves for medical care or mental health care, have a strikes system with the police and FBI if they are constantly getting reports on someone's sketchy behavior that might cause reason to fear a mass shooting - especially if they're getting constant tips, remove restrictions for on-campus police that caused the Parkland Officer to not do anything when a shooting is happening. All or most of those things.

As for in-progress shootings, I'm of the "Everyone attack the shooter with everything you've got" mentality. Especially if it happens to be in crowded areas. I had administrators who would probably have attempted to take down a shooter with their bare hands - and one who I would bet on being successful.

But teachers aren't going to be ready for a shooter most of the time - especially if it's their classroom that's entered first. Before they can even get to their weapon, the attacker is already firing. So it would be up to a second - or maybe third or fourth - teacher to do the job and by that point, most of a classroom has probably been wiped out.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

Isn't the age restriction for buying alcohol in the US 21? If anyone under 21 isn't considered mature enough to buy beer, why would fire arms be any different?

We let folks join the military and have guns at 18 here, but they can't legally drink until 21.

There are some hotel chains that won't rent rooms to folks under 21.
And most rental car places won't rent to someone under 25.

If someone's that buttmad about not being able to get a gun from Dick's Sporting Goods at the age of 20, they can always enlist in the military. Not only will they get a gun, but they'll get paid to carry it.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

Isn't the age restriction for buying alcohol in the US 21? If anyone under 21 isn't considered mature enough to buy beer, why would fire arms be any different?

The restriction for buying alcohol at 21 is dumb. If you're adult enough to be able to be drafted and die in a war (which is 18 ), why in the hell can't you have a drink? And if we're to say, "At 18, you're not responsible enough to have a drink"... why is that? This wasn't always the case. This seems like a societal issue. I mean, we can sit here as a country and go, "OK, we've decided 'adult' is now 21, we're moving it from 18," that's pretty chickensh** but... OK, at least that would make sense.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

As for in-progress shootings, I'm of the "Everyone attack the shooter with everything you've got" mentality. Especially if it happens to be in crowded areas. I had administrators who would probably have attempted to take down a shooter with their bare hands - and one who I would bet on being successful.

I can respect that but... yikes. That sounds like the end of "The Last Samurai." And that's not really a "plan" at all.

But teachers aren't going to be ready for a shooter most of the time - especially if it's their classroom that's entered first. Before they can even get to their weapon, the attacker is already firing. So it would be up to a second - or maybe third or fourth - teacher to do the job and by that point, most of a classroom has probably been wiped out.

Maybe... but by that scenario, now that "third or fourth teacher"'s classroom won't be the gunman's next stop. Lives saved, as opposed to "free reign for the gunman."

But this just sounds like another reason why you don't like the "let's arm teachers" thing. What's your plan, then? Yes, during an actual, in-progress shooting. Really, just "everyone, chaaaaaarge the gunman!"?

[Utrommaniac]

Yeah, pretty much, actually.

It's a tactic called ALICE. Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate.

If someone goes into a school with a gun, at least a few people are going to be hurt or die before retaliation can happen. No matter what, a shooter is going to get a taste of what they want. Until they become too distracted by a storm of whatever everyone else can grab.
Attacking a shooter is going to buy time for others to escape, make it harder for him to shoot, and give someone a chance to knock him to the ground by whatever means.

Shooters have to focus while they are firing, so also leaves them wide open for someone to tackle them. Hopefully by a quarterback. Or more liable to not notice someone coming at them with a desk. Or people from the surrounding area shoving him to them ground because they're too distracted by what's in front of them. They go in expecting their victims to run from them, not fight back. There's no sport in potential victims who attacks you.

Most of all, remembering my high school experiences on attack drills, we were told to hide, and I thought that was dumb. Even then, I preferred the notion of fighting back rather than being a sitting duck. A few of my classmates would most certainly have charged a shooter, I think (and I would bet money that one of the administrators could take down a shooter with her bare hands). I felt safer with a teacher who said "if the door barricade fails, throw everything you've got" over hiding behind a foam wall in a gym -- it didn't help much that the gym was pretty isolated from the rest of the school.


Plus, the tactic of "everyone cram into a corner in a dark room" isn't the best either.

The only way I can think of arming teachers as working is if the shooter comes into a classroom first thing and doesn't attack the teacher first - which considering that they're the first line of defense, would be the case. And, while they're too distracted by the students throwing **** at them instead of hiding under their desks, shoot his elbow off. But that's provided that the teacher can actually aim a handgun. Which doesn't fire as fast as an AR-15.

[mrmaczaps]

Originally Posted by Utrommaniac

Which doesn't fire as fast as an AR-15.

Wrong. An AR15 fires at the same rate as a handgun. One pull of the trigger is one single shot. Fact.

[dl316bh]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

What's your better plan to protect students during actual shootings, if you're going to sh** on my plan?

*Note: I'm not saying let's arm teachers. There are better, less... difficult alternatives. But that could work.

You got a lot out of one sentence and I'm surprised that you took it to mean I was targeting you in particular when this has been a thing the current administration actually tried to bat around a bit. I can assure you I'm not.

You probably already know what my plans are from how I post, so I don't know why you're asking. You're a gun guy, so most anything I'd say would already be a non starter. I don't go in depth or really go after anyone on the whole thing aside from obvious things, because, frankly, the "discussions" never go anywhere, no one convinces the other and at this point it's just more productive to do other things, because lets be real, even if anyone ever won an online disagreement, it doesn't exactly fix or solve anything.

But, because I haven't talked about the why and that may have led you to think my pithiness is just being snarky or a dick, I might as well talk about why arming teachers is not a solution in a bit more depth.

- Where's the money come from? School budgets are slashed as it is and the current administration wanted to discuss slashing funds that would go to trauma counselors when this went down. Are we suddenly going to make teachers go buy guns out of their salaries, pay for training and so forth, like some schools make them do for some basic supplies? We don't pay these people enough as it is and act like they're ungrateful when they ask for the means for a better living.
- Some teachers are frequently treated like crap and put in high stress situations. Videos have floated around of teachers threatening students, or others using racial slurs against them. Putting a gun within reach, or at least easily accessible, is just asking for trouble. Sure, the vast majority won't do anything, but there are people who will and all it takes is for one to flip out with a gun nearby to create a huge incident that leaves us not just back where we started, but with all new problems.
- Teachers want nothing to do with it. We're asking them to be educators, protectors and then trained to kill. They now have to look at their students differently, because they have to be able to shoot them if necessary, which changes the relationship and puts both a wall and distance between them. It has to change the relationship, because you're talking about shooting a kid, one you may have taught, who you now have to be able to coldly shoot.
- Teachers are not even trained to deal with an active shooter situation to begin with. Even if they are, that tends to go out the window the first time under fire anyway. There's a difference between training for something and actively dealing with a stressful situation. In this hypothetical scenario, you don't get an action movie hero, you get a scared, nervous teacher who probably locks up even with a gun, can't aim right due to fear, tension and stress, is likely to get themselves killed and might even hurt someone else.
- Students then have to deal with the knowledge teachers have guns on premises. That changes the relationship there too. There's fear involved - especially if crappy teachers with issues are a reality - and it makes things even more contentious. Most kids/teens don't like their teachers as it is, or want to even be in school. I remember after Columbine when my school was practically locked down after that happened. I won't be so dramatic as to say it felt like prison, but it did change the feel and that's the LEAST you can do. Plus, kids have a way of getting into things in schools, which is a problem if guns are on hand.
- A lot of cops don't like the idea either, because it muddles things. They go into an active shooter situation, who is the good guy here? Who is the bad guy? If the suspect is down and they go in, they see someone with a gun, they shoot that guy? It makes their job harder and they're trained to do it. And yeah, there were cops on scene who didn't go in, but that's the reason one resigned and the PD is on blast; because it was their jobs to go in, they didn't, so there are consequences.
- This probably just changes the shooters targets a bit. Now they know to prioritize the teachers. They also know other guns are on campus, if they go to the school maybe even where. Most of these people are disgruntled former students, potentially with axes to grind or people they hate in the school, so they're not really going to go anywhere else just because guns are there. Hell, most mass shootings end of the shooters volition, usually suicide. They go in there knowing they're going to die already. Guns won't deter them.
- This does absolutely nothing to change the larger problem. This one was a school shooting, but those aren't even the majority. Nightclubs, restaurants, churches, concerts and so on have been shot up a lot in the past few years. So it's a stopgap procedure that just throws more guns on top of guns and does little for the overall issue.

So, in practice, it's an idea that creates a slew of new problems that are long term and affect day to day in a school for the off chance that a school is raided and that teachers can even conceivably do something. The slightly less crap option is something like security guards, but that's only slightly better because that opens a slew of other problems such as the same issue of where the money comes from, who is being hired (let's be real, probably private security who don't give a damn) and others. There's also that anxiety again for students; guards hired to stop school shootings won't give a crap about the students and will probably treat them all like potential shooters, because that's the mindset they'd likely need to be able to shoot them. But then... someone with a gun was on the premises and it still did jack, because they did not go in. Three others were nearby and they did nothing. It's likely a fear response.

I'm not sure what the answer is or what else you can do in occasions when it happens. Maybe, after locking classrooms down, using fire escape windows to get kids outside and try and get out from there while he's f***ing around in the halls? I'm not sure. But that doesn't mean arming teachers is a good idea, which you even seem to think it isn't judging by the tail end there. In fact, it's unlikely to make anything better and likely to make everything else about school life far worse.

Whether or not there is official "we're arming teachers now" legislature... that particular teacher still would have brought his gun to school regardless because that's what he set out to do that morning. That wouldn't have stopped this incident, not remotely.

It was more an illustration of why giving teachers, people in high stress environments who deal with a lot of garbage kids, access to guns on campus will eventually backfire massively, not directly related to this particular school shooting. It didn't warrant its own thread and, frankly, each successive shooting thread kind of becomes the catch-all for these discussions in my head, until the next one pops up.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Utrommaniac

Yeah, pretty much, actually.

It's a tactic called ALICE. Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate.

If someone goes into a school with a gun, at least a few people are going to be hurt or die before retaliation can happen. No matter what, a shooter is going to get a taste of what they want. Until they become too distracted by a storm of whatever everyone else can grab.
Attacking a shooter is going to buy time for others to escape, make it harder for him to shoot, and give someone a chance to knock him to the ground by whatever means.

Shooters have to focus while they are firing, so also leaves them wide open for someone to tackle them. Hopefully by a quarterback. Or more liable to not notice someone coming at them with a desk. Or people from the surrounding area shoving him to them ground because they're too distracted by what's in front of them. They go in expecting their victims to run from them, not fight back. There's no sport in potential victims who attacks you.

I admit, that's a viable plan. However "let's train students to sacrifice themselves so that other students can live" might be an even tougher sell than armed teachers.

I still say if you're going to arm teachers... lockbox in classrooms where in classrooms that have a trained teacher in them. Biometric lock.

The only way I can think of arming teachers as working is if the shooter comes into a classroom first thing and doesn't attack the teacher first - which considering that they're the first line of defense, would be the case.

There would be other teachers.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by mrmaczaps

Wrong. An AR15 fires at the same rate as a handgun. One pull of the trigger is one single shot. Fact.

Do we know if a slide-fire was in play?
This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute (slate)

[dl316bh]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Do we know if a slide-fire was in play?
This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute (slate)

I assume not, since I think it would have come up if one was used. Sort of like how bump stocks were brought up a lot in the wake of the Vegas shooting.

[Papenbrook]

I apologize if I come across as selfish, but I'm worried about my little brother.

My brother is a(n) high school student who happens to be both black and autistic. Even though he's legally an adult, he still has to attend high school for career lessons/ job prospects.

This makes me fear for his safety. I don't want my brother to be targeted by other students, teachers, or even the police force. He is already stressed enough.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Do we know if a slide-fire was in play?
This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute (slate)

"You generally bump fire from your hip, and you can’t really aim the rifle, which makes the technique kind of frivolous. If your fingers don’t work and you can’t squeeze a trigger, bump firing is a godsend. Otherwise, bump firing is only useful if you want to waste a lot of ammo fast."

Originally Posted by Papenbrook

I apologize if I come across as selfish, but I'm worried about my little brother.

My brother is a(n) high school student who happens to be both black and autistic. Even though he's legally an adult, he still has to attend high school for career lessons/ job prospects.

This makes me fear for his safety. I don't want my brother to be targeted by other students, teachers, or even the police force. He is already stressed enough.

Maybe this will help:
"The chances of any particular K-12 school in the United States experiencing a shooting incident in any given year is approximately 1 in 53,925."

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by dl316bh

You probably already know what my plans are from how I post, so I don't know why you're asking.

No plan, in other words.

*for the record, I wasn't thinking you were referring to me, no. Nor was I referring to you.

But, because I haven't talked about the why and that may have led you to think my pithiness is just being snarky or a dick, I might as well talk about why arming teachers is not a solution in a bit more depth.

As almost every anti-gun person is wont to do these days. "WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM??" "Here is why arming teachers WON'T work!!! We can't afford it, where is the money coming from?" "WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?? Not that I'm going to bother to look into where it could come from... but WHERE???" "blah blah blah..." I'm assuming something among those lines? That's all I see from the liberals on Facebook.

- Where's the money come from?

Ah-hah!

So what's your actual plan?

I'd be a much bigger fan of, as mentioned before, diverting bullsh** police ticket patrols to have a bigger presence in schools, or retired vets, or what-have-you, than teachers... but arming teachers (the exact details or # is a separate matter), or at least entertaining the idea, would constructively offer SOME kind of defense during a shooting in progress as opposed to spending lots of calories explaining why we shouldn't do this or couldn't do that, or bothering to come up with any kind of actual alternative.

Don't we all actively want to figure out a way to save lives DURING shootings? Or are those lives just written off until all the guns are gone and the agenda is sated?

I'm not sure what the answer is or what else you can do in occasions when it happens.

Oh, that's abundantly clear. At least you're being honest about it, unlike a lot of folks here.

Maybe, after locking classrooms down, using fire escape windows to get kids outside and try and get out from there while he's f***ing around in the halls?

You know, you almost inadvertently stumbled upon a viable solution... right there.

Call me crazy but... some kind of bulletproof panic room(s)? Maybe? In the schools?

Sidenote: I'm sure many of you have been reading about the stores announcing they will cease carrying "assault-style" rifles. That's one thing, that's fine... they can carry whatever they want or don't want to. But... they've also announced they will stop selling guns -- any guns -- to adults between 18-20.

Can someone fill me in how this is legal and not discriminatory? Seems like they'd get sued pretty quick. How is this much different than that baker refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple, who got sued?

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Sidenote: I'm sure many of you have been reading about the stores announcing they will cease carrying "assault-style" rifles. That's one thing, that's fine... they can carry whatever they want or don't want to. But... they've also announced they will stop selling guns -- any guns -- to adults between 18-20.

Can someone fill me in how this is legal and not discriminatory? Seems like they'd get sued pretty quick. How is this much different than that baker refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple, who got sued?

Do they still have age restrictions on buying video games with “M” rating? Isn’t that weird too. I mean a 16 year old can get a drivers license and drive an actual car down the road. But can’t purchase a video game that might have a virtual car if it also has mature content and corresponding rating.

However 16 is a minor so I can somehow understand the restriction being tolerated. But 18 is technically an adult. An adult old enough to vote and pay taxes. Strange a store can refuse to sell to an adult if it’s not a state or federal law such as liquor.

[dl316bh]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

*for the record, I wasn't thinking you were referring to me, no. Nor was I referring to you.

Maybe not, but you're practically bleeding sarcasm and passive aggressiveness in this post for no real reason, and that's definitely directed at me.

Ah-hah!

So what's your actual plan?

A gotcha? Really? You're latching onto one point to dismiss the rest of them. You basically frame your post as waiting for the big liberal reason of "the money", then move on to the part with that and use it as an excuse to skip everything else, then try to frame the whole thing as, because no one's offering any alternatives, this must be a good idea, even if there are a dozen reasons it's not.

I'd be a much bigger fan of, as mentioned before, diverting bullsh** police ticket patrols to have a bigger presence in schools, or retired vets, or what-have-you, than teachers... but arming teachers (the exact details or # is a separate matter) it would constructively offer SOME kind of defense during a shooting in progress as opposed to spending lots of calories explaining why we shouldn't do this or couldn't do that, or bothering to come up with any kind of actual alternative.

Don't we all actively want to figure out a way to save lives DURING shootings? Or are those lives just written off until all the guns are gone and the agenda is sated?

Cops and veterans, people with combat experience or at least training, say this is a bad idea that would likely cause more problems than it solves. I don't know what else to tell you. Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean do any idea, especially one that will create a load of new problems and probably just make things worse during actual active shooter incidents.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/nypd-c...t-a-good-idea/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...hers-are-armed
http://nhpr.org/post/local-swat-comm...-idea#stream/0
https://www.buzzfeed.com/verabergeng...KQ#.twPXW4E92G
https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/o...-training.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.628303713018

I'm not the biggest fan of the police, but if these sort of situations aren't what they're for, why bother having them anymore? So okay, if you need a viable alternative to be able to call this a bad idea, posting cops seems like the least worst. At least that's their job, which they signed on for. A teacher shouldn't have to carry that burden if you absolutely think guns are going to solve a shooting in progress.

Call me crazy but... some kind of bulletproof panic room(s)? Maybe? In the schools?

That's far from the worst idea and far better than arming teachers. How would they work it though? One big one? Small ones for each classroom? Schools would practically have to be rebuilt for the second, but it provides the best chance of minimizing deaths.

Sidenote: I'm sure many of you have been reading about the stores announcing they will cease carrying "assault-style" rifles. That's one thing, that's fine... they can carry whatever they want or don't want to. But... they've also announced they will stop selling guns -- any guns -- to adults between 18-20.

Can someone fill me in how this is legal and not discriminatory? Seems like they'd get sued pretty quick. How is this much different than that baker refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple, who got sued?

The same way it was legal to restrict the same age group as far as alcohol goes, I guess. They're not discriminating over sex, gender, or so on, which is the major difference. It's an age thing, which already has a basis in a lot of other restrictions, like the aforementioned alcohol or waiting for sixteen to get permits and attempt for drivers licenses. Few really argue that kids shouldn't have certain things, what people debate are the cut-offs.

Whether they can, if sued, is a matter for courts to figure out, but matters like what to sell or rules implemented are typically left to businesses to decide, probably for reasons like fear of setting precedents that could cause trouble in other areas, and we know businesses basically own America.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Sidenote: I'm sure many of you have been reading about the stores announcing they will cease carrying "assault-style" rifles. That's one thing, that's fine... they can carry whatever they want or don't want to. But... they've also announced they will stop selling guns -- any guns -- to adults between 18-20.

Can someone fill me in how this is legal and not discriminatory? Seems like they'd get sued pretty quick. How is this much different than that baker refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple, who got sued?

Because it's age related, and not because the customer is of a certain race or sexual orientation? WTF is someone that age gonna need a damn 'assault-style' rifle for anyway?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Because it's age related, and not because the customer is of a certain race or sexual orientation?

How is that relevant if the person is an adult, and the law says that person is 100% legally able to buy it?

WTF is someone that age gonna need a damn 'assault-style' rifle for anyway?

The same thing as a 30 year-old would, or a 70 year-old, probably.

[PApagreg]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

How is that relevant if the person is an adult, and the law says that person is 100% legally able to buy it?



The same thing as a 30 year-old would, or a 70 year-old, probably.

Hence why people are trying to change the laws so the average American or a 18-25 year old can't by an AR-15.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by dl316bh

Maybe not, but you're practically bleeding sarcasm and passive aggressiveness in this post for no real reason, and that's definitely directed at me.

Maybe so. And you don't deserve that, by the way... you're generally a pretty straight-up guy in all of the exchanges we've had.

A gotcha? Really? You're latching onto one point to dismiss the rest of them. You basically frame your post as waiting for the big liberal reason of "the money", then move on to the part with that and use it as an excuse to skip everything else, then try to frame the whole thing as, because no one's offering any alternatives, this must be a good idea, even if there are a dozen reasons it's not.

Well, it was "off-topic" to me. I posed what is a solution -- any solution -- to an in progress shooting, and you're sitting there rattling off ways one particular one won't work. Which I've seen everywhere... ad nauseum.

Cops and veterans, people with combat experience or at least training, say this is a bad idea that would likely cause more problems than it solves. I don't know what else to tell you. Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean do any idea, especially one that will create a load of new problems and probably just make things worse during actual active shooter incidents.

No, but I would hope it would mean we should immediately divert all energies to constructive talks about actually viable options rather than diverting 100% of all energies to talking about why certain ones won't work and just beating that drum over and over again in any outlet. Which is what is happening.

I'm not the biggest fan of the police, but if these sort of situations aren't what they're for, why bother having them anymore? So okay, if you need a viable alternative to be able to call this a bad idea, posting cops seems like the least worst.

We need a viable anything to give kids in schools even a slim fighting chance during a shooting. Even 5% is better than 0%. It's not about me.

I'm a dad. I have a horse in this race.

At least that's their job, which they signed on for. A teacher shouldn't have to carry that burden if you absolutely think guns are going to solve a shooting in progress.

You're not wrong. And while I'm more than willing to concede the point on armed teachers in schools in favor of any better ideas that come along... I really don't see a problem with teachers who are OK with packing, are trained, have a concealed license, being allowed to do so in classrooms. For every hypothetical "w-w-w-well, what if a student takes their gun?" "w-w-w-what if the teacher goes crazy and kills students?" "w-w-w-what if the teacher overreacts and kills students?"... which are crazy scenarios, by the way... there, again, is the 100% certainty that a gunman running roughshod in a school has 100% free reign to shoot whoever they want, however much they want for about 20+ minutes. Without anything new in place, that is.

That's far from the worst idea and far better than arming teachers. How would they work it though? One big one? Small ones for each classroom? Schools would practically have to be rebuilt for the second, but it provides the best chance of minimizing deaths.

Every school is different architecturally. Just off the top of my head... some kind of thin space between walls behind reinforced whatever? To where everyone in the classroom can cram in there like sardines, completely uncomfortably (and probably unsurvivably for anything longer than 20-30 minutes... but that's really all the time they need to buy) but still completely safe?

The same way it was legal to restrict the same age group as far as alcohol goes, I guess. They're not discriminating over sex, gender, or so on, which is the major difference. It's an age thing, which already has a basis in a lot of other restrictions, like the aforementioned alcohol or waiting for sixteen to get permits and attempt for drivers licenses. Few really argue that kids shouldn't have certain things, what people debate are the cut-offs.

Whether they can, if sued, is a matter for courts to figure out, but matters like what to sell or rules implemented are typically left to businesses to decide, probably for reasons like fear of setting precedents that could cause trouble in other areas, and we know businesses basically own America.

On a more careful look at this I tend to think these stores are only looking at their bottom line. They have to run IDs when someone buys. They know who is buying what. Are 18-20 year-olds REALLY buying that many guns at Dick's, across the board, vs. other age groups? No? So it won't hurt our bottom line much? AND we get to ride the current political/media current? Awesome. Let's do it.

I've seen at least 3 posts on FB today about people saying, "I wasn't shopping at Dick's before, but now I will! Way to go, Dick's!" or some variation of this. Maybe this is actually pretty savvy. And guess what? The little guy gun stores who have been muscled out by the bigger fish like this for a while now? Compare it to the mom and pop convenience stores selling household sundries before Wal-Mart comes in. Win-win. Win for Dick's, win for actual gun stores.