Florida Teachers Can What?

[Vigilante]

I'm normally not a political person, but I'm sorry, I have to say something about this. This is probably the most poorly thought-out policy I've ever seen. I can't even believe this is real.

Florida teachers can arm themselves under new gun bill - Reuters

Think about the risks. A teacher leaves a gun unattended. A teacher is harassed and looses their temper. The list goes on and on. I don't see how this won't end horribly.

I am a Florida resident with a child in Florida schools, and i think this is FABULOUS.

Shooters are cowards. When they know that the first person they start shooting at shoots back, they'll go find another movie theater or somewhere else to play their cowardly act. Gun free zones are a joke. Soft targets are why assholes pick elementary schools.

I will accept the risks as above. Hell, I will BUY MY KIDS TEACHER A GUN if she wants one and agrees to get licensed for it.

Conceal carry permit holders, en masse, are responsible. Not only that, they have a constitutional right to carry it anyway.

I am 100% for it. Waiting for the first news story of some jackass getting their head blown off by a kindergarten teacher, and the whole bunch of copycat cowards will find somewhere else, and my kid will come home safely.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

The same argument applies to police officers or any other state enforcer that is mandated to carry a firearm. Many schools have police officers, and i don't often hear of their firearms being used for nefarious purposes. Very few teachers will actually exercise this right, so the odds of something going wrong are quite low. It's far more likely the students get in an auto accident on the way to school than they get injured with a firearm while at school.

I'm OK with bills like this because the facts are that a) the police have no duty to protect anyone (yes, this is a fact) b) even when they want to help, they are minutes away and c) the type of people to carry a gun every single day understand the gravity of that decision and take it very very seriously.

I'm curious, what's your personal background with firearms?

Dead on.

@404profound Would you rather teachers have zero ability to defend your children?

Gun safety is paramount. No one I know, that carries a gun, and I know a lot of them, are flippant about doing so.

Concealed carriers are responsible for almost no crime statistically speaking. No. Hotheads do not go on shooting sprees. No. There isnt blood in the streets. No. Guns aren't accidentally going off.

I have carried a handgun daily for nearly 10 years.

Criminals, by definition, break the law... So atempting to control criminals with laws is utter nonsense.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lowtek]

The same argument applies to police officers or any other state enforcer that is mandated to carry a firearm. Many schools have police officers, and i don't often hear of their firearms being used for nefarious purposes. Very few teachers will actually exercise this right, so the odds of something going wrong are quite low. It's far more likely the students get in an auto accident on the way to school than they get injured with a firearm while at school.

I'm OK with bills like this because the facts are that a) the police have no duty to protect anyone (yes, this is a fact) b) even when they want to help, they are minutes away and c) the type of people to carry a gun every single day understand the gravity of that decision and take it very very seriously.

I'm curious, what's your personal background with firearms?

 

[AgainstAllOdds]

I highly recommend you take a gun safety class whether or not you're interested in getting a gun.

In Illinois, they require a 16 hour course to conceal carry. If you take one of those classes, you'll have a better idea of whose carrying guns and why they're carrying.

They're all individuals with:

• No criminal record
• No recorded history of mental illness.
• People that want to protect themselves or their families.

Criminals don't go to conceal carry classes. They already have guns. It's just normal people that want to even the odds.

The Florida law is evening the playing field. That's all it's doing. School shooters today can waltz into any school and shoot at will. With this law, chances are that they'll be put down right away. A good recent example of this is the synagogue in California. A guy walked in, killed one individual, and then was instantly put down (note: the media doesn't report the majority of pro-gun carrying stories).

At least this bill requires teachers to undergo 144 hours of training to be certified. They're not exactly just handing out guns to any teacher who wants one. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I could see it going both ways.

With 144 hours of training, you bet your a$$ that the one's qualified to carry will have guns on them. That's 3.6 work weeks that someone is sacrificing so that they can protect the school.

 

[AgainstAllOdds]

Sad that my own country doesn't have these kind of means to enable everyone to protect themselves.

We've got stupid goons who prowl the streets looking to nab or stab someone.
Surely a few revolver shots should send them begging on their knees...

That sucks man.

Some thoughts slightly off topic...

What a lot of people don't realize is that there's a lot of peace of mind benefits to owning and carrying a gun other than the ones mentioned in this thread. For business owners, a big one is knowing that no one can come and just take your business.

I've heard horror stories from friends of friends that tried to build successful businesses in Asia. They start out, work their a$$ off, and get traction. Once they get traction, they attract attention. Once they attract attention, they attract the mafia. The mafia comes, and asks for a percentage. As the business grows, they ask for more. Until finally, they come and have you sign over the business. Nothing you can do about it.

Meanwhile in the U.S., good luck pulling that stunt.

Organized crime obviously still exists, but nowhere near the level that it does in other countries. My dad came here from a former Soviet bloc country, and to this day has irrational fears from his upbringing. He believes that if you take a competitor's clients, that someone will eventually come for you. It's irrational fears like those which prevent a lot of people from starting a business. My mindset: maybe someone will come, but F*ck it. I don't have a family to lose, and we typically have enough guns around us to take out most maniacs. Put your head down. Provide value. Grow the business. Don't worry about things you shouldn't be worried about.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

I just look at the profile of your average high school teacher and see psychological risk.

Some might trust a random teacher with a firearm MORE than they would a police officer. A certain "personality" tends to go into law enforcement more so than a teacher.

I see nothing wrong with it, provide there's some rules (lock boxed), training, etc involved.

After reading the responses from folks I definitely have a different perspective now. I suppose the risk of not doing it outweighs the risk of doing it.

Impressive that you are looking at both angles, most people would further entrench their belief when presented with other opinions, a.k.a. as the cognitive bias, the backfire effect.

 

[Deleted50669]

After reading the responses from folks I definitely have a different perspective now. I suppose the risk of not doing it outweighs the risk of doing it.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

My point was that anti gunners typically point out the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2A, while ignoring the "shall not be infringed" portion.

Actually there is a comma there. The founding fathers had good grammar. Most people ignore it.

I'll translate...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 2019 speak it literally translates to this:

BECAUSE we pretty much have to have a military to protect our sovereignty, we are going to protect the rights of the PEOPLE to also be armed.

The founding fathers really hated tyranny. They begrudgingly set up a military.

 

[lowtek]

Not really a militia guy. But having grown up with firearms and live in Az where you can hunt and shoot year round, I'm a strong believer in freedom. I carry almost every day, not in the office though. My point is that they should have every right to defend their life and take responsibility for protecting the young they are entrusted with with every possible tool they have available. I would have no issue to my kids teacher carrying.

My point was that anti gunners typically point out the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2A, while ignoring the "shall not be infringed" portion.

I live in PHX and I carry every time I leave the house. I've seen homeless people carrying swords, no joke... so I figured if we got homeless ninjas running around, I better have something with a little more range.

 

[JAJT]

Those that answer Toronto are just arguing to argue because this makes the point perfectly.

I don't think that's true at all.

For starters - the poll isn't really "fair" in the first place. It's more of a "push poll" that is clearly worded to encourage one answer over another.

If the poll was created to encourage the opposite answer, it might be worded: "Where would you rather live with your family? In a place where the gun-related homicide rate is 4.46 per 100k people (The USA), or a place where the rate is 0.06 (The UK and Canada)?"

Or we could go even more extreme with the same numbers and ask "Would you move your family to a place where you are 74.3% more likely to die by a gun?"

Now one could say "those that answer 4.46 / 74.3% are just arguing to argue, because this makes the point perfectly" about the exact opposite answer than the one the original poll suggested.

These aren't fair questions because you look like a fool if you pick "I'd rather be unarmed in a shootout" or "I'd rather live in a place with more gun violence".

But now we're into statistics, where folks on both sides have a plethora of arguments and sources for and against both sides of the argument. For what it's worth I pulled those stats from wikipedia, which was lazy, but the numbers were of less importance to me than the point I was trying to make about unfair questions that try to push people towards a preferred response.

To be 100% clear - I'm not against gun ownership. My wife and I would actually like to own one for our own protection one day. I also really enjoyed firing some guns down in Vegas a while back and valued the freedom to do so easily.

I just genuinely believe it's a highly subjective topic and the answers you get are going to be based on an individual's culture, heritage, location, and experiences.

 

[ryanbleau]

"Shall not be infringed" every gun law is unconstitutional. Why shouldn't they have the same right to defend themselves that everyone else has?

 

[ryanbleau]

Not really a militia guy. But having grown up with firearms and live in Az where you can hunt and shoot year round, I'm a strong believer in freedom. I carry almost every day, not in the office though. My point is that they should have every right to defend their life and take responsibility for protecting the young they are entrusted with with every possible tool they have available. I would have no issue to my kids teacher carrying.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

I've added a poll with a hypothetical...

You're in a movie theater and a lunatic with a pistol decides to shoot up the place. He has multiple clips.

Would you rather be in a movie theater in Toronto Canada?

Or in Dallas Texas?

For me, the answer is a no brainer. I want to be in Dallas because I'm sure one of my fellow citizens will be there to help stop it. In Canada, you'll be dead before help arrives.

 

[eliquid]

Whether or not this law passed, a teacher could still carry a gun into a school if they wanted and do bad things.

Just the same as a criminal could.

Why do the gun haters only have a concern when a new gun rights law is passed? The risk was the same before.

I own guns. I carry. I do it even in places that say I can't. No one else is going to dictate me or my family's safety.

.

 

[G-Man]

Actually there is a comma there. The founding fathers had good grammar. Most people ignore it.

I'll translate...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 2019 speak it literally translates to this:

BECAUSE we pretty much have to have a military to protect our sovereignty, we are going to protect the rights of the PEOPLE to also be armed.

The founding fathers really hated tyranny. They begrudgingly set up a military.

I think where people get confused with the bill of rights is because a lot of it is written aphoristically. It's making general declarations of what is recognized to be true, rather than enumerating and therefore granting rights. In other words, the bill of rights doesn't give you any rights, it simply recognizes that you already have those rights. It's a very important distinction. It was a actually a pretty intense matter of debate about whether there should even be a bill of rights. There was concern that including a bill of rights would give people the false impression that the government was giving citizens those rights. If government gives something it can take it away. This is where I plug the Federalist Papers. Basically, if you are an American who votes, and are literate, you have, in my opinion, a civic responsibility to have read them.

Every other time in the phrase "the people" is used in the text, it means all citizens. If we interpret it to means something else in this clause, it opens it up for interpretation everywhere else.

Also, the militia "being necessary to the security of a free state". What does it say? What does it not say?
It's not referring to the national defense, there's an entire other portion of the document for that. It also doesn't say defense, it says "security". So, security of what?

Security of the state? No, it doesn't say "the state", it says "a free state". So now, what is the militia for? It ensures the state remains free. And who is the militia? In the parlance of the time the militia was every able bodied adult male in good community standing. Basically if you're an adult with all your limbs and no felonies, congrats, you're in the militia.

I'm thinking of getting a musket and one of those three pointed hats. If anybody else is down we can go form a militia, maybe have a monthly militia barbecue or something.

 

[G-Man]

I think it's 100% right.

The Supreme Court has ruled that no law enforcement official has any duty to protect you or me. They don't have to risk their lives for anybody.

Then to deny individuals the option to self-defense is morally wrong.

I think anybody with training could have the right judgment and dexterity to handle a firearm.

From a cop friend: We can't protect anybody. We can't be everywhere all the time. All we can really do is figure out what happened and try to catch the person that did it after the fact.

Something to think about. I think a more succinct way I've heard it put is: Police aren't there to prevent someone from killing you, they're there to identify the body.

EDIT: This is not criticism of the police. It's not their fault that they can't be everywhere all the time and lack the ability to predict the future.

 

[G-Man]

I just genuinely believe it's a highly subjective topic and the answers you get are going to be based on an individual's culture, heritage, location, and experiences.

Scott Adams I think makes that argument better than anyone

https://blog.dilbert.com/2018/04/01/the-fake-gun-control-debate/

EDIT: He makes the argument that it's subjective based on experience/current circumstances

If you go to the bottom of the article where he articulates, "honest" opinions on guns, my personal honest feeling is similar but a little different. It goes something like this.

Allowing citizens to own guns will result in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people. Allowing governments to own guns results in the unnecessary deaths of 10s of millions of people. The widespread circulation of guns in the population puts at least some fear in the minds of overreaching politicians of being murdered in their beds should they decide to put people in cattle cars. Therefore, the net present value, in terms of innocent deaths of allowing people to own guns is, subjectively in my estimation, lower than the number of innocent deaths caused at a future date by weapons in the hands of the state.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lowtek]

I admittedly have almost no background with firearms. I just look at the profile of your average high school teacher and see psychological risk.

Ok, that's quite understandable. I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little leery of trusting other people with guns, but we have to apply that standard fairly. It stands to reason that police and law enforcement are drawn from the same population as teachers. We would therefore expect similar characteristics between them, and so we can look at what happens with police and see if accidents are a huge problem.

They're generally not, and so I wouldn't expect accidents to be a problem among teachers.

Now, many people believe that police are magically qualified to carry guns. The reality is that after qualifying with their firearm at the academy, most departments never test their officers again. The idea of the highly trained police officer is largely a myth, at least to the extent that it is required for the job.

If you've never really been exposed to guns, fear is a natural response. I wasn't around them much early in life and the first time I saw someone open carrying a gun, I experienced fear. After thinking about it critically, I realized that cops are just people, and just because someone isn't wearing a costume doesn't mean they are a danger if they have a gun.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ryanbleau]

My point was that anti gunners typically point out the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2A, while ignoring the "shall not be infringed" portion.

I live in PHX and I carry every time I leave the house. I've seen homeless people carrying swords, no joke... so I figured if we got homeless ninjas running around, I better have something with a little more range.

I've seen some crazy things here in Scottsdale and Phoenix. It's my responsibility to keep my family safe so I treat that responsibility with the same respect. I carry when I leave the house. In Kansas I carried too but we had wildlife bigger than a rattlesnake.

 

[ZF Lee]

I am a Florida resident with a child in Florida schools, and i think this is FABULOUS.

Shooters are cowards. When they know that the first person they start shooting at shoots back, they'll go find another movie theater or somewhere else to play their cowardly act. Gun free zones are a joke. Soft targets are why assholes pick elementary schools.

I will accept the risks as above. Hell, I will BUY MY KIDS TEACHER A GUN if she wants one and agrees to get licensed for it.

Conceal carry permit holders, en masse, are responsible. Not only that, they have a constitutional right to carry it anyway.

I am 100% for it. Waiting for the first news story of some jackass getting their head blown off by a kindergarten teacher, and the whole bunch of copycat cowards will find somewhere else, and my kid will come home safely.

Sad that my own country doesn't have these kind of means to enable everyone to protect themselves.

We've got stupid goons who prowl the streets looking to nab or stab someone.
Surely a few revolver shots should send them begging on their knees...

Normally, the citizens won't touch guns, but I think mindsets are changing, as they find that the cops can't always come in time...

An uncle of mine was so worried about the criminal fallout a recession would bring that he bought a paintball online, and loaded it with LEAD SHOTS and MARBLES.

Probably would work if he hit headshots...

If anybody else is down we can go form a militia, maybe have a monthly militia barbecue or something.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdmPIpQZPRg

 

[JAJT]

English people in the room when Americans start talking about the right to carry guns, be like...

Canadians as well, but it's important to note that this is simply an issue that many non-Americans just can't relate to and it would be ignorant to casually impose the values of one country or region on another without some serious research and experience to back it up.

In Ontario, where I live, it's reported that only 15% of households own any amount of firearms. That number plummets to 2.8% in cities over 1 million people. So for Ontario, gun ownership is largely a small town / rural thing. Roughly 70% of gun owners claim that hunting is their primary purpose for ownership and less than 5% claim it was for protection.

Hell, you have to jump through hoops just to own a handgun up here and conceal / open carry is outright illegal Canada-wide, from my understanding.

The bottom line (for me) is that the perception of safety is a subjective thing. We feel safe when our expectations for safety are being met, regardless of how objectively safe we actually are. When you live in a place that associates a lack of guns with safety, you naturally object to anything that increases the prevalence of guns. When you live in a place that associates a prevalence of guns with safety, you naturally object to anything that decreases the prevalence of guns.

So while I would 100% object loudly to letting Ontario teachers carry firearms, that doesn't mean that my opinion holds any weight in Florida, where the perception of safety as it relates to guns is totally different.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GPM]

Roughly 70% of gun owners claim that hunting is their primary purpose for ownership and less than 5% claim it was for protection

In Canada it is illegal to protect yourself with a firearm, maybe even with any "weapon". We have laws in this country to ensure that criminals are better off than citizens when it comes to property rights and defending yourself.

There is a man in Ontario who wrestled a gun from someone breaking into his home, he then shot the criminal with his own firearm. The home owner had the book thrown at him for every gun offence you can possibly think of. There are a few stories like this.

Thankfully in Alberta a rural land owner just had a landmark case. He shot a trespasser and was dragged through the courts.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-shooting-homeowner-charges-dropped-1.4716423

He has multiple clips

Magazines.

I think that gun safety should be taught in every school everywhere. They exist. They are out there. We can't just keep our head in the sand. Drill the Four Rules of Gun Safety into every child's head, same as everything else we have them memorize and learn.

#1 Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
#2 Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy.
#3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
#4 Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

 

[Kak]

I've added a poll with a hypothetical...

You're in a movie theater and a lunatic with a pistol decides to shoot up the place. He has multiple clips.

Would you rather be in a movie theater in Toronto Canada?

Or in Dallas Texas?

For me, the answer is a no brainer. I want to be in Dallas because I'm sure one of my fellow citizens will be there to help stop it. In Canada, you'll be dead before help arrives.

Great poll!

Those that answer Toronto are just arguing to argue because this makes the point perfectly.

The wife and I went to Avengers last night as a matter of fact. I normally carry a pocket pistol around town, but I carry my Glock 23 to the theater because it has a custom trigger and dialed in night sights.

My wife carries a spare mag in her purse usually.

I pitty the son of a bitch that walks in our movie theater with bad intentions.

Sadly we lost all of those guns in a boating accident on the way home last night... But hey, at least it was a good movie.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MTEE1985]

It's far more likely the students get in an auto accident on the way to school than they get injured with a firearm while at school.

Absolutely but “high school student dies in car crash” won’t get people riled up and screaming for cars to be banned during the evening news.

We all know (well, most of us) that it’s a confirmation bias for our government and those who just want to yell and be angry about something. That’s why we get pummeled with “school shootings are on the rise” every time there is one. Well, that may be true, conveniently left out is that the number of students is growing exponentially so as a percentage there has been a decline since the 90’s and students are safer than ever.

Criminals, by definition, break the law... So atempting to control criminals with laws is utter nonsense.

You mean we can’t tell these A-holes to just play nice and smother them with affection?

I would be ecstatic if as my children got older their teachers were basically qualified and carried a weapon. Sadly I’m in the wrong part of AZ for that to likely ever happen. At least they’ll be armed with their words

 

[lowtek]

I always thought this was weird when people post "SHALL not infringe!" like that's the end of the argument.

The constitution also protects your right to vote, but that right can be revoked perfectly legally. Are all voting laws unconstitutional?

The right to defend your person and property is fundamental; a natural right. We have had this right since before the advent of modern government

The "right" to choose your rulers is less fundamental and only a consequence of the modern system of governance.

Off topic, but relevant to your query, I don't believe everybody should have the right to vote. If you're not a net tax payer and can pass a basic written test about the candidates and their positions, your vote shouldn't count.

 

[Samix]

Shooters are cowards. When they know that the first person they start shooting at shoots back, they'll go find another movie theater or somewhere else to play their cowardly act. Gun free zones are a joke. Soft targets are why assholes pick elementary schools.

I am 100% for it. Waiting for the first news story of some jackass getting their head blown off by a kindergarten teacher, and the whole bunch of copycat cowards will find somewhere else, and my kid will come home safely.

This is exactly what I thought when I read it. They only go there because it's declared 'gun-free' and now the school may not be the easy massacre that they had hoped it would be.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[WJK]

Not really a militia guy. But having grown up with firearms and live in Az where you can hunt and shoot year round, I'm a strong believer in freedom. I carry almost every day, not in the office though. My point is that they should have every right to defend their life and take responsibility for protecting the young they are entrusted with with every possible tool they have available. I would have no issue to my kids teacher carrying.

I live in Alaska, and we carry a weapon most of the time. It's an "open carry state" where you don't need a permit. The Troopers are 45 minutes from us, so we must handle all types of situations ourselves. And no, I have NEVER drawn my weapon on a two legged critter (a person). Bears, coyotes, wolves, and moose are a different story. But, everyone around us knows that both my husband and I are packing most of the time. I grew up in Ozark Mountains in Missouri with a gun in one hand and fishing pole in the other. A gun is natural in my hand. When I must shoot, I don't miss -- I shoot to kill.
My reputation in my community gleans me an aurora of respect. People really don't mess with me much. (And I have a bunch of men around me that would tear anyone to pieces who would dare to be disrespectful.) Everyone knows that I run a very tight ship with my mobile home park, my tenants, and my investments. I have 50 kids who live on my property and watch after them all. I have helped people to point where I have become the "mother duck" around here. It's my life's work. And in the end, I am being rewarded for all of the blood, sweat, and tears I put into it, by gaining my community's respect. What more can a person ask for?

 

[G-Man]

Either one would be bad, because as far as I'm aware this mythical good guy when he does show up, gets shot by the police. (Though I reserve the right to be wrong, perhaps someone can point me to a story whereby a random stranger shot a lunatic shooter dead and was him/herself not also shot by the police).

You won't get shot by the police, but you 100% will get arrested. Maybe not charged, but arrested for sure. Police just showed up in response to a shooting and your @ss has a gun. That's why outside of every concealed carry class there's a guy selling subscription based legal if you ever have to use your gun.

I'm interested in this... Are there alternatives beyond homeschooling that I am missing? This might be a fascinating discussion for its own thread.

You can outsource homeschooling though. For example: my kid is gonna start Kumon for math and reading in a couple months when he turns 3, and I can send him to coding camp to learn computers. I called the international school and found out they'll let you bring your kid for just 1 language class per day, etc. It takes some scavenging, but you can get your kids an education in all kinds of topics that may be beyond your own ability to teach.

Also, and I don't know why this never seems to come up in the discussions of education, but my biggest objection to public school (other than that they'll try to put my daughter on birth control at 10 and convince my son that his high energy is a mental disability) is this: How can you give the state the ability to inform the worldview of those it intends to govern and still call yourself a democracy?

 

[Deleted50669]

The same argument applies to police officers or any other state enforcer that is mandated to carry a firearm. Many schools have police officers, and i don't often hear of their firearms being used for nefarious purposes. Very few teachers will actually exercise this right, so the odds of something going wrong are quite low. It's far more likely the students get in an auto accident on the way to school than they get injured with a firearm while at school.

I'm OK with bills like this because the facts are that a) the police have no duty to protect anyone (yes, this is a fact) b) even when they want to help, they are minutes away and c) the type of people to carry a gun every single day understand the gravity of that decision and take it very very seriously.

I'm curious, what's your personal background with firearms?

I admittedly have almost no background with firearms. I just look at the profile of your average high school teacher and see psychological risk.

 

[StrikingViper69]

If you replace "should people be allowed to carry guns?" with "should you be allowed to effectively defend yourself against someone much bigger than you?", the issue becomes a lot clearer.