Trump

[Harlequin]

I was not previously aware of those NRA member discount schemes.

… Norton’s anti-malware brand Symantec offers steep discounts as well, slashing its premium service from $110 per year to $48.

[Harlequin]

[PFVA]

Actually the view of armed teachers is not a new one, and it's probably supported by the NRA. Trump does such a poor job of defending that idea that it may actually work for the other side.

[gravy]

There's a significant amount of people who value personal gun ownership liberty more than societal safeness.

A working society is a successful balance between safety and liberty. America gets that balance right in most areas. Except for this one obviously.

[merman]

Meanwhile at least one of the injured students has turned to crowdfunding to pay their medical bills.

Discounts for gun owners are obviously more important than healthcare for gunshot victims.

[KlaxonCow]

Turns out that there was a trained armed officer on the school premises who reached the building within 90 seconds of the first shots being fired.

But then he remained outside for the next 4 minutes. And the incident lasted around 6 minutes.

And Trump has decided to call them a coward for not confronting the shooter.

But the thing is, Mr.President, whether this person was or wasn't a coward, this kind of severely undermines your NRA-sponsored "the best way to stop bad guys with guns is to have good guys with guns" rhetoric.

Because there was a good guy with a gun there. But they failed to act in time.

And that's not the only way this sort of thing could go horribly wrong. At one of Trump's own rallies, an unarmed man stole the gun of an armed protection officer and then threatened to assassinate Trump. Clearly he didn't succeed at the assassination, but he did succeed in showing that you could have a situation of a bad guy without a gun disarming a good guy with a gun, which leads to a "bad guy with a gun and good guy without a gun", exactly because the bad guy's got the good guy's gun.

The school armoury filled with weapons? What happens when the kids find a way in there?

The thing with that attempted Trump assassination was that the shooter-to-be sailed through security without issue and they always will because, hey, they entered the building completely unarmed. They don't need to bring their own guns when there's plenty there for them to take by breaking into the school's armoury.

Yet again, America argues for actions that make this sort of thing easier to carry out.

[F-ZeroOne]

Asides from the rather dubious question of turning schools into small armouries, assault rifles would be a pretty bad idea, because of the risk of over-penetration (basically, bullets tend to go through things). Submachine guns would be more suitable, and I can't even believe I'm typing that in regards to a school setting!!!

One would think. Ballistic tests often prove otherwise. Light, very fast bullets (like the 5.56 NATO most commonly used in AR-15s) have a tendency to dump all their energy in the first thing they hit, and either fragment or tumble if they reach the other side. Conversely, the slow, heavier rounds used in pistols and SMGs are more likely to retain energy after penetrating a target.

I'll admit to only having laymans understanding of this, but I was thinking more of penetrating a wall (a thin dividing wall rather than a blockhouse kind of wall) that an innocent person might be hiding behind rather than penetrating a body - so does the same apply to that sort of inanimate object? I seem to recall reading that specialist teams that might need to, say, rescue people from an airliner use lower-velocity rounds that fragment upon hitting the target rather than carrying on...?

[Little stoned kiwi]

The school armoury filled with weapons? What happens when the kids find a way in there?

In for a penny, in for a pound. When it comes to arming a force it's better to have consistent weaponry suitable for the task where the holders have consistent training. A bunch of gun-ho randoms with an assortment of random, concealable, weapons and no training are going to be more of a problem than a solution. They are expected to go up against someone who has more suitable weaponry that they have practised using.
I don't support the idea. It just highlights the half-assed 'solution' being presented; giving teachers a small incentive to carry their own gun to school.

I'll admit to only having laymans understanding of this, but I was thinking more of penetrating a wall (a thin dividing wall rather than a blockhouse kind of wall) that an innocent person might be hiding behind rather than penetrating a body - so does the same apply to that sort of inanimate object? I seem to recall reading that specialist teams that might need to, say, rescue people from an airliner use lower-velocity rounds that fragment upon hitting the target rather than carrying on...?

[/quote]Which is the argument I'm making. The school should have to provide suitable weapons and ammunition (whatever they are) with suitable training, or don't bother at all.
The dude had a semi-automatic rifle with a bump-stock. Someone with a handgun, without tactical training, who happened to be near is not an adequate response. In a firefight the uncoordinated teachers will create more confusion and might end up shooting at each other.

[gravy]

Listen to the draft dodger, he knows what the score is


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43174069

[F-ZeroOne]

The classic example I guess would be the 1972 Munich Olympics, which was the event that highlighted the need for highly trained specialist teams in the first place.

[gravy]

You talking about the Israeli death squad that hunted down the terrorists?

[F-ZeroOne]

Actually, no - the Germans formed their GSG9 outfit as a response, for example.

[ThetaReactor]

Asides from the rather dubious question of turning schools into small armouries, assault rifles would be a pretty bad idea, because of the risk of over-penetration (basically, bullets tend to go through things). Submachine guns would be more suitable, and I can't even believe I'm typing that in regards to a school setting!!!

One would think. Ballistic tests often prove otherwise. Light, very fast bullets (like the 5.56 NATO most commonly used in AR-15s) have a tendency to dump all their energy in the first thing they hit, and either fragment or tumble if they reach the other side. Conversely, the slow, heavier rounds used in pistols and SMGs are more likely to retain energy after penetrating a target.

I'll admit to only having laymans understanding of this, but I was thinking more of penetrating a wall (a thin dividing wall rather than a blockhouse kind of wall) that an innocent person might be hiding behind rather than penetrating a body - so does the same apply to that sort of inanimate object? I seem to recall reading that specialist teams that might need to, say, rescue people from an airliner use lower-velocity rounds that fragment upon hitting the target rather than carrying on...?

Yes, I'm speaking of very thin barriers, like wood and gypsum board. In extreme cases, special frangible ammo is used that is specifically designed to fragment upon impact. These are often sintered metal or the like.

[KlaxonCow]

It's bit like a ticking bomb in the making to give guns to teachers, they may have 1000 other more serious reasons to snap than students.

Yeah. And when, eventually, it's an armed teacher who ends up killing the students - either because they themselves snap and / or make a tragic mistake in thinking a student reaching to pull a calculator or ruler from their bag is reaching for a pistol, or whatever - then you know what the NRA's message is going to be?

Arm the kids! The only way to stop bad teachers with guns is to have good kids with a gun, right?

[Little stoned kiwi]

Checking out the NRA Wikipedia page, they have a revenue of $433.9 million but only 5 million members. It's argued that the numbers are inflated by deceased lifetime members, but also that a research centre thinks more than 14 million consider themselves members/supporters even though they don't have memberships.
With a population of over 320 million, that's a disproportionately small percentage for the political influence they have. With a lot of money to churn; less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees, while claiming arms companies contribute less than 5%. The rest comes from 'small donations'.