Students walk out.........

Is there a story on the kids that didn't walk out? I'm just curious to see how many didn't. Another thing crossed my mind, who pays for this? Our schools don't get paid for absent students. Is it the same in Fla?

I cant disagree with you, however, I applaud them for taking a stand. I dont claim to have the answers, but something has to change and they were on the front lines so I value their opinion. It cannot only be about the mentally ill or high powered rifles or large capacity magazines or whatever. Regardless, status quo cannot be the solution.

They where never told this! And don't call me Shirley.

I was thinking the same thing. It takes more than a march to change the world. MLK held hundreds of events over 14 years to get civil rights changes even though many in the country were sympathetic to civil rights changes it took a long time and a lot of work. But I guess in this microwave society we live in change is expected NOW!! Just hold a march and demand 'changes' and do not expect any pushback or opposition to your cause.

I think they would be better served if the drafted a white paper for discussion topics. Like, "100 possible changes to makes our schools safer". Just a thought. Or, you can spend 35 cents for a poster board and write something catchy on it and march down the road chanting 'stop the shootings!'

Yeah I can see with so many marches the puszy hat company getting confused and embroidering Occupy MeToo on side of the pick puszy hats!

The Tet offensive comes to mind...

Look, if these kids can pry something loose that all those other mass shootings failed to do, I say more power to them. Learning you do not always get your way is an important part of civil engagement in a democracy, but so is voicing your opinion.

From RCP:

"Pubescents are fueled by hormones and dopamine and pizza and Sonic shakes. They're fickle and fragile and fierce and forgetful. They hate you. They love you. They need you. They ignore you. They know everything. They know nothing. All in the span of 10 seconds. I know. I have two of them.


If you're lucky, they've only Googled "Should I eat Tide pods?" or "What happens if I snort Ramen powder?" and not actually attempted the latest social media stunt challenges.

But that's what kids do. Because they're kids.

Many may be exceptionally smart, passionate and articulate beyond their years, but they do not possess any semblance of wisdom because they have not lived those years. Their knowledge of history, law and public policy is severely limited (Common Core certainly hasn't helped). And their moral agency and cognitive abilities are far from fully developed.

Most are in no position to change the world when they can't even remember to change their own bedsheets."


Ouch! I think it is good they are trying to get involved but I do not think it will last. Why? Because in 3 months the seniors will be more worried about the senior prom and graduation and what college they want to go to. Marching in promote gun control will fall way down their list of priorities. Save for the one at the Parkland HS, the shooting will soon be forgotten and the kids will have move on to football spring training, cheerleader try outs, basketball, baseball, spring break.....

I guess it's because I already live with 3 teenagers who know everything.....but I can't listen to a single one of the "CNN kids".  I try to, and I click on the interview, or the town hall questions, and I end up going, "oh, ok, you again" and can't finish it. LOL

Edited by Left Brain 2018-02-22 7:37 AM

I don't know if you guys listened to the Sandy Hook mom, Nicole Hockley, but she voiced some very common sense measures that extended to security, mental health issues, background checks, and magazine capacity. She really impressed me as being very politically astute and well studied on the subject. This is what we need, people who have really thought through this issues rather than just lashing out...on both sides.

I have been racking my brain trying to understand why anyone would oppose arming some teachers and faculty. To me this is the FIRST and best thing we can do.

Best I can figure is anti-gun people are afraid of guns. They didn't grow up with guns in the house or going hunting and have never owned or even fire a gun. To them, guns are dangerous and unnecessary. Perhaps they think if some teachers are armed that will just lead to bullets flying everywhere!

I think that an armed guard and concealed carry would first serve as a deterrent. Pretty sure we've never had a mass shooting at a police department! I also think that banning bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc might make a mass shooter 'less effective' but it will not stop him! Psychos can kill and wound people with a .22 rifle or 12 gauge shotgun or 9 mm or 30.06 rifle....or they can make pipe bombs and run around the school detonating them.

To me, the talk about gun control is all noise and will do nothing to make the schools safer. Would children feel safer knowing a shooter only has 10 rd clips instead of 30 rd clips? I doubt it. Would children feel safer knowing the shooter only has a semiautomatic rifle capable of 3 shots per second instead of bumpstock that allows 10 shots per second? Would kids be less dead having been shot with a 9mm or 357 or 12 gauge than with a AR-15?

Just SMH. The only thing that is going to make schools safer is to allow schools to defend themselves!

I can imagine monkeys flying out of my arse....what i know for certain is people are going to die because we can't get there fast enough and nobody there can stop the shooting.

This is a situation with no good answers that is why it has not been solved yet. I'm not in favor of arming teachers as they have a tough enough job without having to jump into a combat situation (without body armor) should the need arise. I think what makes the most sense is to substantially increase the presence of professional security at schools, people that will provide a clear deterrent and technical skills necessary to meet situations that may arise. Also, limiting entrance/exit points into the school so that the security can be concentrated where it needs to be. The challenge will be how to pay for this security. I think part of the cost could be a state excise tax on guns and ammo, those states willing to impose this taxation will have tighter security - you get what you pay for. Think of it as a user tax.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that bump stocks/high cap magazines will stop shootings, making them less effective is the point but even that has been seen as "next they are going to take our guns away so we can't give an inch!"

If teachers want to carry I have zero problem with that. I'm sure an overwhelming majority of the predominantly female teachers will choose not to given the choice, they would rather spend their 10-12 hours work days focused on students and not worrying about also being school security.

Dedicated security and better physical entry defenses (in addition to improved gun regulation/background checks, mental health improvements) seem like good steps to me. Even if a shooter gets past security and inside the school, if they can't get into individual classrooms due to reinforced doors it would do a lot to prevent loss of life.

There will continue to be mass shootings no matter what happens. Our only hope is to limit the amount of damage a single individual can do.

Rog, this is a quote from someone who I am sure is no lefty and quite educated in the matter (lifted from a piece on Politico):

“We think that teachers should be in the school to teach kids and not have to worry about the responsibilities and the liabilities of carrying a gun and being expected to use it in that situation,” said Mac Hardy, director of operations for the National Association of School Resource Officers.

Agreed. This is the same type of argument pro abortion people make when defending late term abortions or any sort of restriction or a like law requiring abortion doctors be able to admit patients to local hospitals.....which they say is an unnecessary burden and accomplishes nothing.

But not to hijack this thread back to guns....

Every school is different depending on what part of the country and state you live in. In my home town in Louisiana the coaches were also teachers and they coached as an 'additional duty' or just because they loved the sport they coached. Some of them were also avid hunters and would have no issue at all packin'. After all, they too are targets in a shooting and most would welcome the chance to defend themselves and help protect their students.

There is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Each school or school district needs to determine what is best for them. If they don't have any or enough teachers willing to carry then they need to hire security guards. Some teachers or janitors or cafeteria workers might be willing to carry but need training. Some schools might already have a guard but need to install more cameras or limit ingress/egress to the school.

Yeah, I'm sure they don't speak for all teacher and faculty. Just because you have a 357 in an ankle does not mean you have to worry.....in fact, I worry less when I'm packin'. :-)

BTW, "director of operations for the National Association of School Resource Officers" sounds like he might have conflict of interest......

Jeez Rog, couldn't agree with you more. This is not one-size-fits-all and really needs to be left to local communities to figure out how best to defend their kids. But it is great that we, as a country, are starting to have this conversation. Now if the boobs in DC could come to the same conclusion...

There is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Each school or school district needs to determine what is best for them. If they don't have any or enough teachers willing to carry then they need to hire security guards. Some teachers or janitors or cafeteria workers might be willing to carry but need training. Some schools might already have a guard but need to install more cameras or limit ingress/egress to the school.

Mike - sounds like a job for a private security company. There are security firms that would come in and assess the property and figure where/how to secure the buildings. And there are firms that would provide trained security offices to roam the halls. If they can secure the biggest airports in the world, they can Shirley secure a school building!


On a different thought. All the talk about mental illness and not allowing people with a history of mental illness to purchase a gun is going to have a very negative effect on mental illness IMO. If someone is feeling melancholy or depressed or has a drug or alcohol problem and they know, if the go seek help, they will end on the 'crazy people list' and will lose their right to keep and bear arms they might be less inclined to seek the help they need. The law of unintended consequences.....