Saw this and the comments were crazy! What say you?

How about BOTH?

How many kids have to get gunned down before we react with 1/2 the common sense we did after 9/11 when we started making passengers walk through metal detectors, and put armed marshals on planes or let pilots carry sidearms?

It's not rocket surgery...

Personally, I think it’s an easy question, but I’m one of the most politically far right people you’ll ever talk to, so idk.

I say neither.

Too many people put too much focus on the guns (regardless of whether they speak of arming or banning). The problem is a complex one that cannot be solved with force alone. What we really need is to focus on raising a better generation and spreading wisdom and morality

Unfortunately, "we" (and by 'we' I mean 'not me') have already raised a generation of entitled crybabies who lose their shit when life doesn't go their way.

Maybe your idea will work for the upcoming generation, but we have to deal with these dumbasses in the here and now, who have been raised by helicopter parents that have shielded them from every little boo-boo in life. You're not going to retroactively undo that with hopes and wishes and psychotherapy. Maybe a bamboo rod upside the head might help some of them get their shit together...

I absolutely agree with you, which is why I do support the idea of armed guards and perhaps even self-defense and emergency response classes in schools. Such things are very valuable, but must be combined with a strong moral majority. To encourage such a thing, psychotherapy may be useful, but I am of the opinion that evangelism is the most effective way to change a human heart.

Exactly.

It's not complex, the UK, Australia and Japan all solved this problem and don't have dead kids anymore on a regular basis in their schools. The word 'complex' or it's 'too soon' is used to justify inaction

I definitely agree that inaction will only lead to more harm. I also grieve the terrible loss of life that occurs in school shootings. That said, self-defense is a basic human right that the government cannot and should not take away.

I understand that this is a very important issue, which is exactly why our response to it must be carefully and thoughtfully constructed. If we respond carelessly to such a problem, we may unwittingly make it far worse.

I'm not sure how it can get much worse than over the last 20 years!

Things can always get worse. Ignoring such a reality and being blind to the possibility of unintended consequences will inevitably lead to our downfall. I agree with you that something should be done; all I'm saying is that whatever we do should be done wisely

Someone just broke into your house! You heard a gunshot in the other room!

QUICK! What do you do?

Arm myself and defend my property (I'm not against arming, but I just don't think that some of the extreme arguments for mandated arming to stop mass shootings would be particularly practical)

But do you think it would be an effective deterrent and defense, even if impractical? It works at home doesn't it?

I do think that it might be a good idea, so don't think that I'm trying to disagree with you. All I am saying is that armed guards ALONE are no substitute for widespread moral reform. I acknowledge that even the best of societies need security from threats foreign and domestic.

I didn't see "neither" as an option in the picture.

I suppose you don't. The first choice will just be asking a school shooter to come over and put a few bullets in the faculty and students, while the latter will just put a gun in the hands of another untrained person and turn the school shooting into a school shootout that will probably get even more people caught in the crossfire. Unless you want to provide the funds to train the teachers in the use of firearms?

Assuming any staff members or faculty carrying firearms would be untrained is, not to put too fine a point on it, asinine.

A better question would be, who many teachers, janitors, administrators, etc., etc., already have a CC permit, or are military veterans?

We have trained, armed guards at airports, on planes, in banks, courthouses and government buildings, why not public schools?

The NRA (among other organizations) offers certified firearms training. If a teacher wants to carry a sidearm, they can take such a course. I had to get an IT certification as a condition of continued employment, cost me $300 bucks out of my pocket. If I can do it, they can too.

Which is the reason I posted. Other options are better, but not being discussed publicly.

I guess it all comes down to your "target" audience.

Don't cut yourself on that edge.

Right hand one.

Well armed guards in Florida didn't prevent 17 dead kids, who thinks the history teacher will make a difference? America has reached peak insanity and is gambling with the lives of its kids.

The second one, but with some tweaks.
“STAFF IS ARMED: Attempts to harm children will be met with 20 bullets to the face.”

That would definitely give me pause. Lol

He one on the left

Fair enough.

Appeal to fallacy.

Just the one where an argument was shunned BBY deflecting attention to a person. Ad hominem.

"by deflecting" O___O

The meme makes an argument (good or bad) but your responses aren't aimed at the argument, but to a person. By attacking him (even if it's legit) and not actually addressing the argument at hand on its own merit, commits the ad hominem. Arguments aren't valid or invalid because of who states them, but because of their form, independent of the author.

1. I doubt you know any more about Prager's arguments and reasoning on any given subject than you do about Hewitt, Medved, or even Limbaugh himself. It's far more likely that you're making a judgement based on other people's judgments, and a conclusion based on other people's conclusions, and regurgitating popular opinion.

2. It's not about the sign (can't believe I'm actually explaining this), it's about the methodology represented BY the sign. And yes, it absolutely WILL work. Need evidence? Tell me how many planes have been hijacked since the TSA was founded and we started arming random pilots and putting armed Air Marshals on random flights again? I'll answer for you: None. Zero. Nada. Bupkis.

1. It has been my experience that most people on the left who claim to have a negative opinion about one conservative opinion journalist or another on the radio or television have spent zero time actually listening to said individual and have formed their opinions based on what they've heard from the likes of Jimmy Kimmel, or Whoopi Goldberg. If you've actually taken the time to listen to what one of those guys personally has to say, and formed your opinion based on direct observation, then good for you. I hope you realize just how uncommon that is.

What is also oddly uncommon, is that you found absolutely nothing whatsoever redeemable about anything you've heard Prager say. He's actually considered to be more calm and intellectual than many of his peers, such as Gallagher or Hannity. Even I don't disagree with 100% of everything that comes out of Juan Williams' or Bill Maher's mouth. So when someone make a blanket statement like "Everything so-and-so says is bad", that's a pretty clear indicator that they are talking through their butthole. Not certainly, but certainly the way to bet.

2. Well, if some emo kid manages to get a firearm past the metal detector and then gets tackled by the football coach and the history teacher and disarmed before he can get a shot off (a la the 'shoe' bomber), then I'd call that a "win". My point is, just arbitrarily saying something won't work without taking the evidence that indicates otherwise into account is just reactionary and dangerous.

The problem is, the idea of armed guards in schools or armed teachers doesn't track with the left's utopian, kumbaya idea of a world where everyone gets along and respects each other. I hate to break it to you guys, but observable human nature says that's is an unattainable fantasy. Reality says the only consistently effective way to control undesirable behavior is with unpleasant consequences.

You are atypical among liberals, you do know that, right? :D