Teachers with guns ?

[T-Squared]

When originally opening this thread about 2 weeks ago I voted for the I am a student and I do not support teachers with guns category without much thought behind it and just assumed that firearms in the classroom probably isn't such a good idea.

Now after thinking about for a bit, I see no issues with teachers concealed carrying a weapon, under the pretense they are a CCW permit holder. If the students don't know the weapon is there, the teaching environment remains undisturbed while still providing a (presumed, credible source would be needed) deterrent to violet crime. I doubt allowing teachers to concealed carry would create any difference from how a classroom operates now, so I would let them carry if a teacher wanted to.

I'm still not in favor of teachers open carrying, as I feel some would use the visalbe weapon to intimidate students, or sheltered students intimidating themselves with it's obvious presence, among other issues that could arise if the weapon is visible.

With all that said, I would change my vote to I am a student and I support teachers with guns. Hopeful my post makes sense, I browse the O&CE section quite often but rarely post and contribute to the debate.

 

[shmogt]

Forget teachers with guns we need Arnold undercover lol

 

[Bye Ya]

You so called common sense isn't that common apparently, and you've not explained much of anything besides people get angry sometimes. Which is common sense. People generally don't get angry enough on a whim to murder someone which, from what I've read, was the point you were trying to make.

Now, instead of even trying to justify your stance, you just want to respond with "witty" comebacks and snide remarks. The irony of which is quite amazing, given your childish responses and attempts to bait people into "assuming" what your view is. Which isn't much different than how you act in most threads - state things and then claim they are common sense, with no real evidence or explanation beyond "because."

Well, I must concede, you've got me so figured out. Amazing how you can know my own intentions. Also how you can ignore the part where I clarified that I never talked about teachers killing someone on a whim. I specifically said that's not what I was suggesting, but whatever right? I'll just accept your non-childish responses as fact.

 

[Azuremen]

Well, I must concede, you've got me so figured out. Amazing how you can know my own intentions. Also how you can ignore the part where I clarified that I never talked about teachers killing someone on a whim. I specifically said that's not what I was suggesting, but whatever right? I'll just accept your non-childish responses as fact.

You mean aside from your first post in this thread...

How long will it be until a teacher gets pissed off enough at a student to just shoot them? I guarantee you that it would happen eventually, and possibly even a mass shooting by a teacher, somewhere down the road.

You then go onto to support your reasoning with citing police and solider killings...

Now first of all, why in the hell would I claim that armed teachers HAVE shot people when they aren't even armed yet as you'd like them to be? Obviously then, in the example, the only evidence you can be referring to is that of the events that HAVE happened so far: policemen and soliders who are trained with weapons, and who have killed innocent people on multiple occasions.

And this...

The logic that humans have always killed humans unnecessarily throughout history? You really think that if we arm teachers there will never be an unwarrantedly shot student, or worse?

And this...

There is literally so much evidence out there for confrontational relationships that result in fatal violence that you couldn't get to the bottom of all the police reports and stories. There is evidence. You are just trolling.

You'll also find your use of the word troll seems happen every other post, along with dismissing people's requests and points entirely when you want.

Oh, in case you decide to argue based on my use of the word whim:

Whim

A sudden desire or change of mind, esp. one that is unusual or unexplained.
A windlass for raising ore or water from a mine.

Relevant definition in bold.

 

[Bye Ya]

You mean aside from your first post in this thread...

Nice quotes. Please point out where, according to the definition of "whim", I suggested that a gun-carrying teacher would kill a student based on a whim, because the 1st quote certainly doesn't suggest this. "Pissed off enough" doesn't suggest whimsical behaviour.

And was there a point to quoting the other posts?

You'll also find your use of the word troll seems happen every other post

Funny attempt, but untrue.

along with dismissing people's requests and points entirely when you want.

I was discussing this with one person in particular who refuses to acknowledge human history and common sense as evidence.

Oh, in case you decide to argue based on my use of the word whim:

Relevant definition in bold.

Appreciate you looking that up for us all, however irrelevant it ended up being to whatever argument you think you have going.

 

[Scaff]

Nice quotes. Please point out where, according to the definition of "whim", I suggested that a gun-carrying teacher would kill a student based on a whim, because the 1st quote certainly doesn't suggest this. "Pissed off enough" doesn't suggest whimsical behaviour.

And was there a point to quoting the other posts?




Funny attempt, but untrue.

You will want to drop the attitude right now.

I was discussing this with one person in particular who refuses to acknowledge human history and common sense as evidence.

I strongly suggest that if you are going to continue posting you learn the difference between opinion and fact, in addition what constitutes evidence.

Opinions are not to be presented as if they are fact, and should facts should be linked to source material (which you have not done). Therefore if you are going to cite 'human history' as evidence you best back that up with links to sources that support your claim, don't do so and its neither fact or evidence, just your opinion.

Oh and common sense is neither evidence or fact until its proven to be (again provide sources and back it up).

 

[MarcoM]

Such as? And what makes schools a special case for this that other places that allow concealed carry aren't?

The relationship between teachers and students is quite delicate.

Grades can be reason to steal the gun from a teacher threaten the teacher.

Teachers can force students to perform action they do not want.

 

[Zenith]

The relationship between teachers and students is quite delicate.

Grades can be reason to steal the gun from a teacher threaten the teacher.

Teachers can force students to perform action they do not want.

Que?

If a student was going to threaten a teacher with a weapon, wouldn't they just bring one from home? Where are you getting these crazy ideas?

See Scaff's post on evidence.

 

[MarcoM]

I thought you were joking when you made that post wondering why I would ask for supporting evidence in an opinions forum. I guess not.

Here's a good read.

https://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

That is a different situation. Posting links as evidence might be evidence from the sender's point of view, but it might not be evidence for the receiver.

In order to make communication work, the receiver has to accept the message from the sender.

I do not know the man in the article, so why should I believe him, and why should I believe you?

 

[FoolKiller]

I was discussing this with one person in particular who refuses to acknowledge human history and common sense as evidence.

Here is the problem with your rationale. I can point to history and common sense as evidence to say that schools are soft targets that allow a killer to have free reign for enough time to kill a classroom's worth of kids. The added emotional impact of these killings makes them an even more appealing target to killers wishing to draw lots of attention. Common sense and history says having no armed response in a school results in these tragedies being able to happen time and time again. Having an armed response from an unknown source prevents a killer from knowing how and where to strike to avoid confrontation, thus maximizing the potential of ending the attack early.

Now, you may say I have no concrete evidence of that. Similarly, saying an armed teacher is a threat has no concrete evidence. All we can look at is behavior of individuals in similar situations. I see little evidence of legal concealed carry holders unjustly killing people out of anger. I also know we have no clue how many teachers with a concealed carry license illegally carry to work but don't get pushed to the point of shooting kids.

The relationship between teachers and students is quite delicate.

Which could also be an argument for why a teacher won't use it on a student.

Grades can be reason to steal the gun from a teacher threaten the teacher.

You assume the student knows which teacher has a gun, thus negating the point of concealed carry.

Teachers can force students to perform action they do not want.

Because there is a very long history of legal concealed carry holders doing things like this?

Your assumptions seem to be that those who legally have a license to conceal carry for defense may be willing, often enough to be concern, to use them in illegal ways and that they will be advertising that they carry it, and where.

Thing is, I don't hear about these sorts of things happening. If they were a major concern I can't believe concealed carry would be allowed.

 

[MarcoM]

- But it could also be an argument that the teacher does use it at some point.

- Rumors spread fast among schools. If teachers are allowed to conceal cary, then students must assume they do.

- Concealed carry is still allowed in the US because the US is just making its first small steps towards a gun ban. You and your child's generation will think it normal, but perhaps the generation after that might be living in a country where carrying guns is illegal.

 

[Zenith]

- But it could also be an argument that the teacher does use it at some point.

See Foolkiller's post.

I see little evidence of legal concealed carry holders unjustly killing people out of anger. I also know we have no clue how many teachers with a concealed carry license illegally carry to work but don't get pushed to the point of shooting kids.

Your assumptions seem to be that those who legally have a license to conceal carry for defense may be willing, often enough to be concern, to use them in illegal ways and that they will be advertising that they carry it, and where.

Thing is, I don't hear about these sorts of things happening. If they were a major concern I can't believe concealed carry would be allowed.

- Rumors spread fast among schools. If teachers are allowed to conceal cary, then students must assume they do.

There are schools in the US and around the world that have police officers carrying their weapons openly on the hip. How many cases have there been of students stealing the gun and shooting people?

You argument that students will steal weapons and use them is based on fantasy. If there were a handful of cases of weapons being stolen off officers or guards at schools, you might have a point. But there aren't...

At least none that you have provided. Hint hint.

- Concealed carry is still allowed in the US because the US is just making its first small steps towards a gun ban. You and your child's generation will think it normal, but perhaps the generation after that might be living in a country where carrying guns is illegal.

That's an assumption. If you'd like to discuss whether or not the US is headed towards a gun ban you should head over to the guns thread. Don't confuse your expectations for fact and evidence for your argument in this thread.

Opinions are not to be presented as if they are fact, and should facts should be linked to source material (which you have not done). Therefore if you are going to cite 'human history' as evidence you best back that up with links to sources that support your claim, don't do so and its neither fact or evidence, just your opinion.

Oh and common sense is neither evidence or fact until its proven to be (again provide sources and back it up).

 

[FoolKiller]

- But it could also be an argument that the teacher does use it at some point.

I assume you have examples of a long history of teachers attacking students to suggest this is a reasonable assumption. Please share.

- Rumors spread fast among schools. If teachers are allowed to conceal cary, then students must assume they do.

All teachers? If only two carry, how would they know which ones? How would they know where they have it? How would they access it before the teacher can respond?

- Concealed carry is still allowed in the US because the US is just making its first small steps towards a gun ban.

This doesn't explain your assumptions that concealed carry means teachers and students will try killing each other. Where is the history of concealed carry holders killing people or being assaulted by psychic thugs who know who carries and where they keep their gun?

You and your child's generation will think it normal, but perhaps the generation after that might be living in a country where carrying guns is illegal.

If that happens, my grandchild will know I died trying to prevent it. But that won't legally happen anytime soon, as it is a Constitutional right, meaning a super majority of all states is required to change that, despite what our president claims.

 

[Scaff]

Next person on either side to express a 'fact' without being able to back it up with an independent source will get a two day holiday.

 

[MarcoM]

Scaff, who will determine if a source is independant? That is not possible.

 

[Scaff]

Scaff, who will determine if a source is independant? That is not possible.

Right now sources full stop would be a major start, we can discuss the independence of them after that, however right now a lot of claims are being made about how people would react in situation ABC without any actual evidence that people have ever acted in that way.

 

[MarcoM]

OK, that's it, that ends the discussion for me.

Googling and posting links is not how I feel an opinion should be explained.

Happy discussion!!!

 

[Tornado]

IKR?

Heaven forbid, when you throw around wide reaching absolute statements about "gliding scales" and whatnot, that you do so with some sort of proof behind them.

 

[Scaff]

OK, that's it, that ends the discussion for me.

Googling and posting links is not how I feel an opinion should be explained.

Happy discussion!!!

Did I say opinions?

No, so don't imply that I did.

My original post again:

Opinions are not to be presented as if they are fact, and should facts should be linked to source material (which you have not done). Therefore if you are going to cite 'human history' as evidence you best back that up with links to sources that support your claim, don't do so and its neither fact or evidence, just your opinion.

Oh and common sense is neither evidence or fact until its proven to be (again provide sources and back it up).

You wish to state an opinion then feel free, state a fact however and you will be expected to back it up.

Opinion - I'm concerned someone could take a gun off a teacher and use it
Fact - Someone will take a gun off a teacher and use it.

The first is an opinion, no one can tell you not to be concerned about it, they may not agree, but your concern is your concern.

The second is a statement of fact and as such would need some corroborating evidence to back up that it will happen, such as a previous example of such an event (or similar event) occurring.

These are to be honest the basic fundamentals of discussion.

 

[MarcoM]

Opinion - I'm concerned someone could take a gun off a teacher and use it
Fact - Someone will take a gun off a teacher and use it.

I totally understand that concept. But in the heat of the moment those two things blend.

Providing links as proof does not help in my opinion.

IKR?

Heaven forbid, when you throw around wide reaching absolute statements about "gliding scales" and whatnot, that you do so with some sort of proof behind them.

No, because it's an opinion.

 

[Tornado]

Yes, I have. The whole idea of teachers with guns is just too silly for words.

Is an opinion. Giving the reasoning that it is silly because

emphasizing on teachers carrying guns is a gliding scale with some pretty nasty events along the road.

Is not. It is a statement of fact.



Nor is:

Teachers can force students to perform action they do not want.

Saying that it can lead to teachers threatening students, or that:

Grades can be reason to steal the gun from a teacher threaten the teacher.

It will lead to students stealing the guns off of teachers in response to regular school-related problems.

And for any one of those point your argument ceases to be just your opinion and becomes a statement of fact that you are using to justify your opinion. Hence asking for some sort of justification behind you using it to support your opinion, just like with Bye Ya. And it is also the point where it becomes no different than the argument that Bye Ya keeps stating to be common sense with countless examples, yet the only one able to be provided was provided by someone else entirely.

 

[Bye Ya]

I strongly suggest that if you are going to continue posting you learn the difference between opinion and fact, in addition what constitutes evidence.

This is the last time I will say this. My argument was that humans with guns, whether trained or not, will *eventually* use them to kill unwarrantedly. I was asked for evidence of this. I provided two examples. First, I have both friends and family members who have been exposed to unwarranted killings while on active duty in the military. Second, a simple Google search for 'police brutality shootings' provides a lot more examples. Then I'm told that my position is ridiculous because I didn't post any evidence, when first of all, I did, and second of all, unnecessary police brutality and shootings are common knowledge.



Now, here again is an example of irrational reactions in this thread due to black and white thinking.

Que?

If a student was going to threaten a teacher with a weapon, wouldn't they just bring one from home? Where are you getting these crazy ideas?

Are you really flipping out with this question? Bring one from home? Is there no other possibility? Perhaps the student doesn't have access to a gun from anywhere else, and that's why they choose to steal it from the teacher? Why isn't that a possibility? The scenario proposed by Marco is highly unlikely, but your addressing of the scenario is also irrational.

Basically the whole notion of: if they want to shoot someone they don't need the teacher's gun, therefore the position is moot, is irrational and short-sighted.

 

[MarcoM]

Toronado, accept that I have a different opinion than you.

I already stated that those are my opinions. Not going to repeat that. If you want to label them as statements of fact, fine, do it.

Looking at the current poll results I see quite some different opinions:

View Poll Results: Do you support teachers carrying guns ?
I am a student and I support teachers with guns 15 15.46%
I am a student and I do not support teachers with guns 36 37.11%
I am a parent and I support teachers with guns 7 7.22%
I am a parent and I do not support teachers with guns 5 5.15%
I am neither a student nor a parent. I support teachers with guns 8 8.25%
I am neither a student nor a parent. I do not support teachers with guns 18 18.56%
I am undecided 8 8.25%
Voters: 97. You have already voted on this poll


Long live diversity!

 

[Bye Ya]

Looking at the current poll results I see quite some different opinions:

Despite the fact that the poll leaders are students who don't want teachers carrying firearms in the classroom, the people who argue against it are somehow the minority in this thread, and their position is treated as irrational.

 

[Zenith]

This is the last time I will say this. My argument was that humans with guns, whether trained or not, will *eventually* use them to kill unwarrantedly. I was asked for evidence of this. I provided two examples. First, I have both friends and family members who have been exposed to unwarranted killings while on active duty in the military. Second, a simple Google search for 'police brutality shootings' provides a lot more examples. Then I'm told that my position is ridiculous because I didn't post any evidence, when first of all, I did, and second of all, unnecessary police brutality and shootings are common knowledge.

And you have been reminded multiple times that police brutality and war crimes occur for very different reasons than a teacher deciding to shoot a child. You provided "evidence". I asked you to provide relevant evidence.

Are you really flipping out with this question? Bring one from home? Is there no other possibility? Perhaps the student doesn't have access to a gun from anywhere else, and that's why they choose to steal it from the teacher? Why isn't that a possibility? The scenario proposed by Marco is highly unlikely, but your addressing of the scenario is also irrational.

Basically the whole notion of: if they want to shoot someone they don't need the teacher's gun, therefore the position is moot, is irrational and short-sighted.

MarcoM's hypothetical revolves around a student threatening a teacher with a gun that they would steal off the teacher's body. This ignores how the student would be aware that the teacher was carrying a gun, where that gun was, and how the student would be able to steal a gun from a holster off of a teacher. The hypothetical situation is outlandish and not even worth discussing.

Your response ignores the fact that a gun is not necessary to threaten someone. I can think of a dozen ways to threaten someone with deadly force without needing to steal a gun off of their body.

Toronado, accept that I have a different opinion than you.

I already stated that those are my opinions. Not going to repeat that. If you want to label them as statements of fact, fine, do it.

I have accepted that you have a different opinion than. I do not accept the fantasies you present as facts like you do.

Despite the fact that the poll leaders are students who don't want teachers carrying firearms in the classroom, the people who argue against it are somehow the minority in this thread, and their position is treated as irrational.

Your position is most certainly treated as irrational and unsubstantiated when you have not presented evidence or reasoning.

 

[Bye Ya]

Your position is most certainly treated as irrational and unsubstantiated when you have not presented evidence or reasoning.

Please see post #352.

And you have been reminded multiple times that police brutality and war crimes occur for very different reasons than a teacher deciding to shoot a child. You provided "evidence". I asked you to provide relevant evidence.

Do they? Please provide evidence that war crimes and police brutality occur for different reasons than any other hate crimes, such as a teacher who is armed shooting a student unwarrantedly. Additionally, please, through examples, show that the evidence I have provided is in fact irrelevant.


If the reasons those crimes occur are in fact so different, you should have no problem finding examples to back up that opinion. Am I to believe here that your opinion is fact and mine is not? That your opinion requires no substantiation through factual evidence, but mine does?

MarcoM's hypothetical revolves around a student threatening a teacher with a gun that they would steal off the teacher's body. This ignores how the student would be aware that the teacher was carrying a gun, where that gun was, and how the student would be able to steal a gun from a holster off of a teacher. The hypothetical situation is outlandish and not even worth discussing.

Why, because it is unlikely and different from your opinion? That's not very respectful. Apparently in this Opinions Forum the majority opinion-holders get to say which opinions are and aren't worth discussing.

 

[Tornado]

Despite the fact that the poll leaders are students who don't want teachers carrying firearms in the classroom, the people who argue against it are somehow the minority in this thread, and their position is treated as irrational.

Fun fact about polls is how meaningless they can be. Go to the GT5 or GT6 forum and you will see any number of things where a poll was shoved into the thread OP despite the concepts detailed within being very objective and having concepts that can be discussed logically.


For example, here's a thread with a poll about Forza's physics vs. GT5's physics. 81% of the people said the latter were superior, with a pretty healthy sample size of 1200 people. Does that actually make the latter superior? When people post their actual discussion about that topic, do those poll numbers give their arguments more weight even if they make an argument that is factually incorrect?

 

[MarcoM]

Am I to believe here that your opinion is fact and mine is not? That your opinion requires no substantiation through factual evidence, but mine does?

Yes, that's my general feeling as well.

Funny, that the majority is against teachers carrying concealed and that the pro gunners have the loudest voice. Makes you wonder.

 

[Bye Ya]

Fun fact about polls is how meaningless they can be. Go to the GT5 or GT6 forum and you will see any number of things where a poll was shoved into the thread OP despite the concepts detailed within being very objective and having concepts that can be discussed logically.


For example, here's a thread with a poll about Forza's physics vs. GT5's physics. 81% of the people said the latter were superior, with a pretty healthy sample size of 1200 people. Does that actually make the latter superior? When people post their actual discussion about that topic, do those poll numbers give their arguments more weight even if they make an argument that is factually incorrect?

And the funny thing is, you all take a situation like that and treat it as a blanket reasoning for why any other poll you disagree with 'should be meaningless'. That's not sound judgment, especially when the one poll is based on a subjective experience of playing a video game, which is affected by a number of factors including the player's gaming history, their skill level, their preference for simulation vs. arcade, etc., etc...

 

[Tornado]

Funny, that the majority is against teachers carrying concealed and that the pro gunners have the loudest voice. Makes you wonder.

It does make you wonder why tyranny of the majority is such a quick solution to societal problems.



Oh, wait. You were trying to make a vague and nebulous point that supported what you were saying. Sorry.

And the funny thing is, you all take a situation like that and treat it as a blanket reasoning for why any other poll you disagree with 'should be meaningless'.

Or, as I'm actually pointing out, the "but the majority says this" line of logic that you are falling back on now is a complete load of crap when it comes to justifying your opinion when your other reasoning falls apart under scrutiny.


But strawman all you like.