Teachers with guns ?

[Bye Ya]

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

Much like your poll example.

 

[Quackjack36]

Hmm. So what's everyone's arguments on both sides?

 

[Tornado]

Much like your poll example.

No. I suggest you reread my post:

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.

 

[Bye Ya]

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.

Do you not understand that you are suggesting that all polls are irrelevant, just because one could be irrelevant, and then calling that sound thinking?

And do you not see that your argument states that polls show how the opinion of the majority is apparently irrelevant, then at the same time you just criticized someone for going against the majority opinion contained within the discussion of this thread as if they were a fool for doing so?

 

[Tornado]

Do you not understand that you are suggesting that all polls are irrelevant, just because one could be irrelevant, and then calling that sound thinking?

Do you not understand that what I am actually saying is that the results of a poll are irrelevant when you fail to provide any reasoning to include them in your argument besides how the numbers support your viewpoint instead of the other person's? Bringing up a poll with a sample size of 100 people leaning one way over another to bolster your argument is basically just noise; just like how bringing up a poll with a sample size of 1200 people leaning one way doesn't make the arguments of the minority wrong.


An argument of why those poll numbers may be leaning that way are very relevant to the conversation, but then again the actual arguments are what matter in a conversation.

 

[Scaff]

Providing links as proof does not help in my opinion.

And you are entitled to that opinion. However the site owner and the staff disagree and as such if anyone states something as fact they are expected to source it.

 

[Bye Ya]

Do you not understand that what I am actually saying is that the results of a poll are irrelevant when you fail to provide any reasoning to include them in your argument besides how the numbers support your viewpoint instead of the other person's? Bringing up a poll with a sample size of 100 people leaning one way over another to bolster your argument is basically just noise; just like how bringing up a poll with a sample size of 1200 people leaning one way doesn't make the arguments of the minority wrong.


An argument of why those poll numbers may be leaning that way are very relevant to the conversation, but then again the actual arguments are what matter in a conversation.

I have not personally used the poll in this thread to back up my argument. I pointed out that I found it funny that the seemingly majority of the discussion holders differ from the poll results. That is my opinion, that it's funny.

And if the size of the sample affects its relevance, then this whole discussion thread is basically moot. There really aren't too many who are participating in it to begin with.

 

[Zenith]

Please see post #352.

Your response to my post is the post I responded to?

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.

Hate crime. Update your definition of that.

War crimes occur for a variety of reasons. Orders and Mental Breakdowns are common.

Police brutality can occur from a kill or be killed reaction.

Neither of those are exhibited in teachers becoming murderous towards students except possibly in the one case that Famine posted.

Your turn.

Additionally, please, through examples, show that the evidence I have provided is in fact irrelevant.

Prove that your evidence is irrelevant through examples?

Your evidence is irrelevant because it deals with situations and people who are extremely different than the one we are discussing (teachers in classrooms). Do you seriously think that I need to provide outside examples to prove that teachers in classrooms are different than soldiers in warzones and cops in streets?

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?

You make the claim that a teacher will shoot a student. The burden of proof is upon you for that claim.

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.

Where do I disrespect MarcoM?

 

[Bye Ya]

Hate crime. Update your definition of that.

hate crime
noun
a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.


I'm fine with that definition, because it includes "or other prejudice".

War crimes occur for a variety of reasons. Orders and Mental Breakdowns are common.

While it is extremely unlikely that a teacher would kill a student based on orders, I would ask you to consider that shooting an unarmed individual as the result of any form of "prejudice" is in fact an example of a mental breakdown, on some level.

Police brutality can occur from a kill or be killed reaction.

True, it can occur for that reason, however that does not negate all of the other reasons for police brutality.

Your evidence is irrelevant because it deals with situations and people who are extremely different than the one we are discussing (teachers in classrooms). Do you seriously think that I need to provide outside examples to prove that teachers in classrooms are different than soldiers in warzones and cops in streets?

First, you just stated an opinion about my evidence. Now I will state one about yours. You have not provided substantial evidence to show that the mental activity between a teacher shooting a student, a solider killing innocents, or a policeman brutalizing a civilian, are in fact so different.

You make the claim that a teacher will shoot a student. The burden of proof is upon you for that claim.

I have provided examples.

Where do I disrespect MarcoM?

Please reread.

 

[Zenith]

hate crime
noun
a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.


I'm fine with that definition, because it includes "or other prejudice".

You made the claim that a teacher would "just shoot" a student out of frustration. That is not a hate crime.

While it is extremely unlikely that a teacher would kill a student based on orders, I would ask you to consider that shooting an unarmed individual as the result of any form of "prejudice" is in fact an example of a mental breakdown, on some level.

Not really. A teacher planning to murder a student and then doing so is entirely different than a teacher becoming enraged and shooting a student. The first one is not relevant to teachers carrying concealed weapons because the event was planned, not a spur of the moment decision. I'm waiting for an example of a teacher deciding on a whim to kill a student. Famine provided one.

True, it can occur for that reason, however that does not negate all of the other reasons for police brutality.

First, you just stated an opinion about my evidence. Now I will state one about yours. You have not provided substantial evidence to show that the mental activity between a teacher shooting a student, a solider killing innocents, or a policeman brutalizing a civilian, are in fact so different.

Actually I did. It is extremely unlikely that a teacher will be ordered to shoot a student. A soldier or police officer may face orders to shoot an innocent. Famine has found one instance of a teacher attempting to murder a student as a result of a mental breakdown. Soldiers and police officers are subjected to far more mental stress pertaining to life and death than a teacher. Teachers do not work in an environment that includes the risk of death. Soldiers and police officers do.

Your claim that teachers will shoot students because soldiers and police officers shoot innocent people remains irrelevant and baseless until you can prove otherwise.

 

[MarcoM]

And you are entitled to that opinion. However the site owner and the staff disagree and as such if anyone states something as fact they are expected to source it.

I am really sorry to hear that. The whole idea of source makes no sense in my opinion.

I really have the feeling that the loudest ones get their saying and the others not soo much.

But hey, such is life. Time to move on.

 

[Azuremen]

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.

Pissed off enough to murder would easily be considered a sudden change of desire, seeing how teachers are suppose to educate and protect students, not murder them. Which is why I quoted the definition of the word whim, because the scenario you keep suggesting certainly isn't premeditated.

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

Because your evidence, as others have mentioned, is not relevant to the this situation.

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

Minus being entirely relevant because, as I suspected, you tried to play the word whim to discredit my interpretation of your argument. But if it makes you feel better, please replace my use of the word "whim" with "sudden change of mind" or "emotional outburst" or "snap change of mind from emotional stimuli."

Not really. A teacher planning to murder a student and then doing so is entirely different than a teacher becoming enraged and shooting a student. The first one is not relevant to teachers carrying concealed weapons because the event was planned, not a spur of the moment decision. I'm waiting for an example of a teacher deciding on a whim to kill a student. Famine provided one.

You best be careful using the word "whim" with Bye Ya, as he apparently doesn't see it meaning what the rest of us do.

 

[Bye Ya]

You made the claim that a teacher would "just shoot" a student out of frustration. That is not a hate crime.

Why isn't it?

"Just shoot" is not suggesting a whimsical behavour, it's suggesting that shooting someone is abandoning the other possibilities because a gun is involved, in which I am still not suggesting that they would do it on a whim. Perhaps they could, but it has never been my intention in this argument to suggest that the teacher would suddenly flip and shoot the student.

I am suggesting that a teacher would likely not shoot a student based on a whim, but after repeatedly being antagonized, either by the student, or by societal situations, etc.

I'm waiting for an example of a teacher deciding on a whim to kill a student. Famine provided one.

I'm discussing a teacher shooting a student AFTER laws being passed that allows them to carry in the classroom, which is not the present state of things. Now how am I supposed to find an example of that?


In any case. Here's a link to satisfy that necessity, oh my.

Mental Breakdown Mass Killing

Teachers do not work in an environment that includes the risk of death.

How ironic that we are having this discussion.

Your claim that teachers will shoot students because soldiers and police officers shoot innocent people remains irrelevant and baseless until you can prove otherwise.

That is your opinion.

 

[Azuremen]

"Just shoot" is not suggesting a whimsical behavour, it's suggesting that shooting someone is abandoning the other possibilities because a gun is involved, in which I am still not suggesting that they would do it on a whim. Perhaps they could, but it has never been my intention in this argument to suggest that the teacher would suddenly flip and shoot the student.

Again, do we have to back to your first post in this thread?

I'm discussing a teacher shooting a student AFTER laws being passed that allows them to carry in the classroom, which is not the present state of things. Now how am I supposed to find an example of that?

You could start by finding of an example of a teacher being so enraged that they murder a student with no premeditation. You don't need a gun to murder someone, just so you know.

In any case. Here's a link, oh my.

Mental Breakdown Mass Killing

Because the stresses of teaching and being a solider in Afghanistan are certainly comparable?

That is your opinion.

It is actually logic.

I am suggesting that a teacher would likely not shoot a student based on a whim, but after repeatedly being antagonized, either by the student, or by societal situations, etc.

It is still a whim if emotional stimuli are involved. You are the only person that I've dealt with that doesn't seem to get this.

 

[Bye Ya]

Again, do we have to back to your first post in this thread?

Apparently, it has been the focus of every counter-argument.

Because the stresses of teaching and being a solider in Afghanistan are certainly comparable?

They don't have to be the same. All that is required is a mentally unstable individual with a firearm, in any scenario. It's actually logic.

 

[TyrrellRacing]

Just because people voted "against" in the poll, it doesn't mean that they believe that it is fact that a teacher will lose the gun to a student. Admittedly, it was my initial reaction and probably others that this would happen, but as others have pointed out, there is no evidence to suggest that this will happen or even likely happen.

Another thing to consider is location. I believe that it is unnecessary in the UK as school shootings are rare and gun laws tight anyway. School shootings are certainly not a primary issue in education in the UK. Had I been living in USA, my vote would have likely have been different.

Also I'l just leave this here. (language)

I am really sorry to hear that. The whole idea of source makes no sense in my opinion.

I really have the feeling that the loudest ones get their saying and the others not soo much.

But hey, such is life. Time to move on.

What part of backing up claims with reputable sources doesn't make sense ?

One of the best things with an internet forum, without a rep system, is that you can SHOUT as much as you want, but your post holds the same value as the one that precedes and succeeds it.

 

[Azuremen]

Apparently, it has been the focus of every counter-argument.

Because you continually claim that you never suggested a teacher would snap and murder a student, when you clearly made this argument for several posts.

They don't have to be the same. All that is required is a mentally unstable individual with a firearm, in any scenario. It's actually logic.

It actually isn't logic because the scenarios are so radically different when you actually look at them and the factors involved.

 

[Bye Ya]

Because you continually claim that you never suggested a teacher would snap and murder a student, when you clearly made this argument for several posts.

I just clarified that position once again, which you chose to ignore.

It actually isn't logic because the scenarios are so radically different when you actually look at them and the factors involved.

It's actually illogical to suggest that the end result is not in fact a mentally unstable person with a firearm, and to think that they couldn't arrive in that position through different means, even if they were a teacher.

 

[MarcoM]

What part of backing up claims with reputable sources doesn't make sense ?

Googling and pasting the results makes you mind numb. I am more interested in the thoughts of you (not you specifically) than just some self called professor or journalist.

One of the best things with an internet forum, without a rep system, is that you can SHOUT as much as you want, but your post holds the same value as the one that precedes and succeeds it.

Except that according to Scaff, the staff does not want me to post the way I do, even if I never shout.

 

[Azuremen]

I just clarified that position once again, which you chose to ignore.

Ignore? I've not seen a change in your stance beyond claiming a teacher wouldn't "just shoot" unless they felt other options are exhausted. But then you continually keep discussing mental breakdowns and snaps resulting in murders, which goes back to your original point and post - a teacher with a gun may breakdown/snap and murder a student.

It's actually illogical to suggest that the end result is not in fact a mentally unstable person with a firearm, and to think that they couldn't arrive in that position through different means, even if they were a teacher.

The profiling and training teachers receive is so radically different from soldiers it isn't funny. Not to mention one is meant to educate and protect while the other is meant to kill.

Googling and pasting the results makes you mind numb. I am more interested in the thoughts of you (not you specifically) than just some self called professor or journalist.

It is called supporting your view with evidence, which isn't the same as just expressing the opinion of some journalist on the internet. You can have an opinion built on the research of others that is unique.

Except that according to Scaff, the staff does not want me to post the way I do, even if I never shout.

Because you have tendency to play only the emotional and anecdotal aspects of situations, and only care about expressing your opinion with no support other than "it is my opinion." This was the exact same issue in the Marijuana thread a while back.

 

[FoolKiller]

hate crime
noun
a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.


I'm fine with that definition, because it includes "or other prejudice".




While it is extremely unlikely that a teacher would kill a student based on orders, I would ask you to consider that shooting an unarmed individual as the result of any form of "prejudice" is in fact an example of a mental breakdown, on some level.

Prejudice? As in this?

noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=prejudice

I don't see how that applies to your description. Maybe if a racist teacher came in, got attitude from the one black student in class on the very first day, and just started shooting him without a physical threat being present. But I didn't get the feeling this is what you meant.

It sounded as if you meant after a long period of aggrevation, which would, by definition, not make it based on pre-anything. At most I think you could argue crime of passion as it would be under emotional/mental stress.

First, you just stated an opinion about my evidence. Now I will state one about yours. You have not provided substantial evidence to show that the mental activity between a teacher shooting a student, a solider killing innocents, or a policeman brutalizing a civilian, are in fact so different.

As I haven't decided my opinion on this (not voted in the poll), as I feel more rights than just a tracher's right to carry is to be debated here, and I have openly stated I think school shootings, tragic as they are, represent such a minor statistic that I feel the entire debate is unnecessary from a school safety point of view, I am questioning your reasoning because I don't see it as making sense. Comparing a soldier in battle, witnessing death day after day, to a teacher sounds...exaggerated to me.

The best comparison I can see is police using excessive force against an aggressor. And even then I'm not sure a violent student is a 1:1 comparison.

"Just shoot" is not suggesting a whimsical behavour, it's suggesting that shooting someone is abandoning the other possibilities because a gun is involved, in which I am still not suggesting that they would do it on a whim.

This is where we need examples. These other possibilities must be a semi-common occurrence if you expect me to even begin to buy into the idea that when these situations arise that the teacher might go straight for the gun instead. Is there a common record of situations where a teacher uses some form of uncalled for violence against a student?

I am suggesting that a teacher would likely not shoot a student based on a whim, but after repeatedly being antagonized, either by the student, or by societal situations, etc.

Are there enough examples of teachers using other forms of unjustified violence in these situations to make it a concern that lethal action would be used if a gun were at their disposal?

I'm discussing a teacher shooting a student AFTER laws being passed that allows them to carry in the classroom, which is not the present state of things. Now how am I supposed to find an example of that?

Are you saying the gun is the variable that would result in uncalled for violence in these cases? If not, just show a history of teachers using uncalled for violence. If so, show evidence that a gun is a variable in triggering these reactions.

In any case. Here's a link to satisfy that necessity, oh my.

Mental Breakdown Mass Killing

Is a battlefield soldier the same as a Midwest or inner city classroom teacher?

 

[MarcoM]

Because you have tendency to play only the emotional and anecdotal aspects of situations, and only care about expressing your opinion with no support other than "it is my opinion." This was the exact same issue in the Marijuana thread a while back.

I did provide support (a study to the effects of it) in the Marijuana thread, but it was bashed down by people who have a different opinion.

 

[TyrrellRacing]

Googling and pasting the results makes you mind numb. I am more interested in the thoughts of you (not you specifically) than just some self called professor or journalist.

Except that according to Scaff, the staff does not want me to post the way I do, even if I never shout.

That's because when a member posts an opinion, he must be prepared to explain why you he holds that opinion. To explain that opinion usually involves the posting of facts. Since these facts are unlikely to have been compiled by the member himself, he has to reference sources, which are most accessible on the internet. Without it, the opinion is meaningless and the debate pointless.

 

[Scaff]

Googling and pasting the results makes you mind numb. I am more interested in the thoughts of you (not you specifically) than just some self called professor or journalist.

Which is fine if you stick to opinions, however if you wish to claim something as fact then be expected to back it up.

If your not willing to do that then why should anyone simply accept it as a factual statement?

Except that according to Scaff, the staff does not want me to post the way I do, even if I never shout.

OK I'm going to make this clear one more time, but if you mis-quote or imply I have stated something I haven't again you will be taking a holiday.

Those who shout will not get very far in debates and discussions, because if all they can do is shout then the facts (when sourced) will always win out.

You mentioned the Marijuana thread, yet the majority of what you posted in that was opinion presented as fact and when you did source information much of it was irreverent to the discussion at hand.

You are simply being asked to support factual claims you make with evidence, which is exactly what every other member (including staff) is required to do. Why exactly should we make an exception for you?

 

[MarcoM]

Which is fine if you stick to opinions, however if you wish to claim something as fact then be expected to back it up.

If your not willing to do that then why should anyone simply accept it as a factual statement?

I never asked to accept my opinions as factual statements, because I know they are my opinions.

 

[Scaff]

I never asked to accept my opinions as factual statements, because I know they are my opinions.

But no one else does if you post them in a manner that presents them as fact, which you have a habit of doing.

 

[MarcoM]

Not sure about your statement "But no one else does ...", seems a bit bold.

But not everyone does .... seems more like it.

 

[Scaff]

Not sure about your statement "But no one else does ...", seems a bit bold.

But not everyone does .... seems more like it.

DO you seriously want to go down this route given the number of times you have misrepresented what I have said (in a moderation capacity) and the degree you have dragged this thread off topic because you don't think you should have to follow the same rules everyone else does?

Make sure your next post is on topic and meets the standards required of a member posting in this sub-forum. If you feel you can't do that, then do not post in here.

If however you wish to engage in a pissing contest with the staff, I can assure you that you will lose.

 

[Nicksfix]

I forgot to say, when we arm our teachers, we need to have a bright yellow sign at the entrance to the school saying, "Lethal force will be used to defend our Children."

AMEN BROTHER

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

Indeed they do, so let this be a warning. Teachers are carrying, then possible assailants should be thinking,"do I really want to tangle with and armed member(s) of the faculty" ?

I believe, that when a shooter has someone shooting back at them, their bravery may just start to waver just a little, ya think?

Providing links as proof does not help in my opinion.
No, because it's an opinion.

Catch this response ...

And you are entitled to that opinion. However the site owner and the staff disagree and as such if anyone states something as fact they are expected to source it.

Googling and pasting the results makes you mind numb. I am more interested in the thoughts of you (not you specifically) than just some self called professor or journalist.
Except that according to Scaff, the staff does not want me to post the way I do, even if I never shout.

It makes your mind numb ? I call it being to lazy, take a few minutes to back up your claim.

I never asked to accept my opinions as factual statements, because I know they are my opinions.

And opinions are like a:censored:holes ... everybody has one. Unless it is backed up / turned into to fact, nobody wants to see either one !

Scaff and the staff (lol, rhyme) only want you to adhere to what they have told you about posting .... in a common sense manner.

==========

There are some things that will end a shooting rampage in a school:


1. The shooter runs out of bullets or his gun jams.
2. The shooter runs out of live targets and kills himself, or tries to escape.
3. The police are called and arrive in time to kill or arrest the shooter, before they start counting the bodies.
4. Someone already at the school shoots back.


History shows us that before #3 ever happens, #1 or #2 already has happened. #4 is the best option.

 

[MarcoM]

DO you seriously want to go down this route given the number of times you have misrepresented what I have said (in a moderation capacity) and the degree you have dragged this thread off topic because you don't think you should have to follow the same rules everyone else does?

Make sure your next post is on topic and meets the standards required of a member posting in this sub-forum. If you feel you can't do that, then do not post in here.

If however you wish to engage in a pissing contest with the staff, I can assure you that you will lose.

A couple of days ago I asked for back up to:

There's no difference between a teacher properly trained with a firearm and a police officer. If a teacher poses the skill and knowledge to handle a concealed firearm safely, why not allow them that right? Makes NO sense to hinder that.

Works well in other countries and will work well here.

Teachers have already enough tasks.

It's like with everything that goes wrong with kids, just blame the teachers or give teachers more tasks

What other countries do you have in mind where this works well?

Was that provided in any way?