Teachers with guns ?

[MarcoM]

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?

Then you assume that teachers are good (mentally, physically, willingly) shooters.

What if they aren't? What if they feel social pressure to carry concealed?

 

[FoolKiller]

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

Was that provided in any way?

He hasn't been active in the thread since then. If you are itching for a response you could send him a polite PM asking him of he could respond.

But then, you also don't know if he was reprimanded or not. Scaff did put out a warning that he blatantly said applied to both sides of the debate. Perhaps that is what Scaff was referring to.

Then you assume that teachers are good (mentally, physically, willingly) shooters.

What if they aren't? What if they feel social pressure to carry concealed?

Social pressure to conceal carry? What, from the 8 million (as of Dec 31, 2011) concealed carry holders? Keep in mind, the US population is roughly 330 million, so we are talking 2.5% of the population.

Now, you have a point about their ability to shoot. But to get the permit they had to pass some sort of certification training and test.

The point is, whether the teacher could actually shoot another human is irrelevant if your goal is to have it as a deterrent, as is the purpose of that sign and the hopeful goal of allowing teachers to carry. Even more so if there are multiple armed teachers, which should statistically reduce the odds of your not good shooters scenario.

 

[Scaff]

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

And I addressed the requirement to provide sources to both sides of the discussion.

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.

I also quite clearly told you to drop this, however it would seem that my repeated patience with you has not had the required effect.

As such take a two day holiday from GT Planet and use it to think about how you post, rather than simply trying to have the last word when it comes to posting requirements and moderation.

 

[FoolKiller]

The president's approach appears to be a kind of compromise. He wants to incentivize more School Resource Officers, a fancy way of describing a police officer specially trained to work at a school patrolling and helping council kids at risk of delinquency, to help provide security, but not require them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/01/16/obama-on-guns-schools_n_2487509.html

President Barack Obama's recommendations in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting leaves questions about school safety mostly to schools to answer.

"We won't be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation -- all of us -- to try," Obama said in a statement.

According to guidelines released by the White House in advance of Obama's speech Wednesday, schools that want to have armed guards will be supported in that pursuit, but schools won't be pushed to staff them. The plan calls for the creation of 1,000 new "school resource officers," which the White House describes as "specially trained police officers that work in schools," and mental health professionals to "help prevent school crime and student-on-student violence."

The only issue (as far as safety goes) I can see is that 1,000 of these officers will only cover a small fraction of schools. I get the sense that it is just a feel good move to allow him to claim he gave the NRA a little something.

I don't know how many schools have a resource officer already, so this may be an effective number, but at face value I don't see it. But another problem I can see is that inner city schools may have a greater day-to-day need for these officers, but many of these shootings aren't happening at those kinds of schools.

The rest of the president's announcement today doesn't apply to this thread, so I'll leave that discussion for the Guns thread.

 

[Nicksfix]

Then you assume that teachers are good (mentally, physically, willingly) shooters.

I assume nothing. The teachers who are presently and will be carrying should be good shooters. They are being trained to be the best they can be in a given situation.

What if they feel social pressure to carry concealed?

Have you read this thread ? Numerous times it has been said that there will be no forced carry implied upon a teacher. If a teacher is feeling the pressure as you say, then he / she shall not carry, simple as that.

At least Obama has said something in regards to this. Item 12 to be exact.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Numerous times it has been said that there will be no forced carry implied upon a teacher.

Here in Australia, we have private schools that are run by the churches, and they are able to discriminate against teachers on the basis of faith. When I was first applying to casual jobs in my town, I went to one of the schools that styles itself as Christian. I opened up the application forms - which went on for about thirty pages - and was greeted by a whole range of questions, asking me on my thoughts about evolution and its place in the classroom, requesting details of my conversion to Christianity, and requiring me to give character references for people who could attest to it. I was quite literally asked to write a dozen short essays, and the questions were worded in such a way as to make it quite clear that a committee would be going over it and that if I used so much as a word that they disagreed with, I would not be hired. Not one of those questions had anything to do with my ability to teach, much less the subject areas that I teach in. It was, in a word, discrimination. Technically, this would not be permitted under the law, but the schools could get away with it by having a board that represented the interests of the parents in the school. And if that board said "We only want the school to employ Christians because that is what the parents want", then the school would only employ Christian teachers (which they do).

So, people can say that there will be no "forced carry" in the event that teachers are allowed by law to carry guns in schools, but I'd give it about five minutes before someone establishes a board to represent the concerns of the parents in the school and then have the school require that teachers carry guns at all times.

 

[Pako]

So, people can say that there will be no "forced carry" in the event that teachers are allowed by law to carry guns in schools, but I'd give it about five minutes before someone establishes a board to represent the concerns of the parents in the school and then have the school require that teachers carry guns at all times.

So lets say that did happen. Lets say that 100% of the teachers pass all the background checks, all the mental stability checks, and all have adequate eye site and dexterity to wield a weapon. Would the teachers also be forced to use those guns even if they were forced to carry them?

There seems to be this notion that if you have a gun, you are going to kill someone with it. That is a notion that I just don't agree with.

I was going to say that you can't expect that little old lady teaching 2nd grade English class to pack some heat, but I stand corrected:

 

[arora]

Technically, this would not be permitted under the law, but the schools could get away with it by having a board that represented the interests of the parents in the school. And if that board said "We only want the school to employ Christians because that is what the parents want", then the school would only employ Christian teachers (which they do).

That is a good thing, parents are the customer and the school sells what they want to buy.

So, people can say that there will be no "forced carry" in the event that teachers are allowed by law to carry guns in schools, but I'd give it about five minutes before someone establishes a board to represent the concerns of the parents in the school and then have the school require that teachers carry guns at all times.

That could happen, if it did I'm sure schools prohibiting teachers carry guns on the same grounds would also be established. More likely, parents would be fine knowing at least one teacher out of however many is carrying, or, none are carrying.

If we take your more socialist approach, it would not be far fetched to see something like affirmative action. For x amount of teachers hired you can't discriminate against the one that wants to carry, or, the one that does not want to carry.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here in Australia, we have private schools that are run by the churches, and they are able to discriminate against teachers on the basis of faith.

Well, it is a private school. In the US private schools are not subjected to the same rules as the public schools because they are not funded by the state. A religious school should require teachers be of the same faith as the school's founding church organization, as religion is part of the curriculum. If I am sending my daughter to a religious school for the religious upbringing I don't want her having an atheist or member of a different religion teaching English or math that may contradict what she just finished being taught in her religion class. Whether my parental fear is justified or not, it will weigh in on my decision to send my daughter to that school. Since private schools have to compete for students then they must be more particular about the teachers they hire.

Similarly, if a private school advertised itself as having all teachers carrying a weapon I would expect that to be a job requirement and that there won't be a situation where a gun control advocate or someone afraid of guns to be teaching a class.

So yes, an individual private school may require that the teachers carry, but then they wouldn't be subject to state or district school board policy, which is what people mean when discussing this as a government policy. And a private school requiring a weapon with a license to carry would not be the first job to require it.

So, people can say that there will be no "forced carry" in the event that teachers are allowed by law to carry guns in schools, but I'd give it about five minutes before someone establishes a board to represent the concerns of the parents in the school and then have the school require that teachers carry guns at all times.

You mean a school board? We already have those. They are elected officials. At least in my state. All their policies must fall within the state guidelines. It would require a statewide policy that allowed teachers to carry with no limits for a school board to push that, or it would have to be state policy as a whole. And then it would most likely have to survive against a teacher's union protest and and a lawsuit. At least that is how it would work in Kentucky.

And I would like to say that due to the nature of US politics I can see no legal requirement ever happening, but we have schools now requiring students to wear RFID embedded badges and regulations saying what lunches brought from home must contain (as I learned while talking to potential preschools this week).

 

[Keef]

And I would like to say that due to the nature of US politics I can see no legal requirement ever happening, but we have schools now requiring students to wear RFID embedded badges and regulations saying what lunches brought from home must contain (as I learned while talking to potential preschools this week).

As far as I know, a similar series of events would take place here in Ohio. My parents and I never really dealt with the local school board so I'm not exactly sure.

As for all these new rules, I honestly can't remember much of anything being restricted when I graduated in 2006. It may have been the year after that when they experimented with juice-filled vending machines - all the kids bitched so they brought them back. I have no idea what they deal with now. My public college doesn't seem to restrict anything but those rules may not apply to higher education.

But as for those regulations, they're supposedly in the interest of youths' health. And as we all know, the protection of life guns are dangerous for your health.

 

[Camaroyenko]

I fully agree with teachers with guns.


Put yourself in the scenario that someone randomly breaks into the classroom with a gun. Well now, a teacher with a gun doesn't sound half bad now, does it?


Actually, better yet, put armed guards at the doors! Creating more jobs, yet keeping the children safe.

 

[Nicksfix]

Here in Australia, we have private schools that are run by the churches, and they are able to discriminate against teachers on the basis of faith. When I was first applying to casual jobs in my town, I went to one of the schools that styles itself as Christian. I opened up the application forms - which went on for about thirty pages - and was greeted by a whole range of questions, asking me on my thoughts about evolution and its place in the classroom, requesting details of my conversion to Christianity, and requiring me to give character references for people who could attest to it. I was quite literally asked to write a dozen short essays, and the questions were worded in such a way as to make it quite clear that a committee would be going over it and that if I used so much as a word that they disagreed with, I would not be hired. Not one of those questions had anything to do with my ability to teach, much less the subject areas that I teach in. It was, in a word, discrimination. Technically, this would not be permitted under the law, but the schools could get away with it by having a board that represented the interests of the parents in the school. And if that board said "We only want the school to employ Christians because that is what the parents want", then the school would only employ Christian teachers (which they do).

I will concede the discussion to you about the Parochial Schools. I honestly cannot supply enough valid information on these type of schools to be "stating any such practices" that they may be adopting. All I can really say is that I do know they have certain criteria they have to follow per the State, and that they do set some of their own criteria as well. Whether it be guns or no guns, restrictions on hiring said teachers for the school, or whatever matter they deem per their teaching practice in this type of school, I just do not know enough on the aspects of Parochials.

BTW - 30 page application ? What the .... The last time time I signed 30 documents in one sitting was when I purchased my house. Feel sorry for you for having to go through that mess.

So, people can say that there will be no "forced carry" in the event that teachers are allowed by law to carry guns in schools, but I'd give it about five minutes before someone establishes a board to represent the concerns of the parents in the school and then have the school require that specifically chosen teachers carry guns at all times.

Just a little amendment there.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That is a good thing, parents are the customer and the school sells what they want to buy.

Actually, it's not. For one, do pretty poorly on average. The parents have far too much input into the running of the school, and it compromises the quality of the education because all the best teachers go to other schools. By comparison, the two Catholic high schools in my local area consistently place inside the top fifty schools in the state. The one Christian school in town doesn't even make the top thousand, and pretty much every single public school in the area out-ranks them. The reason for it is because the parents have so much power in the school, they can control the curriculum, they can have the final say over who gets hired, and they have the power to influence practically every aspect of the way the school is run. The end result is that they have compromised the school because they're employing sub-standard teachers since they value the faith of their teachers over the ability of their teachers.

 

[MarcoM]

Actually, better yet, put armed guards at the doors! Creating more jobs, yet keeping the children safe.

If you want your armed guards at the doors, better make sure they are motivated. "Created jobs" make not really motivated employees. Over here we have quite a number of city guards walking around. I can tell you those are not the most motivated employees.

Sadly it goes like this: if you have really dificulties finding a job, you can always become a city guard.

A side effect of such created jobs is that they don't bring money to your country.

 

[Bye Ya]

Gun Left Unattended at School

 

[Zenith]

Did he have a concealed weapons permit? Armed security =/= teachers who choose to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[Bye Ya]

I know, CCP's are infallible.

 

[Zenith]

I know, CCP's are infallible.

Mr. Strawmaaaaan, bring me a dream.
Bum bum bum bum.
Make him the dumbest that I've ever seen.
Bum bum bum bum.

 

[arora]

I'll raise you one 👍

Police leave assault rifle on trunk lid

I'm not sure what the point is tbh, your article is about a security guard not a teacher right?

 

[Azuremen]

Gun Left Unattended at School

I do love how you ignore the pages of posts that asked you to clarify your position, explained things, and general discussion to post that.

But please, continue to straw man.

 

[Tesla]

He left it there, unloaded for "a few moments". While this probably would've been closer to a minute or so (you can only stretch the truth so far), an unloaded gun is no danger. Worst case scenario, a child takes it home and the parents notice it. Then all they'd have to do is ask where he or she found it and return it back to the school.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Did he have a concealed weapons permit? Armed security =/= teachers who choose to carry a concealed weapon.

Somehow, I don't think that's the issue here. It's not suddenly okay to leave a gun unattended in a school bathroom if the person responsible for it has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[Azuremen]

Somehow, I don't think that's the issue here. It's not suddenly okay to leave a gun unattended in a school bathroom if the person responsible for it has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

He neither said nor implied this. As a teacher, you should know what they say about assumptions.

 

[Joel]

Somehow, I don't think that's the issue here. It's not suddenly okay to leave a gun unattended in a school bathroom if the person responsible for it has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Somehow, I don't think that's what he said.

 

[Bye Ya]

I do love how you ignore the pages of posts that asked you to clarify your position, explained things, and general discussion to post that.

The post is related to the discussion.

I love how you ignore the pages where I clarified very specifically my position on a number of occasions and yet you continue to post about what equates to absolutely nothing, straw man.


It is funny, actually. I post something, you say that I'm saying 'x'. I say, no that's not what I meant (for about 3 pages), and you all say, "yes you did."

Interwebs is strange place where apparently people can tell you your own intentions.

Later clarifies position several times >> clarification ignored, and continues to spout the same thing on repeat. Very interesting place indeed.

 

[Tornado]

The post is related to the discussion.

The post above explains, as just one example of things you've forgotten you said, how a teacher goes through the same experiences, training and stresses as a soldier and thus why their mental states can be directly compared?



Because I'm pretty he was referring to stuff like that that you've brought up and asserted were true but never bothered explaining why, instead coming back to the thread to post shock stories.

I love how you ignore the pages where I clarified very specifically my position on a number of occasions and yet you continue to post about what equates to absolutely nothing, straw man.

It is funny, actually. I post something, you say that I'm saying 'x'. I say, no that's not what I meant (for about 3 pages), and you all say, "yes you did."

Interwebs is strange place where apparently people can tell you your own intentions.

Later clarifies position several times >> ignores clarification and continues to spout the same thing on repeat. Very interesting place indeed.

Are we going to get into a Homosexual thread-style "that's not what I meant when I said exactly that over and over and over again" sort of thread derailment now?

 

[Bye Ya]

The post above explains, as just one example of things you've forgotten you said, how a teacher goes through the same experiences, training and stresses as a soldier and thus why their mental states can be directly compared?

Once again, you straw men finger pointers are going to again say that there aren't different avenues available that can lead a person to an unstable mental state where they would shoot innocent people? No, no, the ONLY way that can happen is if they are in a war, or on the streets as a police officer. People never suffer depression or delusion for any other reasons, how silly of me.

You are all 100% right. A CCP could NEVER suffer mental illness or delusion, under ANY circumstances, and there is absolutely 0% chance that a CCP-carrying teacher would EVER, for any reason, whether mentally ill or not, shoot a student unwarrantedly.

Close the thread, logic has been served. All the loose-end possibilities have been tied up here.

Are we going to get into a Homosexual thread-style "that's not what I meant when I said exactly that over and over and over again" sort of thread derailment now?

You're right. I meant to say whatever YOU say I meant to say, which this witty little retort clearly demonstrates. Oh, the clarity I'm experiencing right now...

 

[Zenith]

Dude that was fractal straw man.

xzibit.jpg

 

[arora]

You are all 100% right. A CCP could NEVER suffer mental illness or delusion, under ANY circumstances, and there is absolutely 0% chance that a CCP-carrying teacher would EVER, for any reason, whether mentally ill or not, shoot a student unwarrantedly.

What about a ccp holder in any other location excluding a school? I'm pretty sure you are saying citizens should not be allowed to carry guns concealed or not. Either that or kids in a school are more valuable then kids anywhere else kids gather.

 

[Bye Ya]

I'm pretty sure you are saying citizens should not be allowed to carry guns concealed or not.

No, for the record, I am a gun owner and I am only against teachers wielding guns in a classroom, concealed or not. Otherwise, I don't have any major concerns regarding CCP's.