Teachers with guns ?

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Are you sure?

I was pointing out how different approaches might be viewed from the other side, and noting what approach makes sense to me. Just seems that gun proponents could afford to in general hold back on what can come across as emotion, and stick with the wisest conversations. Wisest for the end result, that is. Gun opponents don't really have the same consequences. They can say stupid, uninformed things and it will for the most part, be quickly forgotten.

Stupid things/uninformed are not easily forgotten, why you'd say they are is flat out wrong. Most of the general public think that anyone can by a military like weapon, and it be automatic. Many listened to Biden about warning shots and there were a couple sighting claims of defense based on the VP saying it was okay. The list can go on. Stupid things stick because they are easy to remember.



Also I'm sure of what you meant, and I'll stick by the unnecessary compliment as far as I'm concerned. Also I don't understand how advocates of gun ownership are the ones with emotion, when they are always portrayed a soulless uncaring gun enthusiast that don't care about the children or adults murdered by guns.

They need to agitate, you need to diffuse.

Go on...

There's now been a couple of times that I've brought this up, but many of you seem to be far too short sighted to even look at it properly. Nicksfix has made a post for each side on the topic of the recent shooting:

too short sighted? If it isn't the pot calling the kettle black, just astounding.



QUOTE][First one comes across as the typical chest beating. Second, as a statement from a responsible gun owner, that is angry that other gun owners are not being responsible. Which one likely feeds the agitation, and which one likely diffuses?



It's the art of distraction.[/QUOTE]



You really do have a way of being convoluted with your own rhetoric along with others as you go along. Like a pristine car one moment, and soon after a mangled mess on the side of the road. It's quite a talent, ever think of going into lobbying?

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't understand how advocates of gun ownership are the ones with emotion, when they are always portrayed a soulless uncaring gun enthusiast that don't care about the children or adults murdered by guns.

I said emotion, the others can say what they choose. The way that the "constitutional this, inalienable rights that" is usually delivered, comes across as very emotional, and not very wise. And..... (here's the kicker), what I think is more important than what you think. Yes, I really said that. I represent the "enemy" you need to know. The non-gun person.

Go on...

I did.

too short sighted? If it isn't the pot calling the kettle black, just astounding.

I live to astound.

Stupid things/uninformed are not easily forgotten, why you'd say they are is flat out wrong. Most of the general public think that anyone can by a military like weapon, and it be automatic. Many listened to Biden about warning shots and there were a couple sighting claims of defense based on the VP saying it was okay. The list can go on. Stupid things stick because they are easy to remember.

Read "con-se-quen-ces". You're thinking of it the wrong way around..... again. People tend not to be held to account for the misinformation dealt out by opponents. Worse still, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't for proponents. Say nothing, and the misinformation stands. Correct the misinformation and it might well fall under the category of "any press is bad press".

And that's the quandary. The solution? Well I'm pointing out that interception makes sense to me. Get in quick with an approach that is against neither party's convictions. In this case, condemnation of the parents works quite well in my view. It makes it about people rather than guns, which falls very much in to line with the "guns don't kill people....." mantra, but without actually saying it. Basically, it's saying what you want to say, but with different words. Sometimes that can be the difference between agitation and diffusion. If you want your guns left alone, don't talk about them. Draw the focus to what you can present as a common cause. Or just continue the chest beating, and wait for the inevitable.

The great thing is..... I don't care.

 

[Nicksfix]

There's now been a couple of times that I've brought this up, but many of you seem to be far too short sighted to even look at it properly. Nicksfix has made a post for each side on the topic of the recent shooting:

First one comes across as the typical chest beating. Second, as a statement from a responsible gun owner, that is angry that other gun owners are not being responsible. Which one likely feeds the agitation, and which one likely diffuses?

It's the art of distraction.

Perhaps in your eyes your thinking I'm being two sided, but I was expressing opinion on two totally separate issues. There is no art of distraction being mentioned here, except by you.

1st off, nobody is chest beating anything. It's called voicing your opinion, there is a difference. Which here in the good old U.S. of A., we are are allowed to do so. I'm permitted by law to call / send an e-mail to my Senator, Congressman and voice my opinion to let them aware of my stand on certain issues. I'm allowed to urge them to make to make a decision that I feel needs to be addressed. I'm permitted to tell them that their next term in office hinges on the decisions that they make in office could have effects on their "possible" next term.

See that, I'm voicing my opinion to the powers that be.

2nd - Get off the high horse ... I'm not angry, just an overly concerned responsible gun owner. As a responsible gun owner / enthusiast, I see no reason why the parents should not be held responsible for letting such a matter happen. My toys are secured in safes / hand lock security boxes. Yes, I do have some lying around in inconspicuous places for home defense / personal safety matters (should they arise). It's not as if you can tell a criminal to "hang on a second, I need to go unlock a gun so we can even this thing up". Let me know how that one works out. I've no young children to worry about getting into my guns, therefore for me & my wife, grown kids, there is no issue. I will tell you this though. As a responsible gun owner, when certain company with younger children are coming over, these inconspicuous placed pieces are put up into a much safer place than their usual spot. I'll not take the chance of letting my friends kid unveiling a surprise.

So, this is not even remotely tied to your "chest beating agitation".

Or just continue the chest beating, and wait for the inevitable.

The great thing is..... I don't care.

Therein lies the problem .... you don't care. Why, who knows. But until you start caring one way or the other, voicing inconsequential decisions / statements hold no water.

Obama is drawing up his next anti-gun campaign? I hate to break it to you, but Obama has done virtually nothing with gun control. He's not out to take away guns, he just doesn't care about the issue.

Where is that "roll eyes" smiley when you need it.

I love to break it to you, you need to get connected to the media and do some homework on this issue.

Foolkiller posted a few to get you started. Here is a plethora of them to keep you busy for a while. (LINK). Go on, do click on some of the tabs and tell us what you see.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Where is that "roll eyes" smiley when you need it.

I love to break it to you, you need to get connected to the media and do some homework on this issue.

Foolkiller posted a few to get you started. Here is a plethora of them to keep you busy for a while. (LINK). Go on, do click on some of the tabs and tell us what you see.

The first thing I see is NRA, and the NRA are nearly as insane as the people carrying out the mass shootings. How you can link me to a site like that and pretend that it is in any way objective is beyond me. I stand by my claim that Obama has done very little as president, and that congress is calling the shots.

 

[FoolKiller]

The first thing I see is NRA, and the NRA are nearly as insane as the people carrying out the mass shootings.

Yes, the people who create and run some of the highest-rated safety courses are insane. Try looking at their non-political activities before judging a group. Also, keep in mind that the most noise made lately has been Gun Owners of America, founded because they think the NRA is too lenient. Be sure you know who and what you are talking about before putting them next to mass murders and psychos. Let's crank the hyperbole down, or better yet, back up your statement. Where are the links to this reported near-psychotic insanity? Right now, you have just claimed 4.5 million Americans, some members of this site, are a step away from shooting up a school.

How you can link me to a site like that and pretend that it is in any way objective is beyond me.

You have a point, as that is their political action page. That said, did you follow the links to see which were sourced from actual new sources, or write it off completely, making yourself no better than the people that blindly believe everything on that site?

I stand by my claim that Obama has done very little as president, and that congress is calling the shots.

Good, then you wouldn't mind refuting the points I made to you earlier? Here's the link, in case you missed it. I honestly find it hard to believe that a man making statements urging Congress to act and pronouncing personal policy agendas within hours of every mass shooting, as well as taking the actions I brought up (and linked to for evidence), is doing nothing.

If you believe the president doesn't have people who meet with Congress to get his word in on issues you are kidding yourself. The job is known as legislative liaison. My father-in-law used to do it for one of our past governors. Every administration and cabinet has at least one. In this case President Obama appointed someone, very publicly and specifically, to work on this one issue, Joe "Warning Shot" Biden. If anything, the lack of action can be blamed solely on Congress, as they stopped the president's initiatives from passing.

 

[Nicksfix]

The first thing I see is NRA, and the NRA are nearly as insane as the people carrying out the mass shootings. How you can link me to a site like that and pretend that it is in any way objective is beyond me. I stand by my claim that Obama has done very little as president, and that congress is calling the shots.

What, your afraid of the truth ? It hurts ? Fine, if you don't like that link, Google some of the topics being mentioned for yourself. Click on your MSNBC / CNN / FOX News, what ever news source / media you like and see what they are saying. The same damn thing .... go figure. But Obama has done nothing, hmmmm such an innocent man he is 'eh . Keep living in your dream world, someday you'll wake up and see what is really happening here in the USA about gun control topics and who is stirring up the mixture.

Did you even click on any of the tabs and see what your President Obama is attempting to do to the gun owners / enthusiasts here the USA ? Probably not, that's why you are holding on to your idea of "Obama is doing nothing or very little".

EDIT : Mods, can this be moved into the guns thread as to not derail the main subject. I cannot seem to figure out how to move this since the change.

Sorry and thanks in advance.

 

[a6m5]

Politics aside, NRA preaches lawful use of firearms & safety. President Obama is routinely trying, or suggesting at chipping away the gun rights. Comparing NRA to mentally insane mass murderers, or claiming Obama doesn't care about gun laws sounds like PURE fantasy to me.

 

[LeMansAid]

Perhaps in your eyes your thinking I'm being two sided, but I was expressing opinion on two totally separate issues. There is no art of distraction being mentioned here, except by you.

Not two-sided, no. I'm telling you how certain comments come across to me, and quite possibly others. Also, I'm saying that in a public arena, the art of distraction is something wise to employ. Agitation suits those looking for change, distraction and diffusion suits those looking to keep the status quo. It would be the equal opposite if the the roles were reversed and the prevailing thought was that there are too few guns, and that laws are too restrictive.

Two totally separate issues? That's the beauty of it for those on the other side. They can use it no matter what. Besides, for the point that I'm making, it doesn't matter anyway. I'm comparing what reactions you could expect from certain comments.

So much changes when advertising principles are applied to things that generally would not be advertised. Suddenly you might realise that what you're "selling" is: status quo gun laws, but the advertising approach amounts to preaching to the converted. Not going to go well.

1st off, nobody is chest beating anything. It's called voicing your opinion, there is a difference. Which here in the good old U.S. of A., we are are allowed to do so. I'm permitted by law to call / send an e-mail to my Senator, Congressman and voice my opinion to let them aware of my stand on certain issues. I'm allowed to urge them to make to make a decision that I feel needs to be addressed. I'm permitted to tell them that their next term in office hinges on the decisions that they make in office could have effects on their "possible" next term.

Perfect, but that's a private conversation. Very different to what I'm talking about.

2nd - Get off the high horse ... I'm not angry, just an overly concerned responsible gun owner. As a responsible gun owner / enthusiast, I see no reason why the parents should not be held responsible for letting such a matter happen. My toys are secured in safes / hand lock security boxes. Yes, I do have some lying around in inconspicuous places for home defense / personal safety matters (should they arise). It's not as if you can tell a criminal to "hang on a second, I need to go unlock a gun so we can even this thing up". Let me know how that one works out. I've no young children to worry about getting into my guns, therefore for me & my wife, grown kids, there is no issue. I will tell you this though. As a responsible gun owner, when certain company with younger children are coming over, these inconspicuous placed pieces are put up into a much safer place than their usual spot. I'll not take the chance of letting my friends kid unveiling a surprise.

You should be angry. Those idiots are providing perfect material for gun reformists. This is where anger helps your cause.

If you guys could calm down and read the actual words, and only the words, you mightn't miss the point so often.

Therein lies the problem .... you don't care. Why, who knows. But until you start caring one way or the other, voicing inconsequential decisions / statements hold no water.

Way off. Another term for not caring one way or the other would be: objective. I have no vested interest in what your country does with guns laws.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I said emotion, the others can say what they choose. The way that the "constitutional this, inalienable rights that" is usually delivered, comes across as very emotional, and not very wise. And..... (here's the kicker), what I think is more important than what you think. Yes, I really said that. I represent the "enemy" you need to know. The non-gun person.

Why do I need to know, seems you're trying to get a rise and insight some sort of online fight between you, me and others. I don't need to know who you are, cause you aren't in power and you're quite misinformed as well. This entire exercise for the most part has included teaching you along the way. You use a knee-jerk pseudo prophetic voice rather than speaking head on about why we're wrong. You still don't get that no one side isn't emotional, but you seem to think or imply that only the gun advocates are. Reality shows both can be and usually one side is purely emotional (anti-gun) while the other has fact and relative info to back up their defense emotional or not.

It's fine to be emotional but when you use it as a pure argument and facts go out the window because tears and whimsical words are much easier to win a crowd over.

Read "con-se-quen-ces". You're thinking of it the wrong way around..... again. People tend not to be held to account for the misinformation dealt out by opponents. Worse still, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't for proponents. Say nothing, and the misinformation stands. Correct the misinformation and it might well fall under the category of "any press is bad press".

And that's the quandary. The solution? Well I'm pointing out that interception makes sense to me. Get in quick with an approach that is against neither party's convictions. In this case, condemnation of the parents works quite well in my view. It makes it about people rather than guns, which falls very much in to line with the "guns don't kill people....." mantra, but without actually saying it. Basically, it's saying what you want to say, but with different words. Sometimes that can be the difference between agitation and diffusion. If you want your guns left alone, don't talk about them. Draw the focus to what you can present as a common cause. Or just continue the chest beating, and wait for the inevitable.

The great thing is..... I don't care.

Um, do you even understand what me and others type? Never said anything about people being held accountable but okay...

Once again your "solution" talks around the problem which allows you to pretend you just gave us something relevant (it's rubbish trite by the way) and still perpetuate this "flame or battle". Also condemnation of parents is a cheap trick, and if we are going to make policy based on that, I know of a few nations crying for our help due to parental condemnation. I'll pack you a BU and some gear so you can play Rambo.

It doesn't say what we want to say, and it does label guns as more than a tool by personifying them as being evil like the person perpetrating the crime. We don't talk about the guns we talk about the criminal element. The left always seems to target a material object when making laws because it helps them control society rather than trying to understand people.

It doesn't matter if it is guns or drugs or whatever you will. This sure did detract from the fact that I still don't believe you needed to compliment common sense of what gun owners that value guns have always wanted. Safe gun use.

 

[Nicksfix]

You should be angry. Those idiots are providing perfect material for gun reformists. This is where anger helps your cause.

Voicing your opinion in an angry fashion gets you nowhere fast my friend. You may as well piss up a rope.
You kill them with kindness. Ever hear of sugar and vinegar ?

 

[Jahgee]

I know I'm just gonna get buried in the argument, but in my opinion, as a student, providing teachers with guns scares me, especially with the stress that some kids give them, eventually a teacher will snap & kill a student

 

[a6m5]

I know I'm just gonna get buried in the argument, but in my opinion, as a student, providing teachers with guns scares me, especially with the stress that some kids give them, eventually a teacher will snap & kill a student

I doubt any school is actually trying to arm their teachers. I could be wrong, but I think the discussion is about giving teachers a choice to conceal carry, if they were legally allowed to do so in their state.

Secondly, I do hear what you are saying about teacher snapping, but whoever this would-be shooter may be(teacher, staff, student), he could just bring a gun from home to do the job as well. While it doesn't apply in case of someone getting caught up in the heat of the moment, it also happens to be why most "gun free zone" doesn't make any sense to me. Criminals, or rampage shooters, they couldn't care less that they were told that this mall, or school was a gun free zone. Way I look at it, most gun free zones just about protect the bad guys, as they are pretty much given a pass to go on a shooting spree, leaving the victims defenseless until the Police actually get to their scene, and you know how long that can take.

To me, allowing concealed carry in schools isn't about trying to take down the bad guy, or a student who is being a pain in the ass(). It's about using it to get out to safety, or if forced, defending yourself & the students inside where you are trapped.

Last thing, I've heard this topic on the radio before, how often do concealed carry permit holder ever snap and shoot someone? Guy on the radio thought it's so rare that he's never heard of such thing. I know I haven't either. I think they all are either illegally carrying, or they are going home to get the gun.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I know I'm just gonna get buried in the argument, but in my opinion, as a student, providing teachers with guns scares me, especially with the stress that some kids give them, eventually a teacher will snap & kill a student

If a teacher did snap would that just lay credence to the other issue that plagues gun crimes that left doesn't want to acknowledge, mental health.

 

[Imari]

I know I'm just gonna get buried in the argument, but in my opinion, as a student, providing teachers with guns scares me, especially with the stress that some kids give them, eventually a teacher will snap & kill a student

I think that would be a side benefit. Students are much less likely to be dicks to an armed teacher. Teachers are less likely to hate their jobs, and students are more likely to actually learn something. Everybody wins.

 

[LeMansAid]

Um, do you even understand what me and others type? Never said anything about people being held accountable but okay...

I felt I had to repeat myself because you did not seem to comprehend what the conversation was even about. I'm sure you would challenge that, but the truth is there for all to see.

We don't talk about the guns we talk about the criminal element. The left always seems to target a material object when making laws because it helps them control society rather than trying to understand people.

Sometimes it doesn't matter so much what should make sense, rather what works. Once the anti-gun people are used to hearing the focus on criminal activity, they will automatically associate and jump their mind to the guns anyway. Crime is/was a good focus choice, but it has saturation limits. There may well be a right and a wrong way to talk about guns themselves. Done in the right way, it could drain some of the negative power away from the object itself.

A crucially important element is lowering people's defenses. Once there is a feeling that a person is genuine, the message is much more likely to be received. Opening with "These things can be dangerous" might seem counterproductive, but it may lower defenses for the follow-up. The idea might be to lead people down the path of equating guns to alcohol (ie. when used responsibly, they are no risk), but allowing people to make the link in their minds themselves. So they don't feel like they're being told what to think, even though they are.

Voicing your opinion in an angry fashion gets you nowhere fast my friend. You may as well piss up a rope.
You kill them with kindness. Ever hear of sugar and vinegar ?

This is the conversation I was trying to have. "Advertising" methods can be extremely intricate, and there's no "one size fits all", and sometimes the odd choice is the right choice. So now that we're at this point I'll repeat that I was stating what resounded with me, as a non-gun person.

I think that would be a side benefit. Students are much less likely to be dicks to an armed teacher. Teachers are less likely to hate their jobs, and students are more likely to actually learn something. Everybody wins.

Teachers need to get some sense of authority back somehow. A shame that our society willingly gave it away in the first place though.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I felt I had to repeat myself because you did not seem to comprehend what the conversation was even about. I'm sure you would challenge that, but the truth is there for all to see.

What is funny is you say that as if people agree with you, yet reality shows that comments are in line with me and more people are saying you've done nothing. Once again you fail to understand that I didn't say thank you because like we've been saying, gun safety is our number one concern along with the freedoms. We teach our kids safety and were taught safety, but the average gun owner that has a random revolver in the house doesn't do the same and that has always been an issue. For you to not get this simple reality and why I don't accept your agreement.

Sometimes it doesn't matter so much what should make sense, rather what works. Once the anti-gun people are used to hearing the focus on criminal activity, they will automatically associate and jump their mind to the guns anyway. Crime is/was a good focus choice, but it has saturation limits. There may well be a right and a wrong way to talk about guns themselves. Done in the right way, it could drain some of the negative power away from the object itself.

Which isn't not what makes sense or works, and for you to justify it is inane. You think you sound smart and yet your bat **** crazy and extremist I'd say. Actually gun control has limits not the focus on the criminal element, that has many solutions as to how it can be fixed that have been posed you being blind is the issue. If you don't like guns say it and move the heck on, but why you choose to come here be ignorant and ignore all that has laid out while I clearly remember (arguments that weren't even against me). If what is done in the right way, and if it is what I think, once again I implore you to tell us what is the so called "right way".

A crucially important element is lowering people's defenses. Once there is a feeling that a person is genuine, the message is much more likely to be received. Opening with "These things can be dangerous" might seem counterproductive, but it may lower defenses for the follow-up. The idea might be to lead people down the path of equating guns to alcohol (ie. when used responsibly, they are no risk), but allowing people to make the link in their minds themselves. So they don't feel like they're being told what to think, even though they are.

Once again I can only speak for myself, and the facts and statistics show in my favor, it's not a "defense emotion" it's reality. If you wish to spin that you're only churning this debate between you and I further, if that's what you want let it continue. If people don't realize that guns are dangerous they shouldn't own one, if they don't want to obey traffic laws and drive stupid they shouldn't have a car, if people can't drink without harming others they shouldn't drink. It's common sense really.

 

[Roger the Horse]

I don't support any one carrying guns unless they're in the military, the armed police, participating in an animal cull, a livestock farmer who actually needs a gun; or the gun is an air gun which is no where near powerful enough to do anyone much harm bar some highly unlikely and unfortunate circumstance where somebody gets hit in the eye.

My avatar literally sums up my facial expression at the suggestion of a TEACHER carrying a gun.

 

[LeMansAid]

What is funny is you say that as if people agree with you, yet reality shows that comments are in line with me and more people are saying you've done nothing.

Now that Nicksfix appears to realise what I was on about, I think you are very much on your own actually. And since I am yet again utterly confounded by your infinite wisdom, you are now quite literally alone.

Edit: Maybe re-read the "lowering defenses" bit, and think carefully about what perspective it was written from.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Now that Nicksfix appears to realise what I was on about, I think you are very much on your own actually. And since I am yet again utterly confounded by your infinite wisdom, you are now quite literally alone.

Edit: Maybe re-read the "lowering defenses" bit, and think carefully about what perspective it was written from.

First off I wasn't relying on Nicksfix and I don't think he was relying on me, there isn't a joint composer going on to debunk you. I have what I'm saying and he has his. You clearly don't get what I'm saying and have utterly forgot how this started. I've told you several times that I'm not defensive personally or emotionally like you claim, and using stats and facts to make an argument doesn't make a person emotional. It's easy to say that when you have no facts to defend your position. If you wish to pull stuff out of your arse that's fine. Also I know what perspective it was written from, now I've asked you specific questions in my last post don't ignore them, rather answer them.

 

[Nicksfix]

I know I'm just gonna get buried in the argument, but in my opinion, as a student, providing teachers with guns scares me, especially with the stress that some kids give them, eventually a teacher will snap & kill a student

That concept has pretty much been de-bunked.
Please read through the thread, this concept has been brought up before by others and it could not be backed up by any source.

Well, Famine did post something somewhere in this thread somewhat pertaining to, but not exactly.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Please guys, can we take the other gun talk to the appropriate thread ? You know, gun debate stuff that is not related to the main topic.

Thanks.

Other gun debate thread

 

[nielsenman2]

Nicksfix put a quote in his last post from Jahgee and I would like to say something about that. I support gun rights and teachers having them in school. There was even a school district in the state of Alabama that required teachers to take a gun safety test and a school shooting simulation. I say we should allow teachers to have them. Think about this way even though a teacher receives a lot of stress through out the day they love teaching and their students. They dont make anything at all so they are doing it for the kids so I doubt that a teacher with a gun would snap and shoot a kid. Even if they did they could easily be overpowered and the size gun they would have would barely penetrate the chest or arm etc. So as long as there is a limit to the size(caliber) of the gun I am completely okay with it.

 

[hogger129]

I'm all for this as long as they don't let union teachers carry. The last thing we need is more liberal nutbags with guns.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm all for this as long as they don't let union teachers carry. The last thing we need is more liberal nutbags with guns.

In some places they are all union, without a choice in the matter.

Not that political discrimination is legal, or cool.

 

[hogger129]

In some places they are all union, without a choice in the matter.

That's quickly changing.

 

[King Ranch]

The obvious reason we discuss it are because the faulty police we have all over the country.There is a time period between when the shooter enters the school and the police arrive at the scene. If a teacher is armed there will be less casualties because the teacher can stop the perpetrator before the police get there.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."-Wayne LePierre.

By selecting a few teachers, giving them extensive background checks, putting them through gun training, and having them have the weapons concealed, our schools would be much safer.

 

[Eric Demory]

Teachers armed and ready would come in handy with undisciplined children in your class, especially for schools in places like the bronx. Though, pulling out a gun at 1 of the 90% of the kids in the entire school who has a gun, just to shut them up would turn ugly quick.

 

[Keef]

Because that's what you do with guns is flail them at people you don't like. Wait, what? @Crooooooow

 

[Imari]

Teachers armed and ready would come in handy with undisciplined children in your class, especially for schools in places like the bronx. Though, pulling out a gun at 1 of the 90% of the kids in the entire school who has a gun, just to shut them up would turn ugly quick.

A gun is not a disciplinary tool, and I was being moderately tongue in cheek when I suggested that it might be earlier in the thread.

A cane, a belt, a fist, these things are disciplinary tools because afterwards the subject will be alive to hopefully rectify their behaviour in line with the discipline administered. A gun is a permanent argument ender, when used in the fashion you're talking about, and that's the exact opposite of what a good teacher is trying to achieve.

 

[DK]

Teachers armed and ready would come in handy with undisciplined children in your class, especially for schools in places like the bronx. Though, pulling out a gun at 1 of the 90% of the kids in the entire school who has a gun, just to shut them up would turn ugly quick.

"What's that, Johnny? You didn't do your homework again?" *shoots Johnny in the knee*

 

[Eric Demory]

@Keef, @Imari: I didn't mean any seriousness when I said that. I composed that joke as I was reading around the thread out of curiosity.