Teachers with guns ?

[prisonermonkeys]

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.

Not in the context of a school. And not because of some politically-correct agenda, either. I have had students threaten me for referring them to the Head Teacher for some wildly inappropriate behaviour. A cane, a fist or a belt would be an escalation that would not end well.

 

[Imari]

Not in the context of a school.

Not in the context of current schools, and not in any society that I'd want to be a part of. But physical violence can be used as a corrective measure if it's non-lethal and sufficiently non-crippling.

It's not the best way to go about it, and unless the punisher has sufficient physical advantages over the punishee it invites reprisal, as you say. I wouldn't want to try using physical violence against high schoolers, but a full grown adult male against 5 year olds doesn't invite the same response.

But physical violence can be a corrective measure, a gun cannot. Let me be clear that I'm not advocating the use of violence as a teaching tool, simply that it can (and historically has been) used as such.

 

[LeMansAid]

A cane, a fist or a belt would be an escalation that would not end well.

20-30 years ago it would have been very rare for such things to result in an escalation. Generally the opposite would have been true. The baby boomers overall failed miserably with discipline, and begun the downward spiral that is baring it's rotten fruits now. But in no way is it all about whether or not to physically punish, more about boundaries, and students knowing their place on the pecking order. I know that I generally did very well under teachers that I was just a little scared of. And I called them Mr. or Mrs. Smith, not John or Sally. And they weren't my shiny, happy, bestest friends.

 

[Joel]

20-30 years ago it would have been very rare for such things to result in an escalation. Generally the opposite would have been true. The baby boomers overall failed miserably with discipline, and begun the downward spiral that is baring it's rotten fruits now.

Here we go again with the corporal punishment stuff. Amazing that the literature and studies all overwhelmingly show that it doesn't work but people still cling to it because we let teachers and parents abuse kids back in the day, and "we all turned out fine".

All it teaches kids is that you can use violence to get your way and to fear authority. I don't think either of those things are a good lesson.

 

[Bopop4]

Here we go again with the corporal punishment stuff. Amazing that the literature and studies all overwhelmingly show that it doesn't work but people still cling to it because we let teachers and parents abuse kids back in the day, and "we all turned out fine".

All it teaches kids is that you can use violence to get your way and to fear authority. I don't think either of those things are a good lesson.

Of course it works.

When you get a wooden chair broken over your back and another teacher has to pull off the teacher currently kicking you on the ground, then yeah, you don't want to act up because you know you'll get the living piss beat out of you.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

When it comes to classroom discipline, there is no one approach that works exactly the same for every student every single time. The only thing you can do is be consistent, and try to develop a rapport with the students.

 

[R.S]

What on earth is "teachers carrying guns" going to affect in a positive way. Seriously.

All it does is promote the power aspect of a person carrying a gun - which is perfect if you want to encourage shooting rampages - these deluded people love feeling powerful.

-A guy comes into a school, whips out his gun and shoots up the place - a handful of kids/teachers are going to be shot even if 10 soldiers/police officers were in the room with holstered weapons.

-A guy comes into a school, he doesn't have a gun and can't afford one, what better way to rampage than to tackle the teacher and take his gun.

-A guy comes into a school to rampage, he does not care if he gets shot, in-fact the teacher carrying a gun would be a FUN CHALLENGE, especially if this nutcase has had hard times from teachers in the past.

Seriously?


Fix the society and community, give each other respect, carrying a gun is not respect.

 

[Azuremen]

Fix the society and community, give each other respect, carrying a gun is not respect.

If everyone respected one another, carrying a gone would be a non issue.

I swear the Commonwealth countries have all been taught that guns are the devil and all violence is because of guns.

 

[Joel]

Of course it works.

When you get a wooden chair broken over your back and another teacher has to pull off the teacher currently kicking you on the ground, then yeah, you don't want to act up because you know you'll get the living piss beat out of you.

What a healthy way to educate our youth, beat them into compliance.

 

[LeMansAid]

Here we go again with the corporal punishment stuff. Amazing that the literature and studies all overwhelmingly show that it doesn't work but people still cling to it because we let teachers and parents abuse kids back in the day, and "we all turned out fine".

All it teaches kids is that you can use violence to get your way and to fear authority. I don't think either of those things are a good lesson.

Quite the fanciful story there. Point me to where I wrote about encouraging corporal punishment. You'll find that it's not there. I wrote my opinion about the status quo in the student/teacher relationship, and how I believe it compares to days gone by. For what it's worth, I never had a teacher lay a hand on me. If getting rid of corporal punishment was indeed a good thing, I think society effectively "threw the baby out with the bath water". Judges keep wearing those silly wigs, because silly as they are, there's an association with authority. It promotes a separation from the judge and the judged. Our societies willingly let things fall be the wayside that represented similar balances within the school system. The simple little example of calling teachers by their first names being one of them.

But is this more about part of what I see as the gun enthusiasts' obsession with non-gun violence? It seems that many rejoice when they see drunken Aussies beating each other senseless, or English football hoodlums smashing each others' very fine teeth in. "Oooh lookie over there at those anti-gun countries. Look at how well their anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-human rights laws are working." I suppose the bigger the non-gun violence is made to appear, the smaller the gun violence appears, relatively. Taking such an overt stance against physical violence/punishment potentially creates a perception of moral high ground, and leverage for pro-gun debates. Makes sense, even though it may not necessarily be genuine.

Notice how I phrased that as a question and not a conclusion?

 

[RC45]

What on earth is "teachers carrying guns" going to affect in a positive way. Seriously.

All it does is promote the power aspect of a person carrying a gun - which is perfect if you want to encourage shooting rampages - these deluded people love feeling powerful.

-A guy comes into a school, whips out his gun and shoots up the place - a handful of kids/teachers are going to be shot even if 10 soldiers/police officers were in the room with holstered weapons.

-A guy comes into a school, he doesn't have a gun and can't afford one, what better way to rampage than to tackle the teacher and take his gun.

-A guy comes into a school to rampage, he does not care if he gets shot, in-fact the teacher carrying a gun would be a FUN CHALLENGE, especially if this nutcase has had hard times from teachers in the past.

Seriously?


Fix the society and community, give each other respect, carrying a gun is not respect.

This post is so filled with illogical (yes. illogical, not logical) fallacies it is almost humourous - except I know that you are actually serious.

People who 'go on rampages' are actually cowards. They all pick 'gun free zones' for the simple reason they are cowards and want to have take out victims - they are not interested in a fight.

This is a fact - proven time and time again. The shooter will either commit suicide or give up at the first sign of resistance.

It would appear that some weakness in your personality that would cause you to 'become deluded with the power of carrying a gun' causes you to project the same flaw onto others.

By your logic every cop carrying a gun woudl be tackled and relieved of his gun by the millions of 'deranged wannabe shooters' roaming the streets.

The actual facts of real life shootings counter each of your 'points'.

Where people have attacked schools and they have faced resistance, they have in fact either capitulated or simply killed themselves.

 

[BobK]

Never let facts get in the way of a good emotional appeal.

 

[R.S]

This post is so filled with illogical (yes. illogical, not logical) fallacies it is almost humourous - except I know that you are actually serious.

People who 'go on rampages' are actually cowards. They all pick 'gun free zones' for the simple reason they are cowards and want to have take out victims - they are not interested in a fight.

This is a fact - proven time and time again. The shooter will either commit suicide or give up at the first sign of resistance.

It would appear that some weakness in your personality that would cause you to 'become deluded with the power of carrying a gun' causes you to project the same flaw onto others.

By your logic every cop carrying a gun woudl be tackled and relieved of his gun by the millions of 'deranged wannabe shooters' roaming the streets.

The actual facts of real life shootings counter each of your 'points'.

Where people have attacked schools and they have faced resistance, they have in fact either capitulated or simply killed themselves.

Nothing illogical in my post, perhaps unrealistic or not relevant but certainly not illogical. You're talking about a different shooter mentality to what I think of. Teachers with guns is not going to fix it.

As far as I'm concerned school-yard shooters do not pick a school because it is a gun free zone where no-one can resist. By that logic they should instead be shooting up elderly nursing homes or hospitals.
You might be thinking of cinema or shopping mall shooters - they are different and just want to kill -someone- but we are not talking about these obviously there is no teachers at the mall.

NO what they are doing is taking revenge on their own school or local school, these people fantasize about revenge against the students, teachers and system that has screwed them over and made them the wreck that they are.
They kill themselves as they do not wish to be caught or shot, incapacitated and remain alive.


I don't know about you but I did have trouble at school. In my darkest times I would fantasize about revenge and selectively killing all the fools at school and blowing their face off (yes with a gun), obviously I didn't have a gun so it was never an option if I did end up that dark.

if it were all about killing and victims there are many ways to kill 100x more people than they do and receive no resistance and have no risk of being shot or hurt... no instead they choose a gun, they believe in the power and effect of a gun, it's personal but without being so up-close as a knife.

I swear the Commonwealth countries have all been taught that guns are the devil and all violence is because of guns.

Yes and you have been brought up with the mentality that guns are a necessary and acceptable part of life.
Does a different upbringing make either of our opinions wrong, or make either all-knowing? I've never touched a gun, does this immediately make my view wrong.
If the US citizens are so smart about having guns and expert on the effect on a persons mentality - why are they having these problems???
How often do we see school gun shootings in UK or AUS?

IMO the more guns are made acceptable in schoolyards by the public - the more guns we will see in schoolyards whether carried by a responsible person or not.

 

[RC45]

Nothing illogical in my post, perhaps unrealistic or not relevant but certainly not illogical. You're talking about a different shooter mentality to what I think of. Teachers with guns is not going to fix it.

And you would be wrong. The idiot you imagine does not exist. Facts back me up.

As far as I'm concerned school-yard shooters do not pick a school because it is a gun free zone where no-one can resist. By that logic they should instead be shooting up elderly nursing homes or hospitals.
You might be thinking of cinema or shopping mall shooters - they are different and just want to kill -someone- but we are not talking about these obviously there is no teachers at the mall.

And again - you would be worng.

Facts back me up

Schools in the USA are Federal No Gun Zones.

Idiots and cowards choose Gun Free Zones so they will not be faced with resistance.

Facts back me up.

NO what they are doing is taking revenge on their own school or local school, these people fantasize about revenge against the students, teachers and system that has screwed them over and made them the wreck that they are.
They kill themselves as they do not wish to be caught or shot, incapacitated and remain alive.

No again - you are wrong - they choose to go to the schools because they will not face resistance.

Fantasizing about something and executing the idea are 2 different things.

They kill themselves or capitulate when they face resistance of any kind. Thsi is true even for mall shooters.

if it were all about killing and victims there are many ways to kill 100x more people than they do and receive no resistance and have no risk of being shot or hurt... no instead they choose a gun, they believe in the power and effect of a gun, it's personal but without being so up-close as a knife.

Again - you are wrong. Facts back me up. These folks choose guns knowing that they will be the only people with guns. If they did choose knives (as th eguy in China did) chances are they will be the only ones with a knife at that locaiton as well.

Yes and you have been brought up with the mentality that guns are a necessary and acceptable part of life.

And again you are wrong.

I immigrated to the United States by choice. I chose to live under the enumerated rights of the United States Constitution that include Freedom of Religion, Teh right to keep and bear arms, the right to a speedy trial, the right to property ownership etc etc.

Does a different upbringing make either of our opinions wrong, or make either all-knowing? I've never touched a gun, does this immediately make my view wrong.

Yes, in fact it does make your opinion wrong.

This would be as absurd as a non-literate Taliban elder trying to lecture an MIT class on nuclear fission.

If the US citizens are so smart about having guns and expert on the effect on a persons mentality - why are they having these problems???
How often do we see school gun shootings in UK or AUS?

How many schools in Australia? How many students? How many incidents of any kind?

Here - let me answer that for you. There are about 10,000 schools in Australia and 100,000 in the USA.

"all these problems" of school shootings are statistical non events. But that does not mean that I do not want the teachers at my daughters school able to defend themseves and students against a shooter. Teh same way I have no problem with cops being armed. I have a problem with them SWAT teaming folks for traffic offences but that is another debate.

IMO the more guns are made acceptable in schoolyards by the public - the more guns we will see in schoolyards whether carried by a responsible person or not.

And again you are incorrect.

Up until recently (and sometimes still in rural areas) folks often kept their hunting rifle in their pickup truck in the school parking lot.

You see, exactly the opposite to what you suggest has happened.

With the liberal handwringing and demonsing of guns the population became less trained, skilled and knowledgabel about guns and the result is/was that most everyone associates criminal activity with guns - take Australia as an example.

Up until you all handed over your weapons to the government to be melted down you folks seemed to handle your weapons quite ok - what a cowardly country and leadership to take 1 event and then knee-jerk strip everyone of their weapons and make owning one difficult and cumbersome.

These are the words of John Howard:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0

"Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)"

With this kind of leader, no wonder you as a country where willing to roll over.

 

[R.S]

Wow man you are very smart, I like how everything is so clear cut and conforms exactly to your ideas, like some sort of confirmation bias, why don't you fix it all?

There is no doubt, the more killings you see, the more you will see. Unfortunately it is just so easy.

As for Australia without guns -- you and many Americans believe in guns and their necessity, we do not, we do not need them and they are not a part of our life, simple as that.

 

[RC45]

If everyone respected one another, carrying a gone would be a non issue.

I swear the Commonwealth countries have all been taught that guns are the devil and all violence is because of guns.

You are far closer to the truth than you would believe.

Take the Aussies - they are just too proud and embaressed to admit they where duped into givign up their guns because of 1 party and 1 mans agenda.

John Howard lied to his constitutants and then after telling them he supported them turned on them when it was opportune to execute the plan to confiscate guns.

But wait, don't take my word for it - read John Howards own words:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0

Op-Ed Contributor

I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.
By JOHN HOWARD
Published: January 16, 2013

IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.
I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country — where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere — sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.
Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.
After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy.
Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)
Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.
To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.
City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.
The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife.
Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australia’s northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural.
The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my government’s decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws.
For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.
In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.
Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.

 

[RC45]

Wow man you are very smart, I like how everything is so clear cut and conforms exactly to your ideas, like some sort of confirmation bias, why don't you fix it all?

There is no doubt, the more killings you see, the more you will see. Unfortunately it is just so easy.

As for Australia without guns -- you and many Americans believe in guns and their necessity, we do not, we do not need them and they are not a part of our life, simple as that.

Again - the facts of the gun confiscation in Australia do NOT bear out your view. It sounds like you bought into the liberal tripe sold to you by Howard and co.

You lost your guns due to clever politcal manoeuvres not because 'Australians dont like guns'.



And not every Australian thinks like you do.

 

[R.S]

You've never lived in Australia, in fact it does make your opinions on Australians and guns in Australia wrong.
This would be as absurd as a non-literate Taliban elder trying to lecture an MIT class on nuclear fission.

No-one here EVER talks/complains about Howard banning guns or whatever, no-one.

Keep skipping over the parts about how widely accepted the schemes were, keep skipping over the success of the gun control and continue to be blind to the the fact Australians can still have guns - given the correct license (after strong background and character checks etc), be that farmers/hunters or sports shooters etc.
Funnily enough there is a gun shop and few minutes down the road here but it's not like buying a gun at walmart.

You're not really worth debating with and this thread is about 'Teachers with guns" not "Australians without guns", so I will exit the thread. Sorry.

 

[RC45]

You've never lived in Australia, in fact it does make your opinions on Australians and guns in Australia wrong.

Aw... except for the Australian ex-pat friends, niece and nephew living in Australia and the regular correspondance with a couple Australians I do have no idea at all abotu the nation, its people and its gun laws

This would be as absurd as a non-literate Taliban elder trying to lecture an MIT class on nuclear fission.

See above

No-one here EVER talks/complains about Howard banning guns or whatever, no-one.

Now that is a complete lie - only the sycphants that voted for him share your rosey view.

Every Australian I have spoken to in person (that wasnt a bleeding heart socialist liberal) has a few choice words about John Howard and the gun ban.

Keep skipping over the parts about how widely accepted the schemes were, keep skipping over the success of the gun control and continue to be blind to the the fact Australians can still have guns - given the correct license (after strong background and character checks etc), be that farmers/hunters or sports shooters etc.
Funnily enough there is a gun shop and few minutes down the road here but it's not like buying a gun at walmart.

You're not really worth debating with and this thread is about 'Teachers with guns" not "Australians without guns", so I will exit the thread. Sorry.

Other than the huge increase in your violent crime rates that ban worked out swimmingly yeah?

As a gun hater you are not worth debating.

Seeya. (see how that works? I can also run and hide rather than debate)