Teachers with guns ?

[Azuremen]

The NRA refuses to support any legislation banning civilian ownership of assault rifles, a weapon that no civilian has any need to own in the first place. They have proposed that teachers carry guns and/or security guards with guns be placed at schools. They claim that this will better-protect children, but given their refusal to back any legislations, this is obviously only a secondary consideration. No matter how many children it might save, guns would be placed in schools to protect the right to bear arms first, and children second.

I don't really follow your logic here. And all the somewhat connected points you make have been addressed in this thread, more or less.

There is no easy way to put this, so I'll just say it plain: America, if things are getting to the point where teachers have to carry guns just so that their students feel safe, your country is screwed up beyond belief.

For an educator, you sure have a narrow minded view of how the world works. Or simply can not grasp that we have a radically different gun culture than down there, or the absurdly easy access to guns we have. There are University campuses in the US that allow concealed weapons, with permit. And if you think an unstable person that wants to open fire at a campus will head any policy on carrying fire-arms on campus, you're just being naive.

 

[Keef]

...assault rifles, a weapon that no civilian has any need to own in the first place.

No need? The police have them. What happens if the police oppress and threaten me with their assault rifles, how am I supposed to defend myself? And the military has a whole helluva lot more where that came from. What if the National Guard comes rolling down the road, how to I protect myself against that?

protect the right to bear arms first, and children second.

You may not realize why the Second Amendment was put into place. Our Founding Fathers believed that all humans enjoyed three basic rights, God-given as they called it, logical truths as I call it. The first one is the right to life. They just came out of an era where the British rules civilians with their guns, and there were numerous unjust deaths by British guns throughout the period. They knew that the only mechanism the institution of government operates on is that of force, and they realized that for people to be able to protect their lives from overzealous force there must be a clear protection of the means with which to protect those lives. The Second Amendment protects the peoples' right to bear arms - arms being weapons by definition - and does not specify what types of weapons. We can argue about the original capitalization of the word Arms, a proper noun, which seems to cement the definition as any weapon. An aircraft carrier is just as much a weapon as a bayonet and the Second Amendment makes no differentiation between them.

It's as simple as that and I can't wrap my head around how people can argue with it. The damn thing says arms which means weapons. It does not say what kind, it just says weapons. It can't get any simpler.

 

[Grayfox]

Main issue is if the teacher snaps cause a student is being an annoying twit what can happen?

We have read about cases where a teacher loses it and attacks a student.

Also we have read where students have attacked teachers.

 

[Zenith]

Speaking as a high school teacher, I think it's a ridiculously stupid idea.

The more I look at it, the more I become convinced that this is a political agenda that says one thing and does another.

Then examine it on its merits alone. You tend to focus on your disgust towards the NRA rather than debate the proposals themselves.

The NRA refuses to support any legislation banning civilian ownership of assault rifles, a weapon that no civilian has any need to own in the first place.

1. Debateable
2. Not all that relevant.

There is no easy way to put this, so I'll just say it plain: America, if things are getting to the point where teachers have to carry guns just so that their students feel safe, your country is screwed up beyond belief.

I find this statement small minded and ignorant. What alternatives do you propose as a method to defend students in a country with such easy acccess to all kinds of weaponry?

It's also not about feeling safe, it's about being safe.

Main issue is if the teacher snaps cause a student is being an annoying twit what can happen?

We have read about cases where a teacher loses it and attacks a student.

Also we have read where students have attacked teachers.

I can't remember where I read this, but people don't just "snap". Murders are almost always planned far in advance. While it's true that teachers have attacked students, they usually do not intend to kill the student.

I'd like to see how many cases we have of teachers murdering or attempting to murder students in a situation where they couldn't have simply brought a weapon from home.

It's also worth noting that concealed carry permit holders are 5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime than other citizens.

 

[Grayfox]

I can't remember where I read this, but people don't just "snap".

When you deal with idiots on a daily basis that annoy the crap out of you, you can and will snap how long just depends on the individual.

 

[Zenith]

When you deal with idiots on a daily basis that annoy the crap out of you, you can and will snap how long just depends on the individual.

What evidence do you have to support this claim besides your own intuition?

 

[Small_Fryz]

When you deal with idiots on a daily basis that annoy the crap out of you, you can and will snap how long just depends on the individual.

Then wtf are they doing teaching??

Get a new job 💡

 

[Tornado]

When you deal with idiots on a daily basis that annoy the crap out of you, you can and will snap how long just depends on the individual.

I would hope that the person who would consider going on a shooting rampage in response to the normal pressures of teaching would be weeded out as a potential teaching candidate from the start.

 

[niky]

Yeah, like we do so well weeding out teachers who are lazy, antagonistic, sarcastic and tempermental, as it is?

For an educator, you sure have a narrow minded view of how the world works. Or simply can not grasp that we have a radically different gun culture than down there, or the absurdly easy access to guns we have. There are University campuses in the US that allow concealed weapons, with permit.

For me, it's not culture. I'd just rather not have firearms in the hands of people doing very high-stress people-on-people work... while they're in contact with aggravating clients.

Put another way, being an educational manager, I want my teachers to teach, my janitors to clean and my security guards to guard. Making any of the above do someone else's work compromises their ability to do their actual job.

It makes my job a whole lot harder if I have to certify everyone who wants to carry a firearm. Not taht security guards are perfect, but they'll be less stressed and more able to focus on securing the campus against attacks.

 

[Azuremen]

Put another way, being an educational manager, I want my teachers to teach, my janitors to clean and my security guards to guard. Making any of the above do someone else's work compromises their ability to do their actual job.

It makes my job a whole lot harder if I have to certify everyone who wants to carry a firearm. Not taht security guards are perfect, but they'll be less stressed and more able to focus on securing the campus against attacks.

I can see where you are coming from, but simply allowing those that already have concealed permits to carry onto campus would be no additional stress to anyone. Forcing teachers to have fire-arms is a bit different in my mind and certainly not the best as there are some people that just mix well with fire-arms.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

There is no easy way to put this, so I'll just say it plain: America, if things are getting to the point where teachers have to carry guns just so that their students feel safe, your country is screwed up beyond belief.

I agree with this, which is why I'm leaving the country in 7 months.

 

[Northstar]

I agree with this, which is why I'm leaving the country in 7 months.

Let us know how green the grass is after a year.👍

 

[RocZX]

I think they should have something to protect studens . They should have a stun gun or a gun that shoots rubber bullets.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Wrong, you are under some illusion that guns can be removed from our country, cannot, will not, ever, happen, criminals will always have easy access to guns here. You want to take away the rights of the innocent.

Was Adam Lanza a criminal before he shot up Sandy Hook Elementary?

How many of the people who commit these massacres have records of violent crimes to their name? I know, he became a criminal the moment he stole his mother's guns, but as far as I am aware, that was his first crime. And a lot of people who commit these massacres have no criminal record until they go and shoot some place up.

You're acting as if some kind of ban on assault rifles wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. But surely you recognise that by controlling the availability of these weapons, the impact of massacres like Sandy Hook could be reduced. What if we could go back in time and change things so that Lanza did not have access to that assault rifle he stole? History could have played out differently - unable to get the assault rifle, and with no idea how to acquire one, Lanza went to Sandy Hook without one. And while he still committed his horrendous crime, twenty-five people died instead of twenty-six; one of the children survives. Isn't protecting that one life worth giving up some of your rights? I'm not suggesting that the right to bear arms should be repealed entirely, of course - just that people give up the right to own military-grade assault rifles, weapons that no civilian has any need to own.

Which is the greater evil here: giving up the right to own assault rifles for the sake of saving one innocent life? Or holding onto the right to own assault rifles at the cost of one innocent life?

Let us know how green the grass is after a year.👍

I've been here on the other side for twenty-six years, and I have to say the grass is really green. Probably because it's not covered in blood. When I walk into my classroom, I'm not living in fear that someone like Adam Lanza will enter it. On the other hand, your teachers are living in fear, since they're at the point where they feel they have to carry guns.

 

[Grayfox]

Then wtf are they doing teaching??

Get a new job 💡

Teaching was less stressful in the past.

These days with 40 student packed into a class and not to mention with smartphones and facebook which are being used in school.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No need? The police have them. What happens if the police oppress and threaten me with their assault rifles, how am I supposed to defend myself? And the military has a whole helluva lot more where that came from. What if the National Guard comes rolling down the road, how to I protect myself against that?

I could perhaps understand your concerns if you were living in the Congo, where there is an actual danger of that happening.

These days with 40 student packed into a class and not to mention with smartphones and facebook which are being used in school.

Yeah, you're not actually a teacher, are you?

Seriously, over-populated classrooms, smartphones and people on Facebook are not problems. They are issues, yes, but they are easily dealt with. It largely depends on the school I'm working in, but even at the schools where it is an annoyance, it takes all of five minutes to deal with.

 

[Zenith]

You're acting as if some kind of ban on assault rifles wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. But surely you recognise that by controlling the availability of these weapons, the impact of massacres like Sandy Hook could be reduced.

Assault Weapons Ban =/= controlling the availability of guns.

The availability of guns is past the point of control. Outlawing them will hand that control over to criminals just like it did with prohibition and the war on drugs.

What if we could go back in time and change things so that Lanza did not have access to that assault rifle he stole?

He used a rifle, not an assault rifle. He also used handguns like most other shooters.

History could have played out differently - unable to get the assault rifle, and with no idea how to acquire one, Lanza went to Sandy Hook without one. And while he still committed his horrendous crime, twenty-five people died instead of twenty-six; one of the children survives. Isn't protecting that one life worth giving up some of your rights? I'm not suggesting that the right to bear arms should be repealed entirely, of course - just that people give up the right to own military-grade assault rifles, weapons that no civilian has any need to own.

How would less children have died if he had only had handguns or even the Ruger Mini-14 that was used by Breivik?

Norway, VT, Columbine. All of the killers in these cases used weapons that are not consider "Assault weapons" by politicians or news people.

They didn't stop killing because they didn't have powerful enough weaponry. They stopped killing because they decided that they were done. An AWB would have done nothing in any of these mass shootings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt

It doesn't matter how powerful the gun is, it matters that one person has a gun and nobody else does. This is why having people who can respond to someone with a deadly weapon is so important.

Which is the greater evil here: giving up the right to own assault rifles for the sake of saving one innocent life? Or holding onto the right to own assault rifles at the cost of one innocent life?

There isn't a choice between banning the scary looking guns and safety here. Banning "assault weapons" compromises both. Prohibition, War on Drugs, yadda-yadda.

I've been here on the other side for twenty-six years, and I have to say the grass is really green. Probably because it's not covered in blood. When I walk into my classroom, I'm not living in fear that someone like Adam Lanza will enter it. On the other hand, your teachers are living in fear, since they're at the point where they feel they have to carry guns.

You

Sure

Bro?

Cars are also used to kill people. Ban them! If we didn't have cars we would save thousands of lives! Isn't getting to work a little less quickly worth all those lives?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

Actually, lets just lock everyone in cages. No more murders. Security over freedom.

 

[arora]

You're acting as if some kind of ban on assault rifles wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. But surely you recognise that by controlling the availability of these weapons, the impact of massacres like Sandy Hook could be reduced. What if we could go back in time and change things so that Lanza did not have access to that assault rifle he stole? History could have played out differently - unable to get the assault rifle, and with no idea how to acquire one, Lanza went to Sandy Hook without one. And while he still committed his horrendous crime, twenty-five people died instead of twenty-six; one of the children survives. Isn't protecting that one life worth giving up some of your rights? I'm not suggesting that the right to bear arms should be repealed entirely, of course - just that people give up the right to own military-grade assault rifles, weapons that no civilian has any need to own.

Which is the greater evil here: giving up the right to own assault rifles for the sake of saving one innocent life? Or holding onto the right to own assault rifles at the cost of one innocent life?

You are going to keep on believing this nonsense because you don't know how to listen to or reason with facts.

Fact: we had a ban on these weapons from 1994-2004
Fact: it did not change the crime rates
Fact: banning the legal availability changes nothing on the actual availability
Fact: these mass killers will do it without whatever banned gun you are so happy about.

I could go on but I had a nice new years and don't feel like ruining it on such dribble. 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This is why having people who can respond to someone with a deadly weapon is so important.

And what would you say when a student grabs a teacher's gun and uses it to kill another student? Sure, the teachers would be trained to keep their weapons safe at all times, and to defend themselves if someone were to try and overpower them to get it, but it's only going to take one student successfully getting a gun away from a teacher to demosntrate just how insane the idea is. Which is unfortunate, because a willingness to use deadly force being a job requirement for teachers is already beyond the point of madness.

Fact: these mass killers will do it without whatever banned gun you are so happy about.

Fact: it happens in your country far more often than in any other.
Fact: you don't seem to see a problem with teachers walking around with weapons, as if their school is in Baghdad, Iraq and not Bagdad, Florida.

Don't any of you see a problem with this?

 

[Famine]

You're acting as if some kind of ban on assault rifles wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. But surely you recognise that by controlling the availability of these weapons, the impact of massacres like Sandy Hook could be reduced. What if we could go back in time and change things so that Lanza did not have access to that assault rifle he stole? History could have played out differently - unable to get the assault rifle, and with no idea how to acquire one, Lanza went to Sandy Hook without one. And while he still committed his horrendous crime, twenty-five people died instead of twenty-six; one of the children survives. Isn't protecting that one life worth giving up some of your rights? I'm not suggesting that the right to bear arms should be repealed entirely, of course - just that people give up the right to own military-grade assault rifles, weapons that no civilian has any need to own.

A ban on assault rifles wouldn't have changed the situation in Connecticut one bit.

Because Connecticut already has one.

The Second Amendment merely says the US Federal government won't interfere with the states' (or counties') laws on firearms. It doesn't say "guns for all", like many non-Americans who attack it seem to think it does.

Which is the greater evil here: giving up the right to own assault rifles for the sake of saving one innocent life? Or holding onto the right to own assault rifles at the cost of one innocent life?

A government taking away the rights of its citizens never saves its citizens lives.

Taking away our freedoms in the name of preventing our lives being ended at the hands of terrorists didn't stop terrorism - it just moved it into our parliaments.

I've been here on the other side for twenty-six years, and I have to say the grass is really green. Probably because it's not covered in blood. When I walk into my classroom, I'm not living in fear that someone like Adam Lanza will enter it. On the other hand, your teachers are living in fear, since they're at the point where they feel they have to carry guns.

Like US teachers, who are not permitted to carry weapons on school sites even if they're permitted to carry them elsewhere, you're living with the knowledge that one criminal with a weapon of any kind can come to your campus at any time and start to massacre your charges in front of you and you'll have no way to stop them. Unlike US citizens, you're living with the knowledge that the same thing can occur in your home - and both open and concealed carry have stopped and prevented the escalation of crimes in the USA.

Since we're fond of facts today...

Fact: In the USA, the rate of firearms being used to kill is lower than the rate of cars being used to kill - 240m cars and 32,400 fatalities is one death per 7,400 cars; 300m guns and 32,200 fatalities is one death per 9,300 guns.
Fact: That's a safety rate of 99.986% for cars and 99.989% for guns.
Fact: And two thirds of those gun deaths are suicides.
Fact: With one exception, every single-location spree killing (three or more victims other than the shooter) involving firearms in the USA since 1950 has occurred in a location where civilians are specifically disarmed. The Aurora cinema shooting took place in one of seven cinemas showing the Dark Knight Rises that evening and in the only one with signs saying it banned civilians from carrying weapons - it was not the nearest one to the shooter's home.
Fact: Assault-type weapons kill fewer Americans annually (700) than hammers and baseball bats kill (800).
Fact: And fewer still than "bare hands" (1000).
Fact: Murder rates in the UK have never been lower than they were before the extended firearm ban came into force in 1997 - averaging 15% higher.
Fact: Murder rates in the UK have only twice been lower than they were before the 1968 firearm ban - currently 100% higher.
Fact: 16% of all murders in Australia use firearms.

 

[Zenith]

And what would you say when a student grabs a teacher's gun and uses it to kill another student? Sure, the teachers would be trained to keep their weapons safe at all times, and to defend themselves if someone were to try and overpower them to get it, but it's only going to take one student successfully getting a gun away from a teacher to demosntrate just how insane the idea is. Which is unfortunate, because a willingness to use deadly force being a job requirement for teachers is already beyond the point of madness.

Go look up how often someone with a concealed gun and permit has gotten their weapon stolen from them.

It would also seem that having police officers walk around schools like they do around bigger and stronger high school and college students would lead to dozens of these instances.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

A government taking away the rights of its citizens never saves its citizens lives.

Because a government giving its citizens the right to carry weapons has worked out so well.

I see this thread has gone the way of every other discussion on the subject of gun control inevitably does at some point: those people who support gun ownership have come in here and made a ruckus about their right to own and carry weapons.

But here's the problem in this case: this discussion isn't about you. It isn't about your right to carry or to own a gun. You don't even come into it. It's about the rights of students to go to school in an environment that is safe for them to learn and socialise and generally be a kid. Those rights may not be written in the consitution the way the right to bear arms is, but nevertheless, it is something that every student has a right to. And so I ask myself, how is arming our teachers or stationing armed guards in schools a good idea?

Looking over your posts, I don't see any of the pro-gun ownership crowd who are teachers themselves. On the other hand, I actually am a teacher, and so this is an issue that affects me. I would not be comfortable handling a gun, least of all in a classroom. But I'm not going to walk away from my chosen profession simply for the sake of protecting your rights when this isn't about you. Now I have said before that I have never doubted my ability to look after the wellbeing of my students, and that that would change if guns were to be introduced into schools. I stand by that, because I know that I would not be able to shoulder the responsibility of it. I already have nightmares of students overpowering me to get a gun away from me, and using it to kill another student. Why should anybody be forced into that position for the sake of your rights? As far as I'm concerned, your right to bear arms is inconsequential to the right of a child to receive an education, and to receive it in an environment that is safe and healthy. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, there were reports of an eleven year old boy in Utah taking a gun to a school "for protection" because he was terrified of another shooting. How is that in any way an acceptable situation? It continually blows my mind that people genuinely believe that their right to own weapons is more important than the rights of an innocent child to be safe - and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise. I like to believe that I can be swayed with a persuasive argument, but all anyone in here has done is convince me of how insane the situation is.

Once again, we come back to the division between rights and responsibilities. You all want the right to bear arms, but in this case, you want me to be the one to take all the responsibility for it. And I find that attitude to be sickening. Not one of you has the balls to take on that responsibility because you're all too self-involved to think about how your demand to maintain your right affects other people. And all because some of you seem to think that the faint possibility that the American heartland could turn into the Congo overnight is much more important than protecting the lives of children.

Your country is broken, America. Which is too bad, because such an insular and irresponsible attitude is what deters people like me from coming over. You call yourself the "home of the free", but so long as this attitude prevails, I for one sure as hell couldn't feel free there.

Go look up how often someone with a concealed gun and permit has gotten their weapon stolen from them.

I find it hilariously naive and irresponsible that you seem to think it's so rare that it is unlikely to happen. The fact that it can happen at all is proof that it's a bad idea.

 

[Zenith]

Because a government giving its citizens the right to carry weapons has worked out so well.

Yes. It did.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

And taking away that right made the citizens less safe.

I see this thread has gone the way of every other discussion on the subject of gun control inevitably does at some point: those people who support gun ownership have come in here and made a ruckus about their right to own and carry weapons.

Or maybe just proven you wrong? I wouldn't know though. I completely forget any points that I've made when you neglect to respond to them.

It continually blows my mind that people genuinely believe that their right to own weapons is more important than the rights of an innocent child to be safe - and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise. I like to believe that I can be swayed with a persuasive argument, but all anyone in here has done is convince me of how insane the situation is.

It blows my mind that you continue to tout that opinion even though I've repeatedly proven it to be wrong.

Once again, we come back to the division between rights and responsibilities. You all want the right to bear arms, but in this case, you want me to be the one to take all the responsibility for it. And I find that attitude to be sickening. Not one of you has the balls to take on that responsibility because you're all too self-involved to think about how your demand to maintain your right affects other people.

Can you go three posts in a thread without insulting people?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Or maybe just proven you wrong? I wouldn't know though. I completely forget any points that I've made when you neglect to respond to them.

He said, neglecting to respond to most of my points.

You haven't proven me wrong. You, especially and consistently, have proven me right.

It blows my mind that you continue to tout that opinion even though I've repeatedly proven it to be wrong.

Again, all you have done is prove me right. I find your attitude towards the subject of gun ownership to be abhorrent: "Hey, a handful of deaths here and there is worth it when I can own any weapon I like!". Because that's how you come across.

 

[Zenith]

"Hey, a handful of deaths here and there is worth it when I can own any weapon I like!". Because that's how you come across.

This must be a joke.

Good day sir, I have no intention of arguing with someone who blatantly misconstrues the words that are put into anyone's posts. (Going on two threads now)

 

[Famine]

Because a government giving its citizens the right to carry weapons has worked out so well.

Whenever and wherever it's taken away, the murder rate goes up. It went up almost 50% when Australia implemented more stringent gun control in 1996 - directly contradicting a 20 year downward trend that actually continues to this day. In the UK it's never been as low as it was in 1997 even including the guy who shot up a school that year, running up to 15% higher for the last decade.

I see this thread has gone the way of every other discussion on the subject of gun control inevitably does at some point: those people who support gun ownership have come in here and made a ruckus about their right to own and carry weapons.

While I have that right - as do you - my government doesn't recognise it and would imprison me for doing so. So that's not the case.

But here's the problem in this case: this discussion isn't about you.

I'm afraid that if you're talking about making laws, it's about everyone. Even if it's a specific law regarding whether a certain group of people should be permitted to hold a certain tool in certain locations, when it's a law at a national level, it's about all citizens - any such law is a precedent for laws regarding other groups, tools and locations.

Looking over your posts, I don't see any of the pro-gun ownership crowd who are teachers themselves. On the other hand, I actually am a teacher, and so this is an issue that affects me. I would not be comfortable handling a gun, least of all in a classroom. But I'm not going to walk away from my chosen profession simply for the sake of protecting your rights when this isn't about you.

Looking over most of the thread, it seems the "pro-gun ownership crowd" you're talking about aren't suggesting you be forced to carry because you're a teacher. They're suggesting that if you're already allowed to carry and choose to, you shouldn't be banned from doing so because you're in a certain place.

Since all statistics say that banning people who are allowed to carry weapons from certain places result in spree-shooting casualties in those places, it seems sensible.

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, there were reports of an eleven year old boy in Utah taking a gun to a school "for protection" because he was terrified of another shooting. How is that in any way an acceptable situation?

It's not - eleven year olds don't have carry permits.

How many stories of Australian or British kids carrying knives around - including at school - for the same reason would you like?

It continually blows my mind that people genuinely believe that their right to own weapons is more important than the rights of an innocent child to be safe

Taking rights away from populations doesn't make the innocent safe. It makes them victims - and targets.

Once again, we come back to the division between rights and responsibilities. You all want the right to bear arms, but in this case, you want me to be the one to take all the responsibility for it.

Quick repeat - they want you to be allowed to retain your weapon in a school if you are permitted to carry one at large.

I find it hilariously naive and irresponsible that you seem to think it's so rare that it is unlikely to happen.

When I walk into my classroom, I'm not living in fear that someone like Adam Lanza will enter it.

Fact: 16% of all murders in Australia use firearms.

 

[arora]

And you are the one saying this is not about gun control but about whether teachers should carry or not? plz

First off, no one is asking you to carry, putting our burdens on you etc, what a crock. I've said if teachers want to carry they should be allowed to, that's as far as I've gone with that.

If you bothered to read my first post on here I said when I was in high school a few people carried guns, when my kids where in elementary school there was a murder and subsequently a few cops showed up in the mornings and afternoons.

So right, I said please teachers carry guns, actually I did not. I said getting rid of the no gun zones would be a good idea, these punks attack schools knowing there is no one in there armed, duh durp.

And if you really checked out my stance on it you would quickly realize I think there are social issues that need to be addressed not gun issues. The first on my list of priorities is to abolish the public school system all together 👍

 

[Azuremen]

But here's the problem in this case: this discussion isn't about you. It isn't about your right to carry or to own a gun. You don't even come into it. It's about the rights of students to go to school in an environment that is safe for them to learn and socialise and generally be a kid. Those rights may not be written in the consitution the way the right to bear arms is, but nevertheless, it is something that every student has a right to. And so I ask myself, how is arming our teachers or stationing armed guards in schools a good idea?

The discussion has been revolving around schools and teachers carrying, till you derailed it by condemning the US for having "poor" gun laws. Not to mention you more or less insulting a nation that you don't seem to understand, pointing fingers, making somewhat wild and unsupported claims, and so on.

And if you had bother to read almost ANY of the posts made in this thread, you'd see several people explaining why it is a good idea. Or you can continue to repeat yourself and act like no one has given you a valid response.

Up to you really.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I have no intention of arguing with someone who blatantly misconstrues the words that put into my posts.

Oh, so how do you construe this, then?

Go look up how often someone with a concealed gun and permit has gotten their weapon stolen from them.

Your obvious implication here is that people who have concealed guns and permits for them very rarely have their weapons taken from them by force, if at all.

Therefore, you assume that because instances of this are very rare in the wider population, it will therefore be very rare that a teacher with a concealed weapon will have it taken from them (assuming this is a logical fallacy).

And this is where we arrive at the crux of the matter. It may well be very rare that a teacher has a weapon taken from them, but one instance in one million is still greater than zero instances in one million. What are your thoughts on this one instance? A student has successfully taken a gun away from a teacher. This one case won't affect the national average in any way, but the fact remains that this is a gun that they would not otherwise have access to, and would never have considered using if it weren't for the heat of the moment. This is not a planned crime, but a crime of opportunity; irrespective of that, they now have a gun, and there is nothing to stop them using it. We can conclusively say that the only reason why this crime has taken place (and any crime that may follow from it) is because the teacher had a gun.

What are your thoughts on this? I have asked before, but you repeatedly refer me back to statistics. I can only assume that you think this is somehow acceptable.

And if you had bother to read almost ANY of the posts made in this thread, you'd see several people explaining why it is a good idea. Or you can continue to repeat yourself and act like no one has given you a valid response.

And if you have bothered to read almost ANY of the posts I made in this thread, you'd see that those people with the "good ideas" aren't the ones who have to live with the results on a daily basis. Do they understand the difficulties faced by teachers? Do they understand what it takes to be able to teach under normal conditions? Do they understand that "normal conditions" are often unachievable and unrealisitc at best? And if the answer to any of those questions is "no", then why do they think that they are uniquely qualified to judge what teachers should or should not be expected to do in the face of an added complication to their lives?

 

[Azuremen]

What are your thoughts on this? I have asked before, but you repeatedly refer me back to statistics. I can only assume that you think this is somehow acceptable.

You realize transponder based gun locks exist that will make a gun unable to fire if 50cm from the source, eg a watch etc. That aside, getting a gun in the US isn't exactly hard. When I grew up, it was a simple matter of grabbing whichever I wanted out of the gun safe we had. If I kid wants to bring a gun to school, it isn't hard generally. Some larger schools have metal detectors and so on, but that isn't all of them.

You are stretching to hypothetical situations to present major flaws, while several people have provided current and real data to support the allowance of concealed carry on campuses.

A quick query as well - have you ever handled a gun, shot one, or even been in the presence of one being shot? Do you actually know anything about guns and gun owners beyond what you read in typically slanted media?

And if you have bothered to read almost ANY of the posts I made in this thread, you'd see that those people with the "good ideas" aren't the ones who have to live with the results on a daily basis. Do they understand the difficulties faced by teachers? Do they understand what it takes to be able to teach under normal conditions? Do they understand that "normal conditions" are often unachievable and unrealisitc at best? And if the answer to any of those questions is "no", then why do they think that they are uniquely qualified to judge what teachers should or should not be expected to do in the face of an added complication to their lives?

Oh yes, I've read all of your assumptive and mildly condescending posts, don't worry. You've failed to understand the major notion of allowing those that already have concealed carry permits to carry onto campus. All I've seen from you is "what if" situations about having a teacher with a gun, while not really addressing the issues surrounding wildly naive idea of just disarming the people of the US.