Teachers with guns ?

[prisonermonkeys]

several people have provided current and real data to support the allowance of concealed carry on campuses.

And yet, if I asked them what they would do if they were a teacher, and a student who was not in their class walked into their classroom and refused to leave, they would have no idea what to do. Nobody here seems to recognise that experience in teaching is very relevant to the discussion at hand.

I'm sure that, with enough statistics and data, you could prove just about anything. And so they present their cases as if carrying a gun would not change the way they went about doing their job. The truth is that it fundamentally changes the way we go about our jobs. Ever since the advent of YouTube, we have to be eternally vigilant in the way we conduct ourselves. There is a trend among students to provoke their teachers into lashing out, and uploading videos of their reactions onto the internet.

A student doesn't even have to get their hands on a gun to cause trouble. One of the teachers who taught me was recently forced to go on paid leave because a student accused him of behaving inappropriately toward her. He was well-liked, very respected, and well-known throughout the community. Nobody believed for a moment that he had behaved improperly. Ultimately, he was able to prove that he had done nothing wrong, and that the girl in question admitted that she accused him because he was about to fail her for a subject because she had not submitted the required work. And it's not like this is an isolated case, either - in a town of ~75,000 people, I've heard of half a dozen instances of this happening in the past eighteen months or so.

Can you imagine what that might be like if teachers were carrying guns in schools? They could carry it with a transponder-based gun lock, and all it would take is one student accusing them of pulling the gun on them in the middle of class ... well, trouble of the highest order would follow.

Like I said, teachers are already faced with extreme responsibilities as it is. One disgruntled student with the knowledge that a teacher has a gun can make pretty much ruin that teacher's life. My teacher was able to return to his job because he was able to prove he was innocent. Others haven't been so lucky, even when they've been falsely accused.

 

[arora]

And yet, if I asked them what they would do if they were a teacher, and a student who was not in their class walked into their classroom and refused to leave, they would have no idea what to do. Nobody here seems to recognise that experience in teaching is very relevant to the discussion at hand.

Some of us are parents ya know? Some of us know all about teaching, you know, kinda like how I have taught my two since birth? You ever think of that or are you so high and mighty on your education allowing you access to other peoples children that you forget who is who in the chain?

 

[Gregi]

OK, so you give the teachers guns? What's next? Do parents go to teacher office hours armed too?

It's a sorry society you live in to have to own a gun to feel safe...

 

[niky]

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.

We actually deal with that issue on a daily basis. One of our core courses is Criminology, and some of the instructors are active police officers, who carry.

In fact, in this country, without a special permit that takes ages to process, only police officers and military servicemen are allowed to carry (as opposed to merely transporting the gun, unloaded and locked in a case) from your home to the nearest firing range. Doesn't stop criminals from acquiring guns, at all. You can buy anything from a homemade 1911 copy to a Chinese AK47 on the black market here. Bank robbers don't use revolvers in this country, they use RPGs. As said elsewhere, if you criminalize owning assault weapons, only criminals will have assault weapons.

But does having armed teachers make our campus safer? It's made for one or two colorful shootouts between gang members and faculty, but it's always dedicated security personnel and active police on-site who stop situations, not faculty.

-

I would allow people who already have permits to carry, but again, I wouldn't add to that number for security purposes, because it's simply not effective. And once students are aware of the extra "buttons" this provides, as noted by PM, this becomes a problem. For teachers, one youtube upload can mean the difference between tenure and being out on the street... and students will sometimes try to create situations to cause this. Simply pointing out that a teacher scolding you with a holstered weapon at their side is potentially psychologically scarring is a ridiculously easy way to make this happen.

Teachers in the classroom should be free of any distraction to what they're doing. It makes their jobs safer and easier. What they do outside the classroom is entirely up to them.

 

[jcm]

I voted no, because I feel that having guns in a classroom does not make a good learning environment. As for having guns in a safe, that can only be used in an emergency by highly trained staff/principals, in the US that might be a good idea.

Personally, I couldn't imagine doing an exam knowing that a teacher has a gun and has the ability and motive to shoot me if I make a sound . US gun culture must be extremely different in some places if knowing this is even slightly possible doesn't at least somewhat creep you out.

The first on my list of priorities is to abolish the public school system all together 👍

Why?

 

[Famine]

And yet, if I asked them what they would do if they were a teacher, and a student who was not in their class walked into their classroom and refused to leave, they would have no idea what to do. Nobody here seems to recognise that experience in teaching is very relevant to the discussion at hand.

I'm sure that, with enough statistics and data, you could prove just about anything. And so they present their cases as if carrying a gun would not change the way they went about doing their job. The truth is that it fundamentally changes the way we go about our jobs. Ever since the advent of YouTube, we have to be eternally vigilant in the way we conduct ourselves. There is a trend among students to provoke their teachers into lashing out, and uploading videos of their reactions onto the internet.

A student doesn't even have to get their hands on a gun to cause trouble. One of the teachers who taught me was recently forced to go on paid leave because a student accused him of behaving inappropriately toward her. He was well-liked, very respected, and well-known throughout the community. Nobody believed for a moment that he had behaved improperly. Ultimately, he was able to prove that he had done nothing wrong, and that the girl in question admitted that she accused him because he was about to fail her for a subject because she had not submitted the required work. And it's not like this is an isolated case, either - in a town of ~75,000 people, I've heard of half a dozen instances of this happening in the past eighteen months or so.

Can you imagine what that might be like if teachers were carrying guns in schools? They could carry it with a transponder-based gun lock, and all it would take is one student accusing them of pulling the gun on them in the middle of class ... well, trouble of the highest order would follow.

I see the same offence - saying a teacher did something they're not supposed to do - with a different mechanism.

If you think that because there's a gun on campus, more teachers will face accusations of inappropriate behaviour - or teachers will face it more often - you'll need to show this to be the case (which is where statistics and data come in). If you don't, I don't really follow the relevance.

Like I said, teachers are already faced with extreme responsibilities as it is. One disgruntled student with the knowledge that a teacher has a gun can make pretty much ruin that teacher's life. My teacher was able to return to his job because he was able to prove he was innocent. Others haven't been so lucky, even when they've been falsely accused.

Which happened without a gun. All it takes is a kid to say he touched their genitals, buttocks or breasts - there's little evidence to suggest a firearm locked in the principal's office will make this situation worse.

 

[Matthew77258]

I really haven't had a good read of the thread yet(its 11:00 pm and i'm a bit tired ) but as a Year 11 student in Australia (and to hopefully soon be a History teacher) I voted I am a student and I do not support teachers with guns. I personally wouldn't feel safe if I knew that my teacher had to carry a weapon with him/her to protect us. Guns in the classroom should be a BIG NO in my opinion. Police guard/protection would be a much better idea.

 

[Tesla]

But because we don't have nearly as many guns in circulation in Australia and because we're an island, it's much less of an issue than in the United States where there are estimated to be 300 million firearms, with more available to come in through Mexico if they were ever outlawed.

 

[arora]

Why?

Because people without children are forced to pay for it, because they answer to a bureaucracy and not the parents as a customer, because they undermine family's values and authorities, because they will have you believe it is by law that your children attend, because you have no say on curriculum, because they can withhold your children from you, because they focus on ideology, because they force conformity even though the minority attending brakes no laws, because ......... many things wrong with the system here.

To be fair, it manifest by people's refusal to take responsibilities. I realize that less fortunate people may have no other choice and in that regard we do need something, but we don't need what we have now.(speaking of the U.S. btw)

I believe in our political process and I hope it's a topic that will come up again, I stopped following the voucher deal some time back but I hope it started something positive.

 

[hogger129]

I am a college student and I support teachers packing heat. I support students to be able to as well. They do it in Utah, no problems.

If people don't like it, there are plenty of institutions out there with a "no guns" policy on campus.

 

[Tornado]

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

Interludes said, after an entire thread where he cherry picked what parts to respond to and then acted like everything else said doesn't exist so he could still be right when he repeated his statements later.


Again.





How long do we have to go in this thread before you make the same implication from the last thread where someone who isn't a gun control advocate is pro-gun murder?

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?

Oh. Right.

 

[MatskiMonk]

There may have been fewer gun massacres, but they have made up for it in bombings, even if only one or two people are killed at a time.

Hardly a problem exclusive to the UK though.. Americans have the right to bare arms and very obviously suffer at the hands of terrorists.

Also, we're not always just blowing ourselves up, often it was the IRA doing it to us, and that may or may not have been thanks to Americans.

If you'd done your research, you'd also see the rate of violent crime has steadily increased since the UK basically banned guns.

Yet you're more likely to be assaulted in London than New York. Violent crime rates are what matters.

According to the home office...

"Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim."

We call pretty much everything violent crime. I don't have the source for this at the moment but we had an increase in violent crime of 20% one year --- simply because the police changed the way they report crime.

As for the causes.. again I don't have the source but I've seen reports that alcohol is a causing factor in up to half of all reported assaults in the UK. It appears we go out, get drunk and have a fight, or beat the wife... I think the last thing we need to do is allow people to carry guns in the UK.

What I'm basically saying is that I don't think parallels can be drawn between the UK and the US when it comes to gun laws.

I think America is in a pretty bad way if the only solution to a gun problem is more guns, and instinctively my reaction to the proposition of guns in schools is that it shouldn't happen, guns and kids shouldn't mix. Having said that, it would be interesting to see if there was a correlation between teachers carrying guns, and grades. I'm not suggesting teachers would threaten kids, but maybe the kids would show a little more respect to someone carrying a weapon, and maybe learn more.

 

[Ardius]

Having said that, it would be interesting to see if there was a correlation between teachers carrying guns, and grades. I'm not suggesting teachers would threaten kids, but maybe the kids would show a little more respect to someone carrying a weapon, and maybe learn more.

Respect is earned, not forced. Unruly kids won't respect a poor teacher...even if they did have a gun.
In my experiences from school, most kids will respect a good teacher who makes learning interesting. Usually the teachers that gain no respect from kids are teachers that either:
-are completely boring.
-don't know their subject very well.
-rely on "copy X from text books".
-have anger or violence issues.
-cannot control or deal with kids or respond poorly to them.
-allow inexperience to get the better of them.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm not really suggesting it would be forced, but it would reinforce the teachers position as an authority figure - even if for no other reason than the kids would see the teacher in a far more responsible light... he/she is given a weapon in order to defend the kids... I think that could change the way the kids see the teacher, maybe for the better.

 

[Danoff]

According to the home office...

"Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim."

We call pretty much everything violent crime. I don't have the source for this at the moment but we had an increase in violent crime of 20% one year --- simply because the police changed the way they report crime.

As for the causes.. again I don't have the source but I've seen reports that alcohol is a causing factor in up to half of all reported assaults in the UK. It appears we go out, get drunk and have a fight, or beat the wife... I think the last thing we need to do is allow people to carry guns in the UK.

What I'm basically saying is that I don't think parallels can be drawn between the UK and the US when it comes to gun laws.

Except when gun laws are enacted violent crime goes up (and that makes perfect sense).

I think America is in a pretty bad way if the only solution to a gun problem is more guns

It is fallacy to think anything else. You're not going to convince everyone to just stop being violent, violent people will always exist. When I read your above statement, this is what I read:

"I think America is in a pretty bad way if the only solution to a security problem is additional security".

Somehow it doesn't make sense when you put it that way.

 

[Exorcet]

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?

Where is the choice that half the people are arguing for? Holding on to the right to own assault rifles for the sake of saving multiple lives?

Or maybe it's not there because it's not evil.

 

[Nessy]

With regards to the UK and the rise of "violent crimes", i see that some draw the link with it being down to the introduction of stricter gun laws.. i'm not saying it isn't a factor, but i find it hard to imagine that the gun laws alone are the main contributing factor to the rise.. there must be other variables surely (though i don't know what they are).

 

[Danoff]

Lack of guns directly promotes violent crime. It is far easier to assault someone when you think you have a physical advantage over them if you do not fear their possession of a piece of equipment that can completely neutralize your physical advantage.

In a world without weapons, the ability to produce force becomes less equal, as your physical size and strength play a much larger role. If you can obtain an illegal weapon, that much the better because you know that law abiding citizens will not have one.

 

[Exorcet]

There are probably other factors, but guns laws could very easily be the main cause. You've disarmed people. Criminals who don't care about laws know this, they know their victims are now less able to defend themselves. If they were going to attack someone, now would be a good time.

 

[Nessy]

I'm not arguing that that's not the case in the US, i just thought things were somewhat different in the UK (pre gun law times). The gun culture isn't the same over here (AFAIK).

 

[Danoff]

Nothing that either myself or Exorcet posted is dependent on a gun culture or national origin.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I would like to pose a fairly basic yet very loaded question:

Assuming someone has the right to defend their own life, do they have the right to take someone else's life in the process? I'm not taking sides on this yet, I want to see what the other people in this thread think.

 

[MatskiMonk]

"I think America is in a pretty bad way if the only solution to a security problem is additional security".

Somehow it doesn't make sense when you put it that way.

Looking at the homicide rates, the price you pay for your 'security' seems to be quite high.

 

[Famine]

I would like to pose a fairly basic yet very loaded question:

Assuming someone has the right to defend their own life, do they have the right to take someone else's life in the process? I'm not taking sides on this yet, i want to see what the other people in this thread think.

Have a look in the GTP Human Rights thread.

The answer is "Yes, if that life is directly threatening their, or others, rights; No, if it is not."

 

[Danoff]

Looking at the homicide rates, the price you pay for your 'security' seems to be quite high.

Citation required.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Citation required.

According to the UN Office of Drugs and Crime the average homicide rate in the USA since 2000 is around 5.5, for the UK that number is 1.6... so around three and a half times higher than the UK. According to FBI figures 68% of murders committed in the US use guns - this translates to around 8-9000 dead people a year thanks to guns.

If you're going to suggest that it's Guns that keeps the US's violent crime rate at about a quarter of the UK's (given the different recording methods and different definitions of 'violent' crime)... then I'm suggesting 8-9000 dead people is a high price to pay.

 

[Nicksfix]

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.

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.

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.

Call it ridiculously stupid if you will, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it. However stupid it may sound to you, are you aware of what is really going on here in the States concerning teachers carrying guns ? Stupid or not, the United States of America is speaking out on this. You have said "if things are getting to the point". Bud, they are already here. There are no "if's". Here are a few to get you started. I'm quite sure that are more to follow.

A- In 2007, the town of Harrold Texas voted unanimously to allow teachers to carry guns into school. (LINK)

B- The State of Utah has allowed teachers to carry guns into school. Teachers "are flocking in" to receive their gun training. (LINK)

C- 6 more states have outlined plans to allow teachers to carry guns into school. Those states being Florida, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee. (LINK)

D- Ohio, one of the States where there is no law concerning teachers carrying guns into school is giving out free gun training to teachers. (LINK)

E- Washington State Rep Liz Pike is drawing up plans to introduce "teachers carrying guns" to be presented to the Washington State Legislature. (LINK)

How many more will follow, it remains to be seen.

I would like to pose a fairly basic yet very loaded question:

Assuming someone has the right to defend their own life, do they have the right to take someone else's life in the process? I'm not taking sides on this yet, I want to see what the other people in this thread think.

Yep, I sure do. Break into my house and find out. If someone breaks into my house and threatens my wife, my kids, me, my personal property .... may God pity their ass. If I don't get them, my wife will, if my wife does not, of my kids will. Yes, my wife and my kids know how to handle a handgun / rifle, properly. The odds are highly stacked against a perpetrator if he enters my house and threatens violence.

 

[Azuremen]

Looking at the homicide rates, the price you pay for your 'security' seems to be quite high.

You've failed to notice that our murder rates have dropped in states have right to carry (lovely graph of Florida in this thread) while in the UK, from what Famine has pointed out, murder rates have risen since the 1997 extended ban on guns.

And while this article is a few years old, it does make it clear how heavily restricting guns does not do much to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Assuming someone has the right to defend their own life, do they have the right to take someone else's life in the process? I'm not taking sides on this yet, I want to see what the other people in this thread think.

If they are trying to kill you, lethal force is justified. Many people I know sleep with a gun near their bed just in case of a break in. None have ever needed to use it, despite all the blood we have on our grass here

 

[Sphinx]

Sure it does,

For you it does.
Any proposal to have armed teachers in schools here is as alien to me as you guys seriously proposing a king or queen as your head of state. Does not compute.

if you actually think for a moment instead of just instinctively reacting to the word "gun."

I don't have a problem with guns. I live in an area that was specifically created some 900 years ago for the sole purpose of hunting, It's still very much a way of life for many here and I 'get it'. I don't take part in such activities myself, though I have tried it a few times here and in the US. It just wasn't my cup of tea. I don't like trophy hunts/stalking that take place here that are just for kicks, glorified on video, like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbQ6d7_xSwA

"Nice Royal"

We're surrounded by guns for hunting/sport purposes, but not for defence, as that level of paranoia, as I see it, would be near on par with me being fearful of leaving the house in case I'm struck by lightening. Does not compute.

But by all means, great contribution to the discussion.

You're welcome.

If you'd done your research, you'd also see the rate of violent crime has steadily increased since the UK basically banned guns.

I'm aware this wasn't directed at me, but hey...

And yet according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales estimates of violent crime are now around half the level seen in 1995 and have been dropping almost year on year since then.

Also according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) crime is down by a third over the last decade.

I'm interested in your research. Perhaps you could supply a link or two?

 

[Azuremen]

And yet according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales estimates of violent crime are now around half the level seen in 1995 and have been dropping almost year on year since then.

Also according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) crime is down by a third over the last decade.

I'm interested in your research. Perhaps you could supply a link or two?

I see you didn't bother to read Famine's post or you just take his word as fact, but when I echo it you need sources.

Oh fine. They clearly explain how they considered the data from government reports.

How they constructed the graph and figures.