Teachers and Proffesors should be allowed to bring guns to schools

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Revnak:

Gold:

Revnak:

NOBODY IS SAYING THIS. PLEASE STOP.

"Nobody is saying they have to bring a gun guize stopppppppp :*("

Next time there's a school shooting where a teacher didn't bring a gun to school.

"TEACHER REFUSED TO BRING GUN TO SCHOOL DIDN'T THINK IT WAS SAFE. DECISION GETS TWENTY STUDENTS KILLED. CRIMINAL CHARGES PENDING FOR NEGLIGENCE."

That's what I see happening.

Those people would be morons. Stop assuming I'm some gun nut. I don't even own a gun. I don't want one, and I would perfectly understand why a teacher would not want to own one.

And I was just talking about in this thread. The only people who have even brought it up are people arguing against it as a strawman.

wat.

I didn't assume you were a gun nut, nor would I fucking care if you were.

That's what I see happening if it was optional for teachers to bring firearms to school. Those who didn't would be blamed if shit happened.

The Gentleman:

Revnak:

The Gentleman:

Working from the reasonable assumption that mental illness arises at the same rate regardless of geography,

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040601/rate-of-mental-illness-is-staggering
It isn't. It just blatantly isn't. The mental health of Americans is radically worse than the majority of the developed world.

Read further:

Page 3:
Kessler says that researchers still aren't sure whether mental illnesses are much more common in the U.S. or if people are simply more comfortable discussing them with questioners. Discuss ( ions of mental illness are far less common in many parts of the world than in the U.S., where drug companies frequently tout medications designed to treat disorders."These are the kinds of health problems people don't jump up and say they have," he tells reporters.Kessler points to a 5.3% reported rate of anxiety disorders in Japan -- a figure he calls "implausibly low." Japan also consumes the most benzodiazepines -- drugs used to reduce anxiety. That is more than any other nation per person, he says.

Nearly double the average can't be explained away by that. And Japan would have a ridiculously low likelihood of talking about any mental disease due to their culture. If anything, they're the outlier.

Also, most of the diseases that lead to spree shootings are socially driven. It is a rather fair argument to say that maybe U.S. culture is uniquely likely to promote the mental diseases that lead to school shootings.

Still, it strongly suggests that mental disease rates are not generally the same everywhere.

Gold:

Revnak:

Gold:

"Nobody is saying they have to bring a gun guize stopppppppp :*("

Next time there's a school shooting where a teacher didn't bring a gun to school.

"TEACHER REFUSED TO BRING GUN TO SCHOOL DIDN'T THINK IT WAS SAFE. DECISION GETS TWENTY STUDENTS KILLED. CRIMINAL CHARGES PENDING FOR NEGLIGENCE."

That's what I see happening.

Those people would be morons. Stop assuming I'm some gun nut. I don't even own a gun. I don't want one, and I would perfectly understand why a teacher would not want to own one.

And I was just talking about in this thread. The only people who have even brought it up are people arguing against it as a strawman.

wat.

I didn't assume you were a gun nut, nor would I fucking care if you were.

That's what I see happening if it was optional for teachers to bring firearms to school. Those who didn't would be blamed if shit happened.

By morons and imbeciles who do not deserve our attention. Your comment was irrelevant. Especially if you weren't assuming I would be willing to say that.

Revnak:
By morons and imbeciles who do not deserve our attention. Your comment was irrelevant. Especially if you weren't assuming I would be willing to say that.

His point clearly isn't that you would be willing to say that but that imbeciles and morons would, that those voices would be very loud and endangering to teachers. I think he has a point. It wouldn't be the first case of victim blaming, of shifting the burden of guilt onto others. Does it really matter that such people don't deserve our attention when they can simply scream loudly enough to get the public's? Both literally and figuratively (in the sense of radio, internet and TV influence)?

Revnak:

ellers07:
As a teacher, I'm not comfortable with this idea. I just don't see bringing guns into a school improving any situation.

I also can't help but think of a particular teacher in my building. She's an excellent teacher and highly respected, but she's a petite woman at just over five feet tall. Many of our seniors tower over her. She's not intimidated and maintains control by the strength of her personality. However, put her in a room with a gun and thirty kids, can we really assume no one will ever be able to take it from her? Are schools going to have to start making hiring decisions based on who they trust with a weapon? This is a road I don't want to go down.

Easy. She doesn't bring a gun, or she is trained in how to secure it. Nobody is saying that she would have to bring a gun.

Oh. Well I guess that is pretty easy. I misread the original post and was envisioning teachers with holstered side arms. You're right though, he was simply discussing allowing teachers the right to bring a weapon to school.

I do wonder how instituting an armed teacher policy within the school district would play out. I imagine there would be a fair amount of uproar within the community. I could see some parents (at least in my district) wanting to make sure their student had classes with armed teachers, while others would demand the exact opposite. I imagine teachers would be pretty split on the issue as well. I assume the school district would have to set some sort of policy stating how many teachers would be armed at any given time within a building, because there's rules, regulations and procedures for everything else. I suspect this is an issue schools will generally steer clear of.

Revnak:

Gold:

Revnak:

Those people would be morons. Stop assuming I'm some gun nut. I don't even own a gun. I don't want one, and I would perfectly understand why a teacher would not want to own one.

And I was just talking about in this thread. The only people who have even brought it up are people arguing against it as a strawman.

wat.

I didn't assume you were a gun nut, nor would I fucking care if you were.

That's what I see happening if it was optional for teachers to bring firearms to school. Those who didn't would be blamed if shit happened.

By morons and imbeciles who do not deserve our attention. Your comment was irrelevant. Especially if you weren't assuming I would be willing to say that.

Are you being intentionally dense or something?

It's peer pressure coming from fucking everywhere. Media outlets, parents, multiple citizens, being blamed for the death of children under your care, being accused of not protecting them because you CHOSE not to have a firearm with you to defend them. Irrelevant to you, irrelevant to me, but probably pretty fucking relevant to the teachers who would (yes, would) be hounded by all of the above for making their "choice".

Skeleon:

Revnak:
By morons and imbeciles who do not deserve our attention. Your comment was irrelevant. Especially if you weren't assuming I would be willing to say that.

His point clearly isn't that you would be willing to say that but that imbeciles and morons would, that those voices would be very loud and endangering to teachers. I think he has a point. It wouldn't be the first case of victim blaming, of shifting the burden of guilt onto others.

And if they did then we would call them out for that. You don't avoid doing something simply because somebody may react to it wrong because they're an idiot. I suppose it may be a cost to slightly consider, but it is mostly irrelevant. You don't lower immigration because otherwise people will report on the massive waves of uneducated immigrants and make honest immigration look bad. You don't avoid socializing healthcare to avoid bad press. That's positively moronic, and is the type of politics that is ultimately destructive. Sure, I bet you can point out cases where politicians did exactly what I just said, but they're idiots too then. If sensible people don't stand up and do what needs to be done in the face of idiotic members of the press, we will never get anything done. I'm certain you've made similar arguments about the Republican party.

The Gentleman:
It is not simply the ability to purchase weapons that's the problem, but, rather, access to the weapons themselves. One can be diagnosed after the purchase of a firearm by themselves or by a member of the household. Case on point would be the Sandy Hook shooter, who obtained his weapons by stealing them from his mother before killing her in her sleep.

The two databases (firearms and mental health) would provide the cross-referencing material necessary to send up the red flag to deny a purchase, alert owners, or, if necessary, confiscation of a firearm.

The problem is that you're trying to trying to reduce the number of mass shootings with a net full of holes (mental health screening) rather than the real common tie between the events (the guns). Working from the reasonable assumption that mental illness arises at the same rate regardless of geography, spree events that are disturbingly common in the US (with a much higher rate of mortality) are practically unheard of outside of active warzones (the exceptions being few and far between). Even if every spree event was linked to mental illness, why are there far higher instances of it in the US rather than the rest of the world? Detection of mental illness can only go so far while more restrictive gun ownership has a much greater effect on preventing these incidents.

Right. So you're saying that gun control would have a much bigger effect on mass killings and violence in the US than improving mental health and social welfare. That's certainly a point of view, and if guns had a magical power to turn someone who holds them into a murderer then I might give credence to it. But you asked a question so I'll answer it: if every spree event was linked to mental illness, why are there far higher instances of it in the US than the rest of the world?

The US has good record keeping, average healthcare (poor mental healthcare), crappy welfare, massive inequality, minimal gun restrictions and poor education. Are you surprised that there are higher recorded instances of gun violence than elsewhere in the world? It's like the US is trying to brew its own special crazy gunmen cocktail.

Gold:

Revnak:

Gold:

wat.

I didn't assume you were a gun nut, nor would I fucking care if you were.

That's what I see happening if it was optional for teachers to bring firearms to school. Those who didn't would be blamed if shit happened.

By morons and imbeciles who do not deserve our attention. Your comment was irrelevant. Especially if you weren't assuming I would be willing to say that.

Are you being intentionally dense or something?

It's peer pressure coming from fucking everywhere. Media outlets, parents, multiple citizens, being blamed for the death of children under your care, being accused of not protecting them because you CHOSE not to have a firearm with you to defend them. Irrelevant to you, irrelevant to me, but probably pretty fucking relevant to the teachers.

Also "lol they're idiots just ignore them xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD" is a shit argument.

I wouldn't ignore them I suppose, I would instead defend that teacher's right not to arm themselves. If a teacher winds up in that situation then we point out how it is in no way their fault. We don't cower to the pressure of people who have no fucking clue what they're doing. And to be completely honest, I'd bet virtually every teacher who survives such incidents already asks themselves about what they could have done. Giving them another option to consider isn't going to make that worse.

I suppose it is fair to argue that it is just one more thing to blame teachers about, but in the greater scheme of things, it won't matter until it happens. And then we make sure that the morons who engage in such behavior eat shit for it.

ellers07:

Revnak:

ellers07:
As a teacher, I'm not comfortable with this idea. I just don't see bringing guns into a school improving any situation.

I also can't help but think of a particular teacher in my building. She's an excellent teacher and highly respected, but she's a petite woman at just over five feet tall. Many of our seniors tower over her. She's not intimidated and maintains control by the strength of her personality. However, put her in a room with a gun and thirty kids, can we really assume no one will ever be able to take it from her? Are schools going to have to start making hiring decisions based on who they trust with a weapon? This is a road I don't want to go down.

Easy. She doesn't bring a gun, or she is trained in how to secure it. Nobody is saying that she would have to bring a gun.

Oh. Well I guess that is pretty easy. I misread the original post and was envisioning teachers with holstered side arms. You're right though, he was simply discussing allowing teachers the right to bring a weapon to school.

I do wonder how instituting an armed teacher policy within the school district would play out. I imagine there would be a fair amount of uproar within the community. I could see some parents (at least in my district) wanting to make sure their student had classes with armed teachers, while others would demand the exact opposite. I imagine teachers would be pretty split on the issue as well. I assume the school district would have to set some sort of policy stating how many teachers would be armed at any given time within a building, because there's rules, regulations and procedures for everything else. I suspect this is an issue schools will generally steer clear of.

Ultimately I'd suggest not making it known which teachers are armed to anyone outside of the faculty. Letting others know would be dangerous for a large number of reasons. I suppose that would deal with most of the major issues.

Revnak:

Gold:

Revnak:

By morons and imbeciles who do not deserve our attention. Your comment was irrelevant. Especially if you weren't assuming I would be willing to say that.

Are you being intentionally dense or something?

It's peer pressure coming from fucking everywhere. Media outlets, parents, multiple citizens, being blamed for the death of children under your care, being accused of not protecting them because you CHOSE not to have a firearm with you to defend them. Irrelevant to you, irrelevant to me, but probably pretty fucking relevant to the teachers.

Also "lol they're idiots just ignore them xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD" is a shit argument.

I wouldn't ignore them I suppose, I would instead defend that teacher's right not to arm themselves. If a teacher winds up in that situation then we point out how it is in no way their fault. We don't cower to the pressure of people who have no fucking clue what they're doing. And to be completely honest, I'd bet virtually every teacher who survives such incidents already asks themselves about what they could have done. Giving them another option to consider isn't going to make that worse.

I suppose it is fair to argue that it is just one more thing to blame teachers about, but in the greater scheme of things, it won't matter until it happens. And then we make sure that the morons who engage in such behavior eat shit for it.

Fair enough.

Before any of this though, the exact rules about whether the weapon is stored or carried (and more) need to be established before any sort of choice system is implemented.

All I'm thinking is that not taking a gun will turn into a choice like spec'ing frostmage for WoW raiding used to be a choice. Sure you can choose that option, but everyone will fucking hate you for it when shit hits the fan.

Gold:

Revnak:

Gold:

Are you being intentionally dense or something?

It's peer pressure coming from fucking everywhere. Media outlets, parents, multiple citizens, being blamed for the death of children under your care, being accused of not protecting them because you CHOSE not to have a firearm with you to defend them. Irrelevant to you, irrelevant to me, but probably pretty fucking relevant to the teachers.

Also "lol they're idiots just ignore them xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD" is a shit argument.

I wouldn't ignore them I suppose, I would instead defend that teacher's right not to arm themselves. If a teacher winds up in that situation then we point out how it is in no way their fault. We don't cower to the pressure of people who have no fucking clue what they're doing. And to be completely honest, I'd bet virtually every teacher who survives such incidents already asks themselves about what they could have done. Giving them another option to consider isn't going to make that worse.

I suppose it is fair to argue that it is just one more thing to blame teachers about, but in the greater scheme of things, it won't matter until it happens. And then we make sure that the morons who engage in such behavior eat shit for it.

Fair enough.

Before any of this though, the exact rules about whether the weapon is stored or carried (and more) need to be established before any sort of choice system is implemented.

All I'm thinking is that not taking a gun will turn into a choice like spec'ing frostmage for WoW raiding used to be a choice. Sure you can choose that option, but everyone will fucking hate you for it when shit hits the fan.

I would argue it should be kept in some kind of locked box built into their desk. That would make it harder to remove. Also, it probably should have a number lock or something (I have no knowledge of locksmithing) in order to prevent the risk of a kid getting their hands on a key. I suppose all desks would have to have the boxes installed, though obviously not all would be used. And like I mentioned in the post above, no one other than the faculty should be told who has a gun and who doesn't.
I doubt it would ever become that prolific.

P.S. I'm sorry if I came off as overly hostile, I was just incredibly angry at both the idea of people blaming them and the idea of giving into them. More the former than the latter though.

Odgical:

Right. So you're saying that gun control would have a much bigger effect on mass killings and violence in the US than improving mental health and social welfare. That's certainly a point of view, and if guns had a magical power to turn someone who holds them into a murderer then I might give credence to it.

Again with this insinuation that "murderer" is something someone gets "turned into". I'm sorry, but Jack McJohnson is still exactly the same human being he was a week ago even if he murdered someone today. "Murderer" is simply someone who had committed murder at some point. It's about what they did, not about who they are.

But you asked a question so I'll answer it: if every spree event was linked to mental illness, why are there far higher instances of it in the US than the rest of the world?

Genuine question, is that a fact? Now, I understand that we're starting from premise that "no normal person would do something like that", so it just seems to me that it's often a bit of a foregone conclusion.

Still, once all is said and done, and the facts are checked by a neutral party that does not have a vested interest in declaring someone insane out of some potential guilt by association thing, is it really true that every spree is linked to mental illness? Just clearing up the assumption here, because I don't know the fact.

But even assuming such is the case, let's go on.

The US has good record keeping, average healthcare (poor mental healthcare), crappy welfare, massive inequality, minimal gun restrictions and poor education. Are you surprised that there are higher recorded instances of gun violence than elsewhere in the world? It's like the US is trying to brew its own special crazy gunmen cocktail.

Brushing up on the entire mental healthcare thing is something that will take effort, resources, and, most importantly time. A more stringent system of gun control would have a more immediate effect. It's basically saying, "Yes, I agree that the mental healthcare system is in need of a major overhaul, but it would still be a good idea not to allow mentally unstable people to come into possession of firearms in the meantime."

Revnak:

ellers07:

Revnak:

Easy. She doesn't bring a gun, or she is trained in how to secure it. Nobody is saying that she would have to bring a gun.

Oh. Well I guess that is pretty easy. I misread the original post and was envisioning teachers with holstered side arms. You're right though, he was simply discussing allowing teachers the right to bring a weapon to school.

I do wonder how instituting an armed teacher policy within the school district would play out. I imagine there would be a fair amount of uproar within the community. I could see some parents (at least in my district) wanting to make sure their student had classes with armed teachers, while others would demand the exact opposite. I imagine teachers would be pretty split on the issue as well. I assume the school district would have to set some sort of policy stating how many teachers would be armed at any given time within a building, because there's rules, regulations and procedures for everything else. I suspect this is an issue schools will generally steer clear of.

Ultimately I'd suggest not making it known which teachers are armed to anyone outside of the faculty. Letting others know would be dangerous for a large number of reasons. I suppose that would deal with most of the major issues.

Ah, I see. So it would kind of be like the Federal Air Marshals. People would know there could be an armed person specifically trained to deal with threats in the school, but they wouldn't know who exactly.

That's an interesting idea. It's probably not something I would volunteer for, but it is an intriguing proposal.

Revnak:

I would argue it should be kept in some kind of locked box built into their desk. That would make it harder to remove. Also, it probably should have a number lock or something (I have no knowledge of locksmithing) in order to prevent the risk of a kid getting their hands on a key. I suppose all desks would have to have the boxes installed, though obviously not all would be used. And like I mentioned in the post above, no one other than the faculty should be told who has a gun and who doesn't.
I doubt it would ever become that prolific.

Truthfully me either, I don't think just because they could they 100% would.

Revnak:
P.S. I'm sorry if I came off as overly hostile, I was just incredibly angry at both the idea of people blaming them and the idea of giving into them. More the former than the latter though.

I probably came off as more hostile than you did. I have it on good authority I'm a bit of a dickhead.

It seems to me that there is little reason that someone who has already qualified to carry a concealed weapon in other public spaces should be barred from carrying one on the job as a teacher. Most of the arguments I've heard from opponents of the idea are simply ludicrous. Things like "what if a kid takes it from the teacher" and "what if the teacher drops it" are almost not worth even mentioning as they show an acute ignorance of what exactly "concealed weapon" means and how holsters are designed.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
I've noticed Lycan likes to post controversial opinions, then abandon the thread when annoying things like facts and studies get in the way. I see this will likely end up the same way.

Guns in schools is a terrible idea. Expensive for all parties. Educators should not have to learn gun control to teach in the US. That would only discourage people from becoming teachers (As if low pay, overcrowded classrooms, and pants-on-head screwed up "No Child Left Behind" didn't do enough). They're also a MASSIVE problem waiting to happen. One teacher leaves their keys out, including the keys to the safe where the gun is, and...

No one (to my knowledge) is suggesting some designated gun safe, thats idiotic from a tactical standpoint just as it is when its in your home. The teachers would be exercising their rights as Weapons Permit holders to carry a concealed weapon. No one is suggesting forcing teachers to carry weapons.

Shock and Awe:

No one (to my knowledge) is suggesting some designated gun safe, thats idiotic from a tactical standpoint just as it is when its in your home.

STOP MOCKING ME!

But seriously, as long as it is concealed, it is a numerical lock, it is difficult to remove, and there are similar safes in everybody's rooms, why would this be that bad of an idea? I honestly don't know.

Again with this insinuation that "murderer" is something someone gets "turned into". I'm sorry, but Jack McJohnson is still exactly the same human being he was a week ago even if he murdered someone today. "Murderer" is simply someone who had committed murder at some point. It's about what they did, not about who they are.

Wait a minute... you're not the other guy... anyway:

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that just because you murder someone it doesn't mean you're not a person? Because I don't know why you'd be saying that. Nor would I understand the possibility that you are trying to say that a murderer is a murderer and, by golly, if you gave him a gun then he's going to murder. Most importantly, what does this have to do with the price of eggs?

Genuine question, is that a fact? Now, I understand that we're starting from premise that "no normal person would do something like that", so it just seems to me that it's often a bit of a foregone conclusion.

Still, once all is said and done, and the facts are checked by a neutral party that does not have a vested interest in declaring someone insane out of some potential guilt by association thing, is it really true that every spree is linked to mental illness? Just clearing up the assumption here, because I don't know the fact.

But even assuming such is the case, let's go on.

I don't know. There was a quote in his third link on the first page where a fellow was remarking that the majority of mass killings are done by very disturbed young men (I think), but the point is that a lot of very disturbed young men don't go shooting stuff up so let's not start pointing fingers. Meanwhile, my original assumption was drawn from, whenever there are stories about mass shootings, the killer is usually described as mentally ill in some way or another. In any case, I was trying to stay in the nice, fertile grounds of promoting mental health instead of trying to take guns away from the US. Silly me.

Brushing up on the entire mental healthcare thing is something that will take effort, resources, and, most importantly time. A more stringent system of gun control would have a more immediate effect. It's basically saying, "Yes, I agree that the mental healthcare system is in need of a major overhaul, but it would still be a good idea not to allow mentally unstable people to come into possession of firearms in the meantime."

We're debating time? How long do you think it'd take to pass gun control legislation through a republican-controlled congress? I reckon it'd be easier to pass mental health reforms. It'd also help remove some of the root causes instead of patching up the symptoms.

Odgical:

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that just because you murder someone it doesn't mean you're not a person? Because I don't know why you'd be saying that. Nor would I understand the possibility that you are trying to say that a murderer is a murderer and, by golly, if you gave him a gun then he's going to murder. Most importantly, what does this have to do with the price of eggs?

What I'm saying is that a murderer is not a separate, easily distinguishable type of human being; and that just because you've been abiding by the laws up to this point, there's no guarantee you're keep going to be a law-abiding citizen tomorrow.

So if you give a gun to "a law abiding citizen", you have no guarantee that they won't be a murderer tomorrow, either.

I don't know. There was a quote in his third link on the first page where a fellow was remarking that the majority of mass killings are done by very disturbed young men (I think), but the point is that a lot of very disturbed young men don't go shooting stuff up so let's not start pointing fingers. Meanwhile, my original assumption was drawn from, whenever there are stories about mass shootings, the killer is usually described as mentally ill in some way or another. In any case, I was trying to stay in the nice, fertile grounds of promoting mental health instead of trying to take guns away from the US. Silly me.

We're debating time? How long do you think it'd take to pass through a republican-controlled congress gun control legislation? I reckon it'd be easier to pass mental health reforms. It'd also help remove some of the root causes instead of patching up the symptoms.

One; How long do you think it'll take to pass any healthcare bill looking to make it more "socialized" in a republican-controlled congress?

Two; Yeah it sure must suck to live in a world where treating the causes and treating the symptoms are mutually exclusive concepts.

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....

military bases...

Notice something else? Shootings all involve guns. Why not just disarm?

(That was a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm not expecting America to drop its gun culture overnight).

Revnak:

The Gentleman:

Revnak:

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040601/rate-of-mental-illness-is-staggering
It isn't. It just blatantly isn't. The mental health of Americans is radically worse than the majority of the developed world.

Read further:

Page 3:
Kessler says that researchers still aren't sure whether mental illnesses are much more common in the U.S. or if people are simply more comfortable discussing them with questioners. Discussions of mental illness are far less common in many parts of the world than in the U.S., where drug companies frequently tout medications designed to treat disorders."These are the kinds of health problems people don't jump up and say they have," he tells reporters.Kessler points to a 5.3% reported rate of anxiety disorders in Japan -- a figure he calls "implausibly low." Japan also consumes the most benzodiazepines -- drugs used to reduce anxiety. That is more than any other nation per person, he says.

Nearly double the average can't be explained away by that. And Japan would have a ridiculously low likelihood of talking about any mental disease due to their culture. If anything, they're the outlier.

Without access to the survey itself (not linked in the article), I can't say for certain. Methodolgy is extremely important in these kinds of surveys as being able to answer truthfully is highly dependant on the comfort of the survey taker (particularly confidence in confidentiality of the survey data). The point I was trying to make is that the survey has some serious holes in its findings as it does not appear to account for stigmas attached to mental illness resulting in underreporting in most countries.

Also, most of the diseases that lead to spree shootings are socially driven.

Can you cite some examples?

It is a rather fair argument to say that maybe U.S. culture is uniquely likely to promote the mental diseases that lead to school shootings.

Could you elaborate on this? While I agree that there is serious cultural problems in the US regarding violence and the fostering of personalities more inclined towards paranoia and violent tendencies, I'm not convinced that results in actual mental illness that would lead to these kinds of spree events.

Still, it strongly suggests that mental disease rates are not generally the same everywhere.

I need more than just a single study with serious concerns about its accuracy to support this claim. Are tehre any parallel studies which have come to similar conclusions?

The issue is, firstly, teachers are not screened for violent impulses and so issues that may not emerge in normal situations may become an issue when a firearm is introduced.

Second, Teachers are not screened for physical fitness or capabilities, meaning that it would be easy for a determined opponent to source a weapon by taking it from a teacher.

Thirdly, Teachers don't have any background in target acquisition/identification meaning that the likelihood that one miss-appraises a situation and fires on, say, a kid making a gun with their fingers.

Fourthly, Teachers are not screened for mental fortitude and other methods of resolving a violent situation. A teacher, not having a background in conflict and armed with a weapon is more likely to escalate a situation that does not need to be escalated. For example, if a student hits or shouts at the teacher, with no intent to do serious harm, the teacher is more likely to open fire.

Fifthly, The school budgets are already strained, and providing this training would not be feasible.

Sixthly, anyone firing in a school environment would require a fair amount of training, not just in marksmanship, but in weapon control, analysis, mental conditioning and rapid planning. These are all perishable skills and require maintenance to be effective. Where is this training time going to come from?

A teacher, while a professional is not a cop, they are not a soldier, and giving them a weapon, a few weeks of training and expecting them to be an effective guardian is unfair to them, to the students that they are supposed to protect, and the professionals who train day in day out to be effective at the skills that people think can be maintained effectively whilst being rolled into standard teaching timetables.

I also dislike the seeming accusation that if you don't support arming teachers that you must be a pacifist, I am not a pacifist, my profession shuts that off to me. I just think that the there are far too few ways for this plan to go right and far too many that it can go wrong.

Revnak:

Shock and Awe:

No one (to my knowledge) is suggesting some designated gun safe, thats idiotic from a tactical standpoint just as it is when its in your home.

STOP MOCKING ME!

But seriously, as long as it is concealed, it is a numerical lock, it is difficult to remove, and there are similar safes in everybody's rooms, why would this be that bad of an idea? I honestly don't know.

Ah; my apologies. I didn't see your post.

Well its really a question of getting to the safe and accessing it in a high stress situation. If an incident were to occur at a school there is no guaranteeing that a teacher or administrator would have time to get to the weapon safe, put in the code, and retrieve the weapon. It seems easy, but in a high stress situation its easy for even trained people to fumble things like safe combinations. Its much easier and just as secure for teachers to carry the weapon concealed on their person.

Agema:
There was that army psychiatrist who rampaged around near an army base.

You think Army base and you see everyone just strolling around with guns, not true. No personal firearms were allowed on the base, and issued weapons/ammo is kept in an armory. Base police had to show up to take him down. He also was a terrorist, not some kid on anti-depressants who snapped.

Also. I don't see anyone bringing up that guns have been in school for years via the police liaison programs, and there's not been one accidental discharge reported anywhere. Not because they are consumate professionals, they're cops for christ's sake.

The same people who will tout how highly trained an disciplined police officers are, that that they are the only people who should have guns and it's ok for them to carry in schools as they currently do- are the same people who see some video on youtube where police do something they don't like and go off about how stupid police are.

In regards to the OP, I personally don't think it makes a difference. As long as we as society keep over-diagnosing and over-medicating ourselves, expect this shit to continue to happen.

Vegosiux:
What I'm saying is that a murderer is not a separate, easily distinguishable type of human being; and that just because you've been abiding by the laws up to this point, there's no guarantee you're keep going to be a law-abiding citizen tomorrow.

So if you give a gun to "a law abiding citizen", you have no guarantee that they won't be a murderer tomorrow, either.

Great, okay, in that case it's still irrelevant. People don't murder for no reason at all, they don't wake up and decide to kill. Make sure they're not desperate and make sure they're in charge of their faculties and they won't murder. So give a law abiding citizen a gun and make responsible public policies.

One; How long do you think it'll take to pass any healthcare bill looking to make it more "socialized" in a republican-controlled congress?

Two; Yeah it sure must suck to live in a world where treating the causes and treating the symptoms are mutually exclusive concepts.

1) Less time than gun control bills. Just don't mention it's socialist. Call it the "Emergency mental faculty restoration" bill or something, people go crazy for "emergency". Note: this won't work, I just think discussing time as a factor's a bit silly anyway.

2) Really. Cure the cause and there aren't any symptoms, relieve the symptoms and the cause is still there. In this case, restrict guns and people will still go on rampages, improve mental health and fewer people will go on to inflict harm.

Odgical:
Right. So you're saying that gun control would have a much bigger effect on mass killings and violence in the US than improving mental health and social welfare. That's certainly a point of view, and if guns had a magical power to turn someone who holds them into a murderer then I might give credence to it.

It doesn't anymore than a computer with a keyboard makes you a better writer than a paper and pencil, but it does make it easier (minimal strength needed, less of a clean up afterwords, can be done at a distance with minimal skill, etc.). A person with mental-illness-linked episode of spree violence in a country with restrictive gun laws may be able to pick up a knife and start stabbing, but he would not be able to get nearly as many victims in the process due to either potential victims fleeing or subduing the perpetrator, much more difficult in incidents of spree violence with a gun (see: Safeway Giffords shooting).

But you asked a question so I'll answer it: if every spree event was linked to mental illness, why are there far higher instances of it in the US than the rest of the world?

The US has good record keeping, average healthcare (poor mental healthcare), crappy welfare, massive inequality, minimal gun restrictions and poor education. Are you surprised that there are higher recorded instances of gun violence than elsewhere in the world? It's like the US is trying to brew its own special crazy gunmen cocktail.

While I agree there is certainly many exacerbating factors that increase the probability for violence, firearm ownership appears to be the most prevelant factor among comparative studies, even within the US.

What's with so many people on this forum acting like guns are somehow inherently evil? It's just an object, that in the wrong hands yes can kill someone, but so can cars and plenty of other objects. The vast majority of gun owners and people that conceal carry are NOT violent nor are we trigger happy, we are doctors and lawyers, college students and teachers, we are all just regular people like everyone else.

And according to the evidence, it is clear that stricter gun control measures, and a disarmed populace, increase the risk of violent crime by criminals. Strict gun control and bans do not work, look at New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago etc...these are the biggest states for Gun Control and they also happen to be the most violent.

You can read all the facts here yourself: www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

That's all you need to know. Teachers have the right to protect themselves and their students, and you don't need to be a police officer or military expert to know how to operate and store a fire arm safely. I question how many people here actually HAVE fire arm experience, let alone even know anything about them to begin with.

I highly doubt there would have been a Sandy Hook incident if there were armed staff on site.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
I've noticed Lycan likes to post controversial opinions, then abandon the thread when annoying things like facts and studies get in the way. I see this will likely end up the same way.

Guns in schools is a terrible idea. Expensive for all parties. Educators should not have to learn gun control to teach in the US. That would only discourage people from becoming teachers (As if low pay, overcrowded classrooms, and pants-on-head screwed up "No Child Left Behind" didn't do enough). They're also a MASSIVE problem waiting to happen. One teacher leaves their keys out, including the keys to the safe where the gun is, and...

I was busy working for your information. I don't have time to sit around on the internet all day, I'm simply giving my opinion on a subject, controversial or not. As I tend to be on the other side of the aisle on many of the issues than most of you are, I feel I should give credence and voice the other opinion. I respect your opinions, why not respect mine?

And no one here has proven me wrong yet in this thread or posted any evidence to the contrary. Most of it has been false rhetoric with buzz phrases like "what if the student steals it" or "the teacher is not a cop and therefore not qualified to carry it effectively". This is not even close to being accurate.

TheLycanKing144:

That's all you need to know. Teachers have the right to protect themselves and their students, and you don't need to be a police officer or military expert to know how to operate and store a fire arm safely. I question how many people here actually HAVE fire arm experience, let alone even know anything about them to begin with.

That's a good one. As an army reservist who has handled guns i can tell you a lot of training is needed to properly handle guns. And yes once a person breaks one of the four basic safety rules (which are easy to break if not properly drilled (yes "drilled" not just "trained") ) i deem them unfit to own a gun. Being able to put your gun in a box, aim and put the safety on is not something i consider "operating a gun safely". Which is probably as far as you'll get without very good training.

generals3:

TheLycanKing144:

That's all you need to know. Teachers have the right to protect themselves and their students, and you don't need to be a police officer or military expert to know how to operate and store a fire arm safely. I question how many people here actually HAVE fire arm experience, let alone even know anything about them to begin with.

That's a good one. As an army reservist who has handled guns i can tell you a lot of training is needed to properly handle guns. And yes once a person breaks one of the four basic safety rules (which are easy to break if not properly drilled (yes "drilled" not just "trained") ) i deem them unfit to own a gun. Being able to put your gun in a box, aim and put the safety on is not something i consider "operating a gun safely". Which is probably as far as you'll get without very good training.

There is already training involved for a concealed carry permit (you have to prove that you know how to operate and handle gun effectively and safely). The basic rules are easy to learn and follow, it's like driving a car, you need to know certain things but you don't need to be a NASCAR driver to know how to operate a civilian car effectively.

I do support some things for concealed carry permits, such as Hunters Safety which I believe should be REQUIRED for ALL gun owners regardless. It's a myth that right-to-bear-arms advocates such as myself are completely against gun control, most of us do in fact support common sense measures.

Batou667:

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....

military bases...

Notice something else? Shootings all involve guns. Why not just disarm?

(That was a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm not expecting America to drop its gun culture overnight).

ironically, in military bases most of the soldiers ARE disarmed. Only the MPs carry weapon.

Odgical:
[

1) Less time than gun control bills. Just don't mention it's socialist. Call it the "Emergency mental faculty restoration" bill or something, people go crazy for "emergency". Note: this won't work, I just think discussing time as a factor's a bit silly anyway.

What do you mean "don't mention it's socialist"? It's not socialist. Doesn't prevent those nutcases crying bloody murder about commies though.

2) Really. Cure the cause and there aren't any symptoms, relieve the symptoms and the cause is still there. In this case, restrict guns and people will still go on rampages, improve mental health and fewer people will go on to inflict harm.

Yeah, as I said, it must suck you can only do one or the other, but not both or a balance of both at the same time.

Vegosiux:
What do you mean "don't mention it's socialist"? It's not socialist. Doesn't prevent those nutcases crying bloody murder about commies though.

Yeah, as I said, it must suck you can only do one or the other, but not both or a balance of both at the same time.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Just don't say that's it's socialist and put another label on it (The Mental Freedom Bill) and it'll be fine...

... and guns are a fairly central part of the US culture, it's pretty prominent in their constitution. There's no need to restrict guns if the US solves its social issues.

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....they never happen at police stations, gun stores, or any other place that has a strong fire arm presence.

These tragedies could be prevented if they had an armed prescence on their grounds, I have the right to bear arms and I conceal carry, it is within my right to do so and protect myself if need be. Why are teachers and professors not given the same rights? Why are they being forced to put their student's lives at risk by not having the ability to protect them?

Bottom line is that it's simply wrong to deny teachers their right to bear arms and protect themselves and their kids. No one would shoot up another school again if their were armed teachers on the campus.

Here's one reason why that logic is flawed:

My gun is drawn on you, boom, you're dead.

This notion that you can "defend" yourself to prevent actions like these are simply foolish. Sure, you might be able to stop this person, but how do you account for the defender killing an innocent? Would the individual killed by the defender have benefited from having a gun? What if that person had had a gun and killed yet another innocent?

You don't put out a fire by adding more wood, some gasoline, and perhaps some napalm...

mokes310:

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....they never happen at police stations, gun stores, or any other place that has a strong fire arm presence.

These tragedies could be prevented if they had an armed prescence on their grounds, I have the right to bear arms and I conceal carry, it is within my right to do so and protect myself if need be. Why are teachers and professors not given the same rights? Why are they being forced to put their student's lives at risk by not having the ability to protect them?

Bottom line is that it's simply wrong to deny teachers their right to bear arms and protect themselves and their kids. No one would shoot up another school again if their were armed teachers on the campus.

Here's one reason why that logic is flawed:

My gun is drawn on you, boom, you're dead.

This notion that you can "defend" yourself to prevent actions like these are simply foolish. Sure, you might be able to stop this person, but how do you account for the defender killing an innocent? Would the individual killed by the defender have benefited from having a gun? What if that person had had a gun and killed yet another innocent?

You don't put out a fire by adding more wood, some gasoline, and perhaps some napalm...

So instead of allowing there to be some sort of fight when something terrible happens its best to just let the shooter have his merry way with his victims? I don't understand the reasoning of people who think that shooting back at someone is a bad thing. If there is no one there to return fire then there is nothing to stop the shooter from being as effective as possible besides scared kids throwing bookbags and teachers making desperate charges at him. It makes far more sense to make it impossible for someone to simply aim and fire by putting him in a situation where they themselves are under fire.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked