Arming Teachers

[LuisDantas]

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

The origins are the constitution of 1847-48. They were in part derived from the US constitution. Actually, it is probably more accurate to say the gun laws and citizen access to military weaponry in Switzerland is an extension of US policies than to point out cultural differences as far as the training, destribution, and availability of guns is concerned.

On this matter, I found another (indirect) source:

What I bought – 19 December 2012 | Comics Should Be Good! @ Comic Book Resources

Originally Posted by Chad Walters

I ended up reading about Swiss gun laws today because one of my facebook friends posted something from a conservative website that mentioned Switzerland issues every household a gun (turns out that’s partially true; not every household, but every household with a male aged 20-30 because Switzerland has a militia and not a standing army). What I found was a gun code that made a lot of sense and balanced gun control and gun freedom very well.

Basically, everything gun-related needs a separate permit, and to get those permits you have to meet several criteria, the least of which is a background check. You need a permit to buy guns, and you’re limited to three (including Airsoft guns and the like), and if you’re a hunter or a member of a gun association, you can get a separate permit that has more relaxed rules. You can only carry a gun on your person if you have a special permit that is limited to a specific firearm and can only be obtained if there’s a specific threat. And you’re not allowed to buy automatic weapons or accessories such as silencers without a permit obtained from the police, which has very strict guidelines (among which include owning a specific type of gun locker). Finally, guns are registered to a specific person and that person is held accountable if their gun is used in a violent way (in addition to the perpetrator, of course).

An then I found out that most US states don’t require a license OR registration to own a gun and got very angry.

[LuisDantas]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

I advocate the same thing. But this single measure would be only part of a larger effort to curb violence & deaths.


Why?


I see no reason this is more likely.

Having teachers carrying firearms can only make using them more likely, due to both the ready availability and the casual presence of same. It is very counterproductive.

[Revoltingest]

Originally Posted by LuisDantas

Having teachers carrying firearms can only make using them more likely, due to both the ready availability and the casual presence of same.

Is there any evidence that trained & armed teachers are more likely to increase deaths in school?
I dispute this because the number of firearm self defense cases in the US far outnumbers the wrongful deaths by a couple orders of magnitude.
If the mere presence of a gun increased the probability of wrongful death, we should see that number exceeding successful uses in self defense.
But we don't. (Ref Gary Kleck's work.) This points towards a net benefit of citizens being armed, which would include school staff.

One could make a credible argument that if every private citizen were disarmed, & only gov authorities had guns, that we'd be safer. I don't
dispute this. But I also don't believe that this is achievable in the near future (say 40 years). So if we look at what practical policies would
improve the situation in the next 10 years, then widespread availability of guns should be a given we must cope with. How do we defend
schools then?

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

I argue that if a school staffer did shoot a murderous student in order to stop even
more deaths, that the emotional pain of doing so would be justified by lives saved.

On the exterior...probably.

But internally you have no idea what it would do to someone who may not be mentally prepared to handle taking another life. Even trained police officers have to deal with the psychological part of using their weapon. We even see this with our military personnel..I'm sure the rate of PTSD and suicide amongst the military is linked to the killing in combat they've done.....So why should we burden our staff of teachers with such a responsibility?

[Revoltingest]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

On the exterior...probably.

But internally you have no idea what it would do to someone who may not be mentally prepared to handle taking another life. Even trained police officers have to deal with the psychological part of using their weapon. We even see this with our military personnel..I'm sure the rate of PTSD and suicide amongst the military is linked to the killing in combat they've done.....So why should we burden our staff of teachers with such a responsibility?

I don't want to impose this burden on them. I advocate only allowing concealed carry.
It is up to the school staff to individually decide for themselves if they want to assume this responsibility.
Emotional distress at shooting someone is worth enduring if a life is saved. Isn't this a premise behind
arming cops & soldiers?

[Shadow Wolf]

The cost of having cops stationed at schools is prohibitive. Were funds available, this would be a solution, & I'd be OK with it.
But we see that communities typically don't do it, so it's not a solution I'd advocate pursuing in lieu of others.

There are already many schools that have this. One school here even has it's own division and squad cars for the school cops. While I think having specially marked cars is most likely money better spent elsewhere, I would imagine the cost is not too prohibitive for at least that disctrict because there has been a police force for the schools for many years now. And I really don't see it being more costly than paying to train, liscense, and equip teachers, as the police already have these things. And unless the country is really strapped for cash to the point they are reducing the number of cops (in which that level of poverty will usually see a general increase in violence), I don't really see it being a problem, especially since the initial start-up costs would be significantly higher for arming and training teachers.
But ultimately it does not matter what measures are taken in terms of fire arms, a shooter will always find a way to achieve their goal, even if it means waiting until the halls are crowded just for a few seconds to shoot as many people as possible, and nothing will ever truly improve. I think really the only way to see any real improvement is to get people to be aware of the prevalence of violence in our society, and how violent our thinking tends to be. Even our language is laced with violence. And a better mental health outreach would prevent many shootings before there would even be a need for an armed victim to intervene.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

I don't want to impose this burden on them. I advocate only allowing concealed carry.

I don't At least not in schools....

It is up to the school staff to individually decide for themselves if they want to assume this responsibility.

And so far the majority is against such a suggestion.

Emotional distress at shooting someone is worth enduring if a life is saved. Isn't this a premise behind arming cops & soldiers?

You may feel as though it's worth it but it isn't. Acting as armed guards isn't something teachers and staff want to do. Even "trained" officers and military deal with the psychological trauma from killing another person. As I previous stated....many suffer from PTSD and have committed suicide. It's simply not worth it to have staff acting as guards/police.

Our school just let out for the break and since last week's event we've have an increase in police presence. The officer I spoke with a moment ago says this will be indefinite. Our MS and HS are literally next door to each other and we've been getting away with one SRO (School Resource Officer) but now..we're going to keep that police officer but police will be available even more. He informed me their plan is to train and bring aboard more officers for us and the community.....NOTE: He's telling me this all the while standing in front of me decked out in full paramilitary clothing and a bullet proof vest. Again...the consensus in the main office of employees talking to him was that we want that presence and not for our staff to be armed. In fact...many police officers will tell you that staff being armed in schools complicates their job.

[Revoltingest]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

And so far the majority is against such a suggestion.

For once though, my loopy ideas have some mainstream support, in this case with the MI legislature.

You may feel as though it's worth it but it isn't. Acting as armed guards isn't something teachers and staff want to do.

While most wouldn't, I'm sure some would.
Would it be enuf to make a significant improvement? I don't know.

] Even "trained" officers and military deal with the psychological trauma from killing another person. As I previous stated....many suffer from PTSD and have committed suicide. It's simply not worth it to have staff acting as guards/police.

If you to assume my premise that staffers carrying concealed weapons would reduce wrongful deaths, would you still say the emotional damage of killing a murderer isn't worth it?
This seems to be what you're arguing, but I must ask since it's so unusual.

Our school just let out for the break and since last week's event we've have an increase in police presence. The officer I spoke with a moment ago says this will be indefinite. Our MS and HS are literally next doo to each other and we've been getting away with one SRO (School Resource Officer) but now..we're going to keep that police officer but police will be available even more. He informed me their plan is to train and bring aboard more officers for us and the community.....NOTE: He's telling me this all the while standing in front of me deck out in full paramilitary clothing and a bullet proof vest. Again...the consensus in the main office of employees talking to him was that we want that presence and not for our staff to be armed. In fact...many police officers will tell you that staff being armed in schools complicates their job.

Cops differ on this...I've known some on both sides of this issue. But most tell me that citizens capable of self defense are the better option.
One cop even opened a school to train concealed carriers. So I imagine that different communities will craft different methods to deal with the threat.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

For once though, my loopy ideas have some mainstream support, in this case with the MI legislature.

MI legislature these days, especially in the lame duck knee jerk decisions being made, is hardly a ringing endorsement....

If you to assume my premise that staffers carrying concealed weapons would reduce wrongful deaths, would you still say the emotional damage of killing a murderer isn't worth it?

No..! And I fail to see how arming teachers/staff addresses the problem that happened last week. What if that nut got on the bus and shot those kids..Should we now arm the bus driver..? The solution is not to arm everyone. One solution is to make sure the mentally unstable don't get a gun, making sure ("combat rifles" - see bushmaster.com) are banned, require, by law, background checks on all gun sales, requiring guns in the home to be secured...and there may be even more that's needed.

This seems to be what you're arguing, but I must ask since it's so unusual.

It's not unusual to suggest that school staff is spared from the psychological trauma of taking a life...

Cops differ on this...I've known some on both sides of this issue. But most tell me that citizens capable of self defense are the better option.

Cops tell me the same thing but...let's be clear here...I work in the school system and I deal with law enforcement daily from county to county and all agree "citizens" should be allowed to protect themselves but so far none that I've spoken to believe school staff should be carrying a weapon.

One cop even opened a school to train concealed carriers. So I imagine that different communities will craft different methods to deal with the threat.

But this has nothing to do with training staff to carry on school properties. Teaching gun safety/training to the community of would be CCL citizens is different than instructing staff on how to carry their weapon in schools/on school grounds around children.

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Originally Posted by LuisDantas

On this matter, I found another (indirect) source:

What I bought – 19 December 2012 | Comics Should Be Good! @ Comic Book Resources

Your source is pretty inaccurate. It is true that gun laws and the militia in Switzerland are related. It is also true that there are certain licensing restrictions. However, these are mostly irrelevant as 1) they don't refer to the loan of military issued assault rifles to private citizens, 2) private citizens have greater access to military weapons in Switzerland (including anti-aircraft guns) than just about any other country (including the US) and 3) there are guns in just about every household, and this isn't just sanctioned by law, it's usually the result of the laws regulating the militia which require citizens to keep military weapons in their homes (conscripts, volunteers, inactive conscripts, etc.). Finally, the laws (as is so often the case) say one thing while practice dictates another. The Swiss have firing ranges all over the place and a "gun culture" which prides itself on the ability of average citizens to shoot. Local contests are ubiquitous, as is the ability to obtain ammunition (technically illegally) at gun ranges.

In other words, if you want a gun and you are a Swiss citizen, it's extremely easy to get one, and you might just be required to have one whether you want it or not. There are ways for males to try to avoid service on moral grounds, but it is not entirely clear how often such appeals are successful; however, even if the success rate is 100%, this still means that you have to appeal not to keep a gun in your house, rather than appeal to do so.