Arming teachers is a great idea

[Jollybear]

Again have you ever been in a shootout?

Already countered that, wont repeat myself.

 

[Prometheus85]

Already answered that. I wont repeat myself.

You gave an assumption. Not evidence.
Just because you say something don’t make it true.

 

[Jollybear]

You gave an assumption. Not evidence.
Just because you say something don’t make it true.

I didnt give you an assumption. I gave you a self evident logical statement.

 

[Prometheus85]

Already countered that, wont repeat myself.

No you didn’t. All you said was “you never been I’m a shootout either”

I haven’t. But I’m not that one talking like I have experience with guns and a expert on the subject

 

[Jollybear]

No you didn’t. All you said was “you never been I’m a shootout either”

I haven’t. But I’m not that one talking like I have experience with guns and a expert on the subject

Ok, go be a troll somewhere else. Got no patience for that bull****.

 

[Prometheus85]

I didnt give you an assumption. I gave you a self evident logical statement.

“Self evident”

So basically all of the proposition that you made about arming teachers is self evident to you so therefore there’s no need for proof.

Let’s break this down.

You made a claim that arming teachers is less expensive

I ask for proof.

You say it’s self evident

You don’t have any proof so you say it’s self evident.


When someone uses the excuse “self evident” in a debate that’s because they can’t come with a reasonable logical argument.

If you can't explain something, that doesn't mean you are dealing with something that is self-evident; it could just be your failure to explain something.

 

[Prometheus85]

Ok, go be a troll somewhere else. Got no patience for that bull****.

Now your accusing me of being a troll?

I’m simply asking for proof to back up your insane claims.

 

[Prometheus85]

One dont need to be a john maclean, one just needs to be a better shooter then the other guy bent on evil.

How do you know one just needs to be a better shooter?

Do u have experience with guns?

 

[Jollybear]

“Self evident”

So basically all of the proposition that you made about arming teachers is self evident to you so therefore there’s no need for proof.

Let’s break this down.

You made a claim that arming teachers is less expensive

I ask for proof.

You say it’s self evident

You don’t have any proof so you say it’s self evident.


When someone uses the excuse “self evident” in a debate that’s because they can’t come with a reasonable logical argument.

If you can't explain something, that doesn't mean you are dealing with something that is self-evident; it could just be your failure to explain something.

Its self evident man.

If you pay for guns for teachers thats less expensive then paying for gaurds.

 

[Jollybear]

How do you know one just needs to be a better shooter?

Do u have experience with guns?

I dont need to be a expert to make a logical point.

If you disagree with the point why dont you counter it instead of making up this foolish, waste of time statements about me being a gun expert.

 

[Prometheus85]

Its self evident man.

If you pay for guns for teachers thats less expensive then paying for gaurds.

Lol you can’t explain how’s it’s less expensive so it’s just “self evident”

Ok.

Who’s paying for the guns?

 

[Jollybear]

Lol you can’t explain how’s it’s less expensive so it’s just “self evident”

Ok.

Who’s paying for the guns?

I did explain it. Your getting on my nerves.

Do i really gotta break it down for you and type it all out and waste the time?

Listen: two scenarios.

First scenario: tax payer pays for teachers salaries and the guns and the training.

Scenario 2: tax payer pays for teachers salaries, plus a gaurds salary, plus guns and training for the gaurds.

Scenario 2 means the tax payer is paying for two salaries.

If the teachers are armed and theres no gaurds, thats less salaries straining the tax payer.

Simple math man. Come on.

 

[Curious George]

And I thought it was bad enough when kids would just just steal pencils off my desk. . .

Sorry about that. I got you now, though.

 

[Prometheus85]

I did explain it. Your getting on my nerves.

Do i really gotta break it down for you and type it all out and waste the time?

Listen: two scenarios.

First scenario: tax payer pays for teachers salaries and the guns and the training.

Scenario 2: tax payer pays for teachers salaries, plus a gaurds salary, plus guns and training for the gaurds.

Scenario 2 means the tax payer is paying for two salaries.

If the teachers are armed and theres no gaurds, thats less salaries straining the tax payer.

Simple math man. Come on.

Where’s the math?

 

[Prometheus85]

I did explain it. Your getting on my nerves.

Do i really gotta break it down for you and type it all out and waste the time?

Listen: two scenarios.

First scenario: tax payer pays for teachers salaries and the guns and the training.

Scenario 2: tax payer pays for teachers salaries, plus a gaurds salary, plus guns and training for the gaurds.

Scenario 2 means the tax payer is paying for two salaries.

If the teachers are armed and theres no gaurds, thats less salaries straining the tax payer.

Simple math man. Come on.

I did explain it. Your getting on my nerves.

Do i really gotta break it down for you and type it all out and waste the time?

Listen: two scenarios.

First scenario: tax payer pays for teachers salaries and the guns and the training.

Scenario 2: tax payer pays for teachers salaries, plus a gaurds salary, plus guns and training for the gaurds.

Scenario 2 means the tax payer is paying for two salaries.

If the teachers are armed and theres no gaurds, thats less salaries straining the tax payer.

Simple math man. Come on.

So not only are the American taxpayers paying all 700,000 teachers salaries Gaurd salaries but we are also playing for guns, ammunition, and training?? I thought u said it’s going to be less expensive lol

 

[Prometheus85]

@Jollybear u have no idea what your talking about. Save yourself the embarrassment man

 

[Prometheus85]

I did explain it. Your getting on my nerves.

Do i really gotta break it down for you and type it all out and waste the time?

Listen: two scenarios.

First scenario: tax payer pays for teachers salaries and the guns and the training.

Scenario 2: tax payer pays for teachers salaries, plus a gaurds salary, plus guns and training for the gaurds.

Scenario 2 means the tax payer is paying for two salaries.

If the teachers are armed and theres no gaurds, thats less salaries straining the tax payer.

Simple math man. Come on.

Also you gave multiple false dilemmas when there is only one option. And that’s the Americans taxpayers who are paying for the guns and training for teachers period. The guards are most likely trained and paid by the company that employed them.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Accidents happen ... even trained police officers have accidentally shot themselves. I'm not sure why you want schools to be soft targets for psychopaths.

Accidents happen but I can understand they happen with those who have guns on them all day and whose jobs require them, but teachers???

 

[Epic Beard Man]

As much as i disagree with white nationalism, that dont mean a white nationalist armed teacher is gonna go shoot up black students.

I think the human race is superior to animals, but i dont go killing animals.

Wow your analogy is so...interesting....You don't think white nationalism is dangerous huh?

yet this happened

Florida school shooting suspect belonged to white nationalist group – The Denver Post

3 men charged in shooting after white nationalist Richard Spencer's speech in Florida

5 arrested in connection with white nationalist's event

Thank God for human beings from the Caucasian, Arab, Asian, Latino, Black, and other human ethnic culture that is against this nonsense.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

on the other hand

my martial arts instructor was well read
a fine intellectual
I learned more than the art from that guy

and he liked guns...knew a lot about them

I can respect that actually....Martial Arts is used as a means to not fight but as a means to defend oneself if the fight comes to the person.