1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Arming Teachers

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by Kilgore Trout, Dec 20, 2012.

  1. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Let's say we come up with the time and resources to purchase arms for, train, and arm tens of thousands of teachers across the country in reaction to recent events in hopes of saving lives in the case of such a future tragedy.

    Now, one outcome is that a similar event occurs, a teacher has the right training, wherewithal, and psychological fortitude to retreive their firearm, and successfully put down the attacker without injuring any innocent bystanders. This is the outcome many people like to see as not only a good outcome, but also a likely scenario.

    However, there are a myriad other outcomes from implementing such a scheme. And the more guns you insert into such a scheme, and the longer it is in place, the more likely any of these other scenarios are likely to occur.

    1) An attack does occur, and a teacher does retreive their firearm. However, in the chaos, stress, and confusion, the teacher shoots and kills one or more children.

    2) An attack occurs, and a teacher retrieves their firearm. However, as is likely, most people (particularly those not trained in law enforcement or the military) find they cannot shoot another human being - or are unlikely to be able to hit another human being. The attacker, whose weapon has jammed, proceeds to take the gun from the teacher, shoot her, and shoot several more children.

    3) There is a break-in at the school, and a firearm is stolen, which is then used in a crime where someone is killed.

    4) A weapon is accidentally left out, or the ability to access it is discovered by some children, who then accidentally kill another student on the playground.

    Now, these are just a few possible scenarios, and there are many variations on these as well. If one of these were to occur, what would the reaction of the public be? There is no way to guarantee none of these scenarios occur, so can it be rationally justified to implement such a scheme? How many accidental deaths due to such a scheme would be an acceptable number in hopes of possibly preventing future deaths?
    LegionOnomaMoi likes this.
  2. apophenia

    apophenia Well-Known Member

    I agree, the idea is so flawed as to be ridiculous.
  3. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Atheist Capitalist Engineer Libertarian

    It's easy to construct scenarios which advance your position of wanting to keep school staff unarmed. I can just as easily post some which
    show armed staff saving lives. But unquantified hypothetical possibilities get us nowhere. What really matters is the likely net effect of
    having a trained armed staff (not just teachers, but also janitors, office types, groundskepers....especially groundskeepers).

    Here is the very real scenario (status quo) which concerns me the most:
    - Government makes it illegal for law abiding citizens, even trained ones to have weapons at schools.
    - Government makes this fact well known to the public, effectively advertising vulnerability.
    - Government provides no on-site defenders of kids or staff.
    - Unbalanced murderous crazies want easy multiple targets, & they don't honor the law against bringing weapons to school.
    - It is a given that in America, guns will be available, legally or illegally.

    With the above conditions, it makes sense for staff to be allowed to defend themselves & the kids.
    Certainly, It should be incorporated with other security plans, eg, rapid detection of threats, rapid
    warning of threats, threat monitoring/surveillance, hardening of school rooms, established procedures.

    Much has been made of the uselessness of trying to defend oneself with a gun. Many posit that only
    cops can wield them effectively, & that ordinary citizens are prone to accidents or going crazy.
    Back in the real world, we have millions of armed citizens defending themselves yearly.
    Now, I've already read leftish critics who maintain that only several hundred thousand people
    defend themselves with guns each year. But let's use the conservative figure of 100,000.
    If the number of self defense incidences greatly exceeds the number of homicides (about 10K
    in 2011), this points towards greater effective safety when law abiding citizens are armed.

    Any practical alternative which might further minimize the danger & carnage?
    (And total disarmament of the population is off the table....just cuz it won't happen.)
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  4. apophenia

    apophenia Well-Known Member

    There are no guns in Australian schools. No-one has ever shot anyone in an Australian school. We have tight gun control, and generally speaking the only violent use of guns has emerged over the last decade and is almost entirely restricted to criminals, usually drug dealers, shooting each other over control of their local markets.
    Levite likes this.
  5. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule Well-Known Member

    The wording here is interesting as is the ordering. What if we were to take your last point and reword it sightly, perhaps like ...
    - Government makes it legal for an obscene number of assault weapons and ammunition to easily make it into the hands of the most unstable and sociopathic elements of society while making zero effort to insure that those others who are armed are properly trained and reasonably responsible citizens.​
    And what if we placed that at the top of your list. How might that inform your post?
  6. Levite

    Levite Higher and Higher

    I'm a teacher, and I can say that I have zero interest in becoming an armed guard, nor do I know many teachers interested in emergency combat training.

    Rather than trying to figure out ways of making the folks who are already teaching our kids for ridiculously low pay and benefits into de facto deputies, how about we inject a little basic human reason into our social discourse around guns.

    My personal preference when it comes to the Second Amendment is to treat it as the ideal moment for constitutional strict constructionism: you want to bear arms? Fine, just like the Founding Fathers, you can own all the single-shot, muzzle-loaded, smooth-bore, black-power muskets you like. Load up on 'em.

    But even if we're going to say that, for some stupid reason, the incredibly antiquated, pre-police, pre-standing army, back-from-the-days-when-bears-came-to-your-door provision for letting people bear arms should still be upheld in a modern world, I cannot think of any sound reason why people should be permitted to own anything more complex than a manually operated hunting rifle with a maximum magazine size of three or four rounds.

    There is no possible reason why anyone in this country not currently employed by police or the armed forces needs either handguns or semiautomatic rifles, combat shotguns, assault rifles and heavy machine guns, or any of the other hideous implements of mass violence currently sold and all too frequently stockpiled by nut bars of every description, to say nothing of combat-level clips and ammunition. Honestly, what kind of person needs armor-piercing rounds, fragmentation rounds, hollow-point rounds, incendiary rounds, suspended shot or flechette rounds, or other such horrors? Until such time as the deer strap on kevlar and start shooting back, I can imagine no justification for such things, much less in clips of ten, thirteen, or even fifteen rounds in handguns, thirty or more in assault rifles, and who knows what for heavier arms.

    Instead of ridiculous ideas to bring even more weapons into schools, or even around schools, how about a few sound ideas for reducing the weapons outside of schools, before they get brought in?

    If owning stupidly overpowered and destructive arms in mass quantities is really that important to some folks, maybe they'd be happier living somewhere in the Third World, where we don't have to suffer the inevitable massacres that support their vicious little collecting habits.

    LuisDantas likes this.
  7. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Atheist Capitalist Engineer Libertarian

    Your scenario needs fixing.
    - Assault weapons are far harder to get than the media trick you into believing. They require a special license.
    - You mean "ensure" instead of "insure".
    - Most state governments require training for concealed carry. This is more than "zero effort".
  8. apophenia

    apophenia Well-Known Member

    But what if the Mexicans or Cubans invade ? Americans would be helpless !

    And I don't trust those deer as far as I can spit a rat. I think they're planning something ... have you noticed the way they look at us ?
  9. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Atheist Capitalist Engineer Libertarian

    A problem is that you have little chance of selling this reading of the 2nd Amendment to strict constructionists. And constitutional originalists will see the intent
    of the 2nd Amendment as allowing militarily capable (by current standards) arms. If you don't want to be armed, I support your right to let others defend you.

    Other than the horror you feel about guns, why do you say it's ridiculous?

    One could turn the tables & say that if you don't want to live in a society where individuals may provide for their own defense as provided for in the
    Constitution, you may move to some namby pamby state where security is achieved by curtailing liberty. Of course, I would never say such a thing.

    I don't hear much in the way of practical solutions to the problem at hand. Carping about my proposal won't fix anything, so step up & produce, guys.
  10. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora Staff Member Premium Member

    Erotic Dance
    If you had armed one or two of the teachers I had growing up, the headlines would be about how they shot up their own classrooms.
    Mr Spinkles likes this.
  11. apophenia

    apophenia Well-Known Member

    I thought I did. I pointed out that we have tight gun control, in response to two massacres - the only two thanks to gun control.

    The first one shocked the **** out of the community. The second one left the only rational response obvious, and our government did the sane and responsible thing.

    Australians are not suffering from not owning caches of weapons.

    We aren't constantly experiencing national grief and despair either.

    How many massacres in the USA so far ?
  12. apophenia

    apophenia Well-Known Member

    No-one here is complaining about it. And we aren't faced with grief and despair. So explain to me where we went wrong ...
  13. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Atheist Capitalist Engineer Libertarian

    I'm not clear on what you're asking for.
  14. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Atheist Capitalist Engineer Libertarian

    I don't consider an Australian style gun ban to be a workable solution.
    It also isn't an option to rewrite the Constitution or remake our cultures into something Swisser, Swedisher or Austrailianer.
    What kind of measures (which are practical to implement) could we actually effect to improve our situation?
  15. apophenia

    apophenia Well-Known Member


    Why can't you do that ? Is change an impossibility just because you are American ? That seems to be the gist of your argument.

    Explain to me why our solution is unacceptable. It worked.

    Your argument is "That's just the way it is, so it has to stay that way. Any solution we decide on must be one which maintains the problem."

    That's not an argument. That is a psychological compulsion with no rational basis.
    Sunstone likes this.
  16. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Atheist Capitalist Engineer Libertarian

    It is part of my argument. What is legal & practical in Australiastan won't necessarily be so in Americastan.

    We have a Constitution which guarantees our right to bear arms, which is interpreted to mean militarily capable weapons.
    We also have a long & strong tradition of gun ownership & independence which will prevent banning/confiscation.

    No....in fact, I'm the one opposing the status quo.
    I proposed a practical means to mitigate the problem.
    A problem is that so many have an deep emotional fear or hatred of guns, they cannot see guns being part of a solution

    You're stating this about your own incorrect inference.
  17. apophenia

    apophenia Well-Known Member

    Once again, that is not a logical argument.

    America could change its constitution. Your entire position is "it's the law, we can't change it ! "

    Yes you can.
  18. Rexor

    Rexor New Member

    Arming teachers is a bad idea as most are stressed out with students and each other and their mind knumbing, tedious, and repetitive job. The teachers are liable to flip out and mow down all the students. Just get rid of schools they are not needed anymore. They are just places for state inforced cultural and political brainwashing, bullies and drug dealers. A real waste of time, an average intelligence home schooled student can get University Entrance by the age of ten and this info came from a teacher.
  19. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Atheist Capitalist Engineer Libertarian

    It seems you don't understand what practical limitations we face.
    Lefties have been trying to gut the 2nd Amendment for many decades, & they've failed.
    You cannot just proclaim "Yes you can." & it will magically be so. That is "not logical", as you oft say.
    My proposal to allow school staff to be armed is practical. The state legislature even passed a bill
    allowing it, & would be law were it not for the governor failing to sign it.
  20. apophenia

    apophenia Well-Known Member


    "You cannot just proclaim "Yes you can."

    Yes I can.

    Allowing school staff to be armed will only increase the number of bullets being fired. The people who commit these acts don't intend to survive them anyway, so armed teachers, even assuming they were in the right place and time quick enough etc, will not be a deterrent.

    How many kids could you shoot with an automatic weapon before a teacher had a chance to respond ?

    10 ? 20 ? 50 ?

    You call that a solution ?
Draft saved Draft deleted