Arming Teachers

[Revoltingest]

"You cannot just proclaim "Yes you can."
Yes I can.

Strong your faith is.
But I'm more of a practical guy.

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.

I disagree. Have you ever been to a gun show? If so, you'd see why there are no mass murders there. They are not an attractive target.

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

I don't know. But the number would likely be greatly reduced if someone shot back.

Frankly, I don't understand the philosophy that we should abdicate all responsibility for
self defense, & instead depend upon a government which shows up always too late.

10 ? 20 ? 50 ?
You call that a solution ?

This is your straw man, rather than my solution.

 

[Sunstone]

Teachers should not only be heavily armed, but they should be wearing full body armor at all times since that will give them an edge over any assailant. And just to be on the safe side, they should also be permitted to own and operate tanks and other armored vehicles. Whoo-hoo!!!

 

[Revoltingest]

Teachers should not only be heavily armed, but they should be wearing full body armor at all times since that will give them an edge over any assailant. And just to be on the safe side, they should also be permitted to own and operate tanks and other armored vehicles. Whoo-hoo!!!

Kids were murdered, & all you have are a couple jokes to derail an attempt at serious discussion?

 

[averageJOE]

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?

These are very possible scenarios. But I think the most realistic scenario is
5) Teacher shoots and kills unarmed kid claiming self defense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The thing is, school officials are NOT trained to handle such situations. They are not routinely drilled in recreations of various shoot-out situations, they are not routinely and regularly exercised and trained in combat, they are not mentally trained or prepared to draw their guns and attack. The risk is just far too high that a school staff member would hesitate and make a bad situation worse. And not to mention the risk is also too great to risk additional school violence when a burnt out teacher snaps and shoots someone.

I disagree. Have you ever been to a gun show? If so, you'd see why there are no mass murders there. They are not an attractive target.

Gun shows are not an attractive target because they do not have the shock value. Even with armed staff members, an assailant can kill and maim many people before the staff member has a chance to react. And what good would a gun do if a shooter kicks a door open and shoots the teacher first, as would most likely happen if such a proposal is made law. But really who is gonna care if even ten people were killed at a gun show? But if you shoot at a school, just by pulling the trigger your name becomes immortalized, and your reputation will survive your physical life.

 

[Sunstone]

Kids were murdered, & all you have are a couple jokes to derail an attempt at serious discussion?

My sarcasm has a point. As for a serious discussion, I fail to see how proposing to arm teachers can be genuinely serious. Pathetically stupid, yes. But genuinely serious? To be serious, something must accord with reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

My sarcasm has a point. As for a serious discussion, I fail to see how proposing to arm teachers can be genuinely serious. Pathetically stupid, yes. But genuinely serious? To be serious, something must accord with reality.

You have only your opinions. Your faith that they & they alone are reality is an illusion, one which can blind you to an alternative.
Your smug sarcasm & epithets might be great sport for you, but they do not rise to the level of cogent argument.

 

[Sunstone]

Your sarcasm does not rise to the level of cogent argument.

The opinion of a man who fantasizes that arming teachers is an excellent solution.

 

[Revoltingest]

The opinion of a man who fantasizes that arming teachers is an excellent solution.

You try to look clever with sarcasm, but you need to disingenuously rephrase my proposal.
This is dishonest & just derails the discussion.

 

[Sunstone]

You try to look clever with sarcasm, but you need to disingenuously rephrase my proposal.
This is dishonest & just derails the discussion.

And how should it be properly phrased?

 

[Revoltingest]

And how should it be properly phrased?

I proposed (among other measures) that school staff be allowed conceal carry with proper training & licensing.
This is no fantasy (as you would characterize it). The law which was passed by the MI legislature would allow this.
(Although Gov Snyder did not sign it.)

 

[Sunstone]

I proposed (among other measures) that school staff be allowed conceal carry with proper training & licensing.

And I find that proposal both fantastic and pathetic. Not even serious.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I find that proposal both fantastic and pathetic. Not even serious.

If you can disagree with a reasoned argument instead of insult & sarcasm, it would be more interesting.
Is this really all you can muster? Tis ironic that you wield the epithet "pathetic" against others.

 

[LuisDantas]

The worst of the idea of arming teachers IMO is that it banalizes violence even further.

There are those who think video games make people more violent. That is a very weird idea. Video games lead one into a compartimentalized mindset where things are rather predictable and usually only happen at a very specific point of your range of vision and only when you let them. There is little to no chance of confusion with the real world.

What does banalize and encourage violence is the desire to blend in and be aware of the subject matters of others in Real Life (TM). Have teachers pack Colts that they don't even want to carry, and soon enough simply peer pressure will become a decisive factor to have people try and use firearms just to be with the "in" groups.

It is an incredibly misguided idea, this one of having armed teachers.

 

[Revoltingest]

The worst of the idea of arming teachers IMO is that it banalizes violence even further.
There are those who think video games make people more violent. That is a very weird idea. Video games lead one into a compartimentalized mindset where things are rather predictable and usually only happen at a very specific point of your range of vision and only when you let them. There is little to no chance of confusion with the real world.
What does banalize and encourage violence is the desire to blend in and be aware of the subject matters of others in Real Life (TM). Have teachers pack Colts that they don't even want to carry, and soon enough simply peer pressure will become a decisive factor to have people try and use firearms just to be with the "in" groups.
It is an incredibly misguided idea, this one of having armed teachers.

Have you a better idea....one which is readily achievable in the US?

 

[Revoltingest]

The thing is, school officials are NOT trained to handle such situations. They are not routinely drilled in recreations of various shoot-out situations, they are not routinely and regularly exercised and trained in combat, they are not mentally trained or prepared to draw their guns and attack. The risk is just far too high that a school staff member would hesitate and make a bad situation worse. And not to mention the risk is also too great to risk additional school violence when a burnt out teacher snaps and shoots someone.

But such training is available. I know many ordinary citizens who took it upon themselves to become proficient to the extent that
they would be an asset in a violent confrontation. And of course, an armed worker at the school would be present when most needed.
This country already has armed individuals who manage to defend themselves with guns, but without killing bystanders. (I've already
posted several links to Gary Kleck's work in this area.) So the statistics self-defense being beneficial are there.

Gun shows are not an attractive target because they do not have the shock value.

Let's examine other venues for mass shootings: universities, offices, Post Offices.
Those would seem to have no greater shock value than a gun show, yet they experience mass shootings.
A gun show would offer quick & certain death to anyone bent on mass murder by firearm. Why? Everyone is armed.

Even with armed staff members, an assailant can kill and maim many people before the staff member has a chance to react. And what good would a gun do if a shooter kicks a door open and shoots the teacher first, as would most likely happen if such a proposal is made law. But really who is gonna care if even ten people were killed at a gun show? But if you shoot at a school, just by pulling the trigger your name becomes immortalized, and your reputation will survive your physical life.

I don't say that allowing staff to be armed will prevent all deaths. I only argue that this measure will help reduce
deaths....by putting up resistance to the perp sooner, & by making the schools a less attractive target.

 

[LuisDantas]

The obvious one: stricter gun controls of some kind.

Focus at first on heavy penalties for carrying or owning guns, parts or ammo that have no justification for civilian use. That is useful on a practical level, but mostly on the psychological level, because it reminds people of the sorely needed message that guns are not meant to be used.

Emulate the campaings against tobacco smoking and have some campaigns with pictures of actual gunshot wounds and reminders of what a bullet usually does when it is shot.

Have some "before and after" type outdoors and posters showing how awful it is to actually use a firearm. Aim to making guns seem "uncool".

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The obvious one: stricter gun controls of some kind.

Focus at first on heavy penalties for carrying or owning guns, parts or ammo that have no justification for civilian use. That is useful on a practical level, but mostly on the psychological level, because it reminds people of the sorely needed message that guns are not meant to be used.

Emulate the campaings against tobacco smoking and have some campaigns with pictures of actual gunshot wounds and reminders of what a bullet usually does when it is shot.

Have some "before and after" type outdoors and posters showing how awful it is to actually use a firearm. Aim to making guns seem "uncool".

They tried that with just about everything illegal, but yet there's criminals everywhere. Rules only limit the ones who don't need rules.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't say that allowing staff to be armed will prevent all deaths. I only argue that this measure will help reduce deaths....by putting up resistance to the perp sooner, & by making the schools a less attractive target.

That, Revoltingest, is a strategy based on assuming utter defeat as a starting point.

By the time you accept that it is acceptable to have the freaking schools of your own children teach them that they can't hope to be safe without having a handgun nearby, you have of course given up on having unarmed social situations as a sustainable goal. There isn't much left to salvage after that.

 

[Revoltingest]

The obvious one: stricter gun controls of some kind.
Focus at first on heavy penalties for carrying or owning guns, parts or ammo that have no justification for civilian use. That is useful on a practical level, but mostly on the psychological level, because it reminds people of the sorely needed message that guns are not meant to be used.

The mass murderers are prepared to violate any law. So if guns are available, they will do as they now are.
If you seek to make guns unavailable, that is neither practical (given the vast number) nor constitutional.

Emulate the campaings against tobacco smoking and have some campaigns with pictures of actual gunshot wounds and reminders of what a bullet usually does when it is shot.
Have some "before and after" type outdoors and posters showing how awful it is to actually use a firearm. Aim to making guns seem "uncool".

This wouldn't address the disturbed killer out for blood. That would require a complete revamping
of our approach to mental health services, which I think would be difficult but achievable.