Arming Teachers

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You're like a dog with a bone, & just can't let go, eh?

When did you become Canadian?

I argue that the weapons of the militia would change along with the potential threats they face, & that this would be the founders intent. (It's similar to freedom of the press being extended to more than just print media existing in the 1700s.) As far as I know, ordinary citizens didn't own cannons or warships, nor did the founders envision that they would.

Perhaps. But perhaps also you are now less tired of the topic & can continue a conversation which occured in a previous thread (in which I was critiqued by members on opposite sides, which one would think probably ensures I was wrong)?

Nothing could honor the intent of the framers. Too much has changed because of technology (not just military technology). The framers wished "the people" to have the means to fight and resist centralized military if the government misused it. They had also just made much use of militia to defeat a military force, and were now ensuring a comparable force existed under the control of the federal government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms meant they would represent a check against the misuse of this new force. Hence the back and forth about "service" and what militia meant during the debate over wording.

There is no way for guns with military capability to do what firearms could during the 18th century. There is no way for the intent of the framers to be honored without a massive disarming of our military forces, because no amount of firearms is going to matter against the federally controlled military power. There is no way that militia can do what it did in the 18th century (in other places in the world, yes, but not here).

Tyranny requires control of the military. Always has. A dissenting military means a fractured state and civil war, not tyranny. Even apart from the military, the FBI, ATF, DEA, and CIA all have paramilitary and the capacity to deploy them quickly. Every large city I know of has rapid response teams too. Short of the zombie apocalype, there's nothing that a bunch of people with guns are going to do against tyranny. The army, navy, and airforce all have the capacity to put an end to any group of armed, entrenched individuals with a single plane. If the military is fractured, that means you have a situation in which someone is still controlling incredibly powerful equipment which makes small arms useless. That's what has allowed warlords to rule in places where AKs are easily obtained. Not to mention what has happened in various places formerly controlled by the Soviet Union.

Now, I gave you some background. Before I answer your question, why not tell me what you think of my take on the 2nd Amendment?

If I may (and even if I may not):

"being necessary" is a conditional. That clause is an antecedent or protosis of sorts, or better yet a premise which, if true, means the "conclusion" is also true: "Given that X, Y shall hold true." If the framers did not care what the reason was, and had they not considered the reason for the amendment of central importance, then we wouldn't have the wording we do. They re-wrote this amendment before finalizing it. Other amendments granting rights are not linked to any reason. The "right of the people to be secure..." or the right of "the accused... to a speedy trial" is not held to be "necessary" for any particular desired state the way the 2nd amendment is. They are just given as rights. To imagine that the difference is meaningless is to ignore how carefully this document was worded and re-worded before becoming law. If the authors simply thought it a basic right of the people to bear arms, why does the wording here differ from every other amendment in that it is linked to a reason? It would have been simpler to simply say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It would have been clearer. It would have more resembled the other amendments. And given that the debate over how the amendment should be written centered on the militia and military aspect, clearly that was of great importance. The problem of interpretation has historically been the conflict between the clear link between this "right" and what it is contigent upon, and the phrase "right of the people" which is clearly more general than simply those who are militia.

 

[Revoltingest]

When did you become Canadian?

I didn't. Nixon cancelled the draft just before I was scheduled to relocate.
Close call, eh?

Perhaps. But perhaps you are now less tired of the topic to continue a conversation which occured in a previous thread (in which I was critiqued by members on opposite sides, which one would think probably ensures I was wrong)?

I'm just tired physically. It's late!
I'll have to digest your post after some sleep.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I didn't. Nixon cancelled the draft just before I was scheduled to relocate.
Close call, eh?

You're telling me. My great grandmother was (either partially or wholly?) French-Canadian (horror of horrors). But I had that surgically removed. [More seriously, yeah close call. There's a line in Chariots of Fire, set in the context of one main character settling in at Cambridge just after WWI. The clerk taking down his name says, in response to our hero's "joined to late" remark (i.e., was only old enough to enlist at the end of the war, and thus did not see any "action"): "bad luck, lad." Our hero responds "there's many a dead man would like to share of it, bad luck or no."]

I'm just tired physically. It's late!
I'll have to digest your post after some sleep.

But all the clocks in the city
Began to whirr and chime
O let not time deceive you
You cannot conquer time
-Auden

It's almost 4am here, but then I rarely sleep. Which is no doubt reflected in my posts (and why they need so much digesting; they reflect a train of thought that only half left the station to begin with, and the remaining portion jumped the track and collided with several privately owned M1 Abrams tanks).

 

[LuisDantas]

What would you say, then, about a country which requires about half (i.e., it's male) citizens, and allows many more, to not only train with, but keep in their homes their government issued assault rifles?

It must be a nightmare, of course. Which would it be? Cuba? Israel? Nicaragua?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you seriously believe that letting teachers carry concealed handguns will lead to this?

Sure. So you don't?

Do you imagine that I don't take this seriously?

I must assume you do. If I had no prior experience with you, I would doubt it, though.

Oh, come on, fella...don't get all self righteous & sanctimonious on me.
You just said kids would murder each other over hopscotch as a consequence of my proposal.

If something like it is approved, yes, it will.

Talk about yer histrionic grotesquery! And your cannibal analogy fails utterly.

You mean it, don't you? I had to ask.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It must be a nightmare, of course. Which would it be? Cuba? Israel? Nicaragua?

Switzerland.

 

[LuisDantas]

Switzerland.

Interesting. I wonder how that came to be. I stand unconvinced, however.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Interesting. I wonder how that came to be.

Similar issues regarding militia in the US. Fear of the power of a federally controlled army due to recent history.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Really?

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.

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?

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".

Serious discussion? Media tricks? Really?

 

[horizon_mj1]

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 retrieve 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 retrieve 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?

Here is a tweak to this idea; Only principles' were given the training and the weapon at all times other than in absolute need is kept under lock and key, as well as combination lock in which only the principle has access to. Any weapons training in which involves carrying an armed weapon in public requires extensive psychological examinations and vigorous background checks (I know this personally I was 235 certified in my state; all states required to answer to Federally mandated laws); if this is done properly and monitored extensively, how can it detrimental; could it not save lives in certain situations?

 

[LuisDantas]

Similar issues regarding militia in the US. Fear of the power of a federally controlled army due to recent history.

It seems to me that it is far too different a cultural situation, however. I wonder when it was.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It seems to me that it is far too different a cultural situation, however. I wonder when it was.

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.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you say so. I still maintain that the cultural differences shouldn't be overlooked.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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?

I agree. Even if we can assess the mental state of the teacher at one point we can't predict the many issues that may befall the teacher throughout their personal lives and they show up to work (school) one day and start shooting...We can't predict every scenario but being a public school employee here in Virginia the general consensus I get from my colleagues is that they do not want to be armed in the schools...and many of them own a gun, hunt and/or have spouse that owns and/or hunts....

 

[Revoltingest]

Really?Serious discussion? Media tricks? Really?

Yes, really. Assault weapons are select fire (semi & full auto) rifles.
But the media will apply this to look-alikes which are semi-auto only, eg, AR-15.
The trickery is in falsely labeling them with emotion laden words for an audience unaware of definitions.
Emotionalism trumps accuracy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. Even if we can assess the mental state of the teacher at one point we can't predict the many issues that may befall the teacher throughout their personal lives and they show up to work (school) one day and start shooting....

Let's consider this scenario. Suppose it's a real risk that a teacher will snap, & bring weapons to school to start a killing spree.
This is made no more or less likely by allowing school staff to be armed, since one bent on mayhem wouldn't observe the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

What prevents a future madman from obtaining the proper training and licensing?

If they have no skirmishes with the law or psychiatric treatment, I know of nothing to prevent it.
And of course, the same is true with cops. A frustrated bully who wants to abuse & control others
could be attracted to the job & act out his darker needs. (I personally know an example.)
Why do you believe that it's worthwhile for cops to be armed, in spite of the danger they pose to each other & to us?

It seems like it's usually law-abiding citizens with little or no police record who snap one day and go on these berserk rampages. Am I wrong?

You are likely correct that it seems this way to you. But it seems to me that those who snap had symptoms of mental difficulties.
Do you think that training & licensing concealed carry holders poses a danger which outweighs the benefits?
Is there a statistical basis for this?

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's consider this scenario. Suppose it's a real risk that a teacher will snap, & bring weapons to school to start a killing spree.
This is made no more or less likely by allowing school staff to be armed, since one bent on mayhem wouldn't observe the law.

That I disagree with. An unbalanced person will indeed be more likely to use weapons if they are readily available.

 

[Revoltingest]

I beg to differ. It seems to me that it would pretty much strangle the vein that feeds the very possibility of reaching the sorry state of being a disturbed killer out for blood just because he is too hurt to want to live on and he can go out in a blaze of bloody "glory".

Regarding this scenario, a perp who wants to exit life this way should meet strong resistance as soon as possible.
If all school staff are unarmed, murderers would have free reign until the cops show up. I find this unacceptable.
Armed staff could stem the carnage.

 

[Revoltingest]

An unbalanced person will indeed be more likely to use weapons if they are readily available.

I agree with this statement, but it doesn't address my post. Weapon availability to the perp isn't affected
by whether the school staff is armed or unarmed. The perp acquires it before arriving at the school.