Arming Teachers

[Mr Spinkles]

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

If you want to be serious then you have to re-examine statements like this one:

"We have a Constitution which guarantees our right to bear arms, which is interpreted to mean militarily capable weapons."​

Here the phrase "militarily capable weapons" is arbitrary and does not further your argument. Unless you truly believe people should arm themselves with heavy machine guns, RPGs, and surface-to-air missiles, then clearly the line to be drawn on what counts as sufficient "military capability" for private citizens is somewhat arbitrary, and may reasonably exclude assault weapons.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I don't know you define "utter defeat".
I seek multiple practical measures to minimize carnage in schools.
Anything which helps solve the problem is worth doing, even if it's imperfect.

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.

It seems that you find the mere existence of handguns offensive.
I'd say it's better to be a live student with an armed teacher, than a dead student with a helpless teacher.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Of course. But since you mention this now, are you implying that those who commit school shootings are some kind of hardened criminals as opposed to troubled individuals with access to far more firepower than they ought to have?

Because I don't see the relevancy otherwise. School shootings are to the best of my knowledge essentially psychological breakdowns with way too much firepower, not really unlike what happened to the fictional character of Michael Douglas in the 1992 movie "Falling Down". The breakdowns are tragic in and of themselves, but they are not usually commited by "people who do not respect rules". Those people are not career criminals.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.)

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

 

[LuisDantas]

This wouldn't address the disturbed killer out for blood.

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".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'd say it's better to be a live student with an armed teacher, than a dead student with a helpless teacher.

Show of hands, everyone: who here is or has been a live student with a helpless teacher?

*raises hand*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What prevents a future madman from obtaining the proper training and licensing? 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 not wrong. But both in the US and around the world, it seems guns are no more a factor than is training or licensing:

"The general public and the medical profession are familiar with the term running amok, the common usage of which refers to an irrational-acting individual who causes havoc. The term also describes the homicidal and subsequent suicidal behavior of mentally unstable individuals that results in multiple fatalities and injuries to others...
Amok, or running amok, is derived from the Malay word mengamok, which means to make a furious and desperate charge. Captain Cook is credited with making the first outside observations and recordings of amok in the Malay tribesmen in 1770 during his around-the-world voyage. He described the affected individuals as behaving violently without apparent cause and indiscriminately killing or maiming villagers and animals in a frenzied attack. Amok attacks involved an average of 10 victims and ended when the individual was subdued or “put down” by his fellow tribesmen, and frequently killed in the process....
Contemporary descriptions of multiple homicides by individuals are comparable to the case reports of amok. In the majority of contemporary cases, the slayings are sudden and unprovoked and committed by individuals with a history of mental illness. News media, witnesses, and police reports describe the attackers as being odd or angry persons, suggesting personality pathology or a paranoid disorder; or brooding and suffering from an acute loss, indicating a possible depressive disorder. The number of victims in modern episodes is similar to the number in amok despite the fact that handguns and rifles are used in contrast to the Malay swords of 2 centuries ago...
Jin-Inn Teoh, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Aberdeen in London, reported in 1972 that amok behavior existed in all countries, differing only in the methods and weapons used in the attacks."

Source

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know you define "utter defeat".
I seek multiple practical measures to minimize carnage in schools.
Anything which helps solve the problem is worth doing, even if it's imperfect.

There is imperfection and then there is killing the patient.

If schools are meant to prepare children to live in society, then teaching them that teachers are supposed to pack guns is just a very tiny step away from giving them weapons directly.

By then, it is pretty much a point of no return. Forget school shootings, you will have to deal with hopscotch argument shootings soon enough.

It seems that you find the mere existence of handguns offensive.

You are mistaken. I kinda like handguns, even, although I happen to own none. But I have no doubts that using them is a very serious matter that should not be taken lightly. Once you actually shoot a person, there is no going back.

I'd say it's better to be a live student with an armed teacher, than a dead student with a helpless teacher.

Ugh, that is just grotesque, sorry. You might as well say that it is better to be a live cannibal than a starving person: quite true, but misses the point by a mile, and for much the same reason - namely, because it uses a premise that is not to be tolerated.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you want to be serious then you have to re-examine statements like this one:

"We have a Constitution which guarantees our right to bear arms, which is interpreted to mean militarily capable weapons."​

Here the phrase "militarily capable weapons" is arbitrary and does not further your argument. Unless you truly believe people should arm themselves with heavy machine guns, RPGs, and surface-to-air missiles, then clearly the line to be drawn on what counts as sufficient "military capability" for private citizens is somewhat arbitrary, and may reasonably exclude assault weapons.

Now, now....let's not try to suggest that I'm not being serious. After all, I find your
views just as inadequate as you find mine, but you don't see me dissing you that way.
First, please tell me why you think the 2nd Amendment was so prominent in the Bill of Rights.
(We need to establish some common ground so that we can have a discussion.)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If schools are meant to prepare children to live in society, then teaching them that teachers are supposed to pack guns is just a very tiny step away from giving them weapons directly.

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?

 

[Revoltingest]

There is imperfection and then there is killing the patient.

"Killing the patient" is the outcome you see.
I don't see that being the result.

If schools are meant to prepare children to live in society, then teaching them that teachers are supposed to pack guns is just a very tiny step away from giving them weapons directly.

I don't buy this conclusion either. Moreover, I'd say that to pretend to students
that there is no danger, by placing them in greater danger is wrong.

By then, it is pretty much a point of no return. Forget school shootings, you will have to deal with hopscotch argument shootings soon enough.

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

You are mistaken. I kinda like handguns, even, although I happen to own none. But I have no doubts that using them is a very serious matter that should not be taken lightly.

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

Ugh, that is just grotesque, sorry. You might as well say that it is better to be a live cannibal than a starving person: quite true, but misses the point by a mile, and for much the same reason - namely, because it uses a premise that is not to be tolerated.

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

 

[Revoltingest]

Show of hands, everyone: who here is or has been a live student with a helpless teacher?
*raises hand*

Of course, we're addressing the rare event of school shootings.
Because it's rare, many schools see no such violence.
But the question is how to address the possibility of it.

So far, I see no real alternative proposal to cut back on the carnage. Sure, sure, some have suggestions. But if they involve
measures which definitely will not happen (eg, banning firearms from the US), they are impossible. And to propose only the
impossible is to entrench the status quo. I find that unacceptable.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Here's one mishap at a gun show last year which, perhaps, could become more common at elementary schools if some get their way:

BLOOMINGTON — Two men were injured in an accidental shooting Saturday morning at the ECA Gun and Knife Show at Bloomington’s Sale Barn.

An attendee at the show was handling a mini-14 semiautomatic rifle at about 11:15 a.m. As the patron was laying the rifle back on a vendor table, the gun accidentally discharged, said McLean County Sheriff Mike Emery.

“The round went through a post, through a person and then into another person,” Emery said.​

At a gun show in 2008 a child was killed in an accidental shooting with an Uzi submachine gun:

A chilling video shown in Hampden Superior Court today captured the moment an 8-year-old boy from Connecticut fatally shot himself with an Uzi submachine gun at a 2008 gun show in western Massachusetts.

The video, which showed the boy squeezing the trigger and the automatic weapon suddenly tilting upward and then backward in his small hands before he apparently shot himself, elicited shrieks from shocked spectators in the courtroom and the jury box.​

Here's what happened when one well-trained gun-owner (a soldier in Iraq) went berserk at Camp Liberty. Contrary to the expectations of some, the fact that he was well-trained and was surrounded by armed people did not deter him from going on a rampage:

On Monday, after a confrontation with the staff at a clinic at Camp Liberty, a sprawling base on the outskirts of Baghdad, Sergeant Russell returned with a weapon, possibly wrestled away from his armed escort, and killed five people, Army officials said. It appeared to be the worst case of soldier-on-soldier violence among American forces in the six-year Iraq war.​

This just happened last month: another well-trained gun owner (a police veteran) turning his weapon on .... of all people ... armed police at a police station:

The Southfield man killed by police after opening fire inside police headquarters Sunday was a veteran, described as a kind man who had lost the ability to speak.

Harold J. Collins, 64, had been battling health problems for many years, including a tumor on his face, when he walked into the Southfield Police station on Sunday and without a word, tried to fire his gun on an officer behind protective glass. He was shot and killed by Southfield Police officers, but not before a Sergeant got shot in the left shoulder.​

Now obviously I'm not saying we should outlaw guns or gun shows .... I'm only saying that clearly guns are a double-edged sword, they may protect you but they may also endanger you. Even well-trained people who legally own guns can go berserk and even places with lots of guns can be victimized. So when we are talking about elementary schools the unlikely risk of an armed attacker has to be weighed against the inevitability of an accidental or purposeful shooting by the very people who are supposed to be protectors.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's one mishap at a gun show last year which, perhaps, could become more common at elementary schools if some get their way:

At a gun show in 2008 a child was killed in an accidental shooting with an Uzi submachine gun:

Here's what happened when one well-trained gun-owner (a soldier in Iraq) went berserk at Camp Liberty. Contrary to the expectations of some, the fact that he was well-trained and was surrounded by armed people did not deter him from going on a rampage:

This just happened last month: another well-trained gun owner (a police veteran) turning his weapon on .... of all people ... armed police at a police station:

Now obviously I'm not saying we should outlaw guns or gun shows .... I'm only saying that clearly guns are a double-edged sword, they may protect you but they may also endanger you. Even well-trained people who legally own guns can go berserk and even places with lots of guns can be victimized. So when we are talking about elementary schools the unlikely risk of an armed attacker has to be weighed against the inevitability of an accidental or purposeful shooting by the very people who are supposed to be protectors.

Do you realize that your post supports my claim that there are no mass shootings at gun shows?
Yes, accidents happen, even with the much vaunted cops whom you would rely upon. But no one
would say that cops would be safer if they were unarmed.

Various authorities on different sides of the issue will argue about the numbers, but in the US, somewhere between several hundred thousand
(the low end) & a couple million times (the high end, per Gary Kleck) a gun is used in self defense. Given that there were only about 10K murders
& accidental deaths by gun in 2011, this shows that the 'cost' of guns could be considered at least 2 orders of magnitude less than the benefit.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now, now....let's not try to suggest that I'm not being serious. After all, I find your
views just as inadequate as you find mine, but you don't see me dissing you that way.
First, please tell me why you think the 2nd Amendment was so prominent in the Bill of Rights.
(We need to establish some common ground so that we can have a discussion.)

I made a very straightforward and simple objection: you did not define "militarily capable". Before we switch topics why don't you clarify what you meant by that, since perhaps I have simply misunderstood you. Would a ban on assault weapons constitute a violation of the right to have militarily capable arms? What about a ban on anti-aircraft weapons? Why?

Of course, we're addressing the rare event of school shootings.
Because it's rare, many schools see no such violence.
But the question is how to address the possibility of it.

Yes, precisely, but you neglected a key caveat: the question is how to address the possibility of an armed intruder, without exacerbating other possibilities which may be just as or even more dangerous. For example: teacher accidentally shoots child; child inappropriately locates teacher's gun; teacher goes berserk, and instead of reaching for the ruler reaches for the gun. For your argument to make sense these possibilities must be significantly less likely than armed intruders, but are they?

So far, I see no real alternative proposal to cut back on the carnage. Sure, sure, some have suggestions. But if they involve
measures which definitely will not happen (eg, banning firearms from the US), they are impossible. And to propose only the
impossible is to entrench the status quo. I find that unacceptable.

When it comes to economics, conservatives understand the concept that some evils are impossible to remedy because the unintended consequences are worse than the disease. This principle should be applied not just to economics, but to violence and weapons as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

I made a very straightforward and simple objection: you did not define "militarily capable". Before we switch topics why don't you clarify what you meant by that, since perhaps I have simply misunderstood you. Would a ban on assault weapons constitute a violation of the right to have militarily capable arms? What about a ban on anti-aircraft weapons? Why?

I'd be glad to answer, but I also want to avoid what seems to be argument over some different assumptions.
It would be more productive if each knew where the other stood on what the 2nd Amendment means.

Yes, precisely, but you neglected a key caveat: the question is how to address the possibility of an armed intruder, without exacerbating other possibilities which may be just as or even more dangerous. For example: teacher accidentally shoots child; child inappropriately locates teacher's gun; teacher goes berserk, and instead of reaching for the ruler reaches for the gun. For your argument to make sense these possibilities must be significantly less likely than armed intruders, but are they?

I find these scenarios extremely unlikely relative to what is likely.
And if you really want an answer to a question, then please don't ask so many that it resembles a Gish gallop.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Do you realize that your post supports my claim that there are no mass shootings at gun shows?
Yes, accidents happen, even with the much vaunted cops whom you would rely upon. But no one
would say that cops would be safer if they were unarmed.

Yes because cops deal with violent people every day, so the risk of accidents/fratricide is outweighed by the risk of encountering an armed assailant. Does this same arithmetic work in an elementary school setting?

Various authorities on different sides of the issue will argue about the numbers, but in the US, somewhere between several hundred thousand
(the low end) & a couple million times (the high end, per Gary Kleck) a gun is used in self defense. Given that there were only about 10K murders
& accidental deaths by gun in 2011, this shows that the 'cost' of guns could be considered at least 2 orders of magnitude less than the benefit.

Okay, now here are some actually relevant, potentially persuasive facts. Thank you, I will consider them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes because cops deal with violent people every day, so the risk of accidents/fratricide is outweighed by the risk of encountering an armed assailant. Does this same arithmetic work in an elementary school setting?

I believe it would. I'd expect accidents among school staff to be far less than cops, who carry handguns cocked & locked,
which is a very dangerous condition. School staff should carry chamber empty, & this could be ensured with some easy &
reliable procedures. (This is the tip of the iceberg regarding standards I envision for concealed carriers in schools & other
public venues.) I'd like to revamp training for licensees in general (one way in which I want more gun control).

Okay, now here are some actually relevant, potentially persuasive facts. Thank you, I will consider them.

I've been spouting this stuff all over, but I've blathered on so much today....er, yesterday, that I forgive you for missing it.
Moreover, you'd be a complete loser if you read all my posts.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'd be glad to answer, but I also want to avoid what seems to be argument over some different assumptions.
It would be more productive if each knew where the other stood on what the 2nd Amendment means.

You made a claim. For the sake of argument, I make no assumptions and accept your claim at face value. All I'm asking is that you clarify what you mean by "militarily capable". I think it would be most productive if you simply do so.

I find these scenarios extremely unlikely relative to what is likely.
And if you really want an answer to a question, then please don't ask so many that it resembles a Gish gallop.

Okay. I really want an answer to my question, so I'll limit myself to just the one: what do you mean by "militarily capable"?

 

[Revoltingest]

You made a claim. For the sake of argument, I make no assumptions and accept your claim at face value. All I'm asking is that you clarify what you mean by "militarily capable". I think it would be most productive if you simply do so.
Okay. I really want an answer to my question, so I'll limit myself to just the one: what do you mean by "militarily capable"?

You're like a dog with a bone, & just can't let go, eh? First, the reason I wanted to discover your take on the 2nd Amendment is whether you
think gun ownership is about defense of home & country or about sporting use. In the context of defense (which is how I see it), the founders
saw that ordinary citizens had to rise up against a foreign army. Even the possibility of revolution came up. Consider their intent that arms be
appropriate for a militia which could engage some army. In their day, this would be a muzzle loading rifle or musket. 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.

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?