Should Teachers Be Armed

Yeah.. Gotta agree here. I went to public school and came out with a year and a half worth of college credits.

 

Um...I would have thought the answer to your question would be obvious.

 

With a ruler? Please tell me that's what you really meant. It wouldn't work on me. We need to personalise punishments. Parents should be teaching their children discipline. It pisses me off that some children 'win' awards for only participating in games that are supposed to be competitive.

It sure would make students pay attention if the teacher shot a gun to shut them up. Unfortunately, bullets could bounce off the wall and kill people. And it would be cruel to execute students for failure. I was so out of it that I didn't realise my teacher was joking about executing me at dawn for the ONE time I forgot to bring my books. Guess who still packs bags carefully to this day.

School shootings? We should examine WHY they happen and discourage that. I've wanted revenge before and I wouldn't be deterred if teachers had guns. I'd shoot myself anyway after my work. I never thought about killing my teachers, but I would have no choice if they were armed. I wanted to kill my bullies. I guess some killers would be less selective. I could have my hands on a working gun within hours if I really wanted to, despite them being mostly illegal here.

 

Dammit I voted no by accent. F**ck mobile!

I meant yes.

 

Scroll up and read the post below my first post.

 

Bad, bad idea. A conservative's wet dream. I understand why they think it, but there's no way that it's a viable solution. More weapons in schools does not mean less violence.

 

Doesn't the US have enough gun related troubles?

 

No WAY. How did this even come up? It's horribly dangerous.

 

I can understand where the arguments from both sides are coming from. Give the teachers a gun and they can protect their students. Don't give them guns and it would prevent teachers from going crazy and killing people (with a gun, that is). Prevents a situation where a student gets a hold of the gun.

Arming the teachers might not be the answer, but I do think that schools need more security. After I graduated from high school I went back sometimes to bring lunch to my friends that were still going there. I was able to walk right in after I got a student from the inside to open one of the side doors for me. I could have had a gun on me and killed people.

I don't know how doable this is, but maybe schools should hire more officers. One for each entry/exit. Or even one for each little pod. Also have metal detectors like they do at airports at the entrances/exits. It would be expensive, but I'd imagine a lot safer.

 

In the U.S., the solution to gun troubles is MORE GUNS. It's the American way.

 

Some teachers can't even be trusted to not fuck their students, why should we trust them with guns. Also What happened to school police and security are they doing such a bad job that teachers need to carry guns now.

 

neither of these are arguments.

 

It'd be lovely if you said something intelligent that we could respond to.

 

I wouldn't count on it being a good idea, especially since I'm sure a disgruntled teacher is bound to snap; this and students might feel inclined to bring weapons in for their own protection as well since schools are, in my opinion, becoming less safe.

 

Kay, guys, you can disagree with Holly and everything, but can we be a least a little compassionate about the fact that she's totally right: there really are safety problems at state schools?

No, I don't think we need armed teachers to solve those problems. What we need is to get abusive students the hell out of state schools. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, because we can't get psychopath children out of our schools...

It's very hard for me to say I don't want students arming themselves. However, I know that the reality is that the minority and/or physically weak students who really do need to defend themselves are going to be a lot less likely to be armed than their tormentors and abusers. So ultimately, and not without great reluctance, I end up coming down in favor of weapon prohibition in schools. Simply, it's not going to go as well as I think it should go, in my mind. Students and/or teachers in state schools with weapons won't look like a utopian power shift against the heteropatriarchy. It's going to be the ruin of LGBTQ people and students of color all over the place.

 

One thing often overlooked about armed individuals is, people don't look beyond individual ownership. People don't realize, the military has firearms, the police have them, too. Right now, the police don't exactly leave a favorable impression in the United States, so more people would be likely to say, "Well, take away their guns!".

Okay, fine. But there is still the military. Most people tend to trust the military, to handle their weaponry. Why? Is it the training? Individuals can receive that. Is it the knowledge? Individuals can learn that. Is it because their career is considered more professional? Individuals can be involved/retired military.

There's a huge hole of inconsistency here. I don't bring it up to divert the focus of the conversation, but to generate some thinking.

Should teachers be armed?

People can say, yes, they should. That it will allow a teacher to be better prepared, to be able to defend themselves against any violent intruder. That guns decrease violence, that it is a God-given right, that mental evaluations should be enough to screen everyone...

Here's the problem. If you possess a gun, you are always bringing a gun to the fight. Even if you, the gun's owner, are responsible and sensible, life happens, there is a possibility you might be attacked for your weapon. As for whether the presence of a gun decreases violence, this is a half-truth. Yes, one may be less likely to act up, when something that can potentially kill them is present, but that is all it does. It doesn't acknowledge or even treat the motives behind, why somebody would resort to violence. It just allows it to silently fester, eventually being released elsewhere. The God-given right, well, I don't recall popping out of my mother, with an AK-47 and a bottle of Jack Daniels. As for mental evaluations, okay, that sounds nice...

But that won't stop a black market for it. Also, criminals don't follow the law -- shocking, I know! I don't recall a murder stopping, just because murder is considered illegal in most places, nor do I recall a person snorting a line of rocks, just because it is illegal where they reside. You can say whatever you want, post up all the pretty little signs you want, but that is a paper-thin safety barrier. This might not be as big as problem, with the first part, in other parts of the world, but in America, any type of anti-gun move is going to be resisted, and for a long time.

Now, not arming teachers. Some folks may say, they should not be armed. That there is no point in increasing the odds, something a lethal weapon (anything can be lethal, if you use it "properly") just being there might do. That there is no point in resorting to violence. That it is better to invest in prevention-based security, like metal detectors or providing more officers...

Here's the problem. You can prevent all the violence you want in school, and filter it out. But unless you can find, and treat, the source of this violent necessity, you're just pushing it onto somebody else's lawn. Just like raking your leaves into your neighbor's yard, instead of picking them up yourself. And again, criminals don't follow the law. If they want to get a gun, they'll get it; and if they can't, well, if they really want to do something, they'll lower their standards. If they know the school is impossible to attack, they'll just get their jollies somewhere else, like maybe an outside area, when they load up on the bus, or when they meet up after school. If you want to stop the violence, you've got to treat it more, prevent it less (though preventing is good, don't mistake what I've said).

I haven't really answered the question, though. I've just brought attention to some things... I suppose that is because, one extreme or the other, isn't really the answer. It's like asking, hey, which band-aid will cover this gaping wound best? Instead of seeing a doctor, to remedy that gaping wound.

 

I voted yes, however with the answering of the initial question "Should teachers be armed" as opposed to what many people have answered, "Should teachers have guns?" Of course, not guns. But there are many other ways a teacher could stop a shooter, or at least stop them in enough time for the police to get them, and the kids out of the classroom. I'm talking things like smoke bombs, stun guns, tazers, and other non-lethal arms. This way, you can stop the shooter in their tracks, not kill them, evacuate the school, and phone the police in time before they regain consciousness.

 

Yes; they should be armed with lots of patience, kindness, knowledge, and wisdom.

 

Should they wave it around like a complete moron with no regard for basic safety ? No! Should it be okay for them to have a gun? If the user is competent and can use it to counter a school shooting, then that specific teacher might have a decent justification. Nonlethal weaponry is more ideal than a gun. Just don't bring a fucking assault rifle into the classroom. Keep the safety lock on. And for gods sake, don't even think about threatening your students with it!

 

It's called self-sufficiency, Aus. You would think an intelligent person would know that.