Should Teachers Be Armed

Hell no! Having an armed teacher would NOT make a school feel any safer or make it any safer.

 

When was the last mass shooting at a school where the staff has the option of being trained, licensed and armed?

The idea that there could be instant defensive actions could very well prevent any attempts.

 

Not really. Since owning a firearm was effectively made illegal in the UK, crime has decreased - whether it is causation or coincidence is irrelevant - allowing the general public to have such easy access to firearms did not make our society safer - and very few people owned a gun to begin with - people have no appetite for firearms. There was a news story here recently on how Baltimore has imposed a curfew to try and reduce crime - I mean, how can one city become so lawless that a curfew is necessary? And this apparent lawlessness doesn't appear to be unique to Baltimore. New Orleans has a murder rate of 42 per 100,000 - that is frightening. Even Houston's murder rate would be considered a societal failure in Europe - yet apparently in the US, a city of 2 million having over 200 murders a year is some massive achievement (London, a city of 8.4 million, had 99 murders in 2012 - and that figure continues to fall every year).

Maybe the US is different - I mean, if people are getting murdered so frequently in American cities, I suppose I can understand the need to have a gun - if my city of 760,000 had 300 murders in a year, then I would be pretty scared as well. There appears to be a societal rot in the US - no civilised country has this problem. Come on, guys, get your house in order - you're supposed to be the world's sole superpower.

 

Columbine and VA Tech both had armed guards. It didn't stop the shooters there.

 

I'm talking about regular staff, not armed guards that are on the other side of the campus.

 

What is the difference? It could very well happen that if there is a school shooting the armed teacher is on the other side if the building.

Besides, the officer is far more trained in not only lethal tactics but also nonlethal tactics than a staff member even if they do take courses on self defense. If anything we should have more armed guards in schools, not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry who happens to have a concealed carry license.

 

Actually, I find it humorous, and melodramatic.

I mean, really. Of all the things to rage against, paying taxes so that the population can be educated? And comparing this to 'thieves'?

Even in cases of back-taxes, it's generally handled via civil court means; wage garnishments, liens, and the like. It's very rare that the tax collectors show up at all, let alone as an armed brigade. The kicking down the door bit is a bit much.

Maybe if you were Al Capone, or something.

And yes, I've noted that every scrap of land has a government ruling over it. That's the way life is, and I very much doubt it's going to change. Until then, you'll have to live on some or other of these scarps of land here on Earth, all of which probably collect taxes, like it or not.

I'm still wondering why you seem to feel so persecuted, here...I can't quite understand that part. Maybe it's a psychological issue, to some degree?
~

Also, if all teachers had to be armed and trained, this would cost a great deal of money, though I suppose it would be some quick profits for the gun companies.

 

I am just as free as you are, more free some might argue.

Instead of thinking that I am more free in the UK, I like to think of it as a different Kind of Freedom. In the UK I am free to live in a safer environment, We have laws that put sensible restrictions on things such as freedom of speech. In the UK Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that persons colour, race, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or even both. I LOVE this system. I Like that people arent allowed to loby in public places and call me a "Faggot".

Another example of these differences is the UKs freedom to acess medical treatment. In the UK we have a semi decent NHS which I can always rely on to get me well without requiring me to write them or any private insurance company an absurd cheque for the treatment I have just recieved. In the UK you can even get sex change operations done on the NHS, For free. Yes its not entirely free as we have to pay more in taxes however I would wage that our taxes are at a similar rate to yours and ours include healthcare.

Yes you can opt out of health insurance in america however I cant argue this point as I dont understand the idea behind not wanting healthcare.

There are also other freedoms in the UK that maybe dont work is such a comprehensive way in the USA. In the UK I have the freedom to feel safe in the knowledge that no one on my street has the ability to suddenly draw a gun on me. Events that seem to happen far too often in the US are very rare over here. I shant name any specific examples however the global homicide rates speak for themselves

Homicides per 100,000 pop
USA 5.9
UK 1.6

Then theres the fact that historically few coutries have done more to advance the cause of freedom than the UK (there are some but I wouldnt say the the USA is amongst them)

And theres the fact that everyone in the UK has the freedom to same sex marriage, and they can get married without having to worry about people protesting the wedding, and then they can consumate said marriage without public criticism.

Britain isnt perfect however atleast we can see the error in our ways and make the appropriate changes without having to worry about some silly 200 year old piece of paper saying everyone can carry a gun.

There is actually a Very good example of this which happened around the time of the royal wedding. The question was asked "What if the next King/ Queen is Gay?" we then set about changing the rules to succesion which have been at the heart of our country for a very, very long time so that it is possible for the ruling royal to marry who they please. You see we across the pond can appreciate that we know more about the world of today than the people who wrote these rules hundreds of years ago.

 

It makes a difference knowing there could be any number of staff members that can be instantly reactive. I think you are avoiding the original question.

Some of these questions are never going to have answers because this type of event is so rare.

I do find it interesting that the fbi statistics show a drop in the murder rate at a time when gun sales are through the roof.

 

OmittedFlunky and Holly82, you are debating the right to kill or the right not to be killed.

Which do you think most hold more valuable?

 

Ah, but in the US, since there are so many murderers, and inner-city violence is rampant, you need guns to protect yourself - but this makes it easier for anyone to get a gun - in turn reinforcing the need to have a gun to protect yourself against other people who have guns.

And it goes around in circles.

 

I thought I was Pro not being killed?

I may have gone on a slight rant but the original point is still there....somewhere

 

You're forgetting these shooters have a death wish. They don't care if they kill themselves or not. You really think Adam Lanza would have been deterred from shooting up Sandy Hook after he had planned up to two years in advance almost if teachers began open or concealed carrying?

 

I think the worst part of that is that this: People have guns to protect themselves from killers, but they're the killers that others like them have guns to protect themselves from. It doesn't end, but I definitely don't think more guns is a solution to that.

 

And the gun companies have figured this out, and donate tens of millions to the NRA each year, reaching between 25-35% of their total revenues. They're willing to pay to keep the cycle going.

I'm sure the NRA and the gun lobby would love to see each of the 3.7 million k-12 teachers in the US have a gun. Imagine the profit!

 

I don't pretend to know and don't particularly care what Lanza thought. He apparently wanted to cause havoc and then die. Is the possibility that numerous children could be alive today if a staff member could've reacted with equal force too much? Guns aren't going anywhere any time soon, so shouldn't we be able to adapt and overcome? It's just not practical to put everything on full lockdown, forcing kids through metal detectors and scanners.

 

Tell me how a pistol vs. a Bushmaster rifle are equal forces.

 

You can not simply opt out of paying for taxes for the same reason you can not just walk into a store and opt out of paying for the merchandise you took, that is theft. Last time I check stealing is a crime, and crimes result in jail time. The refusal to pay taxes should be considered outright theft as that exactly what it is. I would explain more but It close to midnight goodnight, Here a hug (*hug*).

 

I was also looking at this from a practical point of view, and simply in terms of how much it would cost.

So we have 3.7 million k-12 teachers, so if we required them all to have guns, the cost might be something as follows:

Gun: $400
Ammo: $50
Cleaning Kit?Case: $50
Locking storage locker: $150
Training: $300

This would cost close to $9-10 billion, not to mention ongoing costs.

Plus: Why should a teacher have to have gun? I don't think most people went into the profession wanting to have to work with one; we'd lose a lot of good teachers with such a law.

All in all, it's a zany idea on so many levels.


@CandyKing. Thanks, and thanks for the hug! I get your point, I think. I mean, we all use roads and sidewalks and so many things that connect society together, that are funded by taxes...to think you have the right to just opt out is pretty much like theft of services.

 

And does anybody ever wonder why the NRA is salivating over this? Let's be real, the NRA doesn't care about the gun owner, they care about the money.