Should Teachers Be Armed

To stop violence by creating more violence? No. It might possibly be abused as well. Teachers, however, could be equipped with defensive devices if extremely necessary. Otherwise, if the purpose of them being armed is to defend against school shootings and similar situations, then just ban weapons entirely.

 

They're both deadly weapons that fire projectiles at extreme speed. That's pretty equal.

In close quarters, there are many pistols that have the advantage. If we were comparing a pistol with an SBR, the story can change. Please go shoot all of the above. I would be interested in your opinion of effectiveness and ease of use.

 

You're absolutely right! Taxes are theft! But you've got it backwards, it's the government doing the stealing, not the other way around.

 

Taxes are not theft, I got it right, explain to me how it is the other way around.

 

does sudan have taxes, or stable government at the moment

seems paradisio

 

I voted no, and I believe that, but I do believe teachers should have something - not a weapon, of course, but some sort of training. My psychology professor used to talk about these students she's had, one in particular, named Erik who she was absolutely terrified of. He used to make games out of making threats for her, and her other students well-being, and used to use scare/intimidation tactics. She said the year she had him was one of the worst years of her life, because she was terrified he would snap and she wouldn't be able to stop it. She was even told him to treat him kindly because he was seeing a therapist.

I think that's horrible. And you hear about all these school shootings, but rather than arm the teachers, and give figures of authority more authority, I support peace keepers (I think someone mentioned those) and perhaps a more thorough method of screening for weapons.

 

Well said. I can't believe some of the posts made in this thread.

 

Um, no thank you.

 

Well, I know that Alaska has no personal income tax, and Bahrain has no personal income tax either.. But the money must come from somewhere, right?

 

No way... The teacher's weapon also can be stolen by a student. Weapons have no idea who is using them and with what intentions.

 

Nobody should be armed

 

Armatix GmbH: Smart System

Really?

 

The US government is too cheap to give teachers equipment to teach. You think they're going to give them sophisticated personal weapons?

(knowing the US, they'd give weapons to teachers before textbooks to students)

 

Coming from someone who lives in the United States that is completely absurd and not even factual. Yes the republicans all about cutting education here but the democrats believe in never cutting education and of course it not perfect like every other school system but your accusations are just absurd. I am pro gun but I don't believe a teacher should be armed with a gun in schools.

 

Why Poor Schools Can?t Win at Standardized Testing - The Atlantic

Perhaps an extreme example, but that schools like this can exist in abundance is a pretty good indication that American schools aren't supplied enough.

I was being snide, in case you missed that. I don't believe that the US would buy teachers guns en-masse, but I'm not really able to imagine the US actively making public schools meet the standards of the rest of the developed world any time soon, either.

My point was that those safety measures wouldn't be introduced, and it's not realistic to pretend that guns would be used with perfect safety procedures.

 

Cool. Will do!

Let's begin by examining your position first. If I walk into a store to acquire some good or service, do I have to acquire that good or service or even walk into that store in the first place? Of course not. It is a completely peaceful and voluntary choice to patronage a store. Now if I go into a store and take something off the shelf and leave without paying have I stolen something? (stealing by definition is taking someone else's property through the initiation of force) Yes, I have stolen from the store owner. Why is it stealing? Because the object I took was property of the store owner. He did not willing give it to me. I took it against his wishes. This is theft. I think you and I would agree on this.

So why or how did the store owner "own" that object? Because he worked or paid for it. Maybe he exchanged money for it. Maybe he exchanged another good for it. Maybe he exchanged a service for it. Maybe someone gave it to him for free. As long as he did not steal the object first (and thereby initiate force), the object now belongs to him.

So, let's look at the relationship between an individual and a government. We know what an individual is; I don't think we need to define that. But what is a government? A government is a collection of individuals who claim the legal right to initiate force in order to coerce behavior. How is this different from regular folk? Well, I have no right to stick a gun in your face or threaten you with physical harm in order to get you to agree with me and act accordingly, just as you have no right to do the same to me. So why do those individuals classified as "government" reserve the right to initiate force? The word "initiate" is very important here as all individuals are free to defend themselves from initiated violence through the use of violence. You and I cannot disagree and ignore the government, but we can disagree and ignore each other. The individuals in government know that some people would not comply with their laws, thereby bringing into question their authority and right to rule over the masses. Therefore, a show of force is required to establish power.

Moving on to taxation.

In what direction is wealth flowing in the act of taxation? From the individual to the government. This means that the individual owned that wealth, and as we talked about ealier to own something means to exchange productivity for it, or to receive it as a gift. The point is you can only own something if it is acquired through peaceful voluntary means. Let's take the specific example of the income tax. My income is monetary compensation for work I performed for my employer. My employer believes that through paying me a certain wage that I will be productive enough to make the company the amount of my wage plus a profit. It is this profit that signifies to the company that they are producing a good or service that people want. By voluntarily accepting my employment and wage at this company, I am saying that my time is worth what they are compensating me for (for sake of simplicity, forget working to get promoted, etc). This arrangement between the employer and myself is peaceful and voluntary.

After my employer pays me my wage, the government steps in and says, "Pay us a percentage of what your employer paid you." Can I disagree and ignore the government? If I'm self-employed, maybe for a little while, but if I work for someone else, that income tax is taken before I even get my hands on my wages. How many people would pay their taxes if they had to logon to a government website every month and make a payment? Not many. People do not want to pay taxes. Rich people don't want to pay taxes, poor people don't want to pay taxes, even government people don't want to pay taxes. If people don't want to do something, how do you get them to do it? First you ask them, then you try and persuade them, then you threaten them, and then you force them through violence.

So I owned my wages, then the government comes and takes my wages and threatens me with fines, jail, and if I resist, death. How is that not theft?

But you say, "You use the benefits of those taxes like roads, national defense, schools, etc."

The government has a monopoly over the construction of roads. I don't have a choice.
The government has a monopoly over defense. I don't have a choice.
The government has a virtual monopoly over schools. I have very little choice.

So if government didn't build the roads who would?!

Government doesn't build roads. They pay people to build roads. Ever been in a private gated community? That community built those roads. Private toll roads exist today even though they are rare. Look at the state of traffic today? Wonder why there are cars everywhere? Is it because everyone really wanted a car? Of course not. People want to travel, not necessarily by car. But the government has taxed everyone to subsidize the building of roads and freeways, prop up the auto manufacturing industry, and fund wars in the Middle East to steal oil. Government doesn't create wealth. It can only take it from one person and give it to another.

Did you know that the United States's military uses over 70% of all oil consumed by the U.S. in a single year?

So what would happen if the government didn't exist to steal my money to build roads everywhere? Private transportation companies would pop up to fill the need for mobility. New types of vehicles would be invented. Would cars exist? Sure, but not as many and they'd likely all be completely electric by now. When you subsidize something the price of that commodity goes down. Oil is too cheap. If the price were allowed to rise, car manufacturers would pursue electric cars as a way to make money.

Coming back to whether taxation is the initiation of violence or not, please present me with an alternative to paying taxes that doesn't involve me moving to another tax farm or being shot.

I adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle. My moral compass and moral responsibility is to those around me, those in my life who I can affect. It is not to a bunch of psychopaths who claim the legal right to initiate violence against me.

To say that to not pay taxes is stealing is to say that the government owns your wealth and are letting you use some of it. It is to say you are a slave, that you are the property of the government, this tiny fraction of murderous individuals.

No thank you, I'll pass.

 

While factually you're right, I'd say you're not so right realistically. A responsible teacher could not have the gun simply snatched away from him or her because most of the time, it is under clothes.



The teacher would have to be beaten into submission and had his/her clothing disheveled before the student has a chance of getting the gun, and that's assuming it isn't a retention holster which makes it quite difficult for anyone but the bearer to draw.

Assuming the carriers are not violent people (as most teachers probably aren't), it does not create violence; it merely brings about a tangible resistance to violence if it is thrust upon us. And I would say it is extremely necessary to protect the lives of our kids, considering that as grotesque an act as shooting in a school is, it has happened. What "defensive devices" would you recommend to go against somebody with a firearm?

As for banning weapons entirely, whether it's right or wrong is a matter of philosophy. But good-freaking-luck. :/

 

I'm not swayed a bit. People voted for representatives that gave the government the power to levy taxes, and provide services. It's still not theft. It's a social contract, an exchange.

Somebody breaking into your house and stealing your TV would be theft.

Not to sound judgmental, but it seems like you're a bit paranoid, and have something of a persecution complex, as if there are all these people in the government are out to get you. All this talk about death if you resist...it's a bit over the top. If you don't like it, do something, but it's not like complaining about taxes and calling them 'theft' is going to make them go away.

 

In that case, you're stealing public education, liberties and rights, public services like roads... Tax cuts for the rich is ludicrous, but taxes in general are necessary. How do you think a government could operate with no money? The government helps you, protects you, and gives you things you take for granted, including police to keep you from ACTUALLY being robbed. They even printed the money and made sure you got enough to live. They need something to finance that. If you don't like it, go be an anarchist, because you definitely can't have a government where the citizens don't give anything for it.

 

What? This thread still rages on? We haven't yet worked out that arming teachers is stupidly dangerou...oh, wait, no...the thread has undergone a radical shift in idiocy, and we're now debating whether...there should...be...taxes.....:rolle:

Somebody wake me when it shifts 'round to whether we should kill everybody in a country whose leaders threaten us...or maybe whether we should install more gated communities.