NRA Says Teachers Should Have Guns
 

Interesting solution. More guns in school will solve our problems.




http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...orld-headlines

I've always wondered what use unarmed security guards were - at schools, work, the airport or anywhere.

Somehow i dont think giving students who may not have a gun to go on a rampage access to the gun of a careless teacher is a good idea. Teacher turns his back for one second and is forced to say "ok, who stole my gun? We're not going anywhere until someone puts the gun on my desk. I'll close my eyes and count to 3 and if its not on my desk when im.. *BANG*"

I don't think this is that bad of an idea. Maybe an armed teacher could of prevented this or at least stopped the kid before he could do further damage.

And if the student had shot the teacher and gained another gun to use?

I don't think a student will stop their rampage because they don't have enough guns.

I don't understand the statement that gun restrictions would not have prevented the rampage. How can you know if more difficult access to firearms would not dissuade shootings such as this? I think in some cases it could. I don't know where he got the weapons he used in this case, but I think limited access to firearms would make this type of thing less, rather than more likely.

I believe he got it from his grandfather who was a cop.

Its been reported since the beginning that had his grandfathers service revolver...he also had two shotguns, which are not regulated by "gun laws". Toughter gun laws wouldnt have stopped him from getting the one gun that was regulated because he took it from his grandfather, along with his bullet proof vest and squad car after he killed him.

Anti-gun advocates need to start thinking rationally about teachers carrying firearms in schools. Sure, it "sounds" bad to let somebody bring a firearm into a school, but I'd much prefer a responsible adult who is trained to carry and use a firearm carrying in a school than some punk kid bringing grandaddy's old revolver to school to settle some disputes.

Emotion-based ideas rarely work when implemented in reality.

Let's see..... using the same reactive thinking, should it have become common practice for fast food counter and kitchen workers to carry sidearms after at least one incident years ago that resulted in a lone shooter killing 21 unarmed victims ?
Did the USPS react to multiple shooting incidents by providing postal workers with sidearms ?
Armed teachers will require adequate training and will run the risk of deciding
when, where, and who to shoot. I doubt that many school systems will want the added liability risk that armed school personnel will bring. I believe that arming teachers in school with firearms is an ill conceived over reaction.

Hey, it works for the Israelis. They havn't had a terrorist attack or school-shooting since the mid-seventies, when they made the decision to arm their teachers. Not a single one.

Also, schools are a classic example of a "Disarmed Victim Zone." Psychopaths like this little twit know that their victims are unarmed and unable to effectively resist. Ever notice how you never hear about this kind of thing on military bases, shooting ranges, at gunshows, or police stations? Criminals and psychopaths are generally crazy and anti-social; they're not stupid. They're not going to take their rampage to a place where they can be resisted.

Lastly, the great "nail in the coffin" of Victim Disarmament; criminals and psychopaths like this kid are going to get weapons, of some type, regardless of the laws that are put in their way. The Columbine shooters broke over 20 State and Federal-level laws before they ever pulled the trigger. Disarming the innocent does nothing to deter the guilty; it only served to make the lives of criminals easier.

If the teacher is properly trained and can excecute use of said firearm . . . that would be similar to the idea of having an 'air marshal' on board a plane.

Perhaps teachers should be taught how to 'neutralize' a target? I see how it could lead to the protection of both the teacher carrying the firearm and the students they protect. A teacher who is trained and practiced in firearm safety and use could be benificial to protecting the innocent lives, in addition the idea and knowledge that there are armed teachers might change the fact that these young shooters find their schools an easy mark . . .

Currently, how are these teachers supposed to protect themselves? When the students they teach carry knives, firearms etc. Should teachers not be given the right to protect themselves? I think they should.

however, if they are going to go this far . . . Why not just put a police officer in every classroom??

I am pro-firearm, i believe ppl should be allowed to protect their lives . . . but arming teachers and having guns in classrooms won't stop these shootings, guns in classrooms won't bring peace to our schools . . . the change has to come from society itself so we stop creating these monster children who are so full of hate and rage that they need to manifest those feelings in violence.

Thanks,
Sweetpea

It is a common misconception and a bit of an urban myth that someone can easily shoot you and take your firearm from you and use it against you and others . . . it's just not true if someone is properly prepared and trained in firearms.

If the teacher is properly trained, she/he would have the skills to neutralize a shooting student and keep their own gun . . .

thanks,

Sweetpea

Sweetpea;
Emphatically agreed re. the "top-down change" you mentioned. It's looking like there may be a very, VERY strong corrolation ( ie nearly 100% ) of school-shootings to Prozac; IIRC, every last one of these little monsters has been on this particular drug.

However, until the proper sociological changes take place to prevent this from happening again, I think that the only workable solution is to allow teachers to arm themselves. Without the ability to defend themselves effectively, teachers and their students are nothing but moving targets.

"if we outlaw firearms, the only ones who will have firearms will be the outlaws." this is so true.

Criminals and determined youth have no problem finding guns that are restricted, there is a large underground of firearm dealing and always has been and probably always will be, the business of protecting oneself is booming and this will always be so . . .

Gun restrictions of any kind, only really make it difficult for law abiding citizens to get the firearms needed to protect the innocent lives of themselves and their families.

Thanks,

Sweetpea

arch13;
Sweetpea's right. Civillians are almost never divested of their weapon by a criminal; it happens in less than .5% of all DGUs in this country. The vast majority of such cases come from criminals who make a grab for a cop's gun during an arrest; the gun is easily accessible, in the open, and in close proximity to the perp. All good defensive-shooting schools ( Thunder Ranch, LFI, Gunsite ) and a goodly number of CCW classes include weapon-retention training, as well.

Dunedan,

Very true . . . there should be a tandem approach . . . arm teachers, giving them the right and knowledge to protect themselves and their students
And at the same time, also work on adressing the main societal issue of disaffected, depressed and rage filled young individuals . . .

thanks and good points made Dunedan,

Sweetpea

No.

Apparently, they also think it's better for people to be unarmed victims.

http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/1851

Edit to add:

Of course, it's too bad that Suzanna Gratia Hupp was forced by law to leave her legally owned and carried pistol in her car outside Lubys October of 1991.

Or maybe the gunman that killed 21 people that day would have simply taken it away from her and killed twice as many people.

Yeah, right. :|

The statement about restrictions is valid. The gun that he used belonged to his grandfather, who was a police officer. And this just continues to demonstrate the fact that regardless of the limitations put on law abiding citizens, a person that wants a gun is either going to obtain it illegally, or is going to hurt someone else to get it if their desire is that great. And once they have the guns, then what? How are the rest of us that gave up our rights under the control legislations supposed to protect ourselves from them. Give the teachers the guns, but also give them the education on the guns so that they have the necessary respect and skill to use them appropriately.

Host has some very valid concerns about placing guns into these situations as a reactionary measure, but I don't think that reaction is the right word, if this were a single instance that possibly, but the developing trend here requires a response, and the measures employed thus far are continually proving woefully ineffective.

I'll leave it there, because I don't think I could say anything else right now that SweetPea hasn't already said better.

We have two security guards at the middle school where I work, both unarmed. I've had to call secuirty to have a disruptive student who refuesed to leave removed from the classroom, something which would have put me at a much greater risk than it did the guard.

The vast majority of assaults that occur in schools don't involve a firearm or weapon of any kind, and so don't require the guard intervening to have a firearm.

In addition, the mere presense of a guard in uniform in the parking lot between classes and in the maid quad between classes and durin lunch is a major deterrent to violence and vandalism. Remember that the purpose of security is to prevent crime and disruption; intervention is secondary.

Sure we should look at the possibility of arming teachers, but we should look at all aspects of what this means. Perhaps armed security guards at checkpoints would be more effective.

I think people on both sides need to get away from the idea that everyone is like them. I don't particularly like guns, and would be a very poor candidate for carrying a gun if it came to arming teachers. I'm not much good in a physical confrontation, and it would be easy to take a gun from me if I were armed. Arming me would be foolish, and the same is true of many other teachers. I don't, however, assume that the same is true of everyone. I don't doubt that there would be those who would be quite responsible with a gun, and would just as difficult to disarm in a crisis situation as I would be easy to disarm. To assume that anyone would be as responsible with a gun as the people posting to this thread apparently are with theirs is as foolish as it would be to assume that everyone would be as intimidated and easily spooked as I.

I think a better solution would be armed security guards, trained in weapon use and retention, combined with a closed campus and security checkpoints.

We also need to keep in mind that despite the massive coverage that school shootings get, in school is one of the safest places a child can be in this country, certainly safer than at home, where they are more likely to be injured or the victim of a violent crime.

to solve a gun issue, bring more guns into the situation..... yea, bright one......

Seanland;
It's worked for the Israelis..for Kenneshaw, GA...for every state that has adopted shall-issue CCW. Meanwhile, rates of violent crime in Victim Disarmament Zones like London, Washington DC, Moscow, and Chicago continue their climb.

i'l admit that i only read half of this thread so far....but i just gotta ask.

what type of teachers are in your area??? Most of the teachers i know and have had were 65 yr old ladies who had been teaching all their lives..

now, putting a gun in these hands, requiring theseteachers to go through training and expecting them to be able to fend off a very fast, very motivated,angry teenager who has intent to do harm just seems a bit farfetched.

I am not saying this is the case with every teacher, but i;m just saying that putting in a requirement for all teachers to be highly trained with firearms and self defense/crisis control with armed assailants is probably not a feasible thing to do.

Having armed guards in the schools makes much more sense, but expecting teachers from all sorts of backgrounds to make for efficient blocks against this sort of violence is just not going to work. it *may* cause some of the sociopathic to rethink a strategy or two, but the dedicated would still find ways of doing the same thing. The presence of an armed guard could seriously curtail that threat much more effectively than arming typical teachers would.

Perhaps you would like to name a municipality in which gun restrictions have led to a decrease in crime.

Where are the illegal firearms coming from? Are they already manufactured illegal? Or are they bought as legal weapons and than are stolen or sold illegaly?

Somewhere the "life" of a gun has to start and it starts as a legal gun. So outlawing guns would dry out one of the supplies of illegal guns.

My problem with the possetion of guns is that the american soceity is obviously obsessed with violence (see crime stats) and I think someone who violently insane shouldn't be armed to the teeth, so why should the american soceity be armed?
But I also think that guns are not the problem, the reason for the violence.

As for the teachers, I don't think it would be a good idea to arm them.
First the chance that the guns are stolen.
Second the teacher would be in higher danger of being shot. I would shoot a teacher first if I knew he is armed. Without letting him get out his gun.

source?

One breakthrough that helped New York City to deter illegal firearms posession and to enforce the strictest gun control laws in the U.S., resulting in less crminal shooting incidents, was:

The story does not seem quite as controversial as the way it
was presented at packing.org ............
Since most Mcdonald franchises are owned and operated by entities other than parent corp, McDonalds, does not an inability on corporate's part, to oversee an employee firearm policy at each outlet, be a reasonable excuse for corporate legal advisors to come down against workplace firearms possession and use, and the associated liability?

More coverage on the political fallout:

wow... what could possibly go wrong with that plan?

I have to say, giving the number of "5 year old kid dragged off in handcuffs" stories I have been recently, this doesnt seem a very godo solution.

Maybe this might sound crazy... but maybe REDUCING the number of guns available and making it harder for people to arm themselves might reduce gun violence, rather than arming everybody up.

As for the McDonald's guy... I'd rather be robbed than kill two people. But the fact it was company property just makes his actions even more difficult to understand... maybe I dont know the whole background and the robbers were threatening to take hostages or something... but if someone just pulls a gun and says "empty the register and the safe" I think it would take a very dangerous and unpredictable person to start shooting... why not just let them take the cash?

And yes, if you outlaw firearms only the outlaws have them... but a lot less people get shot.

My God, I can't believe people are so fucking insane anymore. Arguing about whether or not teachers should have guns?

JFC, where's the common sense that says, "ya know what maybe we need to find out why these kids on meds start killing people when they stop taking their meds."

Maybe, perhaps, instead of arguing over whether or not we'll allow students to start truly going nuts after they raid teachers gun stashes, we can try to find out why these kids want to kill. Why these kids are so far gone killing seems the only solution to them.

Could it be the fact both parents work and the family still barely makes it? Could it be the violent video games? The "gangsta" attitudes? What is it that is causing our youth to go nuts?

Violence is no solution to violence because violence just keeps both sides escalating in strength. Teachers have guns, so the next student will bring in dynamite or homemade pipe bombs he learned to make off the internet. Guns won't be a deterrent to students who already have the mindset of going in to kill. It will just offer them more of a challenge.

Peeople in this country have fucking gone nuts. We better find solutions and we better find them fast.... Guns ain't one of them.

http://www.coverups.com/media/photos/gun1.jpeg

Yes let's outlaw guns so only cops and crimminals can have them. I feel better about my neighbor owning a gun then some of these police officers and security guards. Maybe we could have police go door to door and gather all the guns up. Or more of these UN funded gun buyback days.

I really don't see what's wrong with arming some responsible teachers. Like The_Dunedan brought up the point that it even worked in Israel.

I know... let's arm everyone. Let's give guns to the kids, too (that would take care of any bullying problems for sure).

If we ALL carry then no one will ever get shot again... right?

^^nice picture

The only way to solve the gun issue is either ban them totally, as in destroy all guns, throw them all in the sea or send them to the moon and never allow anymore to be produced. Or alternatively give every man, women, boy, girl and anything else that wanted a gun, a nice big machine gun. Then we could all protect ourselves and thus all be safe from the danagers of guns. You'd think twice about firing a gun if you knew everyone around had one to and would likely shoot back.

Arming responsible teachers is a silly idea, how do you deem that they're responsible?

I don't think it would be necessary to arm all teachers. Just let it be known that the school district encourages them to carry and that a certain percentage are packing. That should be enough to keep many of these cowardly psychopaths home where thay can take their anger out on themselves and their own families. Of course if somebody wants to commit suicide by teacher hopefully they would be taken down before they can do too much damage.

well, bush's poll rating are taking a dive:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/fi...1_image001.gif

a composoite graphic cited in this article from yesterday's washington post:
(excerpted here)

so the schiavo thing isnt going so well for the right.
people are not buying the bushline about social security. despite the hard sell.
the administration continues to operate on the economy as if acting pollyanna makes sense.
so the polls are tanking for cowboy george.

bush at least waits to say anything about the "local crime" that is the latest school shooting

doldrums fall upon the conservative media apparatus.

but wait!
the nra could say that "we" should arm all teachers in school.
gun control--now there is a pet issue.
the conservative base will rally around this because arguments against this idiotic proposal move straight into gun control space.
it does not matter really how insane the argument itself might be: what galvinizes is the counter argument---if you do not in principle support arming teachers in schools, then you must support restricting guns.

i agree with charalatan--if anyone is seriously contemplating arming teachers in a school--which is of course quite a fine message to send educationally--you students are the enemy, we are so afraid of you that we come armed to defend ourselves against you---then the nra should also advocate arming students.

i am sure that there is some hellfire and brimstone kind of rationale that could be floated for this: it is good that everyone knows they could die at any minute.

this is a karl rove special shit sandwich, a story floated to counter trends in polls, a bit of nothing designed to agitate the base and help mark it off as over against the Adversary, which in this case is simple reason. its effect in spaces like this explains its existence at all. this is not a serious proposal---the implications are so profoundly bad--if you can take your eyes away from the gun issue and think, maybe, for a minute, about the educational question.

I have posted on the realities of school violence on numerous occasions here. I'll reiterate my position that I prefer armed guards in schools to arming teachers themselves.

...note: IMO teachers and all citizens would benefit from firearms training.

Ive never been in a school that had armed guards and I've never been in a school where there was a shooting, or any fatal attack of any kind. The reality is that kids are violent and irrational a lot of the time as I see it... and the reality is that if violent and irrational people have relatively easy access to weapons of lethal force... you watch the body count pile up.

Growing up, I saw plenty of school fights of course, and even had a couple myself, and sometimes it could get nasty... I am pretty convinved that if a significant number of people in my school had accesss to a gun at home they could have got just by breaking a cabinet lock... I would have known someone who had been shot by someone by now.

The more guns are available the more shootings you will have, it is really a simple equation... any society can have as many civilian gun deaths as they are prepared to tolerate.

the point that i was trying to make Pacifier is that it won't matter if we choose to make firearms illegeal, if they are made illegeal for all citizens, the criminals will always find a way to gain access to them and the common individual will have no way to protect oneself.

As to your comment about American society . . . i WISH that things were different, not just in the U.S. but in the world in general, I wish that people held peace above violence. i would love to live in a society where no one needed gun to protect their bodies or their lives and where their was no threat of violence, but that is not the case in ANY country at this time.

And obviously you have never been in a situation where you or your friends lives were threatened, once you've been in a situation like this . . . Trust me, you would want to train yourself properly to carry a firearm to protect onself.

As to arming teachers, again, i don't know if it would be a fesible solution as to the comments made by "Gilda" alot of teachers would just prefer not to carry a firearm and perhaps an armed guard would be more appropriate. It is sad that it has come to this, but it would be sadder still to not take any precaution against this happening in other schools in the future.

Thanks,
Sweetpea

On the subject of the impact of gun control laws on rates of homicide and suicide, Canada provides a very interesting case study.

Here are a couple of research articles on the Canadian situation.

They conclude that the new Canadian gun laws have significantly reduced the rate of gun related fatalities.

What surprises me is some people want to just pass out guns en masse when the obvious solution is more cops in schools.

No one want's to pass them out en masse. Teachers who want to be armed should be allowed to be armed after proper training, just like airline pilots.

And do you mean cops or armed guards? Because at least cops have more training.

Being an armed guard (which many want) simply means you have a uniform and a permit to carry your gun. In other words, you are not much better trained than a teacher who has had firearms training.

Your quotes were a reasonably nimble dodge of my question.

Firstly, your own quotes clearly state that it was not additional RESTRICTIONS that created the improvement you cite; it was increased ENFORCEMENT of existing laws, which is what the NRA has preached for decades. However, it's encouraging that law enforcement is finally going after guns in the hands of criminals, instead of taking them away from law-abiding citizens.

Secondly, I said "crime," not "gun crime." One need only look to the upsurge of crime in England and Australia to see the result of taking firearms away from the aforementioned law-abiding citizens.

There is absolutely no logic to arming teachers, or airline pilots, or 7-11 clerks. Being trained in the proper use of a gun is not the same as being trained in the proper methods of protection. It only takes one criminal with a knife to hold someone hostage to demand the gun in the teachers desk to put a gun in the hands of a criminal.

If any person holding one of those jobs feels their life is in danger, they only need to find a new job. Conservatives should know this - I've heard it oft repeated when an employee doesn't like some aspect of their work environment (see the smoking ban thread).

No logic except this school shooting could of been stopped if a teacher had a gun, and 9/11, and daily robberies. My guess is that if people knew 7/11 clerks were packing, armed robberies would of come to a screaching hault. Most thieves don't want confrontation, they just want to indimidate the person that's being held up.

Your claim of logic is best refuted with this statement from page 1:
As I said, having a gun and knowing how to shoot it is not even in the same ballpark as knowing how to deal with hostile situations. You skipped over that part when you quoted me.

"Hey, kid! Where you goin'?"

"I'm going to sharpen my pencil, Mr. Callahan."

"Oh yeah? Well, I know what you're thinking. 'Did he give me permission to get out of my seat or not?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky?....Well, do ya punk?"

:lol: Sad, but possibly not far from true.

Amending my preference toward an unrealistic ideal - which I usually prefer not to entertain - IMO, policepersons would be better than armed guards. We'd have to be willing to fund police forces more than we typically do.

Amen. I agree that in an ideal world, having a police officer present at every school for every X number of students would be best.

However, you must take into account the cost. Police officers cost a lot of money. Unarmed security guards can handle the vast majority of security incidents in a school, and can be hired two or three for the cost of one police officer. Most schools will never have a shooting incident, but nearly all have fights and other smaller security problems that benefit from having a guard of some kind present. If you really feel the need to have armed personnel, requiring bonding and proper training in firearms handling and retention could alleviate the problem, without the enormous expense of hiring huge numbers of new police officers.

In any case, we have to keep in mind that these incidents are rare, that schools are generally safe places to be. Shooting incidents get publicity because, like plane crashes, they are so rare and so horrifying when they do occur. This doesn't mean that we need to make wholesale changes to the system.

the obvious solution is the total disarmenment of America.

yes, some criminals will still be able to access illegal guns, but robbers and mugers dont go around shooting people for fun you know. If someone pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet, I'd give them my wallet. If someone tries it in America, they might be killed.

It is preferable to be robbed than to kill someone.

I would prefer my house to be broken into and my possessions to be taken from me, than to kill the robber.

I dont need to be protected by fire arms. I have never had a gun in my life and I dont know anyone who has a gun, and I also dont know anyone who has ever been shot, or shot at, or stabbed.

The civilian population needs to be disarmed... if you want to drasticlaly reduce gun deaths that is the only way. Does no one think it is a problem that you need metal detectors and armed guiards in HIGH SCHOOLS???

For anyone who grew up in Europe, this is incredible, maybe Americans are just used to it now.

Well, it's safe to say we're both pretty content. You, in the fact that you already live in your ideal society where this is the rule(England) and me, in the fact that you can't vote in this country.

I know this doesn't have much to do with this thread but many of us in the U.S. believe we have the right to bear arms because eventually the citizens will once again have to oust a corrupt government. All governments eventually become corrupt and fail, history is full of them.

yes, but America has 10,000 gun deaths a year and the UK has 100-200, you know?

Many people can own guns and be totally responsible. Unfortunately it is not easy to tell the difference between those people and the people who will mis-use them.

Anyone in the UK who really wants a gun can get one... and there are still shootings carried out by criminals... I guess the argument the gun enthusiast would have is that pro rata the UK murder rate is similar to the US, but here people get stabbed or clubbed rather than shot... I dont have statistics to hand, but my own perception is that that simply isnt true. If you distribute freely weapons of lethal force,,,, I think that means more people are killed. And I should say, although I said no one in my school was ever shot... one kid did bring in a sawn off shot gun and point it some other kiids who were bullying him. He only meant to scare them (and I would guess t worked)... I dont know what happened to him, and the gun wasnt loaded... but he did get expelled.

In that situation, if we had armed guards in our school... that kid would have prolly been shot, or his gun probably would have been loaded... or maybe he wouldnt have risked it... but my opinion is that on the whole, guns tend to escalate things...

As for using guns against the government if they become corrupt... I dont think we live in the same world as the one in which that idea existed. You cannot defend yourself against the power of the state with a rifle or a hand gun.

Actually, our forefathers weren't exactly well equipped and were generally armed with muskets, but they still were able to win the revolution. As for that kind of scenario happening today, there's a nice little discussion on the moorewatch website about it. Feel free to read it.

More food for thought: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downl...Facts_v3.2.pdf

We'll consider this option as soon as you get it to work in your own country, i.e. never.

What this whole debate boils down to is that some people love to be victims of crime. When confronted by a criminal intent upon his destruction, some people prefer to roll over and show their soft underbelly because guns are bad, mkay? I won't lie to you, if somebody threatens my life, their life is forfeit. My life is way more important that a criminal's life. More importantly, I won't give a criminal the benefit of the doubt. Gee, maybe they just want my new stereo. Maybe they don't want to rape and torture my wife and kids. Sorry Mr. Criminal, if I feel like my life is threatened, YOUR life is forfeit.

Exactly. Every person has the right to defend themselves. No man made law will ever take that away from me.

This is true but it sidesteps the important question: defend themselves with what? Would you be OK if your next door neighbor had a howitzer for every family member?

I think all reasonable people would agree that there has to be a line drawn, somewhere.

few things make me more optimistic about america than the idea that folk would rather turn elementary schools into dodge city--conflicts into showdowns at high noon in front of kittys saloon--by arming everybody--than entertain the idea that there might--just might--be something fucked up about the american fetishism of guns---or that there might be something insane about the suggestion that teachers teach with a gun strapped to them.

but notice how the argument works:

to oppose it, like i said earlier, is to open up the possibility of a conservation about gun control, which is a clear wedge issue that seperates the right from sane. and look how this has shaken out here: exactly as you might expect.
this is how the right media apparatus galvanizes the troops after a tough week of unfortunate reality.

all this from a crackpot press release floated by the nra in an effort to contain damage that might follow from yet another school shooting.
which floated into the right media apparatus from tactical reasons.
a press release containing a suggestion that will never--ever--be put into effect.
a press release the argument of which is nearly psychotic in its implications.
an argument that conservatives actually defend because to oppose it implies gun control.

well done folks.
there is no reason not to be optimistic about america.
clearly the education of children would be greatly improved by arming everyone involved.
what a great idea.
no doubt there is abundant data to support the correlation of improved education and weapons proliferation.
i am sure that they will present this information, now that they have been asked for it.

to be honest, it is futile to debate with people who's minds are made up and will not change. Like I said, every nation will have as much gun death as they can tolerate. It is hard for me to understand how emotive an issue it is to some Americans, I would never want a gun and I live in a society where a lot less people get shot because hardly anyone has guns... but I dont know. I'm kind of with Bill Hicks:

if a security guard shot a student, even if he was on a killing spree......
lets just say


THE SHIT WOULD HIT THE FAN

I love how Strange Famous ( and others ) ignore the incontrivertable ( and often mentioned ) fact that the defensive use of a firearm stops somewhere between 80,000 ( VERY lowball estimate ) and 2,500,000 ( most accepted figure ) crimes every year in the US.

I love how they ignore the incontrivertable fact that States with shall-issue Concealed Carry have seen an accelerated drop in crime, a drop which is significantly -greater- than the nationwide average.

I love how they ignore the fact that nations with strict Victim Disarmament laws in place ( with one exception; Japan ) all have rates of violent crime which are either higher than that of the US, or are rapidly approaching it.

I love how they expect "the Government" or "the Police" to protect us, even though the nationwide average response-time for cops is just over twenty minutes.

I love the classist bias they exude when they tell people to "wait for the professionals" in areas where the cops won't go, or when they tell inner-city victims to "move to a better area!"

I love the rediculous implication that scratching a rapists face with some keys will put him out of the fight, but shooting him twice with a .45 will only make him angry.

I love the explicit sexism in their frequent arguement that "A woman would just be disarmed and have her gun used against her!" As if a quick pull of her trigger wouldn't render the question academic. "Silly little girl" they say "Leave this to the Big Strong Policemen. You might hurt yourself."

I love the presumtion that a civillian who practices 100+ rounds every week would miss and kill Non-combatants, but a cop who fires his weapon twice a year to qualify is a Pistol God Of Accuracy Who'd Never Miss Because Of His Advanced Training.

I love the cognitive dissonance associated with the notion that "Assault rifles and handguns are only good for killing huge numbers of people," which is why the cops need them to protect us.

I love how, every time a Victim Disarmament statue is removed, they predict bloodbaths which never happen.

I love how they think that our guns are "substitute cocks;" which is why so many women own them and I own a 2" snub-nose.

And I ESPECIALLY love how they think passing a law will magically make people like me, my family, my friends, and ( I imagine ) several others on this board turn in our Evil Black Phallic Weapons Of Doom And Destruction.

Somehow....I simply do not feel this...."love" you profess for they

let us not react to the above as is the norm here....ok

Why not?

He makes good points.

very well....please continue

Most accepted? You mean published by the NRA and faithfully believed by every "gun nut".
The fact that the already extremly highe crime rate in the US could even be higher would worry me though.

source?

source?

Most accepted? You mean published by the NRA and faithfully believed by every "gun nut".
The fact that the already extremly high crime rate in the US could even be higher would worry me though.
What is wrong with your society?

source?

source?

1: Actually, no. Originally published by Gary Kleck, verified by John Lott in "More Guns, Less Crime" and now re-verified by the FBI Uniform Crime Survey. ( "Targeting Guns" by Dr. Gary Kleck, Florida State University, 1997 )

2: FBI Uniform Crime Report

3: Ministry of Justice ( Holland ) "Criminal Victimization In Seventeen Industrialized Countries" ( 2001 )
Australian Bureau Of Statistics; "Crime And Justice; Crimes Reported By Police"

The above are all sourced from the following .pdf;
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downl...Facts_v3.2.pdf

Heavily sourced and cited.

http://www.geocities.com/movieartz10...rgartenCop.jpg


You know you were thinking it.

On a more serious note, I don't think that giving teachers guns is the way to go, as they would have to be taught how to shoot them, and personally, I can't imagine a 1st grade teacher, who, like mine was, is 80 years old, and is half senile, shooting someone.

However, my 12th grade world history teacher was a marine, and could easily take out some punk kid with a shotgun from 50 yards. Honestly though, even if you gave all these teachers guns,it wouldn't prevent much, it might even increase the risk over time, especially if the teacher sprays and prays.

I think prevention, and identification of the youths that are at risk is the most important thing. A child could always bring in a machete or a sword instead of a gun, or, an explosive, and still injure or kill a lot of people. Teachers can't be everywhere at once.

It's a tough problem, it really is, however, gun control is obviously not the way to deal with this.

You're making the common, and often incorrect, assumption with this statement that the guns that are illegal were manufactured in America or ever existed as legal guns.

The truth of the situation is that there are a large number of non-American gun makers, Israeli, Swiss, and Russian to touch on some of the more popular ones, and that our government has zero control over any of these companies. Some of the guns that they make are barely legal in the countries where they are manufactured.

Banning the guns in America is not going to stop their production outside of our borders, and it is also not going to stop the already occuring illegal traffic of those guns into this country, on the contrary it's going to make it much more lucrative and profitable.

And also what about military armaments? To remove the illegal guns from circulation at their source you would have to stop making the firearms that are designed and intended for our soldiers. Granted, these start as legal guns, but if they were the only readily available weapons I would imagine them becoming a target for crime very quickly.

Please don't forget that when addressing the control of guns there are factors that are larger than the community involved or even simply our own nation.

Going back to arming teachers why should it be an all or nothing proposition? Being older and female doesn't decrease a persons capacity for rational judgement, or their aim in most cases. If the ability for teachers to carry guns were made optional and required certain training and qualification, much like an air marshall, what would happen to the behavior of the student that's only bringing weapons in to show off? Do you think they might hesitate a bit more if they have to wonder which teachers are armed, which are carrying concealed carry weapons?

One big problem I'm seeing with arming teachers is what would determine when it's ok for the teacher to even use the gun. Earlier in the thread someone was saying that even if there's a rampaging student and a teacher were to shoot him, the shit would hit the fan. And it undoubtedly would-there would be lawsuits, probably an arrest, and all sorts of chaos. Simply because teachers aren't given the same leway in dealing with criminal students. In most cases, it's even considered assault if a teacher restrains fighting students.

Does anyone have any idea how arming teachers would actually be implemented? What kind of standards would be set up for allowing teachers to use the firearms?

it will never be implemented.
it is not a serious suggestion.

Slight issue with all of your suggestions:

This was on an Indian reservation.
Even if a law was created giving teachers the right to carry arms, it would have no meaning there. Likewise, the tribe could pass a law arming teachers, and it would not apply outside the tribe.

Keep in mind, this was not actually in the United States. I know that is hard to accept, and some think it is silly, but tribes are independent nations seperate from the United States. Our laws and rights do not apply there. get pulled over for speeding in a reservation, and you will discover real fast that you do not have your constitutional rights, like due proccess.

As for those advocating arming teachers inside the United States (as opposed to in Independent Tribal nations), please explain who pays for the guns and training. Is there pay increased from having to work in a dangerous environment given how many schools have had shootings? (Trick question, no teachers pay has been increased for sustaining a threatening environment daily)

Your arguments are meaningless without explaining / suggesting the funding that makes it happen.

It's weird that the pro-gun crowd doesn't understand that wack-a-doo suggestions like "arm all teachers" soon after a tradgedy like the shooting in Bemidji actually hurts their cause. It gets people, as we see here, talking about complete disarmament (also wack-a-doo). I know that gun safety and security was once a major component of what the NRA taught, what happened?

Locobot;
It still is. Such things comprise well over 50% of the NRA's annual budget.

However, you have to realize that the pro-gun groups are not the first people to jump on this; they almost never are. Within 12 hours of any mass shooting, without exception, the Victim Disarmament crowd is dancing in the still-drying blood, trying to get their anti-rights agenda into the public eye. For example, The Brady Bunch and VPC used the Red Lake Shooting as an excuse to pontificate upon the need for the Assault Weapons Ban; this despite the fact that no "assault weapons" were used in the incident. The pro-rights folks are responding to the insane, gleeful reactions of The Brady Bunch and VPC, -not- the other way 'round. Anti-rights groups like Brady are notorious for using statistics and quotes which are fudged, taken out of context, or outright lies. Their figured on "X children per day killed" are one famous example; they include everyone up to age 19 as a "child" and throw in justified self-defense shootings to bolster their numbers even further. The rediculous Kellerman "43 times" study has been debunked for over a decade, yet they still cite this work of fiction. They are not above using the victims of a tragedy like this to advance their agenda, even when the survivors of those victims ask them not to ( as happened after Columbine. )

The suggestions of the NRA et al are far from "wack-a-doo," as you put it; as I pointed out earlier it has worked like a charm in Israel.

Sorry, but of the 51 headlines hit with "red lake shooting" on the site where this article comes from "NRA leader advocates guns for teachers" was the only one actually suggesting a solution to the problem of school shootings. You know why this headline exists? Because it's wack-a-doo and thereby grabs readers. The NRA may not be the only group using school shootings to further their political agendas, but they are the only one that is crass and tasteless enough to use these events to champion easier access to guns.

re: Israel...First of all what you say about attacks on Israeli schools is patently false--negated easily by the most cursory google search. Secondly are you seriously equating Palestinian terrorists with the estranged teens and pre-teens committing the shootings in our country? Should we bulldoze their parents homes?

It think there is a basic watershed of fear which decides how people feel about concealed carry laws and recommendations like those suggested in this thread. What the gun coterie doesn't understand is that the level of fear and repression that these laws would create would be much worse than a society where ostensibly everyone is unarmed. The paranoiacs running the NRA are essentially afraid and cowering at all times and therefore see no difference.

re Israel; Please provide proof. I do not know of any attack on an Israeli school since they decided to arm their teachers in the 1970s. If you can provide proofs otherwise, I will retract my statements. Secondly, I am not equating Palistinian terrorists with school shooters; the Palistinians are infinitely more dangerous, proficiant, and committed. Ergo, small-time fuckheads like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would be even more easily dissuaded.

As a member of the "gun cotierie" myself, I'd also like to comment on your "watershed of fear" comment by saying that I'd rather walk naked through Dallas than fully armed through Soho. Rates of violent crime in gun-hostile cities, states, and nations are almost universally higher than in gun-friendly cities, states, and nations. There is a reason for this; psychopaths and criminals prefer unarmed prey.

I already did. But I'll make it even easier for you. The 2nd link is dated 1997...

I think we'd all prefer if you didn't walk around anywhere naked thanks. Are you seriously touting Dallas as an example of the concealed carry miracle? Did you know that Dallas crime rates are the worst in the nation? (Mar. 19 2005) I suppose walking around naked might be an effective strategy to keep from being robbed.

Actually, you just proved my point -for- me, thanks. Those links you provided show a single successful school shooting; in 1974 It was shortly after the shooting you mention that Israel armed its' teachers, and they havn't had a successful attack since. The second link/article references a shooting which took place off school grounds and in an area where their teacher was prevented from carrying a weapon.

As for this second article:
1: Try comparing the rate of violent crime in Dallas to that of Washington DC; victim-disarmament capital of the country and one of the Top 5 most dangerous cities for over 30 years now. ( Murder rate; 60+ per 100,000 )
http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html
http://www.cabarfeidh.com/2004/06/ba...ington-dc.html

2: I'll admit that Dallas seems to be somewhat of an anomaly in the concealed-carry phenomenon. However, its' rate of violent crime is dropping along with the rest of the country, and it also has to deal with factors that many more northerly cities don't, such as the increase in crime which is associated with certain segments of the illegal immigrant population. How do you, however, explain the greater-than-average drops in violent crime in those areas which have enacted CCW? How do you explain the precipitous rise in violent crime in the UK and Australia since their near-total gun ban?

Actually no. The second link (which I already directed you to) was dated 1997. The article you tout as "proving" you right actually gives no mention of this leading to the mandate that teachers be armed. You can split hairs all you want but there has been a multitude of attacks on Israeli schools since 1974.

Miscommunication:

The first link on that Google page ( the one I mentioned above ) references the last successful school-shooting in Israel, which was in 1974. The second link references a shooting in 1997 which took place off school grounds, and in a Victim Disarmament Zone. It is therefore irrelevant to your arguement.

There have been -attacks- on schools, yes. I do not recall denying that. If I did so, I misspoke. There have not, however, been any successful such attacks since 1974; all attackers either lost their nerves, or were killed by their intended victims.

Edit: I just checked my original post on this thread. I did indeed misspeak myself. I apologize for my imprecision.

How many non-gun homicides occur in the US and England each year? if guns are the reason the US has so many gun deaths, then we should have a comparable rate of non-gun homicieds to England, right? But we don't. Americans kill more people than English people do. Guns, no guns, the tool doesn't matter. It's the intent of the person that is what's important.

Really? Tell that to the Viet Minh, Viet Cong, et cetera.

Rebels rarely win guerilla wars. Governments often lose them.

Simple. Use the standard self-defense test. Ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. Treat teachers the same as everybody else if they are involved with a shooting.

Absolutely correct. It's illegal to grow opium poppies world-wide for the most part. Same with cultivating coca. How hard is it to find heroin or cocaine? Prohibition creates far more problems than it solves.

Yup, just like it isn't logical to give cops guns. Firearms are indisputably the BEST means of self-defense out there. Even KELLERMANN admits this. This is backed up by figures released by the US DOJ in 1994, which showed that of all people attacked, people who resisted with guns were the least likely BY FAR to not be injured. I don't know many people who would give up their gun to a knife-wielding attacker. I sure as shit wouldn't, since they're dangerous enough to all parties involved with a knife, so why make them more dangerous?

Got that off of Freerepublic, suppose the source will be the thing that makes the post get ignored http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1357805/posts

Fraiser Institute, maybe more legit


Bottom line, dead horse talking point line, you are delusional if you think disarming the general population will lead to a drop in crime, without pulling up any more sites this can be seen with the violent crime rates rising in countries such as Britain and Australia, including robbery, murder, and assault.

Numbers don't lie, get back to reality.

Well to get us back on track .....

As a 10+ year member of the NRA I see no need for teachers to be armed. Armed security should be sufficient. I believe it would be to difficult to insure that all teachers have a secure place to store their firearm. Even arming security guards imposes problems with keeping their firearms secure at all times. We certainly don't need our schools resembling prisons with high walls, guard towers, metal detectors and dogs.

The cost of freedom is sometimes higher than we anticipate. There is nothing we can do about these random school shootings if we still wish to remain in a free society. To often we are willing to give up hard earned freedoms for a little more security. In the end we are not any more secure only a little less free.

Thats sadly true, in America the change to get murdered is much higher than in the UK
(0.04 murders per 1000 compared to 0.01)

So you agree that the US soceity is pathological violent? Would you sell a gun to a pathological violent person?

More serious:
Why do you think the US soceity is so violent?

It's probably some phenomia likened to that of Rome's fixation with the Gladiators and such, only difference is we get Kill Bill.

More guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens will significantly reduce the rate of violent crimes acorss the board, not just in schools.

yep..worked so well in the wild wild west

You do realize the wild wild west was not quite so wild as it was portrayed?

So any nay-sayers of the FACT that law abiding citizens with guns actually decreases crime care to take a stab at any of the numbers I've put fourth? Or are you just going to keep singing the same old ridiculously false tune?

It is also a FACT that a lot of nations with strict gun laws have far less crimes than the US. see germany for example.

How strict are Germany's gun laws?

How about this then:

YOU stop trying to take away my gun, and in return I won't question your right to disapprove of that gun.

It's called democracy, and free agency, whether you like it or not you do not have the right or the authority to tell me that I can't legally own a gun. I have my reasons for supporting legal firearms, while you don't agree with those reasons it doesn't make them any less relevant or factual.

And I pray to God that the day never comes that another group of people gain the majority to give themselves the authority to take away my gun and violate my right to choose for myself how to defend myself and my family.

I also pray that someday mankind as a whole will evolve enough of a social conscience and respect for each other to render that type of protection unnecessary, however that time is not now, nor any time in the near future. When it comes you won't have to make a law to take away my gun, I would be glad to give it up because I will no longer have need of it.

American society is indeed much more violent that some other societies. But pathologically violent? Nope.

There are a wide variety of reasons why American society is more violent than other societies are. Guns, however, are not one of the reasons. A supermajority of Americans who die by firearms are deliberate suicides. If you look at the societies that most think of as being less violent than the US, you'll find that their suicide rates vary greatly, and in many cases are equal to or greater than the US suicide rate. They just use other methods than guns.

It's illegal to sell a gun to somebody who is pathologically violent in the US. That's what the "adjudicated mentally defective" language in Federal law is all about. I don't see why the majority of people should be denied their civil liberties because a small minority of people are insane. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an American Civil Liberty enumerated in the US Bill of Rights. Using your argument, all Americans should be in mental institutes because some Americans are crazy.

The balancing act is between keeping guns out of the hands of people who are dangerously prone to violence, while not infringing upon the civil rights of those who are not. Gun control does the exact opposite....it keeps guns out of the hands of those people who obey the law, and does absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the hands of those who break the law. In fact, SCOTUS has ruled in the past that gun control schemes don't apply to criminals, not based upon the Second Amendment, but based upon the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of the right against self-incrimination since it is an additional criminal violation for criminals to possess guns and the reporting element of gun control laws violates that right.

If a State has a CCW law allowing people to get a CCW permit and legally carry a gun, why should teachers be stripped of this just because they are teachers?

You have a logical fallacy here. Your argument is that because a country has strict gun control laws, they have less crime. Do you have some evidence of causality? Why should Germany's crime rate for crimes not involving guns be lower than the same crime rate in the US if it's the scarcity of guns that's the issue that prevents crime? If Germany's simple assault rate is far lower than the US's simple assault rate, how is that connected to Germany's gun laws? If Germany has a lower vehicular homicide rate than the US, how is that connected to the gun control laws? And if Germany's crime rates for crimes not involving guns is lower than the US crime rate for crimes not involving guns, then if the gun control laws were equal, wouldn't Germany still have a lower rate of crimes involving guns than the US does, since their society has far less crime overall?

You seem to equate "less guns=less crime". That's simply not based upon reality.

U.S. population = 295,777,738
German population = 82,424,609

(According to the U.S. Census website, information last updated in September of 2004)

Maybe this will help explain the disparity of crime rates. Just to help explain where I'm coming from, here is a scenario: Let's say that the percent of the population in both the U.S. and Germany that will commit a violent crime is the same, let's say it's 0.005%. That means that in the U.S. 1.5 million people will commit a violent crime in their lifetime, in Germany the number is just over 412,000. These stats have been made up, but it explains my theory.

I could possibly be convinced that high school teachers be allowed to carry.
However, below that I would flat out refuse. It's school and supposedly a learning environment. I know US schools have gone to hell, but we need to have some hope. I would like to believe that all of our schools do not have to become military schools to become useful again.

NOTE- I am not against CCW in general.

Ummm....crime rates are expressed generally on a per capita basis. In other words, with many crime rates, you'll see it's ".04" or something like that, which means for every 100,000 people in the country, .04 will have that whatever happen to them.

How would it be turning them into military schools? CCW is exactly that....CONCEALED.

If you give criminals a location that they KNOW that there are no armed people, you've essentially told them "It's OK to do whatever you want here, because you can't be shot until the cops get here".

I can't buy a gun unless I can proove some need, (bodyguards and such; or if I'm member of a gun sports club) and you have to be full age.
I never tought about owing a gun, so I'm don't know much about those regulations.

No, I just wanted to point out, that you don't need guns to have low crime rate there seem to be other methods.

You also don't have the evidence for the rising crime in UK.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
thats for australia, but i guess similar is true for the UK

It is far lower (7.7 per 1000 compared to 1.41)
I believe that guns have do not have a huge impact to the crime rate at all, there are other reasons for crime, that was my question that as been dodged, why is america so violent? Perhaps it is the american attitude that most problems can be solved with violence (and to that attitude guns would have an impact, among a lot of other factors)?

There is lots of places in the States with a CCW that you can't carry a gun. In Indiana for example its illegal to carry your weapon into a government building such as a courthouse or into a bar even with a CCW. Sounds like reasonable judgement to me and it doesn't bother me to leave my .45 in the truck when I have official business to do in the government buildings. Likewise it seems fairly reasonable that if I should enter a bar that I should leave it in the truck due to the likelihood of trouble being started in such a place.

Where I work it's against the rules to have a firearm with me as I make my daily service calls, sometimes into the worst of neighborhoods with large amounts of cash. I can't say I've always heeded that rule while working but none the less its a rule and if something happens there's a chance I could lose my job. Better my job than my life. Likewise I see no reason to give teachers a blanket "license to carry" while on the job. If they have a concealed carry permit and they do happen to carry their weapon to work so be it, but I'm sure they will be much more careful without a security blanket than with one.

My real issue with giving teachers a "blanket" to carry while on the job is I remember some of the teachers I had HAHA. Pretty scary!! No really, I just find it hard to imagine how they are going to be able to secure that firearm to insure that it doesn't get stolen or worse. I've seen some people with CCW permits that apparently have no concept of securing their firearm, and I'm sure some of the teachers would get careless as well. Also, I really have no desire for my grandchildren to be taught by a teacher with a Colt Peacemaker strapped to his hip. Using your logic once a child reaches 18 and is able to get a CCW permit then he should also be legally able to pack his weapon to school.

I would rather put high voltage fences around the school and to enter everyone has to go through metal detectors manned by armed security if that's what it takes rather than having our children learn from a teacher that's got a .45 strapped to his/her hip. Once inside the building children shouldn't have to worry about a thing but learning and growing.

Sorry if I offend you but that's just the way I see it.