# Armed school personnel **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301 "2012-12-17T13:57:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/81 "2012-12-18T16:15:19Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Most pro-gun people would be fine with registration _ **IF** _ they could be absolutely, 101% sure that it would never, ever be used to enable confiscation. Well, considering their stubborn opposition locks down efforts at increasing registration now ; what makes them think they couldn’t draw the legal line worth defending at all costs at, y’know, \*confiscation \*? And lock it down then just as much as they’re blocking registration now ? ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/82 "2012-12-18T16:16:35Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Most pro-gun people would be fine with registration _ **IF** _ they could be absolutely, 101% sure that it would never, ever be used to enable confiscation. And if they could be absolutely, 101% sure that our society would eventually reach a point where we’d decide that the gun laws on the books are good enough, and no further changes are needed regardless of whatever future rare tragedy might occur. You know, like Norway, where they aren’t hysterically clamoring to revise their laws even after experiencing the most horrific mass shooting in history. Alas, I don’t think US society is as level-headed as the Norwegians are. Our response to 9/11 shows that. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/83 "2012-12-18T21:09:44Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > But they are, at least on this board. If you’re talking about lawmakers, point conceded. It’s just that most gun control proposals amount to saying that owning a firearm is a privilege that the government may deign to grant you on its terms. That’s the part that rankles. And registration/certification, while not a restriction in and of itself, really would be step one to making gun confiscation possible- it happened in Britain. Most pro-gun people would be fine with registration _ **IF** _ they could be absolutely, 101% sure that it would never, ever be used to enable confiscation. Not very many, even among the folks on this board. Vanishingly few in fact. And the lawmakers are much more influential about legal things compared to a minority on a left-leaning message board. Wouldn’t you agree? So a gun ban is simply out of the question. You have that whole “amendment” thing as well, that sets a pretty high bar for any future administration that wants to confiscate all guns. It’s simply not possible. The vast, vast majority are talking about reasonable laws designed to keep the most damaging sort of guns (ones designed specifically to kill large numbers of people in as short a time as possible) out of the hands of deranged lunatics. ETA: On topic - I think that if society is looking at ways to accomplish this last point, putting more guns in the hands of poorly trained folks is not necessarily the way to accomplish this task. IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/84 "2012-12-18T21:16:32Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > (ones designed specifically to kill large numbers of people in as short a time as possible) I’ve heard this a lot over the years as a description of various kinds of scary guns. The thing is, I can’t think of anything on the civilian market that actually meets that description. Can anybody link me to a military document or a patent or _anything_ of a primary nature for a civilian weapon that cites as one of the virtues of that weapon or design that it excels at killing large numbers of people in as short a time as possible? ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/85 "2012-12-18T21:34:22Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I’ll reiterate the point of the OP: what makes everyone else incompetent to own and carry guns but somehow not police officers? The police are pretty incompetent. > [@](#): > > …the average hit ratio for officers involved in a shooting where the subject does not fire back was 30 percent. During a gunfight, where the target is shooting at officers, the study reported that the hit rate falls to just 18 percent. [link](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57502545-504083/empire-state-building-shooting-sparks-questions-about-nypd-shot-accuracy/) Armed police are but a necessary evil. We do not want more than is necessary. Given the track record of police in dealing with guns, I do not see why we would want to expand that situation in the schools by turning teachers into their own armed police force. > [@artemis](#): > > And if they could be absolutely, 101% sure that our society would eventually reach a point where we’d decide that the gun laws on the books are good enough, and no further changes are needed regardless of whatever future rare tragedy might occur. You know, like Norway, where they aren’t hysterically clamoring to revise their laws even after experiencing the most horrific mass shooting in history. > > Alas, I don’t think US society is as level-headed as the Norwegians are. Our response to 9/11 shows that. That’s because Norway already has very strict gun control laws. Owning a gun requires passing a course with a written exam, gun safes are mandatory for storage, and concealed carry is prohibited. Such restrictions are anathema to the pro-gun politics of the US. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/86 "2012-12-18T22:21:59Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > That’s because Norway already has very strict gun control laws. No, it’s not. There’s no law so strict you can’t make it stricter. The difference is that the Norwegians, having crafted what they believe is a reasonable level of gun control for their country, are willing to concede there’s no way to absolutely prevent a repetition of what that maniac did and they’re not going to try. They’re not willing to try making their already tough firearms laws even tougher (or attempt a total ban on firearms ownership) because they accept that trying to drive that risk to zero has its own societal costs, which they’re not willing to pay. And I say, good for them! ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/87 "2012-12-19T01:22:03Z")
So basically, you’re unconcerned with minor details such as what gun restrictions are in place, so long as the laws remain set in stone. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/88 "2012-12-19T01:26:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic > (ones designed specifically to kill large numbers of people in as short a time as possible) > [@Scumpup](#): > > I’ve heard this a lot over the years as a description of various kinds of scary guns. The thing is, I can’t think of anything on the civilian market that actually meets that description. Can anybody link me to a military document or a patent or _anything_ of a primary nature for a civilian weapon that cites as one of the virtues of that weapon or design that it excels at killing large numbers of people in as short a time as possible? Well,admittedly those are my words, and they were not intended to be interpreted as a direct quote from the manufacturer. However the The AR-15 (the gun of choice in recent mass killings) was initially built as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. This is who this weapon was initially designed for. These weapons are sold on the civilian market. So call them what you will. They were certainly not intended for hunting. They were designed for the battlefield. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/89 "2012-12-19T02:08:50Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > That sounds really easy! I bet it works best if you cock your head to one side before you make the kill shot. It would also be good to have something to say after, like “You’ve been held back. Permanently.”. Or “No hall pass for you!”. Or, “That’s what I call an in-school suspension!” “It’s time for recess… from living!” “Try finger-painting… in blood!” What I’m gonna do to you, the school nurse can’t bandage!" But seriously, I figure statistical analysis suggests the number of accidental injuries and deaths will equal or outnumber the number of prevented murders, class Type I errors outpacing Type II, like cumbersome voter registration rules that might stop 10 illegitimate votes, but in the process prevent 10,000 legitimate votes, not that I’m eager to create a hijack or anything. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/90 "2012-12-19T02:10:56Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Well,admittedly those are my words, and they were not intended to be interpreted as a direct quote from the manufacturer. However the The AR-15 (the gun of choice in recent mass killings) was initially built as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. This is who this weapon was initially designed for. These weapons are sold on the civilian market. > > So call them what you will. They were certainly not intended for hunting. They were designed for the battlefield. And yet the fact that they are not select-fire but semi-auto only makes most of their “battlefield” design irrelevant. They have a straight stock rather than a traditional curved stock because that was intended to address the increased recoil of full-auto fire. The barrel shroud was to prevent the user from being burned by a barrel heated by sustained full-auto fire. Flash suppressors and bayonet mounts are almost meaningless. About the only feature I can think of that potentially contributes to an AR-15’s “lethality” is the ability to quickly swap out large capacity magazines, and many “hunting” rifles have that feature. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/91 "2012-12-19T02:19:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > But seriously, I figure statistical analysis suggests the number of accidental injuries and deaths will equal or outnumber the number of prevented murders, class Type I errors outpacing Type II, like cumbersome voter registration rules that might stop 10 illegitimate votes, but in the process prevent 10,000 legitimate votes, not that I’m eager to create a hijack or anything. This gets down into the war of statistics over whether allowing firearms yields a net increase or net decrease in public safety. The problem is by definition we can’t see all the incidents that guns prevented in the first place. The paper “American Homicide Exceptionalism”, in discussing the “instrumentality” theory of crime (guns enable more violence and murder) says in part (bolding at the end mine): > [@](#): > > But even if one could enumerate instrumentality homicides with certainty (which would disclose whether instrumentality homicides were a large or a small percentage of the total), one would still have to consider the other side of the question–the social utility of private firearms possession. It is only by the trick of assigning that utility some value approaching zero that instrumentality theory generates its accustomed policy prescription. > > There are “instrumentality” effects on both sides of the equations that depict human conflict. What mischiefs, including homicides and other serious felonies, were avoided because people with guns prevented them from being completed? Trying to answer this question can all-too-quickly turn into a debate about how one interprets survey research findings about how often civilians use guns to frighten or wound antagonists. Depending upon which estimate one credits, there are currently somewhere between tens of thousands to a few million defensive uses of firearms per year. [27] But the social utility question is hardly exhausted by answering “how many times was a gun brandished (or discharged) in earnest last year?” because of course there must have been n number of cases where no crime was committed, or no attack attempted, because the risk was too great on account of readily available guns for defense. **One has to know how much value would be lost if we could move to a world without guns**. ---
**Author:** ![stui\_magpie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stui_magpie/32/11010_2.png) [@stui\_magpie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stui_magpie)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/92 "2012-12-19T02:23:39Z")
Don’t worry about arming teachers, just arm the kids. Oh wait, it’s already started? > **[U.S. News: Latest Breaking Stories, Video, and Photos on American Politics,...](https://www.nbcnews.com/us-news?lite)** > > Get the latest news headlines and top stories from NBCNews.com. Find videos and news articles on the latest stories in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/93 "2012-12-19T02:41:04Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > This gets down into the war of statistics over whether allowing firearms yields a net increase or net decrease in public safety. The problem is by definition we can’t see all the incidents that guns prevented in the first place. The paper “American Homicide Exceptionalism”, in discussing the “instrumentality” theory of crime (guns enable more violence and murder) says in part (bolding at the end mine): Well, arm the teachers and we’ll see in a few years if more students are getting killed or injured by accident than are currently killed or injured by psychopaths. ---
**Author:** ![wonder9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c57346/32.png) [@wonder9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonder9)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/94 "2012-12-19T02:49:45Z")
So, as a public school teacher, let me get this straight. In addition to being, as all teachers are, willing to put myself (which I am) between harm in its many manifestations and my students I am now being asked to: [ul] [li]buy a gun [/li][li]learn how to fire it[/li][li]learn when NOT to fire it[/li][li]find a place that means it’s both accessible in an emergency[/li][li]AND safe from kids getting hold of it[/li][li]make the split second judgement to go and GET The gun[/li][li]Hope that the gun is available, loaded and I remember how to use it[/li][li]and kill the person who threatens my children without accidently making an incredibly bad situation worse.[/li][li]and NOT kill people, including the children I had pledged to protect, in the heat of the moment due to my inexperience at shooting a gun.[/li][/ul] I’m a teacher. I’m not Rambo. I got into education to teach and nurture children, not act as an armed guard to their childhood. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/95 "2012-12-19T02:50:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, arm the teachers and we’ll see in a few years if more students are getting killed or injured by accident than are currently killed or injured by psychopaths. This would speak more to the rarity of students getting killed or injured by psychopaths then the commonness of gun accidents. I would say realistically, three or four school personal would be enough insurance against a (very uncommon) shooting incident, while minimizing the accident rate. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/96 "2012-12-19T02:51:59Z")
> [@wonder9](#): > > So, as a public school teacher, let me get this straight. In addition to being, as all teachers are, willing to put myself (which I am) between harm in its many manifestations and my students I am now being asked to: > [ul] > [li]buy a gun [/li][li]learn how to fire it[/li][li]learn when NOT to fire it[/li][li]find a place that means it’s both accessible in an emergency[/li][li]AND safe from kids getting hold of it[/li][li]make the split second judgement to go and GET The gun[/li][li]Hope that the gun is available, loaded and I remember how to use it[/li][li]and kill the person who threatens my children without accidently making an incredibly bad situation worse.[/li][li]and NOT kill people, including the children I had pledged to protect, in the heat of the moment due to my inexperience at shooting a gun.[/li][/ul] > I’m a teacher. I’m not Rambo. I got into education to teach and nurture children, not act as an armed guard to their childhood. Again, and again, and yet again: NO ONE is saying that ALL teachers have to be armed as a requirement of their job. The discussion is about allowing teachers to VOLUNTEER to be armed. ---
**Author:** ![Frayed\_Knot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c67d28/32.png) [@Frayed\_Knot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frayed_Knot)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/97 "2012-12-19T02:53:17Z")
Yes, what went wrong in Newtown was that there weren’t ENOUGH guns. Ugh. You know, the shooter’s mom had a nice little arsenal (that he helped himself to) and it sure didn’t protect HER from getting shot in the face 4 times. I can’t possibly fathom how turning our schools into military armaments is a better answer than implementing tighter restrictions or outright bans on assault weapons and semi-automatics. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/98 "2012-12-19T03:02:54Z")
> [@Frayed\_Knot](#): > > Yes, what went wrong in Newtown was that there weren’t ENOUGH guns. Ugh. > > You know, the shooter’s mom had a nice little arsenal (that he helped himself to) and it sure didn’t protect HER from getting shot in the face 4 times. > > I can’t possibly fathom how turning our schools into military armaments is a better answer than implementing tighter restrictions or outright bans on assault weapons and semi-automatics. I haven’t been able to keep up with the news reports- has any information been released on the exact circumstances in which he killed her and took her guns? I have no idea if he used a gun left lying around the house, had access to a gun safe, or what. Whether she trusted him with the house firearms or whether he was supposed to have access to her weapons at all. I can’t judge until I know the circumstances. And do you really realize just how radical a proposal “ban semi-automatics” is? As in banning handguns that have been sold in America since **1911** , and which no one saw fit to ban for 100 years? Why weren’t people demanding that they be banned in the 1950s? Or the 1940s, or the 1930s, or, well you get the idea. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/99 "2012-12-19T05:24:58Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > And yet the fact that they are not select-fire but semi-auto only makes most of their “battlefield” design irrelevant. They have a straight stock rather than a traditional curved stock because that was intended to address the increased recoil of full-auto fire. The barrel shroud was to prevent the user from being burned by a barrel heated by sustained full-auto fire. Flash suppressors and bayonet mounts are almost meaningless. About the only feature I can think of that potentially contributes to an AR-15’s “lethality” is the ability to quickly swap out large capacity magazines, and many “hunting” rifles have that feature. Honest question - what then are civilian AR-15’s sold for - what’s their purpose? Are they typically used for hunting anything? Are they essentially just regular old hunting rifles that are made to look like a military weapon? For hunters - is a large capacity (30 round) magazine necessary for your hunting success? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301/100 "2012-12-19T09:00:15Z")
> [@](#): > > **Lumpy** : I’m a teacher. I’m not Rambo. I got into education to teach and nurture children, not act as an armed guard to their childhood. I think this stance will be true for most teachers. We train as professional educators. If a law suggested that I had to be armed in order to teach, they would have the wrong woman. There is more to training to be a teacher than people might think. The job is already difficult and even sometimes violent. Already some of my students were armed. If I had been armed also, I think the student who threatened to slit my throat might be dead. (Actually, he died in prison.) The student who threatened to throw acid in my face would be dead. The trespassers from another school who put me in the hospital would have at least been shot. (There were seven of them.) We aren’t interested in carrying guns. We are not hot shots that can protect the students. It just isn’t in our nature to nuture and then kill. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-school-personnel/644301.md?page=6)