Arming teachers

[asahi]

@HurricaneDitka

Yes, this is the trade-off. There are hundreds of thousands or millions of defensive gun uses every year. Not sure how you want to count “mishandled/misused”. I suppose one could count accident fatalities and injuries, perhaps suicides (although I imagine some would quibble with this one), not sure what else.

That is probably bullshit. I mean maybe…if you’re counting active war zones.

[HurricaneDitka]

@asahi

It might happen that an armed citizen stops an active shooter before rampage ends…

Good, I’m glad that I’ve changed your mind on this point. And really, sincerely, kudos to you for taking this new information and incorporating it into your understanding of things.

@asahi

… but is it often enough to outweigh the obvious threat posed by having a society that is armed to the teeth?

It’s a point about which people can have an honest difference of opinions. One thing I’d clarify is that if the only advantage of firearms were to once-in-a-blue-moon stop an active shooter, it probably wouldn’t be worth it. But we know that’s not the only use for firearms. They’re also useful for stopping the still-infrequent-but-more-common street crimes, and defending oneself and one’s family while at home, and they’re useful for scaring / fending off wild animals in the back country and outdoors, and they’re fun to take target shooting, and they’re useful for hunting, etc.

Now, I can see how someone might honestly look at all that and say, “yeah, but to me it’s just not worth it because of all the suicides, accidents, homicides, etc that might be prevented if we just got rid of them”. I can respect that someone might come down on that side of the cost-benefit valuation. Personally, I disagree and think it is worth it, in one very small part because of the potential to occasionally stop an active shooter, and more commonly for those other reasons I listed above, and I would hope that it’s a viewpoint you can respect, even if you disagree with it. Does that make sense?

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

It’s a point about which people can have an honest difference of opinions. One thing I’d clarify is that if the only advantage of firearms were to once-in-a-blue-moon stop an active shooter, it probably wouldn’t be worth it.

Right, but in this thread we are talking about arming teachers, where the only advantage is to stop a once in a blue moon active shooter.

[HurricaneDitka]

@asahi

That is probably bullshit. I mean maybe…if you’re counting active war zones.

I’d encourage you to start your own research here: Defensive gun use - Wikipedia

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study’s definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach of 4.7 million per year. Discussion over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[2][3][4]

Estimates of DGU from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) are consistently lower than those from other studies. A 2000 study suggested that this may be because the NCVS measures different activities than the other surveys do.[5]

The National Self-Defense Survey and the NCVS, vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[6] DGU questions were asked of all the NSDS sample.[7] Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.[4]

Lower-end estimates include that by David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, which estimated approximately 55,000–80,000 such uses each year.[8][9]

Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. in 1997 NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year by 1.5 million individuals after weighting to eliminate false positives.[4] Another estimate has estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[2]

[madmonk28]

A teacher shot up a school in Georgia today. No one was hurt. Teacher Facing Charges After Firing Gun Inside Georgia High School | HuffPost Latest News

[Czarcasm]

@madmonk28

A teacher shot up a school in Georgia today. No one was hurt. Teacher Facing Charges After Firing Gun Inside Georgia High School | HuffPost Latest News

See post #576.

[Crazy_Canuck]

@HurricaneDitka

I didn’t ignore it. I responded to it. Those places are generally secure and controlled environments where they’re confident no one will have a firearm. Out in the rough-and-tumble world, where they think there’s more of a chance they might run into an armed assailant, they generally carry guns to protect themselves.

Perhaps you missed my reply to that, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt given how many discussions you are having in this thread simultaneously. So again, If that was true, why are they not required to disarm in the staff-only washroom in the police station? Is that not a secure environment?

Also, let me second k9bfriender with the point that this is about guns in school in specific, not about guns in society in general.

[RTFirefly]

@madmonk28

A teacher shot up a school in Georgia today. No one was hurt. Teacher Facing Charges After Firing Gun Inside Georgia High School | HuffPost Latest News

Arming teachers: FAIL.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@HurricaneDitka

I think you’ve misunderstood my claim. I’m not suggesting that it’s entirely impossible for an emotional distraught teenager to successfully seize a gun, I’m suggesting that fewer emotionally distraught teenagers attempt this than hardened criminals, and hence it’s less of a concern for a teacher than a cop.

The most police officers do not spend hours and hours a day in the proximity of hardened criminals. They spend their days, for the most part, helping average citizens. They will have some contact with criminals hard and soft, but usually in pairs - and dealing with that criminal is their primary task at that moment.

I think distraught teenager is more likely to grab a gun than your average citizen on the street. Maybe less likely than a hardened criminal but your police officer isn’t going to be walking around in a room full of unchained and uncuffed criminals all day, with no back-up, tasked with teaching them English while still maintaining a constant awareness of his sidearm.

[elucidator]

Only thing that would make this idea dumber would be to insist that Mexico will pay for it.

[The_Tooth]

Bringing the guns to church so some guys can cast magic spells on them has got to be a close second, then.

[Isamu]

@HurricaneDitka

Now, I can see how someone might honestly look at all that and say, “yeah, but to me it’s just not worth it because of all the suicides, accidents, homicides, etc that might be prevented if we just got rid of them”. I can respect that someone might come down on that side of the cost-benefit valuation. Personally, I disagree and think it is worth it, in one very small part because of the potential to occasionally stop an active shooter, and more commonly for those other reasons I listed above, and I would hope that it’s a viewpoint you can respect, even if you disagree with it. Does that make sense?

I must say you’ve remained extremely calm, poised and polite in this thread. Kudos.

[asahi]

@HurricaneDitka

Good, I’m glad that I’ve changed your mind on this point. And really, sincerely, kudos to you for taking this new information and incorporating it into your understanding of things.

It’s a point about which people can have an honest difference of opinions. One thing I’d clarify is that if the only advantage of firearms were to once-in-a-blue-moon stop an active shooter, it probably wouldn’t be worth it. But we know that’s not the only use for firearms. They’re also useful for stopping the still-infrequent-but-more-common street crimes, and defending oneself and one’s family while at home, and they’re useful for scaring / fending off wild animals in the back country and outdoors, and they’re fun to take target shooting, and they’re useful for hunting, etc.

Well for the record, I never meant to suggest that an armed person couldn’t occasionally stop an active shooter – it happens in home invasions and I’m sure it happens elsewhere. But there’s a major, major difference between someone arming his own turf in the middle of the night when he knows that someone banging down his door doesn’t belong there and is probably there to do some sort of harm, and hearing 10 or 15 shoots squeezed off in seconds, and not knowing where the shots are coming from and who’s doing the shooting, and on top of that being completely unprepared mentally to respond to that sort of thing. So sure, if you have X number of incidents, maybe there’s a case or two in which Joe Citizen, Teacher of the Year could shoot an active shooter before first responders arrive. But those situations are, most likely, exceptionally rare. What’s unfortunately not exceptionally rare is gun violence in our streets, in our schools, and in other public places - that is quite common.

@HurricaneDitka

Now, I can see how someone might honestly look at all that and say, “yeah, but to me it’s just not worth it because of all the suicides, accidents, homicides, etc that might be prevented if we just got rid of them”. I can respect that someone might come down on that side of the cost-benefit valuation. Personally, I disagree and think it is worth it, in one very small part because of the potential to occasionally stop an active shooter, and more commonly for those other reasons I listed above, and I would hope that it’s a viewpoint you can respect, even if you disagree with it. Does that make sense?

I think your position is that arming teachers gives the teachers a fighting chance, irrespective of the fact that, save for former law enforcement or military officers who become teachers in later life, they are not going to have nearly the kind of expertise and knowledge of how to react and use a firearm. The “fighting chance” argument has its appeal on classic libertarian grounds. But where do we draw the line? If teachers should be given the right of self defense and any means necessary to do so, then what about middle school or high school students, too? Should we start arming children? I mean, don’t all people, regardless of age, have the right of self defense?

[Jasmine]

Item from last night’s ABC Eyewitness News at 10:00 pm: **Armed teacher has nervous breakdown while AT SCHOOL and fires a t least one shot out of his window. **

Yep, we can believe the NRA when it says that more guns make us safer. That’s why Japan has about 10,000 gun deaths per year and we only have about 10. Oh … wait … did I get that backwards? :rolleyes:

[asahi]

@Jasmine

Item from last night’s ABC Eyewitness News at 10:00 pm: **Armed teacher has nervous breakdown while AT SCHOOL and fires a t least one shot out of his window. **

Yep, we can believe the NRA when it says that more guns make us safer. That’s why Japan has about 10,000 gun deaths per year and we only have about 10. Oh … wait … did I get that backwards? :rolleyes:

And as one of the least religious countries on the planet, they don’t need thoughts and prayers either.

[Kearsen]

@up_the_junction

No, and that’s my point. In almost every case the history teacher won’t shoot the 14-year old.

Btw, the child isn’t a “shooter”, the child is a pupil the teacher will have known perhaps for years. Who they understand, and have knowledge of that child’s complicated life.

In almost ever case the history teacher will try and talk the child out of the action contemplated, they will often succeed. And when they don’t they will rather die than face living with having shot a troubled 14 year old.

How do I know that? Because it is the rational action of a compassionate human being.

And does the needs and desires of that one, 14 yr old outweigh all her other students lives, or does the teacher just have knowledge of that one student’s complicated life? …

[up_the_junction]

Seems pretty clear; the teacher wants to nurture and teach, not kill, and will be hugely conflicted because it’s a 14 year old child and not a shooting range target.

[Kearsen]

@up_the_junction

Seems pretty clear; the teacher wants to nurture and teach, not kill, and will be hugely conflicted because it’s a 14 year old child and not a shooting range target.

I understood you clearly, but I think you fail to continue along that same timeline.

If that student that he/she wants to nurture and protect is NOW harming/attempting to kill her OTHER students that she also wants to nurture and protect, then what?

[up_the_junction]

I have no idea. Nor do you, and nor does the teacher until they are put in that situation.

You think there’s a classroom plan for what happens next?

[RickJay]

No one ever explains what the rules of engagement will be.

Are teachers only supposed to start shooting if it’s a mass shooter? What IS a mass shooter - can they open fire when they see a person with a gun? A person shooting a gun? A person with what they think might be a gun? What specific conditions have to exist before they try to kill someone?