Yeah, 'cos that’s a workable solution in the real world :rolleyes:
You lads in the USA must be swamped with teachers if you can afford to disqualify 99% in one go…
No. You’re still forcing a choice, only now you’re forcing it at the time someone decides to pursue a teaching degree. Just out of curiosity, would salaries be increased? Would the teachers also be issued bullet-proof vests?
This the Pit, right?
Then FUCK THAT, Crafter_Man. A schoolteacher is a schoolteacher, not a fucking Sherriff’s Deputy. If a responsible individual who is present at the school is willing, able and capable physically, intellectually and emotionally to use force to take down an assailant (e.g. catsix’s examples), then way to go, citizen. But “no teaching certificate unless qualified to protect the class with a firearm”? The hell…?
And you may have failed to notice the case immediately in question involves an an Amish country schoolhouse. A social environment that I would believe would frown on having Modesty Blaise or Dirty Harry as a teacher for their kids…
And this is one of the ways I know loosening restrictions on firearms is a bad idea. A lot of people share Crafter_Man’s macho cowboy fantasies. There are a lot of people who really do think this way - that they are some sort of movie hero capable of preventing things like this from happening. But that’s just not realistic. Police officers routinely miss those they’re aiming at, even at very close range. Speaking realistically, some hobbyist who happens to spend a lot of free time at the range is not even going to do that well. More bystanders may be injured or killed by stray bullets. No one can honestly say what Crafter_Man here has said.
It’s telling that advocates of reduced gun laws engage in these fantasies. The idea that the cure for gun violence is more guns is inherently absurd, especially when you consider the frequency of gun violence in other industrialized nations. Sure, in his movie fantasy, Crafter_Man would have calmly and slickly took the perp down. But here in the real world, things just don’t work that way. Advocacy of loosening restrictions on firearms is always suffused with this kind of fantasy. It’s simply not an attitude that’s based on reality.
The very idea is ridiculous. More guns is the solution to the problem of gun violence? Ridiculous. The answer lies in controlling access to the things in the first place. More of them in the environment just means more gun violence.
Threemae, did you miss the part where Silenus said he wouldn’t carry even if he could?
RIF, baby.
I took my two year old son up to Lancaster on Sunday. We passed by several buggies with kids in them.
I’m now left wondering if one of those inocent wee kids is on a slab now. That thought is going to haunt me for a long time.
I slept close to my boy last night.
Works in Israel. Works in the Phillippines. Works in Peru.
Don’t worry, only the truly brain dead believe this an acceptable solution. Even our current administration shares 4-5 brains cells between them all - disqualifying them from brain death.
I have also chosen to be a gun owner. I also (for the next 8 business days) work in a school. I hold a license to conceal firearms. The idea being that if I am carrying a pistol, I’m the only one who knows I have it. Considering that I follow proper concealed carry practice, how would someone ‘appropriate it at a wrong time’?
Consider that if I were carrying while at work, and one of our violent students (we have many, including one who is now on death row) were to come in and open fire or start stabbing people, I wouldn’t have to go to my car. There would be far less delay in my ability to take action.
And despite the sensationalist media coverage of these types of events, although the number of guns in circulation in the US has steadily risen, the number of shooting deaths annually has decreased for the last twenty years.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated numerous federal and state laws by even possessing handguns, let alone carrying them into a school. The fact that it was illegal for them to even possess a handgun did nothing to keep them from getting guns. Those determined to commit crimes with guns will obtain those guns through any means they can, legal or not.
I have a modest proposal: How about every US citizen is issued a handgun at birth? If more guns = more safety that will instantly reduce crime to 0%.
Sorry, I just can’t wrap my mind around the idea of teachers (like my soon-to-retire mom) carrying a weapon. She’ll be shooting her her own foot twice a day with the darn thing. She’s a great teacher (she’s a principal actually, but she was a teacher for over 30 years), but I am absolutely sure she’d quit if faced with that choice. So I guess the US will end up with all the Dirty Harrys and John Waynes teaching. Good luck with that idea.
I knew it was going to become a gun argument. I just knew it.
I agree with this completely, but I also agree with Crafter Man that there should be some arming of teachers in school, at least the ones that can handle and are willing to assume the responsibility.
Still, you have to ask yourself how we got to the point where we have to seriously discuss this as an option.
You not seen Kindergarten Cop?
You’re not who I’m talking about. I’m talking about someone who never willingly handled a gun until they were ordered to do so on pain of losing their teaching license, someone who may be afraid of guns, or opposed to them on principle, who is not used to carrying one and consequently can’t do so safely or discreetly, and who can’t be forced to develop the will to fire a gun and do so judiciously. And all this would be in a situation where students and others knew there was a gun somewhere in the classroom (and believe me, they would know), which is where appropriating it at the wrong time would come in.
You made the choice. I’m not talking about you; I’m talking about a hypothetical teacher who should not have this choice forced on them.
In that case, I think there should also be public disclosure on which teachers have chosen to carry a firearm, and which have not. That way, a parent (such as myself) can insist my children only be taught by armed teachers.
Many of whom don’t do nearly the amount of practicing that those of us normal citizens who take up firearms as a hobby and get ourselves licensed to conceal do.
Some of those police officers fire only enough rounds in a year to take their annual qualifying exam.
Even at a conservative estimate as in Kellerman, there are nearly a quarter million defensive gun uses every year, most of which result in no shots fired and no injuries.
Unfortunately these are rarely reported in the media, so most people never hear about it. One of the reasons they’re not seen in the media is that the defensive gun use prevents a crime from ever taking place.
Here in the real world I successfully removed an intruder from my home because a pistol is an excellent persuasive tool. 
Then why is it that although the number of firearms in circulation in the United States has steadily increased over the last twenty years, the number of shooting deaths has steadily decreased in the same period?
Instead of ridiculous strawmen, how about a more realistic hypothetical?
I work in a post-secondary school (although I’m soon to be leaving). I am a practiced firearms owner, and I have a license to carry concealed firearms. There are violent students here, some of whom were in prison for committing violent felonies, and at least one of whom is on death row now for murders that he began committing while enrolled as a student.
Would you object to allowing me to carry my pistol, concealed, while at work?
Now THAT is silly. The knowledge that some of them are armed but the lack of knowledge about who those people are is a powerful deterrent. It would work just as well in a school as it does in all other walks of life.
As far as guns go I almost always find myself in agreement with you, but seriously, man… this comment speaks of a serious case of paranoia. If I may be so bold as to ask, did something happen to you when you were younger that caused you to hold such a strong opinion? I’m not insulting you, I’m just curious.
Oh behave :dubious:
“It works in Peru therefore it’ll work in the USA”…?
Try again. :rolleyes:
Presumably the same reason that all violent crime has decreased in that period. Increased prosperity is probably a part of it; the authors of Freakonomics make a pretty good argument that a huge part of it is legalized abortion.
Sure they would, Mr Machismo. What do you do, spend your whole teaching day lying prone in the sandbag emplacement set up round your desk, your beloved “battle rifle”* levelled at the door? When you leave the classroom, are you going to go around each corner like a SWAT team member on a drug bust? Or perhaps you could stand facing the door, guns in holsters, hands hovering over them like a cowboy facing off the bad guy in the main street (for twenty years or so, waiting for your hero moment) while teaching out of the side of your mouth.
You’re a joke, pal.
*I wish I had a great big main battle rifle. It’d make up for certain things I lack
Why is it then acceptable to say that because strict gun control works in Britain and Australia it will necessarily also work in the United States?
That may well be, but it still directly contradicts your statements that more guns will necessarily lead to more gun crime and more shooting deaths.