Easy there UncleBeer, just makin a lil joke. The line about shooting your toilet should’ve been the clue. This does make the bolded part of your quote a little more funny though.
I’m actually on the fence about most gun control. I will say that maybe more effective gun control legislation could pass if the NRA would stop treating every single bill as though it gave jack booted thugs the power to forcibly sieze the guns from your homes while raping your wimmens. They have to be one of the more oversensitive, reactionary, unreasonable, border line insane political groups out there. Can’t even joke about it without them reacting as if you were masturbating on the constitution while shitting on the flag right in front of the statue of liberty during “nuns and orphans tour free” day.
Having gotten that off of my chest, I’m all for a reasonable discussion much like the one I was having with FinnAgain before your massive lack of a sense of humor came in.
Finn, I actually do have a response for you, but I’m out the door. Something a bit more intelligent later.
Interestingly enough, although I agree and understand your sentiment, prisons do not even typically allow guns inside, for STAFF or inmates. In fact, against popular belief, in most states there are only 2-5 armed EXTERIOR posts. In most prisons there are no pr-24s (nightsticks) and mace is carried only by supervisors. This is all based on the fact that weapons, in general, have a nasty habit of being used against the very people that carry them, especially when the individuals are dramatically outnumbered such as in prisons, and if you think about it, schools.
So, in actuality, our schools, if we allow guns for teachers, are becoming worse than prisons.
Only if you’re talking about teachers walking around with holstered guns. Or if you’re assuming that during a school massacre students who are being shot at by a murderer will try to get a gun away from a teacher and join in the killing.
Ya know, when I saw you explained that you were jusst making a joke and all, Harborwolf, I was going to apologize for jumping your shit. But then you followed it up with this same pathetic, tired garbage that all the other ignorant halfwits keep tossing out:
You should wander over to the NRA site and see which gun laws the NRA actually supports instead of tossing out that line the reactive assholes have worn as thin as the crotch of my 20 year old underwear.
Mebbe you ain’t noticed it you reactive asshole, but (according you gun-grabbing, panic artists) the vast increase in firearms restrictions that have been enacted in the past 30 years, and are proposed in the wake of every one of the shootings of this type, ain’t working so goddamned well either. Mebbe until a more palatable solution can be indentified, this ain’t so bad an idea. That is, if implemented with proper precautions.
QUOTE]
For the record, I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment. Although I do not agree with NRA on a LOT of issues, I still think that they have some valid points.
However, to be fair, how can you honestly claim that legislation has been ineffective when every single piece of legislation has been watered down by the gun lobby. Every analyst who has ever objectively examined most modern gun control legislation in the U.S. has determined that it was so watered down by special interests that it would be ineffective. (i.e. assault weapons ban that only drive up the prices of second hand gun market and then went bye bye)
Be fair here. Every academic who is objective knows that if you took all the guns away, violent crime and death would go down. However, every academic who is objective also knows that it would be impossible to get all the guns from the criminals who would use them (at least without using fascist tactics) and they also get concerned when we start talking about destroying that little document called the Constitution.
My husband tells me some funny stories from work at times and one of his favorite sayings he uses during meetings, when people start talking about the things they “wish” they could do with inmates (usually out of frustration):
“Yeah that pesky Constitution, it gets in the way all the time doesn’t it”
I have not seen a fool proof system of putting weapons readily at the hands of teachers or corrections professionals without using holsters. If you are talking about a centrally located, outside the premises, armoury, where people can go and get armed, then I agree. This would be much more safe, but would substantially delay response time.
If you are talking about relying on some other system, like locked desks, drawers or boxes, I assure you the experts in penology will concur that those weapons will have a higher probability of being compromised for use in a purpose against their original intention than they would of being used for fighting back against a school invasion.
By not allowing you, or the anti-gun rights lobby, to define the terms of the discussion. Where you say “watered down,” and try to imbue it with a negative meaning, I would say “compromise” to make the legislation palatable to a larger number of people. Representative democracy, remember? And if we let the anti-gun rights lobby write the legislation that’s to be passed with out “watering it down,” you can kiss your second amendment rights goodbye. You also might be surprised at just what legislation the NRA supports; maybe even more surprised at what legislation the NRA has actually authored. Fer instance, the NRA took the lead in authoring the bill that outlaws the importation and manufacture of the so-called armor-piercing bullets currently in effect in the USA. The NRA supports legislation mandating instant background checks - and that those checks be extended to all purchases made at gun shows. The NRA supported legislation exploring the viability of “ballistic fingerprinting.” The NRA supported legislation mandating the inclusion of gun locks with every new firearm purchase.
And everyone, not just academics, who is objective will admit that most gun rights restrictions (outside of you admitted impossiblity of just making all the guns totally disappear overnight) have had little, or no, effect on criminal with violent intentions.
Ale: Is there a real reason why you’re restating that? Aside from the fact that I can provide ample studies on discipline with contradict her statement? Aside from the fact that you wouldn’t be protecting your students from every other student, but from crazy mass murders, who you wouldn’t be treating all your students like?
Because it matches my experience with relation to degenerating social enviroments; by arming teachers you´re promoting an arms race, not a solution for school shootings.
No joke. Just venting my spleen. Any sort of gun control thread turns into the same crap. The NRA thinks guns can do no wrong. The gun control people think all guns are bad. Heads butt. Noone listens.
That’s my problem. Each side brings the same knee jerk stupidity to the table and nothing productive gets done. You have to remember that I live in Norm Olsen militia country here. We take our NRA very seriously. :rolleyes:
I’ll check the NRA site and see what they have to say.
And I was going to apologize, but then you brought up the crotch of your twenty year old underwear. Nothing deserves that. :eek:
I can’t speak for all schools, but the one I went to had lock on all doors and the window glass had the wire screen inside of it, making it very difficult to break into the room. And can you really shoot the lock off of the door or is that just so much movie crap? That’s an honest question. The area I live in isn’t very big on gun violence unless you have a white tail and antlers.
This has several problems. Who has access to the unlock doohickee? What happens if the persons responsible are away from the office or cut off by the shooters location? The same question then applies to the teachers. If they are away from their desks, then the guns are as useless as the metal detector the shooter walked right through.
But when you arm the teachers you are admitting to a certain degree of risk. Since the school has already admitted to the risk, the legal arguments fall in to place. Why would some teachers get training and protection over some others? If I can buy a gun for home protection, why couldn’t I be trusted with one in a school? Unless the regs for this are drawn up airtight, the law suits will take ages to clear up.
Agreed, but as I posted above. If a person can be trusted with a gun at home, why can’t they have one at school? The risk has been admitted. Why can’t some teachers be allowed to protect themselves while others can?
I’m not trying to come across as a gun control nut here, but the idea contains way too many problems for too little benefit. There’s the training and likely annual recertification process and the costs therein. There’s the vetting process. The weapons have to be secure but easily accessable in a crisis situation.
When the police show up, there will be more than a few people in the school with weapons, complicating the whole thing. How sure can they be that the person that they see through the window is a teacher or the shooter?
How comfortable would you be shooting a student? Would a summers worth of training be enough for you to feel comfortable pulling the trigger? How about your fellow teachers? Until teachers are brought through college learning what amounts to police tactics and training, you are going to have whole groups of people that didn’t really want to learn this.
What I’m trying to say is that there are too many ways that this could go very wrong for what little protection it would be worth. I could think of tons more ways in which this could go very wrong. The costs and risks far outweigh any potential benefit of what would be essentially a security blanket to fretful parents.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the thought of Gertrude Cook, my 9th grade algebra teacher, packing heat gives me the cold-robbies. The idea that my daughter, the semi-hysterical high school guidance counselor, ought to wear a side arm or keep a shot gun in her office is just preposterous. If we don’t have enough trouble with motorist taking the occasional shot at each other…
Well, I don’t have a cite, but I think you could probably blow the lock off a door. I mean, I know that if you unscrew the plate you can get a door open, I’m sure you could shoot it off too. Could be wrong though.
True, there are possible problems with this system, and I’m not saying its flawless. I just think that the possibility of getting to a self defense weapon is a lot better than no possibility at all.
I’m not so sure… then again IANAL. It seems to be roughly the same thing as having teachers prepared to lead an evacuation in the event of a tornado. You’re not saying your school is tornado prone, you’re just creating a plan in case the worst happens.
Well, the guidelines should be transparent, and I’d think that teachers who weren’t qualified wouldn’t have much to bitch about.
Might be a bitch to handle, but I do think that the requirements for a teacher to have access to a firearm should be positively draconian compared to the ability of a private citizen to have a gun at home.
Any teachers who have enough training and pass psychological tests should be able to have access to firearms. As for why someone should be trusted with a weapon at home but not at school, well, because there are children around at school. If someone is going to have access to a weapon at school, I want to make sure they’re qualified and over-qualified.
All true. It would be a costly endevour. But I think the benefits would be that our schools would no longer be places where kids can go on rampages unchecked as the minutes tick off and the police race to the scene.
A good point. I’d think they’d be able to tell an adult from a child, but if necessary give each teacher a bright orange vest in the lockbox or something.
If the kid had a gun and/or had already killed other people? Very comfortable.
So those who want to learn it, are free to. Those who do not, won’t have access to firearms.
I suppose… I just see a situation where armed students have, time and again, had free reign on a campus until the police show up. I don’t think this problem is going to go away, and I do think that we should take some measures to thwart future attempts. I’m definitely open to suggestions.
I would prefer safety training and better locks and door windows. Maybe one or two more security guards for the schools that want them. The system would be less complex and less likely to fail. Every teacher can get the training. No gun control people will get all ruffled. Costs would be comparable if not less than the armed teacher plan, with less of a chance of law suits. Teachers could be given cell phones if they do not already have them so they can better communicate with police, making the police more effective.
In the end, the armed teacher plan is more about minimizing casualties than full prevention. If a student really wants to shoot up a school, there isn’t going to be an effective form of deterrent.
Just MHO, YMMV, and any other acronyms applicable.
The best approach is to simply allow each person to decide if he/she wants to carry a weapon, including a firearm. This decision should be made without any government interference or involvement.
Yeah, that’s great. You could turn a school shooting into a school shoot out. And when the police show up, they’d have no idea who was the shooter and who was just a teacher trying to help.