3 ms·
It's amazing how much little we trust people to cut out hair, especially when we compare the amount of training required for other things. For instance; in Ohio
by johnhenry 4y ago
It's amazing how much little we trust people to cut out hair, especially when we compare the amount of training required for other things.
For instance; in Ohio, the 700 hour training program for teachers to use guns was just paired back to 24.
- coinbasetwwa 4y agoGet rid of them both
- JaimeThompson 4y agoHow is it rational to allow untrained people to have weapons around elementary and other school students?
- raunak 4y agoWhy do they need guns?
- willcipriano 4y agoThe cops will stand outside and let them get murdered, preventing anyone brave enough to attempt a rescue from doing so.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rjsw 4y agoGive the kids guns, they can practice shooting anyone who comes into the classroom /s.
- InCityDreams 4y ago>How is it rational to allow untrained people to have weapons around elementary and other school students? "...in the USA." I wonder if, when some teacher eventually does go on a spree, the training will allow them to rationally kill more 'than would have been previously expected". Additional gun question. In religious schools would nuns, for example, be expected to be armed?
- giantg2 4y ago"I wonder if, when some teacher eventually does go on a spree, the training will allow them to rationally kill more 'than would have been previously expected"." Probably not. Most of the training is about use of force and very basic marksmanship. "Additional gun question. In religious schools would nuns, for example, be expected to be armed?" No one is being expected to be armed. It's optional/voluntary.
- coinbasetwwa 4y agoIf a teacher decides to go on a killing spree they’re free to do as much training as they like beforehand, that’s how free will works.
- giantg2 4y agoI agree that training is a good thing when dealing with people who hold power or responsibility over others - armed or not. I would imagine that many people don't see it as a huge issue given that 25+ states don't require training to carry a gun in public; that school children are also in the public areas where those people carry; and that there are exceptionally few issues with those carrying a gun legally, even more so in the context of school children being affected. Add to that the idea that if a teacher can't be trusted/responsible with a weapon around a child (responsibility could include choosing not to carry if they don't feel competent), then they probably don't have the trust/responsibility necessary to be a teacher in general. The predominate threat of guns to children is that they gain unsupervised access to one. I imagine/hope that a large part of the training focuses on that. No leaving it in a purse/desk/etc.
- chipsa 4y ago[Citation needed] It wasn't a 700 hour training program for teachers to use guns. It was a peace officer training course (Law Enforcement Officer). Maybe 24 hours isn't enough, but that's 3 days of coursework normally. As opposed to 4.5 months of training (that's probably unpaid, which really amounts to: no one took it).
- giantg2 4y agoJust for additional perspective on why those number have such a gap, the required training for armed guard is about 40 hours depending on the state (some more, some less).
- kube-system 4y agoBarbers do more than just cut hair. Their responsibilities are more complicated than safe handling of a gun, and also include tasks that could potentially harm people. The safe handling of a gun is much more straightforward.