7 ms·

Indeed. It's beyond ridiculous; teachers are being put in charge of classrooms of minors, while being denied the right to carry arms to protect them effectivel

Indeed. It's beyond ridiculous; teachers are being put in charge of classrooms of minors, while being denied the right to carry arms to protect them effectively. (Perhaps you and I might have different points to make during that conversation).

anigbrowl 12y ago
I couldn't help noticing that in the first week of school several teachers who do have concealed carry permits managed to accidentally discharge their firearms in school, although I think the only casualty was the one who was injured by flying porcelain when the gun went off in the restroom and destroyed a toilet bowl.
- voltagex_ 12y ago
  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/us-teacher-shoots-herself-in-the-leg-with-concealed-weapon/5739122 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/us-teacher-shoots-hers...
Goronmon 12y ago
It's beyond ridiculous; teachers are being put in charge of classrooms of minors, while being denied the right to carry arms to protect them effectively. It literally boggles my mind that people make this suggestion with any sincerity.
- duncan_bayne 12y ago
  What does a mind look like when it's literally boggling? :) Seriously though, either: - school shootings are a statistically significant threat, in which case, arming teachers who wish to be armed seems reasonable or - school shootings aren't statistically significant, in which case, enough with the fear-mongering already
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    It really is too bad that there are only those two options. /s
    - duncan_bayne 12y ago
      How long would you say it'd take to disarm America? To a point that had an effect on school shootings? What do you plan to do in the intervening, say, century or so? You can't point to other countries with no guns and just wish it were like that where you are. It isn't, it won't be for a very long time, and to pretend otherwise is just wishful thinking.
      - adamnemecek 12y ago
        Why would it take a century? Idk, 2-3 years? Like 5 tops.
        duncan_bayne 12y ago
        Really? You genuinely believe that you could usefully reduce the number of guns in the US in 5 years?
        dllthomas 12y ago
        "usefully" to what purpose?
        LyndsySimon 12y ago
        How many functional firearms do you think there are in the US?
        adamnemecek 12y ago
        Like 1 per person.
        12y ago
- ars 12y ago
  Makes sense to me. What's strange about it to you? Seems like the best plan is to give weapons to those most responsible, rather than only those who would use them for bad. It's not like all guns are just going to disappear into thin air.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    > Seems like the best plan is to give weapons to those most responsible, rather than only those who would use them for bad. That's the old Charlton Heston argument. There are "good" people and "bad" people. How likely is it that a teacher is going to flip and kill Andy, 16, next time he shoots his mouth off? > It's not like all guns are just going to disappear into thin air. The UK essentially legislated away private gun ownership years ago. But of course, it's a society choice. I'd rather live in a society where my kid can go to school safely, with no guns on the premises.
    - Crito 12y ago
      > "That's the old Charlton Heston argument. There are "good" people and "bad" people." It's true though. Even better, we can in practice select "good people" (defined as "won't murder somebody with a gun") from the general public with an exceedingly low false positive rate (although with a high false negative rate). The combination of having to fill out stacks of paperwork for the ATF, go through their background checks, pay a $200 per-gun tax, and pay several thousands of dollars for the gun itself makes for a very effective "good people" filter.
      - mercurial 12y ago
        It makes for an unconvincing argument when you consider that the guns involved in the Lanza shooting were legally held, for instance. Same thing for Breivik. The fact is, it's disproportionally easy to kill a large number of people with semi-automatic weapons. One false positive means a lot of dead people. Not to mention the risk of theft by less savoury characters, assuming the filter did work in the first place.
viraptor 12y ago
Stats are not supporting your side very much. Random link with source description chosen from "school shootings by country" search - they all say the same: http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-against-36-other-countries-put-together/ http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-a...
- duncan_bayne 12y ago
  'My side' probably isn't the side you think it is. Your stats actually back my position up quite nicely, which is: if you're going to have an armed society, then probably the worst thing you can do is gather large numbers of children together under the care of people who are themselves unarmed. Personally, I think that it's reasonable to be allowed to go armed in public; especially for the old, infirm, and physically weak a weapon is a great equaliser. The problem comes when you have an armed society, with pockets of disarmed (as opposed to unarmed) prospective victims. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it situation. Either you disarm the population (wearing the cost to those incapable of physically defending themselves, and also, best of luck with that) or you arm the teachers who wish to be armed. Any other position is wishful thinking.
  - viraptor 12y ago
    I agree with one option only - disarming. The other idea will fall as soon as it's the teacher that starts the shooting the next time. And that's going to happen sooner or later. What will people propose then - arm kids so they can defend themselves from the teacher?
    - duncan_bayne 12y ago
      That's what I mean by wishful thinking. Disarming is not possible in anything like a useful timeframe, at least not by a Government you'd like to have around after the disarming finished.
      - viraptor 12y ago
demallien 12y ago
Yes, let's arm the teachers. And when we're reading, a few years later about the tragic shooting in Hunt County a High School, where the Chemistry teacher went nuts and shot 51 students, we will once again lay fault at the feet of the lack of guns. Maybe the kids should have guns too, to protect them from the armed teachers? Or, maybe just maybe, it might lead to less deaths by shooting if there were less guns floating around to do the shooting with?

anigbrowl 12y ago

I couldn't help noticing that in the first week of school several teachers who do have concealed carry permits managed to accidentally discharge their firearms in school, although I think the only casualty was the one who was injured by flying porcelain when the gun went off in the restroom and destroyed a toilet bowl.

voltagex_ 12y ago
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/us-teacher-shoots-herself-in-the-leg-with-concealed-weapon/5739122 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/us-teacher-shoots-hers...

Goronmon 12y ago

It's beyond ridiculous; teachers are being put in charge of classrooms of minors, while being denied the right to carry arms to protect them effectively. It literally boggles my mind that people make this suggestion with any sincerity.

duncan_bayne 12y ago
What does a mind look like when it's literally boggling? :) Seriously though, either: - school shootings are a statistically significant threat, in which case, arming teachers who wish to be armed seems reasonable or - school shootings aren't statistically significant, in which case, enough with the fear-mongering already
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  It really is too bad that there are only those two options. /s
  - duncan_bayne 12y ago
    How long would you say it'd take to disarm America? To a point that had an effect on school shootings? What do you plan to do in the intervening, say, century or so? You can't point to other countries with no guns and just wish it were like that where you are. It isn't, it won't be for a very long time, and to pretend otherwise is just wishful thinking.
    - adamnemecek 12y ago
      Why would it take a century? Idk, 2-3 years? Like 5 tops.
      - duncan_bayne 12y ago
        Really? You genuinely believe that you could usefully reduce the number of guns in the US in 5 years?
        dllthomas 12y ago
        "usefully" to what purpose?
      - LyndsySimon 12y ago
        How many functional firearms do you think there are in the US?
        adamnemecek 12y ago
        Like 1 per person.
        12y ago
ars 12y ago
Makes sense to me. What's strange about it to you? Seems like the best plan is to give weapons to those most responsible, rather than only those who would use them for bad. It's not like all guns are just going to disappear into thin air.
- mercurial 12y ago
  > Seems like the best plan is to give weapons to those most responsible, rather than only those who would use them for bad. That's the old Charlton Heston argument. There are "good" people and "bad" people. How likely is it that a teacher is going to flip and kill Andy, 16, next time he shoots his mouth off? > It's not like all guns are just going to disappear into thin air. The UK essentially legislated away private gun ownership years ago. But of course, it's a society choice. I'd rather live in a society where my kid can go to school safely, with no guns on the premises.
  - Crito 12y ago
    > "That's the old Charlton Heston argument. There are "good" people and "bad" people." It's true though. Even better, we can in practice select "good people" (defined as "won't murder somebody with a gun") from the general public with an exceedingly low false positive rate (although with a high false negative rate). The combination of having to fill out stacks of paperwork for the ATF, go through their background checks, pay a $200 per-gun tax, and pay several thousands of dollars for the gun itself makes for a very effective "good people" filter.
    - mercurial 12y ago
      It makes for an unconvincing argument when you consider that the guns involved in the Lanza shooting were legally held, for instance. Same thing for Breivik. The fact is, it's disproportionally easy to kill a large number of people with semi-automatic weapons. One false positive means a lot of dead people. Not to mention the risk of theft by less savoury characters, assuming the filter did work in the first place.

viraptor 12y ago

Stats are not supporting your side very much. Random link with source description chosen from "school shootings by country" search - they all say the same: http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-against-36-other-countries-put-together/ http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-a...

duncan_bayne 12y ago
'My side' probably isn't the side you think it is. Your stats actually back my position up quite nicely, which is: if you're going to have an armed society, then probably the worst thing you can do is gather large numbers of children together under the care of people who are themselves unarmed. Personally, I think that it's reasonable to be allowed to go armed in public; especially for the old, infirm, and physically weak a weapon is a great equaliser. The problem comes when you have an armed society, with pockets of disarmed (as opposed to unarmed) prospective victims. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it situation. Either you disarm the population (wearing the cost to those incapable of physically defending themselves, and also, best of luck with that) or you arm the teachers who wish to be armed. Any other position is wishful thinking.
- viraptor 12y ago
  I agree with one option only - disarming. The other idea will fall as soon as it's the teacher that starts the shooting the next time. And that's going to happen sooner or later. What will people propose then - arm kids so they can defend themselves from the teacher?
  - duncan_bayne 12y ago
    That's what I mean by wishful thinking. Disarming is not possible in anything like a useful timeframe, at least not by a Government you'd like to have around after the disarming finished.
    - viraptor 12y ago

demallien 12y ago

Yes, let's arm the teachers. And when we're reading, a few years later about the tragic shooting in Hunt County a High School, where the Chemistry teacher went nuts and shot 51 students, we will once again lay fault at the feet of the lack of guns. Maybe the kids should have guns too, to protect them from the armed teachers? Or, maybe just maybe, it might lead to less deaths by shooting if there were less guns floating around to do the shooting with?