3 ms·
'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, th
by 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 agoI 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 agoThat'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 agoAny timeframe between now and never is better than not doing it. Because after the first shooting started by a teacher, there's really noone left to arm. Other teachers, or security are not exactly helpful here, because the shooter has easy access to taking kids hostage. Everyone who was useful has been armed. What's the solution now? And if there is one, why wouldn't we apply it as step one, before arming teachers?