Should teachers in the US be armed?
- Thread starter jameen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Both options should be on the table. Aren't schools federally funded? Then federal agents, or military police should patrol them for free-- and the outlying areas. A lot of taxes go into funding training of military personnel-- this would be a great way for American citizens to get a return on an investment of billions of dollars overseas, only right here in America. President Trump should order this right now for a few months to guard against other nutcases from going off, and then downgrade to a maintenance level of security, whether he does it privately or publicly. It is the responsibility of American government to protect citizens and students who are required by law to attend public schools.
Teachers who want to be trained should also be allowed to conceal-carry in schools, especially until schools are made safer. It's not rocket-science. I get tired of people sitting around and not making command decisions when actions could be taken to protect young people in America.
Teachers who want to be trained should also be allowed to conceal-carry in schools, especially until schools are made safer. It's not rocket-science. I get tired of people sitting around and not making command decisions when actions could be taken to protect young people in America.
Last edited:
I really hope you will take this issue more seriously. You are talking about lives of people,
and you should really make an effort to think a bit harder. This mean look seriously
at fact and not copy one-line slogans.
To begin with, please, let us follow a minimum of logic.
I did not propose a solution. However, if you want to introduce guns in schools, that is a huge change.
The change can be positive or negative, but it is huge, and probably very expensive.
The burden of proof is on you (on whoever supports this change).
As for the CPRC, it is a gun advocacy group, not a research center.
It is basically an outlet of John Lott, somebody who has devoted most of
his career to pro-gun advocacy. His conclusions (and funding sources) have been criticized by many.
This per se does not mean much, but those data you mention are debatable: they rely a lot on handpicking
which cases you select as mass shootings in gun free zone.
For instance they exclude a case in Washington, DC, 9/16/13 on the ground that there were armed guards, but no other
armed people. They consider it a "guns free zone". This seems to me borderline crazy (and disqualifies in my eyes
the whole "research").
Does it mean that schools will remain guns free by these people's criteria unless we give guns to students?
Finally, these data prove really little. Perhaps you heard that correlation is not causation.
There are many possible reasons why schools are a favorite target of crazy people. The fact that they are
gun free is not necessarily a factor.
and you should really make an effort to think a bit harder. This mean look seriously
at fact and not copy one-line slogans.
To begin with, please, let us follow a minimum of logic.
I did not propose a solution. However, if you want to introduce guns in schools, that is a huge change.
The change can be positive or negative, but it is huge, and probably very expensive.
The burden of proof is on you (on whoever supports this change).
As for the CPRC, it is a gun advocacy group, not a research center.
It is basically an outlet of John Lott, somebody who has devoted most of
his career to pro-gun advocacy. His conclusions (and funding sources) have been criticized by many.
This per se does not mean much, but those data you mention are debatable: they rely a lot on handpicking
which cases you select as mass shootings in gun free zone.
For instance they exclude a case in Washington, DC, 9/16/13 on the ground that there were armed guards, but no other
armed people. They consider it a "guns free zone". This seems to me borderline crazy (and disqualifies in my eyes
the whole "research").
Does it mean that schools will remain guns free by these people's criteria unless we give guns to students?
Finally, these data prove really little. Perhaps you heard that correlation is not causation.
There are many possible reasons why schools are a favorite target of crazy people. The fact that they are
gun free is not necessarily a factor.
That is part of the frustration.... everyone agrees we need to do something, but when people come up with possible solutions, or at least partial solutions, the ones that are screaming the loudest for change holler "he** NO"
Finding out why these things happen is secondary to immediate prevention tactics.
The training and arming of teachers that are not only willing, but anxious to be a "guard dog" should be a no-brainer. The posting of signs that announce that there are armed guards in the school should be done. All the kids in the school, and the whole community should be made aware that there are armed guards in the school...and that they are there all the time. There should be a police presence there, even if only one cop, with his/her car parked outside the front door.
Finding out why these things happen is secondary to immediate prevention tactics.
The training and arming of teachers that are not only willing, but anxious to be a "guard dog" should be a no-brainer. The posting of signs that announce that there are armed guards in the school should be done. All the kids in the school, and the whole community should be made aware that there are armed guards in the school...and that they are there all the time. There should be a police presence there, even if only one cop, with his/her car parked outside the front door.
Criticized, yes, by anti-gun nuts. Criticized, but not shown to be wrong.
John Lott has done more research on the legal use of firearms than anyone else I know of, and as far as I have heard, has not been proven to be wrong by any of the gun-grab crowd. They don't LIKE his research, or his conclusions, but they have not proven him to be wrong.
Since you want to use a "minimum of logic" here, try this one on for size.... You claim that armed teachers would "likely" be ineffective against an armed attacker. Do you not think that the teacher that used his own body to shield the students against the shooter could not have opened the door and at least shot AT the attacker, instead of just standing there soaking up bullets?
Several of these types of shootings have ended as soon as the shooter was engaged by police.... someone able to shoot back. They have "given up" and killed themselves.
Logic would indicate that the sooner the intended victims start shooting back, the better.
John Lott has done more research on the legal use of firearms than anyone else I know of, and as far as I have heard, has not been proven to be wrong by any of the gun-grab crowd. They don't LIKE his research, or his conclusions, but they have not proven him to be wrong.
Since you want to use a "minimum of logic" here, try this one on for size.... You claim that armed teachers would "likely" be ineffective against an armed attacker. Do you not think that the teacher that used his own body to shield the students against the shooter could not have opened the door and at least shot AT the attacker, instead of just standing there soaking up bullets?
Several of these types of shootings have ended as soon as the shooter was engaged by police.... someone able to shoot back. They have "given up" and killed themselves.
Logic would indicate that the sooner the intended victims start shooting back, the better.
What has changed? We don't have the loony bins these nuts belong in, for their own safety as much as for their community's. . ..And speaking of free roaming loonies, I've noticed the media offering segments where they interview one of the kids...and am frightened by the thought that a majority of the resultant policy on this will likely be determined on this child's emotional counsel, rather than of any analysis from any responsible, mature, and/or sensible rational thought.
Do you know anything about statistics?
Do you know anything about science?
Do you know what is correlation?
Do you know what is causation?
It is really hard to talk to people that shut their brain, but let me try to explain this very easily.
Please try to focus for one minute, and read carefully. (Probably you will not even try to understand this,
but let me give it a try.)
If you want to prove that A causes B, you need to bring evidence towards A causing B.
If you only see that A often happens when B happens, that is not evidence.
For instance, is you go to a very fancy restaurant, and ask people for what cars customers drive, you
will find out that many more people than average drive fancy cars.
Does that mean that going to fancy restaurants allow you to buy fancy car? No.
Does that mean that buying a fancy car allows you to go to a fancy restaurant? No.
It means that both have a common cause.
I am sorry, but "this is an opinion" is really a poor answer, and reveals a lot about you.
Do you know anything about science?
Do you know what is correlation?
Do you know what is causation?
It is really hard to talk to people that shut their brain, but let me try to explain this very easily.
Please try to focus for one minute, and read carefully. (Probably you will not even try to understand this,
but let me give it a try.)
If you want to prove that A causes B, you need to bring evidence towards A causing B.
If you only see that A often happens when B happens, that is not evidence.
For instance, is you go to a very fancy restaurant, and ask people for what cars customers drive, you
will find out that many more people than average drive fancy cars.
Does that mean that going to fancy restaurants allow you to buy fancy car? No.
Does that mean that buying a fancy car allows you to go to a fancy restaurant? No.
It means that both have a common cause.
I am sorry, but "this is an opinion" is really a poor answer, and reveals a lot about you.
Heavy-duty tends to not be as shiny, but holds up well. Also, Project Mk-Ultra, Orion, Monarch, and Stargate were all very real projects, unfortunately. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. I have actually used the Remote Viewing technique that the CIA experimented with in Project Stargate with some pretty startling accuracy.
Last edited:
I am sorry, but logic is really hard sometimes. Right?
First, I do not claim that they would be ineffective. I only asked for evidence that they will be effective, and still got none.
Second (this is going to be hard, but try to focus).
If you want to argue that guns in will reduce guns casualties, you need to argue
that some of the guns casualties will be avoided, but also account for the new
ones potentially produced by the new guns around.
You have to do a total balance, and argue that the positive effects outweigh the negative ones.
Regarding Lott. I gave a concrete example of a nonsensical way of
arguing on that site. I wish you had done one quarter of my effort of thinking carefully.
First, I do not claim that they would be ineffective. I only asked for evidence that they will be effective, and still got none.
Second (this is going to be hard, but try to focus).
If you want to argue that guns in will reduce guns casualties, you need to argue
that some of the guns casualties will be avoided, but also account for the new
ones potentially produced by the new guns around.
You have to do a total balance, and argue that the positive effects outweigh the negative ones.
Regarding Lott. I gave a concrete example of a nonsensical way of
arguing on that site. I wish you had done one quarter of my effort of thinking carefully.
There is no reason for you to get sarcastic and snippy towards me.... and, you really are not very good at it. "unarmed" as it were.....
So, let's say that A is a citizen with a gun. B is a school shooting. Your assumption is that somehow A caused B, correct? Then you are wrong! There are millions of citizens that own guns, and there are statistically non-existent numbers of shootings such as the ones we are discussing. So, A does NOT cause B. This rules out YOUR first solution to the problem, which is to eliminate the guns.
A often happens when B happens.... no evidence.
I think I understand you very well. And, since you asked, here you go.
So, let's say that A is a citizen with a gun. B is a school shooting. Your assumption is that somehow A caused B, correct? Then you are wrong! There are millions of citizens that own guns, and there are statistically non-existent numbers of shootings such as the ones we are discussing. So, A does NOT cause B. This rules out YOUR first solution to the problem, which is to eliminate the guns.
A often happens when B happens.... no evidence.
I think I understand you very well. And, since you asked, here you go.
Last edited:
I think the evidence you're seeking is historical at this point, as there is no contemporary evidence. Unfortunately, the government rarely allows real-world trials for things like this. We are only now finding out that Marijuana legalization doesn't really have any negative impact on communities, when people have been insisting that it wouldn't have any real negative impacts since it was criminalized. The closest we could come to actual evidence for the effectiveness of libertarian ideas are logical theories with real-world examples. You could try a "red team" approach and imagine trying to infiltrate a room full of just 10 armed people as a mass-shooter, or to make the idea more libertarian, a gun show. If you have ever played a projectile-based combat game such as paintball or airsoft, you should understand that the number of armed bodies really make a difference, even if those bodies are fairly untrained in terms of combatives.
I haven't really followed your conversation with hortnetguy, but I can see that you are getting a little frustrated. What is your conversation about? Everyone who has been talking to me stops after my first response when I make a point and it is getting a little frustrating.
I haven't really followed your conversation with hortnetguy, but I can see that you are getting a little frustrated. What is your conversation about? Everyone who has been talking to me stops after my first response when I make a point and it is getting a little frustrating.
