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.
S
Just say on local news that some teachers in Fair View school district in West Plains Mo. have been conceal /carry for 5 years now.
They have been trained like swat teams and must be go threw 36 hours additional training every year.
Although not named, they said several districts in Arkansas are doing the same thing.
They have been trained like swat teams and must be go threw 36 hours additional training every year.
Although not named, they said several districts in Arkansas are doing the same thing.
The goal is to prevent school shootings, not to have to react to one in progress. Let's enact policies that have this goal.
I don't believe that armed teachers will prevent a mentally ill student from going on a shooting rampage in a school, nor do I believe that any type of gun control will work either.
I don't believe that armed teachers will prevent a mentally ill student from going on a shooting rampage in a school, nor do I believe that any type of gun control will work either.
A regular news commentator on tv I think made a great point....
He said the government and corporations have already been protecting "soft targets" for decades... Soft targets include courthouses, government offices, corporate offices, airports... What do they all have in common? Armed security personnel, metal detectors and advanced security systems... Schools have always been soft targets but little has been done to protect them.
He said the government and corporations have already been protecting "soft targets" for decades... Soft targets include courthouses, government offices, corporate offices, airports... What do they all have in common? Armed security personnel, metal detectors and advanced security systems... Schools have always been soft targets but little has been done to protect them.
Why banning AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons won't matter....
This is a shotgun loaded with 4 rounds that can be emptied, reloaded and shot again in 3.5 seconds...
That's 8 shots with a reload in teh middle in just 3.5 seconds!
[video=youtube;xXkyEbrqNGw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXkyEbrqNGw[/video]
This is a shotgun loaded with 4 rounds that can be emptied, reloaded and shot again in 3.5 seconds...
That's 8 shots with a reload in teh middle in just 3.5 seconds!
[video=youtube;xXkyEbrqNGw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXkyEbrqNGw[/video]
Last edited:
Come on, Huckleberry, you wear a foil hat--admit it--
But, new evidence shows that they make it easier for the government to track your thoughts:
Copied from: "The Atlantic.com; Sept. 28th, 2012)
[FONT="]"In 2005, a group of MIT students, prodded by "a desire to play with some expensive equipment,"tested the effectiveness of foil helmets at blocking various radio frequencies. Using two layers of Reynolds aluminum foil, they constructed three helmet designs, dubbed the Classical, the Fez, and the Centurion, and then looked at the strength of the transmissions between a radio-frequency signal generator and a receiver antenna placed on various parts of their subjects' bare and helmet-covered heads.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The helmets shielded their wearers from radio waves over most of the tested spectrum (YouTube user Mrfixitrick likewise demonstrates the blocking power of his foil toque against his wireless modem) but, surprisingly, amplified certain frequencies: those in the 2.6 Ghz ( allocated for mobile communications and broadcast satellites) and 1.2 Ghz (allocated for aeronautical radionavigation and space-to-Earth and space-to-space satellites) bands.[/FONT]
[FONT="]While the MIT guys' tongue-in-cheek conclusion -- "the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC" -- maybe goes a few steps too far, their study at least shows that foil helmets fail at, and even counteract, their intended purpose. That, or the students are aliens who fabricated these results in an effort to get you to take your perfectly functional helmet off."[/FONT]
But, new evidence shows that they make it easier for the government to track your thoughts:
Copied from: "The Atlantic.com; Sept. 28th, 2012)
[FONT="]"In 2005, a group of MIT students, prodded by "a desire to play with some expensive equipment,"tested the effectiveness of foil helmets at blocking various radio frequencies. Using two layers of Reynolds aluminum foil, they constructed three helmet designs, dubbed the Classical, the Fez, and the Centurion, and then looked at the strength of the transmissions between a radio-frequency signal generator and a receiver antenna placed on various parts of their subjects' bare and helmet-covered heads.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The helmets shielded their wearers from radio waves over most of the tested spectrum (YouTube user Mrfixitrick likewise demonstrates the blocking power of his foil toque against his wireless modem) but, surprisingly, amplified certain frequencies: those in the 2.6 Ghz ( allocated for mobile communications and broadcast satellites) and 1.2 Ghz (allocated for aeronautical radionavigation and space-to-Earth and space-to-space satellites) bands.[/FONT]
[FONT="]While the MIT guys' tongue-in-cheek conclusion -- "the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC" -- maybe goes a few steps too far, their study at least shows that foil helmets fail at, and even counteract, their intended purpose. That, or the students are aliens who fabricated these results in an effort to get you to take your perfectly functional helmet off."[/FONT]
K
Its not name calling. You are making a false comparison. You intimated that I didn't care about the murder of children,and I said that was offensive. You tried to turn that around and say everything I was posting was offending you and propaganda,to which I said you were being ridiculous,that is not name calling. And if you think anti-gun sites don't have an agenda and propaganda you're fooling yourself.
You gave your opinion.We all use Wiki,none of us claim it as an authority on any given subject.
Again,thats your opinion.
You've been condescending to almost everyone who has answered you. There are things we cannot know until they are tried. People keep screaming "do something" then when things are proposed "well we can't do that,that won't work". Its as simple as this,Trump has made more than one suggestion,he never said all teachers should or must be armed,different schools are coming up with solutions that work for them. All anyone has done in this thread is give their personal opinion. One is not more right than the other. Its a discussion.
You've been told this at least a dozen times here,we do not know what we do not know. Somewhere someone has to do something and see if it works. Its better than doing nothing. You cannot present facts that are not there yet.
Once again,this is your opinion. This is a discussion site and people are allowed to post what they wish,as long as it abides by the rules,in whatever manner they wish.Not everyone has time to do detective work for everything they post. If you do,great. But you don't get to demand what others post to suit you.
Are you kidding me?
Your argument to show that something is illegal is
- NOT showing that it goes against a specific law.
- NOT referring to an argument opinion of a legal scholar saying that it is illegal
- NOT referring to the opinion of an expert saying (without argument) that it is illegal.
It is referring to the opinion of somebody, that doesn't say it is illegal, but that *you* interpreted
as driven by their belief that it is illegal.
I really never heard a weaker argument.
Yes, I am used to discuss on the basis of real facts, reliable information sources, and logical arguments.
This might be obnoxious to you (or simply hard).
Your argument to show that something is illegal is
- NOT showing that it goes against a specific law.
- NOT referring to an argument opinion of a legal scholar saying that it is illegal
- NOT referring to the opinion of an expert saying (without argument) that it is illegal.
It is referring to the opinion of somebody, that doesn't say it is illegal, but that *you* interpreted
as driven by their belief that it is illegal.
I really never heard a weaker argument.
Yes, I am used to discuss on the basis of real facts, reliable information sources, and logical arguments.
This might be obnoxious to you (or simply hard).
"It is your opinion" is not a reply. Anybody here is allowed to write whatever he/she wants.
This does not mean that all posts are equally accurate/thorough/correct/truthful/honest.
I do not require everybody to be so, but if you start arguing with me, I will!
Regarding Wikipedia vs CPRC:
I gathered facts. Either I got the facts right, in which case the conclusion follows logically.
Otherwise, show me which facts are incorrect.
Again, people in this discussion argued for giving guns to teachers. I asked for evidence towards
the effectiveness of such a dramatic change, with potentially (I say *potentially*) large negative impact
on the lives of children.
- Several people started replying.
- I tried to demonstrate that the proposed evidence actually does not exist.
- Eventually you seem agree that there is no evidence.
Great.
As for how complicated is checking sources, give me a break!
- You cut and paste half a page of a long pro-guns article.
- You probably read the article before pasting it.
- The web page has a big logo on top with the word "GUNS".
You say you do not have time to check the logo? That takes less than one second.
I am not suggesting to do detective work. I am just suggesting that you should skeptical, especially of information sources that
are highly partisan *and* confirm your bias.
This does not mean that all posts are equally accurate/thorough/correct/truthful/honest.
I do not require everybody to be so, but if you start arguing with me, I will!
Regarding Wikipedia vs CPRC:
I gathered facts. Either I got the facts right, in which case the conclusion follows logically.
Otherwise, show me which facts are incorrect.
Again, people in this discussion argued for giving guns to teachers. I asked for evidence towards
the effectiveness of such a dramatic change, with potentially (I say *potentially*) large negative impact
on the lives of children.
- Several people started replying.
- I tried to demonstrate that the proposed evidence actually does not exist.
- Eventually you seem agree that there is no evidence.
Great.
As for how complicated is checking sources, give me a break!
- You cut and paste half a page of a long pro-guns article.
- You probably read the article before pasting it.
- The web page has a big logo on top with the word "GUNS".
You say you do not have time to check the logo? That takes less than one second.
I am not suggesting to do detective work. I am just suggesting that you should skeptical, especially of information sources that
are highly partisan *and* confirm your bias.