Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

azazel the cat wrote:So... if teachers are allowed to conceal-carry in schools... and Missouri is a Stand Your Ground state... and it's been well established that pointing in a gun-like fashion with your thumb & forefinger is considered a weapon in schools...

I give it six months before a teacher feels intimidated by a kid that ate a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and shoots him.

I laughed way harder than I should have. Thankfully the kind of teacher that would do this would probably faint at the thought of carrying a firearm on their person. 10/10

Eetion wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Meh who cares. Israeli teachers are armed.

Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"

Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)

But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.

But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.

So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.

Fair enough, you're British. There's a reason you live in your country and I live in mine. While I disagree with your opinion, you're not coming over here and trying to make us change our laws to match yours, so I've got no issue with you. Your country has its reasons for doing what it does and we have ours.

Frazzled wrote:

 Eetion wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Meh who cares. Israeli teachers are armed.

Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"

Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)

But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.

But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.

So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.

Nutjobs trying to kill kids sounds like terrorism to me.

Amen to that.

Out of all the possible solutions to school massacres, I think the option of giving teachers concealed carry training is probably the best we can hope for. Obviously not every teacher is going to carry, but as long as they conceal their pistol you'll never know who has one and who doesn't, hopefully deterring most shooters at the thought they could be stopped seconds into their attempted killing spree. As for the ones who do decide to go through with it, you now have a first response either in the room or within a couple of minutes of the problem, who knows the building well. They're already on the payroll, minimizing expense compared to hiring guards, and its an "invisible" measure that most kids will never even have to see. It's not perfect, but it will do a heck of a lot more than banning scary assault weapons.

 whembly wrote:
You immigrated to the US recently?

Don't worry... give it enough time and we'll corrupt you. Soon, you'll be armed to the teeth!

I did, and one of the first places my wife took me was the firing range

The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive. I live in Missouri, and am a target shooting enthusiast. I spend a lot of time around firearms, and people with CCW licenses, and it's very hard to tell when people are carrying or not. People that think it's easy need to get the Hollywood image of concealed weapons out of their mind. My sister is one of the most liberal thinking people I know, and the only member of my immediate family not to own their own firearm. She's also a teacher (currently only doing it as a substitute), and after the Sandy Hook shooting, even she suggested this course of action.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You immigrated to the US recently?

Don't worry... give it enough time and we'll corrupt you. Soon, you'll be armed to the teeth!

I did, and one of the first places my wife took me was the firing range

Once you smell the black powdah...there's no go'in back!

Seriously... was it a "cultural shock"?

 derek wrote:
The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive.

I think this is a good idea, but I do not think I share your bizarre presumption that teachers are somehow magical creatures incapable of having the same malfunctions that other people do, simply by virtue of the fact that they are teachers. They ARE human, after all, and as such, are just as subject to breaking as every other human being out there.

It's a calculated risk, just like every other decision that is made.

 daedalus wrote:

 derek wrote:
The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive.

I think this is a good idea, but I do not think I share your bizarre presumption that teachers are somehow magical creatures incapable of having the same malfunctions that other people do, simply by virtue of the fact that they are teachers. They ARE human, after all, and as such, are just as subject to breaking as every other human being out there.

It's a calculated risk, just like every other decision that is made.

I think I was unclear in what I meant with that. I should have said I find it laughable and offensive that a teacher is at any more risk for snapping and shooting a child than any other normal person with no history of violent acts, mental illness, or other warning factors. Some people just break, very rarely does it happen without warning.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
These people are trained by local SWAT officers, and must pass an annual background check, drug test and mental health exam to stay qualified (plus the other certifications required). The school board let the parents know through what appears to be the usual channels, the news picked up on it in due time an reported it.

I'm not seeing what the issue is here, so good for them.

Now if only there were something similar that everyone had to do in order to own and use a gun...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
These people are trained by local SWAT officers, and must pass an annual background check, drug test and mental health exam to stay qualified (plus the other certifications required). The school board let the parents know through what appears to be the usual channels, the news picked up on it in due time an reported it.

I'm not seeing what the issue is here, so good for them.

Now if only there were something similar that everyone had to do in order to own and use a gun...

Which infringes on the 2nd amendment.

 derek wrote:

I think I was unclear in what I meant with that. I should have said I find it laughable and offensive that a teacher is at any more risk for snapping and shooting a child than any other normal person with no history of violent acts, mental illness, or other warning factors. Some people just break, very rarely does it happen without warning.

Ah, well, I can get behind that.

 whembly wrote:
Which infringes on the 2nd amendment.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

So no, you don't just have the automatic right to have as many guns as you want to do whatever you want with them just because, nor is the regulation of the sale of guns an infringement of the second amendment.

 whembly wrote:
Once you smell the black powdah...there's no go'in back!

Amen to that

 whembly wrote:
Seriously... was it a "cultural shock"?

One of the strangest things for me was seeing ammunition being sold in supermarkets because that's nothing like what happens in Northern Ireland (for obvious reasons ). I like to experience new things so it wasn't so much a shock, but after you fire the first few rounds, feel the recoil and smell the cordite you realise just what it is that you're holding and the responsibility involved. Until then its still a very abstract concept. I have to say though that I enjoyed it, it was my first time with a loaded firearm, and its something that I'd like to do more of. I fired an XD9 pistol and a P90, I still have the target from the second mag of P90 too

Why is it 'laughable and offensive' when teachers do snap and attack children with other objects that come to mind? It being 'offensive' is particularly ridiculous, unless you are so insecure that you can't stand your culture of gun proliferation being questioned. Why is the solution to gun crime to have more people with guns and make guns easier to access? This why gun control is so hard in the US, it's nothing to do with logic, it's an engrained part of cultural identity. Anything threatening guns is like threatening a Cornish person with losing their pasties. That I can understand. It seems that often in these threads people talk about how safe they and their friends are with guns. As though questioning the general wisdom of spreading guns around is a direct attack upon their competence. It doesn't matter how good any individual claims to be with a gun, the stats, last I looked describe a situation where people are more likely to have an accident or commit suicide with a gun than they are be murdered with one. You're more at risk of injuring yourself by owning a gun than you are by not owning one and having a burglar break in and hurt you. Yes yes, you'll claim that won't happen to you because you're good with a gun and most others are not, you'll beat the stats and be safer overall. That might be true, but your being good with a gun doesn't change the fact that when groups of people like teachers start carrying guns, they typically aren't all people you know, and when lots of them do it they just become another statistic.

Claiming that teachers could snap and shoot children is not laughable, it happens, teachers do snap. It's just they haven't had a gun on them at the time. Don't dismiss it. How many teachers have flipped out big time in a class, how many school shooting are there? Are pupils really safer with an armed teacher?

There's a false perception of risk. People carry guns in the street worry about violent crime, but you are far more likely to be killed by your partner than a stranger. I'm sure that unless there's an abnormally high reason to suspect a school will be the target of a crazy going rampage, probability will dictate that children will generally be at greater risk from a teacher carrying a gun every day than they will be from the random nutter bursting in. It might still be a very small risk, but would become apparent if guns in schools become more widespread.

As I said, it'll be interesting to see what the first few uses of firearms by teachers in schools are. I bet they won't all be stopping nutters coming in with rifles, which is fairly uncommon even in the US.

I didn't see anyone laughing at the idea of teachers attacking children.

I did see people laughing at the thought of such bleeding hearts as those who call the cops over pop tart guns would actually bother buying a gun, and going through the CCW process.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Why is it 'laughable and offensive' when teachers do snap and attack children with other objects that come to mind? It being 'offensive' is particularly ridiculous, unless you are so insecure that you can't stand your culture of gun proliferation being questioned. Why is the solution to gun crime to have more people with guns and make guns easier to access? This why gun control is so hard in the US, it's nothing to do with logic, it's an engrained part of cultural identity. Anything threatening guns is like threatening a Cornish person with losing their pasties. That I can understand. It seems that often in these threads people talk about how safe they and their friends are with guns. As though questioning the general wisdom of spreading guns around is a direct attack upon their competence. It doesn't matter how good any individual claims to be with a gun, the stats, last I looked describe a situation where people are more likely to have an accident or commit suicide with a gun than they are be murdered with one. You're more at risk of injuring yourself by owning a gun than you are by not owning one and having a burglar break in and hurt you. Yes yes, you'll claim that won't happen to you because you're good with a gun and most others are not, you'll beat the stats and be safer overall. That might be true, but your being good with a gun doesn't change the fact that when groups of people like teachers start carrying guns, they typically aren't all people you know, and when lots of them do it they just become another statistic.

And it's also statistically safer to fly than drive. You're statistically more likely to be murdered in the US in an area with stricter gun control than you are in an area with laws that allow citizens to carry. I don't know what point you're trying to make, other than you hate guns, and no one should own them. I explained why I think it's laughable, and offensive to assume that a person with a CCW license is going to suddenly start murdering with no warning. To me, it'd be like saying Police are likely to snap and start shooting people.

Did I say I hate guns and want no one to own them? No I didn't think so. I think the point I was trying to make was fairly clear, but perhaps you know that which is why you grossly distorted it in order to respond.

djones520 wrote:I didn't see anyone laughing at the idea of teachers attacking children.

I might laugh... but it really depends on what is being used to attack the kid, though, and how much the kid deserves it. (firearms = not so funny)

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Which infringes on the 2nd amendment.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

So no, you don't just have the automatic right to have as many guns as you want to do whatever you want with them just because, nor is the regulation of the sale of guns an infringement of the second amendment.

I think you're confusing things...

I have the right to fill up my garage with as many guns that I can legally buy...

You're implying that I do not.

I think the odds of a teacher who goes through the classes for something like this, including annual recertification and mental health evaluations, snapping to the degree where they must murder a child right then and there are pretty low. It seems like they are doing this as much in the right way as possible, so give it a chance and see if it does anything.

Lord knows someone needs to try something new instead of the same old hand waving and banning a tiny number of guns that aren't generally used in gun violence because they are scary looking.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Claiming that teachers could snap and shoot children is not laughable, it happens, teachers do snap. It's just they haven't had a gun on them at the time. Don't dismiss it. How many teachers have flipped out big time in a class, how many school shooting are there? Are pupils really safer with an armed teacher?

But that's not the real question. The real question here is how much difference having a gun immediately available makes, since refusing to allow guns in schools doesn't do anything to stop a teacher from going back to their house/car/whatever, getting a gun, and coming back to murder everyone. How plausible is it really that you'd have any non-trivial number of teachers willing to murder children on an impulse but too lazy to go fetch a gun to do it?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Which infringes on the 2nd amendment.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

So no, you don't just have the automatic right to have as many guns as you want to do whatever you want with them just because, nor is the regulation of the sale of guns an infringement of the second amendment.

The regulation of the type you're talking is.

 whembly wrote:
I have the right to fill up my garage with as many guns that I can legally buy...

You're implying that I do not.

No, I am saying that you can have as many guns as you want, so long as you are legally able to buy them. There are already restrictions in place on the types of weapons you can buy, as well as waiting periods for other types of weapon and, in some cases, various back ground checks and so on. I simply suggest that in order to get any kind of gun the buyer should have to meet certain minimum requirements in terms of a clean background check, safety training etc, similar to if you wanted to drive a car you need to pass a test and have insurance, or if for some reason people decide to arm school teachers in the classroom they need to have passed some kind of training and be reassessed regularly in order to do so.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Claiming that teachers could snap and shoot children is not laughable, it happens, teachers do snap. It's just they haven't had a gun on them at the time. Don't dismiss it. How many teachers have flipped out big time in a class, how many school shooting are there? Are pupils really safer with an armed teacher?

But that's not the real question. The real question here is how much difference having a gun immediately available makes, since refusing to allow guns in schools doesn't do anything to stop a teacher from going back to their house/car/whatever, getting a gun, and coming back to murder everyone. How plausible is it really that you'd have any non-trivial number of teachers willing to murder children on an impulse but too lazy to go fetch a gun to do it?

Impulse, heat of the moment decisions count for a lot. As soon as people have to pause for a bit they calm down. I read an article on how barriers on bridges prevent suicides. Apparently a lot of suicide attempts are snap decisions not the result of planning, althought they might be extremely depressed. Just putting a small barrier, physically or figuratively, has quite an effect. If they are slowed down a bit they tend to clear their head after a moment and turn away. Anyone determined wont be stopped but that isn't where the effectiveness of such barriers lie.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
No, I am saying that you can have as many guns as you want, so long as you are legally able to buy them. There are already restrictions in place on the types of weapons you can buy, as well as waiting periods for other types of weapon and, in some cases, various back ground checks and so on. I simply suggest that in order to get any kind of gun the buyer should have to meet certain minimum requirements in terms of a clean background check, safety training etc, similar to if you wanted to drive a car you need to pass a test and have insurance, or if for some reason people decide to arm school teachers in the classroom they need to have passed some kind of training and be reassessed regularly in order to do so.

Not quite. Buying a gun is not analogous to driving a car on public roads. It would be...well, analogous to buying a car, which there are no requirements for beyond the ability to pay.

You want analogous to driving a car, you're looking at carrying a gun, and in most states, what you described is already in play. It's interesting to note, however, that the courts have said states need some sort of carry mechanism; you can't just prevent people from carrying guns. It's the right to keep AND bear arms, not just keep 'em.

I'm also highly amused that you quoted Heller earlier as part of your argument for more restrictions. Heller, as I'm sure you know, overturned a handgun ban as unconstitutional.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
No, I am saying that you can have as many guns as you want, so long as you are legally able to buy them. There are already restrictions in place on the types of weapons you can buy, as well as waiting periods for other types of weapon and, in some cases, various back ground checks and so on. I simply suggest that in order to get any kind of gun the buyer should have to meet certain minimum requirements in terms of a clean background check, safety training etc, similar to if you wanted to drive a car you need to pass a test and have insurance, or if for some reason people decide to arm school teachers in the classroom they need to have passed some kind of training and be reassessed regularly in order to do so.

Not quite. Buying a gun is not analogous to driving a car on public roads. It would be...well, analogous to buying a car, which there are no requirements for beyond the ability to pay.

You want analogous to driving a car, you're looking at carrying a gun, and in most states, what you described is already in play. It's interesting to note, however, that the courts have said states need some sort of carry mechanism; you can't just prevent people from carrying guns. It's the right to keep AND bear arms, not just keep 'em.

I'm also highly amused that you quoted Heller earlier as part of your argument for more restrictions. Heller, as I'm sure you know, overturned a handgun ban as unconstitutional.

On my phone so as to usinh heller - i hace no issuewith people owning guns, i would love to be able yo hunt and targwt shoot in the uk. But just because heller says you cant completwly ban guns, doesnt mean you cant restrict orregulater their sale and use... as said directly in the judgement abpve...

 SilverMK2 wrote:
On my phone so as to usinh heller - i hace no issuewith people owning guns, i would love to be able yo hunt and targwt shoot in the uk. But just because heller says you cant completwly ban guns, doesnt mean you cant restrict orregulater their sale and use... as said directly in the judgement abpve...

You're reading more into it than it actually says, I'm afraid. The language is couched the way it is in order to preserve the de facto bans of automatic weapons, tanks, nuclear arms, and so forth. When it comes to "weapons common to a militia," the court has invariably ruled that you can't touch those in terms of attempting to do away with them. As far as restrictions or qualifications to own, I'll put it this way; if there weren't obvious Second Amendment infringement issues, why haven't some of the more rabidly anti-gun state legislatures put something like that into place?

 Seaward wrote:
I'll put it this way; if there weren't obvious Second Amendment infringement issues, why haven't some of the more rabidly anti-gun state legislatures put something like that into place?

Because they are politically unworkable? The fact that a state legislature hasn't passed a law is hardly evidence that, as you are attempting to infer, they haven't tried because they knew it wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Reference any one of dozens of video game related legislatons that have been 100% knocked down, or any of the more recent wave of abortion restricting laws - in some cause the legislators themselves flatly admit that they do not think the law itself is constitutional but have an ulterior motive for passing it.

 whembly wrote:

 Eetion wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Meh who cares. Israeli teachers are armed.

Now what they should do is equip the Jr. High teachers with whips and chairs "Down you pack of hyenas! Down!"

Israeli school security are armed following a series of terrorist attacks.
Coordinated terrorist assaults with specific intention of targeting youth is not the same as derranged individuals. And israeli gun controls are actually quite strict. (Or so I understand)

But speaking as a brit. It just seems absolutely horrendous. The laxity in your gun control laws compared to the uks is considered shocking. A general opinion of 'that is absolutely nuts!' And anyone here who would advocate guns in schools would quite literally be laughed at the sheer idiocy of allowing guns in an even remotely close proximity to children.

But then we have no great love for guns, some shotguns dotted about the countryside, and no much else.

So as a brit, I can't see it as anything but Abhorrent.

You immigrated to the US recently?

Don't worry... give it enough time and we'll corrupt you. Soon, you'll be armed to the teeth!

Nope. For some reason my Dakka flag keeps changing. Sometimes I'm british, sometimes I'm American. Take your pick.

But I am from yorkshire. Finest of Englands counties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if anyones interested.

UK gun policies, accident rates etc
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

 Ouze wrote:
Because they are politically unworkable?

I doubt that very much, personally. If nutbag states like New York and Connecticut can get AWBs and hilarious mag cap bans through, I'm pretty sure they could mandate X number of hoops to jump through before you can buy Y. Except...everyone knows it wouldn't stand.

 Frazzled wrote:

Nutjobs trying to kill kids sounds like terrorism to me.

It's not, though, at least not in my opinion. Unless they're trying to further some political agenda it's just a random nutjob killing kids.

Personally, I think this is a good idea. It'll give the teachers a boost in confidence, especially the males with small penises. Well, unless their heat is concealed at the front of their pants, and when gak hits the fan, they accidentally blow their own nads off.