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.

I don't like the idea of teachers being armed simply because there is the potential in my mind for more to go wrong than right.
Based off the teachers I had in my early years, I wouldn't trust them to find their own ass with both hands and a map let alone handle a gun with any degree of skill in a high stress situation around paniced children.
There is also a better potential for an angry student to wrestle a gun away from them and start using it.

So by your logic every law abiding gun owner is just a ticking timebomb that could go off at any moment.

If I own a gun the only thing that makes me more likely to do is spend a day at the gun range or go hunting. It does not predispose me to violence, being human is what makes me that.

What we have here is a case of Correlation =/= Causation. But people love to target the easy scapegoat so they can look like they are fixing the problem, get a medal, and feel good about it.


The fact is, guns are here to stay. The criminal element has all the guns they would ever need out there, so taking guns away from law abiding citizens only makes them a target. Guns are our way of keeping the Government honest and ensuring it doesn't overstep its bounds, which seems to have failed as people have kept trying to restrict gun ownership. To the point where the citizens are now throughly outgunned.

The government is not your friend, its a necessary evil put in place because there are evil people. Yet it itself is also capable of evil, and must in turn be watched.

@Templar,

Was that directed to me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Never mind. I see this is from anotjer conversation.

No, not at you.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So by your logic every law abiding gun owner is just a ticking timebomb that could go off at any moment.

Potentially, yes. Most spree shooters are not hardened career criminals. They are usually "law abiding citizens", right up until they enter a public place and start shooting.

I'm not particularly pro or anti gun, I just think it is disingenuous to pretend a gun is a just another tool, like a saw or a hammer. I mean yes, it is technically a "tool" but one which sole purpose is to kill or maim.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So by your logic every law abiding gun owner is just a ticking timebomb that could go off at any moment.

No, by my "logic" people with access to the means of violence are more likely to use the means of violence. It doesn't matter if said means is a gun, a knife, or a certain degree of physical fitness; having that access creates a predisposition.

Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't blatantly put words in my mouth. That behavior annoys me.

 Grey Templar wrote:

If I own a gun the only thing that makes me more likely to do is spend a day at the gun range or go hunting. It does not predispose me to violence, being human is what makes me that.

So it disposes you towards the use of a gun?

feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So by your logic every law abiding gun owner is just a ticking timebomb that could go off at any moment.

Potentially, yes. Most spree shooters are not hardened career criminals. They are usually "law abiding citizens", right up until they enter a public place and start shooting.

I'm not particularly pro or anti gun, I just think it is disingenuous to pretend a gun is a just another tool, like a saw or a hammer. I mean yes, it is technically a "tool" but one which sole purpose is to kill or maim.

Hmm, odd. Because most of the perpetrators of these shootings seem to have either been career criminals and/or (extremely) disturbed individuals.

None of them have been your typical upstanding citizen with a happy marriage, a couple kids, 9-5 job, etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

If I own a gun the only thing that makes me more likely to do is spend a day at the gun range or go hunting. It does not predispose me to violence, being human is what makes me that.

So it disposes you towards the use of a gun?

A gun has uses beyond killing people. It can be recreational equipment, a hunting impliment, or a personal defense tool. It can also be a murder weapon.

Its the small mind that just thinks guns are for killing people.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Its the small mind that just thinks guns are for killing people.

Is that something I said?

Iran/far-leftists are also claiming Israel did it. Every tragedy gets exploited by crazy people.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Hmm, odd. Because most of the perpetrators of these shootings seem to have either been career criminals and/or (extremely) disturbed individuals.

Really? I am under the impression that Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Ecole Polytechnique, etc, were committed by (otherwise) ordinary people. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 Grey Templar wrote:

A gun has uses beyond killing people. It can be recreational equipment, a hunting impliment, or a personal defense tool. It can also be a murder weapon.

Its the small mind that just thinks guns are for killing people.

So guns are tools for practice killing, animal killing, and stop-or-I-will-kill-you. Also murder. Thanks for supporting my point.

Why don't you leave the insults out of it, okay? I'm not judging anyone for owning a gun. I just take issue with the "Guns are only tools" line of thinking. I work with tools everyday, I would have to seriously misuse one of my tools to kill something. If I used a gun to kill something, I would simply be using it.

 Monster Rain wrote:
That simply doesn't follow.

It's true, and it's bad, but you can't say that the odds of something happening are incredibly remote with the status quo and at the same time use that same incident as an excuse to push a political agenda.

That said, I don't have a real problem with Obama's proposals, other than the magazine and assault weapon bans. The NRA is being pretty stupid about that whole thing.

Actually, the NRA is doing exactly what I, as someone who's given them a fair amount of cash recently, want them to do. You can't compromise with emotionally-driven political agendas.

 Seaward wrote:

Actually, the NRA is doing exactly what I, as someone who's given them a fair amount of cash recently, want them to do. You can't compromise with emotionally-driven political agendas.

No, no you can't.

 Seaward wrote:
Actually, the NRA is doing exactly what I, as someone who's given them a fair amount of cash recently, want them to do.

You want them to be belligerent, avoid all compromise, and come across as donkey-caves? Seems an odd thing to give money to, but then, their purpose (at this point anyway) isn't to solve any problems, but to keep the issue alive and hot so that people will give them 'a fair amount of cash'.

 Seaward wrote:
You can't compromise with emotionally-driven political agendas.

This is odd to me. You recognize that the NRA won't compromise, which is rarely a good sign, and that they are emotionally compromised, yet you want to fund them. In Starfleet if you become emotionally compromised you are removed from command.

 Ahtman wrote:
You want them to be belligerent, avoid all compromise, and come across as donkey-caves? Seems an odd thing to give money to, but then, their purpose (at this point anyway) isn't to solve any problems, but to keep the issue alive and hot so that people will give them 'a fair amount of cash'.

Compromise with the anti-gun side has been tried before. They're not interested in solving problems, they're interested in pushing agendas. More people were killed by hammers or bears last year than what they call "assault rifles," while tens of thousands were killed by handguns, but what are they pushing for? A ban on "assault rifles." It's legislation crafted by people who fundamentally don't know what they're talking about, and rather than choosing to learn, they've decided to let their ignorance dictate their position, because it serves their political agenda.

This is odd to me. You recognize that the NRA won't compromise, which is rarely a good sign, and that they are emotionally compromised, yet you want to fund them. In Starfleet if you become emotionally compromised you are removed from command.

Actually, I was referring to the anti-gun side as being ruled by emotion. Biden as much as admitted in one of his meetings that they don't have the time to prosecute people who lie on background check forms, yet they want to push new laws - which they probably won't be able to enforce any better - rather than actually seeing how current legislation works when it's actually taken seriously by the people in charge of it.

I hate these people.... (the sandy hook truthers)

 Seaward wrote:
Actually, I was referring to the anti-gun side as being ruled by emotion.

I wasn't.

Teachers should be allowed guns in school, individual teachers can decide if they want them in their class? Where are they keeping them, in their desk? Was it only last week we had a story where a policeman in a school shot a kid with a taser? FFS, now we're talking about the merits of bringing more guns to school.

This is just crazy talk, part of the current pro-gun siege mentality. The solution to gun violence is more guns, more people carrying guns, more accessibility to guns in public places.

It's just not safe arming teachers and having guns in the classroom. I can just about accept having police in a school, and them being armed. Some people are forgetting what school is about, it's not conducive to an educational environment to have the atmosphere of an armed bunker. It's a sad enough day when you need metal detectors on the door of a school.

The potential for harm is massive if you arm teachers. They are far more likely to escalate a situation, they are far more likely to get people inadvertently injured and killed. And if you think it's safe to have a gun anywhere in a classroom then you clearly have never worked in a school. Anything in a classroom can be acquired by children at short notice, the moment you leave the room it's a hazard. If you're not going to leave them in unattended rooms, what are the teachers going to do, go out on lunch duty carrying the gun under their coat at all times? Even if they aren't taken from storage in the school, there's a chance they will be wrestled from the teacher. Or are you going to face the prospect of a gun being used every time there's a situation where a teacher gets into a physical struggle with a pupil? Because that happens in all schools, you gets kids fighting, or trying to throw things or hit the staff, and you have to intervene by placing your body in front of them and on some occasions, you have to use physical restraint. They aren't trying to kill anyone, they're just kids acting stupid, getting upset and angry and being rough, but when there are guns stored in the class or on the teacher, you don't know where its going to lead.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Teachers should be allowed guns in school, individual teachers can decide if they want them in their class? Where are they keeping them, in their desk? Was it only last week we had a story where a policeman in a school shot a kid with a taser? FFS, now we're talking about the merits of bringing more guns to school.

I carry a gun every day, and only the people who I've told know I'm carrying it. Drop the cover garment and no one's the wiser.

This is just crazy talk, part of the current pro-gun siege mentality. The solution to gun violence is more guns, more people carrying guns, more accessibility to guns in public places.

The solution is certainly not politely asking murderers to play by the rules.

I find it pretty impressive you lambast someone for "strawmen" and then post that.

Very impressive.

feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Hmm, odd. Because most of the perpetrators of these shootings seem to have either been career criminals and/or (extremely) disturbed individuals.

Really? I am under the impression that Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Ecole Polytechnique, etc, were committed by (otherwise) ordinary people. Correct me if I'm wrong.

He did say emotionaly disturbed people. The way you are using the term "otherwise ordinary people" is akin to saying, "Other than that one incident", Mrs. Lincoln,"How did you enjoy the play?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:


You want them to be belligerent, avoid all compromise, and come across as donkey-caves? Seems an odd thing to give money to, but then, their purpose (at this point anyway) isn't to solve any problems, but to keep the issue alive and hot so that people will give them 'a fair amount of cash'.

They aren't at all reasonable, like the anti gun people who say those who support the NRA aren't human, or publish lists of gun owners, so criminals know who to target.

Pilots have not been able to keep guns without a negligent discharge going off in the cockpit. But teachers are going to do better?

 d-usa wrote:
Pilots have not been able to keep guns without a negligent discharge going off in the cockpit. But teachers are going to do better?

I see we agree on this.

We should just get rid of drink driving laws as well, because people who are going to drive drunk will not follow the law anyway.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Pilots have not been able to keep guns without a negligent discharge going off in the cockpit. But teachers are going to do better?

I see we agree on this.

Police, soldiers and air marshals have accidents with guns despite a good level of safety training.

 d-usa wrote:
We should just get rid of drink driving laws as well, because people who are going to drive drunk will not follow the law anyway.

You're at least getting a little closer, so there's hope yet.

We should realize that laws are going to be broken, and don't serve all that well as deterrents. There are other, more effective ways of preventing behavior we find objectionable. Drunk driving isn't on the decline because of drunk driving laws, it's on the decline because of widespread education efforts and social stigma.

Do you want to actually try and prevent gun violence, or do you just want to have a few more charges to throw at people who commit it?

Relapse wrote:
They aren't at all reasonable, like the anti gun people who say those who support the NRA aren't human, or publish lists of gun owners, so criminals know who to target.

The actual list of things that could be done that was put forward by the administration didn't include any of these things. Nuts on one side don't control the debate or the outcome, unless it is the NRA. The sad thing is that the vast majority of people in the NRA are good, decent people, who out of misguided fear, and being sold a bad bill of goods, support an insane leadership that is more interested in getting donations than finding tenable solutions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Police, soldiers and air marshals have accidents with guns despite a good level of safety training.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if you think the average cop or even the average soldier is extensively trained with their firearm, you'd be pretty shocked at the reality.

 Seaward wrote:
More people were killed by hammers or bears last year than what they call "assault rifles," while tens of thousands were killed by handguns, but what are they pushing for? A ban on "assault rifles."

Should have gone with bees instead of bears. Bears have killed less then 10 people in the last 3 years, whereas an AR-15 has killed at least 28 people in the last 3 months.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Police, soldiers and air marshals have accidents with guns despite a good level of safety training.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if you think the average cop or even the average soldier is extensively trained with their firearm, you'd be pretty shocked at the reality.

He didn't say extensively, you did. He said "good"; which compared to Joe Civilian is almost certainly true.

 d-usa wrote:
We should just get rid of drink driving laws as well, because people who are going to drive drunk will not follow the law anyway.

Which drunk driving laws restrict access to certain types of cars or limit the consumption of alcohol? Oh wait, they don't. They quantify an allowed blood alcohol level and levy a punishment on those who choose to go over that limit, and often cover increased punishments for repeat offenders. NONE of them are preventive except in that the threat of punishment may deter the undesired behavior.

So, since it seems using a gun to commit a crime is already illegal, what is your point?

CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We should just get rid of drink driving laws as well, because people who are going to drive drunk will not follow the law anyway.

Which drunk driving laws restrict access to certain types of cars or limit the consumption of alcohol? Oh wait, they don't. They quantify an allowed blood alcohol level and levy a punishment on those who choose to go over that limit, and often cover increased punishments for repeat offenders. NONE of them are preventive except in that the threat of punishment may deter the undesired behavior.

So, since it seems using a gun to commit a crime is already illegal, what is your point?

Interlock devices limit access to certain cars by drunk people. So they are preventive.