Guns in schools.

[WritingPad]

A Texas school district (wouldn't you know) has now allowed teachers to bear weapons within schools for the safety of children in the case of school shootings. It is only to be defensive, and only carried by teachers with licenses approved by the state.

Positives, negatives. Overall, is this a good idea? Discuss.
---
I personally think it's a horrible idea, it doesn't take a second for the teacher to miss-place the gun, or it going off and hitting an innocent person.

[Earfetish]

Lets wait until there's been at least one clumsy accident before saying it's a terrible idea because of clumsy accidents.

[Earfetish]

o btw I think school shootings seem a bit of an overblown problem but teachers packing heat (esp under lock and key) is the best remedy. No one will shoot a bullet in school if they'll get iced by the principal.

[D2Kvirus]

At 8/25/08 11:37 AM, Earfetish wrote: o btw I think school shootings seem a bit of an overblown problem but teachers packing heat (esp under lock and key) is the best remedy. No one will shoot a bullet in school if they'll get iced by the principal.

Unless they take out the principal first, whilst he's unarmed. And this is before all the variables come into consideration, i.e. misplacing a shot or misidentifying a target, which are both possible in this kind of situation.

[SmilezRoyale]

I have to agree with EarFet, no sense in saying anything for or against it without seeing how it will turn out.

[WritingPad]

At 8/25/08 11:49 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I have to agree with EarFet, no sense in saying anything for or against it without seeing how it will turn out.

That could take months or even years, there is positives to having guns in schools (not many imo) and also negatives, we've seen how easy it is for another school shootout to happen.

[Earfetish]

At 8/25/08 11:46 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Unless they take out the principal first, whilst he's unarmed. And this is before all the variables come into consideration, i.e. misplacing a shot or misidentifying a target, which are both possible in this kind of situation.

Even when taking all those into consideration, do you not think the situation is instantly preferable when there's a 'goodie' with a gun, instead of hundreds of unarmed 'goodies' and one overly-armed 'baddy'?

[MrHero17]

Serious safety concerns for the students, what if a student just grabs the gun off the teacher, and yeah I don't trust the teachers to take out the killer, so much room for accidents.

[Proteas]

At 8/25/08 12:09 PM, MrHero17 wrote: Serious safety concerns for the students, what if a student just grabs the gun off the teacher, and yeah I don't trust the teachers to take out the killer, so much room for accidents.

If you bothered to take time to read the article, you would notice that the approval has been made for conceal/carry permits, not open carry. No student will know which teacher is carrying and which is not, thus reducing the chance that a student might take one off a teacher, and also acting as a deterrent by reducing the willingness of a shooter to go into a school (the success of a school shooting is predicated on the idea that no one will shoot back, remember?).

And I question your idea that you wouldn't trust a teacher who would be required to by the state to pass gun safety and other such training courses as applicaple by law to ensure your safety by carrying a firearm. Are you to tell me that you trust these teachers to keep you safe unarmed for 8 hours a day, yet wouldn't trust one licensed by the state to carry a firearm to keep you safe?

Fear of a negative outcome is the problem with this issue, as those involved are to afraid to take ANY step towards solving a problem to do anything about it, so they go nowhere. Cowards.

[D2Kvirus]

At 8/25/08 12:00 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 8/25/08 11:46 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Unless they take out the principal first, whilst he's unarmed. And this is before all the variables come into consideration, i.e. misplacing a shot or misidentifying a target, which are both possible in this kind of situation.

Even when taking all those into consideration, do you not think the situation is instantly preferable when there's a 'goodie' with a gun, instead of hundreds of unarmed 'goodies' and one overly-armed 'baddy'?

To flip that one on its head, the teacher is armed in case a student snaps and goes on a killing spree. So, if a teacher snaps and goes on a killing spree, who'll be the one to protect the students?

The logic is that the students pose a danger, and the teacher does not - considering the Head of History at my school lost his job for breaking a student's jaw, would you feel safe in the knowledge that he could be in charge of a firearm? it's also a dangerous precitent to say that a teacher needs to protect students from each other, as that could cause a lot of mistrust toward and within the student body.

[SolInvictus]

At 8/25/08 01:06 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: To flip that one on its head, the teacher is armed in case a student snaps and goes on a killing spree. So, if a teacher snaps and goes on a killing spree, who'll be the one to protect the students?

maybe another teacher will be armed. either way it happened here in Montréal; didn't end well. but that was a rifle the teacher brought in.

[Proteas]

At 8/25/08 01:06 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: To flip that one on its head, the teacher is armed in case a student snaps and goes on a killing spree. So, if a teacher snaps and goes on a killing spree, who'll be the one to protect the students?

When was the last time we heard of a teacher going on a rampage and shooting up a school, though? Isn't it usually the case of teachers molesting and sleeping with students instead of shooting them you hear more often about?

it's also a dangerous precitent to say that a teacher needs to protect students from each other, as that could cause a lot of mistrust toward and within the student body.

We entrust teachers with children for 8 hours a day in school, why is it such a stretch of the imagination to then say that they are charged with ensuring their safety and well being as well? And WHAT would be your alternative solution to this issue besides standing around doing nothing?

[poxpower]

It's one of those things where you know there's 100 reasons for it to go wrong but you still have to wait and see what happens.

At any case, I predict the "Tiger Rock" syndrome of "well there hasn't been a single school shooting SINCE, RIGHT?".

That's why I keep my anti-stegosaurus belt on me at all times.

[Saruman200]

Great, how about we just go up to all the mentally disturbed kids, hand them guns and point them in the direction of the nearest school...

I can see the logic behind this, but there are so, so many ways it could go wrong. What if a teacher misplaces her gun and a kid finds it? What if a school shooter gets ahold of this teacher's gun? What if a school shooter takes out the teacher before they have a chance to respond?

The idea looks good on paper, but when put in pratice there are way more risks than benefits. Too many what ifs for me thank you.

[tkrow]

At 8/25/08 02:36 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

:What if a school shooter gets ahold of this teacher's gun? What if a school shooter takes out the teacher before they have a chance to respond?

I'm going to label your question 1 & 2.

1. I'm not sure I understand your question, but I assume that by school shooter, you mean a potential one. There are many places that potential school shooters could get guns.

2. If they take out the teacher with the gun, you're back to what you were always at anyway. So the situation either gets better or stays the same.

If the teacher knows how to use a gun, I'm sure I'd feel safe in that classroom.

[Battl3Mast3r]

Utah is the only state in the union that allows citizens with a concealed weapon permit (21 years old) to carry a firearm into public places: schools, court and police stations are included.

This is allowed in the State's constitution. Fine by me. It's a state's right designated by the Constitution.

[Sawke]

I don't see any reason how having guns in school would be necessary. Unless there are crazed child killers running loose, or fucking zombies, it is totally unecessary and begging for trouble. I think they just want to intimidate kids in to paying attention.

"Jim eyes up front before i fill em with hot silver bitch"

[KeithHybrid]

Typical Texas. Now all we have to do is wait for the impending shitstorm when one disgruntled teacher guns down a student who doesn't agree with him.

[Saruman200]

At 8/25/08 03:43 PM, tkrow wrote:

At 8/25/08 02:36 PM, Saruman200 wrote: What if a school shooter gets ahold of this teacher's gun? What if a school shooter takes out the teacher before they have a chance to respond?

I'm going to label your question 1 & 2.

1. I'm not sure I understand your question, but I assume that by school shooter, you mean a potential one. There are many places that potential school shooters could get guns.

Yes, I ment potential. Sorry. Your also right, there are many places potential school shooters could get get guns, but we're talking about a high school here. None of the students are old enough to legally purchase guns. Stealing a gun from a little old lady school-teacher is a lot easier than faking an ID to legally purchase a firearm, or going into the worse-off parts of town to get an illegal weapon.

2. If they take out the teacher with the gun, you're back to what you were always at anyway. So the situation either gets better or stays the same.

Correct, it'll stay the same. I don't believe keeping guns is a nessicary risk for things to stay the same.

If the teacher knows how to use a gun, I'm sure I'd feel safe in that classroom.

I wouldn't.

[osiris201]

At 8/25/08 03:43 PM, tkrow wrote:

At 8/25/08 02:36 PM, Saruman200 wrote: What if a school shooter gets ahold of this teacher's gun?

1. I'm not sure I understand your question, but I assume that by school shooter, you mean a potential one. There are many places that potential school shooters could get guns.

2. If they take out the teacher with the gun, you're back to what you were always at anyway. So the situation either gets better or stays the same.

there are 2 different kinds of school shooters in my eyes

1. planners those that plan the shooting

2. impulsive shooters, those that pissed of and suddenly decide to start shooting without thinking it through.

how by giving teachers a gun, the number 1s will plan accordingly and shoot the teachers first and in the case of the no. 2s, imagine a really disturbed 16 year old kid, who's really pissed at a teacher for giving him ANOTHER bad grade, and he happens to know where the teacher got his/her gun... while if the teacher didn't have a gun he would manage with his anger some other way, by yelling at the teacher or hitting someone (at least it's better then grabbing a gun...)

[Saruman200]

At 8/25/08 05:43 PM, osiris201 wrote:
there are 2 different kinds of school shooters in my eyes

1. planners those that plan the shooting

2. impulsive shooters, those that pissed of and suddenly decide to start shooting without thinking it through.

how by giving teachers a gun, the number 1s will plan accordingly and shoot the teachers first and in the case of the no. 2s, imagine a really disturbed 16 year old kid, who's really pissed at a teacher for giving him ANOTHER bad grade, and he happens to know where the teacher got his/her gun... while if the teacher didn't have a gun he would manage with his anger some other way, by yelling at the teacher or hitting someone (at least it's better then grabbing a gun...)

If you want to look at it like that:

1)Planning shooters: As you said, plan accordinly to shoot the teacher(s) first.

2)Impulsive shooters: Grab the teachers gun.

Without a law like this there is no such thing as an "impulsive shooter" as you define it, because currently you have to go out and buy a gun to shoot up a school. Thus you have to have decided beforehand to shoot up the school. It's not a spur of the moment thing. You can't just "grab a gun" when your pissed if there are no guns there. Of course, with a law like this your putting guns there, allowing "impulsive shooters" to get to them.

So, if you want to use a "two types of shooters" definition, all this does is do absolutely nothing to "planner shooters" and creates "impulsive shooters"

[SolInvictus]

At 8/25/08 06:07 PM, Saruman200 wrote: 1)Planning shooters: As you said, plan accordinly to shoot the teacher(s) first.

2)Impulsive shooters: Grab the teachers gun.

the problem is that with concealed carry, no one sees the gun. which means the student can't identify the teacher with the gun, nor can he/she grab something they don't know is there.

[osiris201]

not really, impulsive shooters could run home grab their dad's gun and run back, and thus not having time to really plan/think it over but you're right, i should've mentioned that.

[BetaOrionis]

Pico walks into the school with automatic weapons. Why?

Because the district upped the ante. You could've walked in with a handgun to conduct a respectable shooting, but now you need more firepower.

[osiris201]

i can't edit? (my post was a bit expired since i thought i pushed the post it button but i didn't xD)

1. the secret can't be held for long i think, either a curious student who finds the teacher's gun while the teacher forgot to lock the drawer, or perhaps the teacher let's something slip, these things happen.

2. if the gun's locked inside a drawer or something, there is no way to get it out before the damage is done, so the gun has to be carried inside a bag or something wich would make it exposed quite easily and easily grabbed.

[Saruman200]

At 8/25/08 06:26 PM, osiris201 wrote: not really, impulsive shooters could run home grab their dad's gun and run back, and thus not having time to really plan/think it over but you're right, i should've mentioned that.

And the teacher will just let them run out of the classroom? I highly doubt that. At most she'll stop him, and if he gets away she'll call the police to find him. Thus, her having a gun or not changes absolutely nothing.

[MrHero17]

Seriously, so they can defend us in a school shooting, no. How often are there school shootings, answer, not very. I don't need teachers to walk around with guns 24/7 when theres not gonna be a shooting.

[Saruman200]

At 8/25/08 06:58 PM, MrHero17 wrote: Seriously, so they can defend us in a school shooting, no. How often are there school shootings, answer, not very. I don't need teachers to walk around with guns 24/7 when theres not gonna be a shooting.

Correct. By having teachers carrying around guns your actually increasing the likely hood of a shooting. Shootings don't happen that often, but put guns in a school and your going to see a big increase in the number of shootings.

[Musician]

At 8/25/08 11:35 AM, Earfetish wrote: Lets wait until there's been at least one clumsy accident before saying it's a terrible idea because of clumsy accidents.

Yes, lets wait until someone gets killed or seriously injured before we reconsider the dangers of putting guns on school property.

[thenemisis14]

k i have no problem with teachers carrying guns into school no matter wat the risk because they are a bit more trusworthy and less sloppy than the kids they are teaching... but why do they get guns most high schools and middle schools have security gaurds now a days with guns and are pretty skilled hostage negotiators