One must consider the exorbitant costs of such security. Funding of public institutions (i.e. schools) is already strained. I am sure that in places where security is necessary (i.e. the inner city), funds are diverted away from education, which is what the students really need.
Additionally, in a school where there is a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of anything actually happening (i.e. the majority of all schools, such as those you and I have attended), is it truly necessary or fiscally responsible to go to such extreme security measures?
That's not to say that we should allow teachers to have guns, but it's not as simple as dismissing that solution while accepting the alternative that has been illustrated.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Gym Bitch wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Anybody got any comment on my link about the crime-fighting granny who nabbed the burglar and made him dial 911?
Of course not ... it is easier to ignore if it does not fit the "anti-gun" model.
[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with someone keeping a gun "for protection" in their home. The topic is concealed guns in schools, though. I also had a granny story in this thread...one where the grandkid got shot. It can go either way.
Of course not ... it is easier to ignore if it does not fit the "anti-gun" model.
[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with someone keeping a gun "for protection" in their home. The topic is concealed guns in schools, though. I also had a granny story in this thread...one where the grandkid got shot. It can go either way.
In a "Sam's Club" ... hmmm ... must have deserved it ... Walmart shoppers are evil.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Gym Bitch wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Walmart shoppers are evil.[/QUOTE]
Well, I always have said that a busy Wal-Mart is my version of hell. ;-)
Well, I always have said that a busy Wal-Mart is my version of hell. ;-)
Why stop at pistols? Automated machine guns could take out the whole class if they get out of hand. And surely the headteacher should have some sort of self-destruct to destroy the whole school, just like James Bond baddies and, for some reason, most movie spaceships. I do, however, like the idea of heavily armed teachers 'negototiating' for higher wages and better conditions. We should try that in the UK.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]We let cops carry guns...
...if you take all the teachers in the country and compare them to all the cops in the country, I know I'd give the guns to the teachers...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but giving guns to the teachers doesn't take them away from the cops. All that can come from this, is *more* violence.
...if you take all the teachers in the country and compare them to all the cops in the country, I know I'd give the guns to the teachers...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but giving guns to the teachers doesn't take them away from the cops. All that can come from this, is *more* violence.
Why is it that people who defend gun rights justify their point of view by saying that maybe a regular citizen with a gun could have saved the day by confronting an attacker with a heroic move where they would have been able to shoot him dead.
If you truly believe this is the way to handle things, then perhaps you have been watching way too many fuckin' movies. Somehow they believe that your average Joe who has received minimal or no gun training at all has the potential to become Jack Bauer.
I would call it the "Beavis & Butthead Mentality" of believing that whatever is on the screen is the pure reflection of reality.
If you truly believe this is the way to handle things, then perhaps you have been watching way too many fuckin' movies. Somehow they believe that your average Joe who has received minimal or no gun training at all has the potential to become Jack Bauer.
I would call it the "Beavis & Butthead Mentality" of believing that whatever is on the screen is the pure reflection of reality.
Teachers need to carry guns in the UK....otherwise they'll get stabbed!
@ GymBitch
I never said the Knoxville shooting didn't fit the model. It does, and you are right, it is an apples to apples comparison. My point was simply that you cannot use the victims from Virginia Tech and Norther Illinois to prop up the numbers.
Now, I never said that the environments could be completely controlled at a K-12. What I said was this: you can control access to the building; who goes in and who comes out is under your control to the best extent possible. So, in typical K-12 buildings, ACCESS IS CONTROLLABLE AND ABLE TO BE LIMITED. Please observe the difference; unless schools are in perpetual 24 hour lock down, you will NEVER have complete control.
Like I said before, Knoxville does fit the pattern. But since of the protection programs have been put into place, there have been fewer deaths from shootings in K-12 schools. Granted that one death is too many, but the numbers are down. Unfortunately you cannot have a complete cessation; there are too many other factors and too many schools to take into account. Even in the world of statistics you never have a 100% anything. However, with the deaths currently down, it would seem to indicate current policies are working, and there is no need to take it to the next level of arming the teachers.
I don't deny it's expensive to put these programs into place, and potentially it might be "cheaper" to let the teachers arm themselves. But is it really cheaper in the long run? Even if the schools didn't have to pay for the training and licensing for the teachers who decided to carry guns, they instituted this basically without notifying the parents in the district; had something happened and a shooting took place, how much could the parents sue the school district for for failure to fully disclose the policy and the fact that there kids were now going to school in a potential shooting range?
As far as the Granny who dealt with the person who invaded her home; please stick to relevant facts. You yourself pointed out the argument, and the Granny doesn't fit into it. Guns in the home for personal protection is a COMPLETELY different animal.
I am not anti-gun contrary to your assumption. Maybe I just didn't respond to it because I felt it wasn't a relevant point to the argument (which it's not). Besides, I was going to bed for the night. Believe it or not, some of us live in VERY different time zones and sleep is generally a good thing. An immediate response is not something that is always possible, and lack of one doesn't indicate anything about the other person in the debate. Please keep that in mind the next time you start throwing out random assumptions.
I never said the Knoxville shooting didn't fit the model. It does, and you are right, it is an apples to apples comparison. My point was simply that you cannot use the victims from Virginia Tech and Norther Illinois to prop up the numbers.
Now, I never said that the environments could be completely controlled at a K-12. What I said was this: you can control access to the building; who goes in and who comes out is under your control to the best extent possible. So, in typical K-12 buildings, ACCESS IS CONTROLLABLE AND ABLE TO BE LIMITED. Please observe the difference; unless schools are in perpetual 24 hour lock down, you will NEVER have complete control.
Like I said before, Knoxville does fit the pattern. But since of the protection programs have been put into place, there have been fewer deaths from shootings in K-12 schools. Granted that one death is too many, but the numbers are down. Unfortunately you cannot have a complete cessation; there are too many other factors and too many schools to take into account. Even in the world of statistics you never have a 100% anything. However, with the deaths currently down, it would seem to indicate current policies are working, and there is no need to take it to the next level of arming the teachers.
I don't deny it's expensive to put these programs into place, and potentially it might be "cheaper" to let the teachers arm themselves. But is it really cheaper in the long run? Even if the schools didn't have to pay for the training and licensing for the teachers who decided to carry guns, they instituted this basically without notifying the parents in the district; had something happened and a shooting took place, how much could the parents sue the school district for for failure to fully disclose the policy and the fact that there kids were now going to school in a potential shooting range?
As far as the Granny who dealt with the person who invaded her home; please stick to relevant facts. You yourself pointed out the argument, and the Granny doesn't fit into it. Guns in the home for personal protection is a COMPLETELY different animal.
I am not anti-gun contrary to your assumption. Maybe I just didn't respond to it because I felt it wasn't a relevant point to the argument (which it's not). Besides, I was going to bed for the night. Believe it or not, some of us live in VERY different time zones and sleep is generally a good thing. An immediate response is not something that is always possible, and lack of one doesn't indicate anything about the other person in the debate. Please keep that in mind the next time you start throwing out random assumptions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Somehow they believe that your average Joe who has received minimal or no gun training at all has the potential to become Jack Bauer.[/QUOTE]
This crossed my mind, as well.
This crossed my mind, as well.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Somehow they believe that your average Joe who has received minimal or no gun training at all has the potential to become Jack Bauer.[/QUOTE]
This crossed my mind, as well.[/QUOTE]
Damn it!
This crossed my mind, as well.[/QUOTE]
Damn it!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Damn it![/QUOTE]
You'd become Jack Bauer, wouldn't ya? :-P
You'd become Jack Bauer, wouldn't ya? :-P
@MHG
It *can* be cheaper in the long run, as long as it is legal. Let's even go on to say that the policy was fully disclosed to the families of students and other residents of the town. Just because they handled it poorly in this instance, does not mean that it is overall a bad thing.
@Mr. J
There will always be poor arguments on both sides of the debate, and it doesn't do much to refute any of them. Why isn't this the way to handle things? It is not like it has been tried historically and has proven to be a miserable failure.
For as many people that say that "less gun restrictions makes more safety (the only people with guns will be those with criminal intent)," there are just as many people who say that "more gun restrictions makes more safety (less guns, less gun crimes)." You may think the latter is common sense, but just as many people think the former is common sense. If you are familiar at all with economics, you would know that in many cases, common sense is *bullshit.* In this field, there is always a struggle between good intentions and good results. What may seem counter-intuitive to some could be the best alternative.
It would be helpful and conducive to this conversation if both parties would stop telling the other, "How can you not see this is a bad/good idea?" and start providing hard evidence. If there is no hard evidence, then our only alternative is to wait and see. All I am reading is a bunch of purely hypothetical situations that are purely useless.
It *can* be cheaper in the long run, as long as it is legal. Let's even go on to say that the policy was fully disclosed to the families of students and other residents of the town. Just because they handled it poorly in this instance, does not mean that it is overall a bad thing.
@Mr. J
There will always be poor arguments on both sides of the debate, and it doesn't do much to refute any of them. Why isn't this the way to handle things? It is not like it has been tried historically and has proven to be a miserable failure.
For as many people that say that "less gun restrictions makes more safety (the only people with guns will be those with criminal intent)," there are just as many people who say that "more gun restrictions makes more safety (less guns, less gun crimes)." You may think the latter is common sense, but just as many people think the former is common sense. If you are familiar at all with economics, you would know that in many cases, common sense is *bullshit.* In this field, there is always a struggle between good intentions and good results. What may seem counter-intuitive to some could be the best alternative.
It would be helpful and conducive to this conversation if both parties would stop telling the other, "How can you not see this is a bad/good idea?" and start providing hard evidence. If there is no hard evidence, then our only alternative is to wait and see. All I am reading is a bunch of purely hypothetical situations that are purely useless.
Indeed, I never said it wasn't necessarily cheaper. But cheaper isn't always a good solution to the problem.
Besides, cost can be defined in any number of ways, so it depends on how you define cost.
In the end, I still think that it's overkill to do this when there is clearly no pressing need for it.
Besides, cost can be defined in any number of ways, so it depends on how you define cost.
In the end, I still think that it's overkill to do this when there is clearly no pressing need for it.
I don't think teachers should have guns at school. Some teachers are fucked up.