| Lisser 27.08.2008 09:20 |
This article is really unbelievable. I don't even know what to say. link I work in an elementary school and I can't even begin to tell you how frightened I would be if some of the teachers I work with had access to a gun. Sure they are wonderful at getting through to children on the educational skills they need but half of them would walk right in to a busy intersection and not notice the 18 wheeler coming at them. I have a concealed permit but I use it to shoot cardboard targets for fun. I would use it to protect my family if needed but I would rather not shoot another living thing. Cardboard is fine with me. I guess all I can say is only in Texas????!!!! Sorry Texans. :) |
| Mr.Jingles 27.08.2008 09:28 |
I'm sure those NRA gun nuts are the ones who were pushing for this. They were even protesting that guns were not allowed at Disney World. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 27.08.2008 09:43 |
The entire article pisses me off but this did it the most - "The superintendent said some of the school's 50 employees are carrying weapons, but he wouldn't say how many. When pressed further, he first said that revealing that number might jeopardize school security. He then added that he considered it to be personnel information and not a matter of public record." Personnel information and not a matter of public record? If my child were in that school, there's no way I'd let her remain there. As a parent, I feel I have the right to know if the people responsible for my child's safety are carrying a gun. It's one of the standard questions I've learned to ask the parents of her friends when she goes on playdates, now it has to be one asked of schools? What next? The YMCA? It's amazing. They answer the issue of school shootings by arming more people. If I'm not mistaken, the guns used in recent school shootings were obtained legally. That says something to me - like maybe the laws need to be changed. Maybe there should be extended training periods, psyche evaluations, further restrictions on the number of guns that can be purchased in a given time, and lengthy waiting periods between applying and receiving the weapon. Instead, they approve of more people carrying. Sounds like the plan came from another Texan we all know too well. It's stupid, arrogant and dangerous, though somehow, I'm not surprised. |
| Poo, again 27.08.2008 10:49 |
America... |
| Ms. Rebel 27.08.2008 11:19 |
Poo again wrote: America...LMAO. :) |
| john bodega 27.08.2008 11:35 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: I'm sure those NRA gun nuts are the ones who were pushing for this. They were even protesting that guns were not allowed at Disney World.MICKEY MOUSE HE'S COMIN' RIGHT FOR US HOLY FUCKING SHIT SOMEONE GET THAT GIANT TALKING DOG BAM BAM BAM BAM - NRA. |
| Music Man 27.08.2008 11:37 |
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... |
| Micrówave 27.08.2008 11:39 |
Please post the link to the story about the Texas school shootings since this went into effect. Please. Oh, that's right, you can't. Lisser, you're a teacher right? Now I'm not sure where, but if it's a big city you've got an ARMED POLICE OFFICER in the school already. As well as a plain clothes undercover for backup. This was done to protect our kids. Have you told your boss that it makes you uncomfortable? I doubt it. Are you all saying that only the kids should be the ones bringing the guns to school? That makes it safer? Ah, the fewer handguns excuse. |
| Micrówave 27.08.2008 11:41 |
Poo again wrote: America...Land Of The Free Home Of The Brave and still Cheaper Gas than you. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 27.08.2008 12:03 |
Microwave wrote: Please post the link to the story about the Texas school shootings since this went into effect. Please. Oh, that's right, you can't. Lisser, you're a teacher right? Now I'm not sure where, but if it's a big city you've got an ARMED POLICE OFFICER in the school already. As well as a plain clothes undercover for backup. This was done to protect our kids. Have you told your boss that it makes you uncomfortable? I doubt it. Are you all saying that only the kids should be the ones bringing the guns to school? That makes it safer? Ah, the fewer handguns excuse.You don't see a difference between a cop with a gun vs. a gym teacher with one? And yes indeed, the fewer handguns excuse... but I forget... there are those who feel everyone should be armed because then we'll all be so much safer. That logic is quite stale yet still disturbing. Anyway, nothing will be changed here unless the parents voice their opposition to this new rule... if indeed they do oppose it. |
| Erin 27.08.2008 12:15 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: You don't see a difference between a cop with a gun vs. a gym teacher with one?Exactly. There is always a chance that a teacher would be careless, and a gun could get into the hands of a student. Not a teacher, but there was an incident here recently where a 50 something year old grandma was in Sam's Club with her 4 year old grandchild. She had a legal concealed handgun in her purse, and the 4 year old got hold of it and shot herself. Accidents happen. School resource officers would be less likely to be careless with a gun than a teacher, I'm sure. |
| Mr.Jingles 27.08.2008 12:18 |
Gun nuts in this country think that everyone against them is an ignorant for "ignoring the Second Amendment". The truth is that nobody is ignoring the Second Amendment. Turns out to be that they are the ignorant ones for ignoring the "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" portion of the Second Amendment. Think of this. When an armed criminal takes hostages inside a building, cops are not even allowed to go inside and are only told to point their guns from the outside and make calls for the criminal to surrender. Only an expert member of a SWAT team would be allowed to use guns inside a house of building in a rescue operation. If a regular citizen has gone through the extensive gun training and emergency response of a SWAT official, I'm more than willing to give them the right to use a weapon. However, the NRA's idea of of gun training is knowing how to load a weapon and shoot at anything. If they want to defend themselves against a potential criminal, allow them to use taser guns, which are far less lethal and far less likely to harm an innocent bystander. For the NRA this is not so much fun by their standards, considering that they are insane individuals with a morbid fascination with seeing blood run. |
| Micrówave 27.08.2008 12:27 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: allow them to use taser guns, which are far less lethal and far less likely to harm an innocent bystander.Now I like this idea. It could help with enforcing the dress code, talking in class, cheating, bullying, sports disadvantages, and overeating at lunch. |
| Micrówave 27.08.2008 12:37 |
Erin wrote: Exactly. There is always a chance that a teacher would be carelessYes, all cops are careful. WHAT?!?!?! Cmon, Erin, you don't seriously believe that, do you? And you don't think that these teachers THAT DO CHOOSE TO CARRY have gone thru extensive training? I'm sure the teacher that is packing heat had a very difficult time making that choice and we are all very insensitive to that... jokes aside. These are people who have chosen to educate our future generations. I think everyone of them THAT CHOSE TO CARRY was shocked at the thought of having to arm themselves. I don't think of them as careless, niave, irrational and incompetant as some of you suggest they are. And Lisser, judging from what I've read from you over the last few years, I don't think of you that way either. You would simply be one of the teachers that declinded to carry, that's all. Unfortunately, though, if your classroom was ever stomed by an unstable student, you would be as powerless as the kids in your class and would most likely end up a victim: Being the teacher, probably the first victim. |
| Erin 27.08.2008 13:07 |
Microwave wrote: And you don't think that these teachers THAT DO CHOOSE TO CARRY have gone thru extensive training?Not as much training as a school resource officer, whose sole responsibility is to ensure the safety of the students... Teachers may have good intentions to protect themselves and their students, but their job is to educate not to be the school police. |
| Music Man 27.08.2008 13:22 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Gun nuts in this country think that everyone against them is an ignorant for "ignoring the Second Amendment". The truth is that nobody is ignoring the Second Amendment. Turns out to be that they are the ignorant ones for ignoring the "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" portion of the Second Amendment.Actually, there has been much debate as to whether the Second Amendment pertains to individual or collective rights (of a militia). However, most experts agreed that the "well-regulated militia" clause did not limit the scope of the amendment, and their opinion was later confirmed in a Supreme Court ruling. I am not saying that anyone is ignorant, as I believe both parties hold relevant and well thought out opinions. However, this point is simply wrong. |
| Lisser 27.08.2008 14:17 |
I am not a teacher, I am a social worker. We do not have a school resource officer in my school at all times but one is a phone call away at the middle school right next door. I am trained to restrain a child without hurting the child or myself. We do not have metal detectors at my school or at any school in my county but one county over there are metal detectors in the middle schools and high schools with armed resource officers. I live in a pretty peaceful county however the same county I work in is home to Clay Shrout's killing spree in 1994. He killed his parents and his two little sisters one morning and then went to school like normal after he did it and took his class hostage. This situation can happen anywhere true but I don't think arming teachers is the answer at all. I can only speak for the teachers in my school carrying guns, not other teachers and I'm telling you, any of these teachers with a gun would be a dangerous situation in itself. Not a good idea at all for anyone to have guns around children unless they are trained and I mean trained as their lifelong career. I will never bring my gun to school. This is not the place for guns. If a child chooses to bring a gun to school to hurt someone then there will be no shoot out here between teachers and the child. The police would be called to deal with it, as is their duty. We have procedures in place for hostage situations and the like and all staff are well versed in what to do in a hostage situation just as a tornado or fire drill, we practice these twice a month. We have had a couple instances where children have brought knives to school, one has even brought a bullet to school. They usually just want to show their friends and mean no harm but we just got a student in from another city who stabbed his sister with a knife, he is 9 years old and his sister is 15. Call me crazy, call me nieve, I just don't think that educators should be carrying guns for protection. If their school is that dangerous and they do not feel safe then the school board should be providing metal detectors and trained police personnel to protect them so they can do what they are hired to do, teach. Sure not every police officer is 100% accurate or 100% responsible. Nothing is 100% certain except that we are all going to die some day, just hopefully not at the hands of another human being. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.08.2008 14:29 |
*starts to comment* Nah...I'm walking away from this one. *leaves thread* |
| Micrówave 27.08.2008 15:42 |
Lisser wrote: If their school is that dangerous and they do not feel safe then the school board should be providing metal detectors and trained police personnel to protect them so they can do what they are hired to do, teach. Sure not every police officer is 100% accurate or 100% responsible. Nothing is 100% certain except that we are all going to die some day, just hopefully not at the hands of another human being.Whoa, hold on a second. You're talking about hundreds of public schools. Hundreds. That's gonna be one heck of a price tag. And we're not "arming our teachers". It's their choice. I doubt that there is 100% participation nor do I believe that these teachers are wearing them as side arms looking for a gunfight. There WAS a shootout at Virginia Tech. There WAS a shootout at Columbine. Teachers were not armed there, so how can we assume that arming teachers would result in shootouts between teachers and students? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.08.2008 19:48 |
OK, I feel I have to respectfully point out a few things to you Microwave: 1) You argue "How do we know that arming teachers will lead to a shoot out between teachers and students". Faulty logic. You can just as well argue "How do we know that arming teachers WON'T lead to a shoot out between teachers and students". Personally, I'd tend to error on the side of caution. If you have a gun, and someone starts shooting at you, what is your natural reaction after you duck for cover? Shoot back. Bingo. And then the shooter, getting shot at now, begins to shoot at the person who is shooting at them. Ergo, shoot out between teachers and students. You can't gaurantee everyone's aim would be perfect enough to hit the shooter on the first shot. 2) Just because some of the teachers chose not to arm themselves is not the issue here. It is similar to smoking. I chose not to smoke because I don't want to fill my lungs with such crap and slowly poison myself. But the person sitting next to me in the restaurant can smoke. In this case, it doesn't matter that I don't smoke, my lungs are still being filled with smoke from the guy next to me. A teacher in this school who doesn't arm themselves still has to be in an environment where co-workers are armed. I wouldn't feel safe in that environment. Most fatalities at work occur because of co-workers who snap, not students shooting up the schools. I'd rather not take the issue of the fellow teacher who is going through a divorce and money issues and what not snap and, because he has the gun for other reasons, decide to use it. 3) "Extensive" training? As Dan pointed out, even the POLICE who get MORE training than these people would get don't go into hostage situations; that's left to the SWAT team. And I guarantee you that these teachers aren't going to get SWAT team level training. 4) Virginia Tech isn't a valid comparison for this argument, because that was a University campus. It's open to the public, with multiple buildings and open areas on a campus. Not a typical K-12 school where everything is in one building and people going in and out are monitored. It's an apples to oranges comparison. 5) Columbine is the only apples to apples argument here, so that's the only one we can use. That was also ten years ago. Since then, there has been a MAJOR uptick in the security at schools; armed and unarmed police officers, metal detectors, all doors locked and guests can only get in one entrance where they have to sign in, etc etc. And since that time, I don't remember another major school shooting incident on that level (like I said before, Virginia Tech doesn't count because it's a university and therefore different). That being the case, why is it suddenly not enough to do what we have done to this point? Why do you suddenly need to allow the teachers to be armed? |
| Saint Jiub 27.08.2008 20:54 |
Just last year several people died in a shooting in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb Illinois. |
| Saint Jiub 27.08.2008 21:05 |
link This was in our local paper a few days ago ... about a crime fighting granny. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.08.2008 21:09 |
Gym Bitch wrote: Just last year several people died in a shooting in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb Illinois.Yes...again, at a UNIVERSITY campus. Where access to who is on the campus is lax because it is impossible to lock down who can come onto the campus and who can't. K-12 schools they lock down so that no one can come in the buildings unless they sign in as guests. This is contributes nothing to the debate. Another apples to oranges |
| Saint Jiub 27.08.2008 21:23 |
I read about this a few days ago in my local paper about a high school shooting in Knoxville Tennessee. link I suppose this is an apple to oranges comparison because only one student died? |
| Music Man 27.08.2008 21:35 |
Even if you say it's not a direct comparison, it's not like off-campus strangers are the ones shooting up universities. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.08.2008 23:16 |
Gym Bitch wrote: I read about this a few days ago in my local paper about a high school shooting in Knoxville Tennessee. link I suppose this is an apple to oranges comparison because only one student died?No...the number of deaths has nothing to do with it. The fact that I should need to explain this is kinda sad. But here we go: When you compare two things, logically they have to both be the same thing or same type of thing. Otherwise you have no basis for comparison. For example, you cannot compare graduation rates an an inner city ghetto school with a private advanced academy; they are not the same thing. The only way you can have a meaningful comparison is to have inner city ghetto schools compared with other inner city ghetto schools, and private advanced academies compared with other private advanced academies. They have to be the same thing. OK, now that we have that established, moving on.... I say again, you CANNOT compare a university setting with a typical K-12 school when it comes to school shootings. The reason is simple: A typical K-12 school building is ONE BUILDING. If someone goes nuts and starts shooting people, everyone in the building is as risk. That is why after Columbine many of the schools started limiting access to the buildings. All doors of the school are locked, only able to be opened from either the inside or the outside in the case of fire. There is typically ONE door to the building that is unlocked and you can get into from the outside; that is a door where you have to sign into the building as a guest and verify that you know or are related to someone attending the school. ERGO, 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. This doesn't even include the addition of uniformed and non-uniformed, armed or un-armed police officers for monitoring, metal detectors, etc that many schools have added. Contrast this with a University setting; where there are multiple buildings. There are not walls around the outside of the campus, and there are nice open areas of campus. People can come and go on the campus as they please; there isn't a place where you can check student ID's to determine that EVERYONE on the campus is a student, employee or faculty member. I went to university for seven years, and ANYONE can come onto the campus for any reason at all! Even just to sit and enjoy the surroundings. All of the dormitory buildings have 24 hour access doors (though they may try to limit access at night), and many of the buildings (such as a library or gym) are public buildings as well. Because of the very way universities are constructed, it is IMPOSSIBLE to control or limit access. You can put certain practices into place, such as checking ID's for admittance into dorms and what not, but you will NEVER have complete control over access to the campus. Unless you walled all of them up, put in gates and made everyone going in and out swipe ID cards, the level of control you can get in a K-12 building is unachievable on a university campus. Therefore, you cannot compare a place you can lock down instantly and have complete control over who comes in and out with a place where such control is impossible. Ergo, there is no logical basis for comparison. The number of dead does not enter into it; it is irrelevant. MusicMan, you do have a point that strangers are not coming onto the campus and shooting them up. They are typically students. But what does that mean? People who shoot up their work places work there too; it's not often you have someone walk into their local post office and start shooting it up. Humans, by nature, tend to congregate in places they are familiar with. That's all that means. My point is this; why should teachers arm themselves when they are in an environment that they can be completely controlled (and in most cases is)? If it were a completely uncontrolled environment the idea of "we have to protect ourselves" might make more sense (though I still don't buy it). But in K-12 schools, this is over kill. Since Columbine and all of the new safety and security initiatives at K-12 schools, there have been FEWER school shootings, FEWER deaths at buildings like Columbine BECAUSE of controlled access, metal detectors, police presence, etc. That seems to indicate the current policy is working. If it ain't broke, why fix it? I simply point out that you can't take the deaths from Northern Illinois and Virginia Tech and throw them into a "students who died at school" pot and use that as evidence that policies aren't working so the schools need to let teachers arm themselves. The deaths at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois, while tragedies, are not comparable to the argument. They hold no relevance, because you cannot apply the protection policies to a university that you can to a K-12 school. Therefore, it is a different circumstance that needs a different solution. Therefore, even on the surface there are similarities (shootings at educational institutions), you cannot use the same solution to fix them both. That means, you have two very different problems, and data from one set cannot be logically used to justify a completely different problem. |
| Erin 27.08.2008 23:39 |
^^ I need to start incorporating "ergo" into my vocabulary. Makes me think of this guy: link Sorry...carry on QZ debate club...;-D |
| Saint Jiub 27.08.2008 23:41 |
but the shooting in Knoxville TN was K-12. It was a high school ... not a university ... so it is an apples to apples comparison. "My point is this; why should teachers arm themselves when they are in an environment that they can be completely controlled" Was the Knoxville high school a "completely controlled environment"? |
| Erin 27.08.2008 23:48 |
No school is completely safe or "controlled", but it's bound to get all the more dangerous (if it really is to begin with) if you increase the number of guns coming through the school doors. |
| Saint Jiub 28.08.2008 00:06 |
This was the argument ... "The deaths at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois, while tragedies, are not comparable to the argument. They hold no relevance, because you cannot apply the protection policies to a university that you can to a K-12 school. Therefore, it is a different circumstance that needs a different solution. Therefore, even on the surface there are similarities (shootings at educational institutions), you cannot use the same solution to fix them both. That means, you have two very different problems, and data from one set cannot be logically used to justify a completely different problem." Ergo ... I simply gave an example that did not fit her "apples to oranges model". 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. |
| Music Man 28.08.2008 00:25 |
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. |
| Erin 28.08.2008 00:26 |
Gym Bitch wrote: 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.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. |
| Saint Jiub 28.08.2008 00:38 |
In a "Sam's Club" ... hmmm ... must have deserved it ... Walmart shoppers are evil. |
| Erin 28.08.2008 00:47 |
Gym Bitch wrote: Walmart shoppers are evil.Well, I always have said that a busy Wal-Mart is my version of hell. ;-) |
| Holly2003 28.08.2008 04:26 |
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. |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.08.2008 07:31 |
Music Man wrote: 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...Yeah, but giving guns to the teachers doesn't take them away from the cops. All that can come from this, is *more* violence. |
| Mr.Jingles 28.08.2008 08:19 |
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. |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 28.08.2008 08:35 |
Teachers need to carry guns in the UK....otherwise they'll get stabbed! |
| AspiringPhilosophe 28.08.2008 09:38 |
@ 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. |
| Erin 28.08.2008 11:18 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Somehow they believe that your average Joe who has received minimal or no gun training at all has the potential to become Jack Bauer.This crossed my mind, as well. |
| PieterMC 28.08.2008 12:26 |
Erin wrote:Damn it!Mr.Jingles wrote: Somehow they believe that your average Joe who has received minimal or no gun training at all has the potential to become Jack Bauer.This crossed my mind, as well. |
| Erin 28.08.2008 12:43 |
PieterMC wrote: Damn it!You'd become Jack Bauer, wouldn't ya? :-P |
| Music Man 28.08.2008 12:47 |
@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. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 28.08.2008 14:34 |
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. |
| Winter Land Man 28.08.2008 15:36 |
I don't think teachers should have guns at school. Some teachers are fucked up. |
| iron eagle 28.08.2008 17:11 |
not a week goes by in this state that we do not hear of a kid bringing a gun to school or a knife someone getting shot or stabbed these in supposedly safe zone schools-you know locked doors, metal detectors, security, bag checks etc. i suppose with some superior then thou attitudes it will be attributed to the 'redneck' syndrome it could also be a apple to watermelon comparison *evil grin* (hmm yea south...watermelon....or should it be peaches...decision decision's) i much preferred my lazy days at school....where we sat out front of the school and cut class and smoked pot and drank then went to Food class to cook so it would cure our munchies violence was an occaisional fist fight and teachers broke it up we didnt bring guns or knifes to schools we didnt beat on teachers or threaten them if we did we were suspended -expelled and usually whipped with a belt, a paddle or 'switz' with our parents... today with almost instant news, the absolute glorification of violence and guns on tv and movies a press that goes over board with coverage then saturates us with tales of the victims--you know columbine, va tech, the TN shooting last week and so on) it is hard to not see why (how ever stupid we may find it) that some schools or school boards would start to think this way-- at this point it is one small district --in a state known to be the polar opposite with stuff (and lets try not to blame bush on this one....its happened in this state for years and years and years)the nearest sheriff office some 30 miles away the scary part is if it spreads..to other places like my little hole in the wall...we got major problems..knowing what i know about lisser's realm i can totally understand why she would be uneasy too...and knowing gym bitch as well as i do i understand what he is saying as well... keep your ears to the ground-attend open to public meetings and hold your elected officials accountable for what they choose and decide... and dont go to sams club---wal mart bad--- go to costco instead--they carry these small round seedless watermelons... and i am just sayin............. mmmmmmmm barney these here melons are sure good tastin yup andy they sure be |
| Music Man 28.08.2008 18:17 |
In my opinion, we don't need stricter security nor do we need to arm everyone. Schools are just as safe (or dangerous) now as they always were. In fact, so is the world. Only with the advent of network television and sensationalism in the media did people come to see the world as a dangerous place, when it really hasn't changed...it might even be safer today than the days when children were able to freely roam the city and nobody feared for their life outside of the protection of their homes... |
| Micrówave 28.08.2008 18:18 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: 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.Actually, that's not my stance at all. But if the lunatic knows that others are packing, perhaps it might serve as a deterrent aand change his mind. Maybe he'll go toilet paper Mrs. Crabtree's house instead. Cops don't carry guns so they have to draw them and shoot things. We know this, right? |
| Winter Land Man 28.08.2008 18:35 |
A lot of cops are fucked up as well. A year ago, one in my small town was fired for having sex with a 17 year old student at the High School, he was the school resource officer. And a couple days ago, a cop quit because his wife and son found photos of seven different girls in my town, NAKED. He's under investigation, and he was also a school resource officer, and a patrolman. One of the girls was a police explorer/cadet. The girls were between 16-17. Also, another teacher two years ago, ran off with a student who he was having a sexual relationship (for two years) with, they are now happily together. I knew that girl too, she wanted to have sex with me once but I turned her down. SHE told me she had sex with her god father, and she said it was her neighbor, but it wasn't, it was the MUSIC TEACHER, the guy who taught me how to read sheet music, and how to play piano. Another teacher in the school, was fired, and arrested, for having weed in her car (they do a whole property search un-announced, lockers, classrooms, and student and teacher vehicles), and the teacher had weed in her car. A friend of mine also told me she'd smoke weed with the kids who have behaviour problems, I forget the name of that class though, it's for bad kids. My town has the highest number of drug users per every 100 people. The town only has 6,000 people. There's like 23 pregnant teens (ages 13 - 17) in the school. I once found a hundred needles (which were most likely used for drugs), in a park. We also have the highest alcohol rating per 100 people. Two local young men were just recently killed in a crash, because they came back from southern NH, and were drinking and driving. I saw them earlier that day in a store. They went to a bar in Keene, NH, and came back and crashed. There were witnesses too. Half the world is fucked up. |
| Erin 28.08.2008 19:09 |
iron eagle wrote: and dont go to sams club---wal mart bad--- go to costco instead--they carry these small round seedless watermelons... and i am just sayin............. mmmmmmmm barney these here melons are sure good tastinYou might like watermelons, but if you don't eat bawled peanuts, you still a Yankee. ;-) |
| Music Man 28.08.2008 19:26 |
Jake? wrote: Half the world is fucked up.So is the other half. They're just better at hiding it. |
| iron eagle 28.08.2008 19:47 |
dont mention them there peanuts i have ray and allen going nuts with them right now how gross guess the yankee coming out |
