South Dakota allows teachers to be armed.

Original post by pmc:producer

... Or what happens when a student attempts a rampage and an armed teacher prevents tens of people dying?

Or when a student uses a teacher's gun to go on a rampage in the first place?... Guns are the root of the problem I think, and you can't solve it by adding even more of them.

Reply 3

pmc:producer

20

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

Or when a student uses a teacher's gun to go on a rampage in the first place?... Guns are the root of the problem I think, and you can't solve it by adding even more of them.

Well, no, actually. I wouldn't say guns were the root of the problem. They are a big problem - yea. But not the root.

I think it's highly unlikely that these weapons will be accessable to students and although your scenario is a possibility - I can't see it. Not when guns are so readily accessable anyway. You can buy a gun like a loaf of bread in America so anyone willing to blame armed teachers if a ramage were to start would be slightly deluded.

I agree that more guns are not the way forward, but since there have be no real movements to change the gun culture there (and let's face it, they'll never get rid of all guns), I don't think putting teachers in a position where they could potentially save lives, is a bad thing.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 4

Greenlaner

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21722377

...Stupid in my view... how long do you think it'll be before a teacher goes on a rampage, and then what will they do?...

A teacher who wants to go on a rampage will bring in a gun and do it regardless of what the law says. At least this way the other teachers actually stand some chance of being able to legally defend themselves and the students.

Most (if not all iirc) Israeli schools have been armed for a number of years now, and in the past few decades they have had only one spree killing in a school, back in 2008, in which 8 people were killed by a lone Palestinian gunman, who was actually stopped by being shot dead by an armed pupil. Think about it, how much higher might the death toll have been if the school wasn't armed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 5

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

Or when a student uses a teacher's gun to go on a rampage in the first place?... Guns are the root of the problem I think, and you can't solve it by adding even more of them.

You could both keep responding back to each other with another "what if" all day, but let's talk about what's actually happening.

I'm in favour of this move, because it takes them a step forward in protecting children from a gunman. The parents now know that if there is a spree, there are teachers who are trained to protect their children to the best of their ability. That should reassure and comfort anyone who has the safety of those children in mind.

Reply 6

Original post by Greenlaner

A teacher who wants to go on a rampage will bring in a gun and do it regardless of what the law says. At least this way the other teachers actually stand some chance of being able to legally defend themselves and the students.

Most (if not all iirc) Israeli schools have been armed for a number of years now, and in the past few decades they have had only one spree killing in a school, back in 2008, in which 8 people were killed by a lone Palestinian gunman, who was actually stopped by being shot dead by an armed pupil. Think about it, how much higher might the death toll have been if the school wasn't armed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre

Oh my, I really wouldn't want to see this become the norm.

Reply 7

Original post by M1011

Oh my, I really wouldn't want to see this become the norm.

Are you serious????? You wouldn't want to see people being protected from being murdered? :eek:

Reply 8

Original post by Bart1331

Are you serious????? You wouldn't want to see people being protected from being murdered? :eek:

I wouldn't like to see students in schools armed.

Reply 9

Original post by M1011

I wouldn't like to see students in schools armed.

Would you have preferred it if that particularly student wasn't armed?

Reply 10

Original post by Bart1331

Would you have preferred it if that particularly student wasn't armed?

Was that what I said? Don't act like a moron, it's not impressive.

Reply 11

TheHistoryStudent

OP

Original post by pmc:producer

Well, no, actually. I wouldn't say guns were the root of the problem. They are a big problem - yea. But not the root.

I think it's highly unlikely that these weapons will be accessable to students and although your scenario is a possibility - I can't see it. Not when guns are so readily accessable anyway. You can buy a gun like a loaf of bread in America so anyone willing to blame armed teachers if a ramage were to start would be slightly deluded.

I agree that more guns are not the way forward, but since there have be no real movements to change the gun culture there (and let's face it, they'll never get rid of all guns), I don't think putting teachers in a position where they could potentially save lives, is a bad thing.

Original post by Greenlaner

A teacher who wants to go on a rampage will bring in a gun and do it regardless of what the law says. At least this way the other teachers actually stand some chance of being able to legally defend themselves and the students.

Most (if not all iirc) Israeli schools have been armed for a number of years now, and in the past few decades they have had only one spree killing in a school, back in 2008, in which 8 people were killed by a lone Palestinian gunman, who was actually stopped by being shot dead by an armed pupil. Think about it, how much higher might the death toll have been if the school wasn't armed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre

Original post by Bart1331

You could both keep responding back to each other with another "what if" all day, but let's talk about what's actually happening.

I'm in favour of this move, because it takes them a step forward in protecting children from a gunman. The parents now know that if there is a spree, there are teachers who are trained to protect their children to the best of their ability. That should reassure and comfort anyone who has the safety of those children in mind.

Those are some fair points, but I'm afraid I still can't see how in the long run how they couldn't, at least partially, be solved through strict gun control.

As you say, someone of a mind to commit mass murder will probably find a way to do it, and indeed, if teachers were armed then yeah, it is possible that in the event of such a thing happening, other teachers could potentially kill a colleague before they can kill a class.

However the problem I see with that is that by doing it you're only increasing access to weapons which in the wrong hands can be used to devastating effect. Increased access in my view, increases the chance of it happening. Gun control, and a determined effort to get the guns currently in the system out again, on the face of it looks like it could cut the chance of it happening down (though honestly I don't know.)

The problem with that approach though, is as you say, the gun culture in America which both views guns as a democratic right, and as tools against dictatorship by the government, both of which I think are irrelevant in the modern day (the first because I think the ability/power to end life should
only ever be in the power of those elected to power, and the second because I think if the government was determine to enslave it's people and had the military on side, it could do so against a motley group of citizens armed or not). The problem simply isn't going to go away over a short period of time, and over a long period it would require a huge amount of investment both politically and financially, something which probably wouldn't happen, and especially not in the current climate.

Otherwise though, you guys make some very good points! :smile:

P.S sorry if some of this doesn't make sense, I originally just quoted one of you, then realised some of the points I addressed were made by others, so I've just quoted you all and had done with it.

Reply 12

Original post by M1011

Was that what I said? Don't act like a moron, it's not impressive.

Don't disrespect me please. I asked you a question, I'd like it answered. I'm being polite with you, there's no reason for you to start running your mouth off. In the example you mentioned, would you have wanted that particular student armed or not?

Reply 13

Original post by Bart1331

Don't disrespect me please. I asked you a question, I'd like it answered. I'm being polite with you, there's no reason for you to start running your mouth off. In the example you mentioned, would you have wanted that particular student armed or not?

You implication was clear, and far from polite. I quote; "You wouldn't want to see people being protected from being murdered?"

Further, if I want to disrespect you, I will. I reserve the right to disrespect and offend you as I see fit.

Moving on, I am not obliged to answer random questions you pull out of thin air with no relevance. Are you genuinely simple enough to imply that because one student having a gun at the right time may have worked out in this instance, that this is somehow indicative that we should arm school children in general? Is that the way your mind works? Oh dear.

Reply 14

Greenlaner

Original post by M1011

I wouldn't like to see students in schools armed.

Looking at the article, the student in question was actually aged 40 using his own rifle, and i think the "school" was actually some kind of college or university.

Obviously young Israeli students in primary and secondary schools are not armed, nor should they be. But the teachers are usually armed.

Reply 15

Original post by Greenlaner

Looking at the article, the student in question was actually aged 40 using his own rifle, and i think the "school" was actually some kind of college or university.

Obviously young Israeli students in primary and secondary schools are not armed, nor should they be. But the teachers are usually armed.

So not a pupil as originally described in greenlancers post then. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the point that the idea of armed students is frankly scary.

Reply 16