Turn on thread page Beta

"Let's put an end to gun violence by handing out more guns" watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    If you genuinely believe that the US governement has no history of tyranny, you're frankly not worth the time to have a discussion with.
    And if you really think 40 guys called Billy Bob who spend more time pleasuring their sisters than learning about politics would be able to prevent a government of the size and capabilities of the US running roughshod then you're demented.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    If you genuinely believe that the US governement has no history of tyranny, you're frankly not worth the time to have a discussion with.
    I think you should find out what tyranny means.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    And if you really think 40 guys called Billy Bob who spend more time pleasuring their sisters than learning about politics would be able to prevent a government of the size and capabilities of the US running roughshod then you're demented.
    It's amazing how as your sentence progressed, the more deluded it became.

    I never said any of that sh*t.

    You claimed that governmental tyranny wasn't a good excuse to allow guns because the lovely American government has never been tyannical according to you. I disagreed. I mean, off the top of my head, you do remeber slavery do you not?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Let’s solve obesity by increasing the production of doughnuts
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    you do remeber slavery do you not?
    Properly elected (rather than tyrannical) governments allowed that, and all governments did so from independence, with the support of their populace. That is not an example of tyranny.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Properly elected (rather than tyrannical) governments allowed that, and all governments did so from independence, with the support of their populace. That is not an example of tyranny.
    Well, in 1770 for example, 62% of all the population in S.Carolina were slaves. So 38% of the populous supported slavery (arguably less). So to claim the governement had the authority or mandate to introduce such cruel and oppresive laws is laughable.

    Furthermore, even if you choose to ignore my point, how can you justify Jim Crow laws?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    But we should listen to people who've actually handled such weapons before in combat situations. A poster on here who was in the military, and several other military figures, have described how difficult using such weapons while protecting yourself is, in the best of circumstances. And that's fully, military trained individuals.

    Imagine asking a far less trained teacher to do so, while being shot at.
    I entirely accept that teachers aren't going to become firearms experts. Having some firearms amateurs intervening would at least delay the murder of some children, though. Any time bought is more time for the police to show up. (Who, in fairness, are also pretty sloppily trained in handling firearms).

    There's also the strong argument that the teachers should be focusing on keeping the kids safe, not taking the gunman out like a hero in a movie.
    Of course their focus should be doing anything they can to get the kids to safety, but if they end up in a classroom with the kids under the desks and the gunman coming down the corridor there's not much more the teacher can do other than try to take him out.


    This is a really good piece, worthy of a read:

    https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/


    The key bit is this:

    'And now we are expecting teachers, even with training, to perfectly handle this situation. I say perfectly because anything less could mean even more tragedy and death. This isn’t a movie where bullets always miss the hero. These teachers aren’t action stars. These are average people, who more likely than not, have never come close to experiencing anything like this.

    Few people actually run towards gunfire. Most search for cover. Some can’t function. Fight or flight. Adrenaline floods your body. Time doesn’t exist. Your heart beats outside of your chest. Fine motor skills stop working. People urinate and defecate themselves. Good luck holding steady aim at a moving target. Even the simplest of tasks, such as reloading can become difficult. Your hands shake for hours afterward. It’s chaotic on a level that is beyond comprehension until you experience it'
    I'm not convinced that anything less than perfection will mean even more tragedy and death. It might in some cases, so I suppose I accept that it 'could', but I doubt whether that would be the usual position. It has to be remembered that we're talking about a situation in which there is someone in the school killing children. I'm not entirely sure just how much worse well-intentioned amateurs could make that. As noted above, if they mess up, they at least buy time.

    As for the second paragraph, yeah, some teachers might not do a great job of defending the kids, and they can't really be blamed for that. I don't really see where that point gets us, though. It doesn't mean it's a bad idea overall. I'm sure there are policemen who aren't particularly good at defending the public, but we still think they're a good idea on balance.

    I want to be clear that I'm not saying this is a great idea. I just think we should take some time to play it through before jumping into the 'haha Trump is such an idiot' circle jerk.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I entirely accept that teachers aren't going to become firearms experts. Having some firearms amateurs intervening would at least delay the murder of some children, though. Any time bought is more time for the police to show up. (Who, in fairness, are also pretty sloppily trained in handling firearms).



    Of course their focus should be doing anything they can to get the kids to safety, but if they end up in a classroom with the kids under the desks and the gunman coming down the corridor there's not much more the teacher can do other than try to take him out.




    I'm not convinced that anything less than perfection will mean even more tragedy and death. It might in some cases, so I suppose I accept that it 'could', but I doubt whether that would be the usual position. It has to be remembered that we're talking about a situation in which there is someone in the school killing children. I'm not entirely sure just how much worse well-intentioned amateurs could make that. As noted above, if they mess up, they at least buy time.

    As for the second paragraph, yeah, some teachers might not do a great job of defending the kids, and they can't really be blamed for that. I don't really see where that point gets us, though. It doesn't mean it's a bad idea overall. I'm sure there are policemen who aren't particularly good at defending the public, but we still think they're a good idea on balance.

    I want to be clear that I'm not saying this is a great idea. I just think we should take some time to play it through before jumping into the 'haha Trump is such an idiot' circle jerk.
    My opposition to this policy is based on the rather ridiculous and unfair obligation/expectation it seems to place on teachers to be the hero who kills the gunman. In the black and white situation of a gunman entering a classroom full of children, then perhaps a teacher having a gun could potentially be of some us. But the reality is most situations won't be that clear. What about situations where people are running away from the gunman chasing them?

    Are we expecting teachers who have little training to run out, put their own lives in huge danger and end up in a shooting match like something out of a film? You also increase the chances that a teacher could kill kids accidentally in a cross fire, especially if people are running in all directions.

    That's without mentioning the other element to this. The idea that teachers have loaded guns in classrooms full of kids. That is an absolute recipe for disaster on so many levels. I just can't accept that every class room having a weapon in that could kill the entire class within minutes, makes anyone safer.

    You're right in that something needs to be done and perhaps that might include armed officers.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Really? You do surpise me.

    More sensibly, how many USA governments have been tyrannical?
    I guess you could argue that the union was tyrannical in the civil war.

    I’m not saying tyranny must happen every 50 years to justify the second amendment though, we’re talking about the timescale of centuries. If we look globally at the recent past, we see China, Turkey, Venezuela, USSR, nazi Germany, Greece being taken over by EU officials, Russia and Putin etc we can see that tyranny is not something that only exists hundreds of years ago or only applies to 3rd world countries.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    My opposition to this policy is based on the rather ridiculous and unfair obligation/expectation it seems to place on teachers to be the hero who kills the gunman. In the black and white situation of a gunman entering a classroom full of children, then perhaps a teacher having a gun could potentially be of some us. But the reality is most situations won't be that clear. What about situations where people are running away from the gunman chasing them?

    Are we expecting teachers who have little training to run out, put their own lives in huge danger and end up in a shooting match like something out of a film? You also increase the chances that a teacher could kill kids accidentally in a cross fire, especially if people are running in all directions.

    That's without mentioning the other element to this. The idea that teachers have loaded guns in classrooms full of kids. That is an absolute recipe for disaster on so many levels. I just can't accept that every class room having a weapon in that could kill the entire class within minutes, makes anyone safer.

    You're right in that something needs to be done and perhaps that might include armed officers.
    You wouldn’t require teachers to run out and confront the shooter, just to barricade their room and train a pistol on the door.

    If the pistol is locked in a drawer its not like kids are going to get their hands on it
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    You wouldn’t require teachers to run out and confront the shooter, just to barricade their room and train a pistol on the door.

    If the pistol is locked in a drawer its not like kids are going to get their hands on it
    But shootings are not that clear cut and don't just involve the storming of class rooms. What happens if a teacher doesn't want to have a gun? Are we going to force them to have one against their will?

    Locking it away would defeat the purpose of having one if they need quick access to it.

    Do you really want every classroom to have a gun in it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    But shootings are not that clear cut and don't just involve the storming of class rooms. What happens if a teacher doesn't want to have a gun? Are we going to force them to have one against their will?

    Locking it away would defeat the purpose of having one if they need quick access to it.

    Do you really want every classroom to have a gun in it?
    I honestly can’t be arsed to explain blatantly obvious things to you for the 10th tim in a row. Please just use your brain
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    I honestly can’t be arsed to explain blatantly obvious things to you for the 10th tim in a row. Please just use your brain
    I am. And no I still can't see how having a loaded gun in every single classroom makes anyone safer.

    You also haven't discussed the fact that the vast majority of teachers do not want guns. So are you proposing we force teachers to have them?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I am. And no I still can't see how having a loaded gun in every single classroom makes anyone safer.

    You also haven't discussed the fact that the vast majority of teachers do not want guns. So are you proposing we force teachers to have them?
    You don’t need to force them to have guns
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    You don’t need to force them to have guns
    Well yes you do if your policy is to arm teachers.

    What happens when the vast majority of teachers don't bring a gun to school with them or refuse to ever use one ? Do we sack them?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Well yes you do if your policy is to arm teachers.

    What happens when the vast majority of teachers don't bring a gun to school with them or refuse to ever use one ? Do we sack them?
    They’re being irresponsible and jeapordisig the safety of their students. There’s no reason why you’d need to force them to have guns though, just encourage and facilitate it
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    They’re being irresponsible and jeapordisig the safety of their students. There’s no reason why you’d need to force them to have guns though, just encourage and facilitate it
    So teachers who go into education to teach children are being unreasonable if they refuse to carry a loaded weapon around with them? That's a really perverse logic.

    Expecting or demanding teachers to have guns is incredibly unreasonable and unfair on them.

    The vast majority of teachers do not want guns. Your policy would not work.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    You wouldn’t require teachers to run out and confront the shooter, just to barricade their room and train a pistol on the door.

    If the pistol is locked in a drawer its not like kids are going to get their hands on it
    The shooter in Florida had a rifle so powerful he didn’t ever even open the doors, if you listen to interviews with the kids he shot directly through doors and walls from the corridor without ever entering a classroom. Frankly your hypothetical teacher would have to be exceptionally brave and self-sacrificing to jump into the line of fire if you expected them to have any real impact. Understandable if a person had signed up for the marines, but not so much if you thought you were just there to teach teenagers maths. I don’t think many teachers would want to feel that responsibility or expectation. Even the chap who was a paid police officer with a gun didn’t run into the building on a suicide mission. I wouldn’t be a teacher if that was part of my job description! And it would be tragic if that’s what it came to.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    First, this policy will be expensive to implement. From teaching teachers to use guns, admin costs of making sure it's all done safely and the extra pay for teachers, the costs are better off spent on actually teaching children.

    Second of all, guns could be stolen or someone could be hurt with the gun.

    The only real policies are a) making it harder for people to buy guns, with thorough background checks and some sort of interview done to assess the mental health of buyers. And b) better mental health services integrated within schools.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    The shooter in Florida had a rifle so powerful he didn’t ever even open the doors, if you listen to interviews with the kids he shot directly through doors and walls from the corridor without ever entering a classroom. Frankly your hypothetical teacher would have to be exceptionally brave and self-sacrificing to jump into the line of fire if you expected them to have any real impact. Understandable if a person had signed up for the marines, but not so much if you thought you were just there to teach teenagers maths. I don’t think many teachers would want to feel that responsibility or expectation. Even the chap who was a paid police officer with a gun didn’t run into the building on a suicide mission. I wouldn’t be a teacher if that was part of my job description! And it would be tragic if that’s what it came to.
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/metro.c...n-7315630/amp/
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 28, 2018
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.