An idea on the topic of arming teachers and such

[TallBill]

The insurance industry loves this idea.

Armed teachers? You're never a more than a moment from a tragedy.

Should lower rates if anything. Fire insurance goes down with additional fire safety equipment.

 

[Rainsford]

Actually there are rules in place for that already. And when people conceal carry, criminals are much more likely to be stopped.

Can you support that claim with any data? Because most of the data I've seen (mainly comparing crime rates across states) suggests easily available conceal carry laws combined with a population likely to carry a concealed weapon has little to no impact on violent crime rates.

I could be wrong about conceal carry not being much help, but it would make sense. Your argument relies on the average Joe with a weapon not in his hands being able to react better than a criminal who's already likely made the first move, criminals not being smart enough to think about the chance their target might be carrying a weapon and/or criminals not being able to pick targets less likely to be carrying a gun.

 

[sigurros81]

How about stop trying to arm teachers and whoever else in society and instead focus on trying to do a better job at being better parents, build a better system at pin-pointing the mentally disturbed, or figure out better ways of taking care of them, etc. There are many solutions, while all are debatable, are a bit more reasonable than the idiotic knee-jerk reaction of arming people who is in an occupation that is involved with some sort of shooting tragedy/massacre at some point.

 

[Rainsford]

Almost all the anti-gun liberal politicians in Washington DC send their kids to a school with armed guards.

Obama's own children are protect by 6 secret service agents who are authorized to carry machine guns into schools.

I heard that argument in the conservative press (Breitbart, I think), and it's not getting to be a better argument with repetition (although kudos for thinking through the issue for yourself...). Obama is the President of the United States, and like every President before him for quite some time has a variety of guards around him and his family due to the number of people who would harm them given the chance. Comparing his kids' school to the average American school is incredibly silly.

 

[TallBill]

I heard that argument in the conservative press (Breitbart, I think), and it's not getting to be a better argument with repetition (although kudos for thinking through the issue for yourself...). Obama is the President of the United States, and like every President before him for quite some time has a variety of guards around him and his family due to the number of people who would harm them given the chance. Comparing his kids' school to the average American school is incredibly silly.

So if only one person threatens my child then that's not enough?

 

[*kjm]

So if only one person threatens my child then that's not enough?

Eat cake
Rainsford get a clue:ninja:

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Look at how stupid this post is.

Everyone should point at it, and tell the poster how stupid he is.

Yes, keep trying. It might work one day. lol

Where will it stop for you people? If you keep espousing the party platforms they will strip away each freedom in our Constitution, as they have steadily done the last 12 years. Stop supporting this fear-mongering NONSENSE people, please. Grow a pair and protect your Constitution!

 

[JEDIYoda]

we should arm all the teachers with pens......

the pen is mightier than the sword,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[HumblePie]

Can you support that claim with any data? Because most of the data I've seen (mainly comparing crime rates across states) suggests easily available conceal carry laws combined with a population likely to carry a concealed weapon has little to no impact on violent crime rates.

I could be wrong about conceal carry not being much help, but it would make sense. Your argument relies on the average Joe with a weapon not in his hands being able to react better than a criminal who's already likely made the first move, criminals not being smart enough to think about the chance their target might be carrying a weapon and/or criminals not being able to pick targets less likely to be carrying a gun.

I can give one anecdotal case evidence with a long thread about it on these forums. George Zimmerman Carried a concealed weapon and stopped a violent attack on his person with it despite the aggressor getting the jump on him.



Point being, if a violent criminal is committed a crime with the intention of killing you from the onset, a concealed weapon or not having one won't make a difference. If someone sneaks up while you are completely unaware and they use deadly force like a gun from the beginning, you probably won't survive. THOSE are situations that no one and nothing can stop. It's the cases where the criminal has another form of crime to commit beyond random murder. Rape, burglary, mugging, and the like where the initial intention is not to kill the victim dead from the get go is where people with concealed weapons have a chance to defend themselves.

 

[Ausm]

 

[Howard]

Oh, let's arm our firefighters now as well.

If feasible. Maybe those two wouldn't have been killed then.

 

[DrPizza]

If feasible. Maybe those two wouldn't have been killed then.

It wouldn't have made a difference. It was a trap that they walked into.

 

[werepossum]

I heard that argument in the conservative press (Breitbart, I think), and it's not getting to be a better argument with repetition (although kudos for thinking through the issue for yourself...). Obama is the President of the United States, and like every President before him for quite some time has a variety of guards around him and his family due to the number of people who would harm them given the chance. Comparing his kids' school to the average American school is incredibly silly.

Yes, clearly some people are just better, more important, and deserving of protection, while the rest of us can just wait for the police to come and write up something for the insurance adjuster - or the coroner.

The issue isn't whether the President is deserving of MORE protection - he is, clearly. The issue is whether the rest of us deserve ANY protection beyond disarming us all "for our own good". If we are not to be allowed to even protect ourselves - at least, other than by waiting for a gunman to run out of bullets to shoot at us so that we can rush him - then clearly we aren't very valuable.

 

[sigurros81]

Should lower rates if anything. Fire insurance goes down with additional fire safety equipment.

I'm not sure how you can pass this on as logic. Last I check, a fire extinguisher is not a deadly weapon, false equivalence.

The idiocy is strong.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm not sure how you can pass this on as logic. Last I check, a fire extinguisher is not a deadly weapon, false equivalence.

The idiocy is strong.

Umm, no, your reading comprehension is fail here. He is stating that FIRE is the deadly item, not extinguishers. Think about it and read it from that angle then think on what you just wrote.

 

[pauldun170]

right-click
save as

 

[TallBill]

I'm not sure how you can pass this on as logic. Last I check, a fire extinguisher is not a deadly weapon, false equivalence.

The idiocy is strong.

Lol yes, the idiocy is quite strong.

 

[Chops McGandhi]

How about stop trying to arm teachers and whoever else in society and instead focus on trying to do a better job at being better parents, build a better system at pin-pointing the mentally disturbed, or figure out better ways of taking care of them, etc. There are many solutions, while all are debatable, are a bit more reasonable than the idiotic knee-jerk reaction of arming people who is in an occupation that is involved with some sort of shooting tragedy/massacre at some point.

I'm not saying arming teachers is the correct thing to do. But arming teachers and building a better system at taking care of the mentally disturbed are not contradictory.

It's like you're arguing that pancakes are nasty because bacon is better. Of course bacon is better but that doesn't necessarily make pancakes nasty.

If you want to argue against arming teachers, or whoever, that is fine. I think are reasonable arguments against arming teachers but if you're gonna argue it, argue it for a real reason.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not saying arming teachers is the correct thing to do. But arming teachers and building a better system at taking care of the mentally disturbed are not contradictory.

It's like you're arguing that pancakes are nasty because bacon is better. Of course bacon is better but that doesn't necessarily make pancakes nasty.

If you want to argue against arming teachers, or whoever, that is fine. I think are reasonable arguments against arming teachers but if you're gonna argue it, argue it for a real reason.

Well said. It's also worth pointing out that while trying to "do a better job at being better parents, build a better system at pin-pointing the mentally disturbed, or figure out better ways of taking care of them" are all laudable goals, none of them are likely to be done perfectly. Arming teachers and/or providing competent law enforcement or armed private protection professionals fixes the problem at the scene, regardless of exactly which system failed to prevent a threat from actualization. To expand on TallBill's point, there's a reason we try very hard to prevent all causes of building fires but still mandate fire extinguishers - we know our efforts will never be perfect, so it's wise to spend some money on local, last ditch defenses for when we fail.