-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Teacher suing for right to carry concealed
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Henrythewound
Senior member
Are you arguing that by having a gun in the classroom you are no more likely of it accidentally going off and injuring/killing someone than if there was no gun at all? You can't possibly require statistics or prior headlines for this. It is common sense (which apparently isn't all that common after all).
Bottom line: having a gun in the classroom introduces a danger that was not there before. justifying it by stating your crazy ex might come looking for you is irrelevant. If that is such a danger and you are worried the kids might be in danger because of it you should probably seek work elsewhere.
More guns are not always the answer
teclis1023
Golden Member
Guess I didn't see that on the chart. No matter, I think that firearm deaths has a lot more to do with socio-economic issues.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
Most police don't receive much of the kind of training you're talking about. Furthermore civilian equivalents exist. Your average officer really isn't all that well trained, in the grand scheme of things.
Again, remember that statistically speaking police officers commit more crimes than do cpl holders.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Same ol garbage
Blame the trigger instead of the finger
When Guns are outlawed only Outlaws will have guns
PrinceofWands
Lifer
The danger is not introduced merely by the presence of the weapon. The weapons presence, while necessary, is not in and of itself in any way a risk increase. It is ONLY the mishandling of the weapon which could increase risk. It is negligence which increases the risk of firearm incidents, not firearms themselves (even though yes, they are obviously a prerequisite). So yes, I'm saying that the presence of gun does not in any way increase risk.
If it were that simple I could easily come up with thousands of scenerios which, by your logic, must increase the actual risks in the classroom. You'd want to dismiss them of course, but the foundational logic would apply to all.
If you want to PROVE that the presence of a firearm increases the risk then you MUST provide evidence that such incidents have occurred before, AND you must show that they are statistically significant, AND for us to care you have show that the increase in risk is greater than the benefits provided.
That is the only way for your argument to be reasonable.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
Correct. Where the social disposition already exists then available firearms become exploited. However the root correlation (and perhaps the cause) is the socio-economic issues, and not the firearms themselves (which are merely incidental).
Henrythewound
Senior member
You can be shot by a gun if it is nearby. You cannot possibly be shot by a gun if it is not present. What's so hard to understand? You are separating the physical gun from peoples inability to use one safely. I can say from personal experience that if an otherwise safe object can possibly be made into a weapon or misused in any way, middle and high school kids can do it.
All I'm saying is despite people's best intentions, having a gun introduces a level of risk (small if the carrier is uber-trained and always 100% vigilant) that is NOT there without the gun's presence. Your argument for the greater risk lying in the possibility of the ex coming in to the classroom armed is an assumption based on the teacher's paranoia, not necessarily an inevitable occurrence.
All I'm saying is despite people's best intentions, having a gun introduces a level of risk (small if the carrier is uber-trained and always 100% vigilant) that is NOT there without the gun's presence. Your argument for the greater risk lying in the possibility of the ex coming in to the classroom armed is an assumption based on the teacher's paranoia, not necessarily an inevitable occurrence.
teclis1023
Golden Member
I used to be very Pro Gun Control, until I realized that even if we banned ALL legal firearms, the problem wouldn't go away. I don't have any evidence, but the last I heard, the majority of firearm deaths are done with illegal guns.
With that being said, I see NO reason that we should allow assault rifles, armor piercing bullets and stuff like that. I can accept pistols and hunting rifles, but the only reason to use an armor piercing bullet is to kill someone. Last time I checked, Bambi wasn't equipped with body armor, and didn't require 26 shots to the face.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
You say that it is only the mishandling of the weapon which could increase risk. I'd argue that the mishandling of the weapon is the risk, and the more weapons you have, the higher the likelihood that mishandling will occur.
Imagine a school. You have a few hundred students, few dozen teachers, zero guns. What is the likelihood that a gun will be mishandled? Fairly close to zero (obviously a school is not a completely closed system, so there is a chance that a gun will be brought in from the outside). Now you give one teacher a gun. Hundreds of students, dozens of teachers, one gun. What happens to the odds that a gun will be mishandled? They increase ever so slightly.
Now imagine that half of the teachers are carrying guns. Hundreds of students, dozens of teachers, dozens of guns. Odds of a mishandling happening increase some more. Are you willing to bet the life of every single student and teacher in that school that a mishandling will never occur? What parent do you know who would ever willingly place their children in that environment if given a choice?
As for your later argument that we must prove that increased presence of firearms increases risk, well that's a no-brainer. Just look at examples of when firearms are brought on campuses; Columbine, Littleton, Springfield, etc. "Ahh," you say, "but that is why we NEED firearms in schools! We must stop this from happening!" True, but I'd sooner stake the life of innocent children on trained police officers than weekend warrior teachers who should be concerning themselves with educating students, not shooting bad guys.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
No, it takes more than that. If I put a gun on a stool in an empty room and leave there is a 0% chance of it ever shooting anyone. Likewise if I put a gun in a holster and do not draw it there is a 0% chance of it firing. Having a gun in a classroom does not in any way increase the risk. It requires an actual action in order to cause the risk to escalate. The risk isn't caused by the item, it's caused by the actions of those that control the item. The item is incidental (though required).
I wasn't meaning that one possibility. I'm saying look at everyone who has ever carried a gun. Look at the number of times that has done good (either in stopping a crime, protecting a life, or even allowing someone the peace of mind to live their lives). Now look at the number of times that there has been an incident or accident. Compare the two numbers. What I said is that for us to care any statistics you find you have to show that there is a significant occurrence of incidents when compared to the amount of good that was done. If you tell us that in 1 out of 1,000,000,000, days a gun is carried there is an incident, but in 1 out of 1,000,000 there's a proper use with a good result...well I for one will tell you it's worth it.
How can you not see that having a gun in a Classroom is introducing a level of danger that wasn't there before and therefore introducing a risk.
No one should have to show you any "Figures" arguing this as it's common sense. If I brought a knife into a class on Monday but no knife was in the class on Tuesday. What day stands more chance of someone being stabbed the Monday or the Tuesday.
Nebor
Lifer
Narmer is right. Last weekend, I went to the gunshow, and didn't even get to buy a gun because we were so busy burying all the bodies. It's the fault of all those damn guns there. 🙁
So then I went down to the police station to tell someone about all the bodies at the gun show, but all the cops were dead. Again, all those guns in the police station caused their deaths. 🙁
Oh wait, gun deaths are caused by PEOPLE, not by guns! That's why shootings never occur at gun shows, shooting ranges, police stations or army bases. Every single mass murder in the history of this country has occured in a "gun free zone." When you create a list of places where law abiding people cannot carry guns, you (to quote Governor Perry) "create a shopping list for madmen."
Many states already allow for carrying firearms in schools, but I believe 31 states restrict or outlaw it. I know Texas will be changing this in our legislative session in 2009. I've already contacted all my state representatives and they're all behind it.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
I understand the argument, I'm just refuting that the gun itself is the modifier. It isn't.
In your example you could arm every single teacher and administrator in the school and the chance of incident is 0, UNLESS they do something to cause an incident. It's the individual who causes risk, not the gun. If you want to prove me wrong you HAVE to find me instances where it has already happened. The potential isn't relevant unless you can demonstrate the realization. And even then for me to care you have to show me that the occurrences outweigh the benefits.
Yes, I am absolutely willing to risk it because I've dedicated a good portion of my life to studying this stuff and am confident that the benefits so greatly outweigh the consequences as to nearly totally dismiss them. Of course it would still be tragic when something bad happened, but I'd rather have one bad accident than a dozen intentional harmings.
Your example is completely ludicrous. That wasn't the increased 'presence' of firearms, that was the increased 'use' of firearms. Again, the presence is incidental. In your own examples if you increased the presence even further by arming every adult in those schools nothing would have changed. However, if you then took into account those adults USING those firearms then the end result would very possibly have been DECREASED risk. Without the guns we know what the risk was...it was absolute.
You aren't staking their lives on ANYTHING. You are guaranteeing, even demanding that those kids and those teachers be executed. Period. You CANNOT argue that because there is NO chance at all of the cop being in the class when the shooting starts. It has never happened and logically would never happen. The risk without armed teachers is 100%. All the guns do is allow someone so inclined to improve the odds. Maybe not by much. Maybe a teacher will bring the risk down by 10% per, while a cop is 25% per. We'll further allow a 1% chance of error for the cop, and a 5% chance of error for the teacher. Obviously these are made up numbers but they're not that unreasonable if you look at big picture and history of occurrences. Ok, your daughter or son is in the first classroom at a school shooting. The cop will reach the room before the gunman leaves. Let's say the gunman has 10 rounds, and there are 30 kids. Your child has roughly a 33% chance to die before the gunman is stopped without an armed teacher. With a teacher it goes down to 23%, or if you want to count possible error it goes to 28% (and really much less since you'd have to account for the error actually affecting your kid, a 1 in 30 chance by itself). It's the life of your child, do you want 28%, or 33%? I don't know about you, but if arming a teacher gave just a 1% chance to my child who would otherwise absolutely die I'd be all for it. That's what we're talking about here. Even if you want to say there could be accidents, the overall benefit outweighs the negatives. It's some chance where before there was none.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
Neither, unless you brought the knife into play.
Here's another one for you: On monday a psycho came to class with a gun and started killing people. He was the only one armed. On tuesday another psycho came to class with a gun, but the teacher was also armed. On which day is there the best chance for the fewest casualties?
That was a trick question, the answer is 'they're the same'. Good for you. Now, same as before, only this time the teacher tries to use the gun to stop the gunman. NOW, which day has the best chance for the fewest casualties?
OutHouse
Lifer
Yes, and obviously the laws that prevent teachers from carrying in school have done a great job of keeping guns out of school. :roll:
[/quote]
Agreed. All the "no guns" signs and laws have done a FANTASTIC job of keeping violence out of schools so far. Could we maybe get some "No shooting spree" signs put up so that we don't have any more of those?
Oh, and of course police officers shouldn't be able to bring guns into schools.[/quote]
the bad guys know this very well.
Henrythewound
Senior member
I see no end to this. It seems obvious to me that having a gun in a classroom is a bad idea and inherently riskier than not having a gun there (with regard to it's accidental fire or misuse). The arguments in favor of guns in the classroom or other public places assume madmen are waiting outside the door to come in and smoke the kiddies. This is not necessarily the case so I suppose each argument has its flaws. I can say that I would not enroll my kid in a class if I knew the teacher carried a gun. To each his/her own
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
One problem is that you seem to think that the objections from the anti-guns-in-schools crowd is that the teachers are going to shoot the students. My concern is that a teacher is going to lock a gun in his/her desk and assume that no child can get to it. My mother is a third grade teacher, and she has had students break locks on her desk to get into it assuming than some piece of confiscated contraband was in there. What if this third grader breaks open a desk drawer and there's a gun waiting there?
OK, so obviously the teachers would have to keep the guns on their person at all times. You equip the faculty with holsters. Problem solved, right? I don't think so. At the end of a long day, we all have those moments where our clothing has gotten uncomfortable, we want to relax. Women take off their bras, men undo their shirts/ties.. holsters would be removed. A teacher takes a holster off, puts it in a closet and figures it's safe, child comes along and finds it, and the same problem as before.
Your math is completely and utterly retarded. The risk of a school shooting happening is not 100%; if it were, every school would experience a school shooting. You also assume that every bullet a gunman fires is going to be fatal; if that's the case, sign this guy up for the special forces (no one makes 100% accuracy, even the best shooters in the world). The risk of a school shooting decreasing based on more guns in school is also a logical fallacy. If the teachers were properly trained, they would know not to fire until they, at the very least, saw a weapon. Someone walks into a class, gun drawn, starts shooting. The teacher isn't going to draw his/her gun fast enough to stop that. And if the gunman shoots the teacher first, now the gunman has two guns.
It's a terrific leap of logic to assume that a teacher, who is busy trying to teach a class of (public school mind you, since that's where most shootings happen) upwards of 35 kids is going to have the reflexes to correctly identify a dangerous intruder, draw and fire a weapon accurately in the space of a second or two. And a second or two is all it takes for an intruder to shoot. The school shooting hasn't been averted at all (although stopping it prematurely is an admirable goal, invariably something would go wrong).
This is really a moot point anyway. The article mentions that this is the first request of its kind that people who specialize in this kind of thing have heard. The bottom line is that the vast, vast majority of teachers do not want guns in schools. Even if there weren't laws against it, I'm sure it would be an issue raised at a PTA meeting, quickly agreed to by the administration and moved on. I told you earlier that my school had banned all nuts, nut-based products, and products made in facilities that process nuts. I'm sure that despite objections from a couple of paranoid people who are convinced that there is a 100% chance of a school shooting happening, that the overwhelming support would be in favor of barring guns from schools. Most parents don't want them, most teachers don't want them, most administrators don't want them... Why exactly is this an issue again?
Nebor
Lifer
The beauty of this is that everyone has a choice. There are 31 states that prohibited carrying guns at school. We're slated to see that number decline by 10 states in the next 2 years (legislative sessions.)
So you can choose to live in a state where it's legal, or where it's not. And if you're in a state that doesn't have the kind of laws you want, there's always private school. You're not allowed to carry guns in school in Texas (until next year,) but I went to a private school growing up, with armed faculty (and this was before school shootings were en vogue.)
Personally I see it is a right (innate) to carry a gun wherever you go, particularly on public property. But, the beauty of our country is states with vastly different systems of law. So while it may be legal to carry your gun in a school in New York, it's not in California.
Oh, and I illegally carried a handgun all through college at UT (the home of the school shooting.) The "gun free zones" never stopped me.
So you can choose to live in a state where it's legal, or where it's not. And if you're in a state that doesn't have the kind of laws you want, there's always private school. You're not allowed to carry guns in school in Texas (until next year,) but I went to a private school growing up, with armed faculty (and this was before school shootings were en vogue.)
Personally I see it is a right (innate) to carry a gun wherever you go, particularly on public property. But, the beauty of our country is states with vastly different systems of law. So while it may be legal to carry your gun in a school in New York, it's not in California.
Oh, and I illegally carried a handgun all through college at UT (the home of the school shooting.) The "gun free zones" never stopped me.
NaughtyGeek
Golden Member
I say BS. If more people had guns, people would be less inclined to attempt to use one for fear one might be used on them. While your original contention was that they "will" be used more, you later on said it increases the probability that they would be used. Two different things IMO.
NaughtyGeek
Golden Member
While you make a pretty valid point, I would think the point of a concealed weapon is that it is on your person and I fail to see how that introduces a possibility of a child gaining possession of the weapon.. I definitely would not want a woman carrying a gun in her purse or leaving it in her desk.
NaughtyGeek
Golden Member
How many times did you accidentally shoot someone? I mean, you had the gun so therefore there must have been an accidental shooting everywhere you went right? :laugh:
I will buy a pitcher of beer for the first person who can link me an article talking about someone getting accidentally shot by a concealed weapon on a person(not in purse, desk drawer, coat pocket)
So if the federal government declared you must be Muslim or you will be put to death, that's OK by you? As was already stated, the right to bear arms wasn't so you could kill rabbits, it was so you could stand up to the government if it became tyrannical. I'd venture to say everything you see NO need for would be necessary to fight the government.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
