Arm the teachers

Post Reply New Topic

The cold hard fact is that, contrary to belief, you just don't have CCW holders f*****g up enough to call it a statistic.

That would require a constitutional convention just to change it enough to make such a law possible. You couldn't get enough people to agree to hold it much less get a vote to change or remove to he 2nd amendment. Even then removing the 2nd amendment would not automatically change anything about gun laws- that would require a separate bill!

If you're a teacher and you refuse to carry a gun, then any harm that befalls your students that you could have otherwise prevented? I blame you.

It's time we stop treating teachers like they're somehow exempt from having to protect their charges.

That's sort of accurate, except that there ARE statistics available.

Texas publishes data on conviction rates for CHL holders versus the general population.

With rare exceptions uniquely related to violations of CHL licenses, which obviously the general population can't be convicted of, the unanimous verdict is that a Texas CHL holder is unquestionably safer to be around than an average Texas resident. Like, say, a teacher.

Read that again: CHL holders in Texas are less criminal than teachers.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

For those who don't know, a CHL in Texas is a Concealed Handgun License. Any citizen who can pass a simple background check can own a pistol or rifle or shotgun in Texas, but you need a CHL to carry a pistol concealed on your person in public. CHL's in Texas are SHALL ISSUE. Which means that if you pass a simple background check to verify that you've never been convicted of a felony, and a couple other little paperwork things, you are guaranteed a CHL. You don't have to bribe anyone or know anyone.

And still CHL holders are less criminal than the general population.

I think any teacher who believes that gun owners should be disarmed, should be summarily dismissed for endangering her students. And she should be held criminally liable for any harm which befalls them.

That's fair, right?

And any facility or company which prohibits the legal possession of guns on its property should be held criminally liable for any harm which befalls anyone on that property, which might theoretically have been prevented by a gun owner.

That's fair too, right?

I think those are fair.

Woah there. You think that if some lunatic comes in to my school and shoots at kids then it's MY fault as a teacher?!

The last time we had a school shooting in the UK was a primary school called Dunblane, which was terrible. The result of that was tighter gun laws. The result of THAT was that there hasn't been a school shooting since.

Exactly!! !!




I don't see how that would benefit a child in anyway. The innocence of childhood must be protected here. What kind of mentality do you want the future generations to have, if we promote the gun from even earlier ages? As Aspies, we should bloody well know that a positive rich environment is essential for good development for later life. It's so crucial we get that right, or our future generations will have multiple mentality and development issues later in life.

JBlitzen wrote:

Yes, but the numbers are negligible. Not really worthy of a statistic in the overall scheme of things.
You have these nervous Nellie’s that that are always wringing their hands and whining over what’s gonna happen if someone with a CCW (CCH, whatever) goes bonkers, or someone will disarm a CCW holder and go bonkers, and so on ad nauseum….
So what?
How often does it actually happen in the real world and how does it stack up to other deaths?
So they want to disallow armed citizens and in effect turn a blind eye to the “active shooter” who is hell bent on intentionally going bonkers.


Good luck getting that passed.
NOT!

Fascinating. So then when Mexico has the same gun laws that you have, the result is less violence in Mexico?

Or are you saying that England has less violent crime than the United States?

Because both of those seem to be complete BS.

One can purchase a hand gun or a semi-automatic rifle in Mexico; both are banned in the UK. The licensing of guns in Mexico is very poorly controlled, and well controlled in the UK.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom



http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compa ... micide/194

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compa ... method/194

Rate of homicide by any method in England and Wales 1.1 vs 100K vs. 4.6 per 100K in the US.
Rate of homicide by guns n England and Wales .1 per 100K vs 2.98 per 100K in the US

I suppose that's true, except for the part where you can't legally own a handgun or semiautomatic rifle without a 2-year license, unless it's small caliber. Which, hey, actually sounds similar to the UK! In fact, it reads virtually identically to the UK's licensing section.

I very deliberately said "violent crime", not "gun homicide".

(Though I wonder how nonviolent crimes compare, now that I think about it...)

As I understand it, it is very difficult in Mexico to do so. There is exactly one firearms store in Mexico that can sell firearms to civilians and a great many of their firearms are reserved for the military. The red tape is horrendous -- it is designed to discourage civilians from buying firearms. Furthermore, civilians cannot buy any firearm reserved for use by the military.

It is very difficult for civilians in Mexico to buy firearms legally.

Anyone care to provide a guess of what the result would have been, if the 145,100 public school teachers physically attacked by students, in 2010, had been armed with a concealed gun?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bullied ... nts-276700

Two potential scenarios in an altercation between a student and a teacher with this new variable:

No gunshots fired.

Teacher dead or injured by gunshot wound, as a result of student overpowering the teacher, taking the gun away from the teacher, and using it on the teacher, and potentially other students.

Not as likely that an elementary school child would overpower a teacher, but there is close to zero potential that a law would be passed for teachers to carry concealed weapons in the classroom, unless the US becomes a third world country. Homeschooling is the only fail safe method, as far as avoiding violence in schools.

Metal detectors are already used in some Urban schools, but the effectiveness of this measure is limited.:

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/sc ... ctors.html

Properly trained law enforcement officers seem to be a good option, where they can be provided. Unfortunately, there is always going to be a soft target, somewhere, in those extremely rare potentials of rampage shootings. There is not an escape from that variable in the United States.

The government is going to take some kind of action in this case, to provide a greater illusion of safety. Whatever gun restrictions the government provides; there seems to be one certainty. Gun sales overall will increase.

This rampage killing phenomenon is not entirely the same phenomenon seen earlier in the century, as there are new identified associated variables in culture, that did not exist in 1927. The new variables are not weapons of death, although some of those weapons of death are improved and more efficient.

When bullet proof back-packs are in demand for children in elementary schools, something has been lost, something priceless, that cannot be legislated back into effect.

There is no accurate comparison of either violent crimes or non-violent crimes in any country as what is identified as violent or non-violent crime differs greatly for each country. Homicides are considered the only type of violent crime that can be close to accurately compared. Some countries more effectively identify homicide and measure it than others, even for this most highly identified and measured violent crime.

I'm not sure what link you were looking at, but that is not what is identified in the link from the UK quoted below.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

Israel has had armed teachers for decades.
Armed soldiers have patrolled the streets since at least the 1980's, but I really think that it started in the 1970's.

Is a child or anyone neurotic to be aware that dangerous people do exist,and will hurt you,and that some people are ready and willing to protect you?

Sylkat

I just can't see easier access to firearms by law-abiding civilians as the cause for those 3 more murders per 100,000 people per year, especially when you compare it with others countries with more or less firearm ownership per person.

Switzerland at 1 per 100,000 for example
South Africa at 30 per 100,000 for example

I can't see how anyone could draw the conclusion that firearm ownership equates to a higher murder rate when you look at them all. It doesn't make sense. Of course, a higher firearm rate per person can possibly lead to more murders by firearms (it doesn't have to though, but I can see a good chance of it); this makes sense.

Ok, I need to figure this out to see how people come to their conclusions; I'll list firearm rates of ownership and murder rates of those who're highest and lowest; I'll take...10 on both side for both studies

Ownership; firearms per 100 people; murder rate per 100,000 people
Top 10;
US: 90; 4.2
Serbia: 58; 1.2
Yemen: 54; 4.2
Switzerland: 46; 0.7
Cyprus: 36; 1.7
Saudi Arabia: 35; 1.0
Iraq: 34; 2.0
Finland: 32; 2.2
Uruguay: 32; 5.9
Sweden: 32; 1.0
Bottom 10;
Tunisia: .1; 1.1
Timor-Leste: .3; 6.9
Solomon Islands .4; 3.7
Ghana: .4; 15.7
Ethiopia: .4; 22.5
Singapore: .5; 0.3
Indonesia: .5; 8.1
Fiji: .5; 2.8
Eritrea: .5; 17.8
Bangladesh: .5; 2.7

That's clear. Firearm ownership has zero bearing on murder rate when you're comparing those two (well, you can say that it has the opposite effect and the lack of firearms increase murders, but you know).

Last edited by Dillogic on 21 Dec 2012, 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Only 2.65 out of 15 guns per 100 people is registered in Mexico, per the link I provided. The biggest issue in Mexico is that law enforcement cannot control the illegal sales of guns. There is no gun control without the registration of guns. There is not a problem anywhere close to this level in the UK, so the two geographical areas could not be compared per violent crime, even if that variable could be similarly measured and compared, or even if the restrictions of prohibition of sale of weapons were identical.