TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGrooves And yes i do believe that i have never heard a cop blow the head of another cop because the other cop has a gun and cops around them also have guns. Part of it also has to do with their training. When you know the other person is armed you tend to back off a bit. This might not be the case 100% of times but it is so in majority. Education and mentality level plays a big part too. That�s why I am saying that they should not just arm them. They should also give them proper training. That�s important.

LOL Are you just pulling arguments out of your ass? Cops aren't shooting eachother because they're armed? That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. So are you saying that IF they weren't armed then they'd be more likely to shoot themselves? Yea I bet there were dozens of situations where cops thought "holy hell I would totally blow that guys head off if only he wasn't armed!" I bet screening and psychological tests of cops before they're accepted and given a gun has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Tell me, why is it that there's LESS violence in European countries where the cops are NOT armed as opposed to say, Washington DC?

Yes education and mentality level (or do you mean sanity level?) play a big part. Educate the fucking kids so they don't feel they have to resort to violence whenever something doesn't go their way.

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH Yes education and mentality level (or do you mean sanity level?) play a big part. Educate the fucking kids so they don't feel they have to resort to violence whenever something doesn't go their way.

The problem is not education (because we've seen plenty of 'violence is not the answer' videos), but lack of enforcement (ie disciplinary action) when kids do resort to violence. It'd be nice if kids listen when an authority figure tells them to shut the fuck up and smarten up, but that's not the case.

So things like kids hitting a teacher only gets a slap on the wrist for the offending kid, while same action by the teacher may result in going to jail. Not saying this is true all cases, but the law has gone to the way so that in the name of protecting the kids rights, the adults get none.

Kids, seeing how they don't get punished when they step out of the line continues to be a distruptive influence in the class, including using violence cuz the teachers can do shit about it.

So, for some places it's gotten so bad that only way teachers feel at least a measure of security is to get a gun. Sad.

I'm not sure whether I agree with their decision, but I can understand that this school board gotta feel that they showed allow their teachers to carry a gun, a decision not taken lightly.

I thought I wanted to be an educator considering both my parents were educators before, but thinking of all those lippy teen punks telling me to shut up and I can't do anything about it, I think I'd snap.
At my current work, I'm teaching mostly 16 to 19 yr olds and when I tell them to be quiet, they be quiet, or else they are going to be in a world of hurt.

Re: Re: Re: Texas school district to let teachers carry guns

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT well, let's just arm EVERYONE. if everyone can have a gun, no one will shoot anyone else, right? 100% deterrence!!!

Again, you say this dripping with sarcasm, but that is how it works.

I'm sure you'll agree that people are far less likely to commit a serious crime when a pair of cops are walking across the street or room, yes? And have you asked yourself the reason for this? It's not because they're wearing clean uniforms - it's because they have guns. If you knew, beyond a doubt, that all 12 customers in a convenience store were armed, would you even think about trying to rob it?

quote:

when someone is about to shoot someone else, or even just threaten them with a gun, they generally don't stand up on a chair and shout "get ready, you have 5 seconds before I pull out mah gun!"

I think I see why you're getting so tangled up in this issue. You keep bringing up the single most frivolous and unlikely scenario of a one-on-one standoff, as in those cheesy spaghetti western films where they're out on the street tickling their holsters and ready to see who's got the quickest draw and aim; and you perhaps unintentionally present this as the only conceivable scenario in which a standoff could occur.

This is why cops travel with partners. This is also why many citizens carry concealed weapons. Obviously, if you are the only other person in the area with a weapon and you advertise it, you're going to be the first one targeted by someone who's decided to commit a violent crime. The screenplay you imagine, though, is the one that almost never happens in real life.

In the case of a premeditated attack, perhaps you're right that a disgruntled student might simply target the teacher first, although I maintain that (a) it's still an effective deterrent in many scenarios, (b) others will be on the way as soon as they hear that first scream or gunshot, (c) in many cases the shooters aren't interested in the teachers, they're incensed at the other students, and (d) most of the time, the attacks are not well-planned, and the killers don't possess the level of intelligence or strategic planning that you ascribe to them.

quote:

there *may* be a deterrent effect on those who aren't truly fucking nuts.

I'm surprised that you would be the one to say this. Most of these people aren't "truly fucking nuts" in the sense of being demented or deranged or paranoid schizophrenics; what they're doing is perfectly rational in their own minds, and it's obvious when you listen to their stories to the police and media afterwards (for those precious few who do get caught).

Generally these people are consumed with and motivated by anger, and the only thing that can reliably fight that level of rage (short of actual force) is fear. There is no question that these people are thinking about the consequences of their actions - that is why some of them shoot themselves at the end of their sprees. They're just counting on the fact that they'll have enough time to make their "statement" before the cops come.

quote:

if anything, doesn't this mean that teacher is going to be the first one to eat a bullet when something *does* happen?

As I mentioned above, not necessarily. As soon as that gunshot is heard, someone else will be on the way and they'll be more prepared. But even in the worst case, I'm not sure how some kid shooting 12 other kids is so much better than the same kid shooting 12 other kids and a teacher. Murder is murder.

quote:

doesn't this increase the possibility of an accident?

Doubtful. This is a common line with gun control advocates, but although gun accidents certainly do happen, they're a lot less frequent and often less debilitating than, say, car accidents. Should we ban cars too?

quote:

Will a teacher who fears for student or personal safety due to a fist fight be able to point a gun to break it up?

I would assume that teachers would be reprimanded if not fired for unnecessary use of their guns and therefore would be reluctant to use them except in an emergency. The point is that a teacher shouldn't have to do this; the deterrent effect is more than enough in most cases.

quote:

I really would like to see the study that provides a shred of credibility for this type of policy. If there is merit in it, why does no other school district in the U.S. apparently permit/condone this?

Fair enough, but if nobody tries it, there can't be any study. In fact, one really can't draw any scientific conclusions unless many schools across the country participate.

quote:

is arming teachers *really* a good solution here?

Considering that this is Texas, where there isn't much gun control to begin with, we will probably never know. There just isn't that much gun crime to worry about. I think it could be a good solution in areas where this is a serious concern.

quote:

by that logic, wherever there is gun violence (i.e. pretty much anywhere), someone should be armed?

Sort of, but it's backwards. The fact of the matter is that there is less gun violence in places where people are armed. There are more accidents - that's true - but the accident rates are nothing compared to the crime rates in gun-controlled or banned regions. And accidents alone don't warrant a ban.

crime is down. The media will tell you otherwise, because that sells newspapers. No one buys a paper where the headlines is "all is well".

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm

As for long-term stats, keep in mind that reporting practises now vs. years ago are *vastly* different...and society has changed from a community mentality to an individualistic one. people no longer feel that they belong to a community or that they have any 'obligations' to others as a member of society. For some time now, it's all about "me".

btw...I don't know about you, but I would lock my car and house to avoid theft while I'm away, not to combat violence.

Installing cameras, hiring police, etc...yes, that does not work, because it does not address the ROOT CAUSES of violence. Arming people to deter or cause would-be criminals to rethink how to commit a crime is idiotic! You're already too late. Society needs to be proactive, not reactive...but that takes time and money. Much easier to just let people arm themselves, right?

I never for a minute thought that cameras in the club district would reduce violence. What they do is assist police in aprehending people after the fact. To that end, cameras do serve a purpose.

yeah, if someone thinks that all 12 people in a store are armed, you're right, they won't rob it...they'll just wait until there are only 1 or 2 in there! arming people is NOT going to reduce violence...it's just going to change the circumstances under which violence it's committed.

Instead of the kid bringing a gun to school, he'll jump the kid on the way home. How is arming teachers helpful in that regard? great, the violence won't be perpetuated on school property...well, now I see why the administration is happy! They just reducing their liability and their responsibility. Shift the violence elsewhere, but don't do a damn thing to reduce it.

how about spending some money addressing the ROOT CAUSES of violence instead of allowing people to think they are somehow leveling the playing field by arming themselves? Why the hell are teachers being permitted to do the job of the police? I don't want teachers spending their time learning how to use a gun, what to do in the case of an episode of gun violence (i.e. how to actively intervene), etc. That is NOT THEIR JOB. Their job is to eductate their students, period. I'd like to see the time they spend learning how to handle, store and use a gun, and how to react to a incident, spent EDUCATING KIDS.

btw...allowing teachers to be armed potentially opens up a can of worms with regard to liability and accountability. they are not cops, but will essentially be acting as such? yikes.

again, I want to see studies where arming citizens lowers the incidents of gun violence or where self-defense is improved. I wager that they simply don't exist.

I found a good (IMHO) article that claims both extremes are wrong...that the solution is neither to relax gun laws nor to outright ban handguns, but to focus on prevention and education.

quote:

A new chance to curb gun violence Posted on Wed, Jul. 23, 2008 By GLENN F. IVEY www.washpost.com The Supreme Court decision last month overturning the District of Columbia's handgun ban, though controversial, may have ended a long-standing political logjam. As a local law enforcement official, I hope this decision will allow a working coalition to transcend partisan disagreements and support strategies proven to reduce gun violence. The ruling left almost entirely intact the gun restrictions in Maryland and most other jurisdictions. Still permitted are: licensing requirements, bans on concealed weapons, prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill possessing handguns, bans on carrying handguns in ''sensitive places such as schools and government buildings'' and conditions on the commercial sale of firearms. It's time to move forward. We must develop more rational policies to reduce gun violence. Law enforcement efforts alone are not enough. We need comprehensive and coordinated strategies that rely on intervention and prevention programs -- especially those targeting at-risk youths in high-crime areas. Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans alike have long benefited from making this a partisan issue. Many Republicans, along with rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, have energized their constituencies by claiming that their opponents were ''trying to take away our guns.'' Gun ownership was a reliable wedge issue that Republicans used to win swing voters and that gun rights groups use to raise millions of dollars to support their advocacy efforts. Over time, the fear of gun confiscation grew so great that some groups ended up in extreme positions, such as opposing bans on ''cop killer'' bullets or on plastic guns that are invisible to metal detectors. To those groups, no restriction on gun ownership was reasonable: We simply need police, prosecutors and judges to stop ''coddling'' criminals and give them longer prison sentences, they argued. Yet the liberal coalition developed its own extremes. Democrats and others were frequently unwilling to recognize any right to gun ownership and motivated their constituents, especially those in urban areas with high crime rates, by claiming that the NRA would flood our streets with weapons that would wreak havoc. To some, it seemed that no civilian should ever own a gun and that the government should ban gun ownership or impose as many restrictions as possible on it. It didn't matter that an owner had never committed a crime or demonstrated mental or emotional instability. Some groups have also opposed longer prison terms for gun-related crimes, even though tough sentencing of violent offenders has been a critical component of crime reduction. To local law enforcement leaders, neither extreme will stop the violence. And the consequences are staggering: Homicide has been a leading cause of death for young African American men for nearly two decades. Usually a firearm is involved in these deaths. Increasingly, the motive for the killing is trivial, and I have heard them all: He cut ahead of me in line; he wouldn't give me a cigarette; he looked at my woman. Gun bans alone won't stop senseless violence. And encouraging people to buy and carry weapons results in more gunfire -- and raises the likelihood that innocent bystanders will be hurt. I hope the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller forces this debate to the middle. Boston, New York, Cincinnati and other cities have dramatically reduced gun violence through a combination of tough guns laws, longer prison terms for violators, reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and intervention and prevention programs that target at-risk youths. But states and localities could use more federal help. The government should: � Restore funding for local crime-fighting programs such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, as well as for Community Oriented Policing Services, both of which were cut deeply by the Bush administration last year. This would enable localities to hire more police officers and supply them with needed technology. � Close the gun show loophole, ban ''dangerous and unusual'' firearms such as assault weapons, require microstamp identifiers on fired cartridges, and allow local law officials to access federal gun-trace data used to track illegal gun dealers. � Fully fund the new Second Chance Act, which would help ex-offenders with the employment and education assistance they need to become productive citizens. Also, provide more funds for school and community programs proven to reduce youth violence. � Increase federal prosecutions of gun cases, especially in states that lack or do not impose stiff sentences for gun offenders. By assuring law-abiding citizens' right to own guns but leaving intact most restrictions on owning and carrying guns, the court may have taken away the red meat for extremists on both sides. Perhaps now the federal government can strengthen its political partnership with localities and states to stop gun violence. Glen Ivey is state's attorney for Prince George's County, Md. He was a prosecutor in Washington from 1990 to 1994 and joined the amicus brief with 17 elected prosecutors in District of Columbia v. Heller. c. 2008 The Washington Post

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT crime is down. The media will tell you otherwise, because that sells newspapers.

Yes, it is. Crime and wars and violence in general have been on a steady decline for centuries. Fortunately that wasn't the basis for my argument.

quote:

...and society has changed from a community mentality to an individualistic one. people no longer feel that they belong to a community or that they have any 'obligations' to others as a member of society.

I hope this isn't turning into a collectivist/redistributionist argument... people tend to be quite generous when they're not pressured or forced into helping others.

quote:

Installing cameras, hiring police, etc...yes, that does not work, because it does not address the ROOT CAUSES of violence. Arming people to deter or cause would-be criminals to rethink how to commit a crime is idiotic! You're already too late. Society needs to be proactive, not reactive...but that takes time and money. Much easier to just let people arm themselves, right?

The "root cause" is human nature... instinct. Normal people are accustomed to the idea that violence and crime simply aren't options because the consequences outweigh the potential benefits. It is not as though our genes and brain chemistry are evolving to phase these things out.

Perhaps there is some form of social engineering possible that would make people not want to commit a crime, or not have the motive to do so (I'm not sure how that's possible but I'm willing to concede that there might be a way), I think it's more a matter of time than money, and the time scale we're talking about could easily be hundreds of years. We should still do what we can in the interim to quell the problem, even if we can't eliminate it completely at the source.

quote:

yeah, if someone thinks that all 12 people in a store are armed, you're right, they won't rob it...they'll just wait until there are only 1 or 2 in there!

But it isn't that simple. When you think about convenience store or liquor store robberies, they usually aren't well-planned. People don't case the place to find out the most opportune time - they want instant gratification. What you're saying would happen just won't happen in the majority of cases.

Sure, there might still be a few perps who decide to go to that extreme, but the possibility of armed customers drastically raises the level of time and effort and planning involved in committing what was originally a simple, easy crime. Crime is usually an economic equation like anything else, and if it's going to be that difficult, many would-be criminals just won't bother. The ones who are capable and have the resources to pull off such a heist are probably going after bigger fish anyway, like banks.

quote:

Instead of the kid bringing a gun to school, he'll jump the kid on the way home.

Speculation. And unlikely. What these killers and copycats do is not solely out of hatred for other kids - they want to be in the papers, they want to make a statement. People already DO jump other kids on the way home, but that's an entirely different class of crime.

quote:

how about spending some money addressing the ROOT CAUSES of violence

I'll reiterate what I said earlier - I always hear people trotting out the phrase "root causes" but nobody seems to really know what they are, or what can be done about them. Poverty doesn't directly cause crime; broken families or terrible upbringings might, but that isn't really a problem we can solve. And if you consider physical access to weapons to be one of the root causes, then you haven't been listening to a word I've been saying.

quote:

again, I want to see studies where arming citizens lowers the incidents of gun violence or where self-defense is improved. I wager that they simply don't exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "studies". Would examples of cases where gun crime went up after instituting gun control, and other examples where it went down after relaxing it, be sufficient? Or statistics that show that gun crime is on the decline in states where gun laws are fairly lenient, while being stagnant or on the rise in other areas? I'm sure I can find these but I'm not sure what it's going to take to convince you (Canadians, especially, don't want to be convinced).

Re: Texas school district to let teachers carry guns

Hmm...

quote:

Recent school shootings in the United States have prompted some calls for school officials to allow students and teachers to carry legally concealed weapons into classrooms.

Wait a second. Something's not right here.

quote:

Recent school shootings in the United States have prompted some calls for school officials to allow students and teachers to carry legally concealed weapons into classrooms.

Erm.. Did I miss something? Isn't students with guns what they're trying to avoid?

the crime stats comment was in response to trancegrooves...sorry if that wasn't clear.

it is not human instinct to commit violent crime. social learning theory provides that most behaviour is LEARNED. most kids are sweet because their parents love them, care for them and teach them right from wrong. they learn to share, to cooperate, and to treat others as they wish to be treated...with respect and fairness. kids learn that rules exist for a reason.

if you buy into social contract theory, we all willingly give up our 'right' to do as we please in order that everyone else can't do as they please too. those who fail to live up to their obligation to participate in society, according to its rules, can either be persuaded to participate (education, rehabilitation, whatever)...or can be removed from it (incarcerated).

to keep this on topic...this thread specifically concerns violence in schools.

Coincidentally, within the past year, I completed a small research paper on the topic of how role models impact behaviour and what impact that area of study has for combating school violence.

A significant successful measure was positive role modeling and education mentoring for at-risk youth. not simply parents or "someone to look up to" or anything so touchy feely...as many studies noted absent parents, that teachers, athletes, etc. were NOT seen as role models...but concrete examples of success from within the community (whether that community be ethnic, socio-economic, whatever).

the community needs to engage at risk individuals BEFOREHAND. That takes time, money and INVOLVEMENT.

not arming teachers.

if you want a reference list, I'd be happy to share it. I can assure you that nowhere was it suggested that arming teachers was a viable solution (or consideration) to dealing with violence in schools.

I don't think it's a coincidence that it's some tiny school district in Texas that is implementing this measure and not a large urban centre.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT Coincidentally, within the past year, I completed a small research paper on the topic of how role models impact behaviour and what impact that area of study has for combating school violence. A significant successful measure was positive role modeling and education mentoring for at-risk youth. not simply parents or "someone to look up to" or anything so touchy feely...as many studies noted absent parents, that teachers, athletes, etc. were NOT seen as role models...but concrete examples of success from within the community (whether that community be ethnic, socio-economic, whatever). the community needs to engage at risk individuals BEFOREHAND. That takes time, money and INVOLVEMENT. not arming teachers. if you want a reference list, I'd be happy to share it. I can assure you that nowhere was it suggested that arming teachers was a viable solution (or consideration) to dealing with violence in schools.

The problem with this is that I find in Canadian society, teachers aren't seen as role models, as in a person who actively shapes growth of a child. He is there to input knowledge, that's it. Any personal influence in a student from a teacher is more of an extra thing, rather than a primary responsibility of a teacher.

Compare that to say, South Korean teacher, it is totally different. Because the culture strongly believes that education is the primary function of a society and that teachers are authority figures who has to take active part in influencing and shaping a child's mental and social behaviour.

I recall taking social behaviour classes in elementary school in Korea, where you learned things like, how to be polite, how to respect the flag, how you talk to others, etc. Seems rather silly and its something that parents should teach their kids, but I guess the SK govt realized that a lot of parents don't give proper attention to their kids and that schools function to produce productive members of society in adulthood, not just to impart knowledge in kids.

In Canadian system at least, the education system does not give, or allow teachers the tools and support to help shape a child's mind.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.