• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Arming Teachers: A college students perspective

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I wish we were living in the wild west. Gun regulation was steep and actual amounts of murder was small.
We forgot that about the old west around the same time we 'forgot' most cowboys were Mexican and most business operators were women.

Yeah, the reality was nothing like the romanticized Hollywood portrayals. There were no high noon quick draw duels. Most killings involving guns didn't involve shootouts but rather from getting ambushed and shot in the back of the head, which is why saloons had mirrors along the wall behind the bar.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
A teacher I talked to said they probably would forget the gun in the room and a kid would get a hold of it.

It needs to be more difficult for criminals and mentally ill folks to get guns. I’m talking the same folks I’d be hiding all my knives and swords from if they were staying at my house . Rights are great and all but sometimes there are reasons to treat it as privilege that can be taken away. We already do this for example for felons and people convicted of domestic abuse. It’s sad when sometimes we even have a law but the mass shooter never gets entered into a database that bars them from legally obtaining weapons. We need to make it difficult for criminals at the very least.

When it comes to mental illness unless the person have a documented history of a diagnosed disorder, you really cannot tell if someone will have a psychotic break such as an early onset of schizophrenia until it really happens.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Dumb or not, it's a proposal. Everyone says something must be done. A dumb idea is better than no idea.

I think saying AR15s should be illegal is another dumb idea. If someone wants to kill people there are slews of other things to do it. So far everyone is coming up with "band-aids" for a bleeding wound. I see it as a complicated issue that has no easy solution. It's like coming up with a solution to stop wildfires from happening. Yet controlled fires to battle out of control ones work.

If I had kids in school today, I'd be home schooling them myself. Teachers today are nothing like when I went to school. Neither are the those in the social field (class mates). Technology has wound up being a double edged sword.

What ever idea is enacted, one thing is for sure. Half the country won't like it.

Sorry.
NO idea is better than a dumb one.

Stop putting lipstick on the pig.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
They have air Marshals on flights. Folks train to deal with these situations.

So, yes, teacher should teach. Not carry weapons. However, they should consider making train law enforcement officers available to campuses.

If you want the kids to be as safe as possible, have trained officers on site.
Who's going to pay for this? We have to give all those tax breaks to the rich, now, so we can't even pay for Medicaid, or food stamps, or home heating assistance. Soon they will be coming for your Social Security pension. They already steal from the fund that we all payed into, routinely. Every president except Obama stole our Social Security money since Ronald Reagan did it (to pay for his tax cuts for the rich). Now they're trying to use the fact that the money isn't there to eliminate Social Security all together.

So what chance do you see for spending money on millions of armed school guards stationed millions of elementary, middle, and high schools all across America? We don't even want to spend money on the kid's lunches! Cause we have to give more and more tax cuts to the rich.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Failure of law enforcement. Same as any crime that goes unprevented. Somewhat different than if an armed civilian mistakenly kills a innocent in an amateur attempt at law enforcement because the state has abdicated it's responsibility of doing it?
So, how long did the past shooting incident last?
How long did it take for the law enforcement to arrive at the incident?
What is the average time for the police to respond?
How about answering just those three question? Or is it you can't because it shoots holes in your above argument.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So, how long did the past shooting incident last?
How long did it take for the law enforcement to arrive at the incident?
What is the average time for the police to respond?
How about answering just those three question? Or is it you can't because it shoots holes in your above argument.
Why does any of that matter. Civilians cannot take the law into their own hands and decide by themselves to kill or maim a guy by shooting them. There are problems of misidentification, problem of bystanders getting killed in the shootout. These are responsibilities solely given to the police. Why have a state at all if every citizen can use lethal force to stop a crime? What are courts, the legal process of apprehending and convicting criminals for? What about innocent until proven guilty? Yes, this means violent crimes and shootings may not be stopped in every case as police may take time. But that is the price that needs to be paid to release us from the anarchy of gun toting citizens all thinking they are vigilantes that can execute the law from the barrel of their guns.
 

Srivijaya

Active Member
Trump told reporters earlier on Friday that Peterson "certainly did a poor job" and was a "coward."
"He trained his whole life," Trump said on the South Lawn of the White House. "But when it came time to get in there and do something he didn't have the courage or something happened. But he certainly did a poor job. There's no question about that."
Trump is a disgrace of a president; a windbag of the worst sort. What does he imagine he would have done in the circumstances?

Just picture the scenario for a second - A mass shooting in progress and him outside with a gun.

Why am I thinking, he'd soil his pants and be waddling as fast as he could in the opposite direction to save his own rotten hide? Because it's the only thing he cares about, so it's a no-brainer.

The guy is an unethical bullying lout. America deserves better.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
The great Mike Tyson once said:

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

As a current graduate student this has to be the dumbest idea that has been proposed by any president in my lifetime!


Following statements made by Trump:

President Donald Trump continued to criticize the armed school resource officer in Parkland, Florida, who stayed outside of the school during the shooting, saying during a White House news conference conference that Scot Peterson "doesn't love the children, probably doesn't know the children."


"We need offensive capability and we are going to be doing something about it,"

Trump told reporters earlier on Friday that Peterson "certainly did a poor job" and was a "coward."
"He trained his whole life," Trump said on the South Lawn of the White House. "But when it came time to get in there and do something he didn't have the courage or something happened. But he certainly did a poor job. There's no question about that."

“A teacher would have shot the hell out of him before he knew what happened,” Trump said during an address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual conclave of the American right, held just outside Washington.

See:Trump says armed school officer in Parkland didn't 'love the children' - CNNPolitics

“He was tested under fire, and there wasn’t a good result,” Trump said of Peterson at the first event. “He was not a credit to law enforcement, that I can tell you.”

Appearing later alongside Turnbull, Trump argued the advantage of arming teachers — he’s suggested about 20 percent should carry concealed weapons — is that they “love their pupils.”

“See, a security guard doesn’t know the children, doesn’t love the children,” Trump said. “This man standing outside of the school the other day doesn’t love the children, probably doesn’t know the children.”

See:https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...76b4fe57ff7_story.html?utm_term=.5fc1a619f0a9


As a graduate student the job of a teacher is to teach, and to enrich the students with worldly knowledge allocated to the curriculum. Their job is not to teach as well as being armed JUST IN CASE THERE IS A SCHOOL SHOOTER. People forget that teachers are people to. People forget teachers like most of us who work have personal problems and sometimes these personal problems do follow us at work. Speaking on mental stress how do we know by arming a teacher they're not showing up to class under mental duress? Because graduate school is full of opinionated students especially on controversial subjects how do we know the teacher may not react in a violent manner? We don't know and I wouldn't like to find out. But what I'm mostly offended by what Trump said in the aforementioned quotes is that he is equating being armed with love. People also forget that teachers have families to and teachers are all not combat veterans who are prepared for the potentiality of mental stress of a school shooting. What shows me love as a student coming from a teacher is not their Glock 21F .45 on their hip, but the desire to teach me when I'm struggling.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with the armament of teachers, but the microcosmic issues of school protocols, security risks, and personnel training. Every school is not always going to have violence, hell! there maybe schools in affluent neighborhoods that do not even see a lick of violence that you see in urban communities. So what? We arm them even if they don't see any violence? I think this is a bad idea and according to some think tanks it is a worse idea:


"It's a crazy proposal," said Dr. David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard School of Public Health and an expert on the public health impact of gun violence. Chuckling, he added, "So what should we do about reducing airline hijacking? Give all the passengers guns as they walk on?"

'Colossally stupid idea': Trump's plan to arm teachers widely panned by experts

Perhaps if Trump understood what it takes to train, weekly, in order to become and stay proficient in handgun accuracy he wouldn't suggest such absurd proposals.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Perhaps if Trump understood what it takes to train, weekly, in order to become and stay proficient in handgun accuracy he wouldn't suggest such absurd proposals.
Perhaps you do not understand the training cycle of the majority of LEO's.
Police firearms training: How often should you be shooting?

I, as a civilian, along with my spouse are at the range at least 2 to 3 times a month, weather permitting. We get more training than the majority of LEO's.
And just for grin's, what kind of training do you think the average LEO goes through. Now I'm not talking about the "SWAT" teams, just your average cop-on-the-beat?
Perhaps you are placing prejudice above facts.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Trump is a disgrace of a president; a windbag of the worst sort. What does he imagine he would have done in the circumstances?

Just picture the scenario for a second - A mass shooting in progress and him outside with a gun.

Why am I thinking, he'd soil his pants and be waddling as fast as he could in the opposite direction to save his own rotten hide? Because it's the only thing he cares about, so it's a no-brainer.

The guy is an unethical bullying lout. America deserves better.

Not President Bone Spurs!!
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Perhaps you do not understand the training cycle of the majority of LEO's.
Police firearms training: How often should you be shooting?

I, as a civilian, along with my spouse are at the range at least 2 to 3 times a month, weather permitting. We get more training than the majority of LEO's.
And just for grin's, what kind of training do you think the average LEO goes through. Now I'm not talking about the "SWAT" teams, just your average cop-on-the-beat?
Clearly that's enough training.

"New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report" Report." A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty

Certainly not how I'd want somebody protecting a school to operate.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Why does any of that matter. Civilians cannot take the law into their own hands and decide by themselves to kill or maim a guy by shooting them. There are problems of misidentification, problem of bystanders getting killed in the shootout. These are responsibilities solely given to the police. Why have a state at all if every citizen can use lethal force to stop a crime? What are courts, the legal process of apprehending and convicting criminals for? What about innocent until proven guilty? Yes, this means violent crimes and shootings may not be stopped in every case as police may take time. But that is the price that needs to be paid to release us from the anarchy of gun toting citizens all thinking they are vigilantes that can execute the law from the barrel of their guns.
You clearly don't live in America. We can use deadly force under conditions described by law.
 
Top