Arming Teachers: A college students perspective

[ImmortalFlame]

Specifically, please. With details of how to implement your plans, and what results can you guarantee.

You seem to have confused me with a gun law think tank. A person doesn't have to explicitly lay out exactly what laws they would like to see put in place to prevent murder in order to be anti-murder - just a start would be "better background checks and more rigorous licensing of firearms in places where those things aren't currently thorough", and the specifics I leave up to the actual experts in the field. Y'know, like a reasonable person would. I just find the arguments of the anti-gun control crowd to be absurdly laughable.

 

[Curious George]

You seem to have confused me with a gun law think tank. A person doesn't have to explicitly lay out exactly what laws they would like to see put in place to prevent murder in order to be anti-murder - just a start would be "better background checks and more rigorous licensing of firearms in places where those things aren't currently thorough", and the specifics I leave up to the actual experts in the field. Y'know, like a reasonable person would. I just find the arguments of the anti-gun control crowd to be absurdly laughable.

Which arguments specifically. Not all of the anti gun control crowd advocates for teachers to carry guns to class or insist upon an apocalyptic government showdown scenario.

Do you find exerting caution when limiting rights of self defense laughable? Do you find exerting caution when limiting privacy rights laughable?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which arguments specifically.

Comparing gun use to car use, falsely conflating and citing erroneous statistics, claiming gun control will lead to some sort of Orwellian dystopia, claiming that gun control advocates are involved in some elaborate conspiracy.

Honestly, the whole thing is starting to remind me of creationism. It's impossible to take seriously any more.

Not all of the anti gun control crowd advocates for teachers to carry guns to class or insist upon an apocalyptic government showdown scenario.

I'm well aware of that. Doesn't make their arguments any better.

Do you find exerting caution when limiting rights of self defense laughable?

The ones put forward by anti-gun control advocates, particularly on these forums? Yes.

Do you find exerting caution when limiting privacy rights laughable?

Please stop committing false equivalence.

"I find people saying that they have the right to drive on the pavement laughable."
"So you think the the right to drive is laughable?"

 

[Curious George]

Comparing gun use to car use, falsely conflating and citing erroneous statistics, claiming gun control will lead to some sort of Orwellian dystopia, claiming that gun control advocates are involved in some elaborate conspiracy.

I recognize some of those. And, I understand your frustration with all bit the cars. This is because the cars are meant only to serve as a counterpoint to the claim guns can be dangerous therefore guns should be banned. It really doesn't make much sense except for very specific times when people try to assert arguments that are not internally consistent.

Honestly, the whole thing is starting to remind me of creationism. It's impossible to take seriously any more.

Would you be surprised to find out that people in the anti gun control crowd feel the same except with the analogy switched?

I'm well aware of that. Doesn't make their arguments any better.

Maybe. I offered two arguments that I would certainly say are better.

The ones put forward by anti-gun control advocates, particularly on these forums? Yes.

I would think that any limitation on a fundamental right should be exercised with caution. Why do you not think so?

Please stop committing false equivalence.

"I find people saying that they have the right to drive on the pavement laughable."
"So you think the the right to drive is laughable?"

I don't think I have committed any false equivalency here. Perhaps you can point out the false equivalency that you think I have committed so I can either adjust my future statements or correct your misunderstanding.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I recognize some of those. And, I understand your frustration with all bit the cars. This is because the cars are meant only to serve as a counterpoint to the claim guns can be dangerous therefore guns should be banned. It really doesn't make much sense except for very specific times when people try to assert arguments that are not internally consistent.

I've yet to see the comparison used in any way that makes sense.

Would you be surprised to find out that people in the anti gun control crowd feel the same except with the analogy switched?

Not really, but then the exact same is true for creationists, despite the fact that all of the actual evidence on the other side.

Maybe. I offered two arguments that I would certainly say are better.

I'm sure there are better arguments to be made, but not against any form of gun control. The facts are too clear and unbiased on this - more guns lead to more death.

I would think that any limitation on a fundamental right should be exercised with caution. Why do you not think so?

Owning a gun is not a fundamental right. And who said anything about not wielding caution? No step should be undertaken without seriously considering the consequence, I just happen to think that gun control should be up for serious consideration. Why do you have to categorize anyone who wants gun control as wanting to "limit fundamental rights without caution"?

I don't think I have committed any false equivalency here. Perhaps you can point out the false equivalency that you think I have committed so I can either adjust my future statements or correct your misunderstanding.

Comparing arguments made against gun control to "exterting caution when limiting privacy rights" is false equivalence. It's no different to when creationists present their fraudulent arguments against evolution, get refuted, and then respond by saying "So you don't think we should exercise skepticism with regards to scientific claims?"

 

[Curious George]

I've yet to see the comparison used in any way that makes sense.

And because you haven't seen it or don't understand it to make sense when others do does not mean that it is not used in useful context.

Not really, but then the exact same is true for creationists, despite the fact that all of the actual evidence on the other side.

Creationists see evolutionists as creationists?...I think you are trying to push the analogy too far now.

I'm sure there are better arguments to be made, but not against any form of gun control. The facts are too clear and unbiased on this - more guns lead to more death.

So it has been claimed.

Owning a gun is not a fundamental right. And who said anything about not wielding caution? No step should be undertaken without seriously considering the consequence, I just happen to think that gun control should be up for serious consideration. Why do you have to categorize anyone who wants gun control as wanting to "limit fundamental rights without caution"?

I wouldn't want to categorize any person who wants gun control as wanting to limit fundamental rights without caution, just most. It is not the owning of guns that is the fundamental right. It is the right of self defense and the right to possess weapons in order to effect defense of oneself and ones community that is the fundamental right. It stems from acceptance of a right to life. If such a right to life does exist then one must also have a right to defend that life.

Now, certainly the right to defends one's life is not being extinguished(it is possible to still defend ones life without guns). It is only being limited. So, we are very much discussing the limiting of a fundamental right. This does not mean that it cannot be done. No right is unfettered. We should exercise caution. This is where we likely will find our disagreement if it hasn't already arrived. I am guessing that you and I will disagree on the degree of caution necessary and also whether the reasoning and method meets that degree.

Comparing arguments made against gun control to "exterting caution when limiting privacy rights" is false equivalence. It's no different to when creationists present their fraudulent arguments against evolution, get refuted, and then respond by saying "So you don't think we should exercise skepticism with regards to scientific claims?"

I see where your misunderstanding was. The claim is only relevant to some arguments for gun control-the ones that would limit rights to privacy. For example, arguments that call for home inspection to ensure that guns are stored appropriately and calls for background checks to include personal medical information.

It is not a false equivalency. It is a particular argument used to argue against some forms of gun control.

There are also other arguments in the same vein. For instance I also use the argument that cautions about creating two classes of rights for those who can afford it and those who cannot. This one is for people who believe that we could get around the second amendment by making guns unaffordable.

You see, I understand your position. I am not the one calling the other sides arguments laughable as a creationist would to the evolutionist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And because you haven't seen it or don't understand it to make sense when others do does not mean that it is not used in useful context.

Considering my issue is with arguments I've seen and explaining that I think they're poor, I can hardly be held to account for not including arguments I've never seen, can I?

Creationists see evolutionists as creationists?...I think you are trying to push the analogy too far now.

No, creationists see the facts as being on their side. But they are wrong for thinking that, just as the anti-gun control side are wrong in thinking the facts are on theirs.

So it has been claimed.

So it has been demonstrated, this thread being just one example.

I wouldn't want to categorize any person who wants gun control as wanting to limit fundamental rights without caution, just most.

"I'm not making a all-encompassing generalization - just a very sweeping one."

It is not the owning of guns that is the fundamental right.

So stop comparing people who want to limit the owning of guns to people who want to limit the fundamental right. You literally just shot your own argument down.

It is the right of self defense and the right to possess weapons in order to effect defense of oneself and ones community that is the fundamental right.

You just admitted that owning guns is not a fundamental right.

It stems from acceptance of a right to life. If such a right to life does exist then one must also have a right to defend that life.

And nobody is disputing that. They're disputing the owning of guns, which you admitted is not a fundamental right, so why are you conflating the two?

Now, certainly the right to defends one's life is not being extinguished(it is possible to still defend ones life without guns). It is only being limited. So, we are very much discussing the limiting of a fundamental right.

You have already admitted owning guns is not a fundamental right. We are discussing limits to owning guns. Ergo, we are not discussing the limiting of a fundamental right.

This does not mean that it cannot be done. No right is unfettered. We should exercise caution. This is where we likely will find our disagreement if it hasn't already arrived. I am guessing that you and I will disagree on the degree of caution necessary and also whether the reasoning and method meets that degree.

I have no idea, since you've already made sweeping generalizations about what I want to see without any evidence whatsoever or knowing anything about my position beyond the fact that I find arguments against gun control laughable.

I see where your misunderstanding was. The claim is only relevant to some arguments for gun control-the ones that would limit rights to privacy. For example, arguments that call for home inspection to ensure that guns are stored appropriately and calls for background checks to include personal medical information.

So you believe background checks shouldn't be made for people who want to purchase firearms?

It is not a false equivalency. It is a particular argument used to argue against some forms of gun control.

It's false equivalence because it equates any argument against gun control with arguments against rights, as if there is no distinction to be made. Stop doing it. If you want to have a nuanced discussion about the line between personal freedom and the right to bear arms, have it. Don't make sweeping generalizations about the other side.

There are also other arguments in the same vein. For instance I also use the argument that cautions about creating two classes of rights for those who can afford it and those who cannot. This one is for people who believe that we could get around the second amendment by making guns unaffordable.

That would be extremely problematic, I agree.

You see, I understand your position. I am not the one calling the other sides arguments laughable as a creationist would to the evolutionist.

But the arguments are laughable, just as the creationist arguments are. I'm sorry if this observation offends or upsets you - I'm sure there may be arguments that are more reasonable, but if there are, I have yet to see them. Just people stating the same refuted nonsense and ignoring all of the available studies and facts. Comparison between guns and cars are laughable. Conflating intentional homicide statistic with self-defence statistics is laughable. Saying people who advocate gun control have some cabalistic agenda or "hoplophobia" is laughable. There is no better word for an argument which lacks support and ignores the facts.

 

[Curious George]

Considering my issue is with arguments I've seen and explaining that I think they're poor, I can hardly be held to account for not including arguments I've never seen, can I?

No, but then again you may have seen them and not understood.

No, creationists see the facts as being on their side. But they are wrong for thinking that, just as the anti-gun control side are wrong in thinking the facts are on theirs.

Yes I understood your point, but it did not fit well with your original analogy. I felt pointing that out was better than rewriting my exact same reply to your original analogy.

So it has been demonstrated, this thread being just one example.

I agree that some statistics have been argued.

"I'm not making a all-encompassing generalization - just a very sweeping one."

Yes, and I believe this better than your all encompassing generalizations.

So stop comparing people who want to limit the owning of guns to people who want to limit the fundamental right. You literally just shot your own argument down.

But that is precisely what they are doing.

You just admitted that owning guns is not a fundamental right.

Only because the right doesn't turn on whether one owns a gun or not.

And nobody is disputing that. They're disputing the owning of guns, which you admitted is not a fundamental right, so why are you conflating the two?

I am not. You are failing to see the nuance. There is no conflation.

You have already admitted owning guns is not a fundamental right.

That is correct.

We are discussing limits to owning guns. Ergo, we are not discussing the limiting of a fundamental right.

Incorrect. We are discussing restricting guns which limits self defense which is a fundamental right.
Ergo, we are discussing the limiting of a fundamental right. That right is not guns. The right is self defense. The restriction on guns impacts that right.

I have no idea, since you've already made sweeping generalizations about what I want to see without any evidence whatsoever or knowing anything about my position beyond the fact that I find arguments against gun control laughable.

I did not such thing. I asked if you found specific arguments laughable. I hypothesized a potential point of contention, but that is hardly making a sweeping generalization.

So you believe background checks shouldn't be made for people who want to purchase firearms?

No, that is not at all what I believe.

It's false equivalence because it equates any argument against gun control with arguments against rights, as if there is no distinction to be made. Stop doing it. If you want to have a nuanced discussion about the line between personal freedom and the right to bear arms, have it. Don't make sweeping generalizations about the other side.

Again there is no false equivalence. It acknowledges that arguments for gun control impacts rights. And some arguments for gun control are very much instantiation of disregarding those rights which are impacted.

That would be extremely problematic, I agree.


But the arguments are laughable, just as the creationist arguments are. I'm sorry if this observation offends or upsets you - I'm sure there may be arguments that are more reasonable, but if there are, I have yet to see them.

It doesn't offend me at all. I would think it more offensive to you, if anything.

Just people stating the same refuted nonsense and ignoring all of the available studies and facts. Comparison between guns and cars are laughable. Conflating intentional homicide statistic with self-defence statistics is laughable. Saying people who advocate gun control have some cabalistic agenda or "hoplophobia" is laughable. There is no better word for an argument which lacks support and ignores the facts.

Well I do imagine that a number of gun control proponents are indeed afraid of guns.

Regarding the statistics, I find that people are apt to ignore, misread, or rationalize statistics that harm their arguments and tout ones that confirm their point of view. In fact, if one ever finds themselves in the position of believing that all relevant statistics affirm their specific belief, then that person might want to stretch their viewpoint a little more to check for confirmation bias.

That said, my argument is accessible regardless of facts and statistics. It simply addresses the rights that flow from the assumption of a right of life, liberty, and property. If you have a contention with any of these rights then you are also likely to find philosophical disagreement with my position here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, and I believe this better than your all encompassing generalizations.

I've not made any generalizations.

But that is precisely what they are doing.

You've already admitted that owning a gun is not a fundamental right. So it's not.

Only because the right doesn't turn on whether one owns a gun or not.

Exactly. So how is limiting access to guns limiting or affecting the right?

Incorrect. We are discussing restricting guns which limits self defense which is a fundamental right.Ergo, we are discussing the limiting of a fundamental right. That right is not guns. The right is self defense. The restriction on guns impacts that right.

False. You still have the right even if you cannot own guns, so the ownership of guns does not affect the right, just as not being able to own a nuke, dress in a suit or armour or threaten to rape your enemies is not considered a "limitation" of the right.

No, that is not at all what I believe.

So you're not against background checks for people purchasing firearms?

Well I do imagine that a number of gun control proponents are indeed afraid of guns.

But to consider all such people "hoplophones" is obviously nonsensical.

Regarding the statistics, I find that people are apt to ignore, misread, or rationalize statistics that harm their arguments and tout ones that confirm their point of view. In fact, if one ever finds themselves in the position of believing that all relevant statistics affirm their specific belief, then that person might want to stretch their viewpoint a little more to check for confirmation bias.

Agreed, but I tend to find this far more commonly on the anti-gun control side than the pro-gun control side. Not that they aren't both guilty of this - confirmation bias in endemic - but I find ignoring broader statistics and studies which don't fit preconceptions to be more common among the pro-gun crowd.

That said, my argument is accessible regardless of facts and statistics. It simply addresses the rights that flow from the assumption of a right of life, liberty, and property. If you have a contention with any of these rights then you are also likely to find philosophical disagreement with my position here.

Do you believe that the extending of the right to self defense by including it to own firearms overrides the right to life?

 

[Curious George]

I've not made any generalizations.


You've already admitted that owning a gun is not a fundamental right. So it's not.


Exactly. So how is limiting access to guns limiting or affecting the right?


False. You still have the right even if you cannot own guns, so the ownership of guns does not affect the right,

You are incorrect here. Just because a right is not extinguished does not mean the right is not limited.

...
just as not being able to own a nuke, dress in a suit or armour or threaten to rape your enemies is not considered a "limitation" of the right.

Well you have asked about three things here. The first we can exclude because it cannot function for an individual right of self defense however it could be argued that disallowing nukes limits ones ability to protect ones country. I don't know why anyone would choose to argue that but I suppose it is possible. If we were to take this hyperbole serious, we can see a multitude of reasons why this right has been limited. If you would like me to break down why it is acceptable to prevent private ownership over nuclear weapons I will. Just let me know.

The second two would be limitations of the right to self defense if we are indeed talking about a suit of armor and the use of words. Body armor for felons summary can be found here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1Fn1UTPIdJzQz_ohIEqlFF

And I know of no reason why anyone would want to limit defensive speech.

So you're not against background checks for people purchasing firearms?

Not when purchasing from an FFL

But to consider all such people "hoplophones" is obviously nonsensical.

I agree. It is reactionary and an emotional appeal. Similar to suggesting that people who are "anti gun control" are often referred to as gun nuts or worse.

Agreed, but I tend to find this far more commonly on the anti-gun control side than the pro-gun control side. Not that they aren't both guilty of this - confirmation bias in endemic - but I find ignoring broader statistics and studies which don't fit preconceptions to be more common among the pro-gun crowd.

I am not sure who does it more. I just see it happening.

Do you believe the right to own firearms overrides the right to life?

I believe that restrictions on the ability to own firearms are restrictions on the right to self defense which is entailed by a right to life.

But that is a tricky question. It is like asking whether I believe the right to free speech overrides the right to life.

 

[Shaul]

If there are 50,000 or so schools in America, and 20% of teachers are armed, that's hundreds of thousands of guns.

How many of these would be stolen by students in a given year? Certainly more than zero. Nicking a teachers gun would practically become a sport in some schools. The ultimate status booster.

A lot of teachers get assaulted by students, and many couldn't physically stand up to an aggressive student. Even at my school, which was one of the better state schools in the country, someone head butted the headteacher and broke his nose. If you are armed and know this what do you do? Shoot the kid? Take a beating and risk your gun being stolen and used against you and other kids?

Gee, maybe respond the same way you would otherwise? Or are you suggesting that all people turn into impulsive trigger happy dolts just by having a firearm. Because that isn’t true.

 

[BSM1]

Comparing gun use to car use, falsely conflating and citing erroneous statistics, claiming gun control will lead to some sort of Orwellian dystopia, claiming that gun control advocates are involved in some elaborate conspiracy.

Honestly, the whole thing is starting to remind me of creationism. It's impossible to take seriously any more.


I'm well aware of that. Doesn't make their arguments any better.


The ones put forward by anti-gun control advocates, particularly on these forums? Yes.


Please stop committing false equivalence.

"I find people saying that they have the right to drive on the pavement laughable."
"So you think the the right to drive is laughable?"

Uhh..driving is not a right. Gun ownership, by definition, is.

 

[Curious George]

Gee, maybe respond the same way you would otherwise? Or are you suggesting that all people turn into impulsive trigger happy dolts just by having a firearm. Because that isn’t true.

That is not a fair criticism. How many police officers have had to use deadly force because they believed the "perp" was going for their gun. It is a completely legitimate concern that should be considered as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

Uhh..driving is not a right. Gun ownership, by definition, is.

Driving could easily be argued to be right under the freedom to travel aspect of the Constitution.
This would be because (as our society, infrastructure & technology currently are) driving is essential for this.
But as you point out, gun ownership is a specifically enumerated right, unlike driving.

 

[Augustus]

Gee, maybe respond the same way you would otherwise? Or are you suggesting that all people turn into impulsive trigger happy dolts just by having a firearm. Because that isn’t true.

Not suggesting anything of the sort. When you have very large numbers, even a tiny risk turns into actual incidents.

Unless we can expect teachers to be flawless human beings, and security procedures to be infallible, we can expect incidents.

Even with 99.999% effectiveness in this regard, you still get multiple incidents a year.

 

[Shaul]

No. I think they are inadequate for the task. Using a handgun effectively require skill and practice. Why add that to a teacher's workload?

So teachers are adequate for the much more rigorous task of educating children but are too dense to be trained in how to use a firearm. Learning to safely use a firearm isn’t that difficult, minimum wage high school dropout security guards can do it. Besides no one is suggesting compelling teachers to be armed,only to allow those that want to do so the option. As a teacher, and a Marine Corps veteran, I know that I could handle teaching and carrying a weapon at the same time. No problem.

 

[Shaul]

Not suggesting anything of the sort. When you have very large numbers, even a tiny risk turns into actual incidents.

Unless we can expect teachers to be flawless human beings, and security procedures to be infallible, we can expect incidents.

Even with 99.999% effectiveness in this regard, you still get multiple incidents a year.

So he standard you want is zero risk despite the posible benefit of savings children’s lives. If zero risk is the goal, close the schools, bubble wrap all the kids and take away their scissors and pencils too. Meanwhile, the current ways lead to school shootings. Instead why not try something that could genuinely make an improve and save lives. Any hypothetical problems are manageable.

 

[BSM1]

Driving could easily be argued to be right under the freedom to travel aspect of the Constitution.
This would be because (as our society, infrastructure & technology currently are) driving is essential for this.
But as you point out, gun ownership is a specifically enumerated right, unlike driving.

I took this into consideration (you could also invoke the "...pursuit of happiness..." clause, I guess) but I could walk to Detroit. Why I would want to is another thread altogether. However, I don't think I could dissuade an armed assailant by pointing my finger and saying "pew, pew".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet, but very few are advocating merely arming teachers. One school in my state has been armed for a couple of years now. There is a right way to do it. Some staff members, but not teachers, are armed. It is done on a voluntary basis, they all have the same firearms and they all took training first. Forty hours of training, with an additional minimum of two more hours every month:

One Washington school district already has staff armed with guns

No one knows who is armed, but the fact that there are armed staff members is known. That may be a working solution. Once again, voluntary, trained individuals with continuing training as time goes on. Not just a mere "Here's your gun, now don't shoot junior without a good reason".

 

[Augustus]

So he standard you want is zero risk despite the posible benefit of savings children’s lives. If zero risk is the goal, close the schools, bubble wrap all the kids and take away their scissors and pencils too. Meanwhile, the current ways lead to school shootings. Instead why not try something that could genuinely make an improve and save lives. Any hypothetical problems are manageable.

Comparing guns to pencils is inane.

Could also cost lives, while changing the classroom dynamics in every school in America. Sooner or later a student will get shot by a teacher. Sooner or later a gun will be stolen by a student. Is this going to increase the peace of mind for students?

People usually shoot up schools because they have a grudge and/or are mentally disturbed. They don't expect to get away with it. As such, it's probably not going to be a great deterrent, although potentially it could cut short a rampage.

Imo the downside is greater than the upside.

In your opinion, what should an armed teacher do when attacked by a student who is physically stronger than them? Hundreds of teachers are assaulted every year after all.