# Should teachers be armed?



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

In relation to the recent talk about school shooting and such - *"Should teachers be armed?"*

Feel free to post your thoughts below.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

One of Belgian's most famous serial killers was a teacher.

Nuff said.

http://murderpedia.org/male.J/j/janssen-ronald.htm

Teacher believed to be Belgium's latest serial killer

You can't solve shootings and gun violence by giving more people guns, just only by taking them away from them. It won't stop murder, but at least the number of murders will sharply decrease for a certain amount of reasons. No-one would have easy access to guns, and someone who would commit to such an act, would have to prepare it for a very long time.

Also, if you would give a teacher a gun, you would have to do the same kind of background check as with police officers. Many teachers wouid also have to be learned how to deal with a gun. This would all have to be integrated in their education and their studies, and many more teachers would eventually be declared unfit for their job just because of the "can carry a gun with responsability" requirement. I don't think it's feasible.

Also, i doubt the shooting in Florida woud have been prevented if teachers had a gun. It could even potentially turned out to be more deadly, because more bullets would have shot around on a terrain with frightened kids who could have been hit by a bullet shot by the teachers itself.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

All teacher(s) should go through extensive training courses for guns, high-risk physical-altercations (&) knife combat and trained to shoot to kill, if necessary. Sufficient teacher(s) should be armed, trained and ready. Security should armed/posted in all section(s) of the school. Teacher(s) that do not make the cut (which would be most) - good luck; but are advised to attend [modified] training programmes. Precaution(s) will reduce when threats reduce.

By "armed," (I do not necessarily imply a_ gun at the hip _of Mrs. Petersons "cooking" class). But securely locked, and store sufficiently well in case.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Lakigigar said:


> One of Belgian's most famous serial killers was a teacher.
> 
> Nuff said.


I dont think that enough. What does it say? I see it as a coincidence that a teacher also happens to be a serial killer and nothing more. I seriously hope you arent suggesting that all teachers are no better than this guy because thats a pretty pessimistic point of view.



> You can't solve shootings and gun violence by giving more people guns, just only by taking them away from them. It won't stop murder, but at least the number of murders will sharply decrease for a certain amount of reasons. No-one would have easy access to guns, and someone who would commit to such an act, would have to prepare it for a very long time.


By taking away weapons you also take away a person's ability to defend themselves from threats with modern measures. That is unacceptable to me, that is how people get packed into cargo trains. I will oppose such authoritarianism with my entire being.



> Also, if you would give a teacher a gun, you would have to do the same kind of background check as with police officers. Many teachers wouid also have to be learned how to deal with a gun. This would all have to be integrated in their education and their studies, and many more teachers would eventually be declared unfit for their job just because of the "can carry a gun with responsability" requirement. I don't think it's feasible.


If they can become a teacher then I think they can learn how to use a gun. If theyre really old then just supplement that with a security guard or two, this isnt a massive problem. 



> Also, i doubt the shooting in Florida woud have been prevented if teachers had a gun. It could even potentially turned out to be more deadly, because more bullets would have shot around on a terrain with frightened kids who could have been hit by a bullet shot by the teachers itself.


The teachers dont even have to use the weapons, just the fact that it is possible that their spree could be cut short might be enough of a deterrent for potential shooters to reconsider. A lot of these people want to make a mark, they want to become famous, they want to be remembered. Shooting a bunch of kids is one thing (read the story of Columbine and youll see that those guys were completely incompetent), assaulting a building which contains armed people is a completely different thing and I doubt that these wimpy boys would be up to that task. Thats not something even SWAT teams do just willy nilly and for good reason, it is extremely dangerous for the attacker(s).


----------



## Chucky (Jan 7, 2017)

Here's another question: are teachers adequately paid?


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't think that all teachers have to be armed. Hypothetically, if all teachers were somehow mentally qualified for it I wouldn't mind that happening, I just don't think that it should be a requirement to become a teacher. (I'd rather suggest employing security guards in schools.)

However, I do believe that if they go through a background check and receive proper training, they should have the choice of whether or not they want to arm themselves. The guns should definitely be locked and not in sight during classes, but I think that qualified teachers should have the right to have them to defend themselves.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Security guards in schools..

And who's going to pay for that? The parents that have to send their children to school? The government with taxpayer's money? Do you know how many schools there are in the USA. Do you know how many security guards we need. And do you know how few of those many, many, many security guards will actually have to do something. They definitely would have to have a broader task package if you went that route, but that's not a viable route. Also that extra price rise could convince some parents not to send their children to school at all. It's also something that eventually only elite private schools would consider. And it would again be a sign that there is much inequality going on the world, where not every child's life is worth as much, but only the children of richer people.

The solution is actually quite simple. Ban guns! We don't need them, or at least the people with peaceful means don't need them, so take them away.


----------



## Taileile (Jul 2, 2016)

I think that this is an issue that should remain left up to the states and the school districts, and it already is as far as I know.

But in terms of my personal opinion? I think it's an option that we should look into and potentially encourage. If teachers are willing or want to, then it would be awesome if they were given the option with proper training and evaluations. A concealed retention holster would be a great idea if we did this.

Someone presented a really good option not long ago. I forget who it was, but it was someone on the board of supervisors for a school district somewhere out west. The police station was too small to accommodate all of the sheriff's offices. What did they do? They moved some of the sheriffs to a school about 10 miles away. Sheriff's car parked outside, actual sheriff inside the school doing work, it wouldn't cost any more than it would if the sheriff's office was located at the station itself, and assuming the sheriff in question isn't a coward like the one in Florida then it would go well. I don't see why this isn't an option we could consider.

I don't agree with banning guns at all. I'm a small college-aged woman and I own a gun because I feel it is necessary for my safety. Guns level the playing field in a way that other self-defense weapons never could for people who could potentially be at risk, and while none of us really want to ever have to use them, it's our right to have them. I'm not against certain gun regulations (although from what I understand of the recent Florida shooting, the shooter was able to pass a background check because of the failure of the judicial system to convict him), but I'll be damned if I'm going to support legislation that takes away the right to keep and bear arms from myself and others.

And, hypothetically, if we did try to ban all guns: do you know how important the right to keep and bear arms is to people? Do you really think everyone would willingly give up their firearms to the government? Would we have to resort to police searches of houses to obtain all 300 million + firearms that are currently owned in US households?

What about the fact that many people who advocate for extremely heavy/complete gun bans also advocate for poor border control? What about the countries to the south of us who have unstable governments and massive rates of gang and cartel violence? What about the fact that our own government provided drug cartels with firearms? 

Even if banning guns was constitutional, it would be a really bad idea.


----------



## Monadnock (May 27, 2017)

If a teacher wants to be armed in the classroom, and they pass a mental health examination and receive gun training from a firearms safety organization about the proper and improper use of a firearm, how to handle any conflict situation they may run into, etc. then there should be nothing standing in the way of them being armed in the classroom. I voted Yes.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

It's a terrible idea.

War vets and cops explain why they also feel that it would be a bad idea to arm teachers. These are people who have experience in firefights. People should read the article. It's eye-opening.

Veterans, teachers criticizing Trump's plan to arm teachers in schools - Business Insider


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

It's up to them what they try to do, but I will say that if they try to give me a gun, but I won't take it, and if they try to teach me to use weapons, but I won't learn. I wouldn't ever carry a gun on me, especially at work or anywhere else near children/teens. And even if I did have a gun I would never use it anyway. I hate violence, and am not going to kill anyone.


----------



## Lady of Clockwork (Dec 14, 2017)

Corporal Punishment is still legal in some part of the States. I suppose if spanking or detentions aren't strong enough, one can always resort to guns. Would be interesting to see the educational progress.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

I'll keep my response short and sweet....

NO! It's a very apathetic, narrow minded, and straight up stupid idea. Tougher background checks and delayed delivery on semi-auto rifles are reasonable solutions. The police following up on tips and not loitering when something is happening would also help.


----------



## dismountedhussar (Mar 20, 2017)

So at my alma mater(~ 2,000 students) there was one, maybe two, resource officers, you didn't see them very often. In the morning and afternoon there would be city police directing traffic, and in between there was an unarmed guard at the driveway to keep students from leaving without permission. That was it.
We did have a criminal justice teacher who was former law-enforcement, two ROTC instructors (I'm not entirely sure whether they would be considered current or former military, either way they were trained), and the principle and probably several other teachers were former military or law-enforcement. 
With additional training, with local police and SWAT (for training and also reducing the chances of friendly fire), it could be a cheap and effective way to limit causalities during a shooting.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Lakigigar said:


> Security guards in schools..
> 
> And who's going to pay for that? [...]


Whos going to pay for the confiscation and destruction of all these weapons? Who is going to carry it out? More importantly, is it even possible?



> The solution is actually quite simple. Ban guns! We don't need them, or at least the people with peaceful means don't need them, so take them away.


Why are *you* the authority on what a person needs and doesnt need?

You live in Belgium, right? I think that you would quickly change your tune after visiting Molenbeek for example. Actually, dont, youll probably get jumped or worse.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Skeletalz said:


> Whos going to pay for the confiscation and destruction of all these weapons? Who is going to carry it out? More importantly, is it even possible?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol, dude.

You don't have to pretend that you know more about Belgium than me. Also, if guns were legal, there would be many more terror attacks and gun violence here. Many criminals in Molenbeek don't have guns. And F.Y.I. Molenbeek is safer than the average American city to live in.


----------



## master of time and space (Feb 16, 2017)

I suppose I feel pretty safe in the UK without a population of lunatics running around with guns. 

We do have the odd farmer or licensed gun owner who goes on a killing rampage but that is a rare occurrence. We can fire weapons in the UK but we have to be members of gun and rifle clubs, go through police security checks and the weapons are kept under strict licensing and security. 

We do of course have a real problem with the youngsters who think the only way to defend themselves is to stab and kill their brothers but that is a society problem. I can imagine the sheer destruction if guns were legal here. 

If I lived in the US I don't think I would be happy about teachers being armed. Its a complete lack of responsibility by heir the Don. Teachers get angry too and I am sure if they decided to commit death and destruction it would be like a fox in a chicken coup. Easy pickings

I heard a great interview on radio this morning about American students taking action about automatic and semi-automatic gun ownership, All credit to them for they are the future of the USA and I don't think it is fair that they should be in fear of their lives every time they go to school. Does anyone really need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon unless you are on a battlefield, 

Hopefully the old hypocrites that spout their tasteless rhetoric about gun ownership will eventually die of natural causes and the new blood will slowly reduce gun ownership.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Lakigigar said:


> lol, dude.
> 
> You don't have to pretend that you know more about Belgium than me. Also, if guns were legal, there would be many more terror attacks and gun violence here. Many criminals in Molenbeek don't have guns. And F.Y.I. Molenbeek is safer than the average American city to live in.


Mmmmmmmhmm sure thing. Im 100% sure that you dont live in a ghetto. It is very easy to say that things arent that bad when you can go out at night and feel safe. 



master of time and space said:


> If I lived in the US I don't think I would be happy about teachers being armed. Its a complete lack of responsibility by heir the Don. Teachers get angry too and I am sure if they decided to commit death and destruction it would be like a fox in a chicken coup. Easy pickings


Why trust the teacher with your kids if you cant trust them with a gun?



> I heard a great interview on radio this morning about American students taking action about automatic and semi-automatic gun ownership, All credit to them for they are the future of the USA and I don't think it is fair that they should be in fear of their lives every time they go to school. Does anyone really need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon unless you are on a battlefield,
> 
> Hopefully the old hypocrites that spout their tasteless rhetoric about gun ownership will eventually die of natural causes and the new blood will slowly reduce gun ownership.


First of all, you need to be either a weapon salesman or filthy rich to get the permit for an automatic weapon through legal means. The average US citizen _does not_ have automatic weapons. This is a very common mistake from journalists and people who know nothing about firearms. 

There are some very good arguments for the ownership of semi-automatic weapons, for example self defence, defence of your home, defence of your country, freedom _to_ and so on. Again, it is a slippery slope to start talking about what a person needs and doesnt need, it should be done with care.

With the current state of the US, I doubt that that the culture will change in the coming future or if it will ever change at all outside of a total revolution.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Chucky said:


> Here's another question: are teachers adequately paid?


Asking the realest question.. roud:


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

Teachers are not supposed to be soldiers, they are supposed to educate children. Why would you even have guns lying around in schools or near children... And why is it possible for children to get guns, let alone semi-automatic or automatic rifles?


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

Well, I am personally against this emotionally driven tide of gun control legislation, since it isn't really based on science or research. I'm not looking to get into a gun debate on the thread, just stating where I am coming from when I say that I don't think arming teachers makes sense. 

We don't have great statistics that show how many assaults, robberies and murders were prevented when the victim had a gun because unless the crime was carried out the data isn't recorded by local police offices and reported to the federal government. The media does report a lot of these cases so we do know they [crimes prevented by the victim scaring off the perpetrator with a firearm] exist. However, we do know that when you own a gun, you really need to practice with it a lot to remain a good shot, and anyone in the military will tell you that in an adrenaline fueled situation your accuracy deteriorates even if you are great on the range. Most people do not practice as much as they should. 

Teachers - overworked, underpaid for the most part - hardly have time to grade all their papers and prepare for class. When are they going to have time to train regularly with a firearm? Additionally, you certainly wouldn't want them using handguns because of low accuracy and the penetrative ability of bullets. So what - you are going to have them keep shotguns (the preferred defense weapon) in their classrooms? I think not.

Logically, it really doesn't make much sense. And to be honest, if you look at the number of schools we have in the States, most of them are safe. The media reports tragedies like Florida and gets everybody whipped up. They are sad. But the vast majority of American children go to safe schools and do fine. They really don't have a reason to be afraid. They are much more likely to die because their parents are texting while they are driving (or students themselves are texting or drinking and driving), or from unintentional injuries or suicide. And really if you want to deal with homicide by gun, blacks in the inner cities are dying every day, and children in inner city neighborhoods and in the streets. Mostly males (children and adults). We perhaps could look at our education and public health systems that are failing instead of just saying "let's outlaw guns", which is a symptom of another problem. A proxy.

At any rate. I think the whole thing is a red herring. In a year people will be worried about something else. Six months really. I mean, 2 weeks ago, was anyone talking about gun legislation? Nope, they were talking about women in Hollywood being fondled by directors in order to score a lead in a movie. Is that because little kids in the ghetto weren't being shot at anymore. Nope...don't think so...


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Skeletalz said:


> Mmmmmmmhmm sure thing. Im 100% sure that you dont live in a ghetto. It is very easy to say that things arent that bad when you can go out at night and feel safe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you ever went to Molenbeek yourself. You probably don't even know what a "ghetto" actually is. Most people in Molenbeek are nice and peaceful. Most immigrants are as well.

You can't possibly know how Molenbeek is. Molenbeek is actually a fine city where it's nice to be in. Many journalists even made tv programs about Molenbeek to shwo ho


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

There is no data or research to show if arming teachers makes schools any safer, especially against school shooters, so in turn, the argument is only based on baseless assumptions rather than actual data.


^Oh, the hypocrisy!>I think(and this is just my opinion) the best way to decrease school shootings is to focus and the factors that make students shoot their schools, and to try and see different ways in which we can help reduce these factors/problems among these students, and not just at schools, but also at home and through the media too.

* *






> *School shooting - Wikipedia
> Profiling[edit]*
> 
> _Main article: Offender Profiling_
> ...





I think that it is better to study their movitives and what makes them tick rather than only focusing fully on extra security measures and arming teachers.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

My personal opinion is an absolute no. Many of my friends and relatives are teachers and I have worked in a school myself - what I hear echoed by many of us is that the idea is great in theory and awful in reality. Problems include:

1. The student-to-teacher ratio is high and a teacher's attention is in constant demand. It would be an absurd expectation for them to carry a loaded firearm on their person and keep it secure from hundreds of young humans with only partially-developed judgment ability in addition to the full-time job they already work.

2. Similar problems still exist with a secured/locked away gun in the classroom. The school I worked at had recently implemented tablets and the tablet experts worked _with kids_ to improve their firewalls because kids so adeptly got around them - so much so that they were teaching the very people who made the software. A gun in the classroom would be quite similar; it's a boundary. Some kids would make it their mission to gain access to the firearm just to prove they can. Again - this is a collection of young humans without mature decision-making centers in their brains.

3. Is it a reasonable expectation for a teacher to come to work and feel safe enough to adequately teach in a classroom with a firearm and 25 or so immature, untrained kids? Is it a reasonable expectation for a student to come to school and feel safe enough to adequately learn in a classroom with a firearm and 25 or so immature, untrained kids?

4. If all teachers are not armed, how is it decided who is armed? Are we going to consider taking academic time to teach kids gun safety? Does that include them having their hands on a weapon? The amount of materials and liability involved in that would probably put most schools out of operation unless it's being fully funded by the federal government. What if a teacher were to kill additional students in crossfire? A teacher or staff member who is armed and trained is still going to have zero experience in the heat of the moment. It is good and well to learn gun operation and safety and another thing entirely to be in a crisis situation and adeptly handle a lethal weapon in a way that effectively protects. What if all teachers are armed and shooting? Who is responsible? 

5. Perhaps most importantly - even with an armed, trained teacher, there is little real chance that they would be able to prevent significant injury and death from an individual shooting a semiautomatic weapon. The speed and lethality of a semiautomatic weapon is a problem that cannot be overcome by arming working civilians responsible for hundreds of children with lower-caliber weapons and expecting them to effectively outrun a weapon designed for quick killing to its punch.



T Karney said:


> I shot competitively (tried out for the ‘84 Olympics), and spent 16 years in the Army. I was qualified as an Expert in both Rifle and Pistol.
> 
> In live fire simuulator I had a really high hit rate, *almost 40 percent*. Think about that.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Can't they just shoot the teacher first and then shoot up the classroom? It doesn't help unless either the teacher is always on guard or there's actual armed guards in the classrooms. Both of which are ridiculous ideas. 

The only alternative I can think of is the students have to wear skin tight uniforms or something so they can't conceal any weapons. Scratch that, school bags, wouldn't work


----------



## Taileile (Jul 2, 2016)

babblingbrook said:


> Teachers are not supposed to be soldiers, they are supposed to educate children. Why would you even have guns lying around in schools or near children... And why is it possible for children to get guns, let alone semi-automatic or automatic rifles?


The guns would probably be held in a safe (as is done in some Texas schools) or in a retention holster (as in some Utah schools). I doubt they'd be laying around. 

Also, children cannot purchase guns until the age of 18 (for long guns) and 21 (for handguns) in most states. Automatic rifles are so heavily regulated (if not outright illegal, depending on the state) that it's difficult for grown adults to obtain them at all, so you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find a child who could get an automatic weapon. Children can only really have firearms if their parents purchase them and let them use them on private property.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Lakigigar said:


> Did you ever went to Molenbeek yourself. You probably don't even know what a "ghetto" actually is. Most people in Molenbeek are nice and peaceful. Most immigrants are as well.
> 
> You can't possibly know how Molenbeek is. Molenbeek is actually a fine city where it's nice to be in. Many journalists even made tv programs about Molenbeek to shwo ho


You really dont like the fact that these immigrants are provably worse than the native population of Europe, huh 

Have you ever seen some crime statistics about them? Have you heard what goes on in the ethnic enclaves that they have formed within our cities? Have you heard that Sweden has a rate of rape per 100 000 people that is several times higher than most other countries in the world? That only a fraction of those are followed up by a conviction? You can deny these things and say that immigrants are nice and peaceful people and that multiculturalism is the best thing ever but it doesnt change reality. The reality is that youve been caught with your pants down here, no pun intended.


----------



## stormgirl (May 21, 2013)

Only in America would such a ridiculous proposition actually be given serious consideration!


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Skeletalz said:


> You really dont like the fact that these immigrants are provably worse than the native population of Europe, huh
> 
> Have you ever seen some crime statistics about them? Have you heard what goes on in the ethnic enclaves that they have formed within our cities? Have you heard that Sweden has a rate of rape per 100 000 people that is several times higher than most other countries in the world? That only a fraction of those are followed up by a conviction? You can deny these things and say that immigrants are nice and peaceful people and that multiculturalism is the best thing ever but it doesnt change reality. The reality is that youve been caught with your pants down here, no pun intended.


1) That a very small fraction of immigrants are criminals and an even more small fraction of it did terror acts or are radicalized does not mean that a large group of immigrants succesfully adapted to our country. There are a lot of people with "weird names" who actually have more success than i have in daily life, and i can only be proud of that. One of our most successful directors is called Adil El Arbi and is partly from Moroccan descent, but he is our rising star in the action world of film & tv. The chairman of the Green Party is called Meyrem Almaci, partly from Turkish descent, and is another example of a succesful immigrant. One of our best sport journalists is called Aster Nzeyimana and is another succesful immigrant from Rwanda. There are SO MANY IMMIGRANTS who made it in life. There are so many immigrants who do not harm us, who only ask for help, or just want to lead their own life independently from ourselves, and they have the right to do that.

If 0,5% of immigrants are bad, are you going to ignore, punish and DISCRIMINATE the other 99,5%? And also you should learn to be more human, and to understand the emotions behind a human being. You're starting to replace human beings by highly questionnable numbers from fake sites.

Also, all of this doesn't change the fact that you don't have any experience with crime of immigrants. Have you heard? Have you heard? Have you read? Come outside and start to see more out of the world. If we would form an idea out of everything that is being written in a newspaper. You would have a TOTAL DIFFERENT IDEA of how it is to live in a certain country than when you actually lived in one. Your world is entirely made up and created by books, newspapers, tv-shows and newswebsites. Maybe you should start to travel and be more openminded about it, and your opinion will change.

You would declare Sweden unsafe because the number of rapes in that country is higher than in several other countries (source?), so as a girl it would be unwise to travel to Sweden? You start to question the safety of my country, calling certain areas of it a ghetto, while you've even never been here. Well, you made your mind very quickly... .


----------



## sherlock8311 (Feb 16, 2018)

Will Librarians get silencers?


----------



## AzV (May 22, 2016)

This is similar to asking a question whether women should be armed to prevent rape.
It's helpful as a second thing to do for self-defense, 
but the main priority is to deal with the culprit.


----------



## bachsgirl (Nov 16, 2017)

stormgirl said:


> Only in America would such a ridiculous proposition actually be given serious consideration!


I often think, are Americans so arrogant that they think they cannot learn from the success of other countries with strong gun control legislation?

I mean I send my kids to school every day _ knowing_ with absolute certainty that a mass gun shooting will not occur. We feel safe. Its not something we can even possibly imagine as a reality to live in day in, day out. Yet - still people defend their right to bare arms.

America wake up, your prayers aren't going to save you or any of your children. Only gun reform will.


----------



## Charus (May 31, 2017)

Is this is some sort of joke? No and never.


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

bachsgirl said:


> I often think, are Americans so arrogant that they think they cannot learn from the success of other countries with strong gun control legislation?
> 
> I mean I send my kids to school every day _ knowing_ with absolute certainty that a mass gun shooting will not occur. We feel safe. Its not something we can even possibly imagine as a reality to live in day in, day out. Yet - still people defend their right to bare arms.
> 
> America wake up, your prayers aren't going to save you or any of your children. Only gun reform will.


I have to say I see a lot of arrogance in your post. What people fail to realize is that the US historically is a very different country - the right to bear arms is in our Constitution because it was necessary to overthrow an oppressive governmental regime, and to defend aggressors militarily again and again. That is a very different history than many other nations that judge us. Of course, people will say that the bear arms part of our Constitution is outdated, however it is a huge part of our identity, and when you look at oppressive regimes of the recent past like communism in the USSR and other places, it isn't such a distant memory. The dismantling of such an integral part of our governmental systems would be a huge task, and when there isn't substantial proof that simply owning guns is the issue (and there is proof that this legislation isn't well thought out, but only rises and falls with emotional media tides), it is a dangerous move in itself.

Additionally, the US is a huge place, which people often fail to recognize. When I lived in a city I didn't need a gun for self-defense. However, when I was working in healthcare in a very rural location with patients that were on drugs and would get very angry if I didn't prescribe them controlled substances, they would threaten to come to my home and kill me or my partner. They could show up at 2 am with a knife or another weapon and do that. The police response time to my home was over 20 minutes - that is less time than in many rural places. I was happy I had a way to defend myself. Also, guns are used for hunting, and with the per capita rate of guns most are never used for any crimes.

I am not saying guns aren't a problem (personally I think they are a symptom of bigger social problems we need to fix - a proxy), but I think to simply say that we are arrogant and that the solution is found in demographically, geographically and historically dissimilar cultures around the world is...naive and arrogant. Especially when current proposed gun reform isn't based on science but on emotional reform ideas that don't address the real issues. Ironically. 

We need to make laws and changes in this country based on research, science, and the specific situation here. It is different from anywhere else. And it is not a good idea to just jump in and pass laws pushed by a group of people who don't even know one term from the next, and who stereotype and entire culture.


----------



## sherlock8311 (Feb 16, 2018)

A Georgia Teacher Fired a Shot In His Classroom

Crazy yank teachers going on shooting spree's now


----------



## Elena13 (Jun 7, 2017)

No, no,no!!!!!!

Giving teachers guns is a really bad idea. It creats more problems than it solves.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

sherlock8311 said:


> A Georgia Teacher Fired a Shot In His Classroom
> 
> Crazy yank teachers going on shooting spree's now


Cmaaan, you gotta wonder if this timing is *really* a coincidence


----------



## Maybe (Sep 10, 2016)

Lakigigar said:


> The solution is actually quite simple. Ban guns! We don't need them, or at least the people with peaceful means don't need them, so take them away.


Yea! It's not like guns are a very useful way of protecting yourself in case of threat/property loss.

BTW I wonder how we're going to convince 96,300,000 (30% of US owns a gun) people to get rid of their guns without the use of force :confused3:


----------



## stormgirl (May 21, 2013)

Senah said:


> I have to say I see a lot of arrogance in your post. What people fail to realize is that the US historically is a very different country - the right to bear arms is in our Constitution because it was necessary to overthrow an oppressive governmental regime, and to defend aggressors militarily again and again. That is a very different history than many other nations that judge us. Of course, people will say that the bear arms part of our Constitution is outdated, however it is a huge part of our identity, and when you look at oppressive regimes of the recent past like communism in the USSR and other places, it isn't such a distant memory. The dismantling of such an integral part of our governmental systems would be a huge task, and when there isn't substantial proof that simply owning guns is the issue (and there is proof that this legislation isn't well thought out, but only rises and falls with emotional media tides), it is a dangerous move in itself.
> 
> Additionally, the US is a huge place, which people often fail to recognize. When I lived in a city I didn't need a gun for self-defense. However, when I was working in healthcare in a very rural location with patients that were on drugs and would get very angry if I didn't prescribe them controlled substances, they would threaten to come to my home and kill me or my partner. They could show up at 2 am with a knife or another weapon and do that. The police response time to my home was over 20 minutes - that is less time than in many rural places. I was happy I had a way to defend myself. Also, guns are used for hunting, and with the per capita rate of guns most are never used for any crimes.
> 
> ...



I think you missed the point @bachsgirl was making.

The issue isn’t Americans having guns per se, nor is it about an ignorance of American history. It’s about the lack of common sense gun control measures compared to other developed nations!


----------



## Monadnock (May 27, 2017)

stormgirl said:


> It’s about the lack of common sense gun control measures compared to other developed nations!


Such as?


----------



## Preciselyd (Mar 18, 2018)

No one should be armed. Since there is arise of gun use in schools in the USA they should invest in a Body Scanner (similar to the scanners used at the airport).


----------



## bleurhg (Mar 19, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> Security guards in schools..
> 
> And who's going to pay for that? The parents that have to send their children to school? The government with taxpayer's money? Do you know how many schools there are in the USA. Do you know how many security guards we need. And do you know how few of those many, many, many security guards will actually have to do something. They definitely would have to have a broader task package if you went that route, but that's not a viable route. Also that extra price rise could convince some parents not to send their children to school at all. It's also something that eventually only elite private schools would consider. And it would again be a sign that there is much inequality going on the world, where not every child's life is worth as much, but only the children of richer people.
> 
> The solution is actually quite simple. Ban guns! We don't need them, or at least the people with peaceful means don't need them, so take them away.


Yes. Taxpayers would pay for that. You don't think taxpayers would rather pay for their children to be protected from being MURDERED than paying for God knows how many useless government programs and jobs that exist right now? Taxpayer money is wasted in all sorts of ways that are far less important than securing the safety of our children.

Children are the most valuable asset to any society. Of course the government should be spending money on protecting their lives. That's the government's primary job. 

At any rate, it's a much more viable option than banning guns, which is totally ludicrous and would result in another civil war. No exaggeration.


----------



## wums (Nov 25, 2013)

I’m all for gun control, but also, this country is having a serious mental health crisis and that is the actual problem here and it surprises me how next to nobody has really been talking about that. Feels like very few people can even understand that. It’s sad.


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

I don't want to be in the classroom when that armed teacher is at his or her wits' end dealing with the little monster students!


----------

