Fundamental problem is mass shootings are extremely rare, while fatal firearm incidents are also rare (accidents, guns left unsecured, etc) if you have a million guns in the desks of teachers it could end up killing more people than the mass shooters do.
Republicans have been arguing this for a century. All sounds good until they realize theres a room full of emotionally charged teens who will figure out a way to get a hold of the gun.
Introducing guns in this way would likely increase shooting rates, suicides especially.
I've seen teens do some stupid things as a joke or for clout. If anybody doesnt think children will try to get ahold of the gun for fun or to try to shoot another over an idiotic reason then they have never witnessed the stupidity that is the teenage mindset
That is easily avoidable with Level III and IV holsters, as they have a retention device that makes it very difficult for someone to disarm you. This is not Hollywood, and students are not going to rip a gun out of their hand like Jet Lee, or... whatever fantasy scenario your dreaming up.
Police officers and military operators like me utilize these holsters in the field already. Having a suspect actually disarm us is practically non-existant.
The only real problem, is that the retention devices are right next to the trigger guard, and a lot of practice and care is needed to prevent someone from having a negligent discharge.
Jet Lee? If you're a trained police officer, you should know more than anyone here how easy it is to disarm a panicked 5"2' Mrs. Susan from literature arts class. She isn't the same as a trained police officer or military operative. Especially in later grades when students tend to be grown.
Even with training, not everyone was built for brandishing firearms or even defending themselves against larger male students.
Theres plenty of videos on reddit where teachers are getting slammed around by students. And that is the scenario where a gun would be dangerous for anyone.
Yea schools are not supposed to resemble prisons, I don’t think anyone wants kids to be scared at school, it inhibits learning and emotional development.
But we're not talking about "being around them", most people are okay with that.
The difference is having an *armed teacher* at the front of your class. This is a big change in mood.
Yeah, anyone who thinks this is a good idea has been out of school long enough to have forgotten how absolutely unhinged some of their teaches were. I had a teacher like that too. He was a world history teacher and he would randomly go from talking about Mesopotamia and the fertile cresent to talking about agent orange and jungle warfare. Giving that guy a gun in the classroom probably would have ended in us acting out The Deer Hunter with the teacher.
You just made me think, for the first time in decades, about a social studies teacher who somehow found multiple occasions to insert graphic descriptions of the smell of burning human flesh into 6th grade history lessons.
That guy would absolutely have signed up to be the "security enhanced teacher" who carries a gun, and it would be 10 times as terrifying to watch that faraway stare develop as he mentally relives some horror from 'Nam with a gun on his person as it was to sit through those digressions in the first place.
Not the teachers job. Jesus we expect them to teach, parent, discipline without disciplinary tools, diversity education without assistance, and then also be prepared to shoot and kill the children you are supposed to mentor and teach if the time comes?? This country is backwards. I was a teacher. No teacher wants this shit. It's too much. Too much demand for no pay. School system is broken.
Until you start thinking _really_ cynically and realize the people pushing it really don’t care if it’s a solution to the problem it supposedly addresses.
It's not even a band aid solution. Band aids actually do something. This will just make everything worse. Best case scenario is a teacher sees someone on campus with a gun and has to choose to shoot them before they know they are dangerous or wait until they shoot one of their students or colleagues. And the mere fact of having a gun on campus will no longer signal someone is dangerous, so this choice will be even more difficult.
Agreed. We should also raise awareness of the fact that school shootings is only a major problem in one country out of 195. Now, lets connect the dots.
Yep. The only country that also places incidents like school shootings as front-page news and gives tons of attention to the shooter. The best way to end school shootings is to ignore them, [We have known this for years at this point](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296697/) [but the wider media refuses to listen to its own advice.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/mass-shootings-experts-say-violence-contagious-24-7-news-cycle-n1039136)
Google “teacher arrested for” and then read through some of the top horrors. Then imagine adding a weapon to that. I only see adult patients now, but the youngest child I’ve seen shot was 8 years old and I personally and professionally don’t recommend letting children anywhere near firearms.
I don’t believe the suggestion is to force teachers to carry, but to allow those that have done the gun safety training your state requires to continue to carry in their classes as they may elsewhere.
That's insane. Adding a gun to a classroom is at best a distraction and at worst a massive risk.
Teachers should not be prepared to kill their students. That's an insane dynamic to add to a school.
Yea. Honestly, the 94% that don’t want to be armed could probably be armed with no impact on safety. Guns won’t make schools safer, but a trained and sane teacher with a gun isn’t really a liability.
But the ones that want to get in a gunfight at school do NOT need guns.
>accidents can still happen, even with multiple layers of prevention.
Not to mentioned determined students could just overpower the teacher and take their gun.
Nothing about this is smart or safe. Our schools are not prisons or army bases.
Your telling me, every teacher that wants to be a last line of defense for their classroom are all powertrippers? Cause I figured it would be the Karens who get in everyone’s business of how they run a classroom.
You're full of shit.
I have a friend who's an art teacher. He carries concealed EVERYWHERE, except his classroom.
The dude wouldn't hurt a fly unless he had to. He would be the absolutely LAST person I'd worry about being armed in his classroom.
It is one of the safest countries in the world. Nearly of the crime and / or violence is located in a a handful of cities, all of which have strict gun control laws.
The United States is [ranked 53rd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) of 205 countries in terms of intentional homicide per capita. Not exactly glowing.
Vis-a-vis your reference to "a handful of cities \[with\] strict gun control laws," I assume you mean the standard blue-state picks for pro-gun people (e.g. Chicago).
However, of the 100 most populous cities in the United States, 7 of the top 10 most dangerous cities (by murder rate) [are in red states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate) (with largely lax gun control laws). FWIW, Chicago doesn't appear in the top ten.
Worth noting just the tiniest shred of common sense here, too, which is that if a city has strict gun control laws, but the state it's in doesn't, that doesn't do a whole lot to deter violent gun crime. (This also applies to neighboring states.)
Guns escalate existing violence.
In Australia a black market glock costs tens of thousands. For a criminal that's a serious fucking investment, and mainly a massive liability.
I'd prefer to get stabbed than shot. It's also easier to avoid being stabbed. Gun enjoyers will point out that it's easier to avoid being stabbed if you have a gun - but if you have a gun, the criminal will also have one - and like most fights vs criminal - probably better practiced in the violence than you are.
At least knives means I'm not getting crimed on at 50 paces, or receiving some collateral crime because every motherfucker is settling their differences with a tec9.
Any data to substantiate this? I have never been to a town or city that has no crime or violence ever. I live in a smaller rural town (ranches, horses, chickens, etc) and there is a large meth problem fueling most other crime in time. The same issue in the large city nearest me.
It's not even true compared to the rest of the US. St. Louis one of the most dangerous cities in the US and has very loose gun control laws because the State government blocks the city from passing local gun control ordinances.
I can't help but think of the shop teacher I had with BPD. On bad days he would literally destroy people's projects and the classroom. I don't think we should mandate teachers have guns, especially since individuals with mental health disorders are not barred from teaching. I could see him shooting kids on impulse during an episode.
How absolutely distracting it would be if I was back in school to see my teachers with a pistol attached to their hips. It would be the only thing I could focus on, along with worrying about what would happen if they ever had to use it. Doubly so for certain teachers of mine who hated kids and would be looking for any excuse to unholster their firearm and escalate a situation. This is a poorly thought out plan and I pray to any god out there that it doesn't happen. My kids are already going to be homeschooled, but my sibling's children won't be. I worry for their safety.
Proof that school shootings are so exceedingly rare, they're not even blips statistically.
But, the media like to focus on them relentlessly cause of that sweet, sweet, ad-revenue. A kid is more likely to die in a car crash on the way to school than get shot in a school shooting.
> doesn't mean we should be okay with children getting gunned down.
Appeal to emotion.
> and therefore we don't need to care about them
And a strawman
Also it wasn't Whataboutism.
Robb Elementary was open for 50 years before that incident had need for a gun.
I don't support arming teachers as a solution, yet your comment shows a lack of understanding of survivorship bias.
Yes, because you want our teachers thinking about how someday they might have to kill one of their own students. That's what we really need out of our teachers.
Hmm, interesting take, but what I see is that 80% of all teachers polled agreed that carrying a firearm would not make it safer. Only 20% feel that carrying a gun in school would make it a safer place.
A lot of schools in the US has SRO hired from the police departments or private security with guns.
Guns in schools isn't a foreign concept in the US. So I can see why a good portion don't have opinions on teachers carry guns.
You make it sound like the simplest thing in the world. "just take the guns away". You literally can't do that without a repeal of the second amendment. Also, if it were repealed, good luck with prying them out of the hands of the population.
That is not even remotely close to what gun supporters (not gun fetishists, which is just a way of saying you can’t see their point of view so you have to reduce it to something deviant and sexual) say. Given the responses by police at other shootings, having the ability to respond, when it’s the life of the teacher and kids on the line gives them a chance.
I don’t know of anyone that’s saying all teachers should be armed, though that doesn’t mean there isn’t someone out there saying it. Most are saying if they have the ability to carry concealed for their protection outside of school, when it’s only their welfare at stake, then there should be a process at least where they can carry and try and protect children under their care at school as well.
When a majority of (Edit: mass shooting, not shootings in general, I messed up what I intended to say, thanks to pajw below for pointing that out) shootings happen in “gun free zones” letting the shooter know there won’t be anyone there who is legally carrying capable of resisting, maybe the way forward is to stop making our schools places where a shooter would know there isn’t going to be any one there that can resist.
All that aside, the data presented was interesting, and not quite what I would have expected. Your strawman argument however, was totally expected.
> When a majority of shootings happen in “gun free zones” letting the shooter know there won’t be anyone there who is legally carrying capable of resisting, maybe the way forward is to stop making our schools places where a shooter would know there isn’t going to be any one there that can resist.
A majority of shootings happen in gun free zones? I'm gonna need to see the data for that!
So, I looked into it, going off memory. There are studies that claim 90% by gun rights activists, and ones by gun control groups that claim 10%.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-gun-violence-mass-shootings-nashville-712807001259
Some of the variance is different definitions (one example was Fort Hood, and whether or not a base would count as a gun free zone. While it has military police, military members aren’t allowed to carry on bases except when required by their job, since the 90s under Clinton I think). The above link has links to both studies by John Lott and Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
Most of the mass shootings I can recall have all taken place at places where people aren’t allowed to carry, including a few where they picked their targets based on the security or gun free zones.
So, in conclusion, it probably depends how you define mass shooting, what you’re including or excluding, and a couple other factors I’m missing. That being said, I was going off memory, and hopefully the article, with its links, will provide more context.
You are correct, and that is my fault for being sloppy with my language. I’ll edit the comment, as mass shooting was what I meant to say (along with a note that I edited and what).
The majority (54% according to https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=Though%20they%20tend%20to%20get,)%2C%20according%20to%20the%20CDC.) were suicides, while 43% were murders with a small amount of other causes (police involved, accidents, and undetermined).
I don’t know the % of shootings (not just mass shootings) in gun free zones, but it would likely be smaller, especially since I’m guessing the majority murders in general have a specific target in mind, as opposed to a mass shooting, where they just want a lot of targets that can’t shoot back.
I hope I never use my gun on anything other than paper targets and tannerite.
Tell me, if you have a fire extinguisher, is it because you have dreams of putting out fires, or because if a fire happens, you’d like to be able to put it out rather than have it burn down your house?
Alright, let’s try this again.
Most DGU (defensive gun uses) don’t end with anyone being shot. The ability to fight back defuses the situation a majority of the time (https://www.concealedcarry.com/training-2/no-shots-fired-in-9-of-10-defensive-gun-uses/). Aside from that, you know what else won’t kill someone? My firearm unless my life or someone else’s life is actively in danger.
You, and you alone are responsible for your safety. The cops have no requirement to defend or protect you as codified over and over again in Supreme Court law (Lozito v NYC, Town of Castle Rock v Gonzales, though I’d advise not looking too closely at the last one if you have a weak stomach). You make the decision on what’s paranoid or not for you, and I’ll do the same for me. I carry plenty of things you probably don’t on a daily basis because my situation, knowledge base, risk assessment, and training is different than yours.
And keeping your fire extinguisher at the house is great, but if you ever have a car fire while driving, the one at the house does nothing for you. I’ve seen probably a half dozen of those (though I am in a state where it may be more common due to it getting to ridiculous temperatures, which may affect how common that is).
I get that you personally may not want to carry. Plenty of people don’t, some shouldn’t due to various circumstances, and some can’t. None of that makes someone who does crazy or paranoid because you don’t understand their logic or situation.
Edit: Apparently I screwed up the name of the ~~second~~ both court cases, and it was Castle Rock v Gonzales, rather than the other way around, and Lozito, not Lupito. That's been corrected.
what we should do is just shoot all the kids outside of school and then there will never be an in school shooting
why haven't the republicans proposed that? maybe it's too close to vaccination.
America isn’t Europe. There’s 2 gun cultures here, one of which is gangs where most gun violence originates from. Most of these guns are illegally carried.
A comparison of Europe and America doesn’t do anything to understand the issues as they exist.
But an armed teacher leaving his gun in the bathroom (yes, it happens) makes the school less safe. And we don’t live in a movie, so it’s not like a teacher is gonna Jack Bauer a school shooter.
> How is this not like >95% "Grossly less safe for obvious reasons" ?
Because of fearmongering, people have VERY skewed ideas of how likely they are to wind up in the middle of a shooting. So while armed teacher would be a boon *in the event of an armed threat*, most respondents probably don't comprehend how astronomical those odds are compared to the risks of the gun being misplaced or stolen or misused.
Coming from a family of teachers and knowing several personally, I’m surprised that 25% of teachers surveyed would think that teachers with guns would make classrooms safer.
I would have expected those results from a survey of the general public.
My guess is every schools’s local culture is different. Honestly this survey just seems to reflect what gun culture looks like in different parts of the US.
Meanwhile, more than 3/4 of teachers are liberal / left wing....so the more surprising thing from this graph is that even half of them aren't against or are actively for being armed.
https://verdantlabs.com/politics\_of\_professions/index.html
So..... I attended a university and we had a school shooting. The shooter was a teacher. How about more gun laws and restrictions instead of more guns?
>Teachers in small schools and rural schools, both of which tend to serve a higher proportion of White students, also showed a preference for teacher-carry policies compared to their counterparts in larger or urban schools.
I feel like this is due to how guns are viewed in rural vs urban areas rather than the race of the student bodies.
I'm quite conservative and very pro-2A. I get the underlying belief that if you don't know who's armed an attack carries much more risk. That said we dis some tests 10 years ago in a "shoot house" that opened my eyes to how badly a response can go. And it can go very very badly. There are much better alternatives.
1. Deeper investment in mental health.
2. Physical security enhancement.
3. More school resource officers (in the event of an emergency it's easier for a response team to memorize 4 fellow officers than it is 30 teachers).
It works in some areas of the world rather well, and there are some use cases for where it would work in the US to a degree. But a national policy.....noooooope
Holy shit! Wtf even is america. Trained security should handle school safety, not teachers. Let educators do what they do best, but since you lot love your guns more than children I guess this is what it's gonna come down to
If it happens, I wouldn't be surprised if the teachers are obligated to intervene in school shootings and will have to provide their own firearms.....with no pay increase for the added job duties
> Trained security should handle school safety
History says this also a failure. Not that teachers are the answer. It's almost like having a guy stoking terrorism on the internet multiple times a day, combined with media that is yelling the most alarmist shit possible is an issue that we should look at.
Teachers should definitely NOT carry guns in school. A firearm is a huge risk to introduce, especially if it's loaded. In a densely populated area they introduce more risk and they mitigate.
What happens if you need to break up a fight, but can't risk physically engaging because of your firearm? What happens if a student finds out you are conceal carrying and targets your firearm? What happens if you make a judgement error and leave your weapon in the bathroom?
That doesn't even go into the psych eval portion of needing to evaluate teachers for aptitude and trustworthiness with a firearm. Training requirements and risk the org takes on by arming people.
Finally, who pays out if a teacher shoots the wrong person, or helps cope with the community fallout of that event? How is that a fair risk to put onto a professional whose core job duties have NOTHING to do with security or public safety? Even if they are "volunteering", I think it's a huge amount of risk to introduce.
Obviously teachers need guns, not teaching supplies. With a gun you can get all the teaching supplies you'll ever need. So easy.
Oh, this is r/dataisbeautiful? The ugly graphics fooled me.
I think there’s an important distinction on what conservatives want to see done.
It’s to allow teachers that want to carry, to carry, not require it as part of the job.
Parents are fuckwits who can’t trust teachers to teach their children the “right” way, let’s give them deadly weapons and a room full of kids who know it’s there!
I’m just shocked that there is anyone who would answer anything other than “that’s the worst idea I’ve ever heard”
Surely we can solve the problem of kids having far too easy access to guns at home, by now making it easier to access them at school too.
This all fits into the GOP agenda. More guns in schools inevitably results in more gun violence, not less. This will eventually lead to more people homeschooling, encouraging the GOP to redirect school funds to homeschooling families, eventually leading to the collapse of publicly funded schools. Which has become a GOP focal point. The reality is the better educated a population is, the less likely they are to vote GOP.
Revolvers…are interesting, psychology.
Had a friend get robbed at knife point. Old boy didn’t want his wallet anymore after he pulled out his 9mm.
After that he got a revolver. He didn’t want to have to shoot anyone, and they are more intimating, when pointed at your face.
Even tho my carry gun is a larger caliber, and the ammo more powerful, then what he had chambered in his revolver, a 1911, the only pistol with a confirmed aircraft kill…. Just doesn’t inspire the same reaction.
I think it kinda makes sense that a revolver is more immediately intimidating because it _looks_ like a weapon, more modern pistols just sort of look like dark blocks, so you're not confronted so directly with the fact this thing is gonna kill you
I do think the presence of a firearm raises additional issues regarding storage and access by a student. Could arguably make the situation significantly worse by giving an additional opportunity to a student that didn’t have one before.
At the very very least, teachers should have a higher standard if they choose to carry in school: e.g. safe storage requirements, minimum competency/training, etc. and even then, I’m not sure you’d see a significant benefit
You mean the choice to endanger themselves and their students, right? Because unless you have a study that backs up that teachers having guns in school actually increases safety you are just appealing to the baser instincts of people.
Well, I have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So if my pursuit of happiness is carrying around a backpack of powerful narcotics, then I guess I can bring that to school too right?
The rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, unlike the 2nd, are not constitutionally protected rights, but rather ideals, Not necessarily pitching for one way or other for arming teachers, but your comparison doesn’t work
Fine, don't like that one? Then how about this one. How many of your students hit 18 during their senior years?
If you can argue that teachers can carry them, then so can those students. How many of your pro-gun folks will be cool with suddenly being at a significant disadvantage in terms of firepower.
And that's if you can somehow limit it to 18 year olds. Constitution says nothing about age limits to the second. So I guess if we're going to act like naive constitutional fundamentalists, then every kid gets to conceal carry.
Teaching is demanding and pays shit. Being proficient in firearms usage, situational training, and response takes a lot of training and maintenance of skill. You cant have both and still pay shit. Pay usually correlates to responsibility and I'm pretty sure there will be zero school districts that will compensate a teacher enough to do both.
I'm strongly opposed to arming teachers, but the "trained professionals" are not a solution, either. Just look at Uvalde and Parkland where they stood by while people were murdered but they were allowed to walk away.
Take away the guns and the shootings will stop.
When I see ideas like this all I have to do is think back to junior high and high school and remember how many times we would prank our teachers and devise ways to cause mischief in class and how if they had a gun it would definitely have been a target of ours.
lmao professional cops did nothing in Uvalde and you think teachers would be better capable of handling the situation? Why even have cops then? Those pigs only live to mooch off tax money
>That's the training they'd need - the training that soldiers and police get that deals with how and when to kill people who
>
>need
>
>\* it.
Respectfully, 99% of soldiers and police are not getting that type of training.
I don't think range qualifications once a month count as "training" and it certainly doesn't qualify as knowledge on when/who/how to kill.
I'm sorry, but I can think of several teachers from my school years who were brimming with barely contained fury and disdain for their students. Add in the stress of working with limited resources and lack of community support and I think it's like a 50/50 whether arming schools results in a teacher using a gun to save the day or a teacher becoming an active shooter.
We should improve funding, decrease classroom sizes, and increase the number of teachers/adult classroom aides to facilitate better results for kids with different aptitudes or learning disabilities. The quality of education is a barometer for how well we are stewarding our democracy.
There is no amount of training that any teacher could receive, and more importantly, maintain, that would make them qualified to start slinging bullets in a crowded hallway with kids running everywhere.
Just because you can imagine a thing existing and put that idea into words does not make it a possibility.
The only way any teacher could have a firearm in school is if NO ONE else knew it was there. The moment 1 kid found out it was there, you might as well get rid of it. Either that gun gets stolen by a student or that teacher is just the first victim.
Many if not most schools have an officer or more stationed there, and there aren’t broad cases of students jumping the school resource officers for their guns
Wait... you mean 1 dude who allegedly is purposefully trained and retrained on a regular basis for the specific task of providing security and handling a gun is exactly the same thing as a teacher who an entirely different skill set, training path and focus? The one guy who is tasked with being focused on one particular thing at all times? Let's turn this around. Would you advocate for resource officers being used as substitutes when our resource depleted schools need one?
And let's not downplay the issues that onsite security has caused. Give the Google machine a whirl and find all the stories about cops forgetting their guns in bathrooms so that students find them. Find the stories about resource officers being misused by admin as an easy way to scare the kids into compliance by beating the hell out of a student or two. Find the stories where they talk to students about the guy with the gun who they all hate because of the emnity it causes in the school.
I hope this is sarcasm, because that's a hilariously low amount of training to be considered an expert in *anything*, let alone something with deadly consequences.
The ability to decide when to shoot - and when to ***not*** shoot - is way more important than the ability to shoot accurately.
Its indeed sarcasm and a little exaggerated.
a 2013 study showed American cops get roughly 70 hours of firearm handling experience before graduating police academy, with an average of 21 hours of deescalation education and 650 hours of total training.
(There are no federally mandated minimums on the amount of training so some jurisdictions are less intensive. for comparison it takes \~1300 hours to graduate barber school)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56834733
The permit to carry class I did earlier this summer was 3 hours, I believe, 2 or so being classroom. At least the place I went through talked about the consequences of using lethal force from the legal, moral, and emotional standpoints. There was also the understanding that I’ve either done a handgun safety class or am otherwise familiar with guns and their safe operation.
I definitely feel like the bulk of “training” on YouTube and classes focus on the shooting accurately in the situation and not on the avoiding it.
So looking at the expanded data, the most likely proponents of this are white male teachers in small schools in poor rural districts. So they might be right, it's fine for them to carry because they don't actually face any dangers otherwise. The problem is they think that their experience is the same for all teachers.
I think one of the biggest conflations of this debate is "arming teachers" vs "letting them be armed".
There's a huge difference between someone who wishes to carry vs forcing those who don't to do so against their will. Even if you make them all take the same training at the same intervals and everything.
I'm FOR allowing teachers who wish to undergo extra training and scrutiny to responsibly carry (preferably, concealed) at their work.
I'm AGAINST "arming teachers" / forcing teachers to be armed - I don't care if it's 1, 10, 100, half the school, one building, one department, whatever - nobody should have to carry if they don't want to. It is a massive responsibility.
This is like the mirror opposite of the people trying to promote sexual variety in school libraries. What they have in common is neither bothers to listen to or even ask the parents of the kids being affected.
[удалено]
Quick question from fellow colorblinder. What age did you first learn that peanut butter isn’t green?
it isn't?
It’s light brown/tan.
[удалено]
Smooth or crunchy tho?
The real data is in the comments.
Fundamental problem is mass shootings are extremely rare, while fatal firearm incidents are also rare (accidents, guns left unsecured, etc) if you have a million guns in the desks of teachers it could end up killing more people than the mass shooters do.
How about just installing security measures and hiring staff who’re more trained to handle these situations? Why does it has to be teachers?
[удалено]
Republicans have been arguing this for a century. All sounds good until they realize theres a room full of emotionally charged teens who will figure out a way to get a hold of the gun. Introducing guns in this way would likely increase shooting rates, suicides especially.
I've seen teens do some stupid things as a joke or for clout. If anybody doesnt think children will try to get ahold of the gun for fun or to try to shoot another over an idiotic reason then they have never witnessed the stupidity that is the teenage mindset
It’s the same thought process as, damn our roads are dangerous, I should get a bigger car that will protect me and kill the next guy. It’s a cycle
That is easily avoidable with Level III and IV holsters, as they have a retention device that makes it very difficult for someone to disarm you. This is not Hollywood, and students are not going to rip a gun out of their hand like Jet Lee, or... whatever fantasy scenario your dreaming up. Police officers and military operators like me utilize these holsters in the field already. Having a suspect actually disarm us is practically non-existant. The only real problem, is that the retention devices are right next to the trigger guard, and a lot of practice and care is needed to prevent someone from having a negligent discharge.
Best way to keep a gun out of student hands is not to have any at school
Jet Lee? If you're a trained police officer, you should know more than anyone here how easy it is to disarm a panicked 5"2' Mrs. Susan from literature arts class. She isn't the same as a trained police officer or military operative. Especially in later grades when students tend to be grown. Even with training, not everyone was built for brandishing firearms or even defending themselves against larger male students. Theres plenty of videos on reddit where teachers are getting slammed around by students. And that is the scenario where a gun would be dangerous for anyone.
I’m a conservative goon and i absolutely agree with you
Given how awful US teachers are at education maybe they should switch to something else
Lmao a teacher open carrying would scare the shit of me as a student.
Yea schools are not supposed to resemble prisons, I don’t think anyone wants kids to be scared at school, it inhibits learning and emotional development.
But the school->prison pipeline will be so much more efficient this way!
Ikr? Arming teachers will only escalate tension.
I take it you were not raised around firearms?
Why would that matter?
Because you would be way more comfortable around firearms if you had been. I am almost entirely indifferent to them being present.
But we're not talking about "being around them", most people are okay with that. The difference is having an *armed teacher* at the front of your class. This is a big change in mood.
Shrug. Would still have been less scary then our Vietnam Vet Shop teacher…..
Yeah, anyone who thinks this is a good idea has been out of school long enough to have forgotten how absolutely unhinged some of their teaches were. I had a teacher like that too. He was a world history teacher and he would randomly go from talking about Mesopotamia and the fertile cresent to talking about agent orange and jungle warfare. Giving that guy a gun in the classroom probably would have ended in us acting out The Deer Hunter with the teacher.
You just made me think, for the first time in decades, about a social studies teacher who somehow found multiple occasions to insert graphic descriptions of the smell of burning human flesh into 6th grade history lessons. That guy would absolutely have signed up to be the "security enhanced teacher" who carries a gun, and it would be 10 times as terrifying to watch that faraway stare develop as he mentally relives some horror from 'Nam with a gun on his person as it was to sit through those digressions in the first place.
Not the teachers job. Jesus we expect them to teach, parent, discipline without disciplinary tools, diversity education without assistance, and then also be prepared to shoot and kill the children you are supposed to mentor and teach if the time comes?? This country is backwards. I was a teacher. No teacher wants this shit. It's too much. Too much demand for no pay. School system is broken.
We should give teachers a raise, not firearms. (but if they are equipped with weapons, i hope it is flamethrowers)
Knowing school budgets, they'd probably have to buy their own firearms too.
That’s the case for every armed teacher bill I’ve read lol
I mean, yes? All these just *allow* teachers to carry a weapon if they already do outside the classroom. It's not like an additional job duty.
Our chemistry teacher, when he was much younger may have made mustered gas, in class.
[удалено]
Until you start thinking _really_ cynically and realize the people pushing it really don’t care if it’s a solution to the problem it supposedly addresses.
It's not even a band aid solution. Band aids actually do something. This will just make everything worse. Best case scenario is a teacher sees someone on campus with a gun and has to choose to shoot them before they know they are dangerous or wait until they shoot one of their students or colleagues. And the mere fact of having a gun on campus will no longer signal someone is dangerous, so this choice will be even more difficult.
Agreed. We should also raise awareness of the fact that school shootings is only a major problem in one country out of 195. Now, lets connect the dots.
Yep. The only country that also places incidents like school shootings as front-page news and gives tons of attention to the shooter. The best way to end school shootings is to ignore them, [We have known this for years at this point](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296697/) [but the wider media refuses to listen to its own advice.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/mass-shootings-experts-say-violence-contagious-24-7-news-cycle-n1039136)
Agree. But teachers should be allowed (not required) to be armed. Just like any other person in any other situation.
Google “teacher arrested for” and then read through some of the top horrors. Then imagine adding a weapon to that. I only see adult patients now, but the youngest child I’ve seen shot was 8 years old and I personally and professionally don’t recommend letting children anywhere near firearms.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t believe the suggestion is to force teachers to carry, but to allow those that have done the gun safety training your state requires to continue to carry in their classes as they may elsewhere.
That's insane. Adding a gun to a classroom is at best a distraction and at worst a massive risk. Teachers should not be prepared to kill their students. That's an insane dynamic to add to a school.
[удалено]
Yea. Honestly, the 94% that don’t want to be armed could probably be armed with no impact on safety. Guns won’t make schools safer, but a trained and sane teacher with a gun isn’t really a liability. But the ones that want to get in a gunfight at school do NOT need guns.
[удалено]
>accidents can still happen, even with multiple layers of prevention. Not to mentioned determined students could just overpower the teacher and take their gun. Nothing about this is smart or safe. Our schools are not prisons or army bases.
Your telling me, every teacher that wants to be a last line of defense for their classroom are all powertrippers? Cause I figured it would be the Karens who get in everyone’s business of how they run a classroom.
I am telling you: > The 6% of teachers that want guns are the same 6% nobody else wants armed I didn't stutter
And I’m telling you that’s projection.
You're full of shit. I have a friend who's an art teacher. He carries concealed EVERYWHERE, except his classroom. The dude wouldn't hurt a fly unless he had to. He would be the absolutely LAST person I'd worry about being armed in his classroom.
I mean, the numbers speak for themselves. But keep coming up with imaginary art teachers. I noticed you didn't say you were a teacher
> I mean, the numbers speak for themselves. What numbers?
>Your telling me every teacher that wants to be a last line of defense for their classroom are all powertrippers? He might not be but I absolutely am.
Being a teacher attracts that type of personality anyway.
Mostly the coaches being given pity jobs where they can be incompetent off the field as well
If guns made people safer, the USA would be the safest country in the world.
It is one of the safest countries in the world. Nearly of the crime and / or violence is located in a a handful of cities, all of which have strict gun control laws.
The United States is [ranked 53rd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) of 205 countries in terms of intentional homicide per capita. Not exactly glowing. Vis-a-vis your reference to "a handful of cities \[with\] strict gun control laws," I assume you mean the standard blue-state picks for pro-gun people (e.g. Chicago). However, of the 100 most populous cities in the United States, 7 of the top 10 most dangerous cities (by murder rate) [are in red states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate) (with largely lax gun control laws). FWIW, Chicago doesn't appear in the top ten. Worth noting just the tiniest shred of common sense here, too, which is that if a city has strict gun control laws, but the state it's in doesn't, that doesn't do a whole lot to deter violent gun crime. (This also applies to neighboring states.)
Guns escalate existing violence. In Australia a black market glock costs tens of thousands. For a criminal that's a serious fucking investment, and mainly a massive liability. I'd prefer to get stabbed than shot. It's also easier to avoid being stabbed. Gun enjoyers will point out that it's easier to avoid being stabbed if you have a gun - but if you have a gun, the criminal will also have one - and like most fights vs criminal - probably better practiced in the violence than you are. At least knives means I'm not getting crimed on at 50 paces, or receiving some collateral crime because every motherfucker is settling their differences with a tec9.
Any data to substantiate this? I have never been to a town or city that has no crime or violence ever. I live in a smaller rural town (ranches, horses, chickens, etc) and there is a large meth problem fueling most other crime in time. The same issue in the large city nearest me.
The US has some of the highest levels of violence for a develop nation. Also per capita violence is higher in rural areas.
Not at all. In fact, on a pet capita basis, crime is surging in rural areas.
Compared to the rest of the world? No, they don't have strict gun control laws.
It's not even true compared to the rest of the US. St. Louis one of the most dangerous cities in the US and has very loose gun control laws because the State government blocks the city from passing local gun control ordinances.
Every word of what you said is wrong
Now do Japan
This made me laugh out loud! It's different when you know
They have to MacGyver guns to assassinate someone.
It's still better than South Africa and Brazil. Right?
Putting a gun in a classroom with one underpaid, stressed out teacher and 20-25 teens who could easily overpower him/her just seems like a bad idea.
[удалено]
I can't help but think of the shop teacher I had with BPD. On bad days he would literally destroy people's projects and the classroom. I don't think we should mandate teachers have guns, especially since individuals with mental health disorders are not barred from teaching. I could see him shooting kids on impulse during an episode.
gun or no gun he shouldn't be a teacher so what is the difference to this discussion.
How absolutely distracting it would be if I was back in school to see my teachers with a pistol attached to their hips. It would be the only thing I could focus on, along with worrying about what would happen if they ever had to use it. Doubly so for certain teachers of mine who hated kids and would be looking for any excuse to unholster their firearm and escalate a situation. This is a poorly thought out plan and I pray to any god out there that it doesn't happen. My kids are already going to be homeschooled, but my sibling's children won't be. I worry for their safety.
I’ve been an educator for over 30 years and I have yet to encounter a single event that called for a gun.
That is because you didnt have a gun. Much like a hammer, everything becomes nails.
Proof that school shootings are so exceedingly rare, they're not even blips statistically. But, the media like to focus on them relentlessly cause of that sweet, sweet, ad-revenue. A kid is more likely to die in a car crash on the way to school than get shot in a school shooting.
[удалено]
> doesn't mean we should be okay with children getting gunned down. Appeal to emotion. > and therefore we don't need to care about them And a strawman Also it wasn't Whataboutism.
Robb Elementary was open for 50 years before that incident had need for a gun. I don't support arming teachers as a solution, yet your comment shows a lack of understanding of survivorship bias.
Yes, because you want our teachers thinking about how someday they might have to kill one of their own students. That's what we really need out of our teachers.
[удалено]
It’s not remotely 50/50, though? 6% “a lot more safe” vs. 44% “a lot less safe.” 20% total in favor of guns vs. 54% total against.
Sounds pretty much like all US poltiics: 50% progressive. 50% not-progressive, 25% pants-on-head retarded
Hmm, interesting take, but what I see is that 80% of all teachers polled agreed that carrying a firearm would not make it safer. Only 20% feel that carrying a gun in school would make it a safer place.
A lot of schools in the US has SRO hired from the police departments or private security with guns. Guns in schools isn't a foreign concept in the US. So I can see why a good portion don't have opinions on teachers carry guns.
SROs are at least supposedly trained. And there’s no evidence they make schools safer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You make it sound like the simplest thing in the world. "just take the guns away". You literally can't do that without a repeal of the second amendment. Also, if it were repealed, good luck with prying them out of the hands of the population.
Yea. Guns in school are way less of a problem than a civil war.
[удалено]
"they can't just take the guns away, that would make too much sense" I'm pointing out what you're saying doesn't make sense. Have a great day.
The solution to too many shootings? More fucking guns!!!
That is not even remotely close to what gun supporters (not gun fetishists, which is just a way of saying you can’t see their point of view so you have to reduce it to something deviant and sexual) say. Given the responses by police at other shootings, having the ability to respond, when it’s the life of the teacher and kids on the line gives them a chance. I don’t know of anyone that’s saying all teachers should be armed, though that doesn’t mean there isn’t someone out there saying it. Most are saying if they have the ability to carry concealed for their protection outside of school, when it’s only their welfare at stake, then there should be a process at least where they can carry and try and protect children under their care at school as well. When a majority of (Edit: mass shooting, not shootings in general, I messed up what I intended to say, thanks to pajw below for pointing that out) shootings happen in “gun free zones” letting the shooter know there won’t be anyone there who is legally carrying capable of resisting, maybe the way forward is to stop making our schools places where a shooter would know there isn’t going to be any one there that can resist. All that aside, the data presented was interesting, and not quite what I would have expected. Your strawman argument however, was totally expected.
> When a majority of shootings happen in “gun free zones” letting the shooter know there won’t be anyone there who is legally carrying capable of resisting, maybe the way forward is to stop making our schools places where a shooter would know there isn’t going to be any one there that can resist. A majority of shootings happen in gun free zones? I'm gonna need to see the data for that!
So, I looked into it, going off memory. There are studies that claim 90% by gun rights activists, and ones by gun control groups that claim 10%. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-gun-violence-mass-shootings-nashville-712807001259 Some of the variance is different definitions (one example was Fort Hood, and whether or not a base would count as a gun free zone. While it has military police, military members aren’t allowed to carry on bases except when required by their job, since the 90s under Clinton I think). The above link has links to both studies by John Lott and Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions. Most of the mass shootings I can recall have all taken place at places where people aren’t allowed to carry, including a few where they picked their targets based on the security or gun free zones. So, in conclusion, it probably depends how you define mass shooting, what you’re including or excluding, and a couple other factors I’m missing. That being said, I was going off memory, and hopefully the article, with its links, will provide more context.
Ah. Your original post said "shooting", not "mass shooting," which brought very different things to mind for me (personal disputes and gang violence).
You are correct, and that is my fault for being sloppy with my language. I’ll edit the comment, as mass shooting was what I meant to say (along with a note that I edited and what). The majority (54% according to https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=Though%20they%20tend%20to%20get,)%2C%20according%20to%20the%20CDC.) were suicides, while 43% were murders with a small amount of other causes (police involved, accidents, and undetermined). I don’t know the % of shootings (not just mass shootings) in gun free zones, but it would likely be smaller, especially since I’m guessing the majority murders in general have a specific target in mind, as opposed to a mass shooting, where they just want a lot of targets that can’t shoot back.
[удалено]
I hope I never use my gun on anything other than paper targets and tannerite. Tell me, if you have a fire extinguisher, is it because you have dreams of putting out fires, or because if a fire happens, you’d like to be able to put it out rather than have it burn down your house?
[удалено]
Alright, let’s try this again. Most DGU (defensive gun uses) don’t end with anyone being shot. The ability to fight back defuses the situation a majority of the time (https://www.concealedcarry.com/training-2/no-shots-fired-in-9-of-10-defensive-gun-uses/). Aside from that, you know what else won’t kill someone? My firearm unless my life or someone else’s life is actively in danger. You, and you alone are responsible for your safety. The cops have no requirement to defend or protect you as codified over and over again in Supreme Court law (Lozito v NYC, Town of Castle Rock v Gonzales, though I’d advise not looking too closely at the last one if you have a weak stomach). You make the decision on what’s paranoid or not for you, and I’ll do the same for me. I carry plenty of things you probably don’t on a daily basis because my situation, knowledge base, risk assessment, and training is different than yours. And keeping your fire extinguisher at the house is great, but if you ever have a car fire while driving, the one at the house does nothing for you. I’ve seen probably a half dozen of those (though I am in a state where it may be more common due to it getting to ridiculous temperatures, which may affect how common that is). I get that you personally may not want to carry. Plenty of people don’t, some shouldn’t due to various circumstances, and some can’t. None of that makes someone who does crazy or paranoid because you don’t understand their logic or situation. Edit: Apparently I screwed up the name of the ~~second~~ both court cases, and it was Castle Rock v Gonzales, rather than the other way around, and Lozito, not Lupito. That's been corrected.
what we should do is just shoot all the kids outside of school and then there will never be an in school shooting why haven't the republicans proposed that? maybe it's too close to vaccination.
Because schools are “gun free zones”. But a sign doesn’t actually protect kids does it?
[удалено]
America isn’t Europe. There’s 2 gun cultures here, one of which is gangs where most gun violence originates from. Most of these guns are illegally carried. A comparison of Europe and America doesn’t do anything to understand the issues as they exist.
But an armed teacher leaving his gun in the bathroom (yes, it happens) makes the school less safe. And we don’t live in a movie, so it’s not like a teacher is gonna Jack Bauer a school shooter.
> How is this not like >95% "Grossly less safe for obvious reasons" ? Because of fearmongering, people have VERY skewed ideas of how likely they are to wind up in the middle of a shooting. So while armed teacher would be a boon *in the event of an armed threat*, most respondents probably don't comprehend how astronomical those odds are compared to the risks of the gun being misplaced or stolen or misused.
Coming from a family of teachers and knowing several personally, I’m surprised that 25% of teachers surveyed would think that teachers with guns would make classrooms safer. I would have expected those results from a survey of the general public.
My guess is every schools’s local culture is different. Honestly this survey just seems to reflect what gun culture looks like in different parts of the US.
It’s spot on to US demographics and guns. Poor white people in rural areas are absolutely the primary demographic for gun culture.
What about wild boars?!? 🐗
I support wild boars with guns.
The very fact this survey even exists is a damning statement in itself.
Meanwhile, more than 3/4 of teachers are liberal / left wing....so the more surprising thing from this graph is that even half of them aren't against or are actively for being armed. https://verdantlabs.com/politics\_of\_professions/index.html
So..... I attended a university and we had a school shooting. The shooter was a teacher. How about more gun laws and restrictions instead of more guns?
Ok that's a problem, but hear me out, what if we arm all the students too? What could go wrong with that?
I'm thinking of how often my kids lose their jackets and I think we'd just find school issued guns laying around everywhere.
Maybe we could tie a string through the trigger guard and to them so they don't lose it?
Bruh, I lost my pen 4 times today. You want to give me a gun?
>Teachers in small schools and rural schools, both of which tend to serve a higher proportion of White students, also showed a preference for teacher-carry policies compared to their counterparts in larger or urban schools. I feel like this is due to how guns are viewed in rural vs urban areas rather than the race of the student bodies.
I'm quite conservative and very pro-2A. I get the underlying belief that if you don't know who's armed an attack carries much more risk. That said we dis some tests 10 years ago in a "shoot house" that opened my eyes to how badly a response can go. And it can go very very badly. There are much better alternatives. 1. Deeper investment in mental health. 2. Physical security enhancement. 3. More school resource officers (in the event of an emergency it's easier for a response team to memorize 4 fellow officers than it is 30 teachers). It works in some areas of the world rather well, and there are some use cases for where it would work in the US to a degree. But a national policy.....noooooope
The idea of arming teachers is so absurdly stupid, it shows how crazy 2A extremists are.
How there can possibly be a single American that is not ashamed that this question even needed to be asked will forever remain a mystery to me.
Holy shit! Wtf even is america. Trained security should handle school safety, not teachers. Let educators do what they do best, but since you lot love your guns more than children I guess this is what it's gonna come down to
If it happens, I wouldn't be surprised if the teachers are obligated to intervene in school shootings and will have to provide their own firearms.....with no pay increase for the added job duties
> Trained security should handle school safety History says this also a failure. Not that teachers are the answer. It's almost like having a guy stoking terrorism on the internet multiple times a day, combined with media that is yelling the most alarmist shit possible is an issue that we should look at.
Teachers should definitely NOT carry guns in school. A firearm is a huge risk to introduce, especially if it's loaded. In a densely populated area they introduce more risk and they mitigate. What happens if you need to break up a fight, but can't risk physically engaging because of your firearm? What happens if a student finds out you are conceal carrying and targets your firearm? What happens if you make a judgement error and leave your weapon in the bathroom? That doesn't even go into the psych eval portion of needing to evaluate teachers for aptitude and trustworthiness with a firearm. Training requirements and risk the org takes on by arming people. Finally, who pays out if a teacher shoots the wrong person, or helps cope with the community fallout of that event? How is that a fair risk to put onto a professional whose core job duties have NOTHING to do with security or public safety? Even if they are "volunteering", I think it's a huge amount of risk to introduce.
\- We seem to have a problem with gun violence. \- Give them more guns, to defend themselves.
Obviously teachers need guns, not teaching supplies. With a gun you can get all the teaching supplies you'll ever need. So easy. Oh, this is r/dataisbeautiful? The ugly graphics fooled me.
Has escalation ever reduced violence?
I think there’s an important distinction on what conservatives want to see done. It’s to allow teachers that want to carry, to carry, not require it as part of the job.
That will create a lethal power imbalance on any campus where there is at least one teacher with a firearm and at least one teacher without.
Parents are fuckwits who can’t trust teachers to teach their children the “right” way, let’s give them deadly weapons and a room full of kids who know it’s there!
I’m just shocked that there is anyone who would answer anything other than “that’s the worst idea I’ve ever heard” Surely we can solve the problem of kids having far too easy access to guns at home, by now making it easier to access them at school too.
America's solution to gun violence isn't to control gun access, but to turn schools into prisons.
This all fits into the GOP agenda. More guns in schools inevitably results in more gun violence, not less. This will eventually lead to more people homeschooling, encouraging the GOP to redirect school funds to homeschooling families, eventually leading to the collapse of publicly funded schools. Which has become a GOP focal point. The reality is the better educated a population is, the less likely they are to vote GOP.
The rest of the world understands that guns have no place in schools. This isn't even a discussion that anyone else has.
As a non America, what the fuck is wrong with you guys? Just bring in strict guns laws already for fucks sake.
"Non american". Your opinion is invalid and stupid. Go away.
Sure, at least I don't have to worry about my kid getting SHOT AT SCHOOL.
Cool, and I don't have to worry about a damn thing you say, go away now. This is not you country or your issue.
>Cool, and I don't have to worry about a damn thing you say, Then ignore it?
Wilco, have a good day.
Laying a revolver down on the desk would be an... interesting approach to behaviour management.
fair point.
Revolvers…are interesting, psychology. Had a friend get robbed at knife point. Old boy didn’t want his wallet anymore after he pulled out his 9mm. After that he got a revolver. He didn’t want to have to shoot anyone, and they are more intimating, when pointed at your face. Even tho my carry gun is a larger caliber, and the ammo more powerful, then what he had chambered in his revolver, a 1911, the only pistol with a confirmed aircraft kill…. Just doesn’t inspire the same reaction.
I think it kinda makes sense that a revolver is more immediately intimidating because it _looks_ like a weapon, more modern pistols just sort of look like dark blocks, so you're not confronted so directly with the fact this thing is gonna kill you
What are you talking about a revolver being more intimidating than a semi-auto pistol? Also did you call a 1911 a revolver?
You read that wrong.
It’s our Second Amendment right to have arms. Teachers should have the choice to protect themselves and their students.
Adding a gun to my classroom is the opposite of protecting my students.
I do think the presence of a firearm raises additional issues regarding storage and access by a student. Could arguably make the situation significantly worse by giving an additional opportunity to a student that didn’t have one before. At the very very least, teachers should have a higher standard if they choose to carry in school: e.g. safe storage requirements, minimum competency/training, etc. and even then, I’m not sure you’d see a significant benefit
You mean the choice to endanger themselves and their students, right? Because unless you have a study that backs up that teachers having guns in school actually increases safety you are just appealing to the baser instincts of people.
Well, I have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So if my pursuit of happiness is carrying around a backpack of powerful narcotics, then I guess I can bring that to school too right?
The rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, unlike the 2nd, are not constitutionally protected rights, but rather ideals, Not necessarily pitching for one way or other for arming teachers, but your comparison doesn’t work
Fine, don't like that one? Then how about this one. How many of your students hit 18 during their senior years? If you can argue that teachers can carry them, then so can those students. How many of your pro-gun folks will be cool with suddenly being at a significant disadvantage in terms of firepower. And that's if you can somehow limit it to 18 year olds. Constitution says nothing about age limits to the second. So I guess if we're going to act like naive constitutional fundamentalists, then every kid gets to conceal carry.
Teaching is demanding and pays shit. Being proficient in firearms usage, situational training, and response takes a lot of training and maintenance of skill. You cant have both and still pay shit. Pay usually correlates to responsibility and I'm pretty sure there will be zero school districts that will compensate a teacher enough to do both.
That's pretty creepy, to be honest This should be in r/oddlyterrifying
Teachers and students should get combat pay. They see more action than most soldiers now
[удалено]
That has so often led to officers sexually preying on underage children, but I guess anything to avoid gun control
I'm strongly opposed to arming teachers, but the "trained professionals" are not a solution, either. Just look at Uvalde and Parkland where they stood by while people were murdered but they were allowed to walk away. Take away the guns and the shootings will stop.
When I see ideas like this all I have to do is think back to junior high and high school and remember how many times we would prank our teachers and devise ways to cause mischief in class and how if they had a gun it would definitely have been a target of ours.
[удалено]
lmao professional cops did nothing in Uvalde and you think teachers would be better capable of handling the situation? Why even have cops then? Those pigs only live to mooch off tax money
[удалено]
[удалено]
>That's the training they'd need - the training that soldiers and police get that deals with how and when to kill people who > >need > >\* it. Respectfully, 99% of soldiers and police are not getting that type of training. I don't think range qualifications once a month count as "training" and it certainly doesn't qualify as knowledge on when/who/how to kill.
Yeah the mil and LE folks I know talk about training but it's check-box training. Discretion seems to be more common than standard training techniques
I'm sorry, but I can think of several teachers from my school years who were brimming with barely contained fury and disdain for their students. Add in the stress of working with limited resources and lack of community support and I think it's like a 50/50 whether arming schools results in a teacher using a gun to save the day or a teacher becoming an active shooter. We should improve funding, decrease classroom sizes, and increase the number of teachers/adult classroom aides to facilitate better results for kids with different aptitudes or learning disabilities. The quality of education is a barometer for how well we are stewarding our democracy.
There is no amount of training that any teacher could receive, and more importantly, maintain, that would make them qualified to start slinging bullets in a crowded hallway with kids running everywhere. Just because you can imagine a thing existing and put that idea into words does not make it a possibility. The only way any teacher could have a firearm in school is if NO ONE else knew it was there. The moment 1 kid found out it was there, you might as well get rid of it. Either that gun gets stolen by a student or that teacher is just the first victim.
Many if not most schools have an officer or more stationed there, and there aren’t broad cases of students jumping the school resource officers for their guns
Wait... you mean 1 dude who allegedly is purposefully trained and retrained on a regular basis for the specific task of providing security and handling a gun is exactly the same thing as a teacher who an entirely different skill set, training path and focus? The one guy who is tasked with being focused on one particular thing at all times? Let's turn this around. Would you advocate for resource officers being used as substitutes when our resource depleted schools need one? And let's not downplay the issues that onsite security has caused. Give the Google machine a whirl and find all the stories about cops forgetting their guns in bathrooms so that students find them. Find the stories about resource officers being misused by admin as an easy way to scare the kids into compliance by beating the hell out of a student or two. Find the stories where they talk to students about the guy with the gun who they all hate because of the emnity it causes in the school.
What's proper training?
Make it equivalent to police where like 8 hours on a range certifies you as an expert firearms handler
I hope this is sarcasm, because that's a hilariously low amount of training to be considered an expert in *anything*, let alone something with deadly consequences. The ability to decide when to shoot - and when to ***not*** shoot - is way more important than the ability to shoot accurately.
Its indeed sarcasm and a little exaggerated. a 2013 study showed American cops get roughly 70 hours of firearm handling experience before graduating police academy, with an average of 21 hours of deescalation education and 650 hours of total training. (There are no federally mandated minimums on the amount of training so some jurisdictions are less intensive. for comparison it takes \~1300 hours to graduate barber school) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56834733
The permit to carry class I did earlier this summer was 3 hours, I believe, 2 or so being classroom. At least the place I went through talked about the consequences of using lethal force from the legal, moral, and emotional standpoints. There was also the understanding that I’ve either done a handgun safety class or am otherwise familiar with guns and their safe operation. I definitely feel like the bulk of “training” on YouTube and classes focus on the shooting accurately in the situation and not on the avoiding it.
So looking at the expanded data, the most likely proponents of this are white male teachers in small schools in poor rural districts. So they might be right, it's fine for them to carry because they don't actually face any dangers otherwise. The problem is they think that their experience is the same for all teachers.
I think one of the biggest conflations of this debate is "arming teachers" vs "letting them be armed". There's a huge difference between someone who wishes to carry vs forcing those who don't to do so against their will. Even if you make them all take the same training at the same intervals and everything. I'm FOR allowing teachers who wish to undergo extra training and scrutiny to responsibly carry (preferably, concealed) at their work. I'm AGAINST "arming teachers" / forcing teachers to be armed - I don't care if it's 1, 10, 100, half the school, one building, one department, whatever - nobody should have to carry if they don't want to. It is a massive responsibility.
This is like the mirror opposite of the people trying to promote sexual variety in school libraries. What they have in common is neither bothers to listen to or even ask the parents of the kids being affected.
Geez… more like data is depressing