Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Liberty Mutual wants to know if teachers should carry guns

  1. #1
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, ,
    Posts
    156

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    This is absolutely classic:
    Teachers are responsible for educating their students; not determining who does and does not pose a threat. As a student, the idea that there may be guns in my school makes me feel unsafe, but the idea that the school board would allow teachers, average citizens with minimal training, to carry them is even more frightening. The presence of guns does not deter violence, it encourages it.


    When I'm done banging my head on the table I'll comment on it.




    EDIT: Ok, I'm done with the table now and went back to reading. I think this guy hit the nail on the head:
    Based on what I have read, the incidents of violence in schools where guns are involved have been the result of a set of combined problems: (a) literal “dungeons and dragons” fantasy thinking probably prompted by virtual reality overexposure, (b) serious lack of reality based thinking, probably enhanced by the use of drugs, © access, almost unrestricted access, to weapons of all kinds, and, probably worst of all (d) consistent bullying by members of the school community. While these problems might not exist in every case, I think they are to be considered.

    I would rather arm teachers with a collaborative team based approach to student observation and behavior management such that an ongoing relationship with counseling staff was a primary rule. This would mean breaking down the gate keeping and the almost impenetrable boundaries that now exist around the walls of most classrooms.

    This is not to blame teachers in any way for the problem of life threatening violence in the classroom. Rather it is to point out what the real job of teaching, especially in the diverse public school systems has become. Teaching in that environment today has entered the realm of program management with each student a separate and distinct project within that overall program. Successful outcomes, the success of each student, requires information.

    In that environment, the potentially destructive student is much more apt to be profiled and resolved before a disaster occurs.

    I have a long list of do’s and don’ts for classroom conduct. The top of that list is any words or actions which tend to belittle any other person, or which tend to rob any other student of their education time. Patterns of behavior become very apparent very quickly, even isolation, and those patterns need to be acted upon immediately and effectively through a team effort involving solid authority coupled with nurturing and support.

    Armed intervention is an absolute last resort that will impact the lives of everyone involved. While I agree that there has to be a consciousness that, even with our best effort, it may be necessary in an extreme case. I firmly believe that arming teachers in the classroom means that, given the well known fight or flight reaction that we know precludes rational thought, we will have lost the game of education … period.


  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Why do you agree that permitting teachers to be armed at school means we have "lost the game of education"?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Taking Marshaul's questionone step further -

    why do folks think this is an either-or proposition?

    I see arming teachers as the next logical step in the combination of steps either in place or being proposed. I'm opposed to the idea of making teachers diagnosticians for the mental health trade, and have reservations about the efficacy of the MHproduct that is being sold in the schools. Further, once the student is labled they come under the special ed rules which make it that much harder to deal with their behavior as behavior.

    As a suggestion, I'd propose that armed teachers be required to take and pass the same course that their state requires for the firearms portion of armed security guard certification/licensing. Teachers are required to take x number of hours of training per year anyhow, and I can see substituting this for a few of those hours currently devoted to less-productive endeavors.

    If one school district in Texas can do it, other systems can also do it. Besides, not every teacher needs to be armed.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Why do you agree that permitting teachers to be armed at school means we have "lost the game of education"?
    I was looking beyond what he said on the surface to his underlying reasoning. The fact that it's even got this far is ridiculous. So many kids have slipped through the cracks, unnecessarily, that the "game of education" has already been lost. He never disagreed with arming teachers and even recognized that the best efforts of everyone will never be 100% effective, but I have to agree with his argument of the purpose of education and how we have failed miserably. Everyone else focused on, "Hellz yea! Give them those guns!!" or "OMG!!!!11!! gunz sooo scaryy!!" But he actually managed to take a step back and analyze why we're there in the first place.

    They should be allowed to carry, but it also shouldn't even be an issue. If they can be trusted to carry everywhere else, why can't they be trusted to carry in their classrooms? School shootings have given kids an irrational fear of guns and we would have had a whole lot less shootings if parents and teachers had just given a **** about their jobs.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    As a suggestion, I'd propose that armed teachers be required to take and pass the same course that their state requires for the firearms portion of armed security guard certification/licensing. Teachers are required to take x number of hours of training per year anyhow, and I can see substituting this for a few of those hours currently devoted to less-productive endeavors.

    Now to spin off that....

    If you require teachers to take special training to carry firearms, that they carry everywhere else without mandated training, into a school; then you're acknowleding that a school is a special place that needs extra-special gun rules. I don't know if you're for campus carry or not, but making that acknowledgment would solidify the impossibility of us students being able to carry at school.

    I'm not against teacher firearms training... but then again I'm FOR everyone having mandated training. In my world everyone would need to pass the same training, so schools wouldn't get the designation of some "special" place that only "qualified" people can carry to. Everyone would be qualified and everyone would be equal, everywhere.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    The funny thing about people saying that the average person is not responsible enough to carry inside a school building is the fact that the mall frequently has more kids in it than the average school building. Because of the idea that schools are somehow different, they are more attractive targets to wackos that want to destroy innocence. Ironic that the most attractive targets to these freaks are the places that people want most to be disarmed.:?



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    If the presence of guns enourages violence, does the absence of them encourage peace? I doubt the Columbine survivors would make that connection. Chamberlain did not subdue Hitler with a signed piece of paper - several million well-armed men had to force the issue.

    -ljp

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I guess if it is an insurance company asking about it, the thing to do is just register and declare:

    "If I were on a jury in a civil matter, I would be inclined to givewide lattitude to a member of the school staff who used a firearm to defend the children, themselves, or other staff."

    "Also,I would support state statutes that extended Castle Doctrine to schools and staff under loco parentis. Wherever my child is, there is the heart of my home." (You heard it here first, folks. Another brilliant Citizen idea. ).
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    skidmark wrote:
    As a suggestion, I'd propose that armed teachers be required to take and pass the same course that their state requires for the firearms portion of armed security guard certification/licensing. Teachers are required to take x number of hours of training per year anyhow, and I can see substituting this for a few of those hours currently devoted to less-productive endeavors.

    Now to spin off that....

    If you require teachers to take special training to carry, firearms that they carry everywhere else without mandated training, into a school; then you're acknowleding that a school is a special place that needs extra-special gun rules. I don't know if you're for campus carry or not, but making that acknowledgment would solidify the impossibility of us students being able to carry at school.

    I'm not against teacher firearms training... but then again I'm FOR everyone having mandated training. In my world everyone would need to pass the same training, so schools wouldn't get the designation of some "special" place that only "qualified" people can carry to. Everyone would be qualified and everyone would be equal, everywhere.
    AWD. Zowie, I'm mostly agreeing with you on the above and preceding posts. The idea of everyone being trained is good and a "same " training standard is good too. The "same" training should start in boot camp (doI hear universal service?)where a lot of people get started. Do we combat veterans get extra points?

    I too believe that teachers and school officials should be allowed to carry on campus. Further, I believe that my permit ought to provide the same right to me. I am very concerned about school shootings.A formerWestfield Hi (where my daughter attends)student shot up a local police station killing two officers a few years back. In addition, another former student (dork named Cho) killed 32 at Va Tech. Both bozos went to Westfield while my son attended. I'm constantly concerned about my daughter. Their bozo corks could've popped at Westfield Hi. GB ps okay, Couric as "attack dog" was a bit much, but she does throw softballs to her Dem buds.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •