Texas Teachers packing heat

[ampersand]

Rant: So, I can't decide which is worse: Jefferson County in Alabama files for bankruptcy or that Detroit has not fired their mayor yet even though he's expected to be arraigned on assault charges. Plus, I believe he was denied bail so he remained in jail.
Rave?/Rant?: Teachers can now carry concealed handguns in a school district in Texas. I know, I know, its to protect them, but seriously, is that school district that bad that teachers are allowed to carry guns? The reports do not say whether the teachers will be trained in the use of the guns. (I don't know if Texas law requires that gun owners be trained in the proper use of guns or not.)

[Deacon]

They have to have a concealed carry permit and jump through a few extra hoops with the district and county, IIRC. I think it's a fantastic idea. Think of every school shooting in recent memory, even Columbine. Especially VT where nearly all the people on campus were adults. If there weren't such a blind, religious-like fervor in favor of only bad guys having guns, they never would've gone down as badly as they did--assuming they would've happened in the first place.

[StruckingFuggle]

"Guns don't kill people, but they sure as hell make it easy."

Why do people shoot up schools? Well, aside from all the deeper reasons, it's because, goddamn, having a gun right now makes it easy to rack up a body count. Sure, take the guns away, and it makes it harder, or give other people guns 'cause in the process it makes the 'bad guy' a target, too, and you can truncate it with postemptive force.

But ... Is it really that easy? Will giving teachers guns, which sure, could prevent something like Columbine or VT as we know it, really stop these killings? Or would they just result in these people channeling their will to kill (because, like you said, there's nothing evil about guns that makes people kill, though their ease of use probably DOES work as an enabler / the significant bit of 'encouragement', at least occasionally....) into other forms? Does the name Charles Whitman ring a bell?

....And that's assuming they want to be 'rational' about it. How many people survive school shootings? How many of them do you bet go in wanting and expecting to, versus doing as much damage as they can while they can ... would the idea of only getting to kill one or two or three people instead of ten or fifteen really stop them? Remember, it's postemptive. You can't shoot them until they start making hostile action first - meaning they'll probably get at least a couple shots off.

It might make such things less tragic, but it really doesn't seem like it's going to solve the problem. Just make the bodycount smaller. Which, sure, is pretty much a good thing. I'm not saying it's not, only that you shouldn't talk like it'd solve the problem.



You know what's funny, too? You know what organizations have a lot of people who oppose such ideas? ... Law enforcement organizations.

[Gowerlypuff]

I don't think it's really that much about who is carrying what gun, when, and where.
I'm saddened by the attitude people have that "bad guys will carry guns, so let's just arm everyone". I know there isn't much in the way of arguing that can be done to convince one side either way to go to the other. I don't support the arming of anyone and everyone, it's just way to risky, and will it make people safer? Yes, in the ideal situation, they'll only be used for "good", but I'm wondering how long it'll be before a really pissed-off teacher threatens their class with a gun to shut them up, or something similar. People should feel safe, I'm not arguing against that, but I would rather no one has guns, rather than everyone having them. Maybe I just don't trust people as much as I should. I know it's not like everyone's getting concealed carry permits, but those that wish to harm others with their weapons are going to be the ones walking down the street with their guns, right?
I guess I just don't understand the situation over there. We've resorted to stabbing each other over here.

[Dr. Tower]

One reason that schools are shot up is probably that the people doing the shooting know that no law abiding citizens on those grounds have guns. If you want a small space with lots of targets that can't adequately defend themselves, a school is a good choice.

Also, Gowerly, the studies that have been done in America show, overwhelmingly, that those who have concealed carry permits and similar qualifications, you know those people who have gone through legal channels, make up a ridiculously small portion of the people who commit crimes, while actually being a quite large portion of the people who carry guns. It isn't the law-abiding, gun-owning citizens that are committing the crimes in general. It is the people who are already criminals who have gotten their hands on a firearm.

[Gowerlypuff]

Well, quite, but you're rather naive if you think that only those with conceal-carry permits carry concealed weapons. It's the criminals that have their hands on guns, too.

[Dr. Tower]

Exactly my point. So as a counter measure, allowing law-abiding citizens concealed carry in more places provides more deterrent. Outlawing the possession of firearms in a place ensures that the only people with firearms will be those who do not follow the law (making it harder to oppose them).

[Gowerlypuff]

I think your logic is somewhat flawed for the point you are trying to make, but I can see why you think that way. It's the same logic I use to say stricter sentencing for illegal posession would be a deterrant to anyone planning on committing gun crime, but I don't want to start that argument again. It would be an exercise in futility.

[Deacon]

I don't understand--nor do I think I ever will--the attitudes that come from places like the UK and Australia (Australia of all places!) and apparently most of the rest of Europe where defending yourself is abhorrent, as though the person attacking you has any right whatsoever to expect that he will be alive, free, and uninjured afterward. I will never understand the attitude of people who insist that if law abiding citizens simply give up their weapons, then criminals will cease to use them on each other and on the now defenseless law abiding citizens.

To me, the right to defend yourself and your loved ones is paramount. If someone invades my home, then their life and well-being is forfeit, as they have created a threat to me (and presumably my family were I married and such). I do not believe it is my responsibility to attempt to reason with the individual or group, even just to assume he's reasonable at all in the first place. I do not believe it is my responsibility to rummage around and see if I can find some item that will constitute what some mind-fucking judge believes to be "equal level of force" or whatever other ridiculous farce of law may exist that limits my ability to fight back. Nor is it my responsibility to talk it out and see if he "just" wants to rob me of precious items. Instead, it is the responsibility of the person invading my home to resist the urge to do so, as doing so threatens me and places himself directly in harm's way.

This is why the Castle Doctrine laws are so important to me. The name comes from the old saying that a man's home is his castle. Basically, if someone enters your home unbidden, that's it. If you blow his head clean off with an elephant gun or some other such cartoony scenario, you can't be charged with using "excessive force" because there is no such thing. "lolz my luv 4 criminls sez nukez r exessv rite"

I know there isn't much in the way of arguing that can be done to convince one side either way to go to the other.

This still baffles me. I still cannot fathom how anyone can't see why it's important to grant law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves to the death. Every "gun free zone" simply becomes a "multitudinous defenseless targets zone" to anyone wishing to do harm. For some reason it seems like ivory tower academics think it plebeian and primitive to defend oneself, as though that were some obsolete and outmoded idea, as though a police state where there's always an officer on every corner (and even then will only be able to react to some of the situations in time) is a MUCH better idea. I guess if one doesn't feel the imperative of the preservation of self and loved ones, then it's as impossible to explain as explaining love to an ant.

I'm saddened by the attitude people have that "bad guys will carry guns, so let's just arm everyone". I don't support the arming of anyone and everyone

Neither do I. Nor has it even been suggested. I support arming otherwise law abiding citizens, training them in the proper and effective use of the weapon and of the regulations regarding their use. And I support allowing and encouraging them to keep the weapon in their possession at all times.

I'm wondering how long it'll be before a really pissed-off teacher threatens their class with a gun to shut them up, or something similar.

I'm sure every parent of every child who's ever been the victim of a school shooting would roll their eyes at you so hard they'd pop out, fly across the room, and punch you in the face, knocking you out. What a stupid fucking objection. Yes, it's always possible that such an event might occur, but such things can be quickly and easily corrected, and it's fact that school shootings have occurred and could've been prevented had a teacher and/or adult student been armed. What kind of fucked up logic is that? By that logic nobody would ever be allowed to have anything, nobody would be allowed to drive anywhere, no planes would be allowed to fly in a post-9/11 world, because you never know, some otherwise responsible, reasonable, trained professor will start waving a gun around in class because it's noisy. No, you're right. You're totally right. We should trap our kids like rats and allow them to be slaughtered instead. Much better idea.

People should feel safe, I'm not arguing against that

WTF do feelings have to do with it? Feelings result either from reality or from a sham. People should BE safe. If they feel safe, it should be because they are safe. And when that safety is threatened, they should be able, willing, trained, and equipped to handle the situation, with the well-being of the one instigating the threat being the lowest item on the priority list.

I would rather no one has guns, rather than everyone having them.

The former is impossible, so the latter is necessary and right. Though once again you're throwing out hyperbole. And where do you stop? "I would rather no one has knives"? So that Glasgow can ban anything with a sharp edge over the length of 2 inches? Heh, "I would rather no one has guns..." Well I would rather the earth be populated with exciting hot chicks whose sole desire is to please me in any way I can imagine. That statement's about as useful.

I know it's not like everyone's getting concealed carry permits, but those that wish to harm others with their weapons are going to be the ones walking down the street with their guns, right?

I don't understand what you're asking. Yes, those who wish to harm others are going to be armed. Those who wish to defend themselves and others may well be armed as well. None of the school shootings that I can think of would've gone the same way if the staff and adult students were allowed (and encouraged) to arm themselves in defense.

But ... Is it really that easy? Will giving teachers guns, which sure, could prevent something like Columbine or VT as we know it, really stop these killings?

Yes.

I don't know whether to take your post seriously or not, Fuggle. You start wandering into utterly irrelevant topics like "why" people shoot up schools, which is a different question entirely, and then question whether only getting to kill a couple of people instead of dozens would cause them to ditch the whole thing. Fuggle, I'm pretty much assuming that anyone who starts shooting up a school is irrational. My aim is to limit the damage caused by nutjobs. In my book, saving the lives of an untold number of people is a good thing. Perhaps we simply differ on this point.

You know what organizations have a lot of people who oppose such ideas? ... Law enforcement organizations.

Source. Please. Every officer with which I personally have spoken has liked the idea of law abiding citizens being training and armed to defend themselves, and every officer whose voice I've heard in the local or state media (newspaper, radio, TV) has been supportive of the idea. Obviously not EVERY member of a group is going to think the same way, but LEOs generally have a problem with bad guys and as such are pleased at the idea of good guys defending themselves, because LEOs will never be there at the time the threat occurs.

Maybe self-sufficiency or the lack thereof really is a deeply ingrained evolutionary trait that's either strengthened or picked away at by one's culture. I always assumed it was universal.

Besides, why is this conversation going on in a Rants/Raves thread instead of its own?

[Hirschof]

I think the homicide rate in the U.S. is around 5 homicides per 100,000 persons while Germany's is around 1 per 100,000.

Aside from the mindset, they way this country is physically and economically setup makes it very difficult to create an all out ban on firearms and become anything similar to Germany. Its impossible.

In this country people who want to get guns are going to get them. I can start on getting an AK-47 off the internet right now. All I have to do is order the individual pieces and over time I'm ready to march into the nearest Burger King. Hell, there is a small outside market on the south side of town where small vendors sell plenty of illegal weapons brought in through Mexico. I've seen the damn things.

5 per 100,000? I'll take my chances and keep my gun. Plus I'm not in favor of any controlling government body having all of the legal weapons. The right to bear arms is ingrained in our psyche and has been fundamental in our country's history. So what, now we don't need the right anymore? Just let the government take it away? No sir.

I'm not sure how I feel about teachers carrying firearms. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of the home economics teacher packing more than just flour and a mixing spoon.

[Dr. Tower]

Name one event in your countries history in the last 200 years where it was fundamental.
Yes, I´m saying you don´t need the right anymore. You can grow out of it, other countries have.

The war of 1812.

Also, a well armed populace makes it incredibly unlikely that a foreign invading force will be able to conquer the US. (see, War of 1812).

[Gowerlypuff]

You think a foreign invading force into the US will only carry guns? Also, we don't allow guns over here in the UK and I don't we've been invaded yet.

tl;dr for Deacon: "Why shouldn't we defend ourselves?" Fine. As I said, I can see why you'd say that, but surely rather than just escalating the problem ("you've got a gun, so I'll get a gun, so we'll arm the teachers, so the nastymen will get automatic weapons ... "), why not actually try to educate the people, or find some method of stricter control or something. I simply remain unconvinced that in this day and age arming the populace is a good idea. The whole organised militia thing is old now. It was 200 years ago since the war of 1812 and you're using that as your defense? I refer you to Lisa Simpson's bear warding rock. I would put more forward that everyone owning guns is causing more fatalities than it is preventing them at the moment, which is why I don't like it. Fix that and then arm yourself all you like.

[Hirschof]

So, why isn´t it the other way around then if we cannot defend ourselves?

Why ask a question so fast without reading the rest? Just stating a number here. Don't turn into CS22.

Explain that one to me. I thought we had a free market system too. Some banned goods, same as you. Why is having a bigger area of land part of the problem? So you need to travel greater distances, great, but you know, you don´t have to arm yourself to fend of raiding parties of indians while travelling, now do you? Or roving bands of mexican bandits.

sooo? I can do that too. Granted, not that easily as you could, but if you want to get your hands on a weapon, you can. It is estimated that we have 20 million illegal weapons in germany. And that is a government estimate, so there will be more. The borders are not that far, no matter where you live here and other countries are not that hard with enforcing weapon sales.

Your ignorance of this country speaks on many levels here and the sarcasm isn't needed. So lets just cut that.

We are a much different and more spread out culture than Germany. This country doesn't have just one or a few shared mindsets but numerous ones. Different cultures, history, cities, population dispersion/density etc. Population geography is a huge study in gun control. "Oh, we have different cultures too, blah blah, blah." Yeah, great but not what we have. Different. What works here doesn't work in other countries and vice versa. Plus the money made from the guns/ammunition market is pretty thick in quite a few portions of the country and lobbyists aren't going to let that die. Money, money, money.

And please don't try to explain European or German cultures/Geography to me. I lived in Mackenbach for five years and studied Texas and European population geography for a couple years in college. So I have a decent understanding of it (not claiming to be an expert in any form). That is how I know what works there won't work here. Again, we are just too different. I think there a few things this country can learn from Europe but this isn't one of them. I'm not saying what we do is better than what Germany does. I'm saying its the best option for us at the moment.

By the way, post your source on the 20 million. Ich will es lesen. (Somehow I think that is off. I've been extremely lazy with my German and went from a mediocre grip on it down to regurgitating a couple of "tourist" lines. Use it or lose it.)

Name one event in your countries history in the last 200 years where it was fundamental.

You seem to think our history is made of only major events, it isn't. I'm pretty sure a ton of families in the 1800s and 1900s were God damn glad to own a gun. Especially out where there wasn't much law enforcement and what little existed was probably corrupt to some level. THAT is American history. Not just wars and political battles.

You seem to think we believe guns are needed everywhere at all times. Not at all. Granted, things have changed and so has the necessity of weapons. They are a necessity in many places and pointless in others. A man living in Oakland, CA is going to feel much different about owning a gun than a man in Pulaski, WI. The country has made the steps in the past to improve gun control but when you have the right to something like that (bear arms) then there is implied knowledge that people will abuse it. That is the risk we take. Just like the right to succeed without unfair restrictions also brings along the right to fail. It can't be perfect and in this country you can't just strip our rights.

Yes, I´m saying you don´t need the right anymore. You can grow out of it, other countries have.

So by your view it isn't a right, it is a privilege. A right isn't a right if it can be taken away. I want the rights that my ancestors and many others died to gain and protect. I want to own a gun. I want to be able to put a bullet in the guy that might try to hurt my children and rape my wife. I want to have the option to defend my family from someone who has no morals, no scruples, and no cares. I want my 4'11" tall wife to be able to go to work with the ability to defend herself from a man three times her weight. I want the right.

I'd also like the right to protect myself from my own government should it decide to devolve into something worse.

[ampersand]

I would be interested in looking at the comparison of violent crimes that involve a gun versus those violent crimes that uses something other than a gun: knives, fists, explosives, automobiles (running over someone), and so on. I would bet that while overall levels of violent crime would be lower in, say, Germany, versus the United States, you'd find that Germany might have a higher rate of violent crimes involving knives (as well as fists, explosives, and so on) versus the United States. I find that banning weapons doesn't necessarily mean that only the bad guys will have the guns and the general public will not, but simply that the means needed for committing violent crimes will simply transfer towards something else, assuming they could not get the weapons illegally, as Hirschoff has indicated. (And has ninjaed me again.)

Really, I think the difference is in the culture and historical upbringing. The United States has had a history of violent conflicts. Certainly, there has been some from British and Spanish foes, but really it was from expansion and our believes in Manifest Destiny (that we were Destined to take over the lands that were settled by the Native American Indians) and Rugged Individualism (the belief, that many still have today, that we only need ourselves to become successful without the need for governmental intervention). You do not have this in most of the European countries partly because settlement took place 2,000 + years ago and more immediately, because of the aftermath of 2nd World War, the mechanisms of most of the European governments made diplomacy a more effective tool than military might so that future wars wouldn't occur except in the far eastern part of Europe (basically wherever Russia borders a country), and occasionally along the Spanish coast and within Northern Ireland. Thus in that climate, the need for citizens of the European continent to have their own weapons for self-defense wasn't there.

However, it is also important to recognize that culture doesn't happen or change in a vacuum. As the European native population decreases and is being replaced by immigrants, you will eventually have a change in perspectives. As the American population shifts from one which the races that are considered the majority and minority flip-flops, you'll have changes in cultural perspectives, which will undoubtedly change the views of the two groups on everything. I don't believe there will be wholesale changes, but there will be some changes in perspective.

[adciv]

It was 200 years ago since the war of 1812 and you're using that as your defense?

Lucksi asked for something in the past 200 years. Tower gave him something in the past 200 years. Don't complain.

*edit*
To you who think they should be banned/severely restricted. Why?