Texas Teachers packing heat

[Deacon]

I understand that you and Lucksi have a different world view. However, the raw data does not back up that world view.

Yes. Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say but couldn't figure out the proper way to say it, so I abstained.

[Hirschof]

I didn´t bring up the minutemen, that was Hirshof. But now he has edited his post.

Yes, I admitted to making a mistake and edited it. Yet he didn't mention the example from the 1800/1900s.

"Different world view." Thank you.

When it comes down to it, many Americans are not comfortable with giving up their rights to protect themselves and possibly (and probably eventually) from tyranny (corrupt government).

I also noticed he didn't say anything about this.

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.

[Gowerlypuff]

It is a depressing time, if that article is correct (and you should read it, whoever wrote it seems incredibly in favour of everyone having M4A1s), where you may be safer carrying around a handgun.

The truth of it is, I simply don't trust anyone who feels it's necessary to walk around carrying a gun. It smacks of paranoia and a deep rooted mistrust in their society. Maybe I'm naive, but I simply cannot believe that giving everyone the ability to end the life of someone else from a distance makes communities safer. I can understand the extremely rare cases where, should someone decide to threaten someone else, you can stop them, but the only reason they can do that is that THEY have a gun in the first place.

That article, as I said, does not highlight countries where murder rates are low and guns are banned. It highlights the highest offending countries, where socio-economic situations have worsened in recent times and crime is rampant, so of course murders and suicides are going to be higher, with or without guns. There are too many dependent variables polluting the data for it to be really taken seriously. Countries like the UK have seen violent crime decrease since the banning of guns. This may be due to other factors, but we really haven't gotten ourselves in shape economically in that time.

I would like to see an article that doesn't take quite so tainted samples, if one exists. I'm not sure Lawyers should be working too closely with statistics

The whole corrupt government thing is such a sham, too. Even now, when your government is moved by the church (which, by the way, your constitution forbids, it's for the separation, yet so many things Bush has implemented are based around his religion), nobody has decided it's corrupt. Nobody ever will, and even then, nobody's going to take up arms against them. It's a pathetic reason which will never be used, because the populace, as a whole, are a bunch of pussies. Individuals, sure, are well thinking, right-minded people, who may have the courage to rise up, but you'll never do it together.

Anyway, I've gone against what I said. There's no point in me discussing this. You disagree with me, fine. I disagree with you, too, and with the exception of that article, which is terribly flawed (even the grammar sucks in places), I can't see how this is a good thing for you.

As I said, though. the US has a huge amount of cultural and economic diversity and in those situations things can get strained. There's a lot of religous beliefs, and a huge class based divide. When you have a country that prides itself on freedom and has such a massively diverse populace, people are always going to want to kill each other. As the Sniper said in TF2, "So long as there are two people left in the world, someone is going to want someone else dead"

[Hirschof]

Individuals, sure, are well thinking, right-minded people, who may have the courage to rise up, but you'll never do it together.

I wonder how many times through human history something like that has been said.

Yeah, I didn´t reply to that and to some other thing you posted about the amendments cause it would have been highly sarcastic and offensive. So I deleted it.

Or another attack/question about my rights? I guess it doesn't matter, I've said what I wanted to say.

[adciv]

So that´s why I asked what your article has to do with it? It says nothing that we have civilians (better yet, armed ones) patrolling our borders.

I hadn't heard that the minutemen were armed. Do you have information I don't? And as I said, you were the one who brought them and immigration up.

The truth of it is, I simply don't trust anyone who feels it's necessary to walk around carrying a gun.

How about those who keep one in their home?

I can understand the extremely rare cases where, should someone decide to threaten someone else, you can stop them, but the only reason they can do that is that THEY have a gun in the first place.

Or if THEY have a knife, club, or simply great hulking muscles. A gun is not the only thing an unarmed person may be threatened with.

Countries like the UK have seen violent crime decrease since the banning of guns. This may be due to other factors, but we really haven't gotten ourselves in shape economically in that time.

And yet it is still five times higher than in the US. US violent crime rate 469.2/100,000 PDF, Page 12, UK Violent Crime Rate 2300/100,000 Oh yes, here's a town that saw a decrease by making guns mandatory.link

I would like to see an article that doesn't take quite so tainted samples, if one exists. I'm not sure Lawyers should be working too closely with statistics

You could try finding ones that support your own case.

The whole corrupt government thing is such a sham, too. Even now, when your government is moved by the church

Which church? Unlike the UK, we do not have a single national church.

As I said, though. the US has a huge amount of cultural and economic diversity and in those situations things can get strained. There's a lot of religous beliefs, and a huge class based divide. When you have a country that prides itself on freedom and has such a massively diverse populace, people are always going to want to kill each other.

So, guns don't necessarily translate to more murders? There could be other things? Things that make guns an independent factor?

[Deacon]

It is a depressing time ... where you may be safer carrying around a handgun.

You're always safer being armed. How could you not be? Do you think this was somehow not the case in, say, the 50's? Or the 30's? Or the 1800's? Or the 1700's? Or the middle ages? Or during the time of the Roman empire's conquest? Or when we were hooting and throwing feces at each other (and no, I don't mean during the Democratic National Convention)?

The truth of it is, I simply don't trust anyone who feels it's necessary to walk around carrying a gun. It smacks of paranoia and a deep rooted mistrust in their society. Maybe I'm naive

I'd certainly say you are, yes. It's never necessary until it becomes necessary. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, as the saying goes. It's insurance, except that it's also preventative. The areas with the most concealed carry permits and the highest percentage of armed households are somehow also the areas with the least violent crimes, and the opposite is true as well (fewest legal arms, highest crime -- see DC for example, where the whole 2nd Amendment challenge in the US Supreme Court came from recently). Why is that, then, if not due to potential criminals deciding it's not worth risking their lives over? Is there something we're missing? And yes, a healthy mistrust of the criminal elements of society is a good thing; no, it's not paranoia. Regardless, the really awesome thing is that we're talking about the right to protect yourself, not even the requirement to do so. If you have some sort of personal philosophy that it's better to be unable to protect yourself and your family (a view that may change once you have a family of your own), then by all means refuse to provide yourself the means to do so. But don't strip me of my right to do otherwise.

I simply cannot believe that giving everyone the ability to end the life of someone else from a distance makes communities safer.

This is where it helps to educate yourself so that you can see how you're wrong and adjust accordingly.

I can understand the extremely rare cases where, should someone decide to threaten someone else, you can stop them, but the only reason they can do that is that THEY have a gun in the first place.

This is an odd assertion, unless you're assuming things and/or taking things for granted that you haven't spelled out here. I can be threatened with many things, not just a gun, but let's supposed that a criminal's got a gun and is using it to rob me or to arm himself before invading my home. Is it your assumption that the criminal in question has attained the gun through perfectly legal means? Or that my arming myself has provided him with that gun? Do you believe that if we prevent any law-abiding citizen from obtaining, keeping, or bearing arms, then criminals will give them up, too? It's hard to tell what you're arguing, here, but nothing I can come up with to fill in your blanks is helping your argument at all.

I'm not sure Lawyers should be working too closely with statistics

What do you mean? Aren't you arguing for laws to be put in place based on statistics we have yet to see, and aren't your arguments based purely on assertions regarding those statistics? How about you provide a single study that shows that law abiding citizens arming themselves in self defense increases violent crime? Hell, bring it from the most biased, crazy-eyed gun control nuts you can find.

The whole corrupt government thing is such a sham, too. Even now, when your government is moved by the church (which, by the way, your constitution forbids, it's for the separation, yet so many things Bush has implemented are based around his religion), nobody has decided it's corrupt. Nobody ever will, and even then, nobody's going to take up arms against them. It's a pathetic reason which will never be used, because the populace, as a whole, are a bunch of pussies. Individuals, sure, are well thinking, right-minded people, who may have the courage to rise up, but you'll never do it together.

My god. It's like you've completely forgotten your history.

There are a number of myths surrounding Hitler's disarming of the populace and supposed quotes and such, but I suggest checking out http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html for most of the real story. As the writer of that article does, I also suggest checking out some interesting reading, such as Leni Yahli's The Holocaust, which has a chapter discussing armed resistance by Jews, including rebellions with just a few firearms and a lot of courage. Also see Israel Guttman's book Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which discusses the difficulty the Jews faced in obtaining weapons. One of the sources debunking the myth of Hitler having imposed new gun control on an already famously over-regulated German populace does posit that "if the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American, the Nazis would have lost much of their military capacity attempting to implement the Holocaust." No, Godwin need not be referenced, here.

There's no point in me discussing this.

There isn't if you refuse to think about and discuss this rationally, no. Regardless, you've drifted away from the topic of teachers who have jumped through all the red-tape hoops being armed in order to protect themselves and their charges from those who would do them harm.

As I said, though. the US has a huge amount of cultural and economic diversity and in those situations things can get strained. There's a lot of religous beliefs, and a huge class based divide. When you have a country that prides itself on freedom and has such a massively diverse populace, people are always going to want to kill each other. As the Sniper said in TF2, "So long as there are two people left in the world, someone is going to want someone else dead"

As revealing of prejudice as your initial statements are, the rest of this paragraph reads like the conclusion to an argument for the right of the people to arm themselves in defense.

[Gowerlypuff]

Well, either I'm blind, or it's not immediately obvious what that school is. I assume it's a highschool. I understand it's far away from the sheriff's office, meaning that it's not easy to protect that way, and people feel that as it's accessible by heavily used highway this could make it a target.

I'm not 100% sure these school shootings are random, though, are they? I know they can be, but has anyone done any research into why they happen? Is it not more likely to be a crazed pupil or something?

This can be strawmanned either way, to "protecting the kids from crazy people, because school shootings happen all the time" to "how long is it before a pissed off teacher sprays their class?" and "how long before a pissed off student gets the gun and opens fire?". Are the teacher's allowed the guns in the classrooms?

The article seems rather vague and badly worded ("and must ammunition to minimise ricocheting"?).

I hope mostly for everyone's sake that having a crazed nutjob turn up and try to gun down the school is a more common occurrance than one of the kids getting a teacher's gun and taking a class out or one of the teacher's losing it.

[Deacon]

I'm not 100% sure these school shootings are random, though, are they? I know they can be, but has anyone done any research into why they happen? Is it not more likely to be a crazed pupil or something?

I must be missing something. What does that have to do with stopping one once it's in progress?

This can be strawmanned either way, to "protecting the kids from crazy people, because school shootings happen all the time" to "how long is it before a pissed off teacher sprays their class?" and "how long before a pissed off student gets the gun and opens fire?".

What are you talking about? Who suggested that school shootings happen "all the time"? You're the one (or was it Lucksi?) who started saying that the reason it's a bad idea is that a teacher or professor could wave it around in class demanding that students be quiet or some other silly thing. Here's the trick about that last one: anyone opens fire in school, staff or otherwise, and they're likely to be shot in return. This makes the notion of opening fire somewhat...counterintuitive. Same thing for your chest-clutching nervousness about the last bit of your post regarding "kids getting a teacher's gun" and such.

[adciv]

I'm not 100% sure these school shootings are random, though, are they? I know they can be, but has anyone done any research into why they happen? Is it not more likely to be a crazed pupil or something?

I'm pretty sure the 'crazed pupil' is pretty random. Also, it hasn't always been a student and hasn't always been from someone we might call 'crazy'. Here's the world wide wiki list

The article seems rather vague and badly worded ("and must ammunition to minimise ricocheting"?).

It's probably "must use". Various things can be done to ammunition to reduce ricochet and over penetration.

[Gowerlypuff]

Most school shootings have ended with the killer turning the gun on themselves. I think if it gets to the point where they want to open fire on the school, they're not going to care whether they get shot in the end or not. It seems they want to do as much damage as possible and then die. Arming the teachers, in this case, can be seen to be helping that. Sure, it may mean they shoot fewer pupils, but should one of the teachers' guns be used, that's not going to look great. Are you finding that so hard to understand?

[Deacon]

I think if it gets to the point where they want to open fire on the school, they're not going to care whether they get shot in the end or not.

I don't care if they get shot.

It seems they want to do as much damage as possible and then die.

Thus the reason for providing the means to put a swift end to it.

Arming the teachers, in this case, can be seen to be helping that.

Yes, putting a swift end to it is the exact reason to arm the teachers. If the professors (and even adult students who've passed the same legal requirements, mind you) aren't armed, there's nobody to stop the shooter. If they are armed, then they can act. Are you finding that so hard to understand?

Sure, it may mean they shoot fewer pupils, but should one of the teachers' guns be used, that's not going to look great. Are you finding that so hard to understand?

I guess what I'm finding hard to understand is that you're concerned about...appearances? About worst-case scenarios in what are already worst-case scenarios, except that you won't allow the best-case of the worst-case scenarios to be possible because...some reason that's yet to come to the surface?

[Gowerlypuff]

I mean, we're arming teachers against the risk of this happening, right? The idea is to act as a deterrant to those that want to come shoot up the school. I'm not sure this will happen. Yes, they're trying to make the best of a bad possibility. They're getting trained, which is great, and I hope there's some vetting going on there, too.

Has the school year started over there, yet? I can never remember what dates you guys have for these things. Has anyone done some numbers on which teachers, if any, have taken the district up on this offer?

[Dr. Tower]

When the school year starts varies from school district to school district (of which there are very, very many), but usually school doesn't start until late August to early September, so in most places it isn't in session yet.

As to knowing which teachers have taken them up on this offer, I wouldn't be surprised if they released the number of teachers who took them up, but I don't think that they should release the names of those who did. The reason is that the teachers who end up on that list either become targets of the shooters, or people whom the shooters avoid. The purpose of concealed carry is that people don't know if you are armed or not, releasing a list of everybody who might be armed is cross-purposes to that.

[Hirschof]

The reason is that the teachers who end up on that list either become targets of the shooters, or people whom the shooters avoid.

That and protesters.

[Gowerlypuff]

Totally wasn't expecting names, but it would be interesting to see how many of the 50 teachers took up the offer of concealed carry.