Quote:
Originally Posted by pj67coll
Except that you are not controlling the public, you are merely allowing teachers to be armed on campus as opposed to the current situation where they are not allowed to be armed which is in fact a greater interference and control than if they were.
|
Until it doesn't work. Until the first armed teacher gets shot anyway through total surprise, then its the next step
Quote:
|
And do you think the supporters of the 2nd see your attitude as any different?
|
I don't. I however see them as so wedded to a single interpretation of the 2nd, that they will refuse to consider a large number of minor adjustments which simply make good sense and do not infringe rights of ownership. Cmbdiesel has posted several of them.
Quote:
|
That's precisely why I suggested several armed staff members per campus. You need a "critical defensive mass". These nutjobs are not going to engage in protracted gun battles with armed opponents. Everytime they are confronted by armed people they kill themselves. So confront them early and get them killed soon. Wether by staff shooting back or by their own hand when they realize the game is up.
|
Most of these mass shootings are quick. These guys get in, do the biggest amount of damage possible, then off themselves. I still think even a teacher based reaction squad would be too slow to force an issue, and always be surprised, meaning some if not most would go down.
Quote:
|
Well, you clearly have no problem removing the personal freedom to live by the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, so frankly I don't see why you'd have any problem with the removal of other freedoms.
|
I haven't proposed eliminating the amendment, only updating it and making certain things either impossible or harder to get. Big difference in what you are attributing to me.
Quote:
|
Actually, they would be the precise opposite of a police state. A state where the citizenry is able to protect itself from harm is not a police state especially if it's not subject to the dictates of said state as to how and where it may defend itself.
|
Pipe dreams. The teachers are state employees, which for this reaction squad you propose would probably end up with police or military training, which limits their utility as a teacher 100fold. Teaching has been described to me by multiple teachers as one of the hardest professions there are, my own sister after teaching for 3 years said that law school was actually easier, so consider what you are assuming would be an extra easy to bear load on already over worked public employees.
The only way it would work is dedicated "teachers" who are really security professionals.
Quote:
|
That is a false statement. The idea that every time a gun is used in self defence it's reported to the police is inaccurate (I said used, not necessarily fired or fired to injurious or lethal effect).
|
All I can do is look at the data and draw conclusions from the facts presented. Easy enough to claim statistical data is flawed because of an unmeasurable, unverifiable, and un stated secret record of thousands of incidents that you are
sure, makes the statistics tip in your favor.
Quote:
That is a valid question. If teachers were to carry guns there would have to be stringent requirements regarding them. Certain types of guns are safer than others and some would be more and others less suitable for the task in a school environment. Ultimately of course the most important factor is the teacher themselves.
I don't know that it is a feasible option, but it seems better in my mind than providing whack jobs with giant soft targets called "gun free zones"
- Peter.
|
I partially agree, I believe gun free zones to also be a pipe dream, though I do not believe the answer is to dump more guns into gun free zones.