I'm not sure how this is what you took my from statement. I can control whether or not a gun is in my classroom. I cannot control if another teacher was a stripper or if a fellow teacher is a homosexual. I can, however, control whether or not a gun is in my classroom.So really, everything affects your relationship with every child. I'm not seeing anything unique about guns here. Do you want to just ban every negative thing a child could ever learn about the teacher?
I'm genuinely confused as to how that was what you took from my statement.
And I'm going to level with you...guns are responsible for the death of 30,000 Americans every year. I have students who have been shot at and students who have lost parents to them. Perhaps a gun by itself is safe, but the moment a gun comes into a person's possession, there will always be a risk.I'm gona brake a gun-culture rule here and level with you on handling: Guns are safe. We're talking about a gun in a holster. It's not gona fire. Relax. It's not going to fire. Even if bumped, even if the teacher is playing with the kids...it's a safe thing.
Of course not.Safer than a pocket knife, even, and I bet your school lets teachers have a pocket knife.
I'm not freaking out about anything, I'm telling you that you clearly do not understand what it means to be a teacher.You're freaking out over nothing.
Did I say anything like that? Of course not. My statement was in response to your claim I did not have any credibility, not in support of your supposition that I believed you didn't have any credibility.Oh so if someone has never served in the military then they should stfu about Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
Could you please, at the very least, be honest about what you're saying?
Then you cannot be an intelligent person. Please explain how it is possible for there to be people shot by guns when no guns exist. I would love to hear your answer.I do dispute it, actually
I didn't say you could and even acknowledged you couldn't. But what I said was that if, theoretically, you could remove every gun from the world, no one would ever be shot. This is an indisputable statement. At which point, those who are against guns are entirely correct by default.You cannot remove every gun from existence and prevent anymore from being created.
False. We're not pursuing something which is impossible. We're pursuing something which has evidence of working. No one who supports any level of gun ban believes all guns will be removed. No one believes gun homicide will drop to zero. For you to believe that's what people like me are saying is for you to not understand our argument. Our argument is that the more guns are removed from society, the fewer people will be killed by them. We'll never be able to remove gun crime completely, I agree with you that is an impossible proposition. But since it's not what anyone is arguing, there's no reason for you to argue against it.And that's why you're wrong be default: you're pursuing something which is impossible.
You keep changing the context of our discussion. Is this because you have trouble remembering what we're discussing or because you're not being honest?You do not choose to be shot at. When you are shot at, you have the right to defend yourself.
Your choice to wear a gun is just that; it's your choice. You make the choice to wear a gun and if someone shoots at you, you still make the choice to pull your gun and shoot back. You can choose to wear a gun or not wear a gun. I could not choose my skin color. My friend John could not change his skin color. There is no choice.
You equating gun rights to racism is ridiculously false. They are not even close to the same thing.
Again, I've already said I'm completely okay with police officers on campus. How many times do I have to say it before you'll be honest enough to acknowledge it?You had your gun-free zone in Sandy Hook.
Oh really? So when the law allows Adam Lanza's mother to purchase the weapons which killed those chlidren, you don't support those laws?You're supporting the laws which killed 20 children in Sandy Hook.
You're cherry picking the laws you're wishing to blame. Again, your position is dishonest.
Correct me if I'm wrong, it wasn't the people who weren't carrying guns which killed the children, but rather the person with the gun which killed the children. It seems to me the only difference between the two groups of people was the gun.You are being offensive and disrespectful simply be taking the anti-gun pov.
The fact you think supporting less guns is offensive, when guns are killing 30,000 Americans every year, and 12,000 of those considered homicide, sure does say a lot about you and what I consider to be your irrationality when it comes to firearms.
The problem isn't with the lack of guns, though as I said, I'm okay with officers at the school. The problem is that schools have always been trained to be passive in shooter situations, not aggressive. When the two kids terrorized Columbine high school, had the students been trained to fight back, far fewer of them would have been hurt/killed. If the students at Virginia Tech had reacted with aggression and not hid behind their desks, the shooter would have been subdued almost immediately.
Schools are now changing tactics. I know many schools in my area are going through training which teaches students this very concept. More and more schools are now seeing the folly of being passive and are now resorting to aggressive actions when a shooter is in their vicinity.
I've actually said it multiple times in this thread, but I believe the first time was in post 185 in response to Goshin.Well, if you could tell me the page # or post #, that would be extremely helpful and I definitely will check it out.
If an intruder breaks into a classroom, the teacher will be the first one dead, in almost every instance. Nobody expects someone to come into their class ready to shoot. The shooter would have the advantage because they know why they are there and they will be prepared. The teacher will be the first dead, because the teacher is the leader of the classroom. When Cho attacked Virginia Tech, the first person in the classroom he killed was the professor. When Lanza came into the elementary, the first people he killed were the adults in the area he was firing (which also happened to be the principal). The teacher goes first. It's just a basic concept of attack. You take out the leader and then focus your efforts on the rest.No, if the teacher is armed, he/she has a fighting chance. If you leave them unarmed, they are all going to be dead.
The children would know. To think otherwise is just not being realistic.Wrong. The children wouldn't know unless you told them.
See post #242. I've already explained it. The fact you didn't read it is your fault, not mine.