• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

Slyfox696 said:
Yes, I did. I explained it, it's not my fault if you didn't read it.
Click to expand...
I'm in the process of going back through our entire exchange on this thread...so far I haven't seen you give me any explanation of how a student/teacher relationship is harmed....
 
Slyfox696 said:
Because we were talking about the relationship between teacher and student, and how a gun changes that. It had nothing to do with a school intruder, only the every day relationship between student and teacher.
Click to expand...
Slyfox696 said:
We were not discussing gun control, we were discussing whether we arm teachers and the change it would cause to the relationship dynamic.
Click to expand...
Slyfox696 said:
Again, you dishonestly change the context of my comment. My statement was in response to what kids know and how it relates to the relationship I have with the student. I said I cannot control certain factors which might impact that relationship, but I can control whether or not the relationship between the student and me involves a gun.
Click to expand...
Slyfox696 said:
But bring a firearm into the equation and the dynamic in the relationship changes dramatically
Click to expand...
Slyfox696 said:
A big part of my job is forming quality relationships with students which allows me to teach them and for them to learn from me. Not every relationship has to be friendly, but all need to include respect. And the respect needs to be for me, not the gun.
Click to expand...
You haven't given an explanation of how that's true, but that's ok because I'm not arguing that you should be required to carry a gun. I support SD's Sentinel program in part because it's completely voluntary. If you feel that you having a gun on your person will interfere with your ability to teach in any way, you are free to not carry a gun. Other teachers have the freedom to make a different choice.

Additionally, SD's Sentinels aren't only teachers, but any district employee at all. A Sentinel could be a mechanic from the Bus Yard who was called because a bus had a problem while waiting to pick up the evening children. A Sentinel could be a lunch lady washing dishes in the back of the kitchen. A Sentinel could be an accountant from the district office who came by to pick up the proceeds from a charity drive. It's unreasonable to assume that a given Sentinel would have any kind of relationship with a given student in the first place.

Also, just because you enroll in the Sentinel program does not mean you have to carry a gun all the time. You can choose to not carry a gun while teaching your everyday class, yet choose to carry a gun while attending a foot-ball game or field trip. That's ok. We want to give educators options and flexibility. You simply have more options now. You can still elect not to partake.

Slyfox696 said:
Oh really? So when the law allows Adam Lanza's mother to purchase the weapons which killed those children, you don't support those laws?
Click to expand...
That rifle was perchesed during CT's last Assault Weapons Ban and was Assault Weapons Ban Compliant. No, I do not support Assault Weapon Bans.
That rifle was registered to Ms. Lansa. No, I do not support registration.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
It's just so much safer/cheaper/easier for folks to keep their gun on their person. We just skip past all the liability and lock-boxes and code words etc and cut right to it.

You want to add all this red tape and it just not called for.
Click to expand...

Again normal people generally don't want to be around weapons that can kill or maim you. Funny that.

Now if you're saying boomsticklovers aren't normal, I tend to agree with you. We just shouldn't indulge them.

Again, go to Starbucks and strut around with a gun. Maybe you can be a Starbuck's Sentinel. It's better than a school.
 
head of joaquin said:
Again normal people generally don't want to be around weapons that can kill or maim you. Funny that.

Now if you're saying boomsticklovers aren't normal, I tend to agree with you. We just shouldn't indulge them.

Again, go to Starbucks and strut around with a gun. Maybe you can be a Starbuck's Sentinel. It's better than a school.
Click to expand...
You tried those lines already. It's not doin it for me. I'm left-handed, so I'm abnormal by default. I can change my eye color at will, that also makes me abnormal. I guess I just don't care if I'm 'normal' or not. I've been in the Guard for 3 years, a year of that over seas where weapons were literally everywhere. Normal people don't join the service. Only about 1% does, and that by definition isn't 'normal'.

Owning at least one gun in SD is very normal, though, as is carrying a concealed gun on your person normal in SD.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is: gun control is going down in flames despite the Sandy Hook massacre.

Thank-God.
 
Robert Morrow said:
The bottom line is: gun control is going down in flames despite the Sandy Hook massacre.

Thank-God.
Click to expand...
Good news everyone.....
Pro-Gun Laws Gain Ground

Arkansas eliminated prohibitions on carrying firearms in churches and on college campuses. South Dakota authorized school boards to arm teachers. Tennessee passed a law allowing workers to bring guns to work and store them in their vehicles, even if their employer objects. Kentucky shortened the process for obtaining licenses to carry a concealed gun......This year, five states have passed seven laws that strengthen gun restrictions, while 10 states have passed 17 laws that weaken them, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks and promotes gun-control laws.


GUNSTATES_thurs2.jpg
Click to expand...
....and this is what I've been talking about:
South Dakota, SD H 1087: Authorizes school boards to allow the arming of school employees or security personnel after obtaining the consent of local law enforcement.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You said it was so, but you didn't explain how, you didn't offer supporting links, nothing.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. Post 242.

MadLib said:
And it's not like the shooter's gonna teleport into the classroom as soon as he starts attacking. A guard will see him on the security cameras, and the PA will announce "The superintendent is in the building." Teachers unlock their guns and lock the door. They'll be well-prepared to shoot the maniac the moment he enters the door.
Click to expand...
Actually, schools are going away from the codeword to just simply announcing what is happening. The codeword is kind of pointless, if you really stop to think about it (for example, the shooter is usually pretty certain where he/she is). It's much better to be descriptive of what is happening and where, so everyone can plan their response appropriately, not to mention, it will not be confusing for any substitute teachers and other personnel who may be in the building.

Jerry said:
Other teachers have the freedom to make a different choice.
Click to expand...
Which comes at the expense of the student's education. As I've explained.

Additionally, SD's Sentinels aren't only teachers, but any district employee at all. A Sentinel could be a mechanic from the Bus Yard who was called because a bus had a problem while waiting to pick up the evening children. A Sentinel could be a lunch lady washing dishes in the back of the kitchen. A Sentinel could be an accountant from the district office who came by to pick up the proceeds from a charity drive. It's unreasonable to assume that a given Sentinel would have any kind of relationship with a given student in the first place.
Click to expand...
If they are not a teacher, then my argument against teachers having guns becomes irrelevant. However, the idea of random person A being entrusted with a gun in a school opens up a completely different set of objections. But since our debate is about arming teachers, I won't get into those issues I have now.

We want to give educators options and flexibility.
Click to expand...
And I want to preserve the child's education. We have other options than hindering the educational experience. To argue otherwise is stupid.

That rifle was perchesed during CT's last Assault Weapons Ban and was Assault Weapons Ban Compliant. No, I do not support Assault Weapon Bans.
That rifle was registered to Ms. Lansa. No, I do not support registration.
Click to expand...
:lamo

But you do support the laws which allowed her to purchase the weapon, do you not? You have been incredibly dishonest in this debate, do you realize this?

Robert Morrow said:
The bottom line is: gun control is going down in flames despite the Sandy Hook massacre.

Thank-God.
Click to expand...

It really makes a person wonder just how crazy Americans are, doesn't it? Or maybe the more accurate statement is just how powerful the gun manufacturers/NRA is in brainwashing people. The irrationality of our country's gun love is the only time Americans actively reject solutions which address the problem of dead children. It just amazes me.
 
You didn't give me any explanation in post 242, they aren't 'random people' but employees of the district who by the nature of being employees have already passed mental stability and FBI background checks, and this isn't only about teachers but 'guards' of any kind.

As I said, if you feel that having a gun interferes with your ability to teach in any way, you are free not to have a gun. If you don't like abortion, you don't have to have one. If you don't like same-sex marriage, you don't have to marry someone of the same sex. Same logic. No one's forcing you to participate in any kind of Sentinel program.
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
But you do support the laws which allowed her to purchase the weapon, do you not?
Click to expand...

Everything you've posted in this thread has been either irrelevant liberal debating tactics, tortured rationalizations or insults...except this question. This question perfectly illustrates your mindset from which all your other posts flow.

Now, think about it...what law allowed Lanza's mother to purchase a weapon? Hmmm?
 
Jerry said:
You didn't give me any explanation in post 242
Click to expand...
Yes, I did.

they aren't 'random people' but employees of the district who by the nature of being employees have already passed mental stability and FBI background checks, and this isn't only about teachers but 'guards' of any kind.
Click to expand...
They are not employees of the school district until they are hired, and before they are hired, they are still "random people".

As I said, if you feel that having a gun interferes with your ability to teach in any way, you are free not to have a gun.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about education in general.

Your inability to keep up with a conversation shows you to be either very confused or intentionally misleading. Either way, this will likely be my last post to you, not because you made offensive comments, but because I'm tired of holding your hand.
Mycroft said:
Everything you've posted in this thread has been either irrelevant liberal debating tactics, tortured rationalizations or insults
Click to expand...
Do you realize how little respect I have for you and any one else who resorts to such ridiculous statements like "liberal debating tactics"? You just sound as if you're completely brainwashed by "conservative" media. It's one thing to say it once, but when you use the same stupid statement in nearly every post you make, it reflects incredibly poorly upon you.

Whenever you feel like having a civil discussion, and not one with generic insults which don't even make sense, let me know. Then I'll happily answer your question.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yes, I did.
Click to expand...
I went back through this entire thread and re-read everything you said to me, twice. No, you have not.

Slyfox696 said:
They are not employees of the school district until they are hired, and before they are hired, they are still "random people".
Click to expand...
And they're all weeded out through the current hiring process.
 
Slyfox696 said:
This is simply false. The people can fight back. The people should fight back. Will they be at the disadvantage in weaponry? Yes. Will they have the advantage in numbers? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Okay, this is just ridiculous. You don't know HOW you are going to react in a situation like that. I imagine it takes a pretty brave person to rush someone with a weapon.

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.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a difference between those shootings and the shooting by Adam Lanza in that the two shootings you mention above were committed by students of the school. Therefore, when they showed up at the schools, it was not out of the ordinary. I find it VERY strange that someone would assume that people are going to have what it takes to rush an armed person when they are unarmed. I've never heard such advice.

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.
Click to expand...

Sure, if the opportunity presented itself, and you felt you were strong enough and quick enough, then it would be a good idea to try to disarm the maniac. I can't disagree with that point.

I've actually said it multiple times in this thread, but I believe the first time was in post 185 in response to Goshin.

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.
Click to expand...

And how does arming the teacher put them in any more danger then? Your point here is really not a point at all.

The children would know. To think otherwise is just not being realistic.
Click to expand...

Good GOD! The children don't have ESP or x-ray vision!!!

I find it amusing you think you know better than I do about a relationship between a teacher and student.
And it's funny when you DO explain them, people don't bother reading them.
Click to expand...

Hello? I was a student once too. LOL! You seem to be on the defensive about your so-called "relationships" with your students. This was an extremely odd thing to say. :confused:

See post #242. I've already explained it. The fact you didn't read it is your fault, not mine.
Click to expand...

MEOWWWWWW! :lamo
 
ChrisL said:
Hello? I was a student once too. LOL! You seem to be on the defensive about your so-called "relationships" with your students. This was an extremely odd thing to say. :confused:
Click to expand...
See? I'm not the only one who thought that comment was odd.

I've been through the school system, in different states even, and I never had any 'relationship' with my teachers. They were just instructors. Our 'relationship' was about as deep as the 'relationship' you have with a salesman or cashier.

I could see a couple of them having guns...it just fits what they were like...and if I knew they actually did have a gun I would think that was cool.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yes, I did.
Click to expand...
You keep referring to post 242, so I'll go back and read the whole thing, not just the part addressed to me, and we'll see what we'll see. I doubt I'm going to learn anything new about your argument.
 
ChrisL said:
Okay, this is just ridiculous. You don't know HOW you are going to react in a situation like that. I imagine it takes a pretty brave person to rush someone with a weapon.
Click to expand...
That's why you train for it, practice it like you do other emergency situations. For example, (and you can skip to about 1:10 if you don't want to watch the whole thing):



We've already begun the process at my school of training the students. We haven't gotten to the "swarm" part yet, but we will eventually.

Well, there is a difference between those shootings and the shooting by Adam Lanza in that the two shootings you mention above were committed by students of the school. Therefore, when they showed up at the schools, it was not out of the ordinary. I find it VERY strange that someone would assume that people are going to have what it takes to rush an armed person when they are unarmed. I've never heard such advice.
Click to expand...
Then, with all due respect, you're behind on the current trends. More and more, schools are moving to this type of reaction. We know for a fact that crouching in a corner is not working. So when there is an active shooter, those who can flee will do so and those who are in the so-called "hot zone" have to be ready to attack, using whatever projectiles/weapons they can find.

And how does arming the teacher put them in any more danger then? Your point here is really not a point at all.
Click to expand...
I never said arming the teacher puts the students in more danger, though the idea of loosely trained people firing wildly in a crazy situation does suggest there could be mistakes. My argument against arming teachers was the firearm changes the dynamic of the relationship between teacher and student.

Good GOD! The children don't have ESP or x-ray vision!!!
Click to expand...
No one said they did. But I've already explained just a few of the ways they could find out.

Hello? I was a student once too.
Click to expand...
Being a student and being a teacher are not even close to the same thing. When I was a student, my parents would tell me this and I wouldn't believe them. Now that I'm a teacher, I understand completely.

You seem to be on the defensive about your so-called "relationships" with your students. This was an extremely odd thing to say. :confused:
Click to expand...
What's odd about saying there is a relationship between a teacher and a student? Is there not a relationship between those you interact with on a daily basis? Of course there is. Do you not have a relationship with your co-workers you have to deal with? Do you not have a relationship with your boss? To argue there's not a relationship between student and teacher is mind-boggling. I really don't understand why people are having such a problem understanding this.

I'm not talking about a romantic relationship, which is what a few of you have suggested I meant. Maybe that clears things up?
MEOWWWWWW! :lamo
Click to expand...
Meow? Are you a cat now? You made a statement saying I did not explain what I meant. I directed you to the specific post which showed I did explain. It's really quite simple.
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
Do you realize how little respect I have for you and any one else who resorts to such ridiculous statements like "liberal debating tactics"? You just sound as if you're completely brainwashed by "conservative" media. It's one thing to say it once, but when you use the same stupid statement in nearly every post you make, it reflects incredibly poorly upon you.

Whenever you feel like having a civil discussion, and not one with generic insults which don't even make sense, let me know. Then I'll happily answer your question.
Click to expand...

shrug...

I learned all about liberal debating tactics from people such as you...on forums such as this. Conservative media has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, I don't get brainwashed...I'm too smart and strong willed for that to happen.

Now...the fact that I've drawn attention to your tactics...while I can understand your ire at being called out on it repeatedly...is really my way of dismissing such tactics. You see, I ignore them in a discussion because they add nothing to it. That's why I comment very little on your prattle.

So...of course, it's your choice whether you address a cogent question or not, but the fact that you don't reflects more upon you...the one who chooses to ignore the question...than on me...the one who asked it.

btw, do you realize how little I care whether you respect me or not?
 
head of joaquin said:
Again normal people generally don't want to be around weapons that can kill or maim you. Funny that.

Now if you're saying boomsticklovers aren't normal, I tend to agree with you. We just shouldn't indulge them.

Again, go to Starbucks and strut around with a gun. Maybe you can be a Starbuck's Sentinel. It's better than a school.
Click to expand...

I really suspect your definition of normal people is far different than that of most normal people.
 
Slyfox696 said:
That's why you train for it, practice it like you do other emergency situations. For example, (and you can skip to about 1:10 if you don't want to watch the whole thing):

We've already begun the process at my school of training the students. We haven't gotten to the "swarm" part yet, but we will eventually.

Then, with all due respect, you're behind on the current trends. More and more, schools are moving to this type of reaction. We know for a fact that crouching in a corner is not working. So when there is an active shooter, those who can flee will do so and those who are in the so-called "hot zone" have to be ready to attack, using whatever projectiles/weapons they can find.
Click to expand...

And this is better than having a few armed teachers in what way?

I never said arming the teacher puts the students in more danger, though the idea of loosely trained people firing wildly in a crazy situation does suggest there could be mistakes. My argument against arming teachers was the firearm changes the dynamic of the relationship between teacher and student.
Click to expand...

Why would you think that they would have to be not trained well. How difficult do you think it is to shoot a gun? I understand that if there was a shooting that there would be panic, but I see nothing wrong if a gunman or gunmen entered a school classroom and the teacher had the children hide under their desks while the teacher could take cover behind his or her desk and shoot the gunman. That would be better than throwing erasers, pencils and books I think.

Also, I don't have a problem with armed guards either, but what makes you think that they would be any more well trained? MOST people have not been in such a situation.

No one said they did. But I've already explained just a few of the ways they could find out.
Click to expand...

It would be easy enough to make it so that no one found out who was carrying and who was not. Do they know what color underwear you wear too?

Being a student and being a teacher are not even close to the same thing. When I was a student, my parents would tell me this and I wouldn't believe them. Now that I'm a teacher, I understand completely.
Click to expand...

I'm also a parent . . . so I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

What's odd about saying there is a relationship between a teacher and a student? Is there not a relationship between those you interact with on a daily basis? Of course there is. Do you not have a relationship with your co-workers you have to deal with? Do you not have a relationship with your boss? To argue there's not a relationship between student and teacher is mind-boggling. I really don't understand why people are having such a problem understanding this.
Click to expand...

What's odd about it is that you are trying to somehow link a relationship with the students to a teacher carrying concealed.

I'm not talking about a romantic relationship, which is what a few of you have suggested I meant. Maybe that clears things up?
Click to expand...

I was making no such assumptions. I was just commenting that I don't see how it fits in with this conversation.

Meow? Are you a cat now? You made a statement saying I did not explain what I meant. I directed you to the specific post which showed I did explain. It's really quite simple.
Click to expand...

In other words, you're getting an attitude.
Click to expand...
 
Slyfox696 said:
I have students who have had parents killed by guns (murder-suicide, for example). I had a student once whose mother put a shotgun in her mouth and pulled the trigger. One of my friends in high school was sitting on a couch when his stepfather fired his weapon and the bullet lodged in the wall barely six inches from my friend's ear. The mentality children have towards guns is different, but it's always cautious and for some children, based upon past experiences, outright fear. As someone who has been around guns yourself, I'm sure you understand what it means to be cautious around a gun, even if you don't understand being afraid of them.

So when the children know that one or many teachers are now carrying a gun, the dynamic in the class changes. Are the students behaving because of the respect which I discussed earlier, or are they behaving because they know there is a gun nearby? Are their actions the result of respect for me or fear from the gun? To give a similar example, if a police officer walked up to you and asked you to put on a pair of handcuffs because you were a suspect in a rape case, would you do it? Probably not, neither would I. We would likely be indignant and plead our innocence. But if the police officer drew their weapon and advanced upon you in an aggressive fashion, taking time only to throw handcuffs to you telling you to put them on, would you be more likely to do it? Of course you would, so would I.
Click to expand...
Ahh, so all this time you were referring to what you wrote to someone else, not to me.

Well like I said, if you don't want to carry a gun for any reason, you don't have to.
 
Jerry said:
See? I'm not the only one who thought that comment was odd.

I've been through the school system, in different states even, and I never had any 'relationship' with my teachers. They were just instructors. Our 'relationship' was about as deep as the 'relationship' you have with a salesman or cashier.

I could see a couple of them having guns...it just fits what they were like...and if I knew they actually did have a gun I would think that was cool.
Click to expand...

Me neither. Never really wanted to have a relationship with any of my teachers either.
 
Jerry said:
Ahh, so all this time you were referring to what you wrote to someone else, not to me.

Well like I said, if you don't want to carry a gun for any reason, you don't have to.
Click to expand...

good advice-I tire of people who are afraid of guns, untrained with guns, or those who oppose guns mainly because they think gun owners don't buy into their political agenda (normally left wing). If someone is afraid of guns don't own one but don't try to tell those of us who are well trained and knowledgeable that we should have our guns banned so the gun haters can feel better about their issues
 
ChrisL said:
Me neither. Never really wanted to have a relationship with any of my teachers either.
Click to expand...

actually I am upset. In one of the nearby towns there was this gorgeous teacher who slept with several of the football players at Mason HS. I was bummed out that my high school's female teachers were not exactly "babes".
 
Slyfox696 said:
In a classroom, for learning to take place, a teacher needs to have a good relationship with the student. Whether it's a friendly relationship or simply a relationship of respect, the teacher needs the children to respect the teacher, for it's only then that learning can truly take place. I have a very good relationship with nearly all of my students, but I have a respectful relationship with all of them. We don't have to like each other, but we do have to understand our proper roles in the classroom. I'm there to dispense information and put the student in a position to learn the information. The student is there to participate in the activities and learn the information. This is based upon the respect we have for one another. It is a relationship of respect between two people.
Click to expand...

This is wonderful, but what does this have to do with anything at all?

When you introduce a gun, the dynamic changes. I have students who have had parents killed by guns (murder-suicide, for example). I had a student once whose mother put a shotgun in her mouth and pulled the trigger. One of my friends in high school was sitting on a couch when his stepfather fired his weapon and the bullet lodged in the wall barely six inches from my friend's ear. The mentality children have towards guns is different, but it's always cautious and for some children, based upon past experiences, outright fear. As someone who has been around guns yourself, I'm sure you understand what it means to be cautious around a gun, even if you don't understand being afraid of them.
Click to expand...

You DON'T introduce the gun to the classroom, like you've been told repeatedly. :roll:

So when the children know that one or many teachers are now carrying a gun, the dynamic in the class changes. Are the students behaving because of the respect which I discussed earlier, or are they behaving because they know there is a gun nearby? Are their actions the result of respect for me or fear from the gun? To give a similar example, if a police officer walked up to you and asked you to put on a pair of handcuffs because you were a suspect in a rape case, would you do it? Probably not, neither would I. We would likely be indignant and plead our innocence. But if the police officer drew their weapon and advanced upon you in an aggressive fashion, taking time only to throw handcuffs to you telling you to put them on, would you be more likely to do it? Of course you would, so would I.
Click to expand...

Good Lord!

So it goes in the classroom. The children need to know the teacher is treating them normally, and not with an inflated sense of self-worth, brought about by carrying a firearm. And a teacher needs to know the children are behaving due to the respectful relationship formed between teacher and student, and not because of a gun.
Click to expand...

Again, the children do NOT have to know about the gun.

The gun changes the dynamic of the situation. It always will, because the gun possess an ability no human being posses...the ability to kill immediately, instantaneously and from a distance. The gun will always change the dynamic of the situation it is in, regardless of whether it is fired or not. Even the knowledge a gun might be present changes the dynamic. You can argue otherwise, but you would be wrong. Don't believe me? Take the advice gun supporters always give and walk down the bad streets of Chicago sometime, unarmed. My bet is the knowledge a gun might be present will have you on edge far more than when you're at your local shopping mall carrying your weapon.
Click to expand...

You don't even make sense. The gun cannot do anything without a person to load it and pull the trigger. I'll bet that you come in contact with people all the time who are carrying and you don't even know. Why are you so fearful?

A gun changes the dynamic. This is just one reason teachers should not be armed (and there are others). If you want to place police officers in the school, I'm okay with that, I'll probably support that. At which point you get your armed adults and I get my teachers without guns. We're both happy and the children are safe. Which is what we both want, is it not?
Click to expand...

This is just a repeat of what you keep saying repeatedly. The rest of this post is just annoying whining, so I chose to ignore it.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually I am upset. In one of the nearby towns there was this gorgeous teacher who slept with several of the football players at Mason HS. I was bummed out that my high school's female teachers were not exactly "babes".
Click to expand...

I had one good-looking teacher in 4th grade, Mrs. Carey. She was just beautiful, but she was the only one. Never had any hot guy teachers either. :roll: Always super dorks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom