- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I think often times those who rage against gun ownership are raging against their own inadequacies
Slyfox-your long winded posts turn lots of people off. and we get the fact you are afraid of guns and don't know much, if anything, about the use of defensive weapons or the mythical changing dynamic you bray about premised apparently on a faith-based myth that comes from the anti gunner's book of hysteria.
How are kids going to know who is packing. Tell me your many years of experience carrying a firearm concealed.
Yes! We don't need to know your life story or all about your "relationships" with your students, just the relevant data please.
I think often times those who rage against gun ownership are raging against their own inadequacies
Or they're just like frightened children who are afraid of an inanimate object instead of the lunatic wielding it. :roll:
I wonder why Slyfox thinks that teachers are so inadequate and too irresponsible to carry and use a weapon properly?
Here in SD we've had a very successful Resource Officer program for 43 years, and now we're also arming district employees.In the educational way. As I've said. Additionally, do not forget my police officers.
And no one's going to force you to carry if you don't want to.Okay...I have once before, but I will again, in more detail....
I'm ok with everyone knowing I carry. I only carry concealed because the stereotypes you subscribe to compel you to hysteria. I'd rather carry openly since it's more comfortable, open-carry holsters have a higher retention rating, and I can carry a full-size.By then, it becomes a game of telephone, and suddenly most in the community know.
That's the primary way I carry concealed. When I really don't want anyone to know, I carry a sub-compact in the pocket. I've never been 'made'.But, for arguments sake, let's say none of those people say anything, an unlikely scenario, but we'll address it. Where is a teacher going to keep the gun? Obviously not on his hip, because there's no way that could stay concealed.
You cannot be chemically addicted to a firearm. False analogy. Troll smarter.The difference is people are charged with making meth and crack.
And I'm not saying it is more effective, what I'm saying is it doesn't disrupt the educational process the way armed teachers will. But training the students to be aggressive in that situation IS probably more safe than just relying on a teacher to carry a gun. If our only two options (and I know it's not, but I'm just making this comparison) are to teach students to aggressively react when a shooter is in their presence or just rely on a teacher carrying a gun for safety, teaching the students is probably a safer way to go. Like I said, the teacher is likely the first person to be shot in a situation like that, and if you're not teaching students to react, then they are sitting ducks.I think you misunderstood my question. I'm asking how is throwing books and attacking an armed person MORE safe and effective than having someone armed who can actually shoot back and probably even kill the attacker.
It is, but that doesn't mean the requirements would be.That is different than what we are discussing.
As would arming the teachers.Besides, I believe that varies from state to state.
Because of people like you and your buddies in this thread, who will then argue whatever restrictions were in place would be too restrictive of teachers who want to carry, and how it is an infringement upon their 2nd Amendment rights.No, actually I don't see that happening at all. Why would you think that?
I've never said anything remotely close to that. What I've said is a teacher's job is to teach. If you want armed guards, then they need to be a member of the police force. A teacher in a situation like that would be more likely to engage in questionable tactics/decision.Now this is interesting. You say that any moron can shoot a gun, yet you seem to think that teachers must be less qualified than your average mentally insane mass murderer? Why would you think a teacher would be so incompetent?
I'm not saying they wouldn't be teaching. You're beginning to sink to Jerry levels of misunderstanding.The teacher would still be educating. Why would you think otherwise?
A student/teacher relationship, just like millions of kids around the country. And we did know.LOL! Sure you did. Gotta say, that sounds very strange. I was never aware of the color or style of my teachers underwear. What kind of relationship did you have with your teachers anyway?
I think the same thing everytime you try to argue there's not a relationship between student and teacher.You must be joking.
It's not about me, it's about the kids, why is this so difficult for you people to understand?I'm sorry you are so fearful of guns.
Now I KNOW you must be joking.Guns do NOT change relationships.
I've already explained how. Do you realize how silly you sound here? The fact you're mocking me for your inability to read is quite humorous.How. Did you actually think I was going to let you get away with this as your explanation? And you call yourself a teacher? :lamo You get an F.
I don't have an attitude of arrogance, I just can't stand stupidity, and I've encountered quite a bit of it. You deny a relationship exists between students and teachers, you keep asking me to explain something I've already explained (twice, I believe), I've had my argument completely misunderstood and attack based upon the misunderstanding.I think you have an attitude of arrogance, as if you know more about children...and relationships than anyone else here.
Then you had a relationship with that teacher.Of course I had favorite teachers.
....what the heck do you think I've been talking about?except for maybe a professional type of relationship, which is the way it SHOULD be.
That's exactly what I've been saying over and over. What did you think I was talking about?I don't think parents really want teachers to have "relationships" with their children. They want them to concentrate on the education part.
Clearly. It appears as if yours comes from your mind being in the gutter and being unaware of the full definition of the word.See above. Obviously, your idea of relationship and mine are two different things.
Yes, I did. Please read.No, and you have not even given an explanation as to how they would know.
I'm not "extremely fearful" of guns. The fact you think this shows just how irrational you've become in this discussion. Just because I don't want to disrupt the educational process by arming teachers, as opposed to uniformed officers which I have supported, you've taken that to mean I'm extremely fearful of guns. That shows a complete irrationality on your part.I disagree. I think you sound extremely fearful of guns.
I do. Which is why I've mentioned uniformed officers. Which is why I've discussed the "react aggressively to an active shooter" training many schools are going through. Which is why I support making it more difficult for those people to get guns in the first place.You should fear the people who want to go to schools and kill innocent people
Oh, because these people are just as likely to come into the school and kill 26 people with a teddy bear? Or even one of those hammers the NRA drones always talk about?Guns are not the problem.
I often think those who buy guns do so to compensate for their own inadequacies. After all, everyone's always tougher with a gun, right?I think often times those who rage against gun ownership are raging against their own inadequacies
I wonder when you became as dishonest in this discussion as Jerry. I never said anything remotely close to this.I wonder why Slyfox thinks that teachers are so inadequate and too irresponsible to carry and use a weapon properly?
The fact you're arguing a relationship doesn't exist between a teacher and a student is easily "one of the most idiotic" things I've seen on an Internet forum. Though I wouldn't call it idiotic nearly as much as I'd call it ignorant.the relationship between a student and teacher argument was one of the most idiotic bits of psychobabble I have ever seen on this board
And I'm not saying it is more effective, what I'm saying is it doesn't disrupt the educational process the way armed teachers will. But training the students to be aggressive in that situation IS probably more safe than just relying on a teacher to carry a gun. If our only two options (and I know it's not, but I'm just making this comparison) are to teach students to aggressively react when a shooter is in their presence or just rely on a teacher carrying a gun for safety, teaching the students is probably a safer way to go. Like I said, the teacher is likely the first person to be shot in a situation like that, and if you're not teaching students to react, then they are sitting ducks.
It is, but that doesn't mean the requirements would be. As would arming the teachers. Because of people like you and your buddies in this thread, who will then argue whatever restrictions were in place would be too restrictive of teachers who want to carry, and how it is an infringement upon their 2nd Amendment rights.
I've never said anything remotely close to that. What I've said is a teacher's job is to teach. If you want armed guards, then they need to be a member of the police force. A teacher in a situation like that would be more likely to engage in questionable tactics/decision.
By the way, a mentally insane mass murderer doesn't care if a random person gets shot. The person firing back has to. Big difference.
I'm not saying they wouldn't be teaching. You're beginning to sink to Jerry levels of misunderstanding. A student/teacher relationship, just like millions of kids around the country. And we did know. I think the same thing everytime you try to argue there's not a relationship between student and teacher. It's not about me, it's about the kids, why is this so difficult for you people to understand? Now I KNOW you must be joking. I've already explained how. Do you realize how silly you sound here? The fact you're mocking me for your inability to read is quite humorous.
I don't have an attitude of arrogance, I just can't stand stupidity, and I've encountered quite a bit of it. You deny a relationship exists between students and teachers, you keep asking me to explain something I've already explained (twice, I believe), I've had my argument completely misunderstood and attack based upon the misunderstanding. Perhaps you should do a better job comprehending an argument. Maybe then I'll not come across quite so "arrogant".
Then you had a relationship with that teacher. ....what the heck do you think I've been talking about? That's exactly what I've been saying over and over. What did you think I was talking about? Clearly. It appears as if yours comes from your mind being in the gutter and being unaware of the full definition of the word.
Yes, I did. Please read.
I'm not "extremely fearful" of guns. The fact you think this shows just how irrational you've become in this discussion. Just because I don't want to disrupt the educational process by arming teachers, as opposed to uniformed officers which I have supported, you've taken that to mean I'm extremely fearful of guns. That shows a complete irrationality on your part.
I do. Which is why I've mentioned uniformed officers. Which is why I've discussed the "react aggressively to an active shooter" training many schools are going through. Which is why I support making it more difficult for those people to get guns in the first place.
Have you paid attention at ALL in this thread?
Oh, because these people are just as likely to come into the school and kill 26 people with a teddy bear? Or even one of those hammers the NRA drones always talk about? You're just kidding yourself if you don't think guns are part of the problem. Are they the only problem? Of course not. But they are definitely part of the problem.
I am still waiting for a valid explanation how a teacher carrying concealed (and for the arming of teachers to work their identity should not be known) will have his or her "relationship" with a student changed by that act. I suspect Slyfox has never carried concealed. As someone who has carried concealed on and off for years, I can say his claims are utter BS
First let me say for background context that the Utah permit requires a 4hr accredited familiarity class, FBI fingerprints and daily federal NICS for entire life of the permit rather you buy a firearm or not. Teachers in Utah have been armed for 12 years. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a teacher involved gun accident or any incident of a student accessing a teacher's gun.I definitely think all schools should have at least one person armed, but I have mixed feelings about whether teachers should be able to carry in class. What do you think?
The CT law against bringing a gun to school did not stop Adam Lansa or any other murderer in history, ever. This does not mean we have to "arm all the teachers". It's reasonable to allow every permit holder to make the choice for themselves, and even then those who choose to carry are typically a minority.We have two approaches here: We can either arm all of our teachers and bring guns closer to our children, or we can make laws will remove guns and pull guns further away from kids....
How many guns did the children of Sandy Hook "have access to" and how did that make the situation worse? Why aren't we hearing about Utah students getting a hold of their teacher's weapons?If a teacher has access to a gun, then children have access to that gun.
So teachers can't respond to fires, medical emergencies, unarmed violent students, or a student coming to them with a report of abuse or rape? These things occur far more often then any shooting. If any school's teachers aren't trained to respond to a stressful situation in any meaningful way, then we have a much larger problem then Sandy Hook.....[teachers] simply don't have the training needed to respond to a high-pressure situation in any kind of meaningful way, and if a scenario came up they [the teachers] are just going to compound the problem.
I have children in the public school system and I'm more comfortable with an armed faculty then not in exactly the same way that I am more comfortable with a faculty trained in 1st Aid and CPR with a kit handy.[when asked about a federal ban against anyone having a gun at any school in the US]....I think we need to have consistency across this issue. Parents should feel comfortable regardless of where they live.
Please see this link:Let's say, God forbid, there's a scenario where a teacher feels compelled to defend herself or the children, you've got the high-pressure environment, tunnel vision, inability to use your peripheral vision...all those things that happen in those kinds of scenarios, and you get children in between that teacher and whatever that perceived threat is and I think you've got a huge mess on your hands. The teachers aren't prepared and there's a huge liability issue and I don't want 'liability' to be one of my children.
Mrs Soto thought to hide the children as the gunman approached, and lied to him saying the children were in the gym. Other teachers were busy expertly carrying out well rehearsed emergency plans, send children to pre-designated emergency locations such as the local firehouse, in line with heads down and hand on the person in front of them. Mrs. Murphy sacrificed herself in the face of certain death to protect the children in her class.Connecticut teachers were heroes in the face of death
By Ben Brumfield, CNN
updated 10:30 AM EST, Tue December 18, 2012
*click link for video*
Victoria Soto, 27, moved her first-grade students away from the classroom door. The gunman burst in and shot her, according to the father of a surviving student.
"She would not hesitate to think to save anyone else before herself and especially children," her mother, Donna Soto, told CNN's Piers Morgan.
Anne Marie Murphy's body was found in a classroom, slumped over young children killed in the shooting. The 52-year-old special education teacher was apparently attempting to shield them, her father told the newspaper Newsday.
It amazes me what little ability some of you seemingly possess to actually read, at least in this thread. The fact some of you are still asking for how it would disrupt the educational process/relationship with a student, despite me posting it twice and referring back to the specific post a couple of times, shows you all are not at all interested in debate, but rather regurgitate your own speaking points over and over, without taking anything else into consideration. I might as well be a rock you're yelling at, because you're not at all interested in hearing what is being posted in response, you're just interested in your own gun supporting agenda. The lack of reading comprehension has grown more annoying than I wish to deal with. Unlike the two or three of you, I read everything you post which is relevant to our debate (and there are two/three of you, and one of me) and I try to respond to each point. And I certainly don't ask you to explain something you've already explained.
You have ignored the fact I've argued for police officers, or in the case of ChrisL, you've told me our children's lives are not worth the cost of saving. And if you don't understand a relationship exists between a student and teacher, then you are completely ignorant to what teachers do and you are totally unqualified to have this discussion. And if you're incapable of reading something which has been posted numerous times, then I suggest you re-enroll in elementary school because it's a pretty serious hindrance to any quality discussion.
I likely won't be checking back into this thread, but if I do, please present an actual argument which shows you've actually read what I posted. I'd love to respond to an intelligent argument on this subject, and not just an argument from gun nuts who are only interested in spreading the very same gun culture responsible for the deaths in the first place.
...the very same gun culture responsible for the deaths in the first place.
We're not going to believe or accept something just because you say it.It amazes me what little ability some of you seemingly possess to actually read, at least in this thread. The fact some of you are still asking for how it would disrupt the educational process/relationship with a student, despite me posting it twice and referring back to the specific post a couple of times, shows you all are not at all interested in debate, but rather regurgitate your own speaking points over and over, without taking anything else into consideration. I might as well be a rock you're yelling at, because you're not at all interested in hearing what is being posted in response, you're just interested in your own gun supporting agenda. The lack of reading comprehension has grown more annoying than I wish to deal with. Unlike the two or three of you, I read everything you post which is relevant to our debate (and there are two/three of you, and one of me) and I try to respond to each point. And I certainly don't ask you to explain something you've already explained.
You have ignored the fact I've argued for police officers, or in the case of ChrisL, you've told me our children's lives are not worth the cost of saving. And if you don't understand a relationship exists between a student and teacher, then you are completely ignorant to what teachers do and you are totally unqualified to have this discussion. And if you're incapable of reading something which has been posted numerous times, then I suggest you re-enroll in elementary school because it's a pretty serious hindrance to any quality discussion.
I likely won't be checking back into this thread, but if I do, please present an actual argument which shows you've actually read what I posted. I'd love to respond to an intelligent argument on this subject, and not just an argument from gun nuts who are only interested in spreading the very same gun culture responsible for the deaths in the first place.
Armed guards in school will only bolster 2nd amendment brainwashing.
children should not even know what a gun is till at least they reach the age of reason.
it's unfair to their growth
By age 7, both of my sons knew how to disassemble a .22 revolver, inspect it, clean it, reassemble it, load it and fire it safely. At age 9, they each received their own .22 rifle and became as proficient with it as they are with the revolver.
well i find it repulsive that he would do such a thing to a child....and i also realize it is beyond anything i can say to make him see the light...Well, I suspect you are trying to employ sarcasm, but it's hard to know for sure.
well i find it repulsive that he would do such a thing to a child....and i also realize it is beyond anything i can say to make him see the light...
so yeah sarcasm with a punch of the truth
anyone teaching a child about guns is repulsive and abusive.You find it repulsive that WHO would do WHAT to what child?
anyone teaching a child about guns is repulsive and abusive.
this is a defining moment for me...you don't really add much do youWell, since you see fit to insult me with your idiocy, I guess I'm entitled to insult you in return.
I find that your attitude indicates you are a dumbass.