• 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'

Adam Lanza chose Sandy Hook for several reasons. Familiarity with the layout and the fact it was a gun-free zone were the top two.

His actual goal was to be the most prolific killer in history [the highest score if you will] Having no one to even slow him down made this an easy task.

All these BS excuses of what 'might' happen (if teachers etc. are armed) only further endangers our children, families and friends.
 
SheWolf said:
I agree. I would be afraid of a teacher shooting a student, or a kid getting some carless teacher's gun.

Sometimes there are fights in high schools and teachers break up those fights. A teacher drawing a gun in that situation and aiming at the students would be ****ed up. Soldiers and police officers actually go through gun and situation training, and some of still improperly respond to situations and kill innocent people.


I am do glad that I am not an educator.
Click to expand...

I would not allow carry. I would allow well hidden gun safes within the classroom of teachers if they are designated as auxiliary police.

Change school entrances. It wont stop a killer like Lanza but it will make them tip their hand by having to shoot their way out of a concrete box with steel doors and no windows. Almost no effort is being made to secure entrances that require people to identify themselves and their intent before entering a school. That needs to change somehow.
 
SheWolf said:
I am do glad that I am not an educator.
Click to expand...
I am an educator and I cannot think of a worse idea than arming the teachers. It amazes me people actually think putting guns in the hands of teachers is safer than removing the most dangerous guns from the populace. Don't teachers already have enough to do without worrying about being the school security guard as well?

EDIT: This person did think of a worse idea (though I'm pretty certain the post was made tongue-in-cheek):

BMCM said:
The solution to all these shootings is really very simple. On a child's 1st birthday the local, well regulated militia can hand deliver a brand new, shiny Glock with 5 fully loaded 30 round mags. On the child's 5th birthday they will receive a brand new AR-15. problem solved.
Click to expand...
 
Slyfox696 said:
I am an educator and I cannot think of a worse idea than arming the teachers. It amazes me people actually think putting guns in the hands of teachers is safer than removing the most dangerous guns from the populace. Don't teachers already have enough to do without worrying about being the school security guard as well?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it will only take a new law to remove those dreaded "assault weapons". Assuming something like that could even succeed, do you really think a handgun would be less dangerous?
 
Pilot said:
Yeah, it will only take a new law to remove those dreaded "assault weapons". Assuming something like that could even succeed, do you really think a handgun would be less dangerous?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about leaving handguns? I'll look over my post again, but I'm pretty certain I didn't say anything about assault weapons, especially since handguns are responsible for the majority of gun related deaths in America, at least according to a few different gun supporters I've heard from. I've heard over 80%, but I cannot easily/quickly find a statistic right now.
 
ecofarm said:
I was thinking "most cops have a lot more experience with pistols than my one enlistment". And then I saw 200 rnds/year. What? That must be including desk-jobs that merely 'qualify' occasionally. I expect a street cop or other cops very likely to encounter serious criminals to do 200 rnds per week or, at most, month. Just privately, who wouldn't spend a couple days at the range in such a job.

What's up with that stat?
Click to expand...



you'd be wrong. In Cincinnati I studied Ammo use 984 cops 140K rounds

30K or so fired by the training instructors and recruits. thal left about 120 rounds per officer. since the cops didn't have to pay for ammo at the range, its not like they were going to the other range (public) and buying their own ammo). The training instructor admitted they had to shoot 60 qualifiying rounds twice a year

that is IT
 
Slyfox696 said:
It amazes me people actually think putting guns in the hands of teachers is safer than removing the most dangerous guns from the populace.
Click to expand...
False dichotomy. We're never going to remove the most dangerous guns from the populace. (e.g. "it amazes me that people actually think putting airbags in cars is safer than outlawing cars altogether).
 
Taylor said:
False dichotomy.
Click to expand...
Another person who doesn't properly understand the fallacies they quote. Always fun. Is there a fallacy for incorrectly citing a fallacy? There should be, at least when they cite a fallacy to win an argument.

It's not a false dichotomy. I never said we have two options. What I said is I'm amazed how the same people who argue so strongly against bans on certain types of guns think putting guns in the hands of teachers (who are trained to educate, not handle an intruder situation) is a good idea. I never once said we only have two options, but rather noted my amazement at that mentality.

On a side note, very few things are more annoying to me than people who try to claim fallacies when they don't even understand the fallacy they are citing.
 
BMCM said:
The solution to all these shootings is really very simple. On a child's 1st birthday the local, well regulated militia can hand deliver a brand new, shiny Glock with 5 fully loaded 30 round mags. On the child's 5th birthday they will receive a brand new AR-15. problem solved.
Click to expand...
But I don't like Glock.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Another person who doesn't properly understand the fallacies they quote.
Click to expand...
No, it's not the fallacy I failed to understand, but your apparent difficulty with the English language. Forgive me for not being able to deduce that what you really meant in saying:

It amazes me people actually think putting guns in the hands of teachers is safer than removing the most dangerous guns from the populace.
Click to expand...

was:

I'm amazed how the same people who argue so strongly against bans on certain types of guns think putting guns in the hands of teachers (who are trained to educate, not handle an intruder situation) is a good idea.
Click to expand...
(why you think someone's opinion on banning certain types of guns is in any way relevant to whether allowing teachers to carry is a good idea - we'll have to leave to the imagination)
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
No, it's not the fallacy I failed to understand
Click to expand...
It's the application of the fallacy you don't understand, my apologies for not explicitly stating that before.

but your apparent difficulty with the English language.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Let me see if I have this correctly. You lacked proper reading comprehension and it's my fault? Awesome argument. At no time did I said we can't have teachers with guns so we need to get rid of guns. Not once did I say we can't get rid of guns so we have to arm teachers. Not once. Don't blame me for your inability to comprehend fully what you read and don't blame me for your inability to recognize fallacious arguments correctly.

Forgive me
Click to expand...
I do not. As I said, people who use fallacies they don't understand annoy me.
 
All I can says is... for the good of our children, I hope you teach math.
 
seems a little extreme to me but good to you yanks if that's what you think you need to do.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Who said anything about leaving handguns? I'll look over my post again, but I'm pretty certain I didn't say anything about assault weapons, especially since handguns are responsible for the majority of gun related deaths in America, at least according to a few different gun supporters I've heard from. I've heard over 80%, but I cannot easily/quickly find a statistic right now.
Click to expand...

So...

Would the government pay everyone the market value of their confiscated guns? How much would that cost? I don't have an exact number, but I would think that we're talking about 100 million or more guns. That would at the very least come to 50 billion dollars. All for guns that would most likely not be used to commit a crime.

What about criminals with unregistered guns... you know the guns that are used in the bulk of gun crimes. Are you volunteering to go to Detroit and collect guns from gang members?
 
Higgins86 said:
That would be
Canadians. You get a special nickname because we are super best friends ;)
Click to expand...
But 'yank' or 'yankee' is a term describing the northern Union. Why would the British use the term if they aren't Americans in the southern states? Silly Brit, you're not even on this side of the ocean. You're confused :lol:
 
Jerry said:
But 'yank' or 'yankee' is a term describing the northern Union. Why would the British use the term if they aren't Americans in the southern states? Silly Brit, you're not even on this side of the ocean. You're confused :lol:
Click to expand...

yeh im not sure so I googled it.

"a term of contempt (1750s) before its use as a general term for "native of New England" (1765); during the American Revolution it became a disparaging British word for all American native or inhabitants. Shortened form Yank in reference to "an American" first recorded 1778. but the most likely source is the Dutch name Janke, meaning “little Jan” or “little John,” a nickname that dates back to the 1680s. Perhaps because it was used as the name of pirates, the name Yankee came to be used as a term of contempt. It was used this way in the 1750s by General James Wolfe, the British general who secured British domination of North America by defeating the French at Quebec. The name may have been applied to New Englanders as an extension of an original use referring to Dutch settlers living along the Hudson River."


interesting stuff. Also something to do with the song yankee doodle.
 
Higgins86 said:
yeh im not sure so I googled it.

"a term of contempt (1750s) before its use as a general term for "native of New England" (1765); during the American Revolution it became a disparaging British word for all American native or inhabitants. Shortened form Yank in reference to "an American" first recorded 1778. but the most likely source is the Dutch name Janke, meaning “little Jan” or “little John,” a nickname that dates back to the 1680s. Perhaps because it was used as the name of pirates, the name Yankee came to be used as a term of contempt. It was used this way in the 1750s by General James Wolfe, the British general who secured British domination of North America by defeating the French at Quebec. The name may have been applied to New Englanders as an extension of an original use referring to Dutch settlers living along the Hudson River."


interesting stuff. Also something to do with the song yankee doodle.
Click to expand...
So you were being contemptuous and condescending when you said:
Higgins86 said:
seems a little extreme to me but good to you yanks if that's what you think you need to do.
Click to expand...
...implying that gun ownership is a bad thing.
 
tererun said:
I wonder how people would feel about putting armed guards in churches. Lots of easy targets, and it seems some people like to shoot up their parking lots so maybe people would appreciate an armed guard watching them as they pray?
Click to expand...


Many churches already have them. Two of the last three churches I attended did. My old home church allows anyone with a CCW to carry.


No problems there.
 
Jerry said:
So you were being contemptuous and condescending when you said:

...implying that gun ownership is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

no since as I said its more used as a general slang term for Americans now days (200 years later lol). Just as when you call us Limeys I'm sure Americans aren't implying we still eat limes to avoid scurvy lol.

As for gun ownership no I don't think its a bad thing however I do think putting armed guards in schools is a little crazy. But like I said not my country so doesn't really affect me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom