Yep...typical liberal/socialist debate tactic again: When my ass gets handed to me, the best course of action is to double down. Use the tactic again. Maybe they'll forget that I'm a dumbass.
Sorry, dude. Every time you open your mouth, you remind us.
You can keep pulling pages from the playbook all you want, it won't change the fact you were wrong. You got embarrassed by the fact you are wrong, and now you're resorting to boring rhetoric to try and salvage your ego.
You people keep promising to keep me on your ignore list but you never do. You never ever do. You people keep clicking "view post" and then can't help yourself but to respond to something I say sooner or later.
Your latest posts were far more respectful than most of your previous posts. Had it been the same type of post you had been posting previously, I would have ignored you. I'm on a few different forums and have been for many years. You're little more than a blip on my current radar. I replied because the tone of your conversation turned back to civil. If you no longer wish to discuss this civilly, then I'll ignore you.
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 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.
I'm genuinely confused as to how that was what you took from my statement.
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.
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.
Safer than a pocket knife, even, and I bet your school lets teachers have a pocket knife.
Of course not.
You're freaking out over nothing.
I'm not freaking out about anything, I'm telling you that you clearly do not understand what it means to be a teacher.
Oh so if someone has never served in the military then they should stfu about Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
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.
Could you please, at the very least, be honest about what you're saying?
I do dispute it, actually
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.
You cannot remove every gun from existence and prevent anymore from being created.
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.
And that's why you're wrong be default: you're pursuing something which is impossible.
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.
You do not choose to be shot at. When you are shot at, you have the right to defend yourself.
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?
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.
You had your gun-free zone in Sandy Hook.
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're supporting the laws which killed 20 children 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 cherry picking the laws you're wishing to blame. Again, your position is dishonest.
You are being offensive and disrespectful simply be taking the anti-gun pov.
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.
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.
If no one is armed, ALL of the people in the school are at the shooter's mercy. They can't fight back because people like you won't allow them that opportunity.
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.
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.
Well, if you could tell me the page # or post #, that would be extremely helpful and I definitely will check it out.
I've actually said it multiple times in this thread, but I believe the first time was in post 185 in response to Goshin.
No, if the teacher is armed, he/she has a fighting chance. If you leave them unarmed, they are all going to be dead.
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.
Wrong. The children wouldn't know unless you told them.
The children would know. To think otherwise is just not being realistic.
His posts are generally tl and not worth reading. The dynamic bit is psychobabble.
I find it amusing you think you know better than I do about a relationship between a teacher and student.
It's funny how people say "no, it will change the dynamic" and "the children will know" but don't explain how or why. They just make these matter of fact statements without backing them up in any way.
And it's funny when you DO explain them, people don't bother reading them.
See post #242. I've already explained it. The fact you didn't read it is your fault, not mine.
