Gun violence isn't the only type of violence in our schools.
Where I went to school there were a few stabbings as well.
Making an entire case to disarm anyone who could protect / serve to protect a group of people who you already disarmed.. based on "incredibly low numbers" seems dishonest at best as well.
Statistics prove that CCW holders account for less than 1% of violent crime. Why is it that you guys are so against a responsible faculty member being able to protect their children?
I can't count all the red herrings, personal experiences on your post. But I will try anyways. 1,2,3,4 fi- I'm done count. Oh my. Okay here we go.
You first argument :
1.
Gun violence isn't the only type of violence in our schools.
Where I went to school there were a few stabbings as well.
That is the first red herring. The percentage of school stabbings, shoots, etc. are
minuscule compared to weaponless violence in our schools. If anything you'd be better off just banning kids from school all together.
2000 Annual Report on School Safety, Department of Education and Department of Justice, 2000
Physical attacks without a weapon, theft or larceny, and vandalism are much more common in schools than are the more serious incidents. Forty-four percent to forty-nine percent of all schools reported crimes of these types to the authorities. (2000 Annual Report on School Safety, Department of Education and Department of Justice, 2000)
What would stabbings, which come in just as few numbers as gun attacks have to do with your perception that arming teachers would somehow stop violence in our schools even though the overall percentage is in the decimal numbers and you're several times more likely to get into a fist fight then you are to get into a knife fight at school? Nothing.
2.
Making an entire case to disarm anyone who could protect / serve to protect a group of people who you already disarmed.. based on "incredibly low numbers" seems dishonest at best as well.
The way I see it is simple. Teachers are people. The same people who are overworked, underpaid and stressed to the last nerve are the people we ask to protect kids and make life and death decisions in the ridiculously small chance there might be a psychopathic 16 year old killing people? I personally don't see a reason for it and see it as just an ego trip. It is like wearing two condoms when your chances of getting laid are close to nil.
3.
Statistics prove that CCW holders account for less than 1% of violent crime. Why is it that you guys are so against a responsible faculty member being able to protect their children?
This is exactly where I wanted you to fall.
Statistics also show the chances of your kid being in a school shooting are in the 0.000X%. Did you just make my argument for me? I think you did. I'll explain how. Even though CCW holders are responsible for less then 1% of all violent crime then it would be
PERFECTLY reasonable for us to ban all guns because there is still a possibility that it might happen. It seems to me highly illogical that you would advocate doing away with gun free zones because they fail less then 1% of the time but not doing away with CCWs even though they are involved in less then 1% of gun crime.
The rest of your argument is an emotional plea and I will not address it.
