• 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!

If we arm teachers what happens if????

calamity said:
Lol...Righties all think teachers are idiots and also refuse to fully fund public schools. But now---voila!--they want to hand them guns and fund all the required weapons training. :doh

The idiocy on that side of the aisle is legion.
Click to expand...

With the exception of one poster (who is just trying to "gouge" me) this has been a pretty decent discussion.
 
Vetplus40 said:
With the exception of one poster (who is just trying to "gouge" me) this has been a pretty decent discussion.
Click to expand...

I find it ironic that the Right would arm "leftist" educators. But, that they would rather fund guns than books does not come as a surprise.

Fact: an armed teacher is not going to stop a nut like Cruz. Isn't it ironic that the one armed good guy on that campus turned tail and ran? No surprise there either though. Not really.
 
Vetplus40 said:
I will pass on the obvious issues related to armed teachers having emotional issues and using a weapon for "workplace violence" type of issues and center on one question that occurs to me:

What if a properly trained teacher - obviously not prepared for an assult (what teacher would be) - gets caught up in the heavy adreneline of a gunfire exchange and shoots and kills an innocent student.hat happens then?[/QUOTE
I agree that they, well most, some were military and LEO's, are really equipped to fight a crazy shooter, train those willing to learn as best we can and they will be a better first line of defense than none at all. But we are not going far enough here, add trained security officers and then the kids will gain true security from those that would harm or kill them.
Click to expand...
 
Casper said:
Vetplus40 said:
I will pass on the obvious issues related to armed teachers having emotional issues and using a weapon for "workplace violence" type of issues and center on one question that occurs to me:

What if a properly trained teacher - obviously not prepared for an assult (what teacher would be) - gets caught up in the heavy adreneline of a gunfire exchange and shoots and kills an innocent student.hat happens then?[/QUOTE
I agree that they, well most, some were military and LEO's, are really equipped to fight a crazy shooter, train those willing to learn as best we can and they will be a better first line of defense than none at all. But we are not going far enough here, add trained security officers and then the kids will gain true security from those that would harm or kill them.
Click to expand...

There's a reason cops are fully trained, full time LEO and wear body armor. It's absolutely moronic to believe a history teacher can do that job in a pinch.
Click to expand...
 
Vetplus40 said:
Responsible for what? You are even assuming that the teacher is able to either stop or reduce the carnage because the teacher is armed. Neither of those outcomes may occur.
Click to expand...
Mass shootings are stopped all the time by every day citizens.the only reason you don't hear about is because they don't have the carnage of an unabaded shooting. As for responsibility, she would bear the blame for not taking better aim.
 
calamity said:
There's a reason cops are fully trained, full time LEO and wear body armor. It's absolutely moronic to believe a history teacher can do that job in a pinch.
Click to expand...

When it comes to incidents like this, there's really not much to be trained on. You're either trained to hold in place and cover the exit or trained to clear corners and move as a group. Both are rather simple to learn and can easily be researched online.
 
Vetplus40 said:
I will pass on the obvious issues related to armed teachers having emotional issues and using a weapon for "workplace violence" type of issues and center on one question that occurs to me:

What if a properly trained teacher - obviously not prepared for an assult (what teacher would be) - gets caught up in the heavy adreneline of a gunfire exchange and shoots and kills an innocent student. What happens then?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking in any armed conflict, an innocent person being shot is a high possibility, whether it be trained teachers, military or law enforcement. When I was in the army we trained on risk and threat assesment, ok let us do a scenario, A guy with an ak 47 walks through town, normal in the middle east. But then the guy unleashes fire on you and civilians and he is surrounded by civilians, it becomes a very quick risk assesment. The guy could kill numerous civilians while you firing at him can kill civilians, but in this case a few dead civilians is better than many, you take the shots and neutralize the threat.

Military deals with it as does police, often if the risk outweighs the benefit, they will hold on until safe to persue. A teacher trained in the same scenarios would be left with the same decisions, in a rapid manner deciding if taking out the shooter justifies the risk. In all situations miscalculations are present, that is human error especially when the decision must be made quickly, so trying to claim someone inniocent can be killed taking out an active shooter is a poor argument, as no one with a sense of decency and humanity ever feels good about innocent people being caught in the crossfire, no one either feels good knowing one or two dead may have saved dozens, and that simple action may have saved many lives.
 
Liberals want to use dead kids smart! If we arm teachers and your children were in a situation that would be less deadly. Well we have police officers to do that For an example I live by a middle school and, the closest substation is 9 minutes away and, the high school up the road from me is 12 minutes from the closest substitution of the backup for the school resource officer or officers. so you can tell me what’s safer? A teacher who is willing to do whatever to protect your children? Or suffer and, ask why?… I wanna to open an question that I have been hearing from the media mostly medal detectors. So… like the old one like the airport used to use or full body scan? It’s funny how we jump on this gun control but, in a city like St. Louis which is high crime close to 6,000 violence crime, 188 homicides according to USA Today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
beancounter said:
I'm not worried about armed teachers. I'm more concerned with the students having countless opportunities to get their hands on the teacher's gun.

The teacher may put it down for a second, forget to store it, or lock it, etc.

In high school (and possibly middle school), a male student could overpower a female teacher, or two male students working in concert could get a gun from a male teacher.

Arming teachers is practically begging for more bloodbaths.

I think this falls under "be careful what you wish for"..
Click to expand...

how much experience do you have carrying a firearm?
 
Vetplus40 said:
What if a properly trained teacher - obviously not prepared for an assult (what teacher would be) - gets caught up in the heavy adreneline of a gunfire exchange and shoots and kills an innocent student. What happens then?
Click to expand...

Same exact scenario, so you think the teacher without a gun is more (not less? ) prepared for an assault, generally speaking? On average?
 
beancounter said:
I'm not worried about armed teachers. I'm more concerned with the students having countless opportunities to get their hands on the teacher's gun.

The teacher may put it down for a second, forget to store it, or lock it, etc.

In high school (and possibly middle school), a male student could overpower a female teacher, or two male students working in concert could get a gun from a male teacher.

Arming teachers is practically begging for more bloodbaths.

I think this falls under "be careful what you wish for"..
Click to expand...

So why hasn’t this been an issue in the 18 states that already allow teachers to concealed carry?
 
I’m amazed how superficially some people think about the possibility “arming teachers.” I don’t even see why any should ever need to have it on their person. The means to return fire to a shooter could exist in a school. Obviously it would be imperative that it not be accessible by any unintended hands or ideally not even unless an active shooter situation was happening. If that can’t be accomplished (though I can’t imagine what would make it so impossible), then it would be unlikely to work or get any support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Vetplus40 said:
What if a properly trained teacher - obviously not prepared for an assult (what teacher would be) - gets caught up in the heavy adreneline of a gunfire exchange and shoots and kills an innocent student. What happens then?
Click to expand...
Presumably the same things that happen when a police officer or legally armed security guard does I guess, both the good things like a balanced formal investigation to ensure there was no wrong-doing and the bad things like over-emotional and misinformed community and media reactions. On the back of reporting in the aftermath of the recent incident, I’d suggest a more complex situation would be if an armed teacher was deemed by some not to have responded to an incident correctly, quick enough or at all.

None of that is a reason for it not to happen though, only that it shouldn’t be rushed in to and that everyone should be fully aware of and accepts all the possible risks in addition to the benefits. Not that this every happens with any other political policy.
 
Chillfolks said:
Back in the late 80's early 90's my middle and HS both had armed police officers in them. It's nothing new
Click to expand...

The amazing thing is that many Americans think this is perfectly normal and no big deal, while the rest of the world looks on in disbelief.

If your society needs armed police patrolling your schools, then your society has failed big time. And now we're talking about teachers carrying guns.
 
My office has a program that I think might be a good model for arming teachers.

I work in the auto industry, and because of that there's quite a bit of dangerous equipment in our office. Safety is a big concern of course, but accidents do sometimes happen. Our company recruits and trains volunteer emergency responders to help deal with these accidents before paramedics can arrive. They're volunteers and the company pays for regular training for them. CPR, first aid, how to use an AED, that kind of stuff. From what I've heard it's fairly in-depth training too. Maybe not quite to the degree of an EMT class, but more than your typical red cross first aid class too.

If we're going to arm teachers, that seems like a good model to follow, recruiting volunteers and making sure they have the training needed to be effective. Not just randomly saying "okay, you can all carry concealed in the school with no oversight".
 
Aristaeus said:
The amazing thing is that many Americans think this is perfectly normal and no big deal, while the rest of the world looks on in disbelief.

If your society needs armed police patrolling your schools, then your society has failed big time.
Click to expand...

Arbitrary declarations that “society has failed” are childish.

Gun violence is trending downward in this country. We’re failing to have gun violence as low as Europe, Japan and Australia, but have less of a problem than basically everywhere else in the world.

And now we're talking about teachers carrying guns.
Click to expand...

They don’t need to be “carrying” guns.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Arbitrary declarations that “society has failed” are childish.

Gun violence is trending downward in this country. We’re failing to have gun violence as low as Europe, Japan and Australia, but have less of a problem than basically everywhere else in the world.



They don’t need to be “carrying” guns.
Click to expand...

You think schools needing armed officers patrolling the grounds or arming teachers with guns is a sign of a successful society??? If you do, then you seriously need to take a step back.
 
Vetplus40 said:
Because they are TEACHERS that is why. Being trained on the proper use of a firearm and being adept at assault tactics are TWO entirely different things.

That said, if you are not able to understand the question, dont ****ing answer. Got it?
Click to expand...

Being properly trained is not just being properly trained on the use of a firearm. It is also being properly trained on what to do in a crisis situation. Just as a soldier who is properly trained knows how to use his weapon, he also know when, where and why to use his weapon. It would be the same with a teacher...otherwise that teacher cannot be considered properly trained.

Seems to me you don't think teachers CAN be properly trained. If that's the case, I'd like to know why you would think that.
 
Mycroft said:
Being properly trained is not just being properly trained on the use of a firearm. It is also being properly trained on what to do in a crisis situation. Just as a soldier who is properly trained knows how to use his weapon, he also know when, where and why to use his weapon. It would be the same with a teacher...otherwise that teacher cannot be considered properly trained.

Seems to me you don't think teachers CAN be properly trained. If that's the case, I'd like to know why you would think that.
Click to expand...

How long does it take to train a soldier, and bearing in mind that a soldier is trained full time, how long would it take a teacher training part time to reach a similar standard??
 
Aristaeus said:
How long does it take to train a soldier, and bearing in mind that a soldier is trained full time, how long would it take a teacher training part time to reach a similar standard??
Click to expand...

Why does the training have to be part time?

I would think a two-week intensive course for volunteer teachers...after the school year...with periodic refreshers during the school year, would do the job.

Army basic training is 8-10 weeks, but they get a much broader range of training. A course for teachers could be designed specifically for the threats they would encounter.
 
TurtleDude said:
how much experience do you have carrying a firearm?
Click to expand...

My experience is irrelevant. This isn't about me. What matters is how the teachers handle the gun, and the potential opportunities for the students to get their hands on it. If such a law passed, I want to be on record as saying "I told you so", when a student gets their hands on a teacher's gun.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
So why hasn’t this been an issue in the 18 states that already allow teachers to concealed carry?
Click to expand...

How many teachers actually do it? And just like anything, the more opportunities that are available, the increased likelyhood something will go wrong.
 
beancounter said:
My experience is irrelevant. This isn't about me. What matters is how the teachers handle the gun, and the potential opportunities for the students to get their hands on it. If such a law passed, I want to be on record as saying "I told you so", when a student gets their hands on a teacher's gun.
Click to expand...

you seem to think people will leaving the guns lying around

doesn't work that way
 
Mycroft said:
Being properly trained is not just being properly trained on the use of a firearm. It is also being properly trained on what to do in a crisis situation. Just as a soldier who is properly trained knows how to use his weapon, he also know when, where and why to use his weapon. It would be the same with a teacher...otherwise that teacher cannot be considered properly trained.
Click to expand...
To be fair, newly trained soldiers will generally be deployed with more experienced colleges and officers but even then, there will be plenty of cases of them not operating perfectly when they first experience live conflict. An armed teacher is likely to experience only one incident in their career (if that) and typically won’t have that same support behind them.

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be considered or even that it couldn’t be of benefit in some situations but I don’t think it should be presented as any kind of solution to the wider problem and I don’t think the risks and potential problems should be overlooked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom