• 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!

Arming teachers

What consequences should this teacher face?

  • This teacher is a hero, no consequences.

    Votes: 12 19.0%

  • This teacher should be arrested and tried for murder or something similar

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • This teacher should face financial consequences from the victims families

    Votes: 2 3.2%

  • This teacher is not a hero but should not face consequences

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Something else.

    Votes: 22 34.9%
  • Total voters
    63
Glen Contrarian said:
Just because a guy gets away with something when he was a kid, that does NOT mean that he thinks other young guys should be able to get away with the same thing. And it sounds to me like you're referring to what we called the "old Navy". The Navy today's much, much different, from the bottom to the top. It's much more professional than it ever was before. I joined in the days when no one gave a damn if you drank yourself half blind, as along as you could still get to work in the morning. I remember the bilge wine we used to concoct down in the shaft alley on the ship. And when we hit port, almost everyone gathered in the bars to waste their paychecks (and most of us would wind up in the clap lines in a few days). On the Pacific side, we all knew by heart the names of the streets where the whores were in every port (Hawaii, Singapore, Pusan, Hong Kong, Olongapo, Sasebo)...and with the exception of Magsaysay in Olongapo, the girly-bars on all those streets are gone...and the few remaining ones in Olongapo pretty much are there for locals now - not the sailors.

Today, however, it's way different - sailors still drink, but not nearly so much. They are expected to follow local laws (but can't have marijuana regardless of state laws). The clap lines are gone. The fat-assed chiefs of my early days would find it hard to keep up in today's Navy...and today's chiefs and officers are largely happy that the drinking age is 21 - because that means there's a LOT fewer reports from local law enforcement of arrests and DUIs of the younger sailors...which means that the discipline's much better among the crew as a whole.
Click to expand...
Oh yes. I know very well the difference between the 'old' military and the 'new' military. As Ozzieman would put it, the 'new' military is one a track to destination ****ed.

Tell me. What is your objection specifically to 18 year olds owning rifles?
 
Kreton said:
You think teachers are cops? You should be able to know the difference.
Click to expand...

teachers are not cops. And cops can't afford to be cops anymore, either. The job used to be dangerous; now doing the job is dangerous.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Was he found guilty of a crime or determined to be mentally-incapacitated in any of those 39 calls? No? Then that pretty much shows why we couldn't legally take away his guns, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If Cruz had been getting effective mental-health care his guns would have been confiscated and he would have been locked up.

What didn't happen with Cruz explains why the USA has a mass-killing problem

The USA needs effective mental-health care and better police agencies communication
 
Last edited:
No teachers should be armed until they are fully trained and tested.

Those who can't hit the right target shouldn't be armed.Pretty simple
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Here's a clue: in my experience, most senior military strongly support the 21-year age limit. Why? Because we know that 18 year-olds are still kids...and if they get to drink, they get in trouble, and if they're lucky, it's only their careers that suffer. But I'm only retired Navy - what would I know?
Click to expand...

I actually support lowering the drinking age back to 18. I also do not support restricting 18 year olds from owning/buying guns. We should not be arbitrarily making different ages to reach "adulthood". Its ridiculous. And it is emotionally reactionary. Plenty of young adults (not yet 21) are responsible enough and should not have their rights as an adult violated simply because some are trying to blame the actions of a few on the many. Plenty of adults, those over 21, have gotten irresponsibly drunk and even shot someone (I personally know of such an incident, and it involved Sailors). They were all 21 or older and someone did get shot.
 
Waddy said:
teachers are not cops. And cops can't afford to be cops anymore, either. The job used to be dangerous; now doing the job is dangerous.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, if any cop agrees with you, they should be immediately fired and barred from even getting a job in security. This is a pathetic cowardice opinion that is a disgrace to police officers.
 
roguenuke said:
I actually support lowering the drinking age back to 18. I also do not support restricting 18 year olds from owning/buying guns. We should not be arbitrarily making different ages to reach "adulthood". Its ridiculous. And it is emotionally reactionary. Plenty of young adults (not yet 21) are responsible enough and should not have their rights as an adult violated simply because some are trying to blame the actions of a few on the many. Plenty of adults, those over 21, have gotten irresponsibly drunk and even shot someone (I personally know of such an incident, and it involved Sailors). They were all 21 or older and someone did get shot.
Click to expand...

Yes, people who are over 21 do get drunk and do stupid stuff too - same thing goes for people over 60, too. The key is that the older someone is, the less likely that he or she will do something stupid. This is not something that is a problem with out-of-control government regulation - why do you think insurance companies charge a heck of a lot more for guys under the age of 26? And you, as a woman, should already realize that guys tend to be less emotionally mature than women. In other words, this isn't a matter of individual rights, but of overall likelihoods. I've met 13 year-olds who are more mature than some 30 year-olds that I have known...but does that mean that we should give a 13 year-old the same rights as a 30 year-old? Of course not...because we have to consider not that particular 13 year-old, but all 13 year-olds.

And it's not just that. Back in the day, it was legal here in America for 15-year-olds to marry each other and start their own family. They could do so because life was a LOT simpler then - much harder, but certainly simpler. Today, there's so much more to know, so much more to learn. IMO we need to add at least one and perhaps two years to high school in order to better prepare our kids for adulthood. Why? Because it's taking kids a lot longer to grow up today than ever before...and it doesn't help that a high-school degree by itself is highly unlikely to allow one to get a middle-class job in the modern workplace - there's just so much more to know today...and more growing up to do before one is really an adult.
 
shrubnose said:
If Cruz had been getting effective mental-health care his guns would have been confiscated and he would have been locked up.

What didn't happen with Cruz explains why the USA has a mass-killing problem

The USA needs effective mental-health care and better police agencies communication
Click to expand...

You do realize that many, perhaps most mass shooters have had little or no interaction whatsoever with either law enforcement or mental-health professionals, right? That being the case, exactly how does your "solution" address the problem?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yes, people who are over 21 do get drunk and do stupid stuff too - same thing goes for people over 60, too. The key is that the older someone is, the less likely that he or she will do something stupid. This is not something that is a problem with out-of-control government regulation - why do you think insurance companies charge a heck of a lot more for guys under the age of 26? And you, as a woman, should already realize that guys tend to be less emotionally mature than women. In other words, this isn't a matter of individual rights, but of overall likelihoods. I've met 13 year-olds who are more mature than some 30 year-olds that I have known...but does that mean that we should give a 13 year-old the same rights as a 30 year-old? Of course not...because we have to consider not that particular 13 year-old, but all 13 year-olds.

And it's not just that. Back in the day, it was legal here in America for 15-year-olds to marry each other and start their own family. They could do so because life was a LOT simpler then - much harder, but certainly simpler. Today, there's so much more to know, so much more to learn. IMO we need to add at least one and perhaps two years to high school in order to better prepare our kids for adulthood. Why? Because it's taking kids a lot longer to grow up today than ever before...and it doesn't help that a high-school degree by itself is highly unlikely to allow one to get a middle-class job in the modern workplace - there's just so much more to know today...and more growing up to do before one is really an adult.
Click to expand...

To me, some of the reason is that we aren't giving them opportunities, legally to grow up, to be responsible. And we allow sensationalism of various events to blind us to believe that extreme examples are the norm. They aren't. I guarantee you that more students went out and took pictures with flowers in Hobby Lobby or Walmart than those who participated in the Tide Challenge. Those who ate the Tide pods were seriously in a minority yet what sort of memes did we see from those? It's the same thing, blaming the many for the actions of a few.

I'm for insurance being based on personal history more than anything. And my husband is younger than me, 21 when we met, and emotionally more mature, has really been so since we met at least. I try not to get trapped into generalized beliefs about people.
 
VanceMack said:
Oh yes. I know very well the difference between the 'old' military and the 'new' military. As Ozzieman would put it, the 'new' military is one a track to destination ****ed.

Tell me. What is your objection specifically to 18 year olds owning rifles?
Click to expand...

1. In my early years in the military, I would have strongly agreed that the "new military" was a terrible idea, that it was a waste of time and effort and would get us all killed. As time went on, I realized how wrong that perception was. The military we have today is far more capable than ever before. Yeah, it's really easy to point out the shortcomings of today's military...but pretty much everyone who whines about the "new military" is forgetting to put it in the context of just how screwed up the military was at any given time in the past. American military history is rife with blunders and stupidity and outright evil...but so is the history of pretty much ever other military on the planet, and ours has been able to adapt and overcome despite all the stupidity.

Also, remember that when I enlisted in 1981, that was in the old sailors called the "new Navy"...and by the time I retired, what had been the "new Navy" when I first enlisted was now the "old Navy". By any objective measure, today's military is far more capable than it was twenty, thirty, forty years ago. Anyone who says otherwise isn't being truly objective, but is just looking for something to bitch about.

2. If I really had my way, 18 year-olds could indeed own rifles (just not the assault-style rifles that they think look so cool 'cause it looks like an AK). But in my world, firearm ownership would look a lot like it does over in Switzerland. Of course, that will never happen here since it would hurt the stock prices of the gun manufacturers and so they'd send the puppets at the NRA to make doggone sure that we don't become "communist" like Switzerland.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You do realize that many, perhaps most mass shooters have had little or no interaction whatsoever with either law enforcement or mental-health professionals, right? That being the case, exactly how does your "solution" address the problem?
Click to expand...

Now this depends somewhat on the reason for their doing it. At least 2 on the list of deadliest mass shootings were due to greed/robberies and accounted for 5 shooters. A couple more were terrorist attacks. Most of the rest did show signs of mental health problems at some point. Almost all of the recent shooters had to go through some sort of evaluation with a mental health professional at some point in their lives (although not all were evaluated effectively).

https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html

Of the first 7 on this list, only 1 did not have to or try to get professional evaluation or help for a mental health issue. One tried to get help 2-3 days prior to the shooting and was ignored. Some of those evaluations were early in life though. Several of the recent shooters were autistic. Many did have either encounters with law enforcement, mental health evaluations done, or both though.
 
American said:
A cop is in a state that places cops into a school. This cop does all the training, has their badge, and legally can have a gun in the school. During a crisis the cop shoots at a suspect with nothing but good intentions, trying to save lives, but hits some students, possibly killing some.

Is this cop a hero for at least trying to help?
Should this cop be charged for shooting innocent children despite their good intentions?
Click to expand...
My guess is that he would not have a job for much longer.

If he is shooting people he does not see are armed and attempting to kill others, sounds like pretty bad judgement.
 
roguenuke said:
Now this depends somewhat on the reason for their doing it. At least 2 on the list of deadliest mass shootings were due to greed/robberies and accounted for 5 shooters. A couple more were terrorist attacks. Most of the rest did show signs of mental health problems at some point. Almost all of the recent shooters had to go through some sort of evaluation with a mental health professional at some point in their lives (although not all were evaluated effectively).

https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html

Of the first 7 on this list, only 1 did not have to or try to get professional evaluation or help for a mental health issue. One tried to get help 2-3 days prior to the shooting and was ignored. Some of those evaluations were early in life though. Several of the recent shooters were autistic. Many did have either encounters with law enforcement, mental health evaluations done, or both though.
Click to expand...

"You're autistic, so you can't own a firearm." Figure the odds of that one surviving challenges in the courts.

What's more, on any given weekday, there's hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Americans who are under mental health care or supervision, or who are undergoing mental therapy. What you're suggesting would eventually wind up requiring that mental health professionals be held liable for not treating or counseling or in any other way helping someone who later became a murderer. There's all kinds of flashing red lights with that one.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for increasing access for people to get the mental health assistance they need. Unfortunately, the Republicans in general and the president in particular is NOT for any such thing. Oh, they say "we want people to get the mental health care they need"...but when it comes to providing the funding needed for that, not so much:

His speech from the White House went on for more than six minutes but apart from offering sympathy it lacked specific details on how the administration could mitigate the scourge of on-campus shootings.

Trump did, however, resurrect a theme frequently raised by Republicans when confronted with widespread calls for gun-control reform: Calls to "tackle the difficult issue of mental health."

...

The president's 2019 budget proposal released Monday indicates there are a few areas where Trump would like to boost mental health resources.

The biggest injection of funding — $8.6 billion — would go toward the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve intervention for at-risk veterans. The budget also adds $1 million to the Children's Mental Health Services program, which a report from the Department of Health and Human Services indicates this year was funded at $119 million. According to the document, "Recipients use these funds to create networks that provide fully comprehensive care— including effective collaboration between child- and youth-serving systems such as juvenile justice, child welfare, and education."

But the budget blueprint also slashes spending for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration by $665 million. Additionally, Bloomberg reported the National Institute of Mental Health would see a 30 percent reduction in funding — a half a billion dollar decrease — in 2019.

And as NPR's Scott Horsely noted, nearly a year ago the president signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns.

That budgetary cut, btw, is part of what allegedly paid for the tax cut that went mostly to the rich. If you want to live in a first-world nation, then you've got to be willing to pay the taxes needed to build and maintain that first-world standard of living...and that includes the taxes required to pay for the mental health for those who need it but can't afford it out-of-pocket.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
1. In my early years in the military, I would have strongly agreed that the "new military" was a terrible idea, that it was a waste of time and effort and would get us all killed. As time went on, I realized how wrong that perception was. The military we have today is far more capable than ever before. Yeah, it's really easy to point out the shortcomings of today's military...but pretty much everyone who whines about the "new military" is forgetting to put it in the context of just how screwed up the military was at any given time in the past. American military history is rife with blunders and stupidity and outright evil...but so is the history of pretty much ever other military on the planet, and ours has been able to adapt and overcome despite all the stupidity.

Also, remember that when I enlisted in 1981, that was in the old sailors called the "new Navy"...and by the time I retired, what had been the "new Navy" when I first enlisted was now the "old Navy". By any objective measure, today's military is far more capable than it was twenty, thirty, forty years ago. Anyone who says otherwise isn't being truly objective, but is just looking for something to bitch about.

2. If I really had my way, 18 year-olds could indeed own rifles (just not the assault-style rifles that they think look so cool 'cause it looks like an AK). But in my world, firearm ownership would look a lot like it does over in Switzerland. Of course, that will never happen here since it would hurt the stock prices of the gun manufacturers and so they'd send the puppets at the NRA to make doggone sure that we don't become "communist" like Switzerland.
Click to expand...
There has to be more than just 'cuz they iz 18'. If the concern is 18 is wreckless and irresponsible, then that restriction should cast a broad net. If people actually care about 18 year olds and an actual threat and not just "**** it...lets settle for THIS gun law" Which is what you and others are doing.
 
roguenuke said:
To me, some of the reason is that we aren't giving them opportunities, legally to grow up, to be responsible. And we allow sensationalism of various events to blind us to believe that extreme examples are the norm. They aren't. I guarantee you that more students went out and took pictures with flowers in Hobby Lobby or Walmart than those who participated in the Tide Challenge. Those who ate the Tide pods were seriously in a minority yet what sort of memes did we see from those? It's the same thing, blaming the many for the actions of a few.

I'm for insurance being based on personal history more than anything. And my husband is younger than me, 21 when we met, and emotionally more mature, has really been so since we met at least. I try not to get trapped into generalized beliefs about people.
Click to expand...

I understand about you not wanting to generalize about people...but while it is wrong to make broad-brush assumptions about people, it is equally wrong to ignore documented generalities that play important, even crucial roles in our lives. Moderation in everything, I say.

For instance, it's certainly wrong to make assumptions about crime rates among the different races, since there's so many other factors that must be considered; however it's increasingly important to consider race and ethnicity in considering medical care and prescription medication thanks to the increasing wealth of data showing that different races face different health risks and respond differently to different medications and therapies.

And if your husband is more emotionally-mature than you, then I'm happy for you...and I assure you that research is increasingly showing that such is the exception to the rule.

Here's another example of such research, too.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
"You're autistic, so you can't own a firearm." Figure the odds of that one surviving challenges in the courts.

What's more, on any given weekday, there's hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Americans who are under mental health care or supervision, or who are undergoing mental therapy. What you're suggesting would eventually wind up requiring that mental health professionals be held liable for not treating or counseling or in any other way helping someone who later became a murderer. There's all kinds of flashing red lights with that one.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for increasing access for people to get the mental health assistance they need. Unfortunately, the Republicans in general and the president in particular is NOT for any such thing. Oh, they say "we want people to get the mental health care they need"...but when it comes to providing the funding needed for that, not so much:

His speech from the White House went on for more than six minutes but apart from offering sympathy it lacked specific details on how the administration could mitigate the scourge of on-campus shootings.

Trump did, however, resurrect a theme frequently raised by Republicans when confronted with widespread calls for gun-control reform: Calls to "tackle the difficult issue of mental health."

...

The president's 2019 budget proposal released Monday indicates there are a few areas where Trump would like to boost mental health resources.

The biggest injection of funding — $8.6 billion — would go toward the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve intervention for at-risk veterans. The budget also adds $1 million to the Children's Mental Health Services program, which a report from the Department of Health and Human Services indicates this year was funded at $119 million. According to the document, "Recipients use these funds to create networks that provide fully comprehensive care— including effective collaboration between child- and youth-serving systems such as juvenile justice, child welfare, and education."

But the budget blueprint also slashes spending for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration by $665 million. Additionally, Bloomberg reported the National Institute of Mental Health would see a 30 percent reduction in funding — a half a billion dollar decrease — in 2019.

And as NPR's Scott Horsely noted, nearly a year ago the president signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns.

That budgetary cut, btw, is part of what allegedly paid for the tax cut that went mostly to the rich. If you want to live in a first-world nation, then you've got to be willing to pay the taxes needed to build and maintain that first-world standard of living...and that includes the taxes required to pay for the mental health for those who need it but can't afford it out-of-pocket.
Click to expand...

I have an autistic son so I'm not for such a thing at all, no more than I would be for saying you have PTSD, no gun. I'm simply pointing out that there was a mental health evaluation done for many of these. And even for those who were autistic, there were other things that could easily point to deeper, more serious mental health problems that officials in some capacity could have caught. Funding is an issue, both when it comes to public schools and health care.

I wasn't trying to blame those people. I'm pointing out that we need to look at where failures occur and try to keep them in mind in the future while still recognizing the rights of the each individual to be recognized as an individual. Its going to be a hard balance.

I didn't actually "suggest" anything. I was refuting that most of the mass shooters had no contact with law enforcement or mental health professionals prior to their crime. That statement was not true. Most did, and in many cases, red flags did come up that were ignored or brushed off (definitely the case for this last shooter) that could have prevented the shooting.

The recent shooter was probably the most obvious example. He did make several threats and was viewed as "the kid who would go Columbine" at his school. There are some others. The guy who sought mental health care and was told they would call him back (they didn't, but that really isn't appropriate in the first place). I realize that was around 30 years ago. There was also the guy who shot up the church in Texas. He was very violent for years. Courtmartialed for domestic violence. I'm one that advocates that sometimes things do get missed and people make mistakes. However, we want to minimize this stuff to the best of our ability. Unfortunately, that means we have to fund more people, more programs, better technology and pass info along.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I understand about you not wanting to generalize about people...but while it is wrong to make broad-brush assumptions about people, it is equally wrong to ignore documented generalities that play important, even crucial roles in our lives. Moderation in everything, I say.

For instance, it's certainly wrong to make assumptions about crime rates among the different races, since there's so many other factors that must be considered; however it's increasingly important to consider race and ethnicity in considering medical care and prescription medication thanks to the increasing wealth of data showing that different races face different health risks and respond differently to different medications and therapies.

And if your husband is more emotionally-mature than you, then I'm happy for you...and I assure you that research is increasingly showing that such is the exception to the rule.

Here's another example of such research, too.
Click to expand...

My point with the last part was that people should not be judged off the actions of others when it comes to rights. It simply is not fair. And it is wrong for the government to set laws at arbitrary points in a person's life due to emotional pleas. It is how we wrongly got unfair alcohol age limits. Culture is the main issue when it comes to immaturity, not age.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Got any military experience?
Click to expand...

Not relevant. I know your point as to who will take the blame. But it doesn't matter. A person is responsible for their own actions. Someone can be responsible for that person as well, but that person is responsible for themselves as well.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You do realize that many, perhaps most mass shooters have had little or no interaction whatsoever with either law enforcement or mental-health professionals, right? That being the case, exactly
how does your "solution" address the problem
Click to expand...
?
Click to expand...
don

By changing the way things are done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom