Guns

[wuapinmon]

I bet you it will happen whether or not you allow guns in school. In fact, it just did.

And, it will happen even more if you allow guns in school all across the country. Where there are guns, people die. Whether by accident or will, guns kill people, even especially careful or trained ones. Where we have limited guns, nationally, people just don't die by them. Check out how many deaths from automatic weapons since the National Firearms Act was passed.

[All-American]

And, it will happen even more if you allow guns in school all across the country.

I don't accept that as inevitably true. As we learned from the war on drugs, it may well turn out that reasoned and careful oversight is more effective than an outright ban.

[wuapinmon]

I don't accept that as inevitably true. As we learned from the war on drugs, it may well turn out that reasoned and careful oversight is more effective than an outright ban.

Except that guns are not addictive to the human body. I don't mind guns, but I do want tight controls on them, like we have on machine guns. If we do that, there's no need to have guns in a school.

Think about that for a second. Guns in a school to protect the kids. Teachers carrying guns. It's an incredibly stupid idea that will lead to hurt.

[old_gregg]

how is this a debate? proliferation of things makes the likelihood of occurrences caused by the existence of those things more likely.

[All-American]

Except that guns are not addictive to the human body. I don't mind guns, but I do want tight controls on them, like we have on machine guns. If we do that, there's no need to have guns in a school.

Think about that for a second. Guns in a school to protect the kids. Teachers carrying guns. It's an incredibly stupid idea that will lead to hurt.

I've thought a good deal about it, as have a number of people more than familiar with the inherent danger of firearms, and to us the idea makes a lot of sense. This conversation keeps ending up at it's stupid because you say so.

[All-American]

how is this a debate? proliferation of things makes the likelihood of occurrences caused by the existence of those things more likely.

I guess it's possible for guns to spontaneously fire, but I think it usually involves more than that. But I assume there's no appetite here for a discussion on the difference between but-for causation and proximate causation, so I'll pass.

[swampfrog]

how is this a debate? proliferation of things makes the likelihood of occurrences caused by the existence of those things more likely.

I guess it's possible for guns to spontaneously fire, but I think it usually involves more than that. But I assume there's no appetite here for a discussion on the difference between but-for causation and proximate causation, so I'll pass.

I'll assume that the number of guns to the number of gun accidents have a linear relationship, therefore it's true that bringing more guns into the school will result in more accidents in the school. We're talking an insignificant increase in the total number of guns in the entire population by allowing them in the school, so this is really a change to where some (very few) accidents will occur.

The trouble is in measuring the effectiveness of knowledge of concealed carry guns on the campus in the overall prevention of gun violence. I believe we know that many (if not all) mass shootings in schools have been planned, sometimes over a period of years. The diary entries that Wuap posted earlier clearly show that the intention of the perpetrator was first to eliminate the threat of armed security. Other writings of mass shooters include references to awareness that the rampage may be cut short by police/security. I don't think you can just ignore that some level of deterrent exists if it is known that armed personnel exist. Even if it is simply a deterrent to cause the shooter to have to recognize and accommodate the likelihood of armed resistance. The may still carry out the act, but it hopefully will be mitigated in severity.

The question then becomes what is the ratio between prevented shootings to accidents. Can one even be determined? I do worry about the student population finding out and propagating through social media which teachers they suspect or know are carrying. That has the potential to go very badly in many different ways. That's more concerning than the number of likely accidents IMO.

[Bo Diddley]

The question then becomes what is the ratio between prevented shootings to accidents. Can one even be determined? I do worry about the student population finding out and propagating through social media which teachers they suspect or know are carrying. That has the potential to go very badly in many different ways. That's more concerning than the number of likely accidents IMO.

This is my concern as well. And often those who like to carry also like to "accidentally" let people know they're carrying.

[wuapinmon]

I've thought a good deal about it, as have a number of people more than familiar with the inherent danger of firearms, and to us the idea makes a lot of sense. This conversation keeps ending up at it's stupid because you say so.

1. It's stupid because adding guns to schools in the hands of non-professionals is ridiculous.
2. It's stupid because of the massive liabilities created for the school systems should a gun go off accidentally and kill or wound a child.
3. It's stupid because of even more massive liabilities created for the school system should a teacher actually respond to an intruder and wind up shooting a student, even if by accident.
4. It's stupid because of massive affective filters created when students learn that their teacher is carrying a weapon. Intimidation is already a factor.
5. It's stupid because teachers have bad days; the absence of a gun--for some--probably prevents violence against asshole kids, asshole parents, asshole colleagues, and asshole administrators.
6. It's stupid because once students know who has guns, students will then tell everyone who packs and who doesn't, and kids will taunt and goad and harangue teachers with guns even more, hoping to provoke them to brandish a weapon, thereby giving themselves "money" from a lawsuit against the school.
7. It's stupid because the costs of putting even one paid security officer in every one of the 250,000 schools in the US would reach into the billions, and is unncessary if we don't take the "let's fight violence with even more guns" model.

I guess it's possible for guns to spontaneously fire, but I think it usually involves more than that. But I assume there's no appetite here for a discussion on the difference between but-for causation and proximate causation, so I'll pass.

8. It's stupid because human error is a very real thing, and assuming that bad stuff won't happen once we add more firearms to the mix in overcrowded, rowdy places is stupid. I don't care if you think this is a tautology.
9. It's stupid because, for example, in New Orleans, my friend had to duct-tape the light switch into the on position, because every time she turned around to use the chalkboard, a student would get up and turn them lights off. Administrators told her to solve the problem, and not send the students to the office. They didn't want to be in class anyway. Many kids just don't give a ****. Putting guns into that kind of tinderbox is stupid.
10. It's stupid because but for the increase in guns, Kid A would not've been shot. The proximate cause of me shooting at an intruder and killing your kid is pointless in the court of public opinion.
11. It's stupid because, no, I'm bored now. I shouldn't have to delineate all the reasons why this idea is colossally stupid. Sure having someone armed in a school is a deterrent, but, there's a simpler solution; limit access to the firearms in the first place.

I'm beyond unalienable/god-given right bullshit. It's time we all grew up and recognized that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and replaced with something akin to what I proposed earlier.

This is my concern as well. And often those who like to carry also like to "accidentally" let people know they're carrying.

Got a gun/fact I got two/that's ok, man/cause I love god.

[All-American]

1. It's stupid because adding guns to schools in the hands of non-professionals is ridiculous.

All right, everybody, please take note. THIS is begging the question.

Thanks for putting this first. It saved me from spending time reading the rest.

[All-American]

I'm beyond unalienable/god-given right bullshit. It's time we all grew up and recognized that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and replaced with something akin to what I proposed earlier.

...okay, I read a little more, and I found this. Just so you know, THIS is why so-called "common-sense" gun control measures never pass.

[Uncle Ted]

1. It's stupid because adding guns to schools in the hands of non-professionals is ridiculous.
2. It's stupid because of the massive liabilities created for the school systems should a gun go off accidentally and kill or wound a child.
3. It's stupid because of even more massive liabilities created for the school system should a teacher actually respond to an intruder and wind up shooting a student, even if by accident.
4. It's stupid because of massive affective filters created when students learn that their teacher is carrying a weapon. Intimidation is already a factor.
5. It's stupid because teachers have bad days; the absence of a gun--for some--probably prevents violence against asshole kids, asshole parents, asshole colleagues, and asshole administrators.
6. It's stupid because once students know who has guns, students will then tell everyone who packs and who doesn't, and kids will taunt and goad and harangue teachers with guns even more, hoping to provoke them to brandish a weapon, thereby giving themselves "money" from a lawsuit against the school.
7. It's stupid because the costs of putting even one paid security officer in every one of the 250,000 schools in the US would reach into the billions, and is unncessary if we don't take the "let's fight violence with even more guns" model.




8. It's stupid because human error is a very real thing, and assuming that bad stuff won't happen once we add more firearms to the mix in overcrowded, rowdy places is stupid. I don't care if you think this is a tautology.
9. It's stupid because, for example, in New Orleans, my friend had to duct-tape the light switch into the on position, because every time she turned around to use the chalkboard, a student would get up and turn them lights off. Administrators told her to solve the problem, and not send the students to the office. They didn't want to be in class anyway. Many kids just don't give a ****. Putting guns into that kind of tinderbox is stupid.
10. It's stupid because but for the increase in guns, Kid A would not've been shot. The proximate cause of me shooting at an intruder and killing your kid is pointless in the court of public opinion.
11. It's stupid because, no, I'm bored now. I shouldn't have to delineate all the reasons why this idea is colossally stupid. Sure having someone armed in a school is a deterrent, but, there's a simpler solution; limit access to the firearms in the first place.

I'm beyond unalienable/god-given right bullshit. It's time we all grew up and recognized that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and replaced with something akin to what I proposed earlier.




Got a gun/fact I got two/that's ok, man/cause I love god.

12. It's stupid because most teachers are women who "are scared of guns".

Maybe they just haven't found the right gun yet...

[BigFatMeanie]

Perhaps compulsory public-funded education is stupid...

[wuapinmon]

...okay, I read a little more, and I found this. Just so you know, THIS is why so-called "common-sense" gun control measures never pass.

For now.

[wuapinmon]

Perhaps compulsory public-funded education is stupid...

It's not compulsory. Make your kids weird at home if you want.