Originally Posted by
Antiganon
The argument against arming teachers:
1) Putting guns in schools provides more ammo for the shooter when they kill the teacher and can now pick up another loaded gun. Without having to reload, btw.
2) I do not want to send my child to a school where all the authority figures are armed. School is not a prison.
3) If teachers are to be required to undergo combat training and be ready and willing to shoot a student, they are going to need more pay. Guess which party is opposed to increasing funding for public education?
4) How would you pay for the guns for the teachers? Glock 43 9mm is $450 each. We can't even afford pencils right now, we make the teachers buy them out of pocket, and maybe they get reimbursed, maybe not.
5) What about teachers who don't want to do this?
6) What about people who want to be armed in schools to protect children, but have zero ability to convey knowledge to terrified children who had no interest in learning before they were afraid for their lives?
7) I really have to believe the intersection of "Teachers who are able to convey knowledge and encourage personal and academic development in children" and "People willing to kill an armed child on sight without hesitation" is a really, REALLY tiny percentage of teachers.
8) Who pays for the liability insurance?
9) Are teachers personally at fault if they miss the shooter and kill an innocent bystander?
10) Are teachers personally at fault if they fail to prevent the shooter from killing someone?
11) Enclosed spaces with concrete walls filled with innocent children are generally the LAST place you want more guns going off. Ricochets are a thing, especially down concrete halls with ceramic tile floors lined with steel lockers on both sides.
The argument in favor of arming teachers:
1) Armed people in the school will deter shooters (False, many school shootings have occurred in schools that had an armed security officer or police officer on premises).
2) The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun (False, the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure the bad guy never gets the gun in the first place. The second best way is to find out why the guy is bad, and make him good, before he does anything bad. The third best way is to make sure he can't bring the gun to the place he wants to use it. The fourth best way is to hold active shooter drills on a regular basis, and have secure areas where students can hide in case of emergency. The fifth best way is a good guy with a gun, provided the good guy is military or police, and trained in de-escalation tactics. The sixth best way is a trained officer with a gun. The seventh best way is a typical good guy with a gun.)
3) Nothing short of an armed presence in schools will make our children feel safe (False, an armed presence in schools will make our children feel that their lives are in constant danger, distracting them from the learning that they are there for in the first place.)
The argument in favor of stricter gun control:
1) Nobody needs ready access to high powered assault-style weapons for any day-to-day activities.
2) We already have many gun control laws which are not properly enforced. Tighter enforcement of existing laws (including stricter penalties for violating them) would fall under the broad umbrella of gun control.
3) Every other developed nation has a more sensible system of gun control - either the Israeli/Swiss model where EVERYONE is armed, but heavily trained on how to use guns safely and effectively, or the broader European/Australian model where gun access is heavily restricted. The US has far more gun violence than any of those other countries.
4) Most guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally. Many were purchased due to gaps in existing legislation. Bills like FIX NICS are intended to plug those gaps, and should have broad bipartisan support.
5) 94% of Americans support universal background checks, including for private sales and gun shows.
6) The Framers intended the Constitution to be a living document, able to change with the times as required to best fit the needs of society.
The argument against stricter gun control:
1) Civilian ownership of guns is necessary as a check on the government and to empower us to violently overthrow the government if our rights are being violated. (False, civilian ownership of guns means nothing when the military can drone strike your house while you sleep.)
2) Civilian ownership of guns is necessary for personal protection (False, civilian ownership of means of self defense is necessary for personal protection, it does not necessarily HAVE to be guns.)
3) Our country has a long standing tradition of responsible firearms ownership and use. Hunting traditions go back generations. (True, and there would be no need to restrict this usage. You do not need a high-capacity magazine or an assault-style weapon to hunt deer.)
4) The Framers wrote the Second Amendment so that the government would never be able to take our guns (False, the Framers likely wrote the Second Amendment because they wanted a well-trained and equipped citizenry that could be called as militia if needed, because they did not want a standing army. It was not until the mid 1900s that 2A was interpreted by the Supreme Court as an absolute protection of an individual's right to bear arms for funsies. Additionally, the Framers wrote the Constitution to be a living document that could change with the times as needed.)
5) If you try to take the guns away from people who have them, there will be armed rebellion. (Unclear. The government wouldn't simply be seizing private property, guns would be taken away via buyback programs. If there is one thing that Americans in general love more than guns, it's money.)
Recent Blue Posts
The Cataclysm Classic Pre-Expansion Patch Arrives April 30
Season of Discovery Hotfixes - 23 April
Do you consider the Horde to be "the bad guys" or is it more complex?
MMO-Champion
Recent Forum Posts
