Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Thanato

Arm the Teachers?

414 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Stellar

Comparing murder rates between Europe and the US, it's obvious that adopting their gun control laws will not curb murder and may make it a lot worse. If that's what you're still arguing, I'm already moved on past that after I saw and posted the data.

What data exactly did you post that proved this? I looked up the data for homicide as well as gun related deaths and the US has the highest rate among the other western nations.

Stricter gun laws don't make us any safer, they only make us safer from guns. It's a fact that weighs out in the data, and all of these endless rhetorical detours around that fact isn't going to change it.

What data are you looking at? Here's stats on gun related deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Here's stats on homicides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Here's an article about Australia banning guns and the ensuing crime rate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html?_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
AsteroidX

Im going to be homeschooling my child from now. This country is going to hell in a handbasket. LOOKING FOR: SKILLED TUTOR for bright 10year old. Using https://www.khanacademy.org/ Must be able to help develop written work to go along with the lessons and work at pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

The NRA have called for armed guards at schools.

Head of NRA Wayne LaPierre said, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

http://www.guardian....-guards-schools

You can't even imagine how backward and retrograde that suggestion sounds. But, then reading the article, there was this,

Polling by the Republican analyst Frank Luntz has shown that there is considerable support for tightened gun laws even among NRA members. Some 74% would like to see criminal background checks for everyone buying a gun, in contrast to current laws that allow private sellers dealing through gun shows and online to by-pass such safeguards.

Leading advocates of greater gun controls also lambasted the NRA chief. Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor who has been a crusader against gun violence, called LaPierre's comments "a shameful evasion of the crisis facing our country. Instead of offering solutions to a problem they have helped create, they offered a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

"Sometimes hypocritical can still work."

LOL You should run for office Stellar. You'll fit right in.

What? You disagree? It would be hypocritical for a drug using parent to tell his child not to take drugs. Does that mean he shouldnt discourage his kid from taking drugs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Can you show me where? I am not aware of this.

me neither, but it is close, here is more text.

The Supreme Court held:[43] (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (B) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. © The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[44]

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maizer

What? You disagree? It would be hypocritical for a drug using parent to tell his child not to take drugs. Does that mean he shouldnt discourage his kid from taking drugs?

Amazed you've not gone loco debating against the lack of logic. Gun bans are coming, just hope they're successful and fast at removing them all from society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AsteroidX

also from wiki: I believe the branch davidians fall undeer this as having had there Rights Violated and Im only half a nut.

One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".[46] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[47] as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:

f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

What? You disagree? It would be hypocritical for a drug using parent to tell his child not to take drugs. Does that mean he shouldnt discourage his kid from taking drugs?

Yeah it would be hypocritical and it wouldn't be effective either. Even if I assume the "drugs" you're talking about are the worst street drugs we can name, doing them in front of your children and then telling your children not to do them is the worst thing a parent can do. You'd be better off to tell your kid to do them, and the reverse psychology in that, along with the natural tendency for older kids to rebel against their parents, would be a better safeguard for a child's future drug use than hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is worthy of our contempt and scorn, it's not a valid solution to our societal problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I've seen way too many teachers in my life that had no business carrying a firearm.

The idea that my elderly Chinese Physics professor who couldn't have topped 90 pounds with her daily little flowered teacups and her stubborn little cough, would be given mandatory gun training and pressured by the state to carry a gun and be expected to engage in a gunfight in her classroom. A classroom which consisted of a lecture hall of some 75 students, most of which were 20-21 year old males that probably outweigh her on average more than 2-to-1. She's going to turn her backs on her classroom for extended periods of time, lecturing on complicated physics problems, and I suppose she'll use her mandatory bionic hearing to hear her assailant approaching down one of the carpeted aisles during her lecture. The presumption there, is that she's expected to defend herself from that kind of violence and that's just plain absurd. I wonder if this is Alex Jones's idea.

This kind of government reaction would savage the education industry. This would lead to a teaching market that favored male teachers, because we're physically larger and actually expected to protect our own bodies in our society. This kind of federal intervention, should it come, could savage the teaching market and create very unfortunate ripples that may lower the quality of US schools.

Schools need to have better security. Fortunately, we've got people for that. They're called security guards, in fact. In our country, thanks to our 2nd Amendment, they should have the right to bear arms. Let's just let the market hire the most qualified employees to protect our children in school. Let's just let the market handle the problem. Nothing is going to be 100%, and we don't hear about how many security guards prevented gigantic crimes from happening in our news media. We definitely hear about the worst of them when they succeed. So I think due to media bias, our trained staffs are more far effective than we're led to believe, and our single-tracked panicked reactions to this tragedy have once again created a moral hazard on our society that threatens our country's intellectual strength. Let's not lose our edge in education America; it's the last good hand we have to play. The freest schools, are the best schools. Let's keep our teachers free, both from violence and silly rules.

Hypothetical security plan using the free market: School administrator hires some trained security professionals. The school builds a command center at the school with a 360 degree view of the exterior of the school, and staffs it with people who are trained with cameras and surveillance, firearms and police actions, arm them with guns, and we'll have something that can respond quickly to a Columbine-like assailant. These individuals could easily be our military veterans, some of whom sadly can't find work after they come home from these wars. What better job for a former-soldier to receive extra training to become?

It's scary how our civil reactions to these events are so dependent on our federal bureaucrats. We go right to what the politicians say, right to what our federal government can do for us, and that's tragic to me. The school with the better security deserves to have more students and more teachers, and more resources, but what we get is government telling our kids what public school they have to attend because they live nearby. If we tore down some bureaucratic walls in this industry and let the market reward our best schools, our quality of education would go up tremendously. If a parent wants to drive farther away to take their child to the better school, I submit that it should be allowed. imo, the best answers to this threat are found in having less government intervention. not more. :)

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AsteroidX

Principles with a CWP should must be able to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Principles with a CWP should must be able to

How many teachers or principals are going to want nothing to do with that? Maybe they should maybe they shouldn't. I don't want an elderly myopic principal with a shaky hand being forced into becoming a gunman or a gunwoman. We should resist federal government intervention of our education system; this is moral hazard and a threat to our liberty and our quality of education.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AsteroidX
How many teachers or principals are going to want nothing to do with that? Maybe they should maybe they shouldn't. I don't want an elderly myopic principal with a shaky hand being forced into becoming a gunman or a gunwoman. We should resist federal government intervention of our education system; this is moral hazard and a threat to our liberty and our quality of education.

It doesnt change they need em Today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Yamato

It doesnt change they need em Today.

OMG they're coming right at us! Help us now Mr. Obama, tomorrow may be too late!!!

FEAR.jpg

I will not sacrifice liberty under the false guise of greater security, or even under the lousy chances of actual greater security. Schools (and any other business) should be free to determine who they want to arm (as if guns are so relevant that they're the entire story) and how they want to handle their own security, and people should be free to reward or punish those schools for those decisions accordingly. This should be a matter of school policy or local/county ordinance, not yet more unconstitutional federal action borne out of reactionary/fear politics.

The collective cry of the terrified masses pining for that one-size fits-all solution from suit-wearing hypocrites in Washington DC once again holds our liberty at stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AsteroidX

I wont sacrifice LIberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.