|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 25 2018 01:48 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2018 01:40 Uldridge wrote:On November 25 2018 00:59 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 21:40 Uldridge wrote:
@Danglars
Maybe the first thing you'd want to do is check how many teachers (and it would be interesting to see geographical distributions as well) are willing to volunteer for a platform like the one you propose.
I can see the reasoning advocating for gun accessibility in schools, but a trigger is swiftly pulled (or showcased) in all types of situations other than a life defending one. Imagine the news coverage (and subsequent propaganda) when just one case of a teacher losing his shit occurs (or a student getting a hold of the gun; you'd be surprised how resourceful kids are when it comes to things they want to happen, partly because they're so impulsive)
You also need to account for the fact that these volunteer teachers might be fine wielding in zero threat situations, but when push comes to shove, you'll have invested in a platform that's going to be vastly underused I think. Is it worth it to have such a system in place when it's only used in 1% of the situations and not necessarily according to protocol? What if the teacher (eventually) stops the shooter, but multiple casualties happened. How do you assess which ones are from crossfire, which ones are from mistakes, which ones are from the killer? Do you just assume all injured/dead are from the shooter?
These teachers, while having had mandatory training as volunteers, are still not neccesarily able to deal with these high stress situations. Adrenalin does strange things to body and mind. You can't know how true to their training protocols they'll stay when being thrown in these situations. Even local police can't deal with these situations effectively, how are you going to make a case for teachers being drained by giving attention to children all day long?
You still need to follow up and to invest in these volunteers on a long term basis, and the interest must be reciprocal by the teachers. Once they start the program you need to make sure they keep following it, with a zero tolerance for nonchalance (i.e. confiscating with the slightest issues), which is something not many teachers will have the time nor the motivation to follow through with.
Ultimately I think you vastly overestimate how willing and capable these volunteers will be as well as how effective this platform would be. Just one case of mismanagement could not only have disastrous results for the local community, but would also be enough to abandon the entire platform, which would have taken a lot of time, effort and resources to set up in the first place. You can monitor the incidents in those school districts that started to allow teacher concealed carry on the school grounds in the wake of mass shootings (and some even before). Colorado with 30, and mandatory training. Texas with 172. USA Today figures. Missouri. 14 states arm teachers, 16 defer to boards. Ohio. Utah. Arizona (legal for teachers, but debated if any availed themselves). Florida allowed teachers to carry guns in the "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act" this year. How many stories have you seen where teacher shoots student at school out of frustration, or student gets ahold of gun at school and shoots it? Do the statistics back up "the trigger is swiftly pulled in all types of situations?" I hope the system is underused. School shootings are still rare events. Several states and many school districts have found their stock of willing and capable teachers and other school employees. I don't think your argument is born out in facts. I don't think advocating the status quo with teachers is the right decision. I never said it was born out of fact. I'm simply extrapolating what I think is human nature. More troublesome areas exist, which might increase incidents. I don't think I've seen stories where teachers went for the gun to show their power, but I'm sure they exist or that those situations have happened. And willing and capable, sure, but for how long? Will it just be a few dedicated teachers, or the entire staff? I'm just cautiously sceptical about adding more firearms to the situation. I don't know about what specific combination of qualifiers was being referenced by Danglars but yeah, teachers have shot themselves and others on accident and on purpose, as well as use them for intimidation, lost guns to students, and pretty much everything else you would imagine would happen if teachers carried guns at school. All of which happen with police, DHS, and pilots when they tried to arm them after 9/11. It is without a doubt going to increase if more teachers carry guns. No way around it. Its not a practical suggestion, its an ideological one. The suggestion occurs because some people can't accept that fewer guns would decrease gun crime, and need to find a way of blaming something other than the fact that there are guns everywhere, so 'not enough guns' is perfect. Therefore, teachers should be armed.
It does have a "when you're a hammer everything is a nail" feel to it. I can't be described as a gun regulation zealot and certainly have no desire for the government to take my guns but I'm also aware of the risks I'm taking by owning and using guns. That even if I perform perfectly there's a chance that something fails or whatever and I kill/maim myself.
Take for example concealed carry. Every time I leave my house with a gun I have to weigh the potential of ending up like the guy the cops shot at the mall/Philando Castile,etc... or needing it. Nowadays I don't carry more often than not because my circumstances have changed.
So I'm not approaching this from an ideological perspective myself. It's strictly a practical matter and I have to admit that it seems Danglars argument is dripping in impractical ideological contamination.
Bad arguments that boil down to unintentionally becoming unpaid lobbyists for gun manufacturers are dangerous to my right to keep my guns like superficial but ignorant/ineffective arguments in favor of regulation are. Which is why neither get a pass from me.
Arming teachers is an objectively bad idea.
|
On November 24 2018 14:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks. Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get. It's one of the reasons why I wanted it to number one be volunteer teachers, number two be mandated training, and number three to only be used in cases of school shooters. I'm thankful that one school district has decided in favor of this. I hope their example inspires others. The case of Broward County Sheriff's Department and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School should not be repeated. They let students bleed out with an active shooter, and the sheriff deputy School Resource Officer took up a passive position outside a building. That for me is unacceptable. All these pro-action supporters want to cast the opposition as some kind of status-quo supporters, but really they have their own qualms and preferences and predilections that figure in to where they decide to tackle the problem.
As a teacher who is vehemently against arming teachers, I was wondering if you could elaborate on your position a bit more. In particular, I'm curious about these things:
1. "gun lockers on school grounds"
Are you saying that guns will be stored in gun lockers during the school day, and then the trained, volunteer teachers will retrieve them in an emergency? My three main issues with storing guns in school this way are:
a. In the event of an emergency, teachers are required to monitor their students and assist them in ushering them out of the building, constructing barricades, keeping them calm, having a proper headcount/ attendance at all time, etc. Leaving the students behind is a huge no-no, regardless of whether the gun is next door or a three-minute sprint to the other side of the building.
b. In many situations, the ideal course of action may be to "lockdown" the school and barricade the classroom doors so that intruders cannot enter into the rooms. In these situations, there are clearly plenty of problems with teachers leaving the classroom: they're not controlling the situation in their room by leaving it, they're not making sure an effective barrier is being created because they've left the room, they can't re-enter the classroom if the students barricade the door after the teacher leaves, and students and teachers alike know to not allow anyone to enter once the barricade is up (because it could be a gunman, a hostage situation, etc.). Even if the person outside the door is claiming to be the principal or a police officer, we are told to literally let the cops break down the door before voluntarily allowing someone in to the room.
c. If a group of students or strangers want to break in to the gun locker, there will almost certainly be a way for them to do it. Admittedly, it's not as simple as just jumping an armed teacher in class or stealing a gun from a classroom desk, but there is a very real hazard in that area becoming a target for vandalism and burglary.
2. If the idea is for trained, volunteer teachers to try and track down the gunmen throughout the school, there are many issues with this as well:
a. Leaving classrooms of students unsupervised;
b. Law enforcement not being able to tell which armed suspects are the good guys and which are the bad guys;
c. More bullets during mass panic is more likely to increase the number of casualties and the amount of collateral damage.
Thoughts?
|
On November 25 2018 02:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 01:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2018 01:04 Danglars wrote:On November 25 2018 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2018 00:43 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 14:50 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks. Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get. It's one of the reasons why I wanted it to number one be volunteer teachers, number two be mandated training, and number three to only be used in cases of school shooters. I'm thankful that one school district has decided in favor of this. I hope their example inspires others. The case of Broward County Sheriff's Department and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School should not be repeated. They let students bleed out with an active shooter, and the sheriff deputy School Resource Officer took up a passive position outside a building. That for me is unacceptable. All these pro-action supporters want to cast the opposition as some kind of status-quo supporters, but really they have their own qualms and preferences and predilections that figure in to where they decide to tackle the problem. I read your qualifications. It's still a terrible idea. 1. Of course they would have to be volunteers, not even Ted Nugent can find a reading of the constitution that could compel teachers against their will. That said, the volunteers this would attract aren't going to be the best people to give access to a gun on school grounds anyway. 2. Is this training going to be more rigorous and continuing than police training? If not are you just accepting even worse ratios of missed shots and errant killings or simply waving them away? 3. You know you're going to have a hard time navigating what would be considered both reasonably secured and accessible in an emergency without conceding that long before arming teachers we should make gun owners store their guns in ways that would be comparable to however you plan on securing them in schools right? If we were brainstorming ideas I'd write it on the board but such a absurd idea should be discarded as soon as the critical thinking part begins. The ratio of misfire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was 0. Students bled out and died because of the cowardice of a single officer. I think that’s a pretty easy ratio to overcome, if you ask me. Right now the cops/sheriffs response (SRO included) are the only response. Schools are a very sensitive location, and I think that the higher measures of gun control for stored weapons and who can access would be easily seen. You misunderstand. I mean that police miss more shots than hit their target and kill innocent people sometimes with those missed shots, sometimes like in the situation at the mall where police intentionally shot what turned out to be the wrong person. Teachers will miss their target even more frequently and have an even higher frequency of shooting the wrong person. Additionally they will more frequently have all of the other accidents and mishandling police currently do. That's what I'm talking about you accepting, waving away, or as it seems now, just hadn't even considered. Of course you think schools should have higher standards. That wasn't my point. My point was you're imagining a fictional way to secure guns at school that would both be more secure than home storage but also practically accessible in a school shooting situation where someone bursts into a classroom and starts shooting. It doesn't exist and even if it did it would make immensely more sense for something comparable (though possibly less restrictive) to be required for gun owners so the kids don't show up to school with their parents gun in the first place. Instead of arming teachers where if they used it, best case, we still have at least 1 dead kid. News stories inform me that's been the current situation in some schools and districts. Biometric gun safes, concealed carry. Please refrain from using "fictional way to secure guns at school" when it's the actual way in use today. The training for SRO's and the training for teachers (What do I do when multiple teachers are engaging the target at the same time?) includes the training on avoiding collateral damage. The proper response is still to engage the shooter as early as possible to minimize his or her intentional kills. If you don't like the police response ratio, and how many missed shots hit and kill someone, then you're in support of the only response currently active in society today. I'm leaning towards an earlier response that minimizes the shooter's unchallenged time period. He's the bigger danger than a trained teacher missing the shot and killing someone else. So no one is against concealed carry at home, what do you have against biometric safes being required as well? So you're simply accepting that teachers are going to screw up more often than police and maim/kill innocent children, lose their weapons to children, more frequently use guns for intimidation, injure/kill themselves and all the other problems that come with guns at schools to potentially slightly decrease response times. Imagining that we somehow train these teachers to be remotely comparable to our trained and specifically employed people in responding to these situations (with what money?), you're neglecting the fact that every day there isn't a mass shooting but there is a gun in the classroom is more dangerous than if the gun wasn't there. Even if they are somehow more responsible than homeland security with their guns you're still going to end up having given some kids guns they wouldn't have otherwise been able to access. So you'd be trading 1800 more dangerous days for 1 possibly safer day (imagining they were better than our police in every way) if a school had a mass shooter once every 10 years. The cost of biometric safes works against the poor wanting to exercise their second amendment rights. If you're moving to a higher crime neighborhood, or your store has gotten robbed by gun wielding criminals, then purchasing a gun for your safety should be among your choices. Not gun + gun safe + waiting period + verifying gun safe + mandatory training class + extended background test + psych evaluation. You're just doing the emotional argument for the rest. It's dumb. Show me the news stories of all these schools with armed teachers just fucking shit up. I might as well turn the more trolly posters here back on you, and say your fears governs your choice to maintain the status quo.
So make it wealth dependent. Poor people could apply for a grant for the biometric safes. Problem solved. As to the rest why should teachers have to go through all that?
Show me the news stories of all these schools with armed teachers just fucking shit up.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/utah-teacher-shoots-herself-the-leg-while-school
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/08/17/teacher-shoots-self-in-classroom-at-georgia-high-school/
https://www.foxnews.com/us/resource-officer-accidentally-fires-gun-at-virginia-middle-school-officials-say
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133587/High-school-teacher-lined-terrified-students-fired-blanks-class.html
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/jan/17/jacksonville-high-student-steals-gun-teacher/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/3-students-injured-when-california-high-school-teacher-fires-gun-n856481
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/us/georgia-dalton-high-school-teacher-gunfire/index.html
I'll concede the instances of teachers actually killing students seem to revolve more around bad relationships and most (all?) of the stories about teachers accidentally shooting other people are actually gun safety instructors shooting people not k-12 teachers.
Not that every instance would automatically have a corresponding national news story either. Certainly plenty of small towns would prefer to keep something like that to themselves.
Keep in mind this guy was well trained and still gets to carry a gun after shooting someone, and teachers (unlike FBI agents) are impossible to fire (not that he was anyway).
+ Show Spoiler +
EDIT: I realize now that you make a great argument for teachers getting paid better considering they seem to be more capable of responsibly possessing guns than the people who get paid to train how to handle them, even if teachers have accidents/lapses in judgement too.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 25 2018 02:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 01:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2018 01:04 Danglars wrote:On November 25 2018 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2018 00:43 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 14:50 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
The rest of your rant shows you still have no idea what my 'line of thinking' is and I'm just going to give up on you in this thread the way I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars, even though my goals are much more closely aligned with yours and you both completely disagree with each other. Allow another ten years will pass, and somebody will wonder how micronesia got so hardened on the debate. Remember, I too have heard my share of rants in person in high-gun-control California, and that feeds my experience in defending gun rights. Your persistence in calling out bad arguments on both sides is admirable. I try not to take the equal hitters of both sides for granted these days. So many presume to the throne of fairness. I hope you'll forgive my moments of condescension (the NRA-endorsed firearms instructor) given how devilish the comparison is in this forum. And maybe you'll come around on volunteer teachers to opt into training in firearms with gun lockers on school grounds to be used in case of school shooters. You probably know I'm already on board with bump stocks. Giving teachers guns is still an absolutely terrible idea no matter how much training you give them. Which I presume would at minimum be more than police currently get. It's one of the reasons why I wanted it to number one be volunteer teachers, number two be mandated training, and number three to only be used in cases of school shooters. I'm thankful that one school district has decided in favor of this. I hope their example inspires others. The case of Broward County Sheriff's Department and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School should not be repeated. They let students bleed out with an active shooter, and the sheriff deputy School Resource Officer took up a passive position outside a building. That for me is unacceptable. All these pro-action supporters want to cast the opposition as some kind of status-quo supporters, but really they have their own qualms and preferences and predilections that figure in to where they decide to tackle the problem. I read your qualifications. It's still a terrible idea. 1. Of course they would have to be volunteers, not even Ted Nugent can find a reading of the constitution that could compel teachers against their will. That said, the volunteers this would attract aren't going to be the best people to give access to a gun on school grounds anyway. 2. Is this training going to be more rigorous and continuing than police training? If not are you just accepting even worse ratios of missed shots and errant killings or simply waving them away? 3. You know you're going to have a hard time navigating what would be considered both reasonably secured and accessible in an emergency without conceding that long before arming teachers we should make gun owners store their guns in ways that would be comparable to however you plan on securing them in schools right? If we were brainstorming ideas I'd write it on the board but such a absurd idea should be discarded as soon as the critical thinking part begins. The ratio of misfire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was 0. Students bled out and died because of the cowardice of a single officer. I think that’s a pretty easy ratio to overcome, if you ask me. Right now the cops/sheriffs response (SRO included) are the only response. Schools are a very sensitive location, and I think that the higher measures of gun control for stored weapons and who can access would be easily seen. You misunderstand. I mean that police miss more shots than hit their target and kill innocent people sometimes with those missed shots, sometimes like in the situation at the mall where police intentionally shot what turned out to be the wrong person. Teachers will miss their target even more frequently and have an even higher frequency of shooting the wrong person. Additionally they will more frequently have all of the other accidents and mishandling police currently do. That's what I'm talking about you accepting, waving away, or as it seems now, just hadn't even considered. Of course you think schools should have higher standards. That wasn't my point. My point was you're imagining a fictional way to secure guns at school that would both be more secure than home storage but also practically accessible in a school shooting situation where someone bursts into a classroom and starts shooting. It doesn't exist and even if it did it would make immensely more sense for something comparable (though possibly less restrictive) to be required for gun owners so the kids don't show up to school with their parents gun in the first place. Instead of arming teachers where if they used it, best case, we still have at least 1 dead kid. News stories inform me that's been the current situation in some schools and districts. Biometric gun safes, concealed carry. Please refrain from using "fictional way to secure guns at school" when it's the actual way in use today. The training for SRO's and the training for teachers (What do I do when multiple teachers are engaging the target at the same time?) includes the training on avoiding collateral damage. The proper response is still to engage the shooter as early as possible to minimize his or her intentional kills. If you don't like the police response ratio, and how many missed shots hit and kill someone, then you're in support of the only response currently active in society today. I'm leaning towards an earlier response that minimizes the shooter's unchallenged time period. He's the bigger danger than a trained teacher missing the shot and killing someone else. So no one is against concealed carry at home, what do you have against biometric safes being required as well? So you're simply accepting that teachers are going to screw up more often than police and maim/kill innocent children, lose their weapons to children, more frequently use guns for intimidation, injure/kill themselves and all the other problems that come with guns at schools to potentially slightly decrease response times. Imagining that we somehow train these teachers to be remotely comparable to our trained and specifically employed people in responding to these situations (with what money?), you're neglecting the fact that every day there isn't a mass shooting but there is a gun in the classroom is more dangerous than if the gun wasn't there. Even if they are somehow more responsible than homeland security with their guns you're still going to end up having given some kids guns they wouldn't have otherwise been able to access. So you'd be trading 1800 more dangerous days for 1 possibly safer day (imagining they were better than our police in every way) if a school had a mass shooter once every 10 years. The cost of biometric safes works against the poor wanting to exercise their second amendment rights. If you're moving to a higher crime neighborhood, or your store has gotten robbed by gun wielding criminals, then purchasing a gun for your safety should be among your choices. Not gun + gun safe + waiting period + verifying gun safe + mandatory training class + extended background test + psych evaluation. You're just doing the emotional argument for the rest. It's dumb. Show me the news stories of all these schools with armed teachers just fucking shit up. I might as well turn the more trolly posters here back on you, and say your fears governs your choice to maintain the status quo.
How about this weird imaginary world where the criminal doesn't have guns either..? Because that's what the "gun + gun safe + waiting period + verifying gun safe + mandatory training class + extended background test + psych evaluation." would get you.
You guys keep coming up with these "But I need to defend myself!" excuses, completely failing to realise that what people actually want is to not have to require to defend themselves in the first place.
|
|
|
yeah at this point im convinced danglars is just a really dedicated troll. how he can genuinely believe the shit he says is beyond me
|
On November 25 2018 02:05 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 25 2018 01:40 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 00:59 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2018 21:40 Uldridge wrote:
@Danglars
Maybe the first thing you'd want to do is check how many teachers (and it would be interesting to see geographical distributions as well) are willing to volunteer for a platform like the one you propose.
I can see the reasoning advocating for gun accessibility in schools, but a trigger is swiftly pulled (or showcased) in all types of situations other than a life defending one. Imagine the news coverage (and subsequent propaganda) when just one case of a teacher losing his shit occurs (or a student getting a hold of the gun; you'd be surprised how resourceful kids are when it comes to things they want to happen, partly because they're so impulsive)
You also need to account for the fact that these volunteer teachers might be fine wielding in zero threat situations, but when push comes to shove, you'll have invested in a platform that's going to be vastly underused I think. Is it worth it to have such a system in place when it's only used in 1% of the situations and not necessarily according to protocol? What if the teacher (eventually) stops the shooter, but multiple casualties happened. How do you assess which ones are from crossfire, which ones are from mistakes, which ones are from the killer? Do you just assume all injured/dead are from the shooter?
These teachers, while having had mandatory training as volunteers, are still not neccesarily able to deal with these high stress situations. Adrenalin does strange things to body and mind. You can't know how true to their training protocols they'll stay when being thrown in these situations. Even local police can't deal with these situations effectively, how are you going to make a case for teachers being drained by giving attention to children all day long?
You still need to follow up and to invest in these volunteers on a long term basis, and the interest must be reciprocal by the teachers. Once they start the program you need to make sure they keep following it, with a zero tolerance for nonchalance (i.e. confiscating with the slightest issues), which is something not many teachers will have the time nor the motivation to follow through with.
Ultimately I think you vastly overestimate how willing and capable these volunteers will be as well as how effective this platform would be. Just one case of mismanagement could not only have disastrous results for the local community, but would also be enough to abandon the entire platform, which would have taken a lot of time, effort and resources to set up in the first place. You can monitor the incidents in those school districts that started to allow teacher concealed carry on the school grounds in the wake of mass shootings (and some even before). Colorado with 30, and mandatory training. Texas with 172. USA Today figures. Missouri. 14 states arm teachers, 16 defer to boards. Ohio. Utah. Arizona (legal for teachers, but debated if any availed themselves). Florida allowed teachers to carry guns in the "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act" this year. How many stories have you seen where teacher shoots student at school out of frustration, or student gets ahold of gun at school and shoots it? Do the statistics back up "the trigger is swiftly pulled in all types of situations?" I hope the system is underused. School shootings are still rare events. Several states and many school districts have found their stock of willing and capable teachers and other school employees. I don't think your argument is born out in facts. I don't think advocating the status quo with teachers is the right decision. I never said it was born out of fact. I'm simply extrapolating what I think is human nature. More troublesome areas exist, which might increase incidents. I don't think I've seen stories where teachers went for the gun to show their power, but I'm sure they exist or that those situations have happened. And willing and capable, sure, but for how long? Will it just be a few dedicated teachers, or the entire staff? I'm just cautiously sceptical about adding more firearms to the situation. I think there's enough states and districts to be able to show or deny the truth of (1) the trigger is swiftly pulled aka teachers can't be trusted to act appropriately and (2) the news stories are just going to be killer from a publicity sense. Find me the stories, and I'll validate your extrapolations on human nature. I think the nature of guns and all the brouhaha on their use conveys appropriate hesitancy to reach for it in only the most extreme situations and guard it carefully from disarming. Three years and two years without one public incident of misuse? You do realize that human nature spread throughout this many mini experiments for this long of time should at least produce one example of what you're saying?
The smallest mistakes that happened are already overly used to turn people's opinion (see the fire instructor and the random Geogia teachers firing a round). These are just 2 minor examples. I don't want to know what'll happen in situations regarding kids with behavioral issues, or teachers who can't cope with the stress any longer. There will be cases and any case, imo, is enough to restrict it.
I just don't see people rising to the occasion to risk their lives and be able to protect others when a chaotic, unpredictable situation like that plays out. Only a few percent of people is able to do so, and they're even rigorously trained..
Let's say everything goes smoothly and we don't have hot headed teachers abusing their fire arm. What % of scenario's do you see playing out where teachers do what you think they should do through the "proper training" they've received. With adrenalin coarsing through their bodies, with unexpected events (like panicking students coming from a place they don't necessarily expect) possibly occurring around every corner? Is the teacher going to be able to aim as well as in a zero threat situation? I don't feel like you're taking these issues into consideration. How many stories have you heard of a home owner defense that want awry? Now apply that to a school.
|
With all of these devolving into hypotheticals and poor examples, I'll have to wait if micronesia can actually answer the original post. I don't really care to continue postulating on perhaps this and probably that in instances that don't pertain to current events and are unlikely to shake anybody of their original beliefs. I brought it up with him because it was perhaps our last real engaged exchange. The states and districts with armed teachers are unlikely to reverse course, and I'm very happy with that fact.
|
|
|
On November 25 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:
With all of these devolving into hypotheticals and poor examples, I'll have to wait if micronesia can actually answer the original post. I don't really care to continue postulating on perhaps this and probably that in instances that don't pertain to current events and are unlikely to shake anybody of their original beliefs. I brought it up with him because it was perhaps our last real engaged exchange. The states and districts with armed teachers are unlikely to reverse course, and I'm very happy with that fact.
It's a terrible idea and you've made a valiant albeit impotent defense of it. People piling on is going to give you just enough to convince yourself avoiding the substance of the argument presented doesn't undermine your position.
This is pretty much exactly how I saw this ending.
I know people like to use the "you're doing it wrong" argument on me so I tread lightly, but your position is undermining the likelihood that I keep my right to have a gun and that makes my opposition to your position unique here and worthy of distinct treatment. If you take issue with the examples I provided of people getting shot who otherwise wouldn't have been (if they didn't have guns in school) or students accessing guns, or using guns to intimidate students, etc present them. You can't wave them away as "poor" and pretend you're not making an argument is because I can't be convinced otherwise and not because you recognize that you're in a weak position.
|
On November 25 2018 12:35 evilfatsh1t wrote:
yeah at this point im convinced danglars is just a really dedicated troll. how he can genuinely believe the shit he says is beyond me
I was convinced he is a Russian troll about 30 pages ago.
While I didn't agree with SuperStarTran on many points, I did agree with him on some. As a gun owner, he seemed very much like someone who wanted reasonable change, and for that I respected him.
Fun thing to watch in Danglers is that he won't address any of the points made by people.
If there is a response, he never actually addresses the point made... Instead he makes a statement of a 2nd amendment talking point, or a non-answer.
|
Have this been posted yet? https://globalnews.ca/news/4696417/emantic-bradford-alabama-mall-shooting-police/
Turns out that the initial "shooter" wasn't the shooter at all and just a "hero with a gun" who the cops mistook for the shooter and gunned down. This is the reality of what happens with the "more people with guns" argument. It just creates additional confusion for everyone, especially the cops coming to clean up the scene. Oh, and while the cops were patting themselves on the back the actual suspect got away.
edit: Of course this story highlights other issues as well, such as systemic racism (The guy wasn't the first armed person they came across, only the first black one), as well as a lack of police training.
|
On November 25 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:
With all of these devolving into hypotheticals and poor examples, I'll have to wait if micronesia can actually answer the original post. I don't really care to continue postulating on perhaps this and probably that in instances that don't pertain to current events and are unlikely to shake anybody of their original beliefs. I brought it up with him because it was perhaps our last real engaged exchange. The states and districts with armed teachers are unlikely to reverse course, and I'm very happy with that fact.
You brought up a very specific suggestion about gun lockers in schools to be accessed by a set of voluntarily trained teachers during emergencies. I laid out a set of issues and critiques with that idea, and was hoping you'd respond to them, to say nothing of the several other responses and criticisms you received from other people. It seems unfair for you to throw out a controversial idea and then ignore a debate on its merits, as this is a discussion forum.
|
On November 24 2018 13:13 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 12:07 ShambhalaWar wrote:
What I would say about your comments on whether or not something is a "bad argument"... I would say that when you interject those comments, to me they seem to detract from the discussion much more than facilitate or deepen it.
In my experience, sometimes those comment take the conversation to a place other than where it was. When this happens I don't experience the conversation as deepening. We agree on the problem here but may disagree on the solution. When I see 'additional gun control advocate' X attack the character of 'gun rights activist' Y for completely invalid reasons, nothing good will come of it unless X is shown what was wrong with what they said. Y will understandably double down and the conversation further devolves into completely talking past each other and accusations of having said things that the speaker claims they never said. The same would be true of Y doing something similar to X, although that tends to get jumped on much more quickly in this thread for obvious reasons. There have been previous times when a poster made an overall good post but messed up a couple of details and then their 'opponents' jumped on them for that and used it as an excuse to not address the actually GOOD points... that's wrong, and I should be more aware of that behavior when I do sometimes nitpick a bit because it may give the illusion that I am trying to discredit the good points when I shouldn't be. I think a lot of my arguments in the past with liberal posters could have been prevented if I prefaced each of my posts with, "Just as a reminder, here is my position on gun control," but I always try to keep my personal position mostly quiet when discussing the principles behind political topics because they can color the way people I'm speaking with interpret my points. In the most extreme cases such as in this thread, my disagreement with some ridiculous pro-'control' arguments leads some posters to slide me into one of two possible camps, as they see it, then come at me guns blazing, no pun intended.
I appreciate your post and explanation.
One thing I don't understand is why you don't address more of the right wing posters in the same way?
Is it just because you want the left (I'm using right/left simply as a descriptor here for convenience) poster to be more effective in there argument that you agree with, but you think it could be made cleaner?
In that sense prefacing with your position (and intention might I add) could be a very effective way of clearing up any confusion on why you are making the comment.
My bigger point, was that regardless of intent... Sometimes when you inject something else into the conversation, it can derail the whole thing to addressing the quality of a post, rather than the main point it is trying to communicate.
I'm sorry I didn't address all you comments from the earlier post, sometimes I need to take a break.
My intention isn't to attack someone's character... but in a discussion like this you cannot avoid address the character of people involved. We might just disagree on what is a good rebuttal as someone who is pro gun control. My experience in this thread is that there is no "convincing" of Y... I've never seen it happen in all the pages of posts. The closest I've come is superstartran, and we simply both came into the conversation with points that we agreed upon.
I think you make a valid point when you say that, some of my posts aren't persuasive or effective in that way. I think you are right. My intention many times, I think is simply to vent. I feel outraged at all of this, and sad at the shape of my country... I've been sad about it for the last 2 years. Right now the USA is really one giant meme... The pinnacle of democracy... or so we've held ourselves up to the world...
In reality, we are not a functioning democracy... we are still extremely racist... and we are falling behind the world in everything but military might. Somehow (with much much much cheating... and corruption) an incompetent authoritarian dictator cut from the same cloth as hitler was installed as leader. There is a mass consensus in this country to address guns... healthcare... climate... but we are frozen as a people.
The only thing that can be said about our state as a country, is that we are revealing ourselves to ourselves... In that we can begin to address the issues we delusional thought had already been addressed.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/25/us/alabama-shooting-family-seeks-answers/index.html
|
|
|
United States24682 Posts
@ ShambhalaWar and @ Jockmcplop On November 24 2018 17:44 Jockmcplop wrote:@micronesia Show nested quote +Can you point to times when I accepted faulty arguments from gun rights advocates here? If so, I should retract my support/acceptance. As I explained, you are supporting their faulty arguments by completely ignoring them while nitpicking every argument that comes from the other side. The faulty posts you most likely have in mind are already torn apart by several other people each. Usually, I don't have anything that good to add and piling on will just make the thread worse (we already have a problem with that). The lower-quality 'more gun control' posts tend to just get ignored or get attacked in disingenuous ways only.
I will try to seek out opportunities when posters making very questionable 'pro-gun' arguments aren't already under siege and and weigh in. I think its a dangerous precedent though to call people out in this way.
Regarding armed teachers...
I don't see the stowage of firearms in schools working well except in places where people are more comfortable with guns than they are with books. Those places may exist, but I am not familiar with them.
Everything else being equal, I barely trust typical school administrations to implement a successful system when it comes to bus schedules, extra credit, or detention, let alone strategies for hardening the building against heavily armed crazy assailants using little more than volunteers. DarkPlasmaBall raised some very reasonable logistical questions. I don't see how the small number of trained volunteers get to the gun safe, especially in an environment with non-existent command and control and tremendous amounts of fog of war. Once armed cops start responding they are running into a gun fight where they don't know what the heck is going on. The first thing we need to do is recognize that once some nut with firearms is shooting up a school there are no good solutions.
|
On November 26 2018 02:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:
With all of these devolving into hypotheticals and poor examples, I'll have to wait if micronesia can actually answer the original post. I don't really care to continue postulating on perhaps this and probably that in instances that don't pertain to current events and are unlikely to shake anybody of their original beliefs. I brought it up with him because it was perhaps our last real engaged exchange. The states and districts with armed teachers are unlikely to reverse course, and I'm very happy with that fact. You brought up a very specific suggestion about gun lockers in schools to be accessed by a set of voluntarily trained teachers during emergencies. I laid out a set of issues and critiques with that idea, and was hoping you'd respond to them, to say nothing of the several other responses and criticisms you received from other people. It seems unfair for you to throw out a controversial idea and then ignore a debate on its merits, as this is a discussion forum.
I only referenced the last disagreement I had with micronesia, before he cut off further exchanges. The post is here. I outlined my basic reasons to questioners purely out of the generosity of my heart. The issue is locked in a somewhat favorable position for me (several states and school districts allow it with training and concealed carry; and they will resist gun-grabbers attempts to disarm them once again).
I am neither a teacher nor do I engage to convince everybody around here of the superiority of my position. I know some people will argue with me on any topic until the both of us are blue in the face. So I'll continue to pick and choose the topics that interest me more, with a view to current events if there are more school shootings in the next few months, and you can allege what seems and does not seem unfair to you as long as you wish. There will always be the next fight for gun control and gun rights.
|
On November 27 2018 11:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2018 02:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 25 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:
With all of these devolving into hypotheticals and poor examples, I'll have to wait if micronesia can actually answer the original post. I don't really care to continue postulating on perhaps this and probably that in instances that don't pertain to current events and are unlikely to shake anybody of their original beliefs. I brought it up with him because it was perhaps our last real engaged exchange. The states and districts with armed teachers are unlikely to reverse course, and I'm very happy with that fact. You brought up a very specific suggestion about gun lockers in schools to be accessed by a set of voluntarily trained teachers during emergencies. I laid out a set of issues and critiques with that idea, and was hoping you'd respond to them, to say nothing of the several other responses and criticisms you received from other people. It seems unfair for you to throw out a controversial idea and then ignore a debate on its merits, as this is a discussion forum. I only referenced the last disagreement I had with micronesia, before he cut off further exchanges. The post is here. I outlined my basic reasons to questioners purely out of the generosity of my heart. The issue is locked in a somewhat favorable position for me (several states and school districts allow it with training and concealed carry; and they will resist gun-grabbers attempts to disarm them once again). I am neither a teacher nor do I engage to convince everybody around here of the superiority of my position. I know some people will argue with me on any topic until the both of us are blue in the face. So I'll continue to pick and choose the topics that interest me more, with a view to current events if there are more school shootings in the next few months, and you can allege what seems and does not seem unfair to you as long as you wish. There will always be the next fight for gun control and gun rights.
Just want to point out that the impetus for that will be a bunch of dead innocent people that probably could have been prevented if we focused on implementing effective regulations instead of bickering over bad ideas and remaining willfully ignorant about the related topics.
I am neither a teacher.
This seems innocuous but it's signals a particular detached perspective that is reaffirmed with the casual nature of the bold.
nor do I engage to convince everybody around here of the superiority of my position
Honestly I don't really care which position is right from a 10k ft. perspective. If arming teachers actually did anything but make classrooms more dangerous and drive some short term gun sales I'd be with you. Basically your position is constrained by your ideological perspective. My imperative is preserving life and liberty as represented by advocating preventing fire-arm related deaths and securing my right to own my firearm. You position is ideologically trapped. Regardless of what any amount of data could show you, you can't accept conceptually the idea that more guns in classrooms will result in more accidents and malicious behavior, therefore resulting in more death and suffering than taking that same motivation to secure classrooms and focusing it on preventing people from obtaining improperly secured guns and bringing them to school (or anywhere else these teachers would be useless) in the first place.
Put another way, I want to keep my gun and some dumbass teacher shooting a kid is far more likely to make me lose it than if we implement some reasonable regulations on securing firearms. Also it will save a hell of a lot more lives.
Last I remember you're not even into guns so please don't screw this up for people who actually enjoy shooting and can't call the police for fear they end up shooting us in a panic by standing by this ridiculousness. I'm asking not from the gun reform side but from the gun owner side of this argument.
|
On November 27 2018 12:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 11:53 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2018 02:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 25 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:
With all of these devolving into hypotheticals and poor examples, I'll have to wait if micronesia can actually answer the original post. I don't really care to continue postulating on perhaps this and probably that in instances that don't pertain to current events and are unlikely to shake anybody of their original beliefs. I brought it up with him because it was perhaps our last real engaged exchange. The states and districts with armed teachers are unlikely to reverse course, and I'm very happy with that fact. You brought up a very specific suggestion about gun lockers in schools to be accessed by a set of voluntarily trained teachers during emergencies. I laid out a set of issues and critiques with that idea, and was hoping you'd respond to them, to say nothing of the several other responses and criticisms you received from other people. It seems unfair for you to throw out a controversial idea and then ignore a debate on its merits, as this is a discussion forum. I only referenced the last disagreement I had with micronesia, before he cut off further exchanges. The post is here. I outlined my basic reasons to questioners purely out of the generosity of my heart. The issue is locked in a somewhat favorable position for me (several states and school districts allow it with training and concealed carry; and they will resist gun-grabbers attempts to disarm them once again). I am neither a teacher nor do I engage to convince everybody around here of the superiority of my position. I know some people will argue with me on any topic until the both of us are blue in the face. So I'll continue to pick and choose the topics that interest me more, with a view to current events if there are more school shootings in the next few months, and you can allege what seems and does not seem unfair to you as long as you wish. There will always be the next fight for gun control and gun rights. Just want to point out that the impetus for that will be a bunch of dead innocent people that probably could have been prevented if we focused on implementing effective regulations instead of bickering over bad ideas and remaining willfully ignorant about the related topics. This seems innocuous but it's signals a particular detached perspective that is reaffirmed with the casual nature of the bold. Show nested quote +nor do I engage to convince everybody around here of the superiority of my position
Honestly I don't really care which position is right from a 10k ft. perspective. If arming teachers actually did anything but make classrooms more dangerous and drive some short term gun sales I'd be with you. Basically your position is constrained by your ideological perspective. My imperative is preserving life and liberty as represented by advocating preventing fire-arm related deaths and securing my right to own my firearm. You position is ideologically trapped. Regardless of what any amount of data could show you, you can't accept conceptually the idea that more guns in classrooms will result in more accidents and malicious behavior, therefore resulting in more death and suffering than taking that same motivation to secure classrooms and focusing it on preventing people from obtaining improperly secured guns and bringing them to school (or anywhere else these teachers would be useless) in the first place. Put another way, I want to keep my gun and some dumbass teacher shooting a kid is far more likely to make me lose it than if we implement some reasonable regulations on securing firearms. Also it will save a hell of a lot more lives. Last I remember you're not even into guns so please don't screw this up for people who actually enjoy shooting and can't call the police for fear they end up shooting us in a panic by standing by this ridiculousness. I'm asking not from the gun reform side but from the gun owner side of this argument.
I am and was quite well informed of how stupid and dangerous you thought my outlook was as outlined. I did do everyone here the honor of reading their posts. The psychoanalysis is purely frivolous from you.
|
On November 27 2018 12:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 12:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2018 11:53 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2018 02:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 25 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:
With all of these devolving into hypotheticals and poor examples, I'll have to wait if micronesia can actually answer the original post. I don't really care to continue postulating on perhaps this and probably that in instances that don't pertain to current events and are unlikely to shake anybody of their original beliefs. I brought it up with him because it was perhaps our last real engaged exchange. The states and districts with armed teachers are unlikely to reverse course, and I'm very happy with that fact. You brought up a very specific suggestion about gun lockers in schools to be accessed by a set of voluntarily trained teachers during emergencies. I laid out a set of issues and critiques with that idea, and was hoping you'd respond to them, to say nothing of the several other responses and criticisms you received from other people. It seems unfair for you to throw out a controversial idea and then ignore a debate on its merits, as this is a discussion forum. I only referenced the last disagreement I had with micronesia, before he cut off further exchanges. The post is here. I outlined my basic reasons to questioners purely out of the generosity of my heart. The issue is locked in a somewhat favorable position for me (several states and school districts allow it with training and concealed carry; and they will resist gun-grabbers attempts to disarm them once again). I am neither a teacher nor do I engage to convince everybody around here of the superiority of my position. I know some people will argue with me on any topic until the both of us are blue in the face. So I'll continue to pick and choose the topics that interest me more, with a view to current events if there are more school shootings in the next few months, and you can allege what seems and does not seem unfair to you as long as you wish. There will always be the next fight for gun control and gun rights. Just want to point out that the impetus for that will be a bunch of dead innocent people that probably could have been prevented if we focused on implementing effective regulations instead of bickering over bad ideas and remaining willfully ignorant about the related topics. I am neither a teacher. This seems innocuous but it's signals a particular detached perspective that is reaffirmed with the casual nature of the bold. nor do I engage to convince everybody around here of the superiority of my position
Honestly I don't really care which position is right from a 10k ft. perspective. If arming teachers actually did anything but make classrooms more dangerous and drive some short term gun sales I'd be with you. Basically your position is constrained by your ideological perspective. My imperative is preserving life and liberty as represented by advocating preventing fire-arm related deaths and securing my right to own my firearm. You position is ideologically trapped. Regardless of what any amount of data could show you, you can't accept conceptually the idea that more guns in classrooms will result in more accidents and malicious behavior, therefore resulting in more death and suffering than taking that same motivation to secure classrooms and focusing it on preventing people from obtaining improperly secured guns and bringing them to school (or anywhere else these teachers would be useless) in the first place. Put another way, I want to keep my gun and some dumbass teacher shooting a kid is far more likely to make me lose it than if we implement some reasonable regulations on securing firearms. Also it will save a hell of a lot more lives. Last I remember you're not even into guns so please don't screw this up for people who actually enjoy shooting and can't call the police for fear they end up shooting us in a panic by standing by this ridiculousness. I'm asking not from the gun reform side but from the gun owner side of this argument. I am and was quite well informed of how stupid and dangerous you thought my outlook was as outlined. I did do everyone here the honor of reading their posts. The psychoanalysis is purely frivolous from you.
There was 0 psychoanalysis (though you thinking there was is beyond tempting). That was strictly about your position. Think about what you're actually saying.
You want to increase the number of guns on school grounds and are simply waving off the corresponding increase in gun accidents and misuse for a benefit of iirc an unclear reduction in response time. Neglecting that even if the teachers were inexplicably better than the people we pay and train to handle these incidents, it's not apparent that even if they reduced mass shootings to 0 that we wouldn't end up with accidental, misuse, and failure to properly secure deaths that were higher than mass shooting incidents.
Meanwhile the "gun grabbers" would still be frantically "grabbing guns" because we've done little to nothing to reduce gun related deaths and created a brand new sensational headline genre around idiot teachers and mischievous kids.
Like I said, it's a stupid idea because some critical thinking and statistical analysis makes it pretty obvious. My point was merely that your position is ideologically caged otherwise you'd easily concede that laws concerning proper gun storage would be more effective and practical to reduce gun related deaths and therefor better secure our 2nd amendment rights.
If there's a logical construction free from such restrictive ideology you didn't present it and I haven't heard it elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
