But the hypothetic teacher trying to break the fight up would be seen as an escalation. The law applies differently to people who carry concealed weapons. They're not allowed to escalate the situation. The idea is to defuse it. Best to let someone else get between them.
Okay, suppose the teacher draws the gun to stop the fight. For the sake of argument, letís also say that one of the students has a little martial arts training. Not much, but a little. If the teacher is within a certain distance, it becomes very easy to disarm them. Now the pissed off kid has the gun, when before all he had was his fists.
Why is the 60-year old professor putting himself into that situation when he isn't physically able to deal with it? This whole scenario is a stretch anyway, relying on quite a few "ifs". Any situation has that potential.
When an adult sees two kids fighting, the first thing they do, in my experience, is to put themselves in between them, regardless of whether or not they can physically overpower either one. The idea is that the kids arenít looking to hit the adult, so theyíll hold back. Then, the emotions are given a moment or two to cool down, and the adult can send the kids their separate ways.
And IMO, there arenít that many ďifsĒ in this scenario. Two kids fighting, one teacher with a gun who isnít as physically powerful. The reason the teacher has
the gun in the first place might be the fact that these kids could pummel him/her if they wanted to.
What if a student decides to brain a teacher with a nearby chair? Does that mean that the chairs shouldn't be there? What if a teacher "snaps" and slams a student's head into a table or stabs him in the eye with a pen? Does that mean we should ban tables and pens in schools?
The difference is that guns are designed and built to kill people. Itís a lot harder to kill someone with a chair or a desk or a pen. A simple squeeze, and someoneís burying a son or a daughter or a father or a mother. Hell, a twitch could do it in some cases. Twitch with a pen in your hand, and you might
I think we have a fundamental disconnect on our ideas of firearms. To me, firearms are tools, nothing more. I don't ascribe evil intent to them, nor do I blame them for society's ills.
Indeed we do. Guns arenít tools. Theyíre weapons. Thereís a big difference there. No, gunís donít have evil intent in an of themselves, but the fact that they make it so easy to take a life means that there has to be some way to keep them under control.
We're not necessarily talking about a week of training here... Frankly, I think you'd be surprised at how seriously most CCW holders take their responsibilities. From what I've seen in my personal experience, there are quite a number (I'd even venture the majority) of CCW holders practice more with their firearms than most law enforcement officers. Again, these are people who have made a conscious decision to take their self-defense into their own hands. They have made an enormous decision in terms of their way of life, and they train so accordingly. Now, will there be abberations? Sure. There always are. There are those that made the remark that there are some teachers they wouldn't trust with a pair of scissors. I can say the same thing about some law enforcement officers.
And I sincerely and whole heartedly believe that as soon as that responsible marksman is looking at another gun pointed at his head, heís going to forget a lot of what he trained for. Practicing at a shooting range is not the same thing as counter assault training. You donít have people shooting back at you. You donít have innocent people running all over the place. You donít have that kind of fight-or-flight response that screws with logical thought.
No, I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened. I'm saying that there was a potential to stop the situation before it got worse.
Yes, I agree. But I think there was at least as much of a chance for those teachers to make things worse.
So you'd rather have any number of innocent casualties caused by the psycho student than one innocent casualty caused by a teacher defending his class? We're still delving too far into "what if" territory. "Nearly as many" doesn't work here. You keep saying that the "lack of training" will cause just as many casualties, but isn't it possible that the teacher's mere presence and actions will stop a situation before it gets worse?
No, I donít think it would. Like I said earlier, if a kid decides heís going to shoot up his school, having teachers with guns isnít going to stop him. At that point, heís likely beyond rational thought on the topic. It probably wouldnít stop him even if there was a SWAT team ready and waiting for him.
The presence of armed teachers would create an aura of fear at least as strong as any aura of safety. And unless they get extensive psychological profiles on everyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon, you are going to get people who really
should not have them carrying them. A background check doesnít cover everything. Sometimes, the person just hasnít had the chance to cause a tragedy yet. This law would make it that much easier.
Armed security is a good start. Local schools here have school police who are Class-I Peace Officers. However, more often than not, they're not on any one campus, but roving around between. See my point about things happening too quickly for police to respond. In order for armed security to do any good, they must maintain a strong enough presence on campus.
Then they should hire more Peace Officers to maintain that presence.
Agreed 100%. The safety of students is at the very heart of this debate. We just have different theories as to how we should go about it.
Well, thatís one thing we agree on anyway.
Source please? Private transactions of firearms are covered under existing federal and state laws. And for the record, AK-47s and M-16s in the military form are illegal under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as automatic weapons. They can be purchased, but not without an extensive background check and a federal license. State laws can outlaw them entirely. In fact, in California (and other states), firearms that *look* like AK-47s and M-16s are illegal.
I currently live in Cincinnati. Less than two weeks ago, I saw an ad in the Cincinnati Enquirer about a gun show a state or two over (I believe it was Oklahoma, but Iím not sure). In this ad, they were advertising tables that had automatic weapons of all kinds.
Thereís a reason why itís called the ďgun show loophole.Ē People can easily acquire just about anything they want if they know where to look. IIRC, it was a gun show where Harris and Klebold got their weapons. For some reason, there is a loophole in the law that allows these shows to sell these weapons.
What's your standard of qualification? The state in question has set its standards, and the people of that state are happy with it.
I highly doubt everyone in that state is happy with the laws. Laws come up for debate and re-debate all the time.
Again, I'd rather take my chances of a teacher shooting me accidentally while aiming at a psycho than having that psycho kill me intentionally. Fatalistic? Maybe. But if even *one* life was saved, it would be worth it, then, IMHO.
Well, thatís fine for you, but what about the other students who would be in that situation? Would they all want to have fire coming from two sides?
You've got a point about things not turning out exactly as they're intended. Does that mean we should stop trying?
When the potential for harm outweighs the potential for good, then yes. Not that we stop trying to fix the situation, but we try to find other solutions that work better.
I do think we need to remember that this is one school district in one county in one state that is considering this. If that school board thinks it's a good thing for them, who are we to judge? We're all in different situations than those people, and after all, they are the best ones to judge their situation, and thus are the best ones to react accordingly.
The problem is one law in one state begins to set a precedent. Thatís how most things start. If this eventually became federal law, I would be terrified.
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-ŗ-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression
"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V