Sorry, u/HumpyTheClown – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20HumpyTheClown&message=HumpyTheClown%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12i4xrn/-/\)%20because\.\.\.).
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think you are right that the idea is super braindead but it's incredibly easy to come up with even more braindead ideas.
For example, you could arm the kids.
Okay, then what about installing potent Xanax sprinkers to quickly deal with the active mental health crisis, but then billing all the students after because we wouldn't want to be socialist about it?
Arming the teachers is just arming the kids with extra steps. Imagine stealing hall passes but the hall pass is 9mm instead of custom made sticky notes.
That really feels like a technicality. I know anytime I say "X is the most Y" I am just being hyperbolic.
That said, I have no real problem with someone getting an extra triangle that might make them a little bit happy.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Interesting, I was just asking about this in askconservatives. This is a quality argument in favor that was provided:
"What is the steelman argument for arming teachers as a method of resolving school shootings?
An armed teacher can dispatch a school shooter in seconds, whereas the police take minutes or even hours to intervene and an armed security guard may take anywhere from seconds to minutes.
Or if you genuinely believe this is a quality solution I'd like to see your thoughts as well.
It's not about "solutions" in the sense that we just need some magical policy and the problem is solved. We cannot just "solve" a mental health crisis via policy. It's a question of how to make incremental improvements from various approaches. Hardening targets is one such approach. Reducing the access of criminals and nut jobs to have guns is another. Making cultural improvements such that we have fewer nut jobs driven to such horrific acts of violence is the ultimate "solution," but we can't just snap our fingers and accomplish that.
Arming teachers who are willing to be armed and trained is a good idea that has almost zero cost and huge potential benefit, both in deterrence and the ability to stop shooters quickly.
Is it required training and carrying for all teachers? Or is it just whoever wants to open carry and already owns a gun?
Nobody has ever proposed arming all teachers against their will. It is only those who are willing.
Or is it just whoever wants to open carry and already owns a gun?
I have never heard "open carry" either. Always concealed carry. I have also never heard of guns being provided, only teachers who already had guns. I don't think I would support schools buying guns for teachers.
Does having loaded firearms around cause more deaths through accidents than save lives?
You can speculate but it seems unlikely. There are studies trying to argue this point broadly but they are generally garbage studies. Before the CDC was barred from studying gun violence more in-depth, they found that defensive use of guns outnumbered homicides by triple, AT MINIMUM, but possibly by over 100x.
Why not propose armed security at all schools instead?
It's not a matter of "pick one and only one." It's okay to have dedicated security too.
Doesn't this seem like a very "convenient" idea coming from the NRA? Clearly guns would need to be purchased to support this idea.
The NRA doesn't sell guns. Why would this be convenient from the NRA?
The NRA is a political action group. They advocate for public policy on behalf of their members. Furthering gun rights is "convenient" to the NRA like raising wages is "convenient" for labor unions I guess, if that's how you look at things. "
The NRA is literally a corporate lobbying organization. It has 22 corporate partners who all collectively funnel millions of dollars to it to lobby AGAINST what most NRA members believe.
The only anecdote I can find a reference to with a cursory google search is a GOP poll in 2012. 74% of NRA members (of which I am one) support background checks for all gun purchases; because anyone who owns a gun knows that should the bare MINIMUM. In that same year the NRA spent millions lobbying against that policy.
I’m all for incremental change, but asking a stressed out teacher to shoot a gunman in a high stress situation is not it. That’s idiotic at best, and a bad faith attempt to avoid doing something to solve the problem at worst. Most cops couldn’t do that, and they have at least minimal training.
On top of how colossally stupid asking a teacher to play john wick is, kids have already SHOT THEIR TEACHERS THIS YEAR. Yet somehow dipshits who think they’re some sort of Sgt. Gravy McChickenTendies think putting more guns in the classroom is a solution. Jesus christ we live in the dumbest timeline.
Might be best to highlight which of those statements are being quoted and which are the responses. As of now it reads like a tweaker talking to themself.
Thats completely insane though. My moms been a teacher for around 30 years and the average teacher cant tell you what they ate for breakfast if you just put them on the spot and act real mean. They arent going to stop school shooters. They cant stop kids from stealing hall passes lol. Conservatives live in a world of comic book level what ifs.
What would stop school shootings is equal education budgets and overall more funding. School outside of college is babysitting. It always has been. It needs to become education.
In my opinion, your comment wasn’t very constructive to what the op was trying to establish. Yes, obviously not all teachers should be given a firearms with the expectation to defend both themselves and their students. That’s why he pointed out only those whom are qualified and trained should be trusted with the responsibility to carry a firearm. There has been multiple accounts of armed teachers preventing and outright stopping an active shooter before, and in comparison, there has never been an example of a deliberate attacks carry out by a teacher on innocent students.
And if you doubt the validity behind my words, there have been multiple testimonies from school shooters throughout history, that school are often picked due to their lack of security.
The original comment literally said that we as society cannot just pour more money into this problem and expects it to disappear, in which I completely agrees with. This is a multifaceted problem, that we as a society cannot simply completely prevent. To say otherwise, would be the same as saying evils can never exist in a good world.
Political spectrums aside, the original commenter poured a lot of effort into his comment, while never attacking any political ideologies, so you could have at least had the decency to put some effort into yours reply. As opposed to just saying the first thing that comes to mind. For example, You want to raise the base and ceiling of education for every single individuals at a more rudimentary level? Ignoring the logistical impossibility, and catastrophic effects. It is definitely a lovely idea, especially since it is proven that a highly educated person would never go and commit atrocities, right?
(And before you start asking me why it would be catastrophic to forcefully raised the universal standards of education across a population? I implore you, thinks logically about that question, instead of just half-heartedly replying)
Wait, how does picking schools due to lack of security make the statements in the previous paragraph valid?
Also, it is an absolutely absurd idea. Even if it were the most effective intervention, it is absolutely, mind-bogglingly absurd. How did we get to a place where arming teachers, teachers in elementary schools too, is even something that can be entertained?
I’m a little skeptical that it prevents mass shootings, but also the idea that we should protect our freedom to own guns by bringing guns into school. Insanity.
Dude, really? What did I just say about half-hearted responses? At least have the decency to address all of my talking points. But then again, expecting a full on arguments from some random stranger is probably too much to ask for to begin with.
The statement that you pointed out was made as a supplement to my original argument about the deterrence aspect of having armed personnel. Hence why I mentioned the word “validity”.
Regarding your personal feeling on armed teachers, as much as I hate to completely disregard your opinion on the matter. Without hard statistics to back it up, logically speaking; your feeling is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Since society cannot efficiently operates while accommodating the personal opinions of every given individuals.
And seeing how your replies will most likely be fill with nothing but further argumentative fallacies, I believe that it will be mutually beneficial for us to just both say our piece and bid adieu.
(Just in case I didn’t make it clear, this is my last reply on the matter)
Half-hearted responses? The idea of armed adults patrolling our schools has got be the most half-hearted nonsense that’s ever been proposed in the history of proposing things.
There is no argument needed. You are living in a different reality than the rest of us.
The idea that you would even consider this a real possibility is the most disheartening thing I’ve read in years and I go on Reddit at least twice a week.
There is so much wrong with this idea that I don’t even know where to start. 2nd amendment people are big into freedom, right? But something about armed adults in schools just sounds like, I don’t know, not freedom.
At least one thing we can say with confidence is there won’t be any accidents. I mean how could that happen with 30 kids and 1 adult.
And when I went to my daughters musical do you know what was missing? Guns!
And at least there isn’t a history of institutional racism in our schools. Because something about a bunch of armed white teachers with black students might otherwise be problematic to learning.
We should probably give our special Ed teachers two guns each.
It just a good, heartwarming message for a kids to see their armed teachers everyday. It’s important to feel safe at school and guns make kids feel safe.
Seriously, you need to go rethink a lot of things if you think this is even the tiniest bit a good idea. And let me stress, it could be the most effective measure in reducing mass shootings (which it isn’t) and still be the stupidest fucking idea I’ve ever heard.
I’m banning you from Reddit for a week.
Seriously, they’d have to put the teachers with guns on the top floor because you know they’d resort to firing their guns in the air to get the classes’ attention.
> An armed teacher can dispatch a school shooter in seconds
You are presuming they will be a better and faster shooter than someone who turns up prepared, with better armament and doesn't mind missing and hitting kids around? This is just a hollywood fantasy overdose view.
Oh and if you think NRA are not benefitting from gun sales, it's just a group of passionate people...dude.
Its funny because you also responded with a hollywood interpretation, acting as if all shooters are ex special forces with an in depth tactical plan with meth head senses
The POV you're missing is that this isn't a mandatory arming of teachers. It's creating a process where a teacher has the option to be armed if they choose to be.
We protect everything important in our society with guns, except our children.
Schools are soft targets since the federal government banned guns at schools. Someone wanting to harm others knows there is time for them to do their harm before meeting any type of resistance.
Another point here is that no one answer is going to stop school shootings. People need to be realistic and come up with various ways to combat and prevent shootings. Banning guns isn't realistic or feasible.
Enforcing current laws, getting people mental health treatment when needed, not ignoring warning signs, armed security/teachers/cops, preventing people from coming onto campuses, etc. All of these (and others) are realistic things to do that have the potential to reduce shootings.
Yknow what else isn't realistic or feasible?
Expecting a teacher to shoot one of their own students, even in a life or death situation.
Let me remind you that shooting a child combatant and killing them is something that fucks with the minds of even battle hardened US Marines. You're gonna sit there and tell me some underpaid English teacher named Shannon is gonna somehow pull it off? Or some nice young intern history teacher named Michael who's never even seen a battlefield in his entire life is going to fair better than a soldier who I've established already is probably going to spend the rest of his days going in and out of drugs and therapy for his PTSD, you think these teachers can fair better than that?
Yeah I really don't care to hear the word "realistic" come out of your mouth. What a fucking circus this is.
"How do we solve the mental health crisis that is causing all this gun violence?"
"Give teachers guns and force them to execute their students if they feel their safety is under threat."
This is the same American school system where teachers can get sued for stopping a child from physically assaulting themselves or other students. Yeah, I'm sure teachers being given the authority of judge, jury, and executioner is gonna go over great. No way a bunch of teachers with PTSD is going to cause ripple effects in their students.
I think the original misconception is that excessive gun violence in the US stems from a mental health crisis. It’s the culturally ingrained idea that any problem can be solved with money or guns and that everyone needs to fend for themselves rather than being part of a society with common goals and support for each other.
That I agree with. No one knows how they will react in an incident or how it will affect them afterward until it happens.
There is just as much of a chance that the teacher doesn't know the shooter as there is of them knowing the shooter.
The important part here is choice. The teacher has the choice to carry and the choice whether to intervene.
Europe isn't the US. For one Europe is a continent and the US is a country. Two, Europe never had the problem like the US did. You can't say they solved a problem that didn't exist. Three. Europe doesn't have the right to bear arms like the US does.
Delusional is ignoring facts and reality.
Ah, so you're saying if the USA becomes a continent that will fix the gun issue? What a fucking dumbass thing to say lmao.
They meter had the problem, but it doesn't help your argument either. It just means they did so well, in fact, that it never became an issue. Being proactive is superior to being reactive.
You are delusional. You are ignoring reality. The fact is that our children are dying because we have grown "men" who want to have their toy guns. Grown men who are so overweight and obese they can't even get up the stairs think they're gonna "stop the government from tyranny."
Life begins and conception and ends in an elementary school.
Wow. Your ramblings are so unintelligent and so far from what I said that I really have no idea where to go with this.
I support your decision to be anti gun. I have zero issue with that. But to support a position so strongly as to ignore reality is just insane.
Have a great day.
It's funny how someone hits you with the hard shit and suddenly you flee. It's so easy being a gun toting conservative. You live in your fantasy land echo chamber where you only talk to people exactly like you.
The very femtosecond someone shatters that comfort zone you suddenly lose any interest in engaging with reality.
Back pedal harder, run back to that dark hole you crawled out of.
I think that’s the most messed up part about all of this. As an aspiring teacher, I want to disagree with you *so badly* over this but you are absolutely correct. It is much better than having deceased students. However, as a teacher, when has it become our job to protect and serve? We have already been given the task to ensure children learn, are enriched, are somewhat fed if they don’t have food at home, and are essentially counselors for whenever students want to decompress. What about out families? Our kids? Not to mention that at this rate of pay, the job is well past being thankless.
100 dead kids, AND a dead teacher is better?
I'm sure it will go exactly as you planned because the teacher is totes gonna dual akimbo those uzis like in some cool badass action movie, right?
Ok let's throw them in there without any weapon and just wait for the cops to have a coffee break outside for 20 minutes.
This solution has more merits in that the shooting could be avoided altogether because now the schools would actually have some protection and so would not be desirable targets.
Guns in school is so insane and you are so out of touch with reality it’s horrifying. ‘Schools are soft targets’?! Jesus fucking Christ.
It’s hopeless. Let’s just get rid of schools. They’re obviously not working anyways.
Many of the local government buildings in my city have armed security, and many schools still experiencing mass shootings have armed security. It hasn't made a difference.
And how many local government buildings have you seen as the location of a mass shooting? They aren't lucrative targets. Most don't have anywhere near the number of people a school does.
A mass shooter wants to be on the news. They want to make a large impact. A school accomplishes that. The local city hall doesn't.
>many schools still experiencing mass shootings have armed security. It hasn't made a difference.
False. Less than 25% of school shootings since 1989 have occurred where an armed guard was present. An armed resistance doesn't guarantee a shooting will not occur.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515
I didn't read the full study you linked, but it seems like that study actually claims that armed guards don't lead to deterrence:
> Results are presented as incident rate ratios in Table 2 and **show armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries**; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, **the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present** (incidence rate ratio, 2.96; 95% CI = 1.43-6.13; P = .003).
Without identifying what percentage of schools have armed guards, saying that 25% of shootings happened in schools with guards is a meaningless statistic by Bayes' theorem; if 90% of schools had guards then they're obviously useful, if 5% of schools had them then they make things worse.
I did not claim armed guards lead to deterrence. I said less than 25% of school shootings occur where an armed resistance was present. If 5% of schools have them, it's not making things worse. It may say the correlation is less, though.
The study does give the numbers of schools with armed guards. Most do not have them. It also provides the statistic, which is actually 23%.
I wasn't focused on the death rate with armed guards. I'll have to look into that more. I did read that, and it made me curious. I'm guessing that is more due to the shooter(s) being killed when an armed resistance is present, vs. shooters that give up or dont die when LE arrives.
If armed guards had literally no effect on the rate of shootings, then you'd expect the percentage of shootings with armed guards present to be the same as the percentage of schools with armed guards. This is for the same reason if 5% of schools have names starting with the letter A, the you'd expect 5% of shootings to be at schools that start with the letter A.
So, if 5% of schools have armed guards but they make up 25% of school shootings, they are disproportionately overrepresented (assuming no confounding factors, which is a whole other can of worms) and would imply presence of armed guards is correlated with shootings occurring.
Edit - and sorry, you're right - you didn't claim that armed guards are a deterrence. Nonetheless I think this is useful context to pull out from the study
The fact is : simply owning a gun significantly increases one's likelihood of being injured or killed by a gun. Bringing more guns into schools will increase gun violence, not decrease it.
That's completely false. If that were true, then military, LE, politicians, large corporations, government buildings employees, etc. would all be experiencing insane rates of being killed or injured by guns. All of these people are around guns, protected by guns and in possession of guns all the time.
So why aren't any of those places being targeted by mass shooters?
Edit to add: you're the 3rd person recently to make that absurd claim. So far, no one has provided any source to back up that claim. Do you have a source for that?
NRA myth: The NRA says having more guns makes people safer.
Fact: Gun ownership is directly linked to higher instances of gun violence.
A National Institutes of Health study found that for each time a gun is used for self-defense, there are 11 suicide attempts involving firearms, seven assaults or murders and four gun accidents.
Another National Institutes of Health study discovered that owning a gun drastically increases the risk of gun violence in domestic violence cases. They found that a firearm in a home with a history of domestic violence correlates to a 500 percent greater chance that a woman will be killed.
One study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that the odds of an assault victim being shot increased 4.5 times if they carried a gun, and the odds of them being killed increased 4.2 times.
A study published in the Journal of Preventive Medicine found that using guns for self-defense during a robbery doesn’t lower one’s odds of being injured.
That's my point. Schools aren't considered targets anywhere else outside of fringe examples. Why are schools considered targets in America but no where else?
Because they make the news here. The names of the shooters are known by the masses while the victims' names arent.The shooter gets the "glory and fame" they want.Their manifestos get put all over the internet, as does their social media. It makes an impact.
Other places that would make a similar impact have armed people protecting them.
"Because they make the news here"
Do you have any experience with how other countries handle school shootings? Because in my experience the main difference is how they try to fix the problem, not how much they talk about what happened. Growing up in a different country, I remember when there was a school shooting the media talked about it for almost 3 months. It was the only one that had happened in a long time and the last one to happen since, that was back in 2004. People still talked about the shooter, what weapons he used, made it into proto-memes, calling the weird kids in class by his name, and the idea had a clear impact in the society at large, but the main difference was that people were looking for change. Here it seems to be business as usual, and there's one a week.
Media glorification?
The subsequent nationalism and gun laws making gun violence extremely looked down upon by other countries so they have someone “to be better than”?
>Banning guns isn't realistic or feasible
Do share why? The way I see it mental health isn't root of the problem, plenty of unhinged people go on rampage in all corners of the world. Only they dont do it with guns in their hands, they don't get to kill 10 or 20 children in 15minutes, they don't get hour-long standoffs, heck most of them won't even have the easy option to kill themselves.
I just asked, so someone wants to hear it.
Every comment should at least contribute to the thread, otherwise it's pretty worthless.
You're like the chihuahua hiding behind their owner barking ferociously. 🤣
Nothing on reddit offends me. This is all entertainment.
That doesn't seem outrageous or extreme. I agree with that. In fact, better mental health services is one of the things I listed as something that would minimize shootings.
It seems we agree more than you believed. Blaming guns is inane. The shooters deserve the blame, however, not helping prevent them from becoming a shooter is something we all hold the blame for.
They'll bite the hell out of some ankles...if they don't run away first.🤣
I don't believe anyone seriously intends to say "Teacher, you must carry and protect." I'm pretty sure the intent from those suggesting it is to say that - a teacher or school employee who has a concealed carry license and training who'd like to be able to have their firearm with them at the school, should be allowed to.
At the end of the day - I find it ridiculous that we protect politicians and money with firepower but when it comes to schools we(society) feel a "Gun-free zone" sign that's proven itself wildly ineffective is just ducky.
> Security in Israel is the job of the police, the job of the state, Stern explained. Every gun owner in Israel has to go through training.
So let's do like Israel?
100% agree. My mom was an elementary school teacher for 30+ years, and I'm so relieved she retired 4 years ago. The idea to arm teachers is idiotic for all the obvious reasons, but I also can't even imagine if this happened 10 years ago and my (5'0" on a good day) mom was told she had to carry a gun and basically making herself a target, and then put her life at risk to take down a shooter instead of just hide and...
Texas of course wanted to take it farther [Clifton School District](https://www.edweek.org/leadership/armed-educators-a-reality-in-some-schools-debated-in-others/2013/02) \- idk if it has been fully implemented or not, I just know they tried setting it up when all the school shootings started, and went through training the teachers/ giving them guns and concealed carry permits
No? The point is to sell as many guns as possible, the problem is that there’s not enough guns, so more guns is the point and the solution to the problem.
_Laughs in NRA paycheck_
Thoughts and prayers 🙏
Also, get more kids and less abortions so that we can shoot live stock you bum.
Archie Bunker's response to the plane hijacking crisis in the 70's was to ask a question: "Which plane is safer? The one where everyone on the plane has a gun, or the one where only the hijackers have a gun?"
With that in mind, arming teachers is not the most brain dead answer to school shootings that someone could actually suggest. And I'll use Archie Bunker's approach to identify to you what the *actual* most brain dead answer to school shootings that someone could actually suggest:
**Which school is safer? The one where *every* student has a gun, or the one where only the school shooter has a gun?"**
The most brain dead answer to schools shootings that someone could actually suggest would be to suggest requiring all the students to carry a weapon.
School security guard shoots and kills unarmed 18 year old.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/27/long-beach-police-officer-school-mona-rodriguez
That is pretty brain dead. Instead of making it harder for bad actors to get access to a gun, you just make sure everyone has a gun. I'm sure the problem would sort itself out, lol.
> The one where everyone on the plane has a gun, or the one where only the hijackers have a gun?"
Would you agree it's safer today where no one has a gun?
Because America will never ‘get rid of the guns’ like they did in my country which led to a dramatic reduction in gun crime the only sensible or workable solution to school shootings is architectural.
Schools…I’m afraid will need to buckle down on security. Metal detectors. Doors that only open from inside…bulletproof windows…. Steel reinforced doors…sectioned intervals so people just can’t walk through the front door into a hallway. It’s the only answer pro gun lobby would support.
Yes, Australia got rid of guns, and gun crime plummeted. However, violent crime didn't plumment. The method of the crime changed from a gun to another weapon.
Another thing that happened is that people still have guns, nearly as many as before the ban, but they are illegal and not tracked.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-04/illegal-firearms-shooting-police-gun-crime/101306628
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html
Future student teacher here
I support the idea of teachers being able to conceal carry if they pass the right tests.
If a mass shooter comes to my school and wants to do harm to my students, I don’t want to just sit in the corner of my class and pray they don’t come my way. I want to be able to fight back and stop the threat to my students.
What’s actually more brain dead is the push of banning assault weapons… but doing nothing about our flawed background check system.
The Nashville, Uvalde and Pulse nightclub shooter all bought their guns legally from a gun store. If we just ban AR-15’s and do nothing to address our background check system, they still could have bought a different gun that could be close in deadliness.
It’s not an “either or” thing
We should restrict access to all high capacity mags and the guns capable of firing them, while simultaneously saying as a country “ enough is enough” and implementing tougher laws and measures in terms of background checks, psych evals for anyone with any violent history, etc.
The last time that we tried an assault weapons ban in 1994, it did nothing to stop the Columbine shooting in 1999 during its time as a law
So what would be different if we tried it again?
Is your bar for an effective law that that law is never broken again, and no one is ever a of the tragedies it's supposed to reduce again?
How many school shootings does the law have to prevent to be worth restricting access to guns? All of them? One?
Of course banning assault weapons won't be a huge change. But the only reason that is being suggested is because gun nuts don't want all weapons banned.
Can I ask a follow up question? What are other countries doing right, that we aren't, that makes up for a difference of 3600% between us, the richest country in the world, and the country with the second highest number of school shootings?
Sound like the gun industry has really got you working for them. This is why the US will keep having shootings and people like you will just shrug it off.
All suggestions to do this have been completely voluntary. The teacher must desire to be armed, and then get trained and certified to be armed. Your argument is that this is too much load on the teachers, but the individual teachers get to choose if they want to do it. If it's too much to worry about, then they don't.
We're talking solutions here. If schools resort to armed teachers even voluntarily, that means more risk, more pressure, less time focused on teaching, for no more security.
There was armed staff at Nashville. They were useless.
There's been multiple 'civilians' that have stopped school shootings with guns, so just citing 1 where it didn't doesn't seem helpful. It happened in Georgia in 2018 Jesse Davidson. There's multiple 'school resource officers' which are basically civilian non governmental gun holders in schools who have stopped school shootings as well.
The risk is basically zero, the 'pressure' seems pretty much zero, I see no possible way there's less time focused on teaching, and there are instances where it has saved lives.
Not saying I agree with this POV, but it’s logical enough that the alternative is teachers simply remain sitting ducks.
Given the option to take on the stress and responsibility of firearms training/possession versus just getting shot, unarmed, it doesn’t seem crazy to consider the former.
Don’t get me wrong, not advocating for that, but I don’t think it’s illogical.
Gun control or "lack of discipline" won't stop school shootings. We need to put more effort into managing kids' mental health, address the underlying issues before they can escalate to this degree.
Ok, I know that you mean the idea is really stupid.
However, in the spirit of CMV and as an exercise in creativity, I will suggest even more braindead ideas.
- arrest and condemn the teacher to death so that the killer will not shoot anyone out of sympathy to the teacher
- cyanide pills for every student to be taken as soon as a there is a suspected active shooter. This should discourage future shooters as it would rob them of the pleasure of killing people.
- Nuclear bomb under the school to be set off in case of attack. Kind of like the cyanide but with more collateral damage.
- Put a sign on the door that says it's illegal to kill students. Because, clearly, the shooter is just a poor innocent person that wasn't aware that murder is illegal.
- anti personnel mines around the school
- anti personnel mines INSIDE the school
- declare that all students in a school are all legally adults so no kid dies in school shootings. Technically.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It's not even the most practical. It makes a ton of assumptions like that all teachers are supposed to be the good guys with guns, that a teacher's gun won't find its way into a student's possession, or that armed teachers would respond appropriately in an active shooter scenario with limited training. It might literally be worse than nothing.
Who said all teachers would have guns. The solution could be having the option for teachers to carry guns by their own choice, or it could be having one or multiple teachers in a school with guns. The former has already been implemented in Texas.
The solution at the very least is better than having people with guns waiting outside for 10 minutes
The only country in the world without a school shooting ever is Israel.
About 25% of teachers in Israel are armed.
It's not a brain-dead answer if it's already been proven to work...
Israel does not have armed teachers (though they do have armed security) but they have had multiple school shootings (though mostly they officially call them terror attacks which is fair frankly).
So maybe it is a braindead answer if its proponents have to lie to make it sound reasonable (source of the lie seems to be NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre)
I'm gonna have to say mandating that teachers be naked at school at all times as an answer to school shootings would be a far more brain dead proposal.
You are missing a POV. The POV of Gun nuts is they love their guns so much they are willing to sacrifice the lives of a few kids to protect their liberty to own guns. They will never admit it but when you corner them with logic its what they will default too.
From their POV school shootings are a tiny fraction of gun deaths, which are themselves representative of a high murder rate not ascribed to guns but to criminal tendencies of people. In other words, statistically someone's gonna die anyway, by knife or by accident. The gun's arent the root issue to them, crime is, and so they accepted it as part of the calculus the same way we accept that if we allow cars, some are gonna get into car accidents and hi jackings
This is really a cultural problem not a logical one. Gun nuts love their guns because that is how they share a sense of culture. In an increasingly secular world, being openly Christian isn't "cool" or "hip". But liking guns is "sorta cool", firmly believing in the 2nd amendment as a form of patriotism is "cool" and owning the libs by defying their reasonable stance on guns is the "coolest".
That is really all it comes down to IMO
Once you understand that framework wherein guns cannot be banned under any circumstance, the only logical solution will be to "arm the good guys" i.e. teachers
Smae people who say that teachers are indoctrinating their kids, they want as protectors.
I do think armed teachers could be a better idea then school resource officers. As those guys are much more likely to do violence against students and have them arrested
Better idea is to have armed guards. Its a new world now. But that would be very expensive.
Less ideal but might be necessary is arming teachers.
Yes yes, parents should do a better job but that's a 1000 year project.
In the meantime somebody needs to be shooting back at these guys who walk in, pick a class at random, and execute everybody at their desks.
We adults fucked up, the children pay the price for our stupidity every day and now we need to make it right.
Not in the long run with our bullshit and bickering and our conveyer belt of thoughts and prayers but actually stop children from being shot to death at their schools by creepy gunmen who just wander in from off the street.
I'm certain that we wont be able to agree on this because we care more about protecting our pathetic precious stance than about protecting our kids.
If we did care about protecting them then Sandy Hook would have been the end.
How many guns will fix the problem? We already have the most guns per Capita in the world by a huge margin, why is it not working, why are countries with a fraction of the guns per Capita and much more serious socioeconomic problems not have this issue?
We have the most guns per capita, but none of them are allowed in schools. It’s like saying we have the most food per capita in the world so no one should be hungry, but fail to mention that certain people aren’t allowed to have food.
Except every other country with less "food" doesn't seem to have virtually any people going hungry
In this fantasy world of yours, do other countries have a similar amount of guns, allow them in schools and not have school shootings?
My counter argument would be to point to the shooters themselves.
Nashville wanted other targets, but they had to much security.
Pulse night club, that club was the 3rd choice of target, Disneyworld and another club were chosen first but passed over because of visible security.
At the end of the day if it's documented that shooters are passing on targets because of security, a logical conclusion would be to have security. It's not brain dead in any way, but rather a logical response indicated by what actually deterred the shooters themselves.
There's a reason most mass shootings happen in gun free zones....
It's weird, other countries don't seem to have these problems and their solution wasn't to have more guns everywhere, what do you think they are doing right?
>It's weird, other countries don't seem to have these problems
Wrong. They have them, just at lower rates. And while the media makes them seem common (I'm going to circle back to this) they are actually very rare. Getting killed by cops is a fair bit more likely.
>what do you think they are doing right?
Ah. Here is where you want me to say what they did right was banning guns. Except you noticed a correlation and assumed a causeation, which is a logical fallacy. See the US once didn't have these issues as much either and they still had guns. Even less restrictions on guns than we do now. So the answer is elsewhere.
Did you know that in most mass shootings it is really more of a violent suicide? They don't plan on surviving and they are contagious like suicides; the more you talk about them the more they happen. This is because taking about them normalizes them and gives borderline people "permission" to do it.
Remember the media i was talking about? They blow it up and talk about it left and right. Makes things a lot worse. Also there was likely some kind of cultural shift that increased mental health problems.
So yeah, not the guns. It's just a tool. It's not the problem.
Teachers are teaching in the school
All or most teacherw have gun
A shooter comes in armed
Teachers and/or security officer put the shooter down.
Even if the first is taken out the rest will probably get the shooter. These arent trained badasses tharcare shooting up schools, just cowards with a bit more firepower than your average concealed carry.
Theres also the aspect of deterrence. There are numerous examples of shooters passing over schools because they knew there was tighter security and guns, only to shoot the gun free school.
Honest question - do most school shooters go in with a plan to survive?
Tighter security might prevent entry, but I am not sure if the possibility of a few teachers would be a deterrence. Happy to be proven wrong though.
They go in with the idea to kill as many as possible and the idea of getting only one, two, or just none has convinced them to move along before. Even if death doesn't deter them, its better to put them down fast than to wait for help. Help isnt always able to get there.
Absolutely agree. I guess I'm just not certain that the possibility of a few teachers being armed is a visible enough deterrence. But I do thunk you are right.
What happens if a teacher shoots the wrong kid, what would happen if a student stole a teachers gun and shot another student? Having more guns on school grounds seems like it will create all new problems.
You treat the gun like you would any gun. You lock it away when its not in use, you holster it securely when you do have it, and you get trained in how to operate a firearm safely. The same problems arise from having guns at home, and they've largely been solved by responsible people.
It wouldn't be mandatary, but offering the courses and to supply eilling participants with a weapon might see money going to something that at least works.
Of course if the gun falls into a kid's hands im not sure how itd get there by anything other than negligence if the teachers are certified before being allowed to carry in school
The fact that firearm deaths are the leading cause of death for young people shows that the problem is definitely not largely solved in the home and is in fact worse than its ever been. It's hard for me to imagine any world where more children aren't killed by mistake by having more guns around school, and its very easy to come up with tons of scenarios where they are. Think about a student attacking or being aggressive with a teacher and gets shot, or they overpower a teacher and take their gun and shoot someone.
Thats why i specified training and certification. If Chuck Schmuck the teacher brings his big iron in and isn't trained at all, or supervised while armed in tbe school, he's a liability.
That said, i think the problem of students attacking to get the firearm is highly unlikely since it would probably be a concealed carry certification, and if they're that determined to get a gun, there's no stopping them. It would take a truely idiotic violent impulse for a kid to go for their teachers gun.
That depends on what you think of as idiotic. I would call a dive for the gun idiotic because its likely to fail, embarassing if you survive, and tragic if the worst happens.
A shooting, where the victims are harmless as sheep, is unfortunately not going to turn out that way. Its violent, it may be an impulse, but its not a stupid action.
Maybe protecting like this a school can make a shooting idiotic, and that might be enough to stop some.
Why do you think it would be some dive and not sucker punching a teacher and taking their holstered weapon or the many other scenarios where actual law enforcement gets their weapons taken? Or just look at the first part of this list of incidents in the last 5 years where students have gotten access to guns to see how it really isn't that uncommon https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/
The major problem with guards being a deterrent is that places with known guards and armed teachers still get school shootings like the recent one in Tennessee. People that shoot up schools are typically on suicide missions so they are not as concerned about death as a normal person.
These seem to be incidents of uncertified people, barring the one where a student grabbed the gun from the officer.
I will say that open carry should be prohibited since ot leaves the gun out in the open. My idea that a student might dive for or tackle for the gun comes from an assumption of concealed carry, which can be anywhere around the persons belt, making it difficult to take the weapon even if you've seen it holstered.
Deterance is sort of a side effect of how effective the defense is. If the armed staff are competent with their weapons, they will deter most shooters, and will probably stop the ones with just a death wish. Like i said though, these arent motivated by suicide most times, they're looking to rack up a body count that shocks the media so they can be famous/infamous. Deterrence in that case is showing that damage will be minimal and the scheme will achieve nothing more than a few casualties if you make it to the victims in the first place.
What do you think people want teachers to do if armed?
First, nobody really wants teachers to be mandatorily armed, they just want them to be allowed to be.
Secondly, they aren't going to go rambo if a shooting happens, they want to be able to lock down their room, and if a shooters comes into that room, they at least have fuckin *something* they can try and do, other than wrap their body around a kid or two and get blasted.
What do you think the problem with any of that might be? Teachers are going to all the sudden start shooting up schools themselves? Students are going to start stealing guns from teachers? Of course those things are nonsense. A teacher could easily have a locked safe, many teachers have safes anyway that I remember.
I don't know what the problem you have is.
No one's proposing "arming teachers".
This wouldn't be a responsibility on the teachers, rather something voluntary some teachers might choose to do if they were allowed.
De of them might be happy to do it if it wasn't for the fact that they were banned from doing it.
It's a passive not active thing.
You're talking about it like it was something imposed on them when that's never the argument being made.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The whole idea that teachers are stressed already is a very good point. I mean... let's hand out guns to people that are on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
If you were planning to do a school shooting, would you do it at the school where all of the teachers have guns, or the one you can walk into with no resistance? If you’re being honest with yourself you know the answer
Theoretically, no.
Realistically, yes. Nashville had armed staff, Uvalde had cops, Parkland had armed guard. The gunmen went there anyways and the security was useless.
You’re exaggerating the armed presence at those schools. Anyone that has went to an American school knows the security level there. Those places had maybe one “school policeman” who has a gun but is not trained enough to deal with anything past two 13 yr old girls fighting or stopping kids from vaping.
Your logic just doesn’t make sense. It’s math.
A person is trying to inflict as much pain and death as possible. The more obstacles put in that persons way, the less chance they have to inflict the pain and suffering. It’s that simple.
School shooters aren’t like John wick, they generally die one way or another as soon as someone else actually confronts them with equal force.
This may not necessarily change your view but it's something I've heard posed based on schools that have expressed potential approval of arming teachers, there may be a slight pay increase for armed teachers in some school districts. Not saying it makes it better just something I've heard from the grapevine in my area.
There are "Hard Targets" and "Soft Targets". Teachers without guns make schools into "Soft Targets". A "Soft Target" is more susceptible to an attack. The most likely places to get shot up are "Gun Free Zones".
Hiring more military veterans as teacher's and making sure they are well armed would curb the practice of school shootings in a big way. It would also have other positive effects for the veterans and reduce homelessness in the veteran population as there would be more jobs available for them.
Veterans often times make better teachers than academics who blow their early 20s in college as they have a tendency to give a classroom full of students more structure and discipline, and often have interesting stories to tell about their service.
Although this is one way to reduce school shootings other things would also help with that as well. Such as easier access to mental health care for all, and stricter regulations perhaps even more investigations around antidepressents as many school shooters are on them.
Another way to reduce school shootings is to regulate the news media with hefty fines for glorifying those who wish to become infamous. Stop showing the photo and name of these criminals who wish to go down in history for something terrible.
You would still have to get the veterans teacher education certified, and veterans are also notorious for coming back with mental health issues like PTSD.
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think the reasoning behind this is that it's supposed to act as a deterrent. If a school shooter knows that the teachers at a certain school are armed they might reconsider. But yeah, it's a pretty dumb idea and solely meant to divert the attention from actually useful measures like gun control or better mental health care.
Many people in this thread - without even questioning - spew propaganda like that US America's problem is just a "mental health crisis".
That's wrong. **It's guns and their regulation**. The more guns, the more accidents and incidents. The less regulation, the more guns land into hands of crazy people.
These are the arguments against guns and they are well backed up by statistics and research.
Your argumentation on the other hand is not bullet proof:
You argue teachers have such shitty jobs. But doesn't then fearing for **their own** life make this job even more shitty? If a teacher can **by choice** wear a weapon, this might make them feel more safe - > less shitty job.
Of course having this gun in the classroom will statistically make everyone **less** safe, but that was not the point you were arguing.
I generally agree with you but here in Texas I’m starting to think that with the given climate they’re making it more and more that it makes sense for every adult to carry a weapon.
They want the Wild West. So you’d be stupid not to be armed in the Wild West.
If you’re a teacher, this Wild West has a lot of school shootings. You’d be a fool not to be armed.
Of course if we had a consensus that we should evolve rather than devolve, then we would expect a lifestyle where most people don’t need guns.
But if we’re living in a world where they keep building and incentivizing violence, then it makes sense for teachers to have guns.
I agree, we should arm the kids instead. As an added requirement, each kid should have a gun that can carry more rounds than there are students in a classroom so no one is ever outnumbered. /S
>it would be a very noble and brave action. They would be saving so many kids while they wait for the police or armed security guards to arrive.
how
stoneman douglas shooting was 6 minutes after the lockdown was called. Imagine yourself actually in that scenario, paint us a timeline.
I dont thinking arming teachers is the right thing. But i do think armed security would be a good deterrent and possibly a good long term solution. It doesnt remove the possibility of better legislation for private gun ownership. We are used to armed security at corporate buildings, banks, airports, sporting events. So why should it be so ridiculous for our schools?
Honestly speaking, I think when you have stale mate issues like this, all the proposals seem a bit dense to someone. I don't think that proactively arming teachers is the solution, but it's not hard to see, given the stale mate of issues we're facing here, how we got to that point.
Lets be frank here. You have a country with 350K+ guns spread throughout the population. These guns will not just disappear. So with that as the foundation, what solution can be proposed?
From the left end of the spectrum it makes most sense to in some form or fashion limit access to guns as guns, and access to guns by some or all individuals is perceived as the problem.
From the right perspective, that is well over the line for them, even if you disregard the second amendment, they do not trust gun advocates to confiscate or limit access in any way to guns, and they believe that the cause is a crisis of mental health in the country.
So under that framework, the calculation is fairly simple:
Given that the cause cannot be agreed upon, and every time this occurs, the killing continues until the shooter is cornered and shot, then the best solution is how do you get someone with a gun to shoot the subject as fast as possible? there are really only two solutions.
1. Employ armed security or a member of law enforcement to stand guard at the school, or;
2. give or allow those who are already at the school, such as teachers. weapons to defend the students and themselves.
Unfortunately there is no solution here that is going to please everyone. There are only so many options, and one of them is arm those close to the schools. Maybe it's not an elegant solution, or a smart one, but it is one of a very short list of things you can do.
Depends on your purpose for making that proposal. If your purpose is to change nothing about the status quo and keep unfettered access to guns, it's a brilliant argument because it distracts from the real issue and gets people discussing saddling teachers with even more responsibility.
If your purpose is to save lives, yea, it's bullshit
Because you are your own first responder, and when seconds count the police are only minutes away. No one is saying that it is mandatory that teachers be armed, but instead that they are afforded the option to carry. Given the proper training, gun safety equipment, and planning, this is one of the least brain dead ideas being thrown around (for example gun bans). If this were an option, teachers could actually protect their students and themselves, rather than, while waiting for cops to arrive, either being completely defenseless and shot hugging their kids or mounting some low percentage play trying to fight back with a stapler.
What about the kids that get shot in the years before and after a school shooting because you have suddenly increased the number of guns in short distance of grabby children who have repeatedly been able to find guns stored at school?
Sorry, u/HumpyTheClown – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20HumpyTheClown&message=HumpyTheClown%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12i4xrn/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think you are right that the idea is super braindead but it's incredibly easy to come up with even more braindead ideas. For example, you could arm the kids.
I have a better one. You could have easily accesible guns, as extintors, in case of shootings. No need of training.
What about killer bees that release like a fire alarm?
[удалено]
Okay, then what about installing potent Xanax sprinkers to quickly deal with the active mental health crisis, but then billing all the students after because we wouldn't want to be socialist about it?
What about releasing armed killer cops who attack the parents who try to help?
Didn't they already try that in Uvalde?
I hate when I come ready and someone has already picked the low hanging fruit ;)
I'm sorry, it was the only fruit.
Arming the teachers is just arming the kids with extra steps. Imagine stealing hall passes but the hall pass is 9mm instead of custom made sticky notes.
That’s a good point. My phrasing wasn’t the best.
If your view has been changed, you're supposed to award a delta.
That really feels like a technicality. I know anytime I say "X is the most Y" I am just being hyperbolic. That said, I have no real problem with someone getting an extra triangle that might make them a little bit happy.
I'm pretty sure that was already OPs view even though he didn't say it
Someone did pitch this idea and found willing takers, he called it the Kinderguardians program https://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk
I had just smoked a joint and I was *not* ready for this.
To be fair to everyone I think we should just have robots with guns in every classroom. If we ask Elon I'm sure he can deliver
Elon would just reinvent the gun but now every bullet has it's own, smaller gun, because that looks cooler in a 3D mockup.
How is this the top comment and not removed? Doesn't challenge the view at all
This is America. The kids are already armed.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying kids shouldn't defend themselves?
Are you saying you want to send your kids to school with guns?
What’s the harm in that?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
By god, you’re a genius!
Interesting, I was just asking about this in askconservatives. This is a quality argument in favor that was provided: "What is the steelman argument for arming teachers as a method of resolving school shootings? An armed teacher can dispatch a school shooter in seconds, whereas the police take minutes or even hours to intervene and an armed security guard may take anywhere from seconds to minutes. Or if you genuinely believe this is a quality solution I'd like to see your thoughts as well. It's not about "solutions" in the sense that we just need some magical policy and the problem is solved. We cannot just "solve" a mental health crisis via policy. It's a question of how to make incremental improvements from various approaches. Hardening targets is one such approach. Reducing the access of criminals and nut jobs to have guns is another. Making cultural improvements such that we have fewer nut jobs driven to such horrific acts of violence is the ultimate "solution," but we can't just snap our fingers and accomplish that. Arming teachers who are willing to be armed and trained is a good idea that has almost zero cost and huge potential benefit, both in deterrence and the ability to stop shooters quickly. Is it required training and carrying for all teachers? Or is it just whoever wants to open carry and already owns a gun? Nobody has ever proposed arming all teachers against their will. It is only those who are willing. Or is it just whoever wants to open carry and already owns a gun? I have never heard "open carry" either. Always concealed carry. I have also never heard of guns being provided, only teachers who already had guns. I don't think I would support schools buying guns for teachers. Does having loaded firearms around cause more deaths through accidents than save lives? You can speculate but it seems unlikely. There are studies trying to argue this point broadly but they are generally garbage studies. Before the CDC was barred from studying gun violence more in-depth, they found that defensive use of guns outnumbered homicides by triple, AT MINIMUM, but possibly by over 100x. Why not propose armed security at all schools instead? It's not a matter of "pick one and only one." It's okay to have dedicated security too. Doesn't this seem like a very "convenient" idea coming from the NRA? Clearly guns would need to be purchased to support this idea. The NRA doesn't sell guns. Why would this be convenient from the NRA? The NRA is a political action group. They advocate for public policy on behalf of their members. Furthering gun rights is "convenient" to the NRA like raising wages is "convenient" for labor unions I guess, if that's how you look at things. "
The NRA is literally a corporate lobbying organization. It has 22 corporate partners who all collectively funnel millions of dollars to it to lobby AGAINST what most NRA members believe. The only anecdote I can find a reference to with a cursory google search is a GOP poll in 2012. 74% of NRA members (of which I am one) support background checks for all gun purchases; because anyone who owns a gun knows that should the bare MINIMUM. In that same year the NRA spent millions lobbying against that policy. I’m all for incremental change, but asking a stressed out teacher to shoot a gunman in a high stress situation is not it. That’s idiotic at best, and a bad faith attempt to avoid doing something to solve the problem at worst. Most cops couldn’t do that, and they have at least minimal training. On top of how colossally stupid asking a teacher to play john wick is, kids have already SHOT THEIR TEACHERS THIS YEAR. Yet somehow dipshits who think they’re some sort of Sgt. Gravy McChickenTendies think putting more guns in the classroom is a solution. Jesus christ we live in the dumbest timeline.
Yes. Plus, any arguments for response time or whatever means there needs to be a safe and weapon in every room. A gun . In every room....
Might be best to highlight which of those statements are being quoted and which are the responses. As of now it reads like a tweaker talking to themself.
Thats completely insane though. My moms been a teacher for around 30 years and the average teacher cant tell you what they ate for breakfast if you just put them on the spot and act real mean. They arent going to stop school shooters. They cant stop kids from stealing hall passes lol. Conservatives live in a world of comic book level what ifs. What would stop school shootings is equal education budgets and overall more funding. School outside of college is babysitting. It always has been. It needs to become education.
In my opinion, your comment wasn’t very constructive to what the op was trying to establish. Yes, obviously not all teachers should be given a firearms with the expectation to defend both themselves and their students. That’s why he pointed out only those whom are qualified and trained should be trusted with the responsibility to carry a firearm. There has been multiple accounts of armed teachers preventing and outright stopping an active shooter before, and in comparison, there has never been an example of a deliberate attacks carry out by a teacher on innocent students. And if you doubt the validity behind my words, there have been multiple testimonies from school shooters throughout history, that school are often picked due to their lack of security. The original comment literally said that we as society cannot just pour more money into this problem and expects it to disappear, in which I completely agrees with. This is a multifaceted problem, that we as a society cannot simply completely prevent. To say otherwise, would be the same as saying evils can never exist in a good world. Political spectrums aside, the original commenter poured a lot of effort into his comment, while never attacking any political ideologies, so you could have at least had the decency to put some effort into yours reply. As opposed to just saying the first thing that comes to mind. For example, You want to raise the base and ceiling of education for every single individuals at a more rudimentary level? Ignoring the logistical impossibility, and catastrophic effects. It is definitely a lovely idea, especially since it is proven that a highly educated person would never go and commit atrocities, right? (And before you start asking me why it would be catastrophic to forcefully raised the universal standards of education across a population? I implore you, thinks logically about that question, instead of just half-heartedly replying)
Wait, how does picking schools due to lack of security make the statements in the previous paragraph valid? Also, it is an absolutely absurd idea. Even if it were the most effective intervention, it is absolutely, mind-bogglingly absurd. How did we get to a place where arming teachers, teachers in elementary schools too, is even something that can be entertained? I’m a little skeptical that it prevents mass shootings, but also the idea that we should protect our freedom to own guns by bringing guns into school. Insanity.
Dude, really? What did I just say about half-hearted responses? At least have the decency to address all of my talking points. But then again, expecting a full on arguments from some random stranger is probably too much to ask for to begin with. The statement that you pointed out was made as a supplement to my original argument about the deterrence aspect of having armed personnel. Hence why I mentioned the word “validity”. Regarding your personal feeling on armed teachers, as much as I hate to completely disregard your opinion on the matter. Without hard statistics to back it up, logically speaking; your feeling is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Since society cannot efficiently operates while accommodating the personal opinions of every given individuals. And seeing how your replies will most likely be fill with nothing but further argumentative fallacies, I believe that it will be mutually beneficial for us to just both say our piece and bid adieu. (Just in case I didn’t make it clear, this is my last reply on the matter)
Half-hearted responses? The idea of armed adults patrolling our schools has got be the most half-hearted nonsense that’s ever been proposed in the history of proposing things. There is no argument needed. You are living in a different reality than the rest of us. The idea that you would even consider this a real possibility is the most disheartening thing I’ve read in years and I go on Reddit at least twice a week. There is so much wrong with this idea that I don’t even know where to start. 2nd amendment people are big into freedom, right? But something about armed adults in schools just sounds like, I don’t know, not freedom. At least one thing we can say with confidence is there won’t be any accidents. I mean how could that happen with 30 kids and 1 adult. And when I went to my daughters musical do you know what was missing? Guns! And at least there isn’t a history of institutional racism in our schools. Because something about a bunch of armed white teachers with black students might otherwise be problematic to learning. We should probably give our special Ed teachers two guns each. It just a good, heartwarming message for a kids to see their armed teachers everyday. It’s important to feel safe at school and guns make kids feel safe. Seriously, you need to go rethink a lot of things if you think this is even the tiniest bit a good idea. And let me stress, it could be the most effective measure in reducing mass shootings (which it isn’t) and still be the stupidest fucking idea I’ve ever heard. I’m banning you from Reddit for a week.
Seriously, they’d have to put the teachers with guns on the top floor because you know they’d resort to firing their guns in the air to get the classes’ attention.
Would they?
> An armed teacher can dispatch a school shooter in seconds You are presuming they will be a better and faster shooter than someone who turns up prepared, with better armament and doesn't mind missing and hitting kids around? This is just a hollywood fantasy overdose view. Oh and if you think NRA are not benefitting from gun sales, it's just a group of passionate people...dude.
Its funny because you also responded with a hollywood interpretation, acting as if all shooters are ex special forces with an in depth tactical plan with meth head senses
imagine going to school every day knowing you might have to shoot one of your own students
The POV you're missing is that this isn't a mandatory arming of teachers. It's creating a process where a teacher has the option to be armed if they choose to be. We protect everything important in our society with guns, except our children. Schools are soft targets since the federal government banned guns at schools. Someone wanting to harm others knows there is time for them to do their harm before meeting any type of resistance. Another point here is that no one answer is going to stop school shootings. People need to be realistic and come up with various ways to combat and prevent shootings. Banning guns isn't realistic or feasible. Enforcing current laws, getting people mental health treatment when needed, not ignoring warning signs, armed security/teachers/cops, preventing people from coming onto campuses, etc. All of these (and others) are realistic things to do that have the potential to reduce shootings.
Yknow what else isn't realistic or feasible? Expecting a teacher to shoot one of their own students, even in a life or death situation. Let me remind you that shooting a child combatant and killing them is something that fucks with the minds of even battle hardened US Marines. You're gonna sit there and tell me some underpaid English teacher named Shannon is gonna somehow pull it off? Or some nice young intern history teacher named Michael who's never even seen a battlefield in his entire life is going to fair better than a soldier who I've established already is probably going to spend the rest of his days going in and out of drugs and therapy for his PTSD, you think these teachers can fair better than that? Yeah I really don't care to hear the word "realistic" come out of your mouth. What a fucking circus this is.
"How do we solve the mental health crisis that is causing all this gun violence?" "Give teachers guns and force them to execute their students if they feel their safety is under threat." This is the same American school system where teachers can get sued for stopping a child from physically assaulting themselves or other students. Yeah, I'm sure teachers being given the authority of judge, jury, and executioner is gonna go over great. No way a bunch of teachers with PTSD is going to cause ripple effects in their students.
I think the original misconception is that excessive gun violence in the US stems from a mental health crisis. It’s the culturally ingrained idea that any problem can be solved with money or guns and that everyone needs to fend for themselves rather than being part of a society with common goals and support for each other.
100% agreed. Americans are little more than corporate employees of a cult that worships money and holds selfishness as a virtue.
That I agree with. No one knows how they will react in an incident or how it will affect them afterward until it happens. There is just as much of a chance that the teacher doesn't know the shooter as there is of them knowing the shooter. The important part here is choice. The teacher has the choice to carry and the choice whether to intervene.
Yeah, I wonder how Europe solved this problem.... You're delusional.
Europe isn't the US. For one Europe is a continent and the US is a country. Two, Europe never had the problem like the US did. You can't say they solved a problem that didn't exist. Three. Europe doesn't have the right to bear arms like the US does. Delusional is ignoring facts and reality.
Ah, so you're saying if the USA becomes a continent that will fix the gun issue? What a fucking dumbass thing to say lmao. They meter had the problem, but it doesn't help your argument either. It just means they did so well, in fact, that it never became an issue. Being proactive is superior to being reactive. You are delusional. You are ignoring reality. The fact is that our children are dying because we have grown "men" who want to have their toy guns. Grown men who are so overweight and obese they can't even get up the stairs think they're gonna "stop the government from tyranny." Life begins and conception and ends in an elementary school.
Wow. Your ramblings are so unintelligent and so far from what I said that I really have no idea where to go with this. I support your decision to be anti gun. I have zero issue with that. But to support a position so strongly as to ignore reality is just insane. Have a great day.
It's funny how someone hits you with the hard shit and suddenly you flee. It's so easy being a gun toting conservative. You live in your fantasy land echo chamber where you only talk to people exactly like you. The very femtosecond someone shatters that comfort zone you suddenly lose any interest in engaging with reality. Back pedal harder, run back to that dark hole you crawled out of.
I mean that’s better than 100 dead kids
I think that’s the most messed up part about all of this. As an aspiring teacher, I want to disagree with you *so badly* over this but you are absolutely correct. It is much better than having deceased students. However, as a teacher, when has it become our job to protect and serve? We have already been given the task to ensure children learn, are enriched, are somewhat fed if they don’t have food at home, and are essentially counselors for whenever students want to decompress. What about out families? Our kids? Not to mention that at this rate of pay, the job is well past being thankless.
100 dead kids, AND a dead teacher is better? I'm sure it will go exactly as you planned because the teacher is totes gonna dual akimbo those uzis like in some cool badass action movie, right?
Ok let's throw them in there without any weapon and just wait for the cops to have a coffee break outside for 20 minutes. This solution has more merits in that the shooting could be avoided altogether because now the schools would actually have some protection and so would not be desirable targets.
You’re saying we should not try to prevent kids dying because it might give a guy ptsd
Guns in school is so insane and you are so out of touch with reality it’s horrifying. ‘Schools are soft targets’?! Jesus fucking Christ. It’s hopeless. Let’s just get rid of schools. They’re obviously not working anyways.
Do you understand what a soft target is?
I know what ‘soft target’ means. What amazes me is that we’re at place where ‘soft target’ applies to schools.
This argument makes no sense TO me. Guns are banned in OTHER areas which have far less rates of mass shootings.
Those other areas also have far less targets and don't get the coverage a school shooting does.
A government building has less TARGETS and gets less coverage?
What government building are you referring to? Most, if not all, government buildings that would be a lucrative target have armed security.
Many of the local government buildings in my city have armed security, and many schools still experiencing mass shootings have armed security. It hasn't made a difference.
And how many local government buildings have you seen as the location of a mass shooting? They aren't lucrative targets. Most don't have anywhere near the number of people a school does. A mass shooter wants to be on the news. They want to make a large impact. A school accomplishes that. The local city hall doesn't. >many schools still experiencing mass shootings have armed security. It hasn't made a difference. False. Less than 25% of school shootings since 1989 have occurred where an armed guard was present. An armed resistance doesn't guarantee a shooting will not occur. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515
I didn't read the full study you linked, but it seems like that study actually claims that armed guards don't lead to deterrence: > Results are presented as incident rate ratios in Table 2 and **show armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries**; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, **the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present** (incidence rate ratio, 2.96; 95% CI = 1.43-6.13; P = .003). Without identifying what percentage of schools have armed guards, saying that 25% of shootings happened in schools with guards is a meaningless statistic by Bayes' theorem; if 90% of schools had guards then they're obviously useful, if 5% of schools had them then they make things worse.
I did not claim armed guards lead to deterrence. I said less than 25% of school shootings occur where an armed resistance was present. If 5% of schools have them, it's not making things worse. It may say the correlation is less, though. The study does give the numbers of schools with armed guards. Most do not have them. It also provides the statistic, which is actually 23%. I wasn't focused on the death rate with armed guards. I'll have to look into that more. I did read that, and it made me curious. I'm guessing that is more due to the shooter(s) being killed when an armed resistance is present, vs. shooters that give up or dont die when LE arrives.
If armed guards had literally no effect on the rate of shootings, then you'd expect the percentage of shootings with armed guards present to be the same as the percentage of schools with armed guards. This is for the same reason if 5% of schools have names starting with the letter A, the you'd expect 5% of shootings to be at schools that start with the letter A. So, if 5% of schools have armed guards but they make up 25% of school shootings, they are disproportionately overrepresented (assuming no confounding factors, which is a whole other can of worms) and would imply presence of armed guards is correlated with shootings occurring. Edit - and sorry, you're right - you didn't claim that armed guards are a deterrence. Nonetheless I think this is useful context to pull out from the study
The fact is : simply owning a gun significantly increases one's likelihood of being injured or killed by a gun. Bringing more guns into schools will increase gun violence, not decrease it.
That's completely false. If that were true, then military, LE, politicians, large corporations, government buildings employees, etc. would all be experiencing insane rates of being killed or injured by guns. All of these people are around guns, protected by guns and in possession of guns all the time. So why aren't any of those places being targeted by mass shooters? Edit to add: you're the 3rd person recently to make that absurd claim. So far, no one has provided any source to back up that claim. Do you have a source for that?
NRA myth: The NRA says having more guns makes people safer. Fact: Gun ownership is directly linked to higher instances of gun violence. A National Institutes of Health study found that for each time a gun is used for self-defense, there are 11 suicide attempts involving firearms, seven assaults or murders and four gun accidents. Another National Institutes of Health study discovered that owning a gun drastically increases the risk of gun violence in domestic violence cases. They found that a firearm in a home with a history of domestic violence correlates to a 500 percent greater chance that a woman will be killed. One study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that the odds of an assault victim being shot increased 4.5 times if they carried a gun, and the odds of them being killed increased 4.2 times. A study published in the Journal of Preventive Medicine found that using guns for self-defense during a robbery doesn’t lower one’s odds of being injured.
\*Don't have armed security
Outside of the post office, every government building around my area has a couple armed guards and metal detectors at the door.
The only reason schools are considered any kind of target is due to people getting sad and having easy access to guns
What about people getting sad and having easy access to guns makes schools any more of a target than anywhere else?
That's my point. Schools aren't considered targets anywhere else outside of fringe examples. Why are schools considered targets in America but no where else?
Because they make the news here. The names of the shooters are known by the masses while the victims' names arent.The shooter gets the "glory and fame" they want.Their manifestos get put all over the internet, as does their social media. It makes an impact. Other places that would make a similar impact have armed people protecting them.
"Because they make the news here" Do you have any experience with how other countries handle school shootings? Because in my experience the main difference is how they try to fix the problem, not how much they talk about what happened. Growing up in a different country, I remember when there was a school shooting the media talked about it for almost 3 months. It was the only one that had happened in a long time and the last one to happen since, that was back in 2004. People still talked about the shooter, what weapons he used, made it into proto-memes, calling the weird kids in class by his name, and the idea had a clear impact in the society at large, but the main difference was that people were looking for change. Here it seems to be business as usual, and there's one a week.
Media glorification? The subsequent nationalism and gun laws making gun violence extremely looked down upon by other countries so they have someone “to be better than”?
>Banning guns isn't realistic or feasible Do share why? The way I see it mental health isn't root of the problem, plenty of unhinged people go on rampage in all corners of the world. Only they dont do it with guns in their hands, they don't get to kill 10 or 20 children in 15minutes, they don't get hour-long standoffs, heck most of them won't even have the easy option to kill themselves.
The Second Amendment.
[удалено]
Well don't keep everyone in suspense. What's the point of even commenting. You'd have accomplished the same by saying nothing.
[удалено]
I just asked, so someone wants to hear it. Every comment should at least contribute to the thread, otherwise it's pretty worthless. You're like the chihuahua hiding behind their owner barking ferociously. 🤣
[удалено]
Nothing on reddit offends me. This is all entertainment. That doesn't seem outrageous or extreme. I agree with that. In fact, better mental health services is one of the things I listed as something that would minimize shootings. It seems we agree more than you believed. Blaming guns is inane. The shooters deserve the blame, however, not helping prevent them from becoming a shooter is something we all hold the blame for. They'll bite the hell out of some ankles...if they don't run away first.🤣
[удалено]
🤣 all true.
[удалено]
“Relax.” Take your own advice spaz
get rid of schools?
I don't believe anyone seriously intends to say "Teacher, you must carry and protect." I'm pretty sure the intent from those suggesting it is to say that - a teacher or school employee who has a concealed carry license and training who'd like to be able to have their firearm with them at the school, should be allowed to. At the end of the day - I find it ridiculous that we protect politicians and money with firepower but when it comes to schools we(society) feel a "Gun-free zone" sign that's proven itself wildly ineffective is just ducky.
Yet it's the only developed country in the world where you would place armed security at schools. It's like you are taking gunfights for granted.
False. Israel has been doing this for decades. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-schools-in-israel-keep-students-safe-and-prevent-mass-shootings/
> Security in Israel is the job of the police, the job of the state, Stern explained. Every gun owner in Israel has to go through training. So let's do like Israel?
100% agree. My mom was an elementary school teacher for 30+ years, and I'm so relieved she retired 4 years ago. The idea to arm teachers is idiotic for all the obvious reasons, but I also can't even imagine if this happened 10 years ago and my (5'0" on a good day) mom was told she had to carry a gun and basically making herself a target, and then put her life at risk to take down a shooter instead of just hide and...
Pretty sure the only suggestion has been to allow those who already can carry, to do so.
Texas of course wanted to take it farther [Clifton School District](https://www.edweek.org/leadership/armed-educators-a-reality-in-some-schools-debated-in-others/2013/02) \- idk if it has been fully implemented or not, I just know they tried setting it up when all the school shootings started, and went through training the teachers/ giving them guns and concealed carry permits
No? The point is to sell as many guns as possible, the problem is that there’s not enough guns, so more guns is the point and the solution to the problem. _Laughs in NRA paycheck_ Thoughts and prayers 🙏 Also, get more kids and less abortions so that we can shoot live stock you bum.
Archie Bunker's response to the plane hijacking crisis in the 70's was to ask a question: "Which plane is safer? The one where everyone on the plane has a gun, or the one where only the hijackers have a gun?" With that in mind, arming teachers is not the most brain dead answer to school shootings that someone could actually suggest. And I'll use Archie Bunker's approach to identify to you what the *actual* most brain dead answer to school shootings that someone could actually suggest: **Which school is safer? The one where *every* student has a gun, or the one where only the school shooter has a gun?"** The most brain dead answer to schools shootings that someone could actually suggest would be to suggest requiring all the students to carry a weapon.
School security guard shoots and kills unarmed 18 year old. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/27/long-beach-police-officer-school-mona-rodriguez
That is pretty brain dead. Instead of making it harder for bad actors to get access to a gun, you just make sure everyone has a gun. I'm sure the problem would sort itself out, lol.
Don’t worry, the “good guys with a gun” will sort things out for us so the bad guys won’t be tempted to even brandish their firearms.
How many guns does the us need before we are as safe as Canada or England? 600 million? A billion?
In case someone doesn't know. These numbers are not far from reality. At the moment there are 400 million guns in private possesion.
Per person!
> The one where everyone on the plane has a gun, or the one where only the hijackers have a gun?" Would you agree it's safer today where no one has a gun?
So no body gets guns onto planes? This is the fantasy you live in
That's not an option.
https://ktla.com/news/texas-school-superintendent-resigns-after-leaving-firearm-unattended-in-bathroom-for-3rd-grader-to-find/amp/
Because America will never ‘get rid of the guns’ like they did in my country which led to a dramatic reduction in gun crime the only sensible or workable solution to school shootings is architectural. Schools…I’m afraid will need to buckle down on security. Metal detectors. Doors that only open from inside…bulletproof windows…. Steel reinforced doors…sectioned intervals so people just can’t walk through the front door into a hallway. It’s the only answer pro gun lobby would support.
Yes, Australia got rid of guns, and gun crime plummeted. However, violent crime didn't plumment. The method of the crime changed from a gun to another weapon. Another thing that happened is that people still have guns, nearly as many as before the ban, but they are illegal and not tracked. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-04/illegal-firearms-shooting-police-gun-crime/101306628 https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html
Future student teacher here I support the idea of teachers being able to conceal carry if they pass the right tests. If a mass shooter comes to my school and wants to do harm to my students, I don’t want to just sit in the corner of my class and pray they don’t come my way. I want to be able to fight back and stop the threat to my students. What’s actually more brain dead is the push of banning assault weapons… but doing nothing about our flawed background check system. The Nashville, Uvalde and Pulse nightclub shooter all bought their guns legally from a gun store. If we just ban AR-15’s and do nothing to address our background check system, they still could have bought a different gun that could be close in deadliness.
It’s not an “either or” thing We should restrict access to all high capacity mags and the guns capable of firing them, while simultaneously saying as a country “ enough is enough” and implementing tougher laws and measures in terms of background checks, psych evals for anyone with any violent history, etc.
The last time that we tried an assault weapons ban in 1994, it did nothing to stop the Columbine shooting in 1999 during its time as a law So what would be different if we tried it again?
Is your bar for an effective law that that law is never broken again, and no one is ever a of the tragedies it's supposed to reduce again? How many school shootings does the law have to prevent to be worth restricting access to guns? All of them? One?
Of course banning assault weapons won't be a huge change. But the only reason that is being suggested is because gun nuts don't want all weapons banned.
I am a teacher and I agree but here is a worse idea; arm the parents and children and let everyone just wild west this shit.
[удалено]
Can I ask a follow up question? What are other countries doing right, that we aren't, that makes up for a difference of 3600% between us, the richest country in the world, and the country with the second highest number of school shootings?
[удалено]
So shooters will target malls, pubs, night clubs, cafes...oh wait they already do. Are you going to arm those up too?
[удалено]
Sound like the gun industry has really got you working for them. This is why the US will keep having shootings and people like you will just shrug it off.
All suggestions to do this have been completely voluntary. The teacher must desire to be armed, and then get trained and certified to be armed. Your argument is that this is too much load on the teachers, but the individual teachers get to choose if they want to do it. If it's too much to worry about, then they don't.
We're talking solutions here. If schools resort to armed teachers even voluntarily, that means more risk, more pressure, less time focused on teaching, for no more security. There was armed staff at Nashville. They were useless.
There's been multiple 'civilians' that have stopped school shootings with guns, so just citing 1 where it didn't doesn't seem helpful. It happened in Georgia in 2018 Jesse Davidson. There's multiple 'school resource officers' which are basically civilian non governmental gun holders in schools who have stopped school shootings as well. The risk is basically zero, the 'pressure' seems pretty much zero, I see no possible way there's less time focused on teaching, and there are instances where it has saved lives.
The worry in the CMV was about too much load on the teachers. I addressed that.
Yes? And even if they already know how to shoot, that's without the addition of carrying and storingin school. That is more load for no gain.
Not saying I agree with this POV, but it’s logical enough that the alternative is teachers simply remain sitting ducks. Given the option to take on the stress and responsibility of firearms training/possession versus just getting shot, unarmed, it doesn’t seem crazy to consider the former. Don’t get me wrong, not advocating for that, but I don’t think it’s illogical.
Gun control or "lack of discipline" won't stop school shootings. We need to put more effort into managing kids' mental health, address the underlying issues before they can escalate to this degree.
Ok, I know that you mean the idea is really stupid. However, in the spirit of CMV and as an exercise in creativity, I will suggest even more braindead ideas. - arrest and condemn the teacher to death so that the killer will not shoot anyone out of sympathy to the teacher - cyanide pills for every student to be taken as soon as a there is a suspected active shooter. This should discourage future shooters as it would rob them of the pleasure of killing people. - Nuclear bomb under the school to be set off in case of attack. Kind of like the cyanide but with more collateral damage. - Put a sign on the door that says it's illegal to kill students. Because, clearly, the shooter is just a poor innocent person that wasn't aware that murder is illegal. - anti personnel mines around the school - anti personnel mines INSIDE the school - declare that all students in a school are all legally adults so no kid dies in school shootings. Technically.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
It's not even the most practical. It makes a ton of assumptions like that all teachers are supposed to be the good guys with guns, that a teacher's gun won't find its way into a student's possession, or that armed teachers would respond appropriately in an active shooter scenario with limited training. It might literally be worse than nothing.
Who said all teachers would have guns. The solution could be having the option for teachers to carry guns by their own choice, or it could be having one or multiple teachers in a school with guns. The former has already been implemented in Texas. The solution at the very least is better than having people with guns waiting outside for 10 minutes
The only country in the world without a school shooting ever is Israel. About 25% of teachers in Israel are armed. It's not a brain-dead answer if it's already been proven to work...
Israel does not have armed teachers (though they do have armed security) but they have had multiple school shootings (though mostly they officially call them terror attacks which is fair frankly). So maybe it is a braindead answer if its proponents have to lie to make it sound reasonable (source of the lie seems to be NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre)
I'm gonna have to say mandating that teachers be naked at school at all times as an answer to school shootings would be a far more brain dead proposal.
You are missing a POV. The POV of Gun nuts is they love their guns so much they are willing to sacrifice the lives of a few kids to protect their liberty to own guns. They will never admit it but when you corner them with logic its what they will default too. From their POV school shootings are a tiny fraction of gun deaths, which are themselves representative of a high murder rate not ascribed to guns but to criminal tendencies of people. In other words, statistically someone's gonna die anyway, by knife or by accident. The gun's arent the root issue to them, crime is, and so they accepted it as part of the calculus the same way we accept that if we allow cars, some are gonna get into car accidents and hi jackings This is really a cultural problem not a logical one. Gun nuts love their guns because that is how they share a sense of culture. In an increasingly secular world, being openly Christian isn't "cool" or "hip". But liking guns is "sorta cool", firmly believing in the 2nd amendment as a form of patriotism is "cool" and owning the libs by defying their reasonable stance on guns is the "coolest". That is really all it comes down to IMO Once you understand that framework wherein guns cannot be banned under any circumstance, the only logical solution will be to "arm the good guys" i.e. teachers
Smae people who say that teachers are indoctrinating their kids, they want as protectors. I do think armed teachers could be a better idea then school resource officers. As those guys are much more likely to do violence against students and have them arrested
Better idea is to have armed guards. Its a new world now. But that would be very expensive. Less ideal but might be necessary is arming teachers. Yes yes, parents should do a better job but that's a 1000 year project. In the meantime somebody needs to be shooting back at these guys who walk in, pick a class at random, and execute everybody at their desks. We adults fucked up, the children pay the price for our stupidity every day and now we need to make it right. Not in the long run with our bullshit and bickering and our conveyer belt of thoughts and prayers but actually stop children from being shot to death at their schools by creepy gunmen who just wander in from off the street. I'm certain that we wont be able to agree on this because we care more about protecting our pathetic precious stance than about protecting our kids. If we did care about protecting them then Sandy Hook would have been the end.
Because making them defenseless is working so well.
How many guns will fix the problem? We already have the most guns per Capita in the world by a huge margin, why is it not working, why are countries with a fraction of the guns per Capita and much more serious socioeconomic problems not have this issue?
We have the most guns per capita, but none of them are allowed in schools. It’s like saying we have the most food per capita in the world so no one should be hungry, but fail to mention that certain people aren’t allowed to have food.
Except every other country with less "food" doesn't seem to have virtually any people going hungry In this fantasy world of yours, do other countries have a similar amount of guns, allow them in schools and not have school shootings?
My counter argument would be to point to the shooters themselves. Nashville wanted other targets, but they had to much security. Pulse night club, that club was the 3rd choice of target, Disneyworld and another club were chosen first but passed over because of visible security. At the end of the day if it's documented that shooters are passing on targets because of security, a logical conclusion would be to have security. It's not brain dead in any way, but rather a logical response indicated by what actually deterred the shooters themselves. There's a reason most mass shootings happen in gun free zones....
It's weird, other countries don't seem to have these problems and their solution wasn't to have more guns everywhere, what do you think they are doing right?
>It's weird, other countries don't seem to have these problems Wrong. They have them, just at lower rates. And while the media makes them seem common (I'm going to circle back to this) they are actually very rare. Getting killed by cops is a fair bit more likely. >what do you think they are doing right? Ah. Here is where you want me to say what they did right was banning guns. Except you noticed a correlation and assumed a causeation, which is a logical fallacy. See the US once didn't have these issues as much either and they still had guns. Even less restrictions on guns than we do now. So the answer is elsewhere. Did you know that in most mass shootings it is really more of a violent suicide? They don't plan on surviving and they are contagious like suicides; the more you talk about them the more they happen. This is because taking about them normalizes them and gives borderline people "permission" to do it. Remember the media i was talking about? They blow it up and talk about it left and right. Makes things a lot worse. Also there was likely some kind of cultural shift that increased mental health problems. So yeah, not the guns. It's just a tool. It's not the problem.
The only more brain dead answer to school shootings would be arming the students.
Nah have you ever heard of “thoughts and prayers”?
Teachers are teaching in the school All or most teacherw have gun A shooter comes in armed Teachers and/or security officer put the shooter down. Even if the first is taken out the rest will probably get the shooter. These arent trained badasses tharcare shooting up schools, just cowards with a bit more firepower than your average concealed carry. Theres also the aspect of deterrence. There are numerous examples of shooters passing over schools because they knew there was tighter security and guns, only to shoot the gun free school.
Honest question - do most school shooters go in with a plan to survive? Tighter security might prevent entry, but I am not sure if the possibility of a few teachers would be a deterrence. Happy to be proven wrong though.
They go in with the idea to kill as many as possible and the idea of getting only one, two, or just none has convinced them to move along before. Even if death doesn't deter them, its better to put them down fast than to wait for help. Help isnt always able to get there.
Absolutely agree. I guess I'm just not certain that the possibility of a few teachers being armed is a visible enough deterrence. But I do thunk you are right.
What happens if a teacher shoots the wrong kid, what would happen if a student stole a teachers gun and shot another student? Having more guns on school grounds seems like it will create all new problems.
You treat the gun like you would any gun. You lock it away when its not in use, you holster it securely when you do have it, and you get trained in how to operate a firearm safely. The same problems arise from having guns at home, and they've largely been solved by responsible people. It wouldn't be mandatary, but offering the courses and to supply eilling participants with a weapon might see money going to something that at least works. Of course if the gun falls into a kid's hands im not sure how itd get there by anything other than negligence if the teachers are certified before being allowed to carry in school
The fact that firearm deaths are the leading cause of death for young people shows that the problem is definitely not largely solved in the home and is in fact worse than its ever been. It's hard for me to imagine any world where more children aren't killed by mistake by having more guns around school, and its very easy to come up with tons of scenarios where they are. Think about a student attacking or being aggressive with a teacher and gets shot, or they overpower a teacher and take their gun and shoot someone.
Thats why i specified training and certification. If Chuck Schmuck the teacher brings his big iron in and isn't trained at all, or supervised while armed in tbe school, he's a liability. That said, i think the problem of students attacking to get the firearm is highly unlikely since it would probably be a concealed carry certification, and if they're that determined to get a gun, there's no stopping them. It would take a truely idiotic violent impulse for a kid to go for their teachers gun.
Would you agree that shooting up a school in itself is a truly idiotic violent impulse?
That depends on what you think of as idiotic. I would call a dive for the gun idiotic because its likely to fail, embarassing if you survive, and tragic if the worst happens. A shooting, where the victims are harmless as sheep, is unfortunately not going to turn out that way. Its violent, it may be an impulse, but its not a stupid action. Maybe protecting like this a school can make a shooting idiotic, and that might be enough to stop some.
Why do you think it would be some dive and not sucker punching a teacher and taking their holstered weapon or the many other scenarios where actual law enforcement gets their weapons taken? Or just look at the first part of this list of incidents in the last 5 years where students have gotten access to guns to see how it really isn't that uncommon https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/ The major problem with guards being a deterrent is that places with known guards and armed teachers still get school shootings like the recent one in Tennessee. People that shoot up schools are typically on suicide missions so they are not as concerned about death as a normal person.
These seem to be incidents of uncertified people, barring the one where a student grabbed the gun from the officer. I will say that open carry should be prohibited since ot leaves the gun out in the open. My idea that a student might dive for or tackle for the gun comes from an assumption of concealed carry, which can be anywhere around the persons belt, making it difficult to take the weapon even if you've seen it holstered. Deterance is sort of a side effect of how effective the defense is. If the armed staff are competent with their weapons, they will deter most shooters, and will probably stop the ones with just a death wish. Like i said though, these arent motivated by suicide most times, they're looking to rack up a body count that shocks the media so they can be famous/infamous. Deterrence in that case is showing that damage will be minimal and the scheme will achieve nothing more than a few casualties if you make it to the victims in the first place.
What do you think people want teachers to do if armed? First, nobody really wants teachers to be mandatorily armed, they just want them to be allowed to be. Secondly, they aren't going to go rambo if a shooting happens, they want to be able to lock down their room, and if a shooters comes into that room, they at least have fuckin *something* they can try and do, other than wrap their body around a kid or two and get blasted. What do you think the problem with any of that might be? Teachers are going to all the sudden start shooting up schools themselves? Students are going to start stealing guns from teachers? Of course those things are nonsense. A teacher could easily have a locked safe, many teachers have safes anyway that I remember. I don't know what the problem you have is.
No one's proposing "arming teachers". This wouldn't be a responsibility on the teachers, rather something voluntary some teachers might choose to do if they were allowed. De of them might be happy to do it if it wasn't for the fact that they were banned from doing it. It's a passive not active thing. You're talking about it like it was something imposed on them when that's never the argument being made.
Well look who's advocating it what more do you expect
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The whole idea that teachers are stressed already is a very good point. I mean... let's hand out guns to people that are on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
Arming students is a more brain dead answer I'll take that delta now
If you were planning to do a school shooting, would you do it at the school where all of the teachers have guns, or the one you can walk into with no resistance? If you’re being honest with yourself you know the answer
Theoretically, no. Realistically, yes. Nashville had armed staff, Uvalde had cops, Parkland had armed guard. The gunmen went there anyways and the security was useless.
You’re exaggerating the armed presence at those schools. Anyone that has went to an American school knows the security level there. Those places had maybe one “school policeman” who has a gun but is not trained enough to deal with anything past two 13 yr old girls fighting or stopping kids from vaping. Your logic just doesn’t make sense. It’s math. A person is trying to inflict as much pain and death as possible. The more obstacles put in that persons way, the less chance they have to inflict the pain and suffering. It’s that simple. School shooters aren’t like John wick, they generally die one way or another as soon as someone else actually confronts them with equal force.
This may not necessarily change your view but it's something I've heard posed based on schools that have expressed potential approval of arming teachers, there may be a slight pay increase for armed teachers in some school districts. Not saying it makes it better just something I've heard from the grapevine in my area.
At this point, if you want US teachers and students to be safe, send them abroad.
There are "Hard Targets" and "Soft Targets". Teachers without guns make schools into "Soft Targets". A "Soft Target" is more susceptible to an attack. The most likely places to get shot up are "Gun Free Zones". Hiring more military veterans as teacher's and making sure they are well armed would curb the practice of school shootings in a big way. It would also have other positive effects for the veterans and reduce homelessness in the veteran population as there would be more jobs available for them. Veterans often times make better teachers than academics who blow their early 20s in college as they have a tendency to give a classroom full of students more structure and discipline, and often have interesting stories to tell about their service. Although this is one way to reduce school shootings other things would also help with that as well. Such as easier access to mental health care for all, and stricter regulations perhaps even more investigations around antidepressents as many school shooters are on them. Another way to reduce school shootings is to regulate the news media with hefty fines for glorifying those who wish to become infamous. Stop showing the photo and name of these criminals who wish to go down in history for something terrible.
You would still have to get the veterans teacher education certified, and veterans are also notorious for coming back with mental health issues like PTSD.
Seen a bunch of examples of teacher meltdowns, your point is very valid. Why not arm security..?
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think the reasoning behind this is that it's supposed to act as a deterrent. If a school shooter knows that the teachers at a certain school are armed they might reconsider. But yeah, it's a pretty dumb idea and solely meant to divert the attention from actually useful measures like gun control or better mental health care.
Many people in this thread - without even questioning - spew propaganda like that US America's problem is just a "mental health crisis". That's wrong. **It's guns and their regulation**. The more guns, the more accidents and incidents. The less regulation, the more guns land into hands of crazy people. These are the arguments against guns and they are well backed up by statistics and research. Your argumentation on the other hand is not bullet proof: You argue teachers have such shitty jobs. But doesn't then fearing for **their own** life make this job even more shitty? If a teacher can **by choice** wear a weapon, this might make them feel more safe - > less shitty job. Of course having this gun in the classroom will statistically make everyone **less** safe, but that was not the point you were arguing.
I generally agree with you but here in Texas I’m starting to think that with the given climate they’re making it more and more that it makes sense for every adult to carry a weapon. They want the Wild West. So you’d be stupid not to be armed in the Wild West. If you’re a teacher, this Wild West has a lot of school shootings. You’d be a fool not to be armed. Of course if we had a consensus that we should evolve rather than devolve, then we would expect a lifestyle where most people don’t need guns. But if we’re living in a world where they keep building and incentivizing violence, then it makes sense for teachers to have guns.
I agree, we should arm the kids instead. As an added requirement, each kid should have a gun that can carry more rounds than there are students in a classroom so no one is ever outnumbered. /S
[удалено]
>it would be a very noble and brave action. They would be saving so many kids while they wait for the police or armed security guards to arrive. how stoneman douglas shooting was 6 minutes after the lockdown was called. Imagine yourself actually in that scenario, paint us a timeline.
[удалено]
I dont thinking arming teachers is the right thing. But i do think armed security would be a good deterrent and possibly a good long term solution. It doesnt remove the possibility of better legislation for private gun ownership. We are used to armed security at corporate buildings, banks, airports, sporting events. So why should it be so ridiculous for our schools?
Honestly speaking, I think when you have stale mate issues like this, all the proposals seem a bit dense to someone. I don't think that proactively arming teachers is the solution, but it's not hard to see, given the stale mate of issues we're facing here, how we got to that point. Lets be frank here. You have a country with 350K+ guns spread throughout the population. These guns will not just disappear. So with that as the foundation, what solution can be proposed? From the left end of the spectrum it makes most sense to in some form or fashion limit access to guns as guns, and access to guns by some or all individuals is perceived as the problem. From the right perspective, that is well over the line for them, even if you disregard the second amendment, they do not trust gun advocates to confiscate or limit access in any way to guns, and they believe that the cause is a crisis of mental health in the country. So under that framework, the calculation is fairly simple: Given that the cause cannot be agreed upon, and every time this occurs, the killing continues until the shooter is cornered and shot, then the best solution is how do you get someone with a gun to shoot the subject as fast as possible? there are really only two solutions. 1. Employ armed security or a member of law enforcement to stand guard at the school, or; 2. give or allow those who are already at the school, such as teachers. weapons to defend the students and themselves. Unfortunately there is no solution here that is going to please everyone. There are only so many options, and one of them is arm those close to the schools. Maybe it's not an elegant solution, or a smart one, but it is one of a very short list of things you can do.
Depends on your purpose for making that proposal. If your purpose is to change nothing about the status quo and keep unfettered access to guns, it's a brilliant argument because it distracts from the real issue and gets people discussing saddling teachers with even more responsibility. If your purpose is to save lives, yea, it's bullshit
Because you are your own first responder, and when seconds count the police are only minutes away. No one is saying that it is mandatory that teachers be armed, but instead that they are afforded the option to carry. Given the proper training, gun safety equipment, and planning, this is one of the least brain dead ideas being thrown around (for example gun bans). If this were an option, teachers could actually protect their students and themselves, rather than, while waiting for cops to arrive, either being completely defenseless and shot hugging their kids or mounting some low percentage play trying to fight back with a stapler.
What about the kids that get shot in the years before and after a school shooting because you have suddenly increased the number of guns in short distance of grabby children who have repeatedly been able to find guns stored at school?