[Mad Man]

With the fifth anniversary of the Columbine shootings being tomorrow, we're going to hear a lot about gun control, school shootings, ad nauseam, etc. While I don't need to preach to the choir here about why the gun control aspect is wrong, I do want to address something that has become a mantra among those of us in the RKBA movement.

Many of us believe that allowing teachers to carry guns at school would stop a school shooting. But would it?



Given the following:

Number of students enrolled in grades K-12: 45,000,000

Number of teachrs: 2,600,000

Number of schools: 87,000

Number of school districts: 14,883


source: National Association of State Boards of Education at http://www.nasbe.org/Educational_Issues/State_Stats/usa.html
The numbers are a few years old, but that's not important right now.



Even in states with "shall-issue" concealed carry permit laws, less than 5% of the population actually gets a CCW permit.


source: Clayton Cramer and David Kopel
"Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws
Tennessee Law Review, Spring 1995
http://www.claytoncramer.com/shall-issue.html
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ShallIssue.htm
"The fact the permits are available does not mean that everyone will carry a gun. Usually only about 1% to 4% of a state's population will choose to obtain a permit."




1% of 2.6 million = 26,000

2% of 2.6 million = 52,000

3% of 2.6 million = 78,000

3.3% of 2.6 million = 87,000 (average 1 per school)

4% of 2.6 million = 104,000

5% of 2.6 million = 130,000



I'm going to speculate that teachers tend to be more politically liberal and anti-gun than the general population. If so, the number of CCW permits among teachers would be fewer than the general population.

If 3.3% of the teachers get a permit (and actually carry), there would be an average of 1 armed teacher per school. However, the teachers with guns wouldn't be evenly distributed among the nation's 87,000 schools. They would probably be more concentrated in "conservative" areas. Thus, one school with 5 armed teachers would mean that 4 schools wouldn't have any.

Even if teachers with CCW permits were allowed to carry their guns at work, and they actually did, the chances of one being present during a school shooting are probably less than we like to admit.

If one considers that some spree-killers are also suicidal, and therefore wouldn't be deterred by the threat of an armed teacher (or police officer), the picture looks even more dismal.


For information purposes, I'll point out that there are about 670,000 full-time law enforcement officers in the United States.


source:Crime in the United States 2002.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Section VI - Law Enforcement Personnel
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/lawenforcement/lawenforcement.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/lawenforcement/06-NC.html



Divided equally among 3 shifts per day, there are about 223,000 LEOs on duty at any given time.

Assigning one LEO per school would require 40% of the available LEOs ( 87,000 / 223,000 = 39% ), leaving 136,000 LEOs available for other duties.

[treeprof]

The deterrent effect of students not knowing who/how many teachers or staff (we should add those folks to the numbers) carried would be of some benefit, even if no teachers were actually armed in a particular school. The odds of a teacher intervening once action was imminent or underway? Maybe not large, but there have been instances of armed citizens on or in close proximity to school grounds stopping these shootings/shooters: the Asst., Principal in Miss (Joe-something, I think), the armed students who stopped the foreign law student in Va or W Va who shot the place up, and the armed guy in PA who owned a business next to a school and intervened (a dance or something, I think). These are all within the past 10 years or less, and with these mass shootings only happening a coupla times a year, that's some indication that at lesst lives could be saved.

[mvpel]

I'm not surprised you never heard of it, because it wasn't widely reported - being contrary to the leftist media's anti-gun dogma - but a vice-principal in Pearl, Mississippi retrieved his pistol from his car in the parking lot and used it to apprehend a 16-year-old student who had slit his mother's throat that morning, then armed himself with a .30-30 rifle and pockets full of ammo and killed two and injured seven at the school.

He was on his way to a nearby junior high school to kill more kids when vice-principal Joel Myrick apprehended him and held him at gunpoint until the police arrived.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm

[treeprof]

Joel Myrick - that's the one.

[Mad Man]

I'm not surprised you never heard of it,

Why are you assuming I've never heard of that incident?

[Thumper]

I would guess the title of your thread might be a clue.

[mercedesrules]

As long as there are mandatory gov't youth concentration centers, students should be armed; not just teachers and principals - for the same reason that airline passengers should be armed; not just pilots and marshalls.

But, mandatory government schooling is a socialistic monstrosity that should be eliminated immediately.

MR

[DigMe]

Mad man,

If one armed teacher in one school somewhere in the United States stopped a student from killing just one other student either by brandishing or by shooting and stopping the aggressor wouldn't that be worth it? I don't see why it wouldn't. So I see that you're saying that the percentage would be very low...so be it. Why does that mean it shouldn't happen? Is there some downside to have teachers legally carrying concealed as long as the gun is secured somewhere on the teacher's body the whole time and as long as the students' aren't notified of who is carrying?

Your post never really states any reasons why we shouldn't carry in schools it just states that the number of people who would be carrying in schools would be low. So are you against teachers carrying in school or do you just want to illustrate that there wouldn't be a large number of teachers carrying?

I think at some point it would indeed stop a school shooting. It already has saved lives even in places where people AREN'T allowed to carry in school. IN some of those cases it might have saved more had they been allowed to carry legally.

brad cook

[pax]

I think every teacher in the United States should learn (at a minimum) the Lindell "come from behind" disarm and one frontal disarm.

And there should be no victim disarmament zones, anywhere.

pax

Because the state can no longer protect us from crime, it wants to take away from us the means of protecting ourselves. This is the logic of gun control. -- Joseph Sobran

[BowStreetRunner]

:::::Why Armed Teachers WON'T Stop School Shootings::::::

Well they MIGHT.....
but if you dont let them then they definitely WON'T

It aint gonna hurt to let some teachers carry....only so many schools have police or sheriffs on site all day every day (and usually only one of them)

BSR

[entropy]

Mad Man, I believe it was Mark Twain who said, "If you stand with one foot in ice, and one in boiling water, on average, you'd be comfortable."
Another quote come to mind: "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Da** lies, and statistics."
If even one teacher at one school carries, and is called upon to use that weapon to defend one child, is it not worth it?
No, teachers carrying will not stop such incedents from happening, even if every teacher carried, and was proficient with it. I do suspect these already rare incedents (despite what the media would have us believe, they are not that common), would drop off even further. More importantly, during those incedents where an armed teacher was present, the shooters would not be able to walk down the halls unfettered, picking off whom they will, at will. Student casualties would be decreased immensely, because the LE reaction time would be taken out of mix. Someone would be on-scene to contain and minimize the damages.
Since students aren't of legal age to carry, and the few minutes it takes for LE to respond are crucial, an armed responsible teacher would literally be a lifesaver for their students. An armed responsible teacher would be taking responsibility for his/her students very lives, their physical well-being, as well as their education. In a situation where they would be allowed to carry, what message is an unarmed teacher sending?
"My personal convictions will allow not only me, but also you to be killed or injured. My personal convictions are worth more than your life, or mine."
Israeli teachers are all armed. Do note Israeli schools are rarely targeted for terrorist attacks, and armed students shooting up the hallways are completely unheard of there.
If you believe we are not terrorist targets also, might I mention one thing:
09-11-2001.

[longeyes]

The "mantra" is based on the presumption that educators will educate themselves on this subject. The culture that hates and fears firearms and CCW must change; what better place to start changing it than from the ranks of teachers themselves.

[GEM]

There is the above Pearl Case.

In a PA shooting, the shooter was caught by an armed citizen.

In the California Jewish Day Care shooting, the shooter avoided another location where there were armed personnel.

In the TX Tower shooting, the killing stopped when local civilians returned fire on the Tower.

There was another case, where students retrieved guns and took down the shooter - crazed husband and the students were cops with guns in their cars? Can't recall the details.

Not a school shooting exactly but did you read the case of the NH stabbings of the two professors from Darthmouth? The killers first tried this at a house where the homeowner scared them away with a Glock. Later they went and killed the armed professors.

The odds of a police man being in your kid's classroom when shooting starts is very low - thus, police shouldn't care guns?

[Shane333]

Well, in Utah, teachers and other lawful CCW holders can carry on school campuses. I don't know how many there are, but they are there. Could they stop a Columbine-like crime? Maybe. Right now the criminals don't seem too anxious to find out. ;)

[Norton]

As long as there are mandatory gov't youth concentration centers, students should be armed; not just teachers and principals - for the same reason that airline passengers should be armed; not just pilots and marshalls.

But, mandatory government schooling is a socialistic monstrosity that should be eliminated immediately.


:scrutiny: Hmmm.....not sure I agree with you 100% on that one, being a career teacher and all. What is your alternative to public education? Granted it's not a perfect system....OK, let's admit it...it's a pretty screwed up system.....but just like a computer, it's crap in/crap out. What we get are kids who have been raised by a TV set and hands off parents who are too wrapped up in their own little head trips to take time to actually do the hard work of parenting.

Believe it or not, there are a LOT of us who actually give a darn about what we do and what we teach our students. Too bad we are hamstrung in doing our jobs by the 1% of kids who monopolize 90% of our time.

[Norton]

Back to the topic at hand.....

I would, for one, love to be able to be able to carry a firearm in my teaching position (OK...let's face it, I'm in MD and would love to be able CCW period:mad: ).

My room is on the ground floor near an exit on the back of the building. If someone decides to enter the building with the intent of causing bodily harm, I am the first stop on the tour.

Just today, we had a knife pulled on a student.....I know the kid that did it and had I found him (he ran), he would have given up the weapon to me. Some of the other thugs in the school however:what:

We teachers are not ALL sheepy, communist, tree-hugger, left-wing, pinkos........just mostly:p

[joab]

Would armed teachers be able to prevent a violent act at school? Maybe Maybe not.
Could unarmed teachers prevent school violence? Definitely not.

[mvpel]

Norton,

The way I usually explain this is to use the example of a Soviet-era bread store.

Soviet subjects would stand in line for hours to get their rationed loaf of stale, moldy, dark bread, the production and distribution of which was managed by the government "for the benefit of the people."

When Soviets visited the United States, they thought our grocery stores were propaganda put-ons staged for their benefit - after all, how could anyone possibly conceive of fifty different kinds of bread from two dozen different manufacturers, ranging from cloud-soft Wonder bread to gourmet crusty handcrafted baguettes, all of the utmost quality and flavor, piled up along a fifty-foot long aisle in a brightly-lit store and affordable to even the poorest Americans?

The answer is that bread, in America, is produced and distributed in a privately-owned system of profit-seeking competition, as opposed to being run end-to-end by the government.

We are running our school systems like Soviet Bread Stores, instead of like a supermarket.

We can't even imagine the innovation, variety, quality, and affordability that would arise in this nation's educational system if we demolished the public school system and threw it open to privately owned system of profit-seeking competition, just as the Soviets couldn't imagine a typical US supermarket.

[Norton]

mvpel,

I see your point and agree to some point, however without compulsory attendance where will we be? Heck, even with compulsory attendance I have 2 students that I haven't met this year...in other words they have skipped school around 140 days this year. Without mandatory attendance, you can figure on a 30-50% drop out rate...guaranteed. It sure would make it easier to teach the kids that want to be there but we'd end up paying the price for those kids' lack of education in some other manner.

I am in favor of allowing individual school pyramids (elementary, middle, high schools in a given neighborhood) have a greater control over how their school is run. If they want to have a great school, let them do it.....if they choose to not support the school, then so be it.

The highest level of what you describe is evident in Montgomery County, MD.....otherwise known as Moscow County. They have a cap as to what a parent may contribute to their child's school. That way no one school in a wealthy area can have too much more than schools in other areas:rolleyes:

I'm frustrated with the anti-intellectualism, indoctrination and leftist leanings of the modern public education system too....in fact, so bad that I probably will end my 15 year career very soon. However, for the time being I think that trying to change the system from within is the best way to make things better.

[HBK]

They might not stop school shootings, but they will severely limit the casualty list. How can you think that armed teachers wouldn't be able to stop someone who is killing their students? I am not near the best marksman or shooter on this board, but I KNOW that if I were armed and someone tried to come into my classroom and kill kids, they would not get even one. On the campus they could do more damage, but if there were armed teachers around, the damage would be extremely limited.

[mvpel]

I see your point and agree to some point, however without compulsory attendance where will we be? Heck, even with compulsory attendance I have 2 students that I haven't met this year...in other words they have skipped school around 140 days this year. Without mandatory attendance, you can figure on a 30-50% drop out rate...guaranteed.

Maybe those two kids you haven't seen all year have gotten tired earlier than the rest of the stale, moldy, government-produced and -distributed bread that's being offered up to them by the State monopoly on education.

Maybe they'd prefer Wonder bread, or Pepperidge Farm, or Joseph's Medeterranian-Style Enriched Syrian bread.

That is to say, vocational training, apprenticeships, or some other approach to their education tailored to their individual skills, interests, and strengths, as opposed to the massive lock-step conformity factories that the government tends to run.

There was no compulsory schooling until 1852 in Massachusetts, yet in 1831, Alexis deTocqueville described Americans as the best-educated people in the world. But what have we to show for 150-years of compulsory government-run schools aside from widespread socialist indoctrination and illiterate high-school graduates?

[goon]

At the very least, it would free up alot of cops.
Theoretically, if you had to have a cop in every school, that would be alot of cops who couldn't be out doing other cop stuff.
So if you had a bunch of armed teachers, that would be that many more cops who could do other cop stuff. :D

I doubt that it would deter something like Columbine because they had already probably decided that they weren't living through it anyhow. But I know that I would rather have a teacher with a gun come to my aid than have a teacher with a pair of scissors come to my aid. At least an armed teacher could respond and stop the aggressor or pin him down until the police arrived.

[AZRickD]

The Israeli story is instructive in more than one way. Yes, after a series of PLO attacks on schools back in the 1970s, the socialist government of Israel decided to harden them a bit.

However, the teachers and teachers associations were highly resistant to the idea. Fortunately, the schools got their protetion. The PLO went elsewhere.

Speaking of elsewhere, many of you know about the story of the Israeli student field trip to Jordan's Valley of Peace as it is known by some.

Normally, the school would send them in, even into Jordan, armed. But the Jordanian government asked them to go in disarmed this time (just a few years ago). The Izzies agreed.

Bad mistake. A Jordanian soldier lit into the bus with his rifle, killing many.

Lessons learned.

Rick

[Norton]

Maybe those two kids you haven't seen all year have gotten tired earlier than the rest of the stale, moldy, government-produced and -distributed bread that's being offered up to them by the State monopoly on education.


Again, I get your point regarding free market economy creating innovation, etc, etc.....

But in these cases where kids simply never come to school.....is it REALLY the school's fault that a kid misses 145 days a year? Why aren't their parents kicking their butts out the door and either making them go to work or withdrawing them and fforcing them to get a job.

Not the case. These parents are letting their kids be raised by BET, MTV, UPN and the kids honestly believe that what they see on the TV is reality. Their brains are mush before the far-from-perfect educational system even has a chance to screw them up.

Are there bright kids who are stifled? Sure...and you know what they do? They get out. One of my best students of all time would be a senior this year and had pretty much done everything she could do as far as upper level courses (including AP Physics and Chemistry). She left school a year early and went to university.

You should visit some good schools....they are out there. Ours would be one. All of the kids are required to complete a research practicum in which they select a topic of their choice and spend a full year completing a college level in depth analysis of the subject. They are then required to present it before a panel of "experts" from the university, NASA and some other govermental and private industry entities.

They are also given the option of completing an internship in the field of their choice. Could be with the National Symphony, NASA, Northrop Grunmann. They decide....

Are there schools out there that are complete failures? Sure....but to paint all of them with the same brush is unfair to the schools that are successful.

[twoblink]

While teachers with guns MIGHT NOT stop school shootings;

I do know this:

Making our schools into "Victim Zones" ensures that there will be future shootings.. If you are a teacher and you don't have a gun, how are you gonna stop it, give them more detention??

goodness.. the stupidity of the "Gun Free Zone" as worked SOOOO WELLLLL, that the nations capital, Washington DC is a shining example of just how crime free a gun free zone can be.. :barf:

I compare Washington DC a la 100% victim zone, vs. Vermont with Vermont Style carry.. and I see how well Gun Free Zones work... NOT..

Here in Taiwan, it's all "Gun Free" and the criminals still have guns.... :scrutiny: :barf: :cuss:

[TaurusCIA]

I compare Washington DC a la 100% victim zone, vs. Vermont with Vermont Style carry.. and I see how well Gun Free Zones work... NOT..

Don't go confusing us with the truth.

[DigMe]

Is anyone else suddenly hungry for some bread?

brad cook

[mvpel]

Norton,

Certainly there are some good schools out there.

I'm also certain that in the Soviet Union, there were, somewhere in those eleven time zones, a few government-run wheat farms and bread factories that had happy, productive workers turning out a good-quality product.

But that doesn't mean that having the government in charge of bread production was ever, or could ever be, a good idea.

[Oleg Volk]

I see your point and agree to some point, however without compulsory attendance where will we be?

Much better than now, I think. Compulsory anything generates resistence.

[Shane333]

Mvpel,

I found your example very interesting. About twelve years ago a choir from Moscow came to the USA to perform. Sort of a good-will performance organized by several churches.

Anyway, the choir stayed with local families for a few days, and the director and pianist stayed with my parents. One day when my parents needed some groceries they invited along the Russians. I kid you not, the Russians thought Safeway was some sort of propoganda store designed to fool foreigners. They simply couldn't believe that Americans enjoyed such variety of breads, fruits, vegetables, etc. They were awestruck.

The Russians kept asking my parents (with what little english they knew) where my parents REALLY shopped for groceries. We aren't sure they ever believed us.

Also, one of my old friends lived in St. Petersburg several years ago before the fall of communism. You aren't kidding when you described the bread-buying experience over there.

Sorry to get off topic. I just wanted to confirm Mvpel's example.

[Norton]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see your point and agree to some point, however without compulsory attendance where will we be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Much better than now, I think. Compulsory anything generates resistence.






Once again, I agree that that public schools are for the most part anti-intellectual, anti-education, pro-brain washing.......but what I still haven't seen anyone suggest is a viable alternative.

What do you do with the students who then are simply devoid of ANY education as opposed to possessing a compulsory, albeit mediocre education?

Won't we end up paying a greater cost in the long run?

[Goet]

I don't care what other teachers are doing to protect their kids.

I'll protect my own. Probably at the cost of my own life, needs be.


Check this forum for a related story in UT which makes my blood boil.


BTW. Compelling students to attend is mandatory. I'd lose about 70% of my students (maybe even more) if they weren't required to attend school. They're dumb to begin with. Imagine them wandering the streets with NO education or job prospects. :uhoh:

I do like the idea of offering choices via privatization or vouchers. Nothing scares my coworkers like bringing up charter schools and vouchers. They're always afraid these places will sap away the good students leaving the public schools with drooling idiots.

My only argument is "put yourself in the parent's place". Would you want to send your child to a failing school or have the option of pulling him out and putting him in an actual learning environment.

If we can't compete, we lose the kids. End of story.

Of course, I'm arguing with people who can't see past their own nose and the detriment such a plan of "freedom" would be to their jobs, unions, and easy paychecks.

Imagine! Actually having to work and compete for kids.

[bountyhunter]

Why Armed Teachers WON'T Stop School Shootings
With the fifth anniversary of the Columbine shootings being tomorrow, we're going to hear a lot about gun control, school shootings, ad nauseam, etc. While I don't need to preach to the choir here about why the gun control aspect is wrong, I do want to address something that has become a mantra among those of us in the RKBA movement.

Many of us believe that allowing teachers to carry guns at school would stop a school shooting. But would it? NO, it would not stop them but it would allow the teachers (and students) to go from being helpless victims who have to try to hide as murderers roam the halls slaughtering people at random into people who can fight for their lives. People will still die, but they won't die helpless victims.

I would have some of the techers (maybe a total of ten or fifteen at a given school) receive training in combat firarms and shooting skills. Put gun safes in the walls of their rooms that have thumb scan electronmic ID entry so the guns would be safe if stored. Allow the teacher to either carry the gun or store it during class time. If a shooting or deadly threat occurs, the teacher would put on a vest that is brightly colored (and bulletproof) and engage the threat at his discretion. The bright color vest would alert police he was one of the teachers, not a perp. Bottom line, it would be very easy to allow teachers the option of having lethal defense capability... but hell will freeze over before it ever happens.

[mercedesrules]

(Norton) Hmmm.....not sure I agree with you 100% on that one, being a career teacher and all.
First, I'd prefer not to make this a personal attack; just a theoretical discussion of public education.
What is your alternative to public education?
Parents should be in full charge of their children's education.
Granted it's not a perfect system....OK, let's admit it...it's a pretty screwed up system..
Plus, it's immoral to make strangers pay to educate other people's children. Some don't have children and others don't have school-aged children.It's a form of welfare where people are forced to pay to raise others' kids.
...but just like a computer, it's crap in/crap out. What we get are kids who have been raised by a TV set and hands off parents who are too wrapped up in their own little head trips to take time to actually do the hard work of parenting.
You're trying to blame it on the parents. Short of a police state, this scenario will not change.

Believe it or not, there are a LOT of us who actually give a darn about what we do and what we teach our students. Too bad we are hamstrung in doing our jobs by the 1% of kids who monopolize 90% of our time.
Here, you admit that these kids shouldn't be in school but since they are forced to go, you're stuck with them.

MR

[bountyhunter]

I do like the idea of offering choices via privatization or vouchers. My only argument is "put yourself in the parent's place". Would you want to send your child to a failing school or have the option of pulling him out and putting him in an actual learning environment.

If we can't compete, we lose the kids. End of story.
That's separate issue from school safety. But, IMO vouchers would destroy the public school system because they would be asked to compete on an uneven playing field. Public schools are funded by property taxes. The vouchers would allow parents to take some of that away and put it into a private school system... and that lost money would not be recovered. The end result would be a schism between the middle class (who would all be in the private schools) and the lower class who would be in public schools so underfunded it would make you cringe... and you already know what caliber of teachers would be found in the public schools.

BTW, I'm an old dinosaur who still remembers this same issue back in the 60's wearing a slightly different coat: when "bussing" was first implemented to balance racial levels throughout school systems, parents were furious because some kids who had formerly been attending affluent area schools got shipped off to the poorer schools... and they got the shock that "separate but equal" was actually a long way from equal. The end result was that the poorer schools got improved. The voucher system would throw that into reverse and re-create the two class schools system we had back then.

[bountyhunter]

Parents should be in full charge of their children's education. Then you already have your wish granted. parents are free to send their kids to any accredited school, and they can also home school them. The only thing not available is using tax money to subsidize private schools.

[bountyhunter]

Plus, it's immoral to make strangers pay to educate other people's children. No it isn't. My wife and I have no children (and we both work in kali so we pay a ton of taxes), but education is the one thing we don't whine about being taxed to support. The next generation of people are what will creat the country we have to live in, educating them is a really good investment. It would be impossible to ask the average family to pay the full cost of their kid's schooling. Most of them are maxed out on credit cards just keeping them in clothes.

[mercedesrules]

(bountyhunter) Then you already have your wish granted. parents are free to send their kids to any accredited school, and they can also home school them. The only thing not available is using tax money to subsidize private schools.
I would expect you to see that parents are not truly free to do so until they are not forced to pay thousand$ for strangers' kids' educations.

MR

[Norton]

Goet stated in a much more coherent manner what I've been fumbling around with for several posts now. I have no problem with competition with public schools.....heck, if there were a private school position in my subject area close by, I'd jump at it even for less pay.

Perhaps I wasn't clear when I spoke in favor of compulsory attendance.....I'm not saying that it be compulsory to attend a public school, but that the student be compelled to attend SOME sort of accredited institution....which I believe is the current state of affairs.

Vouchers? Fine....bring 'em on.....but truth be known, a lot of private schools don't want them because they fear that taking a government vouchers will bring with it governmental interference.

BTW....the real problem in many large school systems is the stranglehold that the NEA and AFT place on the system. The adversarial relationship that they cause in the school district stifles any sort of focus on the needs of the kids. For the record, I am not a union member in spite of the fact that the union can still withdraw 80% of the dues from my check as a "representation fee" for the collective bargaining:fire: MD is not a right-to-work state....

[Norton]

mercedesrules,

Didn't mean to come off sounding like a personal attack....just expressing my disagreement with your side of the discussion.

It's all theoretical in nature isn't it? Since nothing we say here is going to amount to any sort of change in a bloated, entrenched system;)

[mercedesrules]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MR) Plus, it's immoral to make strangers pay to educate other people's children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(bountyhunter) No it isn't. My wife and I have no children (and we both work in kali so we pay a ton of taxes), but education is the one thing we don't whine about being taxed to support.
The fact that you don't whine about it is not a moral argument. The fact remains that I do not agree to have my money stolen for education welfare. If there was a tax to benefit something you didn't agree with (gay porn?), it would not be an argument that I didn't mind paying it.
The next generation of people are what will creat the country we have to live in, educating them is a really good investment.
If it was voluntary, like my other "investments", I would stop "whining".
It would be impossible to ask the average family to pay the full cost of their kid's schooling. Most of them are maxed out on credit cards just keeping them in clothes.
This is straight utilitarianism. One could use the same argument to propose a tax to buy them the clothes.

MR

[mercedesrules]

(Norton) Didn't mean to come off sounding like a personal attack....just expressing my disagreement with your side of the discussion.
You didn't. :) I just wanted to make sure that you knew I was arguing in general rather than about you and your job.

It's all theoretical in nature isn't it? Since nothing we say here is going to amount to any sort of change in a bloated, entrenched system
Actually, I always hope to sway minds. Third-party lurkers might see our discussion and be moved to act in some new way because of it.

MR

[ninenot]

The thread-head post uses two logical fallacies.

The FIRST and most important fallacy: 'that XYZ can prevent school shootings'

Perpetration of a crime cannot be stopped because by its nature, such perpetration occurs prior to the defense against the particular crime. Even in 'defended' areas, assaults occur, sometimes to the chagrin of the perp. Note that some crazies in Iraq are shooting at US troops despite the fact that such shooting virtually guarantees the death(s) of the crazies.

There is NOTHING which can prevent school shootings. Naturally, the "antis" LOVE to begin a discussion of CCW with that sort of premise--because over time, they will win more and more concessions, eventually gaining their goal: confiscation of all legitimately-owned weapons.

Of course, even THAT will not 'stop school shootings.'

The second fallacy is sort of internal to the first, and that is: 'that armed teachers will not have the desired effect' (of preventing school shootings.)

As I have already demonstrated, this statement is true. Armed teachers will NOT prevent school shootings. They can only ameliorate the damage, if that much, through threat of violence to the perp, or through ACTUAL violence to the perp.

Of course, if we ask: "will armed teachers serve to reduce the casualties from school shootings," the answer is YES. Israel has already been cited; as I understand it, all teachers in Israel must be qualified to use pistols, but only one teacher/school carries, selected at random every day. In this system, the certainty is that SOME teacher will be armed, which serves as a dis-incentive; even more a dis-incentive is that the perp does not know WHICH teacher is armed, thus pre-planning entry/exit may be useless.

My 2 cents.

[mercedesrules]

(ninenot) There is NOTHING which can prevent school shootings.
...except eliminating schools. :)

MR

[bountyhunter]

Of course, if we ask: "will armed teachers serve to reduce the casualties from school shootings," the answer is YES. EXACTLY. And that is reason enough to arm them.

[bountyhunter]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MR) Plus, it's immoral to make strangers pay to educate other people's children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(bountyhunter) No it isn't. My wife and I have no children (and we both work in kali so we pay a ton of taxes), but education is the one thing we don't whine about being taxed to support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The fact that you don't whine about it is not a moral argument. The fact remains that I do not agree to have my money stolen for education welfare. Well, since you chose to put it into that context:

The fact that you think my opinion that it is smart to invest our tax dollars into educating the children who will be the future of this country is (or isn't) a MORAL argument, does not MAKE it a moral issue... it still reamins just your anecdotal opinion.

The fact that you consider tax money spent on education to be equated to welfare doesn't MAKE it like welfare, it remains just your opinion.

The government takes away our money in taxes and spends it on many things, the vast majority of which are stupid, useless sinkholes of pork barrel waste. IMO, educating the public is one of the better places to administer what you call "governmental welfare".

[labgrade]

Allow arming of anyone who enters a public school.

Where, in fact, does, a tax-payer subsidized entity get to regulate that the tax-payers don't get to exercize their rights in a place they pay for?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get that one bit.

Schools, if they plied education, could be seen as a "necessary evil." but since they no longer do, eliminate them. Vouchers to set up private entities which would actually educate our kids.

[RobW]

Why not beat the Liberals with their own cherished mantra? "If it only safes ONE life..."

Wasn't it California's former communist governor Gray Davis who said: "Education is too important to send MY kids to public schools" (at the same time denying choice for the plebs?).

Aren't the Libs something? Choice FOR abortion, NO choice for the living kids? Makes sense. What they want are TOTALLY DEPENDENT SERFS.

[mvpel]

BountyHunter: IMO vouchers would destroy the public school system because they would be asked to compete on an uneven playing field. Public schools are funded by property taxes. The vouchers would allow parents to take some of that away and put it into a private school system... and that lost money would not be recovered.

So let's level the playing field.

Abolish all property taxes and let the government run schools compete for tuition dollars right alongside the private schools, instead of the unlevel playing field we have now where private school parents pay twice for education services - once in their property taxes and again in tuition.

There's this Soviet mindset among many people, it seems, that if we abolished tax funding of schools that kids would no longer get an education. It's sort of like the Soviets thought that production of food was too important to allow to the hands of private industry, and that if the government wasn't running everything from wheat farms to bread stores and everything in between, people would starve.

The irony is that in reality, education is too important to be left in the hands of government.

The irony is that in the USSR, control of food was used as political leverage and as a weapon of mass destruction - through famine - much like we see in the politicization of America's schools and the mass destruction of traditional moral values and the character of America's children.

It's as if people think that endowments, scholarship funds, and charitable donations are only applicable to universities, and couldn't work for primary education.

[Jeff Thomas]

Mad Man, similar logic could be applied to CCW in general. So, do we all leave our guns home, because the odds are against any of us stopping crime? :rolleyes:

I'd rather my kids had at least one trained teacher in the school who knew how to shoot. Dream on ... the NEA et al are still in la-la land.

Regards from TX

[Obiwan]

**Disclaimer** I have two children in private school

But...as to level playing fields....

(I also don't mind paying for the education of our young...I just mind being TOLD where and how it will be done....with MY money)

The Christian School my girls attend costs slightly more than half what the public school gets per student. And yet their classes are smaller and the cirriculum is tougher...

Sure...they don't have a football team but...I have girls!

Since My kids are not in public school, BUT I pay a bundle in property taxes....my school money goes to the general fund...lucky Government.

So...while vouchers would give me back MY MONEY to pay for my childs education, it would allow kids from any economic background a chance to go to a better school...but only a chance...

Colorado now offer vouchers to kids that are in really bad schools and doing poorly.

But...having a voucher does not get you into private school....at least not all of them. Poor students (knowledge, not $) can't pass the entrance exam...and discipline problem children don't make it either.

Oh...by the way....if they do get in, the parents get the voucher from the public school.....for some amount less than the normal state budgeted amount....so the school district REFERRING the student gets the balance....

While it is not level.....it is certainly tipped in the balance towards the public school.

Because the voucher comes FROM the tax roll, it evens things quite well....I would get the same voucher as somebody that pays half the taxes I do.

I see HUGE public schools sitting empty and I cringe at the thought at how much better the ebb and flow of students could be handled by the private sector..


Look at (for profit) charter schools....they are not huge brick monuments to the teachers union...they are simple...functional buildings...built simply for the purpose of teaching...for money...it CAN be a beautiful thing!

[Dex Sinister]

Armed Teachers WON'T Stop School Shootings
And wearing seatbelts will not stop auto accidents: Therefore we should ban the wearing of seatbelts.


Given the following:
Number of students enrolled in grades K-12: 45,000,000
Number of teachers: 2,600,000
Number of schools: 87,000
Number of school districts: 14,883

Assumed true, but irrelevant. We already know that there currently exists one teacher per classroom of students – and the question is hardly whether students are sitting unsupervised in classrooms.


Even in states with "shall-issue" concealed carry permit laws, less than 5% of the population actually gets a CCW permit.
Assumed true, but irrelevant. The percentage of police officers who carry guns is near 100%. There is no reason to assume that if teachers were persuaded that being armed would "save the children," that numbers might not be closer to police than CCW holders.

"The fact the permits are available does not mean that everyone will carry a gun. Usually only about 1% to 4% of a state's population will choose to obtain a permit."
See above.

I'm going to speculate that teachers tend to be more politically liberal and anti-gun than the general population. If so, the number of CCW permits among teachers would be fewer than the general population.
See above.

If 3.3% of the teachers get a permit (and actually carry), there would be an average of 1 armed teacher per school.
Except that most, (if not all) schools today have some staff that operates as designated security personnel for that school, and if arming school staff became possible, it would be quite logical to assume that those people, at a minimum, would be armed in addition to any teachers who chose to do so.

If 3.3% of the teachers get a permit (and actually carry), there would be an average of 1 armed teacher per school. However, the teachers with guns wouldn't be evenly distributed among the nation's 87,000 schools. They would probably be more concentrated in "conservative" areas. Thus, one school with 5 armed teachers would mean that 4 schools wouldn't have any.
Meaning that the chance of an attack at that particular school with 5 armed teachers would go down commeasurably. However, the method – taking a flat percentage, and then assuming concentrations – is invalid. It is more likely that in conservative areas, especially if armed teachers became fashionable or if an administrator promoted the idea aggressively, that given schools would have a much higher concentration of armed teachers because many people, teachers included, have difficulty not being "fashionable."

Even if teachers with CCW permits were allowed to carry their guns at work, and they actually did, the chances of one being present during a school shooting are probably less than we like to admit.
If they are teachers, and it is their job to be at school, and that is what they are paid to do, presumably they will be there fairly frequently. And as previously stated, no one claims that unattended classrooms exist.

If one considers that some spree-killers are also suicidal, and therefore wouldn't be deterred by the threat of an armed teacher (or police officer), the picture looks even more dismal.
If one considered that some arsonists are suicidal, the existence of fire departments is shown to be a useless exercise in futility.


For information purposes, I'll point out that there are about 670,000 full-time law enforcement officers in the United States.
Out of 280,000,000 people in the US, or about 0.239% of the total population. Let’s review that: That’s zero point two four percent of the total population. However, since the existence of police fails to prevent all crime, they are probably a useless exercise in futility.


Divided equally among 3 shifts per day, there are about 223,000 LEOs on duty at any given time.
Or 0.079% of the total population on duty at any given time as police. However, since the existence of police fails to prevent all crime, they are probably a useless exercise in futility.

Number of students enrolled in grades K-12: 45,000,000
Number of schools: 87,000
If 3.3% of the teachers get a permit (and actually carry), there would be an average of 1 armed teacher per school.
Or 0.193% of the entire K-12 population, or 244% more armed teachers on duty per student than armed police per citizen on duty. Two guns per school would be 489% more armed teachers on duty per student than armed police per citizen on duty. Three guns per school would be 732% more armed teachers on duty per student than armed police per citizen on duty.

Frankly, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the number of suicidal, armed and dangerous 5-to-12 year olds is “fairly small.” Logically, we're worrying about Jr highs and High schools, not K-6's.

And of course, just as the number of police is not uniform across the country, it is likely that the number of armed teachers would not be uniform across the country. Ignoring for a moment various state laws to the contrary, I would hardly be surprised to find that teachers in downtown Chicago, IL, Newark, NJ, Baltimore, MD, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles, CA, carried guns at a "slightly" higher percentage than teachers in Natrona, Wyoming.

Dex };>=-

[Glock Glockler]

[/b]BTW, I'm an old dinosaur who still remembers this same issue back in the 60's wearing a slightly different coat: when "bussing" was first implemented to balance racial levels throughout school systems, parents were furious because some kids who had formerly been attending affluent area schools got shipped off to the poorer schools... [/b]

So you think that it's ok to single people out based on their color and ship them off to a school that neither they nor their parents want them to go to?

The fact that you consider tax money spent on education to be equated to welfare doesn't MAKE it like welfare, it remains just your opinion.

You are advocating the govt use guns to take money away from people to fund a social program that they might disagree with and might not make use of in the slightest and you dont consider that to be welfare? No, it is not just his opinion, you do advocate forced welfare programs.

The government takes away our money in taxes and spends it on many things, the vast majority of which are stupid, useless sinkholes of pork barrel waste. IMO, educating the public is one of the better places to administer what you call "governmental welfare".

1 - You'd first have to convince me that the educational product resulting from govt schools is worth something in the first place. Most American children cannot perform even 4 function math, can barely read, and are housed in govt mandated indoctrination centers where they receive a constant barrage of leftist propaganda. No thanks, that is not education, that is more properly called socialization, and I want no part of that.

2 - If you or any other person wants to actually "invest" in educating the next generation there is nothing preventing you from voluntarily donating money to an educational charity.

[Norton]

If there's any doubt that the .gov schools are not indoctrinating your kids yesterday was a case in point.

Some of my more common sensical kids came ot me after lunch to show me a bunch of propaganda from a PETA representative that had been handed out as the kids came from the cafeteria.

Seals being clubbed, the KFC brochure, milk = pus stickers. All laced with gruesome pictures and profanity.

[Joe Demko]

I've been teaching since 1985. Things have changed in the system for the worse in those years. Let me address some of the points that you guys have been talking over:

1) Public Schools v. Private Schools- we are required by law, in the public school system, to take (and keep) any student from the district. Except under very narrow circumstances we cannot refuse to accept a student, nor can we get rid of one. Private schools, on the other hand, can screen their students and also get rid of troublesome ones. If you want to fairly compare public school education to private education, it would be more accurate to compare the public school kids from the right half of the bell curve to a private school population. Private schools typically do not deal with the legions of special education, emotionally disturbed, and other "needs" kids that the public schools have no choice but to accept. In the school where I teach, close to 50% of the kids are classified as "needs" in one way or another. Special education is the largest single department in the school in terms of number of teachers.
2) Mainstreaming- this is the worst thing that ever happened to public education in the US. The idea was that the "needs" kids would profit from being part of the general population. It was driven primarily by the parents of needs kids who felt that their children were being stigmatized by being placed in self-contained special education classes. The real result was that the "needs" kids are shortchanged because a regular classroom teacher, with 20-30 students in the room, can't give the "needs" kid nearly the amount of individual attention required, and the other kids get shortchanged because the "needs" kid absorbs a disproportionate amount of teacher attention. Bottom line? Both the "needs" kids and the rest of the kids get rooked out of an education.
3)Compulsory Attendance- if it were up to me, I'd eliminate it. We spend an unbelievable amount of time and effort on a rather small fraction of the population trying to force them to learn. We force them to attend through fines and probation and so forth, but all they do when they're here is goof off. There needs to be free public education available to all, IMO, but I think I'd ditch the compulsory attendance part, at least after grade 6.
4)Arming Teachers- as a group, I've never found teachers to be as liberal as some you have indicated. I've taught in PA and TX, and all the teachers I've known in both states held pretty old-fashioned values. So, I don't think you'd get resistance to being armed on the basis of teachers being anti-gun. More of the resistance would be along the lines of "I signed a contract to teach, not to be armed security!" Still, if you made it voluntary you'd have no shortage of armed teachers, I expect.
5) Taxes funding education- I'm in favor of it, and I was before I went into teaching, too. An educated populace is every bit as much an investment in the strength and security of this country as a military. An ignorant populace puts us at a disadvantage in the international business environment and also puts us at risk politically. An uneducated mob is the most easily swayed.
There are things wrong with the public education system. Most of those flaws date back to no earlier than the 1970's and 80's. The system worked well for a lot of people for a lot of years before that. It needs repaired, not discarded.

Oh, and when I'm officially permitted to carry in the classroom, I want to use my personal weapon, not one purchased by the taxpayers. Probably use the USP...

[mvpel]

An ignorant populace puts us at a disadvantage in the international business environment and also puts us at risk politically. An uneducated mob is the most easily swayed.
There are things wrong with the public education system. Most of those flaws date back to no earlier than the 1970's and 80's. The system worked well for a lot of people for a lot of years before that. It needs repaired, not discarded.

Compusory attendance did not exist in the United States until 1852 in Massachusetts. Years prior, Alexis deToqueville described the US as one of the best-educated, well-read countries in the world.

The absence of compulsory attendance does not mean that kids won't get an education, any more than the fact that the government doesn't run food production and distribution means that people will starve to death.

You say an uneducated mob is easily swayed, but that, in general, is basically what's going on in our school systems, swaying included.

Profit-seeking private industry with government incentives is good enough for food production in the bread basket of the world, why isn't it good enough for our primary educational system?

[Joe Demko]

Historically, before there was public education, there was nothing but private education. The people of the time changed that because private education couldn't/didn't do the job alone. That is a fact.

[mvpel]

Actually, the first class of compulsory-schoolers had to be escorted to school under armed guard because their parents were so incensed about it.

Horace Mann, a socialist, deeply admired the Prussian model of schooling, which turned out good little soldier-citizens who wouldn't question the government or complain, and who would be good workers in the factories.

People who know enough to balance their checkbook, follow instructions in the factory, and read the newspaper over coffee don't tend to be discontent.

http://www.sntp.net/education/school_state_3.htm
--
As the historian Robert Seybolt wrote:

In the hands of private schoolmasters the curriculum expanded rapidly. Their schools were commercial ventures, and, consequently, competition was keen.... Popular demands, and the element of competition, forced them not only to add new courses of instruction, but constantly to improve their methods and technique of instruction.

Schooling in that early period was plentiful, innovative, and well within the reach of the common people. What effect did it have? High and Ellig note that 80 percent of New Yorkers leaving wills could sign their names. Other data show that from 1650 to 1 795, male literacy climbed from 60 to 90 percent; female literacy went from 30 to 45 percent. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the North rose from 75 percent to between 91 and 97 percent. And in the South during the same span, the rate grew from 50-60 percent to 81 percent. Indeed, Senator Edward M. Kennedy's office issued a paper not long ago stating that the literacy rate in Massachusetts has never been as high as it was before compulsory schooling was instituted. Before 1850, when Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to force children to go to school, literacy was at 98 percent. When Kennedy's office released the paper, it was 91 percent.
--

... and ...

--
It is important to understand that the purpose of the schools was to indoctrinate the citizens in the official religious outlook, for, as Luther put it, "no secular prince can permit his subjects to be divided by the preaching of opposite doctrines.... Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard. " Unsurprisingly, it was in Calvinist New England that compulsory schooling first arrived in America.
--

I recall a quote to this effect by some famous totalitarian or another: "To those who would oppose us, I say, 'your children are ours already.'"

[Apple a Day]

Who has the right to tell me, an American citizen, where I can or can't exercise my Constitutional rights?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
What sort of role model do you want teaching your kids: a citizen who openly and responsibly exercises his/her rights or a servant of the government who is powerless?
I'm a teacher, a gun-owner, and a CWL-holder. For those of you that are arguing about numbers, add me to the + column.

[Glock Glockler]

I'd like to know why people automatically assume typical classroom schooling to be a necessity for education.

I know several people who are very successful, some even being millionares, who were absolute failures in school. They basically dropped out of high school and started working in things that interested them and learned what they had to in order to be successful. Years later some of them went back and studied various topics that they were completely uninterested in when they were supposed to be learning them in school and many became quite learned in history, economics, languages, grammar, etc.

By the same tolken I know people who excelled in academics but who could not transition that into real world success.

The main point is that people are different and many learn and develop in different ways. There is no cookie cutter one-size-fits-all system of education that govts see fit to push people through. If we dont want to be overtaken as a world power we are going to have to get our act together and that means we need a far more market oriented approach to education instead of the current soviet approach.