Why Armed Teachers WON'T Stop School Shootings
- Thread starter Mad Man
- Start date
- Status
mvpel
member
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
Much better than now, I think. Compulsory anything generates resistence.
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.
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.
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
member
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
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
First, I'd prefer not to make this a personal attack; just a theoretical discussion of public education.
Parents should be in full charge of their children's education.
.
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.
You're trying to blame it on the parents. Short of a police state, this scenario will not change.
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
member
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
member
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
member
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
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
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
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
MD is not a right-to-work state....
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
MD is not a right-to-work state....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
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
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
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.
If it was voluntary, like my other "investments", I would stop "whining".
This is straight utilitarianism. One could use the same argument to propose a tax to buy them the clothes.
MR
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
You didn't.
I just wanted to make sure that you knew I was arguing in general rather than about you and your job.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
Member
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
...except eliminating schools.
MR
bountyhunter
member
EXACTLY. And that is reason enough to arm them.
bountyhunter
member
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
Member In Memoriam
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.
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
Member
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.
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
member
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.
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
Member
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?
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
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
- Status
