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.
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..
I see your point and agree to some point, however without compulsory attendance where will we be?
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.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?
First, I'd prefer not to make this a personal attack; just a theoretical discussion of public education.(Norton) Hmmm.....not sure I agree with you 100% on that one, being a career teacher and all.
Parents should be in full charge of their children's education.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.
You're trying to blame it on the parents. Short of a police state, this scenario will not change....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.
Here, you admit that these kids shouldn't be in school but since they are forced to go, you're stuck with them.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.
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.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.
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.Parents should be in full charge of their children's education.
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.Plus, it's immoral to make strangers pay to educate other people's children.
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.(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.
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.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.
If it was voluntary, like my other "investments", I would stop "whining".The next generation of people are what will creat the country we have to live in, educating them is a really good investment.
This is straight utilitarianism. One could use the same argument to propose a tax to buy them the clothes.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.
You didn't. I just wanted to make sure that you knew I was arguing in general rather than about you and your job.(Norton) Didn't mean to come off sounding like a personal attack....just expressing my disagreement with your side of the discussion.
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.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
...except eliminating schools.(ninenot) There is NOTHING which can prevent school shootings.
EXACTLY. And that is reason enough to arm them.Of course, if we ask: "will armed teachers serve to reduce the casualties from school shootings," the answer is YES.
Well, since you chose to put it into that context: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.