Texas town allows Teacher to carry guns in school.

myp · Dec 22, 2012

clax said:
So the presenceof a gun isn't a threat or a risk. If a teacher wants to murder children they will not suit there and say, "I may loose my job if I take this gun to school, so I guess I can't kill my students, oh how I wish it were legal to carry a hub at school then I could legally kill my students". This is the silliest logic I have come across

The presence of a gun is a risk. Hundreds of gun accidents happen every year in the US. That there is proof that it is a risk.

I don't think tecoyah is saying that teachers will murder kids, but that accidents might happen.

This whole situation comes down to weighing risks on both sides.

clax · Dec 22, 2012

myp said:
The presence of a gun is a risk. Hundreds of gun accidents happen every year in the US. That there is proof that it is a risk.

I don't think tecoyah is saying that teachers will murder kids, but that accidents might happen.

This whole situation comes down to weighing risks on both sides.

Guns don't accidentally fire, it is normally through carelessness that these so called accents occur. In that case you are at risk everywhere.

I would love to see any statistic regarding gun accidents, I imagine the number is far lower than kids killed in car accents. So schools should ban school busses and not allow you to drive your kids to school.

This focus on guns in particular is to me absurd. Why are we even talking about this

myp · Dec 22, 2012

clax said:
Guns don't accidentally fire, it is normally through carelessness that these so called accents occur. In that case you are at risk everywhere.

Yes, but carelessness is real and it leads to hundreds of accidents a year. Increasing the number of guns and places where they are is likely to only increase that number. If your end goal is safety, then you have to take that into consideration.

clax said:
I would love to see any statistic regarding gun accidents, I imagine the number is far lower than kids killed in car accents. So schools should ban school busses and not allow you to drive your kids to school.

It is about costs and benefits. Driving a car has a lot of benefits. Allowing guns everywhere doesn't necessarily- that is the topic at hand- the cost benefit speculation of various gun policies.

clax · Dec 22, 2012

myp said:
Yes, but carelessness is real and it leads to hundreds of accidents a year. Increasing the number of guns and places where they are is likely to only increase that number. If your end goal is safety, then you have to take that into consideration.

It is about costs and benefits. Driving a car has a lot of benefits. Allowing guns everywhere doesn't necessarily- that is the topic at hand- the cost benefit speculation of various gun policies.

Owning and carrying a gun does have a benefit. There is a very real threat that you could be attacked. A gun provides you with a deterrent and a defense to such attacks. So I personally think that the benefit out weights the risk. My spouse is going to work in a school some day and I care for a child that attends school. Hi don't think there is a real risk, just irrational fear.

myp · Dec 22, 2012

clax said:
Owning and carrying a gun does have a benefit. There is a very real threat that you could be attacked. A gun provides you with a deterrent and a defense to such attacks. So I personally think that the benefit out weights the risk. My spouse is going to work in a school some day and I care for a child that attends school. Hi don't think there is a real risk, just irrational fear.

You have to put it in numbers, clax. If you had the option for a policy change that reduced gun regulation and it prevented some shootings like that in CT, but it saved less lives than were taken in accidents caused by said regulation, would you still support it? In other words, if you loosened gun laws and you saved 20 people from being shot in a school shooting, but you had 40 more gun accident deaths that year, would you support the policy?

But you know, we haven't even established whether looser gun polices mean less shootings either- so you might see an increase in both accidents and shootings. Would you support it then?

clax · Dec 22, 2012

myp said:
You have to put it in numbers, clax. If you had the option for a policy change that reduced gun regulation and it prevented some shootings like that in CT, but it saved less lives than were taken in accidents caused by said regulation, would you still support it? In other words, if you loosened gun laws and you saved 20 people from being shot in a school shooting, but you had 40 more gun accident deaths that year, would you support the policy?

I support the rights of people to defend themselves. I really don't think the thing in sandy hook would have been different if teachers were armed. As far as accidents, I am not that worried, accents happen all the time.

myp said:
But you know, we haven't even established whether looser gun polices mean less shootings either- so you might see an increase in both accidents and shootings. Would you support it then?

Lesser gun policies mean more freedom. Don't care about the other crap, not related

myp · Dec 22, 2012

clax said:
I support the rights of people to defend themselves. I really don't think the thing in sandy hook would have been different if teachers were armed. As far as accidents, I am not that worried, accents happen all the time.

Lesser gun policies mean more freedom. Don't care about the other crap, not related

So if you had complete gun freedom but a murder rate twice what it was today, you'd be fine because it was in the name of your definition of "freedom"? Sounds pretty wacky to me.

clax · Dec 22, 2012

myp said:
So if you had complete gun freedom but a murder rate twice what it was today, you'd be fine because it was in the name of your definition of "freedom"? Sounds pretty wacky to me.

What would the murder rate have to do with being allowed to carry a gun with the proper licensing to carry such a fire arm. The murder rate seems to mysteriously go down in the presence of more fire arms rightfully owned by the citizens. The only thing wacky is this hogwash scenario you posed as a hypothetical.

If murder was proven to be committed by the lawful owners of the weapons I would see a need to suspect the water supply. Its a murderer that murders, not weapons.

myp · Dec 23, 2012

clax said:
What would the murder rate have to do with being allowed to carry a gun with the proper licensing to carry such a fire arm. The murder rate seems to mysteriously go down in the presence of more fire arms rightfully owned by the citizens. The only thing wacky is this hogwash scenario you posed as a hypothetical.

You post an absolute statement- I posted a potential scenario to show why your absolute statement is wacky. And how do you explain the drops in gun crimes in countries like England and most of Europe after stricter gun control? Show me the numbers on how the murder rate goes down with less gun control.

clax said:
If murder was proven to be committed by the lawful owners of the weapons I would see a need to suspect the water supply. Its a murderer that murders, not weapons.

The weapons make certain scenarios like the one that unfolded in CT easier. If the guy didn't have a rifle he would have had a much harder time killing 27 people. That is quite obvious. If it wasn't you might as well legalize bombs too.

myp · Dec 23, 2012

I think the greater issue here is that you (clax) and misterveritis seem to be making purely political arguments with no regards to intellectual honesty. Believe it or not, I don't even want to ban every rifle, etc.- I don't think that solves the problem. It is about weighing costs, benefits, and risks, but you two seem to just ignore the costs and risks of your position altogether while confidently pointing out the costs and risks of the other side. That is not the way to come to a logical conclusion- you have to accept the shortcomings of your policy positions to fairly assess all policy positions.

tecoyah · Dec 23, 2012

Hmmm...the shortcomings, let's play the list game:

Pros of restricting weapons that can, or can be modified to fire more than, lets just say 30 rounds a minute.

1) Fewer people will be able to shoot 30 rounds of ammunition per minute.
2) Those intent of killing lots of people may find it less easy to do, without a bomb.
3) I will feel safer.

Cons of restricting weapons that can, or can be modified to fire more than, lets just say 30 rounds a minute.

1) Fewer people will be able to shoot 30 rounds of ammunition per minute.
2) Gun manufacturer will lose money on a sector of sales.
3) Will upset the NRA.

Please add your own.

fee8002 · Dec 23, 2012

I completely agree with this post. At first when i heard that they were allowing this i thought it was stupid. How many more guns do we need to have the wrong people get access too when the thought occurs to them. But after thinking about it further i believe that these poor children need someone who is willing to stand up and protect them no matter what the cost. These children are innocents and deserve the best we can give them, and if that means that their teachers are carrying guns for there protection i don't see anything wrong with it. But at the same time they need to be fully back ground checked and qualified to be carrying these guns.

But then at the same time teachers have a lot on their plates and are stressed most of the time (at least my friends that are teachers say they are) can we trust them?

misterveritis · Dec 23, 2012

myp said:
Yes, but carelessness is real and it leads to hundreds of accidents a year. Increasing the number of guns and places where they are is likely to only increase that number. If your end goal is safety, then you have to take that into consideration.

It is about costs and benefits. Driving a car has a lot of benefits. Allowing guns everywhere doesn't necessarily- that is the topic at hand- the cost benefit speculation of various gun policies.

While gun accidents contribute only about 5% of the deaths linked with guns, they play an important rhetorical role in the gun control debate. They are used in attempts to persuade people that keeping guns in their homes for protection is foolish because the risks of a gun accident exceed any defensive benefits.

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html

If your end goal is eliminating mass killings of students then you might come to a different conclusion.

Guns do an amazing amount of good every year including helping to make sure the right people are killed during crimes.

misterveritis · Dec 23, 2012

myp said:
I think the greater issue here is that you (clax) and misterveritis seem to be making purely political arguments with no regards to intellectual honesty.

LOL. Sure.

You are a pompous ass.

myp · Dec 23, 2012

misterveritis said:
LOL. Sure.

You are a pompous ass.

Do you have to resort to name-calling because you know that I am right about your political agenda? That you are not here to exchange facts and possibly learn, but to push your one-way political agenda without regard to the facts?

David · Dec 23, 2012

myp said:
Do you have to resort to name-calling because you know that I am right about your political agenda? That you are not here to exchange facts and possibly learn, but to push your one-way political agenda without regard to the facts?

To be fair, he made a legit post before trolling you.

clax · Dec 23, 2012

tecoyah said:
Hmmm...the shortcomings, let's play the list game:

Pros of restricting weapons that can, or can be modified to fire more than, lets just say 30 rounds a minute.

1) Fewer people will be able to shoot 30 rounds of ammunition per minute.

Key word missing, legally shoot 30 rounds

tecoyah said:
2) Those intent of killing lots of people may find it less easy to do, without a bomb.

Or an AR 15 that was illegally aquired.

tecoyah said:
3) I will feel safer.

Why because it gives you a warm and comforting feeling that only black market guns exist purely in the criminal element?

tecoyah said:
Cons of restricting weapons that can, or can be modified to fire more than, lets just say 30 rounds a minute.

1) Fewer people will be able to shoot 30 rounds of ammunition per minute.

Only if they choose to obey this law. But really murderers don't really obey gun laws, frankly there is a law against murdering

tecoyah said:
2) Gun manufacturer will lose money on a sector of sales.

No, only American manufactures will lose

tecoyah said:
3) Will upset the NRA.

So?

tecoyah said:
Please add your own.

Pros to banning assault weapons, none, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Assault is an action, fists can be assault weapons. Lets ban fists.

Cons really one that makes any argument for banning these mythical weapons that fly around and assault people. Or just rifles that look combat ready.

Make a law against them you only restrict the people who respect the law. Murderers don't respect the law being that murder was against the law before guns existed do it was obviously a problem before guns.

misterveritis · Dec 24, 2012

Earlier we had this exchange,

myp said:
"I think the greater issue here is that you (clax) and misterveritis seem to be making purely political arguments with no regards to intellectual honesty.

to which I replied, "LOL. Sure.
You are a pompous ass."

myp said:
Do you have to resort to name-calling because you know that I am right about your political agenda? That you are not here to exchange facts and possibly learn, but to push your one-way political agenda without regard to the facts?

Let us examine the exchange. According to you I have no intellectual honesty. I think my rejoinder was an appropriate one.

You offered nothing requiring an argument. My political agenda is the Constitutional one. It is intended to guarantee that we keep our liberties and freedoms. You believe we are on opposite sides. I can agree.

myp · Dec 24, 2012

misterveritis said:
My political agenda is the Constitutional one.

I disagree. That is the whole point here. The Constitution, like any piece of writing is interpreted by the reader. There is subjectivity in interpretation. I can't say it enough, but if you can't grasp that, then you will keep making your egotistical argument with a hint of bitterness.

misterveritis · Dec 24, 2012

myp said:
I disagree. That is the whole point here. The Constitution, like any piece of writing is interpreted by the reader. There is subjectivity in interpretation. I can't say it enough, but if you can't grasp that, then you will keep making your egotistical argument with a hint of bitterness.

We can agree to disagree.

My arguments are based on reading what the Framers wrote, what they argued about and why they developed the Constitution as they did.

Your arguments are based on the emotional tug of a monster's murder of 27 people. My arguments lead to liberty. Yours to tyranny.

We can agree to disagree.

Texas town allows Teacher to carry guns in school.

Similar threads