Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Should teachers in schools be armed for protective reasons? Or other reasons? I'm not sure of the statistics for school shootings, but in my opinion I think a teacher with a professional gun certificate should be able to (if they choose) carry an armed weapon whilst in a learning environment such as a school. I may be wrong, but I'm curious of other people's opinions.

Thank you.

It all boils down to a person-to-person thing IMO.  Teacher might have problems, uses guns.  Students might have problems, uses guns.

Even if a person is qualified, s/he may or may not be inclined to use guns responsibly in the future, and that's why I dislike guns in general.  I agree that guns do nothing wrong, but they provide quite the easy way for a reckless person to enact their wishes, ones usually involving the death of a person.

No. What if students steal the gun from the teacher and wrecks havoc with it? What if students irritate a teacher so much that he/she takes the gun out? There are many dangers to having guns in school, and it would best to totally ban guns.

Ok... see, that's why psychological tests and extensive training should be required. I'm not taking a side in this debate, but I will say this: If the teacher is that much of a dumbass that they get their gun stolen, obviously they had neither the knowledge nor the responsibility to be issued a firearm in the first place. Likewise, if they're gonna go gun-slinging around the school like a bad parody of a vigilante just because little Bobby in biology pissed them off, they're too -crazy- to own a firearm. (In or outside of school.)

If these people were properly screened, tested, and trained--IN THEORY--neither scenario would conceivably ever occur.

If a teacher wants a student dead and has the will to act out on it, do you really think the gun is what will make the difference on whether it happens or not? That's the stupidest thing i've ever heard. Same for the students.

Yes, it will. Ease of access is a huge determining factor in whether or not someone does something.

If a teacher wants a student dead they can jab a pen or pencil through their eye, get them alone after class and strangle them, smuggle a knife into the school, etc...

Killing someone is not hard, if a teacher wanted to do it, they would have done so already. Ease of access is there, people aren't taking it.

..................

...........................

.......................................

That's really how you think isn't it, lol.

I'm sorry, was anything I said there incorrect?

Can the human brain survive having a sharp object shoved through it?

Can the human neck withstand strangling-pressure?

Can the human anything resist many lethal stabs?

Can a teacher not easily get a student into his class if he wants to, and kill him when he's alone?

Are any of those not extremely easy ways to kill someone you want dead?

There is no difficulty in killing another human being when they're not expecting it, are alone, and you have a weapon of any kind (We're not talking emotional difficulty here, because you've obviously accepted that the hypothetical guy is willing to kill someone.). If the guy is willing to kill someone, and he's angered to the point that he will kill someone, not having a gun won't stop him.

You're thinking like a psychopath here lol.

Most people kill in a spur of the moment, and strangling someone with your bare hands is a hell of a lot harder than shooting them.

I sort of thought that's what Drak was getting at though. A truly deranged teacher (a psychopath) wouldn't hesitate to kill with or without a gun.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what he's saying.

No, that is what he's saying. The issue is he's ignoring all the non-psychopaths that could kill if they were angry enough, or something else happened, and they had the means. Hence why I said he was thinking like a psychopath.

A gun isn't the only means, if they're angered by a student enough to want to kill them with a gun on a spur of the moment decision, then they'll likely physically attack the student with whatever they have at hand (Desks, chairs, Pen/Pencils, bare hands).

On that subject though, looking at statistics I cannot find any meaningful reports for teacher-student violence (at least, nothing where the student was in danger - it seems like the students are having fun beating the shit out of their teachers these days). (Disreguarding "sexual abuse" of course (I mean seriously, most of the time those students are completely willing, I love those cases where the male student says that he was not abused in any way and he enjoyed it, but the female teacher still gets a charge for rape.) because sexual abuse does not require a gun).

No they won't. Putting aside the issue of anger, the teacher may not even be strong enough to succeed. Bringing back the issue of anger, there are different degrees of it. Just cause someone is mad enough to pull a trigger, doesn't mean they're mad enough to risk their own life in a fist fight.

Yeah, parents sue teachers for the smallest things, which is why teachers avoid anything physical.

Other side of this is the students. Teachers having a gun means that, a student with enough power or intelligence, could take the gun.

Anyway, I find it really odd you'd actually think having a gun in the classroom doesn't increase the danger at all.

All people should have the right to be armed (unless they are mentally ill or something like that). A teacher should be no exception.

No Way. T_T

A teacher with a gun.... imagine just how bad ass some of them would feel! And they aren't... AT ALL. (There may be an exception but I haven't found it yet :P) I don't need to go digging for excuses or reasons, I reckon no. Guns are kool, totally and anyone can have them but..... nah, no way.

Plus you only need a gun or weapon if you are going to some prison school or something. Not like they can shoot anyone anyway especially not a student.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should have guns in the classroom etc, but they should be allowed to carry guns. Of course they should keep it somewhere safe like hidden inside their bag or something like that. 

Yeah, I would like a gun >:D

Both sides seem reasonable but I stand by whatever I just said before..... *Checks what I said in last post.....* Oh yeah, all that stuff.

But it doesn't have to be a gun. Bring it down a notch, have a knife or something.

No, you need a gun. Everyone needs a gun. A criminal will take one regardless, by taking them away you are only disarming the victims. A teacher should be no exception but of course he should be extra careful.

Hmmm.... I guess so. It makes sense. 

I assume you're American.

"They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire."

... One theory in approaching this subject is, with the -fear- of authorities fighting back, school shootings / homicides would not occur because the intimidation would ward off attempts. A knife is not nearly so intimidating as a gun.

-Mind you-, I don't agree... entirely. I believe it would stop most people, allowing for only the truly crazy and the very stupid. The very stupid will likely get caught before they're able to do real damage, and as for the truly crazy... well, there may be no way to prevent it, but at least you'd be armed and ready.

 

Murika!

I have no problems with this as long as two conditions are met:

1) ALL the teachers are given extensive firearm training.

2) Psychological profiles/background tests.

On an individual basis, if a teacher successfully completes those two requirements, then sure, give him/her a gun.

Will never happen. The schools are already have a smaller budget than they should have. Closest you would get is probably them requiring the teacher have a special license that the teacher pay for themselves.

It likely wouldn't make that much difference. There's been a news story, in which certain average Joes were put through gun training, they were given helmets and everything, and once they were done with such a thing, they went to an assembly about gun safety.

An actor walked in and started randomly firing these non-lethal pellets at everyone, the people, who likely didn't know these were nonlethal ammo, and didn't know that they two had been given nonlethal ammo got down immediately, but not a single one of them actually shot the actor. When later an explanation was provided and they were asked about their actions, they had nothing to be proud of, save that "they didn't get hit", and even so, tests showed, from looking for the dust and dents left behind by the "bullets" that a majority of them were, in fact, nailed in the head, some more than once.

You shouldn't give a teacher a gun, because not everyone actually has the nerve to shoot a gun, no matter what the situation is.

Then, make it voluntary.

Besides, I'd rather have a teacher have a gun and an opprotunity to use it, rather then being completely defenseless if a sociopath storms the school.

It's one thing to see someone shooting at you and then see that no one is dying (Associating it with the person's bad aim, no doubt) and it's another thing to see people you know get splattered by a wave of bullets. Actual death (Something they will no doubt never test for) is a far, far greater motivator than a test event.

Even then most people won't be able to pull the trigger and kill another person.

If you see a guy, that has invaded a school, and has killed one or more students, and you hesitate to fire on him/her, you're a moron.

If you see an enemy soldier who just shot down several of your own people and you hesitate to fire on him/her then it's actually common at the beginning of the battle/event. Especially if you can see the enemy soldiers face.

It's the same way for a security guard who sees a young man or kid shooting down people I think.

Agreed, when shooting someone becomes as easy to someone as pulling a trigger on Call of Duty, then we have a HUGE problem. Shooting at anyone, especially when you know that you're probably going to kill them, takes a huge effort to do and takes an even larger emotional toll on the person if it DID result in death. Even if it's in self defense, it's not uncommon for people to be turned into emotional wrecks. Several soldiers suffer from this as well, even if they were attacked first.

I disagree entirely - if a person is killing kids around you and you have a gun, you are going to shoot the life out of that bastard as soon as you can pull that gun out of your holster. You guys can't argue that having a gun is dangerous because the teachers might use it on students, and then argue that having a gun is worthless because the teacher won't use it when he's being fired on. They're paradoxical, and worse, both are illogical answers to situations.

Logically, yes you should. It SHOULD be easy. But I've grown up around soldiers all my life (military town), and I know that it's no small matter even to stop a huge travesty from happening.

I'm not saying that no one will shoot them (I don't know why you think I am), I'm just saying that there's a huge emotional attachment to it.

@Draks above post.

And what if that person was a student who you had know for a long time; having taught him/her and whatnot? Would you shoot a friend if he suddenly decided to start killing people one day?

Uh... yeah? Sure, it'd suck, but he/she is killing several other students. I'd rather kill that person than having him kill any more, and potentially, even myself, if he/she is insane enough.

Sure.

Why don't they just hire security for schools again? Is that too expensive? (I mean, a teacher's job description doesn't exactly call for shooting others, while a security guard could at least be more, you know, prepared for it).

^This is what I was thinking. If a situation did arise how would a teacher be able to get to his or her gun and ready it before the situation got out of hand? The security guard would at least of a ready gun on him(loaded or not) for easier access.

Access isn't the problem. The problem is that the guard is paid to protect and was trained to do so. A teacher is not and even if he knows how to use a gun it doesn't mean they will (due to various reasons).

Of course teachers should carry guns IF THEY WISH to, but making it mandatory and relying on them for the school's protection is stupid.

But why would a teacher have a gun if they already have security guards and if they don't then unless your going to have the teachers carry a gun all the time it will likely be useless when an actual situation arises and it's still locked away.

Cause there is a distance between his house and school and lots of things can happen especially if he is in a bad area. 

Still, not a wise idea to bring it to school but you get my point.

School budgets suck, so unless they're tax-funded, it's a lot better to build a school next to a police station.

Instead of security guards, maybe janitors or staff in the school that just walk around all day could carry weapons? Maybe not guns specifically, but a knife?

Hell no they shouldn't, if people are scared for a teachers mental health why would we give them to janitors (especially the ones at my school WHO SHOULD NOT BE ARMED!!!) -_-. 

There's actualy a saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight...

I'd rather not see my teachers or janitors have a knife of any kind unless they are cutting up food or something. I'd feel more scared than I would be to see a gun on them.

I don't know if this is true but if a person has a knife/sharp object are they willing to hurt somebody else with it more than if it was next to them but not on them?

Also I'm sure if teachers(and ect...) starting being able to carry weapons of any kind into schools the students would start bringing their own. I already carry a pocket-knife in a secret pocket I made in my backpack just incase.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a gun, I was just using that as an example of a weapon they COULD carry. What about knives? or tazers?

Stun-guns and knives are melee weapons. In a world of guns, they either have to be really lucky, or suicidal. 

Tasers have pretty limited range, Tranquilizers are blockable.

Bows and arrows? Spears? Lol no.

I dunno a big enough teacher walking around with war paint on his face and a spear in hand might work as a deterrent on some students from causing trouble just for the sheer insanity factor. Lol.

Your sheer brilliance never fails to baffle my tiny mortal mind, Endmaster.

Classrooms, in my opinion, are small enough to use tasers.  But like the statement somewhere up above, it's up to the teacher to be willing to use it.

In PA they now have Armed Security Guard Teams in the Schools (even elementary). Seems to be a better solution than arming the teachers themselves.

It depends on what you mean. 

If you mean should School Teachers be allowed to carry weapons into classrooms, then it depends on the specific details. If they have a gun permit and are certified to carry a sidearm, I don't see why not. I mean you never know if students have sidearms in purses (more often than you think) for protection against things like rape and carry them into class, so there shouldn't be a problem with teachers carrying them in. Sure they could use it to shoot students, but if they were honestly that deranged, they could just carry a gun into the school anyway regardless of whether or not there's a rule against it.

If you mean should the state personally arm their teachers, then I honestly don't know. It would take a lot of money to do and would put a shitload of legal risk on the state if a teacher misuses it or a student takes it and uses it himself/herself. Plus there are mixed reactions on whether or not it would actually do anything. People claim that teachers carry guns in Israel but in reality that's either a misinformed claim or a straight lie. They have armed security guards and sometimes soldiers (if they're going on outings) due to the violence that goes on in some areas of the country, but the myth that their low amounts of school shootings is due to the fact that every teacher is armed is completely false.

In the end, it's probably best to have an armed security team protecting the students rather than arming the teachers themselves.

Too expensive I guess, only private schools would probably be able to afford it (and that's a huge maybe, as I have no idea what an armed security team costs).

But I do agree that it would be a much more suitable action to take. Teachers aren't as likely to fire a gun or be willing to learn to fire a gun as someone who has made it his job to do exactly that.

Plus being certified to fire a weapon isn't the same as being efficient with firing a weapon. Take someone who's trained to talk to a group of bored children all day and compare his shooting skills to someone who's trained to fire a weapon and see who's better at it. 

But yeah, both options are pretty expensive, I doubt it'll ever happen.

Yeah, when I was a student, we just had armed guards. Don't even know if that's the norm, since I lived in an area near an Arab Village, so we took extra precautions. 

I'm just thinking about the time back in 8th grade when a sub teacher ended up smacking a "problem transfer" student in the back of the head and then the kid clocked him in the eye, then the sub proceeded to beat the hell out of him and threw him of out of the class and into the hallway wall.

Guess the conflict would've been a lot shorter had they both been armed. Lol.

At least it would be entertaining if they had spears and war-paint(school mascot style). xD

^ This.

Depends on the grade. Older teachers may be ready to shoot high school and junior high school students who get out of line, particularly if they're near the breaking point.

The real question is why are people suddenly shooting up schools? No one used to do this. I would bet NSA covert reprogramming operations to restrict gun freedom.

I personally do not have any weapons, nor do I want any, but I support people's right to arm themselves to the teeth.

Money is no option when it comes to protecting your life (and potentially other's lives).

I'm going to protect the shit out of people who try to kill me.

#Ak 47 is op

#It kicks like a mule

#You aren't supposed to use spaces in sentences.

It is if you can't buy a gun :P

I'm sure if your life is on the line, you wouldn't hesitate to steal a gun to protect yourself :P

-Under gun point-

Brb stealing a gun

-The mugger lets you go so you can get a gun and protect your self-

-You come back 30 minutes later-

-He shoots you and takes your shit-

Yep.

Murica.

No no no, I meant if you had to survive in an urban area with your life in danger, I'm sure you would steal a gun to use as protection. If someone is pointing a gun at your head, you should've stolen a gun earlier if you were going to be at gunpoint in the first place. Also it doesn't have to be a gun, if you were held at gun point I'm sure most people would be struggling to get to safety unless told otherwise (by the person holding the gun). You could probably find some rocks on the ground or something to pick up, or try to grab the gun (therefore technically stealing it), etc.

As many people are brave heroes in the US, there are much much more people who do not know how to react in those situations.

Really? I thought it was common sense, but hey - what do I know? If they don't know how to survive they may as well not e_e

Then 50-60 percent of teachers fall in the category.

Hmmm I doubt it's that much, most teachers are relatively old and smart. They would've thought that some form of self-defense is needed at some point in their lives, I'm sure most teachers can figure out something they can do to protect their lives (or they have some form of self-defense knowledge).

Well, if teachers do get armed at some point, then we'll see.

You'd be surprised. Not everyone completely loses their human conscience and becomes capable of doing everything and anything to survive. Unless, of course, they're sociopaths.

If you're doing something to survive it doesn't make you a sociopath. Self-preservation is a basic human instinct, even if it means you need to kill someone else.

It doesn't mean that just any old joe is gonna up and kill someone just because they fear for their life. does it happen? Yes. But can everyone simply do it? No.

Not doing it simply is the point... the situation would have to be critical for survival. Not just any time they want.

Even then, people have trouble doing it. There are people out there that simply don't take lives, no matter what the situation, and there are those with enough trepidation not to try until it's too late. Yes, we do have self preservation instincts, but the brain is not always a logical thing, and sometimes it chooses the "flight" side of things even when "fight" is a better option.

I believe that anyone (save criminals) should have the right to have a gun. However the question is would they be willing to use it should the situation arise. Also, you'd have to consider the chance that a teacher my abuse the right to have a weapon. We already have teachers doing unthinkable things to/with students. Lastly, what if a delinquent student got ahold of it?

I go with British law on this one, the less people we have carrying guns without partaking in sports/hunting/recreation, the better.

We have an incredibly small number of shootings in britain, and also significantly less knife crime (which is less lethal anyway). Reducing everyone to weaponless makes violent crimes a lot less likely to be lethal.

We need to reduce the amount of guns in America full stop, and make them for non-violent purposes, instead of having so many people carrying "self defence" guns hidden on their person. The same goes for teachers.

 

Bear this in mind, having a weapon yourself will actually make it more likely for you to die as you escalate the violence! Other school violence would escalate to murder, even if they didn't bring a gun themselves!

 

Not to sound overly patriotic like my usual self is, but learn from Britain, don't give lethal weapons to people just because there are lethal weapons.

Yeah, I'm with that too. I mean it's all good for a regular citizen to carry a gun for protection, but all the gang members and drug dealers who live in areas where gun crime is common are also legally allowed to carry guns "for protection."

In England, gangsters still have guns, but at least if they get caught with them, they can be arrested. And in most cases, keeping a gun for protection is more likely to do you harm than good.

Indeed.

It's not just that however, it;s the fact that being armed yourself necessitates greater violence against you.

The problem is, you'll never be able to control firearms in a country full of people that have it down to a secular religion.

There are upwards of 3500 versions of this phrase, the third word changes all the time, the 'God' and 'guns' part never changes. There are so many in circulation anyway that it's already difficult to regulate, you'd have to literally remove guns from the country to keep people from having them, and you'd have to take absurd precautions to keep rediculous redneck groups like the Posse Camatis and enthusiasts from making them. And you can't simply put laws down against them, because, well, criminals and murderers don't exactly follow laws now do they?

*it's