Saturday, December 22, 2012

Should Teachers Carry Concealed Hand Guns?

From a gun professional: On teachers carrying concealed weapons:

"The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again." (Here's the full article.)

Only in a world where everyone has a gun for killing others--does this kind of logic even work. I'm not denying guns work as defensive tools. But they ARE designed to be LETHAL. 

Even trained professionals have accidents, from time to time. So nobody can tell me it's a good idea to carry hand guns (concealed or not) where children are involved. Because it's NEVER a good idea.

Limit the guns to almost nill, however, and this logic is revealed to be somewhat questionable. Pro gun activists might point out how seemingly impossible it would be to get rid of all the guns. I'm not disagreeing. It is a seemingly impossible task. But consider this: The gun problem is this magnitude because we MADE it this MAGNITUDE.

Saying that it is impossible is just an excuse to keep guns. Let's get rid of the excess. We don't need semi-automatics. Heck, civilians don't need machine guns or anything of that caliber (pun not intended). More guns isn't going to help fix anything.

Only in an imperfect scenario with an already established GUN PROBLEM does strategy like "more guns" trump basic logic.

Moreover, only when you treat schools like WAR ZONES does this sort of thing make any kind of sense.

But we're not talking about the Gaza Strip here. We're talking about U.S. classrooms.

Do you see the problem here?

Here's my logic: 

"The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is to not have any mass shooters."

The question remains: is this even possible?

When we have half of the other modernized countries on the planet that can pull off little to no shooting, and other related gun crime, then you had better bet your bottom dollar that it's possible.

Does it mean it will be easy? No. Will it be economical? Not likely. But possible? Yes.

The question is, what ware you willing to do to fix this problem?

If the answer is more guns--then I'm sorry, all you've done is light another match in the middle of the worst forest fire in recorded history. That's not logical. That's suicide.

Meanwhile, from one of my dear friends who is a teacher like me, in response to the recent news about the Virginia Bill which would order teachers to carry concealed firearms:

"When this day comes I will leave the field of education. Fighting guns with guns is not the answer."

So what the gun professionals are saying is: In order to have safer schools you need to have teachers who carry guns, because we have a gun problem.

That's the opposite of logical. That's stupidity.

While I'm sure some teachers agree, most of them, most of the teachers I've talked with at any rate, share my friend's sentiment.

The day teachers and educators of children are required to carry guns is the day our schools become war zones, and smart teachers everywhere will simply get out. Quit. We'll walk out of the schools and go find other jobs. Safer jobs. It's also the day that home schooling becomes a much better alternative to public schooling.

So the gun professionals aren't providing any viable solution that fixes the problem. They are merely adding fuel to the flame, and potentially, going to ruin our entire educational system in the process.

Do their methods work? Yes. I'm not denying that. But what they seem to be overlooking is the context. Their methods are designed for war zone type scenarios. They are bringing these scenarios to the schools and into the classrooms. 

While good gun strategies will work against those who use guns, what I'm saying is minus the guns we wouldn't need such strategies in the first place.

What we need now is better policies. Not necessarily more gun laws--there are already regulations galore--what I am saying is--we need BETTER POLICIES.

So instead of using tax payer dollars to arm teachers with guns, many of whom would walk right out if they were ever asked to do such a thing, we should be using tax payer dollars to fund better mental health care, psyche screening, and counselling for children, teachers, and schools.

Let's begin by addressing the root of the problem, which is mental health. The guns debate is just the icing on the cake of a much richer, much darker, issue. Let's address the violence and the violent tendencies of Americans. Let's fund the programs and professionals to help heal peoples' minds before we start handing out more guns.

Then, at least, we won't have teachers threatening to quit en masse because you forced them to carry a gun into a classroom. All that teachers packing guns ensures is that the ticking time bomb is just a few ticks away from some stressed out teacher breaking and then killing their whole class and then themselves. When teachers begin to carry guns, this scenario is INEVITABLE. It's only a matter of time.

The classroom is the LAST PLACE ON EARTH you should ever have to see the presence of a gun.


  1. While mental issues do contribute to gun problems, the vast majority of deaths from guns are the result of accidents. Accidents, it is important to point out, that are befallen upon healthy minded people.
    The mass shootings, like in CT, while horrific, represent a small percentage of gun deaths. According to the CDC, there were 31,347 deaths caused by firearms in the US last year alone.

    As to teachers using firearms:
    One need look no further than yesterdays church shhoting in PA. Three state troopers were injured in the firefight (one taking a direct hit, being saved by his bulet-proof vest). These were highly trained professional police officers fighting one man armed with a pistol. Imagine a teacher going up against an assault rifle wielded by a trained doesn't need an advanced degree to figure the outcome of such a confrontation.

    1. Accidental shootings is another reason that gun proliferation actually causes more gun related deaths. More guns equals more probability of gun mishaps equals greater chance of gun related deaths.

      Simple math, really.

      Also, just because they might know how to safely use a firearm doesn't mean everyone who obtains a firearm will be equally as skilled.

      That's another thing these pro gun advocates seem to continually overlook.

    2. The vast majority of gun deaths are accidents? Hah. Good one! Last I checked, 600 out of 30,000 didn't quite make a majority.

      In point of fact, the majority of gun deaths are suicides (16,000), which underscores the mental-health issue. Homicides are next, at 10,000. The number who die from gun-related accidents is insignificant. Three times as many people drown every year.

    3. 1. Gun deaths total (Homicides, suicides, accidental, etc.) Statistics up to 2010.

      Suicides and homicides were nearly equivalent as of 2005. Although there is no current suicide data, statistical frequencies of homicide haven't changed. So we can predict a similar frequencies of suicide rate.

    4. What? Your own link shows suicide by gun at 17k in 2005, while homicides by gun were at 12k. You call that "nearly equivalent"? Keep in mind also that the quoted homicide rate includes justified homicide - a cop shooting a bank robber, a woman shooting her rapist, the victim of a home invasion shooting his assailants, etc. When you look at only unjustified homicies, the number is closer to the 10k I quoted earlier.

      And how stupid is it to count suicides and justified homidcide in "total gun deaths"? That's the kind of retarded metric people come up with for propaganda purposes. We know that the suicide rate doesn't change when you get rid of guns (look at Canada), and justified homicides are arguably a good thing. Any rational discussion about gun deaths should only concern accidents and murder.

    5. I'm talking overall gun related deaths. So both numbers factor into the overall percentage of 100,000 per overall capita of the U.S.

      So your objection, to begin with, was a non-starter.

      But the equivalence I am speaking of is the percentage yielded per the 100,000 per capita.

      The percentages are equivalent to one another. Not identical, mind you, but equivalent to. I didn't state it as succinctly, because I thought you were following my reasoning--since I was dealing with * overall all gun related deaths, that would typically denote a percentage involved. But never mind.

    6. I'm not sure your reply was in English. Which of my objections was a non starter? And for what reason? huh?

      As for your spin on numbers .... Sorry, dude, but 17,000 is not equivalent to 10,000. It doesn't matter if you look at them as percentages or absolutes. One figure is almost twice the size of the other. I find it absurd that you can't admit such a minor point.

  2. “When we have half of the other modernized countries on the planet that can pull it off, you had better bet your bottom dollar that it's possible."

    Well now you're just making things up. Which industrialized nations don't have mass-shootings? China?


      Should I go on?

    2. Alex, just some advice: next time you accuse somebody of making something up, you might want to ask them where they're getting their information before just assuming.

      It's just etiquette.

    3. Yes, you should go on, since your graph doesn't answer the question. Canada and Germany have both had mass-shootings, even though they appear on your list. I'm sure most of the countries on that list have. As far as I can tell, you just made up the statistic and then linked to an unrelated picture.

      Just some advice: next time you try to show that you're not making something up, try to link to data that supports what you said. Its just common sense.

    4. Actually, the chart I used supports my claim precisely. Remember, I am talking about gun related deaths/crime. The claim wasn't about mass shootings, but overall gun related deaths.

      In each of the countries, they have gun policies which are directly related to a decrease in gun related crime.

      My claim was if they have such policies, then to say it is impossible for the U.S. would be a fallacious claim.

      It's not impossible, and the comparison of looking at gun related deaths in each of the modernized countries proves this. So my claim is supported.

      Your argument not withstanding, I hope you have an argument, otherwise your comments don't amount to much. If you have a point, I'd like to hear it.

      I'm all for debating the issue, but you haven't stated anything. Each time you've said I'm clearly wrong it's because you've distorted or changed the meaning of what I stated quite clearly.

      So I'm still waiting for the real conversation to begin.

    5. No, tristan, the sentence I quoted was specifically referring to mass shootings. Which is why your response made no sense. If you want to move on and talk about murder rates as a whole, that's fine, but first either admit that you were wrong about "half the industrialized world" not having mass shootings, or show your evidence to support that assertion.

  3. Its really a nice and interesting post you have shared with us and the comment of you should be great. Thanks for sharing this information. Keep me more updates.

    mass gun permit