To be fair, the effects of training and survival instincts may surprise you. But as you said, it’s just as likely that you’d cave in.
I don’t doubt teachers are not happy about being used as a crutch by everybody else.
Imagine already being a teacher (which is not a small amount of work) and then also having to be a professional psychiatrist and a trained security officer.
State funded.
which is why they should be
I’ll say it again, while we have guns in America we will have gun crimes in schools. They’re often a toxic environment and practically breed violent offenders in some cases.
This is honestly criminal. It saddens me how little our teachers are paid in America.
Best solution would be an opt-in program that the schools decide for themselves instead of a state regulation.
This is an individual-teacher thing.
You can’t force a teacher to arm themselves.
Police officers spend about 100 (?) hours in firearm training.
Also #4 isn’t a training thing. Training won’t prevent a student from breaking into whatever safe you keep the gun in and using it.
Introducing “more gunz” isn’t a good solution, that’ll just make the school more volatile.
They already don’t pay teachers enough, you expect them to pay for the gun training?
And not pay the teachers more for being bodyguards as well?
Yeah I assumed you meant taking the gun off of the teacher’s person,
Yes. No.
Please provide me with your solution that’ll prevent more school shootings, one that doesn’t involve a logistically impossible plan to confiscate all guns in America.
How is this logistically impossible?
Other countries have implemented certain restrictions, such as Australia and (soon) New Zeland.
You wouldn’t have to confiscate ALL guns, just certain ones/from certain people.
Again: is that really feasible with the average number of working hours a teacher already has to do?
Wouldn’t it be more productive to ask yourselves why they’re so toxic and how that could be fixed then, instead of putting even more guns into an environment you already know is terrible?
Right now your proposal sounds like: “let’s put more fire around the powder keg, that’ll prevent it from exploding”.
It doesn’t matter if the gun is in a safe, on the teacher’s body or anywhere else in the room; students can get to it in any of these places.
More guns in schools =/= safer schools. As @CandyShi said, the best bet is to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns in the first place.
I’m not advocating for no guns in the country whatsoever, but I think it’s way too easy for someone who wants to hurt others to get a weapon right now.
sure. If you’re talking about school environments then it’s mostly the pointless feeling of it all tbh. The culture at the school can also be an important factor to seeing if it is toxic. It’s also the mental health of the students themselves, which is why we see people who aren’t of the best mental stability shooting people up so much now.
giving guns to teachers would only create a more hostile environment tbh, since we’re not addressing the actual problem at the very core of this issue.
from felons? criminals? idk who else you would confiscate weapons from, other than law abiding citizens.
just have campus police then, my school did for the most part.
Australia has a ban on automatic/semi automatic guns.
You could also
a) prevent people convicted of crimes from ever owning a gun
b) make it so any household with a child that’s been neglected cannot have a gun in said household
That is clearly what CandyShi means because as we all know, single-shot firearms are a technological impossibility and do not exist. I may have been a little passive-aggressive there, but that’s my reaction.
On a similar note, what clip size (assuming that we are allowing guns) do people think is an acceptable maximum?
The average size of an American classroom, +1 for the teacher. /s
(Probably like 5)
(btw what happened to the abortion argument, I still have arguments on why its good >:c)
I’ll just put them here:
nah you’re wrong, check out flintlock pistols OwO
I’m pro choice, but I wouldn’t consider abortion treatment 
(unless it’s a danger to the mother).
In Australia, our gun laws were tightened by an extreme amount after what is known as the “Port Arthur Massacre” in Tasmania, 1996 where 35 people were killed.
There was some protest yes. But after the nationwide shock of the shootings, the changes were by in large welcomed.
Think back to about 18 months ago, Las Vegas. 59 killed. Over 400 injured. If you think that’s not significant enough incentive to tighten gun laws, you need to get of your “right to bear arms” and “freedom” bullshit in order to prevent people from being fucking killed by psychopaths who can by semi- (and fully-, if I recall correctly) automatic weapons with few restrictions.
Jesus wept, if it were your brother, or sister, or mother, or father who was killed in one of these shootings, don’t you think that maybe you might want some fucking moderation? I’m not saying ban all guns, though I’m not against that. I’m saying at least do something about this fucking issue.
I remember at the time of the shooting people were speculating that he might have been using bump stocks, and after checking Wikipedia it seems that was indeed the case.
Technically he never bought full-auto weapons, just semi-auto weapons that had a modified stock to allow for higher rate of fire (at the cost of accuracy, which isn’t that big a deal when you’re shooting into a big crowd anyway).
Bump stocks have apparently been outlawed in the United States last year as a result.
The Las Vegas shooting is honestly an outlier when it comes to mass shootings. Most mass shooters don’t have planning that good or an arsenal like that one that guy had.
However, it’s still a good example of why arming the law-abiding folk isn’t always effective. Every single concert-goer could have been armed to the fucking teeth and all it would have done would have been increasing the amount of confusion, if not lead to even more deaths as people mistakenly start shooting each other.
An outlier which had a grievous impact on human life. Guess what? People have shot down the same amount, sometimes more before. Gambling on statistics isn’t good enough when it comes to loss of life, especially if you want to ignore an outlier.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. The Las Vegas shooting was the deadliest one in the history of the US. The only higher kill counts would have to be stuff like 9/11 or Oklahoma City.
I’m not saying to ignore it, I’m saying we have to acknowledge that it’s an outlier.
Sorry, I was misremembering. I thought the Orlando Nightclub, for one was worse, and that there were others.
What good would that do? Cool, it’s an outlier. Now that we’ve established it’s an outlier, what do we do? What would that change? Clearly we can’t ignore it.