Should Firearms Be Banned From The United States Citizens? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should Firearms Be Banned From The United States Citizens?

Opening Argument

tarararatararara 7 Pts
edited May 2017 in Products
I believe not,for the good of the country. But that's not the point. The point is, What do you think? 
billpassedjoecavalrybrontoraptor
  1. ?

    26 votes
    1. Yes
      15.38%
    2. No
      84.62%
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • I believe that they should be banned. Fire arms are causing deaths and, because of these injuries and Deaths they should be banned. Ateast, until it's stabilized.
    Schatzi11tarararaErfisflatanonymousdebaterBaconToesSuperSith89Pogue
  • In my opinion, they shouldn't because its not the firearms that are bad. Its the people who are in control of the weapon. Any object can be used as a weapon. There was a terrorist in I believe Germany that used a big truck to kill people. That doesn't mean that we should ban vehicles. And the American citizens have the right to protect themselves.
    tararara
  •     I think that firearms should not be banned from US citizens because what would the owners of gun shops do? They would definitely go out of business and a lot of people own guns previously. Would the police go into every house in the United States and raid their cabinets to see if they own a firearm? Also, anything can be used as a weapon. I could use the laptop I am typing on right now and slam my teacher in the head just to get out of school. Or, I could continue typing and use this computer for a good purpose. I am going to keep typing, but the girl sitting next to me might think of using my laptop as a way to inflict pain. The same thing goes for firearms. Police use them for a good purpose to protect us as US citizens but the guy that lives on the next street from my school could use it as a way to inflict pain upon someone. I think that US citizens should have the right to own firearms.
    tararara
  • If you banned guns all guns, the amount of crime would go up as swat teams and other special teams confiscated them. Their would be a civil war between the hard core all American gun owners and those that are against them. You want t a blood bath than go ahead try to ban all the guns. Their are way less officers and specialized teams than their are people that are hardcore gun owners. You would might win the battle with successfully pissing every back woods person off but you are guaranteed to lose and the war. 

    Their would be more killings in the United States the moment guns started being confiscated than years before put together. 
    joecavalrybrontoraptor
    ~NathanAllen, Be yourself let no one tell you who you are. 
  • @NathanAllen , I believe that some guns should be banned for military and law enforcement, but for citizens  all guns should be banned. This may help prevent deaths, injures, crimes, etc.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • If you outlaw guns, the only ones who will have guns are the outlaws.

    Only moral law-abiding citizens follow the law. Laws mean nothing for those who refuse to follow the law. For example, the illegal drug business in the US is booming.

  • Governments and law enforcement agencies have collectively killed more people than anyone in history. What idiot thinks it's a good idea to let them have all the guns?
    SilverishGoldNovaGeorge_Horse
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Of course not.  



    I want my guns to defend myself from criminals, and the untrustworthy U.S government. 
    AmericanFurryBoy
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 516 Pts
    edited December 2017
    I believe that they should be banned. Fire arms are causing deaths and, because of these injuries and Deaths they should be banned. Ateast, until it's stabilized.
    What would cause you to think the situation is NOT stable?  Consider the following;


  • In my personal opinion they should not be banned, I just believe they should be limited. Not everyone is responsible, mentally stable or capable enough to handle guns. If one argues that they need something to defend themselves with, well there are a lot of other ways that don't require guns. 
    Pogue
  • Did you not read what I said, I did say taking away all guns would lead to a civil war. Here are my sources to back it. Just need to look at the numbers. @joecavalry ;
     https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/removing-guns-from-us-would-cause-civil-war-says-lobbyist-1.2682673http://www.debate.org/opinions/if-gun-confiscation-is-enacted-in-the-usa-will-there-be-a-second-revolutionary-warhttp://www.debate.org/opinions/do-you-think-that-gun-control-with-spark-the-next-civil-war@joecavalry
    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
    Most of those in the rural areas will not give their gun up for some educated police officer of the federal government.

    ~NathanAllen, Be yourself let no one tell you who you are. 
  • So you give a chart that shows homicides going down as the amount of guns goes up, but yet you are against guns still. Figures you would be. No amount of proof would prove otherwise. No matter what the numbers say about homicides the liberal left wants them all banned including rifles. You want gun control how about age limits on rifles anyone can handle a rifle just not everyone can buy one until 18 years of age.Handguns are limited to a age a 17 yo can not carry a handgun around in a car but they can carry a longer range rifle around with out any problem. @CYDdharta
    Erfisflat
    ~NathanAllen, Be yourself let no one tell you who you are. 
  • @billpassed

    So what happens if a criminal breaks into your house and pins your kid or wife to the floor? Shoot em with a water gun?
  • Yes that is what the liberals want you to do. I wonder if they thought of people using bats as their new weapon of choice. Lets see as you should know statistics or what I am all about. Take away my gun I will just beat you to death with a bat. Talking about a painful death now. At least the bullet would kill you almost instantly.  4 percent of attacks are done with a bat. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf@brontoraptor
    Erfisflat
    ~NathanAllen, Be yourself let no one tell you who you are. 
  • Ban the gun ban the gun!!!!!!!!!!
    brontoraptorGeorge_Horseanonymousdebater
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • So you give a chart that shows homicides going down as the amount of guns goes up, but yet you are against guns still. Figures you would be. No amount of proof would prove otherwise. No matter what the numbers say about homicides the liberal left wants them all banned including rifles. You want gun control how about age limits on rifles anyone can handle a rifle just not everyone can buy one until 18 years of age.Handguns are limited to a age a 17 yo can not carry a handgun around in a car but they can carry a longer range rifle around with out any problem. @CYDdharta
    What would cause you to believe I'm against gun ownership?  I was pointing out that the situation is already stable and, in fact, improving, thus his threshold has already been met.
  • How about, instead of making guns illegal we just make crime illegal.  That should make everyone happy.
    brontoraptor
  • @joecavalry

    What happens if someone breaks into your house holding an illegal firearm?
  • I would argue against absolute ban.  I would instead look for a solution that provides better screening and tougher standards to get one.
    anonymousdebater
    WhyTrump - a good question
  • I struggle to understand what right does the government have to ban all private fire arms.  We dont leave in North Korea...
  • @joecavalry

    What happens if someone breaks into your house holding an illegal firearm?

    What if you have an firearm to shoot that person holding the illegal firearm?
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry


  • I'm as liberal as liberals come, and yet I think it's outright foolish to ban all guns. Once guns exist in an ecosystem, it becomes nearly impossible to remove them. Regulations are a must, but there's no realistic way to ban them. 

    anonymousdebaterPogueSlanderIsNotDebate1995
  • Second Amendment
  • You would have to repeal second amendment rights. Although I personally disbelieve in several alleged mass shootings, I still have a question for you. Do you think criminals will abide by new gun laws?
    "I was trolling you."  - @Erfisflat ;

  • I think the bottom line here, is kids taking guns into schools and killing their teachers and classmates.

    These kids shouldn't have these weapons available to them. 

    It's simply an issue of an utterly ridiculous lack of control over the availability and use of guns in the U.S.

    Anything can be used as a weapon. Sure. The differences are obvious though.

    A gun can be used remotely, and is extremely lethal

    Whereas averyapro, would have to put a great deal of effort into catching an killing me with their lap-top.



    PogueCYDdharta
  • PoguePogue 472 Pts
    I would ban some guns. Like the guns banned in Australia. After they banned those guns; they have not had a mass shooting in 20 years. I would also advocate for stricter gun regulations to help try and decrease the number of people dying every year from guns.
    This Vox video shows "The state of violence in the US":

    Australia:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/no-mass-shootings-australia-20-years-how-did-they-do-n597091.
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 516 Pts
    edited February 18
    Pogue said:
    I would ban some guns. Like the guns banned in Australia. After they banned those guns; they have not had a mass shooting in 20 years. I would also advocate for stricter gun regulations to help try and decrease the number of people dying every year from guns.
    This Vox video shows "The state of violence in the US":

    Australia:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/no-mass-shootings-australia-20-years-how-did-they-do-n597091.
    The gun buyback/ban did nothing.  Australia's homicide rate was already declining, and continued at the same pace after they passed a raft of gun control measures as it did before.  To quote the findings of research into the gun ban by the Univ of Melbourne a decade later; "There is little evidence to suggest that the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program had any significant effects on firearm homicides."  TBH, Australia is actually good example of the ineffectiveness of gun control.
  • VaulkVaulk 416 Pts


    This is what prevents and stops school shootings.  As you can see, there's absolutely nothing new about this type of policy as it's been in effect since 2013.  To prevent fires in school, they install water sprinklers because water kills fire.  To prevent students from beating each other up, they train teachers to physically restrain children and to deescalate physical confrontation.  To prevent and stop school shootings, this school is training and arming their teachers to protect their students.  It's really quite simple, address the problem up front at the core and you'll fix it.

    Less than 20% of all crimes committed with a firearm are done so with legally obtained firearms, that means over 80% of firearm related crimes are committed with a gun that is illegally obtained.  This meets the criteria for what we call "Overwhelming majority".  So let's all agree that when it comes to the lives of our children, we should be addressing the overwhelming majority of the problem...not the minority of the problem.  The majority of the issue is the availability of illegal firearms through illegal means.

    I can't imagine a world where we completely ignore the problems that are causing MOST of an issue to instead focus on problems that are causing the LEAST of an issue...unless you're talking about the U.S. of course.

    The raw numbers are in, we need to stop being ignorant as Americans and start learning where the danger really is.  We're using almost 100% of our force against 20% of the problem.  We need redirection so that we can focus as a Nation on solving the problem instead of diverting our attention to something that since the introduction of the 2nd amendment...hasn't budged.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.d51d0f7af065
    http://www.socialmedicine.info/index.php/socialmedicine/article/view/852/1649
    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • PoguePogue 472 Pts
    edited February 18
    CYDdharta said:
    Pogue said:
    I would ban some guns. Like the guns banned in Australia. After they banned those guns; they have not had a mass shooting in 20 years. I would also advocate for stricter gun regulations to help try and decrease the number of people dying every year from guns.
    This Vox video shows "The state of violence in the US":

    Australia:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/no-mass-shootings-australia-20-years-how-did-they-do-n597091.
    The gun buyback/ban did nothing.  Australia's homicide rate was already declining, and continued at the same pace after they passed a raft of gun control measures as it did before.  To quote the findings of research into the gun ban by the Univ of Melbourne a decade later; "There is little evidence to suggest that the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program had any significant effects on firearm homicides."  TBH, Australia is actually good example of the ineffectiveness of gun control.

    "In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, of which 98 were with guns. In 2014, with the population up from about 18 million to 23 million, Australia had 238 murders, of which 35 were with guns. 

    It was April 28, 1996, shooting deaths by a lone gunman of 35 people in and around a cafe at a historic former prison colony in Tasmania that prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.

    The country has had no mass shootings since."

    Here are other graphs! The number of public mass shootings adjusted for population size: 


    Here is the number without adjusting for population: 


    A chart for gun regulations: 


    Other charts:

    If you say this is just because the US has more crime ... well, you would be wrong. 



    Gun deaths compared to Aids, terrorism, wars, and drugs.

    The number of guns and gun deaths in countries: 


    Finally, look at how many guns there are: 


    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns/australia-data-shows-gun-controls-a-huge-success-20-years-after-mass-shooting-idUSKCN0XP0HG

    There have been 18 school shootings since the start of the year! I am not advocating to ban all guns. 

    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • VaulkVaulk 416 Pts
    edited February 18
    @Pogue

    The report from the 2008 Melbourne Institute on the effects of the Gun Ban in Australia returns the following result:

    “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”

    “Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”


    Feel free to review the report, it's not necessary to take the researcher's word at all, the hard numbers are all available and can be independently verified.


    http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf

    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 516 Pts
    edited February 18
    Pogue said:

    "In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, of which 98 were with guns. In 2014, with the population up from about 18 million to 23 million, Australia had 238 murders, of which 35 were with guns. 

    It was April 28, 1996, shooting deaths by a lone gunman of 35 people in and around a cafe at a historic former prison colony in Tasmania that prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.

    The country has had no mass shootings since."

    Here are other graphs! The number of public mass shootings adjusted for population size: 


    Here is the number without adjusting for population: 


    A chart for gun regulations: 


    Other charts:



    If you say this is just because the US has more crime ... well, you would be wrong. 



    Gun deaths compared to Aids, terrorism, wars, and drugs.


    The number of guns and gun deaths in countries: 


    Finally, look at how many guns there are: 


    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns/australia-data-shows-gun-controls-a-huge-success-20-years-after-mass-shooting-idUSKCN0XP0HG

    There have been 18 school shootings since the start of the year! I am not advocating to ban all guns. 

    ROFL, lots of spiffy but completely entirely irrelevant graphs.  You claimed Australia's 1996 gun ban actually did something useful, but as can be seen, Australia's homicide rate was already declining and the gun ban did nothing whatsoever to enhance that trend.


    https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359


    No doubt, such a ban would be just as "successful" in the US.  By comparison, here's the US homicide rate;



    https://ourworldindata.org/homicides


    You'll not that, in spite of the current hysteria about guns, the actual homicide rate in the US hasn't been this low since the mid 60s.
  • Vaulk said:

    This is what prevents and stops school shootings.  As you can see, there's absolutely nothing new about this type of policy as it's been in effect since 2013.  To prevent fires in school, they install water sprinklers because water kills fire.  To prevent students from beating each other up, they train teachers to physically restrain children and to deescalate physical confrontation.  To prevent and stop school shootings, this school is training and arming their teachers to protect their students.  It's really quite simple, address the problem up front at the core and you'll fix it.

    Less than 20% of all crimes committed with a firearm are done so with legally obtained firearms, that means over 80% of firearm related crimes are committed with a gun that is illegally obtained.  This meets the criteria for what we call "Overwhelming majority".  So let's all agree that when it comes to the lives of our children, we should be addressing the overwhelming majority of the problem...not the minority of the problem.  The majority of the issue is the availability of illegal firearms through illegal means.

    I can't imagine a world where we completely ignore the problems that are causing MOST of an issue to instead focus on problems that are causing the LEAST of an issue...unless you're talking about the U.S. of course.

    The raw numbers are in, we need to stop being ignorant as Americans and start learning where the danger really is.  We're using almost 100% of our force against 20% of the problem.  We need redirection so that we can focus as a Nation on solving the problem instead of diverting our attention to something that since the introduction of the 2nd amendment...hasn't budged.
    Truth be told, I'm a little lost on your logic. I should note off the top that I'm a little conflicted regarding my position on gun control. My only goal here is to parse out where you're coming from.

    To start, you say that the most effective way to stop school shootings is to have guns on school campuses. I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around that argument. The comparison you're giving me (that water sprinklers prevent fires, and that physical restraint prevents physical confrontation) make perfect sense because you're fighting one problem with something entirely separate. What you're talking about is arming teachers, which fundamentally means introducing guns to stop guns. That distinguishes it from both of your examples: you're attempting to challenge an issue in the status quo by introducing more of the same mechanisms that play a direct role in that issue. 

    As for the central point (that training and arming teachers fundamentally makes a school more safe), I don't think you've supported that. If we're talking about prevention, remember, the vast majority of these shooters are not captured alive. They either off themselves or are killed by the police. I have a hard time believing that their motivations include much in the way of self-preservation. However, given your examples, I imagine that your argument is that guns in the hands of teachers would make for good interventions. On that end, I'd have a few major concerns.

    One, there are really only a couple of possible avenues you're talking about here for using guns in this kind of situation, and neither are particularly good. The first is for a teacher to leave their classroom and seek out the shooter. Doing so puts them directly in harm's way against a shooter who is often better armed and prepared to shoot anything that moves, whereas the teacher must discern between targets. It also leaves their students vulnerable, as they will be waiting for an adult to return and have to discern between people who try to enter the room. The second option is for the teacher to stay put in the classroom and be prepared for someone to try to force their way into the room. That might work better, but it's hard to imagine that someone in that situation is perfectly calm and collected, no matter their training. They'll view anything moving outside the classroom as a potential threat, which can lead them to harm innocent people.

    Two, the presence of a loaded gun within the classroom (presumably one that is relatively easy to access, given that the goal would be a rapid response) is not restricted to the incidence of a school shooting. You're talking about preventing school shootings, yet your goal is to increase the number of loaded firearms on school campuses. Much as I have tremendous respect for what teachers do, I'd find it difficult to trust their psychology on a day-to-day basis, year-on-year, particularly if they become paranoid about the possibility of a school shooting occurring on their campus. I'd also be concerned about student access to those same firearms. Teachers cannot reasonably have eyes on their weapons for every second that they are in the classroom. Whether we're talking about very young children who tend to get into just about everything or older children who may figure out the locations of these weapons over time, there is significant cause for concern that these weapons could be used against innocent people. 

    You argue that "[l]ess than 20% of all crimes committed with a firearm are done so with legally obtained firearms" and that that minority of cases should not be the focus of policy changes that seek to reduce gun violence. Again, I feel like I'm missing something. Your fundamental assumption is that, by addressing this minority of cases, we are ignoring the majority problem. I don't think either is true. Why can't access to be restricted in a meaningful but limited way while addressing the great majority of cases where they are illegally acquired? Beyond that, what would you suggest is required to address that 80+% of the issue? These weapons, as you said, are illegally acquired. Is your idea to allow teachers who receive training to bring guns into schools? What about schools where none of the teachers wish to wield a weapon? How would you address other places where mass shootings occur?
    Pogue
  • VaulkVaulk 416 Pts
    edited February 19
    @whiteflame

    What you said about my example making "Perfect sense"

    whiteflame said:
    The comparison you're giving me (that water sprinklers prevent fires, and that physical restraint prevents physical confrontation) make perfect sense because you're fighting one problem with something entirely separate. 
    You need to go back and read my statement because what I literally (Not figuratively) said was that Teachers are trained to exercise the use of physical force to prevent or deescalate (Which means it's already happening) physical confrontation (A fight) between students.  This is a case of using force to stop force..."Fighting one problem by using the same thing".  And since you agree that it makes perfect sense then you SHOULD be able to see how using a gun to stop someone who's using a gun makes perfect sense as well.  Cops use guns to stop people with guns, Soldiers use guns to stop people with guns, security guards use guns to stop people with guns.  Would you argue that Police should be using something entirely separate from a gun to stop people from using guns? If the way I explained it makes perfect sense but you can't understand the correlation then I suggest you apply a different perspective.

    Secondly, what I gather from your first argument against Teachers being armed is that your underlying rationale is "It will be difficult" and "There will be risk".  Addressing this argument, I'd like to point out your own logic:

    whiteflame said:
    but it's hard to imagine that someone in that situation is perfectly calm and collected, no matter their training. They'll view anything moving outside the classroom as a potential threat, which can lead them to harm innocent people.
    If the argument is that "No matter their training" someone in this situation will most likely not be perfectly calm and collected...I'll just flat out agree with you.  Cops, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Army, Marines, Navy, Airforce, Coastguard, National Guard...pick a professional agency that will tell you that you can be "Perfectly calm and collected" in an active shooter situation.  I can't follow the logic that if someone can't be perfectly calm and collected during a life or death situation then they don't have any business having the power to apply lethal force with intent to save lives.  This would mean that cops have no business responding to active shooters or carrying guns for that matter.  And of course there's the risk of harming innocent people, anyone with a concealed gun license will tell you that the risk is there, it's also equally present anytime a law enforcement officer is required to discharge his/her firearm to stop a criminal.  So second to this, arguing that, because risk is involved, that someone shouldn't have the power to apply deadly force to save lives is also absurd.

    Next:
    Two, the presence of a loaded gun within the classroom (presumably one that is relatively easy to access, given that the goal would be a rapid response) is not restricted to the incidence of a school shooting. You're talking about preventing school shootings, yet your goal is to increase the number of loaded firearms on school campuses. Much as I have tremendous respect for what teachers do, I'd find it difficult to trust their psychology on a day-to-day basis, year-on-year, particularly if they become paranoid about the possibility of a school shooting occurring on their campus. I'd also be concerned about student access to those same firearms. Teachers cannot reasonably have eyes on their weapons for every second that they are in the classroom. Whether we're talking about very young children who tend to get into just about everything or older children who may figure out the locations of these weapons over time, there is significant cause for concern that these weapons could be used against innocent people. 

    I'll respect your opinion that the adults that are entrusted to teach our Children are somehow difficult to trust in regards to their mental stability.  Additionally, have you never heard of a holster?  FYSA "Armed" means the weapon is presently on your person...not within arms reach or somewhere in the room with you.  No one is suggesting something as ludicrous as a firearm safe in every classroom or a gun strapped to the underneath side of a Teacher's desk.  These guns are carried by the Teachers all day, every school day, on their person.  I'd imagine they're mostly concealed but I wouldn't be surprised to see some open carry holsters as well.  And as far as your concern that these weapons could be used against innocents...that's just as much of an argument against the police carrying weapons as it is against Teachers.  So because the gun can be potentially taken forcefully away, you shouldn't carry it?  That would be the disarmament of the U.S.  And if Teachers don't want to carry firearms, cool.  Hire security guards.  I know a couple thousand Veterans that would love to be responsible for the safety of our Children.

    Lastly, to address the 80% of Firearm related crime:

    1. Close the borders.  Immigrants want to come to America but we have no way to regulate it and unfortunately, even Mexico's own CESOP acknowledges more than 2,000 guns cross the border into the U.S. per day.  Until we can stop the influx of illegal firearms into our country from ALL countries (Not just Mexico), the the borders can close.  

    2. International import reform.  Ports are one of the larger issues with the influx of illegal firearms, easily ten times more illegal firearms enter the country at the ports than across the border and they're all stamped with fake serial number which cannot be traced to anyone.  The list of issues surrounding crimes committed with these "Ghost guns" is limitless.  This is why stolen weapons and Ghost guns are the criminal's weapons of choice.

    3. The last is the easiest.  We put police or armed guards at banks to protect our Money.  We put armed guards in the homes and workplaces of our politicians to protect our leadership, we put armed guard on business properties to protect personal assets and employees...but we can't manage to protect our Children with equal measure?  How can we justify the need for a firearm to protect your Money but on the same hand say that it's not necessary to have a firearm to protect something infinitely more valuable?

    Living in the U.S. means living free.  Unfortunately this also means living among criminals that can move freely.  So long as there is freedom, Criminals will be free to exploit us.  In the most extreme cases, Criminals will try to violate our right to life and when that happens, we can only fall back on what we've decided is an acceptable measure of protection.  Can a school full of our Children wait 5, 10, 15 minutes for a police force to arrive to save them?  I don't personally think that's a responsible measure of protection for our Children.  I think they deserve more.  I don't think increasing the rules for firearms is going to fix anything. 

    In the end, I could always fall back on the total and complete lack of any evidence that gun control of any sort in any way can or has reduced violence.  Look at Countries with no guns at all like Russia in the 1960s, look at places like Norway, Germany and France with saturated gun ownership yet low rates of violent crime compared to other countries with virtually no weapons owned by private citizens (Source below).  Look at Democratic controlled cities with the most comprehensive gun control laws in all of the United States...they're bloodbath zones.  Focusing on something that has zero evidence of being an effective measure against the very real and proven threat against our Children is irresponsible at best and needs to be done away with.




    https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/2000-illegal-weapons-cross-us-mexico-border-every-day/
    http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/underworld-inc/episodes/ghost-guns/
    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate
    https://people.howstuffworks.com/strict-gun-laws-less-crime1.htm

    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    So, let’s talk about your physical confrontation scenario. Presumably, you’re talking about the need for teachers to intervene in fights, hence the term “physical confrontation.” A fight is where one side inflicts physical violence. You listed two means for teachers to respond: physical restraint and de-escalation. The latter doesn’t clearly come with any kind of physical intervention, the former does. And, I suppose, it’s your assertion that having a gun is akin to training for that physical intervention. I’d disagree, mainly because of the term “restraint.”

    A gun isn’t a restraining device. It’s a means of inflicting harm. Best case scenario, it can be used in a threatening manner to force someone to drop their weapon, but that still makes it very different from the restraint scenario. What you’re suggesting is more akin to offering teachers the opportunity to train in fighting techniques and allowing them to use those techniques to address physical confrontation on campuses (i.e. give them the capacity to beat up bullies in order to protect other students).

    But none of this has to do with the inherent logic of your position on this matter, just with your comparisons to other issues. This is guns we’re talking about, and guns, unlike physical confrontations, have a high degree of fatalities associated with them. So, the question is, will putting more guns in schools reduce or ameliorate the effect of school shootings?

    Given that you didn’t address my statements regarding a shooter’s willingness to engage in one of these shootings, it seems that you’re conceding to the reality that simply having guns on school campuses will not prevent people from participating in shootings. So your argument entirely relies on the view that teachers having guns will reduce the number of deaths that occur as a result of each shooting. My argument has been focused on explaining how putting guns in the hands of teachers will result in more shootings, and how they will not reduce (and may in fact increase) the number of deaths during each shooting.

    So, let’s revisit each of those points.

    You haven’t really done much to support your central point, which is that teachers will be able to effectively be able to disarm or incapacitate shooters on their campuses. You’ve stated multiple times that they would be trained, but note that you are talking about teachers who likely rarely have reason to use their weapons. Maybe if they were trained at regular intervals and had actual in-field experience using those weapons, but you haven’t been very clear about what the training would require of them. Even if you did, it’s unclear how much training would be required to produce results. You were kind enough to bring up the example of police, so let’s focus on them for a moment. Police officers are trained intensively and make it their job to utilize that training. The same is true with soldiers and security guards. While their work may not always require them to use their firearm, they are all extensively trained in their usage, and get in-field experience on at least a semi-regular basis. What’s more, they aren’t distracted by other issues like having to draft and teach lesson plans or watch over dozens of kids. Teachers have a full-time job that is entirely separate from combat. Yet your argument is that they’re functionally equivalent, that their training would be effectively the same, and that they would be as capable of responding to a school shooter as a police officer.

    Before I get into my arguments, let me address your question:

    “Would you argue that Police should be using something entirely separate from a gun to stop people from using guns?”

    The reason that police should be allowed to wield a firearm is because they put themselves in highly dangerous situations on a regular basis. Their role requires them to thrust themselves into danger against criminals wielding guns. Last I checked, a teacher wasn’t required to pit themselves against someone wielding a gun, nor was that any kind of regular occurrence for them.

    So, let’s get into my arguments. I argued that there is a clear risk of teachers shooting people who are not the shooter during an actual shooting. It sounds like your response to that is that their training can prevent that. Three responses.

    First, you never address the situations I laid out in my last post. As far as I’m aware, teachers have 2 options: leave their students behind and seek out danger, or sit in their classrooms and be prepared to shoot anything that moves outside. There’s no reason to believe that, even with training, they will be more likely to select one over the other. What’s clear is that both options come with a substantial risk of harming innocent people.

    Second, I’ll repeat: teachers are not police officers, soldiers or government agents regularly wielding a firearm in the field. You keep running to this comparison, but it’s full of holes. A teacher has a classroom full of students to worry about. They are directly in the thick of a situation that they likely have little understanding of, rather than entering it with a group of well-armed and trained compatriots and at least some information on what they’re facing.

    Third, you point to professional agencies as being perfectly calm and collected. Do I need to cite the numerous instances where police, soldiers, and agents have shot innocent people? Are you arguing that, in all those cases, they are perfectly calm and collected? If so, then I will alter what I said: teachers can be perfectly calm and collected, but that won’t prevent them from shooting innocent people. 

    Secondly, I argued that teachers having weapons are creating a persistent risk within their classrooms. It seems your major response is to downplay that risk by arguing that they can keep the gun on their persons. Before I address that, though, I should restate my position on stability, which you glossed over. Regardless of how generally stable most teachers are, I’ve heard my share of disquieting stories in the classroom. To assume that they will never, under any circumstances, wield their weapon against non-threats is a much greater presumption than accepting the reality that some are likely to use their weapon in ways that are problematic. At the very least, you’re forcing students to be in close proximity to a loaded gun, which is likely to make a lot of people (particularly those that come from families that have experienced deaths due to shootings) very uncomfortable. But the effect of how teachers use these guns could mean as little as subtle threats to students, but even if that’s all that happens, we’re talking about students being threatened with deadly force. I would argue that, at least in some cases, the weapon would be discharged, which could do more tangible harm. If you want to downplay that, be my guest, but it’s a very real risk that I don’t think you can ignore.

    But I’ll address the holster. I suppose you could require them to keep the weapon on their persons continuously, though this is starting to sound difficult to enforce. I find it hard to believe that, in all schools across the entire country, no teacher is ever going to leave their gun somewhere off of their belt. However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that every single teacher that is packing heat will keep them in the holster. My wife is a preschool teacher. She’s constantly interacting with kids who are trying to grab pretty much anything that’s within reach. Last I checked, a police officer wasn’t watching over a classroom full of toddlers trying to reach into every pocket. And that’s the accidental problem. A high school student who can’t seem to get a gun to bring to school suddenly has access to a gun that is within reach on a regular basis. A teacher can be physically overpowered, or if a gun is not secured well, it can simply be stolen as the teacher walks by. Again, I don’t think a police officer faces these same problems. However, I should be clear that my argument is not that “because the gun can be potentially taken forcefully away, you shouldn't carry it”. My argument is that the classroom is a particularly vulnerable place for this sort of theft, whether purposeful or accidental. Every theft is a potential mass shooting, and within the closed space of a classroom, the damage is too massive to risk.

    I’m just going to leave the issue of hiring security guards here. If that’s what you want to support, go for it, but I’ve already spent a great deal of time going over the issue of teachers wielding guns. This is a whole other monster, and while I think it’s problematic in its own ways, my view is that it’s better than arming teachers.

    You provide a few ways that we can address illegal acquisition of firearms. Frankly, I don’t see why we can’t do any of this (save the last, which seems to be just a restatement of your overall argument here), but more importantly, I don’t see why we can’t address the issue of shooters acquiring guns legally while preventing an influx of illegal guns into the country. That seemed to be a major part of your argument: that no form of gun control should be implemented because it doesn’t address the 80+% of gun crimes committed with illegally owned weapons. Why can’t we both implement a means to prevent that less than 20% of gun crimes, and implement these measures?

    Lastly, you include a couple of other miscellaneous points. You argue that waiting for the police to arrive is a problem. I agree. However, the issue of waiting for help to arrive (and I should note, that help is far better prepared to address the situation than anyone on a school campus would be) is something we have to balance with the substantial harms that can result from having these guns on school campuses. Your response to this situation seems to be that any defense is better than no defense, yet the issue is much more complicated than that. Having a defense, particularly one that comes with deadly force, means accepting a substantial amount of risk.

    You also argue that gun control isn’t effective. Again, I think this is a separate issue from the topic at hand. I haven’t stated any support for any increased gun control. We could talk about my views on what such controls would look like, but that would take us away from the question at hand, which is whether or not arming teachers is net beneficial. I disagree with… well, pretty much everything you said in your last few sentences, and I don’t think your sources back up your claims nearly as strongly as you believe, but this is besides the point. For now, let’s just assume any further gun controls would be ineffective or even damaging.

  • @tararara I hold that unless the second amendment is removed, law is law. However, that is not to say we can have limits on what is allowed and what isn't. For people conservative that feel that just liberals want to take your guns listen up as it's NOT so left and right. My proof? I have met people that have MORE than proven they lean pretty righ. One from Australia in particular who was my roommate. He leaned right on everything and I BET he'd LOVE to have American conservative friends..... UNTIL.... guns come up. Australia has a ban on guns. It's how it is. Here we have a complete right winger..... yet..... he still is confused why Americans love their guns so much... So, it is not so much a left or right issue as people often claim. I'd say it's a bit more close to home and more of a constitutional issue. I really think there is WAY too much hysteria over the rights to is and NOBODY is going to try to take guns away as long as the 2nd amendment is law. However, why shouldn't there be better background checks and such? It's not that bad and really, if people want to use guns besides defense as for hunting or shooting practice, wouldn't it be nice to have to use LESS bullets on some psycho person?
    Erfisflat
  • VaulkVaulk 416 Pts
    edited February 23
    @whiteflame

    While guns aren't restraining devices, they are certainly tools in the deescalation of the use of force.  Pointing a firearm at a person can be done so in such a way as to coerce compliance.  While applying physical force to deescalate physical force and utilizing a firearm to deescalate a potential active shooter situation are two completely separate things, if one can be trained to properly apply physical force to deescalate physical violence then one can exercise the use of a firearm to coerce compliance.  The logic is that it's entirely more complex to properly apply physical force to deescalate violence than it is to use a firearm to coerce compliance.

    You state that guns have a high degree of fatalities associated with them, and they do.  I suppose for a moment we can just forget that every single law enforcement agency in the U.S. uses firearms on a daily basis to stop or outright prevent crimes (Violent or otherwise) that directly or indirectly result in the preservation of life.  I'm not aware of any such agency that tracks these numbers on any scale so I won't pretend to know how many lives law enforcement agencies save with guns each year but in the private sector the number of instances each year where citizens successfully protect themselves from violent crimes by using a firearm in self-defense comes to 58,750 on average.  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

    The answer as to whether or not putting guns in the hands of Security Guards or Teachers will reduce school shootings in my opinion is yes.  

    As far as a Shooter's willingness to commit to a mass shooting - Personally I acknowledge the very real possibility that if someone wants to get a gun and shoot up a school...there's no amount of gun control, laws, bans, or armed security/teachers that are going to prevent that shooter from carrying out the act.  However I believe this would be the absolute minority.  The majority of shooters would be deterred knowing that school campuses had armed guards or staff on the premise who were trained to use lethal force to stop would be shooters.  

    Onto your argument against Teacher training and your perception that the Teachers in question would be inadequately trained to effectively eliminate a threat on a School campus.  You presume that law enforcement and Soldiers are trained extensively and I'm curious as to where you got your information from regarding training intervals for these organizations or if you merely assumed.  I can personally attest that professional Soldiers on average are given between 45 minutes to an hour of firearm training per year...that's one visit to the range with approximately 2-3 hours of waiting, 45 minutes to zero their rifle and another 15 minutes to qualify on paper targets.  That's it.  In 365 days, you get an hour or less to shoot your personal weapon.  I can't tell you how often Police qualify with live rounds but due to costs, realistically it can't be more than twice each year.  If Teachers were brought into the fold for firearm training, they would participate in a state approved conceal carry class which comes complete with range time and a qualification requirement (Meaning you cannot have a permit if you cannot demonstrate proficiency).  Your argument that teachers simply don't have time to qualify once or twice each year with a handgun is absurd I'm afraid, it's not like carrying a firearm requires that you constantly maintain it throughout the day.  It's holstered out of sight and remains so unless you need to use it...it's that simple.

    Your argument that Police are fine to carry firearms and use them to stop crime because they're accustomed to it yet Teachers shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm to deter a shooter or defend the Children in their classroom because they're not in dangerous situations on a regular basis doesn't hold water.  In this case, your logic would require that firearms for home defense also be removed because homeowners don't "Thrust themselves into dangerous situations" in order to be prepared to defend themselves and their children against would be home invaders with firearms.  There is no perfect situation where a Teacher would be suited to deal with someone who has intent to kill...but the alternative is that they try to lock their door, cower and pray that their classroom isn't chosen by a Murderer.  And to clarify a little further, yes, Teachers taking a training course one time and then attending what's called recurring training each year is effectively the equivalent of what Soldiers get.  Speaking from personal experience both receiving and then instructing, the average Soldier will receive less than 2 weeks of firearm training while in Basic Combat Training, upon completion they are fully and completely eligible for deployment to a War zone.  To teach and train a civilian to responsibly respond to an active shooter situation with a side arm would take anywhere between 1-2 weeks (10 days) of 5-6 hour days and could easily be completed over the summer while Teachers are taking their mandatory training for the fall and spring semesters.  Followup training would be required no more than once per year realistically so long as the training was limited to one singular classroom and the proper method of defending it.

    You insist that I address your hypothetical so I'll do my best.

    Variables:
    Task: Effectively defend the National Average 23.1 Student classroom with a Firearm.
    Condition: Active shooters present on campus with intent to cause fatal harm/injury to students.
    Standards: All students must survive the encounter with zero loss of life/fatal injuries

    From an interior security standpoint, the average American classroom is not only relatively easy to defend but is also easy to barricade.  The vast majority of schools feature an interior swinging door for their classrooms to prevent door openings from causing injuries to the normal foot traffic in the hallways.  This makes for relatively simple barricading of the single entrance for each classroom with the largest desk/filing cabinet available to restrict the accessibility of the classroom door.  

    1. Upon alert of an active shooter, Teachers would order their students to stand and move to the side of the classroom that is NOT within plain-view of the door. 
    2. The Teacher and Teacher alone would be required to retrieve and implement a door barricade system to prevent any access to the classroom via the door.
    3. The Teacher would take up a position near the door so as to obtain as much early notice of a forced entry prior to it happening.
    4. The Teacher would announce loudly that they are armed and any attempt to open the door would be met wit deadly force.  
    5. In the event that a perpetrator attempted to force their way into the classroom, the teacher would take up a firing position and discharge their firearm to stop the attempt to enter the classroom by any and all perpetrators.

    Pretty bare bones but this is an outline of what it would look like.

    I may have had a typo in regards to your "Remaining perfectly calm" statement.  Your argument was that Teachers shouldn't have guns because they won't be perfectly calm.  I was arguing that no one can be perfectly calm and that your argument doesn't float.

    Onto your "disquieting stories in the classroom", I'm afraid that hearing stories about what goes on in classrooms does not qualify in any way shape or form as an argument either for or against anything.  This is an argument from hearsay and does not float.  Also to suggest that it would be "Forcing someone to be near a loaded gun"...how is this a problem?  Loaded guns don't do anything and you seem to be pointing at the inanimate object as if the object itself is responsible for something.  This is the same ideology behind refusing to serve police officers on duty who are carrying their service weapon at a restaurant.  Guns aren't evil my friend.  If I understand you though, your finishing argument here was that the gun wielded by a Teacher could do more harm....than the gun of a would be shooter...if no one at the school had a gun?  Two sides here, either Teacher has a gun and can shoot to kill a murderer, or the Teachers is completely unarmed and has to just hope that her students aren't executed.  I'm not sure how this is even a matter of choice.

    How exactly is the well established concealed carry law "Difficult to enforce"?  The laws surrounding the proper concealment and carry of a firearm are not new in any way.  And what are you basing this idea of Teachers leaving their gun somewhere?  When's the last time you walked into a room of any kind and saw a gun laying somewhere and had to start yelling "Hey did anyone leave their gun in here"?  The gun doesn't come out, you don't pull it out.  When you go to the bathroom, it stays secured to your person.  It's not a baseball cap.  I'm starting to doubt that you have any practical knowledge about this at all, what-so-ever.  If you did, I don't think you'd suggest that someone who has a concealed carry permit would somehow take their gun out at school and leave it laying around somewhere.

    So to summarize my stance here, let's simplify:

    Guns were removed from School Campuses in the 90s, since then Schools have been gun-free zones and the target of mass shootings.  Sure there's other mass shooting locations but schools are unique in that they house children during the day.  So we need to address how to STOP mass shootings at schools specifically.  The answer is not to ban all guns, there's no evidence that removing guns all-together would solve the problem.  There's no precedence, no statistics, no records of banning guns being a successful deterrent to mass violence.  The answer is to stop leaving schools defenseless.  Security guards - sure, they increase school taxes for the additional salaries but it's the safety of our children.  Arming teachers, sure, they're going to get the EXACT same training that an armed security guard would receive for that level of protection.  

    Guns are a part of the U.S., they're not going away, putting more restrictions on them will not lower the amount of crimes committed with guns.  Making background checks more comprehensive will not stop a criminal from shooting up a school.  If Joe Blow decides tomorrow that he wants to shoot up the local school and goes down to the gun store to buy an AR-15 but they reject him because he has a criminal history or a mental health issue...THEN JOE JUST GOES AND GETS ONE ILLEGALLY WHICH HAPPENS TO BE ABOUT 10 TIMES CHEAPER AND EASIER THAN BUYING ONE LEGALLY!

    In the end, what's going to stop Joe is a Bullet or ten.  Who's going to shoot Joe though?  Will it be the cops who show up after 30-40 students are dead or will it be the first school staff member that sees Joe as a fatal threat to the children at that school?  I'd rather find out my Daughter's teacher shot and killed someone protecting her than find out she died along with 50 other students before cops showed up.


    Erfisflatwhiteflame
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • whiteflamewhiteflame 247 Pts
    edited February 25
    @Vaulk

    Look, I really don’t think it does us any good to constantly revisit the question of how much this is like restraining a child to prevent them from bullying someone. It’s clearly a different scenario, it’s not something I would consider to be similar to teachers bringing guns to school (mainly because bringing those guns is bringing a tool that has some variability in its usage, whereas restraint is a technique meant to subdue), and it’s not getting either of us any closer to establishing that our view on this topic is the one that should be implemented. If you want to keep going back to this, be my guest, but I think it’s tangential to the topic at hand.

    Again, the question is, should teachers be armed in the classroom? You’re arguing that they should be able to come armed if they have a concealed carry permit and the requisite training associated with it. I would like to point out that this is a shift from your last argument for two reasons. One, you never stated previously what training they would receive (yet you keep chiding me for not understanding what that training would entail). Two, you never stated that the only way that they could carry their weapons on school campuses was concealed carry, and in fact you stated that you “wouldn’t be surprised to see some open carry holsters as well.” Either they’re required to conceal the weapon or they’re not. Which is it? Are they allowed to open carry on campuses if they get one of these concealed carry permits? I guess I’m fundamentally not understanding what teachers would be required to do with their weapons in the case that they can carry guns into classrooms. I’m also unclear on what kinds of weapons they’re allowed to take, and how many they’re allowed to keep on their persons. I am assuming they’re allowed to keep them ready and loaded.

    So, let’s go back to the structure I presented in my last post, because I think the individual response system that you have going makes this pretty messy.

    You now have two central arguments: that teachers having guns on school campuses would effectively deter shooters, and that those same teachers could meaningfully respond to school shootings and ameliorate the damage.

    The first of these is an argument you’re making for the first time. You admit that deterrence won’t work for everyone, but assert that it will work for the majority of potential shooters. Two problems. First, you’re not addressing the argument I made two posts ago regarding this exact point. The vast majority of  these shooters are not captured alive. In fact, to my knowledge, he’s one of a scant few shooters who have been captured alive – the vast majority are either killed by police or commit suicide on the scene. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_(school_massacres)] Even if they aren’t expecting to die, your argument fundamentally assumes that these shooters are inherently rational, i.e. they are capable of assessing the pro’s and con’s of going onto a school campus and shooting people. I don’t think that those are the actions of a rational person who is thinking clearly about their personal wellbeing, but maybe that’s just me. So, regardless of how many teachers have guns on a given campus, there’s little reason to believe that they will prevent shooters from attacking schools in any meaningful numbers.

    But the focus of your argument is on amelioration, so let’s focus on that. This argument breaks down into two major pieces, so I’ll address each of them.

    1)      Teachers have no means to defend themselves, guns provide a means to do so

    I’ll partially concede this point. You’re right, a teacher has no equal means to defend themselves or their students in the presence of a shooter on campus. However, I would argue that, as many of these shooters come armed with multiple weapons, extra ammunition and in some cases even body armor, teachers aren’t likely to equal them in these terms. Moreover, as these shooters will always have the element of surprise, and as many of them are of an age where they look just like other students, the shooter will always have an advantage, regardless of how well teachers are packing. So we can’t feasibly put the teachers on even footing with the shooter, though I concede that we can narrow the gap between them.

    As for your argument that self-defense using a firearm saves lives, I’ll accept that it does in some instances (though I can’t seem to find where you’re deriving that number from, as it doesn’t appear to include any statistics on successful prevention of crimes by any specific means, it only details how people responded in self-protective ways to different crime types), though that’s difficult to measure. Studies across states that have more guns have actually shown a correlation to “firearm robberies, more firearm assaults and more homicide in general.”[https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html] I’m not saying that this shows that guns inherently increase the incidence of these crimes, only that it provides evidence that deterrent effect of having more guns is not so clean and clear. In fact, the idea that having more concealed carry permits and thus more guns reduces violent crimes is heavily disputed.[https://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/] It seems difficult to definitively prove that having more guns available to a given set of people is causative in preventing or ameliorating gun violence.

    2)      Effective training can be used to ensure that teachers are capable of effectively responding to mass shootings and that they are safe with their weapons

    This seems to be where the vast majority of our disagreement comes from, and in a lot of cases, you seem to be straw-manning me rather than addressing the points I’m giving you.

    You argue that soldiers and law enforcement are not regularly trained over extensive increments of time. Alright, I’ll concede that teachers can feasibly update their training without too much time investment. I’ll even concede that the 2 week intensive course of training could feasibly be given to teachers. There are, however, other concerns. Being prepared for combat, i.e. being prepared to actually take a life, is not something that can be trained into you in 2 weeks. There’s a reason that basic training is not solely that 2 week period. Moreover, as their position does not entail the usage of a firearm, they are fundamentally less prepared to wield it than a soldier or a police officer.   

    The one thing you keep overlooking, and I’m going to point to it again and again, is that teachers have a full-time job that requires their full attention, and that job is not “protect and serve.” Again, they have to draft and teach lesson plans and watch over dozens of kids. That fundamentally differentiates them from police officers and military personnel, in that their chief focus is to act as educators. I’m not saying that that makes them incapable of wielding a firearm, but that lack of focus on the firearm does fundamentally alter the way they behave with it. For all your talk about a teacher not leaving a gun behind in some random location, it actually has happened.[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-teacher-left-gun-in-bathroom-elementary-kids-found-it/] And it’s not the only time that teachers have misused guns. One professor shot himself in the foot with a concealed handgun, while an elementary school teacher shot herself in the leg.[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-state-university-teacher-accidentally-shoots-self-in-class/, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/utah-teacher-shoots-herself-the-leg-while-school] It’s not my goal in presenting these to show that teachers are more accident prone. It’s just to show that, despite relatively few schools allowing guns, there are still numerous instances where safe gun ownership has not been practiced on a school campus.

    But all of this is relatively theoretical; we’re essentially just talking about the capacity of teachers to wield a gun up to this point. So, let’s focus on how a teacher would respond to a school shooting. Note that I used the word WOULD and not the word SHOULD or COULD, as I feel that your response to my hypothetical is to present a hypothetical response that is relatively optimal. The question is not, could a teacher with a weapon feasibly respond well to a shooter. The question is, would we expect teachers after 2 weeks of training to respond effectively to a shooter and would that response have negative consequences?

    I’ll admit that your scenario is relatively optimal and likely would result in some positive outcomes, though I think it ignores the reality that a shooter could shoot in through the window if they chose to do so. That’s part of where I see this breaking down. You’re assuming several key traits of every single teacher who is armed and trained:

    1)      That no teacher will ever exit the classroom in pursuit of the shooter.

    The fundamental assumption of your scenario is that all teachers would stay put in their classrooms. Unless you assume that human behavior is entirely rational, even in the midst of a school shooting, and would not attempt to end the shooting as soon as possible, I don’t see how you can assume this.

    2)      That a teacher with a weapon will be mentally prepared to use it against the shooter, regardless of their age (as many shooters are current or recent students).

    "Anyone who hasn't received the extensive training provided to law enforcement officers will likely be mentally unprepared to take a life, especially the life of a student assailant.” [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/question-armed-teachers-stop-shootings-53265786] Some teachers might be capable of that after two weeks of training. There’s no reason to believe that it would be a substantial proportion.

    3)      That no teacher bearing a weapon will ever be confused for the assailant by other teachers or police arriving on the scene.

    If you’re in a school shooting, or arriving on the scene of a school shooting, the situation is one of instant decisions. You must discern the shooter somehow, which is already rather difficult to do when the target is a student or of a similar age. And, while a teacher might be able to determine who is and is not faculty based on their knowledge, police officers will have to function without that knowledge. That means that anyone they see is a potential shooter, but one rapid way to discern the correct target on campuses without guns is looking for the only person carrying a gun. When multiple targets are carrying a gun, how exactly are faculty or police going to be able to discern the target? Even assuming they stay hunkered down in a classroom, if a teacher with a weapon sees someone outside their window clearly wielding a weapon (someone they may not be able to discern clearly), they will never try to take them out in an effort to stop the shooting. You’re essentially making a tricky situation even more difficult by obscuring the target.

    4)      That no teacher will ever fire their weapon without absolute certainty that their target is the shooter.

    As stated by Regina G. Lawson, chief of police at Wake Forest University, “When you’re responding to a situation like that, and someone’s in plain clothes with a gun, who’s the bad guy? Who are you going to take out to save the lives of the 10,000 other students you’re trying to protect?” [http://chronicle.com/article/More-Guns-Wont-Make-Campuses/519/] ;

    5)      That no teacher will ever fire their weapon in a crowd.

    Time magazine reported in January that New York City police in gunfights hit their target 18% of the time.[http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16/your-brain-in-a-shootout-guns-fear-and-flawed-instincts/] And that’s for police officers, who are presumably better trained and certainly have more experience with a gun than the vast majority of teachers. A shooting on campus is a chaotic situation, where teachers with weapons would be moving, the target is moving and victims are often fleeing in multiple directions. The idea that this type of situation would never result in innocent deaths is absurd.


    I think the fundamental disagreement here is that each of us is defining effectiveness differently.

    From your perspective, simply having the option to defend oneself and one’s classroom against the threat of a mass shooter is sufficient reason to allow guns on campuses. Mass shooters are the fundamental problem, and anything that potentially deters or cuts short their shootings is worth doing. I'll admit, there's merit to the position you're taking. Mass shootings are a deeply disturbing problem, they can happen anywhere at any time, and schools are a particularly vulnerable place for them to occur. Ensuring that schools are better protected is a laudable goal, and while I disagree with the method you're proposing, I do believe it has to happen in some form (though admittedly, I'm not quite sure what form it should take).

    From my perspective, the issue is one of general safety on campuses. Mass shootings, despite becoming more common in recent years, are still rather unlikely to happen at any given school. As such, while I’m concerned about them and wish to ensure the best possible response to them, my chief concern is the status of schools beyond those punctuated instances of violence. We can’t control how many teachers will carry guns or how well their training will stick with them, so there’s a persistent risk associated with their carrying those weapons. That risk exists every time they step onto a school campus, and persists for as long as they are on that campus. It exists for every teacher, though more so for those that are often distracted by other tasks, which I would say is likely quite a few of them.

    And that assumes that every teacher is going to use their weapons solely for the protection of their students and that the only thing we have to worry about is accidents. You’re not a fan of my vague allusion to disquieting stories? Fine, I’ll get specific. 

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5089631/Teacher-forced-students-SEX-grades-Colombia.html

    http://kdvr.com/2018/02/02/investigation-launched-after-teacher-allegedly-forced-student-to-stand-for-pledge/

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/11/21/teacher-charges-student-pool/19332749/

    http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20170704/teacher-forces-pre-k-student-to-clean-up-urine

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4353170/Abducted-student-15-forced-hide-teacher.html

    So, given all this, would you still say this is an issue of hearsay? Students forced to do things against their will or stalking their students certainly seems like a reality, and though it is likely a very small minority of teachers that engage in these kinds of behaviors, it seems to me that there are many instances (plenty of which probably aren’t reported) of teachers using their authority to pressure their students in ways that go beyond basic academics. Do you think that power dynamic wouldn’t be altered in the slightest by the presence of a gun? Moreover, I feel like your response to the issue of psychological harm is incredibly dismissive. I never blamed the inanimate object. I blamed the situation itself: a loaded gun held by an authority figure in a small space. The literature is very clear that kids who witness violent crimes show symptoms of PTSD.[https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2014/03/24/effects-of-school-shootings/] The idea that we shouldn’t be concerned with triggering that PTSD in students sounds absurd to me. If you want to dismiss this as blaming the weapon, be my guest, but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that students can and will feel more fear for their safety in such an environment.

    At best, all your benefits only take effect in an instance where there is a school shooting and a teacher responds correctly to it. The focus of my argument has been that a) you can’t guarantee an effective response, b) that school shootings aren’t going to decrease as a result of having more guns on school campuses, and c) that teachers with loaded guns on school campuses cause persistent problems that would otherwise be absent on these campuses. In fact, the only argument you’ve made about why my points would cause broader problems are that my points could apply to broader gun control efforts. I’ve already responded to that, but I’ll address it in more detail.

    First off, I’m not using this space to support any further gun controls. It is not a part of my argument. What you’re doing is essentially stating that justifications in one place can be levied in another place, which I would argue is fallacious (as are most slippery slopes). We can treat a school as a place that should not have guns while allowing guns in other settings. Second, even if my arguments do apply to guns within the home, these same arguments have been the basis for gun bans on schools since the 90’s, and gun controls have remained minor in households. Clearly, even if it’s somehow hypocritical, state governments have managed to keep gun controls compartmentalized, so this idea that accepting my view as logical somehow threatens gun rights in general just doesn’t jive with reality. Third, I would argue that a school is quite different from a home. I think teachers have a special obligation not to endanger their students. It’s an obligation they take on the moment they choose to become teachers, one that they have as educators and employees of the state. We can reasonably impose restrictions on them within those roles and within that setting without telling them that they cannot own a gun.

    So, I guess I'll finish with a response to your scenario. Joe sounds like a terrifying guy, and he's probably going to get a gun, regardless of what gun controls are in place. Who's going to shoot him? I would hope that the person who's going to shoot Joe is level-headed enough to pick Joe out of a crowd. In a school with many adults wielding weapons and people running to put as much distance between themselves and him, I'd also be concerned about who else is shot by someone trying to end the massacre. I'd be concerned about what happens in the weeks, months and years before Joe arrives at that school. What changes could we expect to see on a school campus where every teacher could be theoretically holding a concealed weapon as they go about their normal day? I think your false dichotomy (finding out your daughter's teacher ends the slaughter or is dead in it) oversimplifies a situation that is inherently complex. Adding weapons to school campuses could well lead to accidental deaths and more chaos on school campuses, both outside of and during shootings. Recognizing the effect of those guns being present is not dismissive of the dangers of school shootings. If we choose to allow teachers to wield guns on school campuses, then we must accept the inherent risks those weapons present.

    PogueCYDdharta
  • I say no banning of firearms. The first reason of course, is the second amendment. No matter what, it is in fact law unless it is changed so therefore, we can not ban them. However, I don't see why there is so much a problem with regulating them. Instead of the pro gun community coming up with ways to regulate, they are fearful of their guns being taken away, which, with the 2nd amendment, CAN NOT HAPPEN. This behavior only makes people more ready to actually edit the second amendment and FOR REAL take away guns if a negotiation on regulation can't be made. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 516 Pts
    edited March 23
    I say no banning of firearms. The first reason of course, is the second amendment. No matter what, it is in fact law unless it is changed so therefore, we can not ban them. However, I don't see why there is so much a problem with regulating them. Instead of the pro gun community coming up with ways to regulate, they are fearful of their guns being taken away, which, with the 2nd amendment, CAN NOT HAPPEN. This behavior only makes people more ready to actually edit the second amendment and FOR REAL take away guns if a negotiation on regulation can't be made. 
    What sorts of negotiations do you suggest?
  • No. #2A
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch