Accountable wrote: wrong
Well, I guess it depends on what you want the children to learn, but one would hope that the sort of person who goes into the demanding and unrewarding profession of teaching has in them a certain deep seated respect for human intellectual development, and so by inference human intellect and human life.
Bill Sikes wrote: Do you feel yet that you can explain why all teachers and pupils should not be
issued guns?
This notion is just simply preposterous...
I'm sorry but arming teachers has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard in regards to a solution to school shootings. Surely you guys are joking.
First off, the presence of firearms heightens the susceptibility of being harmed by those firearms. Second, we are having enough trouble as it is funding our local schools, let alone funding a program aimed to train teachers what to do in such an event(Compared to the amount of schools in America, school shootings are extremely rare = media which helps to fuel provocation through popularity to an extent in my opinion). I live in one of the worst cities in America for percentage of students graduating, which I know plays a major role in the amount of drug use and murders we have here constantly. I fear stupidity more than I fear evil men.
Bored_Wombat wrote: And anyone who is not sickened by being trained in how to shoot people should not be teaching children.Accountable wrote: wrong Bored_Wombat wrote: Well, I guess it depends on what you want the children to learn, but one would hope that the sort of person who goes into the demanding and unrewarding profession of teaching has in them a certain deep seated respect for human intellectual development, and so by inference human intellect and human life.I was trained in how to shoot people. Made it all the way through without puking once. The training was completely unrelated to my respect for human development or intellect, though we were taught to respect the life of the enemy by killing quickly rather than maiming and causing suffering.
Are you implying that police or military service disqualifies a person from teaching?
Accountable wrote: I was trained in how to shoot people...we were taught to respect the life of the enemy by killing quickly rather than maiming and causing suffering.
Right, so you were pointing a gun at a man shaped target, and were told, these are the parts of the anatomy that you want to put a hole through if this were a gentleman because the objective is to leave him dead quickly ... and it never occurred to you: "I wonder how psychopathic this is?"
I'm guessing you've never thought "I want to take children, and feed their minds and personalities so that they can be the best that they can be."
Accountable wrote: Are you implying that police or military service disqualifies a person from teaching?
I'm implying that someone who does both is in teaching for the wrong reasons, and should leave the profession for the good of the children.
Bored_Wombat wrote: Right, so you were pointing a gun at a man shaped target, and were told, these are the parts of the anatomy that you want to put a hole through if this were a gentleman because the objective is to leave him dead quickly ... and it never occurred to you: "I wonder how psychopathic this is?"
I'm guessing you've never thought "I want to take children, and feed their minds and personalities so that they can be the best that they can be."
I'm implying that someone who does both is in teaching for the wrong reasons, and should leave the profession for the good of the children.:yh_rotfl
Somebody get some oil. This guy's mind is rusted shut.
Pinky wrote: when I visited Detroit, someone asked me 'So, have you bought a gun yet?'
That was me in my medicated stupor, wasn't it? :yh_blush
Actually, (and those of you who know me will be shocked by my opinion), I do NOT think arming teachers is a good idea at all. It's a lousy idea, because no matter how much training you give a person in handling and firing a weapon, the one thing you can NEVER train is the ABILITY TO TAKE A LIFE should that become needed.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price. ~Darrel Worley~ [/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
Acc...We all know that you have shown empathy for teachers that have been put in situations where children have the intent to use a firearm, and we all know your opinion is based on your confidence in your ability to use a firearm as a result to neutralize such a circumstance, but the fact of the matter is, arming every school teacher in the country is completely out of the question. Even you would have to agree. If every teacher in the country could show as much potential regarding the use of a weapon as you emphasize on having yourself, then sure it wouldn't be an unreasonable proposal, but that i'm afraid will not be the case. My fifth grade teacher picked his nose blatantly in class all the time. That's not the kind of person I would want dictating the outcome of a lunatic kid.
K.Snyder wrote: Acc...We all know that you have shown empathy for teachers that have been put in situations where children have the intent to use a firearm, and we all know your opinion is based on your confidence in your ability to use a firearm as a result to neutralize such a circumstance, but the fact of the matter is, arming every school teacher in the country is completely out of the question. Even you would have to agree. If every teacher in the country could show as much potential regarding the use of a weapon as you emphasize on having yourself, then sure it wouldn't be an unreasonable proposal, but that i'm afraid will not be the case. My fifth grade teacher picked his nose blatantly in class all the time. That's not the kind of person I would want dictating the outcome of a lunatic kid.That wasn't me, I tell ya! Recommending the guns, not picking the nose ... not that I pick my nose, either. :-3 I recommend neither, okay? I'm the one that recommended teaching the kids self defense, remember?
Accountable wrote: That wasn't me, I tell ya! Recommending the guns, not picking the nose ... not that I pick my nose, either. :-3 I recommend neither, okay? I'm the one that recommended teaching the kids self defense, remember?
K.Snyder wrote: Oh ok....sorry.....The other person made it seem like thats what you were proposing....Yeh, Bill's getting tangled in his own disengenuousness ..... disengenuity? :-2
He said:
Bill Sikes wrote: Do you feel yet that you can explain why all teachers and pupils should not be
issued guns?
And shortly after ...
Bill Sikes wrote: Sikes: Arming teachers and children against attack? Explain why not?
I'm not trying to "bait" you, just asking - to see where the reply would take
this, of course. Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person - anyone who recommends equipping teachers in schools with guns against attack should be able to reply!So, anyone who recommends equipping teachers with guns should be able to explain why they should not be issued guns.
Bill Sikes wrote: You'll have to explain that, you are certainly getting lost in your own thought processes.I'm just confused whether you support or oppose arming teachers. I assume you're against it and have been sarcastic here, but I'm not sure. Which is it?
Here is an article I found (I also heard this here on our local news yesterday) about a school district in Texas that is training students and teachers to fight back in situations involving intruders:
Burleson schools teaching students to fight back
The Associated Press
BURLESON, Texas - Hoping to stiffen its defense against nefarious intruders, the Burleson school district is training students and teachers to fight back with everything from books to scissors.
The "critical incident response" training for teachers and students instructs them to disrupt attackers by barraging them with classrooms supplies, officials said.
"Crawling under a table and hoping and waiting for rescue is not a recipe for survival," Greg Crane, an incident response trainer, said in a report by Dallas-Fort Worth television station KTVT.
About 600 teachers in the Burleson Independent School District have been trained in response tactics. The district recently received a $95,000 federal grant to continue the training, the station reported.
Lisa Crane, the principal of Norwood elementary and wife of Greg Crane, said she was stumped when her husband, a former police officer, first asked her what she would do if a gunman intruded her school.
It led Greg Crane to work with fellow police officers and military friends to develop the training.
"Just because the gun goes off does not mean you can't still fight," Lisa Crane said. "You can still try to gain control of the situation where you can get the children out."
I'm not agreeable with all teachers being armed, but I think that something like this course (or something similar to the courses/programs Accountable mentioned in previous posts) would be beneficial.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
I'd rather have thirty minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special.
I can only imagine the effect this has had on all of the school counselors across the country. Something tells me that the principals, teachers and school counselors have discussed heightened awareness of kids who in their eyes have the potential to mass murder. As if school wasn't strict enough, recent events will set the standard for school leniency in my opinion.
K.Snyder wrote: If every teacher in the country could show as much po$tential regarding the use of a weapon as you emphasize on having yourself,
I couldn't care less if they can all shoot nickels out of the sky at 100 paces!! That does NOT mean, EVER, that a single one of them has it in them to shoot a human being if they had to! Most people don't!!! :-5
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price. ~Darrel Worley~ [/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
Diuretic wrote: An important point. I don't know if arming teachers/students is the solution, I would have thought target-hardening would be a reasonable response though.
Can we send all our convicts to Austraila?? er ah, wait a minute I think somone tried that already:wah:
The above was strictly a lame attempt at humor
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Bored_Wombat wrote: If you want to be a teacher good luck to you.Do you have any idea how many teachers have prior military service? There is no relationship at all to their small arms training and their desire to teach. Go ask around at your nearest school.
Lulu2 wrote: Just having fun, ACC....and imagining my old algebra teacher, Mr. Cooper, STRAFING THE RANKS WITH AN UZI!:wah:I had some teachers that had the same fantasy, I'm sure.
Accountable wrote: Do you have any idea how many teachers have prior military service? There is no relationship at all to their small arms training and their desire to teach. Go ask around at your nearest school.
To shoot people efficiently requires a repetitious training of shooting photo realistic targets in order to break down the fundamental idea of the target as a human.
It is a very good skill for a teacher not to have.
The ability to instantly intellectually dehumanise a child or the children in a moment of stress or conflict will create situations where the personal and intellectual development of the child is damaged.
But furthermore, the training is essentially the creation of a psychopath. The ability to shoot people is not a valuable skill outside the military, and even then the consequent behaviour of troops who can dehumanise the enemy has in recent conflict caused as more damage to the cause than being slower to shoot could ever have done. Although much of that is an artefact of the field of conflict being in amongst a civilian population.
I would not send my children to a teacher who had been taught to shoot people. I would strongly object to their teacher being subjected to such training.
I don't expect you to agree with this. You've done your training and obviously see it as an ability, not a disability. I strongly feel that you're mistaken in terms of the educational profession.
Bored_Wombat wrote: To shoot people efficiently requires a repetitious training of shooting photo realistic targets in order to break down the fundamental idea of the target as a human.That is a training technique, but not the training technique and not necessarily required. The military way I was taught was to shoot at generally human-shaped silhouettes. I guess they figured that if there was a group of us being shot at, we'd likely shoot back.
Bored_Wombat wrote: It is a very good skill for a teacher not to have.It's a very good skill not to use. It's irrellevant whether the teacher has the skill or not.
Bored_Wombat wrote: The ability to instantly intellectually dehumanise a child or the children in a moment of stress or conflict will create situations where the personal and intellectual development of the child is damaged.What the hell kind of propaganda have you been reading?? :wah:
Bored_Wombat wrote: [...]
I would not send my children to a teacher who had been taught to shoot people. I would strongly object to their teacher being subjected to such training.Assuming you do have children, they likely have at least a teacher or two with military or police training (the kind I described, not your hollywood version). But don't panic; I'm relatively sure they know your kids are human. (Cleanup in aisle 3! Somebody's dripped sarcasm all over the place.)
Bored_Wombat wrote: I don't expect you to agree with this. You've done your training and obviously see it as an ability, not a disability. I strongly feel that you're mistaken in terms of the educational profession.I'm sure you won't check, preferring rather to stay cloaked in your ignorance and prejudice. Ain't it wonderful to live in a society where you're safe enough to go through life with no fricking clue? I wonder how such a society is possible. :yh_think
Diuretic wrote: Accountable wrote: "I'm sure you won't check, preferring rather to stay cloaked in your ignorance and prejudice. Ain't it wonderful to live in a society where you're safe enough to go through life with no fricking clue? I wonder how such a society is possible"
Here it is Really, it is. Because firearms aren't a big issue in our society in terms of everyday crime we don't feel the need for the average person to know how to use one or to have legislation allow ccw of firearms. But I can see I'm in danger of hijacking the thread again, it isn't about gun control in various societies I know.I'm afraid you may have missed the context, Di. Wombat was deriding those with military training as to dangerous and psychopathic to be allowed near children (I guess priests are preferable). I was pointing out that it is the trained military that allows him the freedom to voice such inane claptrap.
Accountable wrote: I'm afraid you may have missed the context, Di. Wombat was deriding those with military training as to dangerous and psychopathic to be allowed near children (I guess priests are preferable). I was pointing out that it is the trained military that allows him the freedom to voice such inane claptrap.
I think that referring back to the initial question it was about whether all teachers should be armed?, that then led to should they be trained to use firearms so that they sould use such weapons effectively?. The pertinent point is should classrooms be treated as though they are zones of armed conflict, or is that a desirable outcome to achieve either through a breakdown in law and order or a cultural perspective on personal firearms, I would think that the answer would be no in either case, would it not?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
Galbally wrote: I think that referring back to the initial question it was about whether all teachers should be armed?, that then led to should they be trained to use firearms so that they sould use such weapons effectively?. The pertinent point is should classrooms be treated as though they are zones of armed conflict, or is that a desirable outcome to achieve either through a breakdown in law and order or a cultural perspective on personal firearms, I would think that the answer would be no in either case, would it not?Correct. That's what everyone has said in this thread. Not one person has seriously posted otherwise, unless I'm mistaken.
Accountable wrote: I was pointing out that it is the trained military that allows him the freedom to voice such inane claptrap.
One of the consequences of the training is the belief that it is normal and essential. It's neither.
About 1 person in 50, however, will cheerfully shoot to kill without the training, and these are the ones who would not be sickened by it that I claim shouldn't be teachers.
Bored_Wombat wrote: One of the consequences of the training is the belief that it is normal and essential. It's neither.
About 1 person in 50, however, will cheerfully shoot to kill without the training, and these are the ones who would not be sickened by it that I claim shouldn't be teachers.This is not even close to the broad brush you were painting with earlier.
Accountable wrote: That is a training technique, but not the training technique and not necessarily required. The military way I was taught was to shoot at generally human-shaped silhouettes. I guess they figured that if there was a group of us being shot at, we'd likely shoot back.
It's a very good skill not to use. It's irrellevant whether the teacher has the skill or not.
What the hell kind of propaganda have you been reading?? :wah:
Assuming you do have children, they likely have at least a teacher or two with military or police training (the kind I described, not your hollywood version). But don't panic; I'm relatively sure they know your kids are human. (Cleanup in aisle 3! Somebody's dripped sarcasm all over the place.)
I'm sure you won't check, preferring rather to stay cloaked in your ignorance and prejudice. Ain't it wonderful to live in a society where you're safe enough to go through life with no fricking clue? I wonder how such a society is possible. :yh_think
Acc,
If you start emphasising weapons training to teachers then you are instantly detracting from their primary function and definitely changing the way that they think about their function. Bad move.
If you start emphasising weapons training to teachers then you are instantly detracting from their primary function and definitely changing the way that they think about their function. Bad move.Please, please, please quote my post where I emphasised, recommended, supported or advocated weapons training for teachers.
I'm certain someone advocated arming all teachers and I thought it was you.
Someone also advocated training all pupils to scrag any attackers on sight.
Both are wrong and I object. If it was not you then I appologise.'s'alright. We can agree on the first and disagree on the second. :-6 The way you state the second is not exactly what I advocated. The first action is to flee, not sit quietly and not hide - run for the hills. However, if the assailant blocks and exit, the best alternative is to fight, not simply wait for execution.
Accountable wrote: 's'alright. We can agree on the first and disagree on the second. :-6 The way you state the second is not exactly what I advocated. The first action is to flee, not sit quietly and not hide - run for the hills. However, if the assailant blocks and exit, the best alternative is to fight, not simply wait for execution.
I think that you have a problem with even this.
Kids are kids - if you give them training then they are going to think that they have a realistic chance and they will take the wrong decision.
Yes, faced with inevitable fight or be executed then there is only one option but to escalate an otherwise stable positon at the wrong time could be disasterous.
We have had several seige situations in this country that have been resolved without loss of life to the hosteges. I'm just not convinces that making young children think that they can take on armed adults is the percentage play.
Even the training of children is far from probable in my opinion, but for the sake of this hypothetical scenario I'll say this.
I don't feel necessarily training the children to fend off a gunman would heighten their preference to do so at all. If anything, I feel it would help them to react more decisively without hesitation. When your trained to do something, you tend to take action in a real situation without even thinking about it, as opposed to staring blankly in shock if you weren't. But all in all, training children is as about unrealistic as arming the teachers in my opinion.....unless of course each school district set its own agenda pertaining to the matter, which I don't see happening considering that no one has a clue when and where the next incident may occur...with the exception of schools that see this type of thing on a regular bases from local gang wars.
Really, it is. Because firearms aren't a big issue in our society in terms of everyday crime we don't feel the need for the average person to know how to use one or to have legislation allow ccw of firearms. But I can see I'm in danger of hijacking the thread again, it isn't about gun control in various societies I know.I'm afraid you may have missed the context, Di. Wombat was deriding those with military training as to dangerous and psychopathic to be allowed near children (I guess priests are preferable). I was pointing out that it is the trained military that allows him the freedom to voice such inane claptrap.
