MossRoad said:
It is my opinion that whether everyone is armed or not will not prevent these things from happening. It may lessen the loss of life, though. Let's hope so.
I am just catching up on this thread after posting to Bob's original question.
I may not have stated it clearly in my first post but MossRoads final comment brought back what my real concern is.
To clarify a couple of things. First, I did not consult any Brady files or whatever Bob thought I was quoting when I posted indicating my concerns about allowing teachers to carry weapons in schools. I am indeed anti hand gun but not anti sporting gun. My first concern with this "packing teachers" discussion is that there is a rush to institute a "solution" that may well end up causing more deaths not less. Not many of the posts have talked about the potential harm that could be done by bringing weapons into schools. I tried to point out that with millions of children and tens of thousands of teachers there would certainly be situations, difficult to prevent, where kids got a hold of the teachers weapon. Not good. Where do teachers keep their guns? In their purse? In the drawer? Where does the coach put his gun when he is in the shower? If they are to respond immediately to an invasion presumably the guns need to be loaded and pretty easily accessible. When the teacher is in the back of the class what prevents the class clown or bully or mentally unstable kid from running up to the desk and taking the gun? What happens then? Does the teacher next door come to the rescue and have a shoot out with the kid? That incident WILL occur if guns are in schools, it is just a matter of time.
Here is another example of what could (will) easily go wrong. A distraught father/mother involved in a custody battle barges into the classroom to get their own child. Maybe the teacher doesn't recognize them. Maybe the news the night before included a reminder about Columbine or VTech, maybe the teacher is just frightened...maybe the teacher pulls the gun and shoots. Arm enough teachers and it will happen. Just wait.
My point is simply that even very very low frequency events, things that you can barely imagine, will in fact happen if there are sufficient opportunities. Putting thousands of guns into schools will provide those opportunities. Think statistically not emotionally.
So, to summarize my own first response to this idea of arming teachers, I think it is emotional, not data driven, not well thought out and without much if any consideration of potential harm that could follow. In my field we try to do good but we alway worry about doing harm in the process. Not many of you are seriously addressing that potential harm issue. Certainly filling out some forms and getting half baked training classes will not do it. As I mentioned in my first post, I don't care if you want a gun in your home if you don't think the police are helpful or you live in a rural area but I don't want guns carried by private citizens in areas where my family is likely to be.
Since reading the rest of the thread, I do have a couple of other thoughts. I think those of you arguing for 2nd amendment rights have been listening to the NRA too long and not studying history. The 2nd amendment reads "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." While the NRA emphasizes only the last 14 words, the U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on "well-regulated militia" and "security of a free State" to rule that Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias – e.g. the National Guards. All federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals. The NRA view, opposed even by such right-wing judges as Robert Bork, has been consistently rejected. Chief Justice Warren Burger, himself a NRA member, stated: "Nothing outrages me more, than the conduct of the National Rifle Association. The fact is they have trained themselves and their people to lie about this problem [of guns], and I can't use any word less than lie." and "The pernicious--I can't think of a stronger word--influence of the NRA is something that outrages me as an American citizen."
I live within walking distance of the town green where the first shots of the American revolution were fired by minutemen who were indeed "a militia". Those men were required by community consent to carry weapons for the defense of the community in an era where there was no other organized means to protect the community. We now have police and national guard who fulfill that role far more effectively. I don't have bad dreams about black helicopters and personally believe that anyone who does needs medication. Yes, we must be vigilant in defense of our freedoms but frankly a few hand guns is not going to make much of a difference if some organized force tries to take those rights away. Better protect your freedom by voting (something only about 30% of eligible voters do
) than to huff and puff about how you are going to protect your rights with a gun. When the Bill of Rights was written, a farmer and a British soldier were fairly evenly matched with the weapons of the day. Any government controlled military force intent on depriving you of your rights today would blow you away from the sky or via howitzer long before your pathetic hand gun could make you a martyr. Vote, don't dream of being a hero, if you really want to protect your (our) constitutional rights.
I'm sure I stand in the minority amongst TBN members on this issue. That's fine as I don't really care to discuss guns with you guys anyway but I sure love talking tractors with ya.
