Why Is Arming Teachers A Bad Idea?
Comments
-
@GaoLu said:
We home-schooled, which probably helped.You're a very wise and loving father. However, for those who don't have the time, skills or means; use your influence to make it safe for the children of parents who have to send their little ones to public schools. No guns in the classroom!
Teachers are called, trained and paid to teach, not to fight in a war, every day. All those who have to go to war do so without their children. Tell Trump it's a bad idea. Teachers with guns shouldn't see the light of day. All students should experience sun, play, learning, sharing, and fun, without the presence of guns. CM
-
We had guns in our classroom alright! Several. A But not for protection from bad people.
At the youngest age possible we taught our kids to use them. And they carried them. The really little ones carried pepper spray. I think you make much ado about nothing. Guns are not bad things. They can be dangerous. So can a knife or a cliff or a swift river. Treat them accordingly.
I am not making light of what you say by using an Alaskan cabin schoolhouse as an example, but there is a principle there. If you have never been around guns, I understand that you might feel that way. If you spent your life around them, it's not really an issue.
Bad people will do bad things no matter what tool they have to do it. People having guns is almost certainly a deterrent to bad people, not an encouragement to harm. I recognize that a gun can do a lot of damage in a hurry. We take that into consideration as well. So can airplanes or cars. We don't let kids drive them. Or people with bad eyesight or other impairments including good thinking impairments.
-
@C_M_ said:
David,
If you want to endorse and embrace President Trump's silly and reckless idea to become a reality; change the rules, hire only ex-military combat soldiers to be teachers. If they died, it would be in the line of duty. At best, the children will be pawns in the midst of a battle when a situation occurs.David do you really want your child in a classroom with a "gun-toting" teacher? Do you?
On second thought, what do they do in Israeli schools? If Mr. Trump reads my post, this is the next thing he's going to suggest; send the American children to Israel.CM
Please explain what you believe the President's position to be and why it is reckless. I would not mind my child's teacher having a gun any more than a security guard having a gun. I don't fear guns.
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Students can't own weapons Dave. They aren't old enough.
STOP! Check yourself. The recent mass shooter owned a gun and did so legally-- No background check, no nationwide database. Shame on the NRA!
First of all let's not spread lies. There are several things wrong with the above statement.
- Cruz was over 18.
- Cruz did pass a background check. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-guns-20180215-story.html
- There is a nationwide database but the data isn't always reliable as we saw in Texas.
- The NRA has nothing to do with this. To keep blaming the NRA is insanity.
A Fact to consider: The 2nd Amendment rights don't cover Assault Rifles, point! They can be banned today and forever. It will NOT violate the second amendment. You know it and any leveled head reader and rational thinker do too. CM
David, you said, "Students can't own weapons Dave. They aren't old enough." Is this a lie, too?
You also said, "The kids do not have the maturity, and in many cases, the coordination, to handle a firearm, especially in a high-pressure situation." Mr. Cruz, an adult or a "kid"? Did he exercise sound judgment or was he a child out of control? Why was an adult enrolled in a day High School with "kids"? Cruz was a student-- You can't change the facts. CMCruz is legally an adult, but obviously had mental issues.
Actually, I would beg to differ. The 2nd Amendment most definitely covers semi-automatic rifles. (There is no such as an assault rifle as that is an arbitrary term used by the anti-gun lobby to label certain weapons). The 2nd Amendment was about having a militia, in other words, military, of citizens. Therefore, weapons of war for the infantry soldier are most definitely protected by the Constitution for the use of private citizens.
This is the greatest nonsense I have ever heard! It's a smoke screen. CM
You don't know history then.
-
Another reason why arming teachers is a bad idea is that it escalates the problem of school violence.
God’s design for society is in arming the civil magistrate, not the people. And whenever people assumed roles beyond God’s appointment in the OT, nothing good came from it. In fact it always brought his wrath.
As Christians, we should move people towards the Sermon on the Mount, not away from it. But many point their listeners away from Christ towards violence, while honoring him from the other side of their mouths.
If the Sermon defines Christian ethics, there are few things more unchristian than clubs and organizations who prepare to use violence against violence. And now, to drag it into the schools.
In Jesus’ day the Zealots were similar to our “patriots” who stockpile weapons designed for mass casualties. And they suffered strong rebuke from James for trusting in the arm of the flesh and not in God.
John told us not to have anything to do with those not having the doctrine of Christ (the Sermon on the Mount). In fact, not even to wish them a good day or allow them into our house.
-
@Dave_L said:
Another reason why arming teachers is a bad idea is that it escalates the problem of school violence.God’s design for society is in arming the civil magistrate, not the people. And whenever people assumed roles beyond God’s appointment in the OT, nothing good came from it. In fact it always brought his wrath.
I'd love to see some support for this idea, where doe this come from? How does this relate to the proposed changes?
As Christians, we should move people towards the Sermon on the Mount, not away from it. But many point their listeners away from Christ towards violence, while honoring him from the other side of their mouths.
I think defending the innocent is well within the bounds of the Sermon on the Mount.
If the Sermon defines Christian ethics, there are few things more unchristian than clubs and organizations who prepare to use violence against violence. And now, to drag it into the schools.
I don't think you can back that up with Scripture.
In Jesus’ day the Zealots were similar to our “patriots” who stockpile weapons designed for mass casualties. And they suffered strong rebuke from James for trusting in the arm of the flesh and not in God.
??
John told us not to have anything to do with those not having the doctrine of Christ (the Sermon on the Mount). In fact, not even to wish them a good day or allow them into our house.
??
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Another reason why arming teachers is a bad idea is that it escalates the problem of school violence.God’s design for society is in arming the civil magistrate, not the people. And whenever people assumed roles beyond God’s appointment in the OT, nothing good came from it. In fact it always brought his wrath.
I'd love to see some support for this idea, where doe this come from? How does this relate to the proposed changes?
As Christians, we should move people towards the Sermon on the Mount, not away from it. But many point their listeners away from Christ towards violence, while honoring him from the other side of their mouths.
I think defending the innocent is well within the bounds of the Sermon on the Mount.
If the Sermon defines Christian ethics, there are few things more unchristian than clubs and organizations who prepare to use violence against violence. And now, to drag it into the schools.
I don't think you can back that up with Scripture.
In Jesus’ day the Zealots were similar to our “patriots” who stockpile weapons designed for mass casualties. And they suffered strong rebuke from James for trusting in the arm of the flesh and not in God.
??
John told us not to have anything to do with those not having the doctrine of Christ (the Sermon on the Mount). In fact, not even to wish them a good day or allow them into our house.
??
You cannot follow the Sermon on the Mount and preach violence.
-
@Dave_L said:
You cannot follow the Sermon on the Mount and preach violence.
Dave,
Too many spiritual leaders don't care or unwilling to embrace its reality. It appears that they replaced God with guns. They are more inline and intuned with their political Party and their Big brother protector, of the Constitution, the NRA. Later. CM -
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
You cannot follow the Sermon on the Mount and preach violence.
Dave,
Too many spiritual leaders don't care or unwilling to embrace its reality. It appears that they replaced God with guns. They are more inline and intuned with their political Party and their Big brother protector, of the Constitution, the NRA. Later. CMOh brother. More inline with their political party and their big brother protector the NRA? Give me a break. You are mixing two things that don't even go together. The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
Post edited by dct112685 on -
@davidtaylorjr said: The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
Then, prove it, David. Whatever the proof, it's not an AR-15. I know there were none in Jesus' day. What was it, a sling or a stainless steel sword?
CM -
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said: The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
Then, prove it, David. Whatever the proof, it's not an AR-15. I know there were none in Jesus' day. What was it, a sling or a stainless steel sword?
CMNow you are just being dumb.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said: The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
Then, prove it, David. Whatever the proof, it's not an AR-15. I know there were none in Jesus' day. What was it, a sling or a stainless steel sword?
CMNow you are just being dumb.
As you use the terms, David, is "being dumb" better, worse, or about as bad as being an "idiot"? In recent posts, you've used both terms to describe people, so it would help me to know where they stand in comparison to each other on your ladder of lowliness.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said: The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
Then, prove it, David. Whatever the proof, it's not an AR-15. I know there were none in Jesus' day. What was it, a sling or a stainless steel sword?
CMNow you are just being dumb.
David, you seem to be influenced, more and more, by your President with the name calling. Lighten-up!
Oh, where is the proof? Just a request, not a demand--peace! CM
The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said: The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
Then, prove it, David. Whatever the proof, it's not an AR-15. I know there were none in Jesus' day. What was it, a sling or a stainless steel sword?
CMNow you are just being dumb.
David, you seem to be influenced, more and more, by your President with the name calling. Lighten-up!
Oh, where is the proof? Just a request, not a demand--peace! CM
The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
I've already posted it several times in these forums.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
Then, prove it, David. Whatever the proof, it's not an AR-15. I know there were none in Jesus' day. What was it, a sling or a stainless steel sword?
CMNow you are just being dumb.
David, you seem to be influenced, more and more, by your President with the name calling. Lighten-up!
Oh, where is the proof? Just a request, not a demand--peace! CM
The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
I've already posted it several times in these forums.
Truth is always worth repeating. "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:2). CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
Then, prove it, David. Whatever the proof, it's not an AR-15. I know there were none in Jesus' day. What was it, a sling or a stainless steel sword?
CMNow you are just being dumb.
David, you seem to be influenced, more and more, by your President with the name calling. Lighten-up!
Oh, where is the proof? Just a request, not a demand--peace! CM
The Sermon on the Mount does not prohibit self-defense and there are verses to prove that.
I've already posted it several times in these forums.
Truth is always worth repeating. "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:2). CM
"Cast not pearls before swine"
-
Wow, "a text without a context is a pretext."
A jolly new day to you, David. Wherever you are. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Wow, "a text without a context is a pretext."A jolly new day to you, David. Wherever you are. CM
I was using it as an expression, not the actual Scripture... I've stated the truth repeatedly but you have shown no genuine interest in listening. You only want to scream gun control because it is the mantra of the day.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
Wow, "a text without a context is a pretext."A jolly new day to you, David. Wherever you are. CM
I was using it as an expression, not the actual Scripture...
Interesting.
I've stated the truth repeatedly but you have shown no genuine interest in listening. You only want to scream gun control because it is the mantra of the day.
Have you addressed this to me directly and concisely? No. If you have "stated the truth repeatedly", please direct me to the thread and post. Thanks.
David, if it's all possible, could you please help me to appreciate your posts by avoiding projecting conclusion upon me (e.g. "you have shown no genuine interest in listening. You only want to scream gun control because it is the mantra of the day"). I am here because I am interested. If you would avoid, what some perceived as "shame and blame" remarks, greater good can come from our exchanges. Thanks, again. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
Wow, "a text without a context is a pretext."A jolly new day to you, David. Wherever you are. CM
I was using it as an expression, not the actual Scripture...
Interesting.
I've stated the truth repeatedly but you have shown no genuine interest in listening. You only want to scream gun control because it is the mantra of the day.
Have you addressed this to me directly and concisely? No. If you have "stated the truth repeatedly", please direct me to the thread and post. Thanks.
David, if it's all possible, could you please help me to appreciate your posts by avoiding projecting conclusion upon me (e.g. "you have shown no genuine interest in listening. You only want to scream gun control because it is the mantra of the day"). I am here because I am interested. If you would avoid, what some perceived as "shame and blame" remarks, greater good can come from our exchanges. Thanks, again. CM
You have lost that privilege. My posts don't revolve around you and I don't have time to waste retyping things already said just because you demand to be addressed directly on the subject. How arrogant is that?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I've stated the truth repeatedly but you have shown no genuine interest in listening. You only want to scream gun control because it is the mantra of the day.
Have you addressed this to me directly and concisely? No. If you have "stated the truth repeatedly", please direct me to the thread and post. Thanks.
David, if it's all possible, could you please help me to appreciate your posts by avoiding projecting conclusion upon me (e.g. "you have shown no genuine interest in listening. You only want to scream gun control because it is the mantra of the day"). I am here because I am interested. If you would avoid, what some perceived as "shame and blame" remarks, greater good can come from our exchanges. Thanks, again. CM
You have lost that privilege.
I don't know what you mean here.
My posts don't revolve around you and I don't have time to waste retyping things already said just because you demand to be addressed directly on the subject. How arrogant is that?
Dear, Dear David,
This is not my desire or intent. You're free to share (or not) as I am. No pressure, brother.You don't believe your own post "revolve around" me. This is an inaccurate impression of my intent. It's not necessary.
As for your I:
don't have time to waste retyping things already
I never asked or it is required. You see, David, if you are willing to share, all you had to do, is cut and paste; Better ye, direct me to the thread name and your post. Simple-easy. All this is providing you have the skill and knowledge to do this. Where there is will, there is a way."
So, once again, no. It's not what you have perceived and projected on me (e.g. "...retyping things already...demand to be addressed directly on the subject"). We have a long way go to go with this. You have to exercise greater discipline in attributing conclusions, attitudes, and views on me or others. I guess time will tell, if this is a weakness, you have, or this your standard way of dealing with me and/or others.
David, you do have worth in these forums. Better relations. CM
-
Good grief.
-
@GaoLu said:
Good grief.What meaneth these words? CM
-
I got exactly 400 hits in my Logos Library for "good grief." What do you get?
Good NEAR Grief produces 2,870 hitsBut that was just English. I didn't go for Greek / Hebrew Lemmas or sense searches.
-
Arming teachers who are gun-adept -- say, reserve police officers -- in schools. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Arming teachers who are gun-adept -- say, reserve police officers -- in schools. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?Of course this is one instance, and it raises more questions than gives answers. Why exactly were they doing gun safety training in a classroom with a loaded weapon? That makes no sense at all.
That being said, with anything there are risks, students can get hurt in chemistry class too but I don't see you calling for the end of Chemistry sets.
-
Away from the petty to the practical, in light of the OP.
Declaration of Responsibility: by CM
Cooperative Responsibility: I believe that anyone who votes, encourages, legislate for schools (districts), teachers and supplies guns to teachers in the classroom and a child is killed by the teacher's gun (in defense or accident); the blood of that child will be on the hands of all the aforementioned. Policemen and their departments are held accountable for a bad shoot. So, will teachers. No teacher needs this on their hands or conscious.
Teachers have enough to account: e.g. Instruction, testing, supplies, preventing bullying, watching for abuse/neglect, maintaining order/discipline, proper use/safety of equipment, be observant of illnesses, control hall passes, monitor the temperature of the room and occasional administration interruptions. All this, and at a moment's notice, s/he has to get into police mode. Not only to draw a gun and shoot it but to kill. One doesn't have to kill many people to suffer from PSTD. How many people, not to mention children have been around guns or the firing of one? How many children heard a gun fired in an enclosed classroom?
No guns in the classroom. For a teacher to carry a gun, is forcing her to do two jobs at once, with not much more pay. Militarizing our school is a bad idea that should never see the light of day. I urge all parents and people of goodwill to call their governor, President Trump and tell him teachers with guns in the classroom is a bad idea. In addition, all Christians of all denomination should withdraw they membership immediately and permanently from the NRA.
Increase School districts budgets. Many states and school districts are struggling now with limited budgets. How will they make ends meet and pay the gun ting teachers? Would they be screened? Would poorly performing schools academically in a poor neighborhood gets more guns than the ones in the suburbs or vice versa?
Psychological Affect: Is there a non-military public school in operation where teachers carry guns in the classrooms? Has there been any studies on the caliber of guns to be used, walls thickness of penetration, etc? It lacks principle, policy, practicality nor promise of more safety for the children. What effect will a gun-carrying teacher have on a child or children, during instruction?
Secure Perimeter: Commonsense says you strengthen the out perimeter keep the intruders out; don't let him in and then try to defend. Cameras, guards, sensors, etc
Future assaults on schools: Like most exhibitionists or terrorists they will up there display for greater effect and attention. Therefore, I foresee, intruders, will go from guns something more spectacular, explosives. Evil doesn't take a vacation or stop being creative. It will continue until God remove it once and for all (Second Coming). Future challenges for Schools and communities will be against pipe-bombs, chemicals, etc. This is not fearmongering. It's the nature and the times we live.
When it's all said and done, for the US School Children, in view of Mr. Trump and Ms. DeVos--knowledge and understanding of public schools, more will be said, than done. It remains, Arming Teachers, Is A Bad Idea!
If any of you would like to brainstorm on how to make school safer without teachers carrying guns in the classrooms, I am here. CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Of course this is one instance, and it raises more questions than gives answers. Why exactly were they doing gun safety training in a classroom with a loaded weapon? That makes no sense at all.The fact that many accidents "(make) no sense at all" doesn't stop them from happening. When the accidents that don't make sense involve firearms, the results can be deadly.
That being said, with anything there are risks, students can get hurt in chemistry class too but I don't see you calling for the end of Chemistry sets.
I think you might call this "apples and oranges," David. Chemistry is a long-recognized part of the educational curriculum in most, probably all, school districts. Firearms and teachers armed with them are not.
-
Wrong: Firearms were part of the school where I taught. They were part of the school where I grew up.
I had far worse chemistry accidents. In college a prof narrowly escaped a lawsuit when he threw liquid nitrogen up the sloping freshman class floor and a girl got blisters from where it rolled into her sandal. Freak accident and unlikely, but it happened. Once I had a cork blow out of a test tube when I was a teacher. To this day (or at least a few years ago) were is a red blotch on the ceiling where boiling liquid shot upwards. The carpet got stained, a few students got stained clothes, but no one sustained serious injuries.
Nah Bill, and CM. You missed again. Tempest in a teacup. Your arguments are unimpressive and don't evoke much emotion but a grin.
-
@C_M_ said:
Away from the petty to the practical, in light of the OP.Declaration of Responsibility: by CM
- Cooperative Responsibility: I believe that anyone who votes, encourages, legislate for schools (districts), teachers and supplies guns to teachers in the classroom and a child is killed by the teacher's gun (in defense or accident); the blood of that child will be on the hands of all the aforementioned. Policemen and their departments are held accountable for a bad shoot. So, will teachers. No teacher needs this on their hands or conscious.
The idea that blood is on our hands if something happens is ridiculous. We vote for police and they are armed, we vote to keep the military and they are armed, when civilians are killed by their hands on accident is blood on our hands then? No. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
- Teachers have enough to account: e.g. Instruction, testing, supplies, preventing bullying, watching for abuse/neglect, maintaining order/discipline, proper use/safety of equipment, be observant of illnesses, control hall passes, monitor the temperature of the room and occasional administration interruptions. All this, and at a moment's notice, s/he has to get into police mode. Not only to draw a gun and shoot it but to kill. One doesn't have to kill many people to suffer from PSTD. How many people, not to mention children have been around guns or the firing of one? How many children heard a gun fired in an enclosed classroom?
Flawed argument. You are likely to have PTSD from the event whether you shoot back or not. How many people have been around the firing of a gun? What difference does that make if there is an active shooter?
- No guns in the classroom. For a teacher to carry a gun, is forcing her to do two jobs at once, with not much more pay. Militarizing our school is a bad idea that should never see the light of day. I urge all parents and people of goodwill to call their governor, President Trump and tell him teachers with guns in the classroom is a bad idea. In addition, all Christians of all denomination should withdraw they membership immediately and permanently from the NRA.
- You don't know there will not be more pay.
- It's not two jobs at once.
- How should schools be defended?
- The NRA shouldn't even be brought into this but you are obsessed with them. They aren't the bad guy here.
- Increase School districts budgets. Many states and school districts are struggling now with limited budgets. How will they make ends meet and pay the gun ting teachers? Would they be screened? Would poorly performing schools academically in a poor neighborhood gets more guns than the ones in the suburbs or vice versa?
Federal money has already been appropriated as of yesterday.
- Psychological Affect: Is there a non-military public school in operation where teachers carry guns in the classrooms? Has there been any studies on the caliber of guns to be used, walls thickness of penetration, etc? It lacks principle, policy, practicality nor promise of more safety for the children. What effect will a gun-carrying teacher have on a child or children, during instruction?
Yes, there are actually a lot of schools where teachers already carry guns. Perhaps you did not know that.
- Secure Perimeter: Commonsense says you strengthen the out perimeter keep the intruders out; don't let him in and then try to defend. Cameras, guards, sensors, etc
I agree.
- Future assaults on schools: Like most exhibitionists or terrorists they will up there display for greater effect and attention. Therefore, I foresee, intruders, will go from guns something more spectacular, explosives. Evil doesn't take a vacation or stop being creative. It will continue until God remove it once and for all (Second Coming). Future challenges for Schools and communities will be against pipe-bombs, chemicals, etc. This is not fearmongering. It's the nature and the times we live.
This has already been done. Remember Columbine? Or just a couple of weeks ago in Utah?
When it's all said and done, for the US School Children, in view of Mr. Trump and Ms. DeVos--knowledge and understanding of public schools, more will be said, than done. It remains, Arming Teachers, Is A Bad Idea!
You have yet to actually show other than extreme hypotheticals, why arming teachers is a bad idea.
If any of you would like to brainstorm on how to make school safer without teachers carrying guns in the classrooms, I am here. CM
-
@GaoLu said:
Wrong: Firearms were part of the school where I taught. They were part of the school where I grew up.I had far worse chemistry accidents....
Nah Bill, and CM. You missed again. Tempest in a teacup. Your arguments are unimpressive and don't evoke much emotion but a grin.When you revisit the argument I made regarding chemistry classes in my previous post, Gao Lu, you'll find that it didn't compare the potential severity of injuries suffered in them as compared to firearm-fitted classrooms. My argument instead contended that chemistry is an organic part of educational curricula (pun noted, but not intended) whereas firearms are not.
