What do School Districts who arm their teachers all have in common?

G

gwb-trading

What do the hundreds of School Districts who arm their teachers all have in common?

There has never been a school shooting in any of them!

In Texas, 172 school districts allow teachers, staff to carry guns in schools
http://www.caller.com/story/news/ed...stricts-allow-teachers-staff-armed/364677002/

Ohio school districts train teachers to handle guns: 'They are our safety
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...n-teachers-to-handle-guns-are-our-safety.html

At Least 7 States Now Have Armed Staff in Schools
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/30/at-least-7-states-now-have-armed-staff-in-schools
"Arkansas joins at least six states that already have armed guards in schools, states with a range of permissive to stringent guns: Ohio, Colorado, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Washington state."
 
gwb-trading said:
What do the hundreds of School Districts who arm their teachers all have in common?

There has never been a school shooting in any of them!

In Texas, 172 school districts allow teachers, staff to carry guns in schools
http://www.caller.com/story/news/ed...stricts-allow-teachers-staff-armed/364677002/

Ohio school districts train teachers to handle guns: 'They are our safety
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...n-teachers-to-handle-guns-are-our-safety.html

At Least 7 States Now Have Armed Staff in Schools
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/30/at-least-7-states-now-have-armed-staff-in-schools
"Arkansas joins at least six states that already have armed guards in schools, states with a range of permissive to stringent guns: Ohio, Colorado, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Washington state."
More...

When you get tired of scrolling down, do you know how many there are?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_districts_in_Texas

Another list tells me 1,247 districts.

So 13.79% armed.

So even if true (and coming from a conservative source like Fox..) chance is as good an explanation. There maybe some psychological effect on potential shooter students coming up in the schools.. however there may not be.

https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...ther-school-shootingbut-whos-counting/553412/

I assume that kids return to schools they have attended. It seems like others are making out that any school will do and that psychopathic kids usually with schizophrenia are "cowards" (as Trump did).

The time I ended up between a psycho stalker and his ex-girlfriend (I was sharing the flat, I had never met him) I do recall him attacking me from behind in the dark with a heavy steel bar, I don't recall any emotion on his face whatsoever beyond strain.

Height difference saved me from having a split skull on the first blow, he was fit but 5'9", I got a couple of broken fingers and a lot more damage before I managed to grasp the weapon and see him off. No emotion on his face whatsoever, I was something in his way.

Had he had a gun.. thankfully I was in the UK.

So before spreading "facts" that suit the NRA in this moment (and its is all about surviving the moment) to make it seem like something constructive is being done.. think it through.

Tactics will evolve with the countermeasures.
 
Slartibartfast said:
When you get tired of scrolling down, do you know how many there are?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_districts_in_Texas

Another list tells me 1,247 districts.

So 13.79% armed.

So even if true (and coming from a conservative source like Fox..) chance is as good an explanation. There maybe some psychological effect on potential shooter students coming up in the schools.. however there may not be.

https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...ther-school-shootingbut-whos-counting/553412/

I assume that kids return to schools they have attended. It seems like others are making out that any school will do and that psychopathic kids usually with schizophrenia are "cowards" (as Trump did).

The time I ended up between a psycho stalker and his ex-girlfriend (I was sharing the flat, I had never met him) I do recall him attacking me from behind in the dark with a heavy steel bar, I don't recall any emotion on his face whatsoever beyond strain.

Height difference saved me from having a split skull on the first blow, he was fit but 5'9", I got a couple of broken fingers and a lot more damage before I managed to grasp the weapon and see him off. No emotion on his face whatsoever, I was something in his way.

Had he had a gun.. thankfully I was in the UK.

So before spreading "facts" that suit the NRA in this moment (and its is all about surviving the moment) to make it seem like something constructive is being done.. think it through.

Tactics will evolve with the countermeasures.
More...

There are now several hundred school districts across the U.S. that train and arm staff members. All of these schools have one thing in common. There has never been a shooter incident at any of them. An ounce of prevention is worth several pounds of cure.

The states with armed staff range blue state New Jersey, liberal Colorado, purple state Ohio, deep blue state Connecticut, moderate Pennsylvania, liberal Washington, to red Texas, and red state Arkansas.
 
gwb-trading said:
There are now several hundred school districts across the U.S. that train and arm staff members. All of these schools have one thing in common. There has never been a shooter incident at any of them. An ounce of prevention is worth several pounds of cure.

The states with armed staff range blue state New Jersey, liberal Colorado, purple state Ohio, deep blue state Connecticut, moderate Pennsylvania, liberal Washington, to red Texas, and red state Arkansas.
More...

YET.

Armed deputy in what school recently?

This is not how the world world works man. Copy-cats evolve.
 
Honestly @gwb-trading ..

Think about what you are doing, it is completely wrong-headed and immoral IMO.

Do you think you are capable of seeing above the rim of the social class barrel you have been put in? You are on a trading site for some reason but you never improve. If I was married with kids you can be DAMNED CERTAIN I would not be jerking off on a politics forum.

You repeat garbage you have seen on right wing sites in an attempt to do what? Win a like point here on ET? Gain the respect of TreeFrog or another utterly obsessed retard / failed trader?

THE NRA IS LYING TO YOU, this is not an efficient fix. They just want to sell guns and gain influence.
 
Last edited:
gwb-trading said:
What do the hundreds of School Districts who arm their teachers all have in common?

There has never been a school shooting in any of them!

In Texas, 172 school districts allow teachers, staff to carry guns in schools
http://www.caller.com/story/news/ed...stricts-allow-teachers-staff-armed/364677002/

Ohio school districts train teachers to handle guns: 'They are our safety
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...n-teachers-to-handle-guns-are-our-safety.html

At Least 7 States Now Have Armed Staff in Schools
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/30/at-least-7-states-now-have-armed-staff-in-schools
"Arkansas joins at least six states that already have armed guards in schools, states with a range of permissive to stringent guns: Ohio, Colorado, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Washington state."
More...
The idea of arming teachers treats mass shootings in the U.S. as though the venue for shootings should impact the solution, in effect creating two issues out of what, in my opinion ought to be one. One issue is gun control which impacts, advocates say, the probability of mass shootings in general. The idea of arming teachers treats school shootings as though these shootings were a separate issue. They, indeed, can be treated as a separate issue, but is that wise? Many are opposed to the idea of arming teachers on principle, regardless of its effectiveness, just as a minority opposes on principle all controls on guns, without consideration of societal impact.

If you don't treat school shootings as a separate issue, but instead as part of a broader problem, then you will be faced with the issue of whether the broad population should be armed at all times and ready for attack. A minority advocates this. I personally oppose treating school shooting piecemeal as a separate issue, because I consider lowering the probability of mass shootings everywhere desirable and superior to just lowering the odds in schools.

As an adherent to, and an advocate of majority rule, despite its defects and regardless of whether I like the results, I think the Majority should be allowed to prevail. If that happens, then we will almost certainly have tighter controls on guns everywhere in the U.S. and its territories via uniform Federal Law. If the majority wants to include arming teachers, so be it. As things stand now it is quite uncertain whether the latter is a majority opinion nationally. To me it seems it isn't. Furthermore, it isn't clear that the majority is in favor of piecemeal regulation of firearms State to State. It seems to me the majority wants uniform regulation throughout the States. I have been known to be wrong many times however.
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
There are two issues here; not one. One issue is gun control which impacts, advocates say, the probability of mass shootings in general. The idea of arming teachers treats school shootings as though it were a separate issue. It, indeed, can be treated as a separate issue, but is that wise? Many are opposed to the idea of arming teachers on principle, regardless of its effectiveness, just as a minority opposes on principle all controls on guns, without consideration of societal impact.

If you don't treat school shootings as a separate issue, but instead as part of a broader problem, then you will be faced with the issue of whether the broad population should be armed at all times and ready for attack. A minority advocates this. I personally oppose treating school shooting piecemeal as a separate issue, because I consider lowering the probability of mass shootings everywhere desirable and superior to just lowering the odds in schools.

As an adherent to, and an advocate of majority rule, despite its defects and regardless of whether I like the results, I think the Majority should be allowed to prevail. If that happens, then we will almost certainly have tighter controls on guns everywhere in the U.S. and its territories via uniform Federal Law. If the majority wants to include arming teachers, so be it. As things stand now it is quite uncertain whether the latter is a majority opinion nationally. To me it seems it isn't. Furthermore, it isn't clear that the majority is in favor of piecemeal regulation of firearms State to State. It seems to me the majority wants uniform regulation throughout the States. I have been known to be wrong many times however.
More...


I will agree that shooting in schools is a broader issue and you can not narrowly focus in on one "solution" -- such as arming teachers. However the evidence at this point demonstrates that training and arming staff appears to have a very successful track record.

This being said most teachers (and myself) don't believe arming teachers is the best solution - it is far better to have trained, armed school resource officers on school grounds. I will not that in the recent incident the school security officer did not do his job and resigned, but that are far more instances of school resource officer stepping in and preventing violence.

I also agree that there should a single federal level set of gun regulations across all the states. However I will point out that means national level concealed carry rules instead a patch-work of different rules. Be careful what you ask for (as a liberal) in terms of "national uniform gun laws" -- this also means that cities / states that have laws more restrictive than the national level regulations will no longer be able to enforce them.
 
gwb-trading said:
-- this also means that cities / states that have laws more restrictive than the national level regulations will no longer be able to enforce them.
More...
Generally speaking, it wouldn't so long as the local restrictions satisfied two condition: 1. They were not less restrictive then the Federal law , and 2. the local restrictions did not violate the Second Amendment as interpreted via Heller. (Example, a total local ban on keeping operative firearms of all types would not necessarily violate a more permissive Federal Statutory Law, but it would violate Federal Constitutional Law, i.e., the Second Amendment, according to Heller.) This would hold so long as Federal Statutory gun control law proscribed than prescribed.
 
piezoe said:
As an adherent to, and an advocate of majority rule, despite its defects and regardless of whether I like the results, I think the Majority should be allowed to prevail. If that happens, then we will almost certainly have tighter controls on guns everywhere in the U.S. and its territories via uniform Federal Law. .
More...

The American Constitution establishes a system of Majority Rule but with strong Minority Rights. I know that you are on a "let's all be Canadian campaign because there is no reason why we can't be" but in fact there are major differences. Canadian gun law is a creature of a statutory law and Parliament can pretty much do whatever the majority wants as it is a creature of the legislative process. That simply is not the case in this country whether you like it or not and clearly you do not. My gun rights do not derive from your agreement or all my neighbors consent or the whole country's. Similarly my religious rights and my right to freedom of speech are not dependent on whether the majority agrees with me or your or not.

Now, I anticipate the pushback that ultimately Americans should get to decide what is right for America and are not forever bound by what the Framer's wanted, and the Framers envisioned that as well- which is why they set forth a process for amending the Constitution. So take your "majority" to the level of amending the constitution when your lecturettes about majority rule are said and done.

Recognizing your assertion that you are an alleged authority on Heller because "you read it twice", you have clearly advocated some scenarios that are not supported by Heller. You conclude all by yourself that because the Supreme Court has acknowledged- as it has with 1st Amendment rights as well- that in limited circumstances the government can set restrictions, that that therefore means that every Canadian idea you have could be implemented through statute. Wrong. Those are hard fought battles. I will concede that if Hillary had been elected and got to appoint some justices that you could get there on more of them, but not looking good so far.

More Noni Juice for Ruth needed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top