Arming Teachers

[Raider5678]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Do you need a gun for that?

No, I don't actually.

I do need patience to put up with people however.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I do need patience to put up with people however.

What if they have a gun?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

What if they have a gun?

Then I still need the patience to deal with them.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Then I still need the patience to deal with them.

Great, so we don't need guns?

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Because it misleads people into thinking it was done at the school.

I know you'll immediately reply that I'm wrong, it didn't make you think that, that it was definitely not ambiguous or vague at all, that it's a perfect article, it wasn't intended to be "shocking" or "click-bait" and that they simply wanted to tell a story to people. 

Ambiguous and misleading aren't really the same thing. But why does it matter that he didn't leave it in a school bathroom? It's the notion that this is not the only time it's going to happen (and law enforcement does this from time to time) and the short time frame it took is an indication of how often it might happen if we expand the number of people carrying weapons.

[Raider5678]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Ambiguous and misleading aren't really the same thing. But why does it matter that he didn't leave it in a school bathroom? It's the notion that this is not the only time it's going to happen (and law enforcement does this from time to time) and the short time frame it took is an indication of how often it might happen if we expand the number of people carrying weapons.

Sure. If I jump through some mental hoops I guess I can see that it's actually trying to say this......

 

Regardless of what it's about, it's misleading. Misleading, while not technically lying, is questionable to me. It's used all the time to further peoples agendas, scare people, and generally used to manipulate people into doing what you want. I will not defend it. I refuse to.

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Regardless of what it's about, it's misleading. Misleading, while not technically lying, is questionable to me. It's used all the time to further peoples agendas, scare people, and generally used to manipulate people into doing what you want. I will not defend it. I refuse to.

I feel the same way about the NRA using the concerns of legitimate hunters to further their agenda of protecting the right to sell arms to anyone anywhere.

[rangerx]

35 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I feel the same way about the NRA using the concerns of legitimate hunters to further their agenda of protecting the right to sell arms to anyone anywhere.

Much like giving tax breaks to the richest people to buy back stock and artificially inflate stock prices then calling it a benefit to the middle class.

 

But that's a topic for another thread.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Sure. If I jump through some mental hoops I guess I can see that it's actually trying to say this......

 

Regardless of what it's about, it's misleading. Misleading, while not technically lying, is questionable to me. It's used all the time to further peoples agendas, scare people, and generally used to manipulate people into doing what you want. I will not defend it. I refuse to.

 

Then tell me this: how is leaving a loaded gun in a public restroom somehow less scary than leaving it in a school?

[Silvestru]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Then tell me this: how is leaving a loaded gun in a public restroom somehow less scary than leaving it in a school?

Don't most schools usually have separate bathrooms for teachers? Other teachers would take notice and report this.

Leaving it in a public restroom sounds more dangerous to me to be honest. 

[DrP]

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Regardless of what it's about, it's misleading.

I am confused now  -  how exactly is it misleading?  The headline says he left his gun in a toilet.  He actually DID do this, so how is it misleading anyone? I don't see the point or why or how this is misleading at all. Maybe I should read the whole article, but really I can't be bothered. The headline says it all. It doesn't claim he was right or wrong in his support for arming teachers....  it just factually states that he left his gun in a bog somewhere like a dick. So, how was it misleading again?

21 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Don't most schools usually have separate bathrooms for teachers?

They do over here. I made the mistake once of using the pupils corridor loo just before a class when I was supply teaching some time back. I was cheered on and given much encouragement the whole way through my visit by about 30 pupils outside shouting "Go on Sir, squeeze it out!" and Go on Sir, you can do it, squeeze it out and snip it off"...  and other such encouraging comments thrown in with some random insults and suggestions that I wash my hands before class etc...  being honest I found it very amusing - I am far too immature to be a proper teacher. lol.  

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Don't most schools usually have separate bathrooms for teachers? Other teachers would take notice and report this.

Leaving it in a public restroom sounds more dangerous to me to be honest. 

The fact that guns get accidentally left anywhere, even by those who advocate for broader use, highlights one of the many reason not to have them on campuses. In the story we are discussing it was a bathroom. Next time it could be on a desk, at a lunch table, open view in a car, or etc. Imagine a school administrator advocated to make adderall available to students on campus at administrator discretion ended up treated for adderall addiction. Would they have needed to been using adderall on campus for it to weaken their pro adderall argument?

[StringJunky]

29 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Don't most schools usually have separate bathrooms for teachers? Other teachers would take notice and report this.

Leaving it in a public restroom sounds more dangerous to me to be honest. 

Familiarity breeds carelessness; its natural. Armed response units are constantly vigilant of firearms protocols and it should be left to them. 

[Silvestru]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The fact that guns get accidentally left anywhere, even by those who advocate for broader use, highlights one of the many reason not to have them on campuses. In the story we are discussing it was a bathroom. Next time it could be on a desk, at a lunch table, open view in a car, or etc. Imagine a school administrator advocated to make adderall available to students on campus at administrator discretion ended up treated for adderall addiction. Would they have needed to been using adderall on campus for it to weaken their pro adderall argument?

I completely agree. I am having trouble being objective about gun discussions as I live and have always lived in Europe. 

I go out a lot and do a lot of crazy stuff and have some shady friends but I have never met a civilian who has a real gun. (except for hunters). We have many gun fans here but they collect air soft replicas of real guns if they are passionate.

I understand that a big argument of the NRA is to protect hunters rights and that's fine but who hunts deer with a glock or automatic weapons?

Sorry I strayed from the topic, just wanted to show how big the discrepancy in our gun view is.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Silvestru

[koti]

I am surprised to see this thread go for 10 pages. Trump has kids, let all the teachers in their school carry hand guns and preferably some AR15’s just in case as well. If it works out and nobody gets shot in an accident or incident then we can still safely assume that...

 

No, its not a good idea to arm teachers. 

Geez...

[CharonY]

58 minutes ago, koti said:

I am surprised to see this thread go for 10 pages. Trump has kids, let all the teachers in their school carry hand guns and preferably some AR15’s just in case as well. If it works out and nobody gets shot in an accident or incident then we can still safely assume that...

 

No, its not a good idea to arm teachers. 

Geez...

Pretty much. The discourse on where the gun was left was a bit on the silly side as it really was not the point. Rather, as pointed out that with increased prevalence of weapons, accidents due to negligence (such as the one described in the article) the likelihood of harmful incidents will increase. And at some point the overall morbidity may be worse with more weapons around than with less, considering that actual school shootings as a whole are rare events. If guns are brought to school every day, there is a cumulative chance that something happens at some point.

The other part that IMO requires more discussion is how this proposal in itself adds even more burden on the teachers, who, as a whole and especially in poor districts have too many responsibilities already. They are woefully underfunded and often underprepared to deal with the more extreme situations, badly paid and now on top should provide protective services. Some already have to deal with violence and neglect on a daily basis. Adding that burden on top is just incomprehensible to me.

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, DrP said:

I am confused now  -  how exactly is it misleading?  The headline says he left his gun in a toilet. 

To be honest, I still personally think the headline was misleading. That being said, I also think that how Ten Oz keeps saying it is definitely misleading: 

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The fact that guns get accidentally left anywhere, even by those who advocate for broader use, highlights one of the many reason not to have them on campuses.

1

Now, the person the article is about basically said this: 

"I know there are a lot of people who would be open to receiving training and carrying a gun, but I'm not really sure that'd be the right approach."

So. How is that advocating for broader use?

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I feel the same way about the NRA using the concerns of legitimate hunters to further their agenda of protecting the right to sell arms to anyone anywhere.

Exactly. I'm finally glad I got one person here to admit that they don't like supporting people who are misleading, even if they might technically be true.

That was way harder then it should have been.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[DrP]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

To be honest, I still personally think the headline was misleading. That being said, I also think that how Ten Oz keeps saying it is definitely misleading: 

So enlighten me   -  How is it misleading?   I took it to mean that the guy who said he'd go for training regarding the arming of teachers left his gun in a public toilet.   Was I wrong? In what way was I mislead?

 

This is what was wrote yea?   "Sean Simpson, a teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, has spoken in favor of gun control efforts and said he might be open to the idea of carrying a gun in class. Now, he's been arrested after leaving his Glock 9 mm pistol in a bathroom over the weekend. "

As I said - I took this to mean that the guy who said he'd go for training has been arrested because he left his Glock in a toilet. Can you correct me as to what it actually means and point out how I have been mislead  -  because I still don't get it.

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by DrP

[Raider5678]

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The other part that IMO requires more discussion is how this proposal in itself adds even more burden on the teachers, who, as a whole and especially in poor districts have too many responsibilities already. They are woefully underfunded and often underprepared to deal with the more extreme situations, badly paid and now on top should provide protective services. Some already have to deal with violence and neglect on a daily basis. Adding that burden on top is just incomprehensible to me.

 

I really don't think you understand the proposal.

The proposal is not forcing anyone to carry a gun, it's allowing them to. No teacher would be forced to carry a gun if they didn't want to. 

Yet, again with the misleading headlines from different media, they didn't technically lie but a lot of people arrived at the conclusion we were going to force them to.

Actually, the law Trump proposed is basically the same law that's in more than 10 states already, like Texas and California. 

5 minutes ago, DrP said:

So enlighten me   -  How is it misleading?   I took it to mean that the guy who said he'd go for training regarding the arming of teachers left his gun in a public toilet.   Was I wrong? In what way was I mislead?

 

He never said he'd go to training. He said he knows some people would be open, however, he doesn't think it is the right approach.

They technically told the truth: He didn't say he was absolutely closed to the idea. However, they definitely made it seem as though he was leaning for it.

Again, some people will say the tiny misleadings don't really matter. I think they do. Because over time they build-up and it becomes the telephone game.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Exactly. I'm finally glad I got one person here to admit that they don't like supporting people who are misleading, even if they might technically be true.

I said I feel the same way you described, but I also feel you're misusing the word misleading in this instance. I think what you're describing is an artifact of your own right/left bias towards the subject. I sometimes feel this way towards stances I suspect have hidden agendas, and I have to fight it constantly in order to make sure I'm not manipulating myself with these biases.

This seems more like the kind of ambiguity the press loves to use to cast a wide net to snare readers. If you want to see outright misleading media, look to the far right or far left. I've seen thumbnails on Sean Hannity's site and Politico that seemed detached from the actual article, an obvious attempt to mislead or manipulate, and really dangerous if folks don't actually read the article to see what's wrong. 

[DrP]

23 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

He never said he'd go to training. He said he knows some people would be open, however, he doesn't think it is the right approach.

Sorry - I don't know where I got that from - it obviously wasn't from that title though - it says 'he was open to the idea of carrying in the classroom"   -  even so - I still don't see where I have been mislead or what the relevance of it is at all being fair   -  other than it points to him, as a human being, being fallible - which is why many think it is totally crazy to have guns in schools. 

[CharonY]

32 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I really don't think you understand the proposal.

The proposal is not forcing anyone to carry a gun, it's allowing them to. No teacher would be forced to carry a gun if they didn't want to. 

Yet, again with the misleading headlines from different media, they didn't technically lie but a lot of people arrived at the conclusion we were going to force them to.

Actually, the law Trump proposed is basically the same law that's in more than 10 states already, like Texas and California. 

You are missing the broader picture here. If the administrations puts forth suggestions that teachers should should be armed and trained for defensive purposes, the next time something happens and there were no armed teachers around, it allows them to put the onus on the teachers ("why weren't they armed?"). It goes beyond allowing teacher to bring arms, which has been (mostly) a passive proposal and only locally implemented. Only recently Florida has approved a program to actively train and arm teachers. In many other states there are no reports for any schools (despite being allowed) to have armed teachers, partially because in some cases insurers would increase their rates as response. Also note that in California a recently a bill was passed to bar school employees to bring guns on campus.

Beside safety concerns in case of broad implementation, there is also a societal issue where an atmosphere of fear is being created. Some schools have fortified schools with metal detectors, buzzers and essentially turned them into a fortified bunker of sorts. What I am wondering what that does to the psyche of kids who grew in an environment that teaches them that threats are everywhere and that fast and weaponized responses are the norm, rather than the exception, which they really are.

As already pointed out by others, for some reasons the US has a disproportionate issue with gun-related injuries and death compared to other developed nations, including those with relatively high gun prevalence. I have doubts that teaching folks that more guns are the solution is a good idea, but goes into broader societal issues.

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Some schools have fortified schools with metal detectors, buzzers and essentially turned them into a fortified bunker of sorts. What I am wondering what that does to the psyche of kids who grew in an environment that teaches them that threats are everywhere and that fast and weaponized responses are the norm, rather than the exception, which they really are.

If you've ever been to Israel, it's virtually every school there.

 

[rangerx]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The fact that guns get accidentally left anywhere, even by those who advocate for broader use, highlights one of the many reason not to have them on campuses.

Yes, it sounds like negligent gun handling to me, irrespective of where it was left. A school is among the worse places for that to happen, but apparently it's taboo to discuss that.

I'm sure they're perfectly fine with "OMG they want to take our guns" comments after even the smallest of measure of gun control is discussed though.

That's where we are now in this discussion. Misleading away from negligence into a "you all just want to take our guns" inference in other words.

[Raider5678]

37 minutes ago, DrP said:

Sorry - I don't know where I got that from - it obviously wasn't from that title though - it says 'he was open to the idea of carrying in the classroom" 

This is part of how misleading works. IT didn't directly lie to you, however, it was set up so you'd automatically make connections in your head once you read the title and the first few sentences of the article.

I read the entire article. He did not say he was open to the idea of carrying in the classroom. He said he didn't think it was the right idea.

That is where it misleads people. 

38 minutes ago, DrP said:

I still don't see where I have been mislead

You just admitted you had created information inside your head that was not in the article. That's essentially misleading: Telling just enough truth so that someone then believes a lie.

39 minutes ago, DrP said:

what the relevance of it is at all being fair   -  other than it points to him, as a human being, being fallible - which is why many think it is totally crazy to have guns in schools. 

Again, this is something we simply disagree with. 

I firmly believe that misleading people is wrong. You don't see a problem with it as long as it's supporting your side.