All you’ve tossed out is teachers paying t themselves. And to that I’ve listed a multitude of reasons why that won’t work due to the costs. Like I said this isn’t as simple as just buying a gun and ammo and you’re set to defend your classroom. As is I’m out since you seem to just want to go in circles and borderline troll.
Your multitude of reasoning was the cost, which wasn't even estimated or given a real dollar value with hours based on speculation, of training and insurance. I'd agree with you that the insurance factors would get pricey especially in the event of... well... an event. But if projections could be trusted and these measures were taken one could also assume that events would be incredibly minimal or possibly eliminated. I explained possible measures for eliminating or reducing that in ways that don't rely on 100% governmental funding.
You say I'm trolling but you stated that 99% of instructors wouldn't agree with having a trained individual or individuals on campus and you based that on talking with your friend who is a teacher... What?
Another thing that I don't understand about your argument versus mine is this. I said make it available for teachers. You're coming from the standpoint that teachers shouldn't have to be paid for. You say they can't afford it. Let's assume they can't. Hey look at that the teacher didn't buy the training to arm themselves in the classroom. Don't you get what you initially wanted from that anyways? lol...
Good chat though since you're out. I'm not trolling and I'm not mad btw, just talking on the forum. All love on this end.
I cast my mind back and can't recall a single teacher I'd have wanted to be around armed.
And more than a couple that I'd be terrified of being around if they were armed.
Hard fucking pass.
Plus the old reality that at some point a student will get a hold of a teacher's gun and use it for ill.
Otherwise, if we're going to continue jumping down this rabbit hole, I'm with others that believe the school/state should pay for whatever training, but also to make certain the teacher passes a psych eval to minimize the likelihood of them using the gun irresponsibly themselves. But the whole MOAR GUNZ schtick is getting tiresome.
Jumping to non-lethal means also has flaws, just like trying to advocate singular entrances (in already existing buildings). Pepper spray has the range issue. If people know bean bags are a thing, you then just get attackers wearing helmets and vests, even if improvised, to minimize the risk of getting disabled. The people using either method further expose themselves to risk, and while it's easy to say they're brave or heroic for wanting to do so, I'd still rather we chase the solutions that prevent these scenarios from ever happening at all.
Man I just wanted us all to have a lul at that dude macing himself for an ad.
http://www.wcvb.com/article/gun-owne...ending+Content
Yeah, so in a case of living in Bizzarro world. The Federal Government just came down on MA for being too lenient with it's gun laws.
MA had a program where people who were senetenced for jailable misdemeanors of two years of less to be able to obtain a license to own.
For several reasons:
1. Teacher could shoot a student or coworker
2. Teacher could have gun taken away from student
3. Increases gun presence at schools.
4. Creates an extreme level of power hungry control over students.
5. Teaching is an extremely stressed out anxiety-filled job, extensive mental training would be needed.
6. It’s not our job.
All of our reactionary suggestions so far had been in the vein of turning schools into prisons or adding more weapons to the scenario, so I am not enamored with the options.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Metal detectors only work when people go through them tho. Would only work with kids who bring guns in to kill a GF or something not against the more recent mass shooting types.