DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on October 04, 2006, 02:01:23 PM
-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15111438/
the sad part alot of info here parents will abosultely not believe.
ex. goths are not natural serial killers.
no partents will buy that
they`re even a lifetime movie about how evil they are-starring annie potts
-
Arn't three and four contradictory?
Someday we will be teaching Judo to all students and arming all teachers.
-
not quite,but they do kinda over lap
people can know something is wrong without the person threatening anyone.
that list if you look at it in big picture context.
indicate folks are in deniel something is wrong til it happens and even after.
ex. columbine -this kids made a ton of explosive in the garage and the parents didn`t know.
I forget to put the tools back in the garage my parents give me a half hour talk about rust.
how the hell they not notice those boys doing stuff in the garage
-
OK, this is going to sound so politically incorrect, but has it not been made aware that the strict firearms regulations surrounding schools, (the aptly named "gun-free zone"), broadcasts a big beacon to any twisted crazed gun toting maniac(s) that "hey, lookee here....no guns to defend themselves....come 1, come all. Easy pickens"
Is that not an accurate observation?
-
That describes the situation when there is a desire to harm indescrimately.
But isn't indescrimanate killing with no gain sort of a minority of murders?
A few days ago a kid with a wepon was turned back from a school when he was spotted and confrounted before he got in.
Would insureing the arming of plenty of guardians save enough lives to be worthy of the troubble?
How often would we even know that one was saved?
-
the list I linked kinda covered that.
school violence is actually very low,but more publicly known now.
one has to wonder how bad it was in the old days.
I remember quite a few anti-juvy movies in the fifties & sixties.
on the guns in school issue
too many adults are not mature enough to handle a gun.
there is too high a chance of something going wrong with armed people hanging around schools with children.responsible gun owners will agree
you need training to handle a gun
it`s not just point and shoot.
all those new years stories of some guy shoot his gun in the air killing someone are not exactly myths.
-
I think you missed my point Kimba. 1st off, no one is advocating that there simply be "guns at school", and simply handled by an adult vs a child. I've seen plenty of "adults" who have no business handling a firearm. 2nd off, the "gun free zone" remians just that...an area free of any effective defense against any would be yahoo armed to the teeth. Lastly, I support 100% TRAINING of selective school staff, to carry and handle a concealed firearm. Not an army of security, not AR-15's and Uzi's, just a few staff who are well trained to handle such incidents that may occur.
-
2nd off, the "gun free zone" remians just that...an area free of any effective defense against any would be yahoo armed to the teeth.
Actually, the Gun Free School Zone Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1995 (United States v. Lopez).
-
I was referring to the zone in general, Ami. There are many locales & business areas that would profess to be "gun free zones". But I do thank you for the heads-up from the Fed stand point. Do the States support that decision?
-
Do the States support that decision?
In general, no. Many states passed their own versions of the federal law when the Supreme Court said that Congress had overstepped it's bounds. Limitations on the commerce clause do not apply to states.
-
In general, no. Many states passed their own versions of the federal law when the Supreme Court said that Congress had overstepped it's bounds
That's kinda what I thought. Many of the schools I went to as a Pediatric PT made it clear that they were "gun free zones"
-
I think the question should be do schools need to defended with guns.
despite how it looks on tv ,school violence is actually quite low.
stating the school has no defenses is not saying much
law firms,doctors office,most business has no guns
and alot of those places get attacked also
most guards are unarmed.
schools overall don`t have whats needed to created this situation.
note all had a cause and effect.
banks woul;d be the biggest draw and have
I know of one bank that gets robbed every month.
I think thast one finally closed down.
law firms I work in pi$$ al;ot of folks we do get threats once in a while.
I have a real hard time finding replacements for my vacation.
beyound pulling teeth
-
damn!!??!!
speaking of which it just happened
we`re on alert now.
talk about coincidences
no biggie
I remember him,he not that bad
just alittle bipolar-literally
-
I think the question should be do schools need to defended with guns
IMHO, given that what they'd be protecting is exponentially more valuable than jewels & money, my answer is a resounding "yes"
-
as I stated earlier is the danger high enough ?
you state the value of the children,but not the degree of danger.
in ten years the rate has gone down.
you state the kids are vulnerable
most places are vulnerable and don`t require guns
in fact my job is a terrorist target and subject to threats.
way more dangerous than any schoolground ,but we do have guns here.
it`s just not needed.
p.s.schools are public property
so a armed guard would be civil service
not exactly a good idea.
-
as I stated earlier is the danger high enough ?
I disagree. The question as I see it is what's being protected valuable enough to need firearms. Simply put, yes, IMHO.
in ten years the rate has gone down.
the fact that the incident rates are low, doesn't negate what's being protected. I'd argue that fireamrs in the hands of well trained staff, such #'s would even be lower
most places are vulnerable and don`t require guns
Not entirely accurate, in that they're "valuables" are different, and their choice to whether or not to use guns, is still a choice, that the school children & teachers don't have
-
the fact that the incident rates are low, doesn't negate what's being protected. I'd argue that fireamrs in the hands of well trained staff, such #'s would even be lower
actually how does that work?
in a shool setting how does a arm person stop such a incident from happening?
columbine was premeditated ,so those boys may of found ways to bypass a guard.
it not like every claasroom will be guarded.
-
actually how does that work?
Simple. When an area is no longer understood to be a "gun free zone", such an area is a much less likely target in the 1st place (rate goes down). In the event of such an incident, well trained staff can quell the incident nearly immediately vs waiting for the escalation of both emotion and potential for harm to children, while waiting for the police. This too becomes a dterrent for others (rate goes down)
-
but isn`t most of the school shooting in non-urban areas?
meaning not reportedly gun free areas to begin with.
ex. columbine.
this may intially work,but does not stop the cause of the shooting.
the majority of these are caused by internal stresses.
so shooting may still happen.
how does a well train staff stop kids from taking over a school?
would they be the first target,since they are armed?
I see working with crazy adults,but not kids with alot of time in their hands to plan.
-
but isn`t most of the school shooting in non-urban areas?
What would it matter. I'm referring to protecting a valuable commodity, children, be it rural amish school, a suburban Colorado school, or an Urban jungle in south central LA. I explained the why and the how. I'm not sure where I can go from there. This isn't a psychological approach I'm taking. I'm not trying to figure out why someone would want to shoot up a school, kill children. I'm talking practical approach of just doing a better job of protecting them. I don't think I need to explain "why" we should, should I?
how does a well train staff stop kids from taking over a school?
a) what "army" of kids are you referring to that might be able to take over a school? b), the few kids that do are not well trained, and should be easily able to be dealt with by already mentioned well trained staff
would they be the first target,since they are armed?
No, since the staff I'm referring to are carrying concealed weapons, so no one would know who had weapons, thus less likely to want to even take on a school in the 1st place. (rate goes down even more)
-
the area make a world of difference.
some areas are more gun friendly than others.
but we`ll may find out if this works or not
check this link out
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15142930/?GT1=8618
the only problem i have is just because it works in isreal does not mean it`ll work here
different place,different circumstances.
also you keep saying well trained staff
as the link pointed out this will be a first for everybody
it`ll be guess work for first 3 years at least
it`s not wise to underestimate anyone.
-
...considering we were just talking about this topic.
Wisconsin lawmaker urges arming teachers
Updated 10/5/2006
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A state lawmaker, worried about a recent string of deadly school shootings, suggested arming teachers, principals and other school personnel as a safety measure and a deterrent.
VIDEO: Congressman suggests arming teachers
It might not be politically correct, but it has worked effectively in other countries, Republican Rep. Frank Lasee said Wednesday.
"To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table," he said. "Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin."
In Thailand, where officials have been waging a bloody fight with Muslim separatists for the last two years, some teachers carry weapons for self defense as they are viewed as part of the government. In Israel, teachers are not allowed to carry weapons in the school, but security guards at the entrances are armed.
Lasee said he planned to introduce legislation that would allow school personnel to carry concealed weapons. He stressed that it would hinge on school staff members getting strict training on the use of the weapons, and he acknowledged he would have to work around a federal law that bans guns on school grounds.
The director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, Pete Pochowski, opposed the idea.
"Statistically, the safest place for a child to be is in school," Pochowski said. "We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals."
Last week, a 15-year-old Wisconsin student was arrested in the shooting death of Weston Schools Principal John Klang. The criminal complaint said the teen brought guns to school to confront students, teachers and the principal.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-05-arming-teachers_x.htm?csp=34
-
What are the reasons that schools are sometimes chosen?
There is no mony there , no wepons , no important political personage.
When someone chooses a school as a place to attack it must be because of what is there.
When the Chechens attacked the Russian school they took it over quickly and were able to kill many , they chose a theater on another occasion for the same reasons.
The thing that schools have is a gathering of vunerable persons.