-fully aware not correct realm, but iquiring-
i want a philosophical opinion (less political charge) about this issue -
guns in the hands of teachers to combat school violence.
i am completely against it but i want to get a different perspective than that of policy driven political types.
damn straight. arm the teachers. arm the principals. arm the janitors. arm the bus drivers. arm the lunch lady (with something other than last week’s meatloaf)…
schools themselves aren’t violent.
-Imp
I personally have no problem with it. My reasoning flows thusly: The guns are simply the instrument here. When someone else has a gun, and you do not, you are at a disadvantage. It will be impossible to ever rid the world of guns entirely, therefore, I think it is wise of one to have access to one. Otherwise, other people who do have access can kill you with relative ease.
From the standpoint of simple survival, gun control, in my opinion, is a terrible idea. When the proposition before you is kill or be killed, I’d rather be the one doing the killing if at all possible. Just like in a nuclear arms race everyone may have nukes but is loathe to use them, I think guns are roughly in the same category.
Perhaps theoretically, the decision is as simple as Shintn paints it. In practice, however, it does not split so nicely. The more people who own guns, the more those guns will fall into the wrong hands; the more accidental deaths from guns occur. Guns are not impervious to accidents, and when honest people own them, that is most often how they are used.
Furthermore, the proliferation of objects specifically designed to harm others will have the negative effect of desensitizing the populous to violence and pain, reducing compassion, and increasing the problem that is supposed to be solve: violence.
Guns do not protect people. The idea that they do is absurd. If you shoot someone who is holding a gun, you are almost guaranteed to get shot as well. Death by gunshot wound is not as quick as the movies would have us think, and in the time it takes an assailant to fall, they can fire plenty of shots in just about any direction. What has been solved?
Well, let’s see…
There are quite a few of things involved here:
For me, this is philosophy. You open your mind to all the possiblities and then start thinking about how important each of the components are.
Any thoughts?
Heh, last year I started my freshman year at the public highschool nearest my house. They had me undergo complete days sitting in the front office because of incidents like forgetting to wear my id tag or wearing a skirt thats length didn’t come to my fingertips. Needless to say, I left the school. Come to find out, last weekend I open up the St. Pete Times and right there is my old school on the front cover with an article about what was going on. They have gang members running freely about the school who are stealing and quarreling to their amazement as they were before. Straight from juvi hall but they get another chance to screw over as usual. It then mentioned this kid who slipped his hand down this mentally and physically challenged girl’s pants. It’s just awful and they call the parents and he’s got the rest of the day on his normal schedule because it’s a common occurence and they give up on disciplining him.
They’ll take this shit out on people like me who don’t do a thing against the school policy or guidelines but is to make up for what they can’t control that is. That’s why they go to these extreme distances of arming the whole school faculty or having cops survey the area (as they did at my school) so they can feel safe and in charge when in reality they’re letting in gangs and pervs whilst having the average child pay for it with a day in the office.
This may not be true in the sense that there is a Republican wanting to arm teachers in Green Bay but it is a real issue that’s escalating into this type of story and it pisses me off.
“No Mrs. Jackson, usually a shot to the knees is good enough to immobilize an angry math student. This small pistol should do fine”
LOL…yeah, that’s the jist of it.
Guns? NO. Pepper Spray? YES. Every teacher should have it.
i definately want a philosphical opinion which to me would be one that is thorougly weighs all options and outcomes, and lacks emotionally charged solutions to problems.
with that said, i thought the basis of this problem is that kids have guns in school - that is what started this whole debate about teachers having guns. so i dont think a solution to guns in school is to put more guns in schools.
im not sure, but i emailed some of my old high school teachers (inner city milwaukee, wi) and they all thought that it was an absurd idea. i know this may not apply anywhere else in the world, but my teachers said that they would potentially quit their beloved profession if teachers were to be armed. teachers teach - so why dont we have teachers teach kids about humanitarian issues, teach kids about the dangers of guns/drugs, teach kids that there are other solutions besides guns, teach kids that they deserve better and help is out there.
if guns are the problem, more guns dont seem like a solution. im not sure, but if i were a teacher, i would hate to have a gun on me.
Guns can be too erratic and accidents are more common. Pepper spray would do the trick and take them to their knees. Pepper spray and handcuffs would be great from my POV.
I’m not sure this is true. It’s rather like saying making marijuana more readily available will ensure that it falls into the wrong hands and everyone will wander around high all the time. It seems to me that the people who WANT guns GET guns, just as those who want Marijuana get it.
As far as accidents go, well yes, I suppose accidents go up as the result of the prevalance of any given technology the more it is available. However, I don’t think the internet ought to be “controlled” because more people than ever can potentially make pipe bombs. At the end of the day, to me what is missing is personal responsibility. You want to blow away a school full of kids with a gun used for protection? Well, in that case, you die by firing squad. Does that make us “as bad” as them? I don’t know but personally I don’t care. Once someone presents themselves as a danger in terms of killing people without an awfully damn good reason, I view that person as forever dangerous to society and see the only solution in terms of safety being related to their demise. As long as they are alive, there is a possibility that their fucked up self might do the same thing again.
True, but NOTHING is impervious to accidents. If we want ultimate fun, we could mow over people in our Buicks. I’m not sure we should “start controlling who buys cars” because of it.
I’m definitely not sure this is true. Having a gun around, in my opinion, does not “desensitize one to violence and pain”. In fact, I’d say that just the opposite is true. One learns pretty quickly especially if one is a hunter or something that guns hurt things. Typically, hunters try to take things down in one shot. Needless suffering isn’t glamorized by owning a gun.
They may not “totally protect you” but they put you on an even footing. I’d much rather have a magnum to aim at somebody pointing a rifle at me than collective good will and tidings. Not having a gun, in this case, makes one totally powerless.
Well, one would hope that after they were shot that their aim wouldn’t be too great. I think in this particular example one is looking at a question of numbers involved. If you shoot someone who has shot one person already, and you prevent 15 other shootings, that’s good, right?
I think you are getting that through the dialogue here, actually.
Well, the issue is not just the guns here. The issue is also the person HOLDING the gun and their intentions. As the old argument goes, guns are simply inanimate objects. They can be used for all sorts of reasons both bad and good. The gun ITSELF is neutral. It doesn’t care if you target practice with it, shoot someone’s grandmother with it, or use it to protect yourself from someone else with another gun. The ISSUE is how do you protect society and its institutions from violence concerning guns? I’d take the tack that you cannot; that as long as their are people there will be violence. I also take the tack that as long as this is true, I’d much rather have a gun than not. If somehow one fine day the world becomes utopian and we all join hands and sing songs and skip, then I’ll reconsider my statement. Until that time, and I think human history pretty well supports this stance, and it is better to be a person with potential access to a gun than not with access to one at all.
In my opinion, while these are certianly NOBLE goals, they are unrealistic. The fact of the matter is, there are fucked up people out there in the world that don’t think they need help. There are people who cannot be reasoned with or taught. It seems odd, but it is true. These people will hurt others given the chance.
Guns are the symptom I think.
Not hard to find statistics:
“Children in the five states with the highest rate of gun ownership … were 16 times more likely to die…”
economist.com/research/backg … id=1012025
“THE gun lobby argues that guns don’t kill people; people do. Yet a study by scholars at the Harvard School of Public Health, published in February’s Journal of Trauma, finds that, when it comes to killing children, guns do help.”
its funny that alot of people argue that noble and unrealistic goals, this is the real world, utopian…i get all that - this is not a perfect world, but it can be alot better
the way i am understanding it, you want a gun because there are crazy people out there that pose a potential threat to me, family, beloved…and therefore i need to protect myself from these dangers.
i can agree with this - protection from dangers is logical and necessary, but guns are a sticky/gray area in this realm
i think that those who are unwilling to budge, to promote gun control, and have the attitude like urs that are the cause of an evergrowing problem. well if ur not gonna budge cuz nobody else will, why cant you be that somebody else?
noble goals indeed, you cant just pass off lofty goals as unrealistic…sure, they may take time and be difficult and take funding, but those do not make things impossible do they?
this issue is simple to me - arming everyone is just a lazy way to alleviate the problem without coming up with a solution. people are crazy and cannot be reasonable are going around shooting people - lets give everyone guns so we can shoot them right? chances are, they will shoot themseleve anyway and probably dont give a sh*t if you got a gun or not…reason would mean “hey, they probably have a gun, better pick a different target” - which in this case, they might be reasonable (ever heard of a negotiator?)
protecting ourselves from the crazy and irrational is not wrong at all - its probable that is it somewhat natural…but society changes things, and if you are a fan of society (which i am not, but im stuck here) then you must comply with societal rules - american society cannot handle everyone being armed, maybe other countries can (and they do), but their society is different thus different governing rules.
Hahahahh.
It’s one thing to realize what gun ownership does to the civilians, but it’s quite another thing to realize what a strong military does to the government and the global polatics… 
Non-leathal force? Who could think of such a thing? I’m going to play Doom and Quake now, and I’ll see you in my sexually maturing hell. 
Maybe, but I prefer to walk softly and carry a big stick nonetheless.
I don’t see them as particularly grey in the sense that if you have one pointed at you and you don’t have one, it’s bad news.
I’d answer this by citing two examples: A) Historically humans have always been prone to violence. When it wasn’t guns it was swords, when it wasn’t swords it was spears. I think that assuming that this is going to go away at this point is idealism. Even if there were NO guns, the issue would likely be some other weapon. People hurting other people with guns or whatever is simply, it appears to me, a given concerning human nature.
B) Given the above, it does absolutely no good for me to carry around lofty morals and noble intentions if I run across someone with a gun who has designs on hurting me. At the end of the day, I and I think most humans are concerned about our personal survival. If not, we could simply blow our own heads off.
It sort of reminds me of the Iraq war in a way. We come in with these high sounding ideals and everyone forgets that in war people die. Taking the moral high ground in situations that concern survival, which is a very primitive sort of drive, will result in your getting killed quite often. You cannot fight a war and be “nice”.
I think the entire reason the right to bear arms was important to those who framed the constitution was because they realized that those who have guns can easily subdue those who do not. Whether it be someone who wishes you harm within society or your own government, if you do not have any guns you have no power–nothing to put you on a level playing field. I’m fairly sure none of them “loved guns”. I know I surely don’t, but as long as there are guns it frankly would scare the hell out of me to think I personally could not own one. It may be like Plato said about those who should rule government that only philosophers should have guns.
In this case, I think it is just a “pie in the sky” sentiment. It isn’t being “real” to think humans are just going to up and quit being violent.
Well, I think you impute would be attackers with a bit too much rationality. When people enter disassociative states you can forget about reasoning with them. Many, MANY people in prison are disassociative. It’s much like a person who goes to war and comes back home only to have PTSD. Once they think they are back in the jungle it is wise of you to stay out of their way lest they think you are charlie.
The “solution” would involve ways to “cure” these people. I think that is out of our reach. It isn’t that we’ve given up so much as we can’t do that, so unfortunately these sorts of people are going to place others who aren’t afflicted in dangerous situations especially as is often the case they have guns. I’d much rather they be dead than someone else. I’m not saying it’s a “perfect solution” but again, when push comes to shove I’d rather be the one pulling the trigger than the one in the crosshairs.
I don’t know if American Society could handle it or not quite honestly. As it stands those who want to be armed are armed. The other issue is that those who go about on school shootings are NOT complying with societal rules, so I’m not sure your argument works.
To jump over into another realm for a minute, if somebody has a viscious dog, nobody bats an eyelash at having that dog put down. If the dog COULD be cured, we’d certainly prefer to go that route, but as he is dangerous we are forced into a scenario we’d rather not be in where we can’t cure him but we can’t keep him around either. I see those who use guns to harm others for no reason as being in the same boat. I’d RATHER not have to have guns in school systems, but the world is such that I think they would be better there than not.
but cars help more…
“Children in the fifty states with the highest rate of car ownership … were 1000 times more likely to die…”
BAN CARS NOW!!!
statistics are fun
-Imp
===============
We are not addressing the problem the correct way. People need to put God and prayer back in homes and schools. If the teachers must be armed, use stun guns. just my opinion. I’m ready for your attacks.