Teachers to be armed
- Thread starter Lurker
- Start date
It sounds odd, but I'll bet it works. I for one would be much more hesitant to go shoot up a school if I knew that some of the teachers were armed and dangerous.
Not that I would ever consider it in the first place.
Not that I would ever consider it in the first place.
So what happens when something goes wrong, teachers are allowed to start shooting?
Bringing guns into a school just escalates things imo. American gun laws are a touchy subject when talking to Americans but the way I see it, if I want to cause you harm I’ll bring say a knife, if you know I’m carrying a knife you’ll bring a bigger one, so I’ll bring a pistol, than you bring a bigger one, so I get an automatic weapon and so on. The problem never goes away because the root causes are not being addressed.
The problem isn’t kids flipping out and hurting others, that happens all the time and everywhere, the problem is the easy access to weapons that can hurt a large number of people very quickly. But like I said Americans seem to have a very strong opinion on gun ownership that I find scary.
For me the arguments for gun ownership are circular, there is high crime, so people should be able to arm themselves, having people armed means they can easily commit crimes, so more people need to be armed.
From a foreigners pov it's one of the scariest things I see about America.
I would prefer to see schools initiate policies to curtail the behavior that leads to school shootings (namely bullying) rather than take up arms against their own student body. However, it is their right.
I do agree with Lurker though. If teachers start bringing guns to class today, it just means that students are going to start bringing bombs to school tomorrow. Mark my words, Texas may be starting a vicious cycle that isn't going to end well.
I do agree with Lurker though. If teachers start bringing guns to class today, it just means that students are going to start bringing bombs to school tomorrow. Mark my words, Texas may be starting a vicious cycle that isn't going to end well.
Last edited:
If a student comes in aiming a loaded weapon at people (or firing it, if he gets that far), yes, another person in possession of a gun should shoot him.
If there were no guns to be found in America, the schools would be far safer. I can see that. But you also have to consider smaller-scale crimes. I am thinking of this as a mathematically expressed balance. School shootings are rare, while robberies are much more common. Robberies (and even murders) are relatively easy to accomplish without guns, or even knives, as long as the criminal carefully chooses his victims. Now consider what would happen if everybody had a gun. Suddenly every person poses a significant threat to any criminal who attempts a violent crime. Since those who are inclined to commit violent (or any) crime when provided with a gun are in the minority, we have an overall shift towards safety. It is true that suicidal/homicidal maniacs can take out more people with less effort, but they are much rarer, and they would be stopped earlier when they did go on rampages (compared to the current system in which they can get guns on the black market if not from honest shops).
Furthermore, I think we have to face the reality that there is no way we can eradicate the ownership of guns. They will always be present, and even if we manage to shut down all production in the United States, we will have plenty of imports from Mexican and other gangs crossing the border. It will simply mean that all the guns are in the hands of the criminally inclined, as opposed to being more evenly distributed.
I don't know exactly why you find the support for gun ownership scary; as I see it, it supports general safety. The escalation argument falls apart once you get to the point of firearms: having a bigger gun over a smaller gun makes much less difference than having a gun over a knife, or a knife over a flyswatter. Having a bomb is most often ineffectual, except for handy hostage situations.
I suggest a gadget with a large, red digital countdown display. In fact, you don't even need a bomb attached. The seconds counting down towards zero should be enough to extract some desperate negotiations.
I am reminded of the time a hostage taker negotiated to get a pepperoni pizza delivered (true story).
The "if everybody had a gun" argument makes a nice categorical imperative. Since its hypothetical, lets truly consider what it would be like if it were true.
First, consider if everyone has semi autos, the criminals will just find automatic weapons. If everyone has automatic weapons, the criminals will just find explosives. It continues in a nice perpetual slippery slope until we are all living in a war zone.
Second, what kind of country are we going to be living in if everyone has to own and carry a gun just to feel safe and secure?
Third, considering the number of deaths that occur as a result of firearm accidents, do you think that number would go up or down if everyone had a firearm?
Fourth, there is always going to be someone who can't own a firearm. That creates groups that are at an inherent disadvantage to other groups. Maybe it will just be young children and former felons, but just imagine how they will be put in perpetual danger since they won't be able to bear arms in a society that is completely armed.
Fifth, crossfire from gun shootouts would undoubtedly increase with more guns.
Sixth, most crimes are either, preplanned, crimes of passion, or opportunistic. In a preplanned scenario, guns will be taken into consideration so they won't do much good. In a crime of passion, having a gun increases the likelihood of death rather than decreasing the likelihood of the crime taking place. An opportunistic crime scenario would most likely be when an individual is not armed, so that means in addition to owning guns, people are going to have to constantly carry them so as not to leave themselves open to becoming a victim.
So arguing the categorical imperative of "if everyone had a gun" is not valid since it would create more problems than it would solve. There would not be an overall shift to safety, but rather an overall shift to greater devastation.
S
Shai Gar
Satya, the point of the hypothetical was not so much a reality, but the effect of a perception. Obviously we cannot create a society in which either no one or everyone owns and carries a gun. But even if 20% or so of people carried guns, it would be a huge deterrent to violent criminals. The important thing is that very few would dare to attempt such a crime in the first place if they thought that it was likely that they would face a loaded gun, so the increase in crossfire casualties would not approach the decrease in casualties overall.
You can look at modern international affairs to better understand why this works. We have far more powerful weapons these days, and yet civilized countries are less concerned about aggression from each other. We are really only worried by nutcases (suicidal or ignorant) who would engage in abnormal conduct with their powerful weapons. The rest of the nations are in a comfortable equilibrium, since they know that each one is not willing risk the massive loss of life inflicted in the process of attacking another. This was not the case in simpler times, when foot soldiers on campaign were the main vehicle of warfare.
You can look at modern international affairs to better understand why this works. We have far more powerful weapons these days, and yet civilized countries are less concerned about aggression from each other. We are really only worried by nutcases (suicidal or ignorant) who would engage in abnormal conduct with their powerful weapons. The rest of the nations are in a comfortable equilibrium, since they know that each one is not willing risk the massive loss of life inflicted in the process of attacking another. This was not the case in simpler times, when foot soldiers on campaign were the main vehicle of warfare.
Deterrent theory has been sociologically disproven for the reason I cited in my sixth case. It's invalid and the fact that people continue to cite it is troubling. I can even provide you with the statistics if you would like to see them. Districts which have heavy gun ownership have comparable if not greater crime than those which do not. Guns do not act as a deterrent.
Have you considered the fact the United States owns the vast majority of military power and many of the countries in this world, are in fact, afraid of being invaded by us? Unless of course, by "comfortable equilibrium" you mean overthrowing dictators and throwing countries into chaos in order to secure American corporate interests.
S
Shai Gar
I think it is obvious that guns do act as a deterrent. What you're talking about is a particular type of crime in which normal deterrents are irrelevant due to overwhelming emotions. A person who is rationally assessing his chances will realize that others having guns will constitute a greater risk for the criminal. While crimes of passion could remain unchecked, both opportunistic and planned crimes would decrease, because in the former case it is difficult to determine whether an unknown party is carrying a gun, and in the latter case one is less often able to arrange a scenario in which the the threat of the gun could be negated.
I would like to see the statistics. Those are almost always useful for studying these patterns. The above is reached purely by logic, and if those patterns are not found in the statistics, apparently we have a very strange population on our hands.
I'll add a prediction for the statistics: given that this mostly counts on a psychological effect, I don't think the effect would be significant until a significant percentage (my guess is about 15%) of the population carried concealed weapons. Before that point, the risk would be too low for most criminals to be accomplished enough to take into account, and the increase in deaths from the crimes of passion could cancel out or perhaps exceed the decrease in planned or opportunistic crimes. Imagining a graph, I think there would be curve in the overall crime/death rate (not sure exactly how those two would mesh) that would increase with the higher rates of gun ownership until you reach a critical point of "saturation," when the crime begins to drop, probably very sharply as you pass approximately 75%.
Yes, that is what I'm talking about. Remember that this is not just about the one you are attacking (though that nation's power is often a significant deterrent), but also the other nations that are present. This applies on an individual level as well. In most cases, a robbery at gunpoint in the middle of a crowd will be thwarted by a third party if a significant percentage of the people in the crowd are armed. Because criminals are in the minority, they will often be aware that they are outgunned (which is not the case when only those who are criminals in the first place are in possession of guns).
Do you really think a person who is committing a crime is "rationally" assessing anything aside from how not to get caught?
Pure logic is a stretch. You are making assumptions based upon your conventional wisdom. Namely your belief that guns serve as a deterrent because they pose a "risk". The risk is circumvented when you can't get to or use your gun.
I'll look up the stats and get them to you in a bit. I'm in class at the moment.
Last edited:
They would tend to assess how not to get killed as well.
I am assuming that even criminals care enough about their own lives to apply what wits they can muster. It is possible that I am assuming too high a presence of mind in the average criminal.
As for your last sentence: again, the criminal will often have to worry about other people present who might have guns. My guess is that an increase in gun ownership would result in a shift towards crimes in isolated places (like late-night gas stations) and a decrease in bank robberies (which tend to involve subduing customers who might be armed).
If we are talking risk assessment, then I think they are already putting their life on the line by acting.
I can't find the study I want, but this one provides some interesting light on our discussion.
Abstract from study
Book exert
An interesting reason why guns may increase crime is because they are themselves a form of loot.
Last edited:
Upon reviewing my notes, I have to concede that guns can deter opportunistic crime. It depends upon the type of crime and where it takes place as to whether or not guns act as a detterent. Sexual assault numbers are the most dramatically decreased by gun deterrence. Burglaries and mugging go up with high gun ownership. Where you live in the country also heavily influences how much deterrence guns have. Guns serve little or no deterrence in inner city urban areas, but serve higher in deterrence in rural and suburban areas. I'm still looking for an online database that has this journal.