Semantics. A teacher that chooses to carry a gun in school would have more responsibility than a teacher that chooses NOT to carry a gun in school, and thus a teacher that chooses to carry the gun would have more on his plate than the teacher that does not. The fact that you would even try to argue this point . . . :/
Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
opiate82
Bronze Squire
- 3,078
- 5
Your kid is much more statistically likely to be the victim of a shitty education than they are a mass shooter. I'll take the additional teacher and then allow them to conceal carry as the best use of resources mixed with an added layer of protection for my kids.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Where the fuck do you get off talking about "posts with no substance"? You posted, with a serious disposition, that adding carrying a loaded, concealed weapon to a teacher's job description wouldn't "add to a teacher's plate". That is just bullshit. I'm sorry if I hurt your tender sensibilities, but it is.
It's not semantics, you are suggesting this would forcibly add something to a teachers plate. We are saying it does not. If they feel like they are capable of taking on this responsibility then I don't see a problem them going through proper training which they can pay for out of pocket and being allowed to carry in a school.
Maybe you have a difficult time understanding the complexities and nuances of words but I'll try to explain what I was saying in a different way.
This wouldn't force new responsibilities onto teachers. It wouldn't forcibly add anything to a teachers plate.
They could choose to take this responsibility upon themselves if they felt able too. So instead of attacking a specific word in an idea, why don't you contribute to the discussion instead of "herp a derp" this would be extra work. Nobody is disputing that.
People claiming "teachers have enough to do already" are bringing up that point like that is some sort of counter argument.
Plenty of teachers have carried loaded concealed weapons into schools and are handling the voluntary added work load just fine.
I again question your contribution of ideas to this thread.
No no no. My god you seriously need to work on reading comprehension. Not once did I say anything about "forcing" anything on a teacher's plate. Not once. You seriously need to read more carefully. YOU were the one that said it would "add nothing to a teacher's plate". Adding things to a teacher's plate has nothing to do with them being forced to carry or wanting to carry voluntarily. BUT IF THEY CARRY A GUN, THEY ARE TAKING ON MORE RESPONSIBILITY (ie. having more on their plate) than a teacher that does not carry the gun.
That's why I question whether or not you have a gun. Those who do generally have a healthy respect and fear of their guns. For me, the idea of carrying around a gun and keeping an eye on it in a school filled with kids scares the shit out of me. I don't want that responsibility, and I don't think teachers should have the option of electing to take on that responsibility either. Leave it to the professionals who do that shit for a living, and are not distracted by other responsibilities.
So really, you want armed teachers, but you don't want to have to pay for them. Yo uwant them, out of the goodness of their hearts, to just take on that responsibility and cost to educate and arm themselves.
Tell me, where are these teachers supposed to get the money to buy the guns and ammunition and pay for these CGC classes? Where are they to get the money if their insurance decides to up their rates because they now own and carry firearms (I should note I'm not sure this would happen, but given all the other crap they increase rates over, it seems logical)? What about the school itself, do they pay those teachers more? What happens to their insurance rates if they now have armed teachers on campus? Where are the teachers to store their weapons, are they to carry them all day, everyday?
Oh thats right, you don't really care about all that complicated crap. Much easier to just say 'Fuck it, let teachers arm themselves and let god sort it out'.
I explained further in my second post. Just add the adverb "forcibly" in front of "add" and that is my argument.
I don't see a problem with teachers who feel capable of voluntarily adding this extra responsibility to themselves receiving training.
I fail to see the problem here, if teachers can't afford guns then that works toward your goal of no teachers with guns?
I'm certain there would be private citizens who would provide funding though, much like that instructor in Utah who does free classes.
What does forcibly or not have anything to do with anything ? So just answer this question:
A teacher that voluntarily chooses to carry a gun in a school has more responsibility than a teacher that does not chose to carry a gun in a school. True or false ?
Correct / True.
I fail to see what point you are trying to make in regards to guns in schools though.
Glad to see we are getting somewhere. So if it is true that a teacher that voluntarily chooses to carry a gun in school has more responsibility than a teacher that does not, then would that not be considered "adding more to their plate"? as in, allowing a teacher to voluntarily carry would be adding more responsibilities to that teacher ? And if this is true, because the care and maintenance of a loaded gun, especially in a setting filled with kids, is extremely important, isn't it true that such an important task should be left to those who focus ONLY on this important task, and not to someone who has to divide his/her attention and focus from an array of important tasks, such as teaching ?
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Now you're doing what's called "moving the goalposts." And it doesn't matter if it is voluntary, it would still be a quite serious addition of responsibility with ramifications beyond what you are apparently capable of discerning. You can be butthurt all you want because i called you an idiot. I've contributed quite a bit to the thread, and you are just posting nonsense at this point. Someone has to be here to speak truth to stupid.
If a teacher feels over worked they do not have to take on this responsibility. It would be voluntary.
Plenty of teachers have taken on this voluntary responsibility without problem.
You are bringing up an issue that there are no issues with, much like the republican voter fraud stuff. It doesn't happen.
Somebody who is overworked won't go through all this extra hassle to take on more responsibility. Teachers who have the time, desire, and capability of adding this responsibility should have the choice to do so is what I and others are arguing.
edit.. and looking back I did say forcibly add, so this entire fixation on the word add makes even less sense. This would be voluntary, it wouldn't require teachers to take on extra work if they didn't feel capable of doing so.
Plenty of teachers have taken on this voluntary responsibility without problem.
You are bringing up an issue that there are no issues with, much like the republican voter fraud stuff. It doesn't happen.
Somebody who is overworked won't go through all this extra hassle to take on more responsibility. Teachers who have the time, desire, and capability of adding this responsibility should have the choice to do so is what I and others are arguing.
edit.. and looking back I did say forcibly add, so this entire fixation on the word add makes even less sense. This would be voluntary, it wouldn't require teachers to take on extra work if they didn't feel capable of doing so.
See my post above, if you still want to cry about adverbs and verbs then I'll ignore the rest of your shit posts. If you want to add to the discussion please feel free to use that thing between your ears and voice an opinion besides "this is stupid". AKA trolling, if your only purpose in posting in a thread is to toss around insults, it's hardly adding to a discussion.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Who is trolling? If your post is stupid, and I call it stupid, then it just is what it is. Everything someone posts that you don't happen to like isn't tantamount to trolling.
The fact is that you made an inane statement and then moved those goalposts trying to make it seem more legitimate, when the qualifier you used is completely beside the point. Whether or not it would be voluntary has nothing to do with thefactthat it would be a significant addition to that teacher's responsibilities.
Xeldar
Silver Squire
- 1,546
- 133
If right to bear arms, means arms. Why are some arms banned and others aren't? I can't own a fully automatic machine gun, but I can own a handgun? Isn't this line arbitrary? What is the criterion for drawing the line for 'arms'? Is the line motivated by technocratic number crunchers (ie if you allow me to own a howitzer/nuke/holy hand grenade of antioch I ought to expect a % per 100k citizens increase/decrease in violence). Or is the demarcation motivated by visceral gut reactions?
As some members of society feel that a more armed populace is a great crime deterrent, wouldn't me owning a howitzer and a 50 cal machine gun nest make society safer? As well as having concealed grenades?
As some members of society feel that a more armed populace is a great crime deterrent, wouldn't me owning a howitzer and a 50 cal machine gun nest make society safer? As well as having concealed grenades?
If you want a real practical answer to your question, then the answer is: The line is drawn wherever the courts thinks the line should be drawn.
I think the notion put forward earlier in the thread that "right to bear arms" referred to man portable weapons. Ie. you can carry or "bear" it along with you. A howitzer / cannon I really wouldn't consider man portable myself.
I don't have a problem with restricting access to the more powerful semi automatic or fully automatic weapons. I don't see a reason to outright ban owning them though.
I don't have a problem with restricting access to the more powerful semi automatic or fully automatic weapons. I don't see a reason to outright ban owning them though.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
I don't think the argument is that safety for society as a whole improves as the caliber of our weaponry goes up. The line may be arbitrary, but any line is really.
Has been posted before. Law enforcement is required to qualify with sidearm twice a year, each qualification is 50 rounds. 100 rounds a year. Most CHL holders shoot 5 times that amount. I dont really care either way, but to say cops are more qualified that anyone else with a firearm is just not accurate.
If you choose to believe otherwise, that's fine.
This is so weak an argument that I can't believe you're trying to make it. You're assuming that a CHL holder shoots 5 times the amount that is required for Law enforcement qualification and also assumes that a police officer ONLY shoots his weapon when he is required to shoot his weapon to qualify for his sidearm. If a CHL holder -- someone who doesn't carry a weapon for their profession -- can shoot his weapon recreationally, why can't a cop -- who DOES carry his weapon as a requirement for his profession -- do the same ?
Even if I accept the conclusion that most CHL holders shoot their weapons more often than is required for a cop to qualify for his sidearm, this does not compel the conclusion that CHL holders are more qualified at using a handgun than a cop. Try something else.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,739
- 52,294
You have been wildly out of touch with reality for this entire conversation, but I think this takes the cake. How could someone possibly spend significantly more time training than someone else and not be more qualified than the lesser trained person? I mean I'm sure there are CHL holders who do the bare minimum in order to be allowed to keep carrying, but the bottom line is that it's a hobby for most of them, so presumably it's something they enjoy. For cops, firearms are part of work, so unless that cop happens to enjoy firearms as a hobby also, why would you assume he would spend any more time beyond the bare minimum to keep his job, just like every other American.