South Dakota to let teachers be armed

[intellectualammo]

South Dakota to let teachers, et al. carry:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/08/south-dakota-to-let-schools-arm-teachers/comment-page-1/

And from this (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/south-dakota-gun-law-classrooms.html?_r=0) :

While some other states have provisions in their gun laws that make it possible for teachers to be armed, South Dakota is believed to be the first state to pass a law that specifically allows teachers to carry firearms.

About two dozen states have proposed similar bills since the shootings in December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., but all of them have stalled.

Edited March 8, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Hairnet]

Teachers are the last people I want to have guns. I have seen so many teachers have emotional breakdowns in the middle of class. Its depressing how imbalanced some of the teachers in my childhood were. 

[intellectualammo]

If I knew what I did now about public education (aka government schools) I'd of been a truant, on principle. Then armed myself against anyone forcing me to attend them. Boy, that would make a nice story for a book.

But before I get off topic, for me teachers are not the last people that I would want to see armed, as long as they follow the rules with concealed carry, I don't see any issue.

Edited March 9, 2013 by intellectualammo

[FeatherFall]

In my experience, the teachers that have emotional breakdowns are the same ones that are terrified of guns. I have met more than my share of confident and respectable teachers, and I would have felt safer if those teachers were armed.

Edited March 9, 2013 by FeatherFall
corrected typo

[Nicky]

Teachers are the last people I want to have guns. I have seen so many teachers have emotional breakdowns in the middle of class. Its depressing how imbalanced some of the teachers in my childhood were. 

I bet half of those teachers could've snapped your neck at any time. Or they could've used a pocket knife to stab you in the eye. They didn't. What does that tell you about the logical relationship between getting angry in class and killing people?

Edited March 9, 2013 by Nicky

[Hairnet]

I bet half of those teachers could've snapped your neck at any time. Or they could've used a pocket knife to stab you in the eye. They didn't. What does that tell you about the logical relationship between getting angry in class and killing people?

 

   Well that isn't even true. They really couldn't have. Most teachers are either too old, fat, or frail to chase down anything but a little kid. However if a teacher did want to shoot up a school, he or she could do so if he wanted too in the long term. I am not worried about that danger. 

 

    In my experience, 

 

       http://trendyme.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/teacher-vicky-lynn-lewallen-charged-with-rape-sodomy/

    

       That happened at the high school I graduated from. Oklahoma in general have a lot worse stories, and i could talk about some other stuff that didn't make the news. 

 

     I just don't see how guns are going to make things any better. The system is irrational and a lot of the people in it are irrational. Whats giving them a quick and easy way to kill people going to do? 

[FeatherFall]

   Whats giving them a quick and easy way to kill people going to do? 

It's going to pair with their rational faculty to allow them to better defend their charges. But you already knew that, right?

[mdegges]

I just don't see how guns are going to make things any better. The system is irrational and a lot of the people in it are irrational. Whats giving them a quick and easy way to kill people going to do? 

 

I used to believe that too, but I don't think it's right any longer. If a teacher seriously wants to kill a student (or multiple students), what's stopping him from doing it right now? Metal detectors? Armed guards? Non-armed guards? No- that stuff isn't in place at many schools. (I lived in LA most of my life and went to public schools- not one of them had these precautions in place. Anyone could walk into the school and bring whatever they wanted with them.. that's reason enough for me to support this law.) I think the most likely reason that teachers don't physically abuse or kill their students is what Nicky said- they understand the consequences of their actions and they aren't willing to risk the death penalty or life-imprisonment for flying off the handle.

 

What I'm more concerned about is the location and security of the firearms in class.. especially in classes with older children.

Another concern is teachers abusing their power, ie: molesting or raping students (at gunpoint!)

[secondhander]

Teachers are the last people I want to have guns. I have seen so many teachers have emotional breakdowns in the middle of class. Its depressing how imbalanced some of the teachers in my childhood were. 

 

A couple of points:

 

1. Those teachers who would conceal and carry in their classrooms are the same people who conceal and carry outside of the classroom. If they don't have a breakdown and snap and shoot people in other aspects of their lives, why do you presume they would at work? 

2. If a person did snap and decide to kill people, or kids, at a school, what does the right to conceal and carry at a school have anything to do with it? If they are going to break the law against murder, then the law against carrying a gun to school doesn't matter to them either. They could just as easily bring a gun from home, or go out to their car, if they have a gun kept there, and bring it into the classroom. Just as easily as a non-teacher, or anyone, could bring a gun into a school and start shooting. Do you think a "gun-free zone" really makes a difference?

 

It's important to realize that yes, there are psychotic people out there, and eventually a teacher may show themselves to be one and kills some students, but there is no reason to make collectivist judgments about all people and back laws that treat everyone as a criminal from the get-go.

Edited March 10, 2013 by secondhander

[Nicky]

 I just don't see how guns are going to make things any better. The system is irrational and a lot of the people in it are irrational. Whats giving them a quick and easy way to kill people going to do?

You're not giving anyone anything. Self defense is a right, not something for you to give or take.

[Craig24]

I just don't see how guns are going to make things any better. The system is irrational and a lot of the people in it are irrational. Whats giving them a quick and easy way to kill people going to do? 

 

They are being given a quick and easy way to defend themselves and the students if someone threatens them.  In a gun free zone (is this what you defend?) it's possible to threaten the students without the possibility of armed resistance and that makes 'gun free zones' much more dangerous. 

[FeatherFall]

There are two points that I think are particularly interesting because the answers are not obvious. The first is this idea that there will be an increased chance of a teacher raping a student. I don't think it is a realistic fear. I am no expert on the matter, but when a teacher has sex with a student I don't think it is usually with brute force. My assumption is that it happens through the abuse of the "power relationship" combo of authority and the slow introduction of intimacy.

The second idea is how to safely have a Firearm in the classroom. Teachers who wear blazers could easily and safely conceal the weapon in a shoulder holster. There are some hip holsters (like the SERPA) that require practice to effectively draw from, and they are extremely difficult to draw if you are not the person wearing the holster. Essentially, they require the push of a button or lever as well as a very particular drawing motion before the gun is released. Other ways to protect the gun would be to use a gun safe, but this gives me pause because there are several additional precautions people don't always take, such as bolting the safe to something immovable. I also wouldn't want to see like a combination safe in the classroom; given enough time an eight year old could crack the code. I'd be more comfortable with the teachers carrying the weapons on their persons.

[mdegges]

Just to clarify, I don't know if there will be an increased rate of teachers raping students because they are allowed to carry guns. My premises are that: 1) students aren't allowed to carry guns, knives, or any other kinds of weapons at school, and 2) if someone puts a gun to your head, you're going to do what they tell you to do. (This point alone is pretty scary, given that (10%?) of students in public schools in the US are sexually abused by their teachers. But I have no idea how many of these students were threatened (ie: 'i'm going to fail you if you don't xyz,' or 'i'm going to kill you if you tell anyone about xyz.') Still, ANY threat would be 500x worse with a gun to your head.)

[Nicky]

(10%?) of students in public schools in the US are sexually abused by their teachers.

If I suggested where you got that figure from, would you count that as sexual abuse?

[mdegges]

If I suggested where you got that figure from, would you count that as sexual abuse?

 

Of course not- but since you haven't yet, I will provide it:

 

"The best available study suggests that about 10 percent of students suffer some form of sexual abuse during their school careers. In the 2000 report, commissioned by the American Association of University Women, surveyors asked students between eighth and 11^th grades whether they had ever experienced inappropriate sexual conduct at school. The list of such conduct included lewd comments, exposure to pornography, peeping in the locker room, and sexual touching or grabbing. Around one in 10 students said they had been the victim of one or more such things from a teacher or other school employee, and two-thirds of those reported the incident involved physical contact. If these numbers are representative of the student population nationwide, 4.5 million students currently in grades K-12 have suffered some form of sexual abuse by an educator, and more than 3 million have experienced sexual touching or assault. This number would include both inappropriate romantic relationships between teachers and upperclassmen, and outright pedophilia."

[FeatherFall]

Of course not- but since you haven't yet, I will provide it:

 

The list of such conduct included lewd comments[...]

You and the study may disagree on the definition of sexual abuse. Whether or not lewd comments should be included in that definition might be an interesting discussion.

[Nicky]

You and the study may disagree on the definition of sexual abuse. Whether or not lewd comments should be included in that definition might be an interesting discussion.

It would be a short discussion.

[Hairnet]

Haven't been able to look at the forum all week. So sorry for late replies. 

 

I don't want a "Gun Free Zone".  Ultimately it should be the choice of a private institution an who gets to carry guns and who doesn't. I suspect that most businesses would opt for restrictions on guns for their customers, members, and employees and would hire out their security needs to specialists. 

However public schools are not private institutions. So now the issue is political.

 

When it comes to government workers carrying guns, I would prefer that the people who do carry guns be professionals whose task is the security of the campus. The reason is two fold.

 

1) A giant public sector union that is filled with irrational and incompetent people should not be encouraged to carry weapons. I cited the scandal at my high school as evidence of power corrupting and irrationality. 

 

2) There is also the fact that the division of labor is just a good thing in general. The government has the right to defend its institutions  and people who are trained specifically to do this job are much less likely to endanger others while on school grounds. Leaving the defense of institutions to its individual members only exacerbates the issues I stated above. 

 

 

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

 - Ayn Rand 

Edited March 14, 2013 by Hairnet

[Nicky]

There is also the fact that the division of labor is just a good thing in general.

That is most certainly not a fact. Division of labor is good only when it makes economic sense. Not in general. The notion that I shouldn't vacuum my house because I'm a software engineer, for instance, is absurd.

In this case, in particular, hiring enough people to provide security for every single classroom in America would not be "good". It would be bad. Very, very bad, costing billions upon billions of dollars bad.

[tadmjones]

Hairnet re school scandal

What does your twice cited school scandal have to do with the topic of teachers either carrying or not being permitted to carry weapons on campus? It does show how people in the public education system are protected professionally if they act irrationally. It seems this was an ongoing problem with a particular individual, actually if what one poster said was true that 95% of parents confronted the board about this coach to no avail , I do not understand how they could have let their children participate in any program this person was invovled with.

Either way, what does this have to do with guns in school zones?

[Hairnet]

That is most certainly not a fact. Division of labor is good only when it makes economic sense. Not in general. The notion that I shouldn't vacuum my house because I'm a software engineer, for instance, is absurd.

In this case, in particular, hiring enough people to provide security for every single classroom in America would not be "good". It would be bad. Very, very bad, costing billions upon billions of dollars bad.

 

 

   We aren't talking about your house, we are talking about institutional arrangements. If you could afford it you might buy a robot that would vacuum your house so you could have more time to do other things. You are basically saying "Its too expensive". 

 

   However I was not even arguing that schools should increase their spending on security. I said that people whose profession is security or law enforcement have a better idea of how to handle an emergency than people whose profession is teaching.

 

   If you want to have a teacher whose roll is also to actively address an emergency with a firearm while acting as a government official, he or she should be put under the same scrutiny as any other member of the government who is allowed to carry firearms while on the job. 

[Hairnet]

Hairnet re school scandal

What does your twice cited school scandal have to do with the topic of teachers either carrying or not being permitted to carry weapons on campus? It does show how people in the public education system are protected professionally if they act irrationally. It seems this was an ongoing problem with a particular individual, actually if what one poster said was true that 95% of parents confronted the board about this coach to no avail , I do not understand how they could have let their children participate in any program this person was invovled with.

Either way, what does this have to do with guns in school zones?

 

   You said it yourself. The public education system protects the irrational and incompetent.

 

   A cop can't carry a gun on the job unless he maintains a certain code of conduct (ideally). Even cops have problems with corruption and acting irresponsibly with weapons. Teachers don't even have the oversight that cops have. 

 

  . Here is another lovely story from Oklahoma. This boy wasn't killed because of anger, or because he wouldn't have sex with someone. This boy was killed by rank incompetence.

 

  http://www.koco.com/Funeral-Set-For-Noble-Boy-Accidentally-Killed-By-Officer/-/9844716/10765774/-/13ewqaj/-/index.html

 

  EDIT: If you find my link about the cop confusing, I am drawing attention to the fact that we should be careful about which people in the government are allowed to carry guns. Also I am drawing attention to the kinds of things that can happen when you have incompetent people using guns  

Edited March 15, 2013 by Hairnet

[tadmjones]

Hairnet

Again that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. The wider point , I think, in this kind of discussion should be along the lines that if we lived in a society that treated the right to carry as it does drivers' licenses, it would be reasonable to assume that when in public a significant percent of public will be armed at anytime and at any place being armed would not necessarily give anyone advantage as far as initiating force. Walking around brandishing a weapon would certainly draw attention and make one a 'marked man'. Any threats you feel 'may' come from unstable teachers would be checked by the other more rational and armed people in the immediate vicinity.

[Nicky]

   We aren't talking about your house, we are talking about institutional arrangements.

I am talking about the statement "Division of labor is a good thing in general", which you used as a premise. That statement is not true. That's all I was talking about.

[Hairnet]

Hairnet

Again that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. The wider point , I think, in this kind of discussion should be along the lines that if we lived in a society that treated the right to carry as it does drivers' licenses, it would be reasonable to assume that when in public a significant percent of public will be armed at anytime and at any place being armed would not necessarily give anyone advantage as far as initiating force. Walking around brandishing a weapon would certainly draw attention and make one a 'marked man'. Any threats you feel 'may' come from unstable teachers would be checked by the other more rational and armed people in the immediate vicinity.

 

   It has everything to do with the topic. Guns in the hands of wrong people get people killed. At the very least a private citizen can be avoided if you think he or she is irresponsible. However, children who are forced by and large by the state (and the situations it creates) to be around these people no matter what. 

 

   Government agents who are intended to act as defenders during an emergency need oversight beyond that of a private citizen. 

 

  @Nicky 

 

   "In general" always meant "when it makes economic sense". What would it even mean for someone to argue otherwise (which I did not).