Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
What would it take, for a little honesty to take place here?
I am not a huge advocate of arming teachers. But no one said it would be perfect. If teachers have guns, there is the potential for more violence...the guns could go off accidentally, the teacher could snap and shoot up the school, a student could take the gun and shoot up the school. Those are the "cons" of arming teachers.
WDMSO, when you evaluate an idea, do you only look at the cons, or do you consider the pros, as well?
The idea of arming teachers offers the following potentially significant pros - it may deter some would-be shooters, it may help stop shootings from being worse than they otherwise would be.
Arming teachers might lead to some additional violence. But it's possible, that the violence it prevents, more than offsets that. So while the idea doesn't solve the problem, it might be an improvement over the status quo. That's the argument we need to have.
"the laws of probability more guns equal more accidents & gun violence"
When you ignore the deterrent effect, and you ignore the potential ability for a teacher to reduce the casualties of a shooting, you are right.
We will never get anywhere with thoughtless partisan rants.
Your logic is that perfect is the enemy of 'better'. It's thoughtless and dishonest.
|
why is it a good guy with a gun or a teacher with a gun an honest idea
posting about a good guy with a gun in a school shooting a ceiling tile... in class or saying more guns more likely increases the chances of accidents then preventing school shootings is thoughtless and dishonest ??
i think those who support guns in schools have not conducted an honest risk assessment of the whole idea they just assume gun equals better safety.. i dont assumes its risker to have a gun on a teacher a risk assessment shows it is