Gun-Trained Teacher Accidentally Shoots Gun In Calif. High School Classroom

[Pete F.]

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.

These are in the US
On average 10 children a year have been killed by guns in schools over the past 25 years.
On average 100 children a year have been killed riding their bicycles to school each year for the past 25 years
On average 1500 children a year are killed in gun violence
On average 15000 children a year are injured by guns
You accuse people of being thoughtless and dishonest because they think that more children will be killed if there are more guns in schools when the shots fired were one of two negligent discharge incidents yesterday. I can not find good statistics on negligent gun discharges by people currently permitted to have guns in schools, it would be interesting. However I would surmise that it will not save lives.
I think we have a gun problem but i think it is far bigger than school shootings

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

These are in the US
On average 10 children a year have been killed by guns in schools over the past 25 years.
On average 100 children a year have been killed riding their bicycles to school each year for the past 25 years
On average 1500 children a year are killed in gun violence
On average 15000 children a year are injured by guns
You accuse people of being thoughtless and dishonest because they think that more children will be killed if there are more guns in schools when the shots fired were one of two negligent discharge incidents yesterday. I can not find good statistics on negligent gun discharges by people currently permitted to have guns in schools, it would be interesting. However I would surmise that it will not save lives.
I think we have a gun problem but i think it is far bigger than school shootings

"You accuse people of being thoughtless and dishonest because they think that more children will be killed if there are more guns in schools "

WRONG.

I accuse them of being thoughtless, because in order to determine the effect of arming teachers, you need to estimate the additional violence caused by the extra guns, and then subtract from that, the violence that is potentially reduced by the presence of the extra guns. When doing a cost benefit analysis, you need to consider both the costs and the benefits, not one or the other.

Both sides are guilty of this, both sides tend to fixate on the side that serves their agenda, and ignore the side that serves the other agenda. That's why nothing ever gets done.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You accuse people of being thoughtless and dishonest because they think that more children will be killed if there are more guns in schools "

WRONG.

I accuse them of being thoughtless, because in order to determine the effect of arming teachers, you need to estimate the additional violence caused by the extra guns, and then subtract from that, the violence that is potentially reduced by the presence of the extra guns. When doing a cost benefit analysis, you need to consider both the costs and the benefits, not one or the other.

Both sides are guilty of this, both sides tend to fixate on the side that serves their agenda, and ignore the side that serves the other agenda. That's why nothing ever gets done.

Prove your point then, what is the cost benefit analysis

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Prove your point then, what is the cost benefit analysis

I haven't the slightest idea, never claimed I did. What I did claim, is that the idea, like all ideas, has both a cost and a benefit. It's quite possible the cost outweighs the benefit. But you can't ignore the benefit, and make a decision based just on the cost. That's all I'm saying.