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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

high school teacher — a reserve police officer — accidentally discharged his gun during a lesson at Seaside High School in Seaside, Calif.,

"No one was seriously injured during the incident." I bet the students ears beg to differ


the term accidental discharge is no longer used in the Military they call it a negligent discharge and discipline follows for the supervisor and the trigger puller


He was Trained .. and we haven't even started a nation wide arming program

the laws of probability more guns equal more accidents & gun violence

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.

[Got Stripers]

I don't think you can determine IF arming teachers will have the affect people think it might. Teachers aren't immune to having life beat them down to a point they think they have had it and having seen teachers back in my day take a lot of crap from the kids who really didn't want to be there; not sure I'd want that guy/gal armed when he/she snaps.

Then they have to be willing to use that gun and actually kill someone at close range, that's a world apart from shouting targets at your local gun club range. Then what if the shooter hasn't shot anyone yet and there is a possibility he can be talked down by a police negotiator, but the teacher prevents that from happening by confronting him and it escalates if the teacher fails to neutralize the shooter.

Then you have the crazy student, who learns the teacher has a gun and he doesn't have access to any at home, there are just so many situations to consider to even make a judgement call. I personally think funding for better school security measures, better awareness from other students (see something, say something), teachers and parents; along with better mental health care options are a better options.

What will be interesting down the road quite a ways, is what percentage of these younger kids who walked out yesterday asking for change, become the voters who will decide to seat someone who will change the gun laws in Washington. Look at this year and the Me too movement, women becoming empowered and the youth speaking out for changes; if the momentum holds some changes are inevitable.

[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.

[wdmso]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

"why is it a good guy with a gun or a teacher with a gun an honest idea "

Because in most cases (if not all cases), the mass shootings stop at some point, after the good guys with guns show up. Not before. So common sense dictates that if a mass shooter shows up somewhere, the closer a good guy is with a gun, the fewer victims there will be. Now, having guns in school may cost more lives than it saves (accidental shootings, someone getting their hands on the guns, etc). But there is a potential benefit to having someone on scene with a gun. Are you really going to say that makes no sense?

"i think those who support guns in schools have not conducted an honest risk assessment "

Some, sure. Some are touting the benefits of guns in schools and acting like there is no downside.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Now, having guns in school may cost more lives than it saves (accidental shootings, someone getting their hands on the guns, etc). But there is a potential benefit to having someone on scene with a gun. Are you really going to say that makes no sense?

I don't think anyone is saying it makes no sense. They're saying it makes little sense. The negatives are pretty significant.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think anyone is saying it makes no sense. They're saying it makes little sense. The negatives are pretty significant.

I think many people are saying it makes no sense (if Trump supports it, it must therefore make no sense). I agree with you on the negatives 100%.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I think many people are saying it makes no sense (if Trump supports it, it must therefore make no sense). I agree with you on the negatives 100%.

Well, to be fair I don't think most of what Trump says makes any sense. No thought behind any of it, he just repeats the last thing he saw on FoxNews.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the article you posted said Newton families - plural. I Saw a husband and wide comment about teachers. one family. 1<plural.

Paul, I'm also opposed to arming teachers, but I like a little honesty.

"Do you have any quotes from those "dozens of families" who you claimed wish teachers had guns that day?"

Nope. But I have common sense bursting out of my ears.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What would it take, for a little honesty to take place here?

Given you can't back up your statement (and were just shown to be wrong about liberals counting ability and a petty angry person at that), maybe if you were concerned about honesty you should stop lying yourself. If you want to talk about lack of honesty, either pull up statement from "dozens of families" or look in the mirror to see the person who is not honest.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Given you can't back up your statement (and were just shown to be wrong about liberals counting ability and a petty angry person at that), maybe if you were concerned about honesty you should stop lying yourself. If you want to talk about lack of honesty, either pull up statement from "dozens of families" or look in the mirror to see the person who is not honest.

"Given you can't back up your statement "

Sure I can, because I have a brain. Who would rather wait for the cops to show up, in that situation, than rely on an armed teacher?

You said families, plural, spoke out against it. The article only referred to one.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Given you can't back up your statement "

Sure I can, because I have a brain. Who would rather wait for the cops to show up, in that situation, than rely on an armed teacher?

You said families, plural, spoke out against it. The article only referred to one.

If you had a brain you wouldn't have questioned the article.

So either show us statements from the "dozens of families" or admit you're dishonest (either way you're petty for even commenting on the plural).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you had a brain you wouldn't have questioned the article.

So either show us statements from the "dozens of families" or admit you're dishonest (either way you're petty for even commenting on the plural).

The article couldn't even get the title right. There weren't multiple families that spoke against arming teachers.

If you were told there was a shooter at your kids' elementary school, a shooter whose goal was to kill as many kids as possible before dying, and you choices were

(1) wait for the police to show up, or
(2) have armed teachers in the school,

in that situation, I can't believe any meaningful number of people would pick #1. Now, thank goodness these shootings are rare, and on 99.99% of school days, you can make a compelling case that kids are safer with no guns in school. But once there's a shooter hellbent on random mass murder? I don't think any meaningful number of parents would pick #1.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The article couldn't even get the title right. There weren't multiple families that spoke against arming teachers.

.

The author probably figured that anyone with a brain would have know that mutiple people would have thought that way and they didn't have to quote more than one.

There were multiple people as I provided quotes from 2.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The author probably figured that anyone with a brain would have know that mutiple people would have thought that way and they didn't have to quote more than one.

There were multiple people as I provided quotes from 2.

Or he could have lied and used the word families intentionally, in order to attempt prove the liberal point he was trying to make.