Texas - I love living here!!!

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The problem is that you think it's this simple, or even this accurate.

It's far closer to the truth to say that conservatives are for smaller government and less taxation while liberals are for bigger government and more active government.
Because if you know your Texas history, you know that we are only relatively recently a Reublican-oriented state. Democrats used to rule the roost here. Remember LBJ?

And if you have paid attention to the present Republican administration, then you know that smaller government (read: little government spending) is most definitely not something you could accuse it of.

The bolded area is a restatement of what I said. So, I guess we agree.

Old school Southern Democrats are mostly the same as what we are today calling "conservatives". Ben Nelson is the Democrat Senator from Nebraska and he routinely votes with the Republicans because he is basically a conservative. Schwarzeneggar is more liberal than Ben Nelson but their party labels are flipped.

GW Bush probably would have been a small government proponent (we'll never know) but the issues of Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, and a sorry economy all caused him to do the same thing Reagan did which was to:
1)cut taxes
2)increase the size of government spending to spur the economy
GW Bush just had to increase the size of government spending even more to deal with the military actions.

Now, don't go post a table showing that every president in our lifetime has spent more than the one ahead of him. I know that. That pattern holds true for both parties by the way and some of it is inflationary.

The brief Republican era of control of Congress under Newt was an era when the Republicans reduced the rate of increase of spending in order to balance the budget.

And, Chum. Your wikipedia arguement is very weak. I just quoted that source. And, later, I made it more straight up simple for you by just showing the base state income tax and the base sales tax.

And, Chum, you are still missing the point that the list of states that do not have a state income tax are states with government built on the old school conservative principles of small government. Actually, the part of your quote that I bolded above indicates that you agree with me on that but for some reason you choose to prolong this debate. I'm pretty sure you are prolonging this debate because you really don't like me at all by this point.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Texas already drills oil, as you know. Alaska, Florida, and Washington are other seaside states that thus enjoy the spoils of their natural resources. South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nevada have lots and lots of land and don't have many people.

Other states either have a lot more people to provide things for or don't have the bounty of natural resources...meaning they have lesser need for taxation.

Or, do you want to talk about the state budgets in South Dakota and Wyoming? Do you want to hold up their educational systems, for example, as models of excellence?

California, Washington, Oregon, and the entire Eastern Seaboard and all of the Gulf States enjoy whatever "natural resources" you are alluding to that give Alaska, Florida, and Washington some sort of advantage in your mind. So, why are Alaska, Florida, and Washingon the only one of the three that have no state income tax?

Why does a state with the business and world power/economy advantages of New York have the highest tax rate in the country?

The answer, my dear antagonistic friend, is just in pure politics. The governments in those states either have a "small government" history or a "big government" history. That is all.

And, since you decided to jump on the educational rankings...
The worst educational rankings are in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.
You can find a set of rankings if you want to, Chum. But, the fact that you expect the government to educate your kids is just another example of how you are for big government. Old fashioned State's Rights' Proponent, small government conservatives thought they should teach their own children themselves...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Texas already drills oil, as you know. Alaska, Florida, and Washington are other seaside states that thus enjoy the spoils of their natural resources. South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nevada have lots and lots of land and don't have many people.

Other states either have a lot more people to provide things for or don't have the bounty of natural resources...meaning they have lesser need for taxation.

Or, do you want to talk about the state budgets in South Dakota and Wyoming? Do you want to hold up their educational systems, for example, as models of excellence?

California drills movies.. I haven't been getting into this mix here but having oil is no bigger a benefit than having hollywood imo.
http://www.laedc.org/reports/Film-2005.pdf
The california movie industry was worth 34Billion dollars in 2002.

I couldn't find a comparable overall industry number for Texas and oil but I don't believe it's much bigger than hollywood. Afterall, once you've created a movie, it's almost free to "drill" it.
http://www.statesman.com/business/co...704oilgas.html

The conclusion the state's economists reach on those prices could affect the upcoming legislative session. At the pace oil-and-gas tax revenues are growing this fiscal year, Texas could reap about $3.9 billion for its general revenue and Rainy Day Fund.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

"These states are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming"

The above states are the states with no state income taxes...

Nice list of states that can do something about our energy problems as well. A high percentage of what is being discussed as solutions are in that list of states above...

Isn't that interesting????

Isn't it true that basically, Alaska, Texas, and Wyoming don't have income taxes because they tax the local petroleum industry instead. Ditto for Nevada and "gaming". I don't know what the florida Washington and South Dakota.

edit...oops, I didn't see the subsequent posts...

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Every thread turning in an oil thread now?!?

LOL

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Every thread turning in an oil thread now?!?

LOL

I guess OIL is on everyone's mind these days.

[rabbitproof]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc

Open question: Does that make you want to send your kid to that class more... or less?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc

Open question: Does that make you want to send your kid to that class more... or less?

I saw this article earlier today, and was going to post it here in this thread too. The following link contains some more detailed information:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5945430.html

Here are my thoughts on it...

School experts backed Thweatt's claim that Harrold, a system of about 110 students 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth, may be the first to let teachers bring guns to the classroom.

This is a very small school of 110 students, in the middle of nowhere (150 miles NW of Fort Worth), up Hwy 287. I have driven through there before on my way to New Mexico. Very small town.

In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

Teachers packing heat have to have a CHL, and have additional crisis training and permission from the school. They aren't letting just any teacher carry, and those that do carry have to use approved ammuntion.

Superintendent David Thweatt said the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff's office, leaving students and teachers without protection. He said the district's lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target.

This goes back to earlier comments in this thread. The police station is way too far away for the police to be of any use. A lot of people can be dead in a 30 minute time frame. In earlier comments we talked about people being trained as a Community Watch group, because of the size of neighborhoods and distance from police stations. I see this school district following that same logic here.

"When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can't defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog," Thweatt said in Friday's online edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

This statement is obviously one man's opinion and should not be read as an indisputable fact. However, the same argument has been made on this thread and others with regards to places like D.C and Chicago, where handguns were banned. If a criminal knows a population is legally banned to be armed, it makes for easy targets.

Thweatt said officials researched the policy and considered other options for about a year before approving the policy change. He said the district also has various other security measures in place to prevent a school shooting.

Clearly a decision made with much consideration, and not a "cowboy" knee-jerk reaction.

Note also Universities in Utah are allowing their students to carry concealed weapons. The reasonings are very similar. We all remember Virginia Tech, and what could have been averted if someone was carrying and could have stopped Cho.

So to answer the question.... This policy would make me feel safer sending my kids to that school. I see teachers carrying as no threat at all to the students.

[wmbwinn]

Rabbit: I vote "more likely" to send my kid to school.

Of course, if the district had serious problems, I'd:
1)move
2)keep my kid at home and teach him/her myself
3)teach my kid how to shoot also... (which I have already done by the way...). My nine year old can shoot...
Of course, my nine year old cannot get to where the guns are kept. And, the ammo is kept in a different locked position. For anyone to get my guns and ammo together, they have to find them and get past two locked areas (one for guns, one for ammo). I'm the only person that can access either area without a crowbar

My nine year old only shoots when I am with him. We're going shooting tomorrow, actually.

[chumdawg]

I don't see this as that big a deal. After all, couldn't the city simply make a number of the teachers into actual police officers if they so chose? Then they wouldn't even have to conceal the weapons. I'm sure the great majority of large-size schools in this state already have armed police officers on campus as it is.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't see this as that big a deal. After all, couldn't the city simply make a number of the teachers into actual police officers if they so chose? Then they wouldn't even have to conceal the weapons. I'm sure the great majority of large-size schools in this state already have armed police officers on campus as it is.

We had an armed police officer at my jr high, back in 1988. That was 20 years ago.

[Underdog]

Teacher with gun = gun in classroom

Just gotta figure out how to get the gun from the teacher...



(where do kids get guns to shoot-up classrooms anyway?)

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Teacher with gun = gun in classroom

Just gotta figure out how to get the gun from the teacher...



(where do kids get guns to shoot-up classrooms anyway?)

Only if the students know the teacher has the gun. The point of concealment is to make sure they don't know.

And I have never heard of any school shooting where the shooter got their gun from a teacher. In every case I have heard of, the shooter brought the gun on school grounds himself.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

And I have never heard of any school shooting where the shooter got their gun from a teacher. In every case I have heard of, the shooter brought the gun on school grounds himself.

Obviously (could teachers carry concealed handguns in schools before?)



And the answer to my question is: kids massacre classmates with their PARENTS' GUNS...

(which means proper handgun EDUCATION -- not more guns, or bans -- is probably the best solution to the problem...)




['cause it ain't the NRA members' kids shooting up schools, nor is it realistic to ban all handguns, but school shootings happen a lot more often in the suburbs than they do in the ghetto...]

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Obviously (could teachers carry concealed handguns in schools before?)

Don't limit your view to only Texas. As I said before, Utah allows concealed handguns on college campuses. This article was talking about grade school, I know. But the point is there are schools in this country that already allow concealed weapons.

Originally Posted by Underdog

And the answer to my question is: kids massacre classmates with their PARENTS' GUNS...

Agree. They also massacre classmates with stolen guns, acquired from a home other than their own. But I would agree the majority are guns acquired at home.

However, consider Columbine. From Wikipedia:

In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought in what was perhaps a straw purchase in December, 1998 by a friend, Robyn Anderson, who had purchased the shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December, in private sales from individual(s). Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from a friend, Mark Manes for $500. Manes was jailed after the massacre for selling a handgun to a minor, as was Philip Duran, who had introduced the duo to Manes.

NO guns from parents there.

Originally Posted by Underdog

(which means proper handgun EDUCATION -- not more guns, or bans -- is probably the best solution to the problem...)

Yes, and I take great care to educate my children, and keep the guns and ammo locked up.

Originally Posted by Underdog

['cause it ain't the NRA members' kids shooting up schools, nor is it realistic to ban all handguns, but school shootings happen a lot more often in the suburbs than they do in the ghetto...]

To say "school shootings happen a lot more often in the suburbs than they do in the ghetto" implies they happen all the time. School shootings aren't all that common and frequent. How many school shootings have we had in Colorado? After Columbine it can be said "school shootings happen a lot more often in the suburbs than they do in the ghetto", because 1 is more than 0. There was another one in 2006. So after that one, the score in Colorado is 2-0. Of course there may be others, but I couldn't find any in my 1 minute google search.

From the same Wikipedia article I quoted above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbi...chool_massacre

In May 2002, the Secret Service published a report that examined 37 U.S. school shootings. They had the following findings:

Incidents of targeted violence at school rarely were sudden, impulsive acts.

Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s idea and/or plan to attack.

Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.

There is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence.

Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.

Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures. Moreover, many had considered or attempted suicide.

Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the attack.

Most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack.

In many cases, other students were involved in some capacity.

Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most shooting incidents were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

School shootings aren't all that common and frequent.

That's exactly why teachers don't need guns in the classroom - it's a kneejerk reaction that could quickly lead to the score of:


Columbine - 1

Kid who found teacher's gun - 1



(and "1" is too high a score for either...)

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Underdog

That's exactly why teachers don't need guns in the classroom - it's a kneejerk reaction that could quickly lead to the score of:


Columbine - 1

Kid who found teacher's gun - 1



(and "1" is too high a score for either...)

I agree 1 is too many.

And your argument that a kid could find the teacher's gun assumes the teacher has the gun in his desk, in a cabinet, etc. It is more likely that the teacher has the gun in a holster, concealed on himself so that he always has it with him if needed no matter where is on school grounds. The only way a kid would find it, is if he let it be known he had it (by using it, or talking about or showing it). In the case of a female teacher, I suppose it's possible the gun is in her purse. But then the kids would have to be looking in her purse to find it. And if the gun is in a purse locked up in a desk, it's useless in an emergency.

[chumdawg]

Where do you conceal a pistol if you aren't wearing a jacket? It's a rare teacher who wears a jacket all day (if at all).

I'm not arguing the larger issue. As I hinted at earlier, I don't see anything demonstrably wrong with, say, a uniformed police officer teaching a class. In fact, that uniform and badge and pistol on the hip do convey, shall we say, a sense of authority that perhaps is missing in certain school situations.

I'll admit, though, that it is somewhat odd to imagine a math teacher working problems on the board with a shoulder holster over his dress shirt. It's probably too close for comfort to the image of a military state.

Aw, hell, the more I think about this and try to consider both sides of the issue, the more ridiculous it seems. On second thought I don't think we want teachers bearing the responsibility of keeping the peace during a murderous rampage that in all likelihood is never going to break out. Those teachers have a job to do that is already tough enough as it is.

And we should probably remember that the Columbine kids intended to do the bulk of their damage with explosives, if I'm not mistaken. Handguns are no defense against explosives. And if the bad guys know that they won't have the only guns in a gunfight, that makes them more predisposed to use explosives.

Maybe shit just happens sometimes, down to human nature, and despite our best interests we might not be able to do anything about it. I mean, compare Columbine and the DISD. Which is more likely to see a gun crime? Put another way: if your job was to take measures to prevent gun crime on every campus in America, where do you start and finish? Where does the DISD rank, compared to Columbine or the podunk Texas school that has authorized its teachers to carry guns? And how many gun crimes of this sort has the DISD experienced, with none of this sort of defense?

Maybe this is using a crane to swat a fly. Maybe we ought to spend more time believing that people are basically good when it comes down to it, rather than obsessing over our potential evil sides and creating these weird, uncomfortable environments for everybody because we are worried about that one nut case who, like Godot, will likely never come.

Now that I think about it, it's probably a good thing that none of my teachers were packing heat. They may not have shot me, but I can't guarantee you I wouldn't have been pistol-whipped a time or two.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Where do you conceal a pistol if you aren't wearing a jacket? It's a rare teacher who wears a jacket all day (if at all).

I'm not arguing the larger issue. As I hinted at earlier, I don't see anything demonstrably wrong with, say, a uniformed police officer teaching a class. In fact, that uniform and badge and pistol on the hip do convey, shall we say, a sense of authority that perhaps is missing in certain school situations.

I'll admit, though, that it is somewhat odd to imagine a math teacher working problems on the board with a shoulder holster over his dress shirt. It's probably too close for comfort to the image of a military state.

Aw, hell, the more I think about this and try to consider both sides of the issue, the more ridiculous it seems. On second thought I don't think we want teachers bearing the responsibility of keeping the peace during a murderous rampage that in all likelihood is never going to break out. Those teachers have a job to do that is already tough enough as it is.

And we should probably remember that the Columbine kids intended to do the bulk of their damage with explosives, if I'm not mistaken. Handguns are no defense against explosives. And if the bad guys know that they won't have the only guns in a gunfight, that makes them more predisposed to use explosives.

Maybe shit just happens sometimes, down to human nature, and despite our best interests we might not be able to do anything about it. I mean, compare Columbine and the DISD. Which is more likely to see a gun crime? Put another way: if your job was to take measures to prevent gun crime on every campus in America, where do you start and finish? Where does the DISD rank, compared to Columbine or the podunk Texas school that has authorized its teachers to carry guns? And how many gun crimes of this sort has the DISD experienced, with none of this sort of defense?

Maybe this is using a crane to swat a fly. Maybe we ought to spend more time believing that people are basically good when it comes down to it, rather than obsessing over our potential evil sides and creating these weird, uncomfortable environments for everybody because we are worried about that one nut case who, like Godot, will likely never come.

Now that I think about it, it's probably a good thing that none of my teachers were packing heat. They may not have shot me, but I can't guarantee you I wouldn't have been pistol-whipped a time or two.

Guns can be concealed, even if you're just wearing jeans and a t-shirt. You can get a holster that goes inside your jeans, and is sunken in slightly to conceal the pistol grip. These kinds of holsters are usually disguised as a pager, and are designed to conceal a small snub-nose pistol. You can also use an ankle holster. You don't have to wear a suit jacket to hide your shoulder holster. There are a lot of people on the streets every day in TX who have a CHL, and who are packing, but you wouldn't know it.

So again, if a teacher has a concealed gun in the classroom ("concealed" being the operative word here), the students aren't going to know about it. They aren't going to see their math teacher wearing a shoulder holster, because that would not be concealed.

Your argument about the odds of an incident happening is one of the same arguments used back when the TX CHL debate was on. If you're highly unlikely to ever need or use a concealed gun, why make it legal and introduce a gun to a bad situation? The pro-CHL side to that argument is "why not let a law-abiding citizen protect himself when the other guy brings a weapon to the fight?" The same applies to schools. Sure, I'll agree that it's highly unlikely anything will ever happen at that podunk little school. But I'm pleased to see the school district is at least considering the possibility of an incident, and the inability of law enforcement to arrive in a reasonable amount of time. I would hope the DISD would follow suit.

I don't know how many gun crimes DISD has dealt with. How many gun crimes did Columbine deal with before that attack? How many gun crimes did Virginia Tech deal with before Cho's attack? The answer to all of those questions is probably similar.

As a parent, I would rather have my kids in a school where I know the teachers and staff are at least permitted to provide self defense if needed. If a shooting were to take place in my kids' schools, and if one of the teachers shot the perpetrator, he would probably be prosecuted for illegally carrying a gun to school, even though he would have saved many lives.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

But I'm pleased to see the school district is at least considering the possibility of an incident

I guess it's just a worldview sort of thing. There's something about the idea of a podunk school that thinks it needs guns to rightfully protect against itself against the threats it faces that rubs me the wrong way. To me it breeds the notion that every person you interact with on a daily basis should be seen as a potential enemy. The kind of enemy that will kill you if you can't kill or disable him first.

I would probably think twice about sending my kid into a potential war zone. I might worry about the message it sends to him. I might even thinking about moving to a small town, away from the urban crime blight, where a kid is free to do so much as attend school without the fear that a gunfight could break out at any time, and is likely enough to do so that the teachers are compelled to carry guns.

Except...I'm already in a small town. What the hell? What is this nation coming to, that even in a small town you might be a sitting duck just sitting in your classroom?

Jaded, man. Jaded.

As a parent, I would rather have my kids in a school where I know the teachers and staff are at least permitted to provide self defense if needed. If a shooting were to take place in my kids' schools, and if one of the teachers shot the perpetrator, he would probably be prosecuted for illegally carrying a gun to school, even though he would have saved many lives.

You could also send your kids to school with (well-concealed) guns, and accomplish the same thing (at least as far as your kids' safety is concerned). You know, lives being saved and all. Unless, of course, you think a schoolteacher would do a better of protecting your kid than your kid could do with a gun in his hand.

[Underdog]

What if the teacher snaps and starts shooting-up the classroom?


(since we're already acting under the notion that anything can happen at any time...)

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Underdog

What if the teacher snaps and starts shooting-up the classroom?


(since we're already acting under the notion that anything can happen at any time...)

Can you name me one incident where a teacher has snapped and caused bodily harm and/or fatalities in their classroom? I know of none. What if a police officer snaps and starts shooting up the town? Are you going to draw the conclusion that police officers shouldn't carry either? (since you're acting under the notion that anything can happen at any time...)

From the article I quoted in my first response to this school subject:

In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

So if I'm the head of the school district and I'm looking at a candidate for conceal/carry in one of my schools, you can bet your ass I'm going to want a full psych eval done on him/her. If there's any hint at all of a teacher having problems maintaining order in their classroom, or being just a little unstable, then application to carry in my school district is denied.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You could also send your kids to school with (well-concealed) guns, and accomplish the same thing (at least as far as your kids' safety is concerned). You know, lives being saved and all. Unless, of course, you think a schoolteacher would do a better of protecting your kid than your kid could do with a gun in his hand..

No, I could not send my kids to school with a well-concealed gun, because that is illegal. Remember, we're talking about the defense of law-abiding people, not the criminals.

And no, I do not think my armed 10 and 7 year old children can defend themselves better than an armed teacher can. But you know, my 10 year old is a pretty good shot...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Can you name me one incident where a teacher has snapped and caused bodily harm and/or fatalities in their classroom?

To name a few:


Video of teacher attacking students...

Teacher attacks student in North Carolina...

Teacher attacks first-graders with broom...

Student hit by teacher in Indiana...

Queens teacher punches 12-year-old in face...

Teacher's aide attacks autistic student...

Originally Posted by jefelump

What if a police officer snaps and starts shooting up the town? Are you going to draw the conclusion that police officers shouldn't carry either?

Well, I could post links about cops killing innocent people all day long, but cops and teachers serve two very different functions, so debating "cops with guns" vs "teachers with guns" is beyond moot...

[rabbitproof]

If a teacher can show enough bad judgment to sleep with a minor, who's to say another teacher will think to hold fire when he sees a kid is pulling a piece on him when really that kid is reaching inside his pocket just to grab a cell phone or something.


EDIT: SOLUTION FOUND!!

I say we have every school chair in America hardwired to a few megawatts of electricity and if kids disobey, they get a little static here and there... of course, having a human assign and delegate this electricity would be too grievous a responsibility and prone to human error. It should be automated, no doubt. If a student does not have both hands on their desk/table at all times, without permission otherwise, EDWARD (Electric Distribution Wizard for American Ragmuffin Development) will send a little juice that way. That'll teach em to not have two hands visible at all times, those greasy fcuks.

I know it doesn't help the energy issue and gas prices are a bitch but this is our children's safety here.......

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

And no, I do not think my armed 10 and 7 year old children can defend themselves better than an armed teacher can. But you know, my 10 year old is a pretty good shot...

Yes, I'm sure your 10-year-old is probably already better at using a gun than even your average high school teacher. That's not what gives me reason for pause. What gives me reason for pause is that your average high school teacher used to be able to get through his entire life without ever even handling a gun.

Other than that, I'm not sure what I find more disconcerting, the notion that your prebuscent child is already skilled at wielding a firearm or the notion that you are proud of it.

Seriously, ten years old? What, do you live in the boondocks or something, and you're going to need him to hunt down family food in a couple years? Who teaches a baby to fire a gun?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Underdog

To name a few:


Video of teacher attacking students...

Teacher attacks student in North Carolina...

Teacher attacks first-graders with broom...

Student hit by teacher in Indiana...

Queens teacher punches 12-year-old in face...

Teacher's aide attacks autistic student...



Well, I could post links about cops killing innocent people all day long, but cops and teachers serve two very different functions, so debating "cops with guns" vs "teachers with guns" is beyond moot...

If I had gone to google and searched for incidents, I'm sure I could have found some too. The point is they are rare, just like school shootings. In your examples, you have an incident the looks staged, you have a first year teacher, you have a substitute teacher, and you have a teacher's aide. There are others in the list, but that goes back to my comments about being in charge of the district. The people you quoted would never be allowed to carry if it were my district.

Again, I see nothing wrong with allowing select, responsible teachers carry. Some of the comments posted on this chatboard seem to make the argument that if anyone in any situation (in school or not) has a gun, then it will be used. I do not believe that to be the case.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yes, I'm sure your 10-year-old is probably already better at using a gun than even your average high school teacher. That's not what gives me reason for pause. What gives me reason for pause is that your average high school teacher used to be able to get through his entire life without ever even handling a gun.

Other than that, I'm not sure what I find more disconcerting, the notion that your prebuscent child is already skilled at wielding a firearm or the notion that you are proud of it.

Seriously, ten years old? What, do you live in the boondocks or something, and you're going to need him to hunt down family food in a couple years? Who teaches a baby to fire a gun?

I live in Fort Worth, just north of downtown, a few blocks off of I-35W. Note exactly the boondocks.

But where I live has nothing at all to do with it. My dad taught me how to shoot when I was 9 years old. He taught my older brother to shoot at a similar age. So what does a kid of 9 or 10 years of age learn from prepubescent firearms training? Other than learning how to shoot, they learn responsibility and respect with regards to firearms. I let my 10 year old son shoot my .308 rifle, and he swears he won't touch it ever again. The recoil was more than he expected, or wants to feel again for a long time. So will my kids play with my guns? No, they are locked up. But even if they weren't, my sons know and understand the power of a firearm, and they have learned to respect it. You said yourself earlier that the kids of NRA members aren't the problem. See, those kids are taught how to use and respect firearms.

And if it were such a bad thing for kids to handle guns, then why do the Cub Scouts have a BB Shooting beltloop?

What gives me pause are those highschool kids who manage to get their hands on guns, who have never shot in their lives and don't have any respect for the weapon. Those kids play video games and think it's cool to shoot. They learn what happens AFTER the fatal shooting.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

If I had gone to google and searched for incidents, I'm sure I could have found some too. The point is they are rare, just like school shootings. In your examples, you have an incident the looks staged, you have a first year teacher, you have a substitute teacher, and you have a teacher's aide. There are others in the list, but that goes back to my comments about being in charge of the district. The people you quoted would never be allowed to carry if it were my district.

Again, I see nothing wrong with allowing select, responsible teachers carry. Some of the comments posted on this chatboard seem to make the argument that if anyone in any situation (in school or not) has a gun, then it will be used. I do not believe that to be the case.

Why couldn't a first year teacher, substitute or teacher's aide have the same "right to defend themselves" as a regular teacher??? If schools are SO DANGEROUS, then I'd think they'd be at the same risk as any other teacher...

Oh, and the "staged" incident is EXACTLY the kind of scenario where I could see a teacher pulling a gun on a student (since that eighth-year teacher certainly didn't have the proper judgment to hold back his fists, regardless of whether or not he was being "suckered" into a fight...)



[because the State of Texas doesn't operate in the vacuum that is YOUR school district...]

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Why couldn't a first year teacher, substitute or teacher's aide have the same "right to defend themselves" as a regular teacher??? If schools are SO DANGEROUS, then I'd think they'd be at the same risk as any other teacher...

Oh, and the "staged" incident is EXACTLY the kind of scenario where I could see a teacher pulling a gun on a student (since that eighth-year teacher certainly didn't have the proper judgment to hold back his fists, regardless of whether or not he was being "suckered" into a fight...)



[because the State of Texas doesn't operate in the vacuum that is YOUR school district...]

Why doesn't the State of TX let everyone carry a concealed handgun, with or without license? It's basically the same question you asked me.

And everyone has the right to defend themselves. A firearm isn't the only tool available for self defense. Notice in that "staged" video, the teacher used martial arts too (the kick). I'm not saying I approve of what is shown in the video. If that video is in fact real, the teacher was out of line and should be fired and prosecuted... just saying there are more ways than shooting to defend oneself.

While I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, I also believe in the rule of law. In order to carry, you have to be approved by the state, after completing certain qualifications. This school district is operating in the exact same way. These first year teachers, substitutes, and teachers aides are not yet proven to be responsible and trusted to carry in a school, IMO. No vacuum here, as you put it. I'm using the same reasoning as the State in my response.

[mary]

These first year teachers, substitutes, and teachers aides are not yet proven to be responsible and trusted to carry in a school, IMO. No vacuum here, as you put it.

Ha! It's hysterical to me that you find some correlation between a teacher's employment status and their ability to handle the gun in a classroom.

I just think back to some of my teachers that had been teaching for twenty, thirty, forty years.....and I can't begin to imagine how you think their years in the classroom meant they would have been more qualified to carry a gun than a substitute teacher. Ha!

In fact, I wonder how old Ms. Choate would've faired in a gun fight with a sub..or a teacher's aide...or anyone else that was born AFTER the sixties.

That gave me a serious chuckle.

Vaccum? Sounds more like a fantasy world.


As far as giving teacher's guns...I think its an outstanding idea! I'm sure the students would NEVER find out about such a change in school policy (all they care about is their music and their long hair!). Hopefully the next would-be Dylan Klebold will give the teachers adquate notice that they will need to be locked and loaded (its only fair!), because god forbid a school massacre happen because Mr. Anderson was too busy helping little Johnny with his homework to notice that little-other-Johnny is in the boy's bathhroom about to pop a cap in someone's ass.

Heck, I don't even know why we're wasting valuable resources on public schools anyway. I'd be fine if we locked up everyone between the ages of five and twenty. Make the teachers go get "real" jobs like everyone else...no reason to spend valuable tax dollars on glorified babysitters and glorified security guards...just spend it on actual babysitters and actual security guards...they're cheaper and you probably wouldn't have to offer them a retirement plan.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

Ha! It's hysterical to me that you find some correlation between a teacher's employment status and their ability to handle the gun in a classroom.

I just think back to some of my teachers that had been teaching for twenty, thirty, forty years.....and I can't begin to imagine how you think their years in the classroom meant they would have been more qualified to carry a gun than a substitute teacher. Ha!

In fact, I wonder how old Ms. Choate would've faired in a gun fight with a sub..or a teacher's aide...or anyone else that was born AFTER the sixties.

That gave me a serious chuckle.

Vaccum? Sounds more like a fantasy world.

Since we're talking about carrying in school, it has nothing to do with one's ability to handle a gun. It has everything to do with said individual establishing credibility with his superiors. I would want someone I know I can trust. I don't know a new hire enough to make that call, just like I don't know a substitute teacher or teachers aid.

And we're talking about defending the classroom against an attacker, and not only about a teacher defending himself against a student. Imagine if a teacher had a gun when Cho entered a classroom at Virginia Tech. The slaughter would have been stopped. I could say the same about Columbine.

So laugh if you want to. You'll probably never have to deal with your own kids being in a school that was attacked, I probably won't either. But if that were to happen to you and/or your kids, you'll change your tune.

[mary]

Since we're talking about carrying in school, it has nothing to do with one's ability to handle a gun. It has everything to do with said individual establishing credibility with his superiors. I would want someone I know I can trust. I don't know a new hire enough to make that call, just like I don't know a substitute teacher or teachers aid.

Trust them in what way? To do what exactly? How is the credibility established?

[mary]

So laugh if you want to. You'll probably never have to deal with your own kids being in a school that was attacked, I probably won't either. But if that were to happen to you and/or your kids, you'll change your tune.

No, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't. But thanks for telling me what I should think...I have such a hard time doing it on my own!

I'm pretty certain that I can't control every single variable in the real world. I'm pretty certain that when I have kids, I wouldn't be able to ultimately keep "something" from happening to them (non-deity that I am).

I'm pretty certain that the "means" are way more important than the "ends" - or at least they are to me. I understand that caring about the "means" is not really a popular idea anymore.

I'm going to go hug a tree now, but maybe when I come back you can tell me what else I should think.

[mary]

By the way, what ever happened to good old fashioned "specialization and the division of labor"?

[Underdog]

"You must spread the Love around before giving it to mary again."

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Why doesn't the State of TX let everyone carry a concealed handgun, with or without license? It's basically the same question you asked me.

When did I say ANYTHING about concealed handgun licenses?


(and where do you buy your crack?)

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Underdog

When did I say ANYTHING about concealed handgun licenses?

You didn't. I did.

You asked "Why couldn't a first year teacher, substitute or teacher's aide have the same "right to defend themselves" as a regular teacher???" I responded with "Why doesn't the State of TX let everyone carry a concealed handgun, with or without license?"

The premise of your question is "why can't everyone carry a gun in that school?" So I gave an equivalent question, talking about the State in general. The answer is the same. Only those who follow certain requirements and are approved by the authorities can carry a concealed handgun.

In fact, at the school in question the State has to approve first, and then the school has added further requirements. Note, the school requires a CHL from the State.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

Trust them in what way? To do what exactly? How is the credibility established?

Trust them to abide by the law. If you research the handgun laws in TX, you will learn that it's only legal to pull the gun as a last resort, and as self defense only. If your attacker isn't armed, you can't pull your gun and shoot him just because he hits you. Heck, if you pull it out as a way to threaten or coerce someone to behave, you have just committed a felony.

To do what exactly? To be responsible. To use said handgun ONLY within the parameters established by the law, and by any other rules the school district chooses to add. Oh, and to keep the handgun hidden/concealed so that nobody knows you have it. Sure, the students are going to learn of the policy, but that doesn't mean they know WHO in the school is armed.

How is credibility established? If the person is a direct report, then by spending time with the individual and getting a feel for his demeanor. Learn how level-headed he is. Learn of his background. Does he have a military background? Things of this nature. If I'm a superintendent, then I also talk with the school principal for a recommendation. Of course, that's just how I would do it. I have no idea how this school is determining who can and can not carry.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

By the way, what ever happened to good old fashioned "specialization and the division of labor"?

What ever happened to taking personal responsibility for one's self? Why do we as a society have to rely on the government (law enforcement) to take care of us?