Texas - I love living here!!!

[mary]

Originally Posted by jefelump

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.

How much time are we talking about?

How many contact hours do you think a principal has with a teacher?

[mary]

Originally Posted by jefelump

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?

How about we rely on them for law enforcement?

How about we allow teachers to teach?

"Personal responsibility" obviously means different things to me.

Let me this get this straight.

If I'm a teacher that doesn't want to carry a weapon in the classroom, my issue is that I'm refusing to accept enough responsibility.....enough personal responsibility.

If that's your frame of mind, I don't think we have enough common ground to hold a decent discussion.


Heehaw!

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by jefelump

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?

Sounds to me like you want to go back to the wild wild west. Everyone has a gun on their hip, frontier justice, etc. Why wait for the marshall to get here, we know he dun it, let's string 'im up!

Guns have no business in a class room unless they're on the hip of a member of law enforement. If you're worried about enforcement at your school, get a couple off duty police officers to eat some donuts in the teacher's lounge for a while.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

How about we rely on them for law enforcement?

Yes, law enforcement is their job. And the article also noted the sheriff's office was 30 minutes away. Unless there's an officer close by, that school is on it's own for a half hour after the 911 call. That is the crux of the problem. That is the main reason the school district is even considering the change in policy. Is that so hard to understand?

How about we allow teachers to teach?

Yes, we allow the teachers to teach. That is their job. And while they have a classroom full of students, they are responsible for that classroom. While school is in session, the school principal is responsible for everyone in that building. Why do you think schools nowadays lock the doors? If I want to go see my kids at school, I have to be "buzzed" in by the front office, and then the only place I can go is the office to explain why I'm there, show ID, and get a visitor pass. And then once I'm past the office, many classroom doors are locked. I wonder why? Security concerns perhaps?

"Personal responsibility" obviously means different things to me.

Let me this get this straight.

If I'm a teacher that doesn't want to carry a weapon in the classroom, my issue is that I'm refusing to accept enough responsibility.....enough personal responsibility.

Your words, not mine. I'm simply stating that if I were a teacher in that school, I would not rely on the sheriff who is 30 minutes away. If I were permitted to carry (by law, and by the school district), then I would. If you choose not to carry, that's your choice and right. You can lock the doors, or do whatever else you deem appropriate and within your own comfort level. I'm not saying at all that choosing not to carry is irresponsible. Don't try to put words in my mouth. The premise of your comment is that as a teacher, all you have to do is teach, and let someone else worry about the other "minutia".

If that's your frame of mind, I don't think we have enough common ground to hold a decent discussion.

Every gun-related tangent on this thread has come down to two groups of people: those who believe in the use of force for self protection (and the protection of others), and those who don't. We have talked about the burglars coming out of the neighbors house. We have talked about the DC gun ban. We have talked about this school district's proposed change in policy. It's no surprise to me that you and I have consistently been on opposite sides of these discussions. If you think we're just wasting time here because of a lack of "common ground", then you're welcome to withdraw from the discussion.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Every gun-related tangent on this thread has come down to two groups of people: those who believe in the use of force for self protection (and the protection of others), and those who don't.

That is 100% not true. There wasn't a single person in the original discussion that denied one's right to use force to protect house and home. That point of discussion was centered around the difference between protecting and being a vigilante.

I am fully in favor of conceal and carry. I am fully opposed to the introduction of guns into the classroom.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by jthig32

That is 100% not true. There wasn't a single person in the original discussion that denied one's right to use force to protect house and home. That point of discussion was centered around the difference between protecting and being a vigilante.

I am fully in favor of conceal and carry. I am fully opposed to the introduction of guns into the classroom.

As you will recall in that discussion, the debate was over the killing of two men who robbed a neighbor. That man was not protecting his own home. Yes, everyone agreed it's OK to protect your own life and home. Those on your's and mary's side said it was not OK to use a gun to shoot someone breaking into a neighbors home. I seem to recall comments like "I'm not going to kill someone over an iPod."

[mary]

And I still will not kill someone over an IPOD.

How about answering my first question?

Through what manner or mechanism is this "trust" being established between the principal and the soon-to-be-gun-weilding-teacher?

Do you have any thoughtful solutions, or just more empty hyperbole to offer?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by jefelump

As you will recall in that discussion, the debate was over the killing of two men who robbed a neighbor. That man was not protecting his own home. Yes, everyone agreed it's OK to protect your own life and home. Those on your's and mary's side said it was not OK to use a gun to shoot someone breaking into a neighbors home. I seem to recall comments like "I'm not going to kill someone over an iPod."

Right, that was the discussion. The discussion was not over the use of force for protection, as you stated. It was over the use of force, and what level of force, for loss prevention, essentially.

And for the record, shooting someone breaking into someone's house is much different than shooting someone LEAVING a neighbor's house.

[mary]

Every gun-related tangent on this thread has come down to two groups of people: those who believe in the use of force for self protection (and the protection of others), and those who don't.

That's nonsense.

There's not a single issue out there where there are ONLY two sides. Thinking that way just makes it easier to dismiss my opinion, without really considering its merits.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

How much time are we talking about?

How many contact hours do you think a principal has with a teacher?

If I ask my kids' principal about any teacher in their school, he can tell me a great deal about them. I'm not a teacher, so I can't say how much time they spend together. However, the principal is the teachers' boss. How well does your boss know you? My boss knows me quite well, and could accurately and honestly provide feedback about me on any number of issues.

How much time? As much time as the principal needs.

You can continue to ask me more and more detail-specific questions about what I would do if you want, but you're detracting from the overall issue of this story.

from the article:

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.

The Superintendent has identified a problem/concern, and has offered his solution. Since you so vehemently disagree with his solution, then please offer one of your own. Remember, this is a small "podunk" little town, so I don't imagine there are many off-duty police officers around to act as security guards. The town probably has minimal cops as it is.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

That's nonsense.

There's not a single issue out there where there are ONLY two sides. Thinking that way just makes it easier to dismiss my opinion, without really considering its merits.

As you're trying to do with my opinion?

Sure there are. The story we're talking about right now. You're either FOR the school allowing teachers to carry concealed handguns in the classroom, or you're AGAINST it. Is there really a third side to this issue? If so, I would love to hear about it.

[mary]

If I ask my kids' principal about any teacher in their school, he can tell me a great deal about them. I'm not a teacher, so I can't say how much time they spend together. However, the principal is the teachers' boss. How well does your boss know you? My boss knows me quite well, and could accurately and honestly provide feedback about me on any number of issues.

How much time? As much time as the principal needs.

You can continue to ask me more and more detail-specific questions about what I would do if you want, but you're detracting from the overall issue of this story.

You can continue to ask me more and more detail-specific questions about what I would do if you want, but you're detracting from the overall issue of this story.

That's interesting. What kind of information? You can learn quite a bit about me from reading my resume and listening to my phone conversations. That type of information? Or is it "so-and-so is having problems at home" type of information?

I actually spend quite a bit of time with my boss - at least the one in the private sector. I work three feet away from him. Maybe you should consider the fact that logistics do not allow for this same sort of intimacy in a school setting.

How much time? As much time as the principal needs.

Are we talking sleep-overs?

[mary]

As you're trying to do with my opinion?

Nope, I'm taking your posts at face value.

[mary]

Originally Posted by jefelump

As you're trying to do with my opinion?

Sure there are. The story we're talking about right now. You're either FOR the school allowing teachers to carry concealed handguns in the classroom, or you're AGAINST it. Is there really a third side to this issue? If so, I would love to hear about it.

Oh wow. A couple of posts ago it was people who were for..what was it??....personal responsibility...and those who weren't.

How about there are those who believe in CHL and those who want teachers to carry guns.

How about there are those who don't believe in CHL and those who still want teachers to carry guns.

How about there are those who want to ban guns completely, and therefor don't want teachers to carry guns.

Maybe those who think that ALL employees inside a classroom should have a gun.

Maybe there are those who think that EVERYONE inside a classroom should carry a gun (it doesn't get more personally responsible than that, does it?)

Maybe there are those, like yourself, believe that only those that go through some magical screening proceses (which you've yet to describe) should be allowed to carry a gun.

See how easy that was?

[mary]

Yes, law enforcement is their job. And the article also noted the sheriff's office was 30 minutes away. Unless there's an officer close by, that school is on it's own for a half hour after the 911 call.

Well hopefully they can hunt down one of those trustworthy teachers that have magically been deemed qualified to carry a weapon inside of a classroom.

How long do you think that will take? I hope he's not outside smoking a cigarette, or in the john, or god forbid he called in sick that day.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

That's interesting. What kind of information? You can learn quite a bit about me from reading my resume and listening to my phone conversations. That type of information? Or is it "so-and-so is having problems at home" type of information?

I actually spend quite a bit of time with my boss - at least the one in the private sector. I work three foot away from him. Maybe you should consider the fact that logistics do not allow for this same sort of intimacy in a school setting.

Are we talking sleep-overs?

What kind of information? I believe I already answered that question.

Sleep-overs? See, you're trying to simply dismiss my opinion with sarcasm because you disagree with it.

As I said before, the Superintendent has identified a problem and has offered a solution. That's more than I can say for you. You're content to critize those who offer solutions, without offering any of your own.

So let's hear it. What is YOUR solution? Ignore the problem and do nothing?

[jthig32]

How about simply getting some sort of actual law enforcement at the school or closer to the school? Seems pretty logical.

[mary]

What kind of information? I believe I already answered that question.

Sleep-overs? See, you're trying to simply dismiss my opinion with sarcasm because you disagree with it.

Well, I asked you a question directly, sarcasm free, and you still didn't answer it.

I'll give it another shot.

In what manner do a principal and teacher establish a trusting relationship - one that would indicate that this person is responsible and stable enough to carry a gun in the classroom?

BTW, you obviously opened up this line of questioning when you stated that only certain teachers should carry a gun. I'm just asking how those certain teachers are going to be identified.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

As I said before, the Superintendent has identified a problem and has offered a solution. ...

So let's hear it. What is YOUR solution? Ignore the problem and do nothing?

What is this problem the super has identified? Let's hear you state it explicitly.

Perhaps the answer is to disagree with the super that he has identified a problem that needs a solution. We should get that straight first.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What is this problem the super has identified? Let's hear you state it explicitly.

Perhaps the answer is to disagree with the super that he has identified a problem that needs a solution. We should get that straight first.

For the third time I'm posting exactly what the Super said the problem is.

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.

So his concern is the distance of the Police Department from the school, and the relative close proximity of Hwy 287 from the school. He's apparently worried about how easy a target the school would be, with such a close escape route.

So do you disagree with the Super that this is a problem? If so, fine. You see no problem and therefore no solution warranted. If that's the case, just say so. You would do nothing.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

Well, I asked you a question directly, sarcasm free, and you still didn't answer it.

I'll give it another shot.

In what manner do a principal and teacher establish a trusting relationship - one that would indicate that this person is responsible and stable enough to carry a gun in the classroom?

BTW, you obviously opened up this line of questioning when you stated that only certain teachers should carry a gun. I'm just asking how those certain teachers are going to be identified.

The school's new policy states the teacher-to-carry must have permission from the school, as one of their requirements. That makes me believe the school would allow some to carry, and others not to carry. I simply went on the rules as put forth by the Superintendent in the article.

So to answer your question... how about an interview? Maybe ask the candidate how he feels about the use of firearms in a school? Maybe ask him under what conditions he would use said firearm? Perhaps ask him what kind of firearms training he has, aside from the State mandated CHL course? Perhaps bring in a psychologist to ascertain whether or not he fits a psych profile of someone who would snap and mis-use the gun? Heck, in order for someone to be assigned to the SWAT team, they have to undergo a psych evaluation. And no, I'm not trying to correlate SWAT with Teachers, so don't go there. I would also look over his record with the school to see if there are any complaints of violence or abuse from students, parents, or other teachers. Perhaps an FBI background check? There are various things the Super can ask.

Again, since the rules state the school has to grant permission, I'm assuming they aren't going to grant blanket permission.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by jthig32

How about simply getting some sort of actual law enforcement at the school or closer to the school? Seems pretty logical.

Small, podunk town. Therefore minimal law enforcement officers. Are you suggesting they build a new police station? If they want a cop onsite during school hours, I'm OK with that. But that assumes this small town has an extra cop or two to spare.

[mary]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The school's new policy states the teacher-to-carry must have permission from the school, as one of their requirements. That makes me believe the school would allow some to carry, and others not to carry. I simply went on the rules as put forth by the Superintendent in the article.

So to answer your question... how about an interview? Maybe ask the candidate how he feels about the use of firearms in a school? Maybe ask him under what conditions he would use said firearm? Perhaps ask him what kind of firearms training he has, aside from the State mandated CHL course? Perhaps bring in a psychologist to ascertain whether or not he fits a psych profile of someone who would snap and mis-use the gun? Heck, in order for someone to be assigned to the SWAT team, they have to undergo a psych evaluation. And no, I'm not trying to correlate SWAT with Teachers, so don't go there. I would also look over his record with the school to see if there are any complaints of violence or abuse from students, parents, or other teachers. Perhaps an FBI background check? There are various things the Super can ask.

Again, since the rules state the school has to grant permission, I'm assuming they aren't going to grant blanket permission.

So essentially they'd need a clear record , a CHL, and a note from the doctor.

I appreciate your answer.

Thanks.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

Oh wow. A couple of posts ago it was people who were for..what was it??....personal responsibility...and those who weren't.

How about there are those who believe in CHL and those who want teachers to carry guns.

How about there are those who don't believe in CHL and those who still want teachers to carry guns.

How about there are those who want to ban guns completely, and therefor don't want teachers to carry guns.

Maybe those who think that ALL employees inside a classroom should have a gun.

Maybe there are those who think that EVERYONE inside a classroom should carry a gun (it doesn't get more personally responsible than that, does it?)

Maybe there are those, like yourself, believe that only those that go through some magical screening proceses (which you've yet to describe) should be allowed to carry a gun.

See how easy that was?

Of all the categories you listed, you are either FOR or AGAINST teachers having guns in the classroom. The matter of being for or against CHL is a separate issue, as that is not specific to schools only. If you have someone who is FOR the CHL and FOR teachers carrying, and then you have someone who is AGAINST the CHL and FOR teachers carrying, you still have two people who are FOR teachers carrying. It's still just one side of the argument. I'm still not seeing a third side. You just added subdivisions of the same two sides.

And I never said those who do not carry aren't for personal responsibility. You're trying to put words into my mouth again. I simply indicated I'm for taking care of myself, and not relying on others to do it for me. I also said a teacher can choose to not carry and lock their doors, and still be a responsible adult.

And now I'll ask MY question again that you seem to have ignored. Why do schools lock their doors? Are they legitimately concerned about security?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

So his concern is the distance of the Police Department from the school, and the relative close proximity of Hwy 287 from the school. He's apparently worried about how easy a target the school would be, with such a close escape route.

That is a woefully insufficient definition of the "problem" the Superintendent has identified.

Harrold, TX, may also be pretty far from the nearest military base, but I doubt that proximity consitutes a "problem" of being vulnerable to attack by a foreign army.

Again, I'd like to hear an explicit definition of the "problem" that necessitates the "solution" of arming schoolteachers in Harrold, TX.

Question: How far was the nearest police officer from Columbine High School at the moment the school fell under attack?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by jefelump

And now I'll ask MY question again that you seem to have ignored. Why do schools lock their doors? Are they legitimately concerned about security?

Not all schools do.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That is a woefully insufficient definition of the "problem" the Superintendent has identified.

Harrold, TX, may also be pretty far from the nearest military base, but I doubt that proximity consitutes a "problem" of being vulnerable to attack by a foreign army.

Again, I'd like to hear an explicit definition of the "problem" that necessitates the "solution" of arming schoolteachers in Harrold, TX.

Question: How far was the nearest police officer from Columbine High School at the moment the school fell under attack?

From Wikipedia (the same url I posted earlier):

At the same time, police departments reassessed their tactics and train for Columbine-like situations after criticism over the slow response and progress of the SWAT teams during the shooting

I have no idea how far the Police Department (or the nearest cop) was from Columbine Highschool. I don't live there, and am completely unfamiliar with their local geography. However, based on that quote above, it sounds like the cops were slow to respond. So I guess they weren't very close.

And as to the problem, take it as it is. I'm not speaking for the school, and I'm sure the author of the article, and his editor, have clipped the quote down. Calling the description "woefully insufficient" tells me you see no problem. Perhaps you prefer me to say the same thing again, using 10 paragraphs instead of a couple of sentences. Sorry, I'm no book writer.

The article also said the school authorities have been discussing and debating it for a year, so I'm sure there's more to it than two sentences. If you're that interested in their definition of the problem, feel free to make a phone call.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That is a woefully insufficient definition of the "problem" the Superintendent has identified.

Harrold, TX, may also be pretty far from the nearest military base, but I doubt that proximity consitutes a "problem" of being vulnerable to attack by a foreign army.

Again, I'd like to hear an explicit definition of the "problem" that necessitates the "solution" of arming schoolteachers in Harrold, TX.

Question: How far was the nearest police officer from Columbine High School at the moment the school fell under attack?

Great points. I'd also love to know what the heck proximity to a highway has to do with a school possibly being targeted by someone.

In the recent history of school shootings the shooters certainly weren't concerned about the ability to escape.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Not all schools do.

You consider that an answer to the question? Fine... why do SOME schools lock their doors? Are they concerned about security?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Great points. I'd also love to know what the heck proximity to a highway has to do with a school possibly being targeted by someone.

In the recent history of school shootings the shooters certainly weren't concerned about the ability to escape.

Then call the Superintendent and ask him why he's worried about that. Perhaps he's concerned about an abduction attempt? Mass shooting and subsequent suicide is not the only kind of crime for which a school can be targeted. However, that wasn't mentioned in the article, so I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility...

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by jefelump

have no idea how far the Police Department (or the nearest cop) was from Columbine Highschool. I don't live there, and am completely unfamiliar with their local geography. However, based on that quote above, it sounds like the cops were slow to respond. So I guess they weren't very close.

Actually a sheriff's deputy responded pretty quickly, but was unable to do anything by himself. Tactical units were called for because of the nature of the situation.

Which begs the question: If in the Columbine situation, authorities on the scene determined they needed SWAT units to resolve the situation, how much good would one or two teachers that are good at shooting paper really going to do?

They might have done some good, or they might have gotten themselves and even more students killed.

Judging by the brazenness and sophistication of the Columbine shooters, I doubt the knowledge that teachers could be packing would have slowed them down any. If anything they would have just targeted teachers first, as the guy did at Virginia Tech.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Then call the Superintendent and ask him why he's worried about that. Perhaps he's concerned about an abduction attempt? Mass shooting and subsequent suicide is not the only kind of crime for which a school can be targeted. However, that wasn't mentioned in the article, so I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility...

You keep falling back on the judgment of the Superintendant as justification of the school having a problem. Maybe the guys just flat out wrong and paranoid.

Does lack of proximity to law enforcement and paranoia give anyone the right to be armed in a location that would normally not be allowed?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

And as to the problem, take it as it is. I'm not speaking for the school, and I'm sure the author of the article, and his editor, have clipped the quote down. Calling the description "woefully insufficient" tells me you see no problem. Perhaps you prefer me to say the same thing again, using 10 paragraphs instead of a couple of sentences. Sorry, I'm no book writer.

You have argued in this thread that you see the superintendent's "solution" a good one, and you have challenged those with opposing viewpoints to offer up alternative "solutions." It would follow from this that you accept the school district's identification and definition of the "problem" at hand.

If you don't disagree with any of the above, then why are you having difficulty describing the "problem" as you see it?

If you don't have full knowledge of what the "problem" is, then how can you argue for the rightness of the proposed "solution"?

[mary]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Of all the categories you listed, you are either FOR or AGAINST teachers having guns in the classroom. The matter of being for or against CHL is a separate issue, as that is not specific to schools only. If you have someone who is FOR the CHL and FOR teachers carrying, and then you have someone who is AGAINST the CHL and FOR teachers carrying, you still have two people who are FOR teachers carrying. It's still just one side of the argument. I'm still not seeing a third side. You just added subdivisions of the same two sides.

And I never said those who do not carry aren't for personal responsibility. You're trying to put words into my mouth again. I simply indicated I'm for taking care of myself, and not relying on others to do it for me. I also said a teacher can choose to not carry and lock their doors, and still be a responsible adult.

And now I'll ask MY question again that you seem to have ignored. Why do schools lock their doors? Are they legitimately concerned about security?

So why isn't the thread about the douchebag that shot a guy in the back a seperate issue from this one?

I thought there were just "those who believe in the use of force for self protection (and the protection of others), and those who don't.".

That seems contradictory.

Did you change your mind?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

So why isn't the thread about the douchebag that shot a guy in the back a seperate issue from this one?

I thought there were just "those who believe in the use of force for self protection (and the protection of others), and those who don't.".

That seems contradictory.

Did you change your mind?

They ARE separate issues. One is about the protection of home/property of self and neighbors, and the other is about protection of school children.

We're talking about teachers carrying guns in school. I said you're either FOR it or AGAINST it. The "douchebag", as you put it, who shot that guy in the back would be categorized (by my quote earlier), as some who "believes in the use of force for self protection (and the protection of others)." He defended his neighbors home (protecting others), and he didn't shoot until the criminals were on HIS property (protecting himself). A technicality? Perhaps, but the jury ruled he was justified. So I'm not going to debate that issue again. If you want to, then re-read this thread from the start.

[mary]

So why did you even bring it up?

You're the one that's all "there are those who will protect themselves, and there are those that will just bend over and take it.." or whatever your impication was.

I'm glad you recognize that things are bit more multi-dimensional than what you first stated.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You have argued in this thread that you see the superintendent's "solution" a good one, and you have challenged those with opposing viewpoints to offer up alternative "solutions." It would follow from this that you accept the school district's identification and definition of the "problem" at hand.

If you don't disagree with any of the above, then why are you having difficulty describing the "problem" as you see it?

If you don't have full knowledge of what the "problem" is, then how can you argue for the rightness of the proposed "solution"?

Yes, I do see the superintendent's solution as a good one, and I have said before that if I lived in that school district I would be more likely to send my kids to school there. I haven't changed my mind.

And yes, I accept the definition of the problem as quoted in the article. I am not having difficulty describing the problem at all. I have done so multiple times. And my argument as to the "rightness of the proposed solution" is based on the information I have as to the definition and nature of the problem. It is you who seems to have a problem accepting the problem as defined in the article, and who seeks further clarification. To me the definition is quite simply stated. It doesn't require a novel to define.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

So why did you even bring it up?

You're the one that's all "there are those who will protect themselves, and there are those that will just bend over and take it.." or whatever your impication was.

I'm glad you recognize that things are bit more multi-dimensional than what you first stated.

Must I really remind you?

Originally Posted by mary

There's not a single issue out there where there are ONLY two sides. Thinking that way just makes it easier to dismiss my opinion, without really considering its merits.

Originally Posted by jefelump

You're either FOR the school allowing teachers to carry concealed handguns in the classroom, or you're AGAINST it

I never tried to say the two issues were related. I said "You're either FOR the school allowing teachers to carry concealed handguns in the classroom, or you're AGAINST it" in reference to the school district. In fact, I'm a little confused as to why you would think I saw them as one and the same. I made no reference to the "douchebag" when I made that statement.

[chumdawg]

We've heard the notion in this thread that as a parent one would feel safer if they knew the teachers at their kid's school were carrying concealed weapons. Let's make sure that is really and truly the case.

Let's say that you are relocating to North Texas, and you are researching the school districts in the area, looking for the best one in which to place your child. Let's say you narrow it down to two school districts. You are looking for a difference maker between the two, doing your research, when you discover that one of the school districts has armed teachers and the other doesn't. How does this influence your thinking?

Do you choose the district with the armed teachers, for the reason that your kids will be safer?

Or do you ask yourself, "Why in the world do they need armed teachers in that district? What kind of stuff goes on there?"

Let's say you dig into the matter further, and you research how many incidents each district had in the last several years. You research murders in both school districts, and you find that neither had any. You research incidents of students brandishing guns in both school districts, and you find that neither had any. You research abductions, serious assaults, and so forth, and you find none in either district. For all intents and purposes, the two districts appear to you equally safe for your child.

But then you think to ask whether the armed school district had any incidences of teachers brandishing their weapons. Surely that sort of thing is documented. You learn that yes, weapons were brandished...let's say three times. None of the incidents resulted in any sort of injury.

Does this new information at all influence your determination of which school district seems safer for your child?

[mary]

No, I'm not confused...just not falling for you backtracking like you want me to. Here is your original quote, the one which I said was nonsense.

"those who believe in the use of force for self protection (and the protection of others), and those who don't."

You then go on and dissect several issues regarding gun rights and explain how they are all seperate issues.

I'm pretty sure I'm not confused.

Amused maybe...but not confused.