The debate "Should we arm teachers in schools" was started by
April 18, 2016, 8:29 am.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 32 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
dalton7532 posted 10 arguments to the agreers part.
R_o_h_i_t posted 1 argument, danielle posted 2 arguments, TZW posted 7 arguments, RyanWakefield posted 3 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, BLACKMAMBA123 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
jamesbond007, Thomas_Jefferson, Baek04, Pugsly, dalton7532, Iran1998, oscar90000, mherzer, vince and 17 visitors agree.
R_o_h_i_t, RyanWakefield, ReadyToBegin, Upbeatethan, psychorejection, madelennesteph, sagitario, danielle, TZW, RedFox, adi15, sickboyblonde, BLACKMAMBA123, Nemiroff and 18 visitors disagree.
That is a bad idea and Here is why, not all teachers are right in the head. There are certain teachers who have bad tempers, marriage problems or may just be going through a rough day. All of there issues can just cause someone to Snap, and giving that same person a firearm will lead to a massacre.
Furthermore, nowadays kids are getting more stubborn and are starting to fight teachers back. If teachers have a gun and are really angry what is to stop them on using that gun against the students or even other teachers. When you are looking at police officers or other sorts of armed operatives like the army, the candidates go through disciplinary training and learn not only how to handle a gun but also how to control their emotions. But teachers don't go through this kind of training. So an angry teacher can just pick up a gun and shoot stubborn students.
Well, I am not talking about alk teachers. Yes, that would not be the best idea. I also do not think open carry either, because students fight teachers alot now. I am really reffering to one teacher or the pricipals. We herd defenseless people into one area. That is not ok. Cops are not always there.
I think gun ownership should be relatively easy (after background check and registration) but carry scares me.
I get it, it would be nice if someone responsible was armed, but if everyone is armed, it will be chaos and way more people will die in the confusion than in the attack they are trying to stop. and that's in actual legitimate criminal situations. Add in road rage, crimes of passion, and hurt pride (also greed and spite) and guns will cause a lot of damage in a fully armed public.
I'm pretty sure the rules vary widely in different states.
I have no problems with background checks. I am prettty sure you can't just buy a gun anymore. Whenever someone buys a gun. You get a background check. The gun show loophole is false. I watch people who buy a gun at a gunshow, and they have to wait a couple days. This is from what I heard and saw. If anyone has any input, I would like to hear it.
my question is why are basic regulations like registration and background checks are fought against.
background checks should be obvious and we already register everything from our ids to our cars. these are things that should be known.
-I do not try to ignore the facts, and I try to make them in the best way possible. I am usually always open-minded, and I try to defend my beliefs. Sorry about if I am just a commoner.
yes I'm sorry for the name calling. I've been on this app a long time and have gotten a bit testy with people who were here before you who made pretty much the exact same arguments you make. it gets old disproving someone with facts only to be completely ignored.
China has a homicide rate of about 1.2 per 100,000 people. about 1/3 of the American rate of 3.8. so China has more murders because they have way more people. when you account for that their murder rate is far lower than America's.
the reason the UK has a higher violent crime rate is because they have alot more crimes described as violent. In the US you oy categorize it as violent if someone gets attacked, the UK includes alot more things j. their violent crime stats.
and I just checked. rape of a female stats are almost the same in the UK and US.
He argues usually good. I disagree mostly by what he says, but he can debate pretty good. I hate the name calling he does though.
I don't like buff, yes he uses stats and evidence which is good, but only the side that supports his side not both. Statistics are formed by the person making the report you get down to the foundations of an argument, you can only take fave value.
I love this app. It has a small community and everyone is known. It is amazing.
share the link buff where it's higher then China, because every report says China has more murders then the US.
That was a burn ProudAmerican. Go get him!
The UK has 4 times violent crime rates the US does, the UK has approximately an annual 125 percent more rape victims, 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people than the US does. The UK also has the 2nd highest crime rate in the EU. The US ranks #1 in gun ownership, yet is only 28th in gun murders per 100,000 people.
you missed the point. those stats are murders per 100,000 people. not raw numbers. your murder RATIO is 4 times higher than the UK. also much higher than China. your murder ratio is comparable to many third world countries like Burundi or Rwanda.
So it's natural if you have more people you'll have more murders correct?
you even said it yourself, it's the murder ratio not number, so population is taken into account.
Even China has more murders then the US and guns are forbidden there.
the US 5 times the amount of people as the UK. Crime comes with population.
It is a lot if you think of it in terms of the American population. It's 90,000 more people dying. Just because the number you used had three zeros after the decimal point, doesn't mean it's not significant. Four times anything makes a massive difference, you're just putting it into a context that makes it seem small.
.0004 compared to .0001 isn't that much. If you have .0004 odds that it if you something you'll die, you'll likely still eat it.
except that statistics from everyone, including police agencies, will tell you that you are much more likely to get hurt if you fight a robber. most don't want to hurt you. they just want stuff. fighting them might save your stuff. but it might get you and your family killed. so the question becomes, your money or your life? clearly you would rather your money than your family's lives.
and that is probably why the UK has 1/4 the homicide rate that America does. they cant get their hands on a gun and are forced to use a knife. since knives are much less likely to kill, then they fail. i dont see how that is a bad thing.
Buff, most murders in the UK are actually done by knife atracks.
See, historybuff, you like to place your life in the robbers hands. If the intruder does really decide to kill you, what are you going to do? "Please stop Mr. Robber, I'll do anything you want. Here, wanna rape me? Bend over everyone!" I'd prefer to place my life in my own hands. Id rathed end up being hurt or killed fighting/shooting at an intruder than having him murder me and my family without any struggle. If he wants to kill you, he will.You seem to trust an intruder more than you trust yourself...
what person robs a house with a machete? why would I bother trying to answer your extremely loaded question? the facts are that if the person who is being robbed is armed then they are much more likely to be harmed. if you try to fight an armed robber odds are much higher that you and your family will be killed. what is more important, your stuff or your children's lives?
again, militias cannot do anything to modern military. if the Chinese people had guns it would change nothing. they would be absolutely no match for China's army.
I would much rather people resort to knife attacks than gun attacks. knife attacks are much less likely to be fatal. crazy people are always going to be crazy, but without a gun they can't kill nearly as easily or nearly as many people.
I thought I was being pretty straight forward. I clearly asked you, "Also, if somebody broke in to your house with a machete and tried to kill your family would you want to have a gun to stop him?" Then, you gave me an answer that has no relevance towards the actual question because you and I both know what you answer is, and that answer is yes. I never said the homicide rate was higher or lower than the U.S. I clearly said that homicide rates rose after gun control was instituted. You have an act for turning things around.
"lastly the government of Cuba is very popular." What world do you live in? If the Cuban government was very popular, president Obama wouldn't have went their to try to stop the oppressive government. Human rights are under attack in Cuba. If a lot of the population is armed in China, things would most certainly be different there and in Cuba.
Most people who commit a crime with a gun, usually do it with a gun that is obtained illegally. If we ban guns, people will resort to other methods of crime. That is shown everywhere, and in every demographic. Knife attacks are up at 113,000 in the U.K. Homicides rose in the U.K. after gun control was in place. I will admit. Homicides are at its lowest since the 1980s, but do you know what they had in the 1980s? Guns.
I will ask you this one more time "historybuff", if somebody broke in to your house with a machete and tried to kill your family would you want to have a gun to stop him?
Teachers are pretty dumb...They'd probably end up shooting some kid. Only if the teacher is not a retard.
However, from my experience with teachers, no.
4x times higher isn't say much when the % of people being murdered in the US is .0004%
considering the homicide rate of the US is like 4 times higher than the UK I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
also, i would rather the guy breaking into my home not have a gun. because it is far more likely that I, or a member of my family, will die if he does.
lastly the government of Cuba is very popular. and do you think the Chinese government would be afraid of a few peasants with rifles? we've been through this. a modern military would obliterate a militia. they aren't a threat to a military willing to use force.
from what I've seen Americans are very much shoot first think later.
I can't believe the amount of videos I see of American police shooting people who really weren't causing that much of a deal. the American police need to learn a lot from British police. We have a special armed response team who are trained properly and only called out if they are needed. and even then they rarely have to shoot anyone.
I just don't understand America and its gun laws! why can't you just put restrictions on the purchasing of guns??
or just ban guns
Gun violence will probably go down if you do not have guns, but other types of crime do not. Homicide rates have went up in countries with gun control. For instance, Ireland and England. Would a government rather become corrupt or harsh with its people owning guns. Would China or Cuba be implementing its policies if its residents owned guns? Also, if somebody broke in to your house with a machete and tried to kill your family would you want to have a gun to stop him? If you say no, you lied.
first if all, no. no other 1st world country has the kind of problems you have with gun violence. if you restrict access to guns, violence rates go down. this has happened in numerous countries.
if criminals can't get guns because there are less available then people won't need to defend themselves against guns. therefore they wont need to be armed either.
suicide has nothing to do with guns really. I've heard some stats that having access to a quicker way to kill yourself like a gun makes a successful attempt more likely, but otherwise it makes no difference.
when in the last 200 years has the right to bear arms accomplished anything against tyranny of defended the country? a modern military turns any militia into mince meat. the idea that some hillbilly militia can stand up to to the US military is a joke. the right to bear arms serves no practical use any more.
-The problem is most people who do commit violent crimes get their guns illegally. Law abiding citizens will follow the laws and criminals will not. That is the very definition of criminals. If we take away guns, people will still find ways to harm other people. The only difference is people would not be able to defend themselves.The facts show that countless times. Terrorist will use bombs, criminals will use knifes or guns, and some people will find other ways to kill. People think if we lower the amount of guns, the less suicides that would occur also. The facts are completely against that also. England has similar suicide rates as the U.S. Japan has higher. Did you know they have gun control?
- There is a good man named Ben Carson. Here is what he had to say: "The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of our Constitution. Without the right to bear arms, Americans would be unable to stand against a tyrannical government or foreign invader. The right of Americans to own and maintain legal arms is paramount, and that right should in no way be violated." I look foward to your response.
or you could do what every other sensible country does and restrict the number of guns that violent people can get, rather than trying to arm everyone.
It would be good for some sort of school official to have a firearm. Gun free zones are a false song. People who abide the law will not bring guns into a gun free zone, but people who do not will. We see it happen all the time, and almost every time there is no cop around to stop it before it is too late. If we have responsible school officials who are trained, mentally checked, and have a back ground check, it would be wise to offer them some sort of defense for themselves and their students. They are the first ones to know about it. We cannot continue to herd defenseless people in a certain area that people can target.
Teachers are pretty irresponsible...
Never!! Those buggers would shoot you if don't do your homeworks then.