Side story on the recent gun spree

[carl]

Carl, you think too much in 0% and 100%.

It would be better to think in terms of differences, of ceteris paribus changes of outcome.
Tolerance for firearms in schools would ceteris paribus lead to more use of firearms in schools. No good idea.

Teachers may occasionally risk their job and break the rules themselves, but they would clearly do the same thing more often if it wasn't forbidden.

Nonsense. First off, your original remark suggested that if teachers were allowed the option of having a weapon, that includes having one in the car, that would somehow result in teachers shooting students. Nonsense. Shooting people when not in self-defence is a crime. Criminals are not dissuaded by a rule. If a teacher decided that they were going to murder students, a rule prohibiting them from taking a weapon onto campus would not stop them. If they did murder students, they probably don't expect to get their job back anyway.

Second off, were teachers allowed the option of having a weapon available (they are in some states and districts), we would be talking about mostly middle aged women being armed. Middle aged women don't do violent crime, especially this kind of crime. Middle aged women mostly take care of people and two women teachers in Connecticut died trying to defend their students. They attacked bare handed and they died because they had nothing to fight with. I think giving teachers, mostly middle age women and men, something to fight with if needed would transform schools from no resistance zones into zones of possible resistance; and the possibility of resistance is something these types of criminals don't like to face.

[Fuchs]

I've seen enough mad teachers who might do something in the heat of the moment which they would regret later. Some of them are ripe for retirement before they're 50, including anger management problems.

[carl]

I've seen enough mad teachers who might do something in the heat of the moment which they would regret later. Some of them are ripe for retirement before they're 50, including anger management problems.

We've all seen angry teachers. Very few of us have seen teachers who were criminals or who would be inclined to be so no matter how angry they got.

What does your second sentence have to do with anything?

[Fuchs]

I wouldn't want a person with anger management problem with a gun in a room full of loud, annoying children - 200 days a year, thousands of them. This #### would be bound to hit the fan.

The "arms for defence" line typically ignores that for every crime prohibited or interrupted thanks to a firearm, there's also a risk for one or maybe more suicides and crimes to happen (or become more severe and final) because a firearm is easily available for use.

For example, Americans have a high rate of 'success' with suicide attempts. It's much easier to kill yourself with a gun than with a blade (especially as long as video producers keep showing the wrong technique for the latter).

[carl]

Fuchs:

I wouldn't want a person who is unable to control their anger in any classroom under any circumstances. I do want stable middle aged people, a description of most American teachers, to have the option of having the means to effectively defend their students and themselves if they so desire. It has worked.

The 'arms are going to cause crime and suicide' line first ignores that people have the natural right to defend themselves. And since most people aren't physically powerful, that means in order to exercise that right, they must have recourse to arming themselves with an effective weapon. They didn't call Colt's revolver the 'Equalizer' for nothing.

That line also ignores the fact that availability of firearms has no effect on suicide rate. Japan has a suicide rate almost double that of the US and they have draconian gun control over there, basically no weapons at all. I grant you that Americans may kill themselves more often with a gun than the Japanese do but more Japanese kill themselves gun or not.

That line also ignores the fact that violent crime went up substantially after Britain implemented severe gun control. In the US a burglars striking an occupied home doesn't happen often and when it does, it is a huge crime. The cops take notice. In Britain, most burglars hit when the homes are occupied because they know they don't chance facing an armed homeowner.

The 'arms for defence' line recognizes that the right of the law abiding to defend themselves trumps the possibility that criminals will use a weapon in their crimes.