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

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

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


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


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

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

Lol.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

I am not a huge advocate of arming teachers. But no one said it would be perfect. If teachers have guns, there is the potential for more violence...the guns could go off accidentally, the teacher could snap and shoot up the school, a student could take the gun and shoot up the school. Those are the "cons" of arming teachers.

WDMSO, when you evaluate an idea, do you only look at the cons, or do you consider the pros, as well?

The idea of arming teachers offers the following potentially significant pros - it may deter some would-be shooters, it may help stop shootings from being worse than they otherwise would be.

Arming teachers might lead to some additional violence. But it's possible, that the violence it prevents, more than offsets that. So while the idea doesn't solve the problem, it might be an improvement over the status quo. That's the argument we need to have.

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

When you ignore the deterrent effect, and you ignore the potential ability for a teacher to reduce the casualties of a shooting, you are right.

We will never get anywhere with thoughtless partisan rants.

Your logic is that perfect is the enemy of 'better'. It's thoughtless and dishonest.

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

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

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

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

These are in the US
On average 10 children a year have been killed by guns in schools over the past 25 years.
On average 100 children a year have been killed riding their bicycles to school each year for the past 25 years
On average 1500 children a year are killed in gun violence
On average 15000 children a year are injured by guns
You accuse people of being thoughtless and dishonest because they think that more children will be killed if there are more guns in schools when the shots fired were one of two negligent discharge incidents yesterday. I can not find good statistics on negligent gun discharges by people currently permitted to have guns in schools, it would be interesting. However I would surmise that it will not save lives.
I think we have a gun problem but i think it is far bigger than school shootings

"You accuse people of being thoughtless and dishonest because they think that more children will be killed if there are more guns in schools "

WRONG.

I accuse them of being thoughtless, because in order to determine the effect of arming teachers, you need to estimate the additional violence caused by the extra guns, and then subtract from that, the violence that is potentially reduced by the presence of the extra guns. When doing a cost benefit analysis, you need to consider both the costs and the benefits, not one or the other.

Both sides are guilty of this, both sides tend to fixate on the side that serves their agenda, and ignore the side that serves the other agenda. That's why nothing ever gets done.

Prove your point then, what is the cost benefit analysis

I haven't the slightest idea, never claimed I did. What I did claim, is that the idea, like all ideas, has both a cost and a benefit. It's quite possible the cost outweighs the benefit. But you can't ignore the benefit, and make a decision based just on the cost. That's all I'm saying.

And I know a few dozen families in Newtown, who would gouge their own eyes out, for the teachers there to have been armed.

As I said, the thoughtless ideologues, focus on the one side of the cost/benefit analysis that serves their agenda, and ignore the other side. Too bad the places where you get your news, don't have cartoons showing tiny caskets that are not lowered into the ground because of the occasional (admittedly rare) benefit of having armed security around...

So you are going to save some fraction of 10 children per year, and not worry about the 1500 other children who are killed or 15,000 who are injured by gun violence.
Perhaps the fractional savings of having children not ride bicycles to school would be worthwhile, what about those parents? There are many more of those than parents of children killed by school shooters and no one has the right to a bicycle.
How will you explain the cost benefit analysis to the parent of a child shot negligently by an armed school teacher/guard?
Or when the school shooter uses the armed school teacher/guards gun to kill someone?

Or simply for a properly secured entryway and a lack of easy access to a Bushmaster XM-15.

And yet these Newtown families would disagree with you.

http://wnpr.org/post/sandy-hook-pare...rming-teachers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I dont care what NPR says, those parents wish there were armed teachers in that school on that day. It's not possible that they didn't wish the teachers were armed that day.

Your NPR link quoted one of the Sandy Hook families. One. One is less than sixteen. I know math isn't a strong suit for liberals, but surely even NPR knows that 1 < 16.

Major Hasan used a handgun, and killed 13 soldiers, shot 30 more. I have stated many times that I am convinced there is a reason why a lot of these kooks choose weapons that look like the AR-15, but you or I could walk into an elementary school with a handgun and easily kill 20. I'm not saying I like the AR-15. I'm saying you can make a compelling argument, that banning them, might not do much. But it might save SOME lives (see what I did there? I mentioned the pro AND the con - try it sometime, I promise that your brain won't explode, you might even like how it feels to show some intellectual honesty).

As to the entryway, how did Cruz get in? I never learned that...But my school is secure, has one locked door with a buzzer. I can make up a lot of different stories to get in. I've gone in the middle of the day, rung the buzzer, and told whoever answered that my son forgot his saxophone and I was there to drop it off. They don't confirm before they buzz me in. But security is of course, part of it.

I wouldn't arm teachers. I'd have soldiers.

Armed teachers should be #24 on the list of solutions and the few that can do it are by far the exception to the rule.

Short version, you have to prevent people that should not have access to a weapon from getting hands on them.

You need to work out a way people that should not have access are flagged, then heard in a court in order not to overly infringe on their rights.

You need to vastly improve training and school security.

There have surely been studies done to come up with alternatives that enhance security.

Proven: Hanging signs stating "Gun Free Zone" are about as effective as signs stating "Drug Free Zones"

Actually sounds like they discussed it with two people although there are quotes from one. Do you have any quotes from those "dozens of families" who you claimed wish teachers had guns that day?


And here's a quote from Nicole Hockley from another article.

“Rather than arm them with a firearm,” Ms. Hockley said of teachers, “I would rather arm them with the knowledge of how to prevent these acts from happening in the first place.”

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

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

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

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

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

posting about a good guy with a gun in a school shooting a ceiling tile... in class or saying more guns more likely increases the chances of accidents then preventing school shootings is thoughtless and dishonest ??

i think those who support guns in schools have not conducted an honest risk assessment of the whole idea they just assume gun equals better safety.. i dont assumes its risker to have a gun on a teacher a risk assessment shows it is

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

When you say you know them, do you know them? I don't know a few dozen, but I do personally know people who lost a child, a former colleague who lost a child, and have a good friend who had kids in Sandy Hook School that day and I have NEVER heard them say they wish the teachers were armed. Pretty sure you are making that up and it is a pretty egregious thing to state that if you don't actually know it. I understand the sentiment you are referring to, but many of those parents have dedicated their lives to preventing it happening to other people and I don't know one of them who is promoting armed teachers. I do know some of them are appalled by the idea.

There is that back patting again.

Some competition here

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...on-in-the-room

Try making that wrong.

It is easy to sit in a chair while you are supposed to be working and be the judge and jury. Sometime s the context of such statements are lost on certain individuals. I think what Jim is trying to explain is that ANY PARENT who lost a child that day at Sandy Hook would have embraced ANY measure which could have prevented their child's death. Obviously the children were defenseless and there were no heroes in the building that could use martial arts or fancy words to help save a life. Let's not pretend that if any of us finds ourselves in a situation where the outlook appears dire and the bad guys have guns as well as bad intentions then we would hope for any way to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Who is going to be the first fool here that gets a look at the news and hears that a shooter is at their children's school with plenty of ammo and there is NOBODY to defend their son or daughter. Can you honestly say you would just sit there and HOPE for the best? Yes, we have to do better at preventing a situation like this in the first place. But what happens when that doesn't work?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

These are in the US
There are 74 million children under 18 in the US, I didn't check to see just how many are in school, but lets say 50 million.
Roughly 20,000 children die each year for any reason.
On average 10 children a year have been killed by guns in schools over the past 25 years.
On average 100 children a year have been killed riding their bicycles to school each year for the past 25 years
On average 1500 children a year are killed in gun violence
On average 15000 children a year are injured by guns
On average 570 children a year are killed in car accidents
Just where are our priorities?

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

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

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

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

"Given you can't back up your statement "

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

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

Not sure about that but my priority is to raise my children to grow up to be independent, kind people. They deserve to be protected regardless of where or how.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were multiple people as I provided quotes from 2.

I came to know two families, whom I met afterwards when I brought my pet therapy dog to the scene and then to their homes. I would never ask them anything about the incident, so I didn't take a poll.

"it is a pretty egregious thing to state that if you don't actually know it

I apologize, didn't mean it that way, but I hear you.

"I don't know one of them who is promoting armed teachers"

I don't either. I was speculating. I'm very comfortable with the speculation.

How about if I phrase it this way, instead of making a specific reference...I'm comfortable that 99% of parents out there, when informed there is a mass shooter at school determined to kill as many children as possible before being stopped by police, would rather have armed teachers than wait for the police. I'm sure I am correct.

If you or Paul disagree, can you tell me on what basis you'd rather wait for the cops to show up? Because of the chance that if the teacher tried to intervene, he'd shoot innocent kids? That's obviously a possibility, which is why I'd rather see soldiers in the schools than armed teachers. But it's incredibly unlikely that someone trying to intervene, could accidentally cause nearly the carnage of someone trying to cause as much carnage as possible.

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

Why lie when more than 1 family stated the same thing? Maybe only providing 1 quote was a way to get the Conserv. anger going?

"Why lie when more than 1 family stated the same thing? "

We've long past beaten this to death. In your NPR article, I saw 1 family (just the husband actually) speak against the idea. If there was more than one family speaking against arming teachers, I was 100% wrong.

"a way to get the Conserv. anger going'

I'm not even a little bit angry. How come when you challenge me, you don't admit to being foaming-at-the-mouth angry? It's only a symptom of anger, when I challenge you?

Paul if you heard there was a shooter at a school that your little kids were in, and you had every reason to believe that it was one of these shooters whose only goal was to kill as many children as possible before being stopped...you'd rather wait for the police to show up, than have an armed teacher intervene? I'm not asking whether or not you want guns the other 99.999% of the time, I mean in that godawful scenario? You really think the expected body count is lower, by waiting for the cavalry to show up? I can't fathom how you could think that.

I'm opposed to arming teachers, because I think the harm (accidental shootings) outweighs the benefit I think would be gained during the unthinkable (and rare) mass shootings. But if I knew a mass shooting was taking place? I see no benefit in waiting and praying, then you are at the mercy of someone who has no mercy.

And it was a petty to mention that there was only one quote in the article and to say liberals are horrible at math or whatever the heck you said. And then in the same thread when you talk about honesty you lied and said there was dozens of families from Newtown who want teachers armed yet you can't provide one quote. I'm not foaming at the mouth angry. I don't constantly come back to comment on every post that I see that I disagree with at all hours of the day night and weekends like you do. Look at your interactions with everyone you disagree with here and tell me that doesn't show anger.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

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

I understand emotionally how one can say if there were only more people with guns the problem would be cured. However i think if you do a "cost benefit" analysis of the situation wherein 10 of the 50 million school age children are killed by guns in schools and we are going to solve it by putting armed guards in all 125,000 schools in the USA.
Let's see if we have more than 10 die from Negligent discharge or other associated causes.
Now if you want to talk about the children killed or injured by guns outside of school, I could only hope that you are not convinced that having more guns would solve that also.