|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
03-16-2018, 03:28 AM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,432
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
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.
|
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
Last edited by wdmso; 03-16-2018 at 03:34 AM..
|
|
|
|
03-16-2018, 10:42 AM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
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
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
03-16-2018, 02:03 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,495
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
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 don't think anyone is saying it makes no sense. They're saying it makes little sense. The negatives are pretty significant.
|
|
|
|
03-16-2018, 02:10 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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%.
|
|
|
|
03-17-2018, 09:37 AM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,495
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
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%.
|
Well, to be fair I don't think most of what Trump says makes any sense. No thought behind any of it, he just repeats the last thing he saw on FoxNews.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 PM.
|
| |