It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So if the "defense of property" clause was removed from the law, would you support it?
originally posted by: EternalSolace
There shouldn't even be a law for this. Two things need to happen. The laws restricting concealed carry be removed for schools. Teachers permitted to carry, after going through training, in school.
Teachers, should they decide that deadly force is necessary, should be held accountable to the same laws as the rest of us. No 'destruction of property' clause. No, protecting the physical building or equipment. No protecting cars in the parking lot. That kind of stuff is nonsense.
The protection of human life and nothing else.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Answer
And yet, teachers are not really comparable in any way to police officers, or armed security guards, are they?
Armed security guards are in a specific environment that is, in general, not comparable to a teacher standing in front of a classroom. For the record, I'm appalled at the lack of training on the part of some versions of the "rent-a-cop" but that's really totally out of place in this discussion.
Can you post any indication of the level of training that teachers will be receiving to serve in high-stress situations with a side-arm then? You made the jump to police (who do happen to receive extensive training) and armed guards. Are you advocating that teachers should not be trained to make good decisions with their weapons then? Strange that.
It is not merely the fact of carrying the gun into the classroom that is the issue, as has been repeatedly stated here. It is a matter of the Texas law being expanded to exonerate teachers who do use deadly force in the protection of property.
I realize you wish to ignore that fact and make it a carry issue/2nd Amendment issue. I, and others, simply disagree with you.
Your "facts" were stated in your own words in your own post and you did state "that was all that matters." You seem to have a high opinion of yourself. Perhaps you need to look up a definition of "lying."
How many of those school districts have state laws which exonerate teachers from using deadly force in the defense of property? When you have that answer, you can make that argument, because THAT is what is under discussion here.
I posted one scenario at your request. What is hysterical about thinking that one of these imaginary thuggish kids you guys are positing could take a gun away from a teacher and use it to harm others?
Answer: nothing. In fact, if you guys are right about these throngs of thugs in schools that the teachers need to carry against, it's a very REASONABLE possibility to any thinking person.
While you're looking up what lying means, you should also consider hypocrite ... because you're displaying a growing tendency toward both.
Perhaps you should not concentrate on your opinion of me as much as you should the discussion at hand, because, just for the record, I'm not very impressed with your argumentation or honesty, either.
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Kali74
Property is not worth taking a life, less so school property. This is just pure sickness. Psychopathy.
Tell that to the business owners in Ferguson who lost their lifetimes work.
By this justification then, could homeowners across this country who lost their houses because of the Crash of 2008 legitimately go shoot the bankers whose stupidity caused the problem which resulted in the loss of their homes?
Or are you just tossing in any old emotion-based thought into the discussion to try to distract from your utter lack of reasonable argument?
educator reasonably believes them to be