Senator wants to allow teachers, school administrators to carry guns

reply to post by TheRedneck

I doubt I could agree more with this statement. And it implies another potential agreement between us: would you say that, since this early development is prior to school age, that it is the parents and not the school system that is primarily responsible for the character of the children?

Of course.

This is one serious issue within the public school system. Tenure should be outlawed. It has been used to allow teachers and faculty members to run roughshod over the children without consequence too many times. I respect seniority, but effective teaching is more than time served without being fired.

I Agree. It’s insane to give a contract guaranteeing them a set period no matter how poor their performance may be. I had a teacher who would throw desks (or even children) across the room. After slapping a classmate of mine in the face he was transferred. I knew another unprofessional teacher was transferred. Never hear of any of them getting fired. Where it involves children, this shouldn’t be allowed.

In short, I don't believe there is a methodology that will work with every child.

Absolutely agree.

Children need an extraordinary amount of attention and instruction, and ultimately it up to primarily the parents and secondarily the teachers to provide this. Any restrictions on how children are to be disciplined reduces the ability to effectively raise some children to be productive, happy, successful adults.

Not sure how to respond. We agree that child abuse is not acceptable and that punishment is probably necessarily for most children. Like I say, I tend to leave discipline entirely to parents unless I were to see signs of abuse.

I also have to say I am truly sorry to hear about your experiences... I am assuming your parents were unable to help?

Thanks. They helped me with problems involving teachers tremendously and I was very lucky for that. I never told them much if anything about the abuse from other students, or even all abuses from teachers for that matter.

I believe a return to the principle of parents being primarily responsible for their children would help immeasurably. While there will always be some parents who refuse to take responsibility, that is no reason to deny the ability to freely raise children (outside obvious abuse, of course) from the rest.

Agreed. I see kids (especially teens of course but even young adults behaving like kids) acting more and more out of control. But then I also see a general shift in attitude in the adults where I live. Throwing junk onto the street, cutting stop signs and driving straight across the walkway while I am passing. This is a country town and I have never seen stuff like this here. I saw it when I used to live in Toronto and I hated that. It’s sad to see a general loss of respect and morals in society. Obviously the recession plays a big part in this; tough financial times.

Incidentally, a lot of bullies I knew in school had it tough because they were from broken homes. That town had been hit hard by the collapse of the fishing industry; financial crises causing emotional off-balance and abuse in many families.

Schools should return to being places of learning and not places of security. Children are not criminals, and should not feel as though they are in some sort of prison. That itself breeds animosity and leads to anti-social behavior, and thus begins a spiral downwards: more disruption leads to more restrictions, which lead to more resentment, which leads to more disruption, which leads to more restrictions, etc., etc., etc.

Absolutely agree. The school I went to felt cold and institutional enough. I couldn’t imagine what kids today have to go through in larger schools—watched by cameras and security men, and divided from a teacher by a protective screen. The school board should consult child psychologists on the psychological impact their kind of environment has on kids.

The media actually has no power if the parents exercise their responsibilities. It is the abrogation of this responsibility that has led to the media-induced materialism we see today.

Good point.

I believe religious values have an indispensable place in any moral society. I don't think it even depends on the individual beliefs as much as a belief in right and wrong and a spiritual connection to others (which I think is what you alluded to as well).

Yeah. I am big on spiritual connection; respect or life, the earth and each other. We are all a part of a whole and impact each other. Of course no one needs to be ‘deep’ in thought or ‘heavy’ in belief but a respect for things is important. I am not Christian but I respect the religion having and encouraging morals as society is much better off with than without them.

Cultural connections are indeed vital as well, in order to instill a sense of security in who one is. That does not necessarily disparage other cultures, of course, but it does celebrate each culture as important to the members of that culture. Want an example? My username is TheRedneck.

Yeah I thought that name rather brave actually (in a good way.) It’s usually used to attack low-income country folk. Of course, being a country bumpkin myself, I find it offensive (when used that way.) I never liked the term “the sticks” either lol. Someone would say, “Oh, you’re from the sticks.” I’d just stare at them in confusion of how they meant it. I always loved the woods and to me “sticks” sounds belittling. My take anyway.

Capitalism is an economic methodology, where capital (money) is the medium of exchange. It says nothing about spirituality, politics, or culture. Materialism, on the other hand, is a social order where a person's inherent value to society is measured under capitalistic principles. That I disagree with, as money is not the route to happiness and happiness is the true measure of success.

Well, technically I suppose you’re right. It is a psychological problem, not a structural one.

In its barest form, all punishment is unpleasant, and physical punishment is simply the most effective method across the entire spectrum of humanity. It is universal; no child likes pain.

A correct statement about the usefulness of discipline, but I still say that parents won’t trust principals and acting principals to practice the same self-discipline and moral judgement as they would. In some cases I’m sure the principals would, but it’s in “the others” that troubles me (from my own experience.)

But this is all about the source of the problem, whereas the issue of guns is about a social response to the problem. Shooting someone, regardless of the reason, is never corrective punishment! It is an attempt to stop destructive behavior when such behavior becomes dangerous to others. Please, do not take anything I have said to mean that I support shooting children as a means of discipline!

No! Lol. Just that, thinking back on some teachers I had, if they had access to a gun...yikes! I can easily predict that it would be overused for intimidation, a symbol of control and authority to frighten kids into submission. Again, I’m sure some would use it responsible. But “the others” that wouldn’t?

In a world where shootings at schools are becoming all too common, a world where children's lives are taken by criminals who have shown no regard for the 'gun-free school zone', it makes no sense to further protect these criminals by lessening the chance that they will face consequences for their actions or by increasing the ease at which they may continue to take innocent lives. It makes more sense to make it more difficult for criminals to take multiple lives or to accomplish their goals without harm to themselves. Given the choice of facing someone intent on killing others for several minutes while police arrive, or cohabiting with those who have demonstrated to law enforcement their adeptness with a gun, I will take the latter.

Good points. A shame that this makes sense, but yeah, things really are that bad. I suppose I wouldn’t be against it if someone/s were properly trained (and tested.) Also, if there was a very clear rule about ever taking it out unless in the event of a kid or intruder carrying a gun, or someone using a weapon with a clear intent to kill. Again, I’m just thinking about those who would abuse the power of possessing a gun in a public school.

Also, it would have to be locked up safely. Imagine some troubled kids breaking out the gun and using it to inflict violence with. Their weapon would have been found right at the school. That would lead to the banning of all guns in schools (if such a law was passed.)

Not sure what to say after all this. You made some good points that I hadn’t considered before. I guess, for me it would all depend on how it was handled.

Thanks for explaining your side of this.

reply to post by Neurolanis

We seem to have a lot of agreement happening.

It’s sad to see a general loss of respect and morals in society. Obviously the recession plays a big part in this; tough financial times.

Incidentally, a lot of bullies I knew in school had it tough because they were from broken homes. That town had been hit hard by the collapse of the fishing industry; financial crises causing emotional off-balance and abuse in many families.

I do believe you are right, and a large part of this I again attribute to materialism. The recession proper has had a tremendous impact, but I believe the real decline due to materialism started many years ago. We in the USA have the highest standard of living (on average) of anywhere on the planet, but this standard of living has come with a price: stress levels based on maintaining that standard of living have been skyrocketing for quite some time. When a society values possessions more than morality, they typically pay such a price. This is also a large reason (IMHO) why we have such high health care rates and frequencies of visits, and why the obesity problem is rearing its ugly head.

But those subjects are beyond the scope of this thread.

When the things one most prizes are threatened, people tend to become angry and sullen. At one time in my lifetime, that most prized was one's children and one's name. Today it is the plasma HDTV, the computer, the fancy car, or the nice house in an affluent neighborhood. All those things are hard to keep, and the stress of trying desperately to keep them (and to get more) lends itself to anger and hostility... which I think is a large portion of the reason we see so many problems with violent crime.

Of course, the fact that children have been replaced by materialism as the focus of attention is also a direct cause as to why children are less behaved than before. It's a question of priority.

The school board should consult child psychologists on the psychological impact their kind of environment has on kids.

That suggestion falls under the heading of "probably not practical, but couldn't hurt" for me... so why not give it a try? The worst thing that could happen is that nothing happens; the best thing that could happen is a complete success.

Incidentally, most of the schools around here have trained counselors on staff already.

Yeah I thought that name rather brave actually (in a good way.) It’s usually used to attack low-income country folk. Of course, being a country bumpkin myself, I find it offensive (when used that way.) I never liked the term “the sticks” either lol. Someone would say, “Oh, you’re from the sticks.” I’d just stare at them in confusion of how they meant it. I always loved the woods and to me “sticks” sounds belittling. My take anyway.

That name was given me as an insult in high school (I had my battles with bullies as well). I took it as an insult until I began to realize what it really meant... hard-working, independent, tenacious when attacked... and adapted it to a compliment rather than an insult. In the process, I found out who I really was... a redneck, with the same intelligence and potential as anyone else. Many of my friends today call me "Redneck", and I have actually turned and answered when someone called it out in a crowd. I have a given name, of course, but "Redneck" is my chosen name.

I also use it to counter those insults you mention. I love battling stereotypes.

And I also live out 'in the sticks'... with a private WiFi hotspot and all kinds of technology at my fingertips.

A correct statement about the usefulness of discipline, but I still say that parents won’t trust principals and acting principals to practice the same self-discipline and moral judgement as they would.

Perhaps, but I do remember a time when the principals and faculty were trusted by parents. It really wasn't all that long ago, and I really wish we could return to those days... the greatest concern was smoking in the bathroom or a fist-fight, and a spanking at school meant another one (usually much worse) when you got home.

Maybe those days are gone forever, but please suffer an old redneck to dream a little.

Just that, thinking back on some teachers I had, if they had access to a gun...yikes! I can easily predict that it would be overused for intimidation, a symbol of control and authority to frighten kids into submission. Again, I’m sure some would use it responsible. But “the others” that wouldn’t?

Two points here: one, the bill only allows those who qualify for a concealed-carry permit to carry a weapon. These would be the same people who can carry it anywhere else. Most areas, despite popular belief, do have pretty strict requirements to obtain a CCW permit. I have one, and went through that procedure. I had to get signatures from three prominent citizens, give a massive amount of personal information, and then, after I had been thoroughly 'checked out' on paper, had to have a face-to-face interview with the local sheriff. Not just anyone can get a CCW permit.

Two, the act of intimidating anyone with a firearm is called 'brandishing', and is itself a serious offense. Anyone who tried it would no doubt lose their ability to carry a weapon concealed.

So I believe your fears are unfounded. Those 'teachers' (and I use the term loosely) you mention would not have been able to have a gun under this proposal.

Not sure what to say after all this. You made some good points that I hadn’t considered before. I guess, for me it would all depend on how it was handled.

Thanks for explaining your side of this.

And thank you for an enjoyable debate.

TheRedneck

We seem to have a lot of agreement happening.

Well, you’ve made good points that make sense and are hard to argue against. The way you present it, it sounds like a good idea. I have not read the bill or considered other perspectives or thoughts on the subject however. If it was carried out the way you describe, considering everything, it would probably be a good idea.

When the things one most prizes are threatened, people tend to become angry and sullen. At one time in my lifetime, that most prized was one's children and one's name. Today it is the plasma HDTV, the computer, the fancy car, or the nice house in an affluent neighborhood.

Well said. Sad but true.

Of course, the fact that children have been replaced by materialism as the focus of attention is also a direct cause as to why children are less behaved than before. It's a question of priority.

That’s a sad thought. If things have become that bad, we’re in serious trouble. If the average middle-class couple was told that they could either keep their home, property, good pay and social standing but lose their kids, or keep their kids and move into a trailer park, I wonder what the average couple would decide. It’s a scary thought that some might choose luxury over their own kids. Then again, maybe a choice like this might help them to put things into perspective. Then again, many would probably choose their kids and then take out their resentment on them.

That name was given me as an insult in high school (I had my battles with bullies as well). I took it as an insult until I began to realize what it really meant... hard-working, independent, tenacious when attacked... and adapted it to a compliment rather than an insult. In the process, I found out who I really was... a redneck, with the same intelligence and potential as anyone else. Many of my friends today call me "Redneck", and I have actually turned and answered when someone called it out in a crowd. I have a given name, of course, but "Redneck" is my chosen name.

Haha. Reminds me of how people used to insult me by calling me strange or eccentric, and I eventually accepted it as a compliment. As I knew so many kids who were cruel, two-faced or blindly following others, essentially being called an individualist felt good to me.

And I also live out 'in the sticks'... with a private WiFi hotspot and all kinds of technology at my fingertips.

Cool. Although I’m in a town now, I miss the forest but I can still walk to the woods. I miss actually living in or next the woods though. The birds, squirrels and just the feeling of natural life around me.

Two points here: one, the bill only allows those who qualify for a concealed-carry permit to carry a weapon. These would be the same people who can carry it anywhere else. Most areas, despite popular belief, do have pretty strict requirements to obtain a CCW permit. I have one, and went through that procedure. I had to get signatures from three prominent citizens, give a massive amount of personal information, and then, after I had been thoroughly 'checked out' on paper, had to have a face-to-face interview with the local sheriff. Not just anyone can get a CCW permit.

Ah, did not realize that.

I’ve enjoyed this conversation too.

This is a very very dumb and bad idea, I'm telling you ...... cops with guns has already been a dangerous bunch, let alone educators with guns.
Sh1t, I see some educators even easier to snap than cops.
Scary time indeed.

Originally posted by the_0bserver85
This is a very very dumb and bad idea, I'm telling you ...... cops with guns has already been a dangerous bunch, let alone educators with guns.
Sh1t, I see some educators even easier to snap than cops.

Scary time indeed.

I know. It could work if someone was properly trained for a position such as security guard. It’s a tricky subject for sure.