|
Cass
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: August 18, 2008, 09:35:21 PM » |
|
No, arming teachers, but the post was intended for Akh, and was addressed to him as it was related to Canada. The NRA is hardly only about the 2nd Amendment and anyone with any familiarity with them is well aware of that fact. Spend more than almost any lobbying group in the U.S. not just to elect 2nd Amendment supporters, but other far right issues. Nuff said one might be better off to let a big smelly fart go in church than to mention anything that might be interpreted as negative about the NRA.  Thanks for your comment Ahk, but I have no intent to revise mine, other than to ask why the exceptional interest by those those checking at the border in fire arms. LOL, obviously seniors, we had a young grandson with us. I was told we would require a notarized statement from his custodial parent and an official birth certificate to take him across the border. No one ever asked for the documentation, even ignored the excess amount of tobacco I was carrying, without the appropriate customs charge. Maybe just a "gun check" day? Bureaucracies are sometimes the same regardless of the nation. However, I've always felt safer in Canada than the U.S.. Maybe false security. Then I also felt safer when I lived both in England and Japan. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.\\" Edward Kennedy, U.S.
Senator
The old lion of the Senate, though a lion in winter, has lived to do more for this nation than John or Bobby though
who knows what life would be like now had they lived.
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
|
« Reply #76 on: August 21, 2008, 03:38:09 AM » |
|
Why deny them? Because this sort of thing is a needless distraction from the real purpose of schools which won't make a real contribution to the safety of children and teachers. Who's being distracted? Where is this imaginary distraction coming from? The distraction is in your head, thats where. If guns did not make people who had one safer, why do the police carry them? All of those other actions would be more practical ways to improve the safety of our families Our families? What are you worried about? School shootings are to few to worry about . and as such are more worthwhile political aims in a world where we can only do a limited number of things at one time. Political aims? I thought we were trying to save kids? This seems to be little more than an effort to promote a political orthodoxy whether it actually protects anyone or not. It is a distraction from the real issues and the real problems of our schools and communities. It is a dead end masquerading as an avenue which leads somewhere. Wasting our time and efforts on this "solution" distracts us from policies which can substantively help kids. That's why this teacher stands forcefully against this sort of political woolgathering. Things are seldom as they seem. Your forceful opposition will create about as much resistance as a feather in a hurricane. There is no distraction because, where they live, nobody cares about this issue. And, if the MSM had not been inundating the airwaves with over dramatized anti gun rhetoric for the last 20 years, it wouldnt be an issue now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +112/-105
Posts: 1,108
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #77 on: August 21, 2008, 04:25:30 PM » |
|
To a speak to couple of points in this thread, notably by Wiglaf and Ahk:
There is a point to be made as to the statistical probability of any given child falling victim to a school shooter, it's true that its not at all likely to happen. Because of this, I think there is a great degree of truth to the idea that this isn't going to make anyone safer. Not in any statistically meaningful fashion anyway. There are many other things that can be done that are more likely to have a bigger impact on overall student safety. It would be folly to neglect these, and I would agree that in the overall scheme of things, there are better uses of funding than arming teachers. This is a good argument for making teachers who want to carry pay for training themselves, but not a good argument against allowing them to carry.
As to the idea of this altering the the teacher/student relationship, in some cases yes. Something tells me though that your average student in Texas isn't a complete stranger to firearms. A goodish portion of them I'm sure have seen their fathers shooting (and shot with them in many cases). This is true where I live, and I don't see that this has fundamentally altered the father/son relationship.
Depending on where you're talking about, I think it would not have a big impact on the teacher student dynamic. This leads to the idea of a local decision on this. I would not argue that this question has a one size fits all answer. Personally I think it's a good idea, though I do live in a rural area, and guns really aren't seen as a big deal here. I could see some cases though where the teacher carrying a gun could have a negative impact, notably in more populated areas.
Larger districts also have the benefit of being at the scale where paying for security isn't so expensive per student. It isn't entirely inaccurate to say that this is a cheap solution, but the reality is that it's more difficult to pay for full time school security in a county with a smaller population.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
« Reply #78 on: August 21, 2008, 04:49:56 PM » |
|
All of those other actions would be more practical ways to improve the safety of our families Our families? What are you worried about? School shootings are to few to worry about . All I've said is that the rarity of the tragedy may well make the cure worse than the disease. Don't pretend I'm indifferent to it. Truth be told, it is such a rare sort of tragedy that it never gave me a moment's pause about my safety when I decided to become a teacher and hasn't since then. and as such are more worthwhile political aims in a world where we can only do a limited number of things at one time. Political aims? I thought we were trying to save kids? Then lobby for better health care for kids, better crime-prevention measures in the community generally, better safety devices, etc and you could help save hundreds or thousands of times more kids(or perhaps even save any kids). We know who has a political ax to grind here. This seems to be little more than an effort to promote a political orthodoxy whether it actually protects anyone or not. It is a distraction from the real issues and the real problems of our schools and communities. It is a dead end masquerading as an avenue which leads somewhere. Wasting our time and efforts on this "solution" distracts us from policies which can substantively help kids. That's why this teacher stands forcefully against this sort of political woolgathering. Things are seldom as they seem. Your forceful opposition will create about as much resistance as a feather in a hurricane. There is no distraction because, where they live, nobody cares about this issue. And, if the MSM had not been inundating the airwaves with over dramatized anti gun rhetoric for the last 20 years, it wouldnt be an issue now. Yes, yes, the media brainwash argument. The last refuge of the extremist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
. . . sometimes it seems that one has to lean into the wind to stand straight.
James Welch Winter in the Blood
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution,no law, no court can even do much to save it.
Judge Learned Hand
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
|
« Reply #79 on: August 21, 2008, 10:29:30 PM » |
|
Then lobby for better health care for kids, better crime-prevention measures in the community generally, better safety devices, etc and you could help save hundreds or thousands of times more kids(or perhaps even save any kids). We know who has a political ax to grind here. Ok, Your right. But lets attack the root cause of crime. Lets remove the cause, not the symptom. What causes crime? I dare say that most crime is caused by the lack of money. Whether it be the junkie who steals to buy his fix, or the husband who kills his wife to secure life insurance funds, most crime (certainly not all) is caused by lack of funds. But how do you prevent poverty? Do you offer more "free" services? Do you build up an enormous Welfare state? How do you propose we do this? All I've said is that the rarity of the tragedy may well make the cure worse than the disease. Don't pretend I'm indifferent to it. Truth be told, it is such a rare sort of tragedy that it never gave me a moment's pause about my safety when I decided to become a teacher and hasn't since then. True. We all put ourselves in more jeopardy each time we get in a car. Yes, yes, the media brainwash argument. The last refuge of the extremist. You said "brainwash", I didn't. Are you saying that we are not swayed by the media? Are you implying that we are not affected by the thousand or so advertisements we see each day? In case you haven't noticed, the media does manipulate our perceptions. This is not an argument, it is a documented fact. Your a teacher. You should know this. Would you call one of your students an "extremist" for pointing out an issue of fact that you were, apparently, not aware of? Perhaps jumping to conclusions and making spot assumptions will have a negative impact on your level of professionalism as a teacher. What say you? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 10:31:23 PM by Retro Fit »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
« Reply #80 on: August 22, 2008, 11:24:38 PM » |
|
Then lobby for better health care for kids, better crime-prevention measures in the community generally, better safety devices, etc and you could help save hundreds or thousands of times more kids(or perhaps even save any kids). We know who has a political ax to grind here. Ok, Your right. But lets attack the root cause of crime. Lets remove the cause, not the symptom. What causes crime? I dare say that most crime is caused by the lack of money. Whether it be the junkie who steals to buy his fix, or the husband who kills his wife to secure life insurance funds, most crime (certainly not all) is caused by lack of funds. But how do you prevent poverty? Do you offer more "free" services? Do you build up an enormous Welfare state? How do you propose we do this? An excellent topic for debate, but certainly worthy of a thread all its own rather than being an afterthought here. I'd say we haven't had a vigorous national debate on this topic for a generation. Yes, yes, the media brainwash argument. The last refuge of the extremist. You said "brainwash", I didn't. Are you saying that we are not swayed by the media? Are you implying that we are not affected by the thousand or so advertisements we see each day? In case you haven't noticed, the media does manipulate our perceptions. This is not an argument, it is a documented fact. Your a teacher. You should know this. Would you call one of your students an "extremist" for pointing out an issue of fact that you were, apparently, not aware of? Perhaps jumping to conclusions and making spot assumptions will have a negative impact on your level of professionalism as a teacher. What say you? Of course we're swayed, but your assumption(or that which you unwittingly borrowed from others) is that the mainstream media (whatever that means and where you draw the line between it and other media) is monolithic. It shows in statements like that about "inundating the airwaves with over dramatized anti gun rhetoric". That vision of the "MSM" simply isn't true. I know that if I wanted to find coverage biased toward a heavily pro- laissez-faire attitude I'm more likely to find it in the Wall Street Journal or the The Economist than in the Christian Science Monitor or on CNN. The same diversity is to be found in coverage of a wide variety of issues. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 22, 2008, 11:27:20 PM by Wiglaf »
|
Logged
|
. . . sometimes it seems that one has to lean into the wind to stand straight.
James Welch Winter in the Blood
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution,no law, no court can even do much to save it.
Judge Learned Hand
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
|
« Reply #81 on: August 23, 2008, 12:18:12 AM » |
|
Of course we're swayed, but your assumption(or that which you unwittingly borrowed from others) is that the mainstream media (whatever that means and where you draw the line between it and other media) is monolithic. It shows in statements like that about "inundating the airwaves with over dramatized anti gun rhetoric". That vision of the "MSM" simply isn't true. I know that if I wanted to find coverage biased toward a heavily pro-laissez-faire attitude I'm more likely to find it in the Wall Street Journal or the The Economist than in the Christian Science Monitor or on CNN. The same diversity is to be found in coverage of a wide variety of issues. I made no distinction because there is no distinction. They both use the same, cheap attention grabbing sensationalism to sell there product. My "vision" of the MSM is so sparkley clear because it is so true. And just because you can name which networks are biased which way, the fact remains that they are biased and that bias influences peoples decisions. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
« Reply #82 on: August 23, 2008, 08:11:43 AM » |
|
Of course we're swayed, but your assumption(or that which you unwittingly borrowed from others) is that the mainstream media (whatever that means and where you draw the line between it and other media) is monolithic. It shows in statements like that about "inundating the airwaves with over dramatized anti gun rhetoric". That vision of the "MSM" simply isn't true. I know that if I wanted to find coverage biased toward a heavily pro-laissez-faire attitude I'm more likely to find it in the Wall Street Journal or the The Economist than in the Christian Science Monitor or on CNN. The same diversity is to be found in coverage of a wide variety of issues. I made no distinction because there is no distinction. They both use the same, cheap attention grabbing sensationalism to sell there product. My "vision" of the MSM is so sparkley clear because it is so true. And just because you can name which networks are biased which way, the fact remains that they are biased and that bias influences peoples decisions. But I credit many people with being able to make rational decisions considering a variety of viewpoints not mindless automatons mindlessly following whatever the man on TV says. Of course bias exists on every media outlet large or small, conservative or liberal. A hallmark of good reporting is that you get a good enough view of the issues and events that you can reasonably disagree with the leanings of the person reporting. You can find such reporting, but you won't find it on most of Fox's or CNN's television coverage. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
. . . sometimes it seems that one has to lean into the wind to stand straight.
James Welch Winter in the Blood
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution,no law, no court can even do much to save it.
Judge Learned Hand
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
|
« Reply #83 on: August 23, 2008, 06:00:48 PM » |
|
But I credit many people with being able to make rational decisions considering a variety of viewpoints not mindless automatons mindlessly following whatever the man on TV says. Of course bias exists on every media outlet large or small, conservative or liberal. A hallmark of good reporting is that you get a good enough view of the issues and events that you can reasonably disagree with the leanings of the person reporting. You can find such reporting, but you won't find it on most of Fox's or CNN's television coverage. I credit about half. But, no one escapes the medias influence 100%. Nobody. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
« Reply #84 on: August 23, 2008, 06:35:18 PM » |
|
But I credit many people with being able to make rational decisions considering a variety of viewpoints not mindless automatons mindlessly following whatever the man on TV says. Of course bias exists on every media outlet large or small, conservative or liberal. A hallmark of good reporting is that you get a good enough view of the issues and events that you can reasonably disagree with the leanings of the person reporting. You can find such reporting, but you won't find it on most of Fox's or CNN's television coverage. I credit about half. But, no one escapes the medias influence 100%. Nobody. Obviously, but given that even the worst sensationalism pulls in a varieties of directions and speaks to a variety of fears, both conservative and liberal, both real and imagined, why do you presume that this "Mainstream Media" is some liberal conspiracy against our liberties? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
. . . sometimes it seems that one has to lean into the wind to stand straight.
James Welch Winter in the Blood
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution,no law, no court can even do much to save it.
Judge Learned Hand
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
|
« Reply #85 on: August 23, 2008, 08:15:53 PM » |
|
Obviously, but given that even the worst sensationalism pulls in a varieties of directions and speaks to a variety of fears, both conservative and liberal, both real and imagined, why do you presume that this "Mainstream Media" is some liberal conspiracy against our liberties? That is quite a "liberal" assumption on your part. I do not see the MSM as a liberal conspiracy against our freedoms. I do believe the MSM has exploited the tragedy of gun violence for ratings. And I do believe they are responsible , in part, for the anti gun sentiment prevalent in society today. Take some free advice that will help you gain and maintain peoples respect. Try not to be so assumptive and to keep a more open mind. You can think I'm whatever, but ask me first before you tell me what you think I am. Your a Teacher. And as such you are held to a higher standard. I know you have your opinions, but keep in mind that what you might be certain of at 27 might just be the complete opposite of what your certain of at 45. You are helping to shape the future, so allow for a little room to grow. Take it for what its worth. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
