Woodruff wrote:crispybits wrote:See this is the thing I don't understand. Anti-gun ideas are described as "knee-jerk" by some of the pro-gun people, and then they lament the rise of big government and big regulation, but the solution the pro-gun people have put forward is hundreds of thousands more armed government employees (and therefore highly vetted and constantly trained and retrained and that costs big money too) without dealing with the problem of lethal weapons in civilian hands, thereby condemning your nation to that extra cost forever. But the anti-gun people are the ones that want bigger government and more intervention? Seems like that's something that can't be pinned on only one side here.
Some of the gun-nuts around here (not all, but it seems like most of the vocal ones) don't believe our teachers can effectively teach our children. However, they believe our teachers can effectively defend them. Apparently, they're not concerned at all that this will make them even less effective teachers.
How does "more education" make a teacher less effective?
I disagree with hiring a bunch of security for protecting schools from maniacs; I'd rather see tax dollars go toward teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, and enough arts to make things worth reading and writing about.
But I would support a program where teachers and administrators can volunteer for training that would enable them to carry arms - or knives (since Woodruff prefers knives to guns) - or mace - or stunners... so that they can be a line of defense against maniacs. Something like that would only "expand" government enough to document what each community decides is the "right" training those teachers must volunteer to take, and then track which teachers took it.
Educating a teacher in self defense tactics that would include use of whatever defense tool he or she wishes, shouldn't affect their abilities in the classroom at all. If a little more education interferes with a teacher's ability to teach, I'd wonder about that teacher's capability in the first place.
So, 'splain it, woody, how would a teacher carrying mace, a knife, a stunner, or a gun, interfere whatsoever in explaining English grammar or how to add 2 plus 2? I mean, if a maniac comes to the door, I think the teacher would lose concentration whether he or she is armed or not.
Actually, being armed against such an occurrence could potentially make a teacher less nervous, more able to focus on the work, so MORE effective in the classroom.
I would support a voluntary militia in the truest sense of our country's 2nd amendment before I'd support the masses of additional taxes it would take to completely refurbish every existing school building to be as "impenetrable" as Fort Knox; or to cover every classroom with its own special brand of Secret Service.
