Probably, but at least I'll listen - Edit 1
Before modification by Isaac at 05/01/2013 08:31:13 PM
But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.
Not true; they need to be SAFE speed bumps, not opening fire at any provocation or none. They need to know how to clean and maintain their weapon so it fires when required—and NO other time. Remember when you were educating Sprite about shoulder holsters and thumb breaks? Since that was how you suggested teachers prevent someone grabbing their gun, is it not logical to think any teachers carrying a gun at school should know about them?
I think the assumption that a person, any average person, is easily provoked into shooting someone is rather improbable. Those situations likely to make it more probable are typically absent from a classroom and should be absent from a professional teacher. I would be concerned about a teacher who was prone to acts of violence, used alcohol or narcotics that effected them during work hours, etc but those may all be disregarded on the grounds that we already remove people with those traits from teaching and those are things even the most stubborn unions will usually not stonewall or protect them from. Even then, I really doubt a teacher who did have a domestic violence background or was prone to using any substance that wasn't blisteringly obvious would pose much of a real world threat. Stats game, I'd still want a teacher fired who was snorting coke on work hours but I still wouldn't think it very likely they'd turn homicidal on their students.
Let's keep in mind that deliberate acts of fratricide amongst armed soldiers - mostly composed of young men who we've actively tried to make more violent and who are typically especially stressed out when armed - are exceedingly low... I wouldn't expect it to be even that high amongst teachers. So they are safe speed bumps, because three of the principle qualifications for a teacher are maturity, patience, and a big belief in learning and training and those traits are exactly the ones required to make a safe gun handler. Nothing is perfect but as a group, statistically, they're practically ideal.
Correias argument here is that his career is superfluous: Even HE does not believe it, so why should anyone else?
That's a stretch, he is asserting that most people with elementary gun handling skill represent 'better than nothing', he's hardly arguing that a random citizen handed a gun and no training represents an equal asset to a soldier or cop in a firefight, just that so long as they can fire the weapon in roughly the right direction they might get lucky and will probably at least slow the guy down while he takes cover. That's manifestly true.
Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act.
No one not already convinced thinks this a slamdunk argument. I mean, seriously, make state law superior to federal law so guns become common and widespread in schools? Do you HONESTLY think people outraged by school shootings will support that?
Well you're expressing an opinion here not arguing a point, however I'd point out that the original act was struck down by SCOTUS and the revision specifically says:
does not apply to:
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
Note that there are already a lot of exceptions that can be used rather easily by an existing state to say 'yeah, all right, teachers who meet X standards and wish to carry a weapon may do so'
After Virginia Tech, I started teaching college students for free as well. They were 21 year old adults who could pass a background check. Why should they have to be defenseless?
No reason at all; I fully support all such peopls having any gun they can afford. Correia is arguing against gun control by saying, "21 year olds who pass a background check and get weapons training should be able to have one." That IS gun control, and Correia is GREATLY misrepresenting gun control to suggest otherwise.
He's misrepresenting nothing, he himself states in the article that there is already a lot of gun control and he sees a need for no new ones. Personally I think it is f'd up to make pistol ownership require a different age then other guns, but then I think it is fucked up to deny anyone any right considered for adults after we've legally deemed them adults but that's a bit of a different matter. Whichever, he's not misrepresenting gun control sorts - some of them of course but not most let alone all major factions as you know. You are a very borderline gun control supporter, the others on this site express views far harsher in terms of seeking new controls than you do and I think even if they weren't the majority of self-defined gun control supporters - and I think they are - we'd still be justified as referring to them as gun control supporters. People who would like to ban a 21 year old from carrying a gun on college grounds, even with background checks and training, hardly represent a fringe minority of the aforementioned in the US. Remember, the current arguments revolve around a desire by many to increase controls versus status quo, not a big push for less regulation.
Now let us consider his series of examples:
Your list of his examples confused the hell out of me, you might want to retry and clarify or edit those.
Your response both mirros and explains my reaction to Correias article: His fellow pro-gun radicals act like IT is "a profound rebuttal" because they already agreed with him. The rest of us remain unimpressed, because Correias article is only "convincing" to those ALREADY convinced his arguments are valid.
I object to your assertion his stance is 'radical' and my own is 'radical', that's incredibly inaccurate and pointlessly offensive. Either you have a very bizarre definition of radical for this context or you are incredibly unaware of the average US citizen's POV on this. We may not be the majority but we're certainly one of the largest factions around and there certainly isn't a majority who would characterize us as radical.