Seaside High teacher accidentally fires gun in class, students injured A teacher who also serves as a reserve police officer accidentally fired a gun inside a Seaside High School classroom Tuesday, police said, and three students were injured. Dennis Alexander was teaching a course about gun safety for his Administration of Justice class when his gun went off at 1:20 p.m http://www.ksbw.com/article/seaside-high-teacher-accidentally-fires-gun-in-class/19426017
School resource officer accidentally fires weapon at Alexandria middle school A school resource officer with the Alexandria, Virginia, Police Department accidentally fired his weapon Tuesday morning at George Washington Middle School, police said. The officer discharged his weapon inside the school at 1005 Mount Vernon Ave. at about 9:10 a.m., police said. No one was injured, and the officer contacted his supervisor and school staff. https://wtop.com/alexandria/2018/03...ntally-fires-weapon-alexandria-middle-school/
The power of a well funded extreme minority You don't have to buy America You only need to pay about 3~400 hundred of the right ones and you can pretty much do anything you want Which sometimes seemes like it is the purpose of Congress . . .. . consolidate power so the rich can minimize the amount of brides they have to pay Rocket River
One issue with having a gun is accidents. The teacher in this report is teaching a gun safety lesson, and is a reserve police officer with some degree of training and still this happened. Yes, we can give as much training to the "armed teachers" as we want (or can afford to pay for), but it's just an actuarial fact that some accidental shootings will happen with every extra gun out there (much like auto collisions are an actuarial fact as long as there are cars on the road). Depending on how much campus shooting risk there is at a school, I am not sure that the benefits of protection against campus shooting is actually gonna outweigh the risk of accidental shooting caused by extra guns on campus.
This kind of analysis is why I am all for letting the insurance industry get all up in gun business. If $ was at stake instead of lives, you better believe data would hold more sway.
anyone remember this In the last decade up to 2016 (2004-16), there were 7534 unintentional firearm deaths. I'm sure there are much more non-fatal injuries. http://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics
If it wasn't so tragic, with people getting harmed, it would all be pretty damned funny. As the analogy goes, it's like giving everyone a shark for protection from sharks, or giving everyone a high-voltage power supply to help ward off lightning strikes.
Surprised at the ration of 'No' to 'Yes' votes here. (fwiw, I chose 'I don't know'). I get that this has issues, but the basic premise is sound. That being that just knowing they could provides a level of protection, because then the would be perpetrator wouldn't know if he might face something besides unarmed kids. It isn't the actual use of guns by teachers that is required, simply the possibility. Recall the armed air marshalls on planes. They weren't on very many flights at all, yet the possibility that something more than unarmed passengers would be on planes cut down considerably (it seemed) on the incidence of hijackings. So, seeing so many opposed to something that would indeed cut down on school shootings is surprising. I get the issues associated with this, and that there would also be drawbacks (hence my 'I don't know'), but to have so many hard 'No's' indicates the gap that exists in actually addressing this problem.
No, it's not. Which is why it got so many No's. I don't expect a school shooter will be deterred by the possibility of an armed teacher. The Florida high school had an armed officer, which the shooter would have known about, but he was not deterred. The Pulse Nightclub also had an armed officer (as nightclubs often do), and that shooter was not deterred. It also isn't clear at all that air marshals have done anything because we have many security measures to keep planes safe. Maybe some people have been deterred, but that has not been demonstrated, and probably it cannot be. It sounds logical to you, but you don't have any evidence. It does not sound logical at all to me, and moreover I have a few examples I can point to where deterrence was not achieved. So, why should I trust that "it makes sense" and take the risk of accidental discharges, of gun thefts, of overenthusiastic "protection" from armed teachers, and of friendly fire, just to buy some ephemeral benefit that cannot be measured?
No, it shows that one side is so bat**** crazy that they would rather militarize schools and arm teachers than do anything to actually try to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business possessing them. That is the gap that exists in actually addressing the problem.
