A Different Take on Teachers With Guns

[Shooterman]

Just about a week ago, we had a discussion on this. See;

Teachers to carry guns???

Having been an advocate in favor, it seemed I was one of the few, or even the only one, that did favor arming teachers and principals.

Subscribing to a service of the Mises Institutte, where by they furnish a different perspective on various positions, mostly dealing with economics and freedoms of individuals and promoting economic freedom somewhat as the ultimate guarantee of all freedoms. I was pleasently surprised this morning to open my mail and low and behold, a perspective on exactly what we had discussed a week ago.

So, in my efforts to sway my good friends here onto the path of enlightenment, I offer the following from a guest writer at Mises.

More Guns, Safer Schools - Mises Institute

Again, it is somewhat of a differnt perspective, and I offer it primarily as a thinking point for you. 'tis not a real long article and well worth the read.

snip

People respond to incentives. Economic analysis can be applied to criminal behavior. People choose to do more of something when the cost is low and choose to do less of something when the cost goes up. Why does this logic suddenly fall apart when we are talking about degenerate, cowardly adults or students who want to commit murder? They too might think twice if they knew they could be stopped.

The situation becomes more infuriating when it comes to private schools. Why private institutions are not allowed to determine their own safety policies is a clear violation of property rights by the government. Let the voluntary decisions of individual schools and parents (consumers) decide if children should be in the presence of teachers with guns.

After all, don't parents have the right to take care of their children in the manner they see fit? I can hear the objection: "What if a teacher is psychotic and decides to shoot all his students?" I am perplexed when I hear that same argument being used against allowing airlines to arm their pilots (and, hence, protect their own private property). If a pilot has mental issues, can't he fly me into the ground and kill me if he wants to already?

In fact, I would rather he put me out of my misery with a gunshot to the head then allow me to think about my impending death as he nosedives into the Earth. My point is if a teacher is emotionally unstable, there is nothing that prevents him from bringing a gun to campus and committing his cowardly, pathetic act now.

snip

If we had a free-market in education and the Second Amendment was respected, those parents who did not trust teachers with guns would send their children to gun-free schools and those who felt that a school with armed teachers provided a safer environment would reward schools who provided that service with their dollars. The training and evaluation of teachers could be done by private sector institutions of course.

Guns and government don't mix well. Our public educational system is one of coercion — people are forced by the government through taxation to support schools. So, I could understand the objection of anti-gun parents to legislation which arms the teachers and administrators of their child's school. Again, this is yet another example of how a private, voluntary system would be more effective and responsive to parents' wishes.

Unfortunately, because the government has monopolized the educational system and the Second Amendment has lost its true meaning, schools will probably not be able to protect themselves more effectively against those who are mad at the world or who have unresolved "issues." We hear about the stories of children and teens being killed with guns — maybe it should be time to hear about how children and teens were saved because of guns.

[Bluehawk]

Wouldn't bother me an iota for a teacher to carry a weapon... IF they have shown that they are:

a) Able to pass a gun safety course

b) No history of law breaking or mental incompetence

I've been a sub-teacher in public schools.

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

Wouldn't bother me an iota for a teacher to carry a weapon... IF they have shown that they are:

a) Able to pass a gun safety course

b) No history of law breaking or mental incompetence

I've been a sub-teacher in public schools.

Nor would it bother me either, Cuz. In my experience, dating back more years than I care to remember, to a time when kids were taught responsibilty, and our nation still celebrated our God Given rights, I have always been of the mind that most gunowners are law abiding, honest, and responsibile citizens. My opinion has not changed because a crew of yahoos, afraid to take a dump without Uncle Sugars protection, over the years, have convinced many, of the evilness of firearms.

My forty-six year old son, having worked in chemical plants for 20 years or more and at the same company for 17 years, hung up his hardhat and became a teacher yesterday. He loves kids, and I have little doubt he would lay his life down to protect those he will be charged with teaching and protecting. He's hunted and fished most of his life and been around firearms almost all of that time.

[BrianK]

Originally Posted by Shooterman

People respond to incentives. Economic analysis can be applied to criminal behavior. People choose to do more of something when the cost is low and choose to do less of something when the cost goes up. Why does this logic suddenly fall apart when we are talking about degenerate, cowardly adults or students who want to commit murder? They too might think twice if they knew they could be stopped.

I'll start with the last sentence of this beginning paragrapgh because I think it has two interesting concepts.

1. Might think.

As with my previous objection the author does accept the reality that anyone intent on committing murder will find a way.

2. If they knew they could be stopped.

That pre supposes that items like pepper spray or any chemical that could be used to blind the teacher, principal or any other school authority wouldn't be thought of by cowardly adults or students who want to commit murder.

The real differance as I see it is the authors comparison of economic analysis applied to criminal behavior.

The logic sounds right if it were about monetary gain. But this is about a state of mind. The thief cares about the outcome, the mentally unstable cowardly adults or students aren't interested in the end result other than completing what they intend to do.

Having guns where the act can be completed gives the cowardly adult or student access that wasn't there before.

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by BrianK

I'll start with the last sentence of this beginning paragrapgh because I think it has two interesting concepts.

1. Might think.

As with my previous objection the author does accept the reality that anyone intent on committing murder will find a way.

2. If they knew they could be stopped.

That pre supposes that items like pepper spray or any chemical that could be used to blind the teacher, principal or any other school authority wouldn't be thought of by cowardly adults or students who want to commit murder.

The real differance as I see it is the authors comparison of economic analysis applied to criminal behavior.

The logic sounds right if it were about monetary gain. But this is about a state of mind. The thief cares about the outcome, the mentally unstable cowardly adults or students aren't interested in the end result other than completing what they intend to do.

One thing about criminals, Brian, is most may be criminals, but most recognize there may be a penalty if a potential victim is armed; i.e.there is a strong possibilty they will wind up dead. That is the ultimate economic loss.

Having guns where the act can be completed gives the cowardly adult or student access that wasn't there before.

Possibly, but one thing is certain, not having a firearm handy, usually does result in the death or maiming of someone. For me, I'll take my chances with the good guy with the firearm.

As pointed out, one is just as dead if a crazed armed pilot decides to shoot you, or fly his plane into the ground.

I do understand, the lilelyhood of teachers and principals ever being armed, considering the mindset most have been inculcated with for the last 20 or 30 years, as well as what part of the nation one is raised in, is slim and none. The same arguments have always been given against a state issuing concealed carry permits. "The streets will run red with innocent blood." "Road rage will become the norm of the day by people having shootouts at the red light." "Too many innocents will be caught in the crossfire." Hasn't happened!

Nope, I would certainly place the lives of my children and grandchildren in the hands of qualified teachers and principals in a scenario like a crazy at school.

[herbstin]

For those who keep saying that guns in school will just provide more opportunities for mayhem, why is it that you do not have mass shootings in police stations, army bases, gun stores, shooting clubs or other places where there is even a possibility of finding armed people? Why do they happen in places known or percieved to be "gun-free" or minimal armed areas?
Because, no matter how deranged, a loon with a mass-killing agenda intends to do a mass killing, & will be naturally attracted to the places most likely to allow that to happen. Remove that perception and you lower the likelyhood of an attack.
It's not even necessary to force teachers to arm. Allowing them the option immediately removes the "gun-free" zone.
The concealed carry laws enacted in most states has lowered the violent crime rates, not because we actually have shot at or even displayed weapons at criminals, but we have introduced doubt in their ability to strike without worry of death or injury. People who can not or will not carry benefit from this. Allowing teachers the option of concealled carry in school would bring this effect there, as well.
BTW, those who say the law doesn't allow firearms in school, well the law says the school can authorise it, but I haven't found one that will. And if Wikipedia is to be believed, the Safe Schools Act was struck down as unconstitutional, anyway.
Can we make a 100% guarantie that nothing bad will ever happen? Of course not. The Pentagon has some of the best security in the world, but that didn't stop an airplane from being slammed into it.

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by herbstin

For those who keep saying that guns in school will just provide more opportunities for mayhem, why is it that you do not have mass shootings in police stations, army bases, gun stores, shooting clubs or other places where there is even a possibility of finding armed people? Why do they happen in places known or percieved to be "gun-free" or minimal armed areas?
Because, no matter how deranged, a loon with a mass-killing agenda intends to do a mass killing, & will be naturally attracted to the places most likely to allow that to happen. Remove that perception and you lower the likelyhood of an attack.
It's not even necessary to force teachers to arm. Allowing them the option immediately removes the "gun-free" zone.
The concealed carry laws enacted in most states has lowered the violent crime rates, not because we actually have shot at or even displayed weapons at criminals, but we have introduced doubt in their ability to strike without worry of death or injury. People who can not or will not carry benefit from this. Allowing teachers the option of concealled carry in school would bring this effect there, as well.
BTW, those who say the law doesn't allow firearms in school, well the law says the school can authorise it, but I haven't found one that will. And if Wikipedia is to be believed, the Safe Schools Act was struck down as unconstitutional, anyway.
Can we make a 100% guarantie that nothing bad will ever happen? Of course not. The Pentagon has some of the best security in the world, but that didn't stop an airplane from being slammed into it.

Well said, Mr Herbstin.