Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

a reply to: Answer

So if the "defense of property" clause was removed from the law, would you support it?

Without a shadow of a doubt!

Oh, and just for the record ... to enhance the honesty and non-hypocritical nature of the discussion

ACTUAL FACTS:

Virginia Teacher Arrested After Lining up Students and Firing Blanks at Them - Fox News

Christian School Teacher Fires Pellet Gun at Students to Restore Order in Class - Faith Writers

And not just blanks and pellet guns it seems ...

Teacher Pulls Knife on Students Who Talked During Pop Quiz - Daily Caller

I use just a few samples from accepted right-wing media sources to avoid any concerns about the lefty-gotcha media merely whining ...

So, clear evidence that weapons in the classroom are being used, in the first page of a basic search on Google.

/shrugs again

There shouldn't even be a law for this. Two things need to happen. The laws restricting concealed carry be removed for schools. Teachers permitted to carry, after going through training, in school.

Teachers, should they decide that deadly force is necessary, should be held accountable to the same laws as the rest of us. No 'destruction of property' clause. No, protecting the physical building or equipment. No protecting cars in the parking lot. That kind of stuff is nonsense.

The protection of human life and nothing else.

Property is not worth taking a life, less so school property. This is just pure sickness. Psychopathy.

a reply to: Answer

No actually the hypothetical you discarded was nothing to do with defence of property but in fact at the possibility of a student managing to take the gun off of the teacher and then using it anyways with no one in the class to defend anybody...

All because you want them armed in line with defending property...

Don't ask for a hypothetical if you're not going to accept one.


& logically speaking, I'm sure there are plenty of cases of firearms being wrestled away from people and used against them. So precedent for that is set.

Now consider a teacher with his back to the class and a disgruntled student attacking them for control of the weapon.


& if you're going to discard this addition to the original hypothetical don't bother responding...

I know where you currently stand prior to the hypothetical, if it doesn't change your outlook that there is potential for this to go wrong, we have nothing further to discuss.

originally posted by: Kali74
Property is not worth taking a life, less so school property. This is just pure sickness. Psychopathy.

worth repeating

originally posted by: EternalSolace
There shouldn't even be a law for this. Two things need to happen. The laws restricting concealed carry be removed for schools. Teachers permitted to carry, after going through training, in school.

Teachers, should they decide that deadly force is necessary, should be held accountable to the same laws as the rest of us. No 'destruction of property' clause. No, protecting the physical building or equipment. No protecting cars in the parking lot. That kind of stuff is nonsense.

The protection of human life and nothing else.

Aside from a personal belief that there are some environments (school, church, bars) that simply do not mix with concealed carry ... I absolutely agree with this statement.

I'm out for the evening all. Enjoy the rhetoric.

Hire more trained security!

An armed teacher is the last thing on earth I would want my kid around. What a recipe for disaster.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


There is a problem with the hypothetical 'what if' game. There are too many 'what ifs' to account for everything. You say a disgruntled student wrestles for control of the gun. What if another student, helps the teacher? What if the gun gets kicked away and a student in the hall way gets it? What if the gun jams? What if the teacher pistol whips the kid? What if the teacher next door shoots the disgruntled kid that got the gun from the first teacher?

See what I mean? It's endless.

There is no contingency for every situation. And any situation has the potential to go wrong. Just like any situation has the potential to go right.

Sigh~

I hate people.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Answer

And yet, teachers are not really comparable in any way to police officers, or armed security guards, are they?

Yet, your point was that they're merely human and make mistakes. Are not those other people human and capable of mistakes?

Armed security guards are in a specific environment that is, in general, not comparable to a teacher standing in front of a classroom. For the record, I'm appalled at the lack of training on the part of some versions of the "rent-a-cop" but that's really totally out of place in this discussion.

Security guards are in all environments, including some where they are surrounded by children. Your point was that teachers deal with children and this could make them snap and shoot someone. That statement has no historical precedent.

Can you post any indication of the level of training that teachers will be receiving to serve in high-stress situations with a side-arm then? You made the jump to police (who do happen to receive extensive training) and armed guards. Are you advocating that teachers should not be trained to make good decisions with their weapons then? Strange that.

Concealed weapon permit holders must attend a class in the state of Texas. Did I advocate that teachers shouldn't be trained? No, I did not.

It is not merely the fact of carrying the gun into the classroom that is the issue, as has been repeatedly stated here. It is a matter of the Texas law being expanded to exonerate teachers who do use deadly force in the protection of property.

I realize you wish to ignore that fact and make it a carry issue/2nd Amendment issue. I, and others, simply disagree with you.

Actually, you're now confusing me with some other posters because I've been focusing on the idiocy of the "protection of property" concern for some time now. Again, you're lying.

Your "facts" were stated in your own words in your own post and you did state "that was all that matters." You seem to have a high opinion of yourself. Perhaps you need to look up a definition of "lying."

Facts are all that matter. I have a high opinion of facts. Perhaps you need to look up the definition of "facts."

How many of those school districts have state laws which exonerate teachers from using deadly force in the defense of property? When you have that answer, you can make that argument, because THAT is what is under discussion here.

Sure thing. Go here: States allowing concealed carry in schools.

It's not easy to find sources for every state's defense of property laws but one state on that list, New Jersey, allows deadly force in defense of property.

I posted one scenario at your request. What is hysterical about thinking that one of these imaginary thuggish kids you guys are positing could take a gun away from a teacher and use it to harm others?

Answer: nothing. In fact, if you guys are right about these throngs of thugs in schools that the teachers need to carry against, it's a very REASONABLE possibility to any thinking person.

While you're looking up what lying means, you should also consider hypocrite ... because you're displaying a growing tendency toward both.

The "your gun will be taken away from you" argument is used all the time by anti-gun proponents and it has little factual basis. I challenge you to prove anything I've said wrong since you seem to enjoy calling me a liar.

Perhaps you should not concentrate on your opinion of me as much as you should the discussion at hand, because, just for the record, I'm not very impressed with your argumentation or honesty, either.

I've focused on the issue. I've pointed out when you are not being truthful. I have not posted my opinion of you. You keep posting untruthful statements about our discussion and it's getting very frustrating. I don't know if you're simply combining my comments with other posters and posting a blanket opinion or if you're genuinely trying to mislead anyone who reads your comments.

Please indicate where I've been dishonest. Please indicate where I've focused on you personally and not what is being said in this discussion. You're attempting to discredit me instead of my points and that is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

When parent refuse to allow their kids to go to these schools those teachers will lose their salaries and pensions and dental so they should have a vested interest in refusing to allow any legislator to pass this.

And parents could get together and find some handicapped teachers and form a little alternative school that does group homeschooling.

I wouldn't send my kids to school under those circumstances.

And I've read a few shocking things today, and erased posts, because ultimately, what is the use of posting anything when the only way any of this can ever happen is if the majority sit down and don't make waves and allow it to happen.

Balls always in our court.

originally posted by: Kali74
Property is not worth taking a life, less so school property. This is just pure sickness. Psychopathy.

Tell that to the business owners in Ferguson who lost their lifetimes work.

Good morning ATS:

a reply to: Answer

It's pretty obvious that you simply cannot accept that your opinion isn't the only one, and that you equate your opinions with fact.

You claimed that my stated issue with teachers in Texas (exoneration for use of deadly force while protecting property) was identical to the condition of police and armed guards. I demonstrated that your comparison was flawed.

Security guards (unless they are appearing in front of or teaching a class) are not in the same position either mentally or physically as a teacher. This is your comparison, and aside from responding to you, I haven't made any claims about security guards. You're just tossing in red-herring. Teachers are not security guards, nor are they police.

The funny thing, I ask you questions, you interpret that as making a statement about you. You believe that teachers should be trained? Good for you!

It is hardly idiocy to point out that the addition of that section of the proposed law in TX (dealing with "defending property") combined with the fact that teachers snap every day due to stress, and commit violent actions against children, suggests clearly, to any sane, rational person, that it's probably not the best idea to have teachers armed, and additionally, that protection of school property does not or perhaps should not bestow the right to use unquestioned deadly force.

While you're claiming (now) to be focusing on "defense of property" in reality, you're merely dismissing any and all concerns (because you have special knowledge that no teacher anywhere would do anything like threaten kids with weapons, contrary to evidence provided to you in this thread) and continuing to focus on right to carry, which several posters have pointed out to you is not the issue that anyone in this thread has pointed out as problematic.

Disagreeing with you and pointing out your (repeated) inaccuracies is simply not lying; you just happen to be wrong.

Indeed, facts are all that matter. The evidence at hand is all we have to go on. This bill has not even passed in TX yet. Everything we're saying about it is supposition. Believe it or not, that is allowed, on all sides of any issue. Your claim is that there have been no episodes of a teacher shooting a student over the protection of property. Okay, stipulated. You're correct as far as I know.

But, as you've been told numerous times, that is not the point, nor the part of the bill some of us are discussing and taking issue with. According to your logic, if something hasn't happened it can't happen; when similar scenarios to our stated concerns HAVE happened, and scenarios have been presented to you that clearly demonstrate the silliness of your position, and yet, all you're doing in return is saying the equivalent of "you're wrong, I'm right, and you're lying and hypocritical if you say any different."

How utterly boring after the first few passes!

Again you provide what you'd like to be seen as "facts" which really have nothing to do with what we're discussing. Specifically, you provide a link that establishes that 18 states allow concealed carry by adults on campus. Well, zippity-doo-dah I happen to live in Georgia and I'm well aware of that fact. Now, do you want to actually deal with what I asked you to demonstrate? How many of those states have law on the books which EXONERATE a teacher for killing a child over property protection? That's the question to answer; that answer would make your statement relevant to this discussion.

I have never once called you a liar, as opposed to you who have called me one several times (with no proof).

Your disagreement with a statement does not make it false. Try to get that through your head. You haven't proven, demonstrated, pointed out or made clear where I'm being dishonest, because I haven't been. You believe that your position is The Truth and you simply can't accept that others can believe or perceive differently.

That's the hallmark of an extremist point-of-view.

Good grief. Read your post to find your comments directed at me personally. Read my posts to find where I plainly showed that 1) the issue is not right to carry concealed but TX exoneration for protecting property and 2) several easy examples that demonstrate how some teachers have used their position in class to threaten kids with a firearm with blanks, a pellet gun and a knife (and those were only the first three easily accessible examples) which clearly shows that not all teachers everywhere should be trusted with or given carte-blanche access to handguns in the classroom.

Come up with something new or expect no response from me to any continuation of the same.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kali74
Property is not worth taking a life, less so school property. This is just pure sickness. Psychopathy.

Tell that to the business owners in Ferguson who lost their lifetimes work.

By this justification then, could homeowners across this country who lost their houses because of the Crash of 2008 legitimately go shoot the bankers whose stupidity caused the problem which resulted in the loss of their homes?

Or are you just tossing in any old emotion-based thought into the discussion to try to distract from your utter lack of reasonable argument?

a reply to: Gryphon66

By this justification then, could homeowners across this country who lost their houses because of the Crash of 2008 legitimately go shoot the bankers whose stupidity caused the problem which resulted in the loss of their homes?

That's a lie. Try politicians.

Or are you just tossing in any old emotion-based thought into the discussion to try to distract from your utter lack of reasonable argument?

The emotion card was played in the op.

'reasonable' argument eh ?

Too GD funny.

This borders on insanity.

The American Revolution was fought to protect LIFE, and LIBERTY. and Property.

Apparently some people don't get that concept.

a reply to: Kali74

educator reasonably believes them to be

Yes i know i picked out what i wanted to . But really . Reasonably believe , can someone define reasonably in this circumstance . Officer , why did you shoot Mikey . Teacher , i reasonably believed he stole that laptop because it was pink . Officer , Mikeys gay .

Sorry to any gay people or lovers of pink .

a reply to: xuenchen

I just remembered that we were able to use 22 rifles in JROTC in high school in the early 80s.

We even had our own range on school grounds-along with the rifles and ammunition.

I hope a certain poster doesn't have a heart attack after reading this,lol.

a reply to: neo96

I see you have a similar dysfunction to other posters: simply because you personally disagree with a comment doesn't make it untrue.

OP had an emotional response to the topic? Yes, I imagine that's why they chose to post about it.

How does that compare with tossing in your jibe about Ferguson's lost property? Not at all.

You ran out of ways to repeat "Unlimited gun rights for all!" and decided on an attempt at diffusion.

And then, (speaking of jumping so far off-topic it's ludicrous) you're making generic statements about the American Revolution and, of course, trying to imply that your position is the only one that true Americans would take?

Oh, and by the way, the quote is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (see the Declaration of Independence for more details.)

If you want to know what some Founders thought of the so-called sanctity of property, check out Tom Paine's "Agrarian Justice" and get back to me, preferably in private message as the flag-waving is completely off-topic here.

This shallow attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with your opinions as un-American is getting really tiring.

/yawn