Senator wants to allow teachers, school administrators to carry guns

I wasn't talking about the kids
I meant give all the adults's gun's

Ah ! politicians...they sure know how to make things work

reply to post by againuntodust


Agree. Would far less crime if everyone carried a firearm. Criminals do what they do for the most part because theres no resistance. Simple and proven. A disarmed populace is a slave populace.

Most teachers I had in elementary were abusive. Can't say any of my high school teachers were, but a couple could certainly lose it sometimes (one teacher whom the kids would taunt would have fits of rage in class (I felt sorry for her though, kids can be so cruel.) Point is, human is human and letting teachers carry guns would instil a sense of fear and power in them, and thus (as posters here have already mentioned) it would encourage some troubled kids to up their arsenal (it's called escalation.)

When I was little our principal was still allowed to use a strap on troublesome kids. That law soon changed and teachers weren’t supposed to lay a hand on them anymore (although I knew those who would do more than that.) But their right to do this was stripped as punishment belongs to parents, and of course there were excessive cases were kids were severely harmed. Allowing teachers to carry guns is just asking for trouble (lethal trouble.) I’ve had teachers who would grossly overreact, and if they had a gun in their desk...someone could die.

This is a pretty extreme and stupid bill. Even if it somehow passed, I bet it would be repealed.

Considering the rise in the number and frequency of school shootings sine Columbine, coupled with the rise in the number of schools recently equipped with metal detectors and the enactment of the 'gun-free school zone', it would appear to me that the attempts to remove guns from schools has failed. When an experiment fails, the prudent course is to attempt a new experiment, not to ramp up the failed one.

No one is talking about handing out guns in schools. What this bill is trying to do is to allow individuals who qualify already for a CC Permit to carry their weapon on school grounds. Here's the text of the bill itself:

6 (d)(i) Any public educational institution listed in
7 subdivision (1)(a)(ix) of this subsection may, upon a two-thirds vote
8 of its governing body, authorize its security personnel,
9 administrators, or teaching staff to carry concealed handguns in or
10 on its property so long as such security personnel, administrators,
11 or teaching staff seeking to carry a concealed handgun, as
12 authorized, are in compliance with the Concealed Handgun Permit Act
13 and possess a permit to carry a concealed handgun issued pursuant to
14 the act. Written notice shall be given to all students and parents or
15 guardians of each student, if applicable, of such a concealed handgun
16 policy.

Source: www.nebraskalegislature.gov...

It would appear from some of the responses in this thread already that some have the mental image of the Wild West, where individuals shot first and asked questions later. That is not what this bill supports. What this bill supports is that individuals who are already capable of carrying a concealed weapon, meaning they have already demonstrated the ability and mentality needed to be trusted with such power, are no longer prohibited from carrying their weapon onto school property as long as the local school board allows such. It also specifies security personnel, administrators, and faculty members as those who may carry a weapon onto school property.

Is there a possibility that someone might, at some time in the future, be overrun by a gang of youths, have their gun taken away, and be shot with their own gun? Yes. But it is apparent that those who desire a gun are already capable of finding one. In a situation where guns are brandished, I feel much safer knowing that those in authority, those who are responsible for the safety of my children already, those who have demonstrated the ability to safely and effectively handle a firearm have the ability to execute that authority if confronted with a firearm.

The real problem, however, goes much deeper than the firearms. Guns are not the only thing that can be used to kill. So can pocketknives, keys, pencils, etc. When I went to school, almost everyone carried a pocketknife. It could easily be used as a weapon, but it was primarily used as a tool. I can sharpen a pencil as good with a pocketknife as I can with a rotary pencil sharpener. I can use a pocketknife to open plastic wrapping. I can use a pocketknife to eat my lunch. just because it can also be used to harm another person, it does not follow that it will be. Even in my day, brandishing a pocketknife as a weapon was a serious offense... the typical course of action was that one would be escorted to the Principal's Office, their parents would be called, they would be detained until their parents arrived, and the situation would be resolved in one of a few ways: the kid would be disciplined (usually a spanking right off the bat), the parents would remove the kid's ability to carry their pocketknife, and if it was warranted, the kid would be suspended or expelled.

The kid was held responsible for their actions. They were corrected, and stern measures were taken to change their behavior.

Today, pocketknives are not even allowed, but they are carried. I know because my kids went through the school system (and one is still finishing it up). Today, pocketknives are confiscated on the spot and the typical reaction is to scold the child, send them to an 'alternate school', and possibly call the police to have them arrested. If the parents hear about this at all, it is because the kid is changing schools or in jail.

The kid is being held responsible for their belongings. They are prosecuted and forgotten.

The result of all this is that kids who would once have an opportunity to correct their behavior are now immediately sent into a legal system to be prosecuted, making them feel like a criminal. Criminals commit crimes. So it would make sense to me that having more criminals would translate to having more crime. And it has, as is witnessed by the growing problems with discipline in schools and the growing numbers of school crimes, including those committed with a gun.

The only viable solution is to back away from the societal changes which have led to this situation. One part of this is to once again establish the faculty and administrators of the schools as the authority where discipline is concerned, rather than continually deferring to Law Enforcement Officers who are no better trained nor are capable of policing schools as well as the faculty themselves.

There was recently a situation locally where a school administrator made a statement to me in an interview that I thought was apt. He and his school had been threatened directly by the father of one student who had been expelled after several thefts, a man who was a convicted violent felon just recently released from prison. The exact words used were something to the effect of: "I'm coming back with a gun and gonna kill everybody in this place."

He said, "What do they want me to do? Throw pencils at an AK-47?"

TheRedneck

To begin, I'll confess an agenda: I believe the USA was founded on some of the best ideas humanity has ever had, but it was quickly hijacked by shysters. At this point, the USA has become the single most pernicious problem humanity in general faces, but there's not a lot anyone can do about it physically, b/c no country has sufficient population to actually invade the USA & Mutually Assured Destruction would make it impossible anyway. Our only hope is that you destroy yourselves from within.

So I say, yeah, fight fire with fire. If the problem is kids shooting school staff, add more guns to the situation. Dont fight fire with water, dont even look @whats fuelling the fire, use gasoline!

Actually, I'd like to see Bush Jnr's American Dream law extended so that poor Americans can be given Federal Grants to buy their 1st guns & ammo. When Americans are impoverished enough to qualify for food stamps, they should get ammo stamps too.

Every American should be armed @all times: pupils, teachers, burger-flippers, nurses... everyone. American parents should not feel able to send their kids to school without a full suit of Kevlar & helmet & not before they've mastered the use of an assault rifle with fixed bayonet, a side arm & hand-to-hand combat.

All the rest of humanity need do is come up with some secret deal to allow Coffee, Kola Nuts etc to be imported into the USA even more cheaply than they are now & sit back to watch the caffeine fuelled rage take its course.

Guns, baby, guns!
Kill, baby, kill!
Die, baby, die!
Baby. Baby. Baby. Oh, [sobs] s/he was my baby...

reply to post by TheRedneck


Some of the abusive (some rather crazy) teachers I had in school had no criminal record and presented themselves as outstanding citizens of the community (some of them are actually very nice people outside of a classroom.) Some kids who break into a school and start firing at other students may have also been viewed as very nice and harmless people. Your argument that there is a 'spirit' behind this bill which somehow means that it's a safe idea is ludicrous. Guns should be kept out of school, period.

I'm certain that the vast majority of parents would agree with me. They didn’t want teachers strapping their kids, I’m positive they wouldn’t want them in a position to ‘defend’ themselves with a firearm.

reply to post by Neurolanis

I'm certain that the vast majority of parents would agree with me. They didn’t want teachers strapping their kids, I’m positive they wouldn’t want them in a position to ‘defend’ themselves with a firearm.

Are you "certain" that the "majority" agrees with you?

Good, let's put it to a vote!

Let them write a good, common sense bill with the restrictions I mentioned earlier (gun qualifying, C.E. in weapons training, and 100% concealment of their identities) and let's put it out to the people to vote for.

I am also "certain" that the "majority" agrees with me.

Having highly qualified, armed teachers would be a deterrent and a safety measure to cut short the shooting sprees. I am so certain, because after Virginia Tech we changed our laws in Florida to allow guns on State University campuses. I am also certain, because my brother is currently a high school teacher, and he is trying to get permission to be armed. I am also certain, because many of my close friends are in law enforcement, and they think having more people educated about weapons, and armed with weapons, is a good thing.

Plus, there are already laws to keep guns off of school property and it doesn't seem to be working too well? Mere letters on a page do not seem to stop homicidal/suicidal/hormone ridden teens from coming in and shooting their classmates? So, if they are going to ignore the law, at least we need a mechanism to cut their killing spree a little shorter.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Are you saying that somehow, as of now, all teachers are magically moral and level-headed? Are you also saying that they could also use a firearm to take down a shooter and not hit innocent bystanders? Usually it is innocent bystanders who get hit. In the Wild West, actual descriptions of gunfights are quite different from how Hollywood movies portray them: their hands shaking, bullets going everywhere. Ever been in a fight? In real life it's awkward, clumsy and unpredictable. Who ends up winning is whoever has the best wits and stamina. Add guns, it becomes dangerous to those around them.

This is reality here. Think about it. Besides which, as I've said authority figures like teachers can be all too human, can grossly overreact or misjudge a scenario. It is an extremely bad idea.

A vote for parents? Sounds like a good idea.

reply to post by Neurolanis

Here again, it is the escalation of a deeper problem that is causing this situation. Gun control is only one aspect of it.

Let me ask you to put yourself into a position: You are working at your job, trying to make a living. In the performance of that job, you are made to feel as you no longer have sufficient control to perform your job, due to the antics of those around you. What do you do?

Most would answer to tell those around you to stop. Now imagine they refuse. Most would then say you should report them to the supervisor. Now imagine the supervisor cannot do anything to make them stop except to ask them to, which doesn't work. You cannot do your job, your supervisor cannot help, and the whole thing is getting out of control because those who were making your life miserable are realizing they can do whatever they want.

The average person will express frustration and yes, even rage, at their impotence in such a position. It defies the expectations of the reasonable person to be placed in such a position. The reasonable expectation would be to have some recourse to make sure one is able to perform their job in as safe a manner as possible.

Applied to the school system, this is exactly what has happened. It began when some people decided that corporal punishment, a method of child discipline which had existed since before written history began, was somehow 'wrong'. This placed schools in the position of not being able to discipline the children under their care and led to a breakdown of discipline. It was exasperated as teachers who were unable to handle the demands of maintaining classroom discipline were hired, and then were placed in a position of being unable to be released from their jobs even though they were inadequate for the task. Classrooms became less a place of learning and social development and more a place of jungle ethics, where the strongest children were able to bully their way over weaker children without consequences.

The natural escalation of this was two-fold: bullies became even more arrogant and bold, and the bullied became even more resentful and angry.

Guns have always been around. The present situation is not about guns being available; if anything, they are less available now than they were when I was younger. Back then, every household had a gun somewhere, if for nothing more than hunting and killing 'varmits' such as snakes. It was common for adults to walk around armed, and the norm was for kids to learn about weapons as soon as they were able to understand. Today, many less households have guns in them, those who still carry are forced to be secretive about it, and children generally learn their weapons training from TV shows based on fiction.

This as well is a result of the shift from discipline and self-reliance to one of permissiveness and reliance on the 'authorities'.

So we have the perfect storm of social anarchy: children who can, by virtue of physical strength, do as they please; other children not so blessed who live constantly in fear; and teachers/administration who are legally prohibited from changing this dynamic. Is it any wonder that violence in this arena is escalating? Is it any wonder that some of your elementary school teachers were frustrated? Is it any wonder that children die?

We have already removed the guns from the schools. Every school I have ever seen has huge signs stating that guns are illegal. I have known a few people who were fired for trying to protect students from armed threats. And yet, guns are still finding their way onto campuses nation-wide.

It has been said that the very definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and expecting different results. Why do we not stop this insanity and try something else? Bring back corporal punishment, bring back the view that children are not just smaller versions of adults and thus need specialized guidance, bring back common-sense, and strip those silly laws that are getting children killed.

I would bet hard-earned cash that, should that teacher you mentioned be placed in a position of again having control of the classroom, their actions would be completely different.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Neurolanis


Where are you getting your information? Innocent bystanders are not "usually" the ones that get hit. Maybe in drive-bys, but not by licensed and qualified gun owners. Also, I never said "all" teachers. I said teachers that had proven their qualifications, been approved, and agreed to get continuuing education in the realm of weapons training.

Basically, your stance is that we do nothing? Currently it is illegal to bring a gun on school property, yet miraculously these shooters still manage to bring a gun and do massive damage, because they are the only ones on the campus that are armed. And you think the status quo is already perfect and no change is needed?

Less than 2% of all gun-related crimes are committed with licensed firearms. That means 98% are committed by people that have their weapons illegally. 100% of gun crimes on school campuses are done with weapons that are not supposed to be on that campus. The current laws are not working!

Do you honestly not see any benefit to having well-qualified individuals, who are not readily identifiable, carrying weapons around campus? The would-be shooters will still do their stuff illegally, but they won't know where the return fire is going to come from, or how quickly. They will either be cut very short, or they will have to proceed very cautiously and therefore cause less carnage before they are stopped.

Meet halfway. Have a select, secret few in the school administration.. principal, teachers, all alike, that carry. Assign a specific 5% of teachers to carry / have a gun locked away somewhere. Schools definitely need a safeguard when it comes to school shootings. There is nothing they can do to defend themselves.

2nd option, have a super secure, secret & safe gun cabinet locked away somewhere in case something unfortunate happens.

reply to post by TheRedneck


I agree with you that these are symptoms of a larger problem. There is a disconnection between kids and parents, and teachers, and each other. But rather than reverting back to harsher methods, I would suggest going the opposite direction: having a 'class' where a councillor works with the kids, discussing difficult issues such as abuse at school, harassment, depression, social pressure, discrimination, health problems, sexual confusion, fear and intimidation, etc. Encourage kids to stand up and say what they think, talk about their problems. Get everything out in the open and work through problems. I think this is the healthy approach we should be taken, rather than: "shut up and do as you're told." Teenagers especially are overwhelmed by hormones, social pressures, self esteem problems, etc.

I also think that policemen should be attending school more often, to help kids and speak with them about things. Kids should also be going out on job sites and get to see what different jobs and careers are like, giving them a realistic grasp on the adult world that they will soon be heading into. The United States spends trillions of dollars a year in completely avoidable wars due to corporate interests. If this was cut back on, even just a little, it would free up billions of dollars a year that could go into education, hospitals and the police.

Just my two cents.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Doing a quick search I can't find statistics to back up that point. I've heard it mentioned before and I am aware of many innocent bystanders getting shot in numerous news stories over the years. Whatever the statistics may be, I'm sure we can agree that it does happen.

Read above to see my thoughts on a solution.

I am not against well-trained police or security officers patrolling a dangerous campus or something. If it seems necessary for a very violent location I see reason to argue against it.

reply to post by Neurolanis

Agreement on any issue, even a minor one, is progress.

I would have to take some issue with your proposal that we press forward with what is basically an extension of the same thinking that has caused the problem. I believe the primary reason we disagree on this approach is that I am looking at the issue as one that must be addressed from early childhood, while you are looking at handling teenagers who have already been exposed to the less 'harsh' methods used recently.

As one who has raised two very successful children, I can say with all certainty that a large part of their obedience and self-worth came from the fact that my household practiced corporal punishment when needed. Without a single exception, all the children i have come into contact with due to them (via friendships, school activities, etc.) exhibit manners and self-confidence in direct proportion to corporal-based discipline, and exhibit anti-social/criminal tendencies in direct reverse proportion to the same.

I realize this is not a scientific survey, more anecdotal, but it is the truth, and the fact I have seen no exceptions to this pattern I believe makes it still significant enough to warrant serious further investigation at least.

The 'trick' to using corporal punishment is to understand firstly that there is a massive difference between discipline and abuse. No one should ever be hit in anger by anyone; such is abuse. Corporal punishment is a part of the establishment of proper feedback (negative consequences for unwanted actions) in a child. If this still seems harsh, remember that we are not talking here about 17-, 15-, or even 12-y/o's; at that point in life, their behavior patterns are already deeply ingrained.

I am actually talking about 2- and 3-y/o's! Now while some will shrink in terror at the prospect of any adult hitting such a small child, that is only because they are assuming that hitting is done with force. At that age, a light swat across the rear and a stern voice is more than enough to enforce the idea that their behavior is unacceptable. Of course there will be tears and crying. Children of that age know no other way to express disappointment, fear, anger, or any of a range of emotions. So it is no huge surprise that some who are confused with the principles involved would equate these tears with fear, when really they are more indicative of surprise and disappointment.

My children got frequent such corrections at an early age. They were not allowed to bully; they were not allowed to take without asking; they were not allowed to backtalk my wife or myself; and they were not allowed to make a scene in public. By the time they were 10 or so, there were no more spankings needed; the basic tenets of how they were to behave were deeply ingrained and needed no additional reinforcement.

Had I allowed them to 'run wild' without similarly training them to behave in a socially-acceptable manner at a young age, by age 10 I would have been unable to do so. Attempts would have resulted in suppressed anger, which would then have festered into more extreme anti-social behavior.

More counseling and police speeches and controlled exposure to adult life experiences may make some difference in the youth of today, but what about the youth of tomorrow? Counseling is great, but it rarely works when the counseling methods are continually challenged outside the classroom. Bullies and threats rarely present themselves at the most appropriate time. Police help, yes, but that is already being tried. The DARE program attempts to keep children from trying narcotics by explaining the narcotics and consequences to them by a police presence, but in the end, most children exposed to it enter their drug-curious years with enough inclination to try them and now armed with a wealth of once-taboo knowledge gleaned directly from the police. Exposure to adult situations in their entirety is hard to accomplish; it is very difficult to understand the intricacies of life (having to buy your own food, pay for the lights to stay on, etc.) when your entire existence has shown that simply by acting out one can obtain whatever they want.

So while I will agree with your proposals as an attempt to save what we can of this generation, I do not see it as viable for the future... it is a band-aid on a festering sore. Helpful in the short term, yes, but in the long term hardly unsustainable.

TheRedneck

Bottom line,

If teachers are allowed to have guns, no all teachers will be able to acquired or get a permit for a gun due to their records outside the school.

Once one single teacher discharge their gun in a classroom, (blame it on human nature) the whole issue will collapse as usual.

When the government try to play scientist with the population and make experiments at the expenses of the population usually goes wrong.

I believe the primary reason we disagree on this approach is that I am looking at the issue as one that must be addressed from early childhood, while you are looking at handling teenagers who have already been exposed to the less 'harsh' methods...

Um, no. I am interested in early childhood psychology and social impact, actually. I believe that a person basically becomes who he will always be in spirit/heart by age four, and in character by age 10 at the latest. After that, it’s basically just filling in the gaps. Which is why I think that elementary school plays such an important role in society and this is often underplayed (as parents are usually blamed for kids who ‘go wrong’ (even though kids who carry out school shootings usually do so due to social ridicule at school.) How kids are treated by teachers and students alike impact them greatly.

I think where we disagree here is that you have a very pro-discipline approach to dealing with kids while I have a more social/psychological approach. I am not against parents disciplining their children; I just believe it has no place in school. Growing up, I found that the most helpful moments came with understanding and wisdom from my parents.

The 'trick' to using corporal punishment is to understand firstly that there is a massive difference between discipline and abuse...

I agree. Many parents cross that line, but it gets complicated to go there. I just say that it’s up to parents, and if a kid is clearly being abused (scars, bruises, broken bones, etc.) obviously it should be reported. But I seriously doubt that parents would trust all principals and acting principals to practice the same patience, self-discipline and moral judgement as they would when dealing with their children. Some of them are monsters too.

At that age, a light swat across the rear and a stern voice is more than enough to enforce the idea that their behavior is unacceptable. Of course there will be tears and crying. Children of that age know no other way to express disappointment, fear, anger, or any of a range of emotions. So it is no huge surprise that some who are confused with the principles involved would equate these tears with fear, when really they are more indicative of surprise and disappointment.

You’re saying that school kids can cry because they are surprised? That’s really hard for me to imagine. Disappointment I suppose is possible...but when a kid gets struck across the face you’re likely talking about fear, embarrassment, self-doubt and even strong feelings of low self-esteem. The last two I mention from my own experience in being abused in the public education system. I was often blamed for things I didn’t do and teachers believed it. I would begin to feel ashamed at even an accusative glance, and felt sad for myself and the state of the world. Difficult feelings for a young child to deal with on his own.

My children got frequent such corrections at an early age. They were not allowed to bully...

Hope not. I’m sure a lot of strict parents feel this way about their kids though. I faced a lot of abuse as a kid by groups of older kids. I never once reported any of them. I knew other victims, and only one of them who would report them. Therefore bullies only ever teased her and didn’t physically abuse her.

Had I allowed them to 'run wild' without similarly training them to behave in a socially-acceptable manner at a young age, by age 10 I would have been unable to do so

Possibly. I’ve never raised kids so I am not aware of the difficulties. But like I say, I am not against parents disciplining their kids.

More counseling and police speeches and controlled exposure to adult life experiences may make some difference in the youth of today, but what about the youth of tomorrow?

If done the way I suggested I think it would make a huge difference. The ‘children of tomorrow’ depends on how they are raised by parents, treated in school and encouraged by the media that preys upon them to shame their parents into buying their items. It also depends upon the moral fabric (and I think a spiritual (not necessarily religious) connection on society; a sense of cultural connection and spiritual purpose or value in living. These all certainly need to be worked on.

Exposure to adult situations in their entirety is hard to accomplish; it is very difficult to understand the intricacies of life (having to buy your own food, pay for the lights to stay on, etc.) when your entire existence has shown that simply by acting out one can obtain whatever they want.

Agreed. Too bad entertainment has replaced moral stories, games that challenged the mind and body are now replaced by ADD-causing video games which also make kids physically lazy, and parents who could offer more guidance for their kids are all too busy these days. I blame all three of these problems on capitalism, which is pretty self-evident I think. We’d be better off with a barter or socialist system, or maybe a different and no-yet-realized economic system (one which doesn’t devour our politics and culture so mercilessly.)

So while I will agree with your proposals as an attempt to save what we can of this generation, I do not see it as viable for the future... it is a band-aid on a festering sore. Helpful in the short term, yes, but in the long term hardly unsustainable.

I believe you are partially right; counselling alone will not cure all of the world’s problems; we’ve touched on several issues here that need to be worked through. Where we clearly disagree is on the effectiveness of discipline. I believe that it intimidates kids into blindly respecting authority. That creates a dishonesty that I really don’t like. I’ve known people like that; pretending to be good and honest and yet able to very cruel (two-faced.)

I’m not calling you a bad parent or suggesting that your kids aren’t good kids. I want to make that clear. I’m just saying that although I believe that a certain amount of discipline is probably usually necessary, it is not the answer to psychological problems resulting in bad behaviour. I believe in confronting problems head-on, getting everything out in the open.

I am strongly against physical punishment or the carrying of guns in public schools for the reasons I’ve stated.

Peace.

reply to post by TheRedneck


The above post is of course a reply to yours.

reply to post by Neurolanis

Um, no. I am interested in early childhood psychology and social impact, actually. I believe that a person basically becomes who he will always be in spirit/heart by age four, and in character by age 10 at the latest.

I doubt I could agree more with this statement. And it implies another potential agreement between us: would you say that, since this early development is prior to school age, that it is the parents and not the school system that is primarily responsible for the character of the children?

I think where we disagree here is that you have a very pro-discipline approach to dealing with kids while I have a more social/psychological approach.

I don't think either approach, taken to the extreme, is appropriate. Physical discipline is indeed necessary in my opinion, but a lack of social/psychological discipline can cross that fine line into abuse. Conversely, social/psychological discipline never backed up by the credible threat of physical punishment is typically inadequate for the job of raising well-adjusted children, especially those who are headstrong.

Please don't think I am against the use of such techniques where they are profitable; some segments of society have, however, tried to press for a complete abandonment of physical punishment for misbehaving children, and this can often lead to those who prefer a balanced approach taking extreme sides as a countermeasure to such pressures.

But I seriously doubt that parents would trust all principals and acting principals to practice the same patience, self-discipline and moral judgement as they would when dealing with their children. Some of them are monsters too.

As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with this statement. There are those in the school system who are simply incapable of communicating the best values of society to those under their care. I have come across several during raising my children, and have used them to teach my children about reality and how to effectively deal with oppression. I even used one incident with a principal who had no comprehension of personal property to demonstrate how to handle someone in authority without encountering later consequences (severe embarrassment, forced restitution, and a record of the event for later reference).

This is one serious issue within the public school system. Tenure should be outlawed. It has been used to allow teachers and faculty members to run roughshod over the children without consequence too many times. I respect seniority, but effective teaching is more than time served without being fired.

That said, one aspect of this thread is that the proposal does not guarantee that any teacher or administrator can carry a weapon; it only states that those who would otherwise be able to carry one can also do so while in their official capacity. Just as there are some monsters out there in the school system, there are some civilians (including teachers) that are also firearms experts.

...but when a kid gets struck across the face you’re likely talking about fear, embarrassment, self-doubt and even strong feelings of low self-esteem.

When an adult strikes a child across the face, that is not discipline; that is abuse. We both agree that is a wrong that should never be tolerated.

Perhaps 'shock' would be a better term than 'surprise'. I was actually thinking of my daughter when I typed that. She rarely needed much in the form of physical discipline (although she did get a couple of swats across the butt when she was little). Instead, that light swat, a sudden indication that Daddy was upset with her actions, evoked a stream of tears. My son, on the other hand, was headstrong and has gotten some pretty severe spankings. The point being that each child has their own needs that must be addressed individually; what one might see as a punishment, another might see as play; what one might deem terrible, another might deem irrelevant.

In short, I don't believe there is a methodology that will work with every child. Children need an extraordinary amount of attention and instruction, and ultimately it up to primarily the parents and secondarily the teachers to provide this. Any restrictions on how children are to be disciplined reduces the ability to effectively raise some children to be productive, happy, successful adults.

I also have to say I am truly sorry to hear about your experiences... I am assuming your parents were unable to help?

I’ve never raised kids so I am not aware of the difficulties. But like I say, I am not against parents disciplining their kids.

I commend you for your open-mindedness then. Too many times I have had those who never had children try to tell me how I had to raise mine. Knowledge (which you apparently have) is important, yes, but so is experience.

The ‘children of tomorrow’ depends on how they are raised by parents, treated in school and encouraged by the media that preys upon them to shame their parents into buying their items. It also depends upon the moral fabric (and I think a spiritual (not necessarily religious) connection on society; a sense of cultural connection and spiritual purpose or value in living. These all certainly need to be worked on.

Again, we agree.

I believe a return to the principle of parents being primarily responsible for their children would help immeasurably. While there will always be some parents who refuse to take responsibility, that is no reason to deny the ability to freely raise children (outside obvious abuse, of course) from the rest.

Schools should return to being places of learning and not places of security. Children are not criminals, and should not feel as though they are in some sort of prison. That itself breeds animosity and leads to anti-social behavior, and thus begins a spiral downwards: more disruption leads to more restrictions, which lead to more resentment, which leads to more disruption, which leads to more restrictions, etc., etc., etc.

The media actually has no power if the parents exercise their responsibilities. It is the abrogation of this responsibility that has led to the media-induced materialism we see today.

I believe religious values have an indispensable place in any moral society. I don't think it even depends on the individual beliefs as much as a belief in right and wrong and a spiritual connection to others (which I think is what you alluded to as well). For example, I am a Christian; the actual religion teaches us to not judge nor disparage others, including those of other religions. Our commandment to "go forth and minister" is more a command to meet others and show through our actions who we are, than one to go around preaching to everyone in earshot (a very common misconception even among devoted followers of the religion, unfortunately).

Cultural connections are indeed vital as well, in order to instill a sense of security in who one is. That does not necessarily disparage other cultures, of course, but it does celebrate each culture as important to the members of that culture. Want an example? My username is TheRedneck.

I blame all three of these problems on capitalism, which is pretty self-evident I think.

I don't blame capitalism, because we no longer are under capitalism... at least not true capitalism. We are more of a materialistic society, which is a different thing.

Capitalism is an economic methodology, where capital (money) is the medium of exchange. It says nothing about spirituality, politics, or culture. Materialism, on the other hand, is a social order where a person's inherent value to society is measured under capitalistic principles. That I disagree with, as money is not the route to happiness and happiness is the true measure of success.

A fine difference to be sure, but one I consider extremely important.

I am strongly against physical punishment or the carrying of guns in public schools for the reasons I’ve stated.

As I have stated, physical punishment is not effective alone; it must be tempered with other methods. In its barest form, all punishment is unpleasant, and physical punishment is simply the most effective method across the entire spectrum of humanity. It is universal; no child likes pain. As such, any effort to discipline children which dismisses physical correction out of hand has a high chance of failure. Other methods are preferable when they work, and effective use of all techniques can lead to increased effectiveness of the alternate techniques... as long as the option of physical punishment is still viable.

But this is all about the source of the problem, whereas the issue of guns is about a social response to the problem. Shooting someone, regardless of the reason, is never corrective punishment! It is an attempt to stop destructive behavior when such behavior becomes dangerous to others. Please, do not take anything I have said to mean that I support shooting children as a means of discipline!

In a world where shootings at schools are becoming all too common, a world where children's lives are taken by criminals who have shown no regard for the 'gun-free school zone', it makes no sense to further protect these criminals by lessening the chance that they will face consequences for their actions or by increasing the ease at which they may continue to take innocent lives. It makes more sense to make it more difficult for criminals to take multiple lives or to accomplish their goals without harm to themselves. Given the choice of facing someone intent on killing others for several minutes while police arrive, or cohabiting with those who have demonstrated to law enforcement their adeptness with a gun, I will take the latter.

And those are the only two choices children in a targeted school have today.

Peace.

Seconded.

TheRedneck

It's a slippery slope but, I think the option should be there. Perhaps they could simply require additional training above and beyond the standard CCW training. High School teachers who decide to carry need to be prepared to shoot an armed juvenile if necessary. When I was in High School I knew several teachers who kept "tire knockers" in a desk drawer just in case.

Now, in the context of a college campus, allowing teachers and students to carry is a no brainer. Especially when you consider the grand size and location of many major Universities. These campuses are cities within cities and full of plenty of trouble makers and risk.