Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[Syco21]

Never said it was an issue of trust, it's an issue of hypocrisy.

 

"Lets arm all these teachers in the schools that i am trying to get rid of in the 1st place." :laugh:

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who became nationally known for severely limiting the union rights of teachers and other public employees, has indicated support for arming those same school officials who apparently cannot be trusted to collectively bargain.

They're also not trying to get rid of teachers, they're just trying to limit their ability to demand higher wages, better hours and whatever else teachers demand.

[colourwheel]

They're also not trying to get rid of teachers, they're just trying to limit their ability to demand higher wages, better hours and whatever else teachers demand.

 

"Still never said it was an issue of trust", it's an "issue" of "hypocrisy". Scott Walker wants to get rid of unions but this dramatically has an effect on the teachers as well because it's the teachers who are in high support to better thier wages. In getting rid of teacher unions ultimately gets rid of the teachers currently employed. Being able to get rid of the people who have been working at the schools for years to bring in fresh new people to be paid at very low wages. (teachers do not get paid enough as it is. I should know I have been a teacher before.) and for the record Teacher do not advocate for better hours or many demands they just expect fair wages with reasonable benefits. If you were a teacher before you would probably demand better wages and benifits too realizing you were being paid almost dirt for the education you worked hard to get.

 

Scott Walker's motives to get rid of unions is purely political as well as his support to arm teachers all across the nation since it's the NRA that overwhelming funds his political career.

 

Scott Walker's endorsement to arm all teacher is completely cynical.

 

Like HeyYou said earlier "Governor in Wisconsin.... Yeah, he is a piece of work all right..... " is more than the truth.

Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

"Still never said it was an issue of trust", it's an "issue" of "hypocrisy". Scott Walker wants to get rid of unions but this dramatically has an effect on the teachers as well because it's the teachers who are in high support to better thier wages. In getting rid of teacher unions ultimately gets rid of the teachers currently employed. Being able to get rid of the people who have been working at the schools for years to bring in fresh new people to be paid at very low wages. (teachers do not get paid enough as it is. I should know I have been a teacher before.) and for the record Teacher do not advocate for better hours or many demands they just expect fair wages with reasonable benefits. If you were a teacher before you would probably demand better wages and benifits too realizing you were being paid almost dirt for the education you worked hard to get.

 

Scott Walker's motives to get rid of unions is purely political as well as his support to arm teachers all across the nation since it's the NRA that overwhelming funds his political career.

 

Scott Walker's endorsement to arm all teacher is completely cynical.

 

Like HeyYou said earlier "Governor in Wisconsin.... Yeah, he is a piece of work all right..... " is more than the truth.

You did, you asked why give them guns if you can't trust them to collectively bargain. That makes it a trust issue.

 

There is no hypocrisy, these are separate issues.

[colourwheel]

yet I respect your view on this I still have to strongly disagree this being the solution. For one thing the irony behind trusting teachers with firearms in schools yet not even trusting them to collectively bargain.

 

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who became nationally known for severely limiting the union rights of teachers and other public employees, has indicated support for arming those same school officials who apparently cannot be trusted to collectively bargain.

 

I don't see this type of thing to carry well based on the hypocrisy already floating around this type of solution alone.

 

 

"Still never said it was an issue of trust", it's an "issue" of "hypocrisy". Scott Walker wants to get rid of unions but this dramatically has an effect on the teachers as well because it's the teachers who are in high support to better thier wages. In getting rid of teacher unions ultimately gets rid of the teachers currently employed. Being able to get rid of the people who have been working at the schools for years to bring in fresh new people to be paid at very low wages. (teachers do not get paid enough as it is. I should know I have been a teacher before.) and for the record Teacher do not advocate for better hours or many demands they just expect fair wages with reasonable benefits. If you were a teacher before you would probably demand better wages and benifits too realizing you were being paid almost dirt for the education you worked hard to get.

 

Scott Walker's motives to get rid of unions is purely political as well as his support to arm teachers all across the nation since it's the NRA that overwhelming funds his political career.

 

Scott Walker's endorsement to arm all teacher is completely cynical.

 

Like HeyYou said earlier "Governor in Wisconsin.... Yeah, he is a piece of work all right..... " is more than the truth.

You did, you asked why give them guns if you can't trust them to collectively bargain. That makes it a trust issue.

 

There is no hypocrisy, these are separate issues.

 

Please just stop with this pointlessness. Never once said it was an issue of trust nor an issue of trusting them to collectively bargain.

 

Never "asked" before why give them guns if you can't trust them to collectively bargain either... :wallbash:

 

Hypocrisy is smeared all over this as a "meaningful" solution to shooting problems in schools of america. Arm all teachers in the schools but also severely limiting the union rights of teachers?(now I "asked" but the answer is it's purely political.) how does this make any logical sense? Scott Walker is trying to inadvertently get rid of all teachers who support the uninions in the USA to begin with. If you get rid of the Uninions, why keep around a good teacher at a school that has been working there for over a decade when the school can get rid of them since there are no uninion right and hire some new teacher (that probably spent over half a decade in college) and paying then at a very very low wage? (teachers seriously do not get paid enough as it is) Paying teachers fair working wages and giving them good benifits is not over paying teachers who been working for years and decades at the same school. It's investing for the future of America having good experienced teachers in our schools to help educate the next generations.

 

Ever wonder why I no longer teach anymore? The school I worked at got rid of me to bring in freshmen teachers who they could pay at less than a 3rd of the cost without giving them good benifits. If the state didn't get rid of uninion rights I would probably still be a teacher today.

 

Scott Walker is so cynical. Clearly he doesn't give a damn about the teachers in america but wants to arm them anyways.

 

Without making a good arguement how this is not "hypocrisy" you are not making a very good point to begin with. Reguardless, missleading readers trying to throwing out statements I was never advocating to begin with.

Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel

[bben46]

We are getting off topic - the debate is not over teachers/unions/idiot governor these are side issues that may rate their own separate debate and are being used to deflect questions rather than address the issue. A favorite trick used during the bogus presidential 'debates'.

[HeyYou]

We are getting off topic - the debate is not over teachers/unions/idiot governor these are side issues that may rate their own separate debate and are being used to deflect questions rather than address the issue. A favorite trick used during the bogus presidential 'debates'.

 

It does kinda/sorta tie in though. Walker is trying to reduce school expenses by curtailing union rights for teachers. Now, having to have armed guards in schools would seriously undermine his efforts at reducing costs. Arming the teachers is pretty much a "free" solution to the security problem....... and unfortunately, I think money is going to be a major factor in the decision making process on how to deal with this particular issue. Armed guards that are worth a hoot don't come cheap. Teachers are already there, and being paid in any event. Let them carry weapons, and you obviate the need for expensive armed guards.

 

Would anyone think hiring minimum wage ARMED guards is a good idea? :)

[colourwheel]

Would anyone think hiring minimum wage ARMED guards is a good idea? :)

 

Honestly hiring minimum waged armed guards is better than hiring minimum waged armed teachers with no uninion rights. Just imagine a teacher one day flipping out over a bad day at work and suddenly deciding to shoot up the place. :psyduck:

 

But I am not in support for armed guards in schools either.

Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

Would anyone think hiring minimum wage ARMED guards is a good idea? :)

 

Honestly hiring minimum waged armed guards is better than hiring minimum waged armed teachers with no uninion rights. Just imagine a teacher one day flipping out over a bad day at work and suddenly deciding to shoot up the place. :psyduck:

 

But I am not in support for armed guards in schools either.

 

Trouble is, anyone that can acquire a weapon (not necessarily legally) has the potential to 'flip', and become the next school shooter.... whether they work there or not. Some action needs to be taken to reduce the impact of these events, and I am not real confident that ANY gun-control legislation passed by the fed is going to have any effect whatsoever. There are always built-in loopholes, due to some lobby group or other.... or, simply because one party or the other inserts language so that they will actually vote for it.

 

I think the solution needs to be more localized..... let the schools decide how they want to handle it. Be it armed guards, or armed teachers. I think deterrence is more likely to work, than banning/restricting access (even more so than now) to any particular weapon type. The politicians currently are all up in arms (sorry, couldn't resist) about assault weapons, even though most of the mass shootings involve handguns, or shotguns. (one guy used a .22 rifle.... bolt action....) Once again, the politicians are targeting the WRONG things/people, nothing new under the sun there.

[colourwheel]

Would anyone think hiring minimum wage ARMED guards is a good idea? :)

 

Honestly hiring minimum waged armed guards is better than hiring minimum waged armed teachers with no uninion rights. Just imagine a teacher one day flipping out over a bad day at work and suddenly deciding to shoot up the place. :psyduck:

 

But I am not in support for armed guards in schools either.

 

Trouble is, anyone that can acquire a weapon (not necessarily legally) has the potential to 'flip', and become the next school shooter.... whether they work there or not. Some action needs to be taken to reduce the impact of these events, and I am not real confident that ANY gun-control legislation passed by the fed is going to have any effect whatsoever. There are always built-in loopholes, due to some lobby group or other.... or, simply because one party or the other inserts language so that they will actually vote for it.

 

I think the solution needs to be more localized..... let the schools decide how they want to handle it. Be it armed guards, or armed teachers. I think deterrence is more likely to work, than banning/restricting access (even more so than now) to any particular weapon type. The politicians currently are all up in arms (sorry, couldn't resist) about assault weapons, even though most of the mass shootings involve handguns, or shotguns. (one guy used a .22 rifle.... bolt action....) Once again, the politicians are targeting the WRONG things/people, nothing new under the sun there.

 

I agree something needs to be done but putting more guns in school is not going to help if "anyone" can flipout and start on a shooting spree. just the idea alone putting more guns in schools into the equation does not make the chances of shooting any less, it just puts more gun in schools... :facepalm: If you ever been a teacher I know for fact some teachers can have mental breakdowns over just trying to control their students in the classrooms.

 

Deterrence is more likely to work but let it be through requiring more education needed to own and operate firearms. If you have a gun owner that respects and understand the history as well as years of accountability of abuse through 4 years required education to own and operate a firearm, I believe this in itself would not only reduce the guns in the long run among the general public but also reduce the amount of abuse.

 

The reason for the huge uprise and political talk about banning assault weapons is because it would ultimately be the 1st step to more meaningful reform to gun laws. The people on capital hill have to start somewhere...

Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

Face it, ANYONE has the POTENTIAL to become a mass-shooter. Fortunately, very few actually live up to that potential. As it stands now, you have to be over 21, no criminal history, and no history of mental health issues (if anyone would actually SHARE that information with gun boards....) in order to get a permit to carry a weapon. Background checks are performed just to purchase a handgun. Making it more difficult for LAW-ABIDING citizens to acquire weapons of any sort has zero effect on those that DON'T OBEY THE LAW to begin with. (99% of mass shooters. maybe even ALL of them)

 

Attempting to pass legislation that would effectively require a bachelors degree to purchase weapons has about as much chance of passing into law as an outright ban. It would have pretty much the same effect as well.... The gun-owners would be REALLY put out by such legislation.... Something else to consider is, you can't make such legislation retroactive.... so, all those folks that currently own guns, can't be required to turn them in until they meet the new requirements. So, even if it DID pass...... it would have no effect at all for decades. (lifespan of weapons already in circulation.)

 

And lets go back to cars again.... If you are 18, and can pass a drivers exam, you can get your drivers license without ANY form of education/training (thru some agency or other, not including parent, or siblings teaching you how to drive) at all. And this for a device that is NOT intended to kill, but still kills more folks than guns every year. Shouldn't we require a 4 year degree to own/operate automobiles then? After all, they are statistically more dangerous than any gun......

 

And what about the military/police? Should they also be required to undergo four years of training before being allowed to carry weapons? Do you think that soldiers/police are any more mentally stable than the average citizen?

 

Personally, I think any measures directed at restricting guns, or turning schools in to armed camps is merely treating a symptom of a MUCH larger ill. We as a society have become way to permissive, along with the attitude of 'no one is responsible for their own actions' any more. It's always someone else's fault, or peer pressure, or some other nonsense reasoning being applied to these folks. So far as I am concerned, that's all so much Horse Dung. When the government decided that they need to legislate how folks raised their children, giving the KIDS more rights than their parents..... that was the beginning of the end. We are just starting to see the negative results of folks that don't have a clue, passing laws on a subject they know very little about. Which could apply to a LOT more than just child-rearing here in the states....