[/b]
I lol'ed at this entire quote. First off, teachers do not have the right to point a gun at a student. Secondly, your logic indicates that students shouldn't have the authority to stop others from endangering the mental wellbeing of others. For example, a student at my school isn't going to get in trouble for breaking up a fight, even though the administrators don't recommend that they do. Secondly, your logic also indicates that it's okay for a teacher to point a gun at a student if they forget their homework or get argumentive at a teacher. And the logic I bolded is so dumb that I don't know what to say. Have you ever been to a public school before? I know damned well that my school district isn't going to allow any teachers to arm themselves because that'll just make them overprotective and overexaggerate over the smallest things, such as the student making a rude insult out of them.
So little of your post is worth responding to, but I have some free time so I guess I will anyways. I never said teachers had the right to point a gun at a student. No one does unless they are acting in self defense. Otherwise you might get charged with assult with a deadly weapon. The part about my logic saying students can't protect others is wrong, I never said that and I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said. I merely said teachers are in a position of authority over students, while students are not in a position of authority over other students. However, they can still protect each other. My logic does not state that a teacher can point a gun at a student for any reason ever. The only reason a teacher would EVER pull out his gun is if an armed shooter was on campus and the teacher was using it IN SELF-DEFENSE or in DEFENSE of other students. And yes I go to a public school, and my logic I bolded is perfectly fine. If a district does not think a teacher can be trusted to make level-headed decisions within a classroom, then they should not be teaching for that district, regardless of whether or not they have a gun.
First off, all cops needs to have weapons because they are charged with protecting the city. Yes, there have been times where a cop misused their authority. But all cops needs to have weapons because they're licensed to and they are needed to stop dangerous criminals. By 'dangerous criminals', I mean someone stealing a car with a weapon in their hand. Also, your logic regarding 'disarm everyone but the crazy guy with a gun' is so dumb. How are we going to disarm that crazy guy? What country are you living in? I know you're not living in the United States because there's no states that does this. Elaborate.
I realize cops need guns. I never said otherwise. I know they are licensed to carry guns and stop criminals, that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a teacher can stop a school shooter 10 minutes before a "licensed" crime-stopper arrives, the teacher will have saved loads of lives. For your bolded part. What I said was:
This whole idea of "ohhhh well a teacher could misuse the privilege, shoot a kid etc etc." is ridiculous. So could a cop. So what's the answer then? Disarm everyone but the crazy guy with a gun? That's what we're doing now.
Notice the question mark? Is a sarcastic question. Basically what I'm pointing out to you is that with the current gun laws in place, when someone (a criminal) brings a gun on to a school campus, he is the ONLY one with a gun. Why? Because everyone else followed the law and did not bring a gun to school. Unfortunately, that does not help protect them, and now leaves them defenseless against the person with the gun.
There is so many things wrong with this statement I don't know what to do. The security guards at Walmart and Target are unarmed. So, as the security guards at the mall. There is a difference between an unarmed security guard and an armed security guard. An 'unarmed security guard' don't use weapons because of company policies and they could actually hurt innocent people in a crowded mall. 'Armed security guards' are used in large territories where there could be dangerous happenings. You are going to to have to protect the fact that not all security guards needs to be armed. Also, when did I say anything about bringing a knife to a gunfight? Honestly, there is reasons for this you dumb pig.
Yes, those guards are unarmed because most stores have a policy of "if someone is robbing the place, let them take the money and leave". People are just robbing for money so the store doesn't want employees to endanger themselves trying to stop it. When a school shoots up a school, they are ONLY looking to kill people. No money, no negotiations, just dead people. In this instance, it would be beneficial for teachers to be armed because it is possible that they could shoot and stop the killer long before the cops got there, saving countless lives.
I never said all security guards had to be armed, I'm saying that if they are unarmed and someone starts shooting, they are of little value to anyone. That's where the knife comment came from. Have you never heard the saying "don't bring a knife to a gun-fight"? If you're so young as to not have heard that then I doubt your old enough to be commenting on this subject. If someone has a gun, and you have nothing but fists, there is very little you can do to stop them. Thus, unarmed security guard vs. armed crazy shooter is not a good match-up.
At the bolded part: Way to be classy. The next time you decide to stoop to the level of name calling, could you at least be creative at it? Might as well be good at what you're doing, no matter how low it is.
This statement has twice the number of things wrong that I don't even feel like it's approriate to reply to this, but I will anyway. Have you ever been to a school where a teacher gets angry when a student does the slightest disrespectful thing to them? A teacher could shoot a student if he/she insulted her in front of a class, then a lawsuit would come in place because that is not how a teacher should react if a student calls them out of their name. Secondly, just because he is a 'teacher' doesn't mean they're not going to misuse the privelige. Again, what country are you living in? Because it's not the United States. Thirdly, the 'gun' could hurt other students who happned to be in boundaries of the bullet. Not only that, it is really unprofessional and inappropriate to use a gun in a school environment, especially in front of kids. That's why during school shootings, the school staff put the school on lockdown (or evaluate all kids out of the building) and seek the help of the SWAT team, military, police, or other law enforcement agencies. Your last statement is not what I was talking about. The teacher could shoot students who make an insult of them in front of the entire class or if he/she had a mental disorder where they would scream and hit other students. That'll be called overreacting and child abuse.
You are 100% wrong my friend. Your logic clearly states that you are not in the USA and never been to a public school. Guns are prohibited for a reason. It's there to protect the safety of students and staff personnel. There could be issues where teachers shot students who went insane out of the blue instead of restraining them or calling for security to come handle the issue.
Again, that's like saying employees at Walmart should have guns to protect their store. It's not going to help, it'll just make the store look like as if it is run by the military.
So, you are an idiot. Grow up, and learn that teachers should not be allowed to have guns on them. Bi Bi.
Why do you think or have this fear that a teacher is just going to whip out a gun in the middle of class and off someone? For god's sake, just because someone has a gun does not mean they are going to take leave of their senses. Think about what you're saying! You think a teacher is going to shoot a kid for being disrespectful in class? Do teachers often beat kids that mis-behave in class? No. So why would they shoot them? Again, if you fear that any of your teachers have that short of a fuse and that much of an anger management issue, then they shouldn't be teaching. Regarding "professionalsim"... in a real school shooter event (as in there is a person in the school shooting students) no one is going to care how "unprofessional" the teacher looked killing the criminal, they'll be too busy celebrating the fact that they're alive. And yes I do go to a U.S. PUBLIC school.
At the bolded part: Again, real classy. You say I need to "grow up" while saying I have to "learn that your idea is right" (because you couldn't possibly be wrong, you're too amazing!<----sarcasm btw, since you didn't pick up on it earlier), called me an "idiot", and then proceeded to close your argument with the phrase "Bi Bi." The irony and contradictions are mind-blowing
Alright folks, a couple of you are posting stuff that is right on the edge of trolling and maybe beyond it. Time to chill out. If you can't chill, walk away from the keyboard for a while. Can the personal comments, all. And just so there isn't any misunderstanding, FreedomFromAll yes I'm talking to you most specifically but also to everyone else. 
