Re: Armed teachers : Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:40 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The biggest difference between the US and UK is that the US home invader is risking getting shot and killed. If someone is crazy enough to break into a US home at 2.30am you pretty much do need a gun.

My best friend was a "crazy" gun guy who had a plan for what him and his family would do if there was ever a home invasion. I am a "it'll never happen" person and figure his kids are more at risk of being shot by accident because he has guns in his house than they ever would be of being caught up in a home invasion.

But if someone smashed my door in at 2.30am in America, I do feel my first thought would have been that I was the wrong one and I had let down my wife and daughter.

One other opinion that I come across when corresponding with acquaintances in America is the Republican attitude of "government is bad" which is difficult to understand really, I'll add that these attitudes have been most strongly expressed in Utah by Mormons (not ultra extremist Mormons, but church members anyway) so there may be a slight dash of persecution in there as well - the attitude is that as citizens they do not want a high level of central government control and arm themselves in order to prevent this, basically they are armed ready for another civil war.

I think that this is where the UK and USA differ immensely in that here we elect a government to run the business of the country including law and order and when there is a law and order problem ( like the riots of a couple of years ago) we turn towards the government and expect them to stop it - its why they are there - the attitude that seems to prevail (from this outsiders view) in the USA is that the citizen will take care of law and order by the process of arming themselves and the police will come along later and clean up, those citizens then expect to be praised for their actions, whether or not they got the right guy.

I can't tell you how many casual internet conversations have escalated into complete lunacy ranting about not taking away their rights to protect themselves from an overpowering government and Obama's healthcare plan seemed to fit into this somewhere down the line too, I have actually been told by a normally sensible family person that they would rather die of a curable illness if they couldn't pay for their own treatment rather than accept a public health system subscribed to from their taxation - its a puzzle for a UK citizen thats for sure.

Re: Armed teachers : Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:46 am  

I don't get that crazy **** about arming yourself against the tyrannical government. For me that's crazyiness close to the American's belief in god and I just shake my head at.

But natural disasters are a different thing. If there's a large earthquake, tornado or hurricane and a massive area is affected then it could be a long time before help is coming.

I think it was 2009 that my area of Kentucky was without power for a week because of an ice storm. Basically the rain froze as soon it fell so all the trees were covered in so much ice that they couldn't carry the weight and they went over, dragging down power lines with them.

It was just a week and it was also only a few states that were affected so things didn't get too bad, but if the whole country was affected and it took a few weeks then things could get real bad, real quick.

New Orleans was an example of people going crazy. My friend said that the worst place to be was inside the Superdome because they banned anyone from carrying firearms. My friend said there were rapes and murders in there because people couldn't protect themselves. I'd never heard of this and have never checked reports, but it was something he believed in.

I don't understand how the American public can be so stupid as to carry on with their health insurance system when ours beats the living hell out of theirs. I did catch a Michael Savage rant on the radio. He was saying how he had a heart attack or something like that. And the doctor was telling him that if he was in Europe with their social health care then he'd have been dead. I was like, "WTF are you talking about???"

[DaveO]

Re: Armed teachers : Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:44 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

My best friend was a "crazy" gun guy who had a plan for what him and his family would do if there was ever a home invasion. I am a "it'll never happen" person and figure his kids are more at risk of being shot by accident because he has guns in his house than they ever would be of being caught up in a home invasion..

"Home invasions" is not a term you see used in common parlance in the UK at all. It is in the US. We talk of burglaries they talk of "home invasions" and there is a big difference in what the two imply IMO.

At least some US citizens clearly feel the need to protect themselves from "home invasions" when really they would probably be better served by letting the police deal with a burglary after the event (because I am sure that is what most home invasions really are).

As you say the risk of accidental shooting is probably far greater than that of home invasion and for that reason even if:

But if someone smashed my door in at 2.30am in America, I do feel my first thought would have been that I was the wrong one and I had let down my wife and daughter.

You would still justify not having a gun because it was more dangerous keeping one around despite this. I assume here the "home invasion" was a burglary and not anyone doing something worse that would constitute something to be labelled as a "home invasion" where they would have shot you in your bed before you unlocked the gun-safe which is where you would have to keep it to prevent your kids playing cops and robbers with live ammo.

BTW I read a case not so long ago where parents were fighting to get a life jail sentence overturned for a minor who had been an on-looker when a kid of about 12 shot his stepfather dead using the "family" gun.

IMO it comes out of the same kind paranoia that makes some US citizens think they have to arm themselves to protect themselves against their own government.

Re: Armed teachers : Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:35 pm  

DaveO wrote:

"Home invasions" is not a term you see used in common parlance in the UK at all. It is in the US. We talk of burglaries they talk of "home invasions" and there is a big difference in what the two imply IMO.

Like I said, in the US if someone is kicking your door in at 2am then they are risking being shot. That automatically means that there is a more serious intent in the US than there is here.

At least some US citizens clearly feel the need to protect themselves from "home invasions" when really they would probably be better served by letting the police deal with a burglary after the event (because I am sure that is what most home invasions really are).

I can't say I agree with that premise either here or in the US.

If someone's trying to steal your things from your house then over here the reaction will be outrage and a strong desire to beat the hell out of the lowlife for trying to steal your stuff. In America the reaction will be to reach over for the shotgun and possibly blow them away.

I agree that the most sensible course of action is to barricade yourself away and call the police to let them deal with it. But part of that assumes a police response time of around 5 minutes. But there will be many places in the USA that you'd be lucky to get a police response within 30 minutes for a major emergency.

You would still justify not having a gun because it was more dangerous keeping one around despite this. I assume here the "home invasion" was a burglary and not anyone doing something worse that would constitute something to be labelled as a "home invasion" where they would have shot you in your bed before you unlocked the gun-safe which is where you would have to keep it to prevent your kids playing cops and robbers with live ammo.

I agree. I'm an anti-gun guy and this is the way I think. I also think that there's a huge advantage to the "home invaders" in that they know exactly what is going on and are prepared while the homeowner is scared, panicking, frightened for their family and isn't sure whether it is someone breaking in or whether the wind has just smashed something against your door.

I also think that people don't handle guns in real life like they do in movies. I think most people would be shaking so bad they wouldn't be able to open a gun safe, never mind getting it out and using it.

My friend was totally convinced that he would be able to shoot someone who was threatening his family. I honestly don't think anyone knows how they would react in those situations until they are in them. I think that most people would completely freeze in situations like that.

IMO it comes out of the same kind paranoia that makes some US citizens think they have to arm themselves to protect themselves against their own government.

The most ridiculous thing about protecting yourself from the government is that people have no right whatsoever to bear arms against the police. The easiest way to kill yourself is to reach for a gun in front of the police.

Re: Armed teachers : Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:26 pm  

obeone wrote:

There's always the chance that the teacher will 'snap'.Holycow god forbid

That was my first thought. What are they going to do when a teacher snaps after taunts from students?

Just the fact that you are 100 times more likely to be killed from arms fire in the US than here shows that an absence of guns is a more effective solution than giving them to everyone.

[DaveO]

Re: Armed teachers : Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:48 pm  

Bearded wrote:

That was my first thought. What are they going to do when a teacher snaps after taunts from students?

Or when a student attacks the gun carrying teacher and manages to relieve them of their gun?

Just the fact that you are 100 times more likely to be killed from arms fire in the US than here shows that an absence of guns is a more effective solution than giving them to everyone.

It should be obvious whenever you introduce guns anywhere there is an increased likelihood they will be used for murder.

So introducing them into to schools is bound to increase the chances of another shooting.

The counter argument the pro-gun lobby will no doubt put is this is the lesser of two evils on the assumption any murders from a rouge teacher or pupil will likely be a lower order of magnitude than what we saw recently.

I can't say I can see how that follows. A trusted member of the staff wouldn't be challenged from walking into the school gym or an assembly.

In any case this kind of logic does my head in. It's like the death penalty. Yes they get it wrong sometimes but it's a price worth paying is the argument. Presumably when it doesn't happen to you and yours. Same thing here. Much hand wringing when one does go off the deep end but hey, the incidence of rouge teachers will still mean fewer deaths than leaving them unarmed will be the logic.

How about just doing the utmost to make schools secure?

Re: Armed teachers : Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:24 pm  

The argument from the gun lobby is that the reason schools are targeted is because they are gun free zones.

So during a school shooting there are one or two shooters in a building with 1,000 unarmed people. The shooters then have about 5 or 10 minutes to shoot as many people as they can before every cop in the city comes.

The argument is that if a shooter knows that there could be a dozen armed teachers and staff throughout the building then the schools won't be the easy targets they are at the moment. They think that if teachers carry guns then either the school shooting doesn't happen or the shooter is shot before they get the chance to kill too many people.

There ARE positives behind this argument. But IMO it's pretty convenient for the gun lobby that the solution to gun crime is more guns. I think there are many problems with giving teachers guns as well though. Not least that fear that it will instill in children that they are so in danger of being shot that their teacher needs a weapon. Then there's all the accidents that will happen, the odd teacher shooting and the fact that school principals are going to hold off from firing a bad teacher who happens to also be carrying a gun every day.

How about just doing the utmost to make schools secure?

TBH the schools in America are way more open than the schools in Britain. Just driving past a modern British school and they look more like prisons than they do a school. Again a massive over-reaction because a few kids have been abducted from schools so every school in the country needs 10ft high fences around the whole perimeter of the school grounds.

I used to be in the car every morning when my friend dropped his youngest off at elementary school. Before Newtown there'd be about 5 cars dropping off kids at the time we were there. After Newtown the car park was pretty much packed because parents were all dropping the kids off. More kids will have died in car accidents caused by everyone driving their kids to school than will ever be killed in school shootings.

Re: Armed teachers : Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:05 am  

The American attitude to guns never ceases to amaze me.

A few years ago I was a member of a USA-based photographic forum the membership of which I would estimate to be about 95% American.

One day someone (no, not me) posted an image which, in Britain, would probably have been described as "a bit cheeky" or maybe even "risqué". There was, shock horror, a hint of female nipple on show but the image was (IMO anyway) tasteful, beautifully lit and by no means explicit.

The proverbial hit the fan fine style. There were complaints to the moderators, calls for the poster to be banned immediately indefinitely, howls of anguish, their standards of propriety were being outraged by a deranged pervert, endless discussions on what did or didn't belong on a "decent" forum, etc, etc.

A couple of days later some guy posted a pic of his new Smith & Wesson, or Sig, or Remington or some such. This proved to be a hugely popular thread with members extolling the perceived virtues (i.e. killing capability) of different models and queuing up to post pictures of their armouries and drooling over eachothers' penis substitutes (if you'll forgive the pop psychology). It was what I believe is now referred to as "gun porn" but I hadn't heard the term then.

There was no way through and I left without even trying.

Re: Armed teachers : Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:34 am  

LeedsBornWelshRoots wrote:

The American attitude to guns never ceases to amaze me.

A few years ago I was a member of a USA-based photographic forum the membership of which I would estimate to be about 95% American.

One day someone (no, not me) posted an image which, in Britain, would probably have been described as "a bit cheeky" or maybe even "risqué". There was, shock horror, a hint of female nipple on show but the image was (IMO anyway) tasteful, beautifully lit and by no means explicit.

The proverbial hit the fan fine style. There were complaints to the moderators, calls for the poster to be banned immediately indefinitely, howls of anguish, their standards of propriety were being outraged by a deranged pervert, endless discussions on what did or didn't belong on a "decent" forum, etc, etc.

A couple of days later some guy posted a pic of his new Smith & Wesson, or Sig, or Remington or some such. This proved to be a hugely popular thread with members extolling the perceived virtues (i.e. killing capability) of different models and queuing up to post pictures of their armouries and drooling over eachothers' penis substitutes (if you'll forgive the pop psychology). It was what I believe is now referred to as "gun porn" but I hadn't heard the term then.

There was no way through and I left without even trying.

Almost exactly my experience with the Utah artists that I correspond with, very religious (obviously) and most fo them graduates of the Brigham Young University so also intelligent (apparently), but try and take away their right to own and carry weapons and the level headed discussions turn very nasty very quickly, I thought they were all such peace loving people

I haven't yet gone so far as to ask what their religion thinks about the fact that they so desire to be armed because religion is never raised as a topic, their style of mormon-ism doesn't seem to include the hard sell that we see in this country,.

Re: Armed teachers : Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:43 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Almost exactly my experience with the Utah artists that I correspond with, very religious (obviously) and most fo them graduates of the Brigham Young University so also intelligent (apparently), but try and take away their right to own and carry weapons and the level headed discussions turn very nasty very quickly....

Well the issue is that they genuinely believe it is their right to own firearms. Whatever you or I or anyone else thinks about owning guns they see it as their right. If I tried to take away your right to vote or your right for you to have a fair trial I imagine you would turn nasty quickly too.