The Instigator
DoctorIntelligentBlackson
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Tolman8r
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Should School Employees Recieve Firearms Training

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Tolman8r
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 659 times Debate No: 43711
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

DoctorIntelligentBlackson

Con

When you hear about shootings on the news, you don"t feel the same agony as someone related to the accident does. You can only imagine what they"re going through. The pain can"t be compared to anything else, and we need to do something about it. The proposal of putting guns in schools would cause more problems than it fixed.
Tolman8r

Pro

As someone who's mother is a lifelong educator, I have some strong feelings about this, as do many. However, I must disagree with Con on this issue. The examples I will point to, I hope, will be taken as merely the evidence they are, and I hope emotions will be tempered on both sides.
In this debate, I will attempt to show that: (1), the presence of armed security deters crime of all sorts, especially armed crimes and (2) that school districts and parents should ultimately make this decision and (3) that the introduction of firearms into schools in the hands of trained, responsible persons would not cause any undue danger.

1: Two tragic events, taken side by side, can show the major difference between having armed persons on school campuses. If the events of Sandy Hook Elementary and the more recent shooting at Arapahoe High School in Colorado. In both instances, a mentally disturbed individual entered a school with the intent of killing as many people as possible (http://www.cnn.com... VS http://www.denverpost.com...)
In both instances, the school security measures had been in place since the Columbine shootings in 1999. At Sandy Hook, the killer was able to force his way into the school, through locked doors, and kill twenty students and six adults. The police response was 2 minutes and 41 seconds (CNN). Upon police entering the school, the killer took his own life.
At Arapahoe high school, the killer shot one girl, who later died, set bookshelves on fire with Moltov Coctails and killed himself as the Sheriff's Deputy present at the school closed in. After approximately 80 seconds, the killer took his own life as the law enforcement officer responded.

The connection between the two was the killer ending his own life when an armed person closed in. Con, it can be assumed, will admit that armed police at a school can be a deterrent. I challenge that they are the only deterrent however. According to this online report (http://www.policeone.com...), most police officers train about twice a year, averaging 15 hours. It would be incredibly simple for school officials, selected and background checked, to train that amount of time under law enforcement supervision.

2: As I am a Libertarian leaning Republican, I admit defaulting to the lowest level of government possible. As I admit my bias, I hope my argument will be taken on the merits. School students, the children of the local tax payers, are the responsibility of their parents first, and the State second. Any regulation on their safety is primarily a concern of the parents. Though I admit this debate is primarily the arguments between these parents, I hope Con will agree that they are ultimately the ones making this decision in reality.

3: According to an anti-Concealed Carry Weapons Permit (CCW) website (http://www.vpc.org...), approximately 540 people have been killed by licensed CCW holders over the time period of May 2007-Oct 2013, or six years, averaging less than 100 per year. Considering that, in 2011, there were an estimated 8 million CCW holders, (http://www.gao.gov...), this average is 90 deaths per 8 million CCW holders per year, or .001%. If this is not a viable trade for increased safety in schools, I don't know what is. (Note: VPC.org uses questionable tactics to gain their number, such as counting the killer in a murder/suicide, deaths in states that do not require CCW license. Admittedly, the number could also be higher.)

Limiting myself by characters, I shall end here. In review, licensed, trained school employees can be a valuable asset in a tragic scenario, and are hardly likely to be a hindrance to safety.
Debate Round No. 1
DoctorIntelligentBlackson

Con

A school is a place for education, and putting guns in school would disrupt any students ability to enjoy learning. Having someone with a gun in school would make people more anxious or worried about what might happen. Plus, guns are the problem in the first place, so why would you give a school one more thing to deal with other than what schools were built for.

Who's to say that kids can't play around or teachers can't get upset. Most kids don't think about consequences when they do something, so take that into consideration. I'm going to go a little off topic here but it is to make a point. Most people by now have heard of the bullying problem that we have in the United States, it is bad to the extent that there is now a movie about it. 77% of students in the U.S. have admitted to being bullied (http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...), so what happens when 1 child out of however hundred million that's having a problem takes the gun and decides to either take their life or someone else's? Kids can be very unstable at times, and that's one reason why they're at school.

Protection of people in general is something we all want regardless, but if you want guns to be in schools for the protection of people, it seems ridiculous that you wouldn't rather show an employee of a more populated area how to shoot a gun, say an employee from a workplace or public area? If say 90 per 8 million (deaths to licensed concealed weapons carriers) is a viable trade, then why wouldn't you take a chance to lower it by protecting more people at a time.

Pro, in your first argument you did not mention kids being a reason that you wanted guns in school, so I have to assume you are bias because of your mother being in a school environment. I have nothing against that, but if that's the main reason you want to make kids and teachers worry about being attacked or harmed everyday they go to school, I can understand.
Tolman8r

Pro

First, I must ask Con if they infer that I do not care about the safety of the children. I don't believe that is so, but I can see how others may get that impression from their wording. To clarify, I have a younger sister who is approximately 18 years younger than I am, and, while not the same as a child, gives me a window into which I can understand how passionately parents try to protect their children. That said, I still insist that I am attempting to have this debate without emotional appeals. (On that note, I ask Con for a declaration clarifying their intent.)

Agreed, a school is a place for education. Yet to assume that teachers, principals or any other hired security couldn't keep their firearms out of the hands of someone without facts is based only on that assumption. Police, security etc wear their guns openly in crowded situations and yet incredibly rarely are they disarmed. They lack the knowledge of their peers, and therefore are unlikely to see an attack coming. Teachers and school administrators are already trained for warning signs of violence and bullying, adding training to be aware of firearms would be simple. This, of course, assumes that a teacher in every classroom wears their weapon openly, which is not a solution I've ever heard or advocate.

The school shooting tragedies we have seen involved either the shooter buying the guns themselves or stealing them from parents or other relatives. This includes schools that already have armed security, and Con's projection has never happened.

Finally, Con's argument about CCW holders is a bit confusing to me, and I'm sorry if I misunderstand. If I do understand it, Con argues that I advocate expanding CCW holding for employees in any crowded situation. On a personal level, I do, within reason. However, that is a different debate, and I'd be glad to have it later.

As for bullied children being the source of the violence, this is a red herring. Though it is a source of some of the most egregious mass shootings, it is far more likely to lead to suicide. This is also tragic, but on a smaller scale. Again, I must stress that, according to my knowledge and Google search, Con's fear of a child overpowering an armed adult, taking their gun and killing others, has never happened. I'm open to revise my argument if Con can show occurrences of this in a school, but as of now I can't see that as a valid argument, merely conjecture.
Debate Round No. 2
DoctorIntelligentBlackson

Con

I now see where you're coming from in our argument about arming teachers, and I do not want you to take my resignation personal, but I do not have any further situations that can object to your reasoning. Only that I do not believe in anyone having guns and I want the world to be without them.
Tolman8r

Pro

Con, my friend, I'd love to live in a world where we don't need guns. I'd also love to live in a world without dangerous narcotics like heroin, but, unfortunately, we do. I simply believe, based on my own study and personal opinion, that armed professionals are much more likely to protect our children. It's a cliche argument, but I agree with the thought that "if we protect our banks and our politicians with guns, why not our children?"

I value your opinion, as you've taken the time to defend it and have done so with fact. That's why I joined this site, to find people who have a plethora of opinions, but are willing to debate them and give audience to their opponents.

Till next time!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
DoctorIntelligentBlacksonTolman8rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments were better and not refuted very well. The other voters swayed my opinion on conduct so con wins that.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
DoctorIntelligentBlacksonTolman8rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, it was an interesting topic, I'm just disappointed by the lack of argumentation on the part of Con. Pro's argumentation is strong, but often appears to be cherry-picking examples and some of the realities of having a loaded gun easily at hand in a school setting. But my contentions aren't a part of the round, and Pro's arguments are well-articulated and presented. Con's polite concession gives him a conduct point.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
DoctorIntelligentBlacksonTolman8rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better usage of sources. Con did not adequately refute Pro's arguments in round 2. Although, I will give conduct points to Con for their honorable resignation.