Should school officials be armed
Debate Rounds (4)
2nd round for main point
4th rebuttal and closing
It's then that you know that the shooter, for the time being, is unstoppable. The police will take a while to respond. For that amount of time, you will be locked in a dark room, with no knowledge of your friends lives, no assurance you will make it through the end of the day.
From 1992-2007, for 323 students (abcnews.com) this wasn't a dream. It was a cold, harsh, reality. They never saw the sun again."
13 died in Columbine (http://www.cnn.com...), one teacher among them. Dave Sanders bled to death on the floor of a classroom, the only teacher to die in Columbine. What if he had been armed? He could have shot the gunmen and lived to return to his wife and kids. 12 students could return to their families."
An Arkansas principle says"The plan we've been given in the past is `Well, lock your doors, turn off your lights and hope for the best,'" (http://m.nydailynews.com......)." And you know it's true. A piece of 'bullet proof' wood held shut with a little stick of metal won't keep out a angry psychopath with a gun."
Teachers cannot re-assure their students of anything. They cannot say 'if worse comes to worse, I can protect you.' Maybe you know karate, or some other self defense method, and that's great. What will you do if a gunman enters your school? Karate chop his gun in half? Good luck.
NRA officials stated 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'.(Http://m.cnsnews.com...) no"matter how biased you claim this to be, we all know it's true. A arrow isn't going to take down a shooter with a AR-15, and we all know it."
There are certain holsters for sale that have built in safety measures to prevent accidents like the ones you mentioned above. Some require the gun-bearer to press a 'button' before drawing the gun, a safety of sorts."
Police are good at what they do. At Sandy Hook, they entered the school in nine minutes (https://www.cpcanet.org...). Nine minutes was fast, but not fast enough. 26 students and teachers died (gunman not included). 6 teachers where victims (http://abcnews.go.com...). What if one of them, just one, had had a gun of their own? I'm not"saying everyone needs to have a gun. Just one or two teachers per school would be psychologically evaluated, trained, and given a gun when they have earned it. Just one or two."
It won't do to outlaw guns. The second amendment protects that right, and we both know trying to overturn part of the constitution will go over as well as banning ice cream. And outlawing something won't mean people can't get a hold of it. If you need proof, just think of all the illegal drugs you can buy on the street right now.
America is already trillions in the hole. Maybe we, the people, can scrap together enough pocket change to do something that will actually matter. After all, a child's life is more valuable than money
If the unlikely event where to occur in which all armed officials where shot, then even if they haven't stopped the shooter, they have bought the police time. While there is a prison close to our school, we are not talking only about our school but the entire nation's school. Does every school have a police presence so close? And your saying putting a police station near every school in the country would cost less? Construction costs alone would be in the thousands, plus employment issues and building permits. And this is for every Pre-school, elementary school, middle school and high school in America.
And no, I would not say the gun should be locked in a drawer. As I stated, the gun would be in a safe holster with precautions, on the teacher at all times.
You mentioned that there would be no psychological testing, but that is absurd. Of course teachers would have testing and classes. You mentioned school being for education, but who are you providing education for if your students are all dead?
Doesn't the government already have enough to create a police station next to all the schools and I mean the government already makes us pay lots of taxes but that is another issue for another day.
My opponent said that the gun would be in a holster with the teacher but what if a student overpowers the teacher and steals the gun or the teachers leaning against a desk and then boom! the gun goes off and we could have a teacher with a injured foot which would add to the money situation for the hospital stuff.
Psych tests are not always accurate.
Psychological tests cannot always adequately evaluate whether a teacher should be able to carry a firearm or not. David L. Mount, a professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine, notes that "Just because someone tests one way does not necessarily mean that they are that way. People are made up by a combination of several personality traits. There also is the chance of incorrectly labeling a person. Employers should be aware that there is no hard evidence that personality tests, like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" test, are accurate measures of one's personality." This shows that psych tests cannot really prove weather a teacher is fit to have a gun or not. There is always a chance that a teacher could misuse their gun privileges and end up hurting a student or colleague.
Even if teachers have good intentions, in the case of student acting up or making threats, paranoia could result in a teacher shooting a student. The repercussions of such an action could be disastrous to the class, the student, and the teacher.
Psych. Testing might not always be accurate, but would you rather a teacher not be tested at all? After extensive searching I have not found a single case where a teacher opened fire on students. This proves that teachers can be trusted in possession of a gun.
In closure, at the beginning of this debate, I asked you to imagine a scenario. Now, I ask you to imagine how that scenario would be different if you knew your teacher held a gun. You know that you'll walk out okay.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cobo 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: A lackluster debate from both sides. Pro started out strong but finished out very weak. I give pro the source point, because the pro actually cited their sources and didn't merely say the name of the organization/newspaper they were citing.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.