Should teachers be allowed to have a weapon at school in case of an emergency
Debate Rounds (2)
I believe that teachers should be allowed to have a weapon at school in case of an emergency.
I will begin by stating 2 facts:
The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33
Lets apply this to school shootings as I assume that is the "emergency" that this debate is mainly pertaining too.
That's roughly 12 children and/or faculty killed where if teachers had a weapon, be it a gun or taser, could potentially save in the event of a school shooting if not more.
Now lets look at your statement.
"If there is an emergency, there are procedures in place to help protect students as much as possible."
There are procedures in place yes, but if these procedures truly worked as they should, then these shooting would produce fewer causalities. These plans are simply not efficient enough to prevent the death of students and staff.
"If a student gets hold of the weapon the teacher has by some means, then problems could arise and the teacher would be blames"
The teacher would only be to blame if he or she did not follow the safety precautions that would have to be set up in order to keep students away from these weapons. And if a student is that potentially dangerous he or she will almost undoubtedly find away to acquire a weapon of some sort and wouldn't need to steal it from a teacher.
"however I do believe the school should pay for self defense classes for staff, and training, such as training that cops undergo, to deal with hostage and gun situations."
This I agree with, but it still does not go far enough. The most efficient way to end a shooting rampage is to end the shooter. Teachers regardless of training will still be teachers, and I personally know several teachers at my high school that could not possibly either talk down or wrestle a gun away from a shooter. These teachers however do have the capability to aim and pull a trigger.
Kc.Nycolle forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by themohawkninja 3 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty much forfeit, but there are some points for both sides that I would like to address. Firstly, Con did have spelling and grammar mistakes, as in round one, the word "blames" should be "blamed". In the last sentence, while possibly being a run-on sentence, the fragment "such as training that cops undergo" should be "such as the training that cops undergo". Secondly, Pro also had a few spelling mistakes. The word "lets" is actually spelled "let's" as it is a contraction of "let us". Also from round one, you never start a sentence with "and". Also, pro asserted statistics without citing sources, which could have easily been attacked by Con had he/she not forfeited. Therefore, I gave Pro conduct for not forfeiting, spelling and grammar were tied due to both sides making roughly equal mistakes. Pro was given the better argument for asserting statistics and a firm rebuttal, however neither actually gave any sources.
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.