The Instigator
jacobstokes
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
SoSmart
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should teachers be armed during the school day?

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 2 votes the winner is...
jacobstokes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 77746
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

jacobstokes

Con

R1 acceptance only.
SoSmart

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
jacobstokes

Con

I will explain in my argument why teachers should not be armed. I will give my reasons in a list an explain them best I can.
1. Guns in schools may be used in situations other than defence.
2. How could arming teachers be regulated?
3. Children could be convinced gun usage is ok.
4. Innocent children may be shot and could cause fatal injuries.
Point number 1
Guns possessed by teachers may be used in the wrong situation. It will almost certainly cause more gun related violence in schools, and also increase the amount of gun related accidents although this is a very minor possibility though before teachers having guns this possibility would be non-existent. It may also increase the number of shootings as people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot although there is no way of knowing if this would have the same effect in the classroom as on the streets. Also if a teacher is continuously telling a pupil of then there's a possibility they may turn their gun on the pupil subsequently killing them.
Point number 2
Surely if teachers were aloud fire arms then wouldn't other staff members such as the care takers and dinner ladies/men demand guns too as they are also in contact with students on a daily basis. There is even a possibility they could get hold of guns illegally or for example if they had their own private gun licenses of their own meaning they would demand they were aloud to be armed. This would mean the children would be around guns all the time and sometimes by people who weren't even licensed to do so. It would also be difficult to monitor which staff were bringing guns into school thus meaning the school would have to provide detectors and perform rigorous searches to ensure staff were not carrying arms meaning lots of investment which could just be spent on private security instead saving a lot of time and drama for both students and teachers.
Point number 3
Children being around guns all the time could eventually convince them that carrying guns around all the time and that gun usage is ok. For younger children especially they would become accustomed to the fact that its ok for teachers to carry guns all the time but nobody else. A child may also discover a tutors gun unattended and 'play' with it resulting in a messy ending.
Point number 4
Lets play out a scenario. A teacher has pulled a gun on a student and they are about to be shot for some reason or another. The target dodges the bullet and it hits an innocent child causing fatal injuries and resulting in death. This is bad for two reasons:
1. A innocent child is dead
2. A lawsuit against the school could be filed.
Thus diminishing the schools reputation and causing many protests against the school.

I can just see it happening, this is a terrible idea (teachers being armed during the school day).
SoSmart

Pro

Firstly we observe how Con states that guns are often used for offense rather than defense. This is because only the criminals have the guns and do not fear the backlash of throwing a pencil at them when they hold a firearm. Guns are use heavily offensively because those who need it defensively are not permitted to easily access them. Thus, the people who get hold of (and use) them currently and in the past have been the offensive types. Now, if we trained all teachers to use guns proficiently and effectively guard their school that crazy psycho kid coming for revenge is gonna understand what real bullying is. ;)

Second of all, Con suggests that there would be no way to regulate the teachers if they were armed. This is simple. If all teacher are armed, they end up peer-regulating each other. If any one of them dares to abuse their power the others will pew pew them before the parents' association can hate on the rest of them! Peer pressure and gang mentality are good things if used for the right cause.

Thirdly, Con states that children being around guns all the time could think that owning guns is okay. Who cares what they think? That's not relevant to this debate. If they think owning guns is okay then they can go get a licensed firearm and conceal+carry.

Finally, if the innocent child died in crossfire to save more children, the lawsuit can never be won. Manslaughter is negated by self defense 10 times out of 10 in the history of law unless the victim was white and the perpetrator was black but people aren't that racist anymore.

Debate Round No. 2
jacobstokes

Con

I found your opening statement a little bit confusing. You mention 'criminals' when were debating about teachers. Your grammar is extremely poor at points: I quote 'Guns are use heavily offensively' which makes It hard to understand the rest of your argument.

Onto the next paragraph. Do you thing teachers would actually keep up with peer-regulating? They will not as you'll have to make extra time for it. They will claim they 'don't have enough time' or are 'busy with other matters' which they ultimately should be. What's not to say several sick in the head teachers will play out a shooting in the school. You've got a problem there and to be honest in this day and age that's probably something many people would consider. Also you didn't fully understand my point with regards to point 2. Other staff members would demand they had arms in their possession to. This peer-regulation idea would eat up more time and if you tried to implement this then they would demand a pay rise as its taking up time when they should be working.

Point 3 was misunderstood as well. Children are impressionable. Without them being educated about guns and their dangers they will feel they are fine and should be carried around at all times no matter what the circumstances. And what's not to say a student could steal the teachers gun and cause a huge mess or even hold the teacher at gun point?
They may even plan their own shooting. You just don't know.

Point 4
Your acting as if a shot child is okay. They lawsuit can 'never be won' so you only care about the schools finances as they wont have to splash out to much compensation if any.

All in all your argument is poor with not much kick.
SoSmart

Pro

SoSmart forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
jacobstokesSoSmartTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
jacobstokesSoSmartTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF