The Instigator
OverLordSandwich
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Teachers Should Have the Right to Bear Arms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,283 times Debate No: 65254
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

OverLordSandwich

Pro

I believe that teachers should have the right to bear arms.

If you need clarification please comment.

1st round is acceptance
Next 3 rounds will determine the winner

Let's make this debate fun and serious!

Cheers! :)
AbandonedSpring

Con

Hello, I accept the debate!

Thanks
Debate Round No. 1
OverLordSandwich

Pro

I'm going to start by going through the basics and the obvious:

It will prevent school shootings.

http://www.cnn.com...

There has been an average of 74 school shootings since the shooting at Oregon high school

My claim will be: If teachers were equiped with guns or defensive objects (eg tasers), I believe that there will be a decline of school shootings and therefore safer schools.







AbandonedSpring

Con

I glad you cited that article. If you are judging, please read the article. It does not mention once that guns will prevent school shootings, it only talks about how guns have been negatively involved in the shootings.

This will be where I get my information from: http://www.slate.com...

Now, to talk about the article. Guns are intimidating to some students. Even as someone who grew up around guns, and has no issues being around them, when someone I don't know that well is strapped, an uneasy feeling is created. We want our students to feel safe and secure in the learning environments, so it makes no sense to put them in that situation.

Many measures can be used to prevent kids who would want to shoot up a school from committing the action. Typically those children get the guns from their parents. If we mandate gun safes in homes, children will not get their hands on guns.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
OverLordSandwich

Pro

"It does not mention once that guns will prevent school shootings"

No. It doesn't. Your right but you missed the point. I provided it for those who need a reminder on school shootings and the statistics of deaths.


"We want our students to feel safe and secure in the learning environments, so it makes no sense to put them in that situation"

I'm not proposing that we arm teachers all the time. I'm simply saying that teachers should have access to some sort of weapon for self defence and the defence of students.
I said this in the beginning:

"If teachers were equipped with guns or defensive objects (eg tasers)[...]"
A weapon, anything used against an opponent, could be considered a taser (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Which as we know is harmless.
You may argue that tasers will only scare the students. But considering how kids watch TV (http://www.pbs.org...) these days, it will only affect a small percentage of the students to know that their teacher has access to a taser that might not even be exposed.

Looking at the shooting of Washington:

http://www.nydailynews.com...
http://www.kirotv.com...

Where a teacher tried to stop the shooter...
"She’s the one that intercepted him with the gun. He tried either reloading or tried aiming at her. She tried moving his hand away and he tried shooting and shot himself in the neck”

Imagine the scenario if the teacher has a taser:

1)"He tried either reloading or tried aiming at her."
2) Teacher tasered student.
3) 911 dispatch arrives in time to prevent any further deaths.

"We want our students to feel safe and secure in the learning environments, so it makes no sense to put them in that situation"

Will the students feel more insecure if the teacher just saved their lives?


"Many measures can be used to prevent kids who would want to shoot up a school from committing the action. Typically those children get the guns from their parents. If we mandate gun safes in homes, children will not get their hands on guns."

Which will be easier?

1) Arming teachers with tasers
2) Getting background checks on all parents and refusing their kid tuition if they have a gun. And then debating gun control.

Situation 1 seems more likely to happen.

Furthermore, students die of alcohol poisoning all the time (https://www.google.com...).
What makes you think controlling guns will be easier and more effective?

In conslusion:
It is only logical that as long as we moniter teachers with tasers, schools will be just as safe, if not more safe...


AbandonedSpring

Con

"I'm not proposing that we arm teachers all the time. I'm simply saying that teachers should have access to some sort of weapon for self defence and the defence of students.
I said this in the beginning: "

The right to bear arms implies that you actually bear the arms. Assuming that you are arguing pro, you should be arguing that teachers should have to right to carry weapons.

""If teachers were equipped with guns or defensive objects (eg tasers)[...]"
A weapon, anything used against an opponent, could be considered a taser (http://dictionary.reference.com......). Which as we know is harmless.
You may argue that tasers will only scare the students. But considering how kids watch TV (http://www.pbs.org......) these days, it will only affect a small percentage of the students to know that their teacher has access to a taser that might not even be exposed."

When was the last time you heard on the news of a school shooting with a taser? Exactly, it's irrelevant. However, tasers are not included under the second amendment if I am not mistaken, because arms are "Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms."

When was the last time we used a taser in battle? Never. A taser and a firearm are no where in the same ball park. A taser is not capable of killing under any normal circumstance, a firearm on the other hand is.

Also, individual situations like the ones you stated are irrelevant. The number of this that could and would go wrong far outweigh the good things that could happen. Also, your cherry-picking data. Look at this article. http://abcnews.go.com...

The situation was solved, and a gun nor taser was not involved.

Also, I don't understand pecan pie you even included a taser, I don't remember talking about one, so I don't understand why your arguing yourself on something that is irrelevant.

"1) Arming teachers with tasers
2) Getting background checks on all parents and refusing their kid tuition if they have a gun. And then debating gun control."

Tasers are not considered arms!

I do want to ask a question, do you consider yourself an originalist?

Also, where did you get option 2? I thought i proposed mandating gun safes, and you didn't even rebut that! No body wants to refuse tuition, and it's interesting that you are okay with rebutting ideas that aren't even mine.

By mandating gun safes, and protection on guns, children would be less likely to get a hold of guns. This isn't a gun control debate, so I don't understand pecan pie you bring that into this.

"What makes you think controlling guns will be easier and more effective?"

I literally don't think that. I never said that, and that is not something that pertains to this debate.

"It is only logical that as long as we moniter teachers with tasers, schools will be just as safe, if not more safe..."

Oh, I understand. You originally were talking about firearms, but now you understand my argument, and you are changing to tasers. No, tasers are not arms, and they are not firearms.

Under the constitution, you are not guaranteed the right to bear tasers. You are not guaranteed the right to bear a canon, which is a direct example from your definition. You are also not allowed to just have tanks, but I suppose you might want teachers to have those too.

Teachers are not qualified to carry arms, so they should not carry arms. Maybe a special unit should be allowed to, and they are located somewhere in the school, but that is beside the debate.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Thanks
Debate Round No. 3
OverLordSandwich

Pro

"When was the last time you heard on the news of a school shooting with a taser? Exactly, it's irrelevant."

Tasers are not heard of in the news because they aren't allowed yet. That is what I am debating. I gave a logical scenario in my previous argument:

"[...] Imagine the scenario if the teacher has a taser:
1)"He tried either reloading or tried aiming at her."
2) Teacher tasered student.
3) 911 dispatch arrives in time to prevent any further deaths."

Just think about that...

"When was the last time we used a taser in battle? Never. A taser and a firearm are no where in the same ball park. A taser is not capable of killing under any normal circumstance, a firearm on the other hand is."

Are you saying that a teacher should have a deadly weapon?
You must understand what I am proposing: A teacher should be able to disarm the person with the gun, not kill him.
Thus, a taser, creates a perfectly safe place for students, if not more safe than it already is.

"The number of this that could and would go wrong far outweigh the good things that could happen. Also, your cherry-picking data. Look at this article"

How will the bad outweigh the good? The teacher has a way of defending the students. The shooter will be discouraged. The worst that can happen would be a taser miss-fire; but that can be solved by careful screening of teachers.
Furthermore, many parents will agree with a better screening of teachers.
You only provide one story. There are countless others out there that involved guns.

"Tasers are not considered arms!"

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Arm = a means (as a weapon)
http://dictionary.reference.com......

There you go...

"I thought i proposed mandating gun safes, and you didn't even rebut that!"

I did. That is why I gave those two options:
You wanted gun control. I compared it to my argument (arming tasers to teachers).
I showed you that arming teachers with tasers would be much more easy and effective.

"By mandating gun safes, and protection on guns, children would be less likely to get a hold of guns. "

It's too late for that. There is something called the 2nd Amendment.
I am proposing a 2nd option.

"Oh, I understand. You originally were talking about firearms, but now you understand my argument, and you are changing to tasers. No, tasers are not arms, and they are not firearms."

I said this in the beginning:

"If teachers were equipped with guns or defensive objects (eg tasers)[...]"
And if you look above... You will see the dictionary references.

"Under the constitution, you are not guaranteed the right to bear tasers."

Oh. So you think teachers can't bear tasers but they can bear guns? And I already provided definitions.
In addition to that, the Constitution is a "living" document. It can be changed if needed... But that is besides the point.

I proposed tasers (for the 3rd time in this debate) because it is safe, effective, and a cheap solution...
Try to understand what I am debating before going back to guns.

"Teachers are not qualified to carry arms, so they should not carry arms. Maybe a special unit should be allowed to."

That is why teachers should be screened. Futhermore, a special unit might not respond in time; afterall, it only takes a few seconds to aim, fire, and kill a life. A teacher nearby could respond quicker and might be able to prevent a death.


In conclusion:

Teachers should be allowed to have access to a defensive weapon in emergency situations. It is their right and is needed for the protection of students. There is no better way...

Thank You.


AbandonedSpring

Con

""When was the last time you heard on the news of a school shooting with a taser? Exactly, it's irrelevant."

Tasers are not heard of in the news because they aren't allowed yet. That is what I am debating. I gave a logical scenario in my previous argument:"

Guns aren't allowed either, yet strangely enough, they are on the news.

"Are you saying that a teacher should have a deadly weapon?
You must understand what I am proposing: A teacher should be able to disarm the person with the gun, not kill him.
Thus, a taser, creates a perfectly safe place for students, if not more safe than it already is?

No you think that, you think that teachers housed have the right to bear arms, firearms are included under that. I was stating that to prove that tasers aren't equal to firearms.

"How will the bad outweigh the good? The teacher has a way of defending the students. The shooter will be discouraged. The worst that can happen would be a taser miss-fire; but that can be solved by careful screening of teachers.
Furthermore, many parents will agree with a better screening of teachers.
You only provide one story. There are countless others out there that involved guns."

The student also have easy access. All they have to do is reach for your hip while our bent over helping other students. Also, i'll listen to the taser argument, but the argument is arms as a whole. If you include tasers, then you better believe firearms count under that.

"
I did. That is why I gave those two options:
You wanted gun control. I compared it to my argument (arming tasers to teachers).
I showed you that arming teachers with tasers would be much more easy and effective. "

I stated previously i did not want gun control. I want gun safety to become a priority. If I mandate gun safes, I'm not managing your guns, I'm managing you gun safety. you also never proved it was more effective. You said it was, but that does't mean anything.

"It's too late for that. There is something called the 2nd Amendment.
I am proposing a 2nd option.

"Oh, I understand. You originally were talking about firearms, but now you understand my argument, and you are changing to tasers. No, tasers are not arms, and they are not firearms.""

Oh no! Too late? Someone tell Thomas Jefferson he's an idiot for not putting gun safes in the constitution, like he owned one. It's never too late. Amendments are passed to change parts of the constitution. And wither way, it doesn't matter. I am not infringing upon your right to bear arms. Merely your right to expose your children to the accessibility of firearms. Also, you spent an entire argument proving tasers are arms, and not you just say they aren't.

"Oh. So you think teachers can't bear tasers but they can bear guns? And I already provided definitions.
In addition to that, the Constitution is a "living" document. It can be changed if needed... But that is besides the point.

I proposed tasers (for the 3rd time in this debate) because it is safe, effective, and a cheap solution...
Try to understand what I am debating before going back to guns."

Were not really just talking about guns. Now, were talking about arms as a whole. Proposing tasers is irrelevant because it's only one side to the spectrum. If you thinks teachers should bear arms, then you believe they should believe they bear all arms.

"That is why teachers should be screened. Futhermore, a special unit might not respond in time; afterall, it only takes a few seconds to aim, fire, and kill a life. A teacher nearby could respond quicker and might be able to prevent a death. "

Only screened? No gun training classes? Nothing that would prevent a bigger disaster? I was at least assuming you planned on gun training, but this changes everything.

You want to give a teacher a gun, even if they have never taken a trainer course in their lives. Just as long as they pass a screening. I can guarantee very few teachers would shoot students, its the students and the accidents that could happen that I am worried about.

"Teachers should be allowed to have access to a defensive weapon in emergency situations. It is their right and is needed for the protection of students. There is no better way..."

You continue to change the topic every time you say it. The topic is, "teachers should have the rights to bear arms". They should not because like I have proven, there are just too many things that could go wrong. You bring up constitutionality . Right now, teachers do not bear arms. If it were unconstitutional, wouldn't the supreme court have done something by now? No, because there are some restrictions to amendments. Similar to how you do not have 100% of your 1st amendment rights in school.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Diego_is_the_man 2 years ago
Diego_is_the_man
And no one voted...
Posted by Harold_Lloyd 2 years ago
Harold_Lloyd
I confess that when I was subbing in some rough areas, I did carry a concealed weapon.

No one ever knew it, and I never had occasion to use it, but it could have been otherwise.
Posted by Rizkaa 2 years ago
Rizkaa
I really disagree with this motion. Government should ban bear arms for the teachers because it will less student's right that they can't feel safe in the classroom. Can you imagine it, when your teacher enter to your class with bear arms and what will you feel? I believe that your feel more afraid than feel safe. Because we don't know, maybe they will do something crazy and danger suddenly! And if this happen, automatically I'm as student has right to bear in school. This is so funny because I believe that, my school will be full of shootings and I will feel that I'm in an action film everyday haha :D
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
They do have a right to bear arms. An illegal and corrupt government restricted that right.All those school shootings would have ended differently if the constitutional right to bear arms was not infringed by an illegal government. In fact most of them may not have occurred at all. Those freaks never would have gone there if they were not gun free zones.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Bear arms?

Surely that's not fair on the bears? Lol.
Posted by Beyoncebetwice 2 years ago
Beyoncebetwice
I don't know what cons argument will be so you might very well win this debate because of the actual debate but I believe your opinion about bearing firearms is wrong. But I still wish you the very best of luck with your debate :) have a good night. Sorry to butt in just wanted to say that
Posted by OverLordSandwich 2 years ago
OverLordSandwich
I understand. But with certain restrictions/rules fighting fire with fire could work.
I will explain when Con produces an argument.
Posted by Beyoncebetwice 2 years ago
Beyoncebetwice
I wanted to state my opinion. You can't fight fire with fire.
Posted by OverLordSandwich 2 years ago
OverLordSandwich
Thank you for your comment but please allow Con to post one first...
Posted by Beyoncebetwice 2 years ago
Beyoncebetwice
Teachers should not have the right to bear arms because they would need to keep the gun safe and taken apart so say there was a shooter in the school and the first classroom they got to the teacher had a gun, the teacher would not have enough time to take out and put together a gun that was actually truly safely stowed. I would never want to attend school if teachers were allowed to bear arms. I don't know why some people believe more guns is a good idea. You can't fight fire with fire. Or firearms.
No votes have been placed for this debate.