Try the political quiz
@9GBMQNQ DisagreementsCounter ArgumentsStarted 2yrs agoActive 9mos ago

Arming teachers won't make the kids in school any safer, I believe that this might increase the risk of danger to them

How do we know what happens in closed doors, and having a gun in an area with kids potentially aged from 4 till 18 should be unacceptable.

3 Replies

 @9GBN3GBfrom Northern Mariana Islands  agreed…2yrs2Y

You can't assume teachers are any more stable than the kids they teach. The more guns there are in schools, the more chances there are for misuse of them. A better idea would be to have a few teachers certified to use guns. Then, have a couple of gun safes located in the schools in different areas. In the event of a problem, those certified to use guns, who have had the training, and who hold the keys, can act according to the threat.

 @9TYJFHK from Illinois  disagreed…9mos9MO

“Then, have a couple of gun safes located in the schools in different areas.”

Skip that, and have the certified teachers (probably a few, but ideally as many as are stable and skilled enough) keep the weapons holstered and concealed until needed. That way, they won't need to spend time running to safes, and stolen keys won't enable a massacre.

 @9GBNJ8L  from California  agreed…2yrs2Y

I agree with this, I think there should be highly trained security around school grounds that will help in times of need. However, guns in areas with underaged kids is not acceptable and does not ensure anyone's safety. If there was a time where the gun accidentally went off, who's to say it wouldn't accidentally harm a kid or the teacher? Guns should not be admissible in an area with kids as it would increase the risk of danger much more and could be more harmful than helpful.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this disagreement.

@9GBMQNQ

Last activeActivity3 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias20%Active in
Polling  1 Counter Arguments  1 Answers  1 Disagreements  1 Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Election  1
PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…11mos11MO

“Throw out everything you thought you knew about this election.”

By Chuck Todd, NBC News:We are getting awfully close to the moment when it might be fair to say, “Throw out everything you thought you knew about this election.”We are now going from a presidential campaign that left the public disinterested and at times disgusted it to a campaign that I could see generating an electorate that might be as interested, if not more so, as in 2008 and 2020, two of the highest-turnout elections in the last 50 years.If the Democrats do end up with a new nominee — and it’s looking more likely by the hour that they will — that, too, is likely to suddenly trigger interest in what the new nominee has to say, which in turn could engage the electorate in a way that the pre-debate version of this campaign just didn’t.But before we get to this campaign reset, the Democrats have to figure out what their ticket looks like and, more important, how quickly they can get their ticket selected and certified by the party.As of this writing, my sources indicate to me that about the only folks who are still trying to rationalize Biden’s staying in this race all share the last name of Biden, with the possible exception of Biden’s longtime chief political strategist, Mike Donilon — who, as the gatekeeper of the data that makes it to the president's desk, is starting to get blame along with Biden and his family for Democrats’ being in this position.

▲  2015 replies