Guns

A gun doesn’t make the environment restrictive.

 

That's in reference to placement like regular classroom, sped classroom, CDC classroom or least restrictive could be a lockdown facility. It's individualized.

Wasn't saying it in that context, but since you mentioned it, if they don't restrict, you're shooting holes in the guns as deterrents argument.

 

Restrictive and deterrent aren’t the same.

A restricted area is one in which only authorized people can enter. A deterrent is what ensures only authorized people try.

You can have a detterent to something other than what is being restricted. An area can be restricted, but the cameras may be as a deterrent to theft, not unauthorized entry, though the cameras may also act as a deterrent to one, or not at all for either.

The point is that they aren’t the same thing, or even part of the same thing.

 

I'm not against teachers having guns while in the classroom, but I want those teachers to know how to handle a weapon. It also shouldn't be pushed upon those that don't want to have one, either.

 

What constitutes being able to handle a weapon.

 

So tight clothing should be called deterrent to movement rather than restrictive to movement?

 

I'll say this, when it comes to nuclear physics, I defer to TennTradition. In business, I defer to BPV. In law, I defer to Cotton. In climate science, I defer to IP.

Trust me, you don't want teachers packing heat in classrooms. I know my profession.

 

One of my high school teachers was a marine during Vietnam that was involved in some major conflicts.

I'd have sure as hell wanted him to have a gun on him, if the school had an active shooter while I was going there.

 

Wouldn't it be better to discuss proper security from current law enforcement officers and let teachers teach?

 

I really don't see where much, if anything, needs to change in regards to schools. Statistically, my kid is more likely to be killed by a marauding animal that be in an active shooter situation at school. Most of these shootings involve breakdowns that occur long before the gunman steps on campus. Passing legislation imposing more procedures and processes to resolve a situation caused by not following the current procedures and processes it a gigantic waste of time and resources. I try not to be blinded by emotion in these situation and think clearly and logically. Logically, I see little upside in coming up with crazy half baked ideas attempting to prevent a rounding error in the matrix. That's not to say that I don't think some common sense regulations can be put in place like better background checks and an age restriction of 18 (don't really see the point in 21). I'm also all for finding funding to have a dedicated SRO at all schools as general security, provided that the SRO is against letting defenseless kids getting mowed down in the highly unlikely event of a school shooter (unlike the piece of shit in Florida). But if we follow the laws and procedures that are in place today then most of these guys never make it to a school. Attempting to put additional ill thought ideas in place in order to "do something" until we do what we're supposed to do today doesn't address the issue.

 

Respectable words.

 

I do think it’s crazy that the SRO in Florida is now going to get 70,000 a year for life after retiring following the shooting.

 

A shock collar would be deterrent to movement

 

Would restrict it too. Perimeter fence.

 

Not exactly what I was thinking of. More like, if you move, ZAP. So you avoid movement. Think of negative reinforcement. A sign and a law that says “you can only drive here with a permit” restricts. A camera that shoots your license plate and mails you a ticket is a deterrent.

 

Many sides to a coin, no?

 

You know it when you see it. I'm not wanting guns in class rooms, but if a teacher wanted to carry, I would not immediately be against it.

 

It’s 2 different concepts.

 

I didn't know cotton was a lawyer.

 

He was second in his class, behind Clay Travis