- Dec
25
2012
The latest Madville Times poll asked you, dear readers, a very straightforward and personal question: Do you want me to carry a gun in my classroom? Your responses:
- Yes: 83 votes, 41%
- No: 118 votes, 59%
- Total votes: 201
I take no insult at 59% of you indicating you don't want me wielding a firearm in front of my students. I am relieved: if you wanted an armed teacher, I'd have to tell you that I'm not the right teacher for your school district. I choose to teach like Gandhi, King, and Jesus, not Wayne, Willis, Schwarzenegger. I reject the call to "Arm the teachers, in the meantime bulletproof the kids," because such a cry is based on a desire to sell product, not educate children:
Studies have shown that highly visible efforts to increase school safety, such as cameras and armed guards, decrease students’ feelings of security, said Eric Rossen, a clinical psychologist and administrator at the National Association of School Psychologists. That’s another risk with bulletproof backpacks, he said. Children who don’t feel safe also don’t feel connected or understood, ultimately undermining their ability to learn and to form trusting relationships, he said [Caitlin Dewey, "Since Newtown School Shootings, Sales of Kids’ Bulletproof Backpacks Soar," Washington Post, 2012.12.20].
Folks who want me to carry a gun in my classroom are asking me to gamble on the "payoff" of the one-in-a-million event of an armed attack on my classroom at the cost of the daily psychic damage of the gun on my hip saying to kids, "We're not safe. Be afraid." I don't gamble in general, because I understand that the house always wins, but at least in Deadwood, there's some entertainment value in gambling.
Some of my correspondents have responded that no price is too high to pay to save a child's life. But that thinking appears to apply only in limited situations. There is more risk that our children will die in car accidents, but we pile them into cars all the time for such trivial purposes as going to Wal-Mart for cheap plastic trinkets. And I'd be interested in cross-polling the folks who want me to carry a gun in the classroom who scream and holler at the safety precaution of legal restrictions on using a cell phone while driving. I get the distinct impression that calls for guns in the classroom aren't based on a desperate desire to protect children's safety at all costs. They seem based on a desire to turn schools, one of the most peaceful places in the community, into an affirmation of gun worship.
If Rep. Betty Olson and Rep. Scott Craig toss their "arm the teachers" bills in the hopper, I will go to Pierre. I will testify before committee with my usual enthusiasm and exaggerated hand gestures. The staid members of the committee will watch my spectacle, think, "We want to put guns in this guy's hands?" and quickly kill those bills... as well they ought.
I'll do my part to keep guns out of our schools. Legislators, help me out. Let teachers be symbols of peace and civil society, not fear and isolation.
Bonus Holiday Guns Reading!
- "Eighty-five Americans are shot dead every day. Of those 53 — or 62 percent — are suicides" ["The Person You're Most Likely to Kill with Your Gun Is You," The National Memo, 2012.12.19].
- "In the case of battered women, lethal assaults were 2.7 times more likely to occur if a gun was present in the house; no protective effect of the gun was found" [John Timmer, "Guns at Home More Likely to Be Used Stupidly Than in Self-Defense," Ars Technica, 2011.04.27].
- Governor Dennis Daugaard is surely watching this one: Colt Manufacturing is threatening to leave Connecticut if the state passes a bill requiring gunmakers to "microstamp" guns to make them easier to trace. I love the smell of gunpowder and economic development in the morning.
- Remember: The National Rifle Association isn't lobbying for public safety. It's main goal, like that of any lobbying group, is to increase sales and profits for the industry it represents.
- Don't forget: Columbine High School had a uniformed, armed policeman on campus on April 20, 1999. Another deputy was in the neighborhood and reported to the school within minutes of the first call of trouble at Columbine. Both officers fired at one of the gunmen; both missed. The murderers went on to kill 12 students and 1 teacher and wound 21 other students.





50 Responses to “Poll Results: Don’t Let Heidelberger Carry a Gun in Class!”
Jesus won this vote on Christmas day, and the devil lost!!! But this is Christmas, and the righty politicians and gun lobbyists are too busy being hypocrites today. Unfortunately, they'll run things in Pierre.
The same politicians who want to use taxpayer money to arm teachers (they'll kind a kickback, of course, from the gun manufacturers) won't lift a finger to address far better odds of death and illness as a result of lack of health care or particulate air pollution.
perfect, Cory. Perfect!
Their only defense is there isn't going to be a one answer fits all solution, and in some of the inner city school systems that are dangerous additional guards may be helpful. That said, civilians don't need automatic weapons designed to kill people.
260 School Children Killed in Chicago in 3 Years:
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/260-school-children-killed-chicago-3-years-where-are-tears-them
Mr. H, if they won't let you have a gun then display a stout board with a rusty iron spike through one end and then wave it around every once in a while. Anybody thinking they might rampage into your class will know they've got a mighty head-splitting clout headed their way and those snooty french kids will know you mean business too.
Cory, why don't you do a poll on whether you should be a teacher at all. Our kids need to understand the true meaning of the second Amendment instead of how to speak French.
Corey? You choose to teach like Jesus?
If Rep. Betty Olson and Rep. Scott Craig toss their "arm the teachers" bills in the hopper, I will go to Pierre. I will testify before committee with my usual enthusiasm and exaggerated hand gestures. The staid members of the committee will watch my spectacle, think, "We want to put guns in this guy's hands?" and quickly kill those bills... as well they ought.
Corey, I have seen you testify, you have a point here. LOL
snakes on a plain.
"I choose to teach like Gandhi, King, and Jesus, not Wayne, Willis, Schwarzenegger."
Most of the kids you are teaching end up thinking the exact opposite. What is the problem, the teachers or the curriculum?
"Most of the kids you are teaching end up thinking the exact opposite. What is the problem, the teachers or the curriculum?"
The problem is the parents, Mr. Sibson. It's the parents who don't promote education, learning, work; it's the parents who want to be their children's friend, not their parent, and so don't enforce rules or discipline; it's the parents who watch violent and sex-obsessed shows on TV practically 24/7, and who are so busy on line that they have no time to check what their children are seeing, doing, writing. To expect teachers - in the one hour to at most 5 hours a day they have per child - to not just educate the child but also train them morally, ethically, hygenically and practically is passing the buck. It can't be done. The teachers do what they can, which is a lot - but the parents are the ones who (supposedly) spend 12+ hours a day with their children, plus (supposedly) 24 hours a day on weekends. The parents need to do their job - raising, loving, training - and let the teachers do their job - educating and caring.
"The problem is the parents, Mr. Sibson."
Eve, most of the parents went to public schools too.
Again, public schools - any schools - are to educate in the vast fields of information of language, science, history, mathematics, etc. Families are and have always been supposed supposed to teach manners, morals, ethics, hygiene, etc. If you're saying, Mr. Sibson, that learning is only done within the walls of public schools, again, that is a major failing on the part of parents, and grandparents, and the community as a whole. Education and learning should never cease until we stop breathing. Don't blame the schools, or the teachers. They do what they can in that 1-5 hours. The family has them the other 18 hours a day. What are they doing with that time, besides complaining about how teachers aren't doing everything for their children?
Eve, don't you remember your Sibby lessons?
The problem is the Knights Templar.
And the Devil. ...and maybe the Mormons.
And not enough guns in school.
Oh, and France.
"educate in the vast fields of information of language, science, history, mathematics"
The immorals of the New Age Theology and incorporated in those. Obvious example is Darwin's theology found in science, which confuses those Christian students who have been taught Genesis. And does American history cover the purpose of the Second Amendment?
Now do you want to get into a discussion of how the New Age "sex education" studies have contributed to a society where there are so many single mothers? What do you classify "sex education", science?
I remember reading about 20 years ago French parents were fearful of sending their kids off to public schools because they had a very strong sense of family, knew what they wanted to ingrain and were afraid of outside influences. Teachers tell me American parents have changed and have relinquished their responsibilities to the schools. Let's face it, a lot of kids don't get enough attention at home. My feminist friends used to say kids need quality time, not quantity time, which is of course BS. They need lots of quality time which is pretty hard with two working parents. I'm not saying it's fair, but women can't have it all and American children and our society are suffering.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/
"The problem is the Knights Templar.
And the Devil. ...and maybe the Mormons. "
The true problem is that those items are not part of a government school's eduation. You can tell when those issues are brought up people like Fleming go into attack mode.
Steve, just so you know, I'm in laughing mode. Try it. It's good for what ails ya.
Let's return to the main problem: why aren't parents spending enough time with their children? And not just in the same house, but doing things with them, paying attention to them? Is television that important? Is a beer in the hand and a ball game that important? You can talk about outside influences all you want, but guess what: if children have their parents' attention, interest, and love, it doesn't matter what crazy ideas are being spewed at them from outside. They'll follow their parents' teaching for a very long time. Perhaps all their lives. So no, I have no intention of getting sidetracked in what is actually being taught anywhere outside the home. The question is simple: why do parents prefer to blame teachers than get involved or interested in their own children? Why do you prefer to blame teachers than the parents, when the parents have all the advantage when it comes to raising and training their children?
"The question is simple: why do parents prefer to blame teachers than get involved or interested in their own children? "
When they teach them to hate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, parents who have not been indoctrinated with the same New Age Theology should stand up the the "System". And it is sad to hear Eve say: well you have more control so bug off, we teachers will continue to teach kids that the Second Amendment is evil and it can go to hell. And when the parents are the first victims of a school shooting, there is no compassion. How many teachers are sad about the mom who was killed in Newtown? Have there been any reporting of her funeral? In case you don't know Eve, your anti-parent worldview is part of the New Age Theology. Male parents are the scum of the earth. We need to take away their guns, right Eve, Bill, Cory, and the rest of you gun banners?
Yes Bill, you laugh as you mock when on the attack. Sick when people laugh as they use dead kids to push their agenda.
Look in the mirror Sibby. But first maybe put on the Groucho glasses.
See Sen. Boxer's bill to deploy the National Guard to schools in the LA Times rather than cave to professional killers?
A $100B plan for a weapons' buyback is rumored to be a feature in fiscal pothole negotiations. Stay tuned.
From Larry's link:
"Citing 258 shooting deaths at U.S. schools since 1999, Boxer said"
So how long does it take Planned Parenthood to abort 258 kids?
Lets see, according the totalitarian left, the Second Amendment says a mother can kill her kids, but their dads and their guns can go to hell.
If reminding parents of their duties is anti-parent, then you, Mr. Sibson, are anti-everyone on this list, because you are constantly telling us what we should or shouldn't do. Please do not read your views into my head. I asked a simple question: when children spend 2/3 of their time with parents, why do you - and others - constantly blame the teachers for what's wrong with the kids? It seems to me that you're saying that society is more powerful than parental example, which, goes against the entire message of Proverbs 22:5-7: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Personally, interpreting your views in the light of a couple of years of hearing them, what I hear coming from you, Mr. Sibson, is a profound lack of faith in Biblical teaching, in God, in His omnipotent power. Otherwise, you would not be so terrified of what (you think) is happening around you. Either God is in charge, or He is not. If He is, then all the devils of hell and media cannot prevail against His message, and He will be with His children in all things. Calm down. He's in charge.
I agree, Eve. Sibby is stuck in the following unresolvable paradox.
1. God is good.
2. Evil is real.
3. God created all things and is all powerful.
Pick any two.
Because all three cannot be true.
Eve, I agree with you about poor parenting. Having been a teacher (and student), it's clear which kids receive responsible parenting, which don't and which just have biologically-based disorders. As to teachers, I noticed reports from Newtown indicated the dead teachers and principle died trying to stop the shooter or simply took the bullets while shielding the children. I don't think I've ever met a teacher who wouldn't have done the same. And here in ALEC-ruled South Dakota, we continue to hire teachers who get the crapiest paychecks in the nation but who would unquestioningly refuse to stay out of harm's way to protect children from mass killers.
I've observed more and more occasions over the past couple of years of people not interacting with their small children, toddlers, and babies just in routine living. It really makes my heart ache for those kids. I'll give you a recent example. My son and I were shopping at Target and ate in the food area. There were two separate tables with a younger mom with a preschooler. The whole 30 minutes we were there, one mom never looked up from her cell phone once to talk to her child, even though he kept trying to talk to her. The other table the mom just sat there silent while the girl ate the whole time. No interaction at all. I also notice when shopping some parents don't interact with their babies/toddlers in the cart. I probably looked like a complete nut with all the smiling, talking, singing and such I did with my kids when shopping. I am absolutely not trying to say I was/am a perfect parent by ANY means (ask my kids); it just breaks my heart when I notice that lack of interaction between a parent and young child. It is essential for his/her healthy development.
Just heard a story about guns in schools. The school attended by Obama's children has an armed security guard on duty. Has been the policy of this school long before Obama was president.
Slightly off-topic yet fascinating correlation between high lead exposure and high crime rates. It's very likely frequent shooters also receive high lead exposures. While the studies looked mostly at lead exhaust - the lead "exhaust" from repeated weapon firing likely may yield a similar, localized effect largely limited to the shooter.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline?src=longreads
Looks like plenty of teachers want to carry a gun: http://news.yahoo.com/teachers-ohio-texas-flock-free-gun-training-classes-151912964.html
The article claims 900 "teachers, administrators, and school employees" in Ohio showed up for training. Perhaps most were administrators and school employees. Even if all 900 were teachers, Ohio has over 105,000 teachers, so the 900 is less than 1%.
http://www.teacherportal.com/salary/Ohio-teacher-salary is source for total number of teachers in Ohio
Good point, but I think those of us who think it's poor judgement for teachers to be armed have assumed teachers agree to a larger degree than they probably do. I would like to see a poll of how teachers feel.
I'd like to see those numbers too, John. The article is an interesting journalistic example of whether the headline should be the teachers "flocking" to the training or the even larger numbers not flocking to it.
I note that report says the Ohio gun boosters want to keep the names of the teachers seeking the training secret. As a parent and teacher, I want to know which teachers in my school are carrying guns. I want to be able to keep my child and myself out of that classroom.
It would be interesting to see how they score in a live fire moving target situation with large targets surrounded by little targets.
I don't think it's like in the movies...
It's very hard for some people to believe, but there are quite a few of us - and I would bet it's the majority - who (1) don't want to carry a weapon, (2) don't want everyone else to carry a weapon around all the time, and (3) don't believe that anyone needs an assault weapon. Ever.
44% is a big number and a lot of guns.
From 5/12/10: According to a poll released by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Wednesday, 52 percent of respondents were against "people in general" openly possessing loaded firearms in public places. 44 percent were in favor. Additionally, 50 percent said they felt "less safe" knowing that non-law enforcement officials were allowed to carry guns in public, while 38 percent felt "more safe."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/majority-of-americans-opp_n_573732.html
"It's very hard for some people to believe, but there are quite a few of us - and I would bet it's the majority - who (1) don't want to carry a weapon, (2) don't want everyone else to carry a weapon around all the time, and (3) don't believe that anyone needs an assault weapon. Ever."
So why have all of you used the amendment process of the Constitution instead of banning guns? Guns were banned in Nazi Germany too, how safe was that?
Cory, what did you say a while back about Obama not banning guns?
Mr. Sibson, obviously we respect your rights more than you respect ours. Secondly, stop with the Nazi analogy. (For one thing, it's incredibly disrespectful to everyone who died in WW2.) Banning assault weapons is not banning all guns, and the nation did just fine during the assault weapon ban - in fact, the number of mass murders was much lower when assault weapons were banned. Your monomaniacal support of not just the 2nd Amendment (which is fairly clear), but the "right" of everyone to have any kind of firearm, from assault weapons to, presumably, Stingers, is ridiculous. If you really believe this will defend you against an oppressive government, as I have said elsewhere, think again: our military now has drones. On the other hand, if you really want to defend children against crazy people, support a return of the ban on assault weapons. A shotgun will defend you and your house from any human invasion just fine.
Eve, you have not responded to my points. Are we just suppose to ignore history? Germany never happened? Therefore the Second Amendment is now obsolete, and to hell with the Constitutional process to remove it?
"The NRA's focus on putting more guns in schools is likely what's driving the decline in the organization's image. Only 41% of voters support the organization's proposal to put armed police officers in schools across the country, with 50% opposed."
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/images-of-nra-congressional-republicans-on-the-decline.html
It's not that the Second Amendment is obsolete, its that it's not absolute. None of the Amendments are.
Larry's poll above cites Chris Christie as more popular with Dems nationwide than Republicans, and even more popular with Independents. Today on Morning Joe he said he would support comprehensive gun legislation (including mental health, etc). He may just be out next President. Moderates are dying for an independent voice and strong leadership.
Fleming your have obsoleted it yourself.
John, you actually believe the theatre we watch in DC is real? It is not, they have you believeing that a big government advocate in GOP clothes is a moderate. The GOP fascists are just as radical as the Democratic Marxists.
Bill, you said it perfectly: the Second Amendment is not obsolete, but absolute. Sorry, Mr. Sibson. Just as, during the "wild west" period of American history, sheriffs made people hand in their guns when they came to town, so today we can limit the rights of what weapons you can have and where and how you can carry them. Yes, I favor an assault weapons ban; I also don't want anyone to have howitzers or Stingers or, for that matter, grenades. I'm an old-fashioned kind of gal: I think shotguns and rifles cover 99.9% of anyone's need for a weapon, outside of law enforcement personnel. And yes, I trust law enforcement more than I trust you, Mr. Sibson.
Nor do I ignore history, Mr. Sibson, but you do: worse, you twist history to match what you want it to say. You harp on and on about the Nazis because you think it supports your cause. They banned guns. Of course they did: They were ultra-right-wing fascists, who, once they came into power, dismantled democracy, and murdered all the liberals, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped and disabled they could find. I do not apply what the Nazis did, nor the Nazi epithet, to people who sincerely want a reasonable approach to gun ownership and use in this country. If you think there is no reasonable approach, well, that says more about you than it does about the situation.
Eve,
Yes I understand that you trust Hitler's enforcers more than you do law-abiding citizens. Both you and Fleming are obsoleting the Second Amendment. Nobody is saying that you have a right to bear arms in order to comment crimes. That would be absolute. We are saying that a law-abiding citizen has a right to a gun for lawful purposes. You can't yell fire in a movie theatre, but can't ban movies that have assault rifles in their showings.
What you and Fleming are doing is setting up a totalitarian state so some evil person can use it in the same way Stalin and Hitler did. And they did their actions decades after the "wild west".
Sibby has gotten me to believe that schools are obsolete as anything other than subsidized daycare: MOOCs are the future of education and the faster we accept them the better.
What you don't seem to understand, Mr. Sibson, is that I don't fear my country or my government. In fact, I fear very little - except maniacs with assault weapons, and people who think they're Rambo/Dirty Harry and, generally, lousy aim under pressure. You may be right, Mr. Sibson, and "they" may come to take away your rights and your guns. You may also be totally wrong. In the meantime, you appear to spend much of your time afraid and unhappy. I don't.
Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?
Of course, attempts to equate gun control with fascism are bogus. But the "Hitler took the guns" argument has long had a prominent and fairly effective role in America's gun control debate despite its obvious reductionism.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control
Leave a Reply