@@MrDoverfieldit’s actually probably a low estimate. many women do not report. every woman i know has been SAd (remember: assault and battery are different things)
@@Carebearritual i didn't report as a kid. Had no support, felt they wouldn't believe me (finally told them 3yr ago and they dont really believe me so i was right). An if u cant even get your family to help you then what was the point of reporting it (how i felt). The best thing anyone can do is have honest convo with your kids and establish trust with them. Protect them with knowledge of sex ed and consent, and self defense. . But also believe and not victim blame them if it does happen.
Respect for mentioning the boys. I feel that so many people hold a false perspective that its so unlikely to happen to a boy that they feel its not something they'd have to worry themselves with. All our children are vulnerable, as children are, and they're all equally worthy of proper safeguarding.
Totally agree! However, I think he should use the same way of mentioning the chances: 1 in 4 for girls, 1 in 5 for boys. That sounds similar and shows boys are victims too. 1 in 4 for girls and 10 to 20 percent for boys sounds too different, and I'm afraid people can't compare the numbers this way, under valueing the true numbers.
Every single gay guy and trans woman i know had something that counted as SA (either SA or worse) in their childhood so i honestly think 20% is low Sidenote: yes, all of them, a girl in the friend group openly asked the only one i didnt know of while we were all wasted.
@angrydragonslayer I would argue it's exponentially higher, because I know very few men who don't have SA histories. However, we're conditioned not to discuss it. This becomes a whole society issue. It impacts one's view of consent and sexuality, causing everyone to be affected.
@@Rook6666 yeah, i can imagine it around 30-40 and well north of 50 if "consensual but illegal" is included My 14 y.o. ass was technically a prostitute to a 19 y.o. chick (consensual, i was 170 cm at the time and she's probably one of the most sane women i've been with but still....)
I was sa'd by the next door neighbor when I was 5, and I thought I had healed from it, but then my daughter turned 6 and the overwhelming feeling of "I got her through 5 without that happening to her" made me realize that it's always going to be with me.
Im sorry you went through that. But I will say this. Harness it. Many go through life completely oblivious to the dangers of the world. They dont realzie their home does not actually gurantee them safety. Your experience can help you to arm your childrenw the knowledge to protect themselves and to never have the (it wont happen to me) attitude. God bless your family.
@@GreyBlackWolf oh, absolutely. My kids know what happened to me (they're 14 and 12 now) and that it can happen to anyone. They know I have their backs and if they're ever uncomfortable in a situation they can use me as an excuse to get out of there. We also have super open communication, and I believe they would come to me right away if anyone crossed any lines. Hopefully they never need to.
I get this. I was abused at 11 to 13 yo. My youngest sister and little sister in law (who I've known since she was 3) are both 11 now. It's terrifying. I knew it would be since I met them/they were born. I am trying to give them the info my parents didn't give me. Anything that I think will help keep them safe or could help them tell me or anyone if something happens to them. I helped raise these children, I am like a step parents to both of them and I am terrified something will happen to them.
My parents had the same sleep over rule growing up. It used to make me feel so upset and left out... Until I heard about my neighbor (a girl a little older than me) that had a sleepover at our other neighbor's house. The Dad was a cop and so my neighbors parents thought she would be safe sleeping there. Little did they know, the cop was r*ping all of his kids and r*ped her too (she was around 7 at the time). I have no idea what happened to that man, but I don't know if he was ever prosecuted. I didn't have a sleepover until I was almost 19 and my dad literally cried he was so nervous I would be taken advantage of.
People really should look at statistics before trusting cops and clergy. Cops, clergy, youth group leaders and religious leaders are the number one offenders.
My parents didn't have that rule at all, and we had a friend in the neighborhood who we'd sleepover at their house often. Our parents were close friends, we had family cookouts together and our dads even went out drinking sometimes. Turns out the dad was a ped0 and stuff was found on his computer, he ended up taking his life before ever getting convicted. I'm not sure if he ever acted on it, but regardless as an adult now it's absolutely terrifying that I used to sleepover there. And I will have this rule because of it.
Unfortunately it is not just sleepovers. My daughter was friends with a family that also had this rule. We would let them play until late bedtime and then pick up our own kid, they would sleep at home and they would be back in time to eat breakfast. We called it "Almost-Overs" or "NoSleep-Overs" or "(Your)Turn-Overs" Part of the fun was hanging out with each other's siblings and pets. Once I was watching all the kids from a no-sleep over family while the parents went out of town to a funeral. Something happened with their car and they ended up being very delayed (they didn't make it home until after midnight). I put all my kids in one room, and all of their kids in another room. I plugged in a laptop, put it on top of a dresser and aimed it so it had a full picture of only the door to the room (not of the kids at all) and set that to a private zoom meeting to their mom's phone. (If she dropped signal she could get back in.) The hall light stayed on so the door was backlit and very obvious if it opened, and mom could converse with her kiddos or just hear that they were safe and not worry about pics of them sleeping would somehow leak into the internets. It was not a planned sleep over and I knew they were feeling super anxious because that is how we would be feeling. I have always said that I would rather just give you the keys to my car and my house and my credit and bank cards to go to the store for me rather than have you watch my kids while I go to the store. Because if I can't trust you with my material possessions why would I trust you with my children? My children are the most important and precious responsibilities I have and literally my own heart running around and beating outside my chest.
The argument "isn't it usually a family member anyway?" popped into my head, but I guess a hard rule against sleepovers would give you a polite excuse to use with family as well.
Not quite. It’s someone you’d know, someone you’d likely recognise not a complete stranger. So it could be the guy who always get a coffee at the same time as you on his way to work in an area near you. But more so it’s someone at your school maybe it’s their parent, could be a coworker (maybe their partner that you met one time)
I absolutely agree on not letting your kids go over to sleepovers with their friends. Not only that you need to protect your children from your own FAMILY as well they might have cousins or an uncle that is doing stuff to them so you have to be vigilant all the time and make sure you teach your children their body and what is and isn't allowed to be touched and that they make sure to tell you no matter what. I was molested by some of my brothers and then I was manipulated when I was 16 by my older cousin that I really wished was my brother and I viewed him that way and I love them so much and he took care of me and protected me from my brothers whenever he was there just to turn out to matuiplate me into thinking family can ONLY love family which I didn't believe. I was 16 he was in his 20s. He tried to get me to touch him and he was touching me and it only happened twice. A couple years later I found out that he did the same thing to my little cousin he literally said the same words verbatim. So please everyone you need to watch out for everyone trust your instincts look for clues and be close to your children
@@dominickjustave3558 I was molested by some of my brothers and then I was manipulated when I was 16 by my older cousin that I really wished was my brother and I viewed him that way and I love them so much and he took care of me and protected me from my brothers whenever he was there just to turn out to matuiplate me into thinking family can ONLY love family which I didn't believe. I was 16 he was in his 20s. He tried to get me to touch him and he was touching me and it only happened twice. A couple years later I found out that he did the same thing to my little cousin he literally said the same words verbatim. So please everyone you need to watch out for everyone trust your instincts look for clues and be close to your children
The determination ISN'T reportable to police - according to the research - it's unwelcome advances. Mike is making inequatable comparisons. He has options in a gun-drenched country he voted for - of pulling his kids out. Because he's a 1 in 20 wealthy business owner - so he's abandoning the other 19 kids
Those numbers don't seem right. Everyone would have several acquaintances, friends, or family who were SA'd. That's literally the same number of people who will die of a disease. It doesn't add up.
@@aidancrawford6706If You Tube is doing this because of the Chinese owned Tiktok, I see why the government passed and Biden signed the bill to force them to sell Tiktok or get out. We don't need other countries sensoring our services.
@@aidancrawford6706 I'm almost certain it's for both. Virtually all major social medias require some "controversial" or otherwise less than PG-13 terms and discussions to contain some form of censorship, or so help you the algorithms will ruin the piece of content.
@@quantumwitcher9376 the certain forms of promotion or algorithmically imposed censorship can be fickle and inconsistent. But for the most part, I believe particularly if your content does not typically involved that as an established topic, it's best to be safe and censor more aggressively than not. Truthfully no one can really say exactly how the algorithms work, including the people who wrote them. They're mind bendingly complex by now, and creators just have to do what they can to attempt to have it work for them.
This is a very important topic. You Tube sensoring the words sexual assault is ridiculous. Trying to make this disgusting action more pleasant is only benefiting the people who commit sexual assault.
Just letting you know bud , the creator sensors the words , so the video doesn’t get taken down . RU-vid cannot sensor words from a video file already posted . They would have to download the file of the video and then repost it . Which they cannot do on someone else’s account. So it’s not to make the video more “ pleasant “ . It’s to make sure it stays and gets seen .
I thought he was talking about seasonal affective disorder what the heck. This censoring is so severe I didn't even know it was about sexualising assault until this comment.
@@dylanrussell5261 I don't know how it is in your country, i'm from germany. For use real censorship can only happen from the government and in most instancens that is illegal. A platfrom like RU-vid can chose if that want to hoste something... that is in my opionion not censorship... But in most cases RU-vid will not take down Videos (if they are not to extrem), but they will demonetiz them, so no money for the creatore and that is what the creator is trying the prefent
I once had a kid in my class that stole our teachers I.D more than 10 times throughout the school year. If stealing the key to enter the school was that simple, I would want to risk that being a firearm.
@@afhostie If I learned one thing growing up is that no amount of security is gonna stop a determined teen from reaching something in their school or home. Locked in a safe? the kid is gonna learn how to lock pick, electronic lock? iot devices are full of security vulnerabilities. etc. I was the kid hacking everything with voltage in it, back in my day.
@@PhantomBlank Yep. A friend had a middle school student steal her car keys out of her sturdy, locked desk, and, of course, subsequently stole the car. Kids who will do that stuff are around adults who do that stuff all the time, and kids are sponges. She said it wasn't even totally obvious he had broken into the desk until she went to unlock it and the key hole was messed up.
@@toda2638 a gun is a lot different to a key just in what and risk. plus a good lock holster will make it very hard to take with out notice. after all i have never herd of say a cops gun being taken with it in the holster. if anyone has a story to prove me wrong then fell free to tell but it will need so proof and the holster needs to be on the cop that is active.
This is why the gun is supposed to be on their person 🤦🏻♂️ otherwise it’s both pointless in an emergency and steal able. It’s very clear who doesn’t understand firearm training in the world.
Anyone who wants to give teachers guns is either someone who has never been in a firefight, or someone who got head trauma while in a firefight. It's the dumbest idea to give teachers guns. There is a reason why *here in Texas* security guard certifications have require several levels before you are allowed to carry a gun. A weekend course on safety isn't going to cut it in. Professional gun slinging isn't the same as self-defense or target shooting, or hunting. It's a whole different animal and one that is unreasonable for teaching people who already have a full time job.
It's no different than a concealed carry permit. Even if only a few teachers opt to get the training, it will make a huge difference in overall school safety. Especially once word gets out that some, perhaps many, of the teachers in a particular school are armed.
I find that teachers are different than police or guards and school is different than a prison. I don't know if you knew this but the police do carry a firearm in schools.
@@cajunguy6502This doesn't quite track. Not sure if there is a misunderstanding of the armed teacher stance. Or maybe there is a portion of the pro armed teacher group that you're aiming this at. But. When it comes to allowing teachers to carry. At least my opinion is just that. Allowing teachers who want to, to use their 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Armed teachers don't replace the police or guards. They merely add an extra deterrent and allow the teaches a means to self defense.
My 6'3" 255lb husband is a teacher on the 3rd floor. We bought a 3 floor rope fire ladder to escape a shooting if need be. It is insane that we have to plan for this.
You litterally dont. The only thing your a victim of is fearmongering. This is the same as parents in the 2000s getting scared of kidnappings, and forcing kids inside resulting in a whole generation that grew up without play.
Well considering your chance of getting in a school shooting is about 1 in 100,000,000 I'd say you really don't actually need to plan for it. School shootings are a hyper exaggerated scenario. Only a handful of people die every year from them. Yes they are tragic, but let's be real there aren't that many actual school shootings. Case in point, try and remember when the last one that was on the news was. "Gun violence" is HEAVILY exaggerated by the media, and many statistics quoting them are manipulated. Such example would be Michael Bloomberg's Everytown for a gun Safety where they make the claim there are over 40k deaths per year with firearms. Except what they fail to mention is over 60% are suicide, not homicide. Suicide would not necessarily have been prevented with or without the presence of a firearm and it's incredibly disingenuous to act like it is and downplay the real concerns for suicide. Breaking it down further, another large chunk of that is justified police shootings, which has nothing to do with civilian armaments. Cops will always have guns because the govt will never give up theirs. And lastly, a huge amount of that is from gang activity. And let's get this straight, criminals don't obey the law so don't be surprised when they break it and have a firearm regardless of what laws you pass. Now in summary, if you took the last 30 years of deaths caused by actual Gun violence combined, it still wouldn't even be close to the amount of people that died of heart disease from just last year. Firearms don't even make the top 20 killers of America. If we really were worried about a loss of life in the US, we have FAR more pressing issues on what is killing our fellow Americans than guns.
There are how many schools in this country? ~131,000 both public and private. Of those, how many have had an actual school shooting? Since 1970, there have been ~1,300 school shootings. Those are not 1300 unique schools as some schools have seen more than one such as those in urban areas and not all involved injury, a gun was discharged. An example would be a police officer demonstrating gun safety and failing. Police are not gun experts. So we have 131k schools with 1300 shootings since 1970 with 680 deaths. That is less than 1% of schools being impacted by a school shooting. Your child is at a higher risk of being injured on their way to and from school then at school as there are ~130 deaths related to school transportation. The media feeds on fear as do gun control groups. Vast majority of gun deaths fall into two categories, suicides(2/3) and gang/drug related (8k).
When I finally gave up on the subject matter and asked my kids what was going on... they asked. 'If someone came in and tried to hurt us... would you k.ll him?' It was the first anniversary of Columbine. I looked at my yard stick siziers and stapler. And I looked into the eyes of my kids... I have never felt more helpless.
"Of course not. I will not kill another person, and neither should you. We do not fight fire with fire - I will not kill them. If someone came in and tried to hurt you, I will protect you. As long as you are safe, I am happy."
Idk why my comment got deleted, but my condolences for you being in that position and the state not letting you protect your kids to your best ability.
@@north_borne Ahah, you're a boring murderer. Are you thinking death is the only way to be ruthless? Mercy is ruthless. Have you wondered what it'd be like to be blind and have no fingers? I said I will not kill. I said I will protect. You heard I will not harm. You are wrong.
İn a shooting scenario, teachers having guns would only add to the confusion. You walk out, pistol at the ready, and at the same time ten other people down the hall do the same. İnstead of it being clear who the danger is, it only adds to the chaos by making *everyone* potentially the threat.
it would be alot safer to have most teachers trained to stay in the classrooms with the students, instead of literally leaving them there to go on the offensive when you have 0 information about the shooter
Also people think arming teachers is like the movies where someone gets a gun and they're John wick. No matter how good you train a layman not everyone in a pressure situation will know how to operate a gun properly. Also these are school shootings involving AR-15's. If armed police in Texas were scared to go into a gun fight with a kid with a kid why do we think teachers are going to be able to?
@@IkeVoodoo The source for the "1 in 4" life is the Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. It has a major issue with non-response bias, in which people are more likely to take the survey if they were assaulted. Additionally, they were asked if they experienced "unwanted sexual contact", which is very subjective. If someone pinches your butt, it's not sexual assault. Thanks for asking!
I am extremely pro gun. However when I was in highschool I remember the topic of arming teachers and I didn’t have much of an opinion on it at the time. I recently watched Jim Jeffries comedy special on Netflix and he makes a great point. You give a gun to that one teacher who gets bullied by the students and one day she has enough and pop goes the students. I remember the class above me would terrorize this one teacher and basically make her cry multiple times a week. That’s who they want to give a gun to??
Maybe teachers should have recourse against abusive students then. You’re blaming a situation of someone being harassed constantly as part of their job on the weapon they might lash out with.
@@wightboy12345 he is saying that you shouldn't give a gun to someone who might want to use it, that's all. Teachers should have a way to "fight" abusive students, but a gun isn't the best way.
@@Mika-dw7gl Society’s problem is social decay, not a specific weapon. Look at China, they have people attacking elementary schools with knives as a form of revenge against society. No gun needed. Trying to declaw teachers instead of address the actual problem is just going to simmer the pressure until it explodes into something far worse.
@@Mika-dw7gl RU-vid filters are lame, so instead of my original reply I guess I’ll just say that you’re addressing a symptom and not the cause, and it will only deepen the problem until it actually gets fixed.
I went to a private school where teachers were armed however they had to go to trainings every 6months and the only people who knew what certain teachers had a fire army was the head of the school and the teacher carrying that gun
This makes me think of that always sunny in Philadelphia clip where mac is trying to show Charlie how he can fight someone with a gun using a sword and Charlie is just like click your dead click your dead click your dead see it’s really easy cause I have a gun
@@jonathanhirst5062 no I was making fun of this RU-vidr because he saying what if the students themselves identify all the teachers concealed carrying and disarmed them before they can even react. Last time I checked schools weren’t plagued by ninja gangs.
@@MrDoverfieldi'm thinking back to all my teachers in school, and yea a large percentage would end up being disarmed before they were actually willing to shoot even an aggressive large child who wanted the gun. It took them a long time to perfect getting even soldiers to kill reliably. Its not that someone will grab it before they can do something, its that they will be very reluctant to use it.
I agree with your assessment of firearms in a school. Everyone seems to forget that guns are an expensive desirable object for thieves also. If a student knows a teacher is carrying what’s to stop them from jumping that teacher on his/her way to their car at the end of the day? It’s like painting a target on a teacher’s back.
Nobody is advocating for these teachers to walk around with a firearm in a flimsy holster. We're advocating for a safe in the main office that staff can open and use in an emergency. Chances are they'll never use it, but it's better to have the means to protect yourself when in danger than to not. If they were to holster them, they would have to be well designed retention holsters. Plus, the hole "somebody could grab your gun" argument is a stupid argument. Someone could grab your kitchen knife or screwdriver and stab you with it. Someone could steal your car and crash into a family of four with it. Should you let them take away your car? What about your kitchen knives? Why are we being held responsible for the crimes of others?
@@DrippyVonBlippy Except literally most people are advocating EXACTLY for the holster situation. Your version is literally NOT the mainstream. In fact, I think this is the first time I've ever seen it publicly said while the overwhelming majority say otherwise. As for "why are we being held responsible for the crimes of others?" Simple... because if all your "non-crime" accomplishes is stroking your ego and putting people in danger, then it is irresponsible to do it and should not be allowed. Crimes become crimes on this basis in the first place. Because of acts that do harm to others for selfish reasons. Something doesn't become bad simply because it's a crime. It is reversed. Things become crimes because of the effects they have. At least when criminal law is just. There's certainly unjust criminal law, but let's stop using that flimsy excuse that "why are you punishing people for the crimes of others" when literally you can use that excuse against literally anything before it became a crime. It's ridiculous.
Guns are not expensive. An average handgun sold in the U.S. is about $400, and teachers typically have $800-1200 smartphones on them... If your school is so dangerous that kids are jumping teachers for their valuables, it should be shut down until the criminals are in custody.
Well said. Not only would the gun likely be taken, but it might be the cause of that violence in some cases. It makes itself known as a convenient tool if it's just sitting there. Instead you'd need intervention and designated security
My guy, there is no need for a gun to be taken, the kid already has access to guns from other ways. All you are doing is removing the ability for adults to defend themselves.
I think there are teachers who with proper training should have the option to carry a weapon. It’s not like being a security guard or cop automatically makes you more equipped to handle one of these situations; they just chose to be cops instead of teachers.
@@Wolfpoliticswe don’t have automatic guns it’s illegal and who cares about other countries they suck off the tit of American military. We the people have the right to bare arms and it’s the gun free zones who attract these crazies taking guns away from normal citizens doesn’t stop this ask France who had the biggest mass murder in history your logic doesn’t have logic😂.
If you give teachers guns, expect those guns to be used. You can't expect targets and can't expect who's firing the weapon. But you can expect that the guns will be used.
I don't really understand what you're saying, bc it's not worded the best.. But yes, the guns WILL be used, WHEN NECESSARY. To stop someone that wants to harm the students. Our schools are easy targets, which is why the US has had so many incidents. But if we actually protected our schools, by allowing teachers to carry, or by increasing the police force and having a few officers on school grounds, the odds of having another incident, decreases drastically. And the odds of that piece of trash human, harming as many people as possible, also will go down. But the odds of people/students being harmed WILL go up, if all you are allowed to do, is huddle in a classroom corner and pray the cops get there fast enough. You're just saying (because you obviously don't like firearms) that because it's there, the owner of the weapon will all of a sudden start shooting kids, or surrender their weapon as soon as someone goes for it. Any person who legally carries, knows how useful, and how dangerous a firearm is. Meaning it won't be a danger to everyone, just by being in a school. We must protect our schools and children, as much as we protect our money and politicians.
@stevenclark5173 and walking outside increases your risk of a piano falling on you. Good thing you can mitigate risks. Don't walk under cranes, setup barriers, install 2 factor locks for firearms, provide training and funding to volunteers. You can't live your life in fear, and I don't because I've mitigated risk.
@@I.no.ah.guy57 seems pretty simply worded to me. As has already been shown time and time again, shootings are more likely to happen when there are habitually guns nearby, both accidental and purposeful, because that's what guns are made for
I understand what I say will appear brutish and harsh. Is it genuinely better to disarm people more and more? Perhaps outlaw martial arts - maybe start being domineering of those with more strength than others? It seems ridiculous from my point of view. If it's a "crime of passion" then they'll be irrational, and not fighting coherently, making them an easier target(not easy, no, but easier) to shoot. If it's premeditated in the way a serial killer would, then sure it could go wrong. However, the fact that most shootings(not all - absolutism is a horrible argument) occur in areas that don't have guns or aren't supposed to have them, in my mind, indicates a different problem. I would rather know there are multiple trained, professional, responsible people that can take on anyone from fifteen feet or more - than hope maybe the weakling can pull off a miracle. For school shooting drills, some of our teachers had the plan of Flee, Deny, Defend. If they couldn't get out - keep the shooter out. If the shooter got in, then the goal was as many projectiles as we could put into the shooter, be it desks, chairs, bottles. Anything.
lol wut? We aren't talking about disarming we are talking about arming. No one wants to disarm anyone, what we want to avoid unnecessarily arming everyone.
@@cajunguy6502 Apologies if I gish gallop here - I have a lot of information flowing through my mind in rebuttal to your comment. First, teachers were disarmed - they used to be allowed to arm themselves freely, there used to be rifle clubs in schools. There used to be trust in society. I've noticed that Mike gets hung up on statistics too easily, though he didn't use any here. More students die from underage drinking & driving than school shootings, more students die from cancer than shootings. Shootings are horrible. What are the motives of shooters? Why do they wish to engage in this action? First, their target. This one is the most consistent - it's wherever they can cause the most damage to whomever hurt them. If they were severely bullied and harassed on the bus, then they'll shoot the bus. If school - there too. Sometimes, it's attacks of opportunities, where an unwell, rampaging man deliberately wants to punish *society*(see: degradation of societal trust). So, they target weak spots where there are no guns to stop you. In a much lighter tone, it's akin to the heated logic of cheaters who use aimbot hacks in video games against regular players - to make sure no one can stop them. Second, why do they feel the urge to do this? It stems from a multitude of problems. No one for these people to turn to. Problems not being solved. Environment being inhospitable - already kids are caged up in a building where they must sit still for 7 hours a day, in a concrete building with grey, lifeless walls. They can't speak unless it's the short time to get to their next class. Many teachers are afraid of or unconcerned with being people to their students. They don't get to see the shining sun, or touch the grass. Unfortunately, violence begets violence. Sometimes the answer to stop violence is empathy, other times it discipline, and occasionally - intimidation and fear. The worst part is violence that can't be prevented - then it must be stopped. Did I mention Mike (appears to, as I do not personally know him) has a strange obsession with statistics? It's a similar framework to the 13/50 argument for eugenics, which is utterly horrible, and disregards the underlying factors that result in that number being what it is. Studies have proven that an increase in poverty correlates to an increase in crime. My personal theory is it's not the poverty itself causing the crime - but rather the psychology behind it. No one is going to employ someone who is unwell and perceived as a risk. Thus, if someone is mentally unwell, and their financial health starts to suffer - their physical health will collapse too, if it hadn't already - breeding a difficult cycle to exit without some compassion. All this to say(TL;DR), I think our biggest problem isn't that there's a 25% chance of horrible things - it's the psychology that has resulted in people being so degenerated that the statistic has become so high. And there are two ways to remediate the problem: Treat the degeneracy, and eliminate the degeneracy.
How people unironically insist we should not be able to defend ourselves, especially our children, after *Uvalde* is insane to me. That's a level of stupidity I think it falls into evil.
Had a teacher get fired for getting mad at a student and throwing a desk at him in 5th grade. If that teacher had a gun who knows how much that could've escalated.
Regular humans arent like you, and arent mindless automotons that succumb to their emotions and decide to shoot a student because of some random injury. People like you thinking thats remotely plausible behaviour should not be allowed to drive or own a gun.
Nice technicality. Now lets actually assess the situation 'calm and accordingly' Who is more likely to be both physically and mentally ready to either pull a trigger, or disarm someone (and then pull a trigger) in that moment. Is it (5 foot 4) Ashley, who got into teaching, because that's the kind of person she is, focussed on teaching, because that what she does/she's there for, taken off-guard by someone of intimidating (not neccesarily dangerous, but definitely intimidating) size attacking out of nowhere. (as she was focussed on teaching) Or is it (6 foot 6) Steve, who is the kind of person who believes it is ok to go off against teachers, in front of their class, who expects to get away with such behavior because he always has and is the one who decides the exact moment this confrontation will happen. Flipping only the sizes, will not change the outcome.
@@user-jn4sw3iw4h Probably the one who was willing enough to shoot she bought a gun. Stop trying to make things up and accusing people responding to points of "technicalities" because they didn't respond to a situation never posed
@@takotratheratking7411 It was in response to the video responding to the bs-claim the solution to school-shootings is to arm teachers. It was NOT Ashley's choice to have the function of counter-sniper added to the job-description of teacher. Just because our navy-veteran here is correct in pointing out a 5'3" navy veteran would have no problem taking on a 6'6" member of the general public. (and would probably do better against a 6'6" navy veteran than I would guess) Doesn't make it the counter-argument, (placing it under this particular video would imply) to 'no the assailant gets to choose both the target and the moment, and the target will be a teacher.... just arm teachers *WILL NOT WORK*' that's literally the point of the video
@@user-jn4sw3iw4h The objection raised in the video is nonsense because it supposes a physical difference will somehow cause a gun to be more likely to be taken away. This is antithetical to *the entire point of a firearm* . In the scenario proposed, and the position he's arguing against, Ashley would win a statistically universal number of times because she has a *firearm* and having a *firearm* nullifies virtually any advantage being physically larger imparts. The video is nonsense, your response is to make up a new argument, asserting that someone who chose to carry a gun into a school wasn't prepared to use it and making up an entire situation, and then pretend that was the thing we were talking about the whole time. Even in your random goalpost shift, if Ashley is concealed carrying, yeah, she'd almost certainly win. Gun. It's the point of the technology. You can get the jump on someone physically smaller than you, and especially if you're not actually trying to physically harm someone, if they're armed, you're losing that encounter. You're doing the same thing the original video did and casually forgetting what a firearm is. (As an addendum, literally nobody is proposing we uniformally arm all teachers - this is a common strawman of the position that teachers should be *allowed* to carry if they so please, so in this situation, Ashley did *very much choose*. Also carries are usually handguns, and it's a closed space, fym sniper)
@@takotratheratking7411 "someone who chose" End of argument. We're not talking about someone who chose. Whether we're talking about someone who was *literally* forced. "guard trained in the application of lethal force is now a requirement to get the position of teacher. Comply or find a different career" or *practically* forced. "as it is technically legal for you to bring your own gun.... - we will refuse to call the police the second a person with a firearm approaches the school - we will refuse to instruct police to actually *do* something when they are called - we will refuse to consider any other request - we will refuse to consider the impact of adding more (armed) people stressed to their limits about being locked in with more (armed) people who are also stressed" Is of secondary concern here. Setting aside the whole, how useful is a gun, that isn't already in your hand against what will turn out to be an assailant on the other side of that door 3 steps away from you. In a situation where *your focus should not be on that door* , your assumption should not be there's someone behind it who intents to harm you. There is still the whole, the assailant picks the target issue. As for "you and the video completely forget the usecase of the firearm" False The typical position of a teacher (front and center on the side with the door), in a typical classroom (28 feet wide) would put the teacher (who, again should be focussing on teaching, not on killing students) Is well within the famous 21 foot range of both over half of the classroom and whoever is preparing for this outside of the classroom, where knife or fist beats gun. Refusing to consider any solution because 'advising teachers to bring guns is still on the table' does *nothing* other than putting another paranoid gun owner between your child and the way home.
It's really really extremely super simple. When there are more guns in class rooms than there are now, there WILL be more guns being shot in class rooms. That's just simply how statistically that works. Edit: Which actually reminds me of people carrying knives here in Europe, the chances of you getting stabbed when you carry a knife yourself is greatly increased and actually it's most likely that it will be your knife that hurts you. It's always better to get beat up than to get stabbed or even shot.
It shocks me how anyone over the age of 7 can unironically say "an armed society is a polite society." Really? Because every single shred of evidence we have says the opposite! And even if we had no evidence logic dictates that not how things work. Smdh
@@cajunguy6502 The gun nuts can never explain why when countries all but banned guns their mass shootings and gun fatalities damn near dropped to non-existent levels.
@cajunguy6502 actually every shred of evidence we have does say that. Why aren't gun shows complete bloodbaths of your logic has any shred of credibility
@@wizard_of_poz4413why are school shootings not a problem in other countries. You're in triple digits and the rest of the world is in single digits. Maybe the problem is America
I find it hard to believe a quarter of all children are attacked by pedophiles. I think we've probably expanded the definition of SA to include "dirty joke told in her presence" and such. Or "she voluntarily fooled around with a guy her age, but technically couldn't give consent, so that's SA."
I'm pretty sure those are the actual numbers, it's the rate of reported incidents that's super low and then studies asking anonymously about unreported incidents are used to extrapolate to these "overall" numbers
How did he segue into school shootings from ignoring the irrationality of subjectively perceiving SA as being more likely to take place at nighttime than daytime?
My parents wouldn't let me sleep over at my neighbor's house because of their older teen son and the father, but they specifically told me they didn't know if the family had a gun in the house. We were very close with these neighbors, but still, I wasn't allowed. When I was a teenager, my parents let me sleep over at a friend's place finally when I hid the fact that the mom was remarried and the younger teen brother would also be there. Nothing ever happend, but by they time, I already knew how to keep myself safe.
Wasn't that 25% statistic found to be deeply flawed and not based off any real metric but vague interpretations? Like, iirc, a question was "Has a man ever given you an unwanted compliment?" And that was treated as an "assault." Edit: I'm not saying it never happens, but 25% for something so traumatizing to happen at a school makes me question if the school is actually worth the money being spent on it. Why should I trust them with my kids if 1 out of every 4-5 of them is going to be sexually assaulted?
Their numbers are flawed because they are using the age bracket of 18 and under. When you account for gun violence from gang activity, the statistics are close. Take that out, the numbers drop significantly, but that doesn't fit their narrative.
Tl;Dr of this comment: Crime data is always terrible almost no matter what it is so yes you're probably right on this level. You've sort of touched on the problem with crime stats as a whole where collecting crime data is always an inaccurate process. For SA, asking people "Have you been SA'd before?" is often a pretty terrible way to get crime stats for SA since people don't just admit to you they got SA'd since people view being SA'd as shameful and that it was their fault. Basically all crime data has problems of data collection for accuracy. A few examples: - Petty crimes are often overrepresented as police can sometimes be incentivized to register more petty crime to reduce the crime rate of their city (this was an actual problem in France for a while) - Interviews with people can sometimes force or instill the bias of the person doing the interviewing into the data collection process(this is what you have alleged in your comment effectively) - Stats from police often only show what police are investigating and find so things like political movements can cause variances in crime rates. This was the case with #MeToo which increased the amount of SA. That isn't because #MeToo caused an increase in SA it's because more policemen were investigating SA and more people were reporting SA which thus bumped stats. I hope that this comment gives most people a bit more of a view as to why crime data always needs to be looked at with a critical eye because it is jorderline impossible to get accurate stats for even the most basic of things.
I know teachers. None of them want to be armed. none of them want other teachers armed either. If you heard what is said inside teacher's lounger sometimes, you'd never want them to have guns at school. another poster mentioned that we want schools to be more difficult targets. Yes, but there are better ways to do it than having armed teachers.
@@TheDeadAwsome There is another... for conservatives to learn to not be such extremists when it comes to guns that they learn to accept basic responsibility with gun ownership as a requirement. So often school shootings happen with guns parents bought their kids of left unsecure, that the fact its not a legal requirement to take preventative measures is downright insulting.
@KuariThunderclaw we had more lax gun laws in the 1960-80s and had dramatically far less school shootings than we have now. Perhaps it isn't a gun problem but a symptom of it? Also I'm not a conservative. Quite frankly I dispense both the left and the right. I'm a classical liberal as I'd like to think. Just because the right values the 1st amendment and 2nd doesn't mean much when the Pendulum seems to always swing. Both parties are Totalitarian and I dislike it.
@@TheDeadAwsome There were far more shootings in general during those time periods, regardless of them not being school ones... and in fact, 1968 is when the gun control laws on convicted felons was put into place. In the late 60s they actually chose to PASS legislation that helped over time. There was also FAR less mass gun ownership and organizations like the NRA were advocating for and teaching basic responsibility rather than preaching laisse faire attitudes. So no, it's pretty distinctly a gun problem and how much of the gun community treats them.
@KuariThunderclaw moving the goalposts very cool. You win. Talking to strangers on youtube is like talking to someone on RU-vid. Utterly pointless. Best of luck my friend. I did enjoy our discussion. However I'm not convinced. That being said I'll look more into the time frames you mentioned. My point still stands even if You decided to change the argument and fair enough but I have no interest in doing so.
To add to this, teachers are around kids all day and there are a high number who sa their kids. So if you give all teachers guns, youre giving the predators wven more power over the students than they had. Plus with the way kids act nowadays and the way they push teachers, some teachers would snap. I say this both as a 2a supporter and a teacher. Put armed security, metal detectors, better safety measures. At my school we had so many security, we had detectors, but it was inner city. When i was in a school for my degree, just the middle school alone, during period changes the front doors were wide open and anyone could walk in in the cascade of students going in and out.
Yes, we need to drastically improve security at schools... But IN NO WAY, do we want EVERY SINGLE TEACHER to be armed. That's obviously a mistake, and a misconception people keep bringing up to refute having teachers armed. We want those who have a license with sufficient and continuous training, to be allowed to carry in school. To deter anyone from thinking a school is an easy target, because, to your point, schools have been poorly secured, and we have paid that price many times. I would feel better knowing there are licensed carriers at my child's school, whether they be teachers, admin, or police. And that they will be able to immediately react, rather than sitting in a corner, praying the police get there fast enough, and that the shooter doesn't gain entry into their classroom and shoot as many people as possible until they're eventually stopped. The likelihood of them being able to do that is guaranteed to be high, waiting for the police to come. But it's drastically lowered, having people that can immediately respond or stop them before it even starts. Regardless, school security is a joke. We protect our banks and politicians better than we do our children, and that needs to change
I've seen multiple teachers flip out and I went to a private school some of them just are really weird people and should not be in charge of guns or children
Right. A kid got decked by a teacher in 7th grade and another got thrown into lockers by a teacher in 11th grade. Some kids are a**holes and these 2 were asking for it, but the teachers shouldn't have access to deadly weapons
And they wouldn't be under the laws already passed in several states. This means there should be plenty of data to support the fear mongering by you and mike. We don't have to argue what ifs here because we already have this occurring and there is no data to support your arguments.
No one is talking about arming 5ft tall Ashley. If teachers are not required, but allowed to bring guns, teachers who are proficient at self defense can be a net good. You don't need to arm all teachers. To use your own logic, if there's a 25% chance a teacher is armed, is anyone going to take that gamble? If only 15-20% of teachers were armed, but you had no way of knowing which ones are or are not carrying, would shooters still take that chance? I don't think so
Because the chances of a shooting are much lower than a mistake. Police and military has issues with negligant discharges. Yeah the underpaid, over worked, and under trained teachers really need that risk happening next to children. Btw police have negligant discharges weapons in classrooms so don't say it won't happen.
Guns are always a last case senario. And with proper training and drills it’ll be fine. If you think an intruder that comes in wanting to do serious injury would be stopped by anything less than that is crazy. If a school shooting does happen what defense do the teachers have that the students don’t? Their job is to teach yes but also to protect.
Fun fact btw, conceal and carry used to be super common, and back in the 1900s students would bring guns in the back of their vehicles to go hunting right after. It’s not something new. You can look at the statistics
That is straw man argument from a lawyer. Not one of us who says "arm teachers" are to saying to arm them willy-nilly. Our belief is if the teacher is willing to/has gone through the training necessary to conceal carry a firearm. They should be allowed to carry as an added safety measure. No student should be informed of who does and does not have a firearm. I like your content but those are strawman arguments and invalid in the discussion. It's simply disingenuous.
There was a teacher that was killed by a student and the teacher didn't have a gun available. Teacher walked into the bathroom, student walked in after her, student walked out of the bathroom, got a trash bin and walked back in, student walked out with the bin, student walked back into the bathroom, student out of the bathroom. If you are afraid that a gun won't keep you safe, you have a higher chance of the gun keeping you safe than without it. If you have an increased chance of surviving a rape attack by having a gun, would you have a gun? There are these things called gun safety classes. They can teach you how to use it and store it. If a teacher has a gun in the class that is under lock and key, if an active shooter is in the school that teacher has a means to protect themself and their kids. But you also teach them when it's not okay to pull that gun out of the locker. If you want to increase safety among teachers and bigger students, you find away to trigger an alarm to that classroom. Teachers used to have intercom systems that you pushed a button and it went to the office to have them send security to the class. There are ways to improve school safety and there are ways that you fail to have a safe school. You don't know when your public school is going to have a shooting. You don't know if a private school will have a school shooting. But what you are advocating for is home schooling students because your kids are safer at home than in the public.
So they shouldn't have the ability to defend one self? They have to wait for a rescue? We saw how that can turn out. Yes, there are good officers the respond to a shooting right away, but that isn't always the case
The 25% figure is based on a "sexual experiences survey" administered to Kent University students in the 1970s. An issue recognized by psychology professors is that definitions are not precise. This is why Michigan does not have a crime of "rape" but instead a crime of "criminal sexual conduct." The point is that the survey is highly dependent on perception rather than objective standards. Based on the responses, there are issues of under estimation because some women responded that they had been in situations that would qualify as SA under the law, but they did not consider themselves to be victims. There was also an over estimation in the form of women who felt they were victims, but the circumstances would not qualify as SA, such as feelings of regret or failing to communicate that consent was withdrawn. Such situations might not qualify as SA under the law, but we nevertheless have the real effect of psychological distress. It is a very complicated subject but the statistic is often expressed as fact when the conclusion is that better awareness and education is needed. Additionally, we may realize that hook-up culture can have severe consequences and one way of reducing this figure is a change to dating culture. At any rate, other surveys show an overall decrease in sexual activity in the younger generation, which includes survey respondents who did not attend college. This should logically lead to a decrease in the 1 in 4 figure that started in the 1970s.
You need to update your research abilities and try googling "survey method sexual assault statistic studies"! The 2023 CDC report has data from national (not just college respondent) 2016/17 Surveys. This report is based on a sample of survey responses from 27,571 adults (15,152 women and 12,419 men) randomly selected from 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Data collection occurred between September 2016 and May 2017 using a national population-based probability injury surveillance system, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. www.cdc.gov/nisvs/documentation/nisvsreportonsexualidentity.pdf?CDC_AAref_Val=www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs/nisvsReportonSexualIdentity.pdf You "logical hypothesis" does not work and you cite zero evidence to back it up. Why do you think data that would meet the qualifications under criminal law is not accurate because a victim is excusing/forgiving? You analysis and logic is akin to SovCit arguments of "show me the victim" of my speeding with no tags, no license, and bc I have redefined my jurisdiction and met requirements I invented for myself I think there was no crime.
Then dont. We need a policy where the teachers that are comfortable being armed, should be allowed to be armed. Theres alot of vets in my school that are experienced with firearms, and can handle them perfectly fine.
@@StinkyPetersonOf course they’re not, but aggressors are going to come in with guns anyways. In that case do you have a different plan? I genuinely want to know, because this is an important debate
@@honkhonk8009 you trust people with guns way to much. One accident and all of sudden this changes everything. Imagine you get a call saying yeah a teacher accidentally shot your child. That's more likely than needing the weapon.
A girl in my class got kidnapped, r@ped and murdered back in highschool. The unfortunate thing was that the stalker who did it was also in highschool, which makes him a minor. As a minor he got a lot of leniency. He was originally caught and arrested, a bunch of people went "oh no he's just a kid, he doesn't know what he's doing, let him go" so they did. And then the next day he kidnapped the girl he was obsessed with.
We already have the answer to what will happen, and the answer is nothing in those states which allow faculty to carry firearms. I think the responsible adult who we trust enough to educate and influence our children, who is legally allowed to posess a firearm, will only use the firearm when appropriate. They're not just going to whip out a gun because a student gets mad at them. Nobody is suggesting we force teachers to carry guns, we're saying let them do it if they choose to. If you're scared of guns all you had to do was say so.
Doesn’t matter, guns are used as a last case scenario option. I’d an intruder does come with the intention of doing harm, I’d rather has someone that can defend themselves and the students. Obviously there would already be strict regulation as to who can and can’t have a gun but thinking teachers would just use the gun, even if they power trip, isn’t at all likely
I'm fairly certain I caught a teacher sexually harassing a female student in the hallway when I was in high school. They definitely should not have any extra power over children. Ngl, there are a lot of creepy teachers out there.
@@jbchap996 lol guns are indeed a last case scenario. Even if someone is upset, say a teacher or someone, people don’t just go grab their guns 😂. Why you think that everyone just immediately wants to shoot when they get mad. Secondly, guns, besides being a last case effort, are a great deterrent. Simply knowing teachers are strapped, or intruders knowing that people have security has been shown to deter most people. And for those who still don’t care, the causality rate is less when people can defend themselves
It makes zero sense to be against teachers being armed. Obviously there needs to be regulations so kids can’t have access to the guns, but in the times we are in, teachers being armed would be a deterrent to a shooting happening in the first place. I cannot understand how that isn’t common sense
Because if we let responsible adults defend themselves, some disturbingly weak blooded people feel uncomfortable. There are people who would seriously prefer the fleeting comfort of make believe safety over actual safety.
I disagree with the logic. There should never just be "A way to grab it" for anyone that isn't the owner of the firearm. That failure alone means they violated law already. "Gun free zones" have turned into "Easy targets here" areas. I think for the sake of not violating teachers rights they should be allowed to carry. They are targets too in those shootings... Even if there is a 25% chance someone could attack the school, I'd feel better knowing the teachers 100% had a way to fight back.
The best option for there not being a way to grab a gun is to not have a gun. Having a gun in the room at all is already incredibly dangerous and likely that someone will be able to access it
@@jbchap996 You aren't wrong in one aspect. No gun equals no gun. You are completely wrong if you think there are ZERO other ways to keep that weapon protected. Simple concealment or a quick access fingerprint safe will keep anyone out as long as you're nearby. (Don't use them for long term safe storage, they can be picked with time) Having no gun is USELESS when an attack is launched. When that attack on a school happens, you now have zero chance to do anything but wait locked in a room to be executed. I don't believe teachers or students deserve that. ALL living beings, convicted or otherwise, have the right to keep themselves alive when attacked. Period. With, or without a weapon.
@@imitatsiya Yup! Keeping your weapons safe and in YOUR possession is weapons 101. I can't stand narratives that the gun will act on its own or that when someone has the slightest moment of disagreement it's straight to the gun. Some people think we are drawing and firing because the wind blew funny and dropped an acorn. Oh wait, that's just the government that does that :p I find it great the people telling us we can't have weapons, are the people least capable with them or those surrounded by armed guards saying they aren't needed.
@@t.nash8 whether it is 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 is not such a big difference. Both numbers are still way to high and just show our children are no way near safe in todays world.
There's already a school resource officer that is a sworn cop in several states that are armed and allowed to carry on a school campus. I never understood the arm the teacher argument. Shooting in a congested area is pretty freaking hard and takes special training.
I agree with the 1st part about SA, 2A not protecting kids, your wrong. Israeli teachers are trained and I would LOVE to see schools hardened. Why dont you? Theyre fish in a barrel right now. FYI- I am Ex mil and know weapons well and WORKED for a School district in CA Bay Area. They REFUSED to allow me to carry a gun to protect the kids. I was IT and went everywhere and was on their butt about how crappy San Jose CA schools are with PHYSCIAL SECURITY. ANYONE can and has walked into the schools and even there were a few incidents of non custodian fathers taking kids, and one case of active shooter. They wont put retired vets on campus but SENATORS get protection. F that!! My kids are more important. BTW, even tho I WAS a VET and had years with guns, THEY SANTA CLARA COUNTRY REFUSED my CCW!! My reason for gun permit was not good enough. And Sheriff Lauri was charging 10k per permit to her friends and NOBODY else got them. My 2A rights denied after serving the country them. I alread had 2 CCW licenses from UT & AZ and was denied by PD and Sheriffs. Plus they wont arrest anyone, if they do, instant release to do more harm. Just like Seattle, George Soros DA's wont enforce the law.
That lie of someone taking a gun from someone assumes they are bullet proof or the person holding it won't pull the trigger....test that hypothesis at your earliest convenience.
Answer to your final question; "what do you think is gonna happen?" 1: Teachers refusing to teach because they don't want to be expected to possibly unalive students. 2: Teachers, who would otherwise be completely peaceful, be responsible for the wrongful homicide of an innocent victim because they misread the situation. 3: Teachers having their gun taken from them either by stealth or by overpowering, resulting in a school shooting incident that wouldn't have otherwise happened. 4: Students with self-unaliving impulses using their teachers as an opportunity through antagonising them, equivalent to "suicide by cop". These aren't just pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals; they're statistical inevitabilities based on the nature of the human condition.
Not only are the statistical inevitabilities, they are things that actually happen all too frequently when teachers are armed. And also add to the list of a teacher just accidentally leaving the gun out in the open and a student picks it up and uses it
Nobody wants to "arm the teachers". People would, however, like teachers to be able to be armed if they wish to be so. They would like for the 2nd amendment to apply to them at their place of work. Being an educator and a responsible firearm owner aren't mutually exclusive.
Tbh I'd trust my kids more with a teacher who doesn't want to be armed, because someone who doesn't want to be armed is automatically a person who is less likely to want to shoot a gun
There’s also the difference in personality, my grandmother was a teacher, there is no universe where she could ever have shot someone, multiple family friends are teachers, again, they could NEVER shoot a student. The belief that they need “training” is such a stupid idea because it’s a waste, if someone is prepared to shoot someone else, they join the armed forces or the police, they don’t become teachers.
@@GLJ94 if every teacher got a gun, you basically have a small police force. with how cops handle their guns. combined with how bad some school districts are and how dumb kids can be. do you believe a major incident either from the kids or teacher won't happen?
Unless it's just liberals trying to strawman things so they can shoot down the argument, I'm very confused as to when the idea of "we should let licensed conceal carry teachers carry if they want to" turned into "every teacher must be armed and it's mandatory." If someone doesn't want a gun, fine. But what about the teachers that do want one? (Assuming they pass your psych test or whatever)
@@qt9296I think it would wor if the school required a certain amount of training, licensing and background checks to go about it. Also on the people who claim that kids could get a hold of it I would like to ask how? If your carrying in a school it would most likely be concealed carry and if a kid is able to reach past your waistband and into your pants and click the necessary buttons to take it all without you noticing than id like to ask how your even alive with that situational awareness
What's the benefit versus the risk analysis of that. School shooting are normally very, very rare. But now you've created a situation where kids might feel uncomfortable around the gun and now an emotionally unstable kid might have easy access to gun. I don't if they were on Seal Team 6, no amount of training can prepare you to keep your gun secure on your person at all times.
When I was a little kid, I was so frustrated that all of my friends were allowed to go to sleepovers whenever with whoever, and I was only allowed to with close family or one family friend. Now I understand and am eternally grateful to my parents for taking the extra precautions to keep me safe.
You keep your money in a vault at the bank and its transported under guard in an armored vehicle, but you kids ride a bus w/out seatbelts to a place with no means of protection... but your children are your real treasure. Tell me another one.
the study said 27.2 percent of female college seniors reported that, since entering college, they had experienced some kind of unwanted sexual contact - anything from touching to rape. Ok but they only a 19% response rate, as many non-victums did no reply and here's what the authors said "E]stimates such as "1 in 5" or "1 in 4" as a global rate [are] oversimplistic, if not misleading. None of the studies which generate estimates for specific IHEs [institutes of higher education] are nationally representative."
I’ll tel you what would happen, statistically, nothing. The same thing when concealed carry permits came around, nothing. Then constitutional carry, nothing. I’ll tell you what would have happened at Sandy Hook if that first teacher killed would have been armed though, something. She had everything she needed mentally and emotionally to stop that threat, she just wasn’t equipped physically. Now of course with millions of guns sure there might be the stray issue. Those few issues of course would be tragic, but not nearly as mass shooting level of tragic. No one is talking about arming teachers, it’s letting teachers elect to conceal carry like millions of other professionals do every single day.
Idk man do you think kids who normally shoot up schools just took those same guns out in the open? Pretty flawed logic you got there. Assuming the realistic worse case isn't a terrible premise. The same way locks and keys only delay they don't really stop determined criminals. Making things easier for determined criminals is never the answer.
@@reginaldmustardbacon5866Part of it is the kids have no idea which teachers (if any) have a gun, so they wouldn’t even know which lock has a gun behind it. Then it’s up to the teachers to guard that secret with their life. That’s why the training is so important on top of choosing the most trustworthy teachers
1. Gun is locked up 2. Only teachers who are voluntarily choosing to arm themselves would do so. It’s not like it’s someone is being forced to. 3. Do you think a possible school shooter is more likely or less likely to choose a school where there is someone(s) in that school that is armed?
Let me and 10 of my friends have a disagreement with some other dude in another class. We getting that gun my dude. 1 teacher with a key vs 11 of us with other weapons? Lol you're crazy if you think the gun will be accessible in a time of need and simultaneously inaccessible to crazy kids.
@rahulramkissoon So you would resort to violence over a disagreement? You'd shoot another classmate over a minor thing like that? Then the gun's not the problem. You are. Also, do you HONESTLY think that the gun would be placed in a LOCKBOX ON THE WALL instead of securely in the holster on the hip of the teacher? You'd have to have the object permanence of a rock to not see that a student is trying to grab your gun. And if you think a teacher couldn't access a gun that is, again, attached to their hip, then that's kind of a stupid assumption, wouldn't you say?
@@rahulramkissoon someone also has no experience with gun safes and current technology. They’ll also have plenty of time if there is an initial response given that they also have one point of entry with all other doors being exit only.
@@manwhodoesthings to your point on it being holstered. I was replying to OP who said the guns should be locked up in his comment. Hope that clears up some confusion for you regarding the accessibility point I made.
They don’t arm just anyone, there are strict requirements that would be in place. If you won’t let students arm themselves then teachers at least should. The rules will not stop a shooter do not be a fool.
Hey weird question about Georgia law: if someone has to get surgery but their job says that their building isn’t equipped to allow someone on one of those knee scooters to work there, so they tell the person in the scooter to not come in until it’s healed, is that legal?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you'd have to prove that building renovations are a "reasonable accommodation". Is it reasonable that they renovate the building for accesibility so that you can come into work while you're healing? On the other hand, the place really ought to be accessible regardless. You could argue from that angle, it's a renovation they should have already made and likely will be forced to make at some point regardless. You should look into short term and long term leave benefits if you haven't already. Also, don't forget to file for FMLA so they can't fire you for missed attendance.
@knowledgeofthepast7650 Bloody Hell. In Texas, armed law enforcement officers who were trained for mass shootings stood in the hallways while children were shot. At the Margery Douglss High School in Flordia, the school police officer and armed security guards failed to enter the school while students were shot. Those police officers and armed guards lacked the guts, spine, balls, or what other body part that signifies courage under fire.
The figure for boys is probably even higher but underreported. As for six foot Steve taking that gun, I don't care what the size difference between two people is, because neither do bullets and that's kind of part of the point of a firearm for personal defense. A Glock can change a person's mind (into paste or in the more traditional sense) fast.
Agreed kids don’t need sleepovers, well known neighbors and friends maybe. Also ya teachers shouldn’t have guns, we should be making schools into disaster ready centers REGARDLESS of shootings. Natural disasters and terrorist attacks aren’t the only dangers, we need to protect our kids and make teaching a privilege. Dedicated security with crazy mandatory life insurance, SOMETHING more than what we have. I’d rather my kids be a bit disenfranchised about the world than be unsafe
Let's say hypothetically, we keep the gun in a safe, and let's also say the safe was a code and not a key. Moreover, let's pretend that nobody knows the code except for a mystery person on the school or maybe not even someone at the school but the police force, and when there is a serious threat or a school shooting then the password is realeased and only then. Im not saying im for or against. Im not in school i feel pretty neutral, but to say that the guns are going to get stolen and used to shoot people seems silly. I feel as though, there are plenty of safety precautions we could take if we use our imaginations a little bit.
I still don't understand why gun owners in the USA are allowed to keep their guns in such unsecure places that kids can access them and bring them to school. Your gun, your responsibility.
I dont disagree with the sentiment, and I am not trying to change anyones' mind, but I disagree with the Math. 25% of people reaching a certain age and suffering SA doesnt mean at any one given sleepover there is a 25% chance of it happening. If in your example the stat was "25% of children have already been in the same classroom as a gun at least once" it would still be a terrible terrible number, but I am not sure many people would take their kids out of school because of it (while they would if they knew that it would happen for one given day). It's also not the same, as going to school happens more often than sleepovers, so the porbability would be even more spread out, but it was just to ilustrate. Add to that that sleepovers are not the only source of this issue, and may not even be the largest contributor (while I do not know if it is). That was all I wanted to say. I think it is fair that it still isn't a risk you are willing to take, and that statistic is very scary nonetheless.
parents have the right to choose if their children sleep over or not. It does not mean that their children will never be SAd or hurt by an outside source or a person who is considered safe or part of the family it just means the it won’t happen at a sleep over.Having worked in juvenile corrections and private security I can say that through conversations I’ve had with sexual offenders,those convicted of violent crimes and ending people’s lives have told me that they would do whatever it took to acquire a gun after their release and at time of arrest been in possession of one or more firearms. teachers with training having firearms is safer than a person with intent to end a classroom full of kids but it does not promise the more or less absolute safety from a gun incident happening of not sending children to public schools at all.
1 in 4 sounds about right, during high school and college I worked at a gas station when classes were out and somehow ended up being the one everyone came to with their personal stories of SA. To all of them I revealed that I always carry a knife (later escalated to a gun after getting death threats for a medical condition during 2020-2022) and would occasionally act as an armed escort when an stalker was in the area. Cases of stalkers, Registered SOs coming by, and threats dropped after news got around that there was at least one employee at the site who was carrying.
But what is the alternative? Removing all firearms from the school and putting up a little sign that notifies potential attackers that all the law-abiding citizens in this building are unarmed?
@@takotratheratking7411 @Nickjfreitas brings up an excellent point about this on his channel. When there's a gathering of government officials, there is no question that there will be heavily armed security. Yet the best we can do for schools is tell criminals not to bring weapons inside?? We're protecting our politicians better than our children!
I'm torn on the question. On the one hand, a teacher protecting their classroom sounds like a good idea provided they've gone through proper training. On the other hand, teachers can't or won't even protect kids from bullies as evidenced by my childhood. I still remember that asshole teacher who looked right at me while I was being bullied and did nothing. How good are they going to be against a school shooter when they won't even protect the kids from bullying?
the thing with training is it's just training. and there's not going to be enough time or money to train them effectively to react in the right way to a shooting situation. sitting in a classroom while someone talks, watching some videos, and maybe role playing a few times if they're lucky, isn't going to cut it. when the shit hits the fan they're going to react how they would normally react.
@@daemonhat I wouldn't suggest arming them all. But any who pursue the training necessary or have a background in military/law enforcement could put in a request and evaluation or something. I know plenty of teachers I wouldn't trust with a pencil, let alone a gun.
@@MrDoverfield what is your point exactly? That it's bad they'll stay put and quiet like they should or that you're trying to strawman my argument by thinking I'm expecting the teachers to turn into Rambo?
And there are only the reported, known %. Personally, I don't know a SINGLE woman, who hasn't been assaulted one way or another, to a different degree. Half of my male friends admitted to me they were assaulted. Hubby and I don't have kids.
speaking of a little woman named ashley my friend who by the way went from cadet in the army to a full blown Lt.Col. to the training floor of being a drill instructor on breaching techniques and spotting enemy in plain sight recently became a highschool teacher yeah noone is gonna even try her im only saying you can't judge a book by its cover. but only certain teachers i would agree with being armed and only in states where the school boards aren't messing around. but then those teachers carrying would need some kind of hand to hand training to keep the student who is bigger and angry with them at bay. im not condoning armed teachers but i understand as being from the era of students having a rifle rack in their car and going hunting right after school hell the schools i went to actually let those students out early most of the time.
That's totally badass but that's not the reality for most teachers. Most schools probably don't even have members of the military on their staff. If an angry person rushes a smaller teacher unless they get a good first shot off they could absolutely get the gun taken from them. Asking teachers to go though rigorous self defense training as well and gun training and classes as well as staying in good shape to practice the self defense they've learned on top of their workload is insane. Also where would the gun be kept? On their person so it's never left alone? That's risky. In a safe in the classroom? How good is the safe? is the teacher paying for it or the school is it regulated how good the safe has to be? If someone finds out where the safes are there is a possibility for it to get broken into and then you have students who might not have access to a gun otherwise having the potential to get one. A teacher can't be in the classroom at all times
I think if we put guns in teachers’ hands there’s gonna be someone there who is capable immediately after the first shot flies. Yeah, we shouldn’t give guns to teachers who are physically unfit or would be likely to be overpowered, but how else are we gonna stop school shootings?? At my school, 2 of our teachers served in the military before and were yoked. If anything hit the fan, those are the two guys im gonna rely on whether they had a gun or not.
I think a teacher will be more equipped to save lives if they were armed. We saw in Uvalde that the police aren't an effective response to school shootings (or Uvalde was staged, your choice). The point of arming teachers isn't to make them a police force, but a final front. My kids school resource officer is a 5'5" female and she was pregnant most of the year. Every other staff and administrator was a woman too. Tell me how an army of women with only 1 firearm will fair against a columbine type of attack? We guard our money, our celebrities, our politicians, and our country with firearms. I'd argue our children are more valuable than all of those. How else would you prevent school shootings? I know there aren't any bank shootings going on. No one is shooting up police departments. The only targets have signs out front stating "we don't have a way to defend ourselves in case of a shooting. There's also no program that forces teachers to participate. It's elective. Why would you take the option away from someone that's willing? We have plenty of veteran teachers with more than enough training and every desire to keep our kids safe. Why would you disarm them? I would feel more comfortable thinking some kid might bring in a gun if more personnel were equipped to handle that. What we really need is qualified counselors, caring administration, more funding to entice better staff and not accepting substandard people or policies.
Yes I am in agreement with what you are saying. I like how you said it. When I was taking my class to get my CCW in Colorado, my instructor who was from Utah said something that I found weird. He said that if you have a CCW in Utah that you are allowed as a teacher to carry while at school. That also applies to parents picking kids up from school. Another point he said is that you don't have to have your weapon concealed at all. I juat realized while writing this: When was the last time there was a school shooting in Utah? I can't remember every hearing about one
@PS3s3kShUn8 Utah is tough because it's so homogenous. Salt Lake is weird though, because the addicts just chill at the park all day alongside families and ducks. Crime doesn't seem like much of an issue from locals, but more from people that moved to the city from out of state.
The idea of armed teachers terrifies me. Many of my high school teachers alone (some of whom are still teaching) I know for a fact would threaten their own students with a gun if one was available over little things like falling asleep in class or talking back-whether anyone was talking back or not-or even just to get the room to quiet down faster. In the absence of a gun some things that were used to menace students were a baseball bat, what I guess were paperweights, and a globe. And of course there were the more general threats of fists, slaps, kicks, etc. And this was considered a good school-they did away with regular classes after I left so the easiest level you could take was honors. There were plenty of good teachers too, but regardless of the ratio of good-bad teachers, I don’t think giving people the opportunity to point a gun at kids (even with no intention to shoot) to get them to behave is the most effective response to school shootings.
As far as I'm concerned if you are properly trained, show not to be a danger, and wish to carry then you should be able to. From what I've been told my company has purchased bulletproof vest for some employees and we're talking about repair techs, I'm not allowed to carry while licensed
As someone who is property trained in military and civilian use, it's laughable to think we can train adequately train enough teachers to do this for it to count. This isn't some conceal carry class, this is use of firearms in a professional setting. It's completely unreasonable.
It’s the same as more gun deaths happen in homes that own guns than those that don’t… the prescience of one in the classroom increases the likelihood someone gets shot in a classroom.
If that is true why do we protect every core piece of infrastructure with guns. Banks, Military Bases, and government offices. Yet we do not want to protect the future generation. I am not necessarily saying teachers should be armed, however we should protect children better than we do now.
It's not arming ALL teachers, but the right teachers. I had two teachers in my school we knew were armed. Both were ex special forces and taught trades at either end of the campus. Those of us in the know would go to their class areas when an event would happen. We would have a shooting twice a year and a bomb about every year. They couldn't protect everyone, but the hundred plus students in either safe area were very happy to have someone there to have more than words to stop someone with ill intent.
It’s not about them being a police force. It’s about them having the opportunity to protect themselves and their students. I do see your point on some teachers being overpowered by larger people. In that case, I think we at least need to have armed security teams or officers at schools to protect them. My high school had two or three armed officers guarding our school when I was growing up. They even attended sporting events and other activities put on by the school to protect us.
Being overpowered by a larger person is exactly WHY someone needs a gun! No, I would absolutely not force teachers to carry a gun, but I would not restrict the 2nd amendment right to those that want to and were properly trained and vetted. It's worse if you're telling me the tiny female teacher in the story ISN'T ALLOWED to defend herself or her students.
And what fictional movie told you that this is how guns work? Do you think countries like America, Syria, and Afghanistan are SAFER than First-World Countries like France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Korea...?
@@greyspot00 I agree with you, but I can see where the school would have a hard time taking the risk. Not saying it’s right or wrong, just playing devils advocate
