Originally Posted by
Danimal
Wow I wish that you were joking. Lets start from a very basic level here because reading between the lines is something that seems to escape your grasp.
1) "Imagine the headlines" What are you attempting to bring to the forefront of your post here? Think about it very hard, you are creating an imaginary world where something happened that has not in fact transpired. This basically opens up your argument to the point of being pointless, but we will ignore that for the time being.
2) "I, for one, am in favor of arming teachers who volunteer to undergo extensive background checks along with initial and ongoing firearm training." You have stated a direction for your argument, and a very basic premise for your post as well as your position. Weather the reader takes either side is still up in the air because you have not yet supported your argument, and we are in imagination land.
3) "Imagine though what the headlines will say when a shooter appears and manages to only take out a few schoolkids - gets taken out by an armed teacher - BUT - the teacher accidentally shoots/kills a couple of schoolkids in the process." This neither supports your argument or provides a clear direction that was indicated in your initial sentence. But it is all hypothetical and you do not support it in any way. It is basically a made up thought that does not have any basis in reality as it has never happened anywhere. It does deserve to have thought devoted to the possibility, but it also deserves some basic grammar and sentence development as well.
4) "The likelihood of casualties caused by the good guys in a future shootout is - I suspect - quite high indeed. What then?" Really? where are you deriving this position? What evidence do you have that a teacher trained and educated with a plan is going to have a high chance of killing students by mistake? If you think that there is a high probability of this occurring, how could you possibly support a teacher taking up arms and causing this as opposed to another method of protecting children? So by reading through your post you have effectively supported this. That is dumb and your OP deserved to be called dumb because you could not take the time to write a decent defensible position with any reference to reality or factual information.
With reference to your reply, I do know what classes and teachers are supposed to do, but what corner of the class? What wall? How many students are present in that room at that time? Those are the questions that I was referring to that the assailant would not know, but the armed teacher should. If you would have thought about that for a few seconds before posting, that would have been to your benefit as well. Here is an idea: Before posting maybe you should write your thoughts down and then see if they make sense. The reason that your post failed is not because you are not voicing concern for a valid rational argument, it is because you did not support or even describe your argument in any way that others could support or understand. Basically you left your argument wide open for interpretation and now you are being a dick because you don't like the way that others are interpreting it. Just take a little time in composing your post and steer clear of hypothetical positions that lend themselves to anti-gun ideals. I would trust a properly trained and cognizant teacher to not accidently shoot children when they know where they are.
