The mass shootings at schools are almost always committed by an ex student, if they knew that 1 in 5 teachers carried concealed weapons it may put them off attacking classrooms. I would back a trained person with a pistol against someone with a rifle in a small space like a classroom, but not in corridors or dining areas. if some nutjob really wants to attack a school, knowing there are armed staff will not stop him, but may push the attack out to the car park as the school breaks up for the day
Mmmm I’m still looking to find the common denominator in all of these... I wonder what it might be????
Insufficiently armed teachers, dinner ladies, traffic wardens, lollipop ladies and ice cream van owners?
What the latest news on the armed guard/cop (?) hiding outside shows is that even if a teacher had a gun in their top drawer for such emergencies whether they would rush out to confront a gunman is a moot point. There are other problems with arming teachers. Surely the temptation to finally shut up an arrogant in-yer-face adolescent could get overwhelming? So then we'd need to arm the kids. There would need to be an age limit, say about 5 to be safe .... jeez, the logic of it all.
The main problem with suggesting arming teachers, which seems to be escaping quite a few commentators on both sides of the Atlantic, is that it's a ****ING IDIOTIC IDEA which should be afforded zero credibility in any rational debate. The answer to the USA's gun problem isn't difficult ffs. Well, difficult to implement perhaps, due to the power of the NRA, but blindingly ****ing obvious nonetheless.
The kids will know which teachers have the guns. Imagine a teen who gets rejected by a girl at lunch and goes to grab a teacher’s gun. At least when a teen brings a gun to school they have to plan. If the gun is already there it can be spur of the moment. If the teacher’s gun is a pistol fewer will die at a time but I bet it happens more often.
The day after my daughter's wedding the wedding party went for an afternoon of archery (family bonding). Actually great fun and surprisingly difficult and physical. The guy running it was an ex-olympian and could hit the the bullseye from 100m. That's dangerous enough for me! Also found out I'm left eyed but right handed which means I had to shoot left handed.
Am the same SiS, am left eyed, right handed so shoot guns and do archery left handed. I'm hilariously bad doing it the other way but pretty good as a leftie
A Neat Trick To Determine Your Dominant Eye It turns out that not all eyes were born equal, and that most of us have one dominant eye. The dominant eye, is the one your brain prefers when it comes to processing visual input, and you should probably use that eye when looking through the viewfinder. please log in to view this image Here is a neat trick you can preform to discover which of your eyes is the dominant one. Extend both hands forward of your body and place the hands together making a small triangle (approximately 1/2 to 3/4 inch per side) between your thumbs and the first knuckle like this. With both eyes open, look through the triangle and center something such as a doorknob in the triangle. Close your left eye. If the object remains in view, you are right eye dominant. If closing your right eye keeps the object in view, you are left eye dominant. What are you? A lefty or a righty?
Unbelievable how politicians change their minds just to suit their needs rather than their principles. Corbyn now announces labour’s change of stance on Brexit..... I have no doubt that May would have done the same if roles were reversed. Another example of why I just can’t trust the politicians. It’s just a game and a career of gain for them all.
I’ve actually been hoping he would be reigned in by his party a bit so I’m okay with him changing stance a bit. And I’m in favour of staying in the customs union as I think that’s more representative of a 52-48 split than ‘brexit is brexit’. But its still a bit bollocks when you remember he’s sacked members of the cabinet for being in favour of this IIRC.
Can't agree with you there fats, sorry. The Labour Party's position has shifted because Keir Starmer, an economist, has managed to persuade Jeremy Corbyn, an idealist, that it is in the UKs best economic interests to maintain membership of a Customs Union with our nearest neighbours and trading partners. Starmers views are broadly in line with those of the vast majority of Labour Party members. This is exactly how democratic institutions are supposed to work.
Just remember the rules of politics. When you agree with someone changing their mind (or are on “their team”) the change of mind is a sensible, practical acknowledgement of facts that shows their flexibility, pragmatism, adaptability and leadership skills. When you don’t agree with their new position (or they’re on the “other” team) they’re either an opportunistic, two-faced liar who can’t be trusted or have been forced into a humiliating u-turn because they’re a terrible leader and nobody supports them.
I usually just see it as a mistaken initial position or a mistaken new position. Just the right nearly always have a mistaken position both times Disclaimer: Wording may vary. Thats excluding populists who don't have an initial position.
