jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (32 posts)

Tasers and Stun Guns might be good alternatives

  1. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    With all the controversy about guns in society,  in particular in schools these days,  I think tasers and stun guns might be a feasible and good way to arm teachers in classrooms.    For one thing, I don't think teachers should have to be focused on how to use an actual firearm.  They'd need to be checked up on on a regular basis too,  making as sure as possible that they were both legally eligible to own a firearm and that they were responsible enough to own one.     I say that because, honestly, there are some teachers/school officials that aren't mentally capable of proper use of a firearm.   I saw on tv one teacher who said she has a phobia, a fear, of elementary children!    Yet she is or was a teacher in the higher grades.    She was gonna be transferred to the younger grades and she complained that she has a legitimate fear of kids!    I for one wouldn't WANT her to have a firearm in school.    And who knows how many teachers are trigger-happy or need anger control management themselves?!    I've seen stories of some pretty radical behavior from some teachers.

    I think we should put more armed guards in schools.   That, and possibly incorporate the use by teachers of tasers and stun guns.    At the very least, teachers should have mace handy and maybe other alternatives.     And always the issue remains of how to make sure no students get access to those,  the liability to the teachers and to the schools IF a student DID get hold of a firearm or a taser, etc.

    I've been reading that tasers have a range of about 15 feet.    Police-style tasers can have an even longer range.    And if a guard armed with an actual gun is on duty,  then all the bases would be covered as much as feasibly possible in order to ensure as much safety as possible from every angle.

    What do you think?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Just very glad I don't live in a Christian nation where the teachers need to be armed.

      What do you think?

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think there's gonna be crime at some point in every aspect of society no matter what.   And I think that Americans in general are actually trying to do the best thing in this issue.

        And I think you have a phobia about Christianity,  since you always seem to mention it, blame it for all the ills of the world.

        And I think it would be good if you'd actually think about the topic of this thread,  give some honest thoughtful input into it.
        Do you think tasers would be a viable part of the solution to the issue of protecting students?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You asked what I thought. I told you what I think - that I am glad I don't live in a Christian nation where it is necessary to arm teachers. So - no - I don't think Tasers would be any sort of answer.

          Odd that you are so concerned with the Material Life that is just a precursor to The Real Life. lol lol

          You sure you think dead children go to live with Jesus in a better place? Because it is strange you seem to want to stop that. Almost like you do not believe.

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's hogwash, Mark, and you know it.  You've conversed with me and other Christians long enough on this site to know by now that Christians believe that little children go to heaven.    We also believe in protecting their lives as long as they do live on this earth.   Just because there's the afterlife doesn't mean there's no value in earthly life.  If there was no purpose or value to earthly life, then God wouldn't have created Man to start with.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this


              Odd that you are so concerned about preventing the children from going to be with Jesus for eternity. Almost like you don't actually believe in the afterlife. You don't believe any such thing - as you are a fan of guns. Glad you see the logical fallacy though. Think about it..............

              1. 61
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Odd that you want children to go to a heaven you don't believe in. Its almost as if you don't believe your own words.

                Why don't you want children to stay alive?

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey, that's a good point you made to Mark.
                  whoisit, you rock.  smile

                2. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree - guns should not be readily available.

                  Why do you hate children so much that you want them to live in a country where it is necessary to arm the teachers because the children are under threat.

                  I don't believe in heaven - but you guys do. Why would you not want the children to go there?

                  1. 61
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Odd that you would agree with something that wasn't said, hearing voices? Why do you want children to die so they can go to nonexistent places?

                    Why do you care so little for the innocent among us?

              2. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Let's get something straight---
                I'm not a "fan of guns".    But I do believe in the right of America as a Nation to bear arms, and in the right for individuals of America to bear arms to protect themselves from enemies foreign and domestic

                However, the basic right (as any right does) is contingent upon privilege;  it is a privilege to own a gun, just like owing a driver's license.  And those individuals should be held to responsible ownership and use of those guns.   I think there should be more stringent background checks, and more stringent monitoring of gun ownership.  I believe that households containing mentally ill people who could gain access to firearms should be held to specific rules for ownership and containment of firearms, and if that's not feasible then I think that household should be barred from containing firearms at that time and in that situation.   I believe that individuals who have a verifiable history of inability to control anger should be vetted if they want to own a firearm. 

                We already have good gun control laws in place.    But yes I think they could be made better.   Without taking away the basic right to bear arms.   It can be done, and should be done.    The problem is currently that people don't trust a President who's got a history of trying to be Mr. Control Freak and instead wants to be a King,  and we have Cabinet members who haven't correctly executed the duties of their Offices, so they're not to be trusted with any issue, much less an issue about gun rights.   American needs good leadership on this, and we don't have good leadership, and Obama isn't about to change.

    2. 0
      Sarra Garrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Using a tazer against a gun is like bring a knife to a gun fight.....you are going to loose.

      There needs to be metal detectors at all doors as there are too many children bring guns to school!  The parents of these children need to be punished on one form or another for allowing a child to be able to get a hold of these weapons.  If you have children in the house, the weapons need to be locked in a gun safe with a trigger guard on each weapon.  I live alone so my weapon is locked, loaded and one in the chamber next to my bed. 

      It's unfortunate, sad and sick that our children are no longer safe going to school.  Personally, I have no problem with having a police presence, however, if it ends up putting up constantina wire around the building making them look like prisons that's where I draw the line. 

      If I was still of childbearing age and had young ones at home I would opt for home schooling.  Banning guns is not the answer and it would never work.

    3. 73
      Writer Chuckposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Brenda,
      I think liberals have jumped into gun control using the Sandy Hook tragedy as an excuse to bring up the subject. Again the politicians are not legislating against the criminal or studying the mental health problems related to gun control. Liberals are more interested in assaulting the second amendment. They don't want anyone to have guns. Just remember this, criminals will always have guns, and they don't have them leagally.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I believe you're right, Chuck.

    4. Brisbanelocksmith profile image81
      Brisbanelocksmithposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In Australia Police carry tazers.
      They still can kill.  Especially when the police tazer you 20 or 30 times.
      They took all the guns away from us here too.  There are still shootings, but seems to be mainly the more organized criminals.  Average people here don't carry guns and we are better for that.  Problem is the organized crime can get more of a foot hold as they are the only ones with the guns. We need a police force that is less corruptible and  capable of dealing with organized crime and not one that can only give speeding tickets.
      You can still have guns here if you join a shooting club or a farmer, etc..

  2. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    You do not taser a person holding a gun as can cause them to fire. You cannot use it to restrain them. It does not lock their muscles to the point where voluntary action is impossible.  It pisses them off.  And they are still armed.

    So I would suggest it is next to useless when dealing with armed people with an intent to kill--of the type central to the current debate.  For people who are just being a menace (drugged up, angry etc) a non-violent restraint hold is more to the point and less likely to kill them.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for your input!

      I'll ask--wouldn't shooting them with an actual gun possibly cause the same reaction (they could involuntarily or voluntarily shoot anyway)?    Unless the teacher was a skilled enough or lucky enough to disable or kill them with the first shot.

      1. psycheskinner profile image83
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        When done by a police officer, the shot should have a very high chance of killing them. Dead people are very low risk. Outside of moving outright killing a person by a shot to the brain or heart does not make their finger contract.

        When done by a random armed civilian... I have the same reservations as for tasers. And when you consider kids being in a room with a gun at all.  I think that should be avoided. I think it would cause more deaths than it prevented.

  3. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    If you pursue the jibes, you kill the central discussion.  That is why half the threads seem to become about religion no matter what they started off as.

    1. 61
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Amen, oops.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image87
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Never feed the trolls. They come back for more.

  4. Verily Prime profile image82
    Verily Primeposted 3 years ago

    The Tasers are great alternative - as for the teacher who has a phobia... why did she get into teaching in the first place to be around the very children that caused her Phobia?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 … trict?lite

      She claims to have a very specific phobia.    This article says she was transferred from high school to junior high.........

      I dunno why she ever started teaching in the first place!   But it says she taught for 35 years!   So maybe her "phobia" developed later on.

      Doesn't make much sense to me, but........

  5. Verily Prime profile image82
    Verily Primeposted 3 years ago


  6. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 3 years ago

    i can't believe there is any discussion about teachers being armed....i read someone's post about having monitors on school grounds that determine who enters or who doesn't...but not armed with a flippin' gun!....there are children there??????    but then again i'm a canuck and have a totally different view of things....anyway...i truly feel US media plays a big part in ill people who want 5 minutes of fame...i really don't think school shootings happen all over the world...but for some reason the US seems to have more of them....the US has there own share of flippin' resident terrorists I guess.......................................the media needs a slap - they focus too much on the ill person and not so much on the victims.....so more ill people read and get ideas....maybe i'm wrong...i'm not sure anymore....too much reality crap in the US as far as i'm concerned....5 minutes of fame.....what's wrong with people who want that 5 minutes...something is missing for some folks that is for sure...and what's wrong with the media....

    my 2 cents....ahhhh...it's friday on hp!

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Most (all) of the high schools that I am familiar with in my area have an armed cop in the school.  The security systems are impressive; remotely controlled cameras everywhere, capable of reading a car tag from a 1/2 mile away. 

      A single button press will close and lock every door in the school, even bathrooms, and robotically call the cops.  An "airlock" type of entrance, double doors with space between then and with door locks controlled from the office.

      A very sad state of affairs.

      1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
        SomewayOuttaHereposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        that is so, so sad....what happened?....no need to comment.....

      2. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I wonder how economically feasible that kind of security is........
        It sounds great!
        If it works,  it's much better than arming teachers, since, honestly, they need to be focusing on their jobs and not have to become "armed security" themselves..........

  7. EdSaterstad profile image97
    EdSaterstadposted 3 years ago

    Schools are targeted because the coward doing the killing wants to off himself before he gets caught. The 'gun free zone' lets him know that there is little chance he will be met with equal firepower. The police will come, but he will have turned his gun on himself before that happens.

    You would not need to arm a teacher in each school. You would just have to let it be known that qualified teachers have the option to carry. The assailant would be less likely to target a school if he knew there was a real risk that he could be inconpasitated, but not killed. 

    Tasers and Stun Guns are only effective if used properly. it would take more training to use them then it would to use a gun.

  8. Foresta-Gump profile image76
    Foresta-Gumpposted 3 years ago

    And I'm the biggest and best troll out there!