<p>I second it…</p>
<p>Oy.</p>
<p>No, you did not post data against CCW holders. You posted data against teachers and priests. Unless you can show some causation (or even correlation) between CCW holders and increased rates of sexual assault offenses, your article does prove (or even suggest) anything against permitting trained and licensed teachers exercise their right to carry.</p>
<p>But NONE of the CCW holders can currently take guns to school. So the relevant denominator is teachers, not CCW holders.</p>
<p>
Schools aren’t jedi training grounds. TX laws are a bit different, but LTCF holders can carry (in PA) to bars, restaurants, dance clubs, unsecured portion of airports, colleges, movies…How is that any different from carrying in an insignificant HIGH SCHOOL? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very nice red herring though. The relevant denominator is NOT teachers. It is CCW holders. The new law doesn’t make teachers carry on school. Its not like you are just handing every teacher a Bersa thunder and IWB holster and telling them to have a nice day. It allows teachers that can carry legally everywhere else (and already do) the right to carry on school property. This has gotta be one of my pet peeves. On a similar note, SCCC isn’t about more guns on campus or giving every student a weapon. Its about allowing those who already have the right to do so elsewhere to carry on campus or whatever. </p>
<p>-Sam</p>
<p>One of the more famous examples of a school official/CCW holder occured in Pearl MS, a few years ago. As a mass shooting began, the school official ran a quarter mile to his car, in order to get his pistol. The way the law was written, that was the closest he could park, since he had a firearm in the vehicle. He then ran back and held the shooter at gunpoint until the police arrived.</p>
<p>***Actually, I should reasses my last post. A correlation between CCW holders and increased rates of sexual abuse would not be a solid argument against carrying at school…since the same teachers already work there.
In my opinion, the entire argument is weak. How would allowing those who can legally carry up to, but not on school grounds, to carry on school grounds cause an increase in sexual abuse? There isn’t a decent logical argument for that assumption, nor have I ever heard evidence remotely related to your proposed causation.</p>
<p>Actually, adult teachers with carry permits doesn’t bother me as much as administrators who think arming teachers is necessary. As tragic as school shootings have been (my husband is a Columbine graduate), I still think they are as likely to occur as a lightning strike. As a parent, I’d be more hacked off that the adults in charge of my child’s education are obviously simple-minded and have lost proper focus, than worried about anything else.</p>
<p>And yes, I grew up in a rural part of Texas where we learned to shoot guns as children. I’m not a fan of handguns; but a properly trained law abiding individual in possession of a firearm does not alarm me. Different strokes I suppose.</p>
<p>The school district looked at police response times and realized their other, passive security would not withstand a determined attacker or provide enough time for the local LEOs to respond. </p>
<p>I see this as a good thing. Allowing teachers to exercise their carry rights is a decent failsafe measure for their passive security. It also costs the district very little. Whereas, in such a small district, hiring armed security would require a major budget crunch. Firing valued teachers to hire armed security would likely compromise academic rigor and (to me) indicate a greater lack of focus.</p>
<p>I hope disgruntled teachers will not use them against administrators and school board members.</p>
<p>
A ‘No Weapons’ sign or a state statue never stopped an armed tango. Armed citizens do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This kind of argument drives me up a tree. The fact that “some” people in a population are a risk to children is not a decisive argument. I guarantee that “some” people living in Olympia are a real danger to students. This does not therefore mean that no Olympia residents are employable as teachers.</p>
<p>The meaningful question is, “Does allowing teachers and administrators with concealed carry permits add measurably and significantly to the hazards already present in a school?” I can pretty much guarantee that the true answer to this question is, “no one knows.” </p>
<p>The above argument is specious.</p>
<p>^ You cannot possibly be against legal concealed carry in any situation without using … no, I don’t even want to call it faulty ‘logic’.</p>
<p>cannot - against - without - no - don’t - faulty.</p>
<p>Six negatives in one sentence. A new record!</p>
<p>Huh? iloveagoodbrew, who are you addressing?</p>
<p>^Not you raimius. Oops, I forgot to throw in change and hope and vero possemus in my sentence; my apologies newhope.</p>
<p>“I forgot to throw in change and hope and vero possemus in my sentence”</p>
<p>I love a guy with a sense of humor! (Didn’t take you for an Obama fan though.)</p>
<p>[An</a> awfully presidential logo - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/an_awfully_pres.html]An”>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/an_awfully_pres.html)</p>
<p>I realize it was not directed at me, but I’m still not understanding which post you were responding to.</p>
<p>Its an awful logo, you got that right. Raimius I was responding to the antis’ posts in general.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends on how you define “sentence” so it’s not really pertinent.</p>
<p>It’s how much is in a single independent clause (including its dependent and subordinate clauses). That’s where it’s needed, because you need to keep track of all the negatives in your syntactical tree. But if the additional negatives are in a different independent clause, then there is no undue mental load.</p>
<p>^Yeah being an internet warrior must be fun galoisien.</p>