Teachers Should Have the Right to Bear Arms

"I'm not proposing that we arm teachers all the time. I'm simply saying that teachers should have access to some sort of weapon for self defence and the defence of students. I said this in the beginning: " The right to bear arms implies that you actually bear the arms. Assuming that you are arguing pro, you should be arguing that teachers should have to right to carry weapons. ""If teachers were equipped with guns or defensive objects (eg tasers)[...]" A weapon, anything used against an opponent, could be considered a taser (http://dictionary.reference.com......). Which as we know is harmless. You may argue that tasers will only scare the students. But considering how kids watch TV (http://www.pbs.org......) these days, it will only affect a small percentage of the students to know that their teacher has access to a taser that might not even be exposed." When was the last time you heard on the news of a school shooting with a taser? Exactly, it's irrelevant. However, tasers are not included under the second amendment if I am not mistaken, because arms are "Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms." When was the last time we used a taser in battle? Never. A taser and a firearm are no where in the same ball park. A taser is not capable of killing under any normal circumstance, a firearm on the other hand is. Also, individual situations like the ones you stated are irrelevant. The number of this that could and would go wrong far outweigh the good things that could happen. Also, your cherry-picking data. Look at this article. http://abcnews.go.com... The situation was solved, and a gun nor taser was not involved. Also, I don't understand pecan pie you even included a taser, I don't remember talking about one, so I don't understand why your arguing yourself on something that is irrelevant. "1) Arming teachers with tasers 2) Getting background checks on all parents and refusing their kid tuition if they have a gun. And then debating gun control." Tasers are not considered arms! I do want to ask a question, do you consider yourself an originalist? Also, where did you get option 2? I thought i proposed mandating gun safes, and you didn't even rebut that! No body wants to refuse tuition, and it's interesting that you are okay with rebutting ideas that aren't even mine. By mandating gun safes, and protection on guns, children would be less likely to get a hold of guns. This isn't a gun control debate, so I don't understand pecan pie you bring that into this. "What makes you think controlling guns will be easier and more effective?" I literally don't think that. I never said that, and that is not something that pertains to this debate. "It is only logical that as long as we moniter teachers with tasers, schools will be just as safe, if not more safe..." Oh, I understand. You originally were talking about firearms, but now you understand my argument, and you are changing to tasers. No, tasers are not arms, and they are not firearms. Under the constitution, you are not guaranteed the right to bear tasers. You are not guaranteed the right to bear a canon, which is a direct example from your definition. You are also not allowed to just have tanks, but I suppose you might want teachers to have those too. Teachers are not qualified to carry arms, so they should not carry arms. Maybe a special unit should be allowed to, and they are located somewhere in the school, but that is beside the debate. http://dictionary.reference.com... Thanks