Hypothesis: Should children and teachers from the U.S be equipped with military grade weaponry for self-protection?

I don't care too much as this is an american issue; but what if the kid doesn't want a gun? Why do they need grenades and rifles? And what if the kid uses the gun irresponsibly?

I'm stupid so I maybe I'm just missing obvious answers. Just wonderin' doc.

Super suggestion, now there can be a mass shooting every time an argument breaks out or someone throws a tantrum.

“Hey we’re having a problem with gun violence in America”

“What do we do!?”

“Give everyone more guns of course!!”

“Hey we’re having a problem with gun violence in America”

“What do we do!?”

“Give everyone more guns of course!!”

I don't remember there exists a kid besides little girls who play with their dolls, who doesn't want to experience the coolness of holding a gun. Besides if this proposal goes through, the government will make it mandatory for each children to take care of an issued weapon when they are in school. The purpose of grenades is for the extreme situation if someone goes postal at school or a terrorist attack. The teacher can take the grenade and hug the terrorist in a suicidal attack to save the children, for instance.

Now look, I did compulsory military service for a couple of years before. We as youths back then were each issued a rifle with a few rounds to guard the gates and prevent any intruders from entering our camps. We had lots of arguments with each other and had some idiots throwing tantrums... but did we take our guns out and start blazing? No.

I know this feels counter-intuitive. But think nuclear deterrence. The way to achieve peace is to assure death if any exchange happens.

Thats not what you are suggesting though, you are suggesting you hand out a deadly weapon to kids, not soldiers. Kids are not adults, and kids will get into fights over the dumbest of things, especially in school.

Let's give every child machine guns and grenades. Great idea. When there's another mass shooting, untrained 8 year old will defend themselves with rocket launchers and automatics.

Great. Wow. Much smart. Very defence. Wow. Much safe America. Wow.

@juiceboks

If America was a warlord ran, war torn third world country like Somalia or Yemen, then yes i would agree with you. Except America isn't any of those, so no, arming 12 year old students with rifles isn't a logical solution.

Not all kids will be issued weapons. As mentioned in the OP, only kids above the age of 12, where their level of maturity should be elevated enough to understand the levity of holding weaponry. If the kid is certified mentally unstable, teachers will not issue him a weapon and he/she must be safely confined to a table and not allowed to leave his seat except in the case of going to the toilet (accompanied by a class representative of course).

Again, I am not saying 12 years old. Only kids above the age of 12, where they should be more mature to know the levity of holding weaponry.

@godsaveusall:

Again, I am not saying 12 years old. Only kids above the age of 12, where they should be more mature to know the levity of holding weaponry.

Ok. What happens when one of these 13 year old students is getting bullied, what's stopping him from pulling out his pistol or rifle and killing his bullies?

The fact that his bullies are holding rifles too?

You overestimate the mental maturity of 12 year olds.

Giving kids weapons is a stupid idea.

This thread is a stupid idea.

God this sounds downright awful.

So you have no problem turning schools into shootout zones? If you've actually put any thought into this you'd realize the negatives massively outweigh the positives.

Also I would like to add that the instances of bullying will be reduced too if kids are holdings guns. Potential bullies will be careful with their words and actions to not offend anyone.

Not if these kids are educated and given harsh disciplinary actions if they were not to follow safety procedures. Kids are generally obedient if you enforce almost excessively harsh rules on them.

@godsaveusall: Well that doesn't sound safe or smart in the slightest. How are you supposed to guarantee some kids won't just shoot each other? Are you gonna punish kids who don't take the guns?

Its only a hypothetical situation for people to discuss. Lighten up.

I made a later post explaining this. Bullying instances would actually be reduced when potential victims are holding weapons.

We need to be training kids to be better scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. We don't need schools to be a military zone.

No it's a shitty idea. Clearly I don't have to explain to you the dangers of turning immature volatile kids into immature volatile kids who can blow you to bits if they didn't like the way you looked at them. The reason why gun crimes are so rampant is because you have peeps in their teens and adulthood who own them show lack of self restraint. And you expect said restraint from freaking kids?. Yeah no...

I normally stay away from gun debates, but this is one truly moronic idea.

@godsaveusall: I have a better idea. Let's give every child a weapon of mass destruction to protect them against ISIS and North Korea.

Smashing idea, if I do say so myself. :D

Pro 2nd amendment people never seize to amaze. The lengths you people would go to to keep your guns is baffling.

This is like saying North Korea (The immature volatile kid) doesn't have dangerous tendencies to be lethal in the first place.

This is why America and other nations had to keep nuclear weapons to deter North Korea from stepping out of line.

This is just getting worse... now you want the armed kid to have gone through boot camp too?

Here is a much better idea: Let kids be kids, let teacher be teachers and keep guns out of the schools all together.

@godsaveusall: What does North Korea have to do with this?. You seriously can't compare arming children who aren't even old enough to vote or drink with weapons of mass destructions to nuclear deterrence. Wake up, will you?

That's the job of the military, not kids who are attending schools. The military's responsibility is to keep the nation safe. Schoolchildren's responsibility is to keep the school safe (And learn).

What am i reading......

This should have a hell no option.

An NRA wet dream.

Its only an analogy, to show that the immature volatile kids scenario will not get better if neither they nor anyone around them are armed. For the vast majority of cases, it takes the threat of death to keep these people in line.

Actually, it is proven that hardships will make one grow up and be more mature, self-responsible. Besides, the idea of kids maintaining their own issued weaponry is not something that will take up the kid's childhood days. It could be a viable educational way, a rite of passage of growing up.

I was being serious. I want a WMD for myself. It's part of my liberty.

The single greatest idea in the history of Murica.

@godsaveusall: Yeah because understanding the psychology of a child has never been so easy right?. And that's only one of the countless different ways this can backfire spectacularly.

Well, its not economically efficient to develop a WMD for an American citizen to purchase, and military WMDs are not for purchase either. Besides, the government probably won't see a need for classrooms to be armed WMDs and more importantly the NRA won't profit from WMDs sale.

Okay. So you are saying that its safer for children to be fighting without each side knowing what weapons the other may be hiding, instead of the proposed hypothetical scenario that children are fighting with each side fully aware that the other kid is very capable of killing him/her?! So children with no knowledge takes less risks compared to children with knowledge?!

Nope

@godsaveusall: No I am saying that its not the job of the children to do any kind of fighting. Its one thing to teach them basic but effective self defence or some survival drills but you are talking about turning them into child soldiers.

Let’s assume that I am 18, full of hormones and adrenaline due to stimulants from the surrounding. Also, I am the type of guy who bears grudges, hyperactive, a ? and is bullied by everyone in school. I like a beautiful girl, but she has a boyfriend who just happens to bully me a lot, so I stalk her. What do you think is gonna happen when this version of me equipped with a gun ?

Chances are you won't have the balls to use it because that girl and her boyfriend also are equipped with guns too ;)

The beauty of mutually assured destruction.

So what's the difference between self defence and weapon handling? Both are about self defence too. Let's not forget that the main goal of arming school kids with weaponry is about self defence, not aggression.

@godsaveusall: I dont know if you have any experience with self defence but the primary goal of it involves staying alive. And thus, there is much more to it than learning how to handle a gun of your own.

And come on, dont be that naive. Dont pretend as if nothing can go wrong by arming an entire school full of civilians and kids with powerful weapons, under the guise of self defence.

Holy hell, this is one of the worst "solutions" to anything ever.

Yes, if you are a somekind of Texas redneck.

@just_sayin@cable_extreme

There is no conceivable way this would be considered a good idea.

And comparing nuclear deterrance with this idea is ludicrous to say the least. MAD works with nukes because of the large scale the damage would cause. We're talking potential human extinction here. And even then there were several ocaasions in history both intentionally and by accident that the world came close to being roasted alive from a potential nuclear exchange so even MAD isn't a 100% assurance that the human race won't wipe itself out.

Hell long before nukes came into play, the gatling gun was created with the very idea that two opposing armies having a weapon that could gun down hundreds of men in a manner of minutes would deter both sides from going to war with each other. Needless to say this didn't work out and the gatling gun was used to kill countless people up to this day.

So I don't see how arming kids and staff with guns would do more good than harm. Even if nobody has any intention try to hurt/kill another person, accidents could still occur and could be deadly.

I’m pretty sure the staunchest of conservatives can see how asinine this idea is.

Can't believe your all falling for a troll thread

If this isn't I really do feel for your education system, the intelligence seems third world apart from the major Morden cities cities Like NYE, LA and Washington

He's not trolling.

I'm fairly certain he isn't trolling.

Give a gun to a public school teacher????!!!! Are you kidding? A significant portion are progressives. Most know nothing of guns. Can you just imagine how many deaths there would have been in public schools across the nation on the day after Trump's defeat of Clinton? Every kid in a MAGA hat would have been shot.

The term "redneck" is a derogatory term used primarily for a rural poor white person of the Southern United States. Such terms are racial slurs directed towards a specific geographic and ethnic group. Please refrain from such language. Anyways, we prefer the term Appalachian Americans or West Texas Americans.