WTF is going on???school shooting.

[Rhino]

I was thinking more along the line of state-by-state. for example, NYC schools have over 7,000 police officers securing it's 1,400 public schools. Considering their are 1.1 million kids in NYC schools alone we rarely hear about an incident and there haven't been any mass shootings. The cost is bourne by the residents of NYC. Upstate schools should be staffed by the NYS Police. A division of school safety staffed by officers specializing in active shooter situations may be costly but it's much better than arming teachers. First, one must assume the teacher is actually any good with a gun. Maybe nobody in the entire school can hit the gound with their hat. Maybe no one is tought enough. Will they have the proper training to deal with active shooters. Are they schooled in PP? Will they take a shot when they shouldn't. Is she/he a deliberate person? can they do what needs to be done? With proper training and testing many teachers could develop the skills. But the public is never gonna allow it.

Can you do any of those things? Should we make you prove it before you're allowed to carry a gun? Everything you just said could come directly out of a Brady Campaign press release because it's the exact same argument the anti-gunners use to say that only the police should carry guns. Now you're trying to use that same argument to deny the right to carry to others. Sorry, but I don't buy it when the anti-gunners use it and I don't buy it when you do either. You're trying to deny others the same right you have based on requirements you never had to meet. There's a word for that. And the proposal isn't to 'arm teachers'. It's simply to give them the right to carry. No one is going to force them to. We aren't asking them to perfom as security guards or police officers. Teachers in New York would have to meet the same requirements to carry that you did and teachers in Ohio would have to meet the same requirements that I did. Extra training would be icing on the cake, to be sure. But to deny them the right to carry based on requirements that others didn't have to meet to exercise that very same right would be hypocrisy of the highest order, not to mention probably illegal.
.
None of that would negate the advantage of having LEOs present, and I like your idea of doing that locally. That's where it should be done. But again, unless you think we're going to fund a cop in every room, you won't prevent such tragedies that way. Lot's of kids could be killed in one classroom before a cop could make it there from the other end of a large school building. Assume that system were already in place and imagine you are Adam Lanza. If you want to go shoot up the school and you know a cop is there, all you have to do is arrange it so you shoot him first. Even if you don't shoot him first, he's easily recognizable as the one and only threat to your plan, so evading him or mitigating him are far easier to accomplish. That wouldn't be all that difficult. But if teachers are allowed to carry concealed, you have no way of knowing which ones do, or where they might be. Any one of them might be able to put a stop to your plan and put a stop to you, at any moment, around any corner, when you least expect it. We know that spree killers don't like to be confronted by armed opposition. Which one of those scenarios do you think Adam Lanza or some other spree killer would have found less desirable?

 

[Ringo]

I think every city should ask for volunteers to provide security, I'm sure they would never be in short supply. With the proper background checks and required training the problem is solved.

 

[BluesStringer]

Arming teachers won't make it into any national legislation, policy or any program. It's simply not acceptable to the masses.

I'm part of the mass, as are you and everybody on this site, and as well as the tens of millions of gun owners in the country. I think you might be underestimating the masses' ability to reason. But our ability to reason is not the problem anyway. No one is suggesting that national legislation *mandate* or otherwise push teachers into being armed. In fact, I think as far as anyone is really going is to push federal legislators into removing the federal prohibition that makes all schools gun-free-zones, which includes teachers and administrators, and which is why none of them are ever armed when a nutbag massacres them and their students. Rhino or anyone else is welcome to correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think all anyone is saying is that teachers, even janitors, should have the same right of self defense inside a school as outside. I think we're all just saying they should have the choice to arm themselves or not. That's what I'm saying anyway.

I think every city should ask for volunteers to provide security, I'm sure they would never be in short supply. With the proper background checks and required training the problem is solved.

I've done tons (literally) of volunteer work through the Red Cross, Salvation Army and local disaster relief, and was carrying every time I did. I have a lot of training that I've acquired both on my own and professionally. I'd be glad to volunteer for the kind of duty you suggest here, and I know many others who would too. Link Removed popping up about former Marines standing guard at their children's schools in the wake of Newtown. Raising a citizen-militia (or whatever politically correct name would be an easier sell) wouldn't be all that tough in most places I don't imagine. I think it's a great idea.

Blues

 

[jg1967]

Teachers are under no obligation to physically defend a student or to put themselves in harm's way. They are mandated reporters but it ends there. The point was that even a LEO is under no obligation, forget about teachers. Arming teachers won't make it into any national legislation, policy or any program. It's simply not acceptable to the masses.

I was not referring to the law, friend!

Teachers themselves often feel a moral obligation to defend their charges as the ones getting killed in doing so demonstrate.

 

[trailboss]

this was interesting
Christina Taylor Green and the whole crew Exposed! PT1-2 - YouTube




and no, I do not wear a tinfoil hat
but I do enjoy some of what the otherside has to say

 

[BC1]

I think every city should ask for volunteers to provide security, I'm sure they would never be in short supply. With the proper background checks and required training the problem is solved.

Israel is a good example. They understand a thing or two about soft targets. Even the busdriver is armed and vigilent.

 

[BC1]

No one is suggesting that national legislation *mandate* or otherwise push teachers into being armed. In fact, I think as far as anyone is really going is to push federal legislators into removing the federal prohibition that makes all schools gun-free-zones, which includes teachers and administrators, and which is why none of them are ever armed when a nutbag massacres them and their students.


Blues

I find many teachers and professors to be liberals. A lot of anti-gun thinking there, like when a 6-yr-old points a Chicken McNugget and says "bang" it makes national news. Do you think teachers who are pro-gun control would accept this? They're scared crapless of anyone who owns a firearm. Would they object? How do you think the teacher's union would respond?

 

[BluesStringer]

I find many teachers and professors to be liberals. A lot of anti-gun thinking there, like when a 6-yr-old points a Chicken McNugget and says "bang" it makes national news. Do you think teachers who are pro-gun control would accept this? They're scared crapless of anyone who owns a firearm. Would they object? How do you think the teacher's union would respond?

Somewhere, amongst all the quisling leftists that comprise a good number of our country's teachers, are real adults who understand that the best way to guard against force is to have equal or greater force ready to respond. If they object, they object. They're objecting to you and I carrying on the street right now. Does that affect your adult decision to carry?

The only drawback to giving teachers the choice to arm themselves or not, is that some, maybe even many, schools will be left unarmed/unprotected. Still, some would be protected, and that's a damn sight better'n what we have now. Time for leftists to be forced to live up to their "freedom of choice" mantra that has killed more human beings than any authorized, licensed, trained and practiced concealed carrier could even contemplate on his/her best day.

Bottom line, screw leftists. This really is all about the kids. Let them crap in their panties and object to others exercising their freedom. I couldn't care less, and it isn't part of my criteria for evaluating the prudence of allowing teachers to carry if they so choose anyway. There is nothing shameful about our positions, and I'll be damned if I'll allow a gaggle of bed-wetting, pabulum-puking leftists shame me into believing anything other than the truth about uses of guns for self defense. You know what that truth is. I know what it is. The overwhelming majority of gun owners in this country knows the truth. Guns have as much power to save lives as they do to victimize and illegally take life. We're on the right side of the argument, and we shouldn't shy away from it just because cowards object.

Blues

 

[jg1967]

I find many teachers and professors to be liberals. A lot of anti-gun thinking there, like when a 6-yr-old points a Chicken McNugget and says "bang" it makes national news. Do you think teachers who are pro-gun control would accept this? They're scared crapless of anyone who owns a firearm. Would they object? How do you think the teacher's union would respond?

Well that just depends on how serious we are about finding a real solution as opposed to more feel good legislation. The teachers are already there, have to be and often end up TRYING to defend their charges anyway. If they were given the OPTION of being armed and trained maybe some would come around. You can't convince everybody anyway.

 

[walt629]

At a Christmas party last night I got into the discussion about guns in schools with a teacher. He teaches 4th grade. His central argument against guns in school was "what if a child get a hold of the gun?"

I told him we would be looking at the same level of irresponsible behavior that got us to the point of this discussion in the first place. He changed the subject. But I think his concern is a valid one but unfounded coming from an uneducated perspective.

But once the talk about guns hit the floor, the flood gates opened. Everyone and I mean everyone unanimously agreed that something had to be done to protect the children. The range of suggestions was wide but most agreed that hardening the schools against intrusion would be more sensible than bringing guns into the school in the form of bringing in armed guards into schools.

By the end of the night and the discussion I had 2 people that have never held a gun in their lives ask me if they could go to the range with me some time. Progress.

 

[gejoslin]

The "What If" scenario about carrying in schools can be anything in their (lib's) imagination. The point is No more Gun Free Zones! If the nut even thinks there might be guns in the schools, malls or anywhere that's gun free. Then the risk goes up! That's why they hit these places. No to low risk soft targets!
Even if there isn't any armed resistance, as long as "they" think there is, it would have stopped the last spree killers who "offed" themselves at the first sign of armed resistance. Until real armed guards or concealed carry teachers, are what have you, are put into place.

 

[jameshd]

Keep your business. And keep your guns out of my place of business. No merchant really cares about your money.

YGBSM! No merchant really cares about your money? When did that happen? Merchants really care about any money they could have received but didn't. That's why they're in business - money!

 

[Ringo]

Bottom line, screw leftists. This really is all about the kids. Let them crap in their panties and object to others exercising their freedom. I couldn't care less, and it isn't part of my criteria for evaluating the prudence of allowing teachers to carry if they so choose anyway. There is nothing shameful about our positions, and I'll be damned if I'll allow a gaggle of bed-wetting, pabulum-puking leftists shame me into believing anything other than the truth about uses of guns for self defense. You know what that truth is. I know what it is. The overwhelming majority of gun owners in this country knows the truth. Guns have as much power to save lives as they do to victimize and illegally take life. We're on the right side of the argument, and we shouldn't shy away from it just because cowards object.

Blues

Damn Straight Blues! And it's the height of hypocrisy that these Soulless Liberal Progressive "BASTARD AMERICANS" committing legal infanticide are the same who scream the loudest about protecting our children. All lies begin with self-deceit, and anyone having any knowledge of history and "man's inhumanity to man" and think that these same "BASTARD AMERICANS" won't commit the same genocide on us once they succeed in their agenda to disarm "US" is self-deceived. Because I believe Jesus not to be a liar when He said, pertaining to this Last Generation.."For then there will be great suffering at that time, a kind of suffering that has not happened from the beginning of the world until now and will certainly never happen again" (Matthew 24:21), the video posted by GB-Boater (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vAU9AJfttls#) as horrifying as it is, it's mild in comparison to what will be experienced by every nation, and individual, Left Behind in this world in the very near future subject to the NWO/OWG of the Antichrist.

I've said this before many times.."1% of the people make things happen, 9% of the people watch things happen, and 90% of the people ask, what happened??? How do I know that's true? Because one minute after the Rapture that's exactly the question that 90% of those Left Behind will be asking. Yesterdays Prophesies Are Today's Headlines. Anyone keeping up on national and global current events, and truly care about themselves and their family, will be wise to heed God's Prophetic Word pertaining to these final days of this Last Generation. Knowing that "The Wisdom Of Man Is Foolishness To God," I know that the majority of readers here will reject the truth of scripture and instead continue to put their faith in the wisdom and governance of man leading to their own imminent destruction. God who knows the future controls the future, and that's exactly why the End of the Bible reads the way it does and cannot be changed. The window of opportunity is rapidly closing for those who truly care about themselves and their family. Today is the day of salvation, choose wisely while there's still time. Peace.

 

[DLeeHarley]

Amen

Dennis in Idaho
Keep your Powder Dry!

 

[Rocketgeezer]

At my grandaughters school the other evening her ROTC class had a little get together/christmas party. and several teachers were there, her master chief is x navy, and he never had much to do with guns (he was a missle technition) when the subject of the shooting came up, the opinons were naturaly all over the place, to the extream with some of them, one guy, a teacher, seemed to be of the opinion that we needed nothing more than single shot muzzle loaders to hunt with, and I, who was not really saying much suddenly had a moment of attention and there was easly 80-100 people there, posed the question to the teachers to ask themselfs, and to be honest, and they only had the two answers to choose from, if they were in there classroom, and without warning a gunman were to kick in the door and start shooting what would they rather have in there hand a Gun or cellphone ???????

 

[felkebg]

I know that many think that having armed people around the schools is the best answer but presidential assasinations and attempts at assasinations with top notch secret service agents can not stop the occasional nut case. My point is we will never find the perfect solution. It is similar to the cost of testing blood to assure that it is totally safe for your personal use in a surgery. We can not pull it off with a million dollars to do it in the controlled environment of a laboratory. I can carry a weapon responsibly and stay vigilant and also bank my own blood when I have the warning of a coming need for it. That's about all I can think to do at this point.

 

[Bikenut]

I know that many think that having armed people around the schools is the best answer but presidential assasinations and attempts at assasinations with top notch secret service agents can not stop the occasional nut case. My point is we will never find the perfect solution. It is similar to the cost of testing blood to assure that it is totally safe for your personal use in a surgery. We can not pull it off with a million dollars to do it in the controlled environment of a laboratory. I can carry a weapon responsibly and stay vigilant and also bank my own blood when I have the warning of a coming need for it. That's about all I can think to do at this point.

You make the case that all you can do to provide a measure of safety is to carry a weapon responsibly and stay vigilant... yet wouldn't that same logic apply to having guns in the hands of responsible and vigilant people also apply for providing a measure of safety in schools?

Perhaps it wouldn't be the perfect solution but it surely is better than what we have now.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

We may not be able to stop EVERY determined nutbag but at least we can harden our schools. That way it becomes very difficult to accomplish these mass killings.
We all know that these loonies don't want a confrontation. They want the "easy kill".
Guess what? Lets make them work for it! Implement a variety of security measures like bullet proof glass and keyless entry controlled from a central location with cameras! Give the teachers hand held units so they can communicate with each other as needed. One last thing. Teachers that WANT to carry concealed should be both allowed AND trained as a primary line of defense.
I support any measure to harden our schools. I DO NOT support any gun legislation... PERIOD that screws with my god given right to bear arms.

 

[gejoslin]

We may not be able to stop EVERY determined nutbag but at least we can harden our schools. That way it becomes very difficult to accomplish these mass killings.
We all know that these loonies don't want a confrontation. They want the "easy kill".
Guess what? Lets make them work for it! Implement a variety of security measures like bullet proof glass and keyless entry controlled from a central location with cameras! Give the teachers hand held units so they can communicate with each other as needed. One last thing. Teachers that WANT to carry concealed should be both allowed AND trained as a primary line of defense.
I support any measure to harden our schools. I DO NOT support any gun legislation... PERIOD that screws with my god given right to bear arms.
I added the bold

Well said! I agree. Until the schools, in their states, decide how they're going to permanently secure their schools. Using teachers is a good temporary fix, and they should be able carry in schools ,if for nothing else, for their own protection.
Teachers should just teach. As for, permanent security they should be armed and trained for defensive purposes only. Their only jobs should be primary line of defense for the security of students and staff. Teachers should be the last line of defense when all else fails. Hardening the schools is also a must.
jmo

 

[Rhino]

I know that many think that having armed people around the schools is the best answer but presidential assasinations and attempts at assasinations with top notch secret service agents can not stop the occasional nut case.

Actually you don't know that because you have no idea how many would be attackers have been deterred by that Secret Service protection. And we also know they have stopped quite a few potential threats before they escalated to attacks. We do know one extremely important difference between presidential assassins and spree killers though. Spree killers consistently choose soft targets. The evidence indicates they even go out of their way to find such soft targets, and also shows they will alter their plans and tactics when faced with possible opposition. That's a complete different universe from presidential assassins.
.

My point is we will never find the perfect solution. It is similar to the cost of testing blood to assure that it is totally safe for your personal use in a surgery. We can not pull it off with a million dollars to do it in the controlled environment of a laboratory. I can carry a weapon responsibly and stay vigilant and also bank my own blood when I have the warning of a coming need for it. That's about all I can think to do at this point.

There's no such thing as a perfect solution and there never will be. We're discussing what would be the best solution for the circumstances. Spree killers are known to avoid resistance. If one of them decides he wants to try attacking a school, the possible resistance is what will most likely be the largest determining factor for him. We already know that no armed resistance doesn't deter them. Given the current proposals of a law enforcement officer or allowing teachers to carry, the question becomes which would deter a spree killer more by offering the most potential resistance. An LEO is one person who is easily identified. That can be used in two ways. The killer could simply avoid him and accomplish his task before the LEO could respond, which we know from experience could be a great many deaths in a very short period of time. His other option could be to simply kill the LEO first, giving him much more time to carry out his task more methodically. An LEO in uniform makes an easily distinguishable target, so this wouldn't be that difficult of a task for a determined person. The other proposal is to allow teachers to carry concealed. An attacker would not be able to identify them or make them the first targets. He could not adjust his tactics to avoid potential resistance because he would have no idea where such resistance might be. He could be one of the first people shot, and possibly even the first one killed. It doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to see that this scenario presents more of a problem to a spree killer. Would it be enough to deter them? Just as with presidential assassins, it's impossible to know the answer to that question. But it certainly makes the task much more difficult for the killer, and it would certainly be a potent deterrent factor. I personally don't see why a choice should be necessary. Barring severe budgetary concerns, I don't see why we couldn't do both.