Allow guns in school?

[cluznar]

Maybe it is time we do like Israel does and let teachers be armed? Let them wear concealed handguns and have mace. Had there been armed teachers in Connecticut there would have been less killing. When someone is slaughtering teachers and kids you MUST shoot the shooter. Time for talk and psychiatrists is over, innocent lives are being lost.

It does not have to be mandatory, let teachers choose whether they want to be armed or not. Those who wish to carry a gun will take a gun safety class and shoot at the range. If the principal in Newtown had a 9mm handgun she would not have to rushed at the shooter and be killed. She could simply have started shooting. Even if you don't kill the shooter, if you wound him badly enough to keep him from killing people you have done what needs to be done.

WAKE UP people, shooters are getting braver and we need armed teachers.

Or you can say no and count the bodies next time it happens.

:triniti:

 

[Sir Diealotz]

I concur

Met with elementary teachers earlier thus year and had to disarm before entering the school

 

[aich]

I agree allow guns in school. People forget what CCW holders have to go through in order to get a permit. Background checks and everything. How come criminals who dont have CCW's get to bring guns to schools and the rest of us cannot?

 

[golocx4]

You mean like this?

Israelis Teacher.

Link Removed

Of course this could never happen in America. If just one mother of the children became faint with fear, then lawyers everywhere would be getting a new Mercedes from the legal fees.

 

[Aielman]

To be honest, I really don't think it would do much, if any, good. You might get a few teachers here and there, mostly in the south, who would carry...but I doubt there'd be a meaningful number of them and I doubt many of those who would would be elementary school teachers.

I work for a large school district. Most teachers, the majority of whom are females, would be more worried about having a weapon in children than they would be about what they might need it for. On top of that, there'd be such a backlash from parents that most districts would never implement such a thing even if it was allowed by law.

And finally, inevitably, there would be an accident somewhere...and it would be over everywhere. The liability is just too high in this country.

I think we're better off insisting there is at least one armed guard at every school.

 

[schadenfreude]

To be honest, I really don't think it would do much, if any, good. You might get a few teachers here and there, mostly in the south, who would carry...but I doubt there'd be a meaningful number of them and I doubt many of those who would would be elementary school teachers.

I work for a large school district. Most teachers, the majority of whom are females, would be more worried about having a weapon in children than they would be about what they might need it for. On top of that, there'd be such a backlash from parents that most districts would never implement such a thing even if it was allowed by law.

And finally, inevitably, there would be an accident somewhere...and it would be over everywhere. The liability is just too high in this country.

I think we're better off insisting there is at least one armed guard at every school.

Either way (armed teachers or armed security personnel) we need to start protecting our children like we protect our gold. They are far more valuable (and unreplaceable) and worth every bit of the extra expense.

 

[Rhino]

I believe one state already allows that. Don't remember which one.

 

[golocx4]

In nature, when two males fight( lions for example) it is usually to establish dominance. When the challenger has been beaten and relents, the fight is over and the two go about their business.
When the females fight especially if they feel that their younins are threatened, they fight to the death. Woe be unto any intruder.
That is why I respect the picture of the Israeli teacher, and would be proud of any teacher willing to protect my children from these nut jobs. The children in the photo are also learning about firearms at the same time. They will learn tolerance, acceptance and respect for firearms, and there in lies the rub.

I mean these are the same people that think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.
The same people that will throw a seven year old out of school for calling his teacher “cute” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable. As well as insisting that your kid have a parents signature to go on a school field trip, but not to get an abortion.

Today's progressives want the children to fear all guns and would never allow it in a public school.

 

[gejoslin]

Maybe it is time we do like Israel does and let teachers be armed? Let them wear concealed handguns and have mace. Had there been armed teachers in Connecticut there would have been less killing. When someone is slaughtering teachers and kids you MUST shoot the shooter. Time for talk and psychiatrists is over, innocent lives are being lost.

It does not have to be mandatory, let teachers choose whether they want to be armed or not. Those who wish to carry a gun will take a gun safety class and shoot at the range. If the principal in Newtown had a 9mm handgun she would not have to rushed at the shooter and be killed. She could simply have started shooting. Even if you don't kill the shooter, if you wound him badly enough to keep him from killing people you have done what needs to be done.

WAKE UP people, shooters are getting braver and we need armed teachers.

Or you can say no and count the bodies next time it happens.

:triniti:

Hey Guys, these cowards don't have to be even fired at! If they're just confronted, they'll kill themselves. They come into these low risk, soft targets with many people to shoot at/and or kill. The FIRST time they see an armed resistance they fold up and commit suicide.
The teachers or guards are both should be armed.
The police should change their policies, if the first one responding and is properly armed, goes in instead of waiting for backup, the nut job will kill himself. Therefor saving 2-3 lives a minute. Which I read on line somewhere. But sounds like a good idea.I can't post a site but did read it somewhere. If I find it I'll post it.
But the Gun Free Zones have got to go!
But I don't think one idea will be enough. Many policies are going to have to change.

The post I found;

Based on the Virginia Techdata, experts determined the first officer on scene should make entryimmediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter. Everyminute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more peoplecould die. In other words, while it was once consideredsuicide for a lone officer to take on an active killer, it is nowconsidered statistical homicide for him not to do so...

Theother statistic that emerged from a study of activekillers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free"zones for their attacks. ​

 

[Rhino]

I believe one state already allows that. Don't remember which one.

Texas.
.
Link Removed

 

[tricolordad]

You mean like this?

Israelis Teacher.

Link Removed

Of course this could never happen in America. If just one mother of the children became faint with fear, then lawyers everywhere would be getting a new Mercedes from the legal fees.

Haha i was just gonna start looking through my facebook news feed for that picture! Betcha those kids are well behaved!

 

[Rhino]

You mean like this?

Israelis Teacher.

Link Removed

Of course this could never happen in America. If just one mother of the children became faint with fear, then lawyers everywhere would be getting a new Mercedes from the legal fees.

That very likely is not an Israeli teacher. There are armed adults at Israeli schools, but only in rare circumstances, and usually only in the West Bank, are they the teachers. The armed people you see at Israeli schools, even though they may be in civilian clothes, are security guards. Israel has very strict gun control laws. It's extremely hard to get a gun there as a civilian, and they're still very tightly controlled if you ever manage to get one. But the principle underlying the picture is still very sound. Armed adults at the schools do make them far more secure.

 

[Rocketgeezer]

I concur

Met with elementary teachers earlier thus year and had to disarm before entering the school

Just curious, when you went to the school did they ask you to disarm, if so how did they know you had a gun?.............please don't misunderstand, I am not asking you to do something unlawful..........but I was just thinking if one of those teachers had chosen to disregard the "rules" there may not had so many dead kids, true that teacher would have been in real hot water, but I think they would have had a lot of parents in there corner,

 

[Deserteagle]

Trying to get teachers to carry guns is never going to happen. Most teachers want to teach children, not act as armed security guards/teachers.

Some of them may like the thought of carrying a gun in class which is great. But unless every teacher does it, you are just playing the odds that hopefully the few teachers that are armed will be in the immediate area and ready and willing to fight when something happens.

I think we need to focus on making schools harder to get into when a person who is a clear and obvious threat, such as wearing body armor, a tactical vest, and carrying a rifle can easily make entry into the school in the first place.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

I concur

Met with elementary teachers earlier thus year and had to disarm before entering the school

Just curious, when you went to the school did they ask you to disarm, if so how did they know you had a gun?.............please don't misunderstand, I am not asking you to do something unlawful..........but I was just thinking if one of those teachers had chosen to disregard the "rules" there may not had so many dead kids, true that teacher would have been in real hot water, but I think they would have had a lot of parents in there corner,

Stupid law, locked it in the car.

 

[Rhino]

Does this sound familiar?
.
Teenage kid kills his mother.
.
He steals a firearm belonging to a family member, one he isn’t legally allowed to own.
.
He drives to a local school.
.
He enters the school and shoots members of the staff and numerous students.
.
This should sound familiar to you. What might not be familiar is the location, Pearl Mississippi, or the date, October 1, 1997. The perpetrator in this case, Luke Woodham, didn’t get as much publicity as the incident in Connecticut. Some might say that’s because Woodham only killed two people at the school. Kip Kinkel only killed two students at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon and he got more publicity. Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden killed five people at Westside Middle School in Craighead County, Arkansas. Five is obviously more than two, but still far less than the 26 killed in Connecticut. So what’s different about the Pearl Mississippi incident? Woodham was stopped by an assistant principal with a gun. He was on his way to the junior high school to shoot more people at the time he was stopped in the high school parking lot. Had this assistant principal not stopped him at gunpoint, Woodham’s death toll likely would have been far higher, and you’d likely be far more familiar with his name.
.
Is the reason you probably haven’t heard of Woodham because he was stopped by an armed school employee? Is that due to a media agenda that doesn’t like to highlight instances of armed civilians protecting themselves or others? It’s certainly possible. There’s been lots of scholarly analysis that makes it obvious that most of the mainstream media downplays or ignores such reports in comparison to instances where innocent victims are attacked by an armed perpetrator and don’t have the ability to mount an armed defense. That may be the case here, but that really isn’t the point. The point is that an armed school employee prevented a larger tragedy from happening in Mississippi, one that easily could have rivaled the incident in Connecticut. How might Connecticut have been different if school employees there had in their possession the ability to fight back?
.
You’re going to hear lots of talk about gun control in the days to come. It’s been in many headlines already. All sorts of controls and bans are being proposed, none of which would have prevented what happened in Newtown, but when did a politician ever let facts get in the way of a good agenda? But while all the proposals are going back and forth, why not consider something that not only will make a real difference, but actually already has? An armed school employee already saved lives in Pearl, Mississippi. It’s time to consider letting them do the same everywhere else. Before you dismiss the idea as unworkable, there’s something else you may not have heard of. School employees and teachers are already armed in some schools in the US. They have been for several years now. Shocked? You shouldn’t be, but considering our media you can certainly be excused if you are. Here’s one example:
.
Link Removed
.
Why would our media not report this? Simply stated, because they oppose it. None of those guns have jumped out of their holsters and gunned down innocent children. No children have been scarred for life or haunted by horrible nightmares because their teachers carry guns. Those are some of the results the media predict are bound to happen if guns are allowed in schools. The fact that it isn’t true is very inconvenient to them, so they just don’t report it, or they report it very minimally. They also seem to completely ignore the fact that gun free school zones have done absolutely nothing to prevent criminal misuse of guns in schools. There may be a need for a change in our laws after what happened in Newtown, but it isn’t assault weapon bans or magazine capacity limits, both of which have been tried and found to be completely ineffectual. It’s time to consider truly protecting our children instead of paying lip service to it and exploiting a tragedy to advance a failed political agenda.
.
Thanks to mmckee1952 for reminding me about the Mississippi shooting.

 

[K7lvo]

To be honest, I really don't think it would do much, if any, good. You might get a few teachers here and there, mostly in the south, who would carry...but I doubt there'd be a meaningful number of them and I doubt many of those who would would be elementary school teachers.

I work for a large school district. Most teachers, the majority of whom are females, would be more worried about having a weapon in children than they would be about what they might need it for. On top of that, there'd be such a backlash from parents that most districts would never implement such a thing even if it was allowed by law.

And finally, inevitably, there would be an accident somewhere...and it would be over everywhere. The liability is just too high in this country.

I think we're better off insisting there is at least one armed guard at every school.

You know, I've got a feeling that the principal in Newton would have given just about ANYTHING to have had a handgun. Instead, she gave her life charging an armed assailant empty-handed.

I've got a feeling that Vickie Soto would have given just about ANYTHING to have had a weapon to defend herself and her students with. Instead she had to give her life to save her students.

Hm-m-m???

 

[mmckee1952]

Link Removed

I'm for this action 100%, we've got to safe guard our children.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Link Removed

I'm for this action 100%, we've got to safe guard our children.

My daughter would have a cow... yeah, that's my dad over there with the gun.... she would never get another boy to ask her out.... not that that is a bad thing to me.

 

[Cnon]

Hey Guys, these cowards don't have to be even fired at! If they're just confronted, they'll kill themselves. They come into these low risk, soft targets with many people to shoot at/and or kill. The FIRST time they see an armed resistance they fold up and commit suicide.
The teachers or guards are both should be armed.
The police should change their policies, if the first one responding and is properly armed, goes in instead of waiting for backup, the nut job will kill himself. Therefor saving 2-3 lives a minute. Which I read on line somewhere. But sounds like a good idea.I can't post a site but did read it somewhere. If I find it I'll post it.
But the Gun Free Zones have got to go!
But I don't think one idea will be enough. Many policies are going to have to change.

The post I found;

Based on the Virginia Techdata, experts determined the first officer on scene should make entryimmediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter. Everyminute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more peoplecould die. In other words, while it was once consideredsuicide for a lone officer to take on an active killer, it is nowconsidered statistical homicide for him not to do so...

Theother statistic that emerged from a study of activekillers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free"zones for their attacks.
​

I couldn't agree more that the Gun Free Zones have got to go!

Cnon