WTF is going on???school shooting.

[CharlesMorrison]

Link Removed

Reagan knows!

 

[BC1]

For those posters who are untrained, you don't just hand a gun to someone and call it protection. There's a lot more to this than arming teachers. Half the morons that enter my classroom have no business owning a firearm. The decision not to arm teachers won't come from government. It will come from the teachers union. An anti-gun organization, run by anti-gun people catering to an anti-nub profession. This will not become a national policy.

 

[BC1]

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?

Bottom line? They're acting as security. I'm not promoting the anti-gun perspective. I'm unwilling to put a gun in some half-wit teachers hands as a means to defend my kids in place of a trained guard. Doesn't matter what any of us think. This idea will not be part of any solution put forth.

 

[BC1]

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.

I attended high-school in a very dangerous city. Highest murder rate in NY. Riots, fights, slashings, robberies, beatings. Teachers DID NOT try to intervene. These rats would attack the teacher. Follow him home and attack his family. Wreck his car. Understand? This might work in white-bread America but not everywhere.

 

[BC1]

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!

No, we really don't care if somone won't patronize our business over a gun policy. There's not enough of you to affect anyone's bottom line. Been in business my whole life. Could not care less. My place, my rules.

 

[The_Outlaw]

No, we really don't care if somone won't patronize our business over a gun policy. There's not enough of you to affect anyone's bottom line. Been in business my whole life. Could not care less. My place, my rules.

Correction; "Not enough of us in 'New York' to affect your bottom line"...

The fact is that there are a lot more of us law abiding CHL carriers in the great state of Texas than in 'Nu Yowk'.

Folks with this anti-gun inside their business attitude can take their Business' and shove it where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't visit that armpit of a city (Nu Yowk) if they paid me 5 million dollars to do so.

I welcome all law abiding CHL carrier's into my place of business with open arms and a complimentary beverage.
That's the difference in the mindset between most Texan's & New Yorkers imho.

You 'New Yorkers' really crack me up sometimes.

SMFH

 

[Rhino]

Bottom line? They're acting as security.

Not as part of any proposal I've seen. Security walks around on patrol, in uniform, with their weapon in plain sight, and is tasked with many responsibilities and functions identical to law enforcement. A teacher with a concealed carry license would do none of those things.
.

I'm not promoting the anti-gun perspective.

Sure you are. You want to deny teachers the right to carry concealed because you feel they should meet a higher standard than everyone else did that can exercise that very same right. That's exactly what the anti-gunners do when they want to deny gun rights or the protection of firearms to all except celebrities and those in power. You're acting like an elitist anti-gunner by claiming others have to meet a higher standard than you did in order to exercise the same right that you do already.
.

I'm unwilling to put a gun in some half-wit teachers hands as a means to defend my kids in place of a trained guard.

And you resort to calling them demeaning names just like the anti-gunners do when they refer to gun owners, as if that somehow justifies your argument. You're sounding more and more like them with every post.
.

Doesn't matter what any of us think. This idea will not be part of any solution put forth.

And the fact that it already has been is something you just conveniently ignore?

 

[K7lvo]

I attended high-school in a very dangerous city. Highest murder rate in NY. Riots, fights, slashings, robberies, beatings. Teachers DID NOT try to intervene. These rats would attack the teacher. Follow him home and attack his family. Wreck his car. Understand? This might work in white-bread America but not everywhere.

It's kind of apples and oranges. What we've been talking about up to now was the zombie from outside penetrating the campus to commit mass murder. Heck, if someone broke into your old high school, the students would probably kill him before he got a round off! Okay, so I'm kidding ... sort of...

 

[jg1967]

I attended high-school in a very dangerous city. Highest murder rate in NY. Riots, fights, slashings, robberies, beatings. Teachers DID NOT try to intervene. These rats would attack the teacher. Follow him home and attack his family. Wreck his car. Understand? This might work in white-bread America but not everywhere.

Well then let's do nothing at all.

 

[BC1]

Correction; "Not enough of us in 'New York' to affect your bottom line"...

The fact is that there are a lot more of us law abiding CHL carriers in the great state of Texas than in 'Nu Yowk'.

Folks with this anti-gun inside their business attitude can take their Business' and shove it where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't visit that armpit of a city (Nu Yowk) if they paid me 5 million dollars to do so.

I welcome all law abiding CHL carrier's into my place of business with open arms and a complimentary beverage.
That's the difference in the mindset between most Texan's & New Yorkers imho.

You 'New Yorkers' really crack me up sometimes.

SMFH

So does this NY thing end at the state line? What about VT, the most gun-friendly state in America, which is less than an hour drive for me. Does it continue into CT? NJ? PA? I live in FL half the year, does that matter? What about my wife. She's from West Palm but lives in NYS. is she opinionated as well? Can't catagorize people based on where they live. I'm not in NYC, I'm on a large tract of land amongst dairy and horse farms, trout streams and a beautiful mountain view. Ain't none of them there liberal enclaves here. Eveyone is armed. This ain't NYC. About 11% of state residents have a CCW, and we don't have laws against carrying a gun in or anywhere other than a school.
.
See, if I don't know you, I don't trust you. Period. Growing up in a violent area taught me that NO ONE can be trusted. Being in business all my life taught me to trust no one. And spending time as an instructor has shown me how many people are toting that gat and can't handle it safely. And yes, you would visit NYC for $5 million. It is an armpit but hey, $5 million? C'mon.
.

Well then let's do nothing at all.

No, let's put trained security in place and pay the damn cost. That's the price of having guns in America, you might have to pay the cost of extra security. Step-up and pay the cost.

 

[BC1]

You're acting like an elitist anti-gunner by claiming others have to meet a higher standard than you did in order to exercise the same right that you do already.
.
And you resort to calling them demeaning names just like the anti-gunners do when they refer to gun owners, as if that somehow justifies your argument. You're sounding more and more like them with every post.

Rhino, I earned the right to call some gun owners half-wits. Every instructor has experienced it. Rights be damned, there are some people who are just too negligent to posses a gun. And negligence is an element of some crimes. Early in my career I taught computer science at the college level. I can't think of any of my fellow faculty members that I could say had the ability to handle a firearm. And it wasn't in NY.
.
Have you been reading the posts on this site? How many are just itching to get into a scrape or defend some deli getting robbed. How many Internet Rambo's? How many people who are called trolls for asking "what-if" shooting questions? I'm not saying teachers can't be armed, I'm saying I don't want to depend on them. I want professionals, I want them in schools yesterday, and I don't care about the cost. Arm teachers if you want. Just ensure me that trained personnel are on the clock. I want him stopped before he enters the front door, not after he's in and a teacher can respond. That's my point. Pay the cost of trained security. Arm teachers if you want but don't depend on them to protect our kids.

 

[Rhino]

Rhino, I earned the right to call some gun owners half-wits. Every instructor has experienced it.

You weren't specifying some gun owners. You made a blanket statement about teachers in general.
.

Rights be damned, there are some people who are just too negligent to posses a gun. And negligence is an element of some crimes.

So you don't believe the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inalienable rights. You think you should have say so over who can and cannot exercise their constitutional rights based on your opinion of their intelligence, even if you've never met them. And you really can't see where this argument sounds like that of the anti-gunners? Really?
.

Early in my career I taught computer science at the college level. I can't think of any of my fellow faculty members that I could say had the ability to handle a firearm. And it wasn't in NY.

Yes, I'm sure every teacher in America has to be exactly like the ones you met at that school. I mean, how could other people possibly be different? [/sarcasm] And yet again, rights are not dictated by what you or anyone else "could say" about someone. If you don't believe in the principles this country was founded on, I guess that's your right too. But don't expect to get a lot of support from anyone here when you suggest that people's 2nd amendment rights should be subject to your personal whims of what you "could say" about them.
.

Have you been reading the posts on this site? How many are just itching to get into a scrape or defend some deli getting robbed. How many Internet Rambo's? How many people who are called trolls for asking "what-if" shooting questions?

I have, but I'm not defending such statements in any way. I'm saying teachers should have the same rights to carry that others have. You're saying those rights should be denied or restricted more heavily because you basically don't like teachers.
.

I'm not saying teachers can't be armed, I'm saying I don't want to depend on them.

Depend on them for what? To protect themselves and possibly others around them from attackers? You have that right now. Why shouldn't they?
.

I want professionals, I want them in schools yesterday, and I don't care about the cost. Arm teachers if you want. Just ensure me that trained personnel are on the clock. I want him stopped before he enters the front door, not after he's in and a teacher can respond. That's my point. Pay the cost of trained security. Arm teachers if you want but don't depend on them to protect our kids.

Again, there's no reason why we can't have both. But your previous comments were that teachers shouldn't be allowed to carry. If the money's there, certainly have guards. I'm all for it. But as has been pointed out, the money won't always be there, guards can't protect every classroom unless you've got a boatload of money to hire a boatload of guards, and guards can be easily recognized and thus circumvented. Allowing teachers to carry alleviates all those concerns. There's also another matter to consider. As ridiculous as it may sound to us, you just know some liberal is going to complain about the horrible mental and emotional 'trauma' that will be inflicted upon children if they have to see armed guards in their schools every day. Some have complained the same way about resource officers. They think even the sight of a gun is a bad influence on children. I love the idea of guards. But it does absolutely nothing to diminish the need of letting teachers carry. And from a tactical viewpoint, allowing teachers to carry would be the best choice of the two, particularly where budgets won't allow guards. I'm also very much in favor of extra training for teachers, but I don't think their right to carry should be dependent on it when nobody else's carry rights are.

 

[BC1]

Teachers, in generral, are mostly liberal or democrat, according to a number of political polls. The teachers unions are generally backing the democrat or liberal candidate. They may be the obstacle, not me. In general, I find two groups of professionals to have the biggest problem with guns... teachers and the media. Arm then or don't. i don't care. Either way I want a trained professional. When I post a job opening, I'm not even looking at a candidate without a minimum of a masters degree in comp sci and a few years in a certain discipline. Now someone with a B.S.C.S. may be able to do the job but I still want the highest level of taining I can find. So only the candidates with an M.S.C.S. get considered. Same here, I want highly trained personmnel. Enough of this crap. Half-solutions are harmfulto gun rights. we need to end these school shootings now, in their entirety.

 

[Rhino]

Not all teachers are that way but I agree that acceptance would be an uphill climb. There's little point in us continuing to go back and forth on the topic. I think we've both stated our case well. Even though I may not agree with your position, I can respect it. Let's say we leave it at that.

 

[maybejim]

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.

It seems reasonable that the teachers might be interested in defending themselves (which in school likely would benefit the kids). Now there are a lot of stupid left wing teachers but why not let the wise and responsible teachers who want to carry, carry? We already have the statistics that when it is known that there might be armed law abiding citizens present, confrontational crime goes down and mass shootings go down. Just the fact that some of the teachers might be armed will lower the chance of some nut going to the school to kill people.

 

[felkebg]

My son just found this excellent article stating that gun control is preventive law that punishes the innocent when no guilt has been proven. It is worth reading:

With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral - Forbes

 

[BC1]

It seems reasonable that the teachers might be interested in defending themselves (which in school likely would benefit the kids). Now there are a lot of stupid left wing teachers but why not let the wise and responsible teachers who want to carry, carry? We already have the statistics that when it is known that there might be armed law abiding citizens present, confrontational crime goes down and mass shootings go down. Just the fact that some of the teachers might be armed will lower the chance of some nut going to the school to kill people.

Sure thing. I'm happy to see Orange County, NY has announced the Sheriff's department will begin deploying armed guards to some schools. NYC schools have had them for years.