Printable View
moreQuote:
Green Bay State representative, Frank Lasee proposes to bring in a legislation that would allow teachers and School personnel to carry weapons into Schools. He said that the decision would be left to the teachers but if they do decide to carry weapons, then they would have to undergo strict training on usage of weapons.
I like it!
"This homework is due at the start of class tomorrow" Says the teacher with a cold stare as he pats the bulge on his hip. [roll]
Arming Pilots...
Then teachers...
What? Preachers next?
[roll]
Whats wrong with my little guy? [roll] He does not bang his fist? [roll]
Is he sad? [roll]
This one works [postal]
It makes sense to me. Honestly I think that anyone who's got a CCL should be able to carry anywhere that they're allowed to legally be.
Bad idea.. for entirely too many reasons. Yes I know there are ebs and flows of school house violence, but the last thing I want is for a child to gain access to the weapon with all the potential for disaster that implies. Nor do I want a disgruntled teacher to forget to take their prozac that day and decide that little johny's smart arsed remark deserves a 9mm to the chest.
No, additional and appropriately trained security personnel meets the need. Next thing you know, folks will want to start wrapping schools in razor wire, requiring smart cards to gain access to the grounds and CUAV's orbiting with wing mounted chain guns.
What role does private security play in crime prevention:
ANSWER 0%
They deter....not prevent
All they do is make the people who are paying them feel better.
My kids elementary (private) school is in permanent lock-down now and you must have a school issued ID to enter. You think a bad guy cares...they'll just bust a locked door...they're only glass.
My wife thinks adding a deputy to every school including elementary will help....what a waste of law enforcement resourses.
I don't have an answer, but I see the government throwing our tax dollars at it to hope it goes away.
Let's not forget that most teachers are anti-gun. Very few of them support the constitution they teach about. I think if a teacher feels the need to be armed to protect themselves and MY daughter, then by all means. The 2nd amendment says that it is their right. I do not think that a basic handgun course is enough training or a teacher, though. They are statistically more likely to be in a gun fight than most of us on this board.
Off soap box now.
No offense BadShot but holy $hit you sound just like Sara Brady WTF? [poke] [roll]Quote:
Originally Posted by BadShot
Personally I think that it is a good idea:
Back when i was in school there were the teachers, that sttod out from others. These were the honorable men. You knew these people would fight and give there lives to protect you. They sttod for causes and had morals and honor. I had one teacher that kept a baseball bat in his room.
The only teachers that would consider, and carry, are the ones like that. Ones that are not cowards, and recognise the children in there custody. Some dumb lttle miss prissy math teacher, or the 67 year old drunk wouldnt be the ones that would carry. Only the good people would step up.
One of my teachers husband used to be a cop. I went to alot of dances, games and events. And everytime I saw that husband there, I saw him standing stillm arms crossed, and a phany pack around his waste. I always supected he was Carrying. The wife/teacher once spoke of him obtaining his CCW. So.. I dont know
If a teacher wants to hold himself at a higher standerd than just babysitter, I think we should let him
__TRAVIS__
"we're gunna need more ammo....." :?:
Ouch man ... ouch... Plus my boobs are better looking than hers!Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterCO
But seriously, perhaps I view this differently because one of my kids is Autistic, but that is neither here nor there. I still don't feel that arming the teachers is the right idea. I stand by the idea that properly trained security personnel would be a better idea than either arming the teaching staff or stationing a LEO onsite.
I'm all for the arming of teachers. My mother was a teacher at West High School in Denver for many years. I can't count the number of times that she wished she had a gun for defense, especially when leaving the school late at night. trv1911 is absolutely right in the fact that not all teachers will or should carry. I can recall one incident where my mom broke up a fight in the hall way between two gang bangers. All the male teachers in hall way quickly dispersed into their class rooms leaving her high and dry. She ended up getting hit 5 times before she got the ass holes to seperate. Although I never saw her in front of a class room myself, I suspect that she was one of those teachers that would do what ever it took to protect her students.
trv1911 I agree with you 110% on all of your points. I posted this on another website but I think that it applies here, too. It was in response to someone who said that they wouldn't have trusted most of their teachers with a gun. This is why I think teachers should be allowed to pack heat.
Quote:
If those teachers are so intent on hating everything about their job then what's to stop them from taking a gun to school despite the laws? If that happened then no one would be able to defend against them. Do you honestly believe that your teachers would be so irrational that had they had a gun on them they could snap at any time and start blowing people away? By allowing officers to patrol the schools then everyone will know exactly who's armed. Besides, what's the differance between a teacher that hates their job and an armed security guard that hates their job? Part of the idea behind allowing people to CC is that no one knows who's armed so everyone assumes that everyone is armed. Among other things it creates a much more polite society.
How often do you hear about people with concealed carry licenses snapping or doing something retarded? What's the differance between a teacher with a CCL and anyone else on the street with a CCL? I don't know if you live in a gun free zone or not but CO is pretty conservative when it comes to gun laws. I have never once noticed someone's gun on them and I see plenty of people that I know are carrying. I've never been questioned about it, either. I would trust a person that I knew had a CCL before I'd trust just about anyone else. Why is that? Because they've shown competency with a gun, they've accepted the responsibility of carrying a gun and they've passed extensive background checks to get that CCL.
Any place where law-abiding people are prohibited from carrying becomes a 'free-kill zone' when the lawless don't abide.
Why is there no mention of the 2 school shootings where teachers went to their vehicles and retrieved their firearm to end the violence?
Got a link to this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Guess I've been delaying a detailed rational for my points. The fact that bothers me the most is that you all know better. You all understand that the level of training that would be required for these people to have the appropriate skill sets to handle a proper take down is far and above anything that either they or the school systems could afford. Look at what they pay a teacher and tell me how they could afford the several thousands of dollars a year a true professional spends on their training!
We all know that to be proficient in any skill, you have to practice, drill and have consistent and intense on-going training. Hell, the teachers don't get enough of that just to perform their job as it stands, and some how, some of you believe that they would get the right and consistent training to be armed in the schools to provide protection? This really frightens me! Again, a great degree of this stems from the fact that one of my children is Autistic and I know the challenges those teachers alone face. I am actively parenting 7 children, I will take the liberty to say I’ve got a fair amount of experience with the average middle class teacher base.
I'm not against people being armed, quite the opposite. I'm as staunch supporter of the right to bear arms as any of us in this community, but placing the responsibility to defend with firearms, the children they are supposed to teach, just isn't the right answer. There are better solutions to this issue than this extreme!
Simple physical security of the facility would go a long long way towards eliminating a significant portion of the supposed threat. But that would be a common sense step that over reaction tends to miss. Show me any and I do mean any Public School building and in 30 minutes I… not even a facilities security expert.. can show how to secure that facility 50-90% better than it already is. Simple and easy steps that would go a long way without near the cost most would suspect. I would also venture a guess that most of you reading this would be able to make the same levels of assessment and recommendations.
The simple fact is that there are groups we know as SWAT (or by other names) that are trained, and not nearly enough by my standard, even within the police force. The Police aren't even trained as a whole to handle these situations. That would be why there are SWAT teams, ect. So to interject and burden the additional liability and responsibility to teachers makes my heart sink. How many police officers do you know that believe they actually get sufficient training? Hell how many of them believe they get enough range time? Much less how many of them feel they are kept up on their training for things not even related to using their weapon? Now go ask any teacher you know if they feel they get enough continuing education to do their job the best they could... I doubt many of you would be overly suprised to hear the answers... they aren't on average by any means, in the positive.
To expect the teaching staff - who's real job isn't even being done as good as it should be - to handle hostage situations, make the determination of when to shoot a kid - lets face the fact that the majority of these incidents are committed by children!! CHILDREN - is just unrealistic, immoral and wrong on more levels than I care to rant about.
Take the money that would be spent on this effort and teach teachers and the children! Care for them; don't put people who already sacrifice so much in a far worse position. For a far lower cost, better physical security (to include personnel as appropriate) can be implemented and the other money can be spent where it belongs, in educating the kids who need it! I’ve never been one of those who objected to the laws prohibiting firearms in schools.
While I doubt there is much that could change my mind on that point, I leave it open.
So tell me, how should this type of solution be implemented? What types of training and how often should that training be mandated. How are we going to pay for the training, ammunition, administration and so forth to make this happen? Rather than just rant and say “Yeah, arm the teachers, that’ll solve the problem”, I challenge to you tell me how and why.
I'm operating off of memory, which isn't working so good lately, but I did Google up at least one. Oddly enough, it's in an article about arming teachers from last year.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7297575/
Quote:
Froman cited the 1997 school shooting incident in Pearl, Miss., where a teacher retrieved a gun from his car when a student opened fire, then held the student at bay until police arrived.
...and here's an article from Investor's Business Daily responding to Rosie O'Donnell's latest idiotic utterance regarding the PA shootings;
http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...0656460&view=1
My point is that this stuff is a lot harder to find than the usual tripe being pushed by the liberal legacy media.Quote:
Gun control advocates such as O'Donnell prefer laws like the Gun Free School Zones Act, which have turned the area inside and outside schools into a free-fire zone for wackos who know there's little possibility they'll be confronted by an armed guard, teacher, principal or parent who might prevent these tragedies by confronting, keeping at bay or disabling an armed intruder.
Last year, seven people were killed at a high school in Red Lake, Minn., that did have a security guard. But the guard, the one individual who could have prevented the tragedy, and who saw the armed and dangerous shooter approach the school, was unarmed.
The problem in Red Lake was not that the nation has too many guns, but that it had one too few. An armed security guard could have held the killer at bay or disabled him. On more than one occasion armed citizens have successfully intervened in school shootings to save lives.
Few Americans are aware that in an October 1997 shooting spree at a Pearl, Miss., high school that left two students dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and immobilized the shooter until police arrived, preventing further killings.
A school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., that left one teacher dead was stopped only after the owner of a nearby restaurant pointed a gun at the shooter while he was attempting to reload and held him at bay, again preventing more deaths, until police arrived 11 minutes later.
Another school shooting occurred in January 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, when a disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and another student. Two of the three students who overpowered the gunman were armed; they ran to their cars to get the guns they used to disarm the shooter and prevent more deaths.
Thanks for the links.
Sadly, you are 100% correct about it being harder to find and less known. I hadn't heard of these incidents until you brought them up. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Yeah...that's where I want my kids, in a classroom right between a psychopath and a poorly trained teacher swapping lead. Until I feel my kids will be completely safe at school, they will be getting home schooled.
My point of view on this is quite simple.
Either you believe in it, or you don’t.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Well, after reading Badshot's lively dissertation and the rest of the responces here, I'll chime in with my two cents.
First, Badshot does have some real valid points. However I think he's missing the point behind the initial post. That the move is to ALLOW teachers to carry if they wish. That means it will be up to the Teacher, not the school or taxpayers, to provide the training and material.
The point here is that if Teachers are ALLOWED to carry concealed in the school, then any sick demented POS that wants to molest a bunch of young girls before killing himself, is going to have to contend with the possibility that there very well may be a heavily armed adult who could, without notice, put a stop to his plans. Even if there are no armed teachers in a particular school, the bad guy won't know this for certain until he's already commited.
Also, if this is allowed, then unrulely students, (the Gangbanger variety, and the demented kids like the Harris's and Klebold's), will also be faced with this uncertainty. Again, "a well armed society is a polite society."
I do think though that if teachers are allowed to do this, they should be required to show documentation of training to a point that would allow them to carry safely and, God forbid, to employ the weapon in the safest manner possible.
Finally, I'd like to make the case for "Less than Leathal" responces. What would be the harm with providing Tazers, or anyother standoff non-leathal weapon on the market. The problem with bats, yardsticks, stun guns and billy clubs is that you have to be way too close.
Additionally, as some others have elluded to, we should first start securing the schools better. Having doors locked from the outside while still providing free egress in case of an emergency. Replace glass windows with unbreakable glass or plastic. Alarms on doors and windows that would notify the front office when opened.
This is not an easy situation to deal with. The "Open Society" that most of us have grown up enjoying, has come to an end. There are a whole raft of sick and twisted people out here that we must protect ourselves and our families from. That protection and safety ain't cheap and it's sometimes a bit hard to swallow, but it is necessary.
We're talking about a handful of dead kids. Of course it's a tragedy. It's hardly an epidemic, though. The media is just making a HUGE deal about it just like they do everything else that they know will get people afraid. Public fear gets ratings. Spending money on armed security, metal detectors at every entrance, special types of glass and everything else that would help make our schools "safer" is just unnecessary. If you feel that your kids are at that much of a risk then home school them. I think that arming the teachers that choose to arm themselves is as far as we need to go with this. Just make sure that we hold those teachers to a higher standard when they're on school grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Pirate
A teacher's job is to teach. Leave armed security to professionals.
That is exactly what we are doing, You like the outcome? [poke]Quote:
Originally Posted by Atrain
No Hunter, that isn't what is being done. So come on.. It might be the case in a lot of the bigger city schools, but the rurual ones, the ones where most of this has been happening of late, just don't think about it and I would venture a guess that they don't think about it because of the cost.
So lets take a peek at the existing environment. As Gman pointed out, some people already keep weapons in their cars on school grounds. I'm fine with that, the law as it stands permits us to retain a weapon in our vehicles on school grounds so long as they are secured. Perhaps we will see more of the teachers who own weapons taking those weapons with them in their cars.
One point that I saw made today was that teachers in Israel have had weapons in the classroom for 25 years. Interesting point.. different society on so many levels.
As to home schooling my children if I don't feel they are safe in public schools, well that's a cop out and tantimount to giving up. Not to mention that my children have a right to that education. They, like the rest of us have a right to be safe as well.
Then again the US AG Alazar(pretty sure that's the dudes name) this morning on CNN/Fox News stated very clearly that they are not going to seek or endorse additional gun laws because of these recent incidents. Rather they are again looking to more ridgedly enforce the existing laws.
That was the good news.
You missed the point. The problem is with security, and it's not the responsibility of the teachers to provide it. A teacher's focus needs to be on providing the best education possible to children. If we need armed security at schools to keep our kids safe, then the schools need to hire professionals to do that.
As much as I agree with you that the teachers need to focus on educating America's youth, I still feel that those teachers that would like to carry on school grounds while teaching should be allowed to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atrain
Fair enough. Assuming the teachers carrying are well trained...I also feel that bad guys need to be stopped before they can get inside the school where an exchange of gunfire can happen around kids. Teachers in classrooms carrying guns are not going to be able to do that so it doesn't make it a viable solution to me. A shootout in a classroom full of kids will likely end up in trajedy...especially when the bad guy entering the classroom already has the weapon drawn and the teacher is still holding a piece of chalk.
My thought of it is this: We can't/shouldn't be giving up on school security. I wouldn't want my mother (a retired teacher) being expected to be the schools first line of defense. As someone stated earlier, I agree that security is more of a deterent than a solution, but I think that deterent is needed to keep the shit bags within the student body in line. I'm all for arming the guards as well (I think that anyone that is legally allowed to carry should be allowed to do so).Quote:
Originally Posted by Atrain
I also think that schools need to have a warning system. A Denver school that my mother was an administrator at put something simple together for this and it worked very well. Every room had a remote radio in it, as well as all the administrators and security guards. At the first sign of a disturbance, the teachers would know immediately and could act accordingly. My mom's school was shot up numerous times and one couldn't count the number of times an unruley family would cause a problem. This cuts down the likelyhood of the scenario that you posed with the bg in opening the door with a drawn firearm and the teacher with a piece of chalk in his/her hand still.
In my opinion, if a teacher has done what is necessary to obtain a CCW, then they should be allowed to CCW in class. Additional training wouldn't be bad idea, though.
BTW, I am enjoying this thread. This subject has been coming up a lot with friends and family.
I couldn't disagree more with this comment:
In my opinion, if a teacher has done what is necessary to obtain a CCW, then they should be allowed to CCW in class.
People who have never shot a firearm get CCW's all the time. There was a guy in my class who had never held a gun. It made me cringe watching him wave that unloaded Glock around.
Inexperienced teachers shooting around kids can be just as dangerous to them as the BG.
What do they need additional training for? How many CCL holders pull out their guns and shoot people without good reason? See how many articles you can find where a CCL holder acted irresponsibly and wasn't at least arguably justified in the shoot. I'll bet I can find two articles with a school getting shot up for every one that you find. IMO it's not about the training. It's the fact that responsible citizens that make the decision to carry a gun don't take it lightly. Why would teachers be any differant? I don't know about some of you guys but my gun doesn't whisper to me to go ahead and shoot that guy that just cut me off or that clerk that was rude to me in the store.
The people that commit these crimes are psychos. For the most part they just want attention and they get it on a national level. They're going in, indiscriminately killing people and then killing themselves. We're not talking about little Jimmy who keeps a gun in his locker and just snaps one day, grabs it and goes on a shooting spree. We're talking about people who are walking into these schools armed with the intention of killing people and then themselves. What will metal detectors do? They'll just walk right past them. What will armed guards do? They'll just shoot them. Do you want our kids to have to walk past soldiers with their rifles at the ready just waiting for one of them to step out of line? Do you really think that an armed guard will get to his gun fast enough if the person is intent on getting in there with his gun?
In a perfect world armed security and metal detectors are a great idea. Unfortunately someone has to pay for them and it'll end up being us. It's just a knee-jerk, feel good reaction to a problem that we don't have a lot of control over. Check out this website when you get a chance. It describes several school shootings that happend in the last decade. You can google most of them and get more information. For the most part it was either a psycho or two that did it or it happened in the parking lot.
Look at the Red Lake shooting in Minnesota. That kid shot a security guard, walked through the metal detectors and then killed 5 kids, a teacher and then himself. How did he get his gun? He killed his grandparents (his grandfater was a LEO) and used his gun in the shootings.
These are the types of people that are doing these shootings. They're extremely fucked in the head. How is a guard, even if he is armed, going to stop someone that's intent on walking into a school and killing people if the person just walks right up, indsicriminately kills him and then just walks in to do his thing? Now the armed guard is out of the equation and everyone has to wait for the police? What if the guard at the entrance isn't armed and the guard that IS armed is in a random part of the school that's nowhere near the kid with the gun? Maybe we should have MULTIPLE armed guards in every school.
Do you see how we're just throwing away money at a problem? Just let the damn teachers arm themselves if they want to and leave it at that. The schools that really DO have a problem with gang bangers and people bringing guns into the school already have metal detectors. A metal detector and armed security in every Amish schoolhouse in the country is a bit overkill don't you think?
Just let the damn teachers arm themselves if they want to and leave it at that.
No. If someone is going to be protecting my children with a weapon, they better know how to use it very well...and just having a CCW doesn't qualify you.
If they want to carry it to protect themselves, I have no problem with that, but that is a different topic.
It's interesting to see the focus here on enforcing gun laws, but whackjobs don't need a gun. It's happened with knives and I could see this happening with some machete wielding nut or someone with a homemade explosives collection.
This isn't the first time most of these individuals have showed up on the radar. The mind of a killer is more dangerous than a tool used by one. How many times must we hear about the odd behavior of these nuts after they've blown up?
Quote "It's happened with knives and I could see this happening with some machete wielding nut..."
Answer: BAN MACHETES!!!!!
By colorado state law, any knife over 3.5" is a weapon....
Wait, sorry, logical argument against emotional one. proceed with the !sanity.
Intention counts for nothing? A teacher will at least be making an effort to aim towards the bad guy, and will stop shooting when the bad guy stops moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atrain
The bad guy is aiming specifically for the kids, and if history is any guide, they'll keep going so long as they've got ammunition and targets.
Unless they want to protect themselves while they're at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atrain
They don't even need tools. A sufficiently beefy guy could harm or kill plenty of students (especially at the younger ages) with his bare hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Intention counts for nothing?
Yes, intention counts for nothing. Someone who decides to be responsible for protecting a classroom full of kids with a firearm better have more training than a 3 hour CCW lecture. Good grief, they require 4 years of training to teach math!
Unless they want to protect themselves while they're at work.
We were talking about teachers carrying firearms in school to protect children, not about teachers protecting themselves.
[/quote]
Being permitted to protect themselves would have the secondary effect of protecting the children, by proximity. Basically the same effect that concealed carry proponents argue helps bring down crime, despite the fact that only a very tiny fraction of the population receives concealed carry permits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atrain
If intention counts for nothing, how do you support concealed carry at all? The only difference between a first-time criminal and someone with a permit is the "3 hour CCW lecture" and good intentions. These people have surely been in the same room as your children at a restraunt or store!Quote:
Originally Posted by Atrain
We can go on and on with this. I will give my opinion on this topic one more time and leave it alone.
As a solution to protecting children at school, having a few untrained teachers with firearms is a bad idea.
Does the possibility of encountering armed resistance and discouraging a nut from executing some whacked out exit strategy more beneficial than the chance a child might be hurt in the exchange of gunfire? Remember that these scumbags are often executing the kids and not shooting haphazardly at running targets.
How is this discussion much different from CCW in general?
To paraphrase;
'As a solution to protecting citizens in society, having a few untrained citizens with firearms is a bad idea.'
Those of us that believe in the 2nd Amendment and CCW don't want government turning the entire society into a free-kill zone where criminality rules the law-abiding, so why do we expect the current strategy in schools to be much different?