Printable View
I, for one, am in favor of arming teachers who volunteer to undergo extensive background checks along with initial and ongoing firearm training. Imagine though what the headlines will say when a shooter appears and manages to only take out a few schoolkids - gets taken out by an armed teacher - BUT - the teacher accidentally shoots/kills a couple of schoolkids in the process.
The likelihood of casualties caused by the good guys in a future shootout is - I suspect - quite high indeed. What then?
They follow NYPD's example...Quote:
Originally Posted by DHC
But he said extensive background checks and ongoing training...how does that related to NYPD?Quote:
Originally Posted by two shoes
[fail] your not helping the cause at allQuote:
Originally Posted by DHC
What if a bullfrog had wings??
What's one of the #1 rules...?? Know your target and beyond.
I think the Oregon Mall CCW holder demonstrated that very well!
What about training firemen, their fire stations are generally close to schools, they are on standby. Why not train these guys, pay them extra. Most of those men are family men and have kids and could use the extra money. I think they would a good assett. They all carry pagers, so if a fire alarm came they could respond within a couple of minutes. Just a thought
The whole point is to have someone who can respond in seconds, not minutes. Reports vary, but most agree that the CT murderer completed his crimes in less than 10 minutes. Cops were on the scene within 20 minutes, and it was already over. Had the Principal of the school been armed and properly trained, the headline might have read "Deranged gunman slain attempting to enter elementary school".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
This is a heading I would deff like to see more of!!
I am trying to understand something here.
So you are saying that, aside from the extensive background checks to get a CCW
AND
The NICS Checks when you purchase a firearm
AND
Aside from the exhaustive criminal background investigation to be employed by a school district
you want to ad another repetitive redundant double extra layer of bureaucracy.
http://crayfisher.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=300&h=225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
[Beer]
You misunderstood the whole purpose. Keyword: DETERRENCE.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHC
Imagine the liability. Teacher shoots kid saving kids, teacher gets sued, no teacher will ever want to carry again.
Easy: Cover teachers that use their weapon in defense of students with the same sort of sovereign immunity that police officers enjoy.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
'allow' (NOT MANDATE) teachers that wish carry to train at/with police personnel
While I'm sure there are a few, plenty, some....teachers out there that could/would handle themselves just fine with a handgun/weapon on school grounds, I personally believe that our liberal school system is failing our society by making everybody special, a winner, perfect....etc etc. I personally believe that 72.34% of the teachers in the country would be aghast at carrying weapons.
Which is why I think D-20 in Colorado Springs has the right formula of armed security personnel in the schools (which from what I have heard, most are retired LEO, military or aspiring LEO looking to gain some experience while trying to apply). To also include armed patrols in cars that can respond to different schools as an on needed basis. Most vocal parents I have heard are happy to have this security in place....usually right up until their snot nose kid gets busted for smoking pot on school grounds.
Note: 84.57% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Oh, I'll bet it is more help than you give it credit for.Quote:
Originally Posted by alxone
Any fear resulting from projecting the consequences of this likely future scenario needs to be addressed.
Okay, so you say training required. So how fucking hard is it to have a plan and training tailored to the schools emergency plan? As of now the kids all huddle in a predetermined corner of a class, and are told to stay there no matter what. So if you know where this is to happen it is something that you know that the assailant does not. This is not just some bullet flying free for all, we are assuming proper training and planning in conjunction with the preexisting school emergency plan. OP, sorry but your post is dumb and lacks thought. It is the same "what if" argument that liberals use to say that guns are to dangerous for us common folk. Train, and execute to the best of your ability your school's plan and chances are a situation like you describe would not be likely, possible but not likely. Don't "what if"; answer those questions to yourself before you post something like this on a public forum.
>>So how fucking hard is it to have a plan and training tailored to the schools emergency plan?<<Quote:
Originally Posted by Danimal
Not fucking hard at all. The fucking hard part is insuring the fucking plan WORKS as fucking planned. You know what they say about the best fucking laid plans - fucking right?
>>As of now the kids all huddle in a predetermined corner of a class, and are told to stay there no matter what. So if you know where this is to happen it is something that you know that the assailant does not. This is not just some bullet flying free for all, we are assuming proper training and planning in conjunction with the preexisting school emergency plan.<<
OK. So I guess you take issue with my premise that an armed response to protect schoolchildren is likely to result in innocent casualties. Do I understand your response correctly?
>>OP, sorry but your post is dumb and lacks thought.<<
Thank you for your opinion of the quality of my post. Actually, it probably entails considerably more thought than your inane rant.
>>It is the same "what if" argument that liberals use to say that guns are to dangerous for us common folk. Train, and execute to the best of your ability your school's plan and chances are a situation like you describe would not be likely, possible but not likely.<<
Clearly you, and some others, felt as though my post was designed to further the anti-gun cause. You could not be more wrong - though, at this point, I am not going to bother with educating you. My time is better spent elsewhere.
>>Don't "what if"; answer those questions to yourself before you post something like this on a public forum.<<
I am going to reluctantly agree with you - but not for the reasons you cite. A well-moderated and active public forum such as this one is precisely the place where this, and other similar issues, should be aired. We who support unfettered gun ownership should utilize such resources to expand our knowledge of the issues and prepare for the onslaught of the opposition. When insipid and vulgar responses take precedence over civil productive discourse, it is time to move to a more effective venue.
Happy Holidays!
Wow I wish that you were joking. Lets start from a very basic level here because reading between the lines is something that seems to escape your grasp.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHC
1) "Imagine the headlines" What are you attempting to bring to the forefront of your post here? Think about it very hard, you are creating an imaginary world where something happened that has not in fact transpired. This basically opens up your argument to the point of being pointless, but we will ignore that for the time being.
2) "I, for one, am in favor of arming teachers who volunteer to undergo extensive background checks along with initial and ongoing firearm training." You have stated a direction for your argument, and a very basic premise for your post as well as your position. Weather the reader takes either side is still up in the air because you have not yet supported your argument, and we are in imagination land.
3) "Imagine though what the headlines will say when a shooter appears and manages to only take out a few schoolkids - gets taken out by an armed teacher - BUT - the teacher accidentally shoots/kills a couple of schoolkids in the process." This neither supports your argument or provides a clear direction that was indicated in your initial sentence. But it is all hypothetical and you do not support it in any way. It is basically a made up thought that does not have any basis in reality as it has never happened anywhere. It does deserve to have thought devoted to the possibility, but it also deserves some basic grammar and sentence development as well.
4) "The likelihood of casualties caused by the good guys in a future shootout is - I suspect - quite high indeed. What then?" Really? where are you deriving this position? What evidence do you have that a teacher trained and educated with a plan is going to have a high chance of killing students by mistake? If you think that there is a high probability of this occurring, how could you possibly support a teacher taking up arms and causing this as opposed to another method of protecting children? So by reading through your post you have effectively supported this. That is dumb and your OP deserved to be called dumb because you could not take the time to write a decent defensible position with any reference to reality or factual information.
With reference to your reply, I do know what classes and teachers are supposed to do, but what corner of the class? What wall? How many students are present in that room at that time? Those are the questions that I was referring to that the assailant would not know, but the armed teacher should. If you would have thought about that for a few seconds before posting, that would have been to your benefit as well. Here is an idea: Before posting maybe you should write your thoughts down and then see if they make sense. The reason that your post failed is not because you are not voicing concern for a valid rational argument, it is because you did not support or even describe your argument in any way that others could support or understand. Basically you left your argument wide open for interpretation and now you are being a dick because you don't like the way that others are interpreting it. Just take a little time in composing your post and steer clear of hypothetical positions that lend themselves to anti-gun ideals. I would trust a properly trained and cognizant teacher to not accidently shoot children when they know where they are.
Point taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danimal
Merry Christmas!
FFT