Another school shooting....time to arm the teachers?

[Wicked Jester]

Your reading comprehesion is a credit to your intelligence (lack of)

Your attempts to try and walk back what you advocate is comical.....You said what you said, no changing it.

Fact of the matter is, tighter gun laws will do absolutely nothing.....We are in the midst of watching what is no doubt this country's worst generation coming of age, who are the prime perpetrators of these crimes......We are seeing the effects of the X-BOX generation coming of age.......We are seeing the effects of baby mama drama, absentee fathers, and parents who use video games, the internet and TV as pacifiers, instead of actually parenting.....We are seeing the effects of the "every child gets a trophy, whether they deserve it or not" mantra that the liberal left spouts......We are seeing the effects of lousy teachers and school administrators who are too stupid to recognize children with broken minds, or are either to affraid or ignorant to report their concerns.....We are seeing the effects of fully eroding morals in this country, no doubt championed by left wing liberals....We are seeing effects of crap doctors who prefer to just medicate the shit out of broken minded children, instead of trying to get to the root of of the problems. It's just easier that way, and far more profitable.

It was not advocating Chicago sovereignty, nor building a wall around it. It merely pointed out the folly of thinking local gun restrictions are very restrictive in a practical sense.

If you need to read something else into it to make a fucking point, then you have no point, in opposition. So let it go.

When you decide to get snarky with your retorts, you should fully expect to have it thrown back in your face.

As the late, great Richard Pryor said, "some white boys don't play dat chit".

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Arming teachers. Moronic.

It would make far more sense, and probably be less expensive, to have armed security in our schools. I don't like that either, but it beats the hell out of arming teachers. I've worked with teachers and prospective teachers for years. Most of them possess neither the willingness nor the inclination for such a responsibility. They are teachers of children, and most have the temperament that accompanies the occupation. As solutions go it has zero practicality.

Armed security is the way to go.....But the real key is adressing the core problems that cause these tragedies.....Restricting gun ownership will do absolutely nothing at all.

Perhaps, but I have yet to see where 2nd Amendment interpretation or gun ownership issues have anything to do with whether or not we arm teachers. Why is it even being discussed? That this is a ridiculous solution has little or nothing to do with one's stance on stricter gun control. It merely requires that one be completely out of touch.

 

[Koios]

Your attempts to try and walk back what you advocate is comical.....You said what you said, no changing it.

Fact of the matter is, tighter gun laws will do absolutely nothing.....We are in the midst of watching what is no doubt this country's worst generation coming of age, who are the prime perpetrators of these crimes......We are seeing the effects of the X-BOX generation coming of age.......We are seeing the effects of baby mama drama, absentee fathers, and parents who use video games, the internet and TV as pacifiers, instead of actually parenting.....We are seeing the effects of the "every child gets a trophy, whether they deserve it or not" mantra that the liberal left spouts......We are seeing the effects of lousy teachers and school administrators who are too stupid to recognize children with broken minds, or are either to affraid or ignorant to report their concerns.....We are seeing the effects of fully eroding morals in this country, no doubt championed by left wing liberals....We are seeing effects of crap doctors who prefer to just medicate the shit out of broken minded children, instead of trying to get to the root of of the problems. It's just easier that way, and far more profitable.

It was not advocating Chicago sovereignty, nor building a wall around it. It merely pointed out the folly of thinking local gun restrictions are very restrictive in a practical sense.

If you need to read something else into it to make a fucking point, then you have no point, in opposition. So let it go.

When you decide to get snarky with your retorts, you should fully expect to have it thrown back in your face.

As the late, great Richard Pryor said, "some white boys don't play dat chit".

I don't suffer idiots, well. So if you're an idiot (you are) maybe kibitz with someone else?

Just a thought.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Show us your papers is. Left idea in Arizona?

We all have to show ID when pulled over - adding Mexican nationals to the rules applied to Americans is not exactly "stopping people at random."

Try again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was not advocating Chicago sovereignty, nor building a wall around it. It merely pointed out the folly of thinking local gun restrictions are very restrictive in a practical sense.

You thought you were being witty, but merely demonstrated your complete lack of wit by advocating what your party readily advocates.

It ain't satire if it's a legitimate program, Comrade.

If you need to read something else into it to make a fucking point, then you have no point, in opposition. So let it go.

The point, fucking or otherwise is that your suggestion for internal travel documents and KGB checkpoints is entirely consistent with the left, American and otherwise.

Y'all are the Pol Pot brain trust, after all....

 

[Foxfyre]

Arming teachers. Moronic.

It would make far more sense, and probably be less expensive, to have armed security in our schools. I don't like that either, but it beats the hell out of arming teachers. I've worked with teachers and prospective teachers for years. Most of them possess neither the willingness nor the inclination for such a responsibility. They are teachers of children, and most have the temperament that accompanies the occupation. As solutions go it has zero practicality.

Armed security is the way to go.....But the real key is adressing the core problems that cause these tragedies.....Restricting gun ownership will do absolutely nothing at all.

The thing is, the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre has turned up the heat on gun control again. But I think I read somewhere that no assault weapons were used in that incident? It was two hand guns the shooter took into the school and apparently he paused in the shooting to reload one or both of those hand guns. The hand guns were powerful and lethal--favored by law enforcement officers--and the shooter used hollow point bullets that inflict maximum damage. But the fact that the 20 children and 6 adults were all killed suggests multiple wounds in most or all.

The police did not have time to get there in time to stop it. An armed security guard or two could easily have been taken out by a proficient and determined murderer. But if a half dozen teachers in that school had been armed, does anybody believe that the shooter would have been able to commit all that carnage before somebody took him out?

Again nobody is suggesting that teachers be intentionally armed. But if the word got out that teachers are allowed to be armed, and there are an unknown number of weapons accessible to the teachers in the schools, there is a high likelihood that the mass murderers would go elsewhere to commit their mayhem. For sure keep the rule to be no tolerance for weapons for the students. That makes sense.

But it also makes sense to stop advertising schools as gun free zones and making them easy pickings for madmen intent on committing violence.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Arming teachers. Moronic.

It would make far more sense, and probably be less expensive, to have armed security in our schools. I don't like that either, but it beats the hell out of arming teachers. I've worked with teachers and prospective teachers for years. Most of them possess neither the willingness nor the inclination for such a responsibility. They are teachers of children, and most have the temperament that accompanies the occupation. As solutions go it has zero practicality.

Armed security is the way to go.....But the real key is adressing the core problems that cause these tragedies.....Restricting gun ownership will do absolutely nothing at all.

Perhaps, but I have yet to see where 2nd Amendment interpretation or gun ownership issues have anything to do with whether or not we arm teachers. Why is it even being discussed? That this is a ridiculous solution has little or nothing to do with one's stance on stricter gun control. It merely requires that one be completely out of touch.

As I said, armed security is the way to go. Preferably retired military or law enforcement....No way do I want teachers or administrators armed. Christ, so many of them don't have the ability to give their students a proper education, let alone be trusted with a gun.

 

[Foxfyre]

Armed security is the way to go.....But the real key is adressing the core problems that cause these tragedies.....Restricting gun ownership will do absolutely nothing at all.

Perhaps, but I have yet to see where 2nd Amendment interpretation or gun ownership issues have anything to do with whether or not we arm teachers. Why is it even being discussed? That this is a ridiculous solution has little or nothing to do with one's stance on stricter gun control. It merely requires that one be completely out of touch.

As I said, armed security is the way to go. Preferably retired military or law enforcement....No way do I want teachers or administrators armed. Christ, so many of them don't have the ability to give their students a proper education, let alone be trusted with a gun.

And yet we trust them with the hearts, minds, and personal safety of our children.

Edit: If we can't trust them with the proper and safe use of a firearm, why in the world would we trust them with our most precious loved ones? I am not opposed to armed security in the schools, but realistically we cannot afford enough armed security to ensure the safety of the children without pulling more critical funding from the schools necessary to educate them. So how about a compromise. Armed security PLUS allow the teachers ability to defend themselves and the kids?

 

[JustTheFacts]

no assault weapons

time out, can we clarify here?

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. the term is assault rifle. And it has a specif definition. And that definition is not one given by politicians.

The US Army defines an assault rifle as any weapon which

uses a cartridge larger than a pistol but smaller than a platoon sized weapon

has a selective fire rate

has an overall lenght of at least 18"

has an effective range of 300 yards

is FULLY automatic

Now you'll notice a few things no doubt.

Magazine size is irrelevant, as is look scary.

But the big one is, FULLY automatic. Meaning the civilian version of the AR-15 is quite simply NOT an assault rifle.

carry on

 

[JustTheFacts]

Perhaps, but I have yet to see where 2nd Amendment interpretation or gun ownership issues have anything to do with whether or not we arm teachers. Why is it even being discussed? That this is a ridiculous solution has little or nothing to do with one's stance on stricter gun control. It merely requires that one be completely out of touch.

As I said, armed security is the way to go. Preferably retired military or law enforcement....No way do I want teachers or administrators armed. Christ, so many of them don't have the ability to give their students a proper education, let alone be trusted with a gun.

And yet we trust them with the hearts, minds, and personal safety of our children.

Edit: If we can't trust them with the proper and safe use of a firearm, why in the world would we trust them with our most precious loved ones? I am not opposed to armed security in the schools, but realistically we cannot afford enough armed security to ensure the safety of the children without pulling more critical funding from the schools necessary to educate them. So how about a compromise. Armed security PLUS allow the teachers ability to defend themselves and the kids?

Have you ever been in battle? I have and let me tell you the fog of war is real. The last thing a cop or other armed security wants or needs is some "helpful" teacher opening fire while they are trying to determine and neutralize the real threat.

That doesn't even address the absolute fact that 90% of elementary teachers are females who would not carry if they could. That's just a fact. Sandy Hook would have happened exactly the way it did if every one of those ladies would have had the option to carry a weapon if they chose, b/c they wouldn't have chose to.

as for the expense, put a police officer in every school. heck we already do that here.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I said, armed security is the way to go. Preferably retired military or law enforcement....No way do I want teachers or administrators armed. Christ, so many of them don't have the ability to give their students a proper education, let alone be trusted with a gun.

And yet we trust them with the hearts, minds, and personal safety of our children.

Edit: If we can't trust them with the proper and safe use of a firearm, why in the world would we trust them with our most precious loved ones? I am not opposed to armed security in the schools, but realistically we cannot afford enough armed security to ensure the safety of the children without pulling more critical funding from the schools necessary to educate them. So how about a compromise. Armed security PLUS allow the teachers ability to defend themselves and the kids?

Have you ever been in battle? I have and let me tell you the fog of war is real. The last thing a cop or other armed security wants or needs is some "helpful" teacher opening fire while they are trying to determine and neutralize the real threat.

That doesn't even address the absolute fact that 90% of elementary teachers are females who would not carry if they could. That's just a fact. Sandy Hook would have happened exactly the way it did if every one of those ladies would have had the option to carry a weapon if they chose, b/c they wouldn't have chose to.

as for the expense, put a police officer in every school. heck we already do that here.

About 15 to 20 percent or more concealed carry permits are issued to women nationwide and that percentage is steadily increasing. And it is a rare school these days in which ALL the teachers are women. If no teacher chooses to carry or have access to a weapon that's fine. That should be his or her prerogative.

All I am suggesting is that, with proper training and certification, that we allow teachers to protect themselves and the children if they choose to do so. If the security guard handles the problem, that's great. But if the shooter gets past the guard. . . .

Or perhaps you think the shooter should be able to stand there shooting first graders one after the other, stopping to reload, resume shooting and the school staff be helpless to do anything about it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Have you ever been in battle? I have and let me tell you the fog of war is real. The last thing a cop or other armed security wants or needs is some "helpful" teacher opening fire while they are trying to determine and neutralize the real threat.

That doesn't even address the absolute fact that 90% of elementary teachers are females who would not carry if they could. That's just a fact. Sandy Hook would have happened exactly the way it did if every one of those ladies would have had the option to carry a weapon if they chose, b/c they wouldn't have chose to.

as for the expense, put a police officer in every school. heck we already do that here.

The facts say otherwise.

The old saw is; "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

{A lone, heroic college student grabs a gun out of his backpack to repel and kill home invaders, saving his friends from rape and murder! }

Student shoots home invader - saves 10 lives... | GunsSaveLives.net Message Board

The job of the police is to arrest suspects AFTER a crime is committed. Police will never protect anyone, even if some of them are not just criminals themselves. The ONLY defense the citizenry has from predators is their own arms and those of their neighbors.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Perhaps, but I have yet to see where 2nd Amendment interpretation or gun ownership issues have anything to do with whether or not we arm teachers. Why is it even being discussed? That this is a ridiculous solution has little or nothing to do with one's stance on stricter gun control. It merely requires that one be completely out of touch.

As I said, armed security is the way to go. Preferably retired military or law enforcement....No way do I want teachers or administrators armed. Christ, so many of them don't have the ability to give their students a proper education, let alone be trusted with a gun.

And yet we trust them with the hearts, minds, and personal safety of our children.

Edit: If we can't trust them with the proper and safe use of a firearm, why in the world would we trust them with our most precious loved ones? I am not opposed to armed security in the schools, but realistically we cannot afford enough armed security to ensure the safety of the children without pulling more critical funding from the schools necessary to educate them. So how about a compromise. Armed security PLUS allow the teachers ability to defend themselves and the kids?

One of the main problems with arming the teachers is the collateral damage aspect....When faced with a situation of an armed attacker, there is no guarantee that the teacher/teachers would remain cool under fire, and possibly start sending rounds down range all over the place, possibly killing or wounding innocents....That kind of discipline takes a huge amount of time to attain, along with repititous training. The cost and continual time to train them would be astronomical, particularly considering that they would have to continually attend refresher training.....Police and military are trained for it, and spend vasts amounts of time (and money) in refresher training.

Another problem is with the arriving officers on scene....In what would no doubt be a chaotic situation, the officers may not have all the info on who the shooter is, what he/she is wearing, what type of weapon, etc.....They may encounter that teacher holding a gun and shoot them dead, or if it's a plain clothed detective arriving on scene, the teacher just may shoot him/her dead.

I just don't see arming teachers or administrators.....It's got ugly written all over it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

One of the main problems with arming the teachers is the collateral damage aspect....When faced with a situation of an armed attacker, there is no guarantee that the teacher/teachers would remain cool under fire, and possibly start sending rounds down range all over the place, possibly killing or wounding innocents....That kind of discipline takes a huge amount of time to attain, along with repititous training. The cost and continual time to train them would be astronomical, particularly considering that they would have to continually attend refresher training.....Police and military are trained for it, and spend vasts amounts of time (and money) in refresher training.

Another problem is with the arriving officers on scene....In what would no doubt be a chaotic situation, the officers may not have all the info on who the shooter is, what he/she is wearing, what type of weapon, etc.....They may encounter that teacher holding a gun and shoot them dead, or if it's a plain clothed detective arriving on scene, the teacher just may shoot him/her dead.

I just don't see arming teachers or administrators.....It's got ugly written all over it.

{ At 8 a.m. on Oct. 1, Luke Woodham, 16, bookish and overweight, drove a white Chevy Corsica up to his high school. That was already a sign of trouble: the young man had poor vision and was driven to school every day by his mother. But three hours earlier that morning, Mary Ann Woodham, 50, had been stabbed to death with a butcher knife in the home she shared with her son.

Luke Woodham walked into Pearl High’s commons, an enclosure created by the school’s buildings. He then took a .30-.30 rifle from beneath his blue trench coat and opened fire, wounding seven schoolmates and killing two, Lydia Kaye Dew, 17, and Christina Menefee, 16, a girl he once dated.

Roy Balentine, the principal, dashed out of his office when he heard the first shots.

“I ran out to see if something possibly malfunctioned,” he said. “I was hoping that’s what it was, but I knew it sounded like gunshots.”

He saw Woodham, about 15 or 20 feet away, wearing a big, blue coat and holding a rifle. Balentine dangled both arms to show how Woodham held the rifle low out in front of him.

Fearing Woodham would come for him next, Balentine ran to his office to call the police. As he dialed, more shots rang out. More students fell.

Methodically Woodham began moving through the commons, shooting his victims as students and teachers hid or fled screaming. One of those hit was Lydia Dew, 17, killed with a bullet in the back.

“He was so cool and calm. I saw him shoot a kid, and he ejected the shell,” says assistant principal Joel Myrick. “He was walking along, thumbing fresh rounds into the side port of the rifle.”

Minutes later, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick chased Woodham down outside the school, held him at bay with a Colt .45-caliber automatic pistol he kept in his truck in the school parking lot. He forced Woodham to the ground and put his foot on the youth’s neck.

“I think he’s a coward,” Myrick said. “I had my weapon pointed at his face, and he didn’t want to die.”}

How an Assistant Principal With a Gun Stopped a School Shooter

It could have been Sandy Hook, but an armed citizen put a stop to it.

 

[Wicked Jester]

One of the main problems with arming the teachers is the collateral damage aspect....When faced with a situation of an armed attacker, there is no guarantee that the teacher/teachers would remain cool under fire, and possibly start sending rounds down range all over the place, possibly killing or wounding innocents....That kind of discipline takes a huge amount of time to attain, along with repititous training. The cost and continual time to train them would be astronomical, particularly considering that they would have to continually attend refresher training.....Police and military are trained for it, and spend vasts amounts of time (and money) in refresher training.

Another problem is with the arriving officers on scene....In what would no doubt be a chaotic situation, the officers may not have all the info on who the shooter is, what he/she is wearing, what type of weapon, etc.....They may encounter that teacher holding a gun and shoot them dead, or if it's a plain clothed detective arriving on scene, the teacher just may shoot him/her dead.

I just don't see arming teachers or administrators.....It's got ugly written all over it.

{ At 8 a.m. on Oct. 1, Luke Woodham, 16, bookish and overweight, drove a white Chevy Corsica up to his high school. That was already a sign of trouble: the young man had poor vision and was driven to school every day by his mother. But three hours earlier that morning, Mary Ann Woodham, 50, had been stabbed to death with a butcher knife in the home she shared with her son.

Luke Woodham walked into Pearl High’s commons, an enclosure created by the school’s buildings. He then took a .30-.30 rifle from beneath his blue trench coat and opened fire, wounding seven schoolmates and killing two, Lydia Kaye Dew, 17, and Christina Menefee, 16, a girl he once dated.

Roy Balentine, the principal, dashed out of his office when he heard the first shots.

“I ran out to see if something possibly malfunctioned,” he said. “I was hoping that’s what it was, but I knew it sounded like gunshots.”

He saw Woodham, about 15 or 20 feet away, wearing a big, blue coat and holding a rifle. Balentine dangled both arms to show how Woodham held the rifle low out in front of him.

Fearing Woodham would come for him next, Balentine ran to his office to call the police. As he dialed, more shots rang out. More students fell.

Methodically Woodham began moving through the commons, shooting his victims as students and teachers hid or fled screaming. One of those hit was Lydia Dew, 17, killed with a bullet in the back.

“He was so cool and calm. I saw him shoot a kid, and he ejected the shell,” says assistant principal Joel Myrick. “He was walking along, thumbing fresh rounds into the side port of the rifle.”

Minutes later, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick chased Woodham down outside the school, held him at bay with a Colt .45-caliber automatic pistol he kept in his truck in the school parking lot. He forced Woodham to the ground and put his foot on the youth’s neck.

“I think he’s a coward,” Myrick said. “I had my weapon pointed at his face, and he didn’t want to die.”}

How an Assistant Principal With a Gun Stopped a School Shooter

It could have been Sandy Hook, but an armed citizen put a stop to it.

Just as armed security could put a stop to it, possibly even before the carnage began.

I just don't see arming teachers. It's too risky a proposition.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I said, armed security is the way to go. Preferably retired military or law enforcement....No way do I want teachers or administrators armed. Christ, so many of them don't have the ability to give their students a proper education, let alone be trusted with a gun.

And yet we trust them with the hearts, minds, and personal safety of our children.

Edit: If we can't trust them with the proper and safe use of a firearm, why in the world would we trust them with our most precious loved ones? I am not opposed to armed security in the schools, but realistically we cannot afford enough armed security to ensure the safety of the children without pulling more critical funding from the schools necessary to educate them. So how about a compromise. Armed security PLUS allow the teachers ability to defend themselves and the kids?

One of the main problems with arming the teachers is the collateral damage aspect....When faced with a situation of an armed attacker, there is no guarantee that the teacher/teachers would remain cool under fire, and possibly start sending rounds down range all over the place, possibly killing or wounding innocents....That kind of discipline takes a huge amount of time to attain, along with repititous training. The cost and continual time to train them would be astronomical, particularly considering that they would have to continually attend refresher training.....Police and military are trained for it, and spend vasts amounts of time (and money) in refresher training.

Another problem is with the arriving officers on scene....In what would no doubt be a chaotic situation, the officers may not have all the info on who the shooter is, what he/she is wearing, what type of weapon, etc.....They may encounter that teacher holding a gun and shoot them dead, or if it's a plain clothed detective arriving on scene, the teacher just may shoot him/her dead.

I just don't see arming teachers or administrators.....It's got ugly written all over it.

At Sandy Hook, the gunman took out 20 six and seven-year-olds and six adults before turning the gun on himself. Do you honestly think the collateral damage would have been worse if a teacher or administrator had access to a weapon and had used it on that gunman? I will take my chances with a stray or erroneously fired bullet any day before I would think that a heavily armed and unchallenged madman would be less dangerous.

 

[Wicked Jester]

And yet we trust them with the hearts, minds, and personal safety of our children.

Edit: If we can't trust them with the proper and safe use of a firearm, why in the world would we trust them with our most precious loved ones? I am not opposed to armed security in the schools, but realistically we cannot afford enough armed security to ensure the safety of the children without pulling more critical funding from the schools necessary to educate them. So how about a compromise. Armed security PLUS allow the teachers ability to defend themselves and the kids?

One of the main problems with arming the teachers is the collateral damage aspect....When faced with a situation of an armed attacker, there is no guarantee that the teacher/teachers would remain cool under fire, and possibly start sending rounds down range all over the place, possibly killing or wounding innocents....That kind of discipline takes a huge amount of time to attain, along with repititous training. The cost and continual time to train them would be astronomical, particularly considering that they would have to continually attend refresher training.....Police and military are trained for it, and spend vasts amounts of time (and money) in refresher training.

Another problem is with the arriving officers on scene....In what would no doubt be a chaotic situation, the officers may not have all the info on who the shooter is, what he/she is wearing, what type of weapon, etc.....They may encounter that teacher holding a gun and shoot them dead, or if it's a plain clothed detective arriving on scene, the teacher just may shoot him/her dead.

I just don't see arming teachers or administrators.....It's got ugly written all over it.

At Sandy Hook, the gunman took out 20 six and seven-year-olds and six adults before turning the gun on himself. Do you honestly think the collateral damage would have been worse if a teacher or administrator had access to a weapon and had used it on that gunman? I will take my chances with a stray or erroneously fired bullet any day before I would think that a heavily armed and unchallenged madman would be less dangerous.

It would be far more prudent to have fully armed and trained security to deal with the situation, possibly before the gunman is even able to squeeze off a round.

Bottom line, he should have never gotten through the front door, which is exactly the path he took.......Which begs another question, why are people allowed to just walk freely into a school after classes have begun?.....Armed security and controlled access is far more desirable then arming teachers who may not have the capability to maintain their cool under pressure, and make the situation even worse.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just as armed security could put a stop to it, possibly even before the carnage began.

I just don't see arming teachers. It's too risky a proposition.

I favor armed security guards. But the fact is that armed school personnel can and has saved lives.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Just as armed security could put a stop to it, possibly even before the carnage began.

I just don't see arming teachers. It's too risky a proposition.

I favor armed security guards. But the fact is that armed school personnel can and has saved lives.

Not disagreeing with that.......I just don't see arming thousands of teachers across the nation.

Good debate though, on a very interesting and important subject.

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the main problems with arming the teachers is the collateral damage aspect....When faced with a situation of an armed attacker, there is no guarantee that the teacher/teachers would remain cool under fire, and possibly start sending rounds down range all over the place, possibly killing or wounding innocents....That kind of discipline takes a huge amount of time to attain, along with repititous training. The cost and continual time to train them would be astronomical, particularly considering that they would have to continually attend refresher training.....Police and military are trained for it, and spend vasts amounts of time (and money) in refresher training.

Another problem is with the arriving officers on scene....In what would no doubt be a chaotic situation, the officers may not have all the info on who the shooter is, what he/she is wearing, what type of weapon, etc.....They may encounter that teacher holding a gun and shoot them dead, or if it's a plain clothed detective arriving on scene, the teacher just may shoot him/her dead.

I just don't see arming teachers or administrators.....It's got ugly written all over it.

At Sandy Hook, the gunman took out 20 six and seven-year-olds and six adults before turning the gun on himself. Do you honestly think the collateral damage would have been worse if a teacher or administrator had access to a weapon and had used it on that gunman? I will take my chances with a stray or erroneously fired bullet any day before I would think that a heavily armed and unchallenged madman would be less dangerous.

It would be far more prudent to have fully armed and trained security to deal with the situation, possibly before the gunman is even able to squeeze off a round.

Bottom line, he should have never gotten through the front door, which is exactly the path he took.......Which begs another question, why are people allowed to just walk freely into a school after classes have begun?.....Armed security and controlled access is far more desirable then arming teachers who may not have the capability to maintain their cool under pressure, and make the situation even worse.

Maybe so, but the front door was LOCKED when he smashed the glass to get in. There is a limit to how secure the locks must be from the inside before the locks themselves are a danger to children who need to get OUT of the building for whatever reason.

So yes, a security guard who happened to be in that hallway at the precise time the gunman smashed the glass and entered might have been able to stop him on the spot. But he would have had to be in that hallways at that precise time. Had he been patrolling elsewhere in the school. . . .different story. Or if the gunman had come through a different door or through a window.

Again I am not opposed to there being security. But I also am realistic about taking money away from education to ensure that there is sufficient security against all possible harm. And how sensible and realistic and inexpensive it would be simply to allow the teachers to protect themselves and the children if they qualified and were willing to do so.

I know at least four teachers who are qualified and who would be willing to do so. Probably you do too.