Elementary school shooting

[jtpr312]

After reading this thread and reading the news.. I can tell you this, I don't want my son's teachers having guns, I don't want a guard outside his school etc.
My son is not a prisoner, I don't want him going to school in prison. And I find it interesting that small government right wingers are the majority of the ones who want teachers armed and or armed guards at school.

So you are saying that you don't want your child protected if an armed gunman comes to his school.

Tell you what..why don't you just hang a sign on him that says "You can shoot me first. My mom has told my teachers not to protect me. I am expendable." That way, the killers can get tired shooting the children whose parents don't care about their safety, and the parents who do want their kids to survive will have a chance to lock and load, and kill the guy before he gets to their kids.

My son has a better chance of dying in a car wreck should I not drive him in a car?

I will also tell you this, other than the military people here I am probably one of the only posters here who has seen bullet fragments pulled out of their family member's face. My parents did everything to protect us, we lived in a good neighborhood, went to a good school, my mom even had a gun even though my dad is not into guns and my brother was still shot randomly.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to protect my son. It is smart enough to know that even though these incidents are horrible they don't happen every day, and that my son is better off going to school without an armed guard. He has a very very very small chance of being killed at school in this way. Right now he loves school, he is not scared to go to school. But as soon as you put an armed guard there he and others will start asking questions, and then become scared.
The bigger problem today, is children losing their innocence, not the slight chance they might shot at school. Plus if you treat a school like a prison, and treat everyone who enters like a criminal, they are going to start thinking they are a criminal.
To add to that, my brother who was shot is a republican, my other brothers are also republican and none of them own gun except the one who lives on a ranch. The brother who was shot did talk a lot about owning a gun once, he lived with a lot of fear but he still doesn't own a gun.
I have no problem with people owning guns, but I don't want my son going to school afraid. I don't want to give up that kind of freedom.

Then the problem is with your son, not with having an Officer in the school. In my county, St Mary's Co. Md. and surrounding counties in Md, we have, and have had, Community Resource Officers, which are armed and uniformed Police Officers, in our schools for years and the kids are just fine with it.

 

[JoeB131]

You claimed the Columbine shooters took their guns from their parents, not that they got them from third buyers who shouldn't have sold them.

And that's the point. 40% of gun purchases happen without a background check.

Dumb ass the firearms were bought legally there was a back ground check, and you're trying to say 1 purchase and transfer is 40%. out of millions of gun sales in the U.S STOP BEING SO FUCKING STUPID.

You say that like he has a choice; he doesnt, genetics short changed the poor boy.

You're the one supporting the right for crazy people to get ahold of military grade weapons... and slaughter children with them.

Not only are you stupid but you're dangerous.

 

[koshergrl]

After reading this thread and reading the news.. I can tell you this, I don't want my son's teachers having guns, I don't want a guard outside his school etc.
My son is not a prisoner, I don't want him going to school in prison. And I find it interesting that small government right wingers are the majority of the ones who want teachers armed and or armed guards at school.

So you are saying that you don't want your child protected if an armed gunman comes to his school.

Tell you what..why don't you just hang a sign on him that says "You can shoot me first. My mom has told my teachers not to protect me. I am expendable." That way, the killers can get tired shooting the children whose parents don't care about their safety, and the parents who do want their kids to survive will have a chance to lock and load, and kill the guy before he gets to their kids.

My son has a better chance of dying in a car wreck should I not drive him in a car?

I will also tell you this, other than the military people here I am probably one of the only posters here who has seen bullet fragments pulled out of their family member's face. My parents did everything to protect us, we lived in a good neighborhood, went to a good school, my mom even had a gun even though my dad is not into guns and my brother was still shot randomly.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to protect my son. It is smart enough to know that even though these incidents are horrible they don't happen every day, and that my son is better off going to school without an armed guard. He has a very very very small chance of being killed at school in this way. Right now he loves school, he is not scared to go to school. But as soon as you put an armed guard there he and others will start asking questions, and then become scared.
The bigger problem today, is children losing their innocence, not the slight chance they might shot at school. Plus if you treat a school like a prison, and treat everyone who enters like a criminal, they are going to start thinking they are a criminal.
To add to that, my brother who was shot is a republican, my other brothers are also republican and none of them own gun except the one who lives on a ranch. The brother who was shot did talk a lot about owning a gun once, he lived with a lot of fear but he still doesn't own a gun.
I have no problem with people owning guns, but I don't want my son going to school afraid. I don't want to give up that kind of freedom.

Your son is afraid every time the school locks down and they herd him into a closet or against a wall to await death, and he's aware that there is nothing between him and death.

My kids have gotten to deal with that two times in the last year. I'm sorry, I wouldn't rather have my children dead than aware that there's the chance that they might be protected in the event an armed gunman comes down the hall. If they are going to be gunned down like rats in a cage, I prefer that they die with the HOPE that maybe a non-babykilling piece of shit MIGHT come through the door behind their assigned gunman to save them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you are saying that you don't want your child protected if an armed gunman comes to his school.

Tell you what..why don't you just hang a sign on him that says "You can shoot me first. My mom has told my teachers not to protect me. I am expendable." That way, the killers can get tired shooting the children whose parents don't care about their safety, and the parents who do want their kids to survive will have a chance to lock and load, and kill the guy before he gets to their kids.

This is the most silly way of thinking and in fact its downright stupid.....(No offense)

For one, as we've discussed a million times over there is no guarantee that arming teachers will protect nor prevent the killings of students. since the creation of this thread I've asked those of you since you have the belief that teachers ought to be armed I challenged you to solve the budgeting issue states have to fund such an initiative. None of you could challenge me on this issue therefore you failed. Actaully I did answer your post about budgeting for the police. It would cost approx 5 billion a year to put a Police Officer, not a guard, a sworn Law Enfocement Officer in EVERY school in the nation. We currently spend ten times that on the "War on Drugs". The war on drugs is over, the good guys lost, take some of that money and use it for something important, like providing proetction for our kids, you know, what the Police are sworn to do, Protect and Serve. We currently send untold billions overseas every year in "Financial aid", much of it to nations that hate our guts and want to see us destroyed, use some of that. We have untold billions a year spent on politician's vote buying pork projects, use some money that we currently use today to proteect mice in a swamp in SF, or making tunnels for turtles, or bridges to nowhere and airports that service no one and the 1001 other things our Dear Leaders have wasted money on to purchase their constituents votes and use it to protect our children.

I then switched my position to asking the question of who should be armed (college professors, kindergarten teachers, pre-school teachers, elementary teachers etc) nobody could articulate a cohesive response, as all I received was "your stupid" response....another fail. Simple answer. ANY law abiding citizen that can take and pass a gun saftey course. As we have seen over and over and over again, criminals and psychos have no respect for the "Gun Free" zone signs we put around school, lol, like the dumbasses that lead us ever thought they would.


Then I offered a scenario (since you gun phonbes failed to answer my questions) regarding a situatuion in which a professor whose back is turned in a lecture hall of +110 students and asked you guys how can a college professor be prepared for a school attacker with an assault rifle when a professor who maybe armed has their back turned? All I asked is in this situation how can a professor be an effective protector if their back is turned? Nobody on the gun-phobe side could even address this...another fail.....Stupid freaking scenerio so I'll give you the dumbass answer, that professor dies, some students may die, the teacher's in the other rooms who are armed can respond and maybe keep the gunman from shooting 10, 15, 20 or more while they wair for the police to arrive.

So I say this koshergrl you guy arguing these points do not have a leg to stand on. So far in this thread if I'm either breaking down your argument with real-life scenarios or you guys just simply resort to personal attacks and insults. In all honesty not one person has demonstrated an effective scenario or argument to show their position. All you guys are doing is saying: "If you don't want to arm teachers you might as well put a sign on your kid saying that 'I'm a target' blah blah blah."

Yet you cannot even display an effective argument as to how, despite police presence already at schools, arming a teacher would be any different than having an unarmed teacher especially in light of unpredictable scenarios. so far the nonsense I've seen you post in this thread, like this post for example, has down nothing to break down anyone's argument and has only shown us that morons and liberals, usually one and the same, love to bloviate on topics they're clueless about. Here's a little "Real life scenerio" for you simple, IF the Pincipal and Counselor at Newtwon where armed with a concealed weapon rather than their pencils they very well may have been able to stop Lanza from killing twenty+ people, they certainly would have slowed him down enough for other teachers to arm themselves and answer their doors with a pistol in thier hands rather than with their hands help up in supplication only to be shot like a helpless rabbit in a trap.

I await your failed response. This is the worst thing about this whole situation. Dumbasses like you in the political arena are making decisions regarding my rights on insane bs like you're spewing here. You have not given ONE valid reason why the law abiding citizen should have their rights restricted due to the criminal behavior of OTHERS, nor have you given us one shred of evidence that banning certain weapons or magazines would in any way make our schools or kids safer. You have done nothing but provide us with tons of evidece that you are totally unqualified to offer an intelligent opinion on this topic because you lack knowldge on the topic.

.

Yes, more good answers that this fascist bitch wont accept as resonable or valid because they dont agree with his opinons.

He is the epitome of why Jesus said to not throw pearls before swine.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dumb ass the firearms were bought legally there was a back ground check, and you're trying to say 1 purchase and transfer is 40%. out of millions of gun sales in the U.S STOP BEING SO FUCKING STUPID.

You say that like he has a choice; he doesnt, genetics short changed the poor boy.

You're the one supporting the right for crazy people to get ahold of military grade weapons... and slaughter children with them.

Not only are you stupid but you're dangerous.

Now you are back to telling the Big Lie.

I am now and have always been in favor of keeping legal access of guns from mentally disabled people and criminals, shit-for-brains.

 

[koshergrl]

Since that will never happen, can we please protect the children?

Oh wait. The answer is no. They don't rate protection.

 

[koshergrl]

After reading this thread and reading the news.. I can tell you this, I don't want my son's teachers having guns, I don't want a guard outside his school etc.
My son is not a prisoner, I don't want him going to school in prison. And I find it interesting that small government right wingers are the majority of the ones who want teachers armed and or armed guards at school.

So you are saying that you don't want your child protected if an armed gunman comes to his school.

Tell you what..why don't you just hang a sign on him that says "You can shoot me first. My mom has told my teachers not to protect me. I am expendable." That way, the killers can get tired shooting the children whose parents don't care about their safety, and the parents who do want their kids to survive will have a chance to lock and load, and kill the guy before he gets to their kids.

My son has a better chance of dying in a car wreck should I not drive him in a car?

I will also tell you this, other than the military people here I am probably one of the only posters here who has seen bullet fragments pulled out of their family member's face. My parents did everything to protect us, we lived in a good neighborhood, went to a good school, my mom even had a gun even though my dad is not into guns and my brother was still shot randomly.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to protect my son. It is smart enough to know that even though these incidents are horrible they don't happen every day, and that my son is better off going to school without an armed guard. He has a very very very small chance of being killed at school in this way. Right now he loves school, he is not scared to go to school. But as soon as you put an armed guard there he and others will start asking questions, and then become scared.
The bigger problem today, is children losing their innocence, not the slight chance they might shot at school. Plus if you treat a school like a prison, and treat everyone who enters like a criminal, they are going to start thinking they are a criminal.
To add to that, my brother who was shot is a republican, my other brothers are also republican and none of them own gun except the one who lives on a ranch. The brother who was shot did talk a lot about owning a gun once, he lived with a lot of fear but he still doesn't own a gun.
I have no problem with people owning guns, but I don't want my son going to school afraid. I don't want to give up that kind of freedom.

Do you put a seat belt on your child? Do you put him in a car seat, in order to protect him against the possibility that he will be in a wreck?

I'll bet you do, because it's the FUCKING LAW. So what you are saying is that unless you're ordered by the government, you will undertake no safety precautions to protect your child from a known threat.

BTW, your kid is going to be a lot more afraid, and dead, if he is huddling in a corner waiting for a gunman, knowing there is NO PROTECTION. He is going to die hysterical, terrified, and pissing himself if he listens to a gunman walk down the aisle, shooting each child on the way to your son. He is going to be terrified every time his school locks down because some retard shot off a pellet gun at the housing development across the street from the school (this happened a couple of months ago to my children) and every single time he is herded into the school yard because some teenaged freak calls his school with a fake bomb threat. All you're doing is guaranteeing that he be completely without hope in the event the worst does happen. Which I guess is the way you prefer your child to die.

Not me. I want my kids to think that someone is going to come take that fucker out before he gets to them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim this is my last response to you.....You are presenting yourself to be an uneducated loon, incapable of debating without the use of insults...So here is my final reductio ad absurdum in response to you.

Ah, so now your going to pull up your dress and run away crying? lolol

JimBowie1958 said

"Nothing in life is GURRANTEED, but arming teachers does have the best track record of being EFFECTIVE at stopping these kinds of masscres, dumbass."

My response:

Yes in life there are no guarantees (except death and taxes) but Jim, care to show any statistics in the United States (not other countries) where the above statement is true? Better yet, nevermind because there are no present data showing the success rate of armed teachers in the United States!

That is because we are discussing it as a plausible policy. You libtards are funny; so well eddjumakated and yet you cant think your way through the simplest problems. To say that a proposal is invalid because it hasnt been tried yet in one specific place is fucking retarded, even for a libtard.

Time.com states:

"One of the reasons why there are so few homicides at school is because these places are largely successful at keeping guns off the premises. Adult supervision and, in very high-risk schools, metal detectors have proven to be effective deterrents. While there are no specific data regarding having armed adults in schools, an analysis of U.S. mortality data found that people with guns in the home are at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide there. There is no reason to think schools would be any different: the more guns there are, the more opportunities there are to use them." See:School Shootings: Arming Teachers Isn't the Answer | TIME.com

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that each day, an average of 13 people between the ages of 10 and 24 are victims of homicide in the U.S., making homicide the third leading cause of death among youth and young adults; it is the leading cause of death among African American youth. Yet very little of this violence occurs on school grounds. Children spend more than a third of their waking hours on campus, but less than 2% of youth homicides occur at school."

See reference: School Shootings: Arming Teachers Isn't the Answer | TIME.com

Yeah the New Jerk Times doesnt like an answer contrary to the neoMarxist talking points; I am so shocked. The tw o biggest factors in shooting deaths of youths at home is suicide and crime related activity. And Kelso's study is as sensible as stating that since most people who die in the US have been to the hospital within the previous month means that hospitals are more deadly than not going to one. Corelation does not equate to causal realationship.

JimBowie1958 said

"Nobody 'failed' anything, other than your failure to think. Shit, in two seconds I thought of 1. letting parents VOLUNTEER to guard their local schools after being trained and vetted. 2. Allowing volunteer concealed carry permit holders that teach to voluntarily carry at school. 3. Allow local folks to donate whatever resources are needed. 4. The rest of the country could use cerebrums from cadavers to put into the skulls of liberal nincompoops like you so that maybe you could catch a brain cell or two."

My response

I believe you mentioned retired military "vets" right? Ok. I also stated some pages ago that at what recompense does someone who volunteers their life and time? When you volunteer your life, especially at the expense of others like a school or a famous celebrity, there is a piece of paper that we working adults sign called a "contract." No school whether big or small is willing to risk someone who volunteers to protect their kids in getting killed and having some sort of financial or social backlash, the risk is too great. Even ex-navy SEALS who work privately for some contractors I'm sure sign sort of contract which says "if you get killed in the line of duty we are not responsible" but hey, these guys are not volunteering, they are getting paid pretty well. So I would assume some decorated Marine who is badass is not going to risk their life for a bunch of kids with no form of compensation, and if there is some form of compensation, then it is not volunteering. As for point #2 in your post, um, they have classes for that when you get your concealed/exposed firearms permit anyway, so its a useless endeavor.

So we cannot have armed volunteers because it might risk lawsuits? lol, only a libtard thinks that makes sense.

If a state is going to pass laws putting armed teachers and volunteers in schools, passing a 'Good Samaritan' clause would have to be done as well, genius.

JimBowie1958 said

'Cohesive response' being a libtard way of saying 'you agree with me'.

lol, you are so full of shyte.

My Response

My point exactly. You cannot say anything sensible enough to debate my accusations so alas you prove me right by resorting to name calling.

It isnt name calling when it is true, moron. You are so fucking stupid you dont think I know how to spell the word 'sure'? You are a total fool, jack ass.

JimBowie1958

"Not ALL proffessors would ahve their backs turned, Nimrod. Aside from the fact that the perp would not know who was armed and who wasnt in the first place."

My Response

It doesn't matter. There is a term called "reconnaissance." Sure your average mentally disabled person may just berserk the entire area without regards to who is and is not armed. But anyone can blend in a college classroom. All you need is a backpack and a look as if you belong at the university. You can definitely case the area to see how many people are in the classroom, and the position of the professor. Even if the professors back isn't turned, you can in many cases in classrooms, position yourself behind everyone else to conceal your weapon. If I really wanted to do damage and maximize my potential to escape I'd definitely position myself where I can complete my objective and increase my potential for escape. As I said before, the only people that do not think along these lines are those with a mental deficiency or those who truly just care about maximizing as much damage without concern of their escape. A good example of this is the "Batman movie theater shooter."

The fucker can recon all he wants if there are twenty teachers that *could* be armed at the school and he doesnt know if he knows who they all are and if they are carrying that particular day then he CANNOT be assured of having a safe place to prep or shoot innocents.

Your arguments are total foolishness and it is more than just apparent that you want kids to die in gun free zones so that you and your ilk can continue to use these crises to advance your gun grabbing agenda.

Again,

 

[koshergrl]

I also don't get the ridiculous belief that children are more terrified if they think they will be protected, than they are if they know they are completely exposed and at risk with no possibility of salvation in the event of an attack.

What sort of twisted mind believes something that stupid? You honestly think it's better that your child be afraid and hopeless, than afraid with a little hope?

 

[Aristotle]

So you are saying that you don't want your child protected if an armed gunman comes to his school.

Tell you what..why don't you just hang a sign on him that says "You can shoot me first. My mom has told my teachers not to protect me. I am expendable." That way, the killers can get tired shooting the children whose parents don't care about their safety, and the parents who do want their kids to survive will have a chance to lock and load, and kill the guy before he gets to their kids.

This is the most silly way of thinking and in fact its downright stupid.....(No offense)

For one, as we've discussed a million times over there is no guarantee that arming teachers will protect nor prevent the killings of students. since the creation of this thread I've asked those of you since you have the belief that teachers ought to be armed I challenged you to solve the budgeting issue states have to fund such an initiative. None of you could challenge me on this issue therefore you failed.

I then switched my position to asking the question of who should be armed (college professors, kindergarten teachers, pre-school teachers, elementary teachers etc) nobody could articulate a cohesive response, as all I received was "your stupid" response....another fail.

Then I offered a scenario (since you gun phonbes failed to answer my questions) regarding a situatuion in which a professor whose back is turned in a lecture hall of +110 students and asked you guys how can a college professor be prepared for a school attacker with an assault rifle when a professor who maybe armed has their back turned? All I asked is in this situation how can a professor be an effective protector if their back is turned? Nobody on the gun-phobe side could even address this...another fail.....

So I say this koshergrl you guy arguing these points do not have a leg to stand on. So far in this thread if I'm either breaking down your argument with real-life scenarios or you guys just simply resort to personal attacks and insults. In all honesty not one person has demonstrated an effective scenario or argument to show their position. All you guys are doing is saying:

"If you don't want to arm teachers you might as well put a sign on your kid saying that 'I'm a target' blah blah blah."

Yet you cannot even display an effective argument as to how, despite police presence already at schools, arming a teacher would be any different than having an unarmed teacher especially in light of unpredictable scenarios.

I await your failed response.

Mass killers target groups that they know have no protection. This is why they choose people, often children and other students, in "gun-free" zones.

Despite this proven fact, you insist that children remain unprotected. It shows a callous disregard for the lives of children, and in fact an outright desire that they continue to be targeted and killed.

Nothing new there.

Look, you keep saying, that I'm saying, children should remain unprotected. First off, me saying teachers shouldn't have guns in classrooms does not equate to me saying children shouldn't be protected. The CDC has noted that the mortality rate at schools in the U.S is less than 2%

I've already listed references, can you prove arming teachers would work and how?

Wait, didn't a teacher bring a gun to school and was reprimanded?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I also don't get the ridiculous belief that children are more terrified if they think they will be protected, than they are if they know they are completely exposed and at risk with no possibility of salvation in the event of an attack.

What sort of twisted mind believes something that stupid? You honestly think it's better that your child be afraid and hopeless, than afraid with a little hope?

The sort of mind is called 'modern liberal' and yes, they want everyones childeren to be at the mercy of wackos and criminals.

 

[gr8feelings]

Teachers carrying consealed weapons would be an enormous detterant. Pay them for their extra duty same as the football coach is for coaching. If only 50% in a 50 teacher school carried a small 38 Special, 5 shot capacity, in seconds, any "shooter" would be face to face with 40 to 75 rounds of potent, lethal, potential gun fire. Case Closed....No more shooter threats...SO MORE GUNS IS THE ANSWER, NOT LESS.

 

[wavingrl]

Teachers carrying consealed weapons would be an enormous detterant. Pay them for their extra duty same as the football coach is for coaching. If only 50% in a 50 teacher school carried a small 38 Special, 5 shot capacity, in seconds, any "shooter" would be face to face with 40 to 75 rounds of potent, lethal, potential gun fire. Case Closed....No more shooter threats...SO MORE GUNS IS THE ANSWER, NOT LESS.

I have yet to think of where these guns would be stored until needed in a school environment.

The risk of weapons being used by students seems to overshadow the potential effectiveness of arming teachers.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Teachers carrying consealed weapons would be an enormous detterant. Pay them for their extra duty same as the football coach is for coaching. If only 50% in a 50 teacher school carried a small 38 Special, 5 shot capacity, in seconds, any "shooter" would be face to face with 40 to 75 rounds of potent, lethal, potential gun fire. Case Closed....No more shooter threats...SO MORE GUNS IS THE ANSWER, NOT LESS.

I have yet to think of where these guns would be stored until needed in a school environment.

The risk of weapons being used by students seems to overshadow the potential effectiveness of arming teachers.

Where do I store my concealed weapon while walking down the street? While shopping (in the places that don't stop you from carrying). Same place i would as a school teacher.....

 

[wavingrl]

Teachers carrying consealed weapons would be an enormous detterant. Pay them for their extra duty same as the football coach is for coaching. If only 50% in a 50 teacher school carried a small 38 Special, 5 shot capacity, in seconds, any "shooter" would be face to face with 40 to 75 rounds of potent, lethal, potential gun fire. Case Closed....No more shooter threats...SO MORE GUNS IS THE ANSWER, NOT LESS.

I have yet to think of where these guns would be stored until needed in a school environment.

The risk of weapons being used by students seems to overshadow the potential effectiveness of arming teachers.

Where do I store my concealed weapon while walking down the street? While shopping (in the places that don't stop you from carrying). Same place i would as a school teacher.....

ok.

I still imagine some problems with that.

ie--
-What type of weapons retention training has been provided to staff who are armed and what steps have been taken to reduce risks of a teacher or staff member being intentionally disarmed by a student or other person, or for having a firearm dislodged from a staff member's control when the teacher breaks up a fight in a cafeteria or hallway?

-How is the district prepared to prevent and manage situations where teachers and/or staff members lose, misplace, or have stolen their firearms while on campus?

-How will the school district manage an accidental shooting that could occur?

-What is the impact of this type of board policy and practice on the school district's insurance and potential legal liability posture? If self-insured, is the district able to handle potential lawsuit judgments against them for cases resulting from this practice? If insured by a private carrier, what is the insurance provider's position and concerns, or will they even insure the district for such a practice?


It is neither here nor there. I basically do not think it would be a good idea to arm teachers.

The middle school in Atlanta where a student shot another student had two metal detectors which weren't working at the time. I think a good first step would be for each and every school system to review current security measures and be certain that everything is functioning properly. Strangely enough after it was reported that the metal detectors weren't working and would be repaired nothing more has been reported about that incident. I would have thought that the school system would have been sanctioned in some way for not paying closer attention to the security needs.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Basic and simple, we do not arm any teacher. However we allow for a teacher who has a concealed carry permit to carry on the school grounds if they so desire.

No one will ever know if a teacher or if any teacher is carrying.......

 

[wavingrl]

I don't pretend to possess expertise of knowledge of guns and all related topics.

'Concealed Weapon', to me that means you are 'armed'.

If you are on school property with a weapon there is a chance that the weapon can be taken from you. All sorts of complex issues could then arise.

 

[jtpr312]

Teachers carrying consealed weapons would be an enormous detterant. Pay them for their extra duty same as the football coach is for coaching. If only 50% in a 50 teacher school carried a small 38 Special, 5 shot capacity, in seconds, any "shooter" would be face to face with 40 to 75 rounds of potent, lethal, potential gun fire. Case Closed....No more shooter threats...SO MORE GUNS IS THE ANSWER, NOT LESS.

I have yet to think of where these guns would be stored until needed in a school environment.

The risk of weapons being used by students seems to overshadow the potential effectiveness of arming teachers.

Stored? Nobody is saying anything about "storing" firearms at school, though they used to be stored there for the various rifle teams throughout the nation, though some rifle teams, like many in NYC, had the students take their rifles back adn forth on the subway. They are proposing that teachers CARRY a weapon at school if they choose to. On their person, not "stored".

 

[jtpr312]

I don't pretend to possess expertise of knowledge of guns and all related topics.

'Concealed Weapon', to me that means you are 'armed'.

If you are on school property with a weapon there is a chance that the weapon can be taken from you. All sorts of complex issues could then arise.

Not much on reading comprehension or vocabulary either are you? Try re-reading his post, slowly, paying special attention to; "we do not arm anyone" as opposed to the part that says "we allow for a teacher who has a concealed carry permit to carry on the school grounds if they so desire". As for the rest, yeah there's a chance someone can take your weapon, there's also a chance you can get struck by lightning does that make you hide under your bed every time there's a thunderstorm?

 

[wavingrl]

I don't pretend to possess expertise of knowledge of guns and all related topics.

'Concealed Weapon', to me that means you are 'armed'.

If you are on school property with a weapon there is a chance that the weapon can be taken from you. All sorts of complex issues could then arise.

Not much on reading comprehension or vocabulary either are you? Try re-reading his post, slowly, paying special attention to; "we do not arm anyone" as opposed to the part that says "we allow for a teacher who has a concealed carry permit to carry on the school grounds if they so desire". As for the rest, yeah there's a chance someone can take your weapon, there's also a chance you can get struck by lightning does that make you hide under your bed every time there's a thunderstorm?

whatever.
To simplify--you and others believe 'teachers with guns' would be beneficial. I have reservations.

Not worth further discussion. If this becomes a reality, highly unlikely, imo--then the matter will be resolved one way or the other.

~~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...use-bill-988-concealed-weapons_n_2623123.html

Somewhere in Mississippi--2 teachers per school allowed concealed weapons. I'm certain there are other systems that will also approve such a practice.

No news of any system in Georgia considering this and there is strong support for the 2nd Amendment here. Another reservation I have is the 'type of individual' who should carry a concealed weapon.