Should We Arm Our Teachers?

[westwall]

But we have tested no guns for teachers...and gun free zones...and when a killer starts shooting up a school, a lot more people have been killed than have accidentally fired weapons in schools.....

We've also tested not hanging vials of acid from the ceilings of elementary schools that can be dropped on intruders and that hasn't stopped it either. That doesn't mean it isn't a stupid idea. So again, the idea is to introduce weapons into schools and just see what happens. Because we know from experience outside of schools that CC folks never make mistakes. So no need to even consider doing a true study because, hey, what could go wrong?

I do carry and have for years. I'm as pro-gun as you're going to find. But this is a stupid idea. It's like pouring gasoline on your lawn to stop the gophers from killing the grass.

No, the idea is to introduce weapons into schools in the hands of school officials. We well know what happens when guns are only in the hands of bad guys. Of that there is no doubt.

You think that phrase makes it any different? Amazing.

I'll tell you what. Let's drop for the time the obvious problem of the weapons just being there, because the idea that mistakes can be made is apparently not conceivable. Let's just set up a test which would more realistically portray the conditions you want these weapons employed, as opposedto a couple of hours shooting at a stationary target that isn't shooting back.

Take the school official to an outdoor range. Take the target and put it on a radio controlled car so it can move around. Put it in a field with 30 or 40 5-gallon paint buckets so it can move around the buckets. The buckets will need to be in various clusters. No eye or ear protection is allowed. Then, with the instructor screaming in the officials ear and whacking him/her with a yard stick at irregular intervals, the official pulls their weapon and shoots at the moving target. Every bucket hit is a dead child.

Instate that as the test and see how many pass.

See...you aren't analyzing the role of an armed school official.....I think a way to deploy them would be to secure whatever hallway they are in or near if an attack occurs. they hunker down and prevent the killer from moving into or through that hallway....from a position of cover.....and wait for the police to arrive.....they don't have to be John McClain and go chasing after the killers....and any armed teacher would just stay with their classes, and monitor the hallway that their class room is in.....again, denyiing the killer freedom of movement.....

I'm not talking about hunting them down, because that won't happen. People have to get movie scenarios out of their minds. A moving target is extremely hard to hit and pretty much impossible with a hand gun under pressure. The tendency is to panic. The only way to counteract that is with serious training. Not a couple of hours at the range, as has been suggested. Real training in how to deal with the situation or that teacher is just going to shoot at anything. And remember, on the other side of his door is another door and there are children behind it. Picture a typical school hallway.

So if you all really want to do this, then whoever carries needs to do more than show a CCW card. They need to be trained on how to react. They need to keep that training fresh with frequent re-qualifications. They need to practice regularly and be able to prove it. Otherwise, you're going to end up with a dead kid.

Maybe your tendency is to panic. I have actually been in a gunfight. Clearly you haven't. A moving target, coming towards you, is nothing more than a stationary target getting closer. It seems it is you who are referencing movies for your opinions. I agree training is necessary but the level you advocate is absurd and is only undertaken by the most elite soldiers and executive protectors out there.

Once again you ignore simple facts for hyperbole and hysterical panic responses that have been shown to not occur. In fact quite the opposite has been shown to occur. The brave teachers who were killed by that asshole in Newtown very calmly did everything they could to prevent his entry to the point of giving their lives in the attempt. Far, far from the "panic" you ascribe to.

Had any of those brave people had a weapon, they would have shot that son of a bitch to death before he made it into the school proper. You are simply flat wrong.

 

[PratchettFan]

We've also tested not hanging vials of acid from the ceilings of elementary schools that can be dropped on intruders and that hasn't stopped it either. That doesn't mean it isn't a stupid idea. So again, the idea is to introduce weapons into schools and just see what happens. Because we know from experience outside of schools that CC folks never make mistakes. So no need to even consider doing a true study because, hey, what could go wrong?

I do carry and have for years. I'm as pro-gun as you're going to find. But this is a stupid idea. It's like pouring gasoline on your lawn to stop the gophers from killing the grass.

No, the idea is to introduce weapons into schools in the hands of school officials. We well know what happens when guns are only in the hands of bad guys. Of that there is no doubt.

You think that phrase makes it any different? Amazing.

I'll tell you what. Let's drop for the time the obvious problem of the weapons just being there, because the idea that mistakes can be made is apparently not conceivable. Let's just set up a test which would more realistically portray the conditions you want these weapons employed, as opposedto a couple of hours shooting at a stationary target that isn't shooting back.

Take the school official to an outdoor range. Take the target and put it on a radio controlled car so it can move around. Put it in a field with 30 or 40 5-gallon paint buckets so it can move around the buckets. The buckets will need to be in various clusters. No eye or ear protection is allowed. Then, with the instructor screaming in the officials ear and whacking him/her with a yard stick at irregular intervals, the official pulls their weapon and shoots at the moving target. Every bucket hit is a dead child.

Instate that as the test and see how many pass.

No problem. I've done that with 7 different school teachers and one principle over the years. I started them with .22 revolvers and moved up to a Colt Python, first shooting .38 Spl. and then full power .357 magnum ammo. They were able to group into a playing card at 15 yards. Twice that size firing double action. All it takes is training.

You are no gun supporter, that much I can tell. A gun enthusiast figures out how to do things correctly. An anti gunner, such as yourself, only focuses on "problems" and then makes absurd statements that only "professionals" can ever possibly do things correctly.

Here are two facts for you. Police officers are killed by their own guns around 30% of the time. And civilians kill more than twice as many bad guys as do cops in any given year.

Chew on those facts for a while.

So you didn't do the actual test. You just got people to be able to hit a stationary target under optimal conditions with no consequences. If they get the bad guy to stand still for them while they line of their sights, they will be good to go. And if they miss... well there will be lots of little bodies around to stop the bullets for them. Police officers have accidental discharges not because they are incompetent but because they have far more contact with the weapon than a civilian and they are far more likely to engage in an actual conflict. You may not realize this but a real fight is a tad different than shooting paper villains. I am sure civilians kill more people, but that is because they are far more likely to just start blasting away. Anyone who actually thinks an untrained person is more competent than a trained person is an idiot. I'm all in favor of cars, but that doesn't mean I think you should be able to drive a semi just because you've seen Smokey and the Bandit.

Your test is stupid for a variety of reasons. There is plenty of validity for simple target practice in training. The idea is to hit the target after all. Funny how you call it an "accidental discharge" instead of what they truly are which is "negligent discharges". And accidental discharge occurs when the weapon fires completely on its own. No human interface.

Those are exceedingly rare. In my 61 years of handling firearms that has happened exactly once with a WWII German MP-44. We determined there was a burr on the bolt that captured the firing pin and when the bolt travelled forward with the new round it fired on going into battery. No harm was done because I was pointing it in a safe direction.

Negligent discharges occur when someone puts their finger on the trigger and it shouldn't have been there. Period. I went through the Gunsite classes back when Cooper was still running them and they had four rules of gun safety. Can you name them?

That being said, Gunsite taught basic tactics and loads of target practice at varying ranges. They concentrated on drawing, lining up the target, and proper trigger pull and they did that thousands of times to build up muscle memory so that it was automatic. To this day I can draw my 1911 and hit a target at 25 yards in under a second without fail. Five targets in under four seconds.

You are suggesting a level of training that no law enforcement agency advocates. In fact the only place where you can get training like that now, is at Thunder Ranch and a couple of the other specialized LE and civilian training facilities.

Then, by all means you should walk the halls of a school. Do you think someone who spent three hours total with a weapon in their life can match you? Because that is who we are talking about letting carry around children, not you. In fact, in my state you can have a CCW without ever firing once. My problem with this idea is that we are talking about untrained people with no requirement they be trained. So all of the ranges you named really don't matter if they never go to one.

You're clearly experienced. Someone here said he went though 16 hours of training and some of that was actually at a range with an instructor, so he thinks he's qualified. Do you think he's qualified?

 

[westwall]

No, the idea is to introduce weapons into schools in the hands of school officials. We well know what happens when guns are only in the hands of bad guys. Of that there is no doubt.

You think that phrase makes it any different? Amazing.

I'll tell you what. Let's drop for the time the obvious problem of the weapons just being there, because the idea that mistakes can be made is apparently not conceivable. Let's just set up a test which would more realistically portray the conditions you want these weapons employed, as opposedto a couple of hours shooting at a stationary target that isn't shooting back.

Take the school official to an outdoor range. Take the target and put it on a radio controlled car so it can move around. Put it in a field with 30 or 40 5-gallon paint buckets so it can move around the buckets. The buckets will need to be in various clusters. No eye or ear protection is allowed. Then, with the instructor screaming in the officials ear and whacking him/her with a yard stick at irregular intervals, the official pulls their weapon and shoots at the moving target. Every bucket hit is a dead child.

Instate that as the test and see how many pass.

No problem. I've done that with 7 different school teachers and one principle over the years. I started them with .22 revolvers and moved up to a Colt Python, first shooting .38 Spl. and then full power .357 magnum ammo. They were able to group into a playing card at 15 yards. Twice that size firing double action. All it takes is training.

You are no gun supporter, that much I can tell. A gun enthusiast figures out how to do things correctly. An anti gunner, such as yourself, only focuses on "problems" and then makes absurd statements that only "professionals" can ever possibly do things correctly.

Here are two facts for you. Police officers are killed by their own guns around 30% of the time. And civilians kill more than twice as many bad guys as do cops in any given year.

Chew on those facts for a while.

So you didn't do the actual test. You just got people to be able to hit a stationary target under optimal conditions with no consequences. If they get the bad guy to stand still for them while they line of their sights, they will be good to go. And if they miss... well there will be lots of little bodies around to stop the bullets for them. Police officers have accidental discharges not because they are incompetent but because they have far more contact with the weapon than a civilian and they are far more likely to engage in an actual conflict. You may not realize this but a real fight is a tad different than shooting paper villains. I am sure civilians kill more people, but that is because they are far more likely to just start blasting away. Anyone who actually thinks an untrained person is more competent than a trained person is an idiot. I'm all in favor of cars, but that doesn't mean I think you should be able to drive a semi just because you've seen Smokey and the Bandit.

Your test is stupid for a variety of reasons. There is plenty of validity for simple target practice in training. The idea is to hit the target after all. Funny how you call it an "accidental discharge" instead of what they truly are which is "negligent discharges". And accidental discharge occurs when the weapon fires completely on its own. No human interface.

Those are exceedingly rare. In my 61 years of handling firearms that has happened exactly once with a WWII German MP-44. We determined there was a burr on the bolt that captured the firing pin and when the bolt travelled forward with the new round it fired on going into battery. No harm was done because I was pointing it in a safe direction.

Negligent discharges occur when someone puts their finger on the trigger and it shouldn't have been there. Period. I went through the Gunsite classes back when Cooper was still running them and they had four rules of gun safety. Can you name them?

That being said, Gunsite taught basic tactics and loads of target practice at varying ranges. They concentrated on drawing, lining up the target, and proper trigger pull and they did that thousands of times to build up muscle memory so that it was automatic. To this day I can draw my 1911 and hit a target at 25 yards in under a second without fail. Five targets in under four seconds.

You are suggesting a level of training that no law enforcement agency advocates. In fact the only place where you can get training like that now, is at Thunder Ranch and a couple of the other specialized LE and civilian training facilities.

Then, by all means you should walk the halls of a school. Do you think someone who spent three hours total with a weapon in their life can match you? Because that is who we are talking about letting carry around children, not you. In fact, in my state you can have a CCW without ever firing once. My problem with this idea is that we are talking about untrained people with no requirement they be trained. So all of the ranges you named really don't matter if they never go to one.

You're clearly experienced. Someone here said he went though 16 hours of training and some of that was actually at a range with an instructor, so he thinks he's qualified. Do you think he's qualified?

I do. I have an eight year old daughter who is enrolled in the third grade. It is a very serious concern of mine. If the instruction is good, three hours is enough to train anyone who is physically and mentally intelligent to handle a weapon safely. They won't be the best shots in the world, but they will be able to do the job in a situation against a person who is likewise not well trained.

Not one of the school shooters has been trained. Not one. They rely on the fact that their targets are HELPLESS. That is an enormous edge. And, universally, when the police have shown up the bad guys killed themselves rather than face a trained person.

Tactically, out in a field. No, a person with three hours of instruction is at a significant disadvantage. However, within the tight confines of a school hallway.....or a doorway.... Now skill levels drop in importance. Anytime a target can be channeled into a narrow avenue such as a doorway or a hallway, the advantage in skill levels is lost. To a skilled shooter distance is a huge advantage. Inside a school you lose that primary advantage.

That's a simple fact of life. Then situational awareness, and local knowledge of the school, and where to hide become super important. A good friend of mine teaches a tactical movement class for the FBI and other LE organizations and he uses me as a bad guy from time to time and while the operators I am up against are better trained than I, and in a hell of a lot better shape, and younger by thirty years on average, I still manage to prevail too many times over a weekend, because of my knowledge of the terrain.

School personnel enjoy that same advantage. Plus they can further enhance their advantages with some relatively simple changes in the school rooms and gathering areas. You ignore all the good, and concentrate on only the bad for your opinions. You need more experience.

 

[2aguy]

You think that phrase makes it any different? Amazing.

I'll tell you what. Let's drop for the time the obvious problem of the weapons just being there, because the idea that mistakes can be made is apparently not conceivable. Let's just set up a test which would more realistically portray the conditions you want these weapons employed, as opposedto a couple of hours shooting at a stationary target that isn't shooting back.

Take the school official to an outdoor range. Take the target and put it on a radio controlled car so it can move around. Put it in a field with 30 or 40 5-gallon paint buckets so it can move around the buckets. The buckets will need to be in various clusters. No eye or ear protection is allowed. Then, with the instructor screaming in the officials ear and whacking him/her with a yard stick at irregular intervals, the official pulls their weapon and shoots at the moving target. Every bucket hit is a dead child.

Instate that as the test and see how many pass.

No problem. I've done that with 7 different school teachers and one principle over the years. I started them with .22 revolvers and moved up to a Colt Python, first shooting .38 Spl. and then full power .357 magnum ammo. They were able to group into a playing card at 15 yards. Twice that size firing double action. All it takes is training.

You are no gun supporter, that much I can tell. A gun enthusiast figures out how to do things correctly. An anti gunner, such as yourself, only focuses on "problems" and then makes absurd statements that only "professionals" can ever possibly do things correctly.

Here are two facts for you. Police officers are killed by their own guns around 30% of the time. And civilians kill more than twice as many bad guys as do cops in any given year.

Chew on those facts for a while.

So you didn't do the actual test. You just got people to be able to hit a stationary target under optimal conditions with no consequences. If they get the bad guy to stand still for them while they line of their sights, they will be good to go. And if they miss... well there will be lots of little bodies around to stop the bullets for them. Police officers have accidental discharges not because they are incompetent but because they have far more contact with the weapon than a civilian and they are far more likely to engage in an actual conflict. You may not realize this but a real fight is a tad different than shooting paper villains. I am sure civilians kill more people, but that is because they are far more likely to just start blasting away. Anyone who actually thinks an untrained person is more competent than a trained person is an idiot. I'm all in favor of cars, but that doesn't mean I think you should be able to drive a semi just because you've seen Smokey and the Bandit.

Your test is stupid for a variety of reasons. There is plenty of validity for simple target practice in training. The idea is to hit the target after all. Funny how you call it an "accidental discharge" instead of what they truly are which is "negligent discharges". And accidental discharge occurs when the weapon fires completely on its own. No human interface.

Those are exceedingly rare. In my 61 years of handling firearms that has happened exactly once with a WWII German MP-44. We determined there was a burr on the bolt that captured the firing pin and when the bolt travelled forward with the new round it fired on going into battery. No harm was done because I was pointing it in a safe direction.

Negligent discharges occur when someone puts their finger on the trigger and it shouldn't have been there. Period. I went through the Gunsite classes back when Cooper was still running them and they had four rules of gun safety. Can you name them?

That being said, Gunsite taught basic tactics and loads of target practice at varying ranges. They concentrated on drawing, lining up the target, and proper trigger pull and they did that thousands of times to build up muscle memory so that it was automatic. To this day I can draw my 1911 and hit a target at 25 yards in under a second without fail. Five targets in under four seconds.

You are suggesting a level of training that no law enforcement agency advocates. In fact the only place where you can get training like that now, is at Thunder Ranch and a couple of the other specialized LE and civilian training facilities.

Then, by all means you should walk the halls of a school. Do you think someone who spent three hours total with a weapon in their life can match you? Because that is who we are talking about letting carry around children, not you. In fact, in my state you can have a CCW without ever firing once. My problem with this idea is that we are talking about untrained people with no requirement they be trained. So all of the ranges you named really don't matter if they never go to one.

You're clearly experienced. Someone here said he went though 16 hours of training and some of that was actually at a range with an instructor, so he thinks he's qualified. Do you think he's qualified?

I do. I have an eight year old daughter who is enrolled in the third grade. It is a very serious concern of mine. If the instruction is good, three hours is enough to train anyone who is physically and mentally intelligent to handle a weapon safely. They won't be the best shots in the world, but they will be able to do the job in a situation against a person who is likewise not well trained.

Not one of the school shooters has been trained. Not one. They rely on the fact that their targets are HELPLESS. That is an enormous edge. And, universally, when the police have shown up the bad guys killed themselves rather than face a trained person.

Tactically, out in a field. No, a person with three hours of instruction is at a significant disadvantage. However, within the tight confines of a school hallway.....or a doorway.... Now skill levels drop in importance. Anytime a target can be channeled into a narrow avenue such as a doorway or a hallway, the advantage in skill levels is lost. To a skilled shooter distance is a huge advantage. Inside a school you lose that primary advantage.

That's a simple fact of life. Then situational awareness, and local knowledge of the school, and where to hide become super important. A good friend of mine teaches a tactical movement class for the FBI and other LE organizations and he uses me as a bad guy from time to time and while the operators I am up against are better trained than I, and in a hell of a lot better shape, and younger by thirty years on average, I still manage to prevail too many times over a weekend, because of my knowledge of the terrain.

School personnel enjoy that same advantage. Plus they can further enhance their advantages with some relatively simple changes in the school rooms and gathering areas. You ignore all the good, and concentrate on only the bad for your opinions. You need more experience.

Excellent posts West Wall...

 

[PratchettFan]

You think that phrase makes it any different? Amazing.

I'll tell you what. Let's drop for the time the obvious problem of the weapons just being there, because the idea that mistakes can be made is apparently not conceivable. Let's just set up a test which would more realistically portray the conditions you want these weapons employed, as opposedto a couple of hours shooting at a stationary target that isn't shooting back.

Take the school official to an outdoor range. Take the target and put it on a radio controlled car so it can move around. Put it in a field with 30 or 40 5-gallon paint buckets so it can move around the buckets. The buckets will need to be in various clusters. No eye or ear protection is allowed. Then, with the instructor screaming in the officials ear and whacking him/her with a yard stick at irregular intervals, the official pulls their weapon and shoots at the moving target. Every bucket hit is a dead child.

Instate that as the test and see how many pass.

No problem. I've done that with 7 different school teachers and one principle over the years. I started them with .22 revolvers and moved up to a Colt Python, first shooting .38 Spl. and then full power .357 magnum ammo. They were able to group into a playing card at 15 yards. Twice that size firing double action. All it takes is training.

You are no gun supporter, that much I can tell. A gun enthusiast figures out how to do things correctly. An anti gunner, such as yourself, only focuses on "problems" and then makes absurd statements that only "professionals" can ever possibly do things correctly.

Here are two facts for you. Police officers are killed by their own guns around 30% of the time. And civilians kill more than twice as many bad guys as do cops in any given year.

Chew on those facts for a while.

So you didn't do the actual test. You just got people to be able to hit a stationary target under optimal conditions with no consequences. If they get the bad guy to stand still for them while they line of their sights, they will be good to go. And if they miss... well there will be lots of little bodies around to stop the bullets for them. Police officers have accidental discharges not because they are incompetent but because they have far more contact with the weapon than a civilian and they are far more likely to engage in an actual conflict. You may not realize this but a real fight is a tad different than shooting paper villains. I am sure civilians kill more people, but that is because they are far more likely to just start blasting away. Anyone who actually thinks an untrained person is more competent than a trained person is an idiot. I'm all in favor of cars, but that doesn't mean I think you should be able to drive a semi just because you've seen Smokey and the Bandit.

Your test is stupid for a variety of reasons. There is plenty of validity for simple target practice in training. The idea is to hit the target after all. Funny how you call it an "accidental discharge" instead of what they truly are which is "negligent discharges". And accidental discharge occurs when the weapon fires completely on its own. No human interface.

Those are exceedingly rare. In my 61 years of handling firearms that has happened exactly once with a WWII German MP-44. We determined there was a burr on the bolt that captured the firing pin and when the bolt travelled forward with the new round it fired on going into battery. No harm was done because I was pointing it in a safe direction.

Negligent discharges occur when someone puts their finger on the trigger and it shouldn't have been there. Period. I went through the Gunsite classes back when Cooper was still running them and they had four rules of gun safety. Can you name them?

That being said, Gunsite taught basic tactics and loads of target practice at varying ranges. They concentrated on drawing, lining up the target, and proper trigger pull and they did that thousands of times to build up muscle memory so that it was automatic. To this day I can draw my 1911 and hit a target at 25 yards in under a second without fail. Five targets in under four seconds.

You are suggesting a level of training that no law enforcement agency advocates. In fact the only place where you can get training like that now, is at Thunder Ranch and a couple of the other specialized LE and civilian training facilities.

Then, by all means you should walk the halls of a school. Do you think someone who spent three hours total with a weapon in their life can match you? Because that is who we are talking about letting carry around children, not you. In fact, in my state you can have a CCW without ever firing once. My problem with this idea is that we are talking about untrained people with no requirement they be trained. So all of the ranges you named really don't matter if they never go to one.

You're clearly experienced. Someone here said he went though 16 hours of training and some of that was actually at a range with an instructor, so he thinks he's qualified. Do you think he's qualified?

I do. I have an eight year old daughter who is enrolled in the third grade. It is a very serious concern of mine. If the instruction is good, three hours is enough to train anyone who is physically and mentally intelligent to handle a weapon safely. They won't be the best shots in the world, but they will be able to do the job in a situation against a person who is likewise not well trained.

Not one of the school shooters has been trained. Not one. They rely on the fact that their targets are HELPLESS. That is an enormous edge. And, universally, when the police have shown up the bad guys killed themselves rather than face a trained person.

Tactically, out in a field. No, a person with three hours of instruction is at a significant disadvantage. However, within the tight confines of a school hallway.....or a doorway.... Now skill levels drop in importance. Anytime a target can be channeled into a narrow avenue such as a doorway or a hallway, the advantage in skill levels is lost. To a skilled shooter distance is a huge advantage. Inside a school you lose that primary advantage.

That's a simple fact of life. Then situational awareness, and local knowledge of the school, and where to hide become super important. A good friend of mine teaches a tactical movement class for the FBI and other LE organizations and he uses me as a bad guy from time to time and while the operators I am up against are better trained than I, and in a hell of a lot better shape, and younger by thirty years on average, I still manage to prevail too many times over a weekend, because of my knowledge of the terrain.

School personnel enjoy that same advantage. Plus they can further enhance their advantages with some relatively simple changes in the school rooms and gathering areas. You ignore all the good, and concentrate on only the bad for your opinions. You need more experience.

So all of the training talk really doesn't matter. My concentration is on the law of numbers, which you ignore. A driver may not have an accident in 10 years. But in a pool of 100 drivers you can accurately predict that there will be accidents. This is no different. There will be accidents. And when they happen, I seriously doubt the people who want to see this will take responsibility for it. This is a stupid idea.

 

[Iceweasel]

So all of the training talk really doesn't matter. My concentration is on the law of numbers, which you ignore. A driver may not have an accident in 10 years. But in a pool of 100 drivers you can accurately predict that there will be accidents. This is no different. There will be accidents. And when they happen, I seriously doubt the people who want to see this will take responsibility for it. This is a stupid idea.

The law of numbers? Where is that law, I want to see it. The problem with ideologues like you is that you compare everything to perfection to try to make your case. The reality is that there are no absolute perfect way to protect yourself or anyone else. All we can do in life is increase or decrease the odds.

Having a firearm increases the opportunity to save kids, that can't be disputed with any "law of numbers". Your shrill cry of NDs is silly because they wouldn't be handling any weapon unless there was a call to do it. And we know what the results of doing nothing is.

 

[westwall]

No problem. I've done that with 7 different school teachers and one principle over the years. I started them with .22 revolvers and moved up to a Colt Python, first shooting .38 Spl. and then full power .357 magnum ammo. They were able to group into a playing card at 15 yards. Twice that size firing double action. All it takes is training.

You are no gun supporter, that much I can tell. A gun enthusiast figures out how to do things correctly. An anti gunner, such as yourself, only focuses on "problems" and then makes absurd statements that only "professionals" can ever possibly do things correctly.

Here are two facts for you. Police officers are killed by their own guns around 30% of the time. And civilians kill more than twice as many bad guys as do cops in any given year.

Chew on those facts for a while.

So you didn't do the actual test. You just got people to be able to hit a stationary target under optimal conditions with no consequences. If they get the bad guy to stand still for them while they line of their sights, they will be good to go. And if they miss... well there will be lots of little bodies around to stop the bullets for them. Police officers have accidental discharges not because they are incompetent but because they have far more contact with the weapon than a civilian and they are far more likely to engage in an actual conflict. You may not realize this but a real fight is a tad different than shooting paper villains. I am sure civilians kill more people, but that is because they are far more likely to just start blasting away. Anyone who actually thinks an untrained person is more competent than a trained person is an idiot. I'm all in favor of cars, but that doesn't mean I think you should be able to drive a semi just because you've seen Smokey and the Bandit.

Your test is stupid for a variety of reasons. There is plenty of validity for simple target practice in training. The idea is to hit the target after all. Funny how you call it an "accidental discharge" instead of what they truly are which is "negligent discharges". And accidental discharge occurs when the weapon fires completely on its own. No human interface.

Those are exceedingly rare. In my 61 years of handling firearms that has happened exactly once with a WWII German MP-44. We determined there was a burr on the bolt that captured the firing pin and when the bolt travelled forward with the new round it fired on going into battery. No harm was done because I was pointing it in a safe direction.

Negligent discharges occur when someone puts their finger on the trigger and it shouldn't have been there. Period. I went through the Gunsite classes back when Cooper was still running them and they had four rules of gun safety. Can you name them?

That being said, Gunsite taught basic tactics and loads of target practice at varying ranges. They concentrated on drawing, lining up the target, and proper trigger pull and they did that thousands of times to build up muscle memory so that it was automatic. To this day I can draw my 1911 and hit a target at 25 yards in under a second without fail. Five targets in under four seconds.

You are suggesting a level of training that no law enforcement agency advocates. In fact the only place where you can get training like that now, is at Thunder Ranch and a couple of the other specialized LE and civilian training facilities.

Then, by all means you should walk the halls of a school. Do you think someone who spent three hours total with a weapon in their life can match you? Because that is who we are talking about letting carry around children, not you. In fact, in my state you can have a CCW without ever firing once. My problem with this idea is that we are talking about untrained people with no requirement they be trained. So all of the ranges you named really don't matter if they never go to one.

You're clearly experienced. Someone here said he went though 16 hours of training and some of that was actually at a range with an instructor, so he thinks he's qualified. Do you think he's qualified?

I do. I have an eight year old daughter who is enrolled in the third grade. It is a very serious concern of mine. If the instruction is good, three hours is enough to train anyone who is physically and mentally intelligent to handle a weapon safely. They won't be the best shots in the world, but they will be able to do the job in a situation against a person who is likewise not well trained.

Not one of the school shooters has been trained. Not one. They rely on the fact that their targets are HELPLESS. That is an enormous edge. And, universally, when the police have shown up the bad guys killed themselves rather than face a trained person.

Tactically, out in a field. No, a person with three hours of instruction is at a significant disadvantage. However, within the tight confines of a school hallway.....or a doorway.... Now skill levels drop in importance. Anytime a target can be channeled into a narrow avenue such as a doorway or a hallway, the advantage in skill levels is lost. To a skilled shooter distance is a huge advantage. Inside a school you lose that primary advantage.

That's a simple fact of life. Then situational awareness, and local knowledge of the school, and where to hide become super important. A good friend of mine teaches a tactical movement class for the FBI and other LE organizations and he uses me as a bad guy from time to time and while the operators I am up against are better trained than I, and in a hell of a lot better shape, and younger by thirty years on average, I still manage to prevail too many times over a weekend, because of my knowledge of the terrain.

School personnel enjoy that same advantage. Plus they can further enhance their advantages with some relatively simple changes in the school rooms and gathering areas. You ignore all the good, and concentrate on only the bad for your opinions. You need more experience.

So all of the training talk really doesn't matter. My concentration is on the law of numbers, which you ignore. A driver may not have an accident in 10 years. But in a pool of 100 drivers you can accurately predict that there will be accidents. This is no different. There will be accidents. And when they happen, I seriously doubt the people who want to see this will take responsibility for it. This is a stupid idea.

No, there needs to be a basic level of training. That can be done, in the right circumstances, and with good instruction in three hours. I advocate that for ANYONE who buys a weapon for the first time. You need to know how YOUR weapon works. It's as simple as that.

Your assertion about drivers is actually NOT correct. I can look at a group of 100 drivers and I can tell you who is most likely to be involved in an accident based on their behavior when driving. Do they drink and drive? Text? Speed? Not maintain their vehicles? Etc. There are behaviors which indicate who is most likely to have an accident.

Conversely there are skill sets that counter the odds of an accident. When I was younger my friends and I attended a racing school because we wanted to do some SCCA events. None of us have ever been in an accident even though we ALL speed. We know when it's safe to speed, we know when it's not. We know how to recover a slide etc.

The racing school is what I consider the equivalent of a Gunsite course of instruction. It is intensive and trains you to a very high level. Then, just like any skill, you need to practice to maintain that level of skill.

 

[Ellipsis]

I find that hard to believe. You literally only fired your weapon once a year?

I'm in the Guard now and yes we only fire once per year thanks to budget cuts. We used to spend at least half of Annual Training in verious ranges with everything from the pistol to the heavy machineguns and convoy ops. My unit also used to train with the tomahawk (the axe, not the missle), most were Combatives certified at least lvl1, most were Combat Lifesaver certified, and everyone had to pass a practical and knowledge test of detainee opps.

Now we only touch our weapons every quarter for cleaning, and only fire for annual qualification. A lot of police departments are in the same boat. All the other training went by the wayside.

Many to most of us personaly own "assult weapons" as close to our issued military weapons as possible so that we can train on our own time & dime. If "assult-weapons" are banned that directly harms the police and military because it directly eliminates the primary source of practice.

It takes a Battalion Commander's signature for my unit to take our guns to the range, but I can take my own gun to the range any time I want.

 

[PratchettFan]

So you didn't do the actual test. You just got people to be able to hit a stationary target under optimal conditions with no consequences. If they get the bad guy to stand still for them while they line of their sights, they will be good to go. And if they miss... well there will be lots of little bodies around to stop the bullets for them. Police officers have accidental discharges not because they are incompetent but because they have far more contact with the weapon than a civilian and they are far more likely to engage in an actual conflict. You may not realize this but a real fight is a tad different than shooting paper villains. I am sure civilians kill more people, but that is because they are far more likely to just start blasting away. Anyone who actually thinks an untrained person is more competent than a trained person is an idiot. I'm all in favor of cars, but that doesn't mean I think you should be able to drive a semi just because you've seen Smokey and the Bandit.

Your test is stupid for a variety of reasons. There is plenty of validity for simple target practice in training. The idea is to hit the target after all. Funny how you call it an "accidental discharge" instead of what they truly are which is "negligent discharges". And accidental discharge occurs when the weapon fires completely on its own. No human interface.

Those are exceedingly rare. In my 61 years of handling firearms that has happened exactly once with a WWII German MP-44. We determined there was a burr on the bolt that captured the firing pin and when the bolt travelled forward with the new round it fired on going into battery. No harm was done because I was pointing it in a safe direction.

Negligent discharges occur when someone puts their finger on the trigger and it shouldn't have been there. Period. I went through the Gunsite classes back when Cooper was still running them and they had four rules of gun safety. Can you name them?

That being said, Gunsite taught basic tactics and loads of target practice at varying ranges. They concentrated on drawing, lining up the target, and proper trigger pull and they did that thousands of times to build up muscle memory so that it was automatic. To this day I can draw my 1911 and hit a target at 25 yards in under a second without fail. Five targets in under four seconds.

You are suggesting a level of training that no law enforcement agency advocates. In fact the only place where you can get training like that now, is at Thunder Ranch and a couple of the other specialized LE and civilian training facilities.

Then, by all means you should walk the halls of a school. Do you think someone who spent three hours total with a weapon in their life can match you? Because that is who we are talking about letting carry around children, not you. In fact, in my state you can have a CCW without ever firing once. My problem with this idea is that we are talking about untrained people with no requirement they be trained. So all of the ranges you named really don't matter if they never go to one.

You're clearly experienced. Someone here said he went though 16 hours of training and some of that was actually at a range with an instructor, so he thinks he's qualified. Do you think he's qualified?

I do. I have an eight year old daughter who is enrolled in the third grade. It is a very serious concern of mine. If the instruction is good, three hours is enough to train anyone who is physically and mentally intelligent to handle a weapon safely. They won't be the best shots in the world, but they will be able to do the job in a situation against a person who is likewise not well trained.

Not one of the school shooters has been trained. Not one. They rely on the fact that their targets are HELPLESS. That is an enormous edge. And, universally, when the police have shown up the bad guys killed themselves rather than face a trained person.

Tactically, out in a field. No, a person with three hours of instruction is at a significant disadvantage. However, within the tight confines of a school hallway.....or a doorway.... Now skill levels drop in importance. Anytime a target can be channeled into a narrow avenue such as a doorway or a hallway, the advantage in skill levels is lost. To a skilled shooter distance is a huge advantage. Inside a school you lose that primary advantage.

That's a simple fact of life. Then situational awareness, and local knowledge of the school, and where to hide become super important. A good friend of mine teaches a tactical movement class for the FBI and other LE organizations and he uses me as a bad guy from time to time and while the operators I am up against are better trained than I, and in a hell of a lot better shape, and younger by thirty years on average, I still manage to prevail too many times over a weekend, because of my knowledge of the terrain.

School personnel enjoy that same advantage. Plus they can further enhance their advantages with some relatively simple changes in the school rooms and gathering areas. You ignore all the good, and concentrate on only the bad for your opinions. You need more experience.

So all of the training talk really doesn't matter. My concentration is on the law of numbers, which you ignore. A driver may not have an accident in 10 years. But in a pool of 100 drivers you can accurately predict that there will be accidents. This is no different. There will be accidents. And when they happen, I seriously doubt the people who want to see this will take responsibility for it. This is a stupid idea.

No, there needs to be a basic level of training. That can be done, in the right circumstances, and with good instruction in three hours. I advocate that for ANYONE who buys a weapon for the first time. You need to know how YOUR weapon works. It's as simple as that.

Your assertion about drivers is actually NOT correct. I can look at a group of 100 drivers and I can tell you who is most likely to be involved in an accident based on their behavior when driving. Do they drink and drive? Text? Speed? Not maintain their vehicles? Etc. There are behaviors which indicate who is most likely to have an accident.

Conversely there are skill sets that counter the odds of an accident. When I was younger my friends and I attended a racing school because we wanted to do some SCCA events. None of us have ever been in an accident even though we ALL speed. We know when it's safe to speed, we know when it's not. We know how to recover a slide etc.

The racing school is what I consider the equivalent of a Gunsite course of instruction. It is intensive and trains you to a very high level. Then, just like any skill, you need to practice to maintain that level of skill.

Actually, my assertion about drivers is correct. I'm a risk manager and predicting losses is what I do for a living. That is how insurance companies determine insurance rates. It's all about numbers and it is valid. Ask any actuary.

You're an instructor. So am I, just not in firearms. I teach scuba and have for 30 years, and been diving for just over 45 years. I'll take anyone over the age of 10 who can handle being in the water. After about 6 hours of pool and open water training I will send you off to dive on your own. But if you want to dive with me then you need more, because I like to go deep. I want to see that you have taken several other courses and prove that you have done at least 100 dives, with 30 below 100 feet, before I will even talk to you about beginning your training. This is not because the skills are all that different, it's because the consequences are. You can make a lot of mistakes at 50 feet and come out of the water just fine. Make those mistakes at 250 feet and me or someone like me will be hauling your body out for you.

Now, if you can't see that hundreds of children packed into tight clusters constitutes a higher level of consequence, then we are not just not on the same page, we are not in the same library.

 

[westwall]

Your test is stupid for a variety of reasons. There is plenty of validity for simple target practice in training. The idea is to hit the target after all. Funny how you call it an "accidental discharge" instead of what they truly are which is "negligent discharges". And accidental discharge occurs when the weapon fires completely on its own. No human interface.

Those are exceedingly rare. In my 61 years of handling firearms that has happened exactly once with a WWII German MP-44. We determined there was a burr on the bolt that captured the firing pin and when the bolt travelled forward with the new round it fired on going into battery. No harm was done because I was pointing it in a safe direction.

Negligent discharges occur when someone puts their finger on the trigger and it shouldn't have been there. Period. I went through the Gunsite classes back when Cooper was still running them and they had four rules of gun safety. Can you name them?

That being said, Gunsite taught basic tactics and loads of target practice at varying ranges. They concentrated on drawing, lining up the target, and proper trigger pull and they did that thousands of times to build up muscle memory so that it was automatic. To this day I can draw my 1911 and hit a target at 25 yards in under a second without fail. Five targets in under four seconds.

You are suggesting a level of training that no law enforcement agency advocates. In fact the only place where you can get training like that now, is at Thunder Ranch and a couple of the other specialized LE and civilian training facilities.

Then, by all means you should walk the halls of a school. Do you think someone who spent three hours total with a weapon in their life can match you? Because that is who we are talking about letting carry around children, not you. In fact, in my state you can have a CCW without ever firing once. My problem with this idea is that we are talking about untrained people with no requirement they be trained. So all of the ranges you named really don't matter if they never go to one.

You're clearly experienced. Someone here said he went though 16 hours of training and some of that was actually at a range with an instructor, so he thinks he's qualified. Do you think he's qualified?

I do. I have an eight year old daughter who is enrolled in the third grade. It is a very serious concern of mine. If the instruction is good, three hours is enough to train anyone who is physically and mentally intelligent to handle a weapon safely. They won't be the best shots in the world, but they will be able to do the job in a situation against a person who is likewise not well trained.

Not one of the school shooters has been trained. Not one. They rely on the fact that their targets are HELPLESS. That is an enormous edge. And, universally, when the police have shown up the bad guys killed themselves rather than face a trained person.

Tactically, out in a field. No, a person with three hours of instruction is at a significant disadvantage. However, within the tight confines of a school hallway.....or a doorway.... Now skill levels drop in importance. Anytime a target can be channeled into a narrow avenue such as a doorway or a hallway, the advantage in skill levels is lost. To a skilled shooter distance is a huge advantage. Inside a school you lose that primary advantage.

That's a simple fact of life. Then situational awareness, and local knowledge of the school, and where to hide become super important. A good friend of mine teaches a tactical movement class for the FBI and other LE organizations and he uses me as a bad guy from time to time and while the operators I am up against are better trained than I, and in a hell of a lot better shape, and younger by thirty years on average, I still manage to prevail too many times over a weekend, because of my knowledge of the terrain.

School personnel enjoy that same advantage. Plus they can further enhance their advantages with some relatively simple changes in the school rooms and gathering areas. You ignore all the good, and concentrate on only the bad for your opinions. You need more experience.

So all of the training talk really doesn't matter. My concentration is on the law of numbers, which you ignore. A driver may not have an accident in 10 years. But in a pool of 100 drivers you can accurately predict that there will be accidents. This is no different. There will be accidents. And when they happen, I seriously doubt the people who want to see this will take responsibility for it. This is a stupid idea.

No, there needs to be a basic level of training. That can be done, in the right circumstances, and with good instruction in three hours. I advocate that for ANYONE who buys a weapon for the first time. You need to know how YOUR weapon works. It's as simple as that.

Your assertion about drivers is actually NOT correct. I can look at a group of 100 drivers and I can tell you who is most likely to be involved in an accident based on their behavior when driving. Do they drink and drive? Text? Speed? Not maintain their vehicles? Etc. There are behaviors which indicate who is most likely to have an accident.

Conversely there are skill sets that counter the odds of an accident. When I was younger my friends and I attended a racing school because we wanted to do some SCCA events. None of us have ever been in an accident even though we ALL speed. We know when it's safe to speed, we know when it's not. We know how to recover a slide etc.

The racing school is what I consider the equivalent of a Gunsite course of instruction. It is intensive and trains you to a very high level. Then, just like any skill, you need to practice to maintain that level of skill.

Actually, my assertion about drivers is correct. I'm a risk manager and predicting losses is what I do for a living. That is how insurance companies determine insurance rates. It's all about numbers and it is valid. Ask any actuary.

You're an instructor. So am I, just not in firearms. I teach scuba and have for 30 years, and been diving for just over 45 years. I'll take anyone over the age of 10 who can handle being in the water. After about 6 hours of pool and open water training I will send you off to dive on your own. But if you want to dive with me then you need more, because I like to go deep. I want to see that you have taken several other courses and prove that you have done at least 100 dives, with 30 below 100 feet, before I will even talk to you about beginning your training. This is not because the skills are all that different, it's because the consequences are. You can make a lot of mistakes at 50 feet and come out of the water just fine. Make those mistakes at 250 feet and me or someone like me will be hauling your body out for you.

Now, if you can't see that hundreds of children packed into tight clusters constitutes a higher level of consequence, then we are not just not on the same page, we are not in the same library.

One of my best friends works at AAA Corporate auditing the insurance programs they offer. He tells me that the quickest way to get your insurance rates to increase is a DUI. Next up are two speeding tickets within a year. They will let one slide as an aberration, but two and you're out. They look at BEHAVIORS to determine who is most likely to have an accident.

And yes, we are not even in the same library. You watch too many movies and have not the slightest inkling of what you are talking about in a school shooting. The shootings occur in ONE room at a time. Thus, a teacher can barricade the door of THEIR classroom and gather the students into a safe part of the room, away from the door.

Then the teacher arms themself, and if the bad guy try's to batter the door in, he gets to dodge a few bullets, that he really can't dodge because he's IN A DOORWAY!

You might be a great SCUBA instructor, but you don't know the first thing about a defensive situation. Your claims about people panicking have no resemblance to what has actually occurred in real world situations. In every case that has occurred the teachers and staff have acted in exemplary fashion. Had they been armed the death toll would have been significantly reduced. That's a fact.

Why do you consistently ignore actual facts, and instead resort to anti gunners talking points and silly movie representations?

 

[2aguy]

Why do you consistently ignore actual facts, and instead resort to anti gunners talking points and silly movie representations?

They can't help themselves...I think it is because the part of the brain that deals with facts, rational thought, the truth and a functioning moral compass is underdeveloped....but that is just my opinion.....

 

[Jarlaxle]

Which is why we have an armed officer actually present on each campus .

I'm sorry, but the idea that arming teacher would solve anything is STUPID.

The cop can't be everywhere at once and an armed teacher would be the last line of defense. I wouldn't want any teacher to have one since they are scooping the bottom of the barrel these days but what's stupid about having a qualified teacher armed?

who needs to be everywhere at once? The campuses are COMPLETELY fenced in with only one entry point open during the day.

Sounds to me like your kids' school just isn't prepared.

Maybe in the war zone you live in...schools here are TOTALLY open, dozens of ways onto the property. (And, of course, it's not like even an 8' fence is all that tough to scale!)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Here is the thing....you anti gun people assume that the teachers are going to run around the school doing combat rolls looking to engage the killers in a shoot out.....and you are wrong....

If there is a killer in the school, all the teacher has to do is stand in the door way of their class room and monitor their hallway.....they don't have to draw the weapon until they see an attacker enter their area.....they can then yell....."Stop, I am armed and will shoot".....from a covered position of their classroom door....the guy will run, shoot, or try to advance....if he leaves the area, the teacher stays in place...if he shoots, the teacher can draw their weapon and return fire...and if he tries to advance down the hall the teacher can draw and shoot....

All these armed teachers need to do is secure areas......they just have to wait for the police to arrive....but by being armed, they deny access to the killer/killers and slow them down....


Please, a little more thought into reality, rather than what you see in the movies.....

LOL by and large teachers aren't even doing the job they have now successfully, but you think arming them is a good idea.

You gonna tell me not one teacher at one school in America is one of Ex-cop or Ex-military? It's not about "arming" teachers, it's about the idiocy of making it illegal for them to be armed.

I had three in high school: one ex-Navy, one retired Army, and one former cop. (He had a CCW permit and worked summers as an armored truck guard.)

 

[Ellipsis]

Your test is stupid for a variety of reasons. There is plenty of validity for simple target practice in training. The idea is to hit the target after all. Funny how you call it an "accidental discharge" instead of what they truly are which is "negligent discharges". And accidental discharge occurs when the weapon fires completely on its own. No human interface.

Those are exceedingly rare. In my 61 years of handling firearms that has happened exactly once with a WWII German MP-44. We determined there was a burr on the bolt that captured the firing pin and when the bolt travelled forward with the new round it fired on going into battery. No harm was done because I was pointing it in a safe direction.

Negligent discharges occur when someone puts their finger on the trigger and it shouldn't have been there. Period. I went through the Gunsite classes back when Cooper was still running them and they had four rules of gun safety. Can you name them?

That being said, Gunsite taught basic tactics and loads of target practice at varying ranges. They concentrated on drawing, lining up the target, and proper trigger pull and they did that thousands of times to build up muscle memory so that it was automatic. To this day I can draw my 1911 and hit a target at 25 yards in under a second without fail. Five targets in under four seconds.

You are suggesting a level of training that no law enforcement agency advocates. In fact the only place where you can get training like that now, is at Thunder Ranch and a couple of the other specialized LE and civilian training facilities.

Then, by all means you should walk the halls of a school. Do you think someone who spent three hours total with a weapon in their life can match you? Because that is who we are talking about letting carry around children, not you. In fact, in my state you can have a CCW without ever firing once. My problem with this idea is that we are talking about untrained people with no requirement they be trained. So all of the ranges you named really don't matter if they never go to one.

You're clearly experienced. Someone here said he went though 16 hours of training and some of that was actually at a range with an instructor, so he thinks he's qualified. Do you think he's qualified?

I do. I have an eight year old daughter who is enrolled in the third grade. It is a very serious concern of mine. If the instruction is good, three hours is enough to train anyone who is physically and mentally intelligent to handle a weapon safely. They won't be the best shots in the world, but they will be able to do the job in a situation against a person who is likewise not well trained.

Not one of the school shooters has been trained. Not one. They rely on the fact that their targets are HELPLESS. That is an enormous edge. And, universally, when the police have shown up the bad guys killed themselves rather than face a trained person.

Tactically, out in a field. No, a person with three hours of instruction is at a significant disadvantage. However, within the tight confines of a school hallway.....or a doorway.... Now skill levels drop in importance. Anytime a target can be channeled into a narrow avenue such as a doorway or a hallway, the advantage in skill levels is lost. To a skilled shooter distance is a huge advantage. Inside a school you lose that primary advantage.

That's a simple fact of life. Then situational awareness, and local knowledge of the school, and where to hide become super important. A good friend of mine teaches a tactical movement class for the FBI and other LE organizations and he uses me as a bad guy from time to time and while the operators I am up against are better trained than I, and in a hell of a lot better shape, and younger by thirty years on average, I still manage to prevail too many times over a weekend, because of my knowledge of the terrain.

School personnel enjoy that same advantage. Plus they can further enhance their advantages with some relatively simple changes in the school rooms and gathering areas. You ignore all the good, and concentrate on only the bad for your opinions. You need more experience.

So all of the training talk really doesn't matter. My concentration is on the law of numbers, which you ignore. A driver may not have an accident in 10 years. But in a pool of 100 drivers you can accurately predict that there will be accidents. This is no different. There will be accidents. And when they happen, I seriously doubt the people who want to see this will take responsibility for it. This is a stupid idea.

No, there needs to be a basic level of training. That can be done, in the right circumstances, and with good instruction in three hours. I advocate that for ANYONE who buys a weapon for the first time. You need to know how YOUR weapon works. It's as simple as that.

Your assertion about drivers is actually NOT correct. I can look at a group of 100 drivers and I can tell you who is most likely to be involved in an accident based on their behavior when driving. Do they drink and drive? Text? Speed? Not maintain their vehicles? Etc. There are behaviors which indicate who is most likely to have an accident.

Conversely there are skill sets that counter the odds of an accident. When I was younger my friends and I attended a racing school because we wanted to do some SCCA events. None of us have ever been in an accident even though we ALL speed. We know when it's safe to speed, we know when it's not. We know how to recover a slide etc.

The racing school is what I consider the equivalent of a Gunsite course of instruction. It is intensive and trains you to a very high level. Then, just like any skill, you need to practice to maintain that level of skill.

Actually, my assertion about drivers is correct. I'm a risk manager and predicting losses is what I do for a living. That is how insurance companies determine insurance rates. It's all about numbers and it is valid. Ask any actuary.

You're an instructor. So am I, just not in firearms. I teach scuba and have for 30 years, and been diving for just over 45 years. I'll take anyone over the age of 10 who can handle being in the water. After about 6 hours of pool and open water training I will send you off to dive on your own. But if you want to dive with me then you need more, because I like to go deep. I want to see that you have taken several other courses and prove that you have done at least 100 dives, with 30 below 100 feet, before I will even talk to you about beginning your training. This is not because the skills are all that different, it's because the consequences are. You can make a lot of mistakes at 50 feet and come out of the water just fine. Make those mistakes at 250 feet and me or someone like me will be hauling your body out for you.

Now, if you can't see that hundreds of children packed into tight clusters constitutes a higher level of consequence, then we are not just not on the same page, we are not in the same library.

Police and Guard don't even partake in the level of firearms training you're eluding to.

 

[sealybobo]

Some states and local jurisdictions are considering or have already passed laws allowing teachers, faculty and other campus staff to carry firearms on campus. Additionally, the NRA is recommending this as a step to improve school security.
Supporters claim it means tragic massacres of students could be avoided if teachers could defend themselves against armed fanatics to the same degree.

But is this a good idea?

Teacher In Custody After Firing Gun Inside Georgia High School, Police Say
The incident came days after President Donald Trump suggested arming teachers to prevent school shootings.

Teacher In Custody After Firing Gun Inside Georgia High School, Police Say | HuffPost

There was a school resource officer present at the time of the incident, Frazier said, though the officer’s exact location wasn’t immediately known.

 

[Rocko]

No I think it’s a bad idea, but I’ll be for more armed guards in schools

 

[pismoe]

No I think it’s a bad idea, but I’ll be for more armed guards in schools

--------------------------------- one or the other is ok with me or both ,

 

[jillian]

Some states and local jurisdictions are considering or have already passed laws allowing teachers, faculty and other campus staff to carry firearms on campus. Additionally, the NRA is recommending this as a step to improve school security.
Supporters claim it means tragic massacres of students could be avoided if teachers could defend themselves against armed fanatics to the same degree.

But is this a good idea?

does this answer your question?

Teacher in custody after Georgia police respond to report of shots fired

 

[Rocko]

Some states and local jurisdictions are considering or have already passed laws allowing teachers, faculty and other campus staff to carry firearms on campus. Additionally, the NRA is recommending this as a step to improve school security.
Supporters claim it means tragic massacres of students could be avoided if teachers could defend themselves against armed fanatics to the same degree.

But is this a good idea?

does this answer your question?

Teacher in custody after Georgia police respond to report of shots fired

I’m not saying it’s a good idea to arm teachers, but if they did, no one is saying that’s it’s going to solve the entire problem, and no one is saying there won’t be negative consequences. The general feeling for those in favor of think the good outweighs the bad. Your link proves nothing...as usual

 

[Rocko]

No I think it’s a bad idea, but I’ll be for more armed guards in schools

--------------------------------- one or the other is ok with me or both ,

Which one would u say is ideal? I believe teaching children and protecting them, while not mutually exclusive, are two different things. Teachers have a hard enough time just teaching