Armed staff in schools

[alan1]

Coyote and I have decided to enter the Bullring.
Our debate will be about allowing armed staff in schools.

Our agreed upon rules....

We will each present an opening argument
Then we each get 13 additional posts. Maximum of one hyperlink per post.
We will each make a closing argument.

After the debate is over, we respectfully request that Intense, Luissa and AmyNation judge the debate on presentation, facts, style, ability to present ones argument, and whatever else they feel is pertinent to a debate. Each judge will declare their own winner.

Opening statements will be posted shortly.

 

[Coyote]

The recent shooting at Newtown, CT on top of several other high profile mass shootings over the past few years has galvanized a nation into taking a critical look at the role of guns in a civil society that defines itself through the lens of the 2nd Amendment: a right to own firearms. At what points can we legitimately restrict those rights yet still retain the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution? How can firearms be safely integrated into a society where a large portion of it’s members have little real life experience with them? What measures can be taken so that people feel safe in the presence of firearms and secure in the ability to have them at hand should the situation arise where there is the need to defend oneself? These are complex questions with no easy answers.

After the Newtown shooting, intense scrutiny has been levied on the NRA and public pressure for some sort of statement from them that recognizes that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right. In the midst of public outcry and a (not always rational) resurgence of gun-control advocacy, the NRA’s stance has been anything but rational in response: we should arm all the teachers.

If we were 18th and 19th century America, with a much smaller population, and guns were about as controversial as a knife, that might work. School sizes were far smaller than todays and the firearms of the time far less effective at large scale carnege. The call to arm all our teachers ignores the obvious realities of our age: more potent weapons, schools the size of small towns, families seemingly less in touch with their own members alienation and a society that is on the one hand litigious to the extreme and, in many areas, no longer comfortable around firearms. Times change. Given all that how wise is it to arm all our teachers and, will it provide enough benefits to overcome an enormous cost?

Mass shootings are exceedingly rare - so rare, a parent is more likely to lose a child to a lightening strike. As of 2012, there were 132,656 public and private schools in the US. How many school shootings have we had?

Schools are not a place where rational and mature behavior is the norm - particularly in regards to decision making. The “executive functions” in the brain do not actually fully mature until age 25 and that regulates impulsive behaviors and risk taking. The NRA is proposing putting a large number of armed civilians into those settings. Human nature being what it is - things get forgotten, safety protocals slide, and teachers have enough to worry about without worrying about armed security. Recently, there was an article where an armed school security official left his gun in the restroom. Now granted it was unloaded, but it still should never have been left there like that and this was a former law enforcement official, not a teacher. How much more likely is it that a teacher might make that same mistake or worse?

Professional law enforcement people undergo extensive training in the use of their weapons, accuracy, and specially - judgement. They undergo regular refreshing in that training. Teachers are already required to undergo continuing education every year to retain their certification, and this is often done on their own time. How are they going to be able to meet the requirements needed to handle a gun in a crowded and possibly chaotic situation?

Cost and liability: these two concerns go hand in hand along with the question of “who pays” if things don’t go right? Is the teacher liable? You can pretty much guarantee someone will sue. With armed teachers in over 132,000 schools, and maybe one large scale shooting every few years - you can pretty much guarantee that there will be many many more small scale shootings through carelessness, bad judgement, or inattention.

Arming teachers is a poorly thought out reaction in response to what is, in reality, a very rare event.

 

[alan1]

On April 20th 1999 Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School in Colorado. They injured an additional 21 students. They then committed suicide. It took police five minutes to arrive.

On April 16th 2007 Seung-Hui Cho murdered 32 people at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. He wounded 17 other people. He then committed suicide. It took police three minutes to arrive.

On December 14th 2012 Adam Lanza murdered twenty children and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. He also murdered his mother. He then committed suicide. It took police 15 minutes to arrive.

In each case, it only took the police mere minutes to be at the scene of the massacre. In each case the murderers killed a dozen or more people before the police arrived. In each case the murderers committed suicide upon the arrival of the police.
School shootings may be more common than you think, Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings ? Infoplease.com

There is another common theme. In each and every incident, there is a law that states guns are not allowed on school property. In other words, everybody knows that if you want to commit mass murder a schoolhouse is full of unarmed potential victims, be it an elementary school, a high school or a university.

Of all of the murders listed above, there is nothing that could have prevented the initial attacks based upon our current laws that force schools to be potential victims. However, there are alternatives. If school staff were allowed to carry weapons of defense, would these people still attack? Some might have, some might not have. If school staff were allowed to carry weapons of defense, could they have stopped the murderers before such carnage happened? In some cases, I definitely think the number of victims could have been reduced. At Sandy Hook Elementary School, there are numerous reports of teachers and administrators rushing towards the sound of gunfire or placing themselves in the line of fire in order to protect the children. None of them were armed. None of them had either an armed defense or an armed offense to protect the children.

It is time for us to allow school staff to protect their students, protect themselves and defend against these assassins.

I am not advocating that we give every teacher, administrator, janitor or groundskeeper a gun. I want them to have the choice. If they choose to carry a weapon to protect the children, they can take a competency test, perhaps something similar to what police officers have to pass before they are allowed to carry a gun.
Right now, they have no choice.

 

[alan1]

The recent shooting at Newtown, CT on top of several other high profile mass shootings over the past few years has galvanized a nation into taking a critical look at the role of guns in a civil society that defines itself through the lens of the 2nd Amendment: a right to own firearms. At what points can we legitimately restrict those rights yet still retain the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution? How can firearms be safely integrated into a society where a large portion of it’s members have little real life experience with them? What measures can be taken so that people feel safe in the presence of firearms and secure in the ability to have them at hand should the situation arise where there is the need to defend oneself? These are complex questions with no easy answers.

After the Newtown shooting, intense scrutiny has been levied on the NRA and public pressure for some sort of statement from them that recognizes that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right. In the midst of public outcry and a (not always rational) resurgence of gun-control advocacy, the NRA’s stance has been anything but rational in response: we should arm all the teachers.

Most of your above statements are that of a reasonable person, however, the part I put in blue is very misleading. NOBODY, not the NRA, not politicians, nor I have advocated that "we should arm all the teachers". I and others merely offer that as a choice.

If we were 18th and 19th century America, with a much smaller population, and guns were about as controversial as a knife, that might work. School sizes were far smaller than todays and the firearms of the time far less effective at large scale carnege. The call to arm all our teachers ignores the obvious realities of our age: more potent weapons, schools the size of small towns, families seemingly less in touch with their own members alienation and a society that is on the one hand litigious to the extreme and, in many areas, no longer comfortable around firearms. Times change. Given all that how wise is it to arm all our teachers and, will it provide enough benefits to overcome an enormous cost?

Again, you state "arm all teachers". You are talking in absolutes, extremes. I am talking about giving teachers, administrators and staff a choice. A choice to be armed, a choice to defend and protect the children in their care. Right now, they don't have that choice, they and the children are sitting ducks for any psychotic person that wants to kill them. Columbine, VA Tech and Sandy Hook have already shown that.

Mass shootings are exceedingly rare - so rare, a parent is more likely to lose a child to a lightening strike. As of 2012, there were 132,656 public and private schools in the US. How many school shootings have we had?

Schools are not a place where rational and mature behavior is the norm - particularly in regards to decision making.

Did you really just state that?
Schools are exactly the type of place where rational and mature behavior/decisions are made.

The “executive functions” in the brain do not actually fully mature until age 25 and that regulates impulsive behaviors and risk taking. The NRA is proposing putting a large number of armed civilians into those settings. Human nature being what it is - things get forgotten, safety protocals slide, and teachers have enough to worry about without worrying about armed security. Recently, there was an article where an armed school security official left his gun in the restroom. Now granted it was unloaded, but it still should never have been left there like that and this was a former law enforcement official, not a teacher. How much more likely is it that a teacher might make that same mistake or worse?

Teachers are intelligent people, just like you and I. A one-off anecdote is no reason to prevent school staff from protecting children.

Professional law enforcement people undergo extensive training in the use of their weapons, accuracy, and specially - judgement. They undergo regular refreshing in that training. Teachers are already required to undergo continuing education every year to retain their certification, and this is often done on their own time. How are they going to be able to meet the requirements needed to handle a gun in a crowded and possibly chaotic situation?

Again, teachers are intelligent people, I say offer them the choice to partake in such activity. Nobody is saying they should be forced to be armed.

Cost and liability: these two concerns go hand in hand along with the question of “who pays” if things don’t go right? Is the teacher liable? You can pretty much guarantee someone will sue. With armed teachers in over 132,000 schools, and maybe one large scale shooting every few years - you can pretty much guarantee that there will be many many more small scale shootings through carelessness, bad judgement, or inattention.

Yes, liability will be a concern. That is a result of our litigious society. I beg to differ that school staff would cause more harm than they prevent. You can't prove that they would cause accidents any more than I can prove that they would prevent carnage.

Arming teachers is a poorly thought out reaction in response to what is, in reality, a very rare event.

My opening argument showed that it is not as rare as you think (see the link in my opening statement), it's just not usually a mass murder.

 

[Coyote]

On April 20th 1999 Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School in Colorado. They injured an additional 21 students. They then committed suicide. It took police five minutes to arrive.

On April 16th 2007 Seung-Hui Cho murdered 32 people at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. He wounded 17 other people. He then committed suicide. It took police three minutes to arrive.

On December 14th 2012 Adam Lanza murdered twenty children and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. He also murdered his mother. He then committed suicide. It took police 15 minutes to arrive.

In each case, it only took the police mere minutes to be at the scene of the massacre. In each case the murderers killed a dozen or more people before the police arrived. In each case the murderers committed suicide upon the arrival of the police.
School shootings may be more common than you think, Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings ? Infoplease.com

There is another common theme. In each and every incident, there is a law that states guns are not allowed on school property. In other words, everybody knows that if you want to commit mass murder a schoolhouse is full of unarmed potential victims, be it an elementary school, a high school or a university.

Of all of the murders listed above, there is nothing that could have prevented the initial attacks based upon our current laws that force schools to be potential victims. However, there are alternatives. If school staff were allowed to carry weapons of defense, would these people still attack? Some might have, some might not have. If school staff were allowed to carry weapons of defense, could they have stopped the murderers before such carnage happened? In some cases, I definitely think the number of victims could have been reduced. At Sandy Hook Elementary School, there are numerous reports of teachers and administrators rushing towards the sound of gunfire or placing themselves in the line of fire in order to protect the children. None of them were armed. None of them had either an armed defense or an armed offense to protect the children.

It is time for us to allow school staff to protect their students, protect themselves and defend against these assassins.

I am not advocating that we give every teacher, administrator, janitor or groundskeeper a gun. I want them to have the choice. If they choose to carry a weapon to protect the children, they can take a competency test, perhaps something similar to what police officers have to pass before they are allowed to carry a gun.
Right now, they have no choice.

Since comparing school shootings around the world is like comparing apples and oranges, I’m going to stick to examples in the U.S. According to your link, there have been 57 school shootings over 16 years - between 3-4 a year, ranging from elementary schools to college campus’. In the US we have over 132,600 public and private K-12 schools and 4,800 colleges and universities. Looking at numbers in your link, we have 3-4 school shooting per year amongst 137,400 facilities. I am not sure how you would figure the odds here.

However, since much of the focus right now is on arming teachers in K-12 range, we can find the odds a bit more easily: The chances of any particular K-12 school in the United States experiencing a shooting incident in any given year is approximately 1 in 53,925. (PsychLaw Journal, Max Wachtel, Ph.D.: School Shootings: What Are The Odds?)

Your child is much more likely to die from a motor vehicle accident, a fall, or intentional self-harm. In fact, the leading causes of death for teens between 12-19 are: accidents (unintentional injuries), homicide, suicide. Increasing the number of potentially available firearms in that mix seems a very risky strategy.

You ask the question: If school staff were allowed to carry weapons of defense, would these people still attack?

There are several distinct differences in the types of shootings listed on your link. Some are crime related such as gang activity. Others are impulsive - anger, a sense of injustice. The third category, the one responsible for the most carnage (Colorado, Virginia Tech, Newtown) are committed by severely disturbed people who do not care if they die in the attempt and, in fact, often kill themselves in the process. In all these cases you are dealing with young people, with immature brains in situations not thought out.

Another consideration to this strategy is - how effective is it really if only some teachers are armed? Some schools are so large they are like college campus’. If an incident occurs at one end of the campus, and the teachers with firearms are in other areas their response rate is no better than that of the police and their training significantly less. What are the odds that they will be able to intervene in time - assuming they aren’t the first to be shot? What are the odds that in a moment of inattention - a student might get hold of the teachers weapon - a weapon he might not otherwise have had?

 

[Coyote]

Most of your above statements are that of a reasonable person, however, the part I put in blue is very misleading. NOBODY, not the NRA, not politicians, nor I have advocated that "we should arm all the teachers". I and others merely offer that as a choice.

Points taken - you are correct sir

Again, you state "arm all teachers". You are talking in absolutes, extremes. I am talking about giving teachers, administrators and staff a choice. A choice to be armed, a choice to defend and protect the children in their care. Right now, they don't have that choice, they and the children are sitting ducks for any psychotic person that wants to kill them. Columbine, VA Tech and Sandy Hook have already shown that.[


Did you really just state that?
Schools are exactly the type of place where rational and mature behavior/decisions are made.

By far the largest population of any given school is it's student body and that is not a group typically defined by rational and mature behavior/decisions. They were the ones I was addressing by that comment.

Teachers are intelligent people, just like you and I. A one-off anecdote is no reason to prevent school staff from protecting children.

Teachers, administrators and staff are as intelligent, stupid, careful, careless, conscientious, absent minded, stressed out, relaxed....as you and I. The problem is - if they make a mistake, the consequences could be a lot worse than if I did since I am not in a situation where I am responsible for a large number of young people. For example, a kid brings a realistic toy gun to class and makes threats with it....

Yes, liability will be a concern. That is a result of our litigious society. I beg to differ that school staff would cause more harm than they prevent. You can't prove that they would cause accidents any more than I can prove that they would prevent carnage.

It doesn't answer the question of liability - that's a reality that would need to be addressed and could well cost schools a lot of money.

Professional security and police undergo a great deal of training. Teachers are civilians. Can their judgement in a tense, volatile, fast moving situation be trusted as much as that of a professional, however well meaning they might be?

Arming teachers is a poorly thought out reaction in response to what is, in reality, a very rare event.

My opening argument showed that it is not as rare as you think (see the link in my opening statement), it's just not usually a mass murder.[/QUOTE]

My rebuttal showed it is, indeed rare

 

[alan1]

Most of your above statements are that of a reasonable person, however, the part I put in blue is very misleading. NOBODY, not the NRA, not politicians, nor I have advocated that "we should arm all the teachers". I and others merely offer that as a choice.

Points taken - you are correct sir

Again, you state "arm all teachers". You are talking in absolutes, extremes. I am talking about giving teachers, administrators and staff a choice. A choice to be armed, a choice to defend and protect the children in their care. Right now, they don't have that choice, they and the children are sitting ducks for any psychotic person that wants to kill them. Columbine, VA Tech and Sandy Hook have already shown that.[


Did you really just state that?
Schools are exactly the type of place where rational and mature behavior/decisions are made.

By far the largest population of any given school is it's student body and that is not a group typically defined by rational and mature behavior/decisions. They were the ones I was addressing by that comment.



Teachers, administrators and staff are as intelligent, stupid, careful, careless, conscientious, absent minded, stressed out, relaxed....as you and I. The problem is - if they make a mistake, the consequences could be a lot worse than if I did since I am not in a situation where I am responsible for a large number of young people. For example, a kid brings a realistic toy gun to class and makes threats with it....

Yes, liability will be a concern. That is a result of our litigious society. I beg to differ that school staff would cause more harm than they prevent. You can't prove that they would cause accidents any more than I can prove that they would prevent carnage.

It doesn't answer the question of liability - that's a reality that would need to be addressed and could well cost schools a lot of money.

Professional security and police undergo a great deal of training. Teachers are civilians. Can their judgement in a tense, volatile, fast moving situation be trusted as much as that of a professional, however well meaning they might be?

Arming teachers is a poorly thought out reaction in response to what is, in reality, a very rare event.

My opening argument showed that it is not as rare as you think (see the link in my opening statement), it's just not usually a mass murder.

My rebuttal showed it is, indeed rare

Working down your list.......
I'm almost always correct

Students are often rational and mature. More so at the collegiate level, but also high school. Regardless of that, I see no reason to not allow protection for those that may be immature or irrational, they actually may need the protection more than you and I.

School staff can and do make mistakes, just like all your other points about intelligent, stupid, etc, it is a fact of life. It matters not whether it is in a school, or someplace else, except for one thing, in a school, one is defenseless. Let's take your foolish child with the fake gun as an example. That same situation can happen outside of a school, and I, or a police officer or somebody else may shoot that child. It would be a reasonable reaction to the threat of harm or death. I don't think the fact that it takes place at a school is any different than if it took place in the grocery store parking lot, a restaurant, or my neighborhood. I still want people protected from the crazies in our society.

Again, we are a litigious society. I think that is unfortunate, but you and I really can't change that. Many states have "good Samaritan" laws when it comes to litigation. We have to ask ourselves, "what would a reasonable person do?" Sometimes, a reasonable person will shoot/kill in order to protect the weak and defenseless or themselves.

Yes, professionals like police do undergo training, and I addressed that in my opening argument. School staff that wanted to be armed protectors could go through a similar training regimen. Their choice. It is not unlike them taking CPR or first aid training. Some school staff takes training like that, and some don't.

Assaults in schools really aren't that rare. Maybe it's just me, but these random acts of violance seem more common today than they did back when you and I attended school, maybe it's just the news reporting it has become more prevalent. Either way, they happen.
As a society, we take precautions against many rare events if they are dangerous or harmful, that's why we have police, fire departments and a missile defense system (hey, when was the last time somebody shot a missile at the USA? Yep, I know, apples and oranges re the missiles). School staff should be allowed to be prepared to protect students and other staff.
Today's 'no tolerance gun policies' make every person in a school a potential victim for the crazies that may want to cause carnage.

 

[Coyote]

Working down your list.......
I'm almost always correct

Oh dear....well, we are going to have to do something about that shan't we?

Students are often rational and mature. More so at the collegiate level, but also high school. Regardless of that, I see no reason to not allow protection for those that may be immature or irrational, they actually may need the protection more than you and I.

Students seem rational and mature - in relation to other students, but they often aren't in relation to older people. An adult, who has been through the maturing process' of rejection, relationships, hard earned success and failures will often react differently than a young person. For example, amongst the reasons given in your link for armed attack were feeling rejected or disrespected by peers or a girl friend. In a teen, that is the entire world - in an adult (well - most adults...) that is just part of the world. Most adults are better able to view things in a larger context and, their brains are more mature - they have better control over their impulses. There's a reason why insurance companies and care rental companies treat drivers under 25 from drivers over 25. The shooters, in most of those school shootings, were themselves under the age of 25 and, in fact, often fellow students. What you propose is potentially putting many more firearms into a situation where an impulsive, immature person might be able to access them accidently.

School staff can and do make mistakes, just like all your other points about intelligent, stupid, etc, it is a fact of life. It matters not whether it is in a school, or someplace else, except for one thing, in a school, one is defenseless. Let's take your foolish child with the fake gun as an example. That same situation can happen outside of a school, and I, or a police officer or somebody else may shoot that child. It would be a reasonable reaction to the threat of harm or death. I don't think the fact that it takes place at a school is any different than if it took place in the grocery store parking lot, a restaurant, or my neighborhood. I still want people protected from the crazies in our society.

The difference between a police officer and school staff is that one is a trained professional and part of that training might involve knowing when to shoot and when to hold fire. A non-professional might have some of that training and professional experience in such situations but more likely does not. I seriously doubt it can come from a few courses on gun safety. Schools would be better off hiring professional security guards if that is warranted. One tragic example of that could well be the Zimmerman-Martin case where you have a non-professional "neighborhood watch captain" who ends up shooting someone that more than likely shouldn't have been shot. Policemen are trained in non-lethal methods of take down when necessary, civilians seldom are.

Again, we are a litigious society. I think that is unfortunate, but you and I really can't change that. Many states have "good Samaritan" laws when it comes to litigation. We have to ask ourselves, "what would a reasonable person do?" Sometimes, a reasonable person will shoot/kill in order to protect the weak and defenseless or themselves.

You are right, we can't change that and it's a structure we now have to learn to live within. However, how well do "good Samaritan" laws work when it comes to a shooting death? In the case of Lanza - it's pretty clear cut. But in the case of the kid with the realistic toy pistal? Or the 6 yr old kid who brought his dads revolver to class and was waving it around? Shoot him? Or, talk to him?

Yes, professionals like police do undergo training, and I addressed that in my opening argument. School staff that wanted to be armed protectors could go through a similar training regimen. Their choice. It is not unlike them taking CPR or first aid training. Some school staff takes training like that, and some don't.

A similar training regime would be tantamount to learning a new full time profession. To be a policeman, in addition to college coursework, you attend an academy that is roughly a year and have a probational period where you are "in training" in the field. If a staff or teacher were willing to go through that - I would not object to them being armed.

Assaults in schools really aren't that rare. Maybe it's just me, but these random acts of violance seem more common today than they did back when you and I attended school, maybe it's just the news reporting it has become more prevalent. Either way, they happen.

It seems like they are more common, but I think that is in part due to two things: one is the media and the fact that what used to be local news is now national news - we here about any sensational local event as if it were in our backyards. The other reason is a guess on my part - when it does happen, the carnage is much worse due to the weapons involved and the ability of these people to so easily get so many weapons. This is strictly my opinion and I would love to be proved wrong.

As a society, we take precautions against many rare events if they are dangerous or harmful, that's why we have police, fire departments and a missile defense system (hey, when was the last time somebody shot a missile at the USA? Yep, I know, apples and oranges re the missiles). School staff should be allowed to be prepared to protect students and other staff.

hehe...do you remember bomb drills in school?

Aside from that - rare events are rare and you have to weigh a number of factors into account:
- cost - is preparing for a rare event worth the cost? We no longer build nuclear bomb shelters into our schools or practice nuclear drills even though it's still possible we could get hit by a nuclear bomb.

- liability - this is a real concern. Professional security guards are covered under school insurance. "Volunteer" security - staff - would not be. If a shooting happened, or, just as bad - if a staff members weapon some got into the hands of a student who then used it - to shoot someone, or to shoot himself - what then? Is the potential for those sorts of events worth the potential security for a rare event in the case of a school shooting?

Today's 'no tolerance gun policies' make every person in a school a potential victim for the crazies that may want to cause carnage.

No tolerance gun policies combined with good security in the form of professionals seems like a better solution.

 

[alan1]

Oh dear....well, we are going to have to do something about that shan't we?


Students seem rational and mature - in relation to other students, but they often aren't in relation to older people. An adult, who has been through the maturing process' of rejection, relationships, hard earned success and failures will often react differently than a young person. For example, amongst the reasons given in your link for armed attack were feeling rejected or disrespected by peers or a girl friend. In a teen, that is the entire world - in an adult (well - most adults...) that is just part of the world. Most adults are better able to view things in a larger context and, their brains are more mature - they have better control over their impulses. There's a reason why insurance companies and care rental companies treat drivers under 25 from drivers over 25. The shooters, in most of those school shootings, were themselves under the age of 25 and, in fact, often fellow students. What you propose is potentially putting many more firearms into a situation where an impulsive, immature person might be able to access them accidently.

Actually, what I am proposing is putting firearms where responsible people have access to them in order to defend people that are intentionally kept harmless. There are safe ways to make guns secure and available. There are biometric gun safes that require fingerprint scan in order to unlock them. I know, the next argument is "What if they forget to lock it to begin with". I'll admit, that is a distinct possibility. Most teacher's desks also have a lock on them. How often do teachers forget to lock them? (I don't know the answer to that) Now, suppose a teacher does forget to lock their desk, how often is it a student that discovers it is unlocked? (Again, I don't know the answer to that) Then, suppose both those situations occur, how often does an honest student report the unlocked desk as opposed to a student rummaging through the desk? (Third time, I don't know the answer). A gun safe is way more secure than a teachers desk.

The difference between a police officer and school staff is that one is a trained professional and part of that training might involve knowing when to shoot and when to hold fire. A non-professional might have some of that training and professional experience in such situations but more likely does not. I seriously doubt it can come from a few courses on gun safety. Schools would be better off hiring professional security guards if that is warranted. One tragic example of that could well be the Zimmerman-Martin case where you have a non-professional "neighborhood watch captain" who ends up shooting someone that more than likely shouldn't have been shot. Policemen are trained in non-lethal methods of take down when necessary, civilians seldom are.

Throughout this thread I have consistently advocated that training is required. Whether that is a teach or some other school staff member.

You are right,

Again

we can't change that and it's a structure we now have to learn to live within. However, how well do "good Samaritan" laws work when it comes to a shooting death? In the case of Lanza - it's pretty clear cut. But in the case of the kid with the realistic toy pistal? Or the 6 yr old kid who brought his dads revolver to class and was waving it around? Shoot him? Or, talk to him?

Your one off examples are not the norm. The goal is to prevent the people like Adam Lanza from killing, not to prevent a 6 year old from killing. Any reasonable person would try and talk a 6 year old with a gun into handing it over, and really wouldn't be that difficult. I've talked six year olds out of all kinds of things, and any teacher or administrator that would struggle with talking a six year old out of foolish behavior needs to find another line of work.

A similar training regime would be tantamount to learning a new full time profession. To be a policeman, in addition to college coursework, you attend an academy that is roughly a year and have a probational period where you are "in training" in the field. If a staff or teacher were willing to go through that - I would not object to them being armed.

Looks like you are admitting that I am right again. Because that is exactly what I have been stating.

It seems like they are more common, but I think that is in part due to two things: one is the media and the fact that what used to be local news is now national news - we here about any sensational local event as if it were in our backyards. The other reason is a guess on my part - when it does happen, the carnage is much worse due to the weapons involved and the ability of these people to so easily get so many weapons. This is strictly my opinion and I would love to be proved wrong.

Just remember, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold could not legally posses a firearm. Adam Lanza could not legally possess a handgun. they didn't care, and they violated those laws, because criminals don't follow the laws of the land. It's more about criminal intent than availability in my opinion.

hehe...do you remember bomb drills in school?

Indeed I do. Additionally, I grew up in CA, so we had earthquake drills in school. those were a real potential threat.

Aside from that - rare events are rare and you have to weigh a number of factors into account:
- cost - is preparing for a rare event worth the cost? We no longer build nuclear bomb shelters into our schools or practice nuclear drills even though it's still possible we could get hit by a nuclear bomb.

Since you brought up nuclear bombs, our nation still has a missile defense program even though no nation has ever hit the the US with a missile. In fact, I'm not sure any nation has ever tried to hit our mainland with a missile. But I digress, comparing missile defense to armed staff in schools really is an apples and oranges thing.

- liability - this is a real concern. Professional security guards are covered under school insurance. "Volunteer" security - staff - would not be. If a shooting happened, or, just as bad - if a staff members weapon some got into the hands of a student who then used it - to shoot someone, or to shoot himself - what then? Is the potential for those sorts of events worth the potential security for a rare event in the case of a school shooting?

I explained secure weapons (gun safes) above. But yes, no matter what happens there is always a liability issue. As it stands now, the lack of defense in schools has been partially responsible for the death of many people. That was a liability to the life of everybody that died at Columbine, Virgina Tech and Sandy Hook.

No tolerance gun policies combined with good security in the form of professionals seems like a better solution.

Only if that "good security" includes armed personnel that can prevent an armed criminal from wreaking havoc. Something I think you agreed with when you said this,

A similar training regime would be tantamount to learning a new full time profession. To be a policeman, in addition to college coursework, you attend an academy that is roughly a year and have a probational period where you are "in training" in the field. If a staff or teacher were willing to go through that - I would not object to them being armed.

Since you agreed with that, I don't know that I need 15 posts. I'm actually prepared to make a closing argument right now.

 

[alan1]

Coyote and I agreed to 15 posts each for our debate. However, since I have already changed Coyote’s mind I really don’t feel it necessary to continue the debate, so I will present my closing argument at this time.
In the Coyote’s opening argument, Coyote stated this,

Arming teachers is a poorly thought out reaction in response to what is, in reality, a very rare event.

The title of the thread is “Armed Staff in Schools”, Coyote’s first mistake was changing “Staff” to “Teachers”.

In my opening argument, I ended with this,

I am not advocating that we give every teacher, administrator, janitor or groundskeeper a gun. I want them to have the choice. If they choose to carry a weapon to protect the children, they can take a competency test, perhaps something similar to what police officers have to pass before they are allowed to carry a gun.
Right now, they have no choice.

Me focusing on Staff, not just teachers. Coyote soon agrees with my statement as stated here,

A similar training regime would be tantamount to learning a new full time profession. To be a policeman, in addition to college coursework, you attend an academy that is roughly a year and have a probational period where you are "in training" in the field. If a staff or teacher were willing to go through that - I would not object to them being armed.

So, Coyote admits that armed staff in a school is acceptable. I admire that the Coyote has taken this leap despite the opening argument stating otherwise. We can protect the students, make them safer, and one way is to eliminate the “no tolerance” policy on firearms when it comes to school staff.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote and I agreed to 15 posts each for our debate. However, since I have already changed Coyote’s mind I really don’t feel it necessary to continue the debate, so I will present my closing argument at this time.
In the Coyote’s opening argument, Coyote stated this,

Arming teachers is a poorly thought out reaction in response to what is, in reality, a very rare event.

The title of the thread is “Armed Staff in Schools”, Coyote’s first mistake was changing “Staff” to “Teachers”.

In my opening argument, I ended with this,

I am not advocating that we give every teacher, administrator, janitor or groundskeeper a gun. I want them to have the choice. If they choose to carry a weapon to protect the children, they can take a competency test, perhaps something similar to what police officers have to pass before they are allowed to carry a gun.
Right now, they have no choice.

Me focusing on Staff, not just teachers. Coyote soon agrees with my statement as stated here,

A similar training regime would be tantamount to learning a new full time profession. To be a policeman, in addition to college coursework, you attend an academy that is roughly a year and have a probational period where you are "in training" in the field. If a staff or teacher were willing to go through that - I would not object to them being armed.

So, Coyote admits that armed staff in a school is acceptable. I admire that the Coyote has taken this leap despite the opening argument stating otherwise. We can protect the students, make them safer, and one way is to eliminate the “no tolerance” policy on firearms when it comes to school staff.

Not quite so fast sweetheart. You are all about telling me what I agree with, but I am not totally done.

Armed staff might be acceptable to me within certain parameters including consideration of the below:

Police candidates must undergo extensive pyschological testing - along with regular retraining/certification I would absolutely require that of any staff or teacher who wishes to be armed in the school and it should be updated on a regular basis. Yes or no?

What about the considerations of the parents? Some areas parents might be all for it, in others, maybe not. They pay for the schools and their children are the ones most directly affected. Should parents feelings on these matters, in THEIR schools be respected? Yes? No?

Liability and insurance issues - yes, boring but that's reality - who pays for it? Who is liable in the event of a mishap? Will that be taking away much needed money education?

I'm was less concerned with guns in locked desks than I am with guns inadvertently left in restrooms.

If guns are locked in a desk, how much use are they going to be in a fast moving situation?

Remember, above all - we are talking about a very rare situation and Alan has not yet produced the numbers to show otherwise - it's been an emotional appeal for protecting sitting ducks.

No closing for me yet

 

[alan1]

Not quite so fast sweetheart. You are all about telling me what I agree with, but I am not totally done.

Armed staff might be acceptable to me within certain parameters including consideration of the below:

Police candidates must undergo extensive pyschological testing - along with regular retraining/certification I would absolutely require that of any staff or teacher who wishes to be armed in the school and it should be updated on a regular basis. Yes or no?

Yes. I stated a similar opinion in my OP about training and certification.

What about the considerations of the parents? Some areas parents might be all for it, in others, maybe not. They pay for the schools and their children are the ones most directly affected. Should parents feelings on these matters, in THEIR schools be respected? Yes? No?

Just remember, this is not a one-way street, it's more like a 4-way intersection. Non-parents also pay taxes that provide for the schools. Parent's opinions should be considered, which is actually a drastic change from when the whole "no tolerance" policies that were rammed down our damn throats years ago.

Liability and insurance issues - yes, boring but that's reality - who pays for it? Who is liable in the event of a mishap? Will that be taking away much needed money education?

Who is liable for the defenseless that left all the Sandy Hook victims dead? Who is liable for the defenseless that left all the Columbine victims dead? Who is liable for the defenseless that left all the VA Tech victims dead?
To a certain extent, it is the "no tolerance" policies that made those people easy targets.

I'm was less concerned with guns in locked desks than I am with guns inadvertently left in restrooms.

If guns are locked in a desk, how much use are they going to be in a fast moving situation?

They will be much quicker than waiting for a police response. Connecticut teachers were heroes in the face of death - CNN.com
Principal Dawn Hochsprung, school psychologist Mary Sherlach and Vice Principal Natalie Hammon all ran towards the sound of gunfire immediately after the first gunshots rang out. Unfortunately, none of them were armed and could not prevent the murders and carnage that ensued. Two of them paid the ultimate price for their bravery, they are dead.

Remember, above all - we are talking about a very rare situation and Alan has not yet produced the numbers to show otherwise - it's been an emotional appeal for protecting sitting ducks.

No closing for me yet

Quite the contrary. The emotional response has been to try and institute more gun control laws. As we already know, in each case, something like a school shooting, a movie theater massacre, a Mall attack, a church killing, etc, the attackers --the murderers-- broke numerous laws. Instituting more laws is not going to change the behavior of those types of criminals. All it is going to do is allow more charges to be filed against the criminals.

 

[Coyote]

Not quite so fast sweetheart. You are all about telling me what I agree with, but I am not totally done.

Armed staff might be acceptable to me within certain parameters including consideration of the below:

Police candidates must undergo extensive pyschological testing - along with regular retraining/certification I would absolutely require that of any staff or teacher who wishes to be armed in the school and it should be updated on a regular basis. Yes or no?

Yes. I stated a similar opinion in my OP about training and certification.

You did, but it was somewhat general.

What about the considerations of the parents? Some areas parents might be all for it, in others, maybe not. They pay for the schools and their children are the ones most directly affected. Should parents feelings on these matters, in THEIR schools be respected? Yes? No?

Just remember, this is not a one-way street, it's more like a 4-way intersection. Non-parents also pay taxes that provide for the schools. Parent's opinions should be considered, which is actually a drastic change from when the whole "no tolerance" policies that were rammed down our damn throats years ago.

Point taken. On the other hand unrestricted guns in a school zone can be very dangerous - far more so than the insignificant chance of a whacko shooter in a no-gun zone. I do see your point - the whole "no tolerance" movement towards crime encompasses everything from guns to drugs to graffitti to mandatory sentancing and is a coming under scrutiny as to whether it's really been effective.

Who is liable for the defenseless that left all the Sandy Hook victims dead? Who is liable for the defenseless that left all the Columbine victims dead? Who is liable for the defenseless that left all the VA Tech victims dead?
To a certain extent, it is the "no tolerance" policies that made those people easy targets.

School shootings have been going on for some time with no real increase - in fact, from prior to the zero tolerance policies...which makes me wonder where all the guys with their guns were at those times?

Many large schools already have security guards - trained, armed, and covered by insurance while they undertake their duties because it's part of their job. An individual who's job is not security, who ends up needing to use his gun or, who's gun ends up in the wrong hands (like left in the restroom) would not be covered and open to litigation.

Sometimes no one is liable but criminal if a crime is committed. But if someone shoots, hoping to hit the criminal and hits a student instead, then what?

I'm was less concerned with guns in locked desks than I am with guns inadvertently left in restrooms.

If guns are locked in a desk, how much use are they going to be in a fast moving situation?

They will be much quicker than waiting for a police response. Connecticut teachers were heroes in the face of death - CNN.com
Principal Dawn Hochsprung, school psychologist Mary Sherlach and Vice Principal Natalie Hammon all ran towards the sound of gunfire immediately after the first gunshots rang out. Unfortunately, none of them were armed and could not prevent the murders and carnage that ensued. Two of them paid the ultimate price for their bravery, they are dead.

Stories that grab at the emotions, but not the facts. How quickly they could get at a gun in a locked desk and then respond? What if they were in another room? What if the shooter, knowing they had weapons went for teachers first? How long does it take to shoot a group of people with a semi-automatic weapon(s) and large magazines?

Remember, above all - we are talking about a very rare situation and Alan has not yet produced the numbers to show otherwise - it's been an emotional appeal for protecting sitting ducks.

No closing for me yet

Quite the contrary. The emotional response has been to try and institute more gun control laws. As we already know, in each case, something like a school shooting, a movie theater massacre, a Mall attack, a church killing, etc, the attackers --the murderers-- broke numerous laws. Instituting more laws is not going to change the behavior of those types of criminals. All it is going to do is allow more charges to be filed against the criminals.

The emotional response has been to take a very rare instance (mass school shootings) and use it to institute "radical changes". From the pro-gun lobby we've seen an increased pressure to loosen restrictions on concealed carry (even allowing it in bars), on places where you can openly carry, and an absolute opposition to any kind of 2nd amendment restrictions. From the pro-gun control lobby we've seen agitation to re-examine gun control and consider some very modest measures: universal background checks, a ban on assault-style weapons and large scale magazines.

Instituting well thought out laws (background checks) may prevent some people who should not be getting guns from getting them. If, as you point out - allowing some school staff to bring firearms to school in the hopes it MIGHT prevent a tragedy, then doesn't the same argument apply to some of the gun control ideas as well?

 

[alan1]

You did, but it was somewhat general.

Because I am not in a position to write law.

Point taken. On the other hand unrestricted guns in a school zone can be very dangerous - far more so than the insignificant chance of a whacko shooter in a no-gun zone. I do see your point - the whole "no tolerance" movement towards crime encompasses everything from guns to drugs to graffitti to mandatory sentancing and is a coming under scrutiny as to whether it's really been effective.

I don't think anybody has asked for "unrestricted guns in a school zone", you are taking this to an extreme point of view.

School shootings have been going on for some time with no real increase - in fact, from prior to the zero tolerance policies...which makes me wonder where all the guys with their guns were at those times?

The same place they have always been. The difference now, is that the crazies know that there is no defense for the innocence, thus the potential higher kill rate.

Many large schools already have security guards - trained, armed, and covered by insurance while they undertake their duties because it's part of their job. An individual who's job is not security, who ends up needing to use his gun or, who's gun ends up in the wrong hands (like left in the restroom) would not be covered and open to litigation.

Seems that guns are ending up in the wrong hands anyway, regardless of the laws that restrict guns on campus. Those same laws prevent guns from being in the right hands. Now that, is a one way street.

Sometimes no one is liable but criminal if a crime is committed. But if someone shoots, hoping to hit the criminal and hits a student instead, then what?

Ultimately, the criminal is always liable.
Somebody hitting the wrong person is certainly a potential, and at some point will most likely happen. I am more willing to accept that collateral damage -one accidental death- than I am willing to accept the carnage at places Sandy Hook -many intentional deaths that may have been prevented.

Stories that grab at the emotions, but not the facts. How quickly they could get at a gun in a locked desk and then respond? What if they were in another room? What if the shooter, knowing they had weapons went for teachers first? How long does it take to shoot a group of people with a semi-automatic weapon(s) and large magazines?

It was fact, administrators with zero defense ran towards the sound of gunfire to protect the children.
If the shooter went for armed staff first, he would possibly be stopped before he ever got to children. Currently, the staff has no defense. How long do you want to keep playing the what-if game?
P.S. Cops have large magazines for a reason.

The emotional response has been to take a very rare instance (mass school shootings) and use it to institute "radical changes". From the pro-gun lobby we've seen an increased pressure to loosen restrictions on concealed carry (even allowing it in bars), on places where you can openly carry, and an absolute opposition to any kind of 2nd amendment restrictions. From the pro-gun control lobby we've seen agitation to re-examine gun control and consider some very modest measures: universal background checks, a ban on assault-style weapons and large scale magazines.

It's not just mass school shootings, they are nailing every situation where gunshots occur in a setting with large numbers of people.

Instituting well thought out laws (background checks) may prevent some people who should not be getting guns from getting them. If, as you point out - allowing some school staff to bring firearms to school in the hopes it MIGHT prevent a tragedy, then doesn't the same argument apply to some of the gun control ideas as well?

Background checks already happen for many gun purchases, and I don't have a problem with that. Adam Lanza, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris never had to pass a background check for the guns they used because they didn't own them. Stricter background checks would not have prevented any of those deaths. An armed staff member may have. I'd rather take my chances with an armed staff member than stricter background checks that wouldn't cause a background check on any of those murderers.

 

[Coyote]

[
The same place they have always been. The difference now, is that the crazies know that there is no defense for the innocence, thus the potential higher kill rate.

That doesn't make sense. According to your logic - we should be seeing a notable increase in school shootings and we aren't.

Seems that guns are ending up in the wrong hands anyway, regardless of the laws that restrict guns on campus. Those same laws prevent guns from being in the right hands. Now that, is a one way street.

Guns are ending up in the hands of criminals, however the laws that restrict guns on campus may well restrict the ability of a casual, non-criminal getting a gun he might not otherwise get - like a kid finding it in the restroom and thining wow - cool.

Ultimately, the criminal is always liable.
Somebody hitting the wrong person is certainly a potential, and at some point will most likely happen. I am more willing to accept that collateral damage -one accidental death- than I am willing to accept the carnage at places Sandy Hook -many intentional deaths that may have been prevented.

But it isn't necessarily going to be one accidental death vs a carnage of 20. It's not that clear. Now who's being extreme?

Most school shootings - from your link - involve just a few people - often just the shooter and his victim. The carnages like Sandy Hook are the rarest of the rare. So are you willing to accept the possibility that innocents might be killed by "friendly fire" - possibly even more than were killed by the initial shooter - as reasonable?

It was fact, administrators with zero defense ran towards the sound of gunfire to protect the children.
If the shooter went for armed staff first, he would possibly be stopped before he ever got to children. Currently, the staff has no defense. How long do you want to keep playing the what-if game?
P.S. Cops have large magazines for a reason.

If the shooter went for armed staff first - the staff would have to unlock their desk and get their guns out - they'd be dead - of course, that's even assuming that those staff with weapons are in the right part of the building to begin with.

And please - this whole debate is a "what if" game - what if we have a school shooting - already determined to be very very rare. Maybe we'd better prepare for a tsunami while we're at it.

Cops are professionals who have to have the capability to deal with a variety of situations including multiple shooters. Teachers are not.

Instituting well thought out laws (background checks) may prevent some people who should not be getting guns from getting them. If, as you point out - allowing some school staff to bring firearms to school in the hopes it MIGHT prevent a tragedy, then doesn't the same argument apply to some of the gun control ideas as well?

Background checks already happen for many gun purchases, and I don't have a problem with that. Adam Lanza, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris never had to pass a background check for the guns they used because they didn't own them. Stricter background checks would not have prevented any of those deaths. An armed staff member may have. I'd rather take my chances with an armed staff member than stricter background checks that wouldn't cause a background check on any of those murderers.[/QUOTE]

True, background checks would not have caught them. An armed staff member might have or might not have - it's all a big "what if" game.

 

[alan1]

That doesn't make sense. According to your logic - we should be seeing a notable increase in school shootings and we aren't.

It makes perfect sense. Adam Lanza's goal was to kill as many people as he could. He chose a place where he would not face another weapon.
When you and I were growing up, there was no such thing as a "gun free school zone". I can't recall mass killings at schools in those days.

Guns are ending up in the hands of criminals, however the laws that restrict guns on campus may well restrict the ability of a casual, non-criminal getting a gun he might not otherwise get - like a kid finding it in the restroom and thining wow - cool.

So lets enforce the gun laws that are supposed to keep the wrong hands from getting guns, not handcuff the responsible people.

But it isn't necessarily going to be one accidental death vs a carnage of 20. It's not that clear. Now who's being extreme?

And never pretended that all were a carnage, you are extrapolating.

Most school shootings - from your link - involve just a few people - often just the shooter and his victim. The carnages like Sandy Hook are the rarest of the rare. So are you willing to accept the possibility that innocents might be killed by "friendly fire" - possibly even more than were killed by the initial shooter - as reasonable?

I already stated that I am willing to accept some collateral damage in order to prevent carnages like Sandy Hook, VA Tech and Columbine.

If the shooter went for armed staff first - the staff would have to unlock their desk and get their guns out - they'd be dead - of course, that's even assuming that those staff with weapons are in the right part of the building to begin with.

The first staff member, maybe. Once gunshots ring out, the other staff can be prepared to defend innocent life. In today's world, all they can do is try and hide, or face a gunman unarmed. That didn't work out to well for the staff at Sandy Hook, did it?

And please - this whole debate is a "what if" game - what if we have a school shooting - already determined to be very very rare. Maybe we'd better prepare for a tsunami while we're at it.

What? Yer not prepared for a tsunami? (just kidding)
More seriously though, I find it highly unlikely that I would ever have to go 30 days without access to food and/or water, yet oddly enough, I am prepared to do so.

Cops are professionals who have to have the capability to deal with a variety of situations including multiple shooters. Teachers are not.

I don't know why you keep bringing this non-argument up. I've stated it over and over that we are talking about staff, not just teachers. I've repeatedly stated that they should achieve a certification of some sort similar to what police do. Heck, you even accepted that as possible option in one of your earlier posts.

True, background checks would not have caught them. An armed staff member might have or might not have - it's all a big "what if" game.

Only if you allow armed staff members. Your preferred method (and current practice) allows for no option.

 

[Coyote]

That doesn't make sense. According to your logic - we should be seeing a notable increase in school shootings and we aren't.

It makes perfect sense. Adam Lanza's goal was to kill as many people as he could. He chose a place where he would not face another weapon.

Your statement implies you know Adam Lanza's intent and motive, which puts you ahead of the police. Given that he killed himself yet could have kept on killing- I doubt he cared much about his own life or facing other guns. It is just as probable (even more so) that he chose a school for other reasons.

When you and I were growing up, there was no such thing as a "gun free school zone". I can't recall mass killings at schools in those days.

I was a dork in school. I was largely oblivious to drugs and guns. I don't know anyone in school that had a gun or carried one at school. There was no such thing as a "gun free school zone" because there were no guns in the school zone to begin with.

Guns are ending up in the hands of criminals, however the laws that restrict guns on campus may well restrict the ability of a casual, non-criminal getting a gun he might not otherwise get - like a kid finding it in the restroom and thining wow - cool.

So lets enforce the gun laws that are supposed to keep the wrong hands from getting guns, not handcuff the responsible people.

Sure. A universal background check for one. But, there is substantial resistance to that isn't there? And, of course - your statement does nothing to negate what I said does it?

And never pretended that all were a carnage, you are extrapolating.

I'm extrapolating nothing. I'm responding directly to your specific statement: "..than I am willing to accept the carnage at places Sandy Hook -many intentional deaths that may have been prevented"

I already stated that I am willing to accept some collateral damage in order to prevent carnages like Sandy Hook, VA Tech and Columbine.

For some reason that sounds to me like the argument implied but never directly stated by proponants of the death penalty: they are willing to accept that some innocent people may die in order to make sure that murderers are put to death and can't escape and commit further crimes.

I can't accept collatoral damage when the incident it is aimed at preventing is very rare.

The first staff member, maybe. Once gunshots ring out, the other staff can be prepared to defend innocent life. In today's world, all they can do is try and hide, or face a gunman unarmed. That didn't work out to well for the staff at Sandy Hook, did it?

Maybe, however things move very fast. Since we're doing "what-if's" - in the mad scramble to get guns and get off shot, how many innocent people might get hit in the meantime? Sure it gets the shooter, maybe - but in the meantime it may not reduce the death toll that much.

What? Yer not prepared for a tsunami? (just kidding)

I"m taking swimming lessons

More seriously though, I find it highly unlikely that I would ever have to go 30 days without access to food and/or water, yet oddly enough, I am prepared to do so.

You are more prepared then many

Cops are professionals who have to have the capability to deal with a variety of situations including multiple shooters. Teachers are not.

I don't know why you keep bringing this non-argument up. I've stated it over and over that we are talking about staff, not just teachers. I've repeatedly stated that they should achieve a certification of some sort similar to what police do. Heck, you even accepted that as possible option in one of your earlier posts.

You miss my point - it makes no difference if I say teachers or staff - they are not professionals unless you include professional security people who are permitted to carry firearms. My comment has nothing to do with certification - it's directed specifically at your comment: P.S. Cops have large magazines for a reason.

True, background checks would not have caught them. An armed staff member might have or might not have - it's all a big "what if" game.

Only if you allow armed staff members. Your preferred method (and current practice) allows for no option.[/QUOTE]

And again - it's a trade off. You weigh the potential for unintended consequences - accidental shootings, theft of firearms within the school, or misinterpreted situations (the kid with the toy gun) versus the remote possibility of being able to prevent a mass shooting.

Actually - if you are I'm ready for closing arguments

 

[alan1]

That doesn't make sense. According to your logic - we should be seeing a notable increase in school shootings and we aren't.

It makes perfect sense. Adam Lanza's goal was to kill as many people as he could. He chose a place where he would not face another weapon.

Your statement implies you know Adam Lanza's intent and motive, which puts you ahead of the police. Given that he killed himself yet could have kept on killing- I doubt he cared much about his own life or facing other guns. It is just as probable (even more so) that he chose a school for other reasons.

Do you read? Newtown shooter motivated by Norway massacre, sources say - CBS News

Actually - if you are I'm ready for closing arguments

Yes

 

[alan1]

My original closing statement still stands.

Coyote and I agreed to 15 posts each for our debate. However, since I have already changed Coyote’s mind I really don’t feel it necessary to continue the debate, so I will present my closing argument at this time.
In the Coyote’s opening argument, Coyote stated this,

Arming teachers is a poorly thought out reaction in response to what is, in reality, a very rare event.

The title of the thread is “Armed Staff in Schools”, Coyote’s first mistake was changing “Staff” to “Teachers”.

In my opening argument, I ended with this,

I am not advocating that we give every teacher, administrator, janitor or groundskeeper a gun. I want them to have the choice. If they choose to carry a weapon to protect the children, they can take a competency test, perhaps something similar to what police officers have to pass before they are allowed to carry a gun.
Right now, they have no choice.

Me focusing on Staff, not just teachers. Coyote soon agrees with my statement as stated here,

A similar training regime would be tantamount to learning a new full time profession. To be a policeman, in addition to college coursework, you attend an academy that is roughly a year and have a probational period where you are "in training" in the field. If a staff or teacher were willing to go through that - I would not object to them being armed.

So, Coyote admits that armed staff in a school is acceptable. I admire that the Coyote has taken this leap despite the opening argument stating otherwise. We can protect the students, make them safer, and one way is to eliminate the “no tolerance” policy on firearms when it comes to school staff.

 

[Coyote]

It makes perfect sense. Adam Lanza's goal was to kill as many people as he could. He chose a place where he would not face another weapon.

Your statement implies you know Adam Lanza's intent and motive, which puts you ahead of the police. Given that he killed himself yet could have kept on killing- I doubt he cared much about his own life or facing other guns. It is just as probable (even more so) that he chose a school for other reasons.

Do you read? Newtown shooter motivated by Norway massacre, sources say - CBS News

No, I had not seen that yet. Although I note it ends with: In response to this piece, Lt. J. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police told CBS News that the investigation into the motive for the Newtown shooting has not been completed and therefore any statements about the shooter's intent are mere speculation.

I somehow doubt it would have made any difference to him if there might have been armed people there - he would have seen a school full of little kids as an easy target regardless.

Actually - if you are I'm ready for closing arguments

Yes

Ok