Should We Arm Our Teachers?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes.

I'll bet you $10K that that teacher is a member of the Israeli Army

In the Reserves, sure. Virtually every Israeli is.

which would make all the difference in the world as to my opinion. Even the weekend warriors get some basic weapons training.

 

[westwall]

And that's the question: can it be demonstrated that allowing teachers w/a CCW to carry while in school puts kids at a greater risk than they face from school shootings?

We already have one accident with a teacher and at least five accidental discharges by police officers at schools in the last three years or so. But since we have not yet begun to insert a lot of loaded and unsecured weapons into schools it hasn't been tested. Do you think using children as guinea pigs is a good idea? If a kid gets shot because his teacher left her gun in her purse and he thought it was a toy, do we say "ah well, it was worth a try" or "it was in a good cause"?

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.

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.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We already have one accident with a teacher and at least five accidental discharges by police officers at schools in the last three years or so. But since we have not yet begun to insert a lot of loaded and unsecured weapons into schools it hasn't been tested. Do you think using children as guinea pigs is a good idea? If a kid gets shot because his teacher left her gun in her purse and he thought it was a toy, do we say "ah well, it was worth a try" or "it was in a good cause"?

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.

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.

^ which is why I'm fine with a LIMITED number of teachers being allowed to carry, rather than just opening it up to ALL teachers carrying.

What, maybe 25% of those who would carry if they could would take it seriously enough to train?

 

[2aguy]

which would make all the difference in the world as to my opinion. Even the weekend warriors get some basic weapons training.

And they only fire the weapon once a year....I know...I was in the National Guard.....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

which would make all the difference in the world as to my opinion. Even the weekend warriors get some basic weapons training.

And they only fire the weapon once a year....I know...I was in the National Guard.....

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

 

[2aguy]

And that's the question: can it be demonstrated that allowing teachers w/a CCW to carry while in school puts kids at a greater risk than they face from school shootings?

We already have one accident with a teacher and at least five accidental discharges by police officers at schools in the last three years or so. But since we have not yet begun to insert a lot of loaded and unsecured weapons into schools it hasn't been tested. Do you think using children as guinea pigs is a good idea? If a kid gets shot because his teacher left her gun in her purse and he thought it was a toy, do we say "ah well, it was worth a try" or "it was in a good cause"?

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.....

 

[2aguy]

which would make all the difference in the world as to my opinion. Even the weekend warriors get some basic weapons training.

And they only fire the weapon once a year....I know...I was in the National Guard.....

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

I was in the Illinois Army National Guard for 7 years right out of High School, in the Infantry.....I did my Basic and AIT at Fort Benning, Georgia.....and yes...after Basic Training and Advanced Inividual Training we fired our weapons once a year to qualify...the rest of the time we fired blanks with MILES gear (laser tag).

 

[2aguy]

You have to realize....ammo is expensive...and coordinating range time on the limited ranges is time consuming...with all the other training we had to do....and I was a Rifleman in an infantry company....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

which would make all the difference in the world as to my opinion. Even the weekend warriors get some basic weapons training.

And they only fire the weapon once a year....I know...I was in the National Guard.....

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

I was in the Illinois Army National Guard for 7 years right out of High School, in the Infantry.....I did my Basic and AIT at Fort Benning, Georgia.....and yes...after Basic Training and Advanced Inividual Training we fired our weapons once a year to qualify...the rest of the time we fired blanks with MILES gear (laser tag).

That's ******* insane.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You have to realize....ammo is expensive...and coordinating range time on the limited ranges is time consuming...with all the other training we had to do....and I was a Rifleman in an infantry company....

As I said, that's crazy. We fired hundreds and hundreds of rounds a year in training.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

According to this standard, you believe the police should arrive unarmed to a school with an active shooter.
:roll:

 

[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.

According to this standard, you believe the police should arrive unarmed to a school with an active shooter.
:roll:

Don't the police know that bringing guns to an active shooter event just makes it worse....I mean...come on....they are bringing MORE guns to the scene.....what good do they think that will do......don't they know guns are only made to kill.....

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes.

I'll bet you $10K that that teacher is a member of the Israeli Army

You have to realize....ammo is expensive...and coordinating range time on the limited ranges is time consuming...with all the other training we had to do....and I was a Rifleman in an infantry company....

As I said, that's crazy. We fired hundreds and hundreds of rounds a year in training.

Must be nice to have an unlimited budget for ammo.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes.

I'll bet you $10K that that teacher is a member of the Israeli Army

You have to realize....ammo is expensive...and coordinating range time on the limited ranges is time consuming...with all the other training we had to do....and I was a Rifleman in an infantry company....

As I said, that's crazy. We fired hundreds and hundreds of rounds a year in training.

Must be nice to have an unlimited budget for ammo.

Oh, certainly our budget wasn't unlimited, but we did have a pretty generous ammo budget at most places I was stationed.

 

[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.

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.

^ which is why I'm fine with a LIMITED number of teachers being allowed to carry, rather than just opening it up to ALL teachers carrying.

What, maybe 25% of those who would carry if they could would take it seriously enough to train?

The only one's I advocate arming, are those who wish to be, and are willing to undergo the training. As it sits now, the schools are happy hunting grounds for those who wish to do harm. So clearly that philosophy hasn't worked. We know that kooks won't attack those who they know are armed. Why do you think the vast majority of burglary's are during the day when people are at work.

It is my opinion that when it is known that schools are no longer the easy target they are now the violent kooks will pick some other, softer target.

 

[westwall]

which would make all the difference in the world as to my opinion. Even the weekend warriors get some basic weapons training.

And they only fire the weapon once a year....I know...I was in the National Guard.....

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

I was in the Illinois Army National Guard for 7 years right out of High School, in the Infantry.....I did my Basic and AIT at Fort Benning, Georgia.....and yes...after Basic Training and Advanced Inividual Training we fired our weapons once a year to qualify...the rest of the time we fired blanks with MILES gear (laser tag).

That's ******* insane.

It's also factual. Even regular Army troops get very little range time unless they are getting ready to deploy.

 

[westwall]

You have to realize....ammo is expensive...and coordinating range time on the limited ranges is time consuming...with all the other training we had to do....and I was a Rifleman in an infantry company....

As I said, that's crazy. We fired hundreds and hundreds of rounds a year in training.

Which army and when?

 

[PratchettFan]

We already have one accident with a teacher and at least five accidental discharges by police officers at schools in the last three years or so. But since we have not yet begun to insert a lot of loaded and unsecured weapons into schools it hasn't been tested. Do you think using children as guinea pigs is a good idea? If a kid gets shot because his teacher left her gun in her purse and he thought it was a toy, do we say "ah well, it was worth a try" or "it was in a good cause"?

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.



Your assertion that civilians "are more likely to just blast away" is likewise ignorant of, and ignores the factual evidence. The reason why civilians kill more than cops is because they are the victims of the crime (thus they are there) and there are more people to be made victims than there are cops. It's simple numbers but once again you let your anti gun talking points get in the way of logic and facts.

 

[PratchettFan]

We already have one accident with a teacher and at least five accidental discharges by police officers at schools in the last three years or so. But since we have not yet begun to insert a lot of loaded and unsecured weapons into schools it hasn't been tested. Do you think using children as guinea pigs is a good idea? If a kid gets shot because his teacher left her gun in her purse and he thought it was a toy, do we say "ah well, it was worth a try" or "it was in a good cause"?

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.