Best
134 Comments
Post
  • #21
    !
    I think it should be up to the individual teacher. If he/she can qualify for a carry permit where required, then sure. We know that uniformed police/security officers are the first targets. But a plain clothes trained teacher could have the element of surprise to his/her advantage.
  • #37
    !
    @keyjo That observation makes way to much sense and is to simplistic to be accepted as viable. Doesn't it make sense more to have to wait thirty minutes for somebody with a gun to come save you?
  • #46
    !
    One thought on this, however....While I am in favor of this action, I am not sure every state or city in the nation could do this. Places like Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Montana, etc. where people grow up understanding and being exposed to firearms can do this. This may be a culture issue that is best left to each state and local government to decide....depending upon the will of its citizens.
  • #3
    !
    How did having an armed guard help Columbine?
    If you are going to have someone armed protecting every school then either give the beat to a police officer or create a new corp of paid security for every school made up exclusively of returning vets. Let teachers teach.
  • #5
    !
    Some of those teachers may already be returning vets, and if not maybe proficient with weapons already. Why are cops and vets the only people who are supposed to know how to use a gun?
  • #8
    !
    @CATTLEPROD
    You want amateurs protecting your child?
    Let the teacher who is a vet step down and be security then. Lets have someone whose sole job is protecting the kids.
  • #11
    !
    We do realize that not all vets were proficient in the use of weapons....right? Not trying to put down the vets, just trying to make it clear that not all soldiers either saw combat and/or trained "heavily" in the use of weapons.
  • #13
    !
    @Cheenoguy So he (or she), I'm trying to be pc, has to give up thier day job, something they probably love doing, to be a security gaurd for the rest of thier life. On the small chance, it is still like being struck by lightning statistically, that thier school is the one to have the problem. I remember being told in class, back when they still taught you how to read and write, that the reason we didnt have national school standards was because of regional differances and what you need in new york may be differant than alabama in what you need to function and survive in society. What makes you think people down south from kentucky through tennesee, missisippi, alabama, and up through montana and the dakotas wouldnt know how to teach with a gun in thier pocket, that they have probably known how to use from before they were old enough to drive? I'll read your response later, I have to go to work, so I can pay taxes, so that so many disadvantaged can sit at home and watch jerry springer today.
  • #18
    !
    @Cheenoguy "Let the teacher who is a vet step down and be security then." - That sounds like something coming out of a collectivist society playbook. The USA is NOT a collectivist society, contrary to what you want it to be (China, North Korea, Russia are collectivist). Why should they have to step down as teachers (something they probably love doing) just because they are Veterans or prior Law Enforcement? I still like to think in this society that one can be both if he/she is qualified.
  • R Load more replies

  • #17
    !
    As far as I'm concerned, every law abiding citizen has the right to carry a weapon if they feel the need. As I've said many times, carrying a weapon is like driving off road. By the time you realize you need to be in four wheel drive, it's too late. Same with a weapon. things can happen just that fast.
  • #117
    !
    Yeah 99% of teachers who decide to carry would never have to use their gun (similar to how it is for police). But if you were the adult in the classroom (or bank, or church, or workplace, or home) getting invaded by an armed criminal, why wouldn't you at least want the option to use a gun to defend yourself?
    Its counter-intuitive to me to think disarming people or keeping them disarmed is the best response to having violent criminals in our society whether the criminals have guns or not. That's like saying, let them shoot you, beat you, rape you, kidnap you, steal or destroy your possessions, and let the police and/or coroner sort things out later after you or another person are a victim.
    Personally I would rather just shoot the aggressor and the police can sort that out.
  • #33
    !
    Yes sir repeatedly. This fantasy land or state of denial people live in is defies all reasoning. I have yet to see one time when the people they trust with a gun get there in time. Has making something illegal ever made one bit of a difference? Murder is all ready a crime. Has that stopped murders from happening? I learned in boy scouts what the answer to the problem is. "Be prepared"
  • #39
    !
    @truthsayer Exactly. We see how DC's 'clip ban' worked out. Not only was D. Gregory able to get one, he put it on TV.

    Gun laws are useless. And 'gun-free zones' are proven to be deadly.
  • #7
    !
    I think it is time to arm and train our teachers and also pay them extra for hazard duty it's just the way the world is today!! It's that or let the crazies keep killing our kid's! Gun Control will not stop it!!!!!
  • #16
    !
    How about school security before the school grounds are entered? "Choke" points are far easier to secure than a whole campus. And most teachers are not gun friendly/nuts. I would bet that most teachers are passive at best....do to their calling to teach. Do we really want teachers to be made to carry? And to cover most school grounds, it would take 4-8 armed teachers at minimum, otherwise, the shooting would be over way before the security got there (akin to police in the "outside" world not able to "protect and serve" all at all times).
  • #23
    !
    Correction, only if the teachers wish to take on that extra duty and only if they are (or can become) properly qualified to do so. Forcing teachers will not solve the problem either. Additionally, there are other measures that can be taken outside of firearms to better secure schools. Choke points for one, reinforced doors that are bulletproof and only open from the inside would be another idea. I have no problem if a teacher wants to arm him/herself in the interest of protecting the children so long as he/she is qualified to do so, but we need an all of the above approach to school safety.
  • #68
    !
    @stepped_in_it the only problem I have with your "choke points" idea is that it would make school more like a prison, which some kids already feel like it is. The more we treat children like criminals (whether for their protection, or its the preferred teaching method) the more they will act like criminals.I believe high schoolers are already too restricted, at least where I went to school. But that's another debate. If the faculty wish to take it upon themselves, then they should be allowed to do so. The students shouldn't get to know which teachers are carrying, and the teachers shouldn't have to actively hunt down a target on campus. But, at least they could protect their classroom if the lunatic decides to pick their classroom. But as others have said, we need a more "all of the above" approach. There is not a single apron to this problem. Gun free zones are only effective against those that respect the law, which psychopaths obviously do not.
  • #99
    !
    @mynameisaric I agree that choke points would make school more "like prison"...But, teachers cannot protect the whole school and (I'll bet) the majority of them won't want to carry either. Again, teachers are a more "passive" group (in my opinion) and only entered teaching to teach! And the skill to use a gun is not everybody's cup of tea. It only takes minutes to attack a few class rooms....and those armed teachers would not even get their guns out by then.
  • #101
    !
    @stepped_in_it I just think it's ridiculous how the entire country wishes to uproot everything over rare occurrence. It's already hard enough to get our children educated. Forcing them to go through choke points and metal detectors, and restricting their movement through the building is not going to encourage them to learn. It may make their parents have a false sense of security, but I don't believe it will do anything to halt a planned massacre. I for one refuse to persecute the majority to put a minor road block in the way of a fractional minority of crazed psychopaths. It's a smaller scale attack on the freedoms of our children, just like the patriot act, ndaa and homeland security are large scale attacks on the freedoms of American citizens.
  • R Load more replies

  • #134
    !
    All the shootings have not happened only in schools, but in malls, churches, theaters, military facilities, etc. How are we going to protect all those places? The NRA president only mentioned schools, who knows why?
  • #132
    !
    It will take more than just the Principal or a designated teacher. Only one armed person just makes that person a prime target. Two is minimal to be effective against an intruder and three is really minimal. It is necessary to keep a shooter under attack from different angles to be able to stop a threat. The more armed teachers the better.
  • #131
    !
    Of course! Why didn't it occur to me?!

    The only solution to mass murders is the enabling and encouragement of even MORE mass murder by increasing the distribution of firearms and politicizing their use as a necessity for the protection of our children...!

    The minds that thought this idea up must be wondering why this hasn't occurred to anyone else! But then, not all of us are insecure, fearful, war mongering throwbacks to the dark ages.
  • #128
    !
    its a sad day that we as a nation have come to but for the childerns safty there seems no other good way. But maybe we should add a course on the value of human life
  • #127
    !
    When I viewed the numerous law inforcement officers rushing the school in Newtown, CT it struck fearin my heart so deeply that I could barely stop myself from leaving to remove my children from their schools. My community has one deputy and the Sherrifs office is 35 miles away, State Police an hour away. For me, as a parent, trained armed teachers would not only be comfortable but logical. School shootings are very rare, rarer than winning the lottery. And while it may have happened I have never heard a teacher going crazy and shooting their students, so that it must be infintesimal. I know if someone somehow got into the school an armed teachers is far more likely to be able to do something than law enforcement for my children. To that end I have already started this conversation with my school board member and my county supervisor. I hope to be able to vote on it in 2013.
  • #123
    !
    YES!,but the chosen individual should keep in mind, a split second decision could be in her/his future..When I attended police training,the range master reminded"us"at every class,never"pull" your gun unless your going to shoot and always shoot to kill,the perpetrator(?)always knows what he is going to do,you have to take the time to make/think about your next"move/ decision".Do whatever is necessary to protect those legally on the school grounds!
  • #119
    !
    this is alot of talk, and some of it is real good. I personally believe that if a teacher wants to carry, they should be allowed to if they can pass a gun safety class. But then why not put guns in movie theaters,restaurants, workplaces,shopping centers. Schools are not the only place kids have been killed. If we were free to carry everywhere we go the criminal mind would they they would have less chance of success where ever they went.-It is better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
  • #118
    !
    School security should be handled by police. Some teachers and principals would be a danger to the children and other adults with a weapon in their hands.
  • R Load more comments...
Post