Teachers need firearms...

[seasprite]

When I was in school we use keep shotguns and .22's and deer rifles in our vehicles on school property. Never a word about how evil it was and the cops were never called or the schools put on lockdown over it let alone an actual shooting at a school. Times have changed and we have to change with them by letting our teachers practice a constitutional right of self defence its the only way I can see this outcome with school budgets being strained as it is. Hiring security is another but like I said the money is going to have to come from somewhere and my taxes are high enough a teacher is already on the payroll so for the price of training you get an armed trained citizen that can respond to an active shooter thats alright with me because thats what we used to do in this country before the liberals took over. WATCH OUT FOR EACH OTHER AND HELP IF YOU CAN.  

[sketch]

Gnat has your back hidden in a secret compartment !!

[planeflyer21]

^if I'm not mistaken, Israeli parents are disarmed. very restrictive gun laws. all those pics of "civilians" with M16s are just off duty IDF or hired security, and most of those pics show the rifles unloaded using those mag block things.

 

In response to the PLO attacks on schools (one or two terrorists with AKs and or grenades, charge into the school and kill as many children as possible), teams of 2-4 parents at each entrance to the school property.

 

I'm not aware that this policy was changed.

 

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob81.html

 

"Israel began the program of armed citizen guards in the schools after the Maalot massacre in the 1970s, when a large number of children were slain in a terrorist incident. The volunteer parents work in plain clothes, armed with concealed semi-automatic pistols, and are trained by Israel's home guard. It is significant that in the more than a quarter century between Maalot and the incident mentioned above when the citizen guards shot down the terrorist in the school in 2002, not a single child was murdered in an Israeli school!"

[blue109]

gotcha. I understand they have trained guards, paid and volunteers. I just meant average Joe citizen in Israel is neutered.

[survivalshop]

survival...your comment is getting dangerously close to "why let people defend themselves with guns...we need more police"

  You need to read my posts over again . Or seem to read them wrong ( not the first time for you ) , now where did I even say anything like that . Do you just think I want to disarm the citizenry & am a closet gun banner WTF .

   I guess I have to spell it out to all who wants to listen, I have not in my life met a teacher that I would trust to protect my children , with or with out a gun , most are pacifists & are pencil pushers , at most. I have no problem arming anyone , but if they are supposedly protecting my children , I want them trained properly & keep it up , regularly  ( which will probably go to the way side because of inactivity of any danger ). They should not be the first line of defense , but part of a layered defense if & I mean if , they are needed & it would be the last line of the defense . They are teachers & thats what they are , not trained security.

 I'm not saying there are not some that can fit the bill , just not any I have met in my life time & that includes the College professors or what ever they call them selfs .

  There is far more to using deadly force in a class room then out on the street & I want personal doing it that have a handle on the concept , not a last ditch effort , with all the strings attached to a teacher with permission to conceal a firearm.

 

  I have been fighting the good fight for more years than most here on this sight ( I'll be most of you were in school when I was a class three FFL dealer )& you have never read anything I posted that said anything like your comment .

[blue109]

simmer down tiger, I wasn't trying to imply you were. your statement did sound like it came right from an anti gun slogan though. nobody is saying that teachers should be a first line of defense, but if there is a teacher or two who can handle a weapon, and they are willing to take on the responsibility and ensure they are trained up, id rather them be a last line of defense with legal blessing than a victim.

there are still teachers out there who havnt figured out they are suppose to be sheep.

nobody wants to "let it get to that point" but it may just well happen wether we want it to or not, and one more layer protecting my children is ok with me.

Edited September 15, 2014 by blue109

[392heminut]

I've met several teachers in the shooting sports that I would trust to take care of my kids, and just for the record I don't shoot bullseye or F class! All of my shooting is action pistol, 3 gun and that sort of thing and this is where I meet these educators. I will admit that a HUGE percentage of teachers are whiny a$sed liberals that cower at the thought of carrying a gun, and the biggest percentage is in administration!

 

We had our own school shooting here back in 1999 but only one student was shot and killed so it kind of gets put on the back burner of school shootings.

[Magwa]

Idaho being as gun friendly as they are recently passed a law where now studens who qualify can carry on campus...... and Tom and others are correct it is here it is now and we must deal with it in a the manner it warrants. zero talerence, zero the problem is the whole country is turning into wimps who do not want to be bothered by anything except their smart phones and twitter and face book, We have to be very viligant in this if a teacher wants to carry then train them if they do not then leave them alone but hire teachers with better insights... Hire teachers who understand what the problem is not teachers who will just go screaming help help. we need fighters sad yes, unplesant yes, but the bad guys are out there deal with them !

[crimsonfalcon07]

I don't think anyone would propose to just arm teachers willy nilly, although the point that teachers are often not the best is well put.  I would certainly oppose any sort of policy that advocated for any volunteer teacher being able to carry in schools, regardless of training (or lack thereof).  It boggles my mind that people buy a gun and then never train to use it.

But it would really make a lot of sense to have a training protocol that would license a teacher to carry in school.  Thing is, it can't just be firearms training.  Sure, they should be completely proficient with their weapon, but I think conflict de-escalation, unarmed third-party defense, first aid for gunshot wounds, psych training for what it's like to take a life, and other emergency response protocols should all be required.

That's the thing that really bothers me about many gun owners.  They go out and buy a gun and immediately think that they've got the be-all and end-all response to any and all threats.  All too many think that their gun is the FIRST response to any threatening situation, and it's also all too frequent for gun owners to talk about blowing some scumbag away.  But many don't even bother to train with their firearms, and even those that do, rarely spend the time training for anything else.  Which means that a situation that didn't have to be lethal tends to end up with somebody dead, because somebody thinks that, because they have a gun, that they've suddenly become Judge Dredd.  For my part, it's important to me to not only know HOW to use my gun, but also to have put a lot of thought and training into WHEN to use my gun.  How many train not just drawing a gun, but also what they need to yell as they draw so that bystanders don't think they're the aggressor?  How many train in how to deescalate a situation so they don't NEED to draw their guns?  How many would blow someone away for sneaking about in their houses late at night?  Anyone see how that could go wrong?  There are a lot of situations in which even the most well-meaning and proficient gun owners would go for a gun when they really don't need to.

Does a school shooter deserve to die in every circumstance?  I wouldn't be surprised to find that most gun owners think so.  But in at least some of these cases, the shooter is an otherwise decent kid who has been bullied for years, and nobody has done anything to help that kid, or punish their assailant, and finally that kid just snaps, gets a gun to even the odds, and comes to school to make sure that bully can't mess with them again.  Does that kid deserve to die because of the school's failure to protect him or her?

 

I'm absolutely in favor of having more of an armed presence in schools.  But that presence needs to be properly trained.

And not by these schmucks who make up stuff like this Sleeve nonsense, or the people who think it's a great idea to cluster all your unarmed victims in a single room, and then put them OPPOSITE THE DOOR.  If I'm unarmed in an active shooter situation, I'm not going to put all my eggs in one basket, and I'm certainly not going to make it possible for the shooter to gun down all the kids without even entering the room.  They're going to be behind cover if possible, or concealment if not, and I'm going to be low, right by the door, so I can have a shot at taking out the shooter before s/he enters, particularly if the shooter doesn't have tactical training and doesn't know to slice the pie.  And, I've taken classes on how to disarm a shooter and eliminate that threat without myself being armed, so if MY students ever end up in that situation, I've got some way to protect them other than just hiding and waiting for them to be shot.

[blue109]

at the risk of sounding argumentative (not trying to be, just curious) do you agree with gun free zones or mandatory training/licensing for firearm carrying?

[crimsonfalcon07]

Negatory.  I just think that, if we're going to do it right, not pass something knee-jerk that would end up failing and more kids dying, that we ought to do it right.  I don't know if any of the rest of you work with teenagers, but you don't want unsecured firearms near them, and it only takes one mistake to end up on the news.  Better we get it as right as possible from the get-go.

What I am in favor of is having a next-tier concealed carry permit with much stronger training requirements that would streamline future firearms purchase.  You take the training, you opt in, and you get perks.  Maybe you don't have to undergo background checks every time you buy, or you can get NFA stuff without paying 200 bucks for the tax stamp.  Or something of the sort.  Not mandatory, but optional.

 

And what's this gun-free zone you speak of?  You mean come-and-shoot-me zones?  Victims-here zones?

[blue109]

I don't think step-uncle Sam has any intention of making NFA items any easier to obtain! would be nice though.

Edited September 17, 2014 by blue109

[crimsonfalcon07]

Nope, just like I doubt Big Brother has any intention of passing virtually anything sensible having to do with guns.  But as long as we're hoping...

Here's another thought--what if gun safes were tax deductible?  I mean, a bunch of shootings have happened with stolen guns that hadn't been properly secured.  And gun safes are expensive.  What if you could deduct the purchase of a safe from your income taxes?

[blue109]

THAT is a good idea! along those lines, since Mr millionaire Bloomberg is so set on spending money to curb gun violence, maybe he ought to subsidize gun safes instead of making TV commercials!

[planeflyer21]

Here's another thought--what if gun safes were tax deductible? 

 

What is it anti-gunners complain?  Firearms incidents are a burden monitarily on police, EMS, the medical system, lost production, etc.

 

I've said for years that firearms training should be tax deductable...take it right off the top if it is such a burden.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if they were really worried about people not getting hurt.

[98Z5V]

You bring up a good point, and I concur whole-heartedly.  100% and then some.  This point you made is excellent.

 

 

But it would really make a lot of sense to have a training protocol that would license a teacher to carry in school.  Thing is, it can't just be firearms training.  Sure, they should be completely proficient with their weapon, but I think conflict de-escalation, unarmed third-party defense, first aid for gunshot wounds, psych training for what it's like to take a life, and other emergency response protocols should all be required.

 

 

You need to create a First Reponder.  Not talking "First Responder" in the medical-training sense - but they need that, too.

 

You need someone to be able to respond to an attack quickly.  VERY quickly.  The faster the better.  There is nobody closer to the situation in a school, than the personnal employed in that location, and present right then.

 

So, the list of things that you mention are ALL training aspects that they need.

 

In light of this, and on to another point that you make - maybe we need to look at the people we hire as "teachers."  Wimp-a$s liberal, granola-crunchin', gun-hatin' weenies would not meet the minimum criteria.  By default, from a military-recruitment standpoint, those ones would be classified as "Conscientious Objectors."  Nope, disqualified - you can't serve.  You can't serve in the military like that, and you can't serve as a teacher like that.

 

I don't know here - maybe that's what needs to be done.  What's happening isn't going to stop.  No way.  It's going to increase, as the very moral fiber of this country deteriorates. 

 

We protect our leadership and our future with firearms.  Politicians, Money, ACTORS...  other Celebrities...  What we really need to do is protect our future.  Our children are our future - nothing else is.

[planeflyer21]

You need someone to be able to respond to an attack quickly.  VERY quickly.  The faster the better.  There is nobody closer to the situation in a school, than the personnal employed in that location, and present right then.

 

Offered this training too, to a different school after Virginia Tech.  The school facilities and staffing situation was IDEAL for a swift neutralization of threats, with minimum risk to the children.

 

Received like free dog crap with chocolate on top.  

 

The sales pitch needs to be have retirees...with time and LOTS of training...serve as volunteers in a First Responder role.

 

"But if everyone shuns violence, then violence will stop.  Kumbiya!"

[crimsonfalcon07]

Well, thing is, we hire teachers as teachers first, which makes sense.  Except for the list of regulations.  Get us an ex-mil school board chief, and then maybe we're in business.  As you say, we need a few active shooter first response folks, and hiring for that, or getting volunteers for that, would be a very different story than what you hire for in a teacher.  Now, I'll grant you, by and large I tend to be unimpressed with many teachers these days in context of teaching skill.  We need to hire based on how good people are at teaching the content, not on how well they've mastered that content themselves.  But that's a rant for another day, coming from a professional teacher.

However, what I'd envisioned was an opt-in program, which would largely address your concerns.  The people who would put themselves through the training so they would be better prepared to do what it takes to protect their kids wouldn't have many of the hangups you describe.

 

I'm also less prepared to paint all teachers, liberals, etc, with the same brush.  People are individuals, as sheep-like as the current political divide may be forcing them to appear these days, and there's a lot of stupidity on either side of any issue or political separation.  Many of the most ignorant, self-righteous, and obnoxious people that I know are conservatives, and many of them are unable to appreciate truth in an alternate perspective if it's shoved up their asses with a 10 foot pole.  There are gun-owning liberals out there, just like there are gun-owning teachers out there.  I bet Texas is full of the latter.  A mentally flexible person should be able to appreciate that the other side, no matter how much we may disagree, isn't comprised exclusively of idiots, and thus does have some elements of truth to their position.  The conclusions that they draw may be wrong, or based on flawed evidence, but they're likely smart people who believe what they do for better reasons than stupidity.  If you can't accept that, of COURSE you're never going to be able to change anything.  Ever heard the adage "know thine enemy?"  It never ceases to surprise how little of that gets attempted by folks these days, liberal OR conservative.

 

Regardless, if teachers, or parental volunteers, who have been carefully screened and willingly undergo the aforementioned training, want to help supplement security in our schools, I suspect that would only be a good thing.  And it would circumvent a lot of the objections:  "but the police have the training...so do our volunteers;" "but we don't have room in the budget for guns...not relevant, because they're VOLUNTEERS;" "but what if a kid gets shot...that's what we're trying to prevent, and why our volunteers have training in how to deescalate a situation."

 

For that matter, how about making our school counselors a lot more accessible, and giving them better training in mental health.  The big commonality between pretty much all mass shootings is mental health.  I tend to think that schools could do a lot to circumvent shootings by paying more attention to the mental health of their students.

 

Perhaps, as long as we're having this discussion, we should put some serious thought into what such training might consist of, and put together some proposals for our legislative folks.  We also should consider discussing with our local gun rights groups the possibility of working on school board elections and getting some veterans to run.

[survivalshop]

  The first layer of defense should be the building , a secure building & it doors , windows will make a shooter to be funneled to a specific entrance point , which should be maned by an armed , trained security . I suppose it could be maned by rotating teachers , but would not be my first choice.

  You have to understand , these are children , that are doing the shooting & I don't care how many games they play on a PC screen, they are not trained in assaults on secured buildings . They may plan , but not the same as a trained professional .

  The whole idea of the added building security is deterrence , if people & students see the extra security in the building & armed guards , it will not seem like a soft target , same with Colleges , each building is an island of security.

  If you are thinking about what would happen in case of a fire , well I have worked with fire control systems & they can lock & unlock doors with great efficiency & that includes security type doors.

  All this above can be done relatively quickly & cost would not be restrictive , of course you would have to have Administrators that would want to do something about it.

 

  Now here is a real good one for you that don't really understand what we are up against, There is a first grade ( !st. grade ,no less ) questionnaire for each student to take , I guess to there parents  & one question on it is " How Many GUNs are in your house " WTF . I'm waiting for a copy of it to share .