NOT Gun Control

...suggest that everyone do their own research regarding shooting incidents involving well trained LEO's and count the number of rounds sent downrange to the number of rounds on target in each/most of those incidents.
I would suggest, as an alternative, that the research be done on how many innocent people were killed or seriously injured by any of those rounds.

It seems fairly obvious, to me, at least, that a person actively trying to protect innocent people is extremely less likely to kill or injure innocent people than a person who is actively trying to kill and injure innocent people.

Scenario 1: Active shooter kills people until he decides to quit or kill himself.
Scenario 2: Active shooter kills people until engaged by an armed defender.
Scenario 3: Active shooter kills people until unarmed defender(s) take him down.

Scenario 1 is pretty clearly the worst of the three because the shooter keeps going until he makes the decision to stop. The killing goes on longest in Scenario 1.

Scenario 3 is better than Scenario 1 because someone stops the killer before he stops himself. But the shooter will likely be able to continue killing longer than in Scenario 2 because it's harder for unarmed defenders to take down a person with a gun than it is for an armed defender.

Scenario 2, is going to stop the shooting fastest. It seems likely that even if there is some collateral damage, the overall outcome is likely to be better than if the shooter gets to stop on his own or if he must be stopped by unarmed defenders.
 
Here is the sticky point. Are we talking about defending yourself? Defending others? Creating a duty for teachers to engage hostiles?

Those are all different things and arming teachers has different utility on each of those points.

I’ve invested a lot in training and I would hate to have the responsibility to clear a structure of any size, let alone a school, by myself and not knowing when LE would arrive. I also can’t imagine having a firearm and not moving to engage in that situation. I can certainly understand why qualified teachers would resent having to make that choice.

Even if we just agree that teachers can defend themselves and have no duty to engage, would you want to be the teacher who tells parents you had a firearn and you blockaded your room and protected those students while the other students in the school died? Even if the parents accepted it, would you? That’s a tough position to be in.
 
The question really is wouldn't you rather be the armed teacher blockaded in your room than one of the other teachers unable to defend themselves or those in their charge?

Would it be difficult to live with having to make a decision that requires deciding stay put and save some, or putting yourself and your students at risk to try stop the attack. Yes, I'm sure it would. Not having that choice would be a far worse option though.
 
JN01
It sounds to me like he isn't willing to consider that armed employees might make a difference because it is more important to him that you not be able to own certain kinds of firearms. He may not fear guns, but rather, hates them (and probably those that own them). The old tripe about the NRA only representing the gun manufacturers is another bogus talking point from Bloomberg and his ilk. Just another ideologue so blinded by his agenda, he isn't willing to consider an alternative that might help to accomplish what he claims to want to do.

Once again I don't think we have enough information to make a psychological evaluation.
As to your last sentence, couldn't the author use that same phrase against people unwilling to even have gun control on the table?
 
It's difficult to have a civilized discussion when one side continually resorts to lies.

http://www.wtsp.com/article/news/lo...ndees-despite-gun-control-debate/67-523267641

Not only that, Nelson is also calling for a ban on assault weapons, saying murders were down after they were banned back in 1994.

“Before that law, they were high and after that law, when the NRA killed the law in 2004, the number of deaths as a result of assault weapons has grown up like a rocket taking off,” he says.
In reality, statistics showed that the federal AWB had no statistically significant effect on gun crime. Furthermore, a post on another discussion on this site led me to start looking into the FBI crime statistics. I'm only about a third of the way into it but one thing I see standing out in stark relief is that rifles (they don't track "assault weapons" as a separate category or subcategory) are used in only a tiny fraction of the murders committed by firearms. In fact, in the last five school shootings, only one involved an "assault weapon." The other four? Nope. Out of the last ten school shootings (up through 12th grade, not including colleges and universities), only three involved "assault weapons."
 
Should teachers be forced to carry ideological water that they personally oppose?

Not if they would rather see the floors of their classrooms littered with dead kids. Denying reality because of unicorn fairyland dreams is for children.
 
Arming teachers is the dumbest idea I've ever come across.
The teachers only line of defense as of now is to use their bodies as a shield to stop bullets meant for kids. You do not think a teacher should be armed, what is your solution?
 
Arming teachers is the dumbest thing you've ever come across?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Leigh_Soto

On December 14, 2012, Soto was teaching her first grade class at Sandy Hook Elementary School, when Adam Lanza made his way into the school, and began to shoot staff and students. After killing fifteen students and two teachers in the first classroom, Lanza entered Soto's classroom. Soto had hidden several children in a closet, and when Lanza entered her classroom, Soto told him that the children were not there and that they were in the school gym. When several children ran from their hiding places, Lanza began shooting at the students. Soto was shot after she "threw herself in front of her first grade students."
I wonder if Victoria Soto would have wanted the option of being able to defend her students?
 
In reality, statistics showed that the federal AWB had no statistically significant effect on gun crime.

Yet when they want it back, the gun-control lobby will lie about its effectiveness. During the CNN town hall, Rep. Deutsch claimed mass shootings went up by 200% after the original AWB expired. Politifact (who are hardly pro-gun) roundly debunked the allegation.
 
I am a professor and I believe I should be able to arm myself and I agree that arming teachers that want to be armed is a good idea...I see the lefts argument though. Just today on FB I see the following two articles:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/utah-teacher-shoots-herself-the-leg-while-school

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-teacher-left-gun-in-bathroom-elementary-kids-found-it/

I really just think schools should have armed guards, metal detectors, and rifle proof glass, doors, doors that bolt shut, etc. - To start. These kinds of things should of happened after columbine, no clue why we are still talking about it. But who is going to pay? Most teachers I know in NC don't have money for class pencils let alone bullet proof glass. They also only make like 30k a year and 50% leave after 5 years. Its a really crappy job.
 
I looked at the linked articles, one from 2014, the other from 2016.

IN 2016, an elderly teacher (63) at a private school forgot and left her holstered gun on the toilet tank. She resigned before the school could take any action.

in 2014, a teacher shot herself in the leg (before school hours, but on school grounds). I was most curious, when I started reading the article if they would say what it was that she shot herself with. The article did not say.

This incident put me very much in mind of the video that was popular on the net a few years, back, of an undercover police officer, giving a talk to a school class (elementary age kids), holding up his pistol, and loudly proclaiming, "I am the only one in this room capable of handling the Glock "Fou-Tay". He then promptly shot himself in the leg with it, while trying to reholster the gun.

A couple of incidents, a few years ago does illustrate the kind of things that could happen. I don't consider those alone to be enough to base public policy on, but I'm not the one formulating the policy...

I really just think schools should have armed guards, metal detectors, and rifle proof glass, doors, doors that bolt shut, etc. - To start.

While I agree that those things (and some others) would hurt nothing other than some budgets, you have to realize that the greatest value from these things is as a deterrent, not a preventative. (and why do doors need to be rifle bullet proof glass??? I would think that solid wood, metal sheathed, or metal doors (with windows too small to pass a person) would do just fine, and be cheaper...

Understand that making the schools "hard targets" architecturally is just a deterrent. And so are armed guards. And so would armed teachers, be.

Understand that the attacker ALWAYS has the advantage. This is something the media isn't saying. The attacker's advantage is that they choose the time and the place. And they often choose places known to them.

Which gives them yet another advantage. Armed guards? deterrent. POSSIBLY able to stop an attacker, if they get the chance. If the armed guards are the first one(s) shot, (which has happened) your protection from having armed guards is over.

Metal detectors? OK, now who responds if the killer sets off the metal detectors, and who gets shot, first??

I'm in favor of good heavy doors,, that actually lock, but there are fire & building codes that must also be complied with.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do these kind of things, things that decrease the attractiveness of schools as targets are worth doing. Just don't buy into the lie that doing these things will absolutely guarantee safety. They won't.

You may deter (or stop) 99% of attackers, but that last wackjob WILL still do his thing, and its very likely he will have both planned, and be prepared to defeat all the security that he knows about.

This is the strong point for allowing teachers to be armed (NOT "arming teachers", that term is something different, and is used by the media to further confuse the issue), the fact that the attacker does not know which teachers may be armed. Armed teachers may also fail as a deterrent, there are no guarantees.

One thing that has proven generally true, when something (anything, particularly active resistance) disrupts the killers plans, their fantasy ends, and their "mission" goes out the window. Quite often they have broken off the attack, and retreated. Some have killed themselves, some have just sat down and waited to be arrested.

Is this guaranteed to happen? No. The only thing that is guaranteed is that if not disturbed, these killer will continue to kill until they decide to stop.

I say anything that has a chance of changing that is worth trying. Even if it fails. "Die if you must, but never fight back" is not something I think should be taught in our schools, either as classroom instruction, or as the valiant, but futile actions of teachers & staff.

Men and women dying trying to shield children with their bodies because it was their only option is tremendous moral courage, but it sucks as a tactical doctrine. We could, and should do better. And we can, if certain segments of society allows us to. So far, they aren't... :mad:
 
JN01



As to your last sentence, couldn't the author use that same phrase against people unwilling to even have gun control on the table?

Not really. Their proposal (assault weapon restrictions) has been tried multiple times and found to be ineffective. Not wanting to reconsider a failed policy is not the same as refusing to even debate a new one.
 
If a gunman comes in the only door of a classroom and systematically starts shooting every student one by one, the argument that the teacher shouldn't be armed because he might accidentally hit a student doesn't make much sense.

Extreme circumstances sometimes call for extreme measures.

Incidentally, The Buckeye Firearms Association has a free training program for school staff. Many Ohio school districts have allowed their employees to take the training and authorize them to carry in schools. http://fastersaveslives.org/about
 
Back
Top