Pistol packing teachers

I think there's some confusion on the call to let teachers carry is about. Nobody wants to force any teacher to do this and nobody thinks this will be the end of all school shootings. All we are saying is that if a teacher that has a CC license wants to carry his pistol on school grounds he or she should be allowed to. This "gun free zone" thing is not saving lives and may in fact encourage school shootings. Glad to clear that up for those of you on the left that seem to think we are demanding teachers become armed police. You're welcome.

 

There's no confusion.

That's the NRA position

 

If educators cannot be trusted to be around students on the basis of legally carrying a concealed weapon, then they cannot be trusted as individuals at all, and should not be allowed around students to begin with. It is either one or the other. Either they can be trusted, or they cannot, there is no in between. Especially when there is no evidence, none whatsoever, of educators having their firearm stolen by uncooperative students. If such was happening in states where the concealed carry of firearms by educators is legal, it would be all over the news.

 

WHAT?

Did you really just say that?

Jesus...you people will say anything

 

As it should be. Many on the left in here seem under the impression that teachers will somehow be required to carry weapons and forced into the double role of police and teacher. Letting teachers that carry in the shopping mall also carry in school seems fairly straightforward and sense of the common kind.

 

The Democratic Party's position is that the school coach and the kids he was trying to shield all had a duty to be defenselessly murdered on their anti-2A ideological alter that everyone has to agree to be assaulted, raped or murdered rather than risk harming any criminal or mass murderer. They are clear - it was more important that he be subject to murder than possibly able to defend the children and himself.

Why? Because it is everyone's moral duty to voluntarily be a defenseless victim, which of course particularly means school children and teachers.

The Republican Party demands that people have the right to defend themselves and to stop mass murderers. The Democratic Party insists that mass murderers must not be interfered with in their killing sprees. Everyone must must agree to die rather than interfere with criminals and murderers.

That's the Democratic Party's position.

 

Good point. If you have the right to defend yourself in the mall then why not in a school.

 

Other countries have had school shootings. And other countries came up with a response that virtually eliminated these school shootings. And it wasn't arming teachers

 

Other countries have figured this out.....and they laugh at these suggestions

 

Some are stating that it should be required. I keep asking the question why aren't teachers or their representatives being included in this discussion? Several questions for consideration:

1. What about the danger of workplace violence?
2. Would it be easy for a teacher to use a weapon on a student they have been asked and trained to nurture?
3. Wouldn't this make all teachers the first target of a shooter?
4. What are the legal ramifications for a teacher if the shooter is a student?
5. What are the legal ramifications for the teacher or the school if an innocent student is killed by a teacher with a gun during the confusion?
6. What are the legal ramifications if a teacher fails to use a weapon during a shooting event and students are hurt or die?
7. Should the armed teachers carry the weapon on their person or should it be locked in a safe place?
8. If they are carrying the weapon is there a chance that an unarmed student could take it away and use it?
9. If they are carrying the weapon and a child sees it would that make him/her fell safer or more afraid?
10 How is that child going to react if the teacher has a weapon and needs to discipline the student who knows he/she is armed?
11. If it is locked how much damage can a shooter do before the teacher can access the gun?
12. What are the chances the gun could be stolen.
13. Is a Teacher with a sidearm and rudimentary training a match for a determined person with a semiautomatic long gun?
14. Are there concerns about the accuracy of sidearms over a distance - shooters are not concerned about who they hit teachers would have to be.

These are all things that need to be evaluated before deciding if teachers should be armed.

 

Correct. The above was indeed stated. If the contrary is believed by yourself, then go about demonstrating such.

 

I support allowing qualified and willing teachers to be armed. It's more of a deterrent than an actual need just like arming airline pilots. It would be important that no one except the administration and LEOs know which teachers are carrying and which are not.

 

With the effectiveness of the responses being referred to, being wholly contingent and reliant upon the effectiveness of law enforcement actually doing its assigned job, and not choosing to ignore obvious threats. If law enforcement in other countries followed the example demonstrated by law enforcement in the state of Florida, the responses would not be worth the paper they are printed upon.

 

Well said

Of course those countries don't have the NRA pushing their agenda

 

What did he say that was wrong.

 

1. That's there regardless
2. Also there regardless
3. As opposed to knowing everyone in the school is unarmed and an easy target
4. Self defense doesn't care if it's a student shooting at other students
5. Valid
6. None. Just like there are no legal ramifications if a teacher doesn't shield students with their bodies.
7. Carried. There is no safer place where it can be gotten in an emergency.
8 No. The point of concealed is no one knows they have it.
9. They won't see it if it's concealed.
10. Probably more attentively. Bonus benefit.
11. Thats why you carry it.
12. That's why you carry it
13. Why would you give a gun to someone with no training. Yes. Engagement distances inside a school aren't going to give advantage to a rifle.
14. Accuracy at distance is bullet drop. Which means it won't travel as far before hitting the ground as a rifle round. That doesn't make it veer to the side and hit someone else.

Carrying guns in schools IS NOT NEW.

Utah has been arming their teachers for at least a DECADE. So have other schools in the country.

 

Isn't a little disingenuous for the same people who have been calling teachers communist corruptors of our children's minds to suddenly be trusting them with weapons?

We can go back through the files and find threads where the same conservatives who are calling for arming teachers called those same teachers incompetent boobs who have no other agenda than to turn their kids into little communist and that they teachers didn't deserve the pay they were getting already ...

Now those same conservatives want to give teachers the ADDED burden of being first responders.

WTF? Make up your ****ing minds. Are they incompetent boobs or are they ninja weapon masters?

 

I say we put Tazers on these guys and put them is every school.

 

no of course the ones carrying would be americans not commies.

 

Noticed that, eh? Do you think it's an improvement or not?

Not "first responders" and not first defenders. Just a last line of defense. Better security in schools such as metal detectors are the first line for the school (obviously better police response to outside threats is the FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE). Operators don't even have to be armed, just have the ability to immediately and effectively communicate a problem. Of course there will be armed security too. Plus the ability to block doors from unwanted entry. This must meet security and fire codes. An armed teacher is mostly a deterrent since attackers won't know who is armed and who isn't. If they are and if the attacker seeks to harm child in their presence, they'll have the ability to take down the attacker rather than simply be a temporary meat shield.

 

Isn't it a little disingenuous for you to be equating university professors to k-12 compulsory education public school teachers?

I understand you did not want the high school coach "burdened" with trying to prevent the children and himself from being defenseless murdered. The children and he had the Democratic Party duty to be defenseless murder victims so that the mass murder shooter be interfered with. No one should be burdened with living when death is so easy, huh?

 

How many such individuals would actually possess valid concealed carry permits?

Engaging in what is ultimate an act of self defense, is not being burdened with the duty of being a first responder along the lines of a law enforcement officer.

If an individual possesses a valid concealed carry permit issued by the state, what is the legal, rational justification for a school declaring that the permit is invalid on its premises?

 

Show where the supposed "firearms culture" is encouraging the murdering of others? Such can easily be demonstrated with the black culture, as it is presented in the majority of their entertainment media, in the lyrics of their songs, in how they treat individuals with the notion that murdering someone is something akin to a badge of honor and worthy of respect.

 

The unlikely aspect begins with the firearm accidentally becoming exposed.

 

Care to be a bit more specific? Which countries and what did they do?