I've said this before. If you don't believe that a teacher with a CCW permit or CHL permit should be allowed to carry in school, then if you have a permit - TURN IT IN.
For all I know, you are an incompetent shooter and a moron. I cannot trust you in the mall or in church or on the street to do the right thing. In fact, I trust the teacher more as most of them are dedicated to a noble profession of education and probably have some smarts.
The suggestion to keep the guns in a central location is indicative of a tactical idiot who is not competent to render opinions on this issue. Having been an attacker and defender in such scenarios in FOF exercises, the locked up gun is useless.
---------------
That's what I said. To deconstruct -
1st Paragraph:
The teacher has the right to defend him or herself. It is my belief that if you don't believe that, then you are hypocritical if you maintain that right for yourself. You view may that the school is better off with dead kids vs. the small possibility of friendly fire. However, that is handled in the next paragraph
2nd Paragraph
For all I know - you may be . I don't know if you are. The point was that CHLs carry in crowded locations that are soft targets such as malls, libraries or churches. If you ban the teacher from carrying in a crowded school, then why should a generic CHL (whose competence is minimally tested) be allowed to carry in the mall, filled with babies in strollers, pregnant mommies, old folks, etc.
Thus, the logic is clearly against a differential ban on schools. If extreme tactical competency is required - it should be required for all CCWs - whether a poster has it, is not clear to me. I can attest to mine. I also made the point that for the most part CHL folks have been responsible. I postulated that the armed teacher would probably as a professional concerned with protecting children - quite responsible. Is that true of the generic CHL?
3rd Paragraph:
Some thought and experience lead me to suggest the lock box suggestion is not wise. Perhaps, I shouldn't not have said 'tactical idiot'. I should have said very foolish and without appreciation of the dynamics of the situation.
In the link, I posted, at Columbine and other situations - the active shooter is upon you. If the gun is in a lock box, you have a temporal sequence of event:
1. Hear shots and screams
2. Run to the lock box - if it is in the principal's office, that takes time. Maybe the shooter is in the way.
3. Open the lock box - under stress
4. Are the guns loaded in the lock box - need to get them ready?
How much time would this take?
In the mean time, the shooter is killing folks. One can shoot ten people in a few seconds.
Perhaps, the shooter is at the door to your room, can you get to the lock box in your room or down the hall.
The only chance to truly minimize losses is for folks to be immediately able to draw a gun. If not shot by surprise, you want those guns as close to the action as possible.
Thus, the lock box idea is less than intelligent.
As previously said, I've been in some pretty intense FOFs against and as an active shooter. The potential for damage to soft targets is enormous. We are lucky in the USA we have seen only Columbine level actions for it could be much worse. The only chance to disrupt such attacks is to have guns on the spot.
Those who would prevent this - well, I've said my piece on that.
For all I know, you are an incompetent shooter and a moron. I cannot trust you in the mall or in church or on the street to do the right thing. In fact, I trust the teacher more as most of them are dedicated to a noble profession of education and probably have some smarts.
The suggestion to keep the guns in a central location is indicative of a tactical idiot who is not competent to render opinions on this issue. Having been an attacker and defender in such scenarios in FOF exercises, the locked up gun is useless.
---------------
That's what I said. To deconstruct -
1st Paragraph:
The teacher has the right to defend him or herself. It is my belief that if you don't believe that, then you are hypocritical if you maintain that right for yourself. You view may that the school is better off with dead kids vs. the small possibility of friendly fire. However, that is handled in the next paragraph
2nd Paragraph
For all I know - you may be . I don't know if you are. The point was that CHLs carry in crowded locations that are soft targets such as malls, libraries or churches. If you ban the teacher from carrying in a crowded school, then why should a generic CHL (whose competence is minimally tested) be allowed to carry in the mall, filled with babies in strollers, pregnant mommies, old folks, etc.
Thus, the logic is clearly against a differential ban on schools. If extreme tactical competency is required - it should be required for all CCWs - whether a poster has it, is not clear to me. I can attest to mine. I also made the point that for the most part CHL folks have been responsible. I postulated that the armed teacher would probably as a professional concerned with protecting children - quite responsible. Is that true of the generic CHL?
3rd Paragraph:
Some thought and experience lead me to suggest the lock box suggestion is not wise. Perhaps, I shouldn't not have said 'tactical idiot'. I should have said very foolish and without appreciation of the dynamics of the situation.
In the link, I posted, at Columbine and other situations - the active shooter is upon you. If the gun is in a lock box, you have a temporal sequence of event:
1. Hear shots and screams
2. Run to the lock box - if it is in the principal's office, that takes time. Maybe the shooter is in the way.
3. Open the lock box - under stress
4. Are the guns loaded in the lock box - need to get them ready?
How much time would this take?
In the mean time, the shooter is killing folks. One can shoot ten people in a few seconds.
Perhaps, the shooter is at the door to your room, can you get to the lock box in your room or down the hall.
The only chance to truly minimize losses is for folks to be immediately able to draw a gun. If not shot by surprise, you want those guns as close to the action as possible.
Thus, the lock box idea is less than intelligent.
As previously said, I've been in some pretty intense FOFs against and as an active shooter. The potential for damage to soft targets is enormous. We are lucky in the USA we have seen only Columbine level actions for it could be much worse. The only chance to disrupt such attacks is to have guns on the spot.
Those who would prevent this - well, I've said my piece on that.
