CBS Piece: Teachers With Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
President of the Utah Education Association Kim Campbell is critical of having armed teachers. She said she cannot think of any circumstance where teachers should carry guns in school.

"I would be opposed to any guns in school, period," she said. "No matter where I would put a gun in a classroom, a class full of little people would find it. And if it were locked up safely, there would be no chance to get it."
Click to expand...

What a complete ignoramous...
 
What is it about the blisnniny mentality that believes guns have to be "set down" somewhere?:confused: It is simply complete and utter ignorance of firearms? Not knowing what holsters and belts are?

How a teacher, a teacher, could delight in such ignorance is beyond me and frightens me.:uhoh:

Anywho, Utah is on the right track. Voluntary program, then, in a few years, make it mandatory.:)
 
I saw that this morning too.
What about the one lady that was concerned about all the kids being in the same room with a gun? She acted like the gun would just be lying around in the open on her desk and the kids able to get to it. That's where planning and training comes into play.
Also, I don't know if a group of kids could stop an armed and determined BG with pencils and books. I don't think most young kids would have enough determination or courage to follow through.
Arming and training qualified teachers and other school personel would still be the best option.
 
What is it about the blisnniny mentality that believes guns have to be "set down" somewhere? It is simply complete and utter ignorance of firearms? Not knowing what holsters and belts are?

How a teacher, a teacher, could delight in such ignorance is beyond me and frightens me.

Anywho, Utah is on the right track. Voluntary program, then, in a few years, make it mandatory.
Click to expand...

That's because in her mind, the notion that you'd "wear it all day" is so extreme, that it didn't even occur to her...
 
What about the one lady that was concerned about all the kids being in the same room with a gun?
Click to expand...
They're radioactive, you know. The effects of their radiation are most dramatic on those who actually touch them, but a silent, hidden danger lurks for all those in the general proximity. They simply cannot be possessed safely. :rolleyes:
 
Here is an argument you can use against these people:

"The Federal Government arms trained pilots so that they can protect their aircraft against terrorists. No passengers have been harmed by these guns. Why should trained teachers or security guards not be armed to defend their schools?"

Not great, but at least a factual, logical rebuttal to the emotion based anti argument.
 
"The Federal Government arms trained pilots so that they can protect their aircraft against terrorists. No passengers have been harmed by these guns. Why should trained teachers or security guards not be armed to defend their schools?"
Click to expand...

Not a great response since most commerical pilots have previous military service and training with firearms. Most teachers probably have never handled or even seen a real gun before.
 
cb, sorry, too much jargon.:D

United States Air Force pilots do not receive the pistol training that many not in the military believe they do. Talk to some active duty military here at THR, some do not handle firearms at all.

Just because one is or has been in the military does not mean they receive firearms training. After 9/11 I saw a photo in the Indianapolis Star of some National Guardsman undergoing pistol training at Camp Atterbury. The soldier featured looked as if he was completely unfamiliar with his M9and on the verge of tears.

Teachers are allegedly educated, at least they are always talking about how they are. If they have been educated then they can be trained to use firearms. In fact, some trainers would agree that it is best that they have no prior firearms experience (empty tea cup and all).:D
 
cbsbyte,

Not true any longer. For various reasons there are probably a higher proportion of direct entry civilian pilots to military pilots in the airlines than ever before.

I am sure we can find sufficient teachers with military, LEO or ROTC background to fill the needs. Actually, your military requirement is a "red herring". How many LEO's have military experience when they are recruited?

The point is to produce some sort of logical argument to counter the gut level "Oh My God, a gun" reaction of people like the one quoted. A pair of twos beats a king high.
 
A Simple Way to Legally Arm Teachers and Administrators

There is a simple way to legally arm teachers and administrators, and it has existed for years…train them and deputize them.

But, in doing so, now they can not in any way, shape or form be involved in day-to-day operating of school searches, student questioning etc due to the differences of “probable cause” versus “reasonable suspicion”. I guess there is a cost for everything.

But, they could legally carry firearms, and would legally be principal/police officer or teacher/police officer.

Doc2005
 
There are a couple of practical problems over arming teachers.
1. Relatively minor. Distraction of students by firearm. Students playing "spot the gun".
2. Serious. Assaults on teachers are not unknown. What provisions for preventing firearm removal from teacher during a classroom incident? What would be the result if a teacher shot a student in a violent classroom incident?

Sorry folks, but if we want to advocate armed teachers we had better be able to answer these questions.

Would we be better off with properly hired and trained security guards? The problem here is to make sure you hired the best people for the job instead of the selection becoming a "Politically Correct" program like some TSA operations.
"Schools" branch of the local PD? Trained only in relevant areas.
 
You know, the comments at the end just really get me. Folks seem absolutely terrified that a teacher, to whom they are entrusting their children's lives every day anyway, is going to do something negligent that will cause harm to their kids. If they distrust teachers that much, why send the kids to school?

And, of course, there are the ones who play the "are they (the teachers) really that paranoid? That scared?" card. It boggles my mind that they think having the means to defend oneself and those in one's care is being paranoid. After all, school shootings might be rare, but quite obviously, they do occur. You can ask my uncle, who is a special ed teacher at Westside High School in Jonesboro, AR. He was there during the shootings.

But maybe that's one of the reasons I find it so hard to believe. There are four public school teachers in my family. I guess they're who I think of when I think of a school teacher. And, frankly, I would trust any of them with a firearm in a classroom setting. So maybe I'm biased.

Barrett
 
1. Students need a reason to be distracted? Administrative punishment ("demerits", detention, writing on chalk board) will not be sufficient to counter this distraction?

2. Regarding assaults on teachers, what do the police do when they are assaulted? Regarding teachers gunning down students, we would prosecute the teachers just as we prosecute police that gun down people who do not deserve to be shot.

School Resource Officers are no cure. They have no vested interest in defending the children, remember Columbine? There were armed police at the school. The school cop running away didn't work, did it?:(

The sheople have had their way for decades and all their way has achieved is more dead bodies. In January of 1989, at a elementary school in Stockton, California, a teacher there when she heard the screeching tires and the initial shots of Patrick Purdy, told her students not to run away but to lie down and be shot as she thought Purdy was shooting over them.

The Israelis woke up after Ma'alot; we, otoh, need multiple Ma'alots before we awake.:(
 
People who don't own guns, haven't trained with guns, and aren't comfortable with guns shouldn't be opining about guns. They plainly don't know what they are talking about and can't discuss the issues rationally. Why anyone listens to them at all is the real question. Why dignify them with debate?
 
As I said...deputize them

As I said, if you train and deputize these teachers and administrators, then, ANYONE who assaults or intimidates them does so to a police officer. Ergo, I seriously doubt it would happen. The fact of deputizing them mutes nearly all potential objections.

Doc2005
 
Nobody is denigrating the individual teacher. What you seem to be missing is this, if you are going to sell the idea of armed teachers (which I approve of) you must be able to get the idea approved by school principles, school boards and politicians and you will have a to face up to a lot of anti-gun rhetoric.

If you cannot come up with reasonable answers to the questions that are going to be asked then armed teachers are not going to happen.

People who don't own guns, haven't trained with guns, and aren't comfortable with guns shouldn't be opining about guns. They plainly don't know what they are talking about and can't discuss the issues rationally. Why anyone listens to them at all is the real question. Why dignify them with debate?
Click to expand...
I will tell you exactly why you must debate them Longeyes. If we do not debate them, and beat them, they will win. It would be like not turning up to defend yourself in court.

2. Regarding assaults on teachers, what do the police do when they are assaulted? Regarding teachers gunning down students, we would prosecute the teachers just as we prosecute police that gun down people who do not deserve to be shot.
Click to expand...
El Tejon. How much column space in a newspaper is used on a police shooting. 4 inches? Imagine what would happen with a teacher doing the shooting. It is that concern that is going to be with the decision makers on this subject. It would be a great trial, imagine the headlines - "SCHOOL BOARD, PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER SUED. Negligence over permitting firearm in class."

I am with you on this matter but I have seen these situations before. We see the practicality of the situation, administrators see the politics and the CYA. If we cannot sell the idea of armed teachers to the administrators and decision makers in a way that makes our view the most sensible it will not happen.

Doc- best idea so far, congrats.
 
4 inches of space for a police shooting??? Try 400 inches of space, although I guess it depends on the paper.

Lots of things can be done with civil liability. Give school corporations absolute immunity, or, if you deputize the teachers, they would have heightened immunity and the Sheriff Department's insurance carrier.

Are you concerned about lawsuits if schools do not protect children from homicidal nutjobs?
 
Great Tejon, that is the type of constructive thinking that could get this thing passed. I think Doc's deputization idea and your insurance idea could both be used at a school board meeting to overcome some objections.

Are you concerned about lawsuits if schools do not protect children from homicidal nutjobs?
Click to expand...
I think the first lawsuit has been filed on this. That could also be a strong argument in favor of armed teachers.

Solid arguments will overpower the anti- loonies.
 
Are you concerned about lawsuits if schools do not protect children from homicidal nutjobs?
Click to expand...
That's what the fools think they are doing by banning all guns (whether for defensive or offensive use). As long as the "conventional wisdom" (of school admin. and the jury pool at large) is that banning guns = safety, then we will not win by that method either. It will take a turning of the tide (unfortunately, at the cost of more students' lives) before this will happen.
 
I must confess ignorance as to the status of the Columbine litigation. However, I do know that there was civil litigation.

The existence of the Columbine litigation shows school boards that they WILL be sued if they do nothing but that they MAY be sued if a teacher has to act. Something for them to weigh and another point in our favor.

We must start the drum beating for this. I was around in '89 when Purdy killed those children at Stockton and the NRA stood there with their heads in the sand. No one fought back, the teacher had the children go flat and become dead and we did nothing.

Fighting back works. The VP in Pearl, Mississippi used his pistol and a school shooting stopped. School shootings are caused by the unarmed nature of the target--schools are in essence governmentally-approved slaughter pens.

Harlon Carter, RIP, notwithstanding, the NRA did not act at Stockton and did not act after Columbine. Instead of pointing out how the agents of the government ran away and did nothing to save children and used the opportunity to mandate armed teachers, the NRA whimpered and cancelled its member meeting.

We have had Ma'alot after Ma'alot and yet our government has no solution. It is time we get aggressive and attack and put an end to this nonsense.
 
An important point here is that the criminals in these cases are deliberately targeting schools. If all they wanted to do is kill people and become famous they could do much more harm in a shopping mall or at a sports event.

No, these people are targeting schools and they must be stopped at the schools. In a way the teacher is the last line of defence in the classroom in the same way an armed pilot is the last line of defence on an aircraft. We all hope the criminal gets stopped before he reaches the classroom but if all else fails an armed teacher may be the saviour.

[All teachers need not be armed, only those willing and accepted would be armed. There will be a strong deterent effect on potential criminals if they know they may be up against a trained armed adult. A policy of armed teachers will not only prevent classroom violence it will discourage many potential criminals from even going ahead with their plans at all.]

You can use that argument also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top