That's regrettable, but so be it. Keep your school gun free, don't do what needs to be done, somewhere down the road perhaps see your kids in the morgue.If the idea of armed teachers is put into effect, it won't be uniform throughout the country. We may see it in small towns in Texas, but we won't see it in Chicago, New York, or any other big cities where the teachers' unions are strong. Nor will we see it in affluent suburban areas where the parents would be opposed. (Incidentally, these are the kinds of places where most school shootings have taken place to date.) So, the shooters will pick their targets to minimize the possibility of armed intervention, and the problem will go on.
If the idea of armed teachers is put into effect, it won't be uniform throughout the country. We may see it in small towns in Texas, but we won't see it in Chicago, New York, or any other big cities where the teachers' unions are strong. Nor will we see it in affluent suburban areas where the parents would be opposed. (Incidentally, these are the kinds of places where most school shootings have taken place to date.) So, the shooters will pick their targets to minimize the possibility of armed intervention, and the problem will go on.
Gotta like Wyoming; "As long as it is not concealed".Think again and do some research
Its legal in 18 states including CA (3 school districts already allow it with 1 having over 20,000 students) NY, NJ, and MASS
In the following States the work is halfway done in that no laws need to be overturned or created to allow it.
Here are the 18 states that allow adults to carry loaded weapons onto school grounds with few or minor conditions - citations below.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-school-armed-20180222-story.html?outputType=amp
- Alabama (which bans possessing a weapon on school grounds only if the carrier has "intent to do bodily harm")
- California (with approval of the superintendent)
- Connecticut (with approval of "school officials")
- Hawaii (no specific law)
- Idaho (with school trustees' approval)
- Iowa (with "authorization")
- Kentucky (with school board approval)
- Massachusetts (with approval of the school board or principal)
- Mississippi (with school board approval)
- Montana (with school trustees' permission)
- New Hampshire (ban applies only to pupils, not adults)
- New Jersey (with approval from the school's "governing officer")
- New York (with the school's approval)
- Oregon (with school board approval)
- Rhode Island (with a state concealed weapons permit)
- Texas (with the school's permission)
- Utah (with approval of the "responsible school administrator")
- Wyoming (as long as it's not concealed)
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-guns-on-campus-20160413-story.html?outputType=amp
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...-allow-k-12-teachers-to-carry/article/2649321
Here are the 18 states that allow adults to carry loaded weapons onto school grounds with few or minor conditions - citations below.
It's best not to over-analyze what may happen, there are too many variables in any deadly force encounter. One cannot prepare for everything. When concealed carry was first introduced, people predicted blood baths and wild west style shootouts, none of which happened. Licensed citizens carry perfectly responsibly and safely in all of our states, in restaurants, malls, theaters, etc. Over 1.5 million crimes are prevented every year because of that.That's not true at all, Most teachers are going to panic and as a long time competitive shooter I don't agree with you, I would rather they put real guards who do just this for a living, than multi task teachers into gunfighters. I would like to see a simulation of what might occur if people who trained a few times were confronted by a shooter, and had to pick out the shooter from the kids, while making sure their bullets went where they were supposed to. My wife shoots, so where you get that from is ridiculous, this is not about carrying gun, it's about skill levels. And if teachers were going to train with professional trainers twice a month, it might work, but just like every other government program, it won't happen. Just put Vets, ex military shooters who have the skillset to be able to pull this off. If someone is middle age and doesn't carry or shoot a gun ever, this is not for them.
AMENWe failed nothing. They failed everything. I refuse to be responsible for their failures.
I wasn't talking about the legality of (teachers) carrying guns in schools, but rather of the policy. Teachers' unions would be opposed to it, unless (at a minimum) the carrying teachers' salaries were raised to compensate. This would be an additional financial burden on the school districts, and would be passed on to property owners in the form of taxes. And suburban parents would be opposed to it. I can tell you that around here (Fairfax County,Virginia) the idea of teachers carrying guns in schools is a complete non-starter.
The map appears to be in conflict with what danez71 said.
I wasn't talking about the legality of (teachers) carrying guns in schools, but rather of the policy. Teachers' unions would be opposed to it, unless (at a minimum) the carrying teachers' salaries were raised to compensate. This would be an additional financial burden on the school districts, and would be passed on to property owners in the form of taxes. And suburban parents would be opposed to it. I can tell you that around here (Fairfax County, Virginia) the idea of teachers carrying guns in schools is a complete non-starter.
It isn't just the school administrators in Fairfax County. The public here (especially the soccer moms, who dominate the PTA's) is antigun, and increasingly so. If word got out that teachers were armed, about half of the parents would pull their kids out of school.School administrators in Fairfax County, Va and other places need to be asked
" What exactly is it about schools that should make it so that licensed citizens (including employees) are NOT allowed to exercise their God given, Constitutionally recognized rights to carry firearms so as to be able to defend themselves and others in harms way?"
I understand that many lefty school admins have an anti-gun fetish, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to turn our schools into killing fields for the benefit of criminals and nut-jobs who would do our children harm.
That assertion is not beyond question.
Simply arming teachers does not equate to engaging the shooter nor saving lives. The fact someone has a gun doesn't mean they know how to use it, know how to use it properly, are trained in how to not shoot innocents, or that they have the drive to move against the crowd, "ride to the sound of the guns" and once there and having acquired the target actually pull the trigger.
Since World War One and through Vietnam, through a combination of marking rifle bores and directly observing troops in action determined that one trained soldier out of four does not even fire their weapon their first time in combat and that of the remaining three that do fire, one will aim so as to not hit another person. If this is what the Army gets from trained soldiers on their first time in combat, why would we expect untrained or minimally trained teachers to do any better?
But, assuming that we are going to arm teachers and we are going to train them appropriately, that training must be constantly refreshed in the same way police officers have to regularly spend time in the range. Are you willing to vote to increase your school taxes to pay to arm, train and supply teachers?
It wouldn't cost anything.
Yes, we know that about city police and county sheriff deputies.
But law enforcement officers HIRED SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT SCHOOL CHILDREN from active shooters HAVE DUTY TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN.
Insurance carriers? I wonder what the insurance carriers will be paying out over the dead and injured at Parkland?Maybe you should ask the school district's insurance carrier that question; and how many teachers would want to risk losing everything they have in a lawsuit? This is NOT going to be a typical gov't one-size-fits-all-that fits no one scenario. Who pays? Inner city folks on welfare have no money. Many rural folks are in the same boat. Whether hardening the schools, armed personnel, more cameras, more police, or whatever, it is going to COST and big time - just the way it is; and none of these ideas (or the millions it would cost) go to solving the causation of these events. This is like constantly being behind the 8 ball and playing catch-up. One never wins in that scenario.