Again, if this were such a splendid idea, the Boone County superintendent's office ... or the Boone County Board of Education ... or the Boone County branch of the KEA ... would have proposed this. They didn't. This is the NRA's baby, and no doubt the sheriffs are signing on because this raises the possibility of not having to provide resource officers to the schools.

 

So it looks to me like the NRA is jamming this down the throat of the Boone Board of Education.

 

And if a school board member votes no, then the NRA will put his/her face on a billboard with Obama's come re-election time and say they're anti-gun.

Don't confuse one mans idea with an organization like the NRA.

That would be like saying if you listen to music then it is Hip Hop artists forcing you to listen.

 

I am not a member of the NRA but I do believe in the right to bear arms (which came to be long before the NRA was created).

Don't make things up you have no proof of Twotoplace

 

Your continuous liberal lean gets nauseating.

 

You do know that liberals also go hunting don't you?

The NRA made this a political issue when Wayne LaPierre went on national TV a week after Sandy Hook and tried to extricate his head from where the sun don't shine. In this case, BigMan, source is important. I repeat, if arming teachers is the answer, then why haven't thousands of school districts across our great nation embraced this idea? The answer, of course, is that arming teachers is fraught with potential problems.

 

You know Two2, I lean more liberal than conservative, especially on social issues, but I can't go the whole way that this is a political issue only. I do believe most are looking for what is best for safety of our kids, politics be damned. I draw the line when it is for safety of students. We must look at everything to ensure we do what is the best for kids.

 

I have stated that I am not for this and it would take a lot of assurances and safeguards before I would support it, if I ever did. It is worth the discussion on many levels.

 

Just because the NRA does or does not support it would not weigh in my decision at all. They have "0" influence either way on what I think. Although, I know they influence some as do any other one issue based organization e.g. PETA, Right to Life, etc. They are in the same ball park IMO. No influence on me.

 

Our schools have an extremely difficult job keeping our schools safe in today's society from a variety of fronts.

You know Two2, I lean more liberal than conservative, especially on social issues, but I can't go the whole way that this is a political issue only. I do believe most are looking for what is best for safety of our kids, politics be damned. I draw the line when it is for safety of students. We must look at everything to ensure we do what is the best for kids.

 

I have stated that I am not for this and it would take a lot of assurances and safeguards before I would support it, if I ever did. It is worth the discussion on many levels.

 

Just because the NRA does or does not support it would not weigh in my decision at all. They have "0" influence either way on what I think. Although, I know they influence some as do any other one issue based organization e.g. PETA, Right to Life, etc. They are in the same ball park IMO. No influence on me.

 

Our schools have an extremely difficult job keeping our schools safe in today's society from a variety of fronts.

 

Kinda where I stand. Some national organization isn't likely to sway me one way or another.

 

I also believe in the right to bear arms. But it is my unscientific opinion that a bunch of teachers carrying in our schools is a disaster waiting to happen. The NRA, the Board of Education the membership of BGP, etc. isn't gonna change my mind.

 

Good discussion.:thumb:

You do know that liberals also go hunting don't you?

Mostly go after skunks.

Mostly go after skunks.

 

Skunks are animals too.

Mostly go after skunks.

They allow weapons at the DNC?

Here's the ironic thing about those that say they would or would have pulled their kids out of their respective schools if teachers carried. Well, how do you know that some teachers DIDN"T carry when you kids where in school, or don't carry now, and you just don't know it? And guess what? You are more than likely around people every day that are carrying...and you just aren't aware of it.

 

A system should be in place that allows teachers to carry. This of course would be greatly augmented by high level training and consistent, on going practice and yearly refresher training. Strict rules would be put in place to govern the carrying of the weapons. Whoever said above to lock the guns up in a safe...uuuuhhhhhhhhhh...I'm not even going to take the time to argue that.

 

What strict rules? In my opinion, it's too easy to get a gun anyway. Are you for tougher laws regarding that? Because that's where it should start. I want mandatory charges for irresponsible ownership that results in the harm or death of someone, especially children. I want more stringent requirements related to the safe handling of guns. When those items are addressed, MAYBE I'd consider arming teachers.

They allow weapons at the DNC?

Yes at the door, on the body guards and with all security teams protecting the ones wanting to abolish gun ownership...there is some irony.

What strict rules? In my opinion, it's too easy to get a gun anyway. Are you for tougher laws regarding that? Because that's where it should start. I want mandatory charges for irresponsible ownership that results in the harm or death of someone, especially children. I want more stringent requirements related to the safe handling of guns. When those items are addressed, MAYBE I'd consider arming teachers.

What do you want when you say stricker rules?

 

Mandatory charges or mandatory convictions? Charges are almost always filed or investigation is turned over to a Grand Jury for consideration.

 

What stringent requirements are you looking for related to safe handling?

 

I'm asking not because I disagree, but wanting some clarification. I enjoy guns as much as anyone and there are some things that could be changed that I would be on board with, but many that I would not support.

So, yesterday I was sitting in the employee cafeteria enjoying my fried chicken and mashed potatoes when I overheard a conversation about this topic at the next table. The three were all gun carrying LEOs. (Not said as a slam, but to give context to the group as individuals trained in the use of weapons). Two of them were in support of the idea of arming teachers. They are both young females. The third was an older make. The third pointed out that arming teachers would make it very difficult for first responders because they wouldn't know who was the bad guy with a gun. He pointed out that LEO's entering such a situation would have a harder time isolating the actual gunman if they were encountering several armed individuals and having to disarm/determine their intentions. I thought that was a very interesting point that I personally hadn't thought of.

So, yesterday I was sitting in the employee cafeteria enjoying my fried chicken and mashed potatoes when I overheard a conversation about this topic at the next table. The three were all gun carrying LEOs. (Not said as a slam, but to give context to the group as individuals trained in the use of weapons). Two of them were in support of the idea of arming teachers. They are both young females. The third was an older make. The third pointed out that arming teachers would make it very difficult for first responders because they wouldn't know who was the bad guy with a gun. He pointed out that LEO's entering such a situation would have a harder time isolating the actual gunman if they were encountering several armed individuals and having to disarm/determine their intentions. I thought that was a very interesting point that I personally hadn't thought of.

 

Very valid point. However, one of the supposed affects of having teachers armed is the fact that IF something went down where a teacher(s) would have to use a weapon, the perpetrator would either be incapacitated or have left the building, thus negating or greatly reducing this potential. Remember, it usually takes several minutes for LE to arrive at the scene, and by that time a perpetrator who has met with armed resistance may be dead or fleeing by that point. That is also something that would have to be dealt with in the teachers training as well, should this come to fruition.

Very valid point. However, one of the supposed affects of having teachers armed is the fact that IF something went down where a teacher(s) would have to use a weapon, the perpetrator would either be incapacitated or have left the building, thus negating or greatly reducing this potential. Remember, it usually takes several minutes for LE to arrive at the scene, and by that time a perpetrator who has met with armed resistance may be dead or fleeing by that point. That is also something that would have to be dealt with in the teachers training as well, should this come to fruition.

 

When seconds count, the police can't get there until minutes have passed.

 

The only way I'd be opposed to arming teachers is if every school has one or more (depending on the size of the school) armed LEOs in the building during school hours. That will be expensive but I'd have no problem paying more taxes to make that happen.

I think the "who is the bad guy" question is easily overcome with training for the armed school personnel to be educated to know when to surrender and yield to proper authorities. I suppose the question I might have for this issue is how active would an armed individual employed by the school be in "looking" for the source of trouble? I could surely see the difficulty in identifying a shooter then. However, in my mind's assumption, I picture those that carry more as a passive protector of kids than a seek and destroy person. Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps there would be both.

I think the "who is the bad guy" question is easily overcome with training for the armed school personnel to be educated to know when to surrender and yield to proper authorities. I suppose the question I might have for this issue is how active would an armed individual employed by the school be in "looking" for the source of trouble? I could surely see the difficulty in identifying a shooter then. However, in my mind's assumption, I picture those that carry more as a passive protector of kids than a seek and destroy person. Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps there would be both.

 

Kind of a point I was trying to make as well in my post.

I think the "who is the bad guy" question is easily overcome with training for the armed school personnel to be educated to know when to surrender and yield to proper authorities. I suppose the question I might have for this issue is how active would an armed individual employed by the school be in "looking" for the source of trouble? I could surely see the difficulty in identifying a shooter then. However, in my mind's assumption, I picture those that carry more as a passive protector of kids than a seek and destroy person. Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps there would be both.

I also would imagine the teachers with a carry permit would not be out crawling down the halls of a school trying to find the assailant. I would see them more in their own classrooms using their weapon if the subject were in their room etc. or outside their classroom in the hall etc. Never looking for the subject but have a gun handy if the gunman were in their class etc.