Well they're making teachers get their masters now and they've upped the degrees that they need to have just to be able to teach so I guess we can add gun safety and concealed carry to one of those things that they have to have. Looks like their job will evolve just like Society is. It boils down to the same thing my boss tells me, don't like it here McDonald's is hiring . Until Hillary can find a way to go door-to-door and take all the guns away from all the bad guys she can't take the guns out of the law-abiding citizens that need to protect ourselves. Under the right circumstances and set up the right way he can be a safe program. Is it easy? No. Will people complain? Yes. Is it in the best interest of our children and something that should be looked into very seriously? Yes. Just as I am for airline pilot being armed. Think of how many lives could have been saved had they not been overtaken by guys with box cutters. If they had Superior weaponry that situation could have been avoided. Again how many lives could have been saved not only in the towers comma on the plains, all the lives that were lost in the war. We need to be diligent against those who will do evil and not be afraid to act or to take the steps to protect ourselves.

 

Again, I'm not against guns. I am against telling a civilian teacher they need to have a concealed carry license and complete the training necessary to be able to use a gun competently, safely and effectively enough to stop an active shooter situation. And I'm not sure the average teacher are even willing to be the armed protectors of the realm or that arming teachers is the answer. I just don't think you can force someone to do that.

 

I have no issues with people feeling the need to carry and protect themselves. Personally, I don't feel the need and never have despite working in some rough areas in NYC and Philadelphia. Just like people don't want to have guns taken away from them, there are folks that don't want guns pushed on them.

90% of operating a gun is between the ears. If lunatics knew schools were armed they wouldn't go there more than likely. They like pro victim zones, ask the guy in Colorado who went out of his way to the theater that said "no guns allowed." They don't want a gun fight, they want infamous attention.

90% of operating a gun is between the ears. If lunatics knew schools were armed they wouldn't go there more than likely. They like pro victim zones, ask the guy in Colorado who went out of his way to the theater that said "no guns allowed." They don't want a gun fight, they want infamous attention.

 

If only things were that simple. I agree with the 90% comment. The reality is without constant training and practice, the toughest thing to do is to think calmly and rationally. I can shoot tight groups on targets all day...I'm not sure I could do it with someone pointing a back at me. And I'm guessing many, many teachers without extensive training would be in the same boat. Is that really a safer environment or better situation than no guns in schools??

 

And there's more that goes into mass shooters target selection, than whether it's a gun free zone/easy target. There are usually strong, often emotional connections the shooter has to the targets. And it's just as big myth that the mere presence of good guys with guns stops all evil as the myth that banning guns (or certain) guns will make us safer. It's a complicated issue and both sides have valid points.

Here's another point to consider. Most school-shootings are carried out by students, correct?

 

Maybe I'm off on this, but do we really think many teachers would be okay with pulling the trigger and shooting at a kid, even in these horrific tragic situations?

Here's another point to consider. Most school-shootings are carried out by students, correct?

 

Maybe I'm off on this, but do we really think many teachers would be okay with pulling the trigger and shooting at a kid, even in these horrific tragic situations?

 

Doesn't matter if it's a kid or not. Shooting cans off a fence is completely different from shooting another human being. And being able to shoot at and hit anything (at least what you are trying to hit) while facing gunfire is much easier said than done. And there are very few people that can claim without a doubt they have that ability. Doesn't mean they don't exist. But there are far fewer than many would like you to believe. Which is why arming the masses isn't the answer to stopping violent crime or keeping the bad guys at bay.

Doesn't matter if it's a kid or not. Shooting cans off a fence is completely different from shooting another human being. And being able to shoot at and hit anything (at least what you are trying to hit) while facing gunfire is much easier said than done. And there are very few people that can claim without a doubt they have that ability. Doesn't mean they don't exist. But there are far fewer than many would like you to believe. Which is why arming the masses isn't the answer to stopping violent crime or keeping the bad guys at bay.

 

I agree with everything you said, I'm just thinking it would be really difficult for most shooting a student that you may have or have had in class before.

I agree with everything you said, I'm just thinking it would be really difficult for most shooting a student that you may have or have had in class before.

 

I'm with you. I think many will say it wouldn't be if your life was at stake. But I think the reality of shooting a kid you know, (or ANY person for that matter) is not easy as some make it sound.

FTN, I promise you don't want that. Teachers are more stressed than prison guards according the a recent study. They don't need a firearm.

 

SROs are great, but armed teachers...no.

 

I know plenty of teachers who would be perfectly capable of being trained and trusted to have access to a firearm while at their job. Had a few of them been at Columbine, the outcome could have been very different.

In theory, it may be cut and dry. I don't think realistically, it is so cut and dry. What about the knife wielding lunatic?? What if a student is threatening a teacher physically?? How do you insure it's only used during an active shooter situation?? How do teachers train and become comfortable and skilled enough with the weapon to be able to use it if needed, if it's locked up all the time?? Lots of questions with no easy answers, and lives at stake on a daily basis with the addition of guns to school campuses. I'm not saying I'd never support it, but it's going to take a lot of convincing for me to feel comfortable with it.

 

I don't think comparing a gun to an AED unit is even close to an equal comparison. An AED used incorrectly or at the wrong time, isn't a danger to everyone in the building.

 

Both are a tool. When used correctly they save lives.

 

It sure is a danger to the one it's being used on incorrectly.

How are we going to pay for this?

 

How are schools supposed to pay for the change in the bathrooms for the transgenders?

I know all the stats, and believe me I'm not afraid of guns, and I'm not against guns. But I'm not convinced that the presence of guns in our schools makes anyone safer. Especially in the hands of an average, un trained teacher who's not familiar and training regularly with the weapon in a super stressful situation. I just don't know the benefits of having the weapon outweigh the possible problems OF having it available.

 

Again, I'm not saying I can't be convinced or saying there should never be guns in schools for emergencies.

 

There have been a myriad of suggestions given. What does it take to convince you, short of more SRO's, which won't happen. Cost prohibitive.

Both are a tool. When used correctly they save lives.

 

It sure is a danger to the one it's being used on incorrectly.

 

Yes both can save lives. Only one of those tools however can be a danger to everyone around it if used incorrectly. AED's cannot and will not allow a shock to be delivered to a person who does not need it nor can it hurt the person who is using it. A gun can easily deliver a bullet to someone who was not intended to receive it and can kill or injure the user as well. The AED also will talk you through using it and provide on screen instructions.

 

There is no comparison between an AED and a gun. None.

 

Once again, I'm willing to listen to ideas. I'm not dead set against the presence of guns for trained personel in schools.

Yes both can save lives. Only one of those tools however can be a danger to everyone around it if used incorrectly. AED's cannot and will not allow a shock to be delivered to a person who does not need it nor can it hurt the person who is using it. A gun can easily deliver a bullet to someone who was not intended to receive it and can kill or injure the user as well. The AED also will talk you through using it and provide on screen instructions.

 

There is no comparison between an AED and a gun. None.

 

Once again, I'm willing to listen to ideas. I'm not dead set against the presence of guns for trained personel in schools.

 

I know AED's inside out. Paramedic for 20 plus years does that.

 

You keep saying you are not against guns for trained personnel at school. Who should be trained in your opinion?

There have been a myriad of suggestions given. What does it take to convince you, short of more SRO's, which won't happen. Cost prohibitive.

 

I wouldn't say there has been a myriad of suggestions. Pretty much force teachers to train and arm them, and only be able to use them under an active shooter situation (although how to manage that wasn't part of the solution).

 

One, I wouldn't want to require all teachers/personal be forced to train and have to use a gun as part of the job or a condition of employment. If you don't want to, or feel you're not qualified to use a gun, you shouldn't have to. You'd seriously cut down on the already dwindling number of people who want to teach. I'd have to see quality, consistent and ongoing training, not showing up at a range type stuff. Which means you'd have to partner with Law enforcement (which will have a cost). I'd need to be assured that the guns could only be accessed by teachers, and only under certain situations. And that, I'm not sure how you would accomplish, because a handbook and rules won't prevent it. Sure it would mean somebody could get fired, but at that point it would be too late.

 

I just don't think it's as simple as saying "train 'em and arm 'em"

You guys obviously don't understand school districts and trainings. Gun training year one would be 3 hours with 2 breaks. Year 2: " you guys remember what you did last year? Go with that."

 

The teacher would be responsible for their own training which makes me worry about any teacher who would volunteer.