No way IMO! I taught school for 8 years and have been in some uncomfortable situations with kids that were on the edge. I think teachers with guns would bring about a lot more shootings. I do think that more police in the buildings might be an option but once again you have to work around the funding issues. This country WASTES so much money on silly stuff that I think they could produce money for a good cause such as this one. I also think they need to start cracking down on the places these kids are getting their guns.

 

It seems in many of these situations, it is their parents.

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/STUDENT_ARSENAL?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=AMERICAS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

The mother of a 14-year-old who authorities say had a cache of guns, knives and explosive devices in his bedroom for a possible school attack was charged Friday with buying her son three weapons.

 

Michele Cossey, 46, bought her home-schooled son, Dillon, a .22-caliber handgun, a .22-caliber rifle and a 9 mm semiautomatic rifle, authorities said.

Yes, but if there's a pattern, one would no longer go to that place. I don't think we want teachers quitting for safety reasons, there's already a shortage...

Converting them into your local Marshall, is not the answer either.

What about tazers?

What planet are you guys on?

 

 

During all of the school shootings that have occured, did you ENJOY seeing teachers UNABLE to defend themselves (& their students) against armed thugs????!!!

 

I'm aghast. If you don't want to defend yourself or your students, fine (I guess). But give the option to those who choose to. I, for one, think my family and friends are worth defending.

 

(and I SURE AS HECK want teachers who are able to protect my children)

Are you going to do the psychological testing to determine who should and shouldn't be carrying a weapon? Are you going to pay for the training to teach the teacher how to recognize assailants and hostages, when and when not to shoot?

 

Does giving teachers a weapon make them a bigger liability or worse, a bigger target?

Are you going to do the psychological testing to determine who should and shouldn't be carrying a weapon? Are you going to pay for the training to teach the teacher how to recognize assailants and hostages, when and when not to shoot?

 

Does giving teachers a weapon make them a bigger liability or worse, a bigger target?

 

What about teachers attending a police academy situation like the one at EKU? (not the one from the movies.)

What about tazers?

 

As a teacher, I would much rather have a tazer than a gun. Tazer "shouldn't" kill a student, but would be effective.

OK, so let's say that teachers do start carrying guns. Then what happens when one of the teachers snaps and shoots up the school?

 

Then, everybody will be crying, "why, why? Teachers shouldn't have guns in school!"

 

There has, and always will be, stupid/crazy people, and stupid/crazy people don't care if you have a gun or not.

 

If a student really wants to kill people at school, and the teachers ARE allowed to carry guns, then he will just find another way, such as making a bomb and blowing the place up.

 

Psychological testing doesn't always gaurantee someone won't snap in the future. And you say, what if only certain teachers who pass these tests gain the rights to carry the gun. Ok, if a student intends on shooting the place up, won't he just go to a room or area where there's a teacher who doesn't have a gun?

OK, so let's say that teachers do start carrying guns. Then what happens when one of the teachers snaps and shoots up the school?

Then, everybody will be crying, "why, why? Teachers shouldn't have guns in school!"

 

There has, and always will be, stupid/crazy people, and stupid/crazy people don't care if you have a gun or not.

 

If a student really wants to kill people at school, and the teachers ARE allowed to carry guns, then he will just find another way, such as making a bomb and blowing the place up.

 

Psychological testing doesn't always gaurantee someone won't snap in the future. And you say, what if only certain teachers who pass these tests gain the rights to carry the gun. Ok, if a student intends on shooting the place up, won't he just go to a room or area where there's a teacher who doesn't have a gun?

 

Again, do you have the same fear with a school resource officer carrying a gun on the campus? If not, why the fear of a teacher doing it and not a SRO.

 

The kid in Cleveland was looking for specific teachers that had disciplined him. The other shootings it seemed they were looking for specific kids.

 

In addition, with hallway duty, bathroom duty, early duty, bus duty, cafeteria duty, floating teachers, standing at your door during class change, ONLY during the actual class period do you have a good idea what teacher is where.

I would sooner have metal detectors at all school entrances. I don't care how much training is involved, can we really expect a teacher to shoot a 15 yr old that is weilding a gun?

I would sooner have metal detectors at all school entrances. I don't care how much training is involved, can we really expect a teacher to shoot a 15 yr old that is weilding a gun?

 

I would say it could happen if it comes down to whether that teacher feels that if they don't they, as well as a bunch of other kids, won't be going home to see their family that night.

I would sooner have metal detectors at all school entrances. I don't care how much training is involved, can we really expect a teacher to shoot a 15 yr old that is weilding a gun?

 

Yes, you can.

Again, do you have the same fear with a school resource officer carrying a gun on the campus? If not, why the fear of a teacher doing it and not a SRO.

 

Never had a SRO at my school. I'm not against a member of a law enforcement agency carrying a gun. But a teachers first, and foremost job is to teach, not to shoot kids.

 

You just made one of my points. Anyone can snap at anytime, but that doesn't mean that we should all be carrying guns. It's pointless to create and live in a world of fear all the time.

 

It could be anyone that snaps and kills someone. It can be a 15 year old kid, it can be the guy walking down the street, or it can be Steve your postman. But that doesn't mean that we should all live in fear for our lives every moment of every day.

 

My house could catch on fire at any moment, but I don't station someone outside of it everyday with a water hose while I'm gone. Same goes for school shootings. Yes, it could happen at any time, but why waste resources training teachers to shoot/handle guns, when it's not their job and likely wont ever happen?

 

There are capable police officers, safety officers, whatever you want to call them, in our society that are already trained to handle that.

 

 

Let me pose this question:

 

If we were to allow teachers to carry guns at school, and let's say a kid walks in to a classroom one day and starts pointing a gun at everyone in the class.

 

Then let's say the teacher draws their gun and shoots at the kid. She shoots the kid dead only to find out that he was only pointing a water gun/paintball gun/bb gun, whatever.

 

That teacher could potentially do more damage than was orginally going to be done.

 

I just don't see a need for us to all get hyped up and crazed over the situation and immediately turn to guns for the only answer.

Never had a SRO at my school. I'm not against a member of a law enforcement agency carrying a gun. But a teachers first, and foremost job is to teach, not to shoot kids.

 

You just made one of my points. Anyone can snap at anytime, but that doesn't mean that we should all be carrying guns. It's pointless to create and live in a world of fear all the time.

 

It could be anyone that snaps and kills someone. It can be a 15 year old kid, it can be the guy walking down the street, or it can be Steve your postman. But that doesn't mean that we should all live in fear for our lives every moment of every day.

 

My house could catch on fire at any moment, but I don't station someone outside of it everyday with a water hose while I'm gone. Same goes for school shootings. Yes, it could happen at any time, but why waste resources training teachers to shoot/handle guns, when it's not their job and likely wont ever happen?

 

There are capable police officers, safety officers, whatever you want to call them, in our society that are already trained to handle that.

 

 

Let me pose this question:

 

If we were to allow teachers to carry guns at school, and let's say a kid walks in to a classroom one day and starts pointing a gun at everyone in the class.

 

Then let's say the teacher draws their gun and shoots at the kid. She shoots the kid dead only to find out that he was only pointing a water gun/paintball gun/bb gun, whatever.

 

That teacher could potentially do more damage than was orginally going to be done.

 

I just don't see a need for us to all get hyped up and crazed over the situation and immediately turn to guns for the only answer.

 

If there is a pattern that your type of home with your type of furnace system is catching on fire, would that raise your level of concern about your house and lead you to seek preventions to your house catching on fire?

 

And AGAIN, I think you guys have missed a BIG POINT of what I am saying. I am talking about a teacher who GOES THROUGH A TRAINING PROCESS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT GOES THROUGH.

 

How long ago was Columbine? Paducah? the other shootings. I am not sure that hyped up, crazed and IMMEDIATELY is an accurate description. Some of these shootings occurred in the 1990's. Wasn't Columbine like 2000? Is seven years ago, when it wasn't the first of these shootings, your definition of hyped up, crazed and immediately?

 

How long does this go on till you would feel okay about it? 5 more years of school shootings? 10 more years? 20 more years.

 

Which scenario do you see happening on the news more often? Yours or a kid actually going into a school and shooting someone or the police arresting them while they are still in the planning stage as both happened last week. We are talking what 5-6 school shootings per year. With Va Tech, there has already been three this year in the 2 months of school.

IMO - I'd rather change the idea of No Child Left Behind and remove students rather than adding guns. By the time the kids get to high school - it is very evident that some have already been left way behind and are angry...

The education system should go on trial here. Teach kids to read and do basic math - then let them pursue some things they are interested in. Vocational schools need to be growing in this country.

IMO - I'd rather change the idea of No Child Left Behind and remove students rather than adding guns. By the time the kids get to high school - it is very evident that some have already been left way behind and are angry...

The education system should go on trial here. Teach kids to read and do basic math - then let them pursue some things they are interested in. Vocational schools need to be growing in this country.

 

You won't get much of an argument from me on these posts.

 

And you do bring up an interesting point. 20 years ago, 30 years ago, you didn't see these type of shootings. Why?

 

Is part of the reason what you alluded to? 20 years ago, 30 years ago, school districts could and DID EXPEL students. Those troubled students were not in the buildings anymore. They were not there to be angry.

 

They were other places causes problems, but they were not in schools.

 

And the first thing about vocational schools is we have to quit devaluing them by having this myth that going to college is the only way to be successful. Further training, ABSOLUTELY, but it does not have to be college. Presently, you are not going to college and you are looked down upon by society, politicians, educators, media, etc, etc.