Another school shooting....time to arm the teachers?

[Aristotle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cqbv-aqoao&feature=youtube_gdata_player


I say yes. Of course proper precautions should be taken but lets allow administration officials to protect the children and themselves.

The following is my argument that "the arming of teachers" is a slippery slope see the following:

There is nothing good about arming teachers.

Except for the simple fact that IT STOPS ASSAULTS ON INNOCENT SCHOOL CHILDREN, genius.

No, actually smart aleck it doesn't.

For one, schools must have available funding, time, and training.

If they arm teachers the city and school districts must have expendable funds to secure not only gun training, but proper permits such as concealed or exposed firearm permits.

Not to mention testing teachers for psychological issues such as the same process potential police cadets go through. In addition, equipping teachers with bullet proof vest. The cheapest bulletproof vest runs you about $350 plus tax easy, I assume the fiscal idea of shelling out money to equip teachers with such, especially to school districts hurting for money, will not be accepted by most school districts.

Finally, even if we arm teachers this still doesn't prevent school shootings, and if we assume that it does, what about the mental health of the teacher(s) who had to take the suspects life? Most peace officers who kill suspects go on leave and receive a psych evaluation due to the traumatic event of having to kill another person. Most people haven't killed someone so we do not know the psychological effect upon a teacher who has had to take another person's life even in the best interest of everyone else.

This doesn't account for the teachers who are disgruntled due to personal issues, nor does your foolish opinion take into account for teachers who are about to get fired and are among those with nothing to lose and who may snap.....

Yes that is a genius idea

I made a few grammatical editions but nonetheless, this is my response to this thread.

 

[Aristotle]

The following is another response to this thread via dialogue:

In California, for many of our public schools police presence before and after schools have worked fine. Most kindergarten schools have unarmed security. I would assume for the simple fact that the presence of police is overkill (no pun intended) but also, a lot of school districts cannot afford it. Los Angeles Unified School District has been laying off teachers due to the budget. Hell, even UC and Cal State school teachers still have forloughs to accomodate the budget. The arming of teachers is at least, fiscally irresponsible.

Someone here also mention Utah teachers were allowed to carry guns. Well in financially stable school districts thats ok I guess. But whats interesting is suburban white upper middle class areas have the need to arm themselves

Maybe, but the CT shooting changes everything.

You know, there is an element of this that reminds me of when I played little league baseball as a kid. While the kids were there to play a game and have fun, the adults were the ones fighting each other. But that was little league. Here we have kids who would like to go to school safely while the adults in government, AND in places like USMB, fight and bicker across party lines like a bunch of assholes.

You've made a profound statement:

"The CT shootings changes everything."

Its like what I have said in another thread, the Conneticut shootings is a classic example of " I only pay attention only if its in my backyard."

Unfortunately we in America haven't addressed the grand issues that are local to us like gang violence, human mental health, along with a host of other issues. Yet with incidents like Columbine, and the (Sandy Hook) Conneticut shooting, only then we are now addressing adolescent mental health, revising gun laws, and concerning ourselves with our children's welfare at school. I think as a whole, comparable to your example of parents fighting at ball games, we focus on the trivial issues instead of the ones in front of us.

 

[beagle9]

Once peaceful America? Really? We are among the violent people in the world.

Everything is talked about in percentages of when speaking about peace or etc. concerning people as found anywhere in the world, so why do you act so dumb about these statements when they are made or why do you try and hang on every word in an attempt to find something to make a person apear dumb with like you are doing ? You are also an evil in this nation, and that is to a degree as well, cuz there are others here who take the prize for evilness in degree's of, so maybe that will make you feel a little bit better about it all.

 

[9thIDdoc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cqbv-aqoao&feature=youtube_gdata_player


I say yes. Of course proper precautions should be taken but lets allow administration officials to protect the children and themselves.

The following is my argument that "the arming of teachers" is a slippery slope see the following:

Except for the simple fact that IT STOPS ASSAULTS ON INNOCENT SCHOOL CHILDREN, genius.

No, actually smart aleck it doesn't.

For one, schools must have available funding, time, and training.

If they arm teachers the city and school districts must have expendable funds to secure not only gun training, but proper permits such as concealed or exposed firearm permits.

Not to mention testing teachers for psychological issues such as the same process potential police cadets go through. In addition, equipping teachers with bullet proof vest. The cheapest bulletproof vest runs you about $350 plus tax easy, I assume the fiscal idea of shelling out money to equip teachers with such, especially to school districts hurting for money, will not be accepted by most school districts.

Finally, even if we arm teachers this still doesn't prevent school shootings, and if we assume that it does, what about the mental health of the teacher(s) who had to take the suspects life? Most peace officers who kill suspects go on leave and receive a psych evaluation due to the traumatic event of having to kill another person. Most people haven't killed someone so we do not know the psychological effect upon a teacher who has had to take another person's life even in the best interest of everyone else.

This doesn't account for the teachers who are disgruntled due to personal issues, nor does your foolish opinion take into account for teachers who are about to get fired and are among those with nothing to lose and who may snap.....

Yes that is a genius idea

I made a few grammatical editions but nonetheless, this is my response to this thread.

Actually I'd have to say your excuses are flimsey and your priorites suck.Is there any higher priority than protecting the lives entrusted to their care? If so my children would be elsewhere and I suspect a school without students would have budget issues. Teaching accomplishes nothing if the student are too dead to graduate.
And there isn't a lot of demand for well educated corpses.
The budget for security should come before any thing else. Why not a qualified instructor who could train willing staff members and willing PTA vols. the needed instruction for carry licenses. He could also teach basic firarms safety classes to students. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by 9thIDdoc; Today at 04:29 PM.

 

[Aristotle]

Yes Doc...In the other thread I refuted your position via a series of questions which I know you will fail to address see the following:

Except for the simple fact that IT STOPS ASSAULTS ON INNOCENT SCHOOL CHILDREN, genius.

No actually smart aleck it doest.

For one, schools must have available funding, time and training.

If they arm teachers the city and school districts must have expendable funds to secure not only gun training, but proper permits such as concealed carry permits.

Not to mention testing teacher for psychological issues such as the process police cadets go through. Not to mention equipping teachers with bullet proof vest. The cheapest bulletproof vest runs you about $350 plus tax easy, I assume the fiscal idea of shelling out money to equip teachers with such especially to school districts hurting for money as is, will not be accepted.

Finally, even if we arm teachers this still doesn't prevent school shootings, and even if we assume that it does, what about the mental health of the teacher who had to take life? Most peace officers who kill suspects go on leave and receive a psych evaluation.

This doesn't account for the teacher who is disgruntled because of personal issues, nor does your foolish opinion take into account for teachers who are about to get fired and are among those with nothing to lose and who may snap.....

Yes that is a genius idea

Actually I'd have to say your excuses are flimsey and your priorites suck.Is there any higher priority than protecting the lives entrusted to their care? If so my children would be elsewhere and I suspect a school without students would have budget issues. Teaching accomplishes nothing if the student are too dead to graduate.
And there isn't a lot of demand for well educated corpses.
The budget for security should come before any thing else. Why not a qualified instructor who could train willing staff members and willing PTA vols. the needed instruction for carry licenses. He could also teach basic firarms safety classes to students.

This is a basic argument of sensationalizing something based on some sporadic events.

Ok, let me ask you something.

How often do school shootings happen in your area? What is the ratio of shootings per school, annually?

What is the fiscal budget of schools near where you live?

You say the protection of our children are important then ok, then how would you suggest balancing the budget of equipping every single teacher with bulletproof vest along with standard issued sidearm? Along with teacher cutbacks? Or what about school books, and after school programs? What about extracirricular activities such as competitive sports? Who pays for all of this if cities are struggling to get out of debt yet, makes funding personalized security via armed teachers a priority?

 

[beagle9]

The following is another response to this thread via dialogue:

In California, for many of our public schools police presence before and after schools have worked fine. Most kindergarten schools have unarmed security. I would assume for the simple fact that the presence of police is overkill (no pun intended) but also, a lot of school districts cannot afford it. Los Angeles Unified School District has been laying off teachers due to the budget. Hell, even UC and Cal State school teachers still have forloughs to accomodate the budget. The arming of teachers is at least, fiscally irresponsible.

Someone here also mention Utah teachers were allowed to carry guns. Well in financially stable school districts thats ok I guess. But whats interesting is suburban white upper middle class areas have the need to arm themselves

Maybe, but the CT shooting changes everything.

You know, there is an element of this that reminds me of when I played little league baseball as a kid. While the kids were there to play a game and have fun, the adults were the ones fighting each other. But that was little league. Here we have kids who would like to go to school safely while the adults in government, AND in places like USMB, fight and bicker across party lines like a bunch of assholes.

You've made a profound statement:

"The CT shootings changes everything."

Its like what I have said in another thread, the Conneticut shootings is a classic example of " I only pay attention only if its in my backyard."

Unfortunately we in America haven't addressed the grand issues that are local to us like gang violence, human mental health, along with a host of other issues. Yet with incidents like Columbine, and the (Sandy Hook) Conneticut shooting, only then we are now addressing adolescent mental health, revising gun laws, and concerning ourselves with our children's welfare at school. I think as a whole, comparable to your example of parents fighting at ball games, we focus on the trivial issues instead of the ones in front of us.

Hey, if we are to keep allowing bad thugs and/or very bad kids to go to school with the good kids, and this by force, and then they are disrupting, killing and threatening the teachers and other kids as well, then hey arming the schools is a very good thing that should have been done or allowed long before now, especially by the way we have ((as idiots ourselves over time)) allowed for bad things to take over our schools in America.

Some people may not want the schools to be able to protect themselves, because they know their child is a real bad problem child, and may just come home in a body bag, instead of it being the principle, teacher or student at the hands of the bad kid coming home in a body bag instead. How about the teachers who have been intimidated, beaten, and killed even by the crazy student in the past ?

This has been a very bad problem in schools to be found in the very recent past and past also. We have thwarted our responsibility on all of this for to long now, but why is that and because of who ? These are the things we need to know and get resolved also in this mess. It is not the GUN's !!!!!!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because our national narrative demands, requires accuracy and rejects absolutist statements, as if if there were once a peaceful time in America. We have never been a peaceful nation, from when the folks of Roanoke disappeared between 1587 to 1590 right through to today. I think our nation is the most wonderful that has ever been, but "peaceful" is not a correct adjective for it.

Once peaceful America? Really? We are among the violent people in the world.

Everything is talked about in percentages of when speaking about peace or etc. concerning people as found anywhere in the world, so why do you act so dumb about these statements when they are made or why do you try and hang on every word in an attempt to find something to make a person apear dumb with like you are doing ? You are also an evil in this nation, and that is to a degree as well, cuz there are others here who take the prize for evilness in degree's of, so maybe that will make you feel a little bit better about it all.

 

[Aristotle]

The following is another response to this thread via dialogue:

Maybe, but the CT shooting changes everything.

You know, there is an element of this that reminds me of when I played little league baseball as a kid. While the kids were there to play a game and have fun, the adults were the ones fighting each other. But that was little league. Here we have kids who would like to go to school safely while the adults in government, AND in places like USMB, fight and bicker across party lines like a bunch of assholes.

You've made a profound statement:

"The CT shootings changes everything."

Its like what I have said in another thread, the Conneticut shootings is a classic example of " I only pay attention only if its in my backyard."

Unfortunately we in America haven't addressed the grand issues that are local to us like gang violence, human mental health, along with a host of other issues. Yet with incidents like Columbine, and the (Sandy Hook) Conneticut shooting, only then we are now addressing adolescent mental health, revising gun laws, and concerning ourselves with our children's welfare at school. I think as a whole, comparable to your example of parents fighting at ball games, we focus on the trivial issues instead of the ones in front of us.

Hey, if we are to keep allowing bad thugs and/or very bad kids to go to school with the good kids, and this by force, and then they are disrupting, killing and threatening the teachers and other kids as well, then hey arming the schools is a very good thing that should have been done or allowed long before now, especially by the way we have ((as idiots ourselves over time)) allowed for bad things to take over our schools in America.
Some people may not want the schools to be able to protect themselves, because they know their child is a real bad problem child, and may just come home in a body bag, instead of it being the principle, teacher or student at the hands of the bad kid coming home in a body bag instead. How about the teachers who have been intimidated, beaten, and killed even by the crazy student in the past ?

This has been a very bad problem in schools to be found in the very recent past also. We have thwarted our responsibility on all of this for to long now, but why is that and because of who ? These are the things we need to know and get resolved also in this mess. It is not the GUN's !!!!!!!!!

By "thugs" "problem child" are you referring to kindergarten aged children, or middle/high school children?

I don't have all the answers but assuming by "thugs" you mean kids in high school who come from an impoverished background or who may suffer from some mental disorder such as anti-social personality disorder or is simply influenced by the wrong crowd and commence in socially destructive acts then we need to get the parents, school psychologists, and the principle involved. If teachers have had reported incidents of being assaulted then we need to get the police involve and and at least remove the problem either away from the school or to an institution that is geared towards assisting children with behavioral issues.

Protection, although important, ought to be discussed alongside with what is fiscally affordable because the solution is not as easy as putting on a vest and loading a S&W.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Yes Doc...In the other thread I refuted your position via a series of questions which I know you will fail to address see the following:

No actually smart aleck it doest.

For one, schools must have available funding, time and training.

If they arm teachers the city and school districts must have expendable funds to secure not only gun training, but proper permits such as concealed carry permits.

Not to mention testing teacher for psychological issues such as the process police cadets go through. Not to mention equipping teachers with bullet proof vest. The cheapest bulletproof vest runs you about $350 plus tax easy, I assume the fiscal idea of shelling out money to equip teachers with such especially to school districts hurting for money as is, will not be accepted.

Finally, even if we arm teachers this still doesn't prevent school shootings, and even if we assume that it does, what about the mental health of the teacher who had to take life? Most peace officers who kill suspects go on leave and receive a psych evaluation.

This doesn't account for the teacher who is disgruntled because of personal issues, nor does your foolish opinion take into account for teachers who are about to get fired and are among those with nothing to lose and who may snap.....

Yes that is a genius idea

Actually I'd have to say your excuses are flimsey and your priorites suck.Is there any higher priority than protecting the lives entrusted to their care? If so my children would be elsewhere and I suspect a school without students would have budget issues. Teaching accomplishes nothing if the student are too dead to graduate.
And there isn't a lot of demand for well educated corpses.
The budget for security should come before any thing else. Why not a qualified instructor who could train willing staff members and willing PTA vols. the needed instruction for carry licenses. He could also teach basic firarms safety classes to students.

This is a basic argument of sensationalizing something based on some sporadic events.

Ok, let me ask you something.

How often do school shootings happen in your area? What is the ratio of shootings per school, annually?

What is the fiscal budget of schools near where you live?

You say the protection of our children are important then ok, then how would you suggest balancing the budget of equipping every single teacher with bulletproof vest along with standard issued sidearm? Along with teacher cutbacks? Or what about school books, and after school programs? What about extracirricular activities such as competitive sports? Who pays for all of this if cities are struggling to get out of debt yet, makes funding personalized security via armed teachers a priority?

More flimsey excuses, your priorities coninue to suck, and you've just added irrelevent bullshit.
My local school has an armed and uniformed LOE present although there has never been a shooting incident. Does your city or country not have any police officiers that could be assigned? I did not suggest or mention issued vests vests or psychiatric care but since you mentioned it don't you think that the surviving teachers (if any) and students might need some psychiatic followup even though no friendly fire was involved? And don't you think a teacher deal with psycidtric trama better than being dead?

 

[Foxfyre]

Aristotle makes a valid point though. Well over 99% of our schools have not had a shooting and will probably never have one. Making schools into mini prisons with armed guards may increase the safety factor, but at a cost that does not make much sense if a different, and far more cost effective way can be found to increase safety and security. We could equip all private automobiles with the same safety gear you find on professional racecars and make them infinitely safer too, but most people would rather incur some additional risk rather than incur what would be an impossible cost.

If allowing qualified, screened, and competent volunteer teachers to have easy access to a weapon would be the same deterrant and provide the same degree of security that armed security guards would provide, that seems to be the far more practical and probably far most effective solution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great majority of teachers and administrators are going to say, "not on my watch, you won't in my school." The great majority of the parents will back them, I think.

 

[Delete752]

In my opinion, although it falls into the abyss of bullshit that nobody cares about, deputizing a certain ratio of random male teachers to students would prevent violent acts on such a massive scale. Teachers that have volunteered could go through an impromptu police academy and firearm training in order to be deputized. Mental evaluation etc.. also would be necessary, but why don't we get rid of the full time school cops at large high schools across the nation, get rid of the 60" flat screen televisions posted in front of every hallway used as a message board and cut some of the superfluous things in order to facilitate the deputizing of teachers and give the deputized ones a small pay raise considering they have volunteered to possibly give their lives in the case of a tragedy unfolding like? It was more than 5 minutes after the shooting started before a police officer arrived on scene. Having 8-10 deputized teachers inside of a school that could respond in a minutes notice would undoubtedly prevent tragic loss of life in the dozens like that of the Connecticut shooting. All I'm saying is we were graced with the 2nd amendment in order to protect everything we hold dear, why not utilize what this amendment has given us?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If teachers want to volunteer and if the state exempts them from liability suits, go for it. Very, very few will do so, I think.

 

[Delete752]

The great majority of teachers and administrators are going to say, "not on my watch, you won't in my school." The great majority of the parents will back them, I think.

Without a doubt this would happen, and I'm no constitutional scholar, but from what I understand, the states would have the rights to put stipulations on the whole arming of teachers issue. Let the states vote on it and decide, and if that happens, all the schools in the south will instantly become the safest schools in the nation.

 

[Delete752]

If teachers want to volunteer and if the state exempts them from liability suits, go for it. Very, very few will do so, I think.

It's hard to say how educators would respond, but I would like to think there would be a few dutiful male teachers that would want to possess the means to defend their lives, and their students lives. It's hard to say how it would be accepted though, no doubt.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The great majority of teachers and administrators are going to say, "not on my watch, you won't in my school." The great majority of the parents will back them, I think.

And if they do they prove that they are not responsible enough to be trusted with lives of our children.

 

[bodecea]

The great majority of teachers and administrators are going to say, "not on my watch, you won't in my school." The great majority of the parents will back them, I think.

And if they do they prove that they are not responsible enough to be trusted with lives of our children.

Is that what teachers signed up for when they went to get their teaching credential?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The great majority of teachers and administrators are going to say, "not on my watch, you won't in my school." The great majority of the parents will back them, I think.

And if they do they prove that they are not responsible enough to be trusted with lives of our children.

Is that what teachers signed up for when they went to get their teaching credential?

They have the right to decide if their own lives are worth defending; they don't have that same right concerning our children. They are acting in loco parentis and if weren't prepared to do so they shouldn't have applied for the job.

 

[Delete752]

And if they do they prove that they are not responsible enough to be trusted with lives of our children.

Is that what teachers signed up for when they went to get their teaching credential?

They have the right to decide if their own lives are worth defending; they don't have that same right concerning our children. They are acting in loco parentis and if weren't prepared to do so they shouldn't have applied for the job.

Exactly. Schools like to use the inloco parentis whenever it comes to giving more power to them(random searches, closed circuit cameras, further involvement in student's lives) but when it comes down to the real issues like this, they seem to forget that phrase they hinge their role in society upon

 

[Unkotare]

Aristotle makes a valid point though. Well over 99% of our schools have not had a shooting and will probably never have one. Making schools into mini prisons with armed guards may increase the safety factor, but at a cost that does not make much sense if a different, and far more cost effective way can be found to increase safety and security.

What cost are you worried about?