Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one wants to arm teachers but it has become necessary.
Stupid troll ^^^^^^^^Arm the teachers, disarm the cops.
Nah. Just let the kids keep dying.Want teachers to carry? No problem. Add a yearly stipend of at least 10 grand per year as a start.
Nothing is wrong with him. If the left would rather have kids die, that's on them.What is WRONG WITH YOU?
No he isn't. Everything he said is true.You are LYING
That does not make it a bad idea.It's a bad idea for a number of reasons:
1. Literally no person went into teaching elementary school so they could act as a first-responder gunslinger
That is flat out untrue.2. There is no value in turning America into an armed encampment. If you can't solve the problem without adding MORE GUNS then your solution is a sign of mental illness.
That is a case of faulty logic leading to an erroneous conclusion.3. This happens almost NO WHERE ELSE ON THE PLANET with the frequency it does here. Yet every other place on earth has exactly the same type of creatures (humans) with the full set of evils and mental illnesses. The big difference is America LOVES GUNS. We need to fix that, not just bring more guns into ridiculous places.
We don't tend to "realize" things that are not true.I honestly wish gun advocates would wake up one day and realize how fucked up it is to suggest ARMING TEACHERS as a SOLUTION!
We have nothing to do with causing the problem. But we're not going to let you take advantage of the problem to violate our civil liberties for no reason.The gun advocates have now turned America into a hellscape that is NOT worthy of respect, NOT worthy of defense. It is quickly becoming a killing field.
Let's GROW UP.
Your proposal to violate people's civil liberties for no reason will not do anything but violate people's civil liberties for no reason....because the answer you would never consider might actually work.
Not at all. We could always arm teachers so they can defend the kids instead of dying along with them.So of course the only other option is to let kids continue dying because America can't possibly give up its guns.
Well first, you are wrong. Restricting guns will not prevent prevent school massacres in any way whatsoever. The massacres would just be committed using different weapons.Actually it ISN'T necessary! We can restrict guns dramatically and probably see a SIGNIFICANT decrease in these types of mass killings.
No.The only reason we are even THINKING this stupid, stupid thought is because we can't IMAGINE limiting guns.
I've nothing against hiring guards, but emergency self defense is not the same thing as a job dedicated to security.Hire qualified armed security guards.
Teachers are teachers and security is security. You can’t just mash the two jobs together.
Hardly. It would put an end to school massacres....is still an idiotic idea.
Wrong. Everything that he said is true.You’re a liar.
That is incorrect. Many on the left mean to do exactly that.There is no legislation proposed by Democrats that seeks to ‘ban’ guns or ‘confiscate’ firearms; there is no serious leader in the Democratic Party advocating for ‘banning’ guns or ‘confiscating’ firearms.
First of all, no one said anything about semi-automatic pistols, or even handguns.Clearly you don’t know anything about handguns – semi-automatic pistols in particular.
It takes years of training and experience to be proficient with a semi-auto; shooting at a stationary target in the controlled environment of a pistol range in no manner prepares someone for the chaos of an actual active shooter event.
Nonsense.Not only will armed teachers fail to prevent a mass school shooting, but unqualified, inexperienced teachers would end up killing children and other innocent bystanders.
Not if you want to prevent kids from being slaughtered.Arming teachers is unmitigated idiocy.
Allow teachers who are already responsible gun owners to be armed at school if they so choose. But arming all teachers as policy is a bad idea.I've nothing against hiring guards, but emergency self defense is not the same thing as a job dedicated to security.
Agreed.Allow teachers who are already responsible gun owners to be armed at school if they so choose. But arming all teachers as policy is a bad idea.
Are you talking about not wanting armed police in Schools. Living in the UK I find the idea of having people with guns prowling around schools horrendous. I also hear the police can arrest the kids at school which was described as one of the stresses which increases these school shootings. They need to be stopped. I don't know how much different it is for kids being brought up in the US or being brought up in a war zone.Arm the teachers, disarm the cops.
I would not want my child going to a school which they know is so unsafe that they need people with guns to protect them. Americans go on about their right to have guns but these people never think about kids right to have a childhood.Well, the reality is that they don't. But, if they did, how many security personnel would be sufficient? One? A dozen? My high school had a total of 74 teachers. Imagine having 74 people determined to protect your child.
And of course no one wants their child to be murdered. But if the only thing that's going to prevent that is a teacher with a gun, wouldn't you want there to be a teacher with a gun in your child's classroom?
Arm the teachers ?After every school shooting the conversation, sooner or later, becomes a discussion of whether or not we should allow teachers to be armed.
I believe we should.
I'm not advocating that every teacher be armed. The last thing I would want to have is someone who, for whatever reason, either cannot or will not use a gun properly. If a teacher doesn't want to be armed, I can respect that. What I can't respect, though, is when those who choose to be unarmed want to insist that others should not be allowed to be armed.
Opponents of this idea are quick to say that it's a bad idea, yet, thus far, every single one has failed to offer a valid reason as to why it would be a bad idea. Apparently, opponents are of the belief that a teacher can't be properly trained in the use of a firearm, or in the use of deadly force. I reject that idea. Once upon a time, every single person who is a cop today did not know how use a firearm. They learned how to use a firearm. If a teacher is smart enough to teach, doesn't it fit that the teacher should be smart enough to learn, too?
Let those who wish to be armed be armed, and those who don't wish to be armed can remain unarmed.
Often mentioned is the idea of "crossfire". Let's discuss that for a minute, because it's really an invalid concern.
In order for crossfire to occur, a minimum of two people need to be shooting at the same target, which is between them. Now, I'm not entirely sure why, but opponents seem to believe that once law enforcement shows up, an armed teacher will still be blasting away. That's simply not the case. A simple doctrine would be that the teacher secures his or her weapon when police arrive. That way there's no chance that the teacher is misidentified as the active shooter, and the teacher can get to the task of comforting students instead of protecting them.
Opponents will also often say that the teachers aren't police officers, and that police officers should be allowed to do their jobs. Well, that sounds nice, doesn't it? Unfortunately, at Robb Elementary, the police were on hand yet they failed to do their job for 78 minutes. That means, for well over an hour, Salvador Ramos was able to kill. The police made a bad call and it resulted in 21 deaths. Could an armed teacher have stopped Ramos? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. What we do know is that the police didn't. Isn't having a slight chance at stopping an active shooter better than having no chance to stop an active shooter?
Or how about Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida? That's another example of police being on the scene but failing to do their jobs. As a result, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz was able to walk through the school, killing people along the way, simply because there was no one to challenge him, and no one to stop him.
In 2001 my daughter was a freshman at Santana High School in Santee, California. Her classmate, Andy Williams, shot 15 people, killing two of them. A 23 year old security officer, Peter Ruiz, was shot three times in the back as he was going for help. Peter is still a dear friend to this day. He doesn't mince words when he speaks of the incident. He told me once "Steve, if I had a gun I could've stopped him."
And not that it was a school shooting, but it shows how an ordinary person with a gun can have an impact: In December of 2012 I was living in Portland, Oregon and was in a store not far from the food court at Clackamas Town Center when 22 year old Jacob Roberts entered the shopping mall and started shooting. A shopper in the food court, who was legally carrying a concealed weapon (a Glock), drew his weapon and aimed it at Roberts. Roberts saw the man, ran into a stairwell, and blew his brains out.
You don't have to be a police officer to stop a shooter...
Are you talking about not wanting armed police in Schools. Living in the UK I find the idea of having people with guns prowling around schools horrendous. I also hear the police can arrest the kids at school which was described as one of the stresses which increases these school shootings. They need to be stopped. I don't know how much different it is for kids being brought up in the US or being brought up in a war zone.
Like the girls your government allowed to be raped……was it over a thousand?I would not want my child going to a school which they know is so unsafe that they need people with guns to protect them. Americans go on about their right to have guns but these people never think about kids right to have a childhood.
Why not let the kids speak for themselves.I would not want my child going to a school which they know is so unsafe that they need people with guns to protect them. Americans go on about their right to have guns but these people never think about kids right to have a childhood.
The problem isn't too many guns.Actually it ISN'T necessary! We can restrict guns dramatically and probably see a SIGNIFICANT decrease in these types of mass killings.
The only reason we are even THINKING this stupid, stupid thought is because we can't IMAGINE limiting guns.
We honestly can't even imagine it, so instead we imagine everything else.
It's bizarre!
I would not want my child going to a school which they know is so unsafe that they need people with guns to protect them. Americans go on about their right to have guns but these people never think about kids right to have a childhood.
