Arming teachers bad cus in Parkand a singlular example exists of a cowardly RO not doing job, WTF?

[Sahba]

Countries with strong gun control don’t have this problem.

What 'Brain' is putting forth here, whether he knows it or not, is an issue fundamental to the formation of this nation and its excruciatingly blood birth from tyranny. Patrick Henry uttered the famous line in 1775 "Give me liberty or give me death." What are the immutable, bedrock tenets of this Constitutional Republic that are not amorphous, just because U will them to be?

I'll tell U what tenets they are not. They are not guaranteed safety from harm, sickness, homicide, mass murder & terrorism. They are not the right to housing, food and warm clothing. They are not welfare checks to cash for personal & pleasure expenses. They are not even for your right to medical care that U can't afford. Freedom, Liberty & Justice are the tenets that make this nation unique from all other nations on earth. The price for these paramount tenets has been steep! Whether U realize it or not, that price was freely paid for you at battle sights such as Lexington, Ticonderoga, Trenton, Bunker Hill & many many more. The ultimate price, in the currency of blood, has been and is yet being paid, in maintaining those tenets of freedom.

Freedom is the right for you to curse the nation that coddles you and does its best to ensure your voice is heard. Freedom is the right for you to despise the the very freedoms that you seek to throw away for illusions of safety. Freedom is the right for you to value the sentiment echoed by millions like Obama who say that subverting the very linchpin & rudiments of our freedoms (2A) is worth it "if it saves just one life it's worth it".

Is it worth it? Really, if it saves even one innocent life or 10, or 100, or 1000 innocent lives is it worth it? U do realize I hope, that tens of thousands of lives were voluntarily given up for your freedoms in the Revolutionary War alone. Our nation's loftiest calling is freedom, liberty & Justice for all. I will not abide your morphing temporal wants, desires, ideologies or partisan hackery to limit my Constitutional rights as a free citizen. The same goes for local, state and federal governance should they defy the rights set forth in our Constitution. Why do U think that that the right to bear arms is enshrined in ironclad language with our constitution?

There are more important and consequential tenets fundamental to our nation than even the sanctity of life; this is as true today as it was in 1776. (hope some of y'alls heads don't explode)

 

[XponentialChaos]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

 

[Asclepias]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

I've always meant to ask but what do you mean by gun free zones? I ask because someone told me Ft Hood was a gun free zone which is obviously bullshit.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

You think gun-free zones are less safe. Yet there were no guns allowed at a Pence/NRA convention held in Dallas a few months ago.

Explain this.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

In an interview with Variety Parkland gun control activist Emma Gonzalez suggested arming teachers is a bad idea because her school had “a resource officer and he didn’t do jack sh*t.”
The resource officer referenced by Gonzalez is former Broward County deputy Scot Peterson, who arrived outside the scene of the Parkland attack roughly 90 seconds after it began and stayed outside until it was over, instead of going in to confront the gunman.

Lost on Gonzalez is the fact that armed teachers are there as a last resort. They are there to shoot the attacker if the deputy will not go in or in the event that the deputy cannot go in.

Are the anti 2Aers so simple minded as to think that the almighty 'Nanny State' is the best defense against unleashed homicidal terror. Is the notion of 'Personal Responsibility' so repugnant that it extends to the very lives of their children. What the F, If the principle tells a parent that he has an AR locked up in his office I would expect parents to be thrilled, wouldn't U!

Emma Gonzalez: Don't Arm Teachers, 'We Had a Resource Officer and He Didn't Do Jack Sh*t' | Breitbart

Hire Veterans for some their job was to run towards danger. Most of the lifers would probably do it for free.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

You think gun-free zones are less safe. Yet there were no guns allowed at a Pence/NRA convention held in Dallas a few months ago.

Explain this.

I really don't know anything about it. I'm not obsessed with gun-free zones.

And yes, gun-free zones are less safe because anybody planning on doing something terrible goes to gun-free zones for a no resistance mass murder.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Have you noticed, or have you not noticed that all of these mass shootere pick out soft targets?

Simple question....


You think that is a factor? Or do you think that is a mere coincidence?

IF teachers are armed and students who would plan a mass shooting. Do you think those people would choose a target knowing it is protected and not a soft target?

That is the issue you liberals don't seem to get. Its easy for most of you wealthy white bread lefties living in private gated communities and private schools cause you know in all likelihood you have nothing to worry about.

The question is out there. Do you think these shooters consider their targets based on whether or not they are soft targets (gun free zones?)

Or

Is it just a coincidence that they just so happen to choose gun free zones to commit mass murder?

This topic always seems to turn into "gun free zones". Ok fine, let's talk about them.

What exactly would you consider a gun free zone? Is it locations with no guns at all, or is it a location where citizens (other than security) aren't allowed to be armed?

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is no guns at all: Well, Parkland had an armed resource officer. There was a gun there. A "good guy with a gun" was stationed there. Not all schools have an armed resource officer. So why wouldn't this kid choose a SOFTER target to go after? Isn't that your whole point? That the shooter will take the defense of the target into consideration before committing mass murder? Because that's easily disproven by the amount of schools without armed security. The Parkland shooter selected Parkland because he...used to go to Parkland.

If you're saying that a gun-free zone is having no armed citizens (other than security): Then you're arguing that we should have MORE people armed instead of just relying entirely on security. As we saw in this instance, the resource officer was basically useless. So you want armed school personnel as extra deterrents. You think that more guns in the hands of responsible people makes it more safe. Well then maybe you can answer a simple question:

Why were people not allowed to be armed during Trump's NRA convention speech? Why do you think we should have many loaded firearms in crowded schools, but no firearms at NRA convention speeches? Why the inconsistency? If you can address it, then you will have your answer regarding what we should do in schools.

In Ohio, we give our vendors the right to restrict guns. All they need to do is post a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on the entrances to their establishment and no guns are allowed including the owner. The Quicken Loans Arena is one of the few places we could host such an event, however they have always been gun-free since we passed our CCW laws in Ohio.

While you focus on one event, most all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones across the country. That doesn't happen by accident.

I've always meant to ask but what do you mean by gun free zones? I ask because someone told me Ft Hood was a gun free zone which is obviously bullshit.

No, Ft Hood was a gun-free zone. I believe that was passed by George H Bush that no weapons be allowed on military bases.

Gun free zones are simply places nobody can posses a firearm outside of law enforcement. For instance in my state all government buildings are gun-free zones. So are hospitals. Churches are gun-free zones but they have a loop hole that guns can be permitted if the church has a sign on their door stating so. Of course no church does to my knowledge.

 

[evenflow1969]

In an interview with Variety Parkland gun control activist Emma Gonzalez suggested arming teachers is a bad idea because her school had “a resource officer and he didn’t do jack sh*t.”
The resource officer referenced by Gonzalez is former Broward County deputy Scot Peterson, who arrived outside the scene of the Parkland attack roughly 90 seconds after it began and stayed outside until it was over, instead of going in to confront the gunman.

Lost on Gonzalez is the fact that armed teachers are there as a last resort. They are there to shoot the attacker if the deputy will not go in or in the event that the deputy cannot go in.

Are the anti 2Aers so simple minded as to think that the almighty 'Nanny State' is the best defense against unleashed homicidal terror. Is the notion of 'Personal Responsibility' so repugnant that it extends to the very lives of their children. What the F, If the principle tells a parent that he has an AR locked up in his office I would expect parents to be thrilled, wouldn't U!

Emma Gonzalez: Don't Arm Teachers, 'We Had a Resource Officer and He Didn't Do Jack Sh*t' | Breitbart

I had teachers I would have trusted being armed and teachers I would not have trusted armed. Not every one is suited to pull the trigger in a danger situation. Some people freeze and have their own weapon used on them. I would be against making it a requirement. Some one at the school should likely be armed though.

 

[Sahba]

I had teachers I would have trusted being armed and teachers I would not have trusted armed. Not every one is suited to pull the trigger in a danger situation. Some people freeze and have their own weapon used on them. I would be against making it a requirement. Some one at the school should likely be armed though.

Tks, that brings up a good point. It's sloppy, lazy diction to summarily say "arming teachers" & I'm guilty of doing so. As mentioned previously, no one is suggesting that all teachers be armed. Rather, those that voluntarily come forward expressing a personally compelling call to do so. These individuals would then have to go through a vetting and training process to be determined at the state, district etc. etc. levels.

 

[evenflow1969]

I had teachers I would have trusted being armed and teachers I would not have trusted armed. Not every one is suited to pull the trigger in a danger situation. Some people freeze and have their own weapon used on them. I would be against making it a requirement. Some one at the school should likely be armed though.

Tks, that brings up a good point. It's sloppy, lazy diction to summarily say "arming teachers" & I'm guilty of doing so. As mentioned previously, no one is suggesting that all teachers be armed. Rather, those that voluntarily come forward expressing a personally compelling call to do so. These individuals would then have to go through a vetting and training process to be determined at the state, district etc. etc. levels.

I am for making soft targets no longer soft. Obviously there is some things to work out. There is a reason prison guards do not carry in the bull pin but guns are close by. There should be an armed individual inside 40 secons of any given point in the school. There is no reason why this could not be worked out. If we can put a man on the moon we ought to be able to figure out how to arm some people in the school with minimal risk!

 

[kyzr]

Agree that there are qualified teachers, and resource officers that can stop a mass shooting. Here is one example in MD. Better screening is also a good idea, such as see thru backpacks, and metal detectors.

Pavlich: A good guy with a gun stops a school shooting

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Didn't read your own link? The student was injured because something from the ceiling fell on him. He was not struck by a bullet.

Weird. I don't recall saying that the student was struck by a bullet.

I believe I said that it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to save the day by shooting a bad guy.

The student was not injured by the gun! The "gun-trained teacher" was practicing gun safety by keeping the weapon pointed up. It defeats your argument entirely!

I guess I'll just repeat the exact same thing I said last time since you clearly didn't read it.

Weird. I don't recall saying that the student was struck by a bullet.

I believe I said that it's more likely that the gun is accidentally discharged than it is for a teacher to save the day by shooting a bad guy.​

Wow! What an exercise in mental masturbation you have there!

That's like saying a bullet dropped from a teacher's hand will more than likely hit the ground than fly across the room and hit a student in the eye!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Why does the teacher have to carry the firearm? You are making a gross assumption. Why can't the gun be locked away in the classroom?

Also, many teachers are veterans and others have experience with firearms.

I am a veteran with extensive training. When we did active shooter training, the principal even told the entire faculty he would be staying with me where he knew he would be safe. My assistant principal at one of the schools where I worked was a deputy sheriff before he became a teacher.

Try coming into my school if I and my fellow teachers were armed and see how long you last. I give you two minutes of walking around checking locked classroom doors before you bleed out on the floor.

Yea? Well the link that you accused me of not reading said that the person who accidentally discharged their gun happened to also be a reserve police officer trained in firearm use.

What happened there? Why was the gun not locked away in a non-emergency situation? Was that teacher more likely to kill a school shooter or an innocent student?

Is an unarmed teacher likely to kill a school shooter or get killed along with the students if they have no gun at all?

Unlike your supposition, mine has an almost 100% certainty, whereas your scenario has a microscopic chance of occurring.

Teachers are armed.

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

Which is more likely to happen?

Teacher steps in and saves the day.

Let's change your scenario to real life.

Teachers are not armed:

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher without a gun dies valiantly trying to defend students who are all killed anyway.
B) There is no other option. Teacher without a gun dies and students are all killed anyway.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Agree that there are qualified teachers, and resource officers that can stop a mass shooting. Here is one example in MD. Better screening is also a good idea, such as see thru backpacks, and metal detectors.

Pavlich: A good guy with a gun stops a school shooting

Metal detectors are useless.

Look up the Red Lake MInnesota school shooting, They had metal detectors. The gunman just shot the guy manning the metal detector!

I went into a federal office building recently for a job interview. I set off the metal detector, so they used a hand wand on me. My almost 100% plastic wristwatch set it off, so did the metal buttons on my sport coat, My belt buckle, zipper, and even the tiny decorative buckles on my shoes set it off. It even alarmed around the top of my socks where there was no metal. I had to pull my slacks to my knees to prove there was nothing there! It would have been easier to strip naked before going through the metal detector.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I say it'd be a good idea to allow some teachers to arm themselves, but definitely not most of them.

`
How about commercial pilots? "300 guns used in the federally administered program to arm commercial airline pilots were lost in one 60 day period in 2004 according to pilot organizations."

Got a link or is this one of your fantasies?

 

[kyzr]

Agree that there are qualified teachers, and resource officers that can stop a mass shooting. Here is one example in MD. Better screening is also a good idea, such as see thru backpacks, and metal detectors.

Pavlich: A good guy with a gun stops a school shooting

Metal detectors are useless.

Look up the Red Lake Minnesota school shooting, They had metal detectors. The gunman just shot the guy manning the metal detector!

I went into a federal office building recently for a job interview. I set off the metal detector, so they used a hand wand on me. My almost 100% plastic wristwatch set it off, so did the metal buttons on my sport coat, My belt buckle, zipper, and even the tiny decorative buckles on my shoes set it off. It even alarmed around the top of my socks where there was no metal. I had to pull my slacks to my knees to prove there was nothing there! It would have been easier to strip naked before going through the metal detector.

Metal detectors are used just about everywhere, so maybe the MN school needed a better setup, i.e. bullet proof glass or some other barrier. Also, most guns are easily seen if big baggy clothes aren't allowed. So a visual exam for most kids is probably as good as a metal detector. If I see a kid with a long black coat and don't see his hands I'm alerting backup. We had ex-marine coaches that would do a good job guarding entrances.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In an interview with Variety Parkland gun control activist Emma Gonzalez suggested arming teachers is a bad idea because her school had “a resource officer and he didn’t do jack sh*t.”
The resource officer referenced by Gonzalez is former Broward County deputy Scot Peterson, who arrived outside the scene of the Parkland attack roughly 90 seconds after it began and stayed outside until it was over, instead of going in to confront the gunman.

Lost on Gonzalez is the fact that armed teachers are there as a last resort. They are there to shoot the attacker if the deputy will not go in or in the event that the deputy cannot go in.

Are the anti 2Aers so simple minded as to think that the almighty 'Nanny State' is the best defense against unleashed homicidal terror. Is the notion of 'Personal Responsibility' so repugnant that it extends to the very lives of their children. What the F, If the principle tells a parent that he has an AR locked up in his office I would expect parents to be thrilled, wouldn't U!

Emma Gonzalez: Don't Arm Teachers, 'We Had a Resource Officer and He Didn't Do Jack Sh*t' | Breitbart

Arming teachers is idiocy because they have no idea what they're doing; what little training they get doesn't prepare them for an actual shooting event.

Indeed, armed teachers are more likely to kill or injure innocent bystanders and students.

 

[Windparadox]

Got a link or is this one of your fantasies?

`
As you wish - http://www.ncdsv.org/images/VPC_Arm-teachers-the-facts-argue-against-it.pdf

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Agree that there are qualified teachers, and resource officers that can stop a mass shooting. Here is one example in MD. Better screening is also a good idea, such as see thru backpacks, and metal detectors.

Pavlich: A good guy with a gun stops a school shooting

Metal detectors are useless.

Look up the Red Lake Minnesota school shooting, They had metal detectors. The gunman just shot the guy manning the metal detector!

I went into a federal office building recently for a job interview. I set off the metal detector, so they used a hand wand on me. My almost 100% plastic wristwatch set it off, so did the metal buttons on my sport coat, My belt buckle, zipper, and even the tiny decorative buckles on my shoes set it off. It even alarmed around the top of my socks where there was no metal. I had to pull my slacks to my knees to prove there was nothing there! It would have been easier to strip naked before going through the metal detector.

Metal detectors are used just about everywhere, so maybe the MN school needed a better setup, i.e. bullet proof glass or some other barrier. Also, most guns are easily seen if big baggy clothes aren't allowed. So a visual exam for most kids is probably as good as a metal detector. If I see a kid with a long black coat and don't see his hands I'm alerting backup. We had ex-marine coaches that would do a good job guarding entrances.

You have obviously never spent any time in a school. I spent 21 years as a teacher and school administrator. This problem is being handled as best it can be. Metal detectors are useless.