Elementary school shooting

[JakeStarkey]

When it all boils down, armed security will be in our schools and very few of those will be CCW teachers.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly the point. We have too many guns in this society, and your solution is to put in more guns. This is like, batshit crazy. And you talk like it's a good idea.

No, Joe, the problem is not too many guns as those areas with the most guns per capita (rural USA) are the most safe, and the least safe places are where guns are banned or highly restricted (Chicago, gun free school zones, Washington DC, malls and other public places that post gun keep out signs, etc).

If you could ever grasp that fact and stop looking at this problem through your emotional guns = 'evil thing' filter, maybe you would realize what the most effective step would be; allow those teachers so inclined to do concealed carry at school, AFTER being vetted, screened and validating their gun training record.

You libs can contineu to make our kids LESS SAFE if you want while patting yourself on the back for 'doin sumpin', but the things that are being recommended by the administration today (more laws pioled up on more laws that are already ignored and broken by perps) will ACCOMPLISH NOTHING AT ALL. Meanwhile more and mmore of our children will die so you liberal can have your feel good moments.

It is pathehtic when a grown adult substitutes fantasy divorced from any link to reall affect and impact to then form poilicies that have the EXACT OPPOSITE FROM INTENDED EFFECT.

That in short is the problem with post 1968 liberalism.

Rural USA is safer because less people live there. So that statistic is a fraud.

Here's the thing. Japan has almost no private gun ownership. In 2008, they had all of 11 gun murders. And I think that was the last year they bothered to count.

Australia cracked down on gun ownership after a particularly nasty mass shooting in 1996. They haven't had a mass shooting incident since.

The idea that arming teachers, who are pretty much the most stressed out profession in our society, is a sane and rational idea is laughable.

 

[Nosmo King]

Let's talk about lessons in tyranny and how it was suppressed in at least my lifetime.

If there was every tyranny in this country, it has happened over and over. The tyranny shown to the Cherokee living in the American southeast. Driving them westward on the Trail of Tears. The tyranny shown by southern slave-holders who bartered human lives like any other commodity. In both cases the issue was settled by guns.

I want to talk about the Civil Rights movement.

The Civil Rights movement was by-in-large violent even though the source of the violence was largely the authorities or armed private citizens. The Civil Rights marchers themselves were largely non-violent, preferring tactics like sit ins and boycotts. In response, the authorities turned fire hoses and tear gas on them. The Klan wasn't as benign. Eventually, and after much torment, the Civil Rights marchers won. They combatted tyranny and didn't fire a shot.

And that in my life time. Actual tyranny faced down by something other than the flash of a muzzle or the concussion of an IED.

You take a noble road combatting tyranny. But the gun isn't as indispensable as it's characterized. Not military weapons anyway.

Gun rights will be preserved as bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers are not on the table. High capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems must be placed under the authority of well regulated militias, not the street.

Don't kid yourself, it was the point of a gun from the National Guard and law enforcement that allowed the protestors to protest and laws to be enforced.

You mean well regulated militias?

 

[saveliberty]

You mean well regulated militias?

I didn't use that term. Why don't you show us you know the difference?
Define militia, law enforcement and national guard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Exactly the point. We have too many guns in this society, and your solution is to put in more guns. This is like, batshit crazy. And you talk like it's a good idea.

No, Joe, the problem is not too many guns as those areas with the most guns per capita (rural USA) are the most safe, and the least safe places are where guns are banned or highly restricted (Chicago, gun free school zones, Washington DC, malls and other public places that post gun keep out signs, etc).

If you could ever grasp that fact and stop looking at this problem through your emotional guns = 'evil thing' filter, maybe you would realize what the most effective step would be; allow those teachers so inclined to do concealed carry at school, AFTER being vetted, screened and validating their gun training record.

You libs can contineu to make our kids LESS SAFE if you want while patting yourself on the back for 'doin sumpin', but the things that are being recommended by the administration today (more laws pioled up on more laws that are already ignored and broken by perps) will ACCOMPLISH NOTHING AT ALL. Meanwhile more and mmore of our children will die so you liberal can have your feel good moments.

It is pathehtic when a grown adult substitutes fantasy divorced from any link to reall affect and impact to then form poilicies that have the EXACT OPPOSITE FROM INTENDED EFFECT.

That in short is the problem with post 1968 liberalism.

Rural USA is safer because less people live there. So that statistic is a fraud.

The stat is PER CAPITA, dumbfuck.

 

[SFC Ollie]

When it all boils down, armed security will be in our schools and very few of those will be CCW teachers.

You do not know that as fact, unless you've taken up crystal ball reading...........

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except half of all teachers quit their jobs within five years due to stress....

Not seeing how arming them is going to make them less stressful.

Not seeing how that makes a any type of pertinent point.

I'm sure you don't... and if I explain it to you you still wouldn't understand it.

I would assume that the same statistic applies in Utah, they have allowed teachers to carry guns in school for years. If your point was something about teachers going crazy and shooting the kids, or letting the kids get the gun, or any other really bad thing that might happen, I am sure you can find plenty of examples to make your point for you.

Unless, of course, you didn't know that about Utah and just assumed that it is currently illegal everywhere.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When it all boils down, armed security will be in our schools and very few of those will be CCW teachers.

I love it when FakeyJake pontificates like this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly the point. We have too many guns in this society, and your solution is to put in more guns. This is like, batshit crazy. And you talk like it's a good idea.

No, Joe, the problem is not too many guns as those areas with the most guns per capita (rural USA) are the most safe, and the least safe places are where guns are banned or highly restricted (Chicago, gun free school zones, Washington DC, malls and other public places that post gun keep out signs, etc).

If you could ever grasp that fact and stop looking at this problem through your emotional guns = 'evil thing' filter, maybe you would realize what the most effective step would be; allow those teachers so inclined to do concealed carry at school, AFTER being vetted, screened and validating their gun training record.

You libs can contineu to make our kids LESS SAFE if you want while patting yourself on the back for 'doin sumpin', but the things that are being recommended by the administration today (more laws pioled up on more laws that are already ignored and broken by perps) will ACCOMPLISH NOTHING AT ALL. Meanwhile more and mmore of our children will die so you liberal can have your feel good moments.

It is pathehtic when a grown adult substitutes fantasy divorced from any link to reall affect and impact to then form poilicies that have the EXACT OPPOSITE FROM INTENDED EFFECT.

That in short is the problem with post 1968 liberalism.

Rural USA is safer because less people live there. So that statistic is a fraud.

Here's the thing. Japan has almost no private gun ownership. In 2008, they had all of 11 gun murders. And I think that was the last year they bothered to count.

Australia cracked down on gun ownership after a particularly nasty mass shooting in 1996. They haven't had a mass shooting incident since.

The idea that arming teachers, who are pretty much the most stressed out profession in our society, is a sane and rational idea is laughable.

Didn't you already try that argument, and get slapped down by reality?

Monash University shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

When it all boils down, armed security will be in our schools and very few of those will be CCW teachers.

You do not know that as fact, unless you've taken up crystal ball reading...........

How could it be a fact if it hasn't happened yet? Since when does making a prediction require the possession of a crystal ball? Economists and successful business people do it all the time.

I have worked with teachers and prospective teachers for years. In my experience, most would be unwilling to take on that responsibility, and I don't know how much I trust the judgment or capabilities of those that remain. They are teachers of children. Most of them have the accompanying temperament, meaning that the likelihood of any of them doing what is required at the moment of truth is remote. That is not a praise, nor a condemnation, nor a statement of fact. What it is is a pretty realistic observation.

Given that, and the weight that the shooting in Connecticut carries in the general American psyche, it doesn't take a crystal ball to make such a prediction. I also am compelled to agree with it. Time will tell, but I find it a little ridiculous to expect guns to be in the hands of very many (if any) teachers in the classroom any time soon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have been on two different school boards, private and public, superintendent for some years of the latter.

Jimmy Jam is accurate in explanation of the likely situation in the future.

 

[Aristotle]

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 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

 

[JakeStarkey]

Such argumentation by the JimBowies simply drive people toward the center and far far away from his position. Americans believe that something must be done about semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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 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

Your point is valid. However, you can be pretty confident that increased security measures of some kind is more than likely, which will cost money one way or another. Schools in Michigan closed for their holiday break two days early yesterday because they were concerned after the Connecticut shooting that some wacko might try something crazy because of the widespread doomsday predictions accompanying 12/21. Nerves are hair-triggered (excuse the pun) and will be for some time, so I think heightened security, and the accompanying costs, are inevitable.

Will that be charged to school budgets? Will a federal decision be made that funds it separately? I do not know.

 

[Aristotle]

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

 

[Aristotle]

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

Your point is valid. However, you can be pretty confident that increased security measures of some kind is more than likely, which will cost money one way or another. Schools in Michigan closed for their holiday break two days early yesterday because they were concerned after the Connecticut shooting that some wacko might try something crazy because of the widespread doomsday predictions accompanying 12/21. Nerves are hair-triggered (excuse the pun) and will be for some time, so I think heightened security, and the accompanying costs, are inevitable.

Will that be charged to school budgets? Will a federal decision be made that funds it separately? I do not know.

Good question. I don't know but I think our fear may be sensationalized which may lead all of our governmental leaders to make irrational decisions

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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.

 

[Aristotle]

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 made a profound statement:

"The CT shootings everything."

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

Unfortunately we in America haven't addressed the is local to us like gang violence, human mental health, along with a host of other issues. Yet with incidents like Columbine, and the (insert school name here) CT shooting, only then we are now addressing adolescent mental health and revising gun laws. I think as a whole, comparable to your example of parents fighting at ball games we focus on trivial issues instead of the ones ahead of us.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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 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.

 

[Aristotle]

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?