hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

[Correll]

No one said anything like that.

Read it again.





So, what have we learned?


That no one would just go out a hallway full of students and start blazing away without a clear shot?


THat the scenario painted is a tough shot for a pistol?


Ok, so what does that prove?

my point was teachers arent capable unless the situation fits their ability ... it proves school districts should hire and use trained professionals to do the job .. I suggest retired military with combat experience, or retired special ops Law enforcement that know what its like to EXCHANGE gunfre in "have to" situations.

One scenario, designed to NOT give the teacher in question a clear shot, does not show that the teachers are not capable.


Here is another scenario.



...The armed teacher steps out of the doorway. He looks down the hall way and sees a shooter standing in the doorway of another classroom, about 10 feet away, intent on firing into that room. The hallway is clear of other students, the shooter does not notices the teacher and the teacher has a clear shot.


What do you do?

unless the shooter is firing shots how does a teacher know its a shooter ... and it was suggested teachers keep their pistols in a lockbox .. when do they open the lockbox and get their weapon?

The scenario starts out with "..." to suggest that that is where is diverged from YOUR scenario, ie he already heard the shots and retrieved his gun.


He knows that shooter is shooting because the shooter is firing into the other classroom.


He is "intent on firing into the classroom".



So, what do you do?

have hired professionals in schools to handle emergencies .. how many times do I need to repeat that ?

Too bad. He finished killing everyone in that classroom while you were waiting and then saw and killed you.


What does this scenario prove?

 

[Siete]

my point was teachers arent capable unless the situation fits their ability ... it proves school districts should hire and use trained professionals to do the job .. I suggest retired military with combat experience, or retired special ops Law enforcement that know what its like to EXCHANGE gunfre in "have to" situations.

One scenario, designed to NOT give the teacher in question a clear shot, does not show that the teachers are not capable.


Here is another scenario.



...The armed teacher steps out of the doorway. He looks down the hall way and sees a shooter standing in the doorway of another classroom, about 10 feet away, intent on firing into that room. The hallway is clear of other students, the shooter does not notices the teacher and the teacher has a clear shot.


What do you do?

unless the shooter is firing shots how does a teacher know its a shooter ... and it was suggested teachers keep their pistols in a lockbox .. when do they open the lockbox and get their weapon?

The scenario starts out with "..." to suggest that that is where is diverged from YOUR scenario, ie he already heard the shots and retrieved his gun.


He knows that shooter is shooting because the shooter is firing into the other classroom.


He is "intent on firing into the classroom".



So, what do you do?

have hired professionals in schools to handle emergencies .. how many times do I need to repeat that ?

Too bad. He finished killing everyone in that classroom while you were waiting and then saw and killed you.


What does this scenario prove?

that you arent capble of dealing with reality ...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No one said anything like that.

Read it again.





So, what have we learned?


That no one would just go out a hallway full of students and start blazing away without a clear shot?


THat the scenario painted is a tough shot for a pistol?


Ok, so what does that prove?

my point was teachers arent capable unless the situation fits their ability ... it proves school districts should hire and use trained professionals to do the job .. I suggest retired military with combat experience, or retired special ops Law enforcement that know what its like to EXCHANGE gunfre in "have to" situations.

One scenario, designed to NOT give the teacher in question a clear shot, does not show that the teachers are not capable.


Here is another scenario.



...The armed teacher steps out of the doorway. He looks down the hall way and sees a shooter standing in the doorway of another classroom, about 10 feet away, intent on firing into that room. The hallway is clear of other students, the shooter does not notices the teacher and the teacher has a clear shot.


What do you do?

unless the shooter is firing shots how does a teacher know its a shooter ... and it was suggested teachers keep their pistols in a lockbox .. when do they open the lockbox and get their weapon?

As soon as they know of a problem.

ok, after the shooter starts shooting ..

next contestant

So when is he supposed to pull out his gun, before the shooting happens? Now not only do we need armed teachers, they have to have ESP too?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just putting this out there, maybe we could lock up dangerously crazy people...

The problem is you don't know they are dangerously crazy until after they commit a crime.

I predicted when this first hit the news, that they knew the shooter was dangerously crazy, and I have been proven correct.


THe vast majority of the time, there are plenty of warning signs.


Profile those who are treated for mental illness and you will find those who are most likely to be dangerous to others and/or themselves, and institutionalize them for treatment until you are confident that they are better.

They used to do that years ago, but the court ruled that you can't institutionalize somebody who didn't commit a crime no more than you can imprison somebody who didn't commit a crime.
.....

And as long as we refuse to lock up people we can clearly see are dangerously crazy, we will be in danger from them.

Well how would that work? You and your ex have a fight over your two children. She goes to the police station and claims you're nuts and need to be locked up, so they do? And even if that were the situation, how long should they lock you up for? Life?

 

[Siete]

my point was teachers arent capable unless the situation fits their ability ... it proves school districts should hire and use trained professionals to do the job .. I suggest retired military with combat experience, or retired special ops Law enforcement that know what its like to EXCHANGE gunfre in "have to" situations.

One scenario, designed to NOT give the teacher in question a clear shot, does not show that the teachers are not capable.


Here is another scenario.



...The armed teacher steps out of the doorway. He looks down the hall way and sees a shooter standing in the doorway of another classroom, about 10 feet away, intent on firing into that room. The hallway is clear of other students, the shooter does not notices the teacher and the teacher has a clear shot.


What do you do?

unless the shooter is firing shots how does a teacher know its a shooter ... and it was suggested teachers keep their pistols in a lockbox .. when do they open the lockbox and get their weapon?

As soon as they know of a problem.

ok, after the shooter starts shooting ..

next contestant

So when is he supposed to pull out his gun, before the shooting happens? Now not only do we need armed teachers, they have to have ESP too?

get to work on your comprehension ray .. I didnt even come close to suggesting that

but you can ask corrie, he knows

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One scenario, designed to NOT give the teacher in question a clear shot, does not show that the teachers are not capable.


Here is another scenario.



...The armed teacher steps out of the doorway. He looks down the hall way and sees a shooter standing in the doorway of another classroom, about 10 feet away, intent on firing into that room. The hallway is clear of other students, the shooter does not notices the teacher and the teacher has a clear shot.


What do you do?

unless the shooter is firing shots how does a teacher know its a shooter ... and it was suggested teachers keep their pistols in a lockbox .. when do they open the lockbox and get their weapon?

As soon as they know of a problem.

ok, after the shooter starts shooting ..

next contestant

So when is he supposed to pull out his gun, before the shooting happens? Now not only do we need armed teachers, they have to have ESP too?

get to work on your comprehension ray .. I didnt even come close to suggesting that

but you can ask corrie, he knows

You didn't? So what are you saying?

A teacher can only draw a weapon after the action starts no different than a police officer drawing his weapon when the necessity arises. It's all you can do. So what point are you trying to make here?

 

[Doc1]

you're the Athletic Director, you're in your office (front left beside the sign over the door) - you hear shooting and kids screaming for their life .. you open the gun safe in your closet, get your Glock 23 semi auto 9mm pistol and start out the door ... at the other end of the hall theres a kid standing at the bottom of the stairs with a semi auto AR 15 spraying shots down the hall in your direction as fast as he can squeeze the trigger, and bullets whizzing by you one after the other .. lets say those stairs are at least 45-50 steps, probably more... a lengthy shot for a pistol whatever the exact distance ... under those conditions, students running every direction, crowded hallway - could

YOU

leave your room, stay under total control,take careful aim and kill or wound the shooter stopping him from killing students without hitting and injuring any kids yourself?

Ive been around guns all of my life. I started shooting .22 rimfire pistols when I was 6 - .357 mag pistols when I was 12. I rate the degree of difficulty in that exact scenario on a scale of 1-10 .. 100+

what would you do ?

And then you get shot by a cop who thinks you’re the school shooter.

Apparently not in Florida.

 

[Correll]

One scenario, designed to NOT give the teacher in question a clear shot, does not show that the teachers are not capable.


Here is another scenario.



...The armed teacher steps out of the doorway. He looks down the hall way and sees a shooter standing in the doorway of another classroom, about 10 feet away, intent on firing into that room. The hallway is clear of other students, the shooter does not notices the teacher and the teacher has a clear shot.


What do you do?

unless the shooter is firing shots how does a teacher know its a shooter ... and it was suggested teachers keep their pistols in a lockbox .. when do they open the lockbox and get their weapon?

The scenario starts out with "..." to suggest that that is where is diverged from YOUR scenario, ie he already heard the shots and retrieved his gun.


He knows that shooter is shooting because the shooter is firing into the other classroom.


He is "intent on firing into the classroom".



So, what do you do?

have hired professionals in schools to handle emergencies .. how many times do I need to repeat that ?

Too bad. He finished killing everyone in that classroom while you were waiting and then saw and killed you.


What does this scenario prove?

that you arent capble of dealing with reality ...

The professionals won't be around. IF there are any, any shooters will work to avoid them.


If you are waiting for help, you've chosen the Herd Animal defense, of just hoping that sheer numbers protect you, and that all the people that die are other people.

 

[Marion Morrison]

One scenario, designed to NOT give the teacher in question a clear shot, does not show that the teachers are not capable.


Here is another scenario.



...The armed teacher steps out of the doorway. He looks down the hall way and sees a shooter standing in the doorway of another classroom, about 10 feet away, intent on firing into that room. The hallway is clear of other students, the shooter does not notices the teacher and the teacher has a clear shot.


What do you do?

unless the shooter is firing shots how does a teacher know its a shooter ... and it was suggested teachers keep their pistols in a lockbox .. when do they open the lockbox and get their weapon?

The scenario starts out with "..." to suggest that that is where is diverged from YOUR scenario, ie he already heard the shots and retrieved his gun.


He knows that shooter is shooting because the shooter is firing into the other classroom.


He is "intent on firing into the classroom".



So, what do you do?

have hired professionals in schools to handle emergencies .. how many times do I need to repeat that ?

Too bad. He finished killing everyone in that classroom while you were waiting and then saw and killed you.


What does this scenario prove?

that you arent capble of dealing with reality ...

For someone talking poop and mentioning reality, surely you have some of your best targets to post, being that you've been shooting since you were six years old and all.

True story.

How is it I have mine from when I was 8 and you have nothing? Hmm?

Could it be you lied your ass off? Probably.

 

[Correll]

Just putting this out there, maybe we could lock up dangerously crazy people...

The problem is you don't know they are dangerously crazy until after they commit a crime.

I predicted when this first hit the news, that they knew the shooter was dangerously crazy, and I have been proven correct.


THe vast majority of the time, there are plenty of warning signs.


Profile those who are treated for mental illness and you will find those who are most likely to be dangerous to others and/or themselves, and institutionalize them for treatment until you are confident that they are better.

They used to do that years ago, but the court ruled that you can't institutionalize somebody who didn't commit a crime no more than you can imprison somebody who didn't commit a crime.
.....

And as long as we refuse to lock up people we can clearly see are dangerously crazy, we will be in danger from them.

Well how would that work? You and your ex have a fight over your two children. She goes to the police station and claims you're nuts and need to be locked up, so they do? And even if that were the situation, how long should they lock you up for? Life?

Do you consider a single report from a bitter ex to be sufficient proof of dangerous mental illness?

 

[Marion Morrison]

you're the Athletic Director, you're in your office (front left beside the sign over the door) - you hear shooting and kids screaming for their life .. you open the gun safe in your closet, get your Glock 23 semi auto 9mm pistol and start out the door ... at the other end of the hall theres a kid standing at the bottom of the stairs with a semi auto AR 15 spraying shots down the hall in your direction as fast as he can squeeze the trigger, and bullets whizzing by you one after the other .. lets say those stairs are at least 45-50 steps, probably more... a lengthy shot for a pistol whatever the exact distance ... under those conditions, students running every direction, crowded hallway - could

YOU

leave your room, stay under total control,take careful aim and kill or wound the shooter stopping him from killing students without hitting and injuring any kids yourself?

Ive been around guns all of my life. I started shooting .22 rimfire pistols when I was 6 - .357 mag pistols when I was 12. I rate the degree of difficulty in that exact scenario on a scale of 1-10 .. 100+

what would you do ?

Proof, liar? Punch you in the mouth for lying. You're the kind of person that no one messes with, kinda like a stack of dog crap.

 

[Doc1]

unless the shooter is firing shots how does a teacher know its a shooter ... and it was suggested teachers keep their pistols in a lockbox .. when do they open the lockbox and get their weapon?

The scenario starts out with "..." to suggest that that is where is diverged from YOUR scenario, ie he already heard the shots and retrieved his gun.


He knows that shooter is shooting because the shooter is firing into the other classroom.


He is "intent on firing into the classroom".



So, what do you do?

have hired professionals in schools to handle emergencies .. how many times do I need to repeat that ?

Too bad. He finished killing everyone in that classroom while you were waiting and then saw and killed you.


What does this scenario prove?

that you arent capble of dealing with reality ...

For someone talking poop and mentioning reality, surely you have some of your best targets to post, being that you've been shooting since you were six years old and all.

True story.

How is it I have mine from when I was 8 and you have nothing? Hmm?

Could it be you lied your ass off? Probably.

Siete

Next he'll claim to be 6'4" and weigh 245, have TWO degrees and majored in History.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem is you don't know they are dangerously crazy until after they commit a crime.

I predicted when this first hit the news, that they knew the shooter was dangerously crazy, and I have been proven correct.


THe vast majority of the time, there are plenty of warning signs.


Profile those who are treated for mental illness and you will find those who are most likely to be dangerous to others and/or themselves, and institutionalize them for treatment until you are confident that they are better.

They used to do that years ago, but the court ruled that you can't institutionalize somebody who didn't commit a crime no more than you can imprison somebody who didn't commit a crime.
.....

And as long as we refuse to lock up people we can clearly see are dangerously crazy, we will be in danger from them.

Well how would that work? You and your ex have a fight over your two children. She goes to the police station and claims you're nuts and need to be locked up, so they do? And even if that were the situation, how long should they lock you up for? Life?

Do you consider a single report from a bitter ex to be sufficient proof of dangerous mental illness?

It could lead to that eventually. After all, how would anyone have had this guy locked up? He didn't do anything wrong. A nut? Perhaps. But you can't lock people up for saying nutty things. Half of the country would be institutionalized.

I mean look at where sexual allegations have led us. It destroyed people. No proof mind you, just the allegation was enough. It destroyed Moore, Cosby, O'Reilly, Cain, almost destroyed Trump, just a whole list of people.

 

[Faun]

In that type of environment could they not fit bullet proof doors at intervals so that theteacher could get closer to get off a shot?

Schools have steal doors. They can withstand gunfire until it gets quite close.

NEWER schools (some of them) have steel, bullet resistant doors. Most do not and never will with Republicans holding the purse strings.

Steel doors are cheaper than wood doors. The bullet proof kind are probably more expensive.However, even if bullets can penetrate the door, that doesn't mean the shooter can kill anyone inside. All the people inside have to do to avoid being shot is stand away from the door. Probably one thing they should change is adding a dead bolt to the doors which would prevent the shooter from entering without anyone having to hold the door. That alone would have saved a lot of lives in the FL shooting.

What happened at Douglas is there were kids stuck in hallways because teachers already locked the doors before they could get in. That is how many of the kids got shot. One teacher was killed because they opened the door to let a student in.

 

[Correll]

I predicted when this first hit the news, that they knew the shooter was dangerously crazy, and I have been proven correct.


THe vast majority of the time, there are plenty of warning signs.


Profile those who are treated for mental illness and you will find those who are most likely to be dangerous to others and/or themselves, and institutionalize them for treatment until you are confident that they are better.

They used to do that years ago, but the court ruled that you can't institutionalize somebody who didn't commit a crime no more than you can imprison somebody who didn't commit a crime.
.....

And as long as we refuse to lock up people we can clearly see are dangerously crazy, we will be in danger from them.

Well how would that work? You and your ex have a fight over your two children. She goes to the police station and claims you're nuts and need to be locked up, so they do? And even if that were the situation, how long should they lock you up for? Life?

Do you consider a single report from a bitter ex to be sufficient proof of dangerous mental illness?

It could lead to that eventually. After all, how would anyone have had this guy locked up? He didn't do anything wrong. A nut? Perhaps. But you can't lock people up for saying nutty things. Half of the country would be institutionalized.

I mean look at where sexual allegations have led us. It destroyed people. No proof mind you, just the allegation was enough. It destroyed Moore, Cosby, O'Reilly, Cain, almost destroyed Trump, just a whole list of people.

I'm somewhat fuzzy on what the criteria used to be, before the moronic lawyers and judges stopped the locking up of dangerously crazy people,


but I'm sure that we can come up with a profile that would be reasonable and effective.

 

[Doc1]

you're the Athletic Director, you're in your office (front left beside the sign over the door) - you hear shooting and kids screaming for their life .. you open the gun safe in your closet, get your Glock 23 semi auto 9mm pistol and start out the door ... at the other end of the hall theres a kid standing at the bottom of the stairs with a semi auto AR 15 spraying shots down the hall in your direction as fast as he can squeeze the trigger, and bullets whizzing by you one after the other .. lets say those stairs are at least 45-50 steps, probably more... a lengthy shot for a pistol whatever the exact distance ... under those conditions, students running every direction, crowded hallway - could

YOU

leave your room, stay under total control,take careful aim and kill or wound the shooter stopping him from killing students without hitting and injuring any kids yourself?

Ive been around guns all of my life. I started shooting .22 rimfire pistols when I was 6 - .357 mag pistols when I was 12. I rate the degree of difficulty in that exact scenario on a scale of 1-10 .. 100+

what would you do ?

Here is the problem you have. You assume that everyone is like you. Cowardly and selfish. The Army commercial is correct, some people run towards problems and others run away. You obviously have the same mentality of the 4 deputies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They used to do that years ago, but the court ruled that you can't institutionalize somebody who didn't commit a crime no more than you can imprison somebody who didn't commit a crime.
.....

And as long as we refuse to lock up people we can clearly see are dangerously crazy, we will be in danger from them.

Well how would that work? You and your ex have a fight over your two children. She goes to the police station and claims you're nuts and need to be locked up, so they do? And even if that were the situation, how long should they lock you up for? Life?

Do you consider a single report from a bitter ex to be sufficient proof of dangerous mental illness?

It could lead to that eventually. After all, how would anyone have had this guy locked up? He didn't do anything wrong. A nut? Perhaps. But you can't lock people up for saying nutty things. Half of the country would be institutionalized.

I mean look at where sexual allegations have led us. It destroyed people. No proof mind you, just the allegation was enough. It destroyed Moore, Cosby, O'Reilly, Cain, almost destroyed Trump, just a whole list of people.

I'm somewhat fuzzy on what the criteria used to be, before the moronic lawyers and judges stopped the locking up of dangerously crazy people,


but I'm sure that we can come up with a profile that would be reasonable and effective.

Years ago when a police officer or family member knew of somebody that they thought incapable of taking care of themselves, they had them committed. They brought the individual to court, and a judge made the ruling.

In the 70's, Geraldo had his own prime time television show on and he protested the process. He called them crime-less convicts. He put up such a fuss that the institutions were forced to open the doors and let these people out. They still roam our streets today, but we only refer to them as the homeless. Many of those homeless are not capable of being anything else because they do have mental problems.

Between lack of funds and constitutional rights, it would be difficult to bring anything like that back.

 

[FA_Q2]

Your scenario is not only garbage but the reality is that the point of arming people in schools is not so they seek out and take down the shooter - it is so that they can shelter in place and cover the entry ways. THAT is how you protect your class - get behind a desk and take the shooter out when he tries to enter the classroom to slaughter everyone there.

There is quite literally no way for it to go worse than it will without anyone armed - in that case the gunman simply gets to kill everyone.

 

[bripat9643]

In that type of environment could they not fit bullet proof doors at intervals so that theteacher could get closer to get off a shot?

Schools have steal doors. They can withstand gunfire until it gets quite close.

NEWER schools (some of them) have steel, bullet resistant doors. Most do not and never will with Republicans holding the purse strings.

Steel doors are cheaper than wood doors. The bullet proof kind are probably more expensive.However, even if bullets can penetrate the door, that doesn't mean the shooter can kill anyone inside. All the people inside have to do to avoid being shot is stand away from the door. Probably one thing they should change is adding a dead bolt to the doors which would prevent the shooter from entering without anyone having to hold the door. That alone would have saved a lot of lives in the FL shooting.

I see - are you going to harden classrooms with bulletproof glass and drywall too?

Most schools are built with cinder block, anyway, They are already harndened against the damage that students can do.

 

[bripat9643]

No one said anything like that.

Read it again.





So, what have we learned?


That no one would just go out a hallway full of students and start blazing away without a clear shot?


THat the scenario painted is a tough shot for a pistol?


Ok, so what does that prove?

my point was teachers arent capable unless the situation fits their ability ... it proves school districts should hire and use trained professionals to do the job .. I suggest retired military with combat experience, or retired special ops Law enforcement that know what its like to EXCHANGE gunfre in "have to" situations.

One scenario, designed to NOT give the teacher in question a clear shot, does not show that the teachers are not capable.


Here is another scenario.



...The armed teacher steps out of the doorway. He looks down the hall way and sees a shooter standing in the doorway of another classroom, about 10 feet away, intent on firing into that room. The hallway is clear of other students, the shooter does not notices the teacher and the teacher has a clear shot.


What do you do?

unless the shooter is firing shots how does a teacher know its a shooter ... and it was suggested teachers keep their pistols in a lockbox .. when do they open the lockbox and get their weapon?

As soon as they know of a problem.

ok, after the shooter starts shooting ..

next contestant

How do you expect anyone that there's an active shooter in the school, dumbass?