hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

[bripat9643]

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 reality is that cops are not going to protect you. We just saw that.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

Its called "care in the community" in the UK. Its basically a society washing its hands of people with problems. Not many are dangerous but in the UK they have a body count Obviously not as bad as the US due to lack of access to guns.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Add to that the chaos and confusion of the situation: students and teachers running in all directions, screaming, shouting, the sound of gunfire in the hallway absent hearing protection.

And we can assume teachers would be armed with semi-auto pistols, which require considerable experience and training to be even moderately proficient and accurate.

The idea that armed teachers can prevent school shootings is ignorant idiocy, resulting in only more dead students, shot by mistake by the inexperienced teachers who were supposed to protect them.

The idea that armed teachers can prevent school shootings is ignorant idiocy

Less idiotic than the idea that a plastic "Gun-Free Zone" sign can prevent school shootings.

 

[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.

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.

All the more reason to arm the teachers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Its called "care in the community" in the UK. Its basically a society washing its hands of people with problems. Not many are dangerous but in the UK they have a body count Obviously not as bad as the US due to lack of access to guns.

In a Republic like ours guided by a Constitution, it's very difficult to lock people up based on opinion or predictions. Our constitutional rights apply to all people including foreign enemies on our land. We have to give terrorists and illegals constitutional rights.

Most times it works in our favor, and other times against us. But it's what we live by here in the states.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If I was an armed teacher do you know what I'd done to this kid?

So you'd shoot that kid if you were armed?

That you would ever even consider that an option shows that you would not pass the test, you would be rejected if you stepped up.

If I were that teacher I'd grab that punk ass by his damn ear in a death grip and march him down to the principal's office.

Oh wait, leftists cry abuse over that.

We need to bring back the attitude and discipline techniques of nuns from the 1950's and 60's.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

Its called "care in the community" in the UK. Its basically a society washing its hands of people with problems. Not many are dangerous but in the UK they have a body count Obviously not as bad as the US due to lack of access to guns.

In a Republic like ours guided by a Constitution, it's very difficult to lock people up based on opinion or predictions. Our constitutional rights apply to all people including foreign enemies on our land. We have to give terrorists and illegals constitutional rights.

Most times it works in our favor, and other times against us. But it's what we live by here in the states.

I think our criteria is being harmful to themselves or others. A lot of them are soldiers who arent given support after going through some tough experiences.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Or perhaps the shooter bypasses your classroom to continue to shoot at more kids in the hall. If you're sure his back is turned against you, you can take him down with little risk to yourself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Its called "care in the community" in the UK. Its basically a society washing its hands of people with problems. Not many are dangerous but in the UK they have a body count Obviously not as bad as the US due to lack of access to guns.

In a Republic like ours guided by a Constitution, it's very difficult to lock people up based on opinion or predictions. Our constitutional rights apply to all people including foreign enemies on our land. We have to give terrorists and illegals constitutional rights.

Most times it works in our favor, and other times against us. But it's what we live by here in the states.

I think our criteria is being harmful to themselves or others. A lot of them are soldiers who arent given support after going through some tough experiences.

But here everything is political. Look at some of these posts. There are actually people calling the NRA a terrorist organization. Should that give a Democrat government the right to lock up all members of the NRA, or at the very least, rule that they are not allowed to be firearm owners? What if it were Republicans in charge? Should they lock up all members of ANTIFA? After all, they are proven to have violent tendencies. And while we're at it, lock up anybody who considers themselves a member of Black Lies Matter? You know, those people who were chanting "What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!"

 

[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.

All the more reason to arm the teachers.

Arming teachers will result in more people getting shot.

The solution is to prevent folks like Cruz from buying weapons like an AR-15.

 

[Correll]

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.

All the more reason to arm the teachers.

Arming teachers will result in more people getting shot.

The solution is to prevent folks like Cruz from buying weapons like an AR-15.

LOL!!!

How does arming teachers lead to more people getting shot?

 

[Faun]

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.

All the more reason to arm the teachers.

Arming teachers will result in more people getting shot.

The solution is to prevent folks like Cruz from buying weapons like an AR-15.

LOL!!!

How does arming teachers lead to more people getting shot?

If a student wants to shoot someone, all they have to do is take a gun from a teacher.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

All the more reason to arm the teachers.

Arming teachers will result in more people getting shot.

The solution is to prevent folks like Cruz from buying weapons like an AR-15.

Right, we are going to make sure that he doesn't buy a weapon like that. How?

And what if the next shooter uses a semi-automatic handgun? What would your solution be then?

 

[Correll]

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.

All the more reason to arm the teachers.

Arming teachers will result in more people getting shot.

The solution is to prevent folks like Cruz from buying weapons like an AR-15.

LOL!!!

How does arming teachers lead to more people getting shot?

If a student wants to shoot someone, all they have to do is take a gun from a teacher.

A reasonable concern.


Obvious answer, imo, is that if a student is that freaking violent, then they should have already been expelled.

 

[Correll]

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.

All the more reason to arm the teachers.

Arming teachers will result in more people getting shot.

The solution is to prevent folks like Cruz from buying weapons like an AR-15.

Right, we are going to make sure that he doesn't buy a weapon like that. How?

And what if the next shooter uses a semi-automatic handgun? What would your solution be then?

And the one after that uses a shotgun.

 

[CowboyTed]

Add to that the chaos and confusion of the situation: students and teachers running in all directions, screaming, shouting, the sound of gunfire in the hallway absent hearing protection.

And we can assume teachers would be armed with semi-auto pistols, which require considerable experience and training to be even moderately proficient and accurate.

The idea that armed teachers can prevent school shootings is ignorant idiocy, resulting in only more dead students, shot by mistake by the inexperienced teachers who were supposed to protect them.

I think the funnest thing is the guy who is paid $75k a year (the cop) was unwilling to enter the building but the Teacher who's average salary is $45k and is not receiving the training of the cop is going to solve the problem.

 

[Faun]

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.

All the more reason to arm the teachers.

Arming teachers will result in more people getting shot.

The solution is to prevent folks like Cruz from buying weapons like an AR-15.

Right, we are going to make sure that he doesn't buy a weapon like that. How?

And what if the next shooter uses a semi-automatic handgun? What would your solution be then?

Let’s start with better scrutinized background checks and getting people with mental health issues onto lists banning them from purchasing any semiautomatic weapon.

 

[harmonica]

Add to that the chaos and confusion of the situation: students and teachers running in all directions, screaming, shouting, the sound of gunfire in the hallway absent hearing protection.

And we can assume teachers would be armed with semi-auto pistols, which require considerable experience and training to be even moderately proficient and accurate.

The idea that armed teachers can prevent school shootings is ignorant idiocy, resulting in only more dead students, shot by mistake by the inexperienced teachers who were supposed to protect them.

Why would you refuse training for the teachers? Nearly anyone can become proficient.

possibly ---with a lot of and continuous training...but even then you can't get REAL training with someone firing at you
even trained cops are notorious for inaccuracy

So now cops shouldn’t have guns either?

how did you deduce that?!?
I've said in other forums I'm ok with arming teachers--not that that's the community/society we should strive for--we are going to a society like Somalia
cops are notorious for inaccuracy...I've put out many, many links/stats on this

 

[Correll]

Add to that the chaos and confusion of the situation: students and teachers running in all directions, screaming, shouting, the sound of gunfire in the hallway absent hearing protection.

And we can assume teachers would be armed with semi-auto pistols, which require considerable experience and training to be even moderately proficient and accurate.

The idea that armed teachers can prevent school shootings is ignorant idiocy, resulting in only more dead students, shot by mistake by the inexperienced teachers who were supposed to protect them.

I think the funnest thing is the guy who is paid $75k a year (the cop) was unwilling to enter the building but the Teacher who's average salary is $45k and is not receiving the training of the cop is going to solve the problem.

Your lack of faith in your fellow citizens is noted.


BUT not shared.

 

[Correll]

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.

All the more reason to arm the teachers.

Arming teachers will result in more people getting shot.

The solution is to prevent folks like Cruz from buying weapons like an AR-15.

Right, we are going to make sure that he doesn't buy a weapon like that. How?

And what if the next shooter uses a semi-automatic handgun? What would your solution be then?

Let’s start with better scrutinized background checks and getting people with mental health issues onto lists banning them from purchasing any semiautomatic weapon.

If they are dangerous enough not to be trusted with semi-automatic weapons, why are they trusted with access to trucks and cars and knives and gasoline, and plenty of other very dangerous "weapons"not to mention, hunting rifles and shotguns?


Lock up the crazy people.