hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

[Doc1]

Is she lying?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How would you identify such a person if he has no police record and no record of treatment for mental illness?

As someone not known to be mentally ill.

By who, people that know him? Classmates?

This is the danger of giving Democrats that kind of power; willing to take somebody's rights away because of the opinion of others.

Here he is arguing that this guy, with his long history of behavioral problems and anger issues, was "not known to be mentally ill" yet, yesterday he was ready to take away the rights of EVERYONE receiving ANY treatment for any mental "illness".


He really shows how liberals make civilization impossible.

Well according to him that's not what he said. It sure seems like that's what he said.

The question was how to define those who are mentally ill, so as to deny them of their second amendment rights.


He answer was "anyone" being treated for mental illness, no qualifiers.

Actually he stated if it were known. How? The only thing I can figure is a matter of people's opinion. People thought this kid was a nut. Well when I was in school, we had several students we thought were nuts. They never killed anybody and who knows, they may have very well purchased firearms when they became adults.

 

[Doc1]

Shot of Cruz being apprehended.

 

[Correll]

A laser-aimed pistol would make it much easier to hit the bad guy. But, absent that, an hour or two of handgun training will teach someone how to easily line up the two sights on the pistol to have a good chance of hitting the target.

I repeat: In all the cases where armed private citizens have shot bad guys in public settings, NOT ONCE has a bystander been killed.

At the Gabby Giffords shooting, there was a "good guy with a gun", who damn near shot the wrong person by his own admission.

Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.


But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"


But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.


Zamudio agreed:


"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."


Advertise





When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."

No one is saying that it would be easy or fun or even safe, for a armed civilian to take action to defend themselves.


By definition engaging an active shooter in combat, is dangerous.


You are arguing against an argument, that no one is making.

 

[Timmy]

hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

Most experts and teachers agree that arming teachers is a really dumb and dangerous idea. However, all those extra gun sales would be great for the gun industry and the NRA.

Why not post a link to your so-called experts and teachers? What you're saying is that it's a better idea that everybody in a school be helpless to a mass murderer. Where is the logic in that anyway?

EVERYONE BUT BRAIN DEAD RW IDIOTS is saying its better for the kids to have expertly trained security in schools protecting them than it is to have someone that makes their living showing kids how to solve algebra problems

Everyone isn't saying that. Only your fellow gun control kooks are. The claim that it's more effective was disproven in FL. "Expertly trained security" is also very expensive. It's cheaper to pay bonuses to a dozen teachers to train and carry a concealed weapon than it is to have one full time security gaurd.

What do you think the swat team will do when they round the corner and see a guy with a gun in the hallway? Dead teacher that’s what!

 

[Correll]

As someone not known to be mentally ill.

By who, people that know him? Classmates?

This is the danger of giving Democrats that kind of power; willing to take somebody's rights away because of the opinion of others.

Here he is arguing that this guy, with his long history of behavioral problems and anger issues, was "not known to be mentally ill" yet, yesterday he was ready to take away the rights of EVERYONE receiving ANY treatment for any mental "illness".


He really shows how liberals make civilization impossible.

Well according to him that's not what he said. It sure seems like that's what he said.

The question was how to define those who are mentally ill, so as to deny them of their second amendment rights.


He answer was "anyone" being treated for mental illness, no qualifiers.

Actually he stated if it were known. How? The only thing I can figure is a matter of people's opinion. People thought this kid was a nut. Well when I was in school, we had several students we thought were nuts. They never killed anybody and who knows, they may have very well purchased firearms when they became adults.

I think we are a society, could do better than, some random people think so.

 

[Correll]

hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

Most experts and teachers agree that arming teachers is a really dumb and dangerous idea. However, all those extra gun sales would be great for the gun industry and the NRA.

Why not post a link to your so-called experts and teachers? What you're saying is that it's a better idea that everybody in a school be helpless to a mass murderer. Where is the logic in that anyway?

EVERYONE BUT BRAIN DEAD RW IDIOTS is saying its better for the kids to have expertly trained security in schools protecting them than it is to have someone that makes their living showing kids how to solve algebra problems

Everyone isn't saying that. Only your fellow gun control kooks are. The claim that it's more effective was disproven in FL. "Expertly trained security" is also very expensive. It's cheaper to pay bonuses to a dozen teachers to train and carry a concealed weapon than it is to have one full time security gaurd.

What do you think the swat team will do when they round the corner and see a guy with a gun in the hallway? Dead teacher that’s what!

Is the swat team trained to shot anyone armed they see on sight?


I guess they never heard of off duty cops, or plains clothes detectives, or undercover cops, or, armed citizens who are defending themselves.



Seems to me that problem in your scenario, ie the swat team is an issue whether we arm teachers or not.

 

[ABikerSailor]

hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

Most experts and teachers agree that arming teachers is a really dumb and dangerous idea. However, all those extra gun sales would be great for the gun industry and the NRA.

Why not post a link to your so-called experts and teachers? What you're saying is that it's a better idea that everybody in a school be helpless to a mass murderer. Where is the logic in that anyway?

EVERYONE BUT BRAIN DEAD RW IDIOTS is saying its better for the kids to have expertly trained security in schools protecting them than it is to have someone that makes their living showing kids how to solve algebra problems

Everyone isn't saying that. Only your fellow gun control kooks are. The claim that it's more effective was disproven in FL. "Expertly trained security" is also very expensive. It's cheaper to pay bonuses to a dozen teachers to train and carry a concealed weapon than it is to have one full time security gaurd.

Exactly what would be required in this training? Would it be simply becoming proficient in shooting at a static target? If so, what kind of shooting scores would be required for the teachers to carry?

Or, would they be required to take tactical shooting courses so that they would learn how to use cover and fire a weapon from different positions?

When I was part of the Security Force, it took me 4 months before I qualified for my Expert Sharpshooter Medal. And, that was training for 1 week out of every month, with a couple of days reserved for range time. Not only did we learn to shoot from various positions using various kinds of cover, but we were also taught ammo control.

And....................how many hours a month are these teachers going to have to train to qualify for their bonuses?

These are questions that should be answered when you say to train teachers to carry weapons in school.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 ?

You clearly don't understand the concept of deterrents. Knowing there could be armed resistance would likely have the bad guy looking for a softer target. More than 100 school districts in TX already have armed school personnel, I haven't heard of any problems this has created.


.

yeah, theyre scared shitless someone might shoot them.... thats why they stick a gun in their mouth and scatter their brains all over the roof when they finally decide to quit shooting at other human targets ...

Really, that didn't happen in the FL school, the Pulse night club, the TX church shooting, the AL church shooting and many more. You might want to quit while your behind, you're looking pretty ignorant about now.


.

Why Spree Killers Kill Themselves

From your link:

Here’s what I found: In about half of the “rampage” incidents (more than two casualties), the shooters killed innocent victims … and then committed suicide.

About half, meaning less than half kill themselves, the other have an exit strategy and want to live, deterrents will effect that half.


.

They might also affect some of the other half, since they don't want to die until AFTER they've secured their ghastly notoriety.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 ?

Hypothetical scenario: 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 your life. You DON'T HAVE A GUN. What would you do?

for the 99999999999th time ... I lock the damn door and call the trained school security team and give them the shooters 20 ..

write that down ...

I just heard, "So I protect myself, and fuck all the other people who will get killed."

Write THAT down.

 

[ABikerSailor]

A laser-aimed pistol would make it much easier to hit the bad guy. But, absent that, an hour or two of handgun training will teach someone how to easily line up the two sights on the pistol to have a good chance of hitting the target.

I repeat: In all the cases where armed private citizens have shot bad guys in public settings, NOT ONCE has a bystander been killed.

At the Gabby Giffords shooting, there was a "good guy with a gun", who damn near shot the wrong person by his own admission.

Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.


But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"


But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.


Zamudio agreed:


"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."


Advertise





When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."

No one is saying that it would be easy or fun or even safe, for a armed civilian to take action to defend themselves.


By definition engaging an active shooter in combat, is dangerous.


You are arguing against an argument, that no one is making.

Wrong, I was responding to Mike G, because he said that no good guy with a gun ever killed an innocent. In the Gabby Giffords incident, if that "good guy with a gun" hadn't been stopped by another bystander, he said himself that he would have shot the person who had just disarmed Laughtner.

 

[Correll]

hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

Most experts and teachers agree that arming teachers is a really dumb and dangerous idea. However, all those extra gun sales would be great for the gun industry and the NRA.

Why not post a link to your so-called experts and teachers? What you're saying is that it's a better idea that everybody in a school be helpless to a mass murderer. Where is the logic in that anyway?

EVERYONE BUT BRAIN DEAD RW IDIOTS is saying its better for the kids to have expertly trained security in schools protecting them than it is to have someone that makes their living showing kids how to solve algebra problems

Everyone isn't saying that. Only your fellow gun control kooks are. The claim that it's more effective was disproven in FL. "Expertly trained security" is also very expensive. It's cheaper to pay bonuses to a dozen teachers to train and carry a concealed weapon than it is to have one full time security gaurd.

Exactly what would be required in this training? Would it be simply becoming proficient in shooting at a static target? If so, what kind of shooting scores would be required for the teachers to carry?

Or, would they be required to take tactical shooting courses so that they would learn how to use cover and fire a weapon from different positions?

When I was part of the Security Force, it took me 4 months before I qualified for my Expert Sharpshooter Medal. And, that was training for 1 week out of every month, with a couple of days reserved for range time. Not only did we learn to shoot from various positions using various kinds of cover, but we were also taught ammo control.

And....................how many hours a month are these teachers going to have to train to qualify for their bonuses?

These are questions that should be answered when you say to train teachers to carry weapons in school.

Was your training based on the likely enemy of one or two armed amateurs attacking the base?

 

[Cecilie1200]

hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

Most experts and teachers agree that arming teachers is a really dumb and dangerous idea. However, all those extra gun sales would be great for the gun industry and the NRA.

Why not post a link to your so-called experts and teachers? What you're saying is that it's a better idea that everybody in a school be helpless to a mass murderer. Where is the logic in that anyway?

EVERYONE BUT BRAIN DEAD RW IDIOTS is saying its better for the kids to have expertly trained security in schools protecting them than it is to have someone that makes their living showing kids how to solve algebra problems

1) No one's talking about just passing out guns like door prizes with no training.

2) What is this profound and condescending disrespect for teachers that you leftists are suddenly displaying? Every time I turn around lately, I'm hearing, "Math teacher", "Latin teacher", etc. sneered out as though those job titles somehow automatically label someone as incompetent in all other life endeavors. What the actual fuck, leftists?

 

[hadit]

These schools say arming teachers 'can be done right' - CNN


N.J. teacher: Giving us guns is grotesque idea. Here's a better one | Opinion

‘The day they ask me to carry a gun in the classroom is the last day I teach’ - The Boston Globe

And they shouldn't carry. Why do you persist in this fantasy that all teachers should be armed?

 

[Correll]

A laser-aimed pistol would make it much easier to hit the bad guy. But, absent that, an hour or two of handgun training will teach someone how to easily line up the two sights on the pistol to have a good chance of hitting the target.

I repeat: In all the cases where armed private citizens have shot bad guys in public settings, NOT ONCE has a bystander been killed.

At the Gabby Giffords shooting, there was a "good guy with a gun", who damn near shot the wrong person by his own admission.

Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.


But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"


But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.


Zamudio agreed:


"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."


Advertise





When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."

No one is saying that it would be easy or fun or even safe, for a armed civilian to take action to defend themselves.


By definition engaging an active shooter in combat, is dangerous.


You are arguing against an argument, that no one is making.

Wrong, I was responding to Mike G, because he said that no good guy with a gun ever killed an innocent. In the Gabby Giffords incident, if that "good guy with a gun" hadn't been stopped by another bystander, he said himself that he would have shot the person who had just disarmed Laughtner.

So, you did not have an example of a "good guy with a gun killing an innocent"?


Got it.


Obviously anything there is gunfire in a crowded area, accidental injury or death is a real possibility.


That you cannot find an example is encouraging though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

as stupid as the RW idiots are on this board I wouldnt want them guarding my bbq smoker much less my grandchildren or daughter

Apparently, you don't want ANYONE guarding your grandchildren or daughter, unless it's the equivalent of the Secret Service. And for all I know, your gunphobia would kick in again and you'd be telling us how THEY can't be trusted not to ventilate random bystanders.

 

[hadit]

hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

Most experts and teachers agree that arming teachers is a really dumb and dangerous idea. However, all those extra gun sales would be great for the gun industry and the NRA.

Why not post a link to your so-called experts and teachers? What you're saying is that it's a better idea that everybody in a school be helpless to a mass murderer. Where is the logic in that anyway?

EVERYONE BUT BRAIN DEAD RW IDIOTS is saying its better for the kids to have expertly trained security in schools protecting them than it is to have someone that makes their living showing kids how to solve algebra problems

Everyone isn't saying that. Only your fellow gun control kooks are. The claim that it's more effective was disproven in FL. "Expertly trained security" is also very expensive. It's cheaper to pay bonuses to a dozen teachers to train and carry a concealed weapon than it is to have one full time security gaurd.

What do you think the swat team will do when they round the corner and see a guy with a gun in the hallway? Dead teacher that’s what!

That's why the teachers would stay in their rooms, guarding the kids.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Most experts and teachers agree that arming teachers is a really dumb and dangerous idea. However, all those extra gun sales would be great for the gun industry and the NRA.

Why not post a link to your so-called experts and teachers? What you're saying is that it's a better idea that everybody in a school be helpless to a mass murderer. Where is the logic in that anyway?

EVERYONE BUT BRAIN DEAD RW IDIOTS is saying its better for the kids to have expertly trained security in schools protecting them than it is to have someone that makes their living showing kids how to solve algebra problems

Everyone isn't saying that. Only your fellow gun control kooks are. The claim that it's more effective was disproven in FL. "Expertly trained security" is also very expensive. It's cheaper to pay bonuses to a dozen teachers to train and carry a concealed weapon than it is to have one full time security gaurd.

Exactly what would be required in this training? Would it be simply becoming proficient in shooting at a static target? If so, what kind of shooting scores would be required for the teachers to carry?

Or, would they be required to take tactical shooting courses so that they would learn how to use cover and fire a weapon from different positions?

When I was part of the Security Force, it took me 4 months before I qualified for my Expert Sharpshooter Medal. And, that was training for 1 week out of every month, with a couple of days reserved for range time. Not only did we learn to shoot from various positions using various kinds of cover, but we were also taught ammo control.

And....................how many hours a month are these teachers going to have to train to qualify for their bonuses?

These are questions that should be answered when you say to train teachers to carry weapons in school.

Was your training based on the likely enemy of one or two armed amateurs attacking the base?

Random shooters were part of the training, but so was riot and crowd control.

Actually had to use that once when we had a visiting ship that got protested by the locals.

 

[Siete]

Most experts and teachers agree that arming teachers is a really dumb and dangerous idea. However, all those extra gun sales would be great for the gun industry and the NRA.

Why not post a link to your so-called experts and teachers? What you're saying is that it's a better idea that everybody in a school be helpless to a mass murderer. Where is the logic in that anyway?

EVERYONE BUT BRAIN DEAD RW IDIOTS is saying its better for the kids to have expertly trained security in schools protecting them than it is to have someone that makes their living showing kids how to solve algebra problems

Everyone isn't saying that. Only your fellow gun control kooks are. The claim that it's more effective was disproven in FL. "Expertly trained security" is also very expensive. It's cheaper to pay bonuses to a dozen teachers to train and carry a concealed weapon than it is to have one full time security gaurd.

Exactly what would be required in this training? Would it be simply becoming proficient in shooting at a static target? If so, what kind of shooting scores would be required for the teachers to carry?

Or, would they be required to take tactical shooting courses so that they would learn how to use cover and fire a weapon from different positions?

When I was part of the Security Force, it took me 4 months before I qualified for my Expert Sharpshooter Medal. And, that was training for 1 week out of every month, with a couple of days reserved for range time. Not only did we learn to shoot from various positions using various kinds of cover, but we were also taught ammo control.

And....................how many hours a month are these teachers going to have to train to qualify for their bonuses?

These are questions that should be answered when you say to train teachers to carry weapons in school.

Was your training based on the likely enemy of one or two armed amateurs attacking the base?

do you go to Jack In The Box and order a 16 oz bone in rib eye and a bake potato ?

or to Del Frisco's and order a Jumbo Jack and fries ?

idiots dont want teachers shooting around their kids either

 

[Correll]

Why not post a link to your so-called experts and teachers? What you're saying is that it's a better idea that everybody in a school be helpless to a mass murderer. Where is the logic in that anyway?

EVERYONE BUT BRAIN DEAD RW IDIOTS is saying its better for the kids to have expertly trained security in schools protecting them than it is to have someone that makes their living showing kids how to solve algebra problems

Everyone isn't saying that. Only your fellow gun control kooks are. The claim that it's more effective was disproven in FL. "Expertly trained security" is also very expensive. It's cheaper to pay bonuses to a dozen teachers to train and carry a concealed weapon than it is to have one full time security gaurd.

Exactly what would be required in this training? Would it be simply becoming proficient in shooting at a static target? If so, what kind of shooting scores would be required for the teachers to carry?

Or, would they be required to take tactical shooting courses so that they would learn how to use cover and fire a weapon from different positions?

When I was part of the Security Force, it took me 4 months before I qualified for my Expert Sharpshooter Medal. And, that was training for 1 week out of every month, with a couple of days reserved for range time. Not only did we learn to shoot from various positions using various kinds of cover, but we were also taught ammo control.

And....................how many hours a month are these teachers going to have to train to qualify for their bonuses?

These are questions that should be answered when you say to train teachers to carry weapons in school.

Was your training based on the likely enemy of one or two armed amateurs attacking the base?

Random shooters were part of the training, but so was riot and crowd control.

Actually had to use that once when we had a visiting ship that got protested by the locals.

SO, the scenario(s) envisioned for the armed teachers were just a part of your training.


So, comparing YOUR training, as a prime response team to a lot of potential, and very high level threats, to that for a last ditch back up defense, against a much more limited and smaller threat,

is not reasonable.