hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

[bripat9643]

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.

They don't have to be sharp shooters. Most of the guys in the service aren't sharp shooters. All they have to do is learn to hit a target with reasonable accuracy. 50 yards is probably the furthest they would have to shoot.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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!

I think the SWAT teams knows that spree killers in schools are NOT usually adults. I also think the SWAT team will be apprised before they get there that there are armed teachers, since this will be known information and something that is relevant to pass on to them. And I think they're trained well enough not to just shoot people willy-nilly.

Why do you leftists insist on believing that every person in this country is Cletus, the Slack-Jawed Yokel the instant their skin comes in contact with a gun? What does this tell us about YOU?

The SWAT team that was called by one gamer to that other gamer's house across state lines was supposedly appraised of the situation, and they shot an unarmed man anyway.

So do you hate cops or love them?

Neither. I look at cops like any other profession. There are good ones and there are some that shouldn't be in that profession.

Felt the same way about people in the military. Do your job and follow the regs, and I have zero problems with you. Don't do your job and break the rules every chance you get? I've got no use for you and will help you to leave the military at your earliest convenience.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The bottom line: No good guy with a gun ever killed an innocent.

 

[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.

They don't have to be sharp shooters. Most of the guys in the service aren't sharp shooters. All they have to do is learn to hit a target with reasonable accuracy. 50 yards is probably the furthest they would have to shoot.

What is "reasonable accuracy" to you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!

I think the SWAT teams knows that spree killers in schools are NOT usually adults. I also think the SWAT team will be apprised before they get there that there are armed teachers, since this will be known information and something that is relevant to pass on to them. And I think they're trained well enough not to just shoot people willy-nilly.

Why do you leftists insist on believing that every person in this country is Cletus, the Slack-Jawed Yokel the instant their skin comes in contact with a gun? What does this tell us about YOU?

Lol. Yeah ok .

You watch too many movies .

Because I believe that people who are trained to respond to dangerous situations are actually trained to respond to dangerous situations?

 

[bripat9643]

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!

I think the SWAT teams knows that spree killers in schools are NOT usually adults. I also think the SWAT team will be apprised before they get there that there are armed teachers, since this will be known information and something that is relevant to pass on to them. And I think they're trained well enough not to just shoot people willy-nilly.

Why do you leftists insist on believing that every person in this country is Cletus, the Slack-Jawed Yokel the instant their skin comes in contact with a gun? What does this tell us about YOU?

The SWAT team that was called by one gamer to that other gamer's house across state lines was supposedly appraised of the situation, and they shot an unarmed man anyway.

So do you hate cops or love them?

Neither. I look at cops like any other profession. There are good ones and there are some that shouldn't be in that profession.

Felt the same way about people in the military. Do your job and follow the regs, and I have zero problems with you. Don't do your job and break the rules every chance you get? I've got no use for you and will help you to leave the military at your earliest convenience.

But you think they are a bunch of clueless fucks, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

from all teachers being liberal pieces of shit to Annie Oakley keeper of RW's children


stupid F'n RW's crack me up .

I don't recall any of us saying all teachers were pieces of shit. I do, however, recall the left telling us for quite some time what unsung, underappreciated saints all teachers were . . . until they were suddenly bumbling incompetents with latent violent streaks.

 

[bripat9643]

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

When you're hungry, a Jumbo Jack and fries is a hell of a lot better than nothing. That's what you're proposing: nothing.

If a shooter is gunning down dozens of kids, yes I do want teachers shooting around my kids.

 

[2aguy]

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 yell at the guy that police are on route to his location and to put the weapon on the ground....if you have to you fire at him if he keeps shooting....simply shooting at him tells him his time is up......he has met armed resistance........and that is the key.....

Then, as typical to mass shooters, he moves away from you and commits suicide, he surrenders to you, or he escapes from the campus.......that is what has happened in the mass shootings that we have had....

 

[bripat9643]

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!

I think the SWAT teams knows that spree killers in schools are NOT usually adults. I also think the SWAT team will be apprised before they get there that there are armed teachers, since this will be known information and something that is relevant to pass on to them. And I think they're trained well enough not to just shoot people willy-nilly.

Why do you leftists insist on believing that every person in this country is Cletus, the Slack-Jawed Yokel the instant their skin comes in contact with a gun? What does this tell us about YOU?

Lol. Yeah ok .

You watch too many movies .

Because I believe that people who are trained to respond to dangerous situations are actually trained to respond to dangerous situations?

I think these snowflakes oppose arming teachers because they know it will work, and then they won't have any more piles of dead bodies to push their gun control agenda with. They actually want children to be killed. Isn't that sick?

 

[2aguy]

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.

Except for Pearl Mississipi, and the Smokey Mountain law school shootings....you mean except for them.....you are such a doofus....

 

[ABikerSailor]

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!

I think the SWAT teams knows that spree killers in schools are NOT usually adults. I also think the SWAT team will be apprised before they get there that there are armed teachers, since this will be known information and something that is relevant to pass on to them. And I think they're trained well enough not to just shoot people willy-nilly.

Why do you leftists insist on believing that every person in this country is Cletus, the Slack-Jawed Yokel the instant their skin comes in contact with a gun? What does this tell us about YOU?

The SWAT team that was called by one gamer to that other gamer's house across state lines was supposedly appraised of the situation, and they shot an unarmed man anyway.

So do you hate cops or love them?

Neither. I look at cops like any other profession. There are good ones and there are some that shouldn't be in that profession.

Felt the same way about people in the military. Do your job and follow the regs, and I have zero problems with you. Don't do your job and break the rules every chance you get? I've got no use for you and will help you to leave the military at your earliest convenience.

But you think they are a bunch of clueless fucks, right?

Never said that either. Why are you putting words in my mouth? You have gone from asking if I hate or love cops, to accusing me of thinking they are a bunch of clueless fucks. WTF dude? Move goalposts much?

I've known police officers in all the various places I've lived, and when I was with the Security Force in Newport RI, on occasion, we would train with the civilian police from the town. And yeah, sometimes they CAN be "clueless fucks". I remember the Gunny telling us how to hide a weapon on our person to evade detection. Because most guys aren't willing to pat down another guy's crotch, the best place to put it is right down your zipper, in front of your pants. Simply patting a person down can miss it 75 percent of the time, so the way you check is to put your thumbs in the waistband, and run them along the top of the pants from back to front. That technique will catch it every time. Well, apparently the civilian cops didn't know that little trick, and they cuffed and stuffed me without catching the .45 hidden in my crotch. So, I managed to get my hands in front of me (used to be flexible when I was young), and when the police officer got in their car, I pulled out the weapon and said "bang, you're dead". The Gunny was proud as hell of me, and the civilian cops weren't too happy that the Navy had gotten over on them.

Here in Amarillo, I was friends with a couple of police officers that would come to a biker bar I worked at called Boondocks, and I was friendly with them and liked them, but then again, they didn't have a stick up their ass when it came to bikers and smoking a little herb.

 

[2aguy]

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?

As actual mass shootings show, you don't have to get that close, you simply have to show the shooter that you have a gun and are willing to engage him.......then,.......from all the other mass shootings.....he will commit suicide, surrender or flee the building.....that is how every single mass shooting has ended....every single one....

Sandy Hook....suicide as soon as he heard the police sirens.....Vegas....suicide as soon as the police showed up......Texas....engaged by NRA instructor who used an AR-15, the killer stopped murdering the wounded and fled the scene....Virginia Tech...suicide...Columbine, suicide........

Colorado theater shooter....surrendered to the first cop that questioned who he was....

The only exception are muslim terrorists.....they shoot it out with police...Fort Hood, San Bernadino, Pulse Night club...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They don't have to be sharp shooters. Most of the guys in the service aren't sharp shooters. All they have to do is learn to hit a target with reasonable accuracy. 50 yards is probably the furthest they would have to shoot.

What is "reasonable accuracy" to you?

The people implmenting the legislation can decide that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

They don't have to be sharp shooters. Most of the guys in the service aren't sharp shooters. All they have to do is learn to hit a target with reasonable accuracy. 50 yards is probably the furthest they would have to shoot.

What is "reasonable accuracy" to you?

The people implmenting the legislation can decide that.

I didn't ask them, I asked you. What level of accuracy do you consider to be "reasonable accuracy" out of say 30 rounds?

 

[2aguy]

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.

Okay..................what kind of training would YOU require for the teachers to have? Being able to shoot a tight group at a target is just a small part of it, because in active shooter situations, the target is shooting back.

And yeah, I DO think it's important for a teacher to know different shooting positions, Weaver stance, on one knee, knowing how to take cover behind doors and windows, etc.

So...............again.................what kind of training would YOU require teachers to have so they could carry in schools? Is being able to shoot accurately enough, or should there be more?

The same shooting course that cops take.......that would be the only logical standard. And then they could qualify the same....once a year.......just like the cops....

 

[2aguy]

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.

They don't have to be sharp shooters. Most of the guys in the service aren't sharp shooters. All they have to do is learn to hit a target with reasonable accuracy. 50 yards is probably the furthest they would have to shoot.

What is "reasonable accuracy" to you?

The people implmenting the legislation can decide that.

I didn't ask them, I asked you. What level of accuracy do you consider to be "reasonable accuracy" out of say 30 rounds?

What do cops have to hit? That would be fine for me....

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Okay..................what kind of training would YOU require for the teachers to have? Being able to shoot a tight group at a target is just a small part of it, because in active shooter situations, the target is shooting back.

And yeah, I DO think it's important for a teacher to know different shooting positions, Weaver stance, on one knee, knowing how to take cover behind doors and windows, etc.

So...............again.................what kind of training would YOU require teachers to have so they could carry in schools? Is being able to shoot accurately enough, or should there be more?

its an entirely NEW GAME when there are rounds whizzing by your head .. human nature is to protect yourself first even for trained personnel ... HIGHLY TRAINED INDIVIDUALS like Navy Seals or special op soldiers who have faced combat situations could get it done but even they wear body armor ...

RW's cant grasp the big picture and never could.

What you can't grasp is that having a gun and knowing how to shoot it is 1,000,000 times better than having nothing. Concealed carry holders have saved lives whenever they have been on the scene with a mass shooter. You just can't get around that irrefutable fact.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Okay..................what kind of training would YOU require for the teachers to have? Being able to shoot a tight group at a target is just a small part of it, because in active shooter situations, the target is shooting back.

And yeah, I DO think it's important for a teacher to know different shooting positions, Weaver stance, on one knee, knowing how to take cover behind doors and windows, etc.

So...............again.................what kind of training would YOU require teachers to have so they could carry in schools? Is being able to shoot accurately enough, or should there be more?

its an entirely NEW GAME when there are rounds whizzing by your head .. human nature is to protect yourself first even for trained personnel ... HIGHLY TRAINED INDIVIDUALS like Navy Seals or special op soldiers who have faced combat situations could get it done but even they wear body armor ...

RW's cant grasp the big picture and never could.

Bottom line, when the shooter comes through the classroom door, the teacher is the kid's last defense.

I want that teacher to be armed to the highest level he/she is comfortable.

You want that teacher armed only to the level YOU are comfortable.

Good luck, kids.

What he wants is more piles of dead bodies so he can push his gun control agenda.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Okay..................what kind of training would YOU require for the teachers to have? Being able to shoot a tight group at a target is just a small part of it, because in active shooter situations, the target is shooting back.

And yeah, I DO think it's important for a teacher to know different shooting positions, Weaver stance, on one knee, knowing how to take cover behind doors and windows, etc.

So...............again.................what kind of training would YOU require teachers to have so they could carry in schools? Is being able to shoot accurately enough, or should there be more?

its an entirely NEW GAME when there are rounds whizzing by your head .. human nature is to protect yourself first even for trained personnel ... HIGHLY TRAINED INDIVIDUALS like Navy Seals or special op soldiers who have faced combat situations could get it done but even they wear body armor ...

RW's cant grasp the big picture and never could.

Bottom line, when the shooter comes through the classroom door, the teacher is the kid's last defense.

I want that teacher to be armed to the highest level he/she is comfortable.

You want that teacher armed only to the level YOU are comfortable.

Good luck, kids.

What he wants is more piles of dead bodies so he can push his gun control agenda.

Dead children are gold for the anti gunners.......that is why they fight putting armed security in schools...the Vegas shooting didn't move gun control because adults were shot......but with kids....the left wing, democrat, anti gunners get momentum......if they stop school shootings, they won't have access to their best tool for taking away guns...