hypothetical scenario- armed teacher

[ABikerSailor]

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.

In the military, we were taught to assess our shot, make sure that we weren't going to hit something important or someone else, and were also taught ammo control, meaning you shot a couple of rounds, assessed the situation, and fired again if necessary.

What are you going to do when a teacher in the heat of the moment who has never spent any time on a range where you have to identify friendly from foe kills an innocent child because they are full of adrenaline and end up emptying a full clip into a hallway?

No. There has to be training. And, it needs to be quarterly qualifications at a minimum.

 

[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.

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.

In the military, we were taught to assess our shot, make sure that we weren't going to hit something important or someone else, and were also taught ammo control, meaning you shot a couple of rounds, assessed the situation, and fired again if necessary.

What are you going to do when a teacher in the heat of the moment who has never spent any time on a range where you have to identify friendly from foe kills an innocent child because they are full of adrenaline and end up emptying a full clip into a hallway?

No. There has to be training. And, it needs to be quarterly qualifications at a minimum.

No...it should be the same as law enforcement.......

 

[Unkotare]

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? ...

Dunkin Donuts?


j/k

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

In the military, we were taught to assess our shot, make sure that we weren't going to hit something important or someone else, and were also taught ammo control, meaning you shot a couple of rounds, assessed the situation, and fired again if necessary.

What are you going to do when a teacher in the heat of the moment who has never spent any time on a range where you have to identify friendly from foe kills an innocent child because they are full of adrenaline and end up emptying a full clip into a hallway?

No. There has to be training. And, it needs to be quarterly qualifications at a minimum.

No...it should be the same as law enforcement.......

Same as law enforcement? I don't agree. I think the requirements should be at least the same as what I had on the Security Force.

 

[2aguy]

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.

In the military, we were taught to assess our shot, make sure that we weren't going to hit something important or someone else, and were also taught ammo control, meaning you shot a couple of rounds, assessed the situation, and fired again if necessary.

What are you going to do when a teacher in the heat of the moment who has never spent any time on a range where you have to identify friendly from foe kills an innocent child because they are full of adrenaline and end up emptying a full clip into a hallway?

No. There has to be training. And, it needs to be quarterly qualifications at a minimum.

No...it should be the same as law enforcement.......

Same as law enforcement? I don't agree. I think the requirements should be at least the same as what I had on the Security Force.

No.....if cops can travel around town with a certain standard then teachers...who are even less likely to ever use their firearm can use the same standard...we are not turning them into SEALS.......we want to get rid of the gun free, target rich environment.....that is the primary benefit of armed staff in schools...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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!

So that's what you think, that a teacher is going to walk down the halls like Dirty Harry looking for the suspect?

 

[flacaltenn]

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 ?

In an empty hallway -- you keep him occupied. Find the safe background to fire into. Put yourself in a defensible position and KEEP HIM OCCUPIED... You're saving lives just tying him up. And the responders will KNOW you're there because of the sound of your Glock..

When he reloads -- you find your next defensible position. Or if he moves, you follow...

Does that answer your question?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Maybe he will after reading these articles:

12 Mass Shootings That Were Stopped by A Few Good Guys With Guns

Concealed Permit Holder Stops Attempted Mass Shooting in Chicago

 

[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 ?

In an empty hallway -- you keep him occupied. Find the safe background to fire into. Put yourself in a defensible position and KEEP HIM OCCUPIED... You're saving lives just tying him up. And the responders will KNOW you're there because of the sound of your Glock..

When he reloads -- you find your next defensible position. Or if he moves, you follow...

Does that answer your question?

The primary thing is to make him believe cops are on the way.....In any training the staff should be trained to call out to the idiot and tell him police are in the building and on their way to his location....then order him to put his weapon down....and then call out as if there were cops right there, where the guy is....

The primary issue is letting the guy know his window is closed......that someone with a gun is there, more are coming and if he doesn't immediately put the weapon down, then you can shoot , and even if you don't hit.....you put more pressure on him to go to his final act........

These guys plan on murdering unarmed people....they don't train to have bullets go by them, there is no way to train for that.....once someone confronts them, as all the mass shootings show, he will commit suicide, surrender or flee the scene....

Unless they are muslim terrorists...then you have to shoot to kill, since they do plan on going into a gun fight with police or whoever shows up....

 

[hadit]

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

Smart people don't want killers shooting at their kids and realize that, if it comes down to it, an armed teacher stands a much better chance of stopping a killer than an unarmed one.

 

[bripat9643]

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...

It also doesn't help when some jihadi is doing the shooting.. No one blames lack of gun control for that.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In the military, we were taught to assess our shot, make sure that we weren't going to hit something important or someone else, and were also taught ammo control, meaning you shot a couple of rounds, assessed the situation, and fired again if necessary.

What are you going to do when a teacher in the heat of the moment who has never spent any time on a range where you have to identify friendly from foe kills an innocent child because they are full of adrenaline and end up emptying a full clip into a hallway?

No. There has to be training. And, it needs to be quarterly qualifications at a minimum.

A good guy with a gun has never shot an innocent person. Their record is far better than the record of cops.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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 ?

In an empty hallway -- you keep him occupied. Find the safe background to fire into. Put yourself in a defensible position and KEEP HIM OCCUPIED... You're saving lives just tying him up. And the responders will KNOW you're there because of the sound of your Glock..

When he reloads -- you find your next defensible position. Or if he moves, you follow...

Does that answer your question?

The primary thing is to make him believe cops are on the way.....In any training the staff should be trained to call out to the idiot and tell him police are in the building and on their way to his location....then order him to put his weapon down....and then call out as if there were cops right there, where the guy is....

The primary issue is letting the guy know his window is closed......that someone with a gun is there, more are coming and if he doesn't immediately put the weapon down, then you can shoot , and even if you don't hit.....you put more pressure on him to go to his final act........

These guys plan on murdering unarmed people....they don't train to have bullets go by them, there is no way to train for that.....once someone confronts them, as all the mass shootings show, he will commit suicide, surrender or flee the scene....

Unless they are muslim terrorists...then you have to shoot to kill, since they do plan on going into a gun fight with police or whoever shows up....

Plus chances are if they know there are armed teachers, they won't go there in the first place.

Armed security is easy to spot. In fact I question if Cruz planned it out so the deputy was out of the building before he started shooting. However not knowing which teachers are armed and which are not kind of puts a kink in the plans.

 

[flacaltenn]

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 ?

In an empty hallway -- you keep him occupied. Find the safe background to fire into. Put yourself in a defensible position and KEEP HIM OCCUPIED... You're saving lives just tying him up. And the responders will KNOW you're there because of the sound of your Glock..

When he reloads -- you find your next defensible position. Or if he moves, you follow...

Does that answer your question?

The primary thing is to make him believe cops are on the way.....In any training the staff should be trained to call out to the idiot and tell him police are in the building and on their way to his location....then order him to put his weapon down....and then call out as if there were cops right there, where the guy is....

The primary issue is letting the guy know his window is closed......that someone with a gun is there, more are coming and if he doesn't immediately put the weapon down, then you can shoot , and even if you don't hit.....you put more pressure on him to go to his final act........

These guys plan on murdering unarmed people....they don't train to have bullets go by them, there is no way to train for that.....once someone confronts them, as all the mass shootings show, he will commit suicide, surrender or flee the scene....

Unless they are muslim terrorists...then you have to shoot to kill, since they do plan on going into a gun fight with police or whoever shows up....

Plus chances are if they know there are armed teachers, they won't go there in the first place.

Armed security is easy to spot. In fact I question if Cruz planned it out so the deputy was out of the building before he started shooting. However not knowing which teachers are armed and which are not kind of puts a kink in the plans.

You don't need actual Air Marshals on every flight -- do you??

 

[flacaltenn]

But more " No Gun Zone" signs are not the answer..

 

[Faun]

Better than your idea to let someone who is mentally ill purchase as many AR-15’s as they want.

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.

it is already illegal for such people to purchase a gun. That's what the FBI check was supposed to prevent.

Fucking moron... people who are not known to be mentally ill are currently banned from purchasing firearms??

See now why everyone here, including you, thinks you’re a fucking moron?

No, idiot. People who have a record of mental illness are already banned from purchasing a firearm.

Fucking moron.... what record of mental illness??

You said, "no record of treatment for mental illness?"

How are you going to know what others are talking about when you don't even know what you're talking about??

If insults were a sign of intelligence, you would be a fucking genius.

Who's insulting you? You called yourself a fucking moron...

You have to be a fucking moron to believe the photo is showing the Cuban coast.

Well, what do you know, that picture is actually in Cuba.

I'm not insulting you -- I'm agreeing with you.

 

[hadit]

But more " No Gun Zone" signs are not the answer..

I think any administrator who wants to put such a sign on his school should first put it on his own house.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, armed teachers would bring a whole new dimension to school and teaching...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, armed teachers would bring a whole new dimension to school and teaching...

So your daughter (or granddaughter) is in a school where a manic starts killing people going room to room. She is in a classroom with an armed teacher. Would you feel better or worse about that?

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, armed teachers would bring a whole new dimension to school and teaching...

So your daughter (or granddaughter) is in a school where a manic starts killing people going room to room. She is in a classroom with an armed teacher. Would you feel better or worse about that?

He thinks being willing to confront assailants is just a meme.. Wouldn't want that. He'd lose an issue to milk for votes.