Better "stock" up boys

[rodney482]

SCOTUS said you have not Constitutional right to protection from police basically saying you cannot sue a police officer for not saving your life...however most departments have policies governing this and you can be fired for acting cowardly.

I'm not defending the guy in any way, but wasn't there some legislation passed in the past years that said something to the effect of, 'LEOs are not required to put themselves in harms way to protect the public' ?

Protect yourself, because it's no one else's duty to do so.

 

[Kevin Dill]

I want to be clear that I completely respect and support all our various LE officers. I respect their abilities, dedication to job, and commitment to protecting me. Officers die in the line of duty somewhere just about every week in our country. I have no way of thanking them enough, though most of them don't want the attention.

It's an incredibly far cry to compare the tactical combat skills of a highly trained officer to the average teacher who owns a gun. About 3/4 of our teachers are female and far less likely to own any gun...let alone a suitable handgun...and then possess the necessary skills to engage a determined killer. I think many of us have an image of a teacher running toward the sound of an AR popping rounds and then managing to take down the shooter. Almost completely unrealistic for a huge majority of teachers who have no combat skills. Even a skilled tactical LE knows a situation like Parkland produces a panicked melee of students and staff trying to avoid death...major chaos near the scene...and is extraordinarily hazardous to the officer and the innocents. Make a mistake and more students die. Shoot the wrong student and live with that on your conscience forever. Imagine officers arriving and rushing in to encounter a gunman shooting into a classroom. Is he the killer or is he a good-guy-with-a-gun attempting to take down a bad guy? Now imagine a teacher trying to process all this in mere seconds while morphing from English Composition to Engage Assailant. I have to agree with many who say that arming teachers and expecting them to be effective with any weapon (they can deploy quickly) against a bump-stocked AR is complete folly and asking for a miracle.

Superior or counter firepower works in a battle. Our children don't need to be schooled in potential battle zones. Think about this: If your child was in school today and a killer was headed there, would you prefer a teacher with a handgun?....or would you prefer a means of keeping the killer from entering your child's school altogether? Your child's life depends on your decision so make the right one.

Engaging a would-be killer in a shootout is a strategy of last resort and best left to LE professionals. All the above said, I can see some potential value in having a specific teacher armed during the school day. It could save lives. But generally arming our teaching staff and expecting them to be accomplished tactical responders is unrealistic. I'll go so far as to say it simply isn't going to happen in the majority of our schools.

We need strategies that save kids' lives. We don't need strategies which are more about taking away firearms or more about the right to own them. We're using a mass-killing of children to push or defend a political agenda, while doing nothing to stop another mass killing from happening again today. If we could just put the children first and focus on their needs.....

 

[bmart2622]

What if the teachers are ex-military, ex-law enforcement, or current either? I've run across many teachers who I would have no qualms about protecting my child or quick clearing a building with if they so chose.
This country is great largely because of the amount of choice each person has, I hate seeing regulation replacing choice for most anything.

No, I dont feel teachers should be armed and no hypothetical "what if" scenario is going to change my opinion on that.

 

[timekiller13]

No, I dont feel teachers should be armed and no hypothetical "what if" scenario is going to change my opinion on that.

I don't understand why people are so against allowing people to protect themselves and those around them. It seems from talking to many people on this issue, that those who are against arming teachers feel like teachers are capable of only doing one thing, and that is teaching. Apparently, they don't have the ability to do anything else. Teachers wear many hats. Student safety is one of those hats. Many teachers take the time to become CPR/First Aid qualified so they are able to deal with medical emergencies if they arise. Teachers are not medical professionals, but they know that a medical emergency could happen on their job and many choose to be able to do something about it.

We are not talking about requiring anyone to arm themselves, only allowing that to be an option. I don't see why a teacher, who probably already has a concealed carry permit, shouldn't be able to carry in the classroom. I used to be a teacher. I had a concealed carry permit. I carried my gun everywhere I went, except to school, because that wasn't allowed. I carry a concealed weapon not because I am paranoid, but because I want to be able to deal with a threat if the situation arises.

You would be surprised how many educators out there are well trained in firearms, probably better trained than many LEO's. I can name a dozen teachers right now in the local school system who have extensive military experience, including multiple combat deployments and one who was a former sniper and is now a world class competition shooter. Why can't he carry a gun? I serve in the National Guard with several teachers. All of them have years of military training. All of them carry weapons on a daily basis outside of their work environment. Why can't they carry guns?

We put up safety precautions all the time to save lives. All schools have extensive fire alarm and sprinkler systems, along with fire walls, fire retardant materials, fire extinguishers at every corner. All schools have AED's located throughout them just in case someone codes. Playgrounds have fences built around them, and special material lines the ground so that if a kid falls, they won't get hurt as bad. How is having armed personnel any different than any of the above precautions?

There are armed personnel nearly everywhere you go now. Hospitals have 24/7 police presence, churches hire armed security guards, many work places hire off-duty LEO's to patrol their parking lots. No one has a problem with that, but God forbid we allow our educators to exercise their rights. Nope, apparently teachers are only smart enough to teach our children, they are not capable of doing anything else.

 

[IdahoElk]

I don't understand why people are so against allowing people to protect themselves and those around them. It seems from talking to many people on this issue, that those who are against arming teachers feel like teachers are capable of only doing one thing, and that is teaching. Apparently, they don't have the ability to do anything else. Teachers wear many hats. Student safety is one of those hats. Many teachers take the time to become CPR/First Aid qualified so they are able to deal with medical emergencies if they arise. Teachers are not medical professionals, but they know that a medical emergency could happen on their job and many choose to be able to do something about it.

We are not talking about requiring anyone to arm themselves, only allowing that to be an option. I don't see why a teacher, who probably already has a concealed carry permit, shouldn't be able to carry in the classroom. I used to be a teacher. I had a concealed carry permit. I carried my gun everywhere I went, except to school, because that wasn't allowed. I carry a concealed weapon not because I am paranoid, but because I want to be able to deal with a threat if the situation arises.

You would be surprised how many educators out there are well trained in firearms, probably better trained than many LEO's. I can name a dozen teachers right now in the local school system who have extensive military experience, including multiple combat deployments and one who was a former sniper and is now a world class competition shooter. Why can't he carry a gun? I serve in the National Guard with several teachers. All of them have years of military training. All of them carry weapons on a daily basis outside of their work environment. Why can't they carry guns?

We put up safety precautions all the time to save lives. All schools have extensive fire alarm and sprinkler systems, along with fire walls, fire retardant materials, fire extinguishers at every corner. All schools have AED's located throughout them just in case someone codes. Playgrounds have fences built around them, and special material lines the ground so that if a kid falls, they won't get hurt as bad. How is having armed personnel any different than any of the above precautions?

There are armed personnel nearly everywhere you go now. Hospitals have 24/7 police presence, churches hire armed security guards, many work places hire off-duty LEO's to patrol their parking lots. No one has a problem with that, but God forbid we allow our educators to exercise their rights. Nope, apparently teachers are only smart enough to teach our children, they are not capable of doing anything else.

This talk about everyone being armed is a band aid and won't fix the much larger problem we face.

 

[Scoot]

I'm 100% with Kevin D. on this. The idea of arming teachers or allowing teachers to be armed is totally ludicrous IMO. I can't see having a rational conversation about it, because it's totally irrational in my mind. How long would it take for a teacher to blow a gasket at some idiot kid and shoot him/her? While in high school I saw numerous situations that could have easily escalated into something crazy if there was easy access to a gun.

Kevin, not to disagree with you, but I have a question that I think is tough to answer-- given the cost associated with hiring armed guards at the schools and the ridiculousness of arming teachers, you are proposing taking measures to keep people out of the schools. I agree with you that is important and a huge step in the right direction. My kids school requires people to be "buzzed in" by the office staff and I like it. However, even if they wouldn't buzz a person in, a crazy person could easily shoot through any of a dozen (or more) glass doors to get in. Either all glass entry points would have to bullet proof glass, or all glass would have to be removed. Again, we're talking about a huge expense for schools. On top of that, if a crazy person wanted to get into a school, it wouldn't take too much effort to figure out a way to accomplish it, in spite of extreme efforts and expense by the school. It could seriously curtail random and efforts that weren't premeditated, but likely wouldn't do much for a person with a plan.

Truth is, if this were a simple problem, it would already be fixed.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

I want to be clear that I completely respect and support all our various LE officers. I respect their abilities, dedication to job, and commitment to protecting me. Officers die in the line of duty somewhere just about every week in our country. I have no way of thanking them enough, though most of them don't want the attention.

It's an incredibly far cry to compare the tactical combat skills of a highly trained officer to the average teacher who owns a gun. About 3/4 of our teachers are female and far less likely to own any gun...let alone a suitable handgun...and then possess the necessary skills to engage a determined killer. I think many of us have an image of a teacher running toward the sound of an AR popping rounds and then managing to take down the shooter. Almost completely unrealistic for a huge majority of teachers who have no combat skills. Even a skilled tactical LE knows a situation like Parkland produces a panicked melee of students and staff trying to avoid death...major chaos near the scene...and is extraordinarily hazardous to the officer and the innocents. Make a mistake and more students die. Shoot the wrong student and live with that on your conscience forever. Imagine officers arriving and rushing in to encounter a gunman shooting into a classroom. Is he the killer or is he a good-guy-with-a-gun attempting to take down a bad guy? Now imagine a teacher trying to process all this in mere seconds while morphing from English Composition to Engage Assailant. I have to agree with many who say that arming teachers and expecting them to be effective with any weapon (they can deploy quickly) against a bump-stocked AR is complete folly and asking for a miracle.

Superior or counter firepower works in a battle. Our children don't need to be schooled in potential battle zones. Think about this: If your child was in school today and a killer was headed there, would you prefer a teacher with a handgun?....or would you prefer a means of keeping the killer from entering your child's school altogether? Your child's life depends on your decision so make the right one.

Engaging a would-be killer in a shootout is a strategy of last resort and best left to LE professionals. All the above said, I can see some potential value in having a specific teacher armed during the school day. It could save lives. But generally arming our teaching staff and expecting them to be accomplished tactical responders is unrealistic. I'll go so far as to say it simply isn't going to happen in the majority of our schools.

We need strategies that save kids' lives. We don't need strategies which are more about taking away firearms or more about the right to own them. We're using a mass-killing of children to push or defend a political agenda, while doing nothing to stop another mass killing from happening again today. If we could just put the children first and focus on their needs.....

I pretty much share your thoughts on the matter. While I'm not 100% opposed to arm security/teachers in some instances... I don't see it as an overall solution. Taking certain guns away isn't going to be the end of it either. We live in a nation that has thousands of buildings & companies designed to either keep people inside or out of them. Why we can't figure out how to do this with schools is a little concerning to me. I look at the way this country (seemingly successfully) reacted to the events around 9/11 and how flying changed.... those guys hijacked airplanes with a couple of box cutters. And yet we still can't keep active shooters out of buildings filled with kids??? it is mind blowing....

if the nation is serious about it, funds will be found.

 

[5MilesBack]

How many parents with a fidgety kid went to the doctor and told them they should be on Ritalin after they saw a commercial/magazine inserts/etc?

Probably as many parents that fell into the liberal trap of not disciplining their kids. Pumping them full of drugs instead of proper child raising seemed like a great option to them at the time. The parents were probably loaded up as well. Well here we are now.......none of the liberal answers or techniques have worked for anything except creating further problems down the road, but that's not a surprise.....we've been preaching that for decades now with every single one of their ideologies and solutions. It's not rocket science.

So now here we sit again in the face of problems and gee.......hmmmm.......who's ideas should we all adopt to help SOLVE these problems?

You know.......schools are a modern institution. It used to be the parent's responsibility to raise their kids (properly), and it was also their responsibility to teach their kids. Well.....eventually they pushed both responsibilities off to anyone and everyone else. So now we have school houses........hmmmm.......who should be involved with problems at the schools? The parents. If the schools need armed security, the parents should get involved, or they should pay for said security, or they should pull their kids out of said schools and teach them at home.

 

[5MilesBack]

All of you folks who think arming school employees, primarily educators, would work to neutralize a shooter with likely much more firepower where in this case a trained SRO couldn't perform his duties?

Let's look at this "logically". Is an unarmed school staff going to be better prepared to neutralize a shooter.........or would an armed school staff with proper training be better prepared? Hmmmm.........thinking.....thinking.......

 

[airlocksniffer]

Probably as many parents that fell into the liberal trap of not disciplining their kids. Pumping them full of drugs instead of proper child raising seemed like a great option to them at the time. The parents were probably loaded up as well. Well here we are now.......none of the liberal answers or techniques have worked for anything except creating further problems down the road, but that's not a surprise.....we've been preaching that for decades now with every single one of their ideologies and solutions. It's not rocket science.

So now here we sit again in the face of problems and gee.......hmmmm.......who's ideas should we all adopt to help SOLVE these problems?

You know.......schools are a modern institution. It used to be the parent's responsibility to raise their kids (properly), and it was also their responsibility to teach their kids. Well.....eventually they pushed both responsibilities off to anyone and everyone else. So now we have school houses........hmmmm.......who should be involved with problems at the schools? The parents. If the schools need armed security, the parents should get involved, or they should pay for said security, or they should pull their kids out of said schools and teach them at home.

Does everything with you have to be about "liberals"?

 

[5MilesBack]

I don't understand why people are so against allowing people to protect themselves and those around them.

It's a leftist mentality that has been around for some time. They believe the government is there to protect them, and no one else should be allowed to protect themselves or anyone else........as that's the government's and law enforcement's job. But their biggest flaw in that is that not everyone has 24/7 security details assigned to them. The only security detail assigned to them was by God Himself giving us the instinct to fight back. But the left also denies the acceptance of God, along with the use of anything and everything that he has provided us with.......including our brains. Take God out of schools, take God out of government, take God out of business, take God out of thinking, take God out of marriage, take God out of gender.........etc, etc. And now we're seeing the cluster that is created when we do that.

 

[jmez]

Arming teachers isn't a solution. Very few teachers out there, even with training, are going to have the psychological make up to act in one of these situations. Everyone's "Johnny Rambo" until people start shooting real bullets at you.

People should read the books Dave Grossman has written on the psychology of killing another human and on armed combat. The numbers show that even those well trained, including military and LEO's, are not prepared to act in these types of situations. If a LEO was around when this happened and did nothing to try to stop it, that would be more the norm than the exception.

 

[5MilesBack]

Does everything with you have to be about "liberals"?

Well let's see here........when you have a debate there are usually two sides. One side uses logic in their arguments, and the other doesn't. Liberals just happen to prove over and over and over to be in the "doesn't" camp. So normally........yes, it is about liberals. Just look around at every single aspect of our lives and where we were and where we've come to. It's not logical thinking and conservatism that has gotten us to all these problems. So in short.......yes.

When a nutjob uses a tool to kill people, does it always have to be about guns for the liberals?

 

[Murdy]

This is not a right left issue. If you are looking for an easy label to characterize what side people are on, try rural vs urban. Most rural people's experiences with guns are good (hunting, target shooting, bonding with dad); most urban people's experiences are bad (crime and violence). I don't think a lot of soccer mom's from our affluent, conservative suburbs that overwhelmingly vote Republican will be supporting gun rights. Rural Dems led the charge for concealed carry in Illinois. Our current New Yorker president is proposing all sorts of restrictions (he's anti hunting too, if you haven't, google his tweet on elephant hunting).

 

[gelton]

Does everything with you have to be about "liberals"?

Liberal is a misnomer. It isnt "liberal" to infringe upon rights. It isnt "liberal" to ban lightbulbs. It isnt liberal to expand the power of government. In fact its just the opposite. Authoritarians would be a better word.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. To be liberal would mean the absence of force. Edicts that expand the reach of government laws that are enforced by the barrel of a gun is ANYTHING but liberal. And todays "liberals" represent exactly the opposite.

 

[5MilesBack]

This talk about everyone being armed is a band aid and won't fix the much larger problem we face.

When someone with larger problems slices their wrist, do you ignore the wound because it won't solve the larger problems they face and let them continue to bleed out. Or do you try to stop the bleeding by putting a compress bandage on it until you can solve the larger problems?

 

[airlocksniffer]

I started this thread to see if grown ass men with varying opinions on a hot button issue could have a respectful conversation. Other that the usual man babies who insist on attempting to insult those with different opinions on every non-gear thread around here, for the most part it's been pretty good, some thread drift but that's the nature of anything regarding the 2A on Rokslide. Mods, feel free to lock or delete this thread as you see fit.

FYI, the ignore feature seems to work pretty good.

 

[5MilesBack]

FYI, the ignore feature seems to work pretty good.

As usual just as sticking your heads in the sand.......ignoring or refusing to accept logic won't solve the problems. And yes, I know. All this logic stuff is offensive to the left.

Do you ever wonder why you never see all the stories of regular armed citizens taking down criminals on CNN, MSNBC, and the like? Think about it for a minute, or an hour. And there are plenty of these encounters out there.

 

[timekiller13]

I'm 100% with Kevin D. on this. The idea of arming teachers or allowing teachers to be armed is totally ludicrous IMO. I can't see having a rational conversation about it, because it's totally irrational in my mind. How long would it take for a teacher to blow a gasket at some idiot kid and shoot him/her? While in high school I saw numerous situations that could have easily escalated into something crazy if there was easy access to a gun.

Kevin, not to disagree with you, but I have a question that I think is tough to answer-- given the cost associated with hiring armed guards at the schools and the ridiculousness of arming teachers, you are proposing taking measures to keep people out of the schools. I agree with you that is important and a huge step in the right direction. My kids school requires people to be "buzzed in" by the office staff and I like it. However, even if they wouldn't buzz a person in, a crazy person could easily shoot through any of a dozen (or more) glass doors to get in. Either all glass entry points would have to bullet proof glass, or all glass would have to be removed. Again, we're talking about a huge expense for schools. On top of that, if a crazy person wanted to get into a school, it wouldn't take too much effort to figure out a way to accomplish it, in spite of extreme efforts and expense by the school. It could seriously curtail random and efforts that weren't premeditated, but likely wouldn't do much for a person with a plan.

Truth is, if this were a simple problem, it would already be fixed.

Wow, you really think that some teacher carrying a gun is going to flip their lid and shoot a student just because that student is acting out? I was a teacher, never was I in a situation where I even thought about harming a child, and I was in some pretty hairy situations with kids much larger than me. I never saw any other teacher react in a manner that was violent or that I thought might lead to bodily harm. If a teacher wanted to kill a kid, they could stab them with some scissors or with a knife. We were allowed to carry pockets knives less than 3" blades where I worked. Never once did I even consider reaching for my knife, even when I had a 275lb football player come after me, and he was hell bent on harming me.

In all honesty, it is a simple solution. People just don't want it to be simple. A simple solution is not enacting more gun laws. Even if you banned every firearm sale forever from here on, it would take years to see the effects. People would still have access to all types of firearms. The simple solution is allowing people to be able to defend themselves and those around them. I fully understand that most people have no clue how to react when the shit hits the fan. But, not allowing people at least the chance to defend themselves is ludicrous in my opinion. Allowing a teacher to carry a firearm to defend themselves and their students at work is really no different than allowing someone to purchase a gun to defend their home. No gun owner gets upset when someone who has never owned or shot a gun decides to buy one for home protection. But, start talking about allowing that same person to have the option to carry that firearm (if they meet the training standards and permit standards enacted by their state) to their work place and all of a sudden people think it's just the craziest idea in the world.

 

[jmez]

Wow, you really think that some teacher carrying a gun is going to flip their lid and shoot a student just because that student is acting out? I was a teacher, never was I in a situation where I even thought about harming a child, and I was in some pretty hairy situations with kids much larger than me. I never saw any other teacher react in a manner that was violent or that I thought might lead to bodily harm.

I bet you were also never in a situation where you wanted to have sex with one or your students and likely don't know any teachers that did. Yet there are news stories pretty much monthly now from around the country where that very thing is happening.

There are always two sides to the coin. There are always going to be bad teachers as well as good. No different than any other profession. If you arm teachers it is only a matter of time until some dumbass goes postal and shoots up the school. By the same token, someone capable of this will likely do it anyway, laws or not. I guess the question then is do you do anything that may enable the behavior in any way.