Arkansas School District Arms Teachers

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • nucone

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 23, 2012
    317
    16
    Arkansas in the Ozarks
    This was one of the topics on one of the local radio call-in shows this morning and their broadcast area includes Clarksville, AR which is about 25 miles west of my location. This isn't very scientific but, judging from the callers responses, there appears to be overwhelming support for this. Having listened to the show for about 40 minutes, only one caller disapproved of the approach (and for completely illogical reasons promoted by most anti-gun people). The rest indicated this should have been done a long time ago.
     

    j706

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    60   0   1
    Dec 4, 2008
    4,160
    48
    Lizton
    What ever happened to common sense? You want to minimize a school shooting then you have a deterrent. It probably will never stop one from happening but it will sure as hell minimize a body count. Matter of fact in this day and age I would argue that it is negligent to NOT have a armed deterrence in any school. The libs whine and moan about them when they go down but do nothing other than lip service. A bunch of flipping Idiots!!
     

    bingley

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 11, 2011
    2,295
    48
    There is a significant amount of money changing hands. Think about how poor schools are. Think about how much money they're spending on this. According to the article, they're spending at least 20 (people) x ($1,100 per person for equipment) + $50,000 for training = $71,000. That's probably two more teachers. They're throwing away money that they could spend on something they definitely need, and using it for something that has a million in one chance of occurring. Unless the principal's got a wealthy uncle, that's generally a bad use of the money. And then there is the insurance problem. Their premium would go up for sure, if they can even find a company to insure them.

    I tried to look at the $50,000 figure. That breaks down to $2,500 per person. For a 50 hour course + ammo, that's somewhat expensive, but not big enough to set off any red flags. The same goes for the equipment cost. I'm assuming there is some recurrent cost in there, including the higher insurance premium the school will be paying.

    I think something more is going on here than "protecting the children." I am guessing there are additional reasons. Some people are good friends with the firearms school. Some people are trying to make a point.
     

    Walt_Jabsco

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Feb 5, 2009
    528
    18
    Indianapolis
    I'm with Bingley on this one. The money necessary for this project would be far better suited to buying books, employing new teachers, improving classroom equipment, etc. If they're really concerned with security, they could spend the kind of money (roughly $70,000, as Bingley estimated) on armed security guards instead.

    Arming teachers in case of a school shooting is like giving every passenger on a jetliner a parachute in case it crashes. Could it happen? Yes. Is it statistically likely? Absolutely not.
     

    bingley

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 11, 2011
    2,295
    48
    Looking at the case of the Arkansas school has made me realize what it comes down to is money, even if the law isn't a problem. You can't just stick a bunch of Hi Points in the waist band of some teachers and be done with it. They need decent equipment and, above all, a substantial amount of training before they can be trusted to do the right thing in times of stress. That's very expensive, and most schools are just so cash-strapped that most gun and training money could be better used to satisfy more pressing needs.

    If you hire security guards, that's costly, too, though I understand a lot of inner urban schools have security guards already.

    If you displace the defensive and financial responsibilities to teachers, how many will be able to budget for the right training and equipment on their own? How many will be able to maintain their skills? Keep in mind this is an expensive activity, and teachers don't get paid a lot. Not everyone has the dedication to be a shooting champion like Coach on this forum. You need the right combination of time, money, energy, and talent.

    Utah passed a law that permits carrying on college campuses a few years ago. Anti-gun people were afraid that'd lead to a rise in shootings. Pro-gun people thought this was going to lead to a reduction in crime. Both camps were disappointed. The crime rate stayed the same. The CDC is conducting a study on gun ownership, and my understanding, from a very cursory and possibly inaccurate reading, is that they seem to have arrived at the tentative conclusion that while active self-defense protects victims in individual cases, the policy of permitting carrying does not lead to a change in the crime rate for the region. This makes sense to me. It's quite possible that carrying has no effect on overall crime statistics, because gun carriers are probably safety conscious to begin with. They avoid trouble, and people who don't think about self-defense don't avoid trouble. The latter group constitutes a large pool of victims for criminals to choose from.
     
    Top Bottom