NBC gun poll. Lets vote!

[Bennettjh]

27% yes

Same here.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nobody's making everybody carry. And you should take out the word "government" before "civilian". Why limit it to "government civilians". If you want to carry, carry. There should be no Government stipulations involved.

Well count me out of that. I do not believe that every govt employee should be allowed to carry a firearm, should they want, while working. At least not without massive oversight (and I hate govt involvement in most things). That's simply a society I would never ever want to be a part of, and I would certainly work hard in making sure such never came to pass.

 

[HubertGummer]

Well count me out of that. I do not believe that every govt employee should be allowed to carry a firearm, should they want, while working. At least not without massive oversight (and I hate govt involvement in most things). That's simply a society I would never ever want to be a part of, and I would certainly work hard in making sure such never came to pass.

An honest question Kut,

How effective would you say gun free zones have been at protecting our kids at school?

 

[Crittersdad]

It is 75-25 opposed to arming teachers.

But it is a PMSNBC poll so there are lots of lib voters

 

[Trigger Time]

It is 75-25 opposed to arming teachers.

But it is a PMSNBC poll so there are lots of lib voters

I'm sure this pole is not accurate. Im sure anti gun groups have their members multiple voting in mass. I checked by turning on private browsing and I was allowed to vote again and again if I wanted to.
Public poles are not accurate because they are easily corrupted.
This is also why democracy (majority rule) is flawed and why our founders gave us a Republic which is based on the constitution and upholding those core principals with a system of laws

 

[Kutnupe14]

An honest question Kut,

How effective would you say gun free zones have been at protecting our kids at school?

Not very... but I also think that "free fire zones" wouldn't be much safer. I personally think that the odds would be significantly higher that teachers carrying firearms would accidentally shoot one the kids they are protecting, than them getting killed during an school shooting. There are several cases of teachers shooting themselves on campus.

I just don't have the faith that they would actually offer legitimate protection... I think they'd make schools more dangerous, not safer. I'd ask you, outside the gun community, how confident are you with the abilities of people who simply own guns? I know teachers with guns, and many of the ones I've seen, seem more interested in having a cute pink gun, and taking selfies at the range, than taking it serious... I imagine that they'd jump at the chance to earn an extra $100 a paycheck to carry their weapon at school. And when the other teachers without guns want to see their latest bedazzled instrument of death and destruction, they're going to pull it out laser the **** out of everybody, and hopefully avoid putting a round in the head of a passerby. I have absolutely zero confident that anything good would come out of arming teacher.

For reference, my parents are both gun owners. My mom was a principal, and my dad taught an aviation academy program at a high school. Neither one of them think that arming teachers is a good idea. If anything, I would arm only one group of teachers... those in the ROTC programs, who should, in theory, have a basic understanding, and respect for firearms. But if we are going to arm teachers, I think that they should go through an exhaustive battery to prove their ability, stability, and motive.

 

[Woobie]

Not very... but I also think that "free fire zones" wouldn't be much safer. I personally think that the odds would be significantly higher that teachers carrying firearms would accidentally shoot one the kids they are protecting, than them getting killed during an school shooting. There are several cases of teachers shooting themselves on campus.

I just don't have the faith that they would actually offer legitimate protection... I think they'd make schools more dangerous, not safer. I'd ask you, outside the gun community, how confident are you with the abilities of people who simply own guns? I know teachers with guns, and many of the ones I've seen, seem more interested in having a cute pink gun, and taking selfies at the range, than taking it serious... I imagine that they'd jump at the chance to earn an extra $100 a paycheck to carry their weapon at school. And when the other teachers without guns want to see their latest bedazzled instrument of death and destruction, they're going to pull it out laser the **** out of everybody, and hopefully avoid putting a round in the head of a passerby. I have absolutely zero confident that anything good would come out of arming teacher.

For reference, my parents are both gun owners. My mom was a principal, and my dad taught an aviation academy program at a high school. Neither one of them think that arming teachers is a good idea. If anything, I would arm only one group of teachers... those in the ROTC programs, who should, in theory, have a basic understanding, and respect for firearms. But if we are going to arm teachers, I think that they should go through an exhaustive battery to prove their ability, stability, and motive.

I love the way you worded this, lol.

I'm not a fan of paying them to carry. I don't want it to be part of the job description. I think they should be allowed to carry if they can pass, not an exhaustive battery, but a basic firearms safety course and marksmanship test.

Here's a great example of how this could work: when (then) Governor Pence decided that Indiana National Guard soldiers and airmen would be allowed to carry a personal firearm on duty, the leadership had a heart attack. "You don't know Joe. Joe could screw up a wet dream. There will be bullets flying everywhere." And so on. So they instituted a permitting system. You had to get permission from your commander, who would know if you were responsible or not. You had to go through an 8 hour course with 4 hours of firearms safety in a classroom, and 4 hours of range time working from the draw. The range time allowed instructors to identify both bad shooters and bad equipment. In addition, a few measures were put in place, but one was critical: if your pistol comes out of your holster for any reason it is a CCIR for TAG. What does that alphabet soup mean? The Adjutant General (#1 officer) of the entire state will be notified immediately if your weapon is drawn. Period. So now you've got a bunch of gun guys who would love to show off their hardware, but don't, because they know the consequences.

I think you could implement something very similar and mitigate a ton of risk. If teachers want to carry, the principal, superintendent or board president is given authority not to deny carte blanche, but decide if certain people are not mentally fit. The school pays those teachers cleared by their school system to take a 2 day NRA course, and if that weapon ever leaves its holster, the state superintendent of education finds out about it.

I see no reason a government employee should be barred from protecting themselves by virtue of who their employer is. I don't want carrying to become a new part of any job description, and I don't want it mandated. But if the secretary at the county clerks office feels the need to protect themselves, why deny them that? What does it hurt if they are carrying for personal protection? I am totally on board with opposing a mass armament of government workers. But if those people as individuals want to protect themselves, they probably have good reason. They have stalkers, exes, disgruntled employees just like everyone else. Plus the nature of their work often creates enemies. The hilljacks kill census workers every time that comes around. I'll bet more than a few assessors have received death threats.

 

[jamil]

I don't think the numbers are being manipulated. I really don't think that most people agree with arming teachers. The poll is way too simple. I voted unsure.

I don't think there's a reason to believe they're manipulated, though I wouldn't assume any news outlet putting up an online poll is beyond doing that.

Online polls are really useless. People from all over the world can vote. Hell. I voted in an online poll for brexit, for crying out loud. Their best use is giving people a way to voice their opinions and feel that their voice is counted. Beyond feelings, these polls are of little value for determining public opinion. They can't be representative of real public opinion, even if they could guarantee unique constituency, because they can't possibly sample proportionally. They over-sample people who find the poll via social media. So the sample is mostly based on polls getting shared most on facebook, twitter, INGO, etc.

But some news outlet will cite the results of the poll as evidence we should adopt or not adopt some policy. Online polls are worthless for determining what is public opinion, but have at least some value in swaying public opinion.

 

[jamil]

I love the way you worded this, lol.

I'm not a fan of paying them to carry. I don't want it to be part of the job description. I think they should be allowed to carry if they can pass, not an exhaustive battery, but a basic firearms safety course and marksmanship test.

Here's a great example of how this could work: when (then) Governor Pence decided that Indiana National Guard soldiers and airmen would be allowed to carry a personal firearm on duty, the leadership had a heart attack. "You don't know Joe. Joe could screw up a wet dream. There will be bullets flying everywhere." And so on. So they instituted a permitting system. You had to get permission from your commander, who would know if you were responsible or not. You had to go through an 8 hour course with 4 hours of firearms safety in a classroom, and 4 hours of range time working from the draw. The range time allowed instructors to identify both bad shooters and bad equipment. In addition, a few measures were put in place, but one was critical: if your pistol comes out of your holster for any reason it is a CCIR for TAG. What does that alphabet soup mean? The Adjutant General (#1 officer) of the entire state will be notified immediately if your weapon is drawn. Period. So now you've got a bunch of gun guys who would love to show off their hardware, but don't, because they know the consequences.

I think you could implement something very similar and mitigate a ton of risk. If teachers want to carry, the principal, superintendent or board president is given authority not to deny carte blanche, but decide if certain people are not mentally fit. The school pays those teachers cleared by their school system to take a 2 day NRA course, and if that weapon ever leaves its holster, the state superintendent of education finds out about it.

I see no reason a government employee should be barred from protecting themselves by virtue of who their employer is. I don't want carrying to become a new part of any job description, and I don't want it mandated. But if the secretary at the county clerks office feels the need to protect themselves, why deny them that? What does it hurt if they are carrying for personal protection? I am totally on board with opposing a mass armament of government workers. But if those people as individuals want to protect themselves, they probably have good reason. They have stalkers, exes, disgruntled employees just like everyone else. Plus the nature of their work often creates enemies. The hilljacks kill census workers every time that comes around. I'll bet more than a few assessors have received death threats.

I think for carrying in schools, teachers would have to demonstrate proficiency and responsibility at some level higher than just having a carry license/permit. I think it's fair to say lots of personality types would want to carry, but fewer would be willing to do it with the responsibility required.

And as demonstrated with the officers who took cover and didn't go in, just being armed isn't enough. They have to be willing to take action. The Sheriff's officers weren't bad guys. Not really good guys either. Those guys were just guys with guns. And I'm not going to necessarily call them cowards. Maybe they were well trained and knew what to do, and were confident, but just couldn't overcome their fear. That would be cowardly. But maybe they weren't well trained. Or weren't tried by fire enough to go in there and do the thing. Whatever.

Point is, it would be ridiculous to expect every armed teacher to outperform sworn police officers. Get them trained. Weed out the ones who just don't have it. So I think your idea is a good one. I'm not sure I'd leave it up to school administrators though. Too many of them are indoctrinated into the cult of anti-gun zealotry.

 

[Trigger Time]

I love the way you worded this, lol.

I'm not a fan of paying them to carry. I don't want it to be part of the job description. I think they should be allowed to carry if they can pass, not an exhaustive battery, but a basic firearms safety course and marksmanship test.

Here's a great example of how this could work: when (then) Governor Pence decided that Indiana National Guard soldiers and airmen would be allowed to carry a personal firearm on duty, the leadership had a heart attack. "You don't know Joe. Joe could screw up a wet dream. There will be bullets flying everywhere." And so on. So they instituted a permitting system. You had to get permission from your commander, who would know if you were responsible or not. You had to go through an 8 hour course with 4 hours of firearms safety in a classroom, and 4 hours of range time working from the draw. The range time allowed instructors to identify both bad shooters and bad equipment. In addition, a few measures were put in place, but one was critical: if your pistol comes out of your holster for any reason it is a CCIR for TAG. What does that alphabet soup mean? The Adjutant General (#1 officer) of the entire state will be notified immediately if your weapon is drawn. Period. So now you've got a bunch of gun guys who would love to show off their hardware, but don't, because they know the consequences.

I think you could implement something very similar and mitigate a ton of risk. If teachers want to carry, the principal, superintendent or board president is given authority not to deny carte blanche, but decide if certain people are not mentally fit. The school pays those teachers cleared by their school system to take a 2 day NRA course, and if that weapon ever leaves its holster, the state superintendent of education finds out about it.

I see no reason a government employee should be barred from protecting themselves by virtue of who their employer is. I don't want carrying to become a new part of any job description, and I don't want it mandated. But if the secretary at the county clerks office feels the need to protect themselves, why deny them that? What does it hurt if they are carrying for personal protection? I am totally on board with opposing a mass armament of government workers. But if those people as individuals want to protect themselves, they probably have good reason. They have stalkers, exes, disgruntled employees just like everyone else. Plus the nature of their work often creates enemies. The hilljacks kill census workers every time that comes around. I'll bet more than a few assessors have received death threats.

Yeah I think you're right. I guess I've been looking at this wrong because I said before make them pass extensive background and psychological training. If they want to carry it should be their right just like it is anyone's. I would like to offer them good training for free though. I think most would take it

 

[HubertGummer]

Thanks for the response Kut. I am not a fan of paying extra to teachers who carry because I wouldn't want anyone to carry just because of the extra money. As far as the teachers accidentally shooting students, I get what you're saying but if a teacher has 25+ kids in his/her classroom and the gunman kicks the door in, chances are most of those 25 kids will get shot. I don't see the teacher having a gun as raising the danger level by all that much but it would give them the opportunity to fight back. Of course you are right, they have to be very competent and proficient with firearms.

As far as the deputies, I can't see why or how 4 deputies could stand outside and do nothing while kids were being murdered. I have to wonder if they had orders to not go in and are now the scapegoats for whoever issued those orders.

 

[Woobie]

I think for carrying in schools, teachers would have to demonstrate proficiency and responsibility at some level higher than just having a carry license/permit. I think it's fair to say lots of personality types would want to carry, but fewer would be willing to do it with the responsibility required.

And as demonstrated with the officers who took cover and didn't go in, just being armed isn't enough. They have to be willing to take action. The Sheriff's officers weren't bad guys. Not really good guys either. Those guys were just guys with guns. And I'm not going to necessarily call them cowards. Maybe they were well trained and knew what to do, and were confident, but just couldn't overcome their fear. That would be cowardly. But maybe they weren't well trained. Or weren't tried by fire enough to go in there and do the thing. Whatever.

Point is, it would be ridiculous to expect every armed teacher to outperform sworn police officers. Get them trained. Weed out the ones who just don't have it. So I think your idea is a good one. I'm not sure I'd leave it up to school administrators though. Too many of them are indoctrinated into the cult of anti-gun zealotry.

That's why I mentioned a 2 day course requirement. We shouldn't let them carry in a school without training. I'm not saying we should leave it up to school administrators, that's why I said they shouldn't have blanket veto power. But there ought to be something on record from a superior saying they trust the teacher to carry. Maybe that comes in the form of an interview the state conducts before licensing the school employee to carry on school property. Maybe the onus is placed on the principal, and they are required to recommend X employees per Y students to be able to carry. I don't like that option as much, since some schools would never be able to get many volunteers.



Having school employees carry is no guarantee they will act, but it improves your odds in a number of ways:

1) Multiple employees are more likely to be where the violence is happening than that one resource officer.

2) More protectors with guns could dissuade an attack, or at a minimum force them to account for more armed defenders.

3) As this shooting showed, eventually, if you have enough cops, some of them are going to take initiative, even if the first few show themselves to be cowardly or poorly trained. More empowered defenders gives a greater chance of this happening as soon in the event as possible.

 

[churchmouse]

I think for carrying in schools, teachers would have to demonstrate proficiency and responsibility at some level higher than just having a carry license/permit. I think it's fair to say lots of personality types would want to carry, but fewer would be willing to do it with the responsibility required.

And as demonstrated with the officers who took cover and didn't go in, just being armed isn't enough. They have to be willing to take action. The Sheriff's officers weren't bad guys. Not really good guys either. Those guys were just guys with guns. And I'm not going to necessarily call them cowards. Maybe they were well trained and knew what to do, and were confident, but just couldn't overcome their fear. That would be cowardly. But maybe they weren't well trained. Or weren't tried by fire enough to go in there and do the thing. Whatever.

Point is, it would be ridiculous to expect every armed teacher to outperform sworn police officers. Get them trained. Weed out the ones who just don't have it. So I think your idea is a good one. I'm not sure I'd leave it up to school administrators though. Too many of them are indoctrinated into the cult of anti-gun zealotry.

The way that thing came down with the fire drill I am sure it was chaos "Buy" as I understand he went to select classrooms and started his revenge/hate killing spree. Had any of those teachers been armed and willing to defend this would have ended a lot sooner. Had he known they were armed he most likely would have waited outside and picked some of them off or just sprayed the crowd after they exited. But it seems he had specific people in mind when he started from what I have gathered.

There is no way we can figure in every aspect of defending a school. But we can make it far more difficult. The early warnings were there. They were seen and reported. The system is flawed because it is filled with to many corrupt and lazy people. Not all LEO or Gov. people but it seems to be the norm in most all of the recent situations. Again, back to Gabby Giffords. Early signs observed and reported and overlooked by the Sheriff.

The system is flawed. Fix the system. Leave me alone please.

 

[Woobie]

Yeah I think you're right. I guess I've been looking at this wrong because I said before make them pass extensive background and psychological training. If they want to carry it should be their right just like it is anyone's. I would like to offer them good training for free though. I think most would take it

I don't know how many would take advantage of the training, but the number is >0. I think we can justify the expense of funding that training. But I'm sure there are also lots of trainers who would donate their resources to get some school employees spun up.

I think the process should be more rigorous than the normal LTCH process, if for no other reason than that it is politically expedient to do so. But coworkers do show off guns, and we are arming people with a greater than average contact with children. So more training is good, necessary even. But I don't think they should have to pass an exhaustive battery of tests, either.

 

[churchmouse]

I don't know how many would take advantage of the training, but the number is >0. I think we can justify the expense of funding that training. But I'm sure there are also lots of trainers who would donate their resources to get some school employees spun up.

I think the process should be more rigorous than the normal LTCH process, if for no other reason than that it is politically expedient to do so. But coworkers do show off guns, and we are arming people with a greater than average contact with children. So more training is good, necessary even. But I don't think they should have to pass an exhaustive battery of tests, either.

The stigma of even owning a gun in the teachers world is amazing. To actually carry one into the school would have the hive mind in a total hissy fit. Until said time as it may be needed to defend.

 

[jamil]

The stigma of even owning a gun in the teachers world is amazing. To actually carry one into the school would have the hive mind in a total hissy fit. Until said time as it may be needed to defend.

Oh, jeez, you just mention "gun" to some of them and they practically faint.

 

[Woobie]

The stigma of even owning a gun in the teachers world is amazing. To actually carry one into the school would have the hive mind in a total hissy fit. Until said time as it may be needed to defend.

Absolutely, but they aren't monolithic. No demographic is. The military will always have Beau Bergdahls, the police will always have Scot Petersons. As insane as a lot of teachers are, there's still quite a few with their heads on straight.

 

[churchmouse]

Oh, jeez, you just mention "gun" to some of them and they practically faint.

Yes they do. And go on endless rants that "You" are the problem. Idiocy.

Now, insert "You" as the problem into their special little world and "You" would be eating lunch alone.

The system is flawed at best...broken at the worse and I am leaning towards broken.

 

[churchmouse]

Absolutely, but they aren't monolithic. No demographic is. The military will always have Beau Bergdahls, the police will always have Scot Petersons. As insane as a lot of teachers are, there's still quite a few with their heads on straight.

True but a lot of the stand off lack of action I see is to avoid being labeled and ostracized by our peers. It only takes a vocal minority to set this in motion.

 

[Woobie]

True but a lot of the stand off lack of action I see is to avoid being labeled and ostracized by our peers. It only takes a vocal minority to set this in motion.

That's what I'm trying to say. You don't need to recruit a huge group. Just a few that want to make a difference.