THIS actually makes me proud to be an American...!

[cordex]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966662241977360384

I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue - I hope!
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

 

[Trigger Time]

Let's say a teacher ends a threat, and cuts down the deaths from say 10 to 5...or even 2. What does that do for us? Are people going to say "Well, arming teachers worked. The shooter only killed 2 people instead of 20?" Of course not, we're going to be in the exact place that we are now. The parents of the victims, aren't going to be thinking "well, it could've been worse." Other parents aren't going to be happy either... It changes nothing in the grand scheme of things.

The sheep will never be happy because they are sheep.
What matters is not perception but reality. Reality is lives will be saved. We can work on other measures like target hardening to help reduce the threats even more. But if someone bad gets inside with a.gun or even makes a weapon then they will need stopped

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think it's a poorly conceived "feel good" suggestion. IMO, the suggestion would't really be all that effective.... maybe slightly, buy not near enough to give peace of mind.

Arming teachers: I see no advantage to this, honestly. It's not their place to protect a school, or respond to a shooter. I know it'd just be those that volunteer, and fine, that's great... But it can't beat armed, trained guards/police.

The blame after the next shooting shouldn't be anywhere near a civilian like a teacher, and it would be. Put the onus on those that are trained to protect... those far more qualified.

And lock some damn doors.

But I agree... it's a 2A-feelgood move... not a feasible permanent solution yet. Getting closer, but not yet.

Edit: Also, shootings like this are so rare... and while hiring guards would probably be the effective solution... it's thousands of schools, tens of thousands of man-hours essentially to do nothing for 8 hours a day.

Then on that rare instance where something does happen, the same people will blame the same things. But who knows. Maybe that investment is worth it. I mean... I think it would certainly make schools more of a "hard" target, and probably save lives in the long run.

 

[Sylvain]

Arming teachers: I see no advantage to this, honestly. It's not their place to protect a school, or respond to a shooter. I know it'd just be those that volunteer, and fine, that's great... But it can't beat armed, trained guards/police.

The blame after the next shooting shouldn't be anywhere near a civilian like a teacher, and it would be. Put the onus on those that are trained to protect... those far more qualified.

And lock some damn doors.

But I agree... it's a 2A-feelgood move... not a feasible permanent solution yet. Getting closer, but not yet.

I think there's a difference between arming the teachers and letting the teachers be armed.

It's silly to think you can arm all teachers and turn them into security guards.

Most teacher don't want anything to do with guns.

But in the other hand a teacher (and any adult staff) that can legally carry a gun outside of school (someone that carried and trained for years) should have a right to self defense inside the school.

If you are trusted by the state to carry a gun in public pretty much anywhere you go, including around kids at restaurants or public libraries, and are trusted by the school system to be around kids all day in school; then why can't you be trusted with carrying a gun in school?

Armed teachers wouldn't be there with a duty to protect the entire school.
They could just have the means to defend themselves, and the people immediatly around them if they decided to do so.

You are not going to train teachers to do CQB tactis, room clearing and such, that's what armed security guards or cops are for.

Schools are not magical places, they shouldn't be "gun-free zones".

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Right, and that's how I see the teacher situation... let the ones that want to carry, carry...

But there has to be more to it than that. It needs to be top-****ing-secret if there's a teacher with a gun. Probably needs to be locked up tight in their desk somewhere. No teacher should say they have one, and no student should know they have one.

Lock the doors, and protect the people that are currently in your classroom if you can. That's about all we can ask.

Yes, more shootings will happen in the future. We'll hear "WELL ARMING THE TEACHERS DIDN'T WORK, DID IT?!" It's to be expected.

That's why I think armed professionals, with locked doors during school hours, would help far more. Letting teachers choose to be armed is just an added perk.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think there's a difference between arming the teachers and letting the teachers be armed.

It's silly to think you can arm all teachers and turn them into security guards.

Most teacher don't want anything to do with guns.

But in the other hand a teacher (and any adult staff) that can legally carry a gun outside of school (someone that carried and trained for years) should have a right to self defense inside the school.

If you are trusted by the state to carry a gun in public pretty much anywhere you go, including around kids at restaurants or public libraries, and are trusted by the school system to be around kids all day in school; then why can't you be trusted with carrying a gun in school?

Armed teachers wouldn't be there with a duty to protect the entire school.
They could just have the means to defend themselves, and the people immediatly around them if they decided to do so.

You are not going to train teachers to do CQB tactis, room clearing and such, that's what armed security guards or cops are for.

Schools are not magical places, they shouldn't be "gun-free zones".

Liability. The state doesn't assume liability by issuing a LTCH/CCW/Permit. If you allow teachers to carry while they work, then the state is by default sanctioning such. There's a HUGE risk to the state. The first time a teacher smokes a student, by accident, it's going to be a disaster that will reverberate from coast to coast. And just like that, no more teachers with guns in schools.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Liability. The state doesn't assume liability by issuing a LTCH/CCW/Permit. If you allow teachers to carry while they work, then the state is by default sanctioning such. There's a HUGE risk to the state. The first time a teacher smokes a student, by accident, it's going to be a disaster that will reverberate from coast to coast. And just like that, no more teachers with guns in schools.

The logistics of it are what seem unrealistic. Teachers don't plant themselves in a classroom all day. They stand in the halls, visit other classrooms, eat lunch, etc...

I don't see schools allowing teachers to carry on their person. That feels like a risk, and a bad image.

I don't see schools allowing students access to a classroom with a locked up firearm either, if that teacher isn't present.

 

[Trigger Time]

Right, and that's how I see the teacher situation... let the ones that want to carry, carry...

But there has to be more to it than that. It needs to be top-****ing-secret if there's a teacher with a gun. Probably needs to be locked up tight in their desk somewhere. No teacher should say they have one, and no student should know they have one.

Lock the doors, and protect the people that are currently in your classroom if you can. That's about all we can ask.

Yes, more shootings will happen in the future. We'll hear "WELL ARMING THE TEACHERS DIDN'T WORK, DID IT?!" It's to be expected.

That's why I think armed professionals, with locked doors during school hours, would help far more. Letting teachers choose to be armed is just an added perk.

A gun in a desk is a paperweight. Needs to be carried

 

[Mark 1911]

At this point I would think any plans of "arming teachers" are still very much in the conceptual phase. A lot of details need to thought out such as "how" and "who" to qualify. Maybe other personnel should be considered? Veterans for example. Maybe veterans with combat experience? I'm sure there are many who would volunteer their time. Perhaps that is a way to let teachers focus on teaching and let others be totally focused on protection. Perhaps others could also be considered, such as off-duty police, or even qualified citizens subject to screening so we know they are good guys to have in our schools.

It may still be an idea in its infancy, but at least it is a far more effective idea than "banning bump fire stocks".

 

[Sylvain]

Right, and that's how I see the teacher situation... let the ones that want to carry, carry...

But there has to be more to it than that. It needs to be top-****ing-secret if there's a teacher with a gun. Probably needs to be locked up tight in their desk somewhere. No teacher should say they have one, and no student should know they have one.

Lock the doors, and protect the people that are currently in your classroom if you can. That's about all we can ask.

Yes, more shootings will happen in the future. We'll hear "WELL ARMING THE TEACHERS DIDN'T WORK, DID IT?!" It's to be expected.

That's why I think armed professionals, with locked doors during school hours, would help far more. Letting teachers choose to be armed is just an added perk.

It shouldn't be a problem if they properly conceal it on their person.
Many people do that every day in places where they are not allowed to carry, and nobody ever find out.

I'm sure some teachers carry guns already, or knives or other tools that might be against school rules or against the law.

I've read an article about a school that recently allowed their teachers to carry guns.
All students tried to figure out who was carrying and who wasn't but they gave up after a few weeks.

 

[Sylvain]

A gun in a desk is a paperweight. Needs to be carried

And many kids can pick the lock of a desk drawer while the teacher is away.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

At this point I would think any plans of "arming teachers" are still very much in the conceptual phase. A lot of details need to thought out such as "how" and "who" to qualify. Maybe other personnel should be considered? Veterans for example. Maybe veterans with combat experience? I'm sure there are many who would volunteer their time. Perhaps that is a way to let teachers focus on teaching and let others be totally focused on protection. Perhaps others could also be considered, such as off-duty police, or even qualified citizens subject to screening so we know they are good guys to have in our schools.

It may still be an idea in its infancy, but at least it is a far more effective idea than "banning bump fire stocks".

If it's an organization that hires these people, and guarantees their attendance... great. Still need to be trained to be first-responders, not just a warm body with a gun.

A gun in a desk is a paperweight. Needs to be carried

To you, and me, and every non-teacher here... this is true. Guns on your person are far better than off-person, like a purse.

But in a school... I really don't see that happening. It's a drastic change that I wouldn't imagine many people are ready to allow.

Me walking around town with my gun is different than a teacher surrounded by hundreds or thousands of kids a day... unpredictable kids. It's a very high risk.

Huge difference in the situational awareness requirements. And seriously... the kids can't be aware of a teacher carrying... and teachers will be found out if they carried on-person.

 

[Kutnupe14]

At this point I would think any plans of "arming teachers" are still very much in the conceptual phase. A lot of details need to thought out such as "how" and "who" to qualify. Maybe other personnel should be considered? Veterans for example. Maybe veterans with combat experience? I'm sure there are many who would volunteer their time. Perhaps that is a way to let teachers focus on teaching and let others be totally focused on protection. Perhaps others could also be considered, such as off-duty police, or even qualified citizens subject to screening so we know they are good guys to have in our schools.

It may still be an idea in its infancy, but at least it is a far more effective idea than "banning bump fire stocks".

I've heard this suggested several times, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how this works. Do the are veterans going to be walking halls or positioned in certain areas? Are they going to be outfitted with pistols or long guns? Is there sole responsibility just protecting kids? Are they just volunteers are employees?
There's just so many questions. It's really difficult for me to imagine veterans spending hours at schools doing pretty much nothing day in and day out. That would old very quickly.

 

[T.Lex]

I think its more of a community outreach thing. A group of volunteers, even dads, who meet certain training requirements could have permission from the school to be on the grounds and armed. Work out a schedule or whatever. That would be something that's better than nothing. (But awkward if there are also SROs, maybe.)

The harder issue is how much higher the school's insurance would be if they allowed something like that. The budgetary shockwaves would be rough.

 

[Sylvain]

Liability. The state doesn't assume liability by issuing a LTCH/CCW/Permit. If you allow teachers to carry while they work, then the state is by default sanctioning such. There's a HUGE risk to the state. The first time a teacher smokes a student, by accident, it's going to be a disaster that will reverberate from coast to coast. And just like that, no more teachers with guns in schools.

But if you get rid of the law making it illegal to carry in school then the teacher would be carrying there because of his LTCH, not because he has a special permission from the state that other LTCH holders doesn't have.

The liability for the state should be the same regarless if the shooter is a teacher inside a school buidling or any other citizen outside of school.

Police officers are allowed to carry in school and there have been several instances of negligence discharges in schools, yet police officers can still carry in schools.

 

[Woobie]

I've heard this suggested several times, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how this works. Do the are veterans going to be walking halls or positioned in certain areas? Are they going to be outfitted with pistols or long guns? Is there sole responsibility just protecting kids? Are they just volunteers are employees?
There's just so many questions. It's really difficult for me to imagine veterans spending hours at schools doing pretty much nothing day in and day out. That would old very quickly.

I doubt you would get every school covered every day by volunteers. But maybe once or twice a week? If I have a 40% of getting shot before I can be the next famous mass murderer, maybe I just stay home and eat a lead salad. That's a lot of maybes. But if we're in the world of "we've got to do something," then that seems better than some sort of feel good ban that accomplishes nothing.

 

[Sylvain]

If it's an organization that hires these people, and guarantees their attendance... great. Still need to be trained to be first-responders, not just a warm body with a gun.



To you, and me, and every non-teacher here... this is true. Guns on your person are far better than off-person, like a purse.

But in a school... I really don't see that happening. It's a drastic change that I wouldn't imagine many people are ready to allow.

Me walking around town with my gun is different than a teacher surrounded by hundreds or thousands of kids a day... unpredictable kids. It's a very high risk.

Huge difference in the situational awareness requirements. And seriously... the kids can't be aware of a teacher carrying... and teachers will be found out if they carried on-person.

How many kids bumping into a teacher would notice he's carrying a Glock 43 in a ankle holster?

 

[Kutnupe14]

But if you get rid of the law making it illegal to carry in school then the teacher would be carrying there because of his LTCH, not because he has a special permission from the state that other LTCH holders doesn't have.

The liability for the state should be the same regarless if the shooter is a teacher inside a school buidling or any other citizen outside of school.

Police officers are allowed to carry in school and there have been several instances of negligence discharges in schools, yet police officers can still carry in schools.

No, not really. The teacher is still acting while in course of employment, so their actions are defaulted to the employer also. What you do as a private citizen isn't the same as what you do as an employee; and shouldn't be IMO.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I doubt you would get every school covered every day by volunteers. But maybe once or twice a week? If I have a 40% of getting shot before I can be the next famous mass murderer, maybe I just stay home and eat a lead salad. That's a lot of maybes. But if we're in the world of "we've got to do something," then that seems better than some sort of feel good ban that accomplishes nothing.

"WHY WASN'T THE VOLUNTEER GUARD THERE ON FRIDAY, WHEN THE SHOOTING HAPPENED?!"

Can't win. Has to be guaranteed attendance, I think.

How many kids bumping into a teacher would notice he's carrying a Glock 43 in a ankle holster?

Kids would be looking for it, and no matter how great you think you can hide a gun on you... you'll eventually print or reveal.

 

[Woobie]

Let's say a teacher ends a threat, and cuts down the deaths from say 10 to 5...or even 2. What does that do for us? Are people going to say "Well, arming teachers worked. The shooter only killed 2 people instead of 20?" Of course not, we're going to be in the exact place that we are now. The parents of the victims, aren't going to be thinking "well, it could've been worse." Other parents aren't going to be happy either... It changes nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Actually, people do say "well, it could have been worse." Look at the church shooting in Texas. People saw value on what that guy did.

Besides, let's say this is a gigantic flop, politically. We have a couple of school shootings, and sure, the volunteer security or the armed teacher stopped the threat, but a bunch of kids still died. It is still be a good thing to save a few kids' lives before we go down in flames. If we can do this at minimal cost, it actually saves lives, and we don't have to wreck the Constitution to do it, why wouldn't we?

I'm not so willing to wave the white flag just because liberals will disagree.