Florida teachers can arm themselves under new gun bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it also better than forcing local school districts to arm teachers when those districts don’t want to arm teachers?
I wouldn't want them to force teachers to be armed, but I get your point. It's not better than forcing them to give teachers the choice. But it's a step in the right direction.
 
Is it also better than forcing local school districts to arm teachers when those districts don’t want to arm teachers?

No it's not.

I wouldn't want them to force teachers to be armed, but I get your point. It's not better than forcing them to give teachers the choice. But it's a step in the right direction.

Just to be sure we're on the same page, when these districts opt-out, it's not the teachers who are choosing to disarm themselves; it's the bureaucrats at the top of the food chain-the superintendent and the board members. A district having the opt-out option is no different than if the law were not there, i.e. teachers are being forced to abrogate their rights. (Admittedly, we knew this before we began the training for our careers.)
 
Just to be sure we're on the same page, when these districts opt-out, it's not the teachers who are choosing to disarm themselves; it's the bureaucrats at the top of the food chain-the superintendent and the board members. A district having the opt-out option is no different than if the law were not there, i.e. teachers are being forced to abrogate their rights. (Admittedly, we knew this before we began the training for our careers.)
That was my take on it. Force the schools to let the teachers--not the superintendents--opt in or out. Make them take training if need be (in the circumstances this is expected to remedy, target practice and retention training are a good idea anyway), but give them the option.
Or at the very least, let the teachers vote on it instead of the bureaucracy, who obviously have such a clear history of wanting what's best for the teachers and students instead of the school's image and management's paychecks...
 
...let the teachers vote on it instead of the bureaucracy...

There are two problems with this. 1.)The vast, overwhelming majority of teachers would vote this down. 2.)If someone can vote your rights away, then they were never rights at all-they were privileges. Thank the founders that we live in a Republic, not a Democracy.
 
The point of the law is to make shooters think twice before attacking schools. Right now, in many areas, potential shooters know they can arrive on campus and kill people without opposition until the police arrive (much later). If they know they may face opposition as soon as they begin shooting, they are likely to call off their attacks or go somewhere else.

And THIS for the win.

Everyone looks at this the wrong way; what does the teacher think? Lil Jonny 1st seat in 1st row...but the bureaucrat Rat said XYZwffg.

What does the PERP think? Changing the PERP's thinking. That is, he/she will ''think twice'' before going into a particular school to ply their trade of death & mayhem; that kindly old janitor MIGHT be packing heat; smiling 32yr old math teacher Mrs. Smith MIGHT throw lead instead of a book.

It's called the deterrent effect, well, except for the districts which seemed to already scream loudly ''we are STILL targets!'' er, excuse me, ''we will remain unarmed''. Would have been better to...not say anything at all IMQO...
 
It's called the deterrent effect,

It may sometimes have a deterrent effect, but we know It hasn't worked for numerous schools with SRO programs where one or more SROs are on campus. They still end up with shooters, some of which have transitioned into the mass shooting variety quite easily.

Of course, with some of the adults being possibly being armed just makes all of the adults be primary targets This is good for the kids, bad for the adults.

Believing in the deterrent effect is nothing but wishful thinking as it is largely unverifiable and we know it doesn't always work. The deterrent effect really only works in those situations where the shooter is hoping to survive. Far too often, we know that their exit strategy is death based on those who fight it out with the cops and/or who commit suicide.
 
It may sometimes have a deterrent effect, but we know It hasn't worked for numerous schools with SRO programs where one or more SROs are on campus. They still end up with shooters, some of which have transitioned into the mass shooting variety quite easily.

Of course, with some of the adults being possibly being armed just makes all of the adults be primary targets This is good for the kids, bad for the adults.

Believing in the deterrent effect is nothing but wishful thinking as it is largely unverifiable and we know it doesn't always work. The deterrent effect really only works in those situations where the shooter is hoping to survive. Far too often, we know that their exit strategy is death based on those who fight it out with the cops and/or who commit suicide.

Talk about wishful thinking.

If you don't believe in the deterrent effect, then you should give up on firearms altogether, for the cops and guards as well as the public. Leave your doors open, put your wife on the front porch in a slinky dress, and wait for whatever comes. It's very obvious that the presence of guns deters crime. You can't wish this truth away simply because deterrence is hard to prove or because deterrence isn't 100% effective.

It is impossible to record crimes that don't occur because of the deterrent effect. Anti-2A people use this against us all the time. As John Lott could tell you, the fact that a nonexistent crime can't be documented doesn't mean a crime wasn't prevented.

How many burglars are deterred by alarms and signs? We don't know; they don't leave us notes. How many rapists have been deterred by their owners' dogs? We don't know; they haven't called later to complain. Doesn't mean deterrence doesn't work. Deterrence is an ancient principle every society relies on in one way or another. To question its effectiveness at this late date is to ignore thousands of years of history. It's a remarkable position to take.

The truth is that we know criminals think about the resistance they will face when they plan their crimes. They admit it in interviews.

If deterrence doesn't work, why put armed guards on armored trucks? Why have armed servicemen at nuclear installations? For that matter, why have nuclear installations or our armed services? Why walk your wife to her car at night? Many women have been raped in the presence of men who were there to protect them. John Kennedy had his head blown apart in the presence of heavily armed agents and police. Deterrence isn't perfect, so why try?

Deterrence isn't the only benefit of guns on campus or in similar locations. Armed individuals have stopped or hindered many active shooters. They should be given credit for most shooter suicides. Shooters generally shoot themselves after they've been neutralized by people with guns. They don't just stop in the middle of their fun and kill themselves.

The very low likelihood of a shooter stealing a teacher's gun is poor justification for leaving teachers and children at the mercy of nut cases. I can carry a gun at all sorts of public gatherings, including places where many kids are present. I can carry at amusement parks, in theaters, in church, at malls, and in public parks. The government is fine with it, and we have not seen an epidemic of stolen pistols being used against the innocent by low lifes. Somehow people think schools work differently. They won't.
 
The thing that terrifies shooters of whatever flavor is abject failure.
Charging into a school, mall or public thoroughfare, striking down terrified, fleeing victims, becoming infamous throughout the world - that is the shooter's dream.
If the shooter believes that he or she will be stopped before the goal is reached then they are likely to change their plans or drop the whole idea.
The shooter is not afraid of death.
the shooter is afraid of being laughed at or ignored.
 
The truth is that we know criminals think about the resistance they will face when they plan their crimes.

Go work in a prison as a corrections officer: i have. Many violent criminals never think of the resistance they face. To assume that they do is to assume they are rational human beings: Most are not. Many of these shooters are mental cases.
 
There is no one profile for shooters. There are cases where they have been deterred or selected another target. There are shooters that have ignored the presence, even of many armed people there. The importance of being armed is to be able to engage the shooter with a reasonable chance of success. If some are deterred, that's good but not the main contribution to the issue.

Folks are spouting cliches to categorize a diverse set of motives and personalities. Doesn't really help.
 
Here is a sort of ironic twist. Y'all remember the school shooting in Pearl Mississippi where the principal went to his vehicle to retrieve a gun and confronted, then chased down the fleeing shooter, catching him when his car got stuck in the grass? This incident is often used as an example of how effective arming teachers/staff could be, but that principal, Joel Myrick, is against the notion of arming teachers/staff. He is all for armed guards/SROs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/school-shootings-teachers.html
 
It's time we start pulling our children out of school en masse and teaching them ourselves at home. All they're getting at school is liberal indoctrination, poor education, drugs, and who knows what else. They can't be truly protected there whether there's armed teachers or not. It's just a matter of time before a shooter hits them on the playground or on the bus.
 
Let’s avoid home schooling for social and political reasons as a topic here. Not relevant.

Not relevant is a very tough sell, imo.
How many home schoolers have you heard of being shot in class?
I’d be extremely surprised if private schools don’t have dramatically lower percentages concerning school shootings, although I suppose it’s possible.

Obviously the real problem isn’t going to be solved by arming teachers, or anyone else for that matter. The real problem is between the ears of the shooters, keeping my child away from that kid is a very relevant solution, and much more effective than arming teachers.

To be honest arming teachers has positives and negatives and at this point I’m not sure which way the scale falls, time will tell as it becomes more common. But as for now, I honestly don’t care. I have a 16 year old in a public school, and I have no idea if anyone employed at that school has a gun not, if they do it is concealed.
 
Social reasons for home schooling are not relevant. If you want to home school for safety, we get that.
 
It was armed citizens that slowed Whitman's shooting spree in '66.
Correct. I was there and heard/saw a lot of return fire from the ground that kept him pinned down after halfway through his evil work. Undoubtedly saved many lives. In those days, plenty of students had deer rifles closely available, even in the dorms.

Not to mention the bookstore manager who went up in the Tower with his own handgun (retrieved from his car) to assist the two police officers who ultimately took down Whitman. The manager fired at Whitman from the opposite direction to distract him while the officers riddled the sniper with buckshot & .38 Special.

No post-shooting counseling available for me and my fellow witnesses, we went to Schloz’s Beer Garden for a few pitchers that evening.
 
Last edited:
...keeping my child away from that kid is a very relevant solution....

If you want to home school for safety, we get that.

Anyone who follows this concept needs to also keep their kids away from malls, movie theaters, churches, universities, concerts, places of employment...or any other place where people congregate in large numbers. Seems like a very limiting way to live one's life.
 
Anyone who follows this concept needs to also keep their kids away from malls, movie theaters, churches, universities, concerts, places of employment...or any other place where people congregate in large numbers. Seems like a very limiting way to live one's life.

No offense but all decent parents follow the “concept” of keeping our kids from risk to some extent.
Think about it all parents worth a crap limit their children’s risk to some extent, where that line gets drawn is up to the them.

Anyway, I’ll shut up to avoid more thread drift.
 
While rare, there were at least 50 shooters stopped before implementing their plans. Read that somewhere.

In general, location bans (schools, houses of worship, malls, etc.) were put in because of the surface validity that concealed carriers for some reason are more prone to go nuts in those areas. Also, some had some ideological or theological mantra of a sanctuary. Someone will post that they don't carry in church because they trust in the Lord. Last, anti gun folks deliberately wanted to make carry as difficult as possible by banning common places, so you won't. You would have to leave the gun in the car and that's bad.

Personally, I believe in carry bans only for technical issues - such as the gun in the MRI facility. I don't believe in businesses being able to ban as I don't buy that if you are open to the public, the business is your inviolate castle. Same with government facilities unless there is a real security issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top