Time to go on offense to take care of this mass shooting problem

[George P]

I doubt the school district will take a big hit; but had that been a teacher's gun that a student grabbed and started shooting - THAT would be expensive.

 

[RPZ]

I doubt the school district will take a big hit; but had that been a teacher's gun that a student grabbed and started shooting - THAT would be expensive.

Well this can be thrown in the same basket against the same arguements against anyone open or concealed carry anywhere. It is not a significant risk, and this can be seen most clearly in States where open and concealed carry is practiced and has been for some time.

If an unknown - to students - number and identity of teachers are carrying concealed, and some where permitted open carrying, this is not going to be a significant risk.

 

[George P]

Depends on the school.......................

 

[Polar Express]

I respectfully disagree with the statement that 'arming teachers is not a good idea....'. I actually believe that arming the teachers who are 1) willing & 2) capable to complete and PASS a high-level series of courses designed for school type building and grounds scenarios will be the single most effective way to ADD safety and SAVE LIVES that we can do.

Nut jobs will always be out there. The price of FREEDOM is eternal vigilance; meaning we have to be aware of what's going on around us, physically, environmentally, emotionally, and politically.

In virtually every one of these mass killings, the bad guy either stops, or takes their own life as soon as they meet resistance. So.... offer resistance ASAP, and as so many have turned into a quick sound byte: when seconds count, even the best cops are minutes away. Which is the very reason why so many folks choose to take primary responsibility for their own safety, and the safety of their families, by carrying their own firearm with them. How many times must it be proven that the fastest, most effective way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun?

Now, let's address for a moment the 'School Resource Officer position'. In my observations, what Rule3 posted above is exactly true. They are predominantly LEOs who are looking for a cake assignment, and are nearing retirement. Most LEOs never get significant training how to operate under severe stress. So, you're relying on a group of good folks, who 1) never got the training to begin with, and 2) are now almost retired, so they are even further removed from maintaining whatever skillset they did have.

I'm sorry, but arguments against allowing teachers to be armed have too many holes in them. And we're not even talking about a teacher or school employee being denied the opportunity to protect THEMSELVES, due to the common 'gun-free-zone' that most schools declare. That's a lot of citizens being denied the God-given right to protect themselves. Especially when you enact policies that create 'Gun Free Zones' (AKA target practice zones for bad guys)

PE

 

[abajaj11]

It isn't just the school administrators in Fairfax County. The public here (especially the soccer moms, who dominate the PTA's) is antigun, and increasingly so. If word got out that teachers were armed, about half of the parents would pull their kids out of school.

You don't understand. We're living in two different worlds. What plays well in Texas does not play well in northern Virginia. We have decent gun laws only because of the rest of the state. But that might not last much longer. The new governor has already vowed draconian gun measures. In my old age, I may be forced to move back to Texas. But for how long is even Texas safe?

The time has come to stop allowing people who understand nothing about protection to create policies that
seriously put our kids in harm's way. All these PTA members and school admins can express their anti-gun biases all they want, but they should NOT be allowed to remove protection for our kids.

 

[abajaj11]

Maybe you should ask the school district's insurance carrier that question; and how many teachers would want to risk losing everything they have in a lawsuit? This is NOT going to be a typical gov't one-size-fits-all-that fits no one scenario. Who pays? Inner city folks on welfare have no money. Many rural folks are in the same boat. Whether hardening the schools, armed personnel, more cameras, more police, or whatever, it is going to COST and big time - just the way it is; and none of these ideas (or the millions it would cost) go to solving the causation of these events. This is like constantly being behind the 8 ball and playing catch-up. One never wins in that scenario.

Taking "gun-free" zone signs OFF a school and making it like ANY other zone in the state should have ZERO effect on insurance costs.

 

[abajaj11]

I doubt the school district will take a big hit; but had that been a teacher's gun that a student grabbed and started shooting - THAT would be expensive.

All of this has been discussed when Carry was first introduced in every state whenever it was introduced. . People created scenarios in their head like the one quoted here. Many states have even re-instituted open carry and in all these cases scenarios like the one in the post I am quoting, were discussed. None of these dire predictions have come to pass. There are no wild west shootouts, no guns being grabbed and used against owners, none of that.

The time has come to ask: Is there anything special about schools that we should make them "gun-free" for law abiding people, and hence easier for nut jobs to commit killings in?

 

[George P]

The time has come to stop allowing people who understand nothing about protection to create policies that
seriously put our kids in harm's way. All these PTA members and school admins can express their anti-gun biases all they want, but they should NOT be allowed to remove protection for our kids.

And you are free to enroll your child elsewhere, or homeschool or use on-line education

 

[hso]

This just won't stay within the requirements of Activism and keeps swinging into debates suitable for Activism Discussion