Most ridiculous proposal yet: arm all the teachers.

Noway wrote:

You realize there are over 5 million teachers in the u.s. That's is a heck of a lot of guns (and training)-just doesn't seem feasible or safe.

Every teacher doesn't need to be armed. My thought would be that every school should have a) a police officer on duty, b) an armed security guard, and or c) teacher(s) or administrators who voluntarily go through rigorous training who have access to secure firearms either in their classroom or the administrative office.

Gun free zones just create shooting galleries for psychos. The only way to have any chance to stop a school shooting is having someone armed on campus to respond in seconds. The police always arrive after the pyscho has already slaughtered as many people as he can and offed himself.

Not a teacher wrote:

I am so happy for your fellow soldiers you are no longer in the military. You are an idiot and apparently unstable and sounds like a coward. Every day laymen (and women) prove brave and collected and effective in emergency situations. Apparently far more effective than you were with your training. I have trouble believing you were ever in the military or that you didn't find a way to get yourself discharged when you realized you were in over your head.

Your post is both amusing and naive. Obviously you have limited knowledge of what you are speaking of, but I won't insult you, as you did me. Nothing in my post is a reflection of my own military achievements, it is simply a report of my observations in both the military and civilian worlds. I am perfectly stable. I just don't think the average teacher or working civilian could act coherently and precisely under those circumstances. Again, why do you think military and law enforcement train endlessly under duress and live fire. In our Letsrun world, we could liken it to the hobby jogger who claims and brags amongst his coworkers that he could qualify for the Olympic trials because he won his age division in a local race. Tell you what, just go out and undergo the training on a live fire range a few times, and then request a test of your skills in Close Quarter Battle. It's one thing to gather some kids in a closet, or run out the back door, but it's quite another to draw a weapon and fire it accurately as someone is firing at you. Hope you feel better for railing on me for expressing a rational, valid opinion.

Start with a declaration: "I for one agree!"

followed by a trite suppostion: "So long as we subscribe to antiquated gun laws no one is safe."

conclude with recapitulation: "If the law continues in its failure to unarm these wild gun-toting barbarians then citizens have the right to arm themselves wherever and whenever they feel so inclined."

AR-15 with 100 rounds should be allowed by citizens visiting police stations, prisons, nuclear plants, oil refineries, server farms, banks, credit unions, temples, churches, Top Secret gov't installations, Army bases, Navy ships, Coast Guard Cutters, US Navy gay bars, US Embassies, Supreme Court, State Capitol buildings, US Consulates, Reagan National Library, Disney World, NYPD headquarters, etc. It's our 2nd Ammendment right to carry firearms.

Hug This wrote:

I am a teacher and I support arming teachers. Lives would have been saved in CT if properly trained teachers took the gunman down.

You have it all wrong...if only the kids had guns, all of this would have been avoided.[quote]Hug This wrote:

Hug This wrote:

I am a teacher and I support arming teachers. Lives would have been saved in CT if properly trained teachers took the gunman down.

This is such a salient point, and frankly is the only practical suggestion out there.

As a middle school teacher, there are days I wouldn't mind being armed with a taser. LOL.

I don't get your post at all. There are reports that at least 1 teacher shielded her kids from the bullets. She wasn't an Army Ranger she was a kindergarten teacher. Was she nervous & scared? Sure. Did it prevent her from acting heroically? Apparently not.

Again, what training did the shooter have? He wasn't military & wouldn't have lasted an hour in boot camp. It's not like we're asking teachers to take on a Green Beret here, and it's cruel & illogical to judge all teachers as incapable of defending themselves with a weapon.

Taser guns are a start, with handguns an option for teachers who volunteer for that and are cleared & trained for it.

You also totally miss the point about arming teachers as a deterrent. Why did this punk choose an elementary skool full of defenseless people instead of say....a police station or even a retail store? Maybe because as a classic bully, he was choosing the easiest target. Make it a lot more of a challenge to shoot kids at skool. Quit being stupid by decclaring your campus or skool or theater a 'gun free' zone. All that does is encourage the psycho bully to choose you as a target.

Not a teacher wrote:

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/newtown_officials_principal_shot_lunging_at_adam_lanza/

I'm not saying all teachers should be armed but it is a damn shame this woman wasn't.

I will repost this for those too careless to have read it before. This thread is a classic example of people ignoring the facts so they can be "right."

In Sandy Hook, as with all school shootings, only one classroom or lunchroom is taken by surprise. As soon as the first shots are fired, just about everyone else has advance warning. I am not even a right wing gun nut but if you don't think there should be armed employees at a school you better think they shouldn't be in courts or airports either. To people like ridiculousnes, please flat out state that having armed employees at a school has NEVER helped in a school shooting. Either state that or admit that if it helps (has helped) it's not a terrible idea.

Joel Myrick, Pearl Mississippi. I have a good deal of knowledge of the military because my job has brought me close to many members of the armed forces as well as police. I have never met one as cowardly as you. I know people in the military freeze up and like I said I feel terribly for the people they serve with. They are anomalies and they risk the lives of those that count on them.I also know what every day citizens are capable of, especially those that work with kids in schools. As the above example illustrates, they are apparently braver and more calm in crisis situations than you can even conceive of being. The only thing you are right about is that there is a comparison between a cop, a soldier or a teacher having to do a gut check when the crisis occurs. The cops and soldiers I know never once chickened out, nor have a lot of school administrators or teachers in the past... even without weapons. I think we tend to see the world through our own filter. Those that see unstable cowards everywhere have only one reason to see things that way, they are that way themselves.

We are speaking at each other, but not conversing. Heroic acts can be accomplished under these circumstances, and have been, as you mentioned. But most, if not all of these acts involve fleeing, hiding, shielding i.e., the flight part of "fight or flight." That is my point. This is what differentiates the two widely disparate groups of trained people we are talking about: teachers vs. trained military or law enforcement personnel. Each has a very different instinctual and/or trained "fight or flight" response, simply based on their chosen profession and daily life/culture/job.

I agree that a shooter knowing there are armed persons around may be a deterrent, but that did not appear to phase the Va Tech guy on a college campus with known campus and/or local police we all have seen on campuses. But maybe he knew where he could get away with it for a given period of time before police responded.

I agree with a fully trained police officer assigned to a school, not just a rent-a-cop, but someone who engages in regularly certified training under these tactical circumstances.

The original point was not to arm teachers as a deterrent though, it was to arm teachers to put a bead on a killer as he is shooting up their room. That to me is far from realistic, as I have argued.

Finally, this isn't lunch room duty training, or brushing up on CPR certification for a potential recess accident. And it doesn't matter whether or not the wacko shooter is trained, because he is actively shooting a weapon at you and your kids in a limited space classroom. He has the advantage of surprise, offensive action, and he is committed mentally and psychologically in the moment. The teacher was just correcting a quiz, or erasing the board, and now must act in a 180 degree shift of everyday reality in an instant, accurately with a weapon he or she has trained on sporadically in is or her spare time. It's just not realistic for elected officials to even propose this. Deterrent maybe - but better to use a trained police officer at the front desk; realistic counter-offensive or defensive measure - not realistic proposal.

It's much more likely this has the potential to make things worse. What happens when law enforcement shows up and everybody if firing at each other? How do they determine who is the gunman and which are just armed teachers firing back? How do we prevent the armed teachers from accidently shooting other bystanders, or mistakenly shooting other armed teachers or law enforcement?

I don't have the exact statistic, but you are several times more likely to accidently shoot yourself or a family member than you are a home invader. The same thing would be amplified in the confusion of a mass shooting. Armed teachers would be much more likely to accidently shoot a bystander or be mistakenly shot themselves.

Increasing the number of bullets flying once the situation has begun is not a logical solution. better to focus on preventing the situation from happening in the first place.

I've never technically been in combat, but I went through plenty of combaolt training. You overestimate the difficulty of shooting center mass & wounding/killing a 20 year old kid - himself an untrained novice.

Maybe one or 2 teachers would miss the guy. So? how would they or their kids be worse off for that? They were gonna die anyway.

With a half dozen armed teachers/staff at a skool, the odds are greatly against some punk being able to kill 27 people. If he "only" kills 25 before some teacher shoots him, how is that not worth it?

You assume this punk would somehow be able to continue executing people while being shot at. So the untrained punk would be able to execute his mission, but the semi-trained teacher would fail?

You are arguing theory and ignoring real life. A woman tries to tackle the shooter in Connecticut and you question how she would have handled having a gun to subdue him with? Yu are simply ignoring facts so you can be "right,' as I said before. Myrick handled his weapon just fine as I mentioned above which you also ignored. You think this is a terrible idea but trained police is a great idea. Please tell me how that worked out at Va Tech, Columbine and Red Lake. I am not against police presence in high school but don't try to pretend like that is such a great idea compared to arming teachers when some of the worst shootings we can think of occurred with the police presence not doing a damn thing. You don't know teachers or school administrators. You also have no idea what the word instinct means. You have not one shred of eveidence that when caught in a "fight or flight" situation, armed individuals would flee. You would be stunned at what some (not all, some, but some is all it takes, one is all it takes) teachers do every day in inner city schools. These teachers do not get extra training, they are the same weak, gray haired women you picture. (As well as young women and athletic men. "Not a teacher" means I'm not a teacher anymore. Please don't try to educate me on the responses of teachers or administrators in these situations.

To "Not a Teacher."

Yes, have a trained police officer at the school.

As far as the Joel Myrick, Mississippi part, I don't know what you are talking about. Why am I a coward? I have served in combat zones, have a chest full of awards and medals, paratrooper, so just, simply where does "coward" come from, you have no idea what I have done (and it doesn't matter, because I am commenting on a proposed solution made by public officials to this horrific tragedy)?

You may not personally know anyone who has paused, wavered, blinked, but they exist over the course of all armed combat in every conflict that has ever occurred. It's how people die. Same for police. They can miss under pressure. That's why they train incessantly. Why, again, are you guys attacking me when I make a reasonable statement on the different response between a trained tactical military or police officer and a teacher? Highly reactionary bunch here. Stick to the policy point please.

I re-read the thread, and maybe you all are honing in on my statment: "I don't know how if I could react in a clear, concise manner after having been out of the military for years, now engaged in a typical everyday career and life."

It's a fact, based on my experience, that my skills and reaction time, etc. would be highly deficient, despite prior training. It's just an honest skill-based evaluation. Nothing to do with fear or cowardice, as you all seem to be inferring. Heck, I know I would place myself in between the kids and shooter, but that's not the point. It's a skill, under pressure, to shoot tactically. That's all I am saying. Please move away from all the bravery/cowardice. Of course people can be brave, but can they hit a target with bullets flying.

Not a teacher wrote:

To people like ridiculousnes, please flat out state that having armed employees at a school has NEVER helped in a school shooting. Either state that or admit that if it helps (has helped) it's not a terrible idea.

If i remember correct didn't Columbine High School have at least two armed resource officers.

When they were fired upon instead of reacting to the situation they retreated and fled the building waiting on the police to arrive. This allowed the shooters free range of the school killing whoever they wanted. If the resource officer had continued to engaged then there would have been a lot less deaths.

Just one example of armed personal not helping in a shooting

Sometimes you have to trick people into making your argument for you. Thank you... it was taking a while.

Police, soldiers and teachers will freeze based not on their training but as you mentioned before but without an understanding of the word, their instinct. No amount of training changes instinct.

People who will freeze, freeze, regardless of training. You just stated that. People who will come through, will come through, like Joel Myrick.

The reason you don't know who he is, is that you have no clue what you are talking about and are just spouting opinions without having any knowledge of the facts on the issue.

Do some research as to who have stopped more school shootings while students' lives were in danger, school employees or armed police on site. Then try to say your stance has any merit whatsoever. i'm helping you out with the name of the vice principal who stopped the Pearl shooter before he made it to the middle school to notch up a bunch more victims. If you had really cared about the issue, instead of just being right, you would have looked the name up instead of just saying "I don't know who that is." Of course you don't. Just like you don't know anything about this issue.

We can't have an intelligent discussion on gun control unless we just simply ignore the idiots who think giving everyone a gun will stop gun violence.