Most ridiculous proposal yet: arm all the teachers.

CHRIS MATTHEWS wrote:

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?

This theory that armed civilians would stop mass shootings has been study and completely discredited. When an armed civilian takes a shot at a mass shooter, the shooter immediately makes that person a priority target. Also, when law enforcement arrives, they do not know who is the shooter and who is the armed civilian. Law enforcement end up spending too much time disarming and detaining armed civilians while the shooter continues the rampage.

The performance of armed civilians has been studied in mass shooting incidents. Non-law enforcement/military civilians do a terrible job, even those who hunt or regularly target practice. It takes hours and hours of tactical training and practice to be able to take out a shooter in a highly stressful situation like a mass shooting, regardless of gender or age. Combined with the fact that the CT shooter and the Aurora shooter both wore body armor, it would take an incredibly accurate shot or high caliber armor piercing bullets to be able to take down someone wearing a bullet proof vest. Plus, the armed civilian will typically fire as many rounds as possible as fast as possible because they are both trying to stop the shooter and keep the shooter from getting them. This frequently results in friendly fire incidents where more innocent people are wounded or killed.

Lastly, the skill level of the mass shooter is not to be dismissed. The CT shooter had plenty of target practice and was familiar with his weapon of choice. He also had hours of training on violent video games, which has been shown in mass shooting incidents to increase the skill level of the mass shooter. So, an armed civilian in a mass shooting incident would almost always be at a huge skill disadvantage, be out gunned in terms of caliber and accuracy and just end up getting killed as soon as they got off a round or two.

I already made this point. My point was that armed school employees (regular ones) have been more successful in stopping shootings than the the "trained" police on school premises. I listed Columbine in an earlier post as well as Pearl, where a school Vice Principal stopped the shooter before he went to kill more. If having armed regular school employees is a terrible idea, apparently police would be a REALLY stupid idea. (For the record, I don't think either is a bad idea if handled diligently.) Just like I don't mind the guards at banks, airports or courthouses. I also don't mind knowing that many of the people in my community have concealed weapons permits and I may be sitting next to a person in a movie theater with a pistol. I also know they most likely don't have a semi-automatic rifle.

hmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

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

Again, I won't personally evaluate you as a person, as you have done me, not my style, but I will say I just thought you were simply identifying yourself as Joel Myrick and responding to me. I readily admit to not being an expert on tragedies like this, but I'll look the guy up. And of course instinct varies, that's part of my point in why the original statements made publicly were off base with regard to solving the problem with armed teachers in general. By the way, I am a (lapsed) licensed teacher, but do not work in the teaching field.

To Not a Teacher, CHRIS MATTHEWS, and those in agreement with:

How many accidental deaths do you think would be incurred by arming teachers? More or less than would be saved in school shooting situations?

Here's a hint - people who own guns are less likely to be shot and less likely to be killed than those who don't.

Looking at most of my teachers growing up, the thought of them being armed terrifies me. Terrible idea.

Keep in mind that when you pretend to take the higher ground with "not my style" comments, you started a thread that said " most ridiculous proposal yet." You then insulted anyone without your level as training as being useless in a crisis situation. I'd say that's right up your alley until you find yourself on the other side of it. Yes, look the name up. Educate yourself as to how many laymen have confronted gunmen in the past. I am not saying every teacher should be handed a firearm when they get to school tomorrow but after losing people I care about in this type of situation I will tell you the most "ridiculous" proposal is to do absolutely nothing. There are schools where both students and teachers are allowed to carry if they have a concealed permit. How many shootings have there been in those schools? Oh that's right... ZERO!

ridiculousness wrote:

Again, I won't personally evaluate you as a person, as you have done me, not my style, but I will say I just thought you were simply identifying yourself as Joel Myrick and responding to me. I readily admit to not being an expert on tragedies like this, but I'll look the guy up. And of course instinct varies, that's part of my point in why the original statements made publicly were off base with regard to solving the problem with armed teachers in general. By the way, I am a (lapsed) licensed teacher, but do not work in the teaching field.

As an added point, there are individuals in all walks of life who are cognitively and physically designed for this specific situation, and potentially, if you believe in fate, put on earth for this moment of destiny. Joel Myrick apparently was one such person. They are true heroes, not just labelled as such for fleeing, but actually taking decisive, offensive action to quell an attack. They are truly different. But even, as you have alluded to, your average mall, bank, or school safety officer is not designed to act effectively under these circumstances. That is one of the reasons I said high percentage of teachers would most likely suffer the same unsuccessful result, and why, if a police officer is assigned, based on your references, they should now undergo specific, consistent training, and as we appear to agree, evaluations on their proficiency, effectiveness, and pre-disposition to hold such a position.

It's sad that there is even a debate on this. Fear begets irrationality, I suppose.

I commented the public officials for making the proposal, under which teachers just happened to be the subject. You could change it to any civilian position.

george oscar bluth wrote:

To Not a Teacher, CHRIS MATTHEWS, and those in agreement with:

How many accidental deaths do you think would be incurred by arming teachers? More or less than would be saved in school shooting situations?

Here's a hint - people who own guns are MORE likely to be shot and MORE likely to be killed than those who don't.

Fixed

I'm not sure you typed what you wanted to. Maybe you did.For the record, I am against arming ALL teachers. I don't however think using that as a starting point is "the most ridiculous proposal yet." I also don't think over 99% of teachers or school administrators would cower in the face of danger. Just like Victoria Soto did not, just like Dawn Hochsprung did not. I find it an incredible insult to their courage and their memory to make such blanket statements. I don't know the name of the school custodian who did not leave the building but ran through the halls warning of the gunmen but I will include him in there as well. I am surprised ridiculousness does not know this and it is why I initially doubted his authenticity, because it comes with combat training and emergency, life or death training, but certain people, instinctively, (not due to training) kind of zone out in these situations. They resort to true instinct and will not remember fear, panic, or even the details of extreme duress. They act on true instinct. These people come from all walks of life. Much special forces training goes into identifying these people, not training them. (Not all of it, much of it.) These people are gold and finding them in military units is a big plus.The opportunity for a teacher or school administrator to be armed if they have a CWP is a very viable option and has proven effective in the past. All teachers, no. But all should have the option qualifying themselves and thus protecting their children and coworkers.

george oscar bluth wrote:

To Not a Teacher, CHRIS MATTHEWS, and those in agreement with:

How many accidental deaths do you think would be incurred by arming teachers? More or less than would be saved in school shooting situations?

Here's a hint - people who own guns are less likely to be shot and less likely to be killed than those who don't.

You didn't answer the questions I asked, at all.

Memo to American from the civilized world: If it is really true that "an armed society is a polite society"-- if, in other words, the sheer number of weapons in a society actually increased the average level of safety from gun violence, all other things being equal-- then America would be the safest place on earth as regards gun violence. With a sane regime of gun control, the CT shooter would not have been able to show up at a school armed to the teeth in the first place, and this insane debate about whether or not to introduce even MORE weaponry to the equation would be moot. In even a highly disfunctional, violence-prone society like the UK, a sane regime of gun control helped to reduce gun related violence to nearly zero (as happened following the Dunblane massacre in 1996). With a sane regime of gun control, a single armed guard in any public place would be sufficient to prevent scenes like the one that unfolded last Friday.

Why is the op such a woman hater, and why isn't anyone calling him on it?

I agree with you on certain points, I think that has become clear from our exchange. And I will go so far as apologizing for the original hyperbolic nature of my tone, but it was a response to the, in my mind, reactionary, irrational proposal. Some people are designed for this, even if they have never been trained or in the situation. Most are not. So find the people who are predisposed via evaluations or testing, train them regularly, post them in schools, and whether it's just a long-term deterrent or, God forbid, a once again future needed solution, at least we have a reasonable proposal. But remember, 99.999% of their job will be void of the need of any action, so local politicians school district boards or superintendents, etc. will have to give in to this cost, and these personnel will need extensive regular training and evaluations to maintain their physical skills and mental edge for that one moment that may occur.

You didn't even take the time to correctly type what you meant in your first post. You typed the exact opposite, as I quoted. That is all the response you deserved.

george oscar bluth wrote:

You didn't answer the questions I asked, at all.

More deflection. Figures.

Fair... although we still disagree on one point due to our experiential differences. I have not held a gun in years... I mean years. In a crisis situation, I want access to a gun. If I were a teacher in Sandy Hook, I want that thing locked in a drawer when the intercom says there is a gunman in the building, when I hear the shots, when the custodian runs through. (If mine is the first classroom he comes to, that gun won't help but it won't hurt either.)I want that opportunity and I want it for those who, like myself, want it. As you have stated, we won't all rise to the occasion, just like your fellow soldiers didn't, which I am sorry for because you are the first combat veteran (I include police in combat) I have ever personally had an exchange with to whom that has happened. I don't like gun nuts overall but I do respect a lot of people's ability to use them diligently. I want those people armed when the need arises.

This may be the most reasonable idea to come out of this situation yet. Not every teacher needs to be armed, but there should be some members of the staff to receive training and help supplement the police force. If people are going to continue to attack unarmed people the rules need to change. Banning weapons will not deter violent crime. Violent criminals will continue to buy and possess weapons even if they are illegal.

This entire tragedy could have been stopped short if several members of that staff had been armed.