I know what I said-it’s there for all to see, along with your mistranslation and whatever meaning you threw into it. What I am trying to get at is that there are no “whackjobs” per se that these teachers could be looking out for if there are no firearms restrictions on campus. If the right to carry is still allowed by the general populace on campus, then every single carrying parent and guardian is a potential “whackjob” and the only thing you could possibly mean by “doing something whacky” is “pulling a weapon and possibly using it.”
Your concern could be easily addressed by a rule that doesn’t allow visitors to carry, and only allows authorized staff. But even without that, rules against carry on campus do not provide any barrier or offer protection against the whackjob.
- I would hope such a rule would be in place. In schools that have teachers and staff carry, are such rules in place?
- I think that if such rules are in place, then there are better security measures that can be put in place than having random untrained personnel carry weapons.
[ol]
[li]Who knows. Do you?[/li][li]Like what? You are assuming that those who carry would be random and untrained. The rules could easily dictate the level of training required to be allowed to carry on campus, and only those willing to undertake such training would be granted permission. It’s not about the best possible security measures, it’s about available security measures.[/li][/ol]
Why not pay for security? Most schools have it now a days. Better then making teachers pay for training + a gun. My old high school had a full time police officer on duty.
I do apologize, but despite my making it clear that my comments are my opinions, you are so convinced that you word is Gospel, and so eager to destroy the opinions of others, it is difficult for me to take you seriously.
Again, I apologize, I am sure that it is my fault that we continue to beat a dead horse.
It has always been clear you’ve been expressing your opinions as I have as well. Feel free to discontinue but as long as you express ideas that are disagreeable expect them to be commented on.
Ok, that makes slightly more sense than how I read the question originally.
Threat assessment should be a part of any person’s training, in regards to whether they are training to defend the others at the school.
If anything the gun control folks should be arguing for more types of training for those that DO want to carry (School or not)
We do. And we’re invariably told that it’s an unconscionable infringement on liberty.
If anything? It’s a freakin’ constant…but it’s looked at as part of that silly “slippery slope to Bansville” by the NRA and other gun rights groups.
No matter where you end up on the deterrent effect of having an armed populace, more people with guns = more gun accidents. Normally this is a small number, especially for children. That number goes up if some significant percentage of teachers decide to carry in school. Even if it totally eliminated school massacres, I don’t know if it would be worth the additional accidental shooting deaths.
This is not an indication of how many accidental deaths there would be so much as it is an indication of how few school massacre deaths there are.
Ah but if that’s ALL you were doing, I imagine some measure of training would be agreeable.
In this particular case, maybe an increased measure of training would be required to carry on campus. (But I’m thinking it would apply across the board, not just to faculty)
I’m not particularly in favor of arming teachers as a policy unless the teachers receive training and legal protection on a par with police officers. If teachers are armed as policy, there is an expectation that they will act as first responders. That being the case, they should receive the protections that the system offers first responders.
I don’t know how it works in other places but you have to get buzzed into school around here, I think it has been this way since Colombine. So there is a basic level of security that an armed assailant has to overcome. Its not impossible but it a lot easier to get into a movie theater or a mall.
The malls in Virginia have armed security guards and I don’t know that having a bunch of extra armed folks would improve the security situation. So I can understand the mall banning guns, they are providing the security.
The Chuck e Cheese around here does not have armed security or even a locked door and recently put up a sign restricting guns. This is a bit more problematic. I don’t know what the answer is.
Its almost always run…hide…fight in that order.
What else can they do?
Teachers can lay down a covering fire while the students flee.
Late to the conversation here, but I would presume the way to go would be armed security guards, plus letting any staff who want to carry do so (provided they meet some minimum proficiency standard set by the school). Requiring teachers to carry is a non-starter.
That is the policy tradeoff. Some states have determined the tradeoff is worthwhile, others have not.
Getting buzzed into school is not the norm at any school I’ve ever seen in my area and I have school aged children. Getting onto campus is ridiculously easy.
This is pretty much why I don’t carry anymore.
I have taken several defensive shooting classes and based on the stuff the instructors were saying, I came to the conclusion that I am not likely to ever need a gun or be in a position to gainfully employ a gun. The folks that really need to carry either live in far shitter neighborhoods or carry a gun for their job (mostly security guards and small businessmen). I am better off carrying a first aid kit than a gun. But there are times when carrying a gun might make sense for me.
I can’t think of many instances where I put myself into carry situations outside of hunting and camping. These are basically the only times I carry anymore.
I think we all agree that we can impose some higher standard for being the only people allowed to carry a gun inside a school.
You got it. You can’t shoot someone for carrying a weapon. You can only shoot someone for threatening your life or others’ lives with it. This is basic.
I can’t believe all the posts I’m seeing that essentially say “if everyone can carry a gun, how will we know who to shoot??” The same way you know who to punch when everyone around you has fists. In general, no one. Occasionally, one may threaten you, and you neutralize the threat. Preferably without violence, but with lethal force if the situation calls for it.