I haven’t heard any conservatives support spending anything on arming teachers. They are expected to bring their own guns and train themselves at their own expense.
That would likely be a serious issue to consider. For a lot of kids, that might be the easiest way for them to get a gun. If they can’t purchase one or don’t have them in their home, the most obvious way would be to get it from the teacher–especially if it’s a teacher they have a grudge against anyway. In most cases, the student could approach the teacher without raising any alarms and have the element of surprise. The shooter won’t always be an outsider. It can be one of the students in the class.
For the places which allow teachers to carry, their guns should have some sort of biometric safety so that only the teacher can fire it. It would also prevent kids inadvertently coming across it and using it for mischief.
Someone on the first or second page mentioned their school board was at least discussing paying for the training. But the cost wasn’t posted. Maybe it was later; I’ve lost track of the thread. But whatever it is, multiply by ~3 million teachers and by whatever percent you think will participate. That’s out of over $600 billion spent on public primary and secondary school education each year. So not a huge amount. But if you’re going to spend money on education, I’d rather spend it on education than on protecting against nearly non-existent threats.
I had dinner last night with the in-laws, most of whom voted for Trump. There were 10 of us at the table. This very topic came up in conversation, and most of the group was at least somewhat in favor of the idea. I then posed this question: Of all your elementary and secondary teachers, how many would you trust to carry a concealed weapon and then be able to use it to stop or deter an active shooter in the school?
I came up with one, my high school football coach. Some of the group couldn’t think of any, some thought of one teacher, and brother-in-law had two, both of which were also high school coaches. None of the teachers in the responses were elementary teachers.
At the very least, I believe they are perhaps rethinking their position on arming teachers.
Most likely, they are revising their Thanksgiving invitation list.
Lets hope they are also rethinking who in the living fuk they voted for.
Well, yes, that’s probably also true.
At the next family get-together, show up carrying, openly. See if anybody’s views change.
I didn’t read the rest of this very long thread (I’ve spent my time watching the Olympics 
) and this may have already been covered, but I believe you’re poisoning the well when you suggest/say that ALL teachers should be armed. Only teachers who wish to be armed should be allowed to be armed. Schools are gun-free zones. Mass murdering monsters know this, and deliberately choose soft targets.
If you wish to be an armed teacher, or staff member, you should buy your own weapon, pay for your own training, pay for own your ammo, etc…
I’ll suggest that a teacher/staff member defend themselves, and those around them. I don’t suggest that they wander the halls looking for the mass murdering monster. But that would be their choice.
This idea has come up on these boards quite a few times. It’s the least likely and least-concerning scenario I have heard. Not only is a wrestling match with an armed teacher a terrible way to start one’s school shooting spree, but even if successful, one comes away with, in all likelihood a small, single-stack-magazine firearm appropriate for concealed-carry and perhaps no reloads. It’s not exactly a school shooter’s weapon of choice. The student-turned-would-be-spree-killer won’t have had a chance to practice with the firearm, will be unfamiliar with the controls, and assuming he figures out how to deactivate the safety and shoot people without anyone else intervening, will be out of ammo in a few seconds.
I don’t think this technology is available today. You’ve probably seen it in a James Bond film.
FYI, Thanksgiving happens to coincide with deer season in many states. Open carry would be SOP.
Can you name me a school shooter that picked a school other than the one she/he was associated with because their own school had too much security?
Money could be spent on identifying, and dealing with, any psychopath who’s going to the school.
Teachers, and staff members, should pay for their own weapons, ammo, and training. They should get something they can actually use, and learn to use it. Gun control means learning to hit your target.
I don’t think so, but I also don’t think I can name a school that’s been targeted by a school shooter that qualifies as having “too much security”. Seems like an untested theory at this point.
As far as I know, the shooters picked the schools they shot up because that was the school where they were trying to “impress” the people they knew. If there are other examples that say differently, or stats that show that especially unsecured schools are the primary targets, or even evidence that a likely shooter changed her/his mind about showing people what’s what primarily because of high security, I’d like to see it.
At the dinner table?
The vast majority of school shooters plan to die in a gunfight, or shoot themselves, based on everything I’ve read about their psychology. The idea that getting rid of gun-free zones would deter someone with a death wish is contrary to logic.
Where do you clean your guns, ducks, and fish?
Not where you do, fortunately.
Yes - these guys don’t seem that likely to be deterred by force.
In FL, the perp did try to get away, but he knew there was at least one armed guard at the school.
The Dickey Amendment still blocks the CDC from studying gun injury.
Since that amendment of 20 years ago or so, we’ve spent more than $200,000 per year studying vehicle injury, leading to all sorts of improvements that have saved lives and reduced injury.
But, for guns, we have LAW that demands we stay ignorant!
This is not acceptable.