Arming Teachers: A college students perspective

[Epic Beard Man]

No. I think they are inadequate for the task. Using a handgun effectively require skill and practice. Why add that to a teacher's workload?

oh okay

 

[sandy whitelinger]

oh okay

It would make much more sense to have someone better trained in handgun use.

 

[Phantasman]

You're kidding right?

There are plenty ideas you can submit, and arming teachers shouldn't even be remotely close...

If a teacher would like to carry a concealed weapon, they should be able to have that ability. If other's don't or won't, so be it. No one is saying they have to, just be allowed to. Teachers are being killed as well as children. To deny them the ability to protect themselves as well as others with gun free zones, gives the advantage to those who violate those zones with the intent to do harm.

I am not kidding. Either way, gun free zones didn't work now, did they? They are more an advertisement to Morlocks that the Eloi are ripe for picking. There is no Eden.

 

[Phantasman]

By that logic, why have any laws at all if people are going to break them anyway?

Laws don't work without enforcement and accountability. Two things that we see in hind sight that allowed the Parkland incident to occur. One side is saying the NRA is to blame. I see the FBI not doing their job as being much more of a blame.

It's almost funny to watch how people think. After 9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing. gun sales escalated, and no guns were to blame. A couple of gun events and the loud voice of "get rid of guns" is deafening.

 

[Phantasman]

Sorry.
NO idea is better than a dumb one.

Stop putting lipstick on the pig.

Disagree. You are obviously not a successful businessman.

"There is no such thing as a dumb idea"......Google it.

Many successes came from ideas that others said were "dumb". Sometimes what's dumb is the person who views the idea.

 

[Revoltingest]

A teacher I talked to said they probably would forget the gun in the room and a kid would get a hold of it.

This is a good example of someone unsuited for carrying one.
The vetting process should weed out such irresponsible people.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The great Mike Tyson once said:

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

As a current graduate student this has to be the dumbest idea that has been proposed by any president in my lifetime!

Following statements made by Trump:

President Donald Trump continued to criticize the armed school resource officer in Parkland, Florida, who stayed outside of the school during the shooting, saying during a White House news conference conference that Scot Peterson "doesn't love the children, probably doesn't know the children."


"We need offensive capability and we are going to be doing something about it,"

Trump told reporters earlier on Friday that Peterson "certainly did a poor job" and was a "coward."
"He trained his whole life," Trump said on the South Lawn of the White House. "But when it came time to get in there and do something he didn't have the courage or something happened. But he certainly did a poor job. There's no question about that."

“A teacher would have shot the hell out of him before he knew what happened,” Trump said during an address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual conclave of the American right, held just outside Washington.

See:Trump says armed school officer in Parkland didn't 'love the children' - CNNPolitics

“He was tested under fire, and there wasn’t a good result,” Trump said of Peterson at the first event. “He was not a credit to law enforcement, that I can tell you.”

Appearing later alongside Turnbull, Trump argued the advantage of arming teachers — he’s suggested about 20 percent should carry concealed weapons — is that they “love their pupils.”

“See, a security guard doesn’t know the children, doesn’t love the children,” Trump said. “This man standing outside of the school the other day doesn’t love the children, probably doesn’t know the children.”

See:https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...76b4fe57ff7_story.html?utm_term=.5fc1a619f0a9


As a graduate student the job of a teacher is to teach, and to enrich the students with worldly knowledge allocated to the curriculum. Their job is not to teach as well as being armed JUST IN CASE THERE IS A SCHOOL SHOOTER. People forget that teachers are people to. People forget teachers like most of us who work have personal problems and sometimes these personal problems do follow us at work. Speaking on mental stress how do we know by arming a teacher they're not showing up to class under mental duress? Because graduate school is full of opinionated students especially on controversial subjects how do we know the teacher may not react in a violent manner? We don't know and I wouldn't like to find out. But what I'm mostly offended by what Trump said in the aforementioned quotes is that he is equating being armed with love. People also forget that teachers have families to and teachers are all not combat veterans who are prepared for the potentiality of mental stress of a school shooting. What shows me love as a student coming from a teacher is not their Glock 21F .45 on their hip, but the desire to teach me when I'm struggling.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with the armament of teachers, but the microcosmic issues of school protocols, security risks, and personnel training. Every school is not always going to have violence, hell! there maybe schools in affluent neighborhoods that do not even see a lick of violence that you see in urban communities. So what? We arm them even if they don't see any violence? I think this is a bad idea and according to some think tanks it is a worse idea:


"It's a crazy proposal," said Dr. David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard School of Public Health and an expert on the public health impact of gun violence. Chuckling, he added, "So what should we do about reducing airline hijacking? Give all the passengers guns as they walk on?"

'Colossally stupid idea': Trump's plan to arm teachers widely panned by experts

I really like what Jim Wright had to say on this:

"Sheriff Grady Judd: “We have got to wake up, wake up and understand that we have to have… specially trained people that have concealed firearms that can run to the threat and protect our children.”

"specially trained"

By ... who?

Who designs the training. On what criteria? To what standards? No, don't just say, "the local police department" or something similar. This training would have to specially designed because you're talking about non-professionals with guns in a building full of panicked children AND those "specially trained people" will be very likely facing a CHILD with a gun who is killing other children. We don't train soldiers for that. We don't train cops for that. So we're going to need special training, including not just the mechanics and theory of combat arms, but the psychology of killing a CHILD in an active shooter situation. If you don't understand why this is a problem, then you're very likely unqualified to be in this conversation in the first place. It takes years of training to condition a soldier to kill another human being on command, let alone a child. And when that killing occurs, it's usually in a warzone, alongside your squadmates, and while that engagement is very, very often chaotic, it can't be compared to the confusion and chaos of a building packed with screaming running children that you are supposed to be protecting. In a warzone, if your bullets hit a civilian, even a child, well, that's collateral damage. It happens. It can't NOT happen. That's war. But a school? Full of American kids? You starting to see why you'd need some VERY, VERY specific training?

Who pays for it? Combat arms is a perishable skill, so how often is refresher training and re-qualification mandated?

Who do these "specially trained people" answer to? Are they trained to work together? Or are they Lone Wolf McQuade?

How do you insure the school in this situation?

Because you going to HAVE to insure the school.

Are the specially trained people personally liable for their fire? If they hit an innocent kid, if they kill an innocent kid or cripple him or her for life? Who's responsible for that?

Moreover, is the "specially trained person" responsible for failure to stop an active shooter?

Well?

No. No. Don't roll your eyes. You live in America (most of you). We are a litigious society. Somebody has to be responsible. You were trained. You had a gun. You failed to stop the shooter, when the grieving parents sue you, will the school board pay your legal fees? Or will the the school, school board, state take responsibility?

SOMEBODY has to be legally responsible.

What weapons?

It makes a difference, you know. Larger, high velocity rounds can penetrate body armor, but also walls, doors, etc, meaning increased chance of collateral damage in a building full of children. We made the cockpit doors on commercial aircraft bullet proof, are we going to do that with classrooms? If not, well, we're back to that question of who's responsible when the school gets sued for not protecting the students from stray bullets fired by their own teachers.

So, do you mandate acceptable weapons? Ammunition? Fields of Fire? Zones of responsibility. Or is it the Wild West?

How do the cops know who the licensed and qualified "specially trained people" are?

This hole is bottomless.

You are essentially talking about turning teachers into soldiers and schools into warzones. You would do everything, EXCEPT address the actual problem. Easy availability of high powered weapons of war.

Now look, I did not say there shouldn't be armed guards in schools. I didn't say there should.

Likewise, I didn't say teachers shouldn't be armed. Or that they should.

Instead, I asked some VERY basic questions regarding the proposed idea of allowing or even mandating armed teachers and school personnel.

I used to do this for a living. I've had advanced training and extensive experience in this area. I was trained by both military and civilian schools. I taught combat arms. I'm a gun owner. I have a concealed carry permit. I'm hardly anti-gun. I didn't suggest anything, one way or the other. Instead, I'm asking BASIC questions about this idea of arming up teachers and putting amateurs with guns in schools. Questions that any competent gun operator should ask.

You want to put more guns, carried by amateurs, into a building packed full of children. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here."

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ok, what's a better idea?

Sensible gun control?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Disagree. You are obviously not a successful businessman.

"There is no such thing as a dumb idea"......Google it.

Many successes came from ideas that others said were "dumb". Sometimes what's dumb is the person who views the idea.

My wife had a toothache.
It bothered her greatly.
I had an idea to cut off her head.
She has no pain lately.

Ok, I guess you’re right.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If a teacher would like to carry a concealed weapon, they should be able to have that ability. If other's don't or won't, so be it. No one is saying they have to, just be allowed to. Teachers are being killed as well as children. To deny them the ability to protect themselves as well as others with gun free zones, gives the advantage to those who violate those zones with the intent to do harm.

I am not kidding. Either way, gun free zones didn't work now, did they? They are more an advertisement to Morlocks that the Eloi are ripe for picking. There is no Eden.

There is no evidence that gun free zones are chosen by criminals. Shootings have obvious location connections to the perpetrators (went to that school, worked at th place, etc). Not a single one was because it was a gun free zone. There's also no evidence that guns in the hands of civilians deters shooters more than guns in the hands of police. Shootings still happen in places which aren't gun-free.
Often places are called gun free zones when they're not to bolster the myth that making places gun accessible makes them safer. E.g. Trump called Umpua college gun free when it is not, and never has been.
And considering the vast majority of shootings occur in private residential areas and businesses, neither of which are gun free, it is a straight myth that gun free zones are less safe.

What gun free zones are, are places with high density people where a crossfire will make things worse, and should be left to trained professionals to handle. We should instead focus on not letting said Morlocks get guns in the first place, as the vast majority of them get them legally and with no trouble.

 

[Phantasman]

My wife had a toothache.
It bothered her greatly.
I had an idea to cut off her head.
She has no pain lately.

Ok, I guess you’re right.

If it took care of the toothache, it worked. After all, THAT was your goal.

Goading me with such extreme rhetoric doesn't appear to be one of intellectual debate.

Edison was dumb 100 times before he made a successful light bulb. (hint)

 

[Phantasman]

There is no evidence that gun free zones are chosen by criminals. Shootings have obvious location connections to the perpetrators (went to that school, worked at th place, etc). Not a single one was because it was a gun free zone. There's also no evidence that guns in the hands of civilians deters shooters more than guns in the hands of police. Shootings still happen in places which aren't gun-free.
Often places are called gun free zones when they're not to bolster the myth that making places gun accessible makes them safer. E.g. Trump called Umpua college gun free when it is not, and never has been.
And considering the vast majority of shootings occur in private residential areas and businesses, neither of which are gun free, it is a straight myth that gun free zones are less safe.

What gun free zones are, are places with high density people where a crossfire will make things worse, and should be left to trained professionals to handle. We should instead focus on not letting said Morlocks get guns in the first place, as the vast majority of them get them legally and with no trouble.

I don't understand your point about gun free areas. The shooting at the Chattanooga Recruitment Center was a gun free zone for even military personnel authorized to properly use weapons yet weren't allowed to have them. Would the terrorist had killed them if they had their weapons on hand? Guess we'll never know, since they were "disarmed". Same with Ft Hood (thank's to George H W Bush). Gun free zones are equally suspect, as you said. But they are also susceptible to a higher rate of fatalities before an opposing force (another gun?) can be brought into the zone. Kids cowering in a classroom with a locked door, still get shot.

It's better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it.

People sitting around calling for disarmament will never see it. Get productive on what is, not what should be.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

If a teacher would like to carry a concealed weapon, they should be able to have that ability. If other's don't or won't, so be it. No one is saying they have to, just be allowed to. Teachers are being killed as well as children. To deny them the ability to protect themselves as well as others with gun free zones, gives the advantage to those who violate those zones with the intent to do harm.

I am not kidding. Either way, gun free zones didn't work now, did they? They are more an advertisement to Morlocks that the Eloi are ripe for picking. There is no Eden.

Yes, you are kidding. Teachers have enough mental stress as it is with maintaining the order and construction of a classroom. Now multiply that with hundreds of students in a lecture hall with many of them taking exams and writing tests to grade and not to mention argumentative students! In the recent video I posted of a school teacher she alludes in the video that African-american students are more likely to be suspended more than their white counterparts. Now without making this a race issue what if a disgruntled teacher who in the midst of some children with behavioral issues has a meltdown with a concealed weapon? Surely you cannot expect teachers to carry weapons on them right? I'd like you to look at the following compilation and imagine how a discharge firearm from a teacher could possibly happen:

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I really like what Jim Wright had to say on this:

"Sheriff Grady Judd: “We have got to wake up, wake up and understand that we have to have… specially trained people that have concealed firearms that can run to the threat and protect our children.”

"specially trained"

By ... who?

Who designs the training. On what criteria? To what standards? No, don't just say, "the local police department" or something similar. This training would have to specially designed because you're talking about non-professionals with guns in a building full of panicked children AND those "specially trained people" will be very likely facing a CHILD with a gun who is killing other children. We don't train soldiers for that. We don't train cops for that. So we're going to need special training, including not just the mechanics and theory of combat arms, but the psychology of killing a CHILD in an active shooter situation. If you don't understand why this is a problem, then you're very likely unqualified to be in this conversation in the first place. It takes years of training to condition a soldier to kill another human being on command, let alone a child. And when that killing occurs, it's usually in a warzone, alongside your squadmates, and while that engagement is very, very often chaotic, it can't be compared to the confusion and chaos of a building packed with screaming running children that you are supposed to be protecting. In a warzone, if your bullets hit a civilian, even a child, well, that's collateral damage. It happens. It can't NOT happen. That's war. But a school? Full of American kids? You starting to see why you'd need some VERY, VERY specific training?

Who pays for it? Combat arms is a perishable skill, so how often is refresher training and re-qualification mandated?

Who do these "specially trained people" answer to? Are they trained to work together? Or are they Lone Wolf McQuade?

How do you insure the school in this situation?

Because you going to HAVE to insure the school.

Are the specially trained people personally liable for their fire? If they hit an innocent kid, if they kill an innocent kid or cripple him or her for life? Who's responsible for that?

Moreover, is the "specially trained person" responsible for failure to stop an active shooter?

Well?

No. No. Don't roll your eyes. You live in America (most of you). We are a litigious society. Somebody has to be responsible. You were trained. You had a gun. You failed to stop the shooter, when the grieving parents sue you, will the school board pay your legal fees? Or will the the school, school board, state take responsibility?

SOMEBODY has to be legally responsible.

What weapons?

It makes a difference, you know. Larger, high velocity rounds can penetrate body armor, but also walls, doors, etc, meaning increased chance of collateral damage in a building full of children. We made the cockpit doors on commercial aircraft bullet proof, are we going to do that with classrooms? If not, well, we're back to that question of who's responsible when the school gets sued for not protecting the students from stray bullets fired by their own teachers.

So, do you mandate acceptable weapons? Ammunition? Fields of Fire? Zones of responsibility. Or is it the Wild West?

How do the cops know who the licensed and qualified "specially trained people" are?

This hole is bottomless.

You are essentially talking about turning teachers into soldiers and schools into warzones. You would do everything, EXCEPT address the actual problem. Easy availability of high powered weapons of war.

Now look, I did not say there shouldn't be armed guards in schools. I didn't say there should.

Likewise, I didn't say teachers shouldn't be armed. Or that they should.

Instead, I asked some VERY basic questions regarding the proposed idea of allowing or even mandating armed teachers and school personnel.

I used to do this for a living. I've had advanced training and extensive experience in this area. I was trained by both military and civilian schools. I taught combat arms. I'm a gun owner. I have a concealed carry permit. I'm hardly anti-gun. I didn't suggest anything, one way or the other. Instead, I'm asking BASIC questions about this idea of arming up teachers and putting amateurs with guns in schools. Questions that any competent gun operator should ask.

You want to put more guns, carried by amateurs, into a building packed full of children. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here."

I also want to add:

I'm a college professor, not a commando.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

When the government decided that air travel needed to be safer they created a whole new department (TSA) and hired thousands of people to work at every airport to screen passengers. Maybe it's time for another new department ( School Safety Administration) and hire guards to work at every school to protect the students. There has not been a major problem on an airplane since TSA started. Maybe SSA can stop school shootings.

 

[Phantasman]

Yes, you are kidding. Teachers have enough mental stress as it is with maintaining the order and construction of a classroom. Now multiply that with hundreds of students in a lecture hall with many of them taking exams and writing tests to grade and not to mention argumentative students! In the recent video I posted of a school teacher she alludes in the video that African-american students are more likely to be suspended more than their white counterparts. Now without making this a race issue what if a disgruntled teacher who in the midst of some children with behavioral issues has a meltdown with a concealed weapon? Surely you cannot expect teachers to carry weapons on them right? I'd like you to look at the following compilation and imagine how a discharge firearm from a teacher could possibly happen:

Schools are becoming war zones. So what's your solution?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Schools are becoming war zones. So what's your solution?

Schools are not becoming war zones, is there an increasing elements of violence sure, but they're far from war zones. Safety and security are best left to those who are adequately trained to encounter them not teachers with already the burden of teaching students. We need to re-evaluate security measures in crisis situations such as school shootings, change state legislation concerning weapons purchases (increase the age to 21 and/or catalog those under 21) red flag those who make multiple purchases of firearms like they do with those who purchase multiple bomb making products from Home Depot. We can implement these measures to mitigate the issue.

Like the airports police can do external patrols during early and peak shifts and work with the community or have a community liaison to work with community members on monitoring suspicious activity. There are multiple steps we can take.

 

[Nakosis]

Sensible gun control?

How about sensible terrorist control?

 

[Nakosis]

Who's going to pay for this? We have to give all those tax breaks to the rich, now, so we can't even pay for Medicaid, or food stamps, or home heating assistance. Soon they will be coming for your Social Security pension. They already steal from the fund that we all payed into, routinely. Every president except Obama stole our Social Security money since Ronald Reagan did it (to pay for his tax cuts for the rich). Now they're trying to use the fact that the money isn't there to eliminate Social Security all together.

So what chance do you see for spending money on millions of armed school guards stationed millions of elementary, middle, and high schools all across America? We don't even want to spend money on the kid's lunches! Cause we have to give more and more tax cuts to the rich.

I guess if it was important enough to keep those kids safe, they'd figure out to pay for it. Failing that, I'd suspect keeping the children safe just wasn't at the top of their list.

At least there's a pretty good chance for this one school.

Florida deputies will carry rifles on school grounds after Parkland shooting

 

[Phantasman]

Schools are not becoming war zones, is there an increasing elements of violence sure, but they're far from war zones. Safety and security are best left to those who are adequately trained to encounter them not teachers with already the burden of teaching students. We need to re-evaluate security measures in crisis situations such as school shootings, change state legislation concerning weapons purchases (increase the age to 21 and/or catalog those under 21) red flag those who make multiple purchases of firearms like they do with those who purchase multiple bomb making products from Home Depot. We can implement these measures to mitigate the issue.

Like the airports police can do external patrols during early and peak shifts and work with the community or have a community liaison to work with community members on monitoring suspicious activity. There are multiple steps we can take.

Works for me.