Arming teachers is a great idea

[Revoltingest]

arming teachers is just adding more unstable combustible material to the fire.
They will just kill more students... probably though partition walls.

Require that staff use frangible ammunition.
(It's the only kind I use for carry.)
No danger passing thru walls.

 

[Jollybear]

How do we notify them of this?

Well, that would be part of the teachers training and the police and swat would also have that informed to them as part of there training.

The police would not be told at the moment of a shooting that the teachers will drop there gun and throw there hands up when you arrive. That will be drilled into there heads way before any calls.

It would be part of the curriculum training. All part of it. On both sides, the teachers and the police.

 

[Poisonshady313]

And, realistically, more guns has not reduced gun violence, so why should we expect arming teachers to have any different outcome?

What makes you say that more guns hasn't reduced gun violence? What makes you think there wouldn't be more school shootings if we didn't have armed SROs in as many schools as we do?

What happened to the "well, just because it wouldn't stop EVERY incident doesn't mean it wouldn't stop SOME, and it's worth trying SOMETHING if it'll save lives, even if it's not perfect" argument that we hear from the left every time a gun rights supporter scoffs at a perfectly useless "assault weapons ban"? Why doesn't that apply in this situation?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, myself. I’m a teacher and fully capable of bearing all the training needed to bear arms in the classroom on my own dime. That’s all the evidence needed.

Generally, teachers are familiar with the usual logical fallacies. Anecdotal evidence being a rather significant one.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, that would be part of the teachers training and the police and swat would also have that informed to them as part of there training.

The police would not be told at the moment of a shooting that the teachers will drop there gun and throw there hands up when you arrive. That will be drilled into there heads way before any calls.

It would be part of the curriculum training. All part of it. On both sides, the teachers and the police.

On their single, voluntary weekend training course, right?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What makes you say that more guns hasn't reduced gun violence? What makes you think there wouldn't be more school shootings if we didn't have armed SROs in as many schools as we do?

What happened to the "well, just because it wouldn't stop EVERY incident doesn't mean it wouldn't stop SOME, and it's worth trying SOMETHING if it'll save lives, even if it's not perfect" argument that we hear from the left every time a gun rights supporter scoffs at a perfectly useless "assault weapons ban"? Why doesn't that apply in this situation?

*headdesk*

 

[Jollybear]

On their single, voluntary weekend training course, right?

Sure, but voluntary? No, theres training that would be required.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

... Come on now, do you really think that's a good point?

Um, yes, yes I do. I keep my own guns locked up, believe me, if I were suddenly confronted with a situation where I needed to defend myself, my guns are out of the question. If you can think of a way to have guns safely locked away AND ready to be used defensively at the same time, I'm all ears. I can't imagine one, though.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Sure, but voluntary? No, theres training that would be required.

Voluntary as in not getting paid.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well as a teacher that deals with the prospect of guns on campus as a reality I must say that your willingness to let me be a unarmed sitting duck is pretty galling.

You find "Whichever option leads to the fewest injuries and deaths total is the better one." galling?

 

[Revoltingest]

Um, yes, yes I do. I keep my own guns locked up, believe me, if I were suddenly confronted with a situation where I needed to defend myself, my guns are out of the question. If you can think of a way to have guns safely locked away AND ready to be used defensively at the same time, I'm all ears. I can't imagine one, though.

If you feel that need, you should become familiar with rapid access safes.
I use one. Access is by tactile combination or biometrics.
Any level of necessary security is achievable at reasonable cost.

 

[Jollybear]

Voluntary as in not getting paid.

I think the training should be paid. But a one time training that one has to complete x amount of hours at there own convenience. It can be done split up or all at once.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If you feel that need, you should become familiar with rapid access safes.
I use one. Access is by tactile combination or biometrics.
Any level of necessary security is achievable at reasonable cost.

.aaaaand we're back to the "who pays?" question

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I think the training should be paid. But a one time training that one has to complete x amount of hours at there own convenience. It can be done split up or all at once.

You keep saying "one time training", do you know of any learned skill where you can just learn it once, then never worry about it again for months or years, then have it ready to go at a moments notice?

 

[Revoltingest]

.aaaaand we're back to the "who pays?" question

That will always be a question.
But safes, training staff, & communication enhancements are cheap compared
to other security measures being proposed, eg, full time cop at a school.

You keep saying "one time training", do you know of any learned skill where you can just learn it once, then never worry about it again for months or years, then have it ready to go at a moments notice?

I recommend regular training as a follow up to the initial phase.

 

[Jollybear]

You keep saying "one time training", do you know of any learned skill where you can just learn it once, then never worry about it again for months or years, then have it ready to go at a moments notice?

Well a one time training consisting of x amount of hours, is less expensive then regular on going training. And if a teacher wants, they can always train on there own time there after.

And yes, there are lots of skills you can learn once and they stick.

Driving a bike.

Backing a semi truck and trailer.

Typing on a computer without looking.

These are ones off top of my head because ive noticed them within my own self. You can go years without doing the above, then if you try it, it comes natural.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well a one time training consisting of x amount of hours, is less expensive then regular on going training. And if a teacher wants, they can always train on there own time there after.

And yes, there are lots of skills you can learn once and they stick.

Driving a bike.

Backing a semi truck and trailer.

Typing on a computer without looking.

These are ones off top of my head because ive noticed them within my own self. You can go years without doing the above, then if you try it, it comes natural.

Notice combat is not on the list.

 

[Jollybear]

Notice combat is not on the list.

Oh thats because i havent even trained for that one time for combat. So, i dont have that skill. But, intuitively id venture to say its like any other skill, it would stick.

If it helps, i do have experience playing cops and robbers when i was a kid. We used squirt guns. If you got hit, you lost the game. So, you could imagine, everyone made every effort not to get hit.

I have used a real, old fashioned bow as well. Hitting target board.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You keep saying "one time training", do you know of any learned skill where you can just learn it once, then never worry about it again for months or years, then have it ready to go at a moments notice?

Riding a bicycle.?

 

[Prometheus85]

I didn’t mention David Duke in any nice way. I just pointed out that both he and Louis Farrakhan haven’t been found to directly go around shooting things up.

So we agree that the BLM thugs and the KKK are both morally repugnant.

I didn’t mention David Duke in any nice way. I just pointed out that both he and Louis Farrakhan haven’t been found to directly go around shooting things up.

So we agree that the BLM thugs and the KKK are both morally repugnant.

No I don’t agree with you.


I’m sorry but did black lives matter activist terrorize people because of their skin color?

• KKK - Extremely racist, right-wing reactionary, white supremacist, and anti-immigration terrorist group. KKK members believe that they are superior because of their race, and resort to violence in bringing across their ideology.

• BLM - This is a movement that isn’t fueled by discrimination, it’s a movement that fights discrimination which targets all black people in the United States. Although the central theme is police killings, it advocates diversity among its activists and various issues that black people face.

In short, the KKK is an example of dangerous racial prejudice. It is not a political movement since it has no real goal. Those who are loyal to it are people who were drilled with hatred against black folks.

BLM was born out of necessity; those who advocate in it believe in black equality, a more progressive criminal justice system, and an end to the senseless deaths of black men and women at the hands of police officers.

I serverly pity you.