NOT Gun Control

[adamBomb]

I am a professor and I believe I should be able to arm myself and I agree that arming teachers that want to be armed is a good idea...I see the lefts argument though. Just today on FB I see the following two articles:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/utah-teac...g-while-school

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-te...kids-found-it/

I really just think schools should have armed guards, metal detectors, and rifle proof glass, doors, doors that bolt shut, etc. - To start. These kinds of things should of happened after columbine, no clue why we are still talking about it. But who is going to pay? Most teachers I know in NC don't have money for class pencils let alone bullet proof glass. They also only make like 30k a year and 50% leave after 5 years. Its a really crappy job.

[44 AMP]

I looked at the linked articles, one from 2014, the other from 2016.

IN 2016, an elderly teacher (63) at a private school forgot and left her holstered gun on the toilet tank. She resigned before the school could take any action.

in 2014, a teacher shot herself in the leg (before school hours, but on school grounds). I was most curious, when I started reading the article if they would say what it was that she shot herself with. The article did not say.

This incident put me very much in mind of the video that was popular on the net a few years, back, of an undercover police officer, giving a talk to a school class (elementary age kids), holding up his pistol, and loudly proclaiming, "I am the only one in this room capable of handling the Glock "Fou-Tay". He then promptly shot himself in the leg with it, while trying to reholster the gun.

A couple of incidents, a few years ago does illustrate the kind of things that could happen. I don't consider those alone to be enough to base public policy on, but I'm not the one formulating the policy...

I really just think schools should have armed guards, metal detectors, and rifle proof glass, doors, doors that bolt shut, etc. - To start.

While I agree that those things (and some others) would hurt nothing other than some budgets, you have to realize that the greatest value from these things is as a deterrent, not a preventative. (and why do doors need to be rifle bullet proof glass??? I would think that solid wood, metal sheathed, or metal doors (with windows too small to pass a person) would do just fine, and be cheaper...

Understand that making the schools "hard targets" architecturally is just a deterrent. And so are armed guards. And so would armed teachers, be.

Understand that the attacker ALWAYS has the advantage. This is something the media isn't saying. The attacker's advantage is that they choose the time and the place. And they often choose places known to them.

Which gives them yet another advantage. Armed guards? deterrent. POSSIBLY able to stop an attacker, if they get the chance. If the armed guards are the first one(s) shot, (which has happened) your protection from having armed guards is over.

Metal detectors? OK, now who responds if the killer sets off the metal detectors, and who gets shot, first??

I'm in favor of good heavy doors,, that actually lock, but there are fire & building codes that must also be complied with.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do these kind of things, things that decrease the attractiveness of schools as targets are worth doing. Just don't buy into the lie that doing these things will absolutely guarantee safety. They won't.

You may deter (or stop) 99% of attackers, but that last wackjob WILL still do his thing, and its very likely he will have both planned, and be prepared to defeat all the security that he knows about.

This is the strong point for allowing teachers to be armed (NOT "arming teachers", that term is something different, and is used by the media to further confuse the issue), the fact that the attacker does not know which teachers may be armed. Armed teachers may also fail as a deterrent, there are no guarantees.

One thing that has proven generally true, when something (anything, particularly active resistance) disrupts the killers plans, their fantasy ends, and their "mission" goes out the window. Quite often they have broken off the attack, and retreated. Some have killed themselves, some have just sat down and waited to be arrested.

Is this guaranteed to happen? No. The only thing that is guaranteed is that if not disturbed, these killer will continue to kill until they decide to stop.

I say anything that has a chance of changing that is worth trying. Even if it fails. "Die if you must, but never fight back" is not something I think should be taught in our schools, either as classroom instruction, or as the valiant, but futile actions of teachers & staff.

Men and women dying trying to shield children with their bodies because it was their only option is tremendous moral courage, but it sucks as a tactical doctrine. We could, and should do better. And we can, if certain segments of society allows us to. So far, they aren't...

[JN01]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

JN01



As to your last sentence, couldn't the author use that same phrase against people unwilling to even have gun control on the table?

Not really. Their proposal (assault weapon restrictions) has been tried multiple times and found to be ineffective. Not wanting to reconsider a failed policy is not the same as refusing to even debate a new one.

[JN01]

If a gunman comes in the only door of a classroom and systematically starts shooting every student one by one, the argument that the teacher shouldn't be armed because he might accidentally hit a student doesn't make much sense.

Extreme circumstances sometimes call for extreme measures.

Incidentally, The Buckeye Firearms Association has a free training program for school staff. Many Ohio school districts have allowed their employees to take the training and authorize them to carry in schools. http://fastersaveslives.org/about