Something tells me, this is has always been mean't to be as a deterrent due to the "threat" of a teacher having a gun more so than the action to actually use it. The old adage of "they will think twice because they know some of those teachers have guns". I would venture to guess that MOST teachers who do this will be severely limited in when they can engage and when they can't. Not that they can't, won't or scared too but that they won't NEED too.
Armed teachers in the Brazos Valley
13,416 Views |
130 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by LOYAL AG
This is completely plausible; or the bolted door makes it possible for the person seeking shelter to be purposely shot by the perpetrator. If you were seeking shelter would you rather take a chance on getting accidentally shot by a teacher defending the classroom, or intentionally shot by the bad guy?75AG said:
If the school's plan is to bolt the classroom door shut. Allowing NO ONE in the classroom, no matter the situation - including a child, or staff trying to seek shelter - then the potential for accidental loss of life is greatly reduced. And a teacher having a gun on his or her person could be beneficial. However without that safeguard, any child or staff trying to escape harm is in danger of being accidentally shot by a well meaning and well trained teacher.
Law enforcement officers train continuously for this eventuality. Even with the training outlined above, not facing this danger everyday (as do LEOs), muscle memory fades.
I am in favor of a policy that allows properly licensed teachers and administrators to carry a concealed weapon ion the school on a voluntary basis. They are not required to, but they may. Just posting that teachers and administrators may be armed could be the deterrent necessary to keep another school mass shooting form occurring.
***It's your money, not theIRS! (At least for a little while longer.)
time and again, these active shooter types are total cowards when it comes to armed resistance. Not all, but a great many number of them will off themselves when met with force. So, I agree that the threat of armed resistance will help deter these situations.gibby03 said:
Something tells me, this is has always been mean't to be as a deterrent due to the "threat" of a teacher having a gun more so than the action to actually use it. The old adage of "they will think twice because they know some of those teachers have guns". I would venture to guess that MOST teachers who do this will be severely limited in when they can engage and when they can't. Not that they can't, won't or scared too but that they won't NEED too.
75AG said:
If the school's plan is to bolt the classroom door shut. Allowing NO ONE in the classroom, no matter the situation - including a child, or staff trying to seek shelter - then the potential for accidental loss of life is greatly reduced. And a teacher having a gun on his or her person could be beneficial. However without that safeguard, any child or staff trying to escape harm is in danger of being accidentally shot by a well meaning and well trained teacher.
Law enforcement officers train continuously for this eventuality. Even with the training outlined above, not facing this danger everyday (as do LEOs), muscle memory fades.
When trouble is at your door the police are minutes away. There is simply no substitute to being able to defend yourself in this situation. The statistics show that the risk of accidental loss of life is significantly smaller than the risk of intentional loss from the shooter. Relying on LEO to protect us is simply not a practical solution. The fact that this keeps happening proves that point.
I believe that in Navasota, the police are 7 minutes away from the HS. There may be one officer on the campus. SWAT would have to come from CSPD. Because teachers were not armed in any school where there have been shootings, there is no data on teacher related accidental shootings. As there is no data on an armed teacher stopping a predator.LOYAL AG said:75AG said:
If the school's plan is to bolt the classroom door shut. Allowing NO ONE in the classroom, no matter the situation - including a child, or staff trying to seek shelter - then the potential for accidental loss of life is greatly reduced. And a teacher having a gun on his or her person could be beneficial. However without that safeguard, any child or staff trying to escape harm is in danger of being accidentally shot by a well meaning and well trained teacher.
Law enforcement officers train continuously for this eventuality. Even with the training outlined above, not facing this danger everyday (as do LEOs), muscle memory fades.
When trouble is at your door the police are minutes away. There is simply no substitute to being able to defend yourself in this situation. The statistics show that the risk of accidental loss of life is significantly smaller than the risk of intentional loss from the shooter. Relying on LEO to protect us is simply not a practical solution. The fact that this keeps happening proves that point.
I would suggest armed and trained administrators who have access to the entire building, and additional LEOs on campus, would be a better solution.
Good point raised earlier about the social pressure involved. I think about Scot Peterson, the armed officer who did not act at the Parkland shooting. His name is synonymous with "coward" now. The man is ruined, and he is facing wrongful death lawsuits from the parents. What is to stop the media requesting records after such an incident and finding out who was armed and how they acted in the moment? Who wants to be publicly crucified if he or she finds out in the moment, they truly don't have the wherewithal they thought they had to act in a deadly situation? And then they come at you with the lawsuits.
Don't our teachers have their hands full worrying about the education going on in their classrooms and how much grading they have to get done the coming weekend to worry about the huge responsibility they are now saddled with as a Guardian?
If you have this kind of a program, you need to pay teachers a lot more who assume this responsibility.
Don't our teachers have their hands full worrying about the education going on in their classrooms and how much grading they have to get done the coming weekend to worry about the huge responsibility they are now saddled with as a Guardian?
If you have this kind of a program, you need to pay teachers a lot more who assume this responsibility.
While more money would certainly be nice, THEN I think you'd have teachers signing up for that reason.
My classroom is on the second floor and about as far away from an exterior door as you can get. Unfortunately shooters don't start shooting as they enter the building, so location of classroom is irrelevant.
My classroom is on the second floor and about as far away from an exterior door as you can get. Unfortunately shooters don't start shooting as they enter the building, so location of classroom is irrelevant.
it's not about having the teachers engage offensively. If they want to, go ahead. But i would argue that it would be best to secure their classroom, and then set up a defensive position. You are merely providing the teacher the opportunity to defend herself/himself, and their classroom.soso33 said:
Good point raised earlier about the social pressure involved. I think about Scot Peterson, the armed officer who did not act at the Parkland shooting. His name is synonymous with "coward" now. The man is ruined, and he is facing wrongful death lawsuits from the parents. What is to stop the media requesting records after such an incident and finding out who was armed and how they acted in the moment? Who wants to be publicly crucified if he or she finds out in the moment, they truly don't have the wherewithal they thought they had to act in a deadly situation? And then they come at you with the lawsuits.
Don't our teachers have their hands full worrying about the education going on in their classrooms and how much grading they have to get done the coming weekend to worry about the huge responsibility they are now saddled with as a Guardian?
If you have this kind of a program, you need to pay teachers a lot more who assume this responsibility.
The cop on the other hand had a duty to go on offense and did not.
TexasAggie_02 said:it's not about having the teachers engage offensively. If they want to, go ahead. But i would argue that it would be best to secure their classroom, and then set up a defensive position. You are merely providing the teacher the opportunity to defend herself/himself, and their classroom.soso33 said:
Good point raised earlier about the social pressure involved. I think about Scot Peterson, the armed officer who did not act at the Parkland shooting. His name is synonymous with "coward" now. The man is ruined, and he is facing wrongful death lawsuits from the parents. What is to stop the media requesting records after such an incident and finding out who was armed and how they acted in the moment? Who wants to be publicly crucified if he or she finds out in the moment, they truly don't have the wherewithal they thought they had to act in a deadly situation? And then they come at you with the lawsuits.
Don't our teachers have their hands full worrying about the education going on in their classrooms and how much grading they have to get done the coming weekend to worry about the huge responsibility they are now saddled with as a Guardian?
If you have this kind of a program, you need to pay teachers a lot more who assume this responsibility.
The cop on the other hand had a duty to go on offense and did not.
And you trust today's media and the kneejerk social media response to sort that out? I think you are being awfully generous there. I also think it would be worse for a male teacher to be armed and not do anything. I don't think your argument, which is perfectly reasonable, would stop the public crucifixion of such a teacher. Especially when arming the teachers is being pushed as such a cure-all right now. Social media is the prosecutor, judge, and jury. Unfortunately it is incredibly bad at subtlety, patience, and thoroughness.
Again, we need to fully understand how much responsibility is already on a teacher's plate and how much more he or she would be taking on by participating in this program. Surely we don't expect them to do that at the same pay.
soso33 said:
No one said that. IF a teacher goes through all of that trouble to carry a gun, I think you need to take an extensive look at that person and his/her motivations.
If someone goes to school for 4 years and racks up $50,000 in debt to become a teacher then I think we need to take an extensive look at that person.
You question the motivation of someone that would give up part of a summer to potentially save lives but don't question someone who gives up their life to make a crap salary, deal with terrible kids and worse parents.
There's one word that sums up why you shouldn't care: CHOICE. Teachers don't have to do this, but they are given the choice. If they think it is worth it to them then let it be. I'm not sure why you believe that someone is mentally ill or has bad intentions because they choose something different than you.
Seven minutes is an eternity in an active shooter situation. How many people die during those seven minutes?75AG said:I believe that in Navasota, the police are 7 minutes away from the HS. There may be one officer on the campus. SWAT would have to come from CSPD. Because teachers were not armed in any school where there have been shootings, there is no data on teacher related accidental shootings. As there is no data on an armed teacher stopping a predator.LOYAL AG said:75AG said:
If the school's plan is to bolt the classroom door shut. Allowing NO ONE in the classroom, no matter the situation - including a child, or staff trying to seek shelter - then the potential for accidental loss of life is greatly reduced. And a teacher having a gun on his or her person could be beneficial. However without that safeguard, any child or staff trying to escape harm is in danger of being accidentally shot by a well meaning and well trained teacher.
Law enforcement officers train continuously for this eventuality. Even with the training outlined above, not facing this danger everyday (as do LEOs), muscle memory fades.
When trouble is at your door the police are minutes away. There is simply no substitute to being able to defend yourself in this situation. The statistics show that the risk of accidental loss of life is significantly smaller than the risk of intentional loss from the shooter. Relying on LEO to protect us is simply not a practical solution. The fact that this keeps happening proves that point.
I would suggest armed and trained administrators who have access to the entire building, and additional LEOs on campus, would be a better solution.
More LEO's is more money. How many does it take to secure a high school campus? CSHS has probably eight doors open before school. No less than five. Do we need a cop at all of them? How much will that cost? Or do we force everyone to use the front entrance no matter where they parked?
I actually like the idea of armed administrators, that's a good one. Once the day has started controlling traffic in and out is much easier and CSHS forces you to go through the front door and through the office before getting into the school. Armed admins in the office would present resistance immediately, before you got into the actual school.
Statistically an active shooter situation in a school is not going to be substantially different than in a mall or a movie theater. These people largely attack places where they know nobody will shoot back because it gives them a lot of time without risk of retaliation. At Navasota HS it would apparently give them seven minutes. Again that's an eternity when the bullets are all flying one way. Right now the signs all say, "Active shooters, come here, we won't try to stop you." The best part about what's happening in Navasota is that now they will say, "Active shooter, come on but he careful because we will shoot back!" These attacks are generally carried out by cowards who aren't interested in a gunfight. That threat will send them elsewhere.
My wife is a teacher. We've discussed this extensively. I carry most everywhere and I think she's getting her license this summer. All the arguments really come down to one common phrase in the concealed carry community, better to have and not need than to need and not have. I might get into a gunfight and lose or God forbid I might hit the wrong person. But I might get into one and win. If I don't have a gun my odds of losing that gunfight go up to pretty much 100%.soso33 said:TexasAggie_02 said:it's not about having the teachers engage offensively. If they want to, go ahead. But i would argue that it would be best to secure their classroom, and then set up a defensive position. You are merely providing the teacher the opportunity to defend herself/himself, and their classroom.soso33 said:
Good point raised earlier about the social pressure involved. I think about Scot Peterson, the armed officer who did not act at the Parkland shooting. His name is synonymous with "coward" now. The man is ruined, and he is facing wrongful death lawsuits from the parents. What is to stop the media requesting records after such an incident and finding out who was armed and how they acted in the moment? Who wants to be publicly crucified if he or she finds out in the moment, they truly don't have the wherewithal they thought they had to act in a deadly situation? And then they come at you with the lawsuits.
Don't our teachers have their hands full worrying about the education going on in their classrooms and how much grading they have to get done the coming weekend to worry about the huge responsibility they are now saddled with as a Guardian?
If you have this kind of a program, you need to pay teachers a lot more who assume this responsibility.
The cop on the other hand had a duty to go on offense and did not.
And you trust today's media and the kneejerk social media response to sort that out? I think you are being awfully generous there. I also think it would be worse for a male teacher to be armed and not do anything. I don't think your argument, which is perfectly reasonable, would stop the public crucifixion of such a teacher. Especially when arming the teachers is being pushed as such a cure-all right now. Social media is the prosecutor, judge, and jury. Unfortunately it is incredibly bad at subtlety, patience, and thoroughness.
Again, we need to fully understand how much responsibility is already on a teacher's plate and how much more he or she would be taking on by participating in this program. Surely we don't expect them to do that at the same pay.
You cite the social media response as if it's a reason to die instead of a reason to be able to fight back. Another saying in the concealed carry community is that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. In what world is Twitter's judgement more important than my life? That's just a really bizarre way to evaluate this kind of thing.
Yeah. 7 minutes IS an eternity. Imagine waiting 20+ minutes for CSPD's SWAT to arrive.
This clearly is a multifaceted problem with many necessary solutions, including:
Teachers who have received the proper training, have access to a weapon. On their person, in a locked desk, or in a secure vault would be a sensible question and discussion.
Locked doors with access to the building through one secure, monitored door. On larger multi-building campuses, this would be impossible. On campuses with outside portable buildings it would be impossible.
More professional LEOs on campus. If we as a society value the safety of our children , it would be worth the additional costs.
Metal detectors at every entrance. Again, incredibly costly for start-up.
This clearly is a multifaceted problem with many necessary solutions, including:
Teachers who have received the proper training, have access to a weapon. On their person, in a locked desk, or in a secure vault would be a sensible question and discussion.
Locked doors with access to the building through one secure, monitored door. On larger multi-building campuses, this would be impossible. On campuses with outside portable buildings it would be impossible.
More professional LEOs on campus. If we as a society value the safety of our children , it would be worth the additional costs.
Metal detectors at every entrance. Again, incredibly costly for start-up.
I worry about the "locked desk" idea - years ago there was a purse thief in CSISD. Teachers were warned at staff meetings to watch their purses. Each school thought it was just their school. They thought it was house keeping, they thought it was kids, until they put it together that it was several schools. Stuff got stolen for months, because teachers would leave their purses unattended for "just a minute" or forget to lock their desks or rooms when they went to recess or ran to a next door classroom. It was announced at staff meetings and by the police but even when they knew purses were being stolen in the district and were being told by principals and the police to not leave valuables unattended some still left them out. Turns out it was a parent who basically just checked into the school and looked for easy pickings. Even with all the warnings, it was a continuous problem until they somehow finally caught her. Teachers are human, and stressed.
It's not being pushed as a cure all. It's being discuss as AN OPTION. Nobody thinks a teacher is the same thing as a paid and supposedly training enforcement officer. A armed teacher or admin is another line of defense along with many other options.soso33 said:TexasAggie_02 said:it's not about having the teachers engage offensively. If they want to, go ahead. But i would argue that it would be best to secure their classroom, and then set up a defensive position. You are merely providing the teacher the opportunity to defend herself/himself, and their classroom.soso33 said:
Good point raised earlier about the social pressure involved. I think about Scot Peterson, the armed officer who did not act at the Parkland shooting. His name is synonymous with "coward" now. The man is ruined, and he is facing wrongful death lawsuits from the parents. What is to stop the media requesting records after such an incident and finding out who was armed and how they acted in the moment? Who wants to be publicly crucified if he or she finds out in the moment, they truly don't have the wherewithal they thought they had to act in a deadly situation? And then they come at you with the lawsuits.
Don't our teachers have their hands full worrying about the education going on in their classrooms and how much grading they have to get done the coming weekend to worry about the huge responsibility they are now saddled with as a Guardian?
If you have this kind of a program, you need to pay teachers a lot more who assume this responsibility.
The cop on the other hand had a duty to go on offense and did not.
And you trust today's media and the kneejerk social media response to sort that out? I think you are being awfully generous there. I also think it would be worse for a male teacher to be armed and not do anything. I don't think your argument, which is perfectly reasonable, would stop the public crucifixion of such a teacher. Especially when arming the teachers is being pushed as such a cure-all right now. Social media is the prosecutor, judge, and jury. Unfortunately it is incredibly bad at subtlety, patience, and thoroughness.
Again, we need to fully understand how much responsibility is already on a teacher's plate and how much more he or she would be taking on by participating in this program. Surely we don't expect them to do that at the same pay.
As a parent, this is such a challenging topic for me.
Do I think having someone armed and trained to defend is a good idea? Of course.
Do I think it should be a teacher? Now that's tougher. My sister is a teacher - just got her HS History certification after years of teaching elementary school. Even with CHL training, I think that would be a disaster. She's 5'2 and not always on her guard - she'll be one of the teachers who will want to carry, but then forget to lock her desk. Any boy that's hit puberty would be able to wrestle it out of her hands - or will she shoot him in front of her class to keep him from getting it?
My concern would be complacency - they don't use it every day, they aren't training regularly - it's that whole muscle memory thing. I'd also be concerned that when LEOs and SWAT do arrive, they're looking for someone with a gun. They're trained to take that person out. Will they now have to stop and figure out if the person with a gun is a teacher or a shooter - or just shoot and ask questions later?
As a parent, I'd also want to know if my kid was in a class with someone with a gun and what safety precautions are being taken. But that would also tell people who might want to do harm which rooms to avoid. So I'm conflicted there. Could the district simply say - at least one of your child's teachers is armed. This is the training, and how we plan to protect him from someone unauthorized from getting the gun.
I work with cops every day, I see the training they go through, and know they still make mistakes. I don't think it's fair to ask teachers to go through that, but I think it's necessary if they are going to carry. I think I'd prefer to let teachers be teachers and pay officers to be officers. In reality, you get what you pay for.
I think there are things schools can and are doing to make them safer - especially single access entry points, with double sets of doors - you go through one, get checked in, and THEN the second set is unlocked. Easy enough in newer schools, which are designed that way - but more difficult to retrofit.
I don't have the answers - but it worries me.
Do I think having someone armed and trained to defend is a good idea? Of course.
Do I think it should be a teacher? Now that's tougher. My sister is a teacher - just got her HS History certification after years of teaching elementary school. Even with CHL training, I think that would be a disaster. She's 5'2 and not always on her guard - she'll be one of the teachers who will want to carry, but then forget to lock her desk. Any boy that's hit puberty would be able to wrestle it out of her hands - or will she shoot him in front of her class to keep him from getting it?
My concern would be complacency - they don't use it every day, they aren't training regularly - it's that whole muscle memory thing. I'd also be concerned that when LEOs and SWAT do arrive, they're looking for someone with a gun. They're trained to take that person out. Will they now have to stop and figure out if the person with a gun is a teacher or a shooter - or just shoot and ask questions later?
As a parent, I'd also want to know if my kid was in a class with someone with a gun and what safety precautions are being taken. But that would also tell people who might want to do harm which rooms to avoid. So I'm conflicted there. Could the district simply say - at least one of your child's teachers is armed. This is the training, and how we plan to protect him from someone unauthorized from getting the gun.
I work with cops every day, I see the training they go through, and know they still make mistakes. I don't think it's fair to ask teachers to go through that, but I think it's necessary if they are going to carry. I think I'd prefer to let teachers be teachers and pay officers to be officers. In reality, you get what you pay for.
I think there are things schools can and are doing to make them safer - especially single access entry points, with double sets of doors - you go through one, get checked in, and THEN the second set is unlocked. Easy enough in newer schools, which are designed that way - but more difficult to retrofit.
I don't have the answers - but it worries me.
"If you're in the midst of a midlife crisis, you could buy a convertible, have an affair, or upgrade your cup size. But you'll probably be happiest if you save a dog's life." - Jen Lancaster
I think as you see more states shift to Constitutional Carry (like Oklahoma just did), the idea of armed teachers will continue to catch on. Even in license to carry states there are already armed citizens all around us every day, at the supermarket, the theater, the park, etc. etc. More and more, people will question the logic of keeping them out of schools.
I want teachers who qualify to have guns.
I want more security for all children and if that means giving up some freedoms or paying more in taxes, so be it.
I want more security for all children and if that means giving up some freedoms or paying more in taxes, so be it.
FJB
People will question that logic, until some teacher shoots a student, either by accident or because of overreaction to the kid's misbehavior. Please don't tell me it won't happen because everyone with a CCL is suddenly perfect. I admire teachers in general, but we have all known some who you wouldn't trust with a gun.techno-ag said:
I think as you see more states shift to Constitutional Carry (like Oklahoma just did), the idea of armed teachers will continue to catch on. Even in license to carry states there are already armed citizens all around us every day, at the supermarket, the theater, the park, etc. etc. More and more, people will question the logic of keeping them out of schools.
So what would you say about airport-checkpoint entrances to schools? Man them with armed security personel. That would stop armed intruders without putting guns in the classroom.aggiepaintrain said:
I want teachers who qualify to have guns.
I want more security for all children and if that means giving up some freedoms or paying more in taxes, so be it.
the odds of a teacher using his/her weapon on a student is infinitely less likely than some deranged student.lost my dog said:So what would you say about airport-checkpoint entrances to schools? Man them with armed security personel. That would stop armed intruders without putting guns in the classroom.aggiepaintrain said:
I want teachers who qualify to have guns.
I want more security for all children and if that means giving up some freedoms or paying more in taxes, so be it.
No, those kinds of metal detectors would be too cumbersome, just knowing a school is not a gun free zone will deter 99.99% of the problem. These people are COWARDS.
FJB
IMHO the best protection against a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
BUT........
I taught for over twenty-five years. There are lots of administrators who are, to be polite, jerks. I can just imagine one who announces, "By golly, every teacher on this campus/in this district will be armed," and walks through the halls with a laundry basket full of guns handing them out.
By the way, I'm thinking about two administrators- one Principal, one Assistant Superintendent- I have personally known who would do exactly that.
You've seen it in a dozen movies. Someone who's terrified of guns picks one up and says, in a quavering voice, "Stop or I'll shoot," and someone strolls over and takes the gun out of their hands. Advantage: bad guy, who is now either freshly armed or has an additional gun.
BUT........
I taught for over twenty-five years. There are lots of administrators who are, to be polite, jerks. I can just imagine one who announces, "By golly, every teacher on this campus/in this district will be armed," and walks through the halls with a laundry basket full of guns handing them out.
By the way, I'm thinking about two administrators- one Principal, one Assistant Superintendent- I have personally known who would do exactly that.
You've seen it in a dozen movies. Someone who's terrified of guns picks one up and says, in a quavering voice, "Stop or I'll shoot," and someone strolls over and takes the gun out of their hands. Advantage: bad guy, who is now either freshly armed or has an additional gun.
Wanna know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about? This isn't about arming every teacher. This is about giving options to the ones that do want to carry.ro828 said:
IMHO the best protection against a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
BUT........
I taught for over twenty-five years. There are lots of administrators who are, to be polite, jerks. I can just imagine one who announces, "By golly, every teacher on this campus/in this district will be armed," and walks through the halls with a laundry basket full of guns handing them out.
By the way, I'm thinking about two administrators- one Principal, one Assistant Superintendent- I have personally known who would do exactly that.
You've seen it in a dozen movies. Someone who's terrified of guns picks one up and says, in a quavering voice, "Stop or I'll shoot," and someone strolls over and takes the gun out of their hands. Advantage: bad guy, who is now either freshly armed or has an additional gun.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
The problem with this argument is people are already carrying all around you, and kids. Every day. Schools aren't sacrosanct.lost my dog said:People will question that logic, until some teacher shoots a student, either by accident or because of overreaction to the kid's misbehavior. Please don't tell me it won't happen because everyone with a CCL is suddenly perfect. I admire teachers in general, but we have all known some who you wouldn't trust with a gun.techno-ag said:
I think as you see more states shift to Constitutional Carry (like Oklahoma just did), the idea of armed teachers will continue to catch on. Even in license to carry states there are already armed citizens all around us every day, at the supermarket, the theater, the park, etc. etc. More and more, people will question the logic of keeping them out of schools.
Completely agree.rhoswen said:
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
That included Reddit.
So, your anecdotal evidence of two idiots is enough to extrapolate to all teachers being armed, including the ones with no desire to be armed? That's not a very strong hypothesis.
I'd hope that teachers get paid decently, and can afford supplies for the kids. But I guess being able to take down hypothetical perps is good too.
So you're willing to give up some freedoms, but not if it's too cumbersome?aggiepaintrain said:the odds of a teacher using his/her weapon on a student is infinitely less likely than some deranged student.lost my dog said:So what would you say about airport-checkpoint entrances to schools? Man them with armed security personel. That would stop armed intruders without putting guns in the classroom.aggiepaintrain said:
I want teachers who qualify to have guns.
I want more security for all children and if that means giving up some freedoms or paying more in taxes, so be it.
No, those kinds of metal detectors would be too cumbersome, just knowing a school is not a gun free zone will deter 99.99% of the problem. These people are COWARDS.
With respect to the COWARDS argument, have you ever heard of the phenomenon of "suicide by cop"?
Ok, but we don't allow guns in bars. We admit that there are certain situation where people will lose judgment, and that they shouldn't have guns there.techno-ag said:The problem with this argument is people are already carrying all around you, and kids. Every day. Schools aren't sacrosanct.lost my dog said:People will question that logic, until some teacher shoots a student, either by accident or because of overreaction to the kid's misbehavior. Please don't tell me it won't happen because everyone with a CCL is suddenly perfect. I admire teachers in general, but we have all known some who you wouldn't trust with a gun.techno-ag said:
I think as you see more states shift to Constitutional Carry (like Oklahoma just did), the idea of armed teachers will continue to catch on. Even in license to carry states there are already armed citizens all around us every day, at the supermarket, the theater, the park, etc. etc. More and more, people will question the logic of keeping them out of schools.
I'm not saying schools are bars (boy, I would have had more fun in high school had that been true!), but that the belief that guns should be everywhere is tempered by judgment by most rational people.
I worry about some kid grabbing a teacher's gun. I worry about some small teacher feeling threatened by some large male student. I probably shouldn't say this, but given the rates at which minorities are disciplined in school relative to whites, this will inevitably become a racial issue.
(turn on your humor mode now, or don't read this) Think of it this way - in Texas we teach students that abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy. No education about methods of birth control. But yet for guns we say there can be no locations of abstinence. The only gun control is more guns. That's like saying to keep people from getting pregnant everyone should have more sex (insert happy comment).
40 year veteran teacher..here. No guns on teachers. Period.
You're right, no guns in bars, because people are consuming alcohol there and we want people carrying guns to not be drunk. It's completely apples to oranges with schools.lost my dog said:Ok, but we don't allow guns in bars. We admit that there are certain situation where people will lose judgment, and that they shouldn't have guns there.techno-ag said:The problem with this argument is people are already carrying all around you, and kids. Every day. Schools aren't sacrosanct.lost my dog said:People will question that logic, until some teacher shoots a student, either by accident or because of overreaction to the kid's misbehavior. Please don't tell me it won't happen because everyone with a CCL is suddenly perfect. I admire teachers in general, but we have all known some who you wouldn't trust with a gun.techno-ag said:
I think as you see more states shift to Constitutional Carry (like Oklahoma just did), the idea of armed teachers will continue to catch on. Even in license to carry states there are already armed citizens all around us every day, at the supermarket, the theater, the park, etc. etc. More and more, people will question the logic of keeping them out of schools.
I'm not saying schools are bars (boy, I would have had more fun in high school had that been true!), but that the belief that guns should be everywhere is tempered by judgment by most rational people.
I worry about some kid grabbing a teacher's gun. I worry about some small teacher feeling threatened by some large male student. I probably shouldn't say this, but given the rates at which minorities are disciplined in school relative to whites, this will inevitably become a racial issue.
(turn on your humor mode now, or don't read this) Think of it this way - in Texas we teach students that abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy. No education about methods of birth control. But yet for guns we say there can be no locations of abstinence. The only gun control is more guns. That's like saying to keep people from getting pregnant everyone should have more sex (insert happy comment).
If you're worried about a kid grabbing a teacher's gun, you should worry about the same kid grabbing somebody's gun at the supermarket. You don't realize it but we are surrounded by armed citizens every day in public places.
Anyhow, the point is moot in Navasota. They have wisely chosen to allow teachers to carry.
Lol wrong thread
Based on what? Genuinely curious. I'm married to a 20 year teacher and she gets why it might be a good idea. What in your career makes this a non-starter for you? The basic "for" argument is that "gun free" laws make schools a shooting gallery. That's true anytime only the bad guys have guns. We allow people to arm themselves so that MAYBE they have a fighting chance if, God forbid, something terrible happens. It's not a guarantee but it greatly improves the odds. What about teachers and schools changes that equation? What don't I see?TXAggie1976 said:
40 year veteran teacher..here. No guns on teachers. Period.
An ADT sales guy told me one time that 90% of the deterrent factor for keeping someone from robbing your house, was the security company sign in the yard.
Maybe taking down the "gun free zone" signs and replacing with something that states "teachers and administrators are armed", would have a similar effect. Of course some properly trained administrators, faculty, and staff would have to be armed.
Maybe taking down the "gun free zone" signs and replacing with something that states "teachers and administrators are armed", would have a similar effect. Of course some properly trained administrators, faculty, and staff would have to be armed.