Arming teachers already happening

[Knife]

Point still remains, if you want a guy with a gun in your school to protect kids, get a professional. Got one cop in your town, perhaps he should be in the school, or, perhaps you should raise some taxes and hire two. Nitpicking the point doesn't make it go away. If people are so damned scared that a spree shooting will happen that they'll start thinking volunteer armed teachers is a good thing, then trained professionals gotta be ok too.

[thejester]

Yep, I grew up in an area with an elementary school 15 minutes from the nearest regular police response, too. It's damned normal in the US, even in Western Washington, the more densely populated part of Washington State, which is hardly the least densely populated state in the union, but more like average.

It took 15-20 minutes for cops to arrive at Sandy Hook, though - and in any case it's totally irrelevant to the question of armed teachers vs armed guards.

[Alyeska]

Point still remains, if you want a guy with a gun in your school to protect kids, get a professional. Got one cop in your town, perhaps he should be in the school, or, perhaps you should raise some taxes and hire two. Nitpicking the point doesn't make it go away. If people are so damned scared that a spree shooting will happen that they'll start thinking volunteer armed teachers is a good thing, then trained professionals gotta be ok too.

I am not in favor of arming teachers. I was simply pointing out that not everyone lives in a heavily urban environment with its advantages.

[Channel72]

This is silly. School shootings are ridiculously rare, especially in rural/sub-urban areas.

I'm reminded of the Springfield Bear Patrol.

[Thanas]

I think it is far more likely that people will die from armed teachers messing up (improper care/handling, them getting into fights etc.) than they will die from shooting sprees. Besides, what happens when overworked teacher Mr. Mentallyimbalanced flips out? I don't think armed guards are in any way feasible or even efficient either. Is one even sufficient for a whole school?

I'm with knife on this. If you want a gunman at the school, pay for a professional cop or veteran.

[Serafina]

Teachers already tend to be overworked and underpaid, and i doubt there is an abudance of teachers.
Requiring teachers to carry guns and train in their use will only aggravate those problems.
If you introduce minimum requirements for gun handling and accuracy for teachers, what about those who fail them? They might still be excellent at teaching children, but with those requirements, would they still be allowed to teach? What if they object to carrying a gun on moral grounds? Gun training will not make them better at teaching, is it acceptable to have it detract from their time to become better teachers? Will a large number of semi-trained quasi-professionals be better at protecting children than one or two professional guards?

In the end, it appears to me that "arm the teachers!" is merely a reflexive response that sounds good if you don't think about it. If you deem your schools dangerous enough that armed force is needed to protect them, hire professional guards.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Fuck that noise. Contrary to Heinlein's opinion, specialization is not for insects. The only thing arming teachers will achieve will be to get itself abolished after the next shooting, or after a teacher is found on Youtube waving around a gun in class.

As an aside, it is nice to see that people would rather force even more burdens on teachers than put a little extra in taxes for the sake of their fucking children.

[TheFeniX]

As an aside, it is nice to see that people would rather force even more burdens on teachers than put a little extra in taxes for the sake of their fucking children.

Requiring teachers to carry guns and train in their use will only aggravate those problems.

Did either of you bother reading the article?

Fuck that noise. Contrary to Heinlein's opinion, specialization is not for insects. The only thing arming teachers will achieve will be to get itself abolished after the next shooting, or after a teacher is found on Youtube waving around a gun in class.

In the end, it appears to me that "arm the teachers!" is merely a reflexive response that sounds good if you don't think about it. If you deem your schools dangerous enough that armed force is needed to protect them, hire professional guards.

As opposed to the opposite "BAN ALL GUNS" response? Irrelevant anyway because Utah already allowed any licensed individual to carry unrestricted on school campus. And there aren't many incidents (none that I've found) of people waving guns around on campus or starting shoot-outs because they got bored. You know, like how things happen in reality. I know this might be hard to grasp, but the kind of person who bothers to get licensed to legally carry a firearm generally tends to not be the kind of person who reacts to every stressful situation with the threat of deadly force.

[Kon_El]

Point still remains, if you want a guy with a gun in your school to protect kids, get a professional. Got one cop in your town, perhaps he should be in the school, or, perhaps you should raise some taxes and hire two. Nitpicking the point doesn't make it go away. If people are so damned scared that a spree shooting will happen that they'll start thinking volunteer armed teachers is a good thing, then trained professionals gotta be ok too.

In some areas that would mean hiring more guards than there are police in the entire county. Allowing the already present teachers to conceal carry if they want would be free. Its not like there aren't well trained former solders already teaching at most schools.

[Iron Bridge]

I think it is far more likely that people will die from armed teachers messing up (improper care/handling, them getting into fights etc.) than they will die from shooting sprees. Besides, what happens when overworked teacher Mr. Mentallyimbalanced flips out? I don't think armed guards are in any way feasible or even efficient either. Is one even sufficient for a whole school?

I'm with knife on this. If you want a gunman at the school, pay for a professional cop or veteran.

Despite being pro-gun I agree this is really silly, though not so much due to professionalism.

People have to realise that while eye-catching massacres get like 110% of the media attention they are responsible for more like 0.1% of gun deaths in the US. Your chances of being killed in a massacre in the US are so small they are not worth considering. Even among professionals, handling accidents and suicides in a population of tens or hundreds of thousands of armed guards will be responsible for more deaths than stopping massacres could possibly save.

I agree with voluntary routine arming of the general populace. This can be used to stop much more common crimes like theft, assault, rape and (local paper/unreported) murder. This may include students and teachers (though more likely at universities), and would have the added bonus of mitigating massacres, but it is not worth doing for that reason alone.

[Knife]

Point still remains, if you want a guy with a gun in your school to protect kids, get a professional. Got one cop in your town, perhaps he should be in the school, or, perhaps you should raise some taxes and hire two. Nitpicking the point doesn't make it go away. If people are so damned scared that a spree shooting will happen that they'll start thinking volunteer armed teachers is a good thing, then trained professionals gotta be ok too.

In some areas that would mean hiring more guards than there are police in the entire county. Allowing the already present teachers to conceal carry if they want would be free. Its not like there aren't well trained former solders already teaching at most schools.

So, what you're saying is the security of our children isn't worth hiring more cops or guards? Is it about money or not. If it's about the money, then this cry of 'arm the teachers' is silly. Hire more guards or cops no free volunteer help which is spotty in training and experience. If it's not about the money, it's still silly. Why settle for cheap help if it is FOR THE CHILDREN!

I'm a gun owner, and this 'arm the teachers' just sounds hollow and empty. If it is important enough to arm teachers, it's important enough to do it right and hire trained professionals. If it were deemed important to have medical personnel on hand in schools for emergencies, I doubt you'd advocate tossing a med pack and E-kit at a teacher and let them deal with it, with little or no training. Hell, CPR training has more hands on now than the Utah concealed carry training. I would actually be behind some of this if the push were for licensed and bonded guards. As it is, it's empty rhetoric by gun nuts or masturbatory fantasies at worst.

[Gandalf]

Its not like there aren't well trained former solders already teaching at most schools.

Really?

[Block]

Its not like there aren't well trained former solders already teaching at most schools.

Really?

I wouldn't say most, some, sure. My 9th grade geometry teacher was a captain in the Army Reserve who'd served in Desert Storm, and I think our football caoch was in the Army in the 80's, but none of my middle school teachers were and I know none of the Elementary school teachers I had were, or if they were it was long before women were allowed in combat in the US armed forces.

[CaptainChewbacca]

As far as I know, none of the middle school faculty in my district (4 schools, about 2000 students) has any prior military experience.

[Iron Bridge]

I'm a gun owner, and this 'arm the teachers' just sounds hollow and empty.

It's exactly as hollow as the gun control rhetoric, which seems to imply that we can stop massacres by outlawing certain types of grips and other aesthetic features. US is never going to outlaw semi-auto handguns or rifles entirely - that is probably not constitutional anyway - so what is the point?

This shooting is just one of those things, and not a very likely thing. The problem is politicians have to "DO SOMETHING!!!", so if they don't support irrational gun bans this is a good way to deflect the debate back in the other direction with an irrational pro-gun action plan.

The best outcome is that in a few weeks everyone forgets about the shooting and both pro and anti gun lobbies quietly drop their silly proposals.

[Aaron MkII]

Its not like there aren't well trained former solders already teaching at most schools.

Really?

I wouldn't say most, some, sure. My 9th grade geometry teacher was a captain in the Army Reserve who'd served in Desert Storm, and I think our football caoch was in the Army in the 80's, but none of my middle school teachers were and I know none of the Elementary school teachers I had were, or if they were it was long before women were allowed in combat in the US armed forces.

It's a hilarious statement anyways. We're both Vets (as is knife), how often have we done any relevant training since we got out? I've been a civvie since August 2003 and it was probably another two years before that since I was at the FIBUA site.

Just hire two guards per school, develop an appropriate course and get them certified.

[Knife]

I'm a gun owner, and this 'arm the teachers' just sounds hollow and empty.

It's exactly as hollow as the gun control rhetoric, which seems to imply that we can stop massacres by outlawing certain types of grips and other aesthetic features. US is never going to outlaw semi-auto handguns or rifles entirely - that is probably not constitutional anyway - so what is the point?

This shooting is just one of those things, and not a very likely thing. The problem is politicians have to "DO SOMETHING!!!", so if they don't support irrational gun bans this is a good way to deflect the debate back in the other direction with an irrational pro-gun action plan.

The best outcome is that in a few weeks everyone forgets about the shooting and both pro and anti gun lobbies quietly drop their silly proposals.

I'm really not interested in devolving into a 'gun control' fight. Yes the new AWB is silly and will do nothing. So what? Arming teachers does nothing but fulfill fantasies in gun nuts heads. Any teacher with any sense, in a shooting, will huddle the kids in the room and stand guard, not go out to have a shoot out. So unless there is a volunteer in every class, not likely, this will do nada. On top of that, if the teacher hunkers down, will they be held responsible for lives they didn't save?

[White Haven]

This is going to sound callous as all hell, but here it goes. Rural life is more dangerous in some respects than urban life. Wildlife is a thing, incredibly slow police response time is a thing, slow access to emergency health care is a thing, so on and so forth. And so, apparently, is lack of manpower to effectively guard schools. You make the choice to live (or continue to live), and raise a child in Bumblefuck, Nowhere, those are the tradeoffs you accept. From my own personal experiences I know that (at least from middle school on up, maybe elementary, but I don't remember well enough to say) the county had a police officer permanently stationed at each school at all times, dating back to at least 1995 (so well before Columbine). It's one of the perks of not living in the middle of nowhere, or at least in my particular patch of not-middle-of-nowhere.

[Iron Bridge]

I'm a gun owner, and this 'arm the teachers' just sounds hollow and empty.

It's exactly as hollow as the gun control rhetoric, which seems to imply that we can stop massacres by outlawing certain types of grips and other aesthetic features. US is never going to outlaw semi-auto handguns or rifles entirely - that is probably not constitutional anyway - so what is the point?

This shooting is just one of those things, and not a very likely thing. The problem is politicians have to "DO SOMETHING!!!", so if they don't support irrational gun bans this is a good way to deflect the debate back in the other direction with an irrational pro-gun action plan.

The best outcome is that in a few weeks everyone forgets about the shooting and both pro and anti gun lobbies quietly drop their silly proposals.

I'm really not interested in devolving into a 'gun control' fight. Yes the new AWB is silly and will do nothing. So what? Arming teachers does nothing but fulfill fantasies in gun nuts heads. Any teacher with any sense, in a shooting, will huddle the kids in the room and stand guard, not go out to have a shoot out. So unless there is a volunteer in every class, not likely, this will do nada. On top of that, if the teacher hunkers down, will they be held responsible for lives they didn't save?

The purpose of the "arm teachers" proposal is to give a pro-gun alternative rhetoric to increasing gun restrictions, since advocating responding by doing nothing is politically infeasible. I am not arguing whether gun control is good or bad as such, but that's why the proposal exists.

Whether it would work, well, in similar circumstances it has at least once in the past. But I think a lot of the impact would be deterrent: these shootings seem mainly about the exercise of power, if you're going to end up potentially in some kind of battle that you might lose then a lot of the psychological purpose disappears.

But it's still silly, because these events are so rare. The cost and likelihood of accidents far outweigh any possible increase in safety. And that is true whether the guards are trained or not.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Did either of you bother reading the article?

Yes, oh high and mighty one. I also read the posts, and agree that improper handling of weapons or a stressed out teacher are more likely than a shooting, which is statistically unlikely. I'd thus argue, more dangerous.

As opposed to the opposite "BAN ALL GUNS" response?

Do you need my flammenwerfer to help you or you can torch the strawman on your own?

And there aren't many incidents (none that I've found) of people waving guns around on campus or starting shoot-outs because they got bored.

Not bored. Really stressed out, possibly.

I know this might be hard to grasp, but the kind of person who bothers to get licensed to legally carry a firearm generally tends to not be the kind of person who reacts to every stressful situation with the threat of deadly force.

And now for something I do not know?

I am not talking about this. I'm saying that giving weapons to semi-trained amateurs who already have a different job to do is either stupid or at best inefficient, so go the whole nine yards and have a professional there if you truly want safety; if you're really rural and you simply don't have enough people, the situation obviously changes. But if some in the pro-gun crowd just want to keep flinging political feces so it doesn't look like you do nothing, why should I obstruct them? Please go on, by any means necessary.

[Azazal]

While I'm pro gun, I'm very much against arming teachers. My high school physics teacher cracked two years after I graduated - It's Wikipedia but it gives the full story

Mr. Leith was a great teacher, always telling jokes, taught physics through great hands on experiments. Never showed any signs of anger issues or depression, but then one day, everything changed. If I had polled my class on graduation, asking them which teacher was most likely to go on a rampage, Mr. Leith would have been on the bottom of the list.

[TheFeniX]

Yes, oh high and mighty one. I also read the posts,

Awesome, then you'll point out where it's mentioned arms are being forced on teachers.

I am not talking about this. I'm saying that giving weapons to semi-trained amateurs who already have a different job to do is either stupid or at best inefficient, so go the whole nine yards and have a professional there if you truly want safety; if you're really rural and you simply don't have enough people, the situation obviously changes. But if some in the pro-gun crowd just want to keep flinging political feces so it doesn't look like you do nothing, why should I obstruct them? Please go on, by any means necessary.

People really don't understand how trivially easy it is to become a licensed security guard, because it's mostly a bonding and insurance thing (at least in Texas) as well as criminal background checks (a lot like getting a CHL). Getting licensed to then carry a firearm as part of your security job is anywhere between 8 to 16 hours of licensed firearms training. That's more than a CHL holder, but also understandable since their use of a firearm, by nature, won't be used for personal defense only.

[Agent Fisher]

I'll second that statement. Took me 16 hours to get certified to carry a handgun in CA. Not a whole lot is required for the upkeep by the state. However, my company maintains much tighter standards on firearms skills, since we have a lot of public contracts.

The idea of arming teachers, well if they practice as much I and a number of other CCW holders do, I'd feel somewhat ok. I don't think it's the right move. I'd favor placing a school resource officer at each school, or well trained security officers. With the current lack of police jobs, you can easily find hundreds or more, of police academy graduates wanting work.

[the atom]

I think it is far more likely that people will die from armed teachers messing up (improper care/handling, them getting into fights etc.) than they will die from shooting sprees. Besides, what happens when overworked teacher Mr. Mentallyimbalanced flips out? I don't think armed guards are in any way feasible or even efficient either. Is one even sufficient for a whole school?

I'm with knife on this. If you want a gunman at the school, pay for a professional cop or veteran.

As somebody who had one of their teachers flip out in class and actually throttle one of my classmates, I couldn't possibly agree more. This is one of the most terrible ideas to ever come out of the south since secession, and I would be very unsurprised if the next school shooting was by a teacher.

[Nathan F]

The best outcome is that in a few weeks everyone forgets about the shooting and both pro and anti gun lobbies quietly drop their silly proposals.

It's sad to say, but this is entirely true. And it appears to already be happening.