Arming teachers: Point/Counterpoint
Should Virginia permit public school teachers to be armed?
Arming teachers isn’t the answer for having safer schools
By Ben Kiser
Kiser is president of the Virginia Association of School Superintendents and superintendent of Gloucester County Public Schools.
Providing a safe environment for teaching and learning in all schools is paramount to school boards, superintendents and other educators. In the wake of another tragic school shooting, in Newtown, Conn., educators have reviewed emergency protocols, resources, facilities and awareness levels of all personnel.
A natural reaction to such senseless tragedy is to suggest that this violence can be thwarted or minimized by having armed personnel in schools. This strategy, though not new, can be one component of a comprehensive plan to ensure that all schools are safe. School resource officers (trained law enforcement personnel) have been part of public schools for several years. We know, however, that this is not the complete solution. Columbine High School, the site of one of the nation’s first tragic school shootings, had armed personnel in the building at the time of the mass shooting. Clearly the arming of teachers or other school personnel will require much deliberation before this strategy should be embraced.
Instead of a quick solution that may be expedient, a broader conversation needs to occur that includes strategies to help educators truly provide safe places for teaching and learning on a daily basis. While arming teachers may be a comfort to some, many parents who have children in schools will feel less safe knowing that personnel other than well-trained law enforcement may have guns in their possession. As schools are places for teaching and learning, and not imprisonment, providing support for children and families that includes mental, social, physical and academic responses is imperative. This includes having an adequate number of teachers, support personnel, school administrators, counselors and mental health personnel to assist children and families on a daily basis. Educators are balancing quality programs that address many needs in an environment of diminishing resources. School boards are making difficult decisions with limited resources in an environment where the denigration of public education is often more frequent than support.
Neither federal nor state funds are available to enhance school security, including school construction and the renovation of old buildings with obvious and glaring needs. Resources for school security and capital improvements must be supported by localities primarily through property tax revenue. School districts need financial support to address a plethora of facility deficiencies, including broad-based communication systems to allow staff to quickly communicate with personnel in the face of violence and emergencies.
While sensitivities are acute due to the recent violence, a broader conversation should be initiated that may include having additional well-trained law enforcement personnel in all schools. The caveat is that supporting this one strategy only may be perceived as the “fix” and policymakers, over time, will move on to other urgent matters and not consider a comprehensive approach, until it might be too late again.
Time to consider allowing school personnel to carry firearms
By David Adams
Adams is the legislative committee chairman and a past president of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, the state affiliate association of the National Rifle Association. He served as assistant secretary of education and deputy secretary of education for higher education during Gov. Jim Gilmore’s administration.
Much has been said about how to prevent another shooting like the one that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Unfortunately, most of what is being suggested is focused on firearm restrictions, none of which would have prevented the shooting had they been in place. However, there are two proposals that do merit consideration.
National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has suggested there should be an armed security officer in every school. There are currently 22,000 schools around the country that use some form of armed security, whether it is a school resource officer or other armed security. It is hard to see why this was so controversial. The only conclusion I can draw is because it came from the NRA.
Gov. Bob McDonnell was the first high-profile official to suggest allowing school personnel to be armed. Critics say it would only add danger to the classroom while distracting teachers from their job of educating children. There is evidence the opposite is true.
In a 2009 Connecticut Law Review article titled “Pretend ‘Gun-free’ School Zones: A Deadly Legal Fiction,” Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel looked at the policy issues related to “gun-free” schools and incidents where a lawfully armed individual had stopped an attempted mass murder. In Utah, anyone with a concealed handgun permit may carry at all K–12 public schools as well as on any of the nine campuses in the Utah state college system, including in dormitories. Kopel found that Utah disproves all of the suggestions that allowing teachers to carry in schools would be unsafe. The policy has been in effect for almost 20 years and there have never been any problems caused by armed teachers.
A lot of teachers in Ohio and Texas apparently agree this is an idea whose time has come. After offering free training, the Buckeye Firearms Association received applications from 900 school employees. Of those applicants, 73 percent were teachers, with 10 percent of those being kindergarten teachers. In Texas, 400 teachers immediately filed for a free concealed handgun course, forcing the instructors to add another class. Just days after the Newtown shooting, 200 teachers took advantage of free courses in Utah.
No one is suggesting that we force teachers to be armed. In fact, if places like Ohio, Texas and Utah are an indication, it’s possible that if more teachers had the ability to carry on the job, they would likely do so.
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine referred to teachers as “first responders.” Given that a single security officer could be dealt with by a mass killer, doesn’t it make sense to have a second line of defense to protect our children?
January 20, 2013 - 7:43 AM
Why does the sense in allowing teachers who want to carry concealed seem to elude so many? I would far prefer my child huddled behind a teacher with a gun than a teacher without one. Dump the “gun free zones” and leave a doubt in every killers mind that the next classroom he walks in “may” have a teacher ready and willing to deal with him.
I am a teacher and a gun owner. I’ve been around guns all of my life. I believe in the 2′nd Amendment. I like that in America I can protect myself and my family through the 2′nd Amendment.
Teachers with guns? A very, very stupid idea. In a crisis situation, the first job of a teacher is to keep the students safe. It’s not the job of a teacher to leave their students, alone and by themselves, to go play Rambo. In fact, if my child’s teacher did something so irresponsible, I would file a lawsuit.
Space prevents me from telling you the many things that could go wrong with teachers having guns in school. But I will say this. I feel safer in school than I feel anywhere else. In fact, I’m more afraid of some fool driving a car while using a cell phone running into my car on the highway, killing me and my family.
Teachers are good and bad, just like everyone else. They’re law-abiding and law-breaking, just like everyone else. They’re prone to anger and rash decisions, just like everyone else. Especially in situations where behavioral issues are at play, adding guns to the mix would put students at risk from either a teacher or a student who overpowers a teacher. No way would guns in schools make kids safer or improve the learning environment. And even if you could fully secure schools, which would never happen, you can’t also secure parks, stores, restaurants, public events, house fires, and any other crazy place where killers decide to kill people. A police state is not the answer.
@1 Bill, maybe it’s because of things like this? Seems the same day thousands across America gathered to rally for gun rights, a number of people, sober, law-abiding people, shot themselves and other by accident – at gun shows!
Maybe by purposely introducing guns into schools we’ll end up with more school shootings but accidental ones?
http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2013/01/happy-gun-appreciation-day.html
In Raleigh, NC, three people, including a sheriff’s deputy, were wounded when a shotgun gun accidentally discharged at the show’s safety check-in booth.
In Medina, OH, a gun dealer was checking out a semi-automatic pistol he had just bought shooting an old friend if his in the leg and arm.
In Indianapolis, IN, a man was loading .45 he had just purchased when ha accidentally shot himself in the hand.
Same story different web site:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-appreciation-day-five-injured-at-three-different-gun-shows-20130119,0,2727285.story
I think there is a difference in allowing teachers to carry if they choose to do so and in requiring them to carry and relying on them as armed security. That is where I would both agree and disagree with Jeff Artis. I would not be in favor of requiring teachers to leave their students and go hunt down an armed intruder. However, I would be okay with a teacher who was proficient in the use of a firearm having that tool with them to be used as a last resort if the intruder entered their classroom and posed a lethal threat to the teacher and students.
Jeff, I agree that your first duty should be to the safety of the students and that would necessarily include keeping them together and getting them in the right location and controlling their behavior as best you can. However, after that, how is it that you plan to see to their safety when the armed intruder breaks into your classroom? And that assumes the door is locked and he even has to break in. In many of the schools I’ve visited, the doors won’t even lock and the administrators often refuse to lock the ones that will because “it is too inconvenient” to have the teacher have to unlock the door to let people go to the bathroom, etc. The simple fact is our schools could be much more secure and draconian measures would NOT be necessary. The biggest hurdle to making schools more secure is not an desire to limit unreasonable infringement on freedom and liberty, nor is it one of money. The biggest hurdle to securing our schools is the fact that no one wants to think about what might happen and no one wants to be inconvenienced by changing their long held routines. The schools are consciously choosing convenience over safety, and that is unconscionable.
So do the readers…76-24%…Libs don`t want solutions, only controversy.
Glad to see somebdoy gets it.
Re: “In a crisis situation, the first job of a teacher is to keep the students safe. It’s not the job of a teacher to leave their students, alone and by themselves, to go play Rambo.”
—————
If in an “active shooter” crisis situation the first job of a teacher is to keep the students safe, what tools does the teacher have available to do that? By throwing books at the shooter? That is dumber that bring a knife to a gun fight. Books v. armed homicidal active shooter? How is that going to work out?
Who would ever train or expect teachers to “leave their students, alone and by themselves”? Clearing the building is a job for LEOs.
The best way for a teacher to keep the students safe would be to stay put, with them. Help the students push anything they can in front of the door(s) as a barrier to slow down the active shooter, if the shooter enters that room. Have the student get in the best place in the room to provide some level of concealment. Draw and position her/himself where she/he would have clear shot at the door(s) — the only way for the active shooter to get to the students. The teacher will know where active shooter will be when entering the room. OTOH, the active shooter will need time to find the teacher. A defensive firearm and those few moments would work far better than throwing books, IMHO.
Once again Jeff is right. What we need to do is provide the funding to place a trained law enforcement person in each school. Teachers have enough things to do already. Sure it will cost but, what cost more? I also think that taking away rights from law abiding citizens won’t work either. Look at Australia it didn’t help anyone but the criminals.
I read an article recently that indicated 18 states currently allow guns in schools in various ways. In some it is required to be by written permission of an administrator. Some allow “open carry”. Some allow it if the individual has a cc permit. In fact the article listed CT as a state which permits some degree of tolerance for guns in schools. BUT, it seems the general public presumes schools are gun free zones. If a teacher is qualified to have a cc permit and willing to assume the risk and responsibility of doing so, then there is NO logic that says they should not. HOWEVER, there is also no logic that says teachers should be armed and ready to defend their children as a matter of a “job requirement”. I cannot shake the notion that armed security surrounds every recognized target from the prez right on down the line. Targets need to be protected. Schools and school children are targets. Matter of fact any gathering of citizens in any location presents a target. That’s just another good reason why it make sense to carry a firearm. BTW. as of the time of this post the vote was something like 83% in favor and 17% opposed. Sounds to this point like common sense prevails in spite of the RT’s desire to pervert it. I expect some of the libs down there to put out a call for their followers to get online and vote against it.
The TSA is not consciously choosing convenience over safety, and that is unconscionable too according to many.
Funny how “gun control” is just a “feel good” solution but this cockamamie idea that will be literally window dressing is welcomed. Funny and telling.
What happens when a good guy with a gun has a difficult day, reaches the breaking point, gets pissed off and turns into a bad guy with a gun?
If a legally armed teacher is standing in the doorway of her classroom shooting into her room, how will other legally armed employees know whether she is firing at an assailant or wiping out her class?
Do they assume the worst scenario and shoot to kill only to find that she was protecting her students or do they wait until she turns in their direction, gun in hand? Is she going to shoot them or is she in shock from shooting the assailant?
Shots are heard in the hallway of a college building, a student rushes into an auditorium class, gun in hand to warn the occupants of the situation. Do the legally armed let him speak or do they take him out fearing that he might shoot first? What happens if the victim has legally armed friends in class who think that the shooter is part of the assault?
Will not teachers need to carry their guns on their person in order to be effective protectors?
Will not teachers need to carry gas masks along with their side arms just in case an assault begins with tear gas or pepper spray?
Do gun safety classes cover combat situations or how to quickly assess a situation where deadly force is required?
Knowing how to handle a gun safely is important, but not enough.
Knowing how to quickly evaluate a situation and make decisive moves requires intense police or combat training.
I support the idea of having armed security in schools,these gun free zones are magnets for criminals. I also believe that this is a job best left to trained security professionals not teachers and administrators with minimul training.Becoming proficiant and safe with a firearm is a lifelong commitment to education and training. I don’t see how teachers with an already full plate doing their job and taking care of their families would have the time to devote to training.It could cause more harm than good.That’s not to say that if they wish to exercise their right to carry a firearm for personal protection in the school, that they shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their Constitutional right to do so. But depending on them to be the first line of defense in an active shooter situation is not wise. It take highly trained skilled professionals for that job.To quote Alvete King,The problem is not the weapon, the problem is what’s inside human beings that makes them want to kill.Evil people are a fact of life. I know there is comfort in denial,but the reality of it is they have been in our society from the start and will be here until the end. Pretending otherwise is irresponsible and dangerous, and the innocent pay the price for it.You will never legislate it out of exsistence no matter how many laws you pass. Criminals don’t abide by any laws but their own. Their not going to make sure their gun or their magazines are legal, they don’t care. They get their guns on the black market from other criminals, they don’t go to gun shops and then register their guns. This is foolishness bordering on insanity.All that these do nothing laws will do is make a bad situation worse by increasing the number of guns available to them on the black market.They will not do one thing to make anyone safer, and to make this claim for political advantage is irresponsible and criminal.The law makers are just giving people a false sense of security.
Can someone answer this question? How does a teacher make his or her weapon available quickly in the event of an intrusion while making it completely unavailable to their students? Where can it be stored in the classroom such that the teacher get to it in maybe one minute but a student could NEVER break in?
Concealed/carried on the teacher’s person? Remember William Morva?
There is a reason prison guards do not carry firearms.
Just wondering. Nothing is better than a 45 ACP however what’s wrong with something less lethal such as a taser or even pepper spray? It seems to me generally speaking that most of these shooters are relatively young. I don’t think they are “trained” in any sense of the word and while it may not be the best solution, when confronted with some form of resistance it seems to me that it MAY change the outcome. Let’s try tasers and see how it works, that way, CAW, if any good teachers go bad it would only be “shocking” situation!
So lets see now name withheld, are you equating those in prison to children in the classroom? I can see it now. A mad rush of 8 kindergarten students takes down the teacher and escapes top go play vid games at the neighborhood bar, while quaffing a few beers! Or better yet, they hold the teacher hostage and demand more recess time and pizza every day. In my case, when I carry, few will ever realize it. Secondly, no one will accidentially be able to remove my firearm from my possession unless I am shot or otherwise disabled. And thirdly, any attempt to do so would clearly be a threat to my life so I know how I would respond. BTW, do the police “resource officers” go into schools without firearms? Don’t think so. And I recall some years back when the some feds came to a school where I had an insider teaching. They went in to remove and question another teacher and they were armed armed. It can be done safely.
#17, when you carry your firearm, maybe “few will ever realize it,” but a teacher is someone whose every movement will be under close observation for many weeks at a time. All that stuff you wrote about kids shooting a teacher so they could play more video games is just BS. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold weren’t demanding more recess time. It’s not unreasonable to question whether it will be easier for a determined student to gain access to weapons if he or she knows where to find such a weapon already at school. School resource officers are one thing, but just you watch: Some teacher is going to leave his or her weapon on his or her desk and turn his or her back to wipe some kid’s nose and there will be mayhem.
If not stated in this thread I have stated it elsewhere on the subject. It can be done safely and if not firearms, why not tasers. Better than a snotty tissue for defense. Also, name whthheald, you analogy of prison guards and prisoners to teachers and school kids if almost funny. And then you go any show even less respect for them with the nose wipe comment. I do not feel even most teachers, esp the young and the women are probably adequately able to carry in the class room and there are probably many how could but do not want to do so. BUT, some are able, both women and men and some are willing and they should be allowed to do so. However, even if teachers do not carry, security in schools should be addressed and provided.
@15,
A top quality gun security case with a finger print reading locking mechanism would easily fit in a desk drawer. Simple to attach to the drawer if desired.
It’s extremely naive to think any new gun laws or restrictions will make us safer. It’s a feel good gesture for some, until the next gunman kills a group of unarmed people. Sadly, it’s the world we live in.
I am a: parent of elementary and middle school students; gun owner; Paramedic; former security officer; former Deputy Sheriff; concealed handgun permit holder.
Mr. Kiser speaks of the financial costs of armed security. Horse feathers! I guarantee you that there are parents like me in every school who are fully capable of taking on the task as volunteers. The only impediment is the law, which forbids us from carrying guns on school property. I would gladly serve as volunteer armed security if it were legal for me to do so, on my days off work. Who better to protect the children than the parents? If I have to attend some training to do so, that is NOT a problem.
Jeff, how many things could go wrong with guns in school? I dare say, according to experience, less than what goes wrong when only the bad guy has the guns.
#19 No disrespect for teachers was intended by my previous comment (#17). Also my comment about prison guards was not intended to compare schools to prisons. You seem intent on bringing up very small red-herring type points to chip away at my posts instead of the main questions. Regardless of the diligence of our teachers, the classroom is a place of many distractions and anyone can be momentarily distracted. And all it takes is a moment.
#20 Great technology — what does it cost, who maintains it? Who programs the security features? Who tests it periodically? Who trains the teacher to use it? Can the entire unit be secured from theft (including during the middle of the night)? In other words I think your “simple” solution is not adequately secure.
#10 You mentioned the results of a poll conducted through an advertisement in a weblog. Hardly scientific. Drawing any kind of conclusion from such a result is laughable. What was that? Did you say they already allow teachers to carry guns in Connecticut? How did Sandy Hook even happen then? By the same token you could argue that despite the presence of guns in CT schools no child has taken a weapon from a teacher.
So around and around it goes. All of this discussion is just filigree on the really big issue. Teachers carrying guns will stop some shooters and arm others. Bans on “assault weapons” (if that term can even be defined) or high-capacity magazines will accomplish absolutely nothing except that the manufacturers of those items will make enormous amounts of money in the short term before the bans take effect.
What is the main question then? The United States Constitution allows citizens to own and bear firearms. All rights have benefits and liabilities. All of our wars have taught us that our freedoms are very expensive in terms of human life and physical suffering. The price of the second amendment is the availability of weapons to people who should not have them. The question is whether we are willing to continue to pay that price.
One could argue that we should get better at identifying potential school shooters, but first of all you are talking about predicting statistical outliers, which is pure fantasy, especially in the realm of human behavior which is one of the things we understand the least. Second it is nearly impossible to do that without intruding on other basic liberties such as privacy and the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. That’s the same argument against requiring firearms to be registered.
@20, how much does a “top quality gun security case with a finger print reading locking mechanism” cost? I found them online for an average of $200. There are about 105 teachers on faculty where I teach. That’s $21,000 just for the “top quality gun security cases with a finger print reading locking mechanisms.” Then there’s the cost of the guns themselves. Then there is training, ammo for practice, and the inevitable huge jump in insurance costs for schools where teachers are armed. There were 3.2 million public school teachers in the U.S in 2008-2009 (most recent data). That’s $640,000,000 just for the “top quality gun security cases with a finger print reading locking mechanisms.” Again, then there’s the guns…a good handgun can run at least $300…that’s another $700 million, minimum. And if you want to suggest the teachers buy that stuff, I’ll happily show you my paystub and explain why that just isn’t feasible.
Who is going to pay for all this? At a time when the Radical Right is screaming to “reduce spending,” who is going to introduce the legislation to fund all of that?
Now, I firmly believe that you can’t put a price on student (or anyone’s!) safety, but arming and training teachers in gun use, and making secure those guns just isn’t the answer. I don’t pretend to have the answer, but I know that this proposal isn’t it.
Mr. Rose and others, despite your qualifications and experience I don’t want you or anyone else, volunteer, teacher, student, at the schools my children attend. No one, none.
The fact of the matter is, schools are very safe. Violent crime overall has been going down for the last 20 years. These types of acts make the news but they are in general rare.
This isn’t a discussion we should even be having.
Lastly, if it’s killings with guns you want to reduce, the most efficient way to do that is remove guns from society. I would prefer to give up some gun rights to keep our kids safe and that opinion is as easily justified and worth as much as those who prefer the opposite.
Well Scott, Better get ahold of your local police dept. Because I am sure at sometime or another an armed Resource office is in the school.
I swear Scott, I simply cannot understand your thinking. So we outlaw guns, ban them or do whatever. And now all the criminals are going to wake up and say, Oh, guess I gotta turn my gun in ’cause they are illegal now. CRIMINALS LOVE GUN BANS. IT MAKES THEIR WORK SAFER. Since that was so easy how about let’s outlaw drunk driving, murder by any means, etc., etc., etc. Now, we have that settled, let’s go out an fix some other social problem. E william: I’ll bet you could get the Gun Vault makers to potentially offer their products for free OR at least deeply discounted. Advertising like that cannot be bought at any price. But beyond that you don’t necessarily need the biometric version. Get one with the 4 button code. They are essentailly just as safe and you can even get them on sale at time for $79.
@24,
No one suggested every teacher in every school be armed. Why don’t the school systems poll their employees and determine how many would be willing to keep a firearm available, and furnish their own if needed. Do you really believe there are no veterans in our schools. There is no way a gun ban will be effective, and anyone thinking otherwise is not being realistic. Truth be told, there are teachers, custodians, administrative personnel, and others that would welcome the opportunity to not be a sitting duck the next time some kid decides to get payback.
It appears that some of you think our schools will become the wild west if a few responsible adults choose to take personal safety, and the safety of their students and peers, into their own hands. You have to remember the police arrive after the fact, and arrive with the ambulances and hearses. Think about it.
#27, excellent, so we just cut the cost to only half a billion for the cases. How about the guns, the training, the ammo, the insurance…?
Face it, its just a bad idea. Schools are generally safe; there’s no need to over-react by arming teachers, just as there’s no need to over-react and talk about taking away people’s hunting rifles.
@26 Herb, I know. Doesn’t mean I have to like it. We should stop calling them Resource Officers and call them what they are, Cops.
@27 Mr. Greene, if it’s any consolation, I don’t get your way of thinking either. Please note, I didn’t see let’s disarm law abiding citizens ONLY. With my little plan, the criminals would, for the most part, be disarmed too. Guns would simply be unavailable.
Just so we’re clear, I realize other things like knife crimes would go up. I know someone could take their car and run into a group of kids. We should try to prevent that too. But I am under No illusions that all guns would go away. I suspect it would be reduced to the point only organized gangs/criminals would spend the money to get them and they’d use them on each other.
Best wishes.
#30 – ” With my little plan, the criminals would, for the most part, be disarmed too.”
Just what is you “little plan”, Scott? Please enlighten us.
@31 Michael, come on man, we’ve been over this. One of the ways to reduce (not eliminate) gun related crimes is to remove guns from society. My “plan” is to work towards that goal both through laws and education.
Teachers have emotional problems too. What’s to keep them from going beserk like theses other killers. More guns present, more chance of disaster.
#32 – I know we’ve been over this, Scott, but unless I missed it (which is possible), the only “plan” I’ve seen from you is you gun buyback plan…which is NOT going to do anything to remove guns from criminal hands.
Scott: My Daddy was Mr. Greene. I’m Bubba. So you appear to admit that criminals would still have firearms. And seeing how easy it is to get dope into the US, criminals would find a totally new enterprise. Smuggling guns. As far as using them on each other and not the unarmed public. YOU MUST BE KIDDING! Now, e william, I do not necessarily feel every teacher in every classroom in every school needs a gun. You just like to mess with the numbers to make a point. One armed peron in proportion to X number of students or X number of floors or X number of classrooms would proibably do the job. Funny how citys, states and the feds find the resources to provide law enforcement with multiple guns as well as cars, communications equipment, uniforms and on and on. It’s a solution that CAN work. However I think you are still not tuned into the notion that I am not 100% sold on the idea. I actually feel much better about providing adequately trained professional security in schools and not rely on the staff or admin to do it. BTW, it looks like the survey is strongly favors guns in schools.
@34, Bubba, thank you for allowing me to refer to you as such. I’m pleased to meet you.
I’m not kidding about my proposed solution. Yes criminals would still get firearms, by definition. But when you look at the rates of death by gun in say Britain to hear, I’m convinced it could be done (eventually).
Scott: I would like to live in the world you THINK would materialize but history must be our greatest teacher. History has given us more lessons that I have room to print and one is that the world is full of bad people, bent on taking things from others if not for want of material possessions like $$, for want of power. You see the quest for power right now in our government. Our leaders no longer support reasonable solutions but they will support what buys the vote. They want the power. They want re-elected. It’s an odd situation. In reality, we the people are helpless against our government no matter how we are armed. But the other reality is that we are being deprived of our liberties every day. It’s reason enough for guns, but it’s really not why I have them nor why I stand buy the 2nd.
#25 “The fact of the matter is, schools are very safe. Violent crime overall has been going down for the last 20 years. These types of acts make the news but they are in general rare.
This isn’t a discussion we should even be having.”
Thank you.
#29 Don’t know if meant as red-herring, but same smell.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
@37 Bubba, you and I shall simply have to disagree then. While I agree there are goofballs in search of power they can get it only because decent people sit on their hands, don’t take an interest, etc.
My solution requires more work but leads to a better society.
I didn’t say it would be easy. I said it would be worth it.
Allow me to interject what I hope is a dose of rationalizing in this. It seems to me asking if we should arm teachers jumps the “gun” as it were.
Doesn’t it make more sens to start with the question: Do we have a gun crime problem in the US?
My answer is; certainly in some parts of the US that’s true, but when you consider we have maybe 250 million guns in the US AND our violent crime rate has been going down overall, it seems to me we do not have a gun crime problem. With ~310 million people, we’ve got ~30,000 deaths by gun of which 2/3 of those are suicides. So, if you take a random sample of 10,000 people, 1 of them will die by gun fire this year. Woundings, both accidental and on purpose occur to about 1 of every 4,000 people.
If we don’t have a gun crime problem, do we have a gun shootings at school problem? My answer is again No. School shootings are a small subset of that already small gun crime statistic. I’ve heard on-school-ground shootings account for about 1% of gun related deaths.
So, if we don’t really have much of a gun crime problem and we don’t have a problem with school related gun deaths, statistically; Why the Hell are we even having this debate??!
The small incidence of gun related school shootings is the real reason we don’t need to arm teachers. It’s a real headline maker when it happens but the fact is, it doesn’t happen enough to justify giving guns to people.
And while I’m at it, allow me a bit of snark. It seems to me those who routinely rail against public school teacher with sayings like, “Those who can, do; and those who can’t, teach” are the ones pushing now to arm the teachers. If those people really believe teachers are in general incompetent, it doesn’t say much of their opinions of gun owners.
Sorry – I had to get that off my chest.
Now, if we decide we have a gun problem and want to reduce the number of injuries and death by them we can implement some common sense solutions.
1) Universal background checks. You can’t give, gift, donate, or sell to anyone unless they have a thorough background check. Take your used gun to a licensed seller, sell it to them and let them re-sell it. If you want to give a gun as a gift, take it to the licensed dealer, have them transfer it to the recipient with a $20 service charge to do the background check.
2) Any guns left after a person dies not explicitly accounted for in the Will must be destroyed.
3) The police must be allowed to accept guns for destruction without putting them up for auction and putting them back on the street.
4) You have to be licensed to own a gun and I mean actually licensed where you have to prove proficiency, have taken a hands on safety course, etc.
5) You have to be re-certified periodically just like you would be with a car license.
6) You have to provide proof of liability insurance to own a gun.
7) 6-shots per gun. Period.
8) No Grandfather clauses.
9) Heavy fines and/or imprisonment for those who don’t follow the rules.
I think that’s better.
Scott M.,
It appears that the ones opposed to arming teachers are either teachers, or affiliated with our school systems. If the people in charge of educating our children are looked upon by their peers as being incapable of safely securing or using a firearm in their possession, we have serious problems of competency that need to be addressed. I don’t believe this to be true, I believe the dissension comes from people with no knowledge of the use and care of firearms.
If I thought your solution in post #41 was viable, I would support it (with a few slight revisions) 100%. Unfortunately, it has the proverbial snowball’s chance of ever being considered, much less enacted.
Just a second — just because a person isn’t capable of securing or using a firearm, suddenly they’re incompetent to teach? These people went to college for four, sometimes six years to get their teaching degrees and certificates and such. Maybe, just maybe, teachers and school administrators understand how their institutions function, from the day to day operations to long-term issues such as funding and general morale, and understand the hidden weaknesses in the arguments for arming their staff with guns. I really don’t think you need to be an Olympic marksman or a retired Navy SEAL to see how bad of an idea this is. I’ve never touched a gun and I don’t think it’s a good idea for paroled murderers to be walking around with them. Is that opinion not valid because I have “no knowledge of the use and care of firearms”?
Good post Scott. You go pretty well along the line of making the case that there is no “gun problem” yet you pose a solution when one is not apparently needed. Of course the reason why the debate exists is that when a gun is used as in CT all the libs rally to the cry that “something must be done”. Our political leaders need to show us how they solve problems and make our lives better so we will re-elect them. I saw a stat recently, don’t claim it is true, but the figure was that in whatever period, “rifles” killed some 350 (?) people. In the same period, hammers killed over 800. Let’s ban hammers. I know it’s an old view but it remains a fact. People bent on crime will find a way of doing it guns or no guns. I keep going back to what I call the root cause of the degeneration of social and moral values. It’s not guns, knives, ropes, bombs or fists. The problem is in the mind of man and I fear it is only getting worse.
Blue John: Good comment however people keep using the term “enacted” as if this solution must come by way of legislation. I tend to agree with you that such a plan is unlikely to ever be “enacted” but some of the landmark changes in law happens through the judiciary process. This president will very probably appoint at least two if not three Supreme Court justices in the next four years. The court was very close to a reversal on the 2nd when the Heller decision was made in 2008. The decision in that case was 5 to 4. Both Scalia and Kennedy sided with the majority and both are 77 years old. It won’t be just guns laws that are going to change but a good many other things. AND there will be no recourse for those in the “minority”. This nation is unfortunately plauged with a president who wants to “change” our society to fit his view of how thing should be. It may not happen during the next four years but with his court, he will set the pattern for generations to come.
Better get used to it.
Anyone who believes guns ensure safety or liberty clearly does not understand either.
@42 Blue John, you say, “…I believe the dissension comes from people with no knowledge of the use and care of firearms.”
While I’m sure you will get a level of ignorance on both sides of this issue, I need to point out as just one example, I own guns. I know how to use and care for them and I don’t want them in the schools. Also see post #2 by Bill Artis who says, “I am a teacher and a gun owner. I’ve been around guns all of my life. I believe in the 2′nd Amendment. I like that in America I can protect myself and my family through the 2′nd Amendment. Teachers with guns? A very, very stupid idea. ….”
Your explanation while holding some validity falls down in other areas. It’s most often these dissenting ideas we should listen to.
You also say, “If I thought your solution in post #41 was viable, I would support it (with a few slight revisions) 100%. Unfortunately, it has the proverbial snowball’s chance of ever being considered, much less enacted.”
Forgive me, but that seems just an excuse to sit on your hands. A rationalization if you will. It won’t change if good people like yourself aren’t willing to help these ideas along. You say you would support — so support it.
The sheer effort to keep us from banning these military styled assault rifles is astounding. Some people have truly convinced themselves that the Second Amendment guarantees them any gun they want and can afford. Therein lies a serious problem. There is no right that is immune from responsibility and restriction and not accepting that, or believing your gun fetish has anything to do with liberty is starting to look like a blind spot a mile wide.
@43 Bubba, that statistic you read about the rifles vs. hammers is pretty close. It’s important to note that it’s a little disingenuous though. It’s limited to rifles. When you include all guns, the numbers sky rocket. And as one of my favorite commenters pointed out, if those who want to arm teachers actually thought hammers were more a effective weapon than an assault rifle, they should be urging all teachers be armed with hammers.
I do agree with you that our politicians are reactionary and those on the left while arguing for more control are equally balanced by those on the right arguing for more guns.
That’s why we all need to be involved with our political system to urge a reasoned, thoughtful look at the problem (if there is one) and reasoned, thoughtful solutions. Just as we on the left accept we can never get rid of all the guns nor get rid of gun crime/assaults completely, those on the right should accept reasonable controls can be put in place for gun ownership that don’t fundamentally infringe on gun ownership rights. There is a balance somewhere in there. My thought is we’re too far to the loosey-goosey end of the spectrum and that more regulation wouldn’t hurt us.
Just admit it, you will never run out of excuses, no matter how many people are killed with guns, it will not matter. It is what you are saying whether you admit it or not. When the gun deaths exceed the vehicle deaths, it still won’t matter. When gun deaths exceed cancer deaths, it still won’t matter. Just admit it.
A cartoon about this ongoing debate:
http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/tmw-21-01.jpg
Due to human error (mine), the button allowing comments to the poll was not turned off. These comments appeared there instead of here at the RoundTable. Apologies if there was some confusion.
Comments Left About This Poll
Showing comments 1-12 of 12.
Posted by Joe on January 21, 2013 at 10:47 pm. From 24.149.111.x Report Abuse
I was at VT when Cho killed all of those people. I have a CCP but can’t carry on campus. Specifically DISARMING CCP holders on University grounds is ridiculous. OTOH, 3 separate shootings at gun shows last weekend shows there are too many idiots owning guns. I think “gun free zones” should be eliminated and armed security officers in schools is just common sense.
Posted by Joe Painter on January 21, 2013 at 3:48 pm. From 71.62.124.x Report Abuse
There is no reason that teachers/staff who are willing to be properly trained and obtain a permit via a NRA certified course, should not be allowed to carry concealed. There is an invisible sign over most schools that reads “gun free zone”; such invites would-be shooters.
There were seventeen theaters in Auora, Colorado, in 2011. Only one prohibeted firearms; the one that the killer picked.
As a lawyer who has not only read the Second Amendment, I have done extensive research into why the Framers wrote it. It clearly means that American citizens have the right to own firearms and the right to use the same in defense of self and others. Teachers should have the same rights that I have; they are not second class citizens.
The knowledge that teachers might be armed would keep those with a tendency to commit violence away. There would be no need for gun battles.
Those who do not recognize that there is evil in this world are fooling themselves. They ignore the “culture of violence” in this country; the roots of such include violent movies, violent video games, violent rap music, etc. There is no simple solution.
Posted by Joe Painter on January 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm. From 71.62.124.x Report Abuse
There is no reason that teachers/staff who are willing to be properly trained and obtain a permit via a NRA certified course, should not be allowed to carry concealed. There is an invisible sign over most schools that reads “gun free zone”; such invites would-be shooters.
There were seventeen theaters in Auora, Colorado, in 2011. Only one prohibeted firearms; the one that the killer picked.
As a lawyer who has not only read the Second Amendment, I have done extensive research into why the Framers wrote it. It clearly means that American citizens have the right to own firearms and the right to use the same in defense of self and others. Teachers should have the same rights that I have; they are not second class citizens.
The knowledge that teachers might be armed would keep those with a tendency to commit violence away. There would be no need for gun battles.
Those who do not recognize that there is evil in this world are fooling themselves. They ignore the “culture of violence” in this country; the roots of such include violent movies, violent video games, violent rap music, etc. There is no simple solution.
Posted by Joe Painter on January 21, 2013 at 3:26 pm. From 71.62.124.x Report Abuse
There is an invisible sign hovering over most schools that reads “gun free zone”. If a teacher or staff is willing to go the training and obtains the proper permit there is no reason why they should not be allowed be carry concealed. Concealed means just that, the weapon should not be seen nor should it be obvious. I firmly believe that the course they should be NRA certified. Video on-line courses do not cut it.
There were seventeen theaters in Auroa, Colorado, in 2011. The only one that prohibed firearms is the one that the killer chose. Gun free zones invite violence. Violent movies, violent video games, violent rap music, etc. are at the root of America’s “culture of violence”.
As a lawyer who has not only read the Second Amendment, I have also done extensive research into why the Framers wrote it. It is extremely clear that American citizens have the right to own firearms, but also to use the same in the defense of self or others. Teachers are not second class citizens.
I firmly believe if teachers were given the same rights that i have, then would-be shooters would avoid schools, and there would be no need for gun battles.
Posted by Ernie on January 21, 2013 at 9:22 am. From 24.149.85.x Report Abuse
As long as the teachers are willing to be sued and/or go to prison for shooting the wrong person. Also Virginia’s “licensing” process for obtaining a concealed carry permit is silly. Watch a 15 minute video online, submit your certificate, pay the fee and you have a permit.
Posted by Joe Painter in reply to Ernie on January 21, 2013 at 3:52 pm. From 71.62.124.x Report Abuse
As a lawyer I can say you are in grevious erorr. I believe your problem is with the Constitution not the question.
By the way, a fifteen minute video does not cut it; only a NRA certified course does.
Posted by Alan Rose on January 21, 2013 at 8:40 am. From 71.88.249.x Report Abuse
Allow armed parents with school shooter training. Who better to protect the children?
Posted by Jim Carez on January 20, 2013 at 12:08 pm. From 173.218.237.x Report Abuse
As a retired school teacher and a current NRA concealed carry instructor I think willing school staff members who are carefully screened and then thoroughly trained in the summer would be most effective. Administrators, teachers, custodians, who are willing and get the training should be allowed to carry concealed. They need to be very discrete about it. No one should know who is carrying and who is not. The firearm should be required to be carried on the person. Not in a purse or bag or in the desk where they might be accessed by unauthorized persons. The training for these people should be very complete, similar to that required by air marshals. They should be required to be re-evaluated and retrained every summer.
I know in the small schools where I taught there were two or three staff members who would have been good candidates for this program. Custodians would be especially good because they move about the building freely and would not seem out of place anywhere in the building. Teachers spend more time in or close to their classrooms. But even so if something happens they would probably run toward the gunfire with something more than a book to throw at the shooter. Right after Columbine I spent a lot of time thinking about this. The feeling of helplessness the victims would have while a shooter walked through the room executing people is hard to comprehend. Just one armed staff member could be on the scene much quicker than law enforcement. If they could save just a few lives it would be worth it.
The cost would be much less than armed security guards. The school staff members are already being paid. I would expect to cover the expense of their training and even their firearm and practice ammo. And maybe an annual stipend.
I feel something along these lines would be very effective. I don’t have all the answers, prolly haven’t even thought of all the questions, but I think this would work!
Posted by Jeremy on January 20, 2013 at 11:47 am. From 74.95.73.x Report Abuse
I see no reason why a teacher, administrator, or custodian – or student teacher, volunteer, or parent – who has already gone through their state’s licensing and certification for a concealed carry permit should not be allowed to carry their defensive weapon with them wherever they go. Disarming the populace leads to massacres like this – “Gun Free Zones” or victim dumps, period. Get rid of the barrel, and people will stop shooting the fish.
Posted by Julian on January 20, 2013 at 11:23 am. From 98.183.216.x Report Abuse
I support having armed personnel in our schools. Question for the anit-gun people, why is it that most if not all of the mass shootings have taken place at so called ‘Gun Free’ zones such as churchs, schools, etc. ??? Because it is my belief that the bad guy knows he will not expect any resistance. Also some of our teachers and staff may be military veterans that have experience with firearms and combat experience. Just my thoughts and opinions.
Posted by Douglas Barry on January 20, 2013 at 9:49 am. From 108.15.194.x Report Abuse
I support armed security in public schools and I do believe gun free zones are a magnet for those who wish to inflict harm on others. That being said, I also believe it is a job better left to trained professionals. With very few exceptions,I can’t see a teacher devoting the amount of time and money to train enough to be effective in an active shooter scenario. The decision to carry a firearm is a right all citizens have provided they are eligable under the law to do so. The responsibilty that goes hand in hand with that right is equally important. Training to be proficient with, and safe with a firearm is a lifelong constant effort. A few hours of training for teachers to be armed around children IMHO is not enough. They’re plates are already full with that job and family resposibilities, and leads one to question how much time and effort could be given to training. Trained security professionals is the way to go. I know it would be costly, but what other option do we have. There is an elemant of lawlessness out there and always will be. It will not be legislated out of exsistance and we cannot affod to pretend it doesn’t exsist.
Posted by Cynthia on January 20, 2013 at 7:52 am. From 71.171.38.x Report Abuse
You can’t have a safe teaching environment if staff and students are sitting ducks. A person intent on harm will only stop when injured or killed. It is folly to believe you can’t fight violence with the violence. If you believe this then we need to disarm police, secret service, military and all other segments of society pledged to protect. Common sense should prevail.
If the teachers end up being armed, then they should also get paid extra for it.
@46,
Jeff envisioned the teacher becoming Rambo and leaving the students alone while chasing the attacker. He also threatened a lawsuit if the teacher did same. He neglected to list his objections, other than saying arming teachers is a stupid idea. Do you not feel confident in your ability to have a firearm for self defense? If so, do not volunteer. Do you feel that none of your co-workers are competent to maintain a firearm? How do you know?
My support for your idea was contingent upon it being viable. It isn’t. Sandi’s post #47 hits the nail on the head, it will be a miracle if new legislation is passed.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It’s also not an issue of if, but rather when will the next shooting occur? The issue is will we allow ourselves to act responsibly to protect our loved ones in the face of unspeakable evil?
@43,
Please see your posts #15 and #18. If the school systems cannot enact security measures to keep shooters out of the schools, our only recourse is to defend ourselves in the schools.
Question, the Conn. shooter reportedly had a disagreement with four people at the school the day before the shooting. He returned to kill three of the four the next day. The fourth person was not at the school at the time of the shooting and was interviewed by the police. Has anyone heard what the disagreement was over?
#54, “If the school systems cannot enact security measures to keep shooters out of the schools, our only recourse is to defend ourselves in the schools.” But that’s not our “only recourse.” Another possibility, albeit one you don’t really like, would be to repeal the second amendment and replace it with laws like other sane industrialized countries have, where gun violence is much less frequent. It would take a while (probably 50 years) to clean up the guns but eventually we would bring them down to the baseline levels.
By the way I’m surprised nobody has suggested just making schools like airports. Surround a wide perimeter with razor-wire fencing, allow only students through the gate, and screen them all upon entry using TSA type full body scanners. Anything would be better than giving up our guns, right? No matter the cost or degree of intrusion or infringement upon any of our OTHER rights such as freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. The second amendment trumps everything.
Scott: Yes the numbers change when “all guns” are considered BUT the current movement is not abut “all guns” just the evil Armalite Rifle style and 30 round magazines. That’s what NY has a ban upon. That’s what the Clinton ban was about. That’s what congressional supporters of a ban are talking about. As to the views of the left and the right. The left, supporting more controls, has little if any factual evidence that they are effective. Chicago stands as a shining example of failure. In some places it is illegal to take a gun outside of you house. And the murder rate is staggering in those places. Criminals don’t pay attention to laws. As to the right, they seem to have plenty of evidence that more guns equal less crime. I think you even noted that possibility earlier.
Blue John: You bring up another interesting point. It appears there is a good deal of the “facts” that are potentially not yet out in the realm of public knowledge about CT. I have read some speculation of even the possibility of more than one shooter. I have read of conflicting info on the gun/guns used. I also have to question why, if the shooter made a visit to the school some day(s) just prior, what was that event all about. AND, since it seems he was known to be a tad unstable, dare I use the word insane, why were school officials not in some way considering the threat. THAT to me is the biggest question and it represents a real failure on the part of the school admin. Our society has become so wild about tolerance we no longer see crazy for what it is. Anything goes, let’s let them be creative, but intelligence does not equate to being sane. Tough problem. Not sure there is an easy answer! And finally, I agree it should not be a left/right issue but unfortunately believe that it is and don’t see how it is likely to proceed in any other nonpartisan way.
I fail to see how “common sense” can “prevail” when there is no common sense solution to an insane problem. No, “You can’t have a safe teaching environment if staff and students are sitting ducks”. And yes, “A person intent on harm will only stop when injured or killed”. However, I think the “folly” is in believing that the only way to fight violence is with violence. That sort of means that in any business, vehicle or home, we are ALL just “sitting ducks” unless we arm ourselves and remain vigilant for every threat. That is a surrender and total capitulation that should just have us wipe all laws off the books and send the courts into the unemployment line because there is no way to “guarantee” safety. From recent memory the police, secret service, and military are “enforcers” much more so than protectors of society.
Society makes laws to protect and perpetuate itself. If we can only pass a law when it is guaranteed to work, then we need to close up shop, there is no such thing. The needs and plans of society have often trumped those of individuals and in the case of gun control, mental health screenings, and behavior laws are the way we achieve it. Armed camps are not good societies. Deciding the answer to this tragedy is to arm ourselves more is admitting defeat.
I fail to see how “common sense” can “prevail” when there is no common sense solution to an insane problem. Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 22, 2013 @ 2:37 pm
Liberals always have difficulty with common sense solutions lacking any.
Yes Leon, it is just a crying shame I lack your substance.
@58 Leon, so far this has been a pretty respectful discussion. No need to go calling names.
Perhaps an apology is in order?
#58 “Liberals always have difficulty with common sense solutions lacking any” That statement doesn’t make any sense, grammatically. What is it you were trying to say? Why did you feel it necessary to attack “Liberals” in general?
Scott and (most) others: Enjoyed the dialogue. Guess I have said about all I care to for now so I’ll yield to the people from Casey’s blog that simply want to argue, name call and stir up a stink. Too bad. Your views, Scott, are well presented but essentially, you take it to an end to which I will not consent and you stray into territory I object to pretty early in making your case. Individuals who are constitutionally legal in owning should never be subjected to regulations to sell or otherwise dispose of their firearms. There are many regulations that are probably appropriate and I cannot object to them but as I said over on Taylor’s blog, it is not the next step(s) but where the path leads. Your path leads to what would be essentially the removal of firearms from the law abiding citizen only to have them widely available for the criminal and they would potentially use them on you and I. No thanks! Very good conversing with you but I’m gone for now and don’t see that I can add any more meaningful comments.
Oh yes, I do want to add one final observation if I recall the #’s. As to the survey, 26% object to guns in the schools and 73% APPROVE with 1% being “not sure”. Pretty strong in my opinion. BTW, a recent NBC poll I saw seemed to place the “blame” on parents for not being invloved in the lives of their kids as the critical problem rather than the need for greater gun control. Even Bill Clinton as recent as last week urged caution to the democrats when moving on gun control. That same article pointed out several key dems who lost their re-election bids in the house and senate following the passage of the “Clinton ban”. All and all, I am encourgane at the wisdom which appears to show in the minds of many, if not most citizens. Just an observation. No slam to those who may disagree.
A bunch of little kids were killed by gunfire. Does it matter what kind of conversation the shooter had with school officials the day before? Is it better if there were two shooters instead of one? How does the specific make and model of weapon matter? “There are a lot of [small] facts that we haven’t been told…” but knowing those facts won’t bring back anyone’s children. At best they will suggest potential targets for lawsuits. That is the bitter lesson of the VT shootings.
Words are funny things, I too am encouraged “at the wisdom which appears to show in the minds of many, if not most citizens”.
“38% of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation’s gun laws and want them strengthened. This is up from 25% who held this set of views a year ago, and is the highest since 2001.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159824/u.s.-dissatisfied-want-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
Assigning blame to anyone other than the person who chooses to take up their gun and shoot people is a losing proposition.
A society reacts and decides what is best for it at any moment in time. Many, myself included, believe that the time has come to start paying more attention to the guns in circulation in our society and how they are used. Semi-automatic military style assault rifles that can fire a 30 or more round magazine have no place in society IMO. The sooner we remove them, the sooner we can begin the changes that will lead to the gun culture being about defense instead of the machismo offense it has come to represent in far too many venues, including reality.
Agreed, “Just an observation. No slam to those who may disagree.”
Well, drawn back in I guess. Maybe none of those detail matter in one sense but in another if the school admin had some sort of threatening confrontation with the shooter prior to the day of the event it does matter. IF TRUE,someone made a very bad decision to not report it and take no action. The lesson is that it might have been prevented. The VT shooter was known to be crazy, (oophs, not supposed to use that word) and yet he roamed the ivy halls in complete freedom and you see the consequences. This is essentially the same as a bomb threat being called in to a school but the admin decides to do nothing and the place blows up. Not important?! Another joke, right? And are you even remotely suggesting that if another shooter was involved it “don’t matter”? There probably was not a second one but it remains somewhat unclear to many apparently. As to the kind of gun if something other than an Armalite Rifle were used and if that is true, which I have no reason to actually believe now, but IF it were true it proves that the left fanned the anti gun sentiment with the events FOR THEIR ADGENDA against firearms because the Armalite style rifle and 30 round magazine is an evil easy target. God forbid that we try to ban shotguns first ’cause they are legitimate hunting firearms. But rest certain that I do not believe the questions I raised ARE true. I just know the questions were out there and worthy of being addressed. BTW, just reading my American Rifleman, official pub of the NRA, which stated that for VA the gun sales since 2006 climbed by 73% while the number of violent crimes INVOLVING GUNS declined by more than 27%. So that proves more guns more crime…er wait..NO that cannot be right. Get Eric Holder on the phone and have him check that out.
Re: January 21, 2013 @ 10:10 am
How long are the safes good for? Ten – twenty years?
How much does an armed guard cost for the next twenty years?
——
Re: January 21, 2013 @ 1:10 pm
If schools are generally safe (safe enough?), why all the overreaction on the part of the pro-prohibition press, pols, groups, etc?
If there’s no need to talk about taking away people’s hunting rifles, how do you explain the Feinstein bill: http://tinyurl.com/c6fkay3 ?
—–
A question in general for all:
Could it be that some of the resistant to allowing teachers who want to be to be armed is an emotional reaction / involuntary reflex to the idea that just the existent of even some armed teachers would create the image of an armed role model / mentor / friendly & loving person who is pro-RKBA?
FWIIW, In the fear of armed teachers, I hear echos of the current fear of homosexuals as teachers and the older fear (of my youth) of blacks as teachers.
Funny how so many cockamamie, uninformed opinions spring to the forefront in debates like this. The fact is, there SHOULD be an SRO in every school. Yes, it will cost, but no more than it would have when Bill Clinton wanted to put 100,000 new cops on the street with his crime bill. All I’m saying is let’s do the same thing now, except put them in the schools as trained Resource Officers. That and require the school officials to secure their buildings. Despite the histrionics of the naysayers, I’m not suggesting razor wire and guard towers. All I’m saying is stop accepting “no, not only will we not lock the back door during the school day, we won’t even close the damn thing because it is inconvenient to our staff to do so” as a valid answer from your school’s principal. Stop letting them say it is “too disruptive to have locks on classroom doors”.
The simple fact is, these changes to routine would be new and disruptive . . for about three weeks. Then it would be routine. The simple fact is, administrators simply don’t want to address these issues because it forces them to think about what could happen, and that is scary and uncomfortable. So instead, they avoid preparing out of fear. Fear of politics, fear of the truth and fear of, heaven forbid, someone might say my school isn’t safe and that would make me look bad. So instead they lead the charge against the evil guns and the uninformed and easily led pick up the banner and fall right in line, virtually assuring the status quo. You guys do realize that Columbine really started the debate about school shootings right? You also realize that Columbine happened right in the middle of the last “assault weapons” ban right? How good of a job did that law do at preventing Columbine? If someone can answer the question why a courthouse should be more secure than a school, I’ll bow out of this issue. Hell, if one of you can even answer why Wal-Mart should be more secure than an elementary school, I’ll shut up. But you can’t, and you know it. So instead, carry on with your political agenda.
Oh now you should be a “protected class” and you don’t have equal rights? Wow, is there no length?
You keep claiming it is a “political agenda” Chuck. How is that precisely? How does it benefit the Democrats if they somehow manage to force a change that society does not want or accept? Is that not normally considered political suicide and do not such pols generally pay dearly for it? Do Republicans believe that society benefits from these military styled assault rifles that can fire from a 30 (or more) round magazine? What is that benefit?
If something is dangerous, threatening, being used to terrorize and kill people and has no real benefit to society, why would ANYONE fight to protect it? Why would society want to keep it, allow it, protect it or embrace it?
I get it that you all want this to be a political agenda and to have nefarious motives besides ending carnage and terror, but that does not make it so.
#68, “All I’m saying is stop accepting ‘no, not only will we not lock the back door during the school day, we won’t even close the damn thing because it is inconvenient to our staff to do so’ as a valid answer from your school’s principal.
The reason for keeping the door unlocked is not inconvenience. The reason is that egress is needed in case of a fire. When I was in school they tried to chain the back doors so that kids could not sneak out to buy candy and cigarettes, and the fire marshal objected.
The reason Wal-Mart stores are more secure than a school is because there are things in a Wal-Mart store that people might like to steal. All they’ll get robbing a school are books and maybe a 10-year-old PC. Wal-Mart is not only a supermarket — it’s an arsenal. Of course that would change once you start storing firearms in the classrooms. Then you’ll need an armed guard there all night to secure the firearms.
You wrote, “Hell, if one of you can even answer why Wal-Mart should be more secure than an elementary school, I’ll shut up.” Let’s see if you honor your part of the deal.
#41 “The small incidence of gun related school shootings is the real reason we don’t need to arm teachers. It’s a real headline maker…”
These small incidences that make the headlines are a big concern for parents of school aged children or like myself, parents with children at Va.Tech, which is an institution stigmatized by tragedy.
Considering our current technologies, sending our underage children to a school house for an education is an antiquated idea. The future of education will be at home, self-paced and on line. Parental concerns over school safety and discussions like this one will serve to bring this concept to fruition sooner than later.
Since cyber-schools will make most educators and educational bureaucrats redundant, waiting for them to embrace this concept and come up with a viable plan for the transition is a waste of time and taxpayers’ money.
Parents who are anxious about their child’s safety will opt to home-school now rather than send their loved ones to a potential combat zone.
Just hearing about all of the gun owners has probably put a kink in criminal behavior…Seems everybody and their brother is packing, and the criminals know it.
Now, I’m really going after this one. Just read another GREAT article in the NRA Magazine (no, not a 30 round one). The NRA recently got checks from the state of Illusion…I mean Illinois for something like 1.4 million dollars. WHY? Because the law allows prevailing parties to recover legal fees in cases to enforce federal civil rights laws. The NRA prevailed in the 2010 case, McDonald vs City Of Chicago. And how sweet it is that the check from the city of Chicago was signed by Mr. Gun Control himself, Rahm Emanuel. Don’t you anti gun people just love this! Maybe, since Chicago has such great gun control laws you might want to move there seeing’ how safe of a community it is. I just read the 8 day 2013 count projects 730 murders for 2013. But them you gotta remember that late in the year the City imposed yet more restrictions so the increase should come as no surprise. Remember, more controls = a safer community, right?
Oh yeah, one more fact. The latest public info on the firearm used in CT is NOT specific and NOT clear exactly what kind of gun it was. GOOD BYE!
#72, “The future of education will be at home, self-paced and on line.” There are already a lot of families who home-school. I know several of them. Curiously, they are all either middle-class families sustained by self-employment (for example farming) or upper-middle-class families sustained by a single income that is considerably above the family median income such that there is a stay-at-home spouse who does the home schooling. In other words, teaching your kids at home is a wonderful idea but only if you can afford it. The schoolhouse with full-time professional teachers is an example of division of labor, which is a central feature of a civilized society.
“Seems everybody and their brother is packing, ”
I know almost nobody who “packs” (at least not guns) among the people I know best. And I have friends on all sides of the aisle. In Virginia, according to Legally Armed, at last report about 279,000 people have concealed carry permits. I don’t know how many carry openly and don’t have a concealed carry permit or who just carry without a permit. Anyway, 279,000 is about 3.4 percent of the state’s population (although it’s a higher percentage of the adult population). That’s hardly “everybody and their brother.”
#76
To arm or not to arm; that is the question?
Cyber-schooling makes that question irrelevant.
It would be a poor argument to brand this concept elitist in order to diminish its viability.
A civilized society with a Glock in one hand and its children in the other, which chooses to ignore inconvenient truths and unconventional solutions, is foreshadowing its demise.
#77 Very roughly one-fourth of Virginia’s population is under 18. (If it matters, about one-eighth is over 65.) So in terms of the adult population it would be somewhere around 5% have concealed-carry permits. The adjustment isn’t enough to change your argument. I don’t know anyone who carries a weapon on his or her person either, but I do know people who have them in their cars.
I flat cannot tell if that is sarcasm or not CAW, (which is sad, in and of itself) but do you really consider a society that has “a Glock in one hand and its children in the other” to be “civilized”? I don’t.
Not for nothing but mass “cyber education” implies that we believe there will be a parent able to stay home and manage that and for millions upon millions of Americans, that will never happen again.
When the streets and public places are unsafe to the point that people avoid them, can their homes remain safe for long? At what point under siege does the ammo run out?
I know people who claim to carry everywhere, allowed or not. I even know people who have been shot at. What I do not know is anyone who has ever needed a gun or ended a “situation” with one.
I doubt most people who carry a concealed weapon – legally or illegally – advertise that they are carrying. Kinda defeats the purpose. Probably a lot more people do than we realize.
@applewood #73 “…Seems everybody and their brother is packing, and the criminals know it.”
Do you wear blinders? Perusing the Internet I found these articles appearing over the last 2-3 days from various locations.
In the Savannah Morning News: 17 Year-old dies after being shot several times in Savannah’s Windsor Forest neighborhood.
In the Augusta (GA) Chronicle: Pizza Hut employee robbed by 4 men (a handgun and shotgun used)
Richmond Times-Dispatch HOPEWELL — Police are investigating a home invasion involving four males who tied up a man, ransacked his house and stole money and personal items. The victim was threatened with a gun.
Newport News Daily Press: Three people were robbed at gunpoint early Wednesday morning during a home invasion near Christopher Newport University, police said.
Birmingham, Alabama — A 20-year-old man shot in the head as he drove through southwest Birmingham is expected to survive, police said.
Montgomery, Alabama — The woman found shot in the chest in the Quality Roof Inn on Monday morning has been released from the hospital, according to Montgomery Police.
Jacksonville, FL The Florida Times-Union: : A man and woman were in the same Westside neighborhood where a man was stabbed Saturday night. Jacksonville police responded to the Park Ridge mobile home park at 9211 103rd St. about 12:15 a.m. and found the pair, a 28-year-old man and a 29-year-old woman, with non-life-threatening gunshot wounds, detective Beau Bottin said. The two were shot multiple times.
More from Jax: A Credit Union was robbed by an armed masked man….Before approaching a female teller, the man pulled the mask down and produced a handgun. The robber then held the clerk at gunpoint and demanded money.
#76, you stated “There are already a lot of families who home-school.” Just for purposes of clarification, statistically that isn’t exactly true. There are about 7,000 school-aged Virginians who are home-schooled, and 1,264,764 school-aged Virginians in public schools. That means that .006% of school- aged children in Virginia are home-schooled.
Beyond that, I agree with many of your sentiments. Home-schooling can work, but as a public school classroom teacher, I see the problems associated with it. The socio-economic model the U.S chose in the later half of the 19th Century is one of industrialization, which relies in the specialization of labor. To model otherwise for our youth is to do them a disservice. That, coupled the general lack of social skills many (not all) home-schooled youth have, make it a poor model for educating. Additionally, since those parents choose to bypass the public education system, they are not as acutely aware of the problems that exist in public education, and quite often cannot or do not bring their voices to the political table with regards to working to make better that institution. The same is true for private education. Just my 1 cent worth of opinion (it would be 2 cents, but I’m a public school teacher and therefore don’t have the extra cent to spare. !)
Cyber-schooling is not synonymous with homeschooling just as commenting on this blog is not synonymous with a serious detailed discussion about the different aspects of cyber-schooling.
However, this blog is an excellent example of why and how cyber-schooling will work. Embracing this technology we are all using and ignoring its potential is an exercise in futility.
# 80 – The concept of “never again” limits the creative process and choice.
#84 Thanks for those numbers, I just didn’t know. I know maybe a dozen families who home school, but maybe I just live in an area where that’s more popular (i.e., where there are enough families sufficiently wealthy to keep one parent — the female parent in every case that I know — at home). My point is that cyber-schooling of our entire childhood population from their homes is not possible. I think we agree on that.