How do you feel about teachers (possibly your child's) having a loaded weapon in the classroom? I believe in the right to bear arms. But I want to know that ANYONE buying a weapon has a license & background check including mental instability. Sorry survivalists and militias you too. Also a teacher with 30-40 kids in a room had better have training, knowledge of procedures, know how to clean it regularly, and needs to be certified at a gun range annually. I want to know that he/she knows what they're doing. And lock that baby up!
sort by best latest
It's really simple. Gun bans don't work, and Sandy Hook is going to happen again. The ONLY thing that has a chance to save lives is if there is SOMEONE on campus who is armed. What's the potential to save up to 30 children's lives worth to you?
Currently there is no protection against an unstable teacher taking such a measure. So allowing registered and trained individuals to carry concealed weapons to protect students seems to be a different topic. Thanks for your input. Dee
Whoever is protecting the classroom, you're always going to have the possibility of and unstable "insert name" flipping out and turning his/her gun on the students, but your fear that it will happen is all out of proportion to it's likelihood.
The problem with proposing armed personel and teachers is that there is no guarantee that having the extra guns in a school is going to prevent or stop an attack. Not every person with that opinion is anti-gun, many are gun owners themselves.
There is no guarantee that a 911 responder with a gun will stop a shooter. But I still prefer that they have them, because the odds are much better.
My point is that I dont think parents are going be eager to support armed teachers. While this debate is interesting, pushing gun rights changes nothing. I own guns, I support the 2ND Amendment, I just dont want a gun in my son's classroom.
I think parental support will be more regional by state
We're not talking about adding. We're talking about replacing. Is witnessing a teacher shoot someone is more or less traumatic than the child witnessing the death of half his/her classmates... maybe including the teacher?
Good point, swordsbane. But I'm concerned about the impact of the trauma witnessed by all in general. I'd rather see measures in place that would prevent the event from being witnessed by the teachers and students before it entered the classroom.
The reality is that arming teachers may be a deterrent but has a much higher risk of danger to the students especially if there is a exchange of gunfire in a classroom. It is highly probable that teachers will not be trained to defend a classroom.
flacoinohio: That statement is just not true. It is not proven by the history of crime prevention involving armed citizens. No one should be armed unless they WANT to be but armed citizens should not be disarmed just because they enter a classroom.
On August 25, 2012 NYPD officers shot 16 innocent bystanders while engaging a man who shot at and killed only one person, his boss. This is a prime example of what I am saying, defending ones self or others involves placing innocent people at risk.
...and that's possibly the most rare occurrence in law enforcement. For every one of those, you find many where the criminal was put down with no other loss of life. I'm not talking about making the situation go away, but 3 is still better than 30
Would the author want to carry a loaded firearm open or concealed everyday while teaching children or teenagers?
Why would that be a problem? Are you afraid some kid is going to run up, yank the gun free and start shooting?
I was just wondering if sexyladydee who is or was a teacher would opt to carry a loaded firearm with her to school for protection against would be attackers. This is not an unfair question nor is it an attempt at a personal attack to win a debate.
A few mid western states currently have legislation going before their senates to approve these measures. A woman on MSNBC last night said her students would feel safer. It may be coming soon. Thanks Dee.
How stable do you think a young teacher who has had to use deadly force is going to be returning to the same room she killed someone in. Even better, how will this impact students who watched their teacher shoot a person, will they fear the teacher?
Flac, you think dealing with the aftermath of SURVIVING is worse than being killed? Where's the logic in that?
Your question is loaded, if I am dead I am not dealing with the aftermath. If I survived because I was armed and returned fire with no student or staff casualties, the answer is no. If I kill someone I am supposed to be protecting, yes it would be.
We seem to have ignited a firestorm here. Properly trained individuals, thoroughly screened mental health wise and licensed seems to be where we are heading. As an educator for over 20 years in urban environments I can see this becoming a reality.
The problem, as I see it is that too many people don't see armed citizens as responsible, as if the very fact that they want or need to carry a gun makes them dangeous to everyone. The reality is that they are some of the most responsible people.
In cases where citizens are armed there is a lower nember of citizens killed then when they are not during a mass killing attempt. So, if a teacher chose to carry and was trained, there would be likely less lives lost.
Would you have the teacher carry on her/his person....every day....so that small children would know///// Really? Really!
Concealed carry. For those teachers that chose to be licensed, trained etc. It would not be manditory, but optional, unless it was a private school that decided to make it manditory. Why would you oppose something to lower the death toll?
Please tell me how you know that it would lower the death toll. And please see my comment about what can happen during the time a teacher would have to unlock and prime and fire a weapon. Unless you really want that teacher to carry on her/his hip!
Because whenever those type of attacks happen in areas where there are armed citizens the killers are stopped sooner. And, killers like the Aurora theater one chose the Only theather in the area that had a posted "no carry". Prime? it's not a musket.
I agree that teachers should not be expected to protect themselves or their classrooms regardless of their willingness and abilities to do so. They are educated, trained, and hired to teach not be security or a reactionary force. Leave that to pros.
Except that the only "pro's" that could possibly make a difference in an incident like Sandy Hook is an armed teacher or administrator. Nothing else would have kept those students alive. Nothing else would have had a chance to.
Your rational is complete idiocy, people have this delusion that everyone that owns a gun and has been trained to use it is going to magically stop violence, it may end a situation, but not stop it. More guns is a deterrent not a solution.
I didn't say that it would "magically" do anything, just that there was more than a small chance to save lives, which is more than they got at Sandy Hook. You seem to think that an armed teacher will simply add to the body count. THAT's idiocy.
I don't think more guns in a school is worth a reduced body count. Armed teachers means better planned attacks and increased urgency to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time by using a more lethal means of causing multiple deaths
Mitch that isn't always true. Often in locations with an armed "protector" that individual has been shot and killed first by a perpetrator. And then others. No way to know if the numbers could have been more/less. Dee
All but one of the public mass killing using guns in the last few decades has happened in "gun free" zones. Fact.
If more guns in school means that ONE person/teacher/child (besides the shooter) doesn't die who otherwise would have been shot, then it's TOTALLY worth it, no matter how many people like you it makes nervous.
Sexy, by your own admission "it doesn't always" denotes that in some, if not most, cases it does save lives...any lives saved is a good thing, right?
Monitoring the gatekeepers is a good idea. Dee
Except security guards aren't constantly monitored for mental issues. Only police get that kind of scrutiny, and as we have seen, it doesn't always catch them before they blow.
Arming teachers is like buying a ballistic backpack for a child that is hung on a hook in the back of the room. Protection is there but it is not ready to be put into use, what is the point other than peace of mind?
The point is that no matter where it is in the room, it's a LOT closer than the police.
Why now? We have had violence in schools for years, the notion that teachers should be armed to protect themselves has been denied for decades. Who are we going to arm when a mentally unstable teacher massacres a classroom full of children?
You haven't been paying attention. There has always been support for school administrations and teachers being armed. This isn't new.
RE Crazy teacher scenario: When a police officer flips out and hurts people, they don't disarm the police force.
Here is a better debate, what if your child is in a classroom when a teacher opens fire on an assailant and she misses and kills several of her students, maybe your child, what are you going to feel then. Training and combat are two different things
Despite what you may have heard, bystanders are rarely killed or even shot by armed citizens, and it's not a fair question. Would you rather 3 kids died, or 30? However tragic it was for the 3, are you seriously going to tell me that 30 is better?
Have you ever been in combat? People fall back on their training if they are trained well, most teachers will never have combat training in their teaching environment. Just 8 to 10 hours of class lecture and an hour or two of paper target practice.
Have YOU ever been in combat? I've witnessed a shootout. I've talked with people who've been in shootouts. I've seen police reports. The people who are armed and who react to a shooter hit the shooter and rarely anything/one else. End of story.
I would like to see teachers be able to defend themselves, but as a multi-campaign veteran I also know that not every bullet is accounted for once it is fired and that teachers will not be adequately trained to defend a classroom full of children.
And as I said: I'm not in favor of forcing guns on teachers and make them "Defenders of the Classroom". Those that CAN defend themselves and their classrooms should be allowed to do so. Making "gun-free" zones just tells the bad guys where to hunt.
So is that the answer to protecting our schools allowing teachers who choose to arm themselves whom may or not be capable of using the weapon they are carrying to protect themselves or others regardless of their level of training and skill?
No, but the majority of people who DO arm themselves for protection have the proper training. Few, if any gun-rights advocates favor just handing out guns to whoever. Safety and responsibility are paramount. Most armed citizens understand this.
As a parent of two school aged children, I do not want them to be placed in a position where they are caught in a firefight. I do support trained armed security guards and limited access where no one gets in the building without getting searched.
Flacoinohio: I submit to you that you are like someone who is afraid of flying because "those things MUST be dangerous" even when the fact is, you're safer in a plane than you are in your own car.
Mass murderers tend to plan things in advance in detail. The first person they would shoot is the armed guard by surprise. However they can't so easily prepare for the concealed weapon. Either way the kids would get caught in between a fire fight.
We are not talking about planes, we are talking about guns and the ability of everyone who intends to arm themselves in a classroom. Not every gun owner is proficient with the guns they own for protection and most have never used one to take a life.
it's not hard to mandate any teacher who opts to have a carry permit must qualify annually. We do it with police. Otherwise, if it's so unrealistic we may as well ban the police from carrying weapons as well.
That is why I asked "Why now?", allowing teachers to arm themselves has been denied in the past, even when teachers were being violently attacked. Regardless of how much support it had, it was never discussed or approved by lawmakers and the public.
I think it will be approved in conservative states that are more flexible about such issues because people are fed up. Here in NY ??? Not a chance !!! They'll just pretend my wife's school is not already a war zone and ignore the violence.
Because gun-rights advocates are as frustrated that these shootings keep happening as gun-control advocates are. Contrary to liberal propaganda, gun-rights advocates... even NRA members aren't bloodthirsty people who crave violence.
The Colonel that shot the soldiers in Texas was well qualified. Or maybe that's just different. It only takes one armed crazed teacher to do damage. Anyone notice what's going on?
...and yet STILL gun-control supporters have no rebuttal to this, except possibly to say "Nuh uh" I don't understand how these kinds of facts can be ignored in a debate over gun-control. It's all about making our communities safer, right?
Where is this utopia? What we are trying to control is the ability of the mentally unstable, ill prepared and untrained easily obtaining tactical assault weapons. The Properly licensed and trained should be able to purchase other types of guns. Dee
Could you define tactical assualt weapons? Give specifics as to the components that would designate a fire are this way?
That's the problem..Most of the public knows so little they don't realize the so called "assualt weapons" have no more functonality than a 9mm pistol. They just believe this political propaganda nad look at a picture of a weapon and assume something
The theater shooting was carried out with a very commonly owned shotgun. Shall we now ban all shotguns? Sandy Hook may have gone from a massacre to a "shooting" if ONE teacher had been armed. That's not an opinion. That's a fact.
A short version of an assault weapon is any weapon that has a selective rate of fire selector switch. A weapon that can be modified to accept a flash suppressor, silencers, has a bayonet mount, a threaded barrel, a forward grip, or grenade launcher
The term "assault weapon" has no non-political meaning. None of those characteristics affect weapon performance, except grenade launchers and they are A) already illegal and B) NEVER used in crimes.
There is more to the description and a list of weapons classified as assault weapons, some of which I personally own. A definition was asked for, political or not it is a definition. State and Federal definitions are very similar.
I understand the political jargon of "assault weapon". I should have made it more clear that I was asking SexyladyDee.
My problem with this is that the term "Assault Weapon" was created by the gun-control people. It has nothing to do with the performance of a firearm, the use it is put to or the relative lethality of the weapon.
Silencer capability classifies as an assault weapon ??? That's almost every handgun in America. I can put a silencer on a 9mm
For gun rights advocates, I find it rather odd that some people are not aware of what an assault rifle is. If a 9mm pistol is modified to accommodate a silencer or a magazine the extends below the handgrip, it qualifies as an assault weapon.
Once again; assault RIFLE is not the same as assault WEAPON. AW was made up as a legal term. Assault rifle is the military term. They do NOT mean the same thing.
I have been a gun owner for years. These are arbitrary terms created by politicians, not weapons experts. A silencer does not alter the effectiveness of a projectiles ability to kill a person. It shows how ridiculous the topic has become.
We are not even on topic anymore, we are debating gun control while the question was whether or not armed teachers is the "answer". Pro gun or anti gun, I still say arming teachers is not the answer, it will not end school violence or criminal acts.
It's a gun-control question. School is a gun-free zone. It means if I was a teacher who knew how to use a firearm, even if I was trained to deal with situations exactly like Sandy Hook, I could not bring my weapon on campus. No exceptions... Dumb.
Outside of a war why would a home or business owner need a magazine that holds 10 or more bullets. Why would any reasonable person object to background checks & licensing? Why are we getting off topic? Dee
I though allowing teachers to choose to carry a firearm in the classroom would be a decrease in guncontrol if arming teachers was approved by lawmakers, a win so to speak for those who support this idea. Commenters made this about gun control.
SEXYLAYDEE: It's not good enough to say "I don't know why anyone would want it" You have to provide some kind of reason why they shouldn't have it. There is no evidence at all that limiting a criminal to 10 rounds per magazine makes any difference.
Sexy, 2 Points. 1-You are confusing "need" with "right". DO you need a car that goes 100mph? 2- Laws do not keep criminals from commiting crimes...they would still have any weapons made illegal to law abiding citizens.