Is arming teachers in the classroom the answer?

1. 64

   SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years ago

   Is arming teachers in the classroom the answer?
   
   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!

   replyreport
2. 78

   flacoinohioposted 11 years ago

   I think arming teachers is just an idea, I doubt it would ever be a reality simply because the idea of a teacher arming themselves would continue to promote the notion that our schools are not safe.  While this idea may sound good to some people, the reality is that most teachers would not choose to carry a gun because it promotes violence and creates fear something that is not conducive to the teaching environment.  Could anyone imagine what would happen if a teacher actually shot and killed an armed assailant on school property?   Think of the civil suits that would follow a classroom defense shooting. With the family of the assailant suing the school and the teacher for shooting their mentally unstable son or daughter.  There is no such thing as a clean self defense shooting someone would be held accountable in some way for defending themselves and the children in their care.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Flac, you think dealing with the aftermath of SURVIVING is worse than being killed? Where's the logic in that?

      replyreport
   4. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
3. 61

   swordsbaneposted 11 years ago

   I'm not in favor of arming teachers.  I am in favor of ALLOWING teachers to be armed, just like any law-abiding citizen should be allowed to be armed, and don't lock up the weapon.  CARRY it on your person.  If you're trained to use it, that is the safest place for it.  Making schools "gun-free" zones makes the kinds of shootings we've been seeing possible.  Having guns on school grounds locked up and/or ammo stored separately also allows these kinds of shootings.  Having people who know how to use a firearm and who are allowed to carry that firearm will save lives, and we won't have massacres like this.
   
   flacoinohio: Schools ARE unsafe.  The recent shootings illustrate that more than any campus having gun-toting teachers can ever do.  I would rather be a little apprehensive about my child in a school that might be attacked by a crazy than EXTREMELY apprehensive about my child being in a school that might be attacked by a crazy with no one to protect him.
     Self-defense shootings happen all the time.  The police handle them just fine.  The courts handle them just fine.  The fact that it's in a school won't change much, except generate a tsunami of gratitude from parents who have live children instead of corpses, and maybe a little less fear-mongering over firearms.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   2. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   4. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   5. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   7. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   8. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   9. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   10. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   11. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to 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.

       replyreport
   12. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   13. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   14. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   15. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
4. 91

   jansharesposted 11 years ago

   No, I don't. Witnessing your teacher shoot someone will only add one more traumatic image to the innocent mind of a child. Assuming a teacher can engage successfully in such a violent act in front of children and not be traumatized herself is kind of naive. I understand wanting to protect the children but witnessing more violence adds more trauma for both the student and teacher to deal with in the future. I like the fact that I can remember my first grade teacher as a loving, nurturing human being without associating the visual of a gun in her hand.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   2. 91

      jansharesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      ...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

      replyreport
   7. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Would the author want to carry a loaded firearm open or concealed everyday while teaching children or teenagers?

      replyreport
   8. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why would that be a problem?  Are you afraid some kid is going to run up, yank the gun free and start shooting?

      replyreport
   9. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
5. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 11 years ago

   You can't mandate teachers carry firearms.  But you should permit those who wish to have them to carry them.  Anyone, teacher or not should go through the proper training when pocessing a firearm.  Being a responsible gun owner is no different than being a responsible automobile owner.
   
   Many teachers may not feel comfotable carrying a weapon.  However, my wife is a teacher and is already properly trained.  Furthermore she works with a number of teachers who are ex-military.  They are more than qualfied to utilize a weapon in defense of their students.  Or considering where my wife teaches, in defense from their students.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      2bealiveposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
6. 60

   duffsmomposted 11 years ago

   Agreed.  I am pro-gun in most areas but I would be very concerned about a gun in a classroom falling into the hands of students.  There has to be some other way to keep our school children safe.
   
   I do believe people having guns should know how to handle them and safely use them.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
7. 76

   wba108@yahoo.composted 11 years ago

   I think its a good idea to allow teachers or administrators to be to armed. The knowledge that there are armed persons in a school building should in itself provide a deterrent to a potential shooter. Countries like Isreal and Switzerland have thier citizens armed to the tee and have very low crime rates from what I've heard. In Isreal, off duty military personel carry automatic weapons in public. I think because it provides a deterrent to potential terrorist attacks.

   replyreport
8. 60

   taburkettposted 11 years ago

   YES - it is a vital part of the answer.
   I have never had any problem with criminal minded people in any establishment where I have stationed armed individuals.
   We have been training all people in our local community for the last 5 years, and our local community now has more than 70% of the people with concealed carry.
   Our overall crime rate has dropped by 35% during this period.
   Violent crime has dropped by 60% and 47 criminals are now behind bars due to the actions of law abiding individuals.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      ...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?

      replyreport
   2. 64

      SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Could you define tactical assualt weapons? Give specifics as to the components that would designate a fire are this way?

      replyreport
   4. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   5. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   7. 61

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   8. 78

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   9. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I understand the political jargon of "assault weapon". I should have made it more clear that I was asking SexyladyDee.

      replyreport
   10. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   11. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Silencer capability classifies as an assault weapon ???  That's almost every handgun in America.  I can put a silencer on a 9mm

       replyreport
   12. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   13. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   14. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   15. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   16. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   17. 64

       SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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

       replyreport
   18. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   19. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   20. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
9. 40

   Borsiaposted 11 years ago

   Like many others here I have no problem with properly trained faculty members having guns on campus. In most cases, especially in K-6 I would want the guns in lock boxes within the teachers desk so that there isn't any chance of a child grabbing it out of a holster.
   I had a number of teachers who were shooting enthusiasts and a couple who were collectors. There were also a number of ex-military and very well trained.

   replyreport
10. 80

    Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago

    We should not mandate that teachers be armed, but we should allow teachers to carry if they so choose. They should have to be properly trained and possibly have biometric firearms. Criminals prefer unarmed victims and the deterrent of an armed teacher, or the prospect of one, could keep at least a few children safe.
    Remember, the vile monster who went on a killing spree at the movie theater chose the only one of seven theaters in the area with a posted "no carry" policy. All the others allowed concealed carry. He chose the ONE that didn't
    Don't make it mandatory, but, with specific rules and regulations, at the local and State level, allow teachers to carry.

    replyreport
11. 51

    Peace Thymeposted 11 years ago

    No.  I do not believe that teachers should have the responsibility of arming themselves in order to protect those children under their care.  Firstly, that teacher would have to be willing to engage in training in order to properly know how to use the weapon and how to store it in the classroom safety.   One does not go into teaching as a career with any vision of this being one of the requirements.  Secondly, where could such a loaded weapon be stored safely and yet be available to the teacher in just the few seconds she/he might have to respond to a threat?  Just think about the damage that a gun in the hands of a deranged adult with 100 rounds of ammunition would be able to do to a classroom of children in the amount of time it would take a teacher to react to the threat and retrieve his/her weapon. 
    
    In addition, I would not want my child to attend a school where I knew teachers were armed.  There will be accidents with these guns or there will be perceived threats that are proven not to be real. 
    
    I don't know what the answer is to school violence.  But, we have to start somewhere.  Background checks for all guns is a start.  The registration of all guns is a start.  All guns, even the ones already in your homes.  Parent involvement in what their child does on the computer is a start.  Family responsibility to children and family discussions and more family time together is a start.  But, I do not think arming teachers is a good way to start.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    2. 51

       Peace Thymeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Would you have the teacher carry on her/his person....every day....so that small children would know/////    Really?  Really!

       replyreport
    3. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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?

       replyreport
    4. 51

       Peace Thymeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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!

       replyreport
    5. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    6. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    7. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    8. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    9. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    10. 78

        flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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

        replyreport
    11. 64

        SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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

        replyreport
    12. 80

        Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        All but one of the public mass killing using guns in the last few decades has happened in "gun free" zones. Fact.

        replyreport
    13. 61

        swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    14. 80

        Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        replyreport
12. 66

    jennshealthstoreposted 11 years ago

    I do not think it is a good idea at all. Frankly, I have a child in elementary school and I want her to be safe. But no offense, like people who do these shootings, anyone can snap, including the teacher and they are around children, lots of them everyday. I think if you want to amp up weapons in school, then it should be done by a professional guard who is constantly monitored for any mental issues.

    replyreport
    1. 64

       SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Monitoring the gatekeepers is a good idea. Dee

       replyreport
    2. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    3. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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?

       replyreport
    4. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The point is that no matter where it is in the room, it's a LOT closer than the police.

       replyreport
13. 77

    nanderson500posted 11 years ago

    It just seems too dangerous. If we did that, we would inevitably have a situation eventually where some crazy teacher would shoot his or her students. Or one of the kids would get their hands on the gun and shoot a classmate.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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?

       replyreport
    2. 64

       SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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

       replyreport
    3. 61

       swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    4. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    5. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    6. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    7. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I think parental support will be more regional by state

       replyreport