Oregon lawmaker rebuffed on proposal to arm teachers

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10646958

:thumbs:

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't really care how you feel about that seeing that you've got no skin in the game, buddy. I've got skin in the game and I tell you that the vast majority of people that do would tell you and the rest of the fringe what I tell you - this is a galactically stupid idea.

Generally speaking, galactically stupid stuff emerges when people that have no skin in the game want to make the rules for the game. You know, like when a bunch of old geezers with no medical background feel that they know best how to address women's health issues. It also applies where we try and figure out how to keep our children safe in school. Having some involvement in the education and schooling of our young - whether as a parent or a staffer in the system - would be a prerequisite to meaningfully participate in the debate. That circle widens when we talk about safety issues - then our public safety professionals get a seat at the table, too. Gun nuts? Not so much. They can meet separately to talk about improvements at the gun range or some useless ####### like that.

No skin in the game? Is that how we make decisions now? I am not using Medicare, guess I have no right to comment on it etc.....

I'm guessing you don't know anything about firearms...ie no skin in that game.....

Edited December 18, 2012 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No skin in the game? Is that how we make decisions now? I am not using Medicare, guess I have no right to comment on it etc.....

I'm guessing you don't know anything about firearms...ie no skin in that game...

You'd be guessing wrong. I have had plenty of exposure to firearms when I served in the military.

Gun nuts ought to keep their dangerous experients away from children. Plain and simple.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You'd be guessing wrong. I have had plenty of exposure to firearms when I served in the military.

Gun nuts ought to keep their dangerous experients away from children. Plain and simple.

Personally, I would not dismiss anyone's opinion simply because they have no "skin the game". Society doesn't work like that.

[bsd058 296]

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10646958

Great! Now when a shooter walks in, my wife will be the first logical target.

Not that I agree with this necessarily, but armed security guards might be a better solution than arming teachers since they would be trained to intercept any intruders before they enter a classroom, and their only job is to train to protect the children and staff. Thankfully, my wife's classrooms are locked from the outside unless you specifically have a key to get into the room.

It's a tough topic. On one hand I can see why people would think (on the surface) that this is a good idea (matching force with force), on the other hand, a teacher is not going to react quickly enough to a gunman and most are not able to emotionally deal with situations like that. It's also not fair to ask them to carry firearms if they never entered their field thinking it would be a pre-requisite. It's like asking them to be a police officer. That's just not their job. Nor should it be.

There just has to be a more efficient manner in which to prevent these guys from killing sprees. It's not just in schools that this happens, though that seems to be the easiest place for them.

[Karee 4,191]

Great! Now when a shooter walks in, my wife will be the first logical target.

Not that I agree with this necessarily, but armed security guards might be a better solution than arming teachers since they would be trained to intercept any intruders before they enter a classroom, and their only job is to train to protect the children and staff. Thankfully, my wife's classrooms are locked from the outside unless you specifically have a key to get into the room.

It's a tough topic. On one hand I can see why people would think (on the surface) that this is a good idea (matching force with force), on the other hand, a teacher is not going to react quickly enough to a gunman and most are not able to emotionally deal with situations like that. It's also not fair to ask them to carry firearms if they never entered their field thinking it would be a pre-requisite. It's like asking them to be a police officer. That's just not their job. Nor should it be.

There just has to be a more efficient manner in which to prevent these guys from killing sprees. It's not just in schools that this happens, though that seems to be the easiest place for them.

I think the point is would someone even attempt something like this if they knew there was a good chance they would fail? Personally I see it as more of a deterrent.

I read stories here in Texas on a weekly basis about someone breaking into someone elses home and getting killed for it. I'm not into breaking into people's houses, so I don't know what goes through the minds of people that do that, but it would definitely cross my mind before I decided to burglarize someones house.

I remember when I first moved to Texas in 1987, I read this small little blurb in the paper about some guy getting pulled over in East Texas by a state trooper. The guy jumped out of his car and took off, and the cop shot and killed him. The first thing that crossed my mind was "don't run from the cops here, you might get killed over it. Just like when I fly to Thailand or SIngapore, they remind you on the plane when the FAs do their announcements right before you land that the penalties for drugs in those countries is death. First time I heard that, I made a mental note that's it's probably not a good idea to smoke weed here.

[Harsh_77 718]

Great! Now when a shooter walks in, my wife will be the first logical target.

Not that I agree with this necessarily, but armed security guards might be a better solution than arming teachers since they would be trained to intercept any intruders before they enter a classroom, and their only job is to train to protect the children and staff. Thankfully, my wife's classrooms are locked from the outside unless you specifically have a key to get into the room.

It's a tough topic. On one hand I can see why people would think (on the surface) that this is a good idea (matching force with force), on the other hand, a teacher is not going to react quickly enough to a gunman and most are not able to emotionally deal with situations like that. It's also not fair to ask them to carry firearms if they never entered their field thinking it would be a pre-requisite. It's like asking them to be a police officer. That's just not their job. Nor should it be.

There just has to be a more efficient manner in which to prevent these guys from killing sprees. It's not just in schools that this happens, though that seems to be the easiest place for them.

Agree the teacher would not be very fast and prompt to response but don’t you think an armed teacher would be able to stop or atleast slow down the gunman?

Imagine a school has multiple such trained teacher don’t you think they can overpower a single gunman?

There was similar threat with airplanes, arming the pilot was the solution why that cannot be applicable to school?

[Darnell 8,479]

Well, maybe there will be an arms locker in the principal's office,

with the keys held by only a few.

That might be a starting point...

Maybe add in rubber bullets also ? Just a thought, however malformed, but the Israeli's use those on occasion.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Darnell

[Karee 4,191]

Agree the teacher would not be very fast and prompt to response but don't you think an armed teacher would be able to stop or atleast slow down the gunman?

Imagine a school has multiple such trained teacher don't you think they can overpower a single gunman?

There was similar threat with airplanes, arming the pilot was the solution why that cannot be applicable to school?

That was kind of my point in in the post before yours. I doubt somone will try to hijack a plane these days with box-cutters. Measures were taken that makes the chances of something like that highly unlikely, so no one tries and no one has. Then they tried the shoe thing. That didn't work and now we take off our shoes at the airport. No one has tried that again. We can only take 3 ounces of shampoo on the plane. etc. etc. etc. I guess my point is that if you make an easy target less easy, idiots will have to find out some other way to kill people en masse.

The initial knee-jerk reaction to all of these things was not to outlaw box cutters, shampoo, and shoes. The smart reaction was to find ways to still have box cutters, shampoo, and shoes in our society without planes going down in flames over it.

[bsd058 296]

Agree the teacher would not be very fast and prompt to response but don’t you think an armed teacher would be able to stop or atleast slow down the gunman?

Imagine a school has multiple such trained teacher don’t you think they can overpower a single gunman?

There was similar threat with airplanes, arming the pilot was the solution why that cannot be applicable to school?

Because slowing a gunman down while he kills people doesn't seem to be efficient. At least on the surface it doesn't to me. There has to be a way to stop him before he gets into the school or other places like that. I just don't take comfort in thinking that my wife could slow the gunman down slightly, possibly enough that his victims live an extra .5 seconds.

Multiple teachers? Do you think they are in the same room? There is only one at a time, and their main goal will be to protect the children. Protecting the children will cause other teachers to try to evacuate their children, not helping the other teacher in distress.

No offense, but my main concern is all of the staff in the school, not merely the children, and these suggestions are getting more and more ridiculous. "Slowing the gunman down" seems to lower the teacher to the lever of an obstacle/target.

A better deterrent would be to have trained armed personnel protecting the premises. They would be a deterrent, an early warning system and possibly a force against those with insidious motives.

But I don't know if that's the best solution either. I am all for gun control. Though, I'm not against guns in general. I just want people to be accountable for their property causing damage to others.

I know I know...stay in Canada. I love America. I just think it can be better.

Edited December 18, 2012 by bsd058

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

True, but I speak honestly when I say I'd feel more comfortable knowing a few teachers were armed.

With schools in the shape they are in today, my only worry would be one of the inmates taking the gun.

However if teachers wanted to volunteer for training, maybe even go to a off site training course during the summer at a law enforcement training facility, then I think we should do it.

Let them be Teachers/Security and let them earn extra for being certified. Much like Coaches earn extra.

[JensJrny2Ray 367]

Agree the teacher would not be very fast and prompt to response but don’t you think an armed teacher would be able to stop or atleast slow down the gunman?

Imagine a school has multiple such trained teacher don’t you think they can overpower a single gunman?

There was similar threat with airplanes, arming the pilot was the solution why that cannot be applicable to school?

Arming the pilot is one thing, when they are in their cockpit - a very small area, with only 1 other person. A teacher is with sometimes over 30 school children in a classroom. And no teacher is going to leave their school children unattended, unholster their weapon, and go to another classroom where they think there is someone with a gun.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I don't really care how you feel about that seeing that you've got no skin in the game, buddy. I've got skin in the game and I tell you that the vast majority of people that do would tell you and the rest of the fringe what I tell you - this is a galactically stupid idea.

Generally speaking, galactically stupid stuff emerges when people that have no skin in the game want to make the rules for the game. You know, like when a bunch of old geezers with no medical background feel that they know best how to address women's health issues. It also applies where we try and figure out how to keep our children safe in school. Having some involvement in the education and schooling of our young - whether as a parent or a staffer in the system - would be a prerequisite to meaningfully participate in the debate. That circle widens when we talk about safety issues - then our public safety professionals get a seat at the table, too. Gun nuts? Not so much. They can meet separately to talk about improvements at the gun range or some useless ####### like that.

How about I pay over 5K a year in local school taxes. would that give me a seat at your table ? But we can expound on your idea of "skin in the game" . How about if you are part of the large percentage that pays no taxes , you don't get to vote or have a seat at the table. I mean they have no skin in the game so why do they get to vote for things I have to support. I am starting to like your no skin in the game idea, let's apply it to all walks of life...

[bsd058 296]

Arming the pilot is one thing, when they are in their cockpit - a very small area, with only 1 other person. A teacher is with sometimes over 30 school children in a classroom. And no teacher is going to leave their school children unattended, unholster their weapon, and go to another classroom where they think there is someone with a gun.

Yes. They will stay with their children and lead them to safety. Which is the smart thing to do.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Arming the pilot is one thing, when they are in their cockpit - a very small area, with only 1 other person. A teacher is with sometimes over 30 school children in a classroom. And no teacher is going to leave their school children unattended, unholster their weapon, and go to another classroom where they think there is someone with a gun.

What would be wrong with letting teachers volunteer for very strict and in depth security force training, maybe attend course at a local law enforcemtn training center. Then when they are certified they get paid extra to be Teacher and certified "school security expert".. Why have security gurads standing around doing nothing all day. Let them teach also.