Oregon lawmaker rebuffed on proposal to arm teachers

[Harsh_77 718]

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 one person in the cockpit is supposed to protect 60- 120 passenger on the flight, he is not just responsible for protecting himself.

Same way the teacher would be responsible to protect their class, logistic of how they protect just one class or 5-6 teacher get together and protect the school is different question.

[bsd058 296]

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.

I get the idea you picture a security guard at a desk with monitors like on TV.

When you try to specialize in teaching kindergarten and security, you develop employees that are inefficient at both. Then we have inefficient teachers and inefficient guards.

I'm for making it voluntary, but it shouldn't be a part of the job description. We already have a bad enough education system to begin with. Let them focus on teaching.

Edited December 18, 2012 by bsd058

[bsd058 296]

The one person in the cockpit is supposed to protect 60- 120 passenger on the flight, he is not just responsible for protecting himself.

Same way the teacher would be responsible to protect their class, logistic of how they protect just one class or 5-6 teacher get together and protect the school is different question.

My heart just sinks thinking about my wife being asked to be a body guard. I would tell her to find a new profession. The system would lose a lot of teachers.

Edited December 18, 2012 by bsd058

[Harsh_77 718]

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.

Definitely the armed teacher would be securing and protecting all the student and staff, I did not mean to leave staff out, I meant was protecting all innocent ppl.

By slowing down not literally slowing down the attacker by .5 sec… what I mean is when an armed teacher returns the fire back gunman has to take cover to protect him it can be a surprise back at him as well.

[bsd058 296]

Definitely the armed teacher would be securing and protecting all the student and staff, I did not mean to leave staff out, I meant was protecting all innocent ppl.

By slowing down not literally slowing down the attacker by .5 sec… what I mean is when an armed teacher returns the fire back gunman has to take cover to protect him it can be a surprise back at him as well.

I don't know if this is an in-depth study, but it certainly shows how effective this might be. Another poster posted this and I was surprised by it.

Edited December 18, 2012 by bsd058

[Harsh_77 718]

My heart just sinks thinking about my wife being asked to be a body guard. I would tell her to find a new profession. The system would lose a lot of teachers.

I don’t think ppl are asking your wife to be bodyguard, its self protection.

It is just something that pro gun advocates have said in response to no gun zones or banning the guns completely for civilians.

[bsd058 296]

I don’t think ppl are asking your wife to be bodyguard, its self protection.

It is just something that pro gun advocates have said in response to no gun zones or banning the guns completely for civilians.

Some want to require it and some want to make it voluntary. I don't mind voluntary.

[Harsh_77 718]

I don't know if this is an in-depth study, but it certainly shows how effective this might be. Another poster posted this and I was surprised by it.

Would you just go by this one video?

I have posted in other threads incidents where some with CCW saved lives, where a girl saved her life coz her mom had gun in the house.

Few weeks back there was incident in TX where guy trying to commit burglary was held on gunpoint until police arrived.

Some want to require it and some want to make it voluntary. I don't mind voluntary.

It has to be voluntary, I believe forcing someone to what they do not like is not going to get a quality result.

I am sorry if I was not clear in my earlier post that it has to be purely voluntary basis.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

My heart just sinks thinking about my wife being asked to be a body guard. I would tell her to find a new profession. The system would lose a lot of teachers.

No one is saying it would be mandatory. Just an option for teachers interested in it. say maybe 20-30% of the teachers or less. It makes perfect sense. Teachers are there already. They would have to qualify and have an aptitude for it.

Would you just go by this one video?

I have posted in other threads incidents where some with CCW saved lives, where a girl saved her life coz her mom had gun in the house.

Few weeks back there was incident in TX where guy trying to commit burglary was held on gunpoint until police arrived.

It has to be voluntary, I believe forcing someone to what they do not like is not going to get a quality result.

I am sorry if I was not clear in my earlier post that it has to be purely voluntary basis.

Yes purely voluntary and applicants screened closely. Then they have to go thru a well run course to qualify. Forcing a teacher to be a security guard or carry a weapon would be insanity

Edited December 19, 2012 by Run Herschel Run

[bsd058 296]

Would you just go by this one video?

I have posted in other threads incidents where some with CCW saved lives, where a girl saved her life coz her mom had gun in the house.

Few weeks back there was incident in TX where guy trying to commit burglary was held on gunpoint until police arrived.

Ya it's a tough topic like I said. The only reason I'm getting a CCW is because there aren't enough gun laws in the US that would protect the innocent who don't want to use firearms. I hate the thought of having to use a firearm. But it's the lesser of the two evils: 1) Let my loved ones die, 2) Shoot the attacker. If gun laws were stricter I may feel as safe as I feel in Canada.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

Generally speaking, I'd agree. That said, when gun nuts try to push the galatically idiotic idea of teachers bringing guns into our elementary schools, a parent that wants to see his child that is currently attending an elementary school grow up into adulthood, a parent that does not want to bury his child so some stupid group of gun freaks can live out their idiotic fantasy or perform their inhumane experiments, then that parent might be a bit radical in their response to such hyper moronic suggestions. Such is the case with me. You want to run the experiment of whether more guns in schools provide more safety for kids? Have your own kids and experiment with them. Just leave my child out of your sick fantasies, okay?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

Okay, now apply that thought to guns.

Aside from 9/11, when was there ever an incident where a plane was hijacked by a group of guys wielding box-cutters? Right, never. Nobody has ever done that again for 11 years now. That's less time elapsed since the additional security measures than the time that elapsed without any such hijacking taking place in commercial aviation. Same goes for the show bomber. That's a trick that was tried precisely once. Not for the decades preceding the incident and not since. Same for the unsuccessful underwear bomber. And yet, each time an attack was attempted, we reacted and tightened security.

But every time someone actually kills multiple victims in these regular mass shooting attacks, we do, well, NOTHING. Bupcus. Nada. Why is that? Because we're okay as long as it's not some Arab jerkoff killing Americans? It's perfectly fine as long as it's some American jerkoff killing Americans? I mean, the insane proliferation of guns we have going on in this land kills more people each and every year than multiple 9/11 size attacks would. Why was the former such a big deal and the latter is easily brushed off as the acceptable price to pay for the fcuking gun nuttery going on in this country? That's insane.

[slim 1,533]

There doesn't need to be increased security or "professional guards" or anything like that. Allow the teachers who want to be armed to be armed. Done.

I love how this video "proves" concealed carry doesn't work.

In truth, sometimes it doesn't. If you're the first people the shooter is shooting, you might get shot. But, lets say he's shooting down the hall and you're the teacher next door. Would you not pull your gun out and point it at the door?

The easiest way to figure if arming teachers is a good idea or not is to ask yourself this question. "If you heard shooting in the room next door, would you rather have a gun or wait for the police to arrive?"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There doesn't need to be increased security or "professional guards" or anything like that. Allow the teachers who want to be armed to be armed. Done.

I suggest you folks open second amendment schools and then you send your kids to those schools. Have them pack a gun, too, if you want. Good luck with that experiment. Darwin Awards will be waiting.

[slim 1,533]

was the former such a big deal and the latter is easily brushed off as the acceptable price to pay for the fcuking gun nuttery going on in this country?

Because those are brown people. Nobody cares about them. We won't change our gun laws until enough white people get killed.

I suggest you folks open second amendment schools and then you send your kids to those schools. Have them pack a gun, too, if you want. Good luck with that experiment. Darwin Awards will be waiting.

Prior to '94 they were. How many school shootings were there?