Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?

[mawilson 2,133]

Indeed we could say Homeland security isn't doing that much to prevent suicide bombers because not much is going to prevent suicide bombers. If there are people in the US who are programmed to do this, they will succeed.

So then we shouldn't X-ray luggage at airports, or run name checks on visa beneficiaries?

Israeli intelligence and security services are able to detect and prevent 90% of terror

attacks. According to you, they shouldn't bother - who cares if there's a 900% increase?

I'm speechless.

[Peikko 1,575]

When was the last time this happened exactly?

If some nut comes into the office with a two taped 30 round mags or a 100 round mag AK-47 and a few side arms and knives I'm pretty sure mowing down the front office wouldn't be much of an issue.

And you are saying that an armed teacher in a classroom would somehow help if this did happen?

[KarenCee 3]

Guns have no place in classrooms.

I totally agree. In our school, NO ONE is allowed through the halls UNLESS they have come through the front office first and signs in, complete with visitor or volunteer sticker on their shirt or jacket. We do occasionally have non custodial parents who aren't allowed to see or have any contact with their child. They aren't allowed through the side door to the hallways. Should one show up and there is a problem, the sheriff's office will be quick to respond, as they have in the past. I would hope all schools have this type policy in place. With that being said, I would hope this teacher's school would have a similar policy and that the administration would know NOT to allow this man to enter the school. If she has an outside door, as some schools do, maybe she could transfer to an inside classroom. There are ways to be protected without bringing a gun to school. What she does with it outside the classroom and off school property is her own business.

I'm sure the nut job is going to go sign in, get a hall pass, respect your rules, get a sticker, and then move past the front office into the hallways before mowing people down.

If some nut comes into the office with a two taped 30 round mags or a 100 round mag AK-47 and a few side arms and knives I'm pretty sure mowing down the front office wouldn't be much of an issue.

Why do some people always think rules, laws, and regulations protect them? These things are only effective against law abiding citizens. Sociopaths, obsessed people, and criminals DON"T CARE.

In any given scenario an armed, trained, and registered citizen with a firearm is your best chance to escape with minimal damage. A trained person knows how to secure their weapon and would have basic hand to hand to help prevent losing their weapon. A person at the scene can react immediately instead of having to wait for someone to arrive on scene and then wait for instructions.

The only way you can realistically stop a gun man is by shooting them. An armed man shooting unarmed people quickly justifies a 'deadly force,' response. If you gave me pepper spray, a taser or a baton and told me to stay in a classroom to protect students from a gun man I am going to toss a chair or table through a window, cover the sill with a jacket and run the hell away.

Oh good grief. *sigh* So, what do you suggest...all teachers and staff start carrying guns and have the chance that a kid get their hands on it and shoot up the classroom? I'm sure your little scenario could very well happen, so what do you suggest that we do? We, as a school system, do the best we can with the funds we are given...if you or anyone else thinks more protection, trained personnel with weapons in every school office, etc. should be the standard then where do you suggest the funds come from to pay these professionals that you speak of? Tax dollars? To have that one would have to raise the taxes in the county and/or state. The residents cry out already anytime there is a tax hike. Do you then suggest that this teacher have a guard outside her door at all times? Who will pay for this? Should she pay for her own protection while she is serving the county by teaching the county's children? Seriously, what is your suggestion to this problem???

[Peikko 1,575]

You specifically stated suicide bombers. They aren't going to try to get to the US with a bomb in their suitcase, that'd be pretty silly. If there are people who want to do these things, they will do them. Suicide bombers aren't very rational, but they tend to be very well programmed to carrying out their attacks (London transport system a few years ago?)

I am not saying that anti terrorist measures don't do anything, I am saying that they are limited in what they can do. A lot of the time, what they do is allow people to feel that they are protected.

[Jaseball 0]

I'm saying any American citizen who is willing to have their name and information recorded down (this visa process already does this) are willing to go through basic firearms training and self defense, is willing to be tested yearly, should be allowed to conceal carry.

There is no tax or budgetary implications, since the citizen is doing all the work, registration, pays for their weapon and ammo, etc. (Just like this visa process) The school would do nothing and provide no financial support.

There is no real added risk because any student if they are nuts or a murderer can kill someone with a No 2 pencil, a latter opener, or even a spork.

The great thing about concealed carry? It's CONCEALED.

I'd have a Glock on an ankle holster. A woman can have a pistol in her purse with a gun lock or just keep her purse with her at all times. People who should carry concealed you won't know they are carrying a weapon. That is one of the best points I raised in this thread - no one should or would ever know you are armed unless there was a need for deadly force.

Students fighting, someone arguing, or some other skirmish won't have a person pulling out their gun.

It's the element of surprise and not knowing who is armed that is the best deterrent. It's also why armed security is lame. You're better off having the same security wearing regular clothes and carrying concealed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Someone already pointed out that a psychopath like that Cho kid isn't likely to be put off by the thought that they might encounter someone with a gun and be killed as a result. Granted that the guy was extremely disturbed it seems unlikely that he would have been unaware of the fact that the police would show up eventually and shoot him. In fact given that he and indeed other people who have gone on these rampages in the past always turn the gun on themselves - what exactly would deter someone who has already made up their mind to die?

While this sort of incident might have gun activists rubbing their thighs in anticipation of more liberal gun laws - I think you have to ask the question whether this kind of extreme incident happens enough to justify fundamentally changing our society? I'm not so sure...

The idea that say muggers or liquor store robbers might encounter people with guns might deter some criminals sure, but I think it would also have unintended consequences. For example, you might have fewer robbery crimes, but those you do have end up being more deadly - because the guy would rather shoot you in the face rather than take the risk that you could shoot him in the back.

[Jaseball 0]

Someone already pointed out that a psychopath like that Cho kid isn't likely to be put off by the thought that they might encounter someone with a gun and be killed as a result. Granted that the guy was extremely disturbed it seems unlikely that he would have been unaware of the fact that the police would show up eventually and shoot him. In fact given that he and indeed other people who have gone on these rampages in the past always turn the gun on themselves - what exactly would deter someone who has already made up their mind to die?

While this sort of incident might have gun activists rubbing their thighs in anticipation of more liberal gun laws - I think you have to ask the question whether this kind of extreme incident happens enough to justify fundamentally changing our society? I'm not so sure...

The idea that say muggers or liquor store robbers might encounter people with guns might deter some criminals sure, but I think it would also have unintended consequences. For example, you might have fewer robbery crimes, but those you do have end up being more deadly - because the guy would rather shoot you in the face rather than take the risk that you could shoot him in the back.

With a psycho the benefit is someone is there to shoot back long before he gets bored of murdering people or the police finally arrive. It won't dissuade them or prevent them, but someone there has the chance to bring the situation to an end on their terms.

In order to murder someone, shoot them for no reason in cold blood, you have to have a certain mindset. If a guy is going to shoot me in the face he's going to do that regardless of whether or not he thinks I am armed. I'd rather have the option to possibly shoot back than be unarmed.

Also, statistically the three strikes laws as well as added mandatory time for using a firearm in a crime are both laws that encourage a 2 time felon or criminal with a gun to kill people and have shootouts because they know if they are caught they are going back for life anyways, so may as well go out in a blaze of glory.

[Cantankerous 0]

...Many women who buy guns for self-defense end up having the firearm used on them...

What do you base this statement on?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Teachers being allowed to carry a concealed weapon in a classroom...

I think people need to remember that it takes, for the most part, a model citizen to be issued a CCL / CHL by a State. This person has proven them self to be a law abiding citizen, someone who knows the law regarding the use of deadly force, and someone who has also taken a firearm proficiency exam.

I think that since Teachers are in an environment with many, many children I would prefer that if they are allowed to carry on campus that they be required to obtain a special weapons training certificate of some kind.

[Jasman0717 9]

Yea, and a really big gun to boot

[Artegal 1]

No surprise this is Oregon the state where an anonymous teacher wants to pack heat in the classroom. Ain't this the same state where Teachers were raping minors--nothing like a Glock 9 to have your way with a 12 to 15 year old. If the actual intimidation and threat of violence does not render the minors under the teacher's control, then "cool" factor will certainly--as the impression of power and novelty of having a piece can get you a piece.

Weapons in the classroom--no I do not see the need.

I was in the Army and we never had weapons while in school, neither did any of the instructors. We only had our weapons on days that we went on actual combat training (using blanks or no ammo at all) or while shooting the weapons at the rifle range, we would have live ammo then--but we were nearly strip-searched after each time we had live ammo. Gun safety and rarely having a gun was the status in the US Military. Now look at Prisons--even the Police are not allowed to carry firearms into the inner areas of the Prisons. There is a reason for that--accidents, being over-powered and having the gun taken a way from you, etc.

So if the US Military and Prison systems do not carry loaded weapons around willy nilly, then how can you expect a Recent College-Coed who has relationship issues--at times he/she is only slightly more mature then the students she/he is teaching to be able to understand gun safety, the rules of engagement, and the ramifications of taking another humanbeing's life, and still concentrate on teaching school.

Weapons and Kids never a good mix.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Artegal

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

No surprise this is Oregon the state where an anonymous teacher wants to pack heat in the classroom. Ain't this the same state where Teachers were raping minors--nothing like a Glock 9 to have your way with a 12 to 15 year old. If the actual intimidation and threat of violence does not render the minors under the teacher's control, then "cool" factor will certainly--as the impression of power and novelty of having a piece can get you a piece.

Weapons in the classroom--no I do not see the need.

I was in the Army and we never had weapons while in school, neither did any of the instructors. We only had our weapons on days that we went on actual combat training (using blanks or no ammo at all) or while shooting the weapons at the rifle range, we would have live ammo then--but we were nearly strip-searched after each time we had live ammo. Gun safety and rarely having a gun was the status in the US Military. Now look at Prisons--even the Police are not allowed to carry firearms into the inner areas of the Prisons. There is a reason for that--accidents, being over-powered and having the gun taken a way from you, etc.

So if the US Military and Prison systems do not carry loaded weapons around willy nilly, then how can you expect a Recent College-Coed who has relationship issues--at times he/she is only slightly more mature then the students she/he is teaching to be able to understand gun safety, the rules of engagement, and the ramifications of taking another humanbeing's life, and still concentrate on teaching school.

Weapons and Kids never a good mix.

dayum well put bro. exactly my sentiments.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

If more security was emphasized in the schools, this would probably not even be an issue.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Yes. Allow people to protect themselves.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

If more security was emphasized in the schools, this would probably not even be an issue.

i concur.

Daniel

:energetic: