Teachers and Firearms


Bini
 Share

Recommended Posts

Civil disobedience is at times appropriate, especially in a free society which is what this country once had.

Current legislation including the NDAA and Patriot Act have gutted the Constitution legally authorizing an authoritarian regime in the United States.

Yes, I absolutely believe in an armed society for the reasons outlined by the founding fathers which has nothing to do with hunting or home defense.

I'm not speaking about civil disobedience. Simply the more abstract concept of whether or not the right exists and is being violated in this case. There are places I don't carry now because of legal issues. I allow my right to be violated because it isn't (yet) worth the cost to defend it. That said, I'm not a big fan of civil disobedience in the first place. It has a place, but I tend to follow the "four boxes" theory. Soapbox, advocating for change. Ballot box, voting for change. Jury box, pushing through change via court (jury nullification in particular), and Ammo Box, revolution. I also believe that "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Where the line is is a discussion for another time, however those who argue for the repeal or infringement upon the second amendment rights would do well to remember that it exists to assure that the people will have the ability to do the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Anddenex, my OP was stressing my concern regarding what kind of training and to what degree teachers will be required in order to carry a gun on school premises. As I voiced earlier (and I appreciate the input already on it), will teachers undergo training as intense as police officers, SWAT, etc? Or, just your average training as a civilian trying to defend themselves?

I personally feel teachers wouldn't need to go through any military type training. Would it be profitable for them to be instructed in the same manner, or a relatively close manner, as police officers -- I can see this as beneficial. I think SWAT training would be a little overboard, personally.

Teachers who chose to be armed and their training would highly depend on whether or not it was governed by the school system or a personal choice by the teacher also.

If governed by school officials then I think it would be nice for the teachers who choose to carry a gun to receive a monthly instruction on potential scenarios and how to handle the situation.

With any violent situation, the worst thing that can happen is chaos, especially if people have guns. There would need to be a protocol developed by which all teachers would be informed about and instructed in should a situation like this occur.

I wanted to clarify - I never said that anyone was advocating that teachers be FORCED to carry lethal weapons - I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. This was not mentioned in my OP at all. I wanted to hear some insights on how certain things will be carried out in schools ALLOWING teachers to carry guns, and whether or not you'd be in favour of it.

I don't believe anyone thinks you were saying or advocating force, this is just a natural flow of conversation when dealing with guns.

How old do you have to be to apply for a gun and become registered? 18? Would it be acceptable for an 18-year old high school student to wear his gun to school amongst his peers? If so, are there any possible concerns with this?

An individual must be 21 years old to carry a concealed weapons permit. In this case, a high school senior carrying won't be an issue unless they are carrying illegally.

It isn't children with a concealed carry permit I would be worried about, especially if they went through training.

It is children without a carry permit, who don't care about laws, that concern me carrying. In my youth I remember watching a program about a father who bought his son a 38 handgun to take to school.

He lived in an area that had high gang traffic and related offenses. Gangs would violently kick the crap out of teenagers just for looking at them wrong. On the same show, it mentioned how a 13 year old boy, was killed because of an altercation over a gang banger who wouldn't leave his girlfriend alone.

The boy who was given the gun by his father was taught and aware that the only time he would use it is if his life was threatened, which it had already been before he gave him the gun.

It definitely brings up many questions. Was the father right? Was the father wrong? His son's life had already been threatened.

To reiterate, I wouldn't be worried at all if an 18 year old brought a gun to school who had a legal permit. If all faculty and staff knew who had permits.

I am more worried about the kids, like in my high school, who brought guns to school -- gang bangers -- who didn't have any permits and were concealing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why hasen't anyone mentioned tasers? They are another alternative for use for someone that is not

able to fire a gun, but could be used to disable till help arrives.

Yes, I believe someone in the thread already brought this up. There are, at least, two problems with tasers:

1. Reach - the length of cord

2. They don't always connect -- example, a person on the news had a golf club and was inside a Burger King or McD's. When they deployed the taser first, the individual had on a trench coat and the taser didn't connect. They tried again, if I remember correct, with the same result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your assessment of my generalisation is also based on personal experience, which doesn't mean any more than mine did.

It's also worth considering that you may not define something as fear if its all you've ever known. Based solely on my personal experience only, I would say that those that I know in the USA live in what I would define as fear.

Mahone - People in the United States live in fear.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not speaking about civil disobedience. Simply the more abstract concept of whether or not the right exists and is being violated in this case. There are places I don't carry now because of legal issues. I allow my right to be violated because it isn't (yet) worth the cost to defend it. That said, I'm not a big fan of civil disobedience in the first place. It has a place, but I tend to follow the "four boxes" theory. Soapbox, advocating for change. Ballot box, voting for change. Jury box, pushing through change via court (jury nullification in particular), and Ammo Box, revolution. I also believe that "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Where the line is is a discussion for another time, however those who argue for the repeal or infringement upon the second amendment rights would do well to remember that it exists to assure that the people will have the ability to do the above.

You're not saying anything I disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing we should all understand is that 9/11 changed everything.

What we should have learned is:

1. That we cannot rely on our government or specialized “units” to protect us - there are times when we must be willing to take matters into our own hands to save other and preserve our way of life.

2. That attempting to have a reasonable conversation with a fanatic gives them the advantage and control.

3. That a fanatic will find a way to strike us where we are the most venerable and least likely to defend ourselves. The more we convince ourselves that there should be “safe places” the more those that rely on such places will be venerable.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing we should all understand is that 9/11 changed everything.

What we should have learned is:

1. That we cannot rely on our government or specialized “units” to protect us - there are times when we must be willing to take matters into our own hands to save other and preserve our way of life.

2. That attempting to have a reasonable conversation with a fanatic gives them the advantage and control.

3. That a fanatic will find a way to strike us where we are the most venerable and least likely to defend ourselves. The more we convince ourselves that there should be “safe places” the more those that rely on such places will be venerable.

The Traveler

I think I need an "A-men" button for this one :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing we should all understand is that 9/11 changed everything.

What we should have learned is:

1. That we cannot rely on our government or specialized “units” to protect us - there are times when we must be willing to take matters into our own hands to save other and preserve our way of life.

2. That attempting to have a reasonable conversation with a fanatic gives them the advantage and control.

3. That a fanatic will find a way to strike us where we are the most venerable and least likely to defend ourselves. The more we convince ourselves that there should be “safe places” the more those that rely on such places will be venerable.

The Traveler

I agree completely. So you are saying I should shoot all the gun fanatics and we would have no problem. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

Wow, Annewandering. You really see no differences between citizen gun-owners who don't happen to trust a president who keeps an enemies list and tells followers to "get in [conservatives'] faces", and the filth who perpetrated 9-11?

Seriously?

Link to comment

Looking back, I recall that I have grown up with guns for as long as I can remember. I learned to shoot at a very young age and often went shooting, unsupervised as young as...14? In high school (I am 47) lot's of boys left their shotguns and hunting rifles in plain site in their trucks n the school parking lots.

Disagreements were normally settled with a fist fight and usually followed up with hand shakes and what were fighting over to begin with and rarely were kids suspended for scrapping. Video games were.....?? harmless? Even arcade games were not very menacing or realistic. TV violence was non existent...at least as compared to the graphic images available today.

I remember sitting in silent horror with my wife at the theater when we went to see Saving Private Ryan. Realistic...yes, but now it seems that all movie violence is either very graphic or highly sensationalized and too fantastic to equate with reality. Video games today are.....well, pretty doggone bad.

Music lyrics are brutal, violent, misogynistic and filthy. Kids refer to and demand r.e.s.p.e.c.t and MTV glamorizes thugish behavior.

Seems to me that I should not have to relinquish my Second Amendment rights because the purveyors of filthy, violent entertainment refuse to stop feeding generations of kids material that surely affects their day to day view of life.

One doesn't need a gun to kill and the media should stop demonizing normal law abiding gun owners.

In Florida where I live, the high schools have SRO's....Sheriff Deputies that work full time in the schools. Maybe this model should be adopted elsewhere......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Annewandering. You really see no differences between citizen gun-owners who don't happen to trust a president who keeps an enemies list and tells followers to "get in [conservatives'] faces", and the filth who perpetrated 9-11?

Seriously?

I am always amazed how people can read their own agendas in what other people say.

Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a VAST difference between arming someone so that they can defend themselves should other measures fail, and having someone go out and be a security guard. In fact that seems to be the major disconnect in this entire discussion. When I carry, I'm not up and around wandering around looking for trouble. In fact I'm trying to avoid it. Most of the time I'm going about my business and completely ignoring my gun. It's never even come out of its holster in any type of confrontation (cleaning and practice are another matter).

The Israeli philosophy of defense is to deny the assailant entry to the school. Once entrance is gained you stand a poor chance of neutralising the assailant in a timely manner, IE, before a large number of people are killed. Focusing on outward defense and initial response is far more efficient than arming teachers. You kind of have to "look for trouble" in order to prevent it, which is why dedicated personel are needed.

I've never seen an armed teacher in class in Israel. Not only did I go to school in Israel (as did all my siblings), my mom was a school teacher for over 20 years. The only exceptions are field trips. Even then, a teacher will only be assigned a gun if there are no professional guards hired, or if none of the students' adult relatives volunteered. Field trips present far more vulnerable targets than schools, hence the exception. The group itself, as it is mobile, must be armed. There simply is no alternative, as we've learned from bitter experience over the years.

In case you are inclined to dismiss this as the mere ramblings of some anonymous bloke on the internet, I spent two years in the IDF as a security guard, so I have some idea of what I speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I carry, I'm not up and around wandering around looking for trouble. In fact I'm trying to avoid it. Most of the time I'm going about my business and completely ignoring my gun.

When you cannot keep the assailant where you can control the situation according to your plan, you've as good as failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legal right often is different from moral right. While governments often infringe on our personal rights all the time, that doesn't mean the right is existent, only violated. A law that prevents the carrying of weapons on school grounds deprives me of the only reasonable means of defending myself against an armed attacker, and therefore is a grievous violation of my rights.

What about my right to own a nuke for self defense against those who are armed with nukes?

This right has been grievously violated. And needs to be changed.

By whose morals shall we go by? The killers? the rapists? The puritans? the pacifists? the communists? the anarchists? The Mormons? the Buddhists? the quakers? Legal law can generally be traced back to some moral or another. Fortunately or unfortunately we live in a democratic/republic (barely) Which means that there will have to be some level of compromise between different morals.

there is no absolute or inherent moral law I am aware of that grants the right to have weapons of any variety. And supposing that there is, how do you propose we convince the majority of it or at least of its existance?

If you want to go by scripture the closest we can get is that self defense is justifiable, but nowhere does it explicitly explain how, where, or when one should defend themselves..

If you want to go by the constitution then by a technical reading it does not state specifically what kind of arms nor does it elucidate when and where you may use that right (which is a fortunate thing really as it allows the courts and laws to hopefully adjust to the situation as needed, but it also means that both extremes are right, whichever direction the gov goes on it).

If access to weapons is prevented or not available, then you'll have to find some other means to prepare a defense and will have to use the hand you are dealt. And quite frankly if our defense has to revolve around guns, we've failed majorly.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a guard was not able to stop the carnage, then how would it differ if he was outside locked out. btw, seems most shooters are well geared with bullet proof vest or could be, does this mean the teacher will also wear a bullet proof vest every day?

US has 88 guns per 100 people which makes it #1 in gun ownership vs any other country by a long shot. Seems to me, there are to many loose guns floating around or any real lack fo due diligence of gun sellers where the guns will get into the wrong hands of a future killer.

My bet, implement the assault riffle ban and some how get rid of them. Hand guns may be second. BTW, Chicago had 500 murders from handguns or assault riffles last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the armed guard at colimbine was not able to stop the carnage

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

If a guard was not able to stop the carnage, then how would it differ if he was outside locked out.

There is no fool-proof defense. However, if entrance is denied, you have far greater chances of stopping the carnage before it begins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a guard was not able to stop the carnage, then how would it differ if he was outside locked out. btw, seems most shooters are well geared with bullet proof vest or could be, does this mean the teacher will also wear a bullet proof vest every day?

US has 88 guns per 100 people which makes it #1 in gun ownership vs any other country by a long shot. Seems to me, there are to many loose guns floating around or any real lack fo due diligence of gun sellers where the guns will get into the wrong hands of a future killer.

My bet, implement the assault riffle ban and some how get rid of them. Hand guns may be second. BTW, Chicago had 500 murders from handguns or assault riffles last year.

You are assuming, or at the very least implying an assumption, that legal gun owners are to blame for gun crime. Whether this is deliberate or not, I have no idea. The impact of that assumption, however, leads people to think that any person with a firearm is automatically a lethal threat to society. I don't think that's what you meant, but it's what people think.

"Let's make assault rifles illegal. That way criminals won't have them."

Sure, let's see how that idea has worked for drugs, alcohol, bootlegged MP3's.....

When the demand exists for something, a market will form to supply it. Hence drug cartels, speakeasies and moonshine, and filesharing sites online.

Yes gun crime is a serious issue world-wide, however the last thing you should do is punish the law-abiding citizens. Do we make car ownership harder due to drunk driving fatalities? Do we make rope ownership harder due to hangings? Should we outlaw baseball bats too?

One of the problems is that we are punishing everyone but the guilty by attempting to pass higher gun restrictions.

Do you honestly think that if all firearms were illegal, then no crimes would be committed with them?? Check out the scene in Australia and let me know how it's working down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US has 88 guns per 100 people which makes it #1 in gun ownership vs any other country by a long shot. Seems to me, there are to many loose guns floating around or any real lack fo due diligence of gun sellers where the guns will get into the wrong hands of a future killer.

I have guns, the house next to me has guns, so do the houses on either side of them, and on either side of them, plus the one across the street from me, the house next to him, the one next to him and the one next to him. Those are just the ones I know of on my street. Not a single rampant crazy shooter in the 12 years I've lived here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am more than happy to pay teachers who carry a firearm in defense of themselves and their students more than those who do not.

But if you really want to insist on discussing compensation, then you'd best realize that such discussions cut both ways.

If we're going to talk about compensation, then merit pay, benefits, and actual accountability for their performance and conduct need to be on the table as well.

By the same token- and given the number of sexual predators who are currently coddled and protected by the teachers unions (a full order of magnitude in scope larger than the Catholic Church scandals)- we'd need to see some fairly in-depth revisions to the hiring and employment guidelines- and that is something the unions would never tolerate.

Oh, and Anne?

Teachers are already morally and legally responsible for the physical safety and welfare of the children under their care.

Your use of the derisive "bodyguard" nomenclature is simply overwrought rhetoric.

Safeguarding and protecting their students is already their moral duty and legal obligation. A weapon is simply one more tool at their disposal if the unthinkable happens.

The phrase "bringing a knife to a gunfight" is a well-known (almost universal) metaphor for being ill-prepared.

The principal at Sandy Hook died trying to subdue the monster who was threatening her students.

Common sense and simple decency dictate that she might have stood a better chance had she been properly armed and competently trained.

Contrary to the hype, no one is arguing that teachers should be required to be armed- but given the nature of the threat (and the celebrity and notoriety that these crimes engender) they should at least have the option of doing so.

Or to put it another way: if I can't trust this individual with a loaded firearm, why in God's name would I trust them alone with my child?

You know, it's that kind of attitude that makes me glad teachers are generally unarmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share