the armed teacher

[bigsky]

Arm teachers, NRA official suggests
Gun group leader: ‘Everything’s on table’ for making schools safe
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:01 p.m. ET March 25, 2005

PHOENIX - All options should be considered to prevent rampages like the Minnesota school shooting that took 10 lives — including making guns available to teachers, a top National Rifle Association leader said Friday.

advertisement
“I’m not saying that that means every teacher should have a gun or not, but what I am saying is we need to look at all the options at what will truly protect the students,” the NRA’s first vice president, Sandra S. Froman, told The Associated Press.

Gun-control restrictions would not have prevented Jeff Weise, 16, from killing nine people and himself Monday at Red Lake High School near Bemidji, Minn., said Froman, an attorney expected next month to be elected president of the NRA, which claims 4 million members.

The presence of an unarmed guard at the school failed to stop the siege, she noted.

“No gun law, no policy that you could implement now or that was already implemented, I think, could possibly prevent someone so intent on destruction,” she said. “I think everything’s on the table as far as looking at what we need to do to make our schools safe for our students.”

  Click for related story
School shooter followed video game-like ‘script’

Froman said if it is the responsibility of teachers to protect students in a school, “then we as a society, we as a community have to provide a way for the teachers to do that.”

Froman cited the 1997 school shooting incident in Pearl, Miss., where a teacher retrieved a gun from his car when a student opened fire, then held the student at bay until police arrived.

A law prohibiting guns in schools “is not going to stop someone who has evil in their heart and who has the capacity to commit those crimes from doing them,” Froman said.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7297575/

[Fishu]

Rather give guns to all the students above age of 15 or 16.
Anyone who would pull out a gun on someone, would get instantly shot at by 10 other students.

[Suave]

Well, the taxpayers are allready paying for armed security guards at the schools. How about just employing and training more competent security personel, and pay them better.

But hey, they're just responsible for our children's phisical safety. And if the security personell are overweight middle aged women who moved up from the position of toll booth attendant, well that's good enough isn't it? After all money doesn't grow on trees.

[Holden McGroin]

Stop giving kids prozac might be a step in the right direction.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by bigsky
Gun-control restrictions would not have prevented Jeff Weise, 16, from killing nine people and himself Monday at Red Lake High School near Bemidji, Minn., said Froman, an attorney expected next month to be elected president of the NRA, which claims 4 million members.

The presence of an unarmed guard at the school failed to stop the siege, she noted.

“No gun law, no policy that you could implement now or that was already implemented, I think, could possibly prevent someone so intent on destruction,” she said.

Try keeping the weapons from getting into the hands of people like Weise. That could (and should) have been done. I don't think he'd have killed 10 people if all he had was a butter knife, chlorox powder or ammonia spray.

Funny how the multilateral disarmament option never occurs to the NRA. But no big surprise.

[Steve]

Funny how the multilateral disarmament option never occurs to the NRA. But no big surprise.

Disarm everyone?

[Nashwan]

Just think, if you arm court officials you can prevent courtroom shootings, and if you arm policemen, you can prevent them being shot too.

The problem is, of course, that sometimes a criminal pulls the gun off the policeman and shoots him with it, and I expect the same thing will happen now and again with teachers/pupils.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Steve
Disarm everyone?

Everyone but those that deserve to have guns. You know, the upper class folks, the government. All those guys that tell us what to do and how to live our lives. They're responsible enough to have guns. They won't allow them to be used for the wrong reasons. I trust 'em.

[Steve]

Everyone but those that deserve to have guns. You know, the upper class folks, the government. All those guys that tell us what to do and how to live our lives. They're responsible enough to have guns. They won't allow them to be used for the wrong reasons. I trust 'em.

huh?  Maybe I'm tired.. this seems like nonsense to me.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Just think, if you arm court officials you can prevent courtroom shootings, and if you arm policemen, you can prevent them being shot too.

The problem is, of course, that sometimes a criminal pulls the gun off the policeman and shoots him with it, and I expect the same thing will happen now and again with teachers/pupils.

Interesting point Nashwan.

The other issue that everyone seems to forget is that once schools are 'armed' they'll simply move onto somewhere else.  Shopping malls?  Nightclubs?  Churches? Anywhere with a mass of people if they want to kill loads.  Where do you stop?  Having an armed toilet attendant?  It's just so tragic that in the US situation that everyone feels that they need a gun to feel safe.  I can't identify with that, and in all honesty I don't want to because I don't want to 'feel safe' by having loads of guns about.

[Staga]

There's something terribly wrong if arming teachers sounds like a viable option.

[Lazerus]

I don't usually get involved in these gun threads, but I just want to get some of this off my chest.

I can understand where everyone that advocates the elimination of guns in society is coming from. It sounds great to me too.

The problem is that they are here. They aren't going to go away. No matter how illegal you make them, they will be obtained and used by those that don't care how illegal they are.

But that is secondary.

Primarily, the threat of a populous with the ability to defend itself against tyranny is the only thing that prevents a government from taking their citizens God given rights away to promote it's agenda.

I know, the military in my country could theoretically stomp any citizen based armed resistance it might encounter.

Maybe.

My country was founded in a fight to remove itself from tyranny.
By armed citizens.

Crime is crime. It will always be. Guns or no guns.

My ability to make the people that assume more and more power every day question their ability to usurp my God given rights, simply by owning a firearm, is worth every life that is lost in the senseless killings everyday.

The freedom that was initiated by the USA is a freedom that has liberated millions of people in the last two hundred years, simply by being there. That freedom has no cost/value sheet. There is no price too high to ensure, maintain, or foster the right of every person to determine their own destiny.

This, of course, includes the right of a citizenry to give up their right of self protection in lieu of governmental protection...ie:banning guns. However, I believe that a constitutional amendment eliminating the rights set forth in our 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights would be necessary to allow this in my country. The framers of that document were smart enough to require extreme measures to remove any of those rights that they deemed inheritant.

I started off stating that I understand the position of those that favor the general public being deprived of guns. I'll finish by saying that I can't understand why those that feel that way that live outside of my country feel compelled to try to impose their views on me. If I wanted what they want of my country and have in theirs, I would move. They do not live here and don't have to worry at all about all of our guns.

Until we decide we need more room for condos, or more oil or something:D



it's late, i'm just a little(?)drunk. i'm not going to read over what i wrote. sorry for the typos and whatever else in advance.

[Replicant]

Good post Lazerus.

I agree, guns are a fundamental part of USA's heritage and part of their everyday culture.  It would be impossible to ban them even if they wanted to.  

As for people having opinions on why the USA have guns, well, it's the same as USA having opinions on why other countries don't have guns (i.e. lack of understanding of why guns are banned in some countries).  It's all to do with culture!

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Suave
Well, the taxpayers are allready paying for armed security guards at the schools. How about just employing and training more competent security personel, and pay them better.

I don't think thats any more viable option..
Anyone with a gun could easily overcome two armed guards at the school.
Somehow I doubt people (well, the state) is interested to pay for a few trained guards for each school.

Two armed guards aren't really for much more than for the show.
A student with a gun could easily shoot them both and they wouldn't even know what happened.

[Nilsen]

Norway has an even higher amount of weapons in private ownership than america (per capita), yet there are almost no shootings at all. Therefore the problem is not the guns.. it has to run deeper than that, and you have to start in another end to solve the problem.