Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bigsky on March 25, 2005, 09:56:33 PM
-
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
Stop giving kids prozac might be a step in the right direction.
-
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. :rolleyes:
-
Funny how the multilateral disarmament option never occurs to the NRA. But no big surprise.
Disarm everyone?
-
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.
-
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.
:eek:
-
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.
-
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.
-
There's something terribly wrong if arming teachers sounds like a viable option.
-
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.
-
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! :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by 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.
Bowling for Columbine alert!
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Good post Lazerus.
Why, thank you, sir :)
Originally posted by Replicant
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! :)
Hell, most people I know, myself included, really couldn't care less what citizens of other countries choose to do with their right (yes I still believe it is a right) to own firearms. I really think that is the opinion of most, if not all, of the American posters in here. Just don't tell us what we should (or shouldn't) be doing.
The easiest response to any anti-firearm statement is Switzerland. They seem to be doing Ok with mandatory firearm (I think?) ownership.
Other than the easiest, the best is that it's our decision to make.
If you live here and feel that firearms should be illegal, I'll pay for a ticket to your country of choice:D
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Bowling for Columbine alert!
I have only bowled one time in my life and i hated it. Very dull "sport" indeed.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I have only bowled one time in my life and i hated it. Very dull "sport" indeed.
Lot's of beer.
Large amounts of beer.
Mass quantities of beer.
Any of those three elements will improve your bowling experience.
Of course, rented shoes. How can you beat rented shoes for a good time.
Sheesh, some people.
-
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
If a few stressed-out prozac popping armed teachers go nuts, what then ?
Excel
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Lot's of beer.
Large amounts of beer.
Mass quantities of beer.
Any of those three elements will improve your bowling experience.
Of course, rented shoes. How can you beat rented shoes for a good time.
Sheesh, some people.
Pool is alot more fun to do drunk, or crocket in the summer. Nothing beats playing AH drunk tho.. cause you fly so much better when you are drunk...it improves you skills alot.
-
Originally posted by 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.
heh... they say theres enough guns in Åland to give a gun for all the people living there (registered+unregistered guns).
Thats quite well for a demilitarized zone :D
It's a big outcry if an unarmed army chopper flies to Åland, but also a big cry if someone points out they got more weapons than people :D
-
A teacher having a gun at school might not be a good idea. In HS anyway, there are machismo types who will harrass a teacher. I'm talking fisticuffs and keying teachers' cars and all. And those are just the good ol boy rednecks. It's unknown if they would back off from a gun.
It would be a lot better to be able to physically retaliate without using a gun and without being sued with job loss. The teachers need respect and support from the parents of these students.
One time when I was in HS, one of my frat brothers was surrounded by about 30 others in the school parking lot and they were going to beat him up. He didn't do anything to them to provoke that. It was racial strife. Another student, Zooman, ran to his car and returned with a sawed off double barrel. That dispersed the crowd quickly without a shot being fired. Now Zooman was no angel, but I never heard of him ever shooting anyone. He saved my fraternity brother from bodily harm is what he did.
Les
-
Originally posted by Fishu
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.
Not if they knew how to do their jobs. Of course, police aren't trained to do that job. Poper building security consists of consentric circles of protection. Private and government facilities have been doing it well for decades.
Hell, modern hospitals do it.
The very basics would be to put a physical barrier on the perimeter so that all entrance and exit traffic would have to go through gates. Then firearm detectors at the building entrances. A security camera monitoring station. Photo ID's need to be shown to get in. The photo ID itself is not so important, but it give the guard a moment to do a quick visual assesment of the person. Yeah it's expensive, and people would rather spend their money on gas for their SUVs than safety for their children.
Like I said, most modern city hospitals allready have this type of basic security. Don't believe me? Try walking into a hospital with a gun hidden on you and see how far you get.
But yeah, two armed guards who would otherwise be working at the local mall is just a token force, and a waste of money.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
A teacher having a gun at school might not be a good idea.
"Okay Billy, what's the capital of North Dakota?"
"Pierre?"
"Wrong, Billy." Blam!
"Do you know the answer Suzi?"
"Gulp..."
-
Suave,
yes... of course you can do that when you can afford lots of guards.
But the question is once again back to the funding.
Big schools might afford it, but there are lots of smaller schools around.
-
I suppose that was meant to be amusing Holden, but I'm afraid you have taken my quote out of context somewhat. Good thing you're not a teacher, is all I can glean from your response.:D
Les
-
I'm an advocate of classroom discipline, Leslie, and be sure to do your homework if you ever want to see your little sister again.
-
The classroom discipline comes from the students' respect I believe. And love of the subject. I'm not a school teacher, but I have been a student, and I remember the days when I was in HS. I respected and worked hard for my teachers, always did my homework, especially Physics class which was my favorite. I was several chapters ahead on my own at the end of the year, made an A for the course, and was given a two week vacation from class along with everyone else who passed Senior year.
I remember one time the Physics teacher gave us an optional weekend project. It was a tough calculus problem, and I don't think the teacher had an answer himself. Just so happened I was visiting my brother that weekend and I showed it to him, and he worked out the problem in ten minutes.
On Monday I came back to school and handed in the problem and solution. It was satisfying to me because the teacher said, "How did you figure this out?" I never told him my brother figured it out.
Les
-
What we need here is opinions from teachers.
Two sides of the spectrum would be interesting:
1. Kieran..a conservative gun toting manly Christopher Lowell look-alike
2. banana..a liberal Ron Jeremy worshipper.
Unfortunately they aren't around here anymore.
-
Originally posted by 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.
Rather a long post, if I may say so myself. ;)
And rather a longwinded discussion about 2nd amendment, Bill of Rights, avoidance of tyranny, chronology of the settling of America in response to what is actually quite a small or simple problem. I have never said America should disarm. But it seems logical to keep guns out of the hands of nutjobs. Weise was a nutjob, and his grandparents surely knew it. He should not have had that gun. It was his grandfather's police issue weapon. The cop should have secured it. He didn't, and around 10 lives were lost as a result of his negligence. The sad thing is that this is just one example of an incident which happens in America day after day. And until some changes are made, it will keep on happening. I wonder how many mass shootings there will be in April. :rolleyes::(
-
I'm a teacher Curv...but being a conservative, religious, gun-toting whacko...I'm not sure everyone wants to hear my opinion.
Oh well...you're going to get it anyway.
Let me make two points about this topic.
First, in Israeli schools both the teachers and the guards are armed. Neither the students or their parents bat an eye about this...hardly surprising since the entire country, out of necessity, is an armed camp. Yet, despite the availability of weapons, all the scarey, what-if, bug-a-boo scenarios that opponents of armed teachers and guards in American schools are constantly obsessing over never occur.
To be perfectly fair, the students were never the problem in Israel. Yet, that is beside the point of this debate. The government of Israel and the parents of the students TRUST the teachers to do what is right. Can you IMAGINE!? Armed citizens that are TRUSTED by their government?! How UNCOUTH!
Big-city Americans, raised on a steady diet of "trust-us-we'll-protect-you-because-you're-incapable-of-protecting-yourselves-and-making-the-right-decisions-in-a-crisis-situation" government and mass media propaganda, can't imagine anything similar working in the United States. These same Americans would state, with great conviction, that only highly-trained personnel, such as the police, are fit to respond with armed force in a crisis situation.
The fly-in-the-buttermilk for that argument is that the police are, themselves, nothing more than armed civilians. If they can successfully complete training that prepares them to respons to danger, why can't teachers? If some highly-trained teachers were allowed to do double duty as armed guards, there would be little need to go to the added expense of hiring armed guards.
You can cry and whine about the "necessity" of disarming the populous until the cows come home, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon. Reality is here and now. What are we going to do in the meantime. No more hysterics, please. If you have another solution, I'm willing to hear it.
Secondly, American schools are far too large for the staff and administration to get a handle on this situation. One of the most common statements to be debated in these situations is usually "Why didn't the staff and administration see this coming? How could they miss the warning signs?"
As if it's possible to do so in an environment where the average student gets lost in the shuffle. When the bell rings ending a class period the average American school fills with the equivalent population of a small town. When you shunt your children into such an environment you largely cede your ability to detect dangerous situations. Crime, drugs, and violence abound because it is impossible, with such a large population of students, to get a handle on them.
The schools have to be broken up. No ifs-ands-or-buts about it. No school should have more than 3 to 4 hundred students in it. In schools of that size, students develop greater rapport with each other and their teachers, criminal activity is easier to detect and thwart, and the learning environment improves.
I don't see to these two suggestions exist, given the current situation.
-
hmm... this is exactly what I have been saying for years.
It is a good idea and less full of hypocracy. It is hypocritical to have a state policy that allows concealled carry by allmost everyone except teachers.
I had allso suggested that the sky marshal program be reinstated and that pilots be ALLOWED to carry if they wished... these things have been done and they seem to be working.
If teachers were simply ALLOWED to play by the same rules as everyone else then they would probly act like everyone esle.. In this case... concealled carry permit holders.
We need to examine concealled carry people... By far they are the most law abiding group in America. At most... not even 10% of the people allowed will carry concealled. There has never been a wr4ongful death suit that has been succesful against the more than 10 million concealed carry holders. What are we afraid of..
or... do we think that treachers are not as good as regular folk?
armed guards (as pointed out) can be overcome or avoided... they are obviously armed... concealled carry is....well... concealed... ther may be ten teachers with guns and training and there may be none. if you don't know then it takes the fun right out of your little goth planning. Even if the shooting starts... you can be sure that someone will be shooting back and you won't know who it is till the bullets smack into your little nose picking zit temple.
We are not arming teachers... we would be allowing them the same rights as everyone else. It isn't a problem anywhere else and it has been proven to prevent crime so why continue with the hypocritcal and dangerous policy of "no guns in school except by psycos"
This is another example of liberals happy to see kids die for the look of some policy.
lazs
-
I'm a teacher Curv...but being a conservative, religious, gun-toting whacko...I'm not sure everyone wants to hear my opinion.
Oh well...you're going to get it anyway.
Let me make two points about this topic.
First, in Israeli schools both the teachers and the guards are armed. Neither the students or their parents bat an eye about this...hardly surprising since the entire country, out of necessity, is an armed camp. Yet, despite the availability of weapons, all the scarey, what-if, bug-a-boo scenarios that opponents of armed teachers and guards in American schools are constantly obsessing over never occur.
To be perfectly fair, the students were never the problem in Israel. Yet, that is beside the point of this debate. The government of Israel and the parents of the students TRUST the teachers to do what is right. Can you IMAGINE!? Armed citizens that are TRUSTED by their government?! How UNCOUTH!
Big-city Americans, raised on a steady diet of "trust-us-we'll-protect-you-because-you're-incapable-of-protecting-yourselves-and-making-the-right-decisions-in-a-crisis-situation" government and mass media propaganda, can't imagine anything similar working in the United States. These same Americans would state, with great conviction, that only highly-trained personnel, such as the police, are fit to respond with armed force in a crisis situation.
The fly-in-the-buttermilk for that argument is that the police are, themselves, nothing more than armed civilians. If they can successfully complete training that prepares them to respons to danger, why can't teachers? If some highly-trained teachers were allowed to do double duty as armed guards, there would be little need to go to the added expense of hiring armed guards.
You can cry and whine about the "necessity" of disarming the populous until the cows come home, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon. Reality is here and now. What are we going to do in the meantime. No more hysterics, please. If you have another solution, I'm willing to hear it.
Secondly, American schools are far too large for the staff and administration to get a handle on this situation. One of the most common statements to be debated in these situations is usually "Why didn't the staff and administration see this coming? How could they miss the warning signs?"
As if it's possible to do so in an environment where the average student gets lost in the shuffle. When the bell rings ending a class period the average American school fills with the equivalent population of a small town. When you shunt your children into such an environment you largely cede your ability to detect dangerous situations. Crime, drugs, and violence abound because it is impossible, with such a large population of students, to get a handle on them.
The schools have to be broken up. No ifs-ands-or-buts about it. No school should have more than 3 to 4 hundred students in it. In schools of that size, students develop greater rapport with each other and their teachers, criminal activity is easier to detect and thwart, and the learning environment improves.
I don't see to these two suggestions exist, given the current situation.
-
Oops...sorry about the double post guys. I never got confirmation that the first had been successfully posted...so I sent it again.
-
it boils down to.... we allow average citizens the right to carry concealed but teachers are somehow....Inferior?
We trust em to cover students with their bodies as the bullets fly or attack armed psycos with their bare hands (as they have done in the past) but..
we don't trust em with a firearm?
let me see if I got this straight... democrats/liberals are saying that teachers (one of their biggest support groups) are inferior in judgement to everyone else..
That could be possible... I will make a comprimise.
Any teacher who shows such poor judgement to have voted for a democrat should not be allowed to own or carry concealed any firearm.
lazs
-
soooo... we trust em to teach our children how to weld or use a cutting torch or a table saw or even a lathe... we trust em to teach our kids safe sports but.... we don't think them as capable of firearms safety as the millions of other concealled carry permit holders 100 yards away?
lazs
-
I think your government should give every 10y old kid a .22 and when they are 14 they should have a .45 Autos. When 16... M-16 :)
That way they could protect themself from threats the system they live in produces and parents wouldn't have to be afraid about their childrens safety :)
Where's NRA wen it's needed???
-
staga... why would you give 10 year olds weapons that are too large for em? I think a Kimber .22 bolt action rifle in childs length would be a better and safer training aid.
You would also of course have to tell them that shooting other people was wrong. I know that would be too stifling for you but I really think it should be taught and any infrigment on that rule would have to be punished severly. the exception would be that shooting bad guys would be ok.
Just owning and enjoying the gun would be fine too.
lazs
-
Alot of store owners are armed, but they still get shot because they are caught by surprise.
It would be a sad day in America when we start arming teachers
-
silly example.. A lot of store owners and their customers are alive because of the guns they carry.. A lot of bad guys are dead and unable to prey on society because of armed storeowners.
America is not talking about "arming teachers" we are talking about allowing them the same rights as everyone else.
Again... are teachers inferior in some way in your opinion to everyone else?
lazs
-
As I said Sixpence...reality has to be addressed. The disarmament of American citizens isn't going to happen any time soon.
Action has to be taken NOW to protect our school children. What do YOU suggest? Arming teachers is unacceptable to you.
The only other option is to hire teams of armed guards to protect each school. Armed and trained citizens I might add. Citizens just like the teachers.
If you're not willing to arm teachers, then you've gotta fork over some more tax money to hire, arm, and train more of your fellow CITIZENS to do the job. Citizens who possess no more native intelligence and courage for this task than the teachers who are already on the job.
You don't trust ME to protect your children...alrightee then, dig DEEP into your billfold friend...cause you're gonna have to hire other people JUST LIKE ME to do the job instead.
-
shukins... he trusts you with his kids education and with power tools and to sheild his little darlings body with your own when the shooting starts (the shooting his policy caused) but he doesn't trust you with a gun because yu are a teacher and somehow..
inferior to everyone else.
lazs
-
There are armed guards at the post office, never prevented a shooting.
-
Armed guards at the Post Office?! Not where I come from I can assure you.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Armed guards at the Post Office?! Not where I come from I can assure you.
Come to the GMF, Boston.
-
Another thread on guns!!!!
Boy is this board getting repetitive.
-
Boy is this board getting repetitive.
Don't let the door hit you in the arse and it's ok if you never return, nutjob.
-
Originally posted by 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.
I did not realise that Nilsen, thanks for that info. :)
Also, Switzerland and Canada have a higher per capita ownership of firearms than the US does. They also have alot lower incidents of shootings.
-
Must be a cultural thing...as has been pointed out by many Americans on this site.
Of course by cultural the meaning usually refers to all of the minorities who do all the gun crime.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
I'm a teacher Curv...but being a conservative, religious, gun-toting whacko...I'm not sure everyone wants to hear my opinion.
Oh well...you're going to get it anyway.
The fly-in-the-buttermilk for that argument is that the police are, themselves, nothing more than armed civilians. If they can successfully complete training that prepares them to respons to danger, why can't teachers? If some highly-trained teachers were allowed to do double duty as armed guards, there would be little need to go to the added expense of hiring armed guards.
I'm also a high school teacher, and I agree with this. Don't make arming teachers mandatory, but let the ones who want to avail themselves of training, regularly scheduled qualification shoots, etc., carry concealed at school. Only the principal (and school resource police officer if there is one) should know who the armed teachers are. That way, students or others wouldn't assume that every teacher was armed. (It would just be the ones who never took off thier suit coats....).
We already have lock-down drills, evacuations drills, etc., but what good will these do if the crazy kid pops up IN your classroom? "Excuse me Johnny, but I need to call the office and tell them to start the "armed person on campus drill" - would you wait with your AK-47 over in the corner while I call? Oh, and get your homework out while you're at it,please."
Having been a teacher for the last 16+ years, I know as well as anybody that there are some teachers that I would never want to see armed. These types, however, could be weeded out in the qualification process.
There are already teachers with CCW permits (admittedly, in a mainly Liberal profession they are in the minority) - why not let them exercise their rights while at school also? Does anybody really think that Mr. Jones would blow a kid away just because he forgot his homework? or mouthed off in class? Most CCW holders have already proven themselves to be a little bit more responsible than the average person, because they have taken the time to get licensed, and also accepted the awesome responsibilites that one accepts when choosing to take charge of the saftey for himself and/or loved ones.
Ok, next person's turn.......
-
Shuckins. If that will prevent further school shootings then I am all in favour. But I do recognise that my opinion is worthless in any respect.
The teachers though must be fully qualified and fully versed in firearm saftey and ability..in other words it would probably have to become a required "skill" to qualify as a teacher. Agreed? Just being an average gun owner is not sufficient when dealing in public schools with children aged say 8-18 years old in my opinion.
Again, if it works and does the job..I'm all in favour.
Here's the thing though. It will just take one accident, one disarming of an armed teacher resulting in another large number of fatlities, one wacko teacher (in a country of 300 million) to invalidate the argument that teachers should be armed in your own lawmakers minds. (You know..those nasty liberal types)
Maybe you and lazs are right. Maybe America needs to turn to an Israeli style modus operendi in terms of daily threats of violence and the need for all sorts of weapons being carried for protection by teachers, doctors lawyers, housewives...everybody.
Whatever works man...I'm in. (Excepting the fact that it really doesn't matter anyway, as usual, because I am not American)
-
I don't have a problem with allowing teachers that have been screened and thoroughly trained to carry concealed on campus. Having been in the environment I know that there would be fairly few to take up the option and I am absolutley cetain that if they became known, others on the faculty would give them unholy h*ll for it. The teaching profession is about as left sided an organization as I have ever known and that is in Arizona, not Massachusettes.
Having been in the position of locking a classroom down on an alert it was no comfort to be stuck in a locked classroom, one exit and no way to defend the class or myself.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"Okay Billy, what's the capital of North Dakota?"
"Pierre?"
"Wrong, Billy." Blam!
"Do you know the answer Suzi?"
"Gulp..."
And a generation of MUCH more attentive students is born :)
culero (LMAO)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Must be a cultural thing...as has been pointed out by many Americans on this site.
Of course by cultural the meaning usually refers to all of the minorities who do all the gun crime.
Minorities? Nah.
The US has always been a violent society. Even before we threw the Brits out, the colonies were more violent than Jolly Olde. It's still that way and I do believe it is cultural.
I guess it's one we're used to; I certainly don't live my life in fear as some "outside observers" continually suggest we do here.
-
Curval,
Sure...there is always the possibility of some kid taking a gun away from a teacher. But we cannot develop a policy that will take care of every contingency. We cannot endlessly wring our hands and live by a code of "...if, if, maybe, perhaps..."
Regards, Shuckins
-
Well, one thing we now know is that no kid could ever get a gun away from a cop, even if the cop was his grandfather. Right? We KNOW that?
-
You may have noticed there is very little guaranteed in this life. Well, I hope you've noticed it by now.
-
I don't see why I should lose my 2nd Amendment rights just because I'm at work. And having a piece could help me with discipline.
YOU'RE ENTERING A WORLD OF PAIN LARRY!!!
A WORLD OF PAIN!!!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I don't see why I should lose my 2nd Amendment rights just because I'm at work. And having a piece could help me with discipline.
YOU'RE ENTERING A WORLD OF PAIN LARRY!!!
A WORLD OF PAIN!!!
Why?? You a goin to play that there banjo?!?!?!?!
:D
-
I agree with Curval, and my opinion is equally worthless. But I'm glad I went to school where and when I did. It was a much more civilised era, no violence, no guns.
The world HAS changed, and not all for the better. If the consensus in America is that schools would be safer if teachers were armed, then go for it. I personally have doubts, and as curval says, your liberal pinkos' mileage may vary. One thing I do know - it's a sad, sad situation when it comes to having to arm teachers.
As I look back over the years, I realise I had an excellent junior school education. Those were the days of being taught arithmetic, grammar, spelling tests, history... teachers did what they did best. They taught. I have an old school photo of the teachers at that school in the mid 1960s. I'll post it here.
One question: Can you imagine any of these ladies and gentlemen strapping on a snub nosed revolver to take class? :lol
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/teachers3.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Minorities? Nah.
The US has always been a violent society. Even before we threw the Brits out, the colonies were more violent than Jolly Olde. It's still that way and I do believe it is cultural.
I guess it's one we're used to; I certainly don't live my life in fear as some "outside observers" continually suggest we do here.
I live my life and go where I choose when I choose to, without any fear whatsoever...in part because of my right to be armed when I choose.
I pity those who don't enjoy the same level of liberty.
culero
-
curval... I know how much you like to play the race card but the fact remains that more than half our homicides are committed by a race that comprises only 17% of the population and only about 2% of legal gun owners.
Beetle... I can easily see training any of those people in that group to carry and shoot safely.
Everyone here is finaly getting it. We are simply asking that teachers not have their rights taken away. The fact is that there would probly only be about one in 20 teachers who would bother and they would be ostracised by the intolerant liberal main.
But... even one in twenty would be better than an armed guard once in a while... better because it would be more and better because it would be concealled... the cowardly little darlings wouldn't know who or how many were armed.
Arming pilots and sky marshals seems to be working just fine... Who knows how many trajedies have allready been prevented by that enlightened policy.
in the end... aremed cops are just.... people.
lazs