Gun sales today...pretty amazing...

[FX1]

Their has been multiple occasions that during one of my "walk abouts" at the ranch i have run threw a 30 round ak mag. Last time was on saturday with a epic fight with a pack of 15 pigs in the open. People ask me why 30 rounds and my reply is why do you need to drive over 55 mphs. Modern firearms are what the name implies MODERN.

[DREDIOCK]

As I pointed out in a thread on another website.

On of the largest arguments I hear about not allowing teachers to be armed is that kids might be caught and killed in a crossfire.

I will admit that is possible. it is indeed a possibility that kids might end up caught in a crossfire and killed. But it is also a possibility that an armed teacher might be able to stop a gunman before he does kill large numbers of people. That is also possible.

What we do know for sure and what isnt just possible but the inevitable outcome. Is what happens when the ONLY person armed is the badguy with the gun hellbent to take out as many lives as possible.

Being armed and able to shoot back when being shot at increases your chances of survival significantly.

[CAP1]

they just did a story on this on CNN
Utah has been doing it for over 10 years now and teachers havent been involved in any shootings yet.
Now 200 more are going to receive training.

 what you just said is mentioned in the link someone above provided.

[camnite]

now this may be stirring the pot exponently, but i have heard both that he used an ar-15 in the shooting, and that he used a sig and a glock with the ar in the trunk. don't follow mainstream media, so does anyone have a yea or nea on either?

[mtnman]

As a parent (who grew up in Chicago) with two kids in school (MS and HS), and a wife who's a teacher (shared between the Elementary and HS disabled students rooms)...  We live 6 miles outside of a small town (700 people), about 45 minutes from the nearest "city" (Oshkosh, Appleton, or Steven's Point, WI).  We live in an area with a low crime rate, and in an area where many, if not most, families hunt (our kids can be excused from classes to hunt if they show the school their license).  It's a pretty safe location.  Most households likely have firearms.

Based on the last two bomb threats our school has had, a policeman or maybe two could be expected to arrive within 8-10 minutes.  The next batch could be expected to show up at about the 15-20 minute mark.  Again, based on prior response, the police may go to the wrong school (we have three, two of which are next to each other, but separated by the activity fields).

Small, safe town or not, we have the "regular" variety of children, so have the "regular" variety of problems.  I don't consider us to be immune to murderous nutcases.  I and many other parents actually have strong concerns regarding one or two students in particular.

What are my choices?  What would I feel most comfortable with?

Option 1 is the "status quo".

Nobody is allowed to carry a firearm on school property, and there are multiple signs strategically posted to remind potential fame-starved killers that the children on the premises are defenseless and undefended. 

If one of these nutcases were to act, they would have several long minutes of freedom.  Knowing several teachers very well, I have zero doubt that they would do everything in their power to slow or stop a gunman.  My wife would be one of those, I guarantee it.  How successful could I expect them to be, one on one against an armed person?  Will it matter what type of gun the shooter has?  Innocents are in absolute danger, and will be killed.  The best chance for survival of my loved ones might be if the shooter shoots my kids friends instead, or first?  Should I hope for that?  Did I mention that I know all of the kids in their classes?  That I've coached many of them?

Option 2 "Arm a select number of teachers who choose to be trained and are committed to doing their best with something other than a pencil"

This may be a failure of an option.  Somebody might get hurt.  An innocent might get killed.  But at least there's a chance. 

At least there's a chance...

Are we really arguing that it might be better to withhold that option, because there's also a chance of failure?  Really?

Wait until you're a parent.

[ToeTag]

I did not read through all of this but simply put the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun...period.

[dunnrite]

I did not read through all of this but simply put the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun...period.

Not true, apparently, you just have to inconvenience him with having to carry more magazines.

Or, make him break the law by carrying a "high capacity clip".  We wouldn't want any criminals breaking the law now, would we?

[Stellaris]

I am a parent.  I choose to live where school shootings are a lower risk than being struck by lightning.  Doesn't mean it can't happen, but you can't live life in a bunker.  My main worry is my little one being run over by a soccer mom in an SUV running late for PTA.  

But let's put some numbers on this.  

Center for Disease Control figures released for 2008-2011 show a fairly steady rate of about 600 accidental firearms deaths annually.  There's also another 250 firearms deaths of undetermined intent, which I guess means someone said it was an accident and no-one could prove otherwise.  Anyway, lets use 600 accidental deaths.  Here's the data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Assume all 4.3 million NRA members go armed every day, 1.1 million police/law enforcement, plus 13.7 million hunters who go out one day a week every week all year (who we'll treat as 2 million who go out every day). and toss several million more criminals, psychopaths and communist infiltrators to bring the numbers up to 10 million.

This works out to an accident rate of 1 death per 16,666 person/gun/years.  Pretty safe, but not absolutely safe.  However safety is relative, so let us continue the calculation.

There are 98,817 chools in the US, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf).  Let's call that 100,000, and say there's an average of twenty classrooms per school. for roughly 2,000,000 classrooms.

Now lets arm all those teachers.  Crunch the numbers and there will be about 120 accidental firearms deaths in classrooms every year. At a student teacher ratio of 20:1, this is 114 children and 6 teachers.

Since the turn of the millenium 96 people have died in school shootings in the US, excluding suicides. (data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s)

So assuming the armed teachers could have stopped every single shooter before the first round was fired, saving those 96 would have cost 1440 lives, mostly children.

More guns do not create more safety.  The training of the average armed citizen (or schoolteacher) is not up to the task.  Leave out proper lethal stress training, even the most basic rule of never touching the trigger without a target in your sights is not adequately followed.

[dunnrite]

^^


wow...

[guncrasher]

So assuming the armed teachers could have stopped every single shooter before the first round was fired, saving those 96 would have cost 1440 lives, mostly children.

look up how many teachers have been the shooters at school.   but your assumption that arming teachers would have stopped every single shooter is like saying if the passengers had been armed then the airplanes would not have crashed into the towers, which is possible, however it is possible that there would have been more shootings in airplanes.

my concern here is not kids getting shot at school as it is rare, very rare actually.  but if you compare that to students being molested at school by teachers, then you begin to see that the biggest problem is not shootings, but kids being molested.  except now you have kids being molested by teachers having guns.  which kids will now really believe the "I'll kill your parents..." threat.

like I said before rushing to claim that teachers with guns at school would have stopped shootings is just as dumb as thinking getting rid of guns would stop deaths.

midway

[mtnman]

I am a parent.  I choose to live where school shootings are a lower risk than being struck by lightning.  Doesn't mean it can't happen, but you can't live life in a bunker.  My main worry is my little one being run over by a soccer mom in an SUV running late for PTA.  

But let's put some numbers on this.  

Center for Disease Control figures released for 2008-2011 show a fairly steady rate of about 600 accidental firearms deaths annually.  There's also another 250 firearms deaths of undetermined intent, which I guess means someone said it was an accident and no-one could prove otherwise.  Anyway, lets use 600 accidental deaths.  Here's the data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Assume all 4.3 million NRA members go armed every day, 1.1 million police/law enforcement, plus 13.7 million hunters who go out one day a week every week all year (who we'll treat as 2 million who go out every day). and toss several million more criminals, psychopaths and communist infiltrators to bring the numbers up to 10 million.

This works out to an accident rate of 1 death per 16,666 person/gun/years.  Pretty safe, but not absolutely safe.  However safety is relative, so let us continue the calculation.

There are 98,817 chools in the US, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf).  Let's call that 100,000, and say there's an average of twenty classrooms per school. for roughly 2,000,000 classrooms.

Now lets arm all those teachers.  Crunch the numbers and there will be about 120 accidental firearms deaths in classrooms every year. At a student teacher ratio of 20:1, this is 114 children and 6 teachers.

Since the turn of the millenium 96 people have died in school shootings in the US, excluding suicides. (data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s)

So assuming the armed teachers could have stopped every single shooter before the first round was fired, saving those 96 would have cost 1440 lives, mostly children.

More guns do not create more safety.  The training of the average armed citizen (or schoolteacher) is not up to the task.  Leave out proper lethal stress training, even the most basic rule of never touching the trigger without a target in your sights is not adequately followed.

FWIW, mife wife was in our parked but running minivan when it was hit by lightning in October.  I was standing 12-15 feet away from it.  Heck of a noise (sounded like giant static, not like thunder) big white/blue ball of fire, heat on my face, etc...  Kind of neat.  No damage to us or the vehiclle, although some of the electro-gadgets are all jinky now.

I like the idea of putting numbers on it.

If we do that though, should we even spend any real time bothering with the "mass" shootings?  I mean, statistically we'd have much more to gain by tackling one of the other segments of firearm death than with mass shootings, right?  I think that would be the case whether we used sheer number of deaths or number of events.

Of course, if we did that we might be forced into looking even deeper into the problem, and getting out of the smoke screen distraction of mass shootings, "clip" size, weapon color and shape, etc...  

We'd end up needing to look at the individuals who commit the crimes; who they are, and where they're from, etc., and that wouldn't be PC (regardless of who does it).  I don't know if we could make any legitimate headway under forum rules?  

There's a reason (or 20) that the media and politicians have decided not to go this route, but have instead directed us to the pointless smoke screen distraction of mass shootings, assault weapons, etc...

If we looked at numbers, would we even want to go with firearms from an accidental death viewpoint?  I mean, why waste time with a statistical anomaly, when we might be able to really solve something and save a bunch of lives?  600 per year?  Please...  That doesn't even match up with my state numbers per year for motor vehicles!  MV's are almost sacred though, so probably aren't a good topic.

You've kind of shown that mass shootings are less of a threat than accidental firearm injuries, right?  So why regulate in an effort to reduce crime, if what we're really worried about is an accident?

How about accidental falls?  What are the numbers there?

Bah!  Let's go back to being distracted with a pointless discussion on mass shootings, "clips", and ugly guns...  Much more interesting.

See how easy it is to get distracted?  

We jumped from nasty guns used in mass murders (well, or not), to (unrelated) gun accidents (I don't lump accidents with criminal acts for the most part), to lightning...  

There's a reason those guys are in politics or on the daily media...  It isn't always to help you/us, or to keep you informed enough to make logical choices.

[Widewing]

One thing everyone seems to overlook is that the shooters have zero combat training. Moreover, the shooters specifically target soft targets, where it is known that there will be no opposition armed with firearms. This is important to understand.

The Oregon mall shooter was stopped in his tracks when he encountered an off duty security guard armed with a Glock pistol. He panicked, hid and shot himself.

These are not SOCOM operators or Spetsnaz . They are not prepared for armed opposition. They don't have the slightest clue how cope.

One needs only a few trained individuals in schools to deal with this with some expectation of success. Another advantage is being in the defense mode. The attacker must, by the nature of the event, expose themselves. This is where they can be best dealt with... Even before they gain entry.

Yes, armed staff and faculty is only one aspect. Hardening the schools is the first line of defense. Not being able to shoot their way in through a window or door is critical to adding time to the front side of the evolution.

Like any other defensive situation, keeping the bad guy out is priority #1. Defeating him if he should gain entry is priority #2. If they can't get in, you don't have dead kids.

Also, one reason they went to a school is because the know it's a very soft target. Harden the target and they may go elsewhere. The downside is, there are lots of soft targets. However, the chances of someone being armed at those locations are far greater than in a school (at least as they exist today).

(Edit typo)

[ToeTag]

Guns in schools are a deterrent, a psychological wall for people that are thinking about doing something wrong. What's the school system in Texas that allows cc?  Have they ever had a shooting at the schools since they implemented this? That's the point!  You don't have to arm every teacher just a few veterans that are willing to come out of retirement to make school zones less of a target.  Schools might still be targeted but there will be somebody there to at least try to stop them or give the bad guy something else to shoot at besides helpless kids and teachers.  That armed guard would be one heck of a deterrent compared to the teachers trying to shield the children with their bodies.

[Maverick]

Some seem to feel that teachers are all but incompetent to do anything but stand in front of a classroom. They seem to feel and then expound on this by saying that they armed teacher would fold at the first hint of trouble or even more strangely cause trouble themselves. They are welcome to their supposition and or opinion.

I've been a teacher as well as a couple other professions. There are teachers and administrators I would not expect to react aggressively in the face of aggression but there are also others that would. The Principal and Counselor at Sandy Hook are examples. They did not run from the threat, they charged towards it. They only had one option however and it was to become casualties instead of stopping the threat since they had no tools. The fact of the matter is that the gun safe zone has a total failure rate at prevention. The law the shooters violated by bringing a weapon to the campus did nothing to deter them. Same for the laws against assault and murder.

The recognition of a threat in two recent shootings has shown the typical shooters mindset. Hit something that cannot hit back and as soon as someone who can hit back shows or gets near off themselves or surrender. Having no tool or option to do anything resulted in the deaths at Sandy Hook, that is fact not supposition. When the shooter seemed to hear the sirens, he stopped and shot himself. Just the THREAT of a reaction stopped him. Think if the Principal had actually been able to fire a shot at him to begin with. Do you really honestly expect the result to have been the same? Surrendering certainly didn't do the trick, neither did co operating with the murderer.

What would be your preference when faced with someone who intends to kill you? Meek submission and death for yourself and family / friends or a chance to make the bad guy die instead?

I've already been there and I know what my choice is.

[guncrasher]

Guns in schools are a deterrent, a psychological wall for people that are thinking about doing something wrong. What's the school system in Texas that allows cc?  Have they ever had a shooting at the schools since they implemented this? That's the point!  You don't have to arm every teacher just a few veterans that are willing to come out of retirement to make school zones less of a target.  Schools might still be targeted but there will be somebody there to at least try to stop them or give the bad guy something else to shoot at besides helpless kids and teachers.  That armed guard would be one heck of a deterrent compared to the teachers trying to shield the children with their bodies.

Did Texas had shootings at schools often before they allowed cc?  I bet most people are unaware that the school district allows it.

Midway