Today's Poll: Should school teachers carry concealed handguns?
No, they should not carry concealed, but they should have immediate access to fire arms. Preferably in a locked desk or cabinet. They should also be trained in the proper use of said item and know the proper techniques to counter a shooter.
The worst place is a locked desk or cabinet, as opposed to a dedicated, heavy gauge steel gun safe bolted to the floor or support beam. Then there is the logistics. Where will the safes be kept, and will the teachers be able to get to them without being shot? If the teachers know where they are kept, the students will know, and that leave things open to theft, burglary, etc. Who will be responsible for those said firearms.? A pistol permit is issued to a specific individual, not a school district. Between 2011-2016 for example, Genesee County issued 2090 Pistol Permits, and the not counting those already having a permit. No matter where you go, there is a good chance someone is legally armed, and you wouldn't know. Do you feel threatened by them, and less safe? I say, yes. If a teacher chooses to be armed and receives the training, it is one part of the solution.
Rich: " A well armed Society is a polite Society" As I have said in the past, I would prefer to see an ex military individual as the desiginated person as they are trained to respond and rush to the sound of gun fire, not coward in a corner.
Tom, I know you have. I see no problem with ex-military or retired peace officers. I believe every school should have a primary dedicated Officer with training for that school. I also like the idea of per diem with a similar background-extra one or two, while school is in session. You might be surprised how many teachers are ex-military. Given the bravery exhibited in past shootings by teachers, some who haven't served; I'll not sell them short if they want to carry, to add another level of safety and security.
Listen to what the teachers in the country are saying about being armed in our schools.
Anne Marie Starowitz, I have heard teachers take both sides. Personally, if allowed by the School District and law, I'd leave it up to the individual teacher. If they don't want to, fine. If they do, fine.
The signs that say "Notice: our staff is armed and will used deadly force to protect our students" may be a deterrent in themselves. Arming teachers is a slippery slope. I can just the outcry if an angry student manages to disarm the teacher, or if the teacher him/her self goes postal ? These issues have to be addressed before I, as a parent, would feel comfortable arming teachers.
So there's approximately 90,000 schools in the US, and let's just ballpark it and say you'll be paying $50,000 in salary a year to get somebody to actually do this job with the qualifications of being 'combat ready'. That's probably a pretty low number actually, given PMC's can take home a LOT more than that.
$4.5 billion, as a massively conservative estimate (doesn't include any benefits, or training costs).
You gotta love conservatives lol
One way to get the money (45 billion) is to cut the unnecessary bloated top heavy-Administration positions, many of them Political Patronage, who have never taught in a classroom, and their academic genius in supporting “GUN FREE ZONES.” We have a choice. Think outside of the box, and protect our children or protect the status quo. What price do you put on a child’s life?
I'd go with the not brain dead approach honestly.
You could literally buy back every single AR-15 ever produced at market value EVERY YEAR for that amount of money.
5 Million produced at about $800 each gives you a cost of $4 billion. You could do that every. single. year.
Honestly, that's a brilliant, plan except for the Constitution and the Second Amendment negates that non-brain dead idea. Better the money is spent on a mental health database, to enhance background checks, and actually enforcing the laws on the books, and holding those accountable who don't enforce and act on those said laws. Gun buybacks work so well, just look at Chicago or other large cities run by non-brain dead people.
I don't remember the part of the constitution that prohibits the federal government from buying guns from citizens.
Probably because it's not in there. Buybacks don't need to be mandatory, if you really really want to split hairs for some odd reason.
Not that I'm saying that's where we should go, just pointing out the sheer lunacy in terms of cost of the NRA's 'great idea'.
The Constitution doesn't and you're under the assumption, that people who own them want to sell them to the Federal Government. I never said gun backs were mandatory. Again, I ask you; what price do you put on a child's life. Lunacy is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. Before this shooting, seven States had started allowing teachers to be armed.
We're literally talking about weapons that do nothing but get used to shoot at paper.
Seriously, don't talk about 'price being paid for child safety' here, you have no standing.
Your misinformation about the AR-15 rifle and this semi-automatic platform and its use is literally astounding. The Ar-15 is chambered in 223/5.56mm, 6.8 SPC, 300 Blackout, and .308 Winchester to name a few calibers. It will handle just about any hunting situation or other sporting use.
An AR-15 rifle was used to stop the Sutherland Springs church massacre in Texas thanks to a brave and well-armed citizen. How many children in that church were saved?
Got to love you liberals, you revert to personal attacks such as "Seriously, don't talk about 'price being paid for child safety' here, you have no standing," when given the facts.
So will any other weapon, but if you need a 25 round mag to hunt I can only tell you to get good.
Again, your knowledge about hunting and ballistics is lacking. Hunting laws in most States mandate a five-shot magazine. The AR-15 is one of the most accurate rifles available, and especially for long distance shooting contingent on the caliber.
Just a thought,, what about stable military people nearing the end of their tour? Perhaps these military people could also share some life skills for a lot less that 80K?
I find it amazing that so many people are volunteering military and police retirees to protect the schools. How many folks who have said "we can get retired military and police personnel to protect the schools" have actually spoken to these retirees and received commitments from them to take on this task? I'm not talking about a few men and women sitting around a bar saying "yeah - I'll do that"... I'm taking about real conversations with the thousands of personnel that would be needed to protect the 90,000+ schools.
As wonderful as it sounds to suggest our military and public safety retirees could protect children, it's a pipe dream. Those retirees have lives, and maybe, just maybe, they want to live them after spending their lives protecting us.
Start assigning a local law officer on duty at every school and switch it up each day. Instead of taking his shift riding around in his car, he takes a shift at the local school. They are already a trained professional and it wouldn`t cost as much.
Neither would a service person nearing his end of tour. A friend told me that he spent three extra months in Viet Nam, so he wouldn`t have to salute and spit shine boots for three months.
#19.... good post ....
dave, what is your keen idea? Alcohol & Drug counselling?
Armed teachers in school? Oops!
Oh, wait. He is a teacher, who also serves as a reserve police officer, and was teaching a course about gun safety. It's all good - I guess.
http://www.ksbw.com/article/seaside-high-teacher-accidentally-fires-gun-... (with attached video, for those who wish to watch it).
Thanks, Rich. Which brings us back to the crux of the question. What to do.
Personally, I would be for having (trained) armed personnel on school property. But, I also can see where others might be against it. As the link I provided showed, there's always a chance that an accident could happen. That's a part of life. And, I would hope, an anomaly.
BTW, the (2nd) "thumbs-up" for your comment was from me.
Who needs teachers armed with guns? From http://thefreethoughtproject.com/school-district-arms-teachers-bucket-ro...
Here's a couple paragraphs from that article:
Schuylkill County, PA – A school district has announced that in its attempt to stop a possible mass shooter from killing students and teachers, every teacher will be armed with a 5-gallon bucket of rocks.
Blue Mountain School District Superintendent David Helsel told WBRE News that he believes this strategy will provide an unexpected line of defense that could take out the shooter, without him realizing what hit him.“We’re empowering our teachers and our students to do something,”Helsel said. “They hit somebody in the head it could actually knock them out or even hit them in the temple, it could kill them.”
"Middle school math teacher Jill Kerstetter said she believes this plan gives power to both the teachers and the students because the students can also take part in throwing rocks at an intruder."
Ed, throwing rocks makes about as much sense as a "GUN FREE ZONE" sign stopping bullets or bringing a bucket of rocks to a gun fight. The tragic part is Mr. Bucket of rocks in his head is serious and in charge of a school district.
I totally agree, Rich.