• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

Mass shooters do not stand still, they would engage in a shootout with these sentinals. And what if this mass shooter is cruel and cunning enough to take hostages and stand among them?
Sentinels are a first response, identical in nature to having staff trained in 1st-Aid and CPR. Just as one would not expect first responders to perform surgery, Sentinels are not intended to deal with hostage situations or acts of terrorism.

This is where SWAT comes in.
 
You're not even using the quote code properly. That's just sloppiness.
Your comment doesn't make sense. I'm quoting as I go. It's fairly common on vbulletin boards.

No, you cannot control whether or not a gun is in your classroom.
I'm pretty certain I can decide whether I carry a gun.

If a sandy hook style shooting occurred in your classroom, you would have no control over the gun, because you are unarmed yourself.
Again, you dishonestly change the context of my comment. My statement was in response to what kids know and how it relates to the relationship I have with the student. I said I cannot control certain factors which might impact that relationship, but I can control whether or not the relationship between the student and me involves a gun.

At this point, considering your continued dishonesty in your posts and the fact you accused me of not using quote properly (erroneously, I might add), I consider your defeat to be total.
 
I'm pretty certain I can decide whether I carry a gun.
That's not what you said, You said you could control rather or not there was a gun in your classroom. You are not the only person in your classroom. You are not the only person who gets to make a choice rather or not to bring in a gun. If someone else brings a gun into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom. You don't get to make that choice. If a cop walks into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom and you have no control over it. If an Adam Lansa wana-be brings a gun into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom and you have no control over it. If you were in SD and a Sentinel brought a gun into your classroom, there would be a gun in your classroom and you would have no control over it.
 
That's not what you said, You said you could control rather or not there was a gun in your classroom. You are not the only person in your classroom. You are not the only person who gets to make a choice rather or not to bring in a gun. If someone else brings a gun into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom. You don't get to make that choice. If a cop walks into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom and you have no control over it. If an Adam Lansa wana-be brings a gun into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom and you have no control over it. If you were in SD and a Sentinel brought a gun into your classroom, there would be a gun in your classroom and you would have no control over it.

But... What if you posted a polite sign on the door requesting that guns not be brought into the room?
 
But... What if you posted a polite sign on the door requesting that guns not be brought into the room?
A teacher does not have authority to prohibit otherwise lawful firearms from their classroom. This is not private property. This is District property, so if the District has given a Sentinel permission to carry on District property, they may do so.
 
"Active shooter" scenarios are a part of police training, and so are also a part of Sentinel training, since Sentinels take the exact same firearms course as the local police department. A Sentinel is as capable of handling an active shooter as any local cop. A Sentinel is less likely to shoot a child than the mass killer because the Sentinel is aiming at the mass killer, not children, while the mass killer is aiming at the children, not his own head. Did I say that right? We see this kind of unknowable presence of Sentinels as a good thing, because someone like Adam Lansa can't know how many armed people are in a given school or where they are. This makes planning an attack incredibly difficult.

Glad to see the NRA's asinine lone armed teacher has been dropped in here. That idea was beyond bad.

But the standard firearms training for law enforcement doesn't involve engaging active shooters, it trains on simple targets, this is why SWAT is an advanced course with far more expensive training methods. It is not cost effective to attempt to train every Rookie to be a school corridor sweeper while in the academy.

It isn't a volunteer armed citizen will purposefully aim at a child but will have a very cluttered engagement area with the strong possibility of children moving in front of and behind the bad guy. (this is why many SWAT teams use some form of carbine/MP5/, not because of any distance requirement but the much longer sight plane.)

The problem as I see it if these Sentinels are to be trained to the level of unpaid volunteer Reserve Officers they will have to pass a more intense backround check, beyond simple criminal past. The former Assist Chief of the Lawton PD told me a few years ago it wasn't the criminal back round that rejected most recruits to the force- it was the psych eval that cuts most recruits loose. Posturing politicians may be comfortable putting armed people in schools, but professionals should demand at least the same level of volunteer the academy does.

The problem will be the same that local police departments face, enough qualified people who will foot a rather steep bill to train to a level of competence beyond CCW or rookie cop. There is a reason most departments don't have their patrol officers rush into schools as they arrive, going in from different directions and in a piecemeal fashion is not a recipe for success.

So that leads us to the volunteers and their need to be able to do more than shoot. To not form a circular firing squad coz unless the badguy hits while all the armed teachers are in the break room they will be scattered around the school's grounds. The ability to move in a way so they don't just rush blindly to the sound of fire and add to the body count AND be able to hit a body armored shooter in the head after running and with all that fear/anger adrenaline pumping through their bodies- that takes a bit more training than what rookie cops get- hence that is why SWATT is an elite unit.

I'd say the difficulty many PDs have getting Sentinels for traffic/school zone/funeral escort/admin work the odds of there being ANY sort of viable concealed carry teacher REACT Force that arms, trains and then continues to practice is pretty poor.

Oh and how does a bad guy know who is armed in the school- any adult you see you put down, especially those not running away. You can shoot kids at your leisure afterwards.
 
Glad to see the NRA's asinine lone armed teacher has been dropped in here. That idea was beyond bad.

But the standard firearms training for law enforcement doesn't involve engaging active shooters, it trains on simple targets, this is why SWAT is an advanced course with far more expensive training methods. It is not cost effective to attempt to train every Rookie to be a school corridor sweeper while in the academy.
An active shooter in a school is always a bad situation. There is no one-size-fits-all easy button answer. There are no guarantees. Neither cops nor Sentinels are intended to be a solution to every conceivable scenario, and we realize that. Much like a condom doesn't guarantee 100% safety against STDs or pregnancies, it's still very effective the majority of the time.

A Sentinel would be effective against a dog with rabies while on a field trip. A Sentinel would be effective in a Sandy-Hook style shooting, where the staff has advanced warning of a shooter and opportunity from the office, through the hall, and finally the teacher in the classroom. A Sentinel can be effective against an armed man entering a bus to kidnap handy-capped children and hide in a bunker for a week. A Sentinel cannot be effective against a Columbine type shooting where extensive planning, booby-traps and bombs are employed. Sentinels would not be effective against organised gang or terrorist violence.

It isn't a volunteer armed citizen will purposefully aim at a child but will have a very cluttered engagement area with the strong possibility of children moving in front of and behind the bad guy. (this is why many SWAT teams use some form of carbine/MP5/, not because of any distance requirement but the much longer sight plane.)
Sometimes the best option is to not fire at all, yes, and that is part of the firearms course.

The problem as I see it if these Sentinels are to be trained to the level of unpaid volunteer Reserve Officers they will have to pass a more intense backround check, beyond simple criminal past. The former Assist Chief of the Lawton PD told me a few years ago it wasn't the criminal back round that rejected most recruits to the force- it was the psych eval that cuts most recruits loose. Posturing politicians may be comfortable putting armed people in schools, but professionals should demand at least the same level of volunteer the academy does.

Our school employees already have to do this as part of the normal hiring process.

The problem will be the same that local police departments face, enough qualified people who will foot a rather steep bill to train to a level of competence beyond CCW or rookie cop. There is a reason most departments don't have their patrol officers rush into schools as they arrive, going in from different directions and in a piecemeal fashion is not a recipe for success.

Sentinels are not police and are not called to respond to an incident. We have police for that. Sentinels are normal employees (building maintenance, lunch cooks, bus drivers, etc) who would already be there performing their job should an incident occur.

So that leads us to the volunteers and their need to be able to do more than shoot. To not form a circular firing squad coz unless the badguy hits while all the armed teachers are in the break room they will be scattered around the school's grounds. The ability to move in a way so they don't just rush blindly to the sound of fire and add to the body count AND be able to hit a body armored shooter in the head after running and with all that fear/anger adrenaline pumping through their bodies- that takes a bit more training than what rookie cops get- hence that is why SWATT is an elite unit.

Sentinels are not superheros and do not try to save the day. Sentinels are normal employees who would already be in harms way.

I'd say the difficulty many PDs have getting Sentinels for traffic/school zone/funeral escort/admin work the odds of there being ANY sort of viable concealed carry teacher REACT Force that arms, trains and then continues to practice is pretty poor.
That sentence does not make any sense. Please re-word it.

Oh and how does a bad guy know who is armed in the school- any adult you see you put down, especially those not running away. You can shoot kids at your leisure afterwards.

The bad guy would not likely know who was or was not armed before hand. Like Sandy Hook, all SD schools have reinforced doors which are locked when school begins. Were an Adam Lansa wana-be shoot through a door to gain access to the school, he would be met with lethal force. Yes, an active shooter could simply fire on any adult they see, that's why we want all adults to have the option to be armed.
 
Since this thread focuses on how guns play a part in public safety, it's easy to forget that the use of firearms is only a small part of the over-all effort. SD places most of it's safety-oriented money into preventing juvenile crime, treating mental illness, our very succesfull Resource Officer program, training staff for any kind of emergency, physical barrier such as locked sturdy doors, and other programs and policies.

Sentinels are only a small part of the bigger picture.
 
Maybe they ought to make them like sky marshalls, hidden among the school employees.
 
That's not what you said
That's exactly what I said. Follow the line of the conversation.

Me: And kids know. Kids find out things in ways I couldn't even describe. Whether it's a teacher was a stripper before the child was even born, or whether a teacher has a homosexual partner or whether a teacher is carrying a firearm, children know.
You: So really, everything affects your relationship with every child. I'm not seeing anything unique about guns here. Do you want to just ban every negative thing a child could ever learn about the teacher?
Me: I can control whether or not a gun is in my classroom. I cannot control if another teacher was a stripper or if a fellow teacher is a homosexual. I can, however, control whether or not a gun is in my classroom.

We were not discussing gun control, we were discussing whether we arm teachers and the change it would cause to the relationship dynamic. You and/or others claimed the students wouldn't know, and I said they would, citing real life examples from my own experiences. You then engaged in hyperbole, asking if we should just ban every negative thing, and I responded by saying I can't help another teacher as a stripper or homosexual, but I can control whether there is a gun in my classroom, and thus, can control that element of the teacher/student relationship.

That's exactly what I said. The rest of your post now becomes moot, once this part of your post is now proven false.
 
That's exactly what I said. Follow the line of the conversation.

Me: And kids know. Kids find out things in ways I couldn't even describe. Whether it's a teacher was a stripper before the child was even born, or whether a teacher has a homosexual partner or whether a teacher is carrying a firearm, children know.
You: So really, everything affects your relationship with every child. I'm not seeing anything unique about guns here. Do you want to just ban every negative thing a child could ever learn about the teacher?
Me: I can control whether or not a gun is in my classroom. I cannot control if another teacher was a stripper or if a fellow teacher is a homosexual. I can, however, control whether or not a gun is in my classroom.

We were not discussing gun control, we were discussing whether we arm teachers and the change it would cause to the relationship dynamic. You and/or others claimed the students wouldn't know, and I said they would, citing real life examples from my own experiences. You then engaged in hyperbole, asking if we should just ban every negative thing, and I responded by saying I can't help another teacher as a stripper or homosexual, but I can control whether there is a gun in my classroom, and thus, can control that element of the teacher/student relationship.

That's exactly what I said. The rest of your post now becomes moot, once this part of your post is now proven false.
Post #239 I said:
How would the student even know you were armed in the first place for it to be an issue?
...because I have quite a lot of experience carrying a gun in places which may not want me to have a gun (but is still legal) and not getting 'made'. I did not say the students would not know. I asked how they would know. You responded by saying that students tend to find out many things the teacher never intended, and I accepted that.

If someone else stated 'students would never know', I'm not responsible for that claim.

My point that you cannot control rather or not there is a gun in your classroom remains. You can only control rather or not you bring a gun into your classroom, but you cannot make that decision for others.
 
Last edited:
Post #239 I said:

...because I have quite a lot of experience carrying a gun in places which may not want me to have a gun (but is still legal) and not getting 'made'. I did not say the students would not know. I asked how they would know. You responded by saying that students tend to find out many things the teacher never intended, and I accepted that.

If someone else stated 'students would never know', I'm not responsible for that claim.
And I specifically said you and/or others, because I did not remember if you made the claim or not.

My point that you cannot control rather or not there is a gun in your classroom remains.
Yes, I can. Because we were talking about the relationship between teacher and student, and how a gun changes that. It had nothing to do with a school intruder, only the every day relationship between student and teacher.

You can only control rather or not you bring a gun into your classroom, but you cannot make that decision for others.
100% true, but completely unrelated to what we were discussing when I said that. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
 
Still not using the quote code correctly...when you quote someone, their name and the blue 'backtrack' button should appear in every quote box....sloppiness....
And I specifically said you and/or others, because I did not remember if you made the claim or not.
So you're telling me to "Follow the line of the conversation" while you can't do that yourself.

I am not responsible for what others say. I am only responsible for what I say and not anything else.

Yes, I can.
No you can't, and you admit this below....
100% true...
...so now you're equivocating.


Because we were talking about the relationship between teacher and student, and how a gun changes that. It had nothing to do with a school intruder, only the every day relationship between student and teacher.....but completely unrelated to what we were discussing when I said that. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
Well, along that line of discussion, guns aren't seen as a negative out here. A teacher with a gun is no big deal. If you were teaching out here and if you had a gun and if a kid saw it and if that kid gave a **** to ask about it, the kid would probably tell you about the guns they shoot. Most of the kids here come from households with firearms and parents who carry in public all the time. It's not new, there's little to no mystery about guns. Children out here are exposed to guns and exposure to a thing tends to remove fears and stereotypes; which is why people who oppose ssm don't generally know any gay people and people who are indifferent or supportive of ssm generally do know gay people. Same thing.
 
Last edited:
NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

Meanwhile their plan already in action to arm Mexican drug cartels at our border seems to have a much different effect.
 
Actually the rookie cop gets very little 'refined' firearms training, and working as a team to clear a school of a bad guy. Again is why the SWAT teams exist. It also takes some experience to work a school for a shooter, again is why most SWAT teams don't take rookies. Patrol cops can help by securing the kids once they clear the SWAT team, can secure cleared corridors and set-up a perimeter but they don't lead the charge.

Lanza didn't shoot his way through a re-enforced door, he shot his way through a glass door. There are a variety of doors that are designed to resist being shot open. They are also used to create an airlock so a perp can enter the holding area but be locked in if the guy doesn't pass the screening. Metal detectors and a stop and rob window for the school administrator sitting at the front door andn you have a far better secured school than a dozen unevenly trained 'sentinels'.

I don't think some understand the ability of children to know what goes on in a school. The concealed carry teachers are not going to stay a secret for long.

I don't have a problem with VERY well trained armed guards, but not just semi-trained mish mash of well meaning people.

I do think one very key advantage any security guard can use is fixing the enemy. Pinning him in the airlock turns the tactical, surprise, numbers elements to the defenders favor.

no matter how thickly manned a perimeter is one huge advantage the defenders can have is a barrier, like a well constructed barbed wire obstacle that screws up the enemy's surprise, numbers and tactics.

I see the volunteer concealed carry force as looking far better on paper than in practice. First big obstacle will be qualified candidates who can pass the same requirements a police recruit does to include the mental screen. Next passing the training, I see at least the same wash-out rate as police cadets. Then enough per school to be a factor, I'll agree one is better than none but only because none is none. Then concurrent training to keep the school's team sharp and gain desperately needed experience before the real deal gets trapped in the airlock.

Anywho my experience leans toward a good barrier instead of a lot more weapons, seems our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan think so as well.
 
Still not using the quote code correctly...when you quote someone, their name and the blue 'backtrack' button should appear in every quote box....sloppiness....
Uhh, that's stupidly redundant. Why would I waste my time doing that when I can simply write [quote][/quote]? Is your attention span so short you need to be reminded each time to what post I'm referring?

So you're telling me to "Follow the line of the conversation" while you can't do that yourself.
I very clearly posted the conversation.

I am not responsible for what others say. I am only responsible for what I say and not anything else.
Which is why I included the "and/or" part. Seriously, reading comprehension isn't difficult.

No you can't, and you admit this below....
*sigh*

I've already explained why you're wrong. Go back and read one of the other two times I've explained it.

...so now you're equivocating.
No, that is two separate conversations. Why are incapable of understanding this?

Well, along that line of discussion, guns aren't seen as a negative out here. A teacher with a gun is no big deal.
But it changes the dynamic of the teacher/student relationship, as I've already explained. Multiple times, as I've explained the above multiple times. Now it's upon you to show you're capable of understanding it.

I won't hold my breath.
 
The Sentinel program isn't intended to replace SWAT or any form of law enforcement. We have SWAT and law enforcement for that. Sentinels are not superheros, just ordinary people who are already there.
 
But it changes the dynamic of the teacher/student relationship, as I've already explained.
See that's just the thing: You claimed it, but you haven't explained it. In SD, OR, or any other state where firearms are in schools, it's not a problem, so I have no reason to believe you.
 
See that's just the thing: You claimed it, but you haven't explained it. In SD, OR, or any other state where firearms are in schools, it's not a problem, so I have no reason to believe you.

Most normal people don't like being near a weapon that can kill you in an instant, even if the purported "sentinel" is purportedly on your side. (God I love NRA rightspeak)

Now I guess conservatives aren't normal or at least they like pretending that they're sooooo tough that they don't mind having weapons around. But a weaponized environment is unsettling and not conducive to learning. Take your guns and go to Starbucks and hang out like a tough guy. Keep your guns out of school.
 
Most normal people don't like being near a weapon that can kill you in an instant, even if the purported "sentinel" is purportedly on your side. (God I love NRA rightspeak)

Now I guess conservatives aren't normal or at least they like pretending that they're sooooo tough that they don't mind having weapons around. But a weaponized environment is unsettling and not conducive to learning. Take your guns and go to Starbucks and hang out like a tough guy. Keep your guns out of school.
...I just can't be trolled that easy. Be more creative.
 
Again, I don't really get the concern some people have that a few teachers carrying concealed weapons is going to permanently scar Little Johnnies' psyche, or that kids are going to be getting Teacher's gun when they don't necessarily know who is armed... and even if they do, they don't know where on the teacher's person it is concealed.


As I've said elsewhere, I've been going armed for almost 30 years, both as a cop and as a citizen. I've raised a child, and spent a lot of time around my hordes of nieces and nephews and cousins and whatnot from age nothing to teenagers, always carrying a gun.... and it has never been a problem. The gun stays on me, stays concealed, and no child has ever gotten his hands on it.

When my son first realized I carried a gun daily, he was probably around four years old or so. He asked me why I carried... answering at his level, I said "in case I need to protect us from bad guys." He accepted that. It didn't affect our relationship. It didn't make him afraid of me. It didn't scar him for life. Today he's a healthy 17yo nearly the size of a pro linebacker who enjoys life and loves his father (but does argue with me sometimes).

Due to an incident where I had to go up to my niece's house and draw my weapon because of a threat situation, one of her sons (today age 7) is aware that Uncle G carries a gun. We had a very similar conversation about it afterward. He's perfectly comfortable with me, knowing I'm armed. Every time he sees me he comes running to jump on me and hug me and ask me to play with him.

I go to family events where there may be anywhere from a handful to several dozen children running around all the time... and I'm not the only adult in the group who goes armed... and we've never had any incidents of children getting an adults' concealed-carry firearm off their person.

This issue is being overhyped.
 
See that's just the thing: You claimed it, but you haven't explained it.
Yes, I did. I explained it, it's not my fault if you didn't read it.
 
Yes, I did. I explained it, it's not my fault if you didn't read it.
You said it was so, but you didn't explain how, you didn't offer supporting links, nothing.
 
Sure, someone pulls a knife on you and you're going to ask them to wait while you run all the way to the other side of the campus to get your gun.

That's so ****ing retarded.

It's incredibly difficult to disarm someone without getting shot in the process. No box required.

No one's suggesting the guns are "across campus" or even across the classroom.

And it's not like the shooter's gonna teleport into the classroom as soon as he starts attacking. A guard will see him on the security cameras, and the PA will announce "The superintendent is in the building." Teachers unlock their guns and lock the door. They'll be well-prepared to shoot the maniac the moment he enters the door.
 
No one's suggesting the guns are "across campus" or even across the classroom.

And it's not like the shooter's gonna teleport into the classroom as soon as he starts attacking. A guard will see him on the security cameras, and the PA will announce "The superintendent is in the building." Teachers unlock their guns and lock the door. They'll be well-prepared to shoot the maniac the moment he enters the door.
It's just so much safer/cheaper/easier for folks to keep their gun on their person. We just skip past all the liability and lock-boxes and code words etc and cut right to it.

You want to add all this red tape and it just not called for.
 
Back
Top Bottom