• 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!

Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Are ANY government regulations of the 2nd Amendment acceptable?


  • Total voters
    70
Very Simple and to the point, the 2nd Adm. can't and shall never be tinker with. You folks who think we need to have some sort of Gun Regs. need to go and read the US Const./Bill of Rights and the US Codes after that then I suggest you go and undertsand this one very fast.

In the US Const. it is required that all Able Men over the age of 16 must be part of a Standing State Militia.
 
OK....I get it.

No, you don't. Let me explain it to you in the simplest possible terms:

Goshin said it makes sense to arm teachers.

You countered, suggesting that vulnerable teachers (AKA Miss Landers) would make for easy targets.

Your counter-point erroneously assumes that vulnerable teachers (AKA Miss Landers) would be issued a weapon at all; they won't.

In making an erroneous assumption and attributing it to another person's argument you are creating a straw man, which is a logical fallacy.

Simple enough for you?
 
No, you don't. Let me explain it to you in the simplest possible terms:

Goshin said it makes sense to arm teachers.

You countered, suggesting that vulnerable teachers (AKA Miss Landers) would make for easy targets.

Your counter-point erroneously assumes that vulnerable teachers (AKA Miss Landers) would be issued a weapon at all; they won't.

In making an erroneous assumption and attributing it to another person's argument you are creating a straw man, which is a logical fallacy.

Simple enough for you?

And we have a winner!

I will email your oversize Internet virtual Cupie Doll. Allow 2 weeks for delivery. ;)
 
You countered, suggesting that vulnerable teachers (AKA Miss Landers) would make for easy targets.

Your counter-point erroneously assumes that vulnerable teachers (AKA Miss Landers) would be issued a weapon at all; they won't.

Tell me......Where exactly do we find invulnerable teachers. Your argument assumes there is such a thing. ALL teachers would be vulnerable & easy prey due to the element of surprise always working against them......Regardless of how big/tough they are.
In that sense all teachers would be as vulnerable to surprise attack as Miss Landers & just as easy to disarm.

We are having a nice simple conversation here so please....don't drag it off into the semantics weed forest.
 
Last edited:
Tell me......Where exactly do we find invulnerable teachers. Your argument assumes there is such a thing. ALL teachers would be vulnerable & easy prey due to the element of surprise always working against them......Regardless of how big/tough they are.
In that sense all teachers would be as vulnerable to surprise attack as Miss Landers & just as easy to disarm.

We are having a nice simple conversation here so please....don't drag it off into the semantics weed forest.


You engaged in several over the top generalizations, absolutist statements, and outright fallacies already established as such there....I'll be nice and assume it was out of momentary annoyance and forgetfulness. Your arguments are so generalized and absolutist they could be used as points to disarm even the police. :doh

We've already established that determining which teachers are carrying a concealed weapon would not be easy. We've established that in order to be sure they got the weapon before the teacher they'd need to know where it was concealed. We've further established that armed staff-members (not simply teachers; there's principals/vice's coaches and maintenance and etc) could be given training in weapons retention to make them harder targets, etc etc...

In short, we've established that there is NO REASON at all that it would be EASY for students to take guns from teachers.

That aspect of the argument is stone dead because it is proven erroneous.
 
Last edited:
Just because you claim an argument is proven erroneous doesn't make it so. You just stated your opinions & then claimed they were facts or proof.
The fact is that I disagree with your assertion that students, who will always have the critical element of surprise on their side, would not make any teacher or staff member vulnerable to their surprise attack.
Let's take your arguments one at a time:

We've already established that determining which teachers are carrying a concealed weapon would not be easy.
That is your opinion & has not been established at all. I think kids would pretty easily uncover who was carrying. To be effective at all, a teacher would need to be carrying a weapon at all times or the weapon would be useless, right? Where does a teacher carry concealed on a hot day in Sept of May?
Why is your opinion better than mine?

We've established that in order to be sure they got the weapon before the teacher they'd need to know where it was concealed. We've further established that armed staff-members (not simply teachers; there's principals/vice's coaches and maintenance and etc) could be given training in weapons retention to make them harder targets, etc etc...
Again, you claim things are established which are ust suppositions on your part. Coaches, principals, etc are not LEO's & no amount of training can turn a milk cow into a lion, especially if that milk cow has no real interest in becoming a lion but just wants to give milk!:lol:.

In short, we've established that there is NO REASON at all that it would be EASY for students to take guns from teachers.
You've ESTABLISHED nothing, other than stating your opinions & claiming them as fact.
I go back to my basic argument which is that children & firearms don;'t mix well & I can think of fewer more dangerous situations than having lightly trained , pseudo LEO's possessing firearms in a school setting.
 
Last edited:
Devil, dear devil....you really are stretching the matter beyond reason.


Just because you claim an argument is proven erroneous doesn't make it so. You just stated your opinions & then claimed they were facts or proof.
The fact is that I disagree with your assertion that students, who will always have the critical element of surprise on their side, would not make any teacher or staff member vulnerable to their surprise attack.
Let's take your arguments one at a time:


That is your opinion & has not been established at all. I think kids would pretty easily uncover who was carrying. Why is your opinion better than mine?

My opinion is better than yours because I am an expert on the issue of concealed weapons and training civilians.


Again, you claim things are established which are ust suppositions on your part. Coaches, principals, etc are not LEO's & no amount of training can turn a milk cow into a lion.

Careful, your elitism is showing. You seem to think that LEOs are the only ones capable of showing professionalism, courage or capability in the face of danger? (or was the milk-cow reference thinly veiled sexism?) What about soldiers and ex-soldiers, of whom include a good many principals, teachers, coaches and other staff. You actually think LEO's are some kind of breed of supermen? It makes me wonder if you've really known many average street-cops. I have; most of them are not trained to an extraordinary degree, nor courageous beyond the bounds of what ordinary people are perfectly capable of exhibiting, nor superhumanly alert and immune to surprise. Indeed LEOs are NOT IMMUNE to any of the things you asserted as negatives for civilian CCW permit holders in a school environment.

The fact is I could EASILY round up ten civillian shooters that I'd put up against ANY ten street-cops in any practical shooting comparison, and the street cops would probably get waxed, smoked and shut-out in short order.

"Cop" does not equal "Elite".




You've ESTABLISHED nothing, other than stating your opinions & claiming them as fact.

If you choose to view it that way. I consider it established fact because I am very experienced in the realm of civilian CCW, what works and what doesn't, what is fact and what is myth... and from what I've seen, you are not. For example, you made the fundamental mistake of ignoring the fact that CCW weapons are carried concealed, and the effects this has on disarm attempts, something that is obvious to me because I deal with this stuff regularly and teach it. The factual and analytical errors you've made in your arguments on this topic leave me feeling very secure that my opinion is, indeed, far more informed and experienced and correct than yours.

No offense, but frankly you don't sound like you have much experience with this issue (disarming concealed carriers), or else you're too wedded to your position to think things through and analyze the situation tactically.

Let me give you a for-instance, regarding concealed weapons. There was a certain subject that had been arrested, who was put into my custody. At the time of custody transfer, the arresting officers claimed they had searched him thoroughly, using the pat-down method. I did a strip-search on the subject and turned up:
1 bag of marijuana approx 1/4 oz
1 knife, approx 4" blade, folding type.
1 small pistol, .22 caliber.

This perp had allegedly been patted down by two allegedly professional street cops, then cuffed and put in the back of their cruiser. They were miffed that they missed the drugs and knife, but they really turned green when they saw the gun I found on the guy and realized they'd had him in the back of the car, behind them, with a gun they'd missed.

Professionals, mm-hm. Fact is about a third of the guys with badges have nearly as much in common with Barney Fife than the nearly mythical "supercop".

Ever tried to disarm a resisting subject whom you believed had a weapon on him, BUT you didn't know WHERE the weapon was concealed? I have, and it is a stone-cold beyotch. Imagine trying to find a hidden weapon while someone is trying to beat your brains in, hoping that he isn't reaching for it with his further-away hand that slipped out of your grip and now you can't see it because you're in a bad-breath-range tangle...it sucks.

These are some of the reasons why I proclaim authoritatively that the weapon being concealed makes a huge difference, and reject the notion that cops are somehow superior human beings and that "ordinary civilians" cannot be taught to do just as well as Joe Deputy (or better, I sincerely hope!)
 
Last edited:
Tell me......Where exactly do we find invulnerable teachers. Your argument assumes there is such a thing. ALL teachers would be vulnerable & easy prey due to the element of surprise always working against them......Regardless of how big/tough they are.
In that sense all teachers would be as vulnerable to surprise attack as Miss Landers & just as easy to disarm.

We are having a nice simple conversation here so please....don't drag it off into the semantics weed forest.

Your only criticism of my position seems to be that it's not perfect. Sorry, but that's not a valid argument. Please try again.
 
Maybe you're the ignorant one. Here's Jall's original question:



Please point out the word "Winchester" in that post. Thanks.



:doh I probably didn't ask him which Winchester it was and when it was made because at that point he hadn't mentioned that he had a Winchester (that came much later in post 159). Ya think? As for my "bolding of California law," I suspect that, since he indicates that he lives in San Francisco, the gun laws of, say, Vermont, wouldn't be of much help to him.



More snotty insults. Pure class, Rev. :roll:



Given your demonstrated inability to follow a simple conversation, I'm thinking you're probably not the guy he's going to go to for clarification on anything in these fora. But that's for Jall to decide, isn't it?

:roll:




hey chica, pay attention, you have no clue, your advice, given that without a model, you could not know if it is a C&R, could get Jallman arrested and put in jail, makes your advice not only ignorant, but dangerous....


so if he needs advice on collecting cans to recycle, or how to hug a tree, i will defer to you. leave the gun questions to the experts, like me.... :lol::2wave:
 
Devil, dear devil....you really are stretching the matter beyond reason.




My opinion is better than yours because I am an expert on the issue of concealed weapons and training civilians.

I have carried concealed for most of my life too, as well (as all my SA friends on the job) so I have some experience in this field too.
Carrying concealed with light clothing is not all that easy, unless you carry a very small pistol (say 32cal or below) which gives you very little stopping power. (hammers tend to ruin shirts unless you wrap them with rubber bands, etc) To regularly carry.... say a 9mm or above means toting a fairly large, heavy hunk of equipment around that becomes pretty obvious when you only have light summer clothes on.
Of course it can be done & LEO's do it all the time, but to expect a school teacher to force herself/himself to do this on the extremely off-chance that he/she will ever need it, i asking allot.




Careful, your elitism is showing. You seem to think that LEOs are the only ones capable of showing professionalism, courage or capability in the face of danger? (or was the milk-cow reference thinly veiled sexism?) What about soldiers and ex-soldiers, of whom include a good many principals, teachers, coaches and other staff. You actually think LEO's are some kind of breed of supermen?
Of course LEO's are not supermen, but they have chosen a dangerous/confrontational life style & expect to have to apply deadly force some time in the careers as possibility. School personnel have devoted their lives to teaching & that usually attracts a different kind of person.
We are talking generalities here & of course there will be exceptions to every generality.


Let me give you a for-instance, regarding concealed weapons. There was a certain subject that had been arrested, who was put into my custody. At the time of custody transfer, the arresting officers claimed they had searched him thoroughly, using the pat-down method. I did a strip-search on the subject and turned up:
1 bag of marijuana approx 1/4 oz
1 knife, approx 4" blade, folding type.
1 small pistol, .22 caliber.

This perp had allegedly been patted down by two allegedly professional street cops, then cuffed and put in the back of their cruiser. They were miffed that they missed the drugs and knife, but they really turned green when they saw the gun I found on the guy and realized they'd had him in the back of the car, behind them, with a gun they'd missed.

Professionals, mm-hm. Fact is about a third of the guys with badges have nearly as much in common with Barney Fife than the nearly mythical "supercop".
Now I'll give you a " for-instance".......:lol:

When I was in DEA training, we trainees always would arrest the bad guys (instructors) & pat them down, etc b4 cuffinging them. On one raid execution training scenario, an instructor (bad guy) had hidden a small caliber 32 auto in his underwear, just below his testicles. (the idea was that no trainee would reach down there to check for fear of being called a fag!:lol:)

The ploy worked perfectly & the agent trainee who did the search (an ex cop, btw) missed the hidden weapon & cuffed him, hands behind his back.
A few seconds later, the bad guy instructor reached down behind him, pulled out the weapon &, firing with from behind his back, "Killed" 3 agents...... b4 we killed him. (with blanks)
The moral of the story, as we were all made keenly aware is to do a thorough search b4 handcuffing & don't worry about what you may be called!

Listen, I understand what you are saying & you do have experience training civilians that I don't have......BUT...The fact remains that I don't think it's a good idea to try to train school personnel in the use of deadly force with children all around.

Kids have ways of knowing things & I think any armed teacher would be pretty easy to deiscover/target.



Here's an Idea I like better:

Train a group of LEO's to perform the function of armed school guards (posing as custodians, kitchen workers, whatever) & don't have their real identities know to anyone in any school, except maybe the principal. These professionals could be moved around (between schools) on a regular basis & still receive constant training to keep up their firearms skills. They would undoubtedly be more effective than typical school personnel as they had already chosen LE as the careers & this "School Guard" could be just a temporary assignment to keep alert level high.
I haven't really thought this idea through yet but I like it allot better than trying to arm & train civilians.
 
Last edited:
The "resource officers", LE's, typically carry them in plain sight. A couple of big, strong, young thugs acting together could have a decent chance of getting his gun, and they KNOW he has one because it is in plain sight.

A couple of big, strong, thugs? Two skinny girls can do it just as easy-- one of them gets the resource officer's attention, the other one gets half a brick and a pair of pantyhose. Not like bricks set off metal detectors or anything. I'm sure as Hell not going to try wrestling a gun away from someone if I can take him out while his holster's still snapped.

The fact is I could EASILY round up ten civillian shooters that I'd put up against ANY ten street-cops in any practical shooting comparison, and the street cops would probably get waxed, smoked and shut-out in short order.

Hell, that sounds like fun. Pick me?

Except you're probably talking about something like a shooting range, where I'd end up being embarrassed. Never was able to shoot worth a damn, but I'm willing to bet I'm able to hold onto a gun better than most folk are capable of taking one away.
 
Another point regarding this post:
I take you at your word in claiming you are who you say you are as I have no reason to try to discredit you. When you make judgment statements like these:



The factual and analytical errors you've made in your arguments on this topic leave me feeling very secure that my opinion is, indeed, far more informed and experienced and correct than yours.


No offense, but frankly you don't sound like you have much experience with this issue (disarming concealed carriers), or else you're too wedded to your position to think things through and analyze the situation tactically.


You appear to be calling me a liar, which is untrue & something I haven't accused you of. Neither one of us KNOWS the other guy & I see no reason to lower the discussion by going down that unnecessary road.. Let's stick with our arguments & simply accept that the other guy is what he claims.
For the purpose of this topic, I think we both desired to show some expertise in this field but that our arguments are really what's important, not our background.
 
Last edited:
I have carried concealed for most of my life too, as well (as all my SA friends on the job) so I have some experience in this field too.
Carrying concealed with light clothing is not all that easy, unless you carry a very small pistol (say 32cal or below) which gives you very little stopping power. (hammers tend to ruin shirts unless you wrap them with rubber bands, etc) To regularly carry.... say a 9mm or above means toting a fairly large, heavy hunk of equipment around that becomes pretty obvious when you only have light summer clothes on.
Of course it can be done & LEO's do it all the time, but to expect a school teacher to force herself/himself to do this on the extremely off-chance that he/she will ever need it, i asking allot.





Of course LEO's are not supermen, but they have chosen a dangerous/confrontational life style & expect to have to apply deadly force some time in the careers as possibility. School personnel have devoted their lives to teaching & that usually attracts a different kind of person.
We are talking generalities here & of course there will be exceptions to every generality.



Now I'll give you a " for-instance".......:lol:

When I was in DEA training, we trainees always would arrest the bad guys (instructors) & pat them down, etc b4 cuffinging them. On one raid execution training scenario, an instructor (bad guy) had hidden a small caliber 32 auto in his underwear, just below his testicles. (the idea was that no trainee would reach down there to check for fear of being called a fag!:lol:)

The ploy worked perfectly & the agent trainee who did the search (an ex cop, btw) missed the hidden weapon & cuffed him, hands behind his back.
A few seconds later, the bad guy instructor reached down behind him, pulled out the weapon &, firing with from behind his back, "Killed" 3 agents...... b4 we killed him. (with blanks)
The moral of the story, as we were all made keenly aware is to do a thorough search b4 handcuffing & don't worry about what you may be called!

Listen, I understand what you are saying & you do have experience training civilians that I don't have......BUT...The fact remains that I don't think it's a good idea to try to train school personnel in the use of deadly force with children all around.

Kids have ways of knowing things & I think any armed teacher would be pretty easy to deiscover/target.



Here's an Idea I like better:

Train a group of LEO's to perform the function of armed school guards (posing as custodians, kitchen workers, whatever) & don't have their real identities know to anyone in any school, except maybe the principal. These professionals could be moved around (between schools) on a regular basis & still receive constant training to keep up their firearms skills. They would undoubtedly be more effective than typical school personnel as they had already chosen LE as the careers & this "School Guard" could be just a temporary assignment to keep alert level high.
I haven't really thought this idea through yet but I like it allot better than trying to arm & train civilians.


Aha. A much better argument this time, thank you.

I routinely pack a hammerless .40 compact autopistol in clothing appropriate to August in Dixie. To my knowlege I was only "made" once in ten years, and that by a very streetwise thug who decided thereby that I was not an appropriate target for whatever game he was running that day. :mrgreen:


The Rohrbaugh R9 9mm is a relatively new weapon, which combines 9mm firepower in a compact frame that is about the same size/weight as the favorite .32acp pocket guns of the 1990's. It's a pretty amazing little piece of armory ingenuity, link here:

Rohrbaugh Firearms

There are special rigs, like Smartcarry, in which one can pack a fairly large handgun undetectably, and if someone does somehow figure out where it is they will have a heck of a time disarming you if you're conscious.

My point is, that it is very do-able with a little knowlege and some appropriate training. I've taken small women in their 30's who have scarcely fired a pistol in their life, and trained them to score K-zone hits reliably within hours. I recently taught a 22yo woman who had no fighting skills, how to fight a large man in close-quarters... not long after she beat the crap out of a man twice her size.

I think the key point you're looking at here is mindset. Mindset is what the average cop usually (hopefully) does have, that the average teacher probably does not. However, mindset can be taught, if the person is willing to make the mental adaptation. Not everyone is suitable for such training, this I will concede...but I've found that you can turn a sheep into a sheepdog if the sheep is willing. In my opinion a much larger percentage of the general population can be taught mindset than it seems you give credit for.


Now, I'll grant that your undercover roving LEO crew is an intresting idea. Not a bad idea in general, and perhaps and improvement over what we currently have. There are some drawbacks: when such a crew comes in and replaces some of the staff, students will notice and talk. Unless they are trained at undercover work, they will be sadly obvious --- being a cop puts its stamp on you, I've been out of the biz for nearly 13 years now and people still mistake me for plainclothes LE at times. Item two: you have to keep paying the people that have been temporarily replaced while the crew is on site. Item three: you wouldn't have very many such crews for budgetary reasons, and only a few schools would be covered.

Allowing school staff with appropriate training and carry permits to carry at schools would cover potentially all schools, is the strength of my argument. With correct selection of weapons/holsters and concealment methods, and correct training agenda that weeds out those who lack or cannot develop the right mindset, they would be approximately as effective as the LE crew and no more susceptible to being disarmed by students than the LE crew.


One final item:

You appear to be calling me a liar, which is untrue & something I haven't accused you of. Neither one of us KNOWS the other guy & I see no reason to lower the discussion by going down that unnecessary road.. Let's stick with our arguments & simply accept that the other guy is what he claims.
For the purpose of this topic, I think we both desired to show some expertise in this field but that our arguments are really what's important, not our background.

I'm not calling you a liar. If I were I would say so plainly, and I'd only do that if I felt I had good reason to believe it were so. I accept that you were a plainclothes officer for years. What I am saying is that your experiences, in your particular department and specific duties, may not have exposed you to some of the things that I have seen; contrariwise I'm sure you had experiences in certain aspects of LE that I lack. The fact that I regularly train civilian CCWs gives me, I think, a leg up on this issue, and I do think that background experience makes a difference in perspective.

OTOH, if I made my assertions in a manner that seemed rude, then you have my apology.

G.
 
No apology needed as I just felt we might be slipping down an unnecessary slope.

As far as this statement is concerned:

There are some drawbacks: when such a crew comes in and replaces some of the staff, students will notice and talk. Unless they are trained at undercover work, they will be sadly obvious --- being a cop puts its stamp on you, I've been out of the biz for nearly 13 years now and people still mistake me for plainclothes LE at times. Item two: you have to keep paying the people that have been temporarily replaced while the crew is on site. Item three: you wouldn't have very many such crews for budgetary reasons, and only a few schools would be covered.
I am not contemplating replacing any school personnel. Just adding a few discrete agents in the mix who would be far less spottable, imo than an armed teacher.
Undercover work is really not rocket science & I don't think any LEO I ever met would be incapable of posing as a kitchen worker, custodian, etc. Very little (if any) contact would be required with students & custodian bags would allow for the concealment of some nice firepower like full auto H&K weapons.
 
Last edited:
hey chica, pay attention, you have no clue, your advice, given that without a model, you could not know if it is a C&R, could get Jallman arrested and put in jail, makes your advice not only ignorant, but dangerous....

Unfortunately for you, Jall and I have been chatting and it turns out I gave him EXACTLY the information he was looking for. So, (a) you were 100% wrong about your "Winchester" foolishness, and (b) you're 100% wrong about the value of the information I provided. You're batting a thousand, my good man!

:2wave:


so if he needs advice on collecting cans to recycle, or how to hug a tree, i will defer to you. leave the gun questions to the experts, like me.... :lol::2wave:

Stay classy, Rev. :thumbs:
 
Now, I'll grant that your undercover roving LEO crew is an intresting idea. Not a bad idea in general, and perhaps and improvement over what we currently have. .....: you wouldn't have very many such crews for budgetary reasons, and only a few schools would be covered.


Just jumping back in to make a point here
:

Just as budgetary restrictions prevent Sky Marshals from protecting every flight , the same reason would indeed prevent every school form being protected...every day. The good thing is the bad guys never know which flight, (or which school in this case) are protected & therefore can not plan an attack as easily.

I envision a very similar system to the federal Sky Marshal system. (Maybe call them "School Marshals")
 
Just jumping back in to make a point here:

Just as budgetary restrictions prevent Sky Marshals from protecting every flight , the same reason would indeed prevent every school form being protected...every day. The good thing is the bad guys never know which flight, (or which school in this case) are protected & therefore can not plan an attack as easily.

I envision a very similar system to the federal Sky Marshal system. (Maybe call them "School Marshals")

Planes move around a lot.

Schools do not.

Therefore, it would seem more economical to have any "School Marshals" stationed in a specific school, instead of moving around to different schools.

Although if the schools were close enough to each other...
 
Planes move around a lot.

Schools do not.

Therefore, it would seem more economical to have any "School Marshals" stationed in a specific school, instead of moving around to different schools.

Although if the schools were close enough to each other...

I was thinking more of the boredom that any such job entails & being able to shuffle the crew to other jobs like SWAT, etc.

Staying alert in these type jobs present a major problem for any LEO & being able to detail the small crew around for short periods has many benefits, imo.
(I have known federal Sky Marshals who say that such boredom is one of the major drawbacks to those positions)

I think it makes more sense to have many schools protected by a professional force than ALL schools barely protected by a poorly trained, amateur force.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking more of the boredom that any such job entails & being able to shuffle the crew to other jobs like SWAT, etc.

Staying alert in these type jobs present a major problem for any LEO & being able to detail the small crew around for short periods has many benefits, imo.
(I have known federal Sky Marshals who say that such boredom is one of the major drawbacks to those positions)

I think it makes more sense to have many schools protected by a professional force than ALL schools barely protected by a poorly trained, amateur force.

Ah.

An interesting idea.

Would these "School Marshals" be connected to the local police? Or a federal organization?
 
Ah.

An interesting idea.

Would these "School Marshals" be connected to the local police? Or a federal organization?

Good question & I would think maybe both. (Federal forces could only be legally justified if federal money was being given to the school, I think...... but I would think a shared responsibility may be the way to go for funding purposes.
 
Ah.

An interesting idea.

Would these "School Marshals" be connected to the local police? Or a federal organization?

The costs would be excessive. The same goal could be accomplished by arming competent school officials.
 
I was thinking more of the boredom that any such job entails & being able to shuffle the crew to other jobs like SWAT, etc.

Staying alert in these type jobs present a major problem for any LEO & being able to detail the small crew around for short periods has many benefits, imo.
(I have known federal Sky Marshals who say that such boredom is one of the major drawbacks to those positions)

Yup. Being trained to deal with a extreme situation that many never occur and maintaining readiness over a long period, is difficult.


I think it makes more sense to have many schools protected by a professional force than ALL schools barely protected by a poorly trained, amateur force.


See, this is where we differ. I believe that people are competent to manage their own affairs, including their own self-defense and the defense of their families and community. I am not overly impressed with the average cop's tactical training and readiness, and do not consider the average private citizen CCW to be much below Joe Cop in competence, if below him at all. This is based on my experiences with LEOs and with CCWs. Note that I'm not talking about SWAT teams, Felony Warrant Service crews, and similar specialists... talking about regular cops: who, from what I've seen, go to the range once a year to re-qual and rarely seek advanced training on their own, and rarely get any through their department either. (Budget, you know.)

Just as I would like to see every responsible, law-abiding citizen who wishes to do so and is willing to get some suitable training, take responsibility for their own defense, get a permit and go armed... thus maximizing the presence of armed "good people" on the street...I'd prefer to see every school have a few armed staff members who've had appropriate training, every aircraft have armed/trained pilots, every legitimate businessman who so desires have a Remington 870 behind the counter as an answer to robbery, etc.

Anecdote:

Down in one of the roughest parts of the 'hood in the nearby city, there is a store called Biggerstaff's. Biggerstaffs has been in business there for about sixty years, and is currently under 3rd generation management by the same family.

There is a crack house 200 feet down the road. "Meth dealer street" is just a couple blocks over. Whores walk the streets openly. Crime is rampant in that area.

Biggerstaffs also cashes checks, and keeps literally tens of thousands of dollars in cash onhand for that purpose.

Biggerstaff's has never been robbed. To my knowlege no one has ever even attempted it.

Why? Mr. Biggerstaff and all the other Biggerstaffs who work there wear Glock pistols on belt holsters in plain sight. There is a deli counter behind which works Mrs Biggerstaff, and she has a shotgun behind that counter.
On the shelf behind the cash register are several fully loaded extended magazines (the 17 round-plus type) sitting in plain sight and easy reach. Make one wrong move and you're facing a minimum of three well-armed Biggerstaffs, with enough ammo to fight a drawn-out battle.

Nobody messes with Biggerstaff's. They've never had to shoot anyone to my knowlege, obviously because they are so well-prepared to do exactly that. Their business thrives in the middle of chaos and crime.

Contrast that to the franchise-model convenience store a few blocks away, with the "no weapons, no resistance" corporate policy, which gets robbed regularly.


G.
 
Last edited:
The costs would be excessive. The same goal could be accomplished by arming competent school officials.

Actually, I think both ideas have some merit.

Both have potential downsides, as well.

I personally believe that allowing school staff members who show they are competent (through a test of some sort) to carry a firearm should be allowed to carry said firearm in school.

The idea of "school marshals" has some merit as well, but I dislike the federal aspect of it. Unless a school has the option to ask them in or refuse them access.

Any and all of these ideas should be on a case-by-case basis. If a school wants such, I see no reason why it should be disallowed (is it currently, or is it simply that no school has tried?).
 
Actually, I think both ideas have some merit.

Both have potential downsides, as well.

I agree & feel that a real study of both options would be good. I also feel that, just as many pilots declined the option of carrying firearms...that the same thing would be true of a good number of school personnel. Obviously you can't ever force a teacher to arm himself & I personally who have misgiving about any teacher who asked to be armed. I know that sounds elitist but my thinking is that if they wanted the dangers of being an armed guard they probably would have opted for that type of profession in the first place, rather than school teacher/custodian/whatever.

If I'm having open heart surgery, I want the surgeon to be a pro & not a part-time surgeon!;)
 
Last edited:
I am not overly impressed with the average cop's tactical training and readiness, and do not consider the average private citizen CCW to be much below Joe Cop in competence, if below him at all.
Here, you & I part company. All of my LE work was at the federal level but we worked very often with state & locals who normally were very good at what they did, & way above the tactical talents of the drug dealers & bad guys that we all dealt with.
I think you hold LEO's in to low an opinion & the ones I have worked with were quite professional.

This is based on my experiences with LEOs and with CCWs. Note that I'm not talking about SWAT teams, Felony Warrant Service crews, and similar specialists... talking about regular cops: who, from what I've seen, go to the range once a year to re-qual and rarely seek advanced training on their own, and rarely get any through their department either. (Budget, you know.)
I think therein lies the problem. Sky/School Marshal would need to be a cut above the avearge street cop & much better trained in target acquisition, hostage rescue, etc.
I was think of drawing the "School Marshal" corp from a SWAT type organization with short term "Details" into the School Marshal program.
 
Back
Top Bottom