• 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!

Firearm Found Inside Mpls. School Staff Member’s Locker

Love it. just love it.

Here is another person who broke the law.

susan-b-anthony-writing.jpg
 
So you think its okay for teachers to carry guns to stop brown people with turbans but not white dudes? Does the turban and the accent make them that much more dangerous?

Is that a joke?

My point is that citing the various forms of Israeli contractor guards in this context is a poor argument as the context is different, society is different and their reason for being their is different. It's not a good comparison.
 
Do you recognize the difference between allowing, or even encouraging someone to do the right thing, and demanding it of them?

If people are going to shoot up kids in schools very soon we may discover the best places are where the goofy liberals live. What could be more just?

Rather than sacrificing our children you will get to sacrifice your own.

Oh I recognize allowing, encouraging vs demanding it. Difference between candles and wine vs ruffies and 'legitimate' rape.

Where the allow vs force issue comes apart is allow is a feel good band-aid 'conservatives' attack liberals for wanting. The allow laws will be a hodge podge of armed teachers who's number per school and ability will be wildly different. There would need to be a certain number who train for such events and a variety of events that will tax the available time teachers have.

So you either force some teachers to arm or you hire dedicated security for the job- I favor dedicated security.

Lets examine the problem a bit more. What method of engagement would you endorse? Do all the armed teachers rush to the sounds of fire? Do they rally in a central point and then move as a team to the firefight? Do they seal off their classrooms and wait for the attacker to attempt to break in? Is the teacher leaving their classrooms the best idea? For a lone attacker perhaps but what if another intruder comes in from a different direction and enters the now teacherless classroom? What happens to the classrooms where the teacher isn't armed?

But a bit more to the point is the ability to use the firearm in a timely manner and accurate fashion. THAT takes more training than most CCW courses provide. The environment is filled with minors, not all sweet and innocent once you get up in grades, I doubt many parents to include those who own firearms are warm n fuzzy about having a weapon on the hip of the teacher infront of the class.

Next I have always followed the maxim the best weapon against tanks is other tanks. The best weapon against gunmen are gunmen on your side. However that isn't nor should it be the ONLY knife in the drawer. There are many other ways to thwart entry, and limit the number of people exposed to the gunman. (You don't seriously think armed teachers can stop the AR/AK gunman without a loss of child or teacher do you?)

Now I have read many other threads where teachers are lambasted as commies out to subvert the country with 'taker' defeatism or socialist indoctrination but NOW the 'conservatives' think enough of them are 2nd A supporters to make a difference? :roll:

Pick one, the teachers will either arm themselves in enough numbers and train to be an effective stop to a variety of threats or they are commie 'taker' trainers who are out to ruin the foundation of the nation.

I have a difficult time believe people who want to shoot up schools will travel to another state to do the deed. Seems to me every mass murder done in a school was done at a school that had meaning to the shooter. More payback than easiest target.

I'd also say the attackers will evolve tactics to meet the concealed carry teacher, bad juju to think your opponent will do what you want them too.

Anyway a few armed teachers willy nilly through the school system is just more feel good legislation. We need a professional approach to this problem, not an unorganized militia one.
 
Use to be a time when guns were allowed on school property. Not just by the faculty but also by the students. During that time...how many school shootings were there?
 
Conservatives are definitely not like liberals. Especially liberals like you who think taking guns from everyone is the best course of action.

I know you are just having fun here...but your disingenuous course of discussion is getting tiresome.

You are incorrect, there are LAWS against having weapons in schools so what part of illegal don't you understand?

There is a strong lack of willingness for those who can do a little time protect our kids from making that sacrifice, you don't want to. Do you really think enough teachers, the same people 'conservatives' attack as subverting the nation when it suits them, will arm, and train to be effective?

No deflection on taxes, the false idol of lower taxes is good for all of us has shown it's ugly side. Schools can do so much more than just git 'guns' but it costs money.

The Teacher's Union is advocating hiring security guards and beefing up the physical security of schools.

Now in typical extremist failed debate tactics you makes claims about what I want and who I am. I NEVER said all 'guns' are bad and we should be disarmed. I own 'em from bolt action to an E-Vile AK with a DPMS thrown in. Pistol too but that is to throw on my way to a real weapon... :lol:

So put the radical right wing attacks to the side. I am not for 'gun' grabbing, or banning one rifle over another. I'm for reasonable reactions, not feel good nonsense- by either extreme... :peace
 
No, the fact is most gun owners ARE law abiding citizens. This one apparently was not. She did the right thing by informing the staff, she did the wrong thing by bringing in the gun. Pretty sure that besides being against school policy, it was probably against the law as well. AND it was foolish (the weapon was loaded and ready to fire).

She should have lobbied for a change to the law/policy first, before she came armed.

I agree with most of what you say. However, it is only foolish to have an unloaded gun that is not ready to fire. When empty, they are no more useful than a paper weight. You cannot predict ahead of time whether you will have time to load your gun if a situation arises.

My personal defense hand gun is always loaded and ready almost ready to fire. A round chambered, hammer cocked (I don't have a double action or safety that lowers the hammer, my finger slipping while lowering the hammer on a semi-auto frankly scares me) and safety on. I live alone, no kids, so I can do this all the time. If I had very young children, I would probably unload and lock it up every day and reload it at night. Not that a young child is likely to be able to chamber a round in it, but you should always practice good safety habits.
 
Use to be a time when guns were allowed on school property. Not just by the faculty but also by the students. During that time...how many school shootings were there?

You cannot even carry a pocket knife. One of the most useful tools a person can carry and not much of a danger to anyone. It used to be common for boys to carry a small pocket knife/pen knife, don't do it today and get caught. Talk about overzealous rules.
 
Oh I recognize allowing, encouraging vs demanding it. Difference between candles and wine vs ruffies and 'legitimate' rape.

Where the allow vs force issue comes apart is allow is a feel good band-aid 'conservatives' attack liberals for wanting. The allow laws will be a hodge podge of armed teachers who's number per school and ability will be wildly different. There would need to be a certain number who train for such events and a variety of events that will tax the available time teachers have.

So you either force some teachers to arm or you hire dedicated security for the job- I favor dedicated security.

Lets examine the problem a bit more. What method of engagement would you endorse? Do all the armed teachers rush to the sounds of fire? Do they rally in a central point and then move as a team to the firefight? Do they seal off their classrooms and wait for the attacker to attempt to break in? Is the teacher leaving their classrooms the best idea? For a lone attacker perhaps but what if another intruder comes in from a different direction and enters the now teacherless classroom? What happens to the classrooms where the teacher isn't armed?

But a bit more to the point is the ability to use the firearm in a timely manner and accurate fashion. THAT takes more training than most CCW courses provide. The environment is filled with minors, not all sweet and innocent once you get up in grades, I doubt many parents to include those who own firearms are warm n fuzzy about having a weapon on the hip of the teacher infront of the class.

Next I have always followed the maxim the best weapon against tanks is other tanks. The best weapon against gunmen are gunmen on your side. However that isn't nor should it be the ONLY knife in the drawer. There are many other ways to thwart entry, and limit the number of people exposed to the gunman. (You don't seriously think armed teachers can stop the AR/AK gunman without a loss of child or teacher do you?)

Now I have read many other threads where teachers are lambasted as commies out to subvert the country with 'taker' defeatism or socialist indoctrination but NOW the 'conservatives' think enough of them are 2nd A supporters to make a difference? :roll:

Pick one, the teachers will either arm themselves in enough numbers and train to be an effective stop to a variety of threats or they are commie 'taker' trainers who are out to ruin the foundation of the nation.

I have a difficult time believe people who want to shoot up schools will travel to another state to do the deed. Seems to me every mass murder done in a school was done at a school that had meaning to the shooter. More payback than easiest target.

I'd also say the attackers will evolve tactics to meet the concealed carry teacher, bad juju to think your opponent will do what you want them too.

Anyway a few armed teachers willy nilly through the school system is just more feel good legislation. We need a professional approach to this problem, not an unorganized militia one.

Why cant you have both??? Have professional guards in case no one volunteers. Give teachers the option to train and carry to extra supplement the guardianship. This is obviously the best and most strategic choice for massacre control. I don't get why you are so vehement on "PICK ONE".
 
Oh I recognize allowing, encouraging vs demanding it. Difference between candles and wine vs ruffies and 'legitimate' rape.

Where the allow vs force issue comes apart is allow is a feel good band-aid 'conservatives' attack liberals for wanting. The allow laws will be a hodge podge of armed teachers who's number per school and ability will be wildly different. There would need to be a certain number who train for such events and a variety of events that will tax the available time teachers have.

So you either force some teachers to arm or you hire dedicated security for the job- I favor dedicated security.

Lets examine the problem a bit more. What method of engagement would you endorse? Do all the armed teachers rush to the sounds of fire? Do they rally in a central point and then move as a team to the firefight? Do they seal off their classrooms and wait for the attacker to attempt to break in? Is the teacher leaving their classrooms the best idea? For a lone attacker perhaps but what if another intruder comes in from a different direction and enters the now teacherless classroom? What happens to the classrooms where the teacher isn't armed?

But a bit more to the point is the ability to use the firearm in a timely manner and accurate fashion. THAT takes more training than most CCW courses provide. The environment is filled with minors, not all sweet and innocent once you get up in grades, I doubt many parents to include those who own firearms are warm n fuzzy about having a weapon on the hip of the teacher infront of the class.

Next I have always followed the maxim the best weapon against tanks is other tanks. The best weapon against gunmen are gunmen on your side. However that isn't nor should it be the ONLY knife in the drawer. There are many other ways to thwart entry, and limit the number of people exposed to the gunman. (You don't seriously think armed teachers can stop the AR/AK gunman without a loss of child or teacher do you?)

Now I have read many other threads where teachers are lambasted as commies out to subvert the country with 'taker' defeatism or socialist indoctrination but NOW the 'conservatives' think enough of them are 2nd A supporters to make a difference? :roll:

Pick one, the teachers will either arm themselves in enough numbers and train to be an effective stop to a variety of threats or they are commie 'taker' trainers who are out to ruin the foundation of the nation.

I have a difficult time believe people who want to shoot up schools will travel to another state to do the deed. Seems to me every mass murder done in a school was done at a school that had meaning to the shooter. More payback than easiest target.

I'd also say the attackers will evolve tactics to meet the concealed carry teacher, bad juju to think your opponent will do what you want them too.

Anyway a few armed teachers willy nilly through the school system is just more feel good legislation. We need a professional approach to this problem, not an unorganized militia one.

Every person has a right to self-defense. In the US we are fortunate to have that right recognized in our Constitution. It is time to allow every citizen, whether they work in a school or not the right to defend themselves against monsters with guns.

Once the gun free zone legislation is done away with every school board needs to determine the best course of action for their schools. I believe the baseline requirements include elimination of gun free zones and the right for school workers to defend themselves. Anything else above those two simple requirements must be determined by each locality.
 
Every person has a right to self-defense. In the US we are fortunate to have that right recognized in our Constitution. It is time to allow every citizen, whether they work in a school or not the right to defend themselves against monsters with guns.

Once the gun free zone legislation is done away with every school board needs to determine the best course of action for their schools. I believe the baseline requirements include elimination of gun free zones and the right for school workers to defend themselves. Anything else above those two simple requirements must be determined by each locality.
This sounds good. If you dont like teachers and staff having weapons you can move to a state or county which doesn't allow it. If you rather have teachers be true guardianship then move to a state/county which does.
 
Why cant you have both??? Have professional guards in case no one volunteers. Give teachers the option to train and carry to extra supplement the guardianship. This is obviously the best and most strategic choice for massacre control. I don't get why you are so vehement on "PICK ONE".

What vehement? I am not being vehement, just insist on pointing out how flawed the feel good CCW teacher 'fix' is.

Just am a bit amused that after so many posts calling teachers subversive socialists some 'conservatives' now believe there will be enough of these Union sheeple willing to go against all of that and strap-on some iron and here is a burr under the saddle, spend many hours training far above any CCW requirement when the same 'conservatives' decry the willingness of teachers to work hard enough at their jobs as it is?

This is not MY opinion of teachers, go look at any thread involving teachers.

I see a lot of git more 'guns' talk as if that is the only fix. There are many other security measures that don't have teachers carrying deadly force in classrooms.

I saw a commercial the other day where the voice over asked, "Do you really want your doctor doing your job? Then why do you want to do his?" Given the condition many 'conservatives' see our educational system in I'd a bet a shiny nickle they wouldn't want any diversion from 120% focus on teaching our children and let the security team focus on keeping crazy out the building.

Not vehement, just experienced and practical.
 
What vehement? I am not being vehement, just insist on pointing out how flawed the feel good CCW teacher 'fix' is.

Just am a bit amused that after so many posts calling teachers subversive socialists some 'conservatives' now believe there will be enough of these Union sheeple willing to go against all of that and strap-on some iron and here is a burr under the saddle, spend many hours training far above any CCW requirement when the same 'conservatives' decry the willingness of teachers to work hard enough at their jobs as it is?

This is not MY opinion of teachers, go look at any thread involving teachers.

I see a lot of git more 'guns' talk as if that is the only fix. There are many other security measures that don't have teachers carrying deadly force in classrooms.

I saw a commercial the other day where the voice over asked, "Do you really want your doctor doing your job? Then why do you want to do his?" Given the condition many 'conservatives' see our educational system in I'd a bet a shiny nickle they wouldn't want any diversion from 120% focus on teaching our children and let the security team focus on keeping crazy out the building.

Not vehement, just experienced and practical.
Carrying a gun is not a job. It is a right which promotes self defense. In order for teachers to bust through the No Gun Zone they should be able to seek training (on their own or through taxpayers, I don't care which to be honest) to facilitate a true guardianship. Not a pseudo-guardianship.
 
Carrying a gun is not a job. It is a right which promotes self defense. In order for teachers to bust through the No Gun Zone they should be able to seek training (on their own or through taxpayers, I don't care which to be honest) to facilitate a true guardianship. Not a pseudo-guardianship.

It is a right of self defense that can and is restricted by law. There are many places a CCW can't pack heat- Court Houses, bars and any place the owner says no firearms allowed with the proper signage- for that matter I can ban firearms on my ranch AND carry them myself.

Carrying a pistol as part of a defensive plan for a school is a job. You can't claim self defense AND guardianship. Now limit teachers to CCW only and not permit them to do anything but lock the classroom door and wait to see if the badguy(s) break-in is one thing, have them running down the hall with an M4orgery TOWARD the badguy isn't self defense, it is the JOB of security.

So what training should these teachers seek and do you think a meaningful number will?

Just a nit pik, but 'true' guardianship doesn't mean deadly force. Millions of parents have 'true' guardianship but no firearms.
 
It is a right of self defense that can and is restricted by law. There are many places a CCW can't pack heat- Court Houses, bars and any place the owner says no firearms allowed with the proper signage- for that matter I can ban firearms on my ranch AND carry them myself.

Carrying a pistol as part of a defensive plan for a school is a job. You can't claim self defense AND guardianship. Now limit teachers to CCW only and not permit them to do anything but lock the classroom door and wait to see if the badguy(s) break-in is one thing, have them running down the hall with an M4orgery TOWARD the badguy isn't self defense, it is the JOB of security.

So what training should these teachers seek and do you think a meaningful number will?

Just a nit pik, but 'true' guardianship doesn't mean deadly force. Millions of parents have 'true' guardianship but no firearms.

I wouldn't want teachers patrolling the hallways with guns. Your lock the door and wait for the bad guy seems like a good approach. Or maybe a "circling of wagons" approach where teachers herd the kids to hid behind the teachers with guns as they escape as SOME form of defense until police arrive. Training should include gun safety, accuracy, and explanation of extra harsh punishments if they abuse the weapon in any way.

I mean true guardianship as in the option to be able to defend with a firearm should they want to. Like a parent.
 
Either gun owners hang onto the narrative that they are law abiding citizens, that no one needs to fear for them being armed, or they can support actions like this. You can't have it both ways were you talk about stopping criminals, while you are currently breaking the law. Now I get it that her crime is far far from a murder or a shooting, but it is still illegal what she did.

I am a gun owner and I dont obey all the laws with good reason. If its nessary then I will be judged by twelve rather than carried by six.
 
I wouldn't want teachers patrolling the hallways with guns. Your lock the door and wait for the bad guy seems like a good approach. Or maybe a "circling of wagons" approach where teachers herd the kids to hid behind the teachers with guns as they escape as SOME form of defense until police arrive. Training should include gun safety, accuracy, and explanation of extra harsh punishments if they abuse the weapon in any way.

I mean true guardianship as in the option to be able to defend with a firearm should they want to. Like a parent.

Moving the children into the halls in some circle the wagon maneuver could also be exposing class after class to piecemeal destruction as they attempt to covey-up. Better than that do what we did for a wide variety of threats- tactical spacing. To prevent one artillery round, grenade, burst of fire from taking out most of a unit we spread out and took cover, dug in at night and never bunched up.

I'd say, compartmentalize and defend the doorway, much easier for those with minimum training.

Sounds like a good plan until we think on it some. A trend I noticed since Columbine is the badguys come from the school itself, stands to reason they would know which teacher packed and which one didn't. For that matter having a brother/sister/kid in the building that attends the school gets that vital bit of Intel.

Another something to think on is not all kids are sweet innocent 1st graders. Metal detectors and professional security is as much to protect teachers and students from bad apple kids on a daily basis as any mass murderer.

Which brings me an interesting warping of logic on the 'ban' debate. When decrying attempts to restrict mag cap, or the sale of more AR/AK semi auto rifles ardent 2nd A defenders point out the number of incidents are quite low so we don't need to restrict anything, yet those same numbers are driving a call to introduce many more firearms into the classrooms with little if any consideration of either better physical security or a dedicated security team in school or the daily downside to having more weapons in school.

I don't see the tragedy as a good opening to stop firearm sales OR open the door to armed teachers with a lot lower level of training than true professionals circulating among the students.
 
The way I see it, this staff member made two mistakes:

1. She violated school policy regarding guns on campus.

While I don't condone her action, I can understand the fear that made her do this.

2. She told a teacher she had a gun.

If she would have kept silent, nobody would have known the gun was there...until some 20 year old nutjob came into the school with evil intent. Then she might be considered a hero.


On the other hand, that mother who had a "little mini-breakdown" really needs to get a grip on life.

Who cares, she has the Constitutional right to a) own a gun and b) take it wherever she wants... I suppose the school has its own policies, however carrying a gun is a civil right and liberty.. I would suggest the school rethink their position on the issue.
 
Who cares, she has the Constitutional right to a) own a gun and b) take it wherever she wants... I suppose the school has its own policies, however carrying a gun is a civil right and liberty.. I would suggest the school rethink their position on the issue.

I don't know about her locality, but here in Colorado she would be violating a law by taking a gun into the school as she did.

In any case, the school forbade her from bringing a gun to school, so even if she didn't violate any laws, they would be justified in firing her.

I agree with your suggestion that the school should rethink their position, but I support their right to whatever position they adopt.
 
Who cares, she has the Constitutional right to a) own a gun and b) take it wherever she wants... I suppose the school has its own policies, however carrying a gun is a civil right and liberty.. I would suggest the school rethink their position on the issue.

Regardless of what kind of permit one carries, private property rights supersede one's right to carry a firearm where it's forbidden. "I don't care of you have a carry permit or not, you're not coming in my house with a firearm." (I personally don't feel that way, but anyone who does? That's their inalienable right.
 
Moving the children into the halls in some circle the wagon maneuver could also be exposing class after class to piecemeal destruction as they attempt to covey-up. Better than that do what we did for a wide variety of threats- tactical spacing. To prevent one artillery round, grenade, burst of fire from taking out most of a unit we spread out and took cover, dug in at night and never bunched up.

I'd say, compartmentalize and defend the doorway, much easier for those with minimum training.

Sounds like a good plan until we think on it some. A trend I noticed since Columbine is the badguys come from the school itself, stands to reason they would know which teacher packed and which one didn't. For that matter having a brother/sister/kid in the building that attends the school gets that vital bit of Intel.

Another something to think on is not all kids are sweet innocent 1st graders. Metal detectors and professional security is as much to protect teachers and students from bad apple kids on a daily basis as any mass murderer.

Which brings me an interesting warping of logic on the 'ban' debate. When decrying attempts to restrict mag cap, or the sale of more AR/AK semi auto rifles ardent 2nd A defenders point out the number of incidents are quite low so we don't need to restrict anything, yet those same numbers are driving a call to introduce many more firearms into the classrooms with little if any consideration of either better physical security or a dedicated security team in school or the daily downside to having more weapons in school.

I don't see the tragedy as a good opening to stop firearm sales OR open the door to armed teachers with a lot lower level of training than true professionals circulating among the students.

I guess it depends on how many teachers are willing to arm themselves. If only 2 teachers did then im might be best for them to creep towards the gunshots and try to ambush once they think the crazie might cross paths. If 10 teachers did then your idea probably sounds best, try to spread these teachers out across the school evenly with their home classrooms. And maybe have 2 designated hunters out of the 10 to give sitting duck rooms SOME chance. If half the teachers were armed then it might be best for half of that half to nest on the kids while the other half protects a moving convoy of kids until they safely make it off school grounds, then goes back for more.

If the principle had a weapons locker then you could also take into account weaponized guardian teachers guarding more unarmed teachers to this locker. (maybe. I think some would argue don't put a gun in the hands of the untrained. But I think a killer is more likely to flee or stop hostilities if they see a huge group of armed people.)
 
What vehement? I am not being vehement, just insist on pointing out how flawed the feel good CCW teacher 'fix' is.

Just am a bit amused that after so many posts calling teachers subversive socialists some 'conservatives' now believe there will be enough of these Union sheeple willing to go against all of that and strap-on some iron and here is a burr under the saddle, spend many hours training far above any CCW requirement when the same 'conservatives' decry the willingness of teachers to work hard enough at their jobs as it is?

This is not MY opinion of teachers, go look at any thread involving teachers.

I see a lot of git more 'guns' talk as if that is the only fix. There are many other security measures that don't have teachers carrying deadly force in classrooms.

I saw a commercial the other day where the voice over asked, "Do you really want your doctor doing your job? Then why do you want to do his?" Given the condition many 'conservatives' see our educational system in I'd a bet a shiny nickle they wouldn't want any diversion from 120% focus on teaching our children and let the security team focus on keeping crazy out the building.

Not vehement, just experienced and practical.
We all have the right to defend ourselves. That right includes teachers. We can deal with the right of self defense as a separate issue form their being members in public sector unions.
 
Something that has been missed is there are alternatives to guns at schools that we havent even tried.
Tasers and bean bag weapons come right to mind. It would require training and possibly lock zones where such things would be kept accessible to multiple personnel in the event of something like this but it is an option. Both have range options that make them limited in dealing with someone, which Ill admit freely off the bat.
Tranq guns might also be a possibility.

Other control options are shock grenades, tear gas and pepper spray---the problems with all these is that they will hit or harm potential victims. They dont seem particularly feasible.

Anyhow, just thought Id throw my two cents in about alternatives to armed teachers if lethal force seems to be the main problem. We have options but they are not perfect.
 
Either gun owners hang onto the narrative that they are law abiding citizens, that no one needs to fear for them being armed, or they can support actions like this. You can't have it both ways were you talk about stopping criminals, while you are currently breaking the law. Now I get it that her crime is far far from a murder or a shooting, but it is still illegal what she did.

You must get whiplash having sworn to protect the Constitution, and then trying to kill the right to keep and bear arms at the same time.
 
Or.......
You could lend a little bit of perspective on life:
View attachment 67139684

Nothing like living in a thrid world country is that what it has come to! I am sure the teacher in question was dumb enough to believe that a pistol would do any good against and assult weapon. Talk about bring a spoon to a knife fight. Wow the crazies are coming out of the wood work,
 
Nothing like living in a thrid world country is that what it has come to! I am sure the teacher in question was dumb enough to believe that a pistol would do any good against and assault weapon. Talk about bring a spoon to a knife fight. Wow the crazies are coming out of the wood work,

All us crazies are trying to do is show the loony left that there are other ways to look at a problem.

BTW the teacher in the pic is carrying an assault rifle. But if she were carrying a pistol, she could still effectively defend those children. Just need to compose yourself and aim.
 
Back
Top Bottom