• 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!

Hundreds of teachers sign up for free gun training in Ohio

tres borrachos said:
I would think if they volunteer to be one of the armed school employees, then yes, they would be held responsible for not doing their duty when and if required. Presumably the school (taxpayers) will pay any litigation costs. But even that aside, the question is still a good one. By agreeing to be one of the people carrying in school, doesn't that mean you've agreed to use your weapon in the event of a threat, and if you don't, you're responsible.
Click to expand...

So if you're at a car accident with multiple injuries and you have first aid training that could have helped and choose to do nothing, then you should be sued??
 
NonoBadDog said:
You are right that self defense training isn't the same. That isn't what these teachers are getting.



https://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/28/advanced-gun-training-colorado-teachers/



Testimonials | FASTER Saves Lives

The FASTER program pays for tuition and lodging and local school boards authorize these trained staff members to carry firearms in school.

NO-COST TRAINING – This is a nonprofit program sponsored by Buckeye Firearms Foundation, a 501(c)(3) public charity. There is no cost to your school district. Since 2013, thousands of Ohio educators have applied for this specialized training.

COMPREHENSIVE PREPARATION – Training also includes crisis management and hands-on emergency medical training for life-threatening injury.

ON-CALL ASSISTANCE – Program experts can meet with school board members at no cost to answer questions and provide assistance for policies and procedures, insurance issues, legal and union concerns, and local police / EMT drills and coordination.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/training-teachers-school-staff
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
If you offered a choice between gun training and school supplies NOT purchased out of their own pockets, 99% of teachers are going to pick the school supplies and the remainder should be fired.
Click to expand...

Honesty is a GOOD thing...
 
tres borrachos said:
I would think if they volunteer to be one of the armed school employees, then yes, they would be held responsible for not doing their duty when and if required. Presumably the school (taxpayers) will pay any litigation costs. But even that aside, the question is still a good one. By agreeing to be one of the people carrying in school, doesn't that mean you've agreed to use your weapon in the event of a threat, and if you don't, you're responsible.
Click to expand...

a volunteer....so they will try

let's say a school has 5-6 said volunteers

let's say 2-3 of them freeze or run from the event....not unlikely

that still leaves a few to make a stand against the shooter...worst case

do i like teachers, janitors, and admin armed in schools....not necessarily

but until i hear better ideas, this isnt a bad idea if they are properly trained

something is BETTER than nothing
 
NonoBadDog said:
You have gone overboard with your argument, as usual. That one extreme thing to another. "teachers spraying bullets in classrooms full of kids" is pretty extreme. You don't teachers enough credit. How many teachers do you know that are that stupid? It's ludicrous when people debate like that.
Click to expand...

How many cops in New York are that stupid? Apparently, according to the study, even trained cops have the tendency to cause more collateral damage than hitting their targets in the heat of it. You see, it is not terribly difficult to make that leap into the classroom where teachers are absolutely not trained cops. Perhaps my arguments tend to seem that they go overboard because I'm simply smarter than what you can keep up with?

NonoBadDog said:
In regards to your study, maybe police shouldn't be armed I guess is what you are saying?
Click to expand...

Um, no.

First, it's not "my" study. It was a ten-year RAND Corporation study.

Second, the study shows that in the heat of it, even trained cops tend to miss more than hit. And we are talking about trained professionals who expressly focus on such reactions. But we wish to ignore this so that we can maintain our ideologies about teachers, whose entire focus is the text book and the dry-erase board, who are going to whip out their guns, avoid the scattering kids, and one-shot-one-kill the shooter. See what I mean about me being smarter?

NonoBadDog said:
By the way, most people shoot better than the NYPD.
Click to expand...

This is the response? Have I mentioned the smarter thing?
 
faithful_servant said:
So if you're at a car accident with multiple injuries and you have first aid training that could have helped and choose to do nothing, then you should be sued??
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Why do you ask? Do we have a national crisis we're discussing where people with first aid training aren't helping people in car accidents?
 
tres borrachos said:
I doubt it. Why do you ask? Do we have a national crisis we're discussing where people with first aid training aren't helping people in car accidents?
Click to expand...

You brought up the issue of being sued for non-action, not me. Plus, I'd bet that there have been more lives lost due to inaction by bystanders in the last 75 than by the direct action of school shooters. No way to prove it, but if there were, I'd be surprised if the number was under 1,500.
 
faithful_servant said:
You brought up the issue of being sued for non-action, not me. Plus, I'd bet that there have been more lives lost due to inaction by bystanders in the last 75 than by the direct action of school shooters. No way to prove it, but if there were, I'd be surprised if the number was under 1,500.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring up the issue. Someone else did. I responded to that person.

Bystanders aren't tasked with being responsible. If the solution here is "arm the schools", they have assumed the responsibility. To the best of my knowledge, the President of this country - any of them - never said we were responsible for pulling over on the sides of the highways to help people in car accidents.
 
tres borrachos said:
I would think if they volunteer to be one of the armed school employees, then yes, they would be held responsible for not doing their duty when and if required. Presumably the school (taxpayers) will pay any litigation costs. But even that aside, the question is still a good one. By agreeing to be one of the people carrying in school, doesn't that mean you've agreed to use your weapon in the event of a threat, and if you don't, you're responsible.
Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:
I didn't bring up the issue. Someone else did. I responded to that person.

Bystanders aren't tasked with being responsible. If the solution here is "arm the schools", they have assumed the responsibility. To the best of my knowledge, the President of this country - any of them - never said we were responsible for pulling over on the sides of the highways to help people in car accidents.
Click to expand...

Try again....
 
faithful_servant said:
Try again....
Click to expand...

You quoted my post to another poster. I didn't say anything about lawsuits to you. You apparently missed the person whose post I responded to:

trblmkr said:
And, what are the responsibilities of these armed and trained teachers. If they are compensated financially, do they have to respond? And if they hide in a closet, can they be sued? If they wound or kill the wrong person, who bears the responsibility? Them, the school? Who pays the liability insurance?
Just questions.
Because if someone's kid is shot while the armed and trained teacher is hiding in the closet, they are going to sue.
Click to expand...
 
MSgt said:
How many cops in New York are that stupid? Apparently, according to the study, even trained cops have the tendency to cause more collateral damage than hitting their targets in the heat of it. You see, it is not terribly difficult to make that leap into the classroom where teachers are absolutely not trained cops. Perhaps my arguments tend to seem that they go overboard because I'm simply smarter than what you can keep up with?



Um, no.

First, it's not "my" study. It was a ten-year RAND Corporation study.

Second, the study shows that in the heat of it, even trained cops tend to miss more than hit. And we are talking about trained professionals who expressly focus on such reactions. But we wish to ignore this so that we can maintain our ideologies about teachers, whose entire focus is the text book and the dry-erase board, who are going to whip out their guns, avoid the scattering kids, and one-shot-one-kill the shooter. See what I mean about me being smarter?



This is the response? Have I mentioned the smarter thing?
Click to expand...

I noticed that you didn't include the standard that I presented for teachers, you know, where the standard from FASTER was 100% on target. That is a higher standard than almost every police department. I don't know one police department or military unit that has standards that high. The training that FASTER offers is more than just shooting. The standard can be set anywhere a school district wants to. The states and school districts are the ones that would set that standard. The schools and police departments could set the POI. I am for a solution rather than arguing about what we can't do.
 
trblmkr said:
I meant to reply to the general thread not to you. Oops. Luckily my keyboard wasn't loaded.
Click to expand...

No, I quoted you because that poster said I brought up lawsuits to him. I didn't. I posted that to you in response to your post that I just quoted, and that other poster jumped in on our conversation. He's confused. As usual.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, the "if shooters know the school has armed guards they will stay away" bit is nonsense. Mass shooters, by nature, aren't exactly making reasoned tactical decisions and often are going to commit suicide anyway, or suicide-by-cop. The threat of being shot isn't a deterrent.
Click to expand...

Maybe he knew this one was a coward :shrug:
 
tres borrachos said:
Interesting, Gina. And I hadn't thought of that. Yes, all students know their schools have SROs - especially the ones who ever got in trouble. You are correct that he knew there would be an armed man on that property.
Click to expand...

Yep. I've spent time in high schools. The resource officers were well known and quite visible. Any student who presented a threat, would have been dealing with the male staff and the resource officer, if not some of his colleagues. My kids were never in that kind of trouble, but they were aware of his presence and knew his name.


ludin said:
the issue is that the resource officer did nothing yet he could have stopped it almost before it started or at least mitigated the damage done.
Click to expand...

No, that is not the issue. That was not the point of the post I responded to.

PoS said:
We dont know what the full story is and who knows if it will really come out.

But then again, the one cop failed to act and that was it. Having not one, but more armed people to protect the kids would lessen the risk of failure to act if such a thing happened somewhere else is all I'm saying. Better to have redundancies in place than to depend on just one person.
Click to expand...

You're both missing the point. This thread is about the possible deterrent effect of teachers carrying weapons. Not the failure of this one officer to act, but counter threat this officer represented to those who would think of attacking the school. This is the post I responded to:
Better than nothing. The presence of an armed teacher by themselves ought to be enough to discourage most school shooters since they're cowards.
Click to expand...

The shooter was not deterred. He had a plan and he acted on it, despite the knowledge (don't know how he couldn't have been aware) that an armed resource officer was at the school.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I noticed that you didn't include the standard that I presented for teachers, you know, where the standard from FASTER was 100% on target. That is a higher standard than almost every police department. I don't know one police department or military unit that has standards that high. The training that FASTER offers is more than just shooting. The standard can be set anywhere a school district wants to. The states and school districts are the ones that would set that standard. The schools and police departments could set the POI.
Click to expand...

This is because this standard in training has nothing to do with the issue. Anybody can aim and shoot targets. The issue is that we actually live in a time where arming the teachers is a matter of legitimate consideration instead of looking at our time and asking how in the hell we got here. Arming the teachers is just another step towards stupid town.

NonoBadDog said:
I am for a solution rather than arguing about what we can't do.
Click to expand...

OK...

1) People under going psychiatric care for mental impairment should be on the "no gun" list. A background check should involve this. Despite James Holmes (Batman premier shooting) and Nikolas Cruz (Parkland) having a documented past of mental illness, nothing prevented them from legally buying weapons.

2) Society declared that automatic weapons should not be in the hands of the populace. Laws were made that result in what may as well be a ban. Yet, our Second Amendment Right remains safely intact. The bump stock is a work around that allows people to break the intent of those laws. Stephen Paddock (Vegas shooter) loved his work around, didn't he?

3) Holding parents civilly and criminally responsible for their kid's behavior, after they have stolen their parent's weapons from an unlocked closet or from under a bed, pushes the notion that weapons should be locked the hell up. Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook), who also had a history of documented mental instability, stole his mommy's guns after she spent years teaching him how fun they were. Buy a damn safe.

Out of these four, three should have legally never had a gun in their hands to begin with, and one simply abused his "right" by working around the law. Still people would rather protect their rights through the mentally ill's ability to have his rights and and would rather argue what even is a bump stock.

We avoid solutions because we don't want to acknowledge that we have enthusiastically brought ourselves to this time. Instead of acknowledging that we have actively sought to place weapons in the hands of the crazies, we seek to react by arming teachers and calling it a day. Some of this is because we have come to identify ourselves so strongly through our guns that we prefer to pretend that the issue is separate from us and that as "responsible" gun owners who have rights, we must go to combat to defend ourselves against an issue that is not our fault.

I just don't understand how people can get angry that a gun entered school property and turn around and declare that the solution is to introduce guns to school property.
 
MSgt said:
This is because this standard in training has nothing to do with the issue. Anybody can aim and shoot targets. The issue is that we actually live in a time where arming the teachers is a matter of legitimate consideration instead of looking at our time and asking how in the hell we got here. Arming the teachers is just another step towards stupid town.
Click to expand...

1) People under going psychiatric care for mental impairment should be on the "no gun" list. A background check should involve this. Despite James Holmes (Batman premier shooting) and Nikolas Cruz (Parkland) having a documented past of mental illness, nothing prevented them from legally buying weapons.
Click to expand...
They should be and are so I guess that's solved.

2) Society declared that automatic weapons should not be in the hands of the populace. Laws were made that result in what may as well be a ban. Yet, our Second Amendment Right remains safely intact. The bump stock is a work around that allows people to break the intent of those laws. Stephen Paddock (Vegas shooter) loved his work around, didn't he?
Click to expand...
Nobody said anything about bump stocks or fully automatic weapons. Guess you are either deflecting or moving goal posts making up straw men. Maybe just throwing smoke bombs. I guess it's one of those "When in worry or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout" kinda posts.

3) Holding parents civilly and criminally responsible for their kid's behavior, after they have stolen their parent's weapons from an unlocked closet or from under a bed, pushes the notion that weapons should be locked the hell up. Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook), who also had a history of documented mental instability, stole his mommy's guns after she spent years teaching him how fun they were. Buy a damn safe.
Click to expand...
Okay, and? WTF does this have to do with ANYTHING in this thread or ANYTHING that I posted?

Out of these four, three should have legally never had a gun in their hands to begin with, and one simply abused his "right" by working around the law. Still people would rather protect their rights through the mentally ill's ability to have his rights and and would rather argue what even is a bump stock.
Click to expand...
Did you know that someone that is mentally deficient is prohibited by federal law to posses or own a firearm? Really, no **** dude. It's the same as a felon owning or possessing a firearm.

We avoid solutions because we don't want to acknowledge that we have enthusiastically brought ourselves to this time. Instead of acknowledging that we have actively sought to place weapons in the hands of the crazies, we seek to react by arming teachers and calling it a day. Some of this is because we have come to identify ourselves so strongly through our guns that we prefer to pretend that the issue is separate from us and that as "responsible" gun owners who have rights, we must go to combat to defend ourselves against an issue that is not our fault.

I just don't understand how people can get angry that a gun entered school property and turn around and declare that the solution is to introduce guns to school property.
Click to expand...

I think the majority of the left avoids solutions because if guns worked to prevent school shootings it would damage their lame argument that guns are evil. Example, tax cut. The left said it the tax cut would cause "Armageddon". People were GONNA DIE!!!! It wasn't and they didn't. The left lost cred. That is what the left is worried about.
 
Deuce said:
I disagree. Given the marksmanship and decision making troubles that even trained professionals suffer from, a less-trained, less-qualified, less-prepared person can cause outright harm. The teacher is more likely to hit an innocent bystander than the police officer, or mistake an innocent person for an attacker.

You have further issues with law enforcement response. When the police roll up to an active shooter situation, they're often not going to have much information. "Shots fired, XYZ high school" might be all they have. So they kick the doors in in "find and stop the bad guy" mode and what do they see? Dude with a gun. Kids everywhere screaming. Odds are pretty good they put down the teacher, which could lead them to mistakenly believe they've stopped the shooter, for some period of time.

With a uniformed security officer, the police encountering an armed person at the school have the visual clues to indicate he's not a threat.
Click to expand...

OK, that (bolded above) certainly worked well in Parkland, FL but so would having no armed security at all and spending the $500K (not wasted on security salary) on classroom doors that can be secured.
 
Herkamer63 said:
Oh you! LOL! Too funny. Man, that's a zinger. I'm glad you straightened me out, skippy. So what if they don't want to solve this problem? So what if they take more money out of parents so they can stuff it into their own pockets? So what if they really don't care about the well being of students and fellow teachers? I guess so long as they have more Leftist ideological... er, I mean, "educational" books that have NOTHING to do with politics whatsoever, that's all that matters. Forget our low testing scores on a worldwide platform AND the fact all these schools that get shot up are gun free zones, AND that the teacher unions are sucking communities dry and don't use anything to actually keep our schools safe. No. So long as they have books. Good golly, so funny.
Click to expand...

While we're inventing motivations for each other, you just want to line the pockets of gun manufacturers no matter how many children are killed.
 
Gina said:
The shooter was not deterred. He had a plan and he acted on it, despite the knowledge (don't know how he couldn't have been aware) that an armed resource officer was at the school.
Click to expand...
Like I said, we dont know the full story. Maybe the shooter knew that cop was a coward, or he felt his weapon was enough to overcome one resource officer. But I have a distinct feeling that he would have been deterred if there were several armed teachers in the school. Schools are targeted because they are vulnerable.
 
trblmkr said:
And, what are the responsibilities of these armed and trained teachers. If they are compensated financially, do they have to respond? And if they hide in a closet, can they be sued? If they wound or kill the wrong person, who bears the responsibility? Them, the school? Who pays the liability insurance?
Just questions.
Because if someone's kid is shot while the armed and trained teacher is hiding in the closet, they are going to sue.
Click to expand...

Their responsibilities will be to get in the way, draw their concealed weapon and take the hits and die.
 
MSgt said:
~ Arming the teachers is just another step towards stupid town.
Click to expand...

Gina said:
~ The shooter was not deterred. He had a plan and he acted on it, despite the knowledge (don't know how he couldn't have been aware) that an armed resource officer was at the school.
Click to expand...

It doesn't get any more straightforward than these two points. Anything else is just mistaken politics.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
It doesn't get any more straightforward than these two points. Anything else is just mistaken politics.
Click to expand...

There's never going to be a 100% deterrence, to think so is laughable. The best we can do is put in place plenty of precautions in case it happens again. Arming the teachers is the right way.
 
PoS said:
There's never going to be a 100% deterrence, to think so is laughable. The best we can do is put in place plenty of precautions in case it happens again. Arming the teachers is the right way.
Click to expand...

It's not. Arming teachers will result in more dead students, not less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom