• 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!

Accidental shootings raise questions about arming teachers

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,557
Reaction score
19,323
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From Associated Press

Accidental shootings raise questions about arming teachers


SEATTLE (AP) — As the country looks for ways to deal with mass shootings at schools, some have responded by saying more people should carry guns, including teachers.

“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” President Donald Trump told the National Rifle Association convention in April. More states are allowing teachers to carry guns, he said, and “who better to protect our children than our teachers, who love them.”

But a close look at unintentional shootings by law enforcement officers, including at schools, raises doubts about whether more guns would help keep students safe.

An Associated Press investigation has found accidental shootings occur at law enforcement agencies large and small across the United States every year. The examination of public records and media reports documented 1,422 unintentional shootings by officers at 258 agencies since 2012.

Twenty-two occurred at schools or college campuses.

COMMENT:-

What I found to be of especial interest was the statement of Doug Tangen (firearms program manager at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, the state police academy) that "Most people, cops included, don’t devote that practice time to be able to shoot it responsibly or carry it responsibly,” (emphasis added).

On the other hand ONLY an average of three kids have been accidentally shot by their protectors per year and that is a small price to pay for safety and freedom - isn't it.
 
As a teacher for 14 years I can say that arming teachers was a stupid idea at best.

But sadly it wasn't the only stupid idea for dealing with active shooters. Anyone remember the school where they gave out a can of soup to each student? The idea being that if a shooter came into a classroom that the students would pummel him with the cans?

Or, I was doing some substitute teaching at a middle school once. I was on my break and went to the teachers lounge. They had the teacher's mailboxes there and I noticed that most of them had a large can of high pressure wasp/hornet spray.

I asked one of the regular teachers if they had a major problem with wasps and hornets. She said no, that if a gunman came into the classroom the teacher was supposed to spray him. Needless to say most of the teachers thought it was stupid in the extreme.
 
So if we understand the anti-gun logic....

We dont want TEACHERS to be armed because COPS shoot people accidentally.
Fact: Police are Much More Likely to Shoot the Wrong Person than Armed Citizens

Lets look at the historical reality. Police have a dismal record responding to mass shootings. Whether its an accidental shooting or not, the fact is...police arent THERE and when they ARE there...they dont engage. At Columbine, the armed school resource officer was outside of the building and never entered. The responding cops didnt enter the building for over an hour and a half. Sandy hook...nearly 15 minutes AFTER the last shot was fired. Parkland...the cop HID outside and police didnt enter the building for 20 minutes til long AFTER the shooting stopped.

But anti gun types would STILL rather have the students and teachers left defenseless at the whim of an armed shooter. Knowing cops dont respond. Knowing cops have a higher accidental shooting rate.

I dont believe the answer is to ARM TEACHERS. That isnt the goal. The goal would be to allow citizens...law abiding armed citizens...to exercise their Constitutional right and carry concealed IN CASE ( and the possibility that it will be needed is infinitesimally small... like .0000000000167% chance that any given school at any given time will face a mass shooting) in CASE it is necessary.

And frankly...if you arent going to let teachers carry armed, then teaching students how to fight back is the only real alternative.
 
As a teacher for 14 years I can say that arming teachers was a stupid idea at best.

But sadly it wasn't the only stupid idea for dealing with active shooters. Anyone remember the school where they gave out a can of soup to each student? The idea being that if a shooter came into a classroom that the students would pummel him with the cans?

Or, I was doing some substitute teaching at a middle school once. I was on my break and went to the teachers lounge. They had the teacher's mailboxes there and I noticed that most of them had a large can of high pressure wasp/hornet spray.

I asked one of the regular teachers if they had a major problem with wasps and hornets. She said no, that if a gunman came into the classroom the teacher was supposed to spray him. Needless to say most of the teachers thought it was stupid in the extreme.

"Arming teachers" is NOT - per se - a stupid idea.

"Arming ALL teachers WITHOUT providing the requisite level of training and practice (and requiring an actually demonstrated ability to use that training and practice in a safe and appropriate manner) - and annual refresher training and practice - " IS a VERY stupid idea.

On the other hand it WOULD be <SARC>"**D*O*I*N*G** **S*O*M*T*H*I*N*G** **A*B*O*U*T** **T*H*E** **P*R*O*B*L*E*M**</SARC> (and that is all that is required [regardless of whether or not what is done is actually going to produce positive results]).

Right?
 
So if we understand the anti-gun logic....

We dont want TEACHERS to be armed because COPS shoot people accidentally.
Fact: Police are Much More Likely to Shoot the Wrong Person than Armed Citizens

Lets look at the historical reality. Police have a dismal record responding to mass shootings. Whether its an accidental shooting or not, the fact is...police arent THERE and when they ARE there...they dont engage. At Columbine, the armed school resource officer was outside of the building and never entered. The responding cops didnt enter the building for over an hour and a half. Sandy hook...nearly 15 minutes AFTER the last shot was fired. Parkland...the cop HID outside and police didnt enter the building for 20 minutes til long AFTER the shooting stopped.

But anti gun types would STILL rather have the students and teachers left defenseless at the whim of an armed shooter. Knowing cops dont respond. Knowing cops have a higher accidental shooting rate.

I dont believe the answer is to ARM TEACHERS. That isnt the goal. The goal would be to allow citizens...law abiding armed citizens...to exercise their Constitutional right and carry concealed IN CASE ( and the possibility that it will be needed is infinitesimally small... like .0000000000167% chance that any given school at any given time will face a mass shooting) in CASE it is necessary.

And frankly...if you arent going to let teachers carry armed, then teaching students how to fight back is the only real alternative.

And, aside from your rant, do you have an opinion on

... the statement of Doug Tangen (firearms program manager at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, the state police academy) that "Most people, cops included, don’t devote that practice time to be able to shoot it responsibly or carry it responsibly,” (emphasis added).

or didn't you find that of sufficient interest to bother with?
 
I don't understand why it's not possible to have a valid conversation about our "right to own a firearm" and our "right to life" since it seems the two are running counter to each other with regard to these shootings.
 
Does anyone really believe that adding guns to schools would lead to a net decrease in school shootings? That it wouldn't just be another outlet for disturbed kids or aggravated teachers to lash out? That a misplaced gun wouldn't end up in the wrong hands?
 
And, aside from your rant, do you have an opinion on

... the statement of Doug Tangen (firearms program manager at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, the state police academy) that "Most people, cops included, don’t devote that practice time to be able to shoot it responsibly or carry it responsibly,” (emphasis added).

or didn't you find that of sufficient interest to bother with?
The fact that private citizens have a far better record than law enforcement regarding shootings that involve incidental victims due to shooter action speaks volumes as to the level of private citizen competency. And while you would have a hard time quantifying just how much 'practice' private citizens get, lets look at what the national numbers indicate. 66% of gun owners routinely target shoot. 58% routinely use firearms for hunting (and good news...the numbers are only slightly less for both categories for democrat vs republican gun owners). A study by Mother Jones states that only 3 in 5 gun owners receive formal training. OK..I'll buy that. Mother Jones is a very liberal source and while that is probably meant to be a knock on gun owners, what that means is is that off the total estimated number of gun owners in the US, 108,000,000 have received formal training and a number slightly higher than that...approx 122,400,000 shoot regularly. But then ask yourself...who is most likely to choose to carry a firearm...someone that trains regularly, or someone that does not?
Only 3 In 5 Gun Owners Have Received Firearms Training – Mother Jones
 
Does anyone really believe that adding guns to schools would lead to a net decrease in school shootings? That it wouldn't just be another outlet for disturbed kids or aggravated teachers to lash out? That a misplaced gun wouldn't end up in the wrong hands?
1-I agree...it is entirely unlikely that having armed teachers will reduce the number of mass shootings. The fact remains that since 1982 there have been a truly minimal number of mass shootings in US schools...all schools public and private, elementary through college, and even involving trade and language schools. The potential for any particular 1 school to be involved in such an incident is tremendously small. So nah...its not likely to be an issue. Nor is, BTW, putting armed police or armed guards in public schools.
2-No...I'm not concerned about law abiding citizens carrying concealed in a school will create a greater threat. An examination of ALL citizens and private carry history shows there is no real threat or concern there. That being said...
3-"An NBC Bay Area investigation into the loss and theft of police firearms uncovered more than 500 weapons have gone missing from eight different law enforcement agencies, including the California Highway Patrol, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration and six local departments since 2010." Including a fair amount of guns accidentally left in school or restaurant bathrooms.

None of this is a knock on cops. Tough job...wouldnt want to do it. What it means is that there is no indication that law aiding citizens carrying legally are not a threat.
 
The fact that private citizens have a far better record than law enforcement regarding shootings that involve incidental victims due to shooter action speaks volumes as to the level of private citizen competency.

Please produce your statistics to validate your point.

PLEASE NOTE - Those statistics are to be in respect of MASS KILLING attempts only.

And while you would have a hard time quantifying just how much 'practice' private citizens get, lets look at what the national numbers indicate.

Which is the equivalent to saying "I know that your source knows what he is talking about - because it is his business to - but I don't want to talk about THAT so let's look at something completely unrelated." - isn't it?

66% of gun owners routinely target shoot.

Yep - absolutely 100% identical conditions to being in the middle of a mass killing attempt.

58% routinely use firearms for hunting (and good news...the numbers are only slightly less for both categories for democrat vs republican gun owners).

Yep - absolutely 100% identical conditions to being in the middle of a mass killing attempt.

A study by Mother Jones states that only 3 in 5 gun owners receive formal training. OK..I'll buy that.

Yep - and that "formal training" consists of intensive training under realistically simulated conditions in what to do when in the middle of a mass killing attempt - oh sure it does.

Mother Jones is a very liberal source and while that is probably meant to be a knock on gun owners, what that means is is that off the total estimated number of gun owners in the US, 108,000,000 have received formal training and a number slightly higher than that...approx 122,400,000 shoot regularly.

Yep - someone who took "Driver Ed" in High School 15 years ago and who drives an average of 14 days per year is completely trained and qualified to drive in the Daytona 500 and deal with what to do if they see a 10 car pileup that they are 100 yards away from and approaching at 120mph - if you use your logic.

But then ask yourself...who is most likely to choose to carry a firearm...someone that trains regularly, or someone that does not?

I rather suspect that the REAL answer to your question (if you include EVERYONE who actually carries a firearm) is "someone that does not".

However, I know that you have all the data on how many days per year (on average) the person who chooses to carry a firearm spends doing realistic training in what to do (and how to do it) when in the middle of a mass killing attempt so I eagerly await your production of that data (which I know that you are just dying to share with the rest of us).
 
1. In the 1960s, schools started having "security guards."

2. Until then, a teacher's word was enough to keep order, and the idea of a killer entering a school was beyond anyone's imagination.

3. Fast forward to the twenty-first century, and we now are no longer shocked by school shootings.

4. No, teachers should not be armed. They might get hurt. And regardless of what President Trump said (as quoted in the OP), most teachers do not "love" their students so much that they are willing to be killed.

5. Let's just beef up security around the schools. Make it harder for unauthorized persons to enter the campus. The bottom line: It is impossible to have 100% security in schools or anywhere else.
 
From Associated Press

Accidental shootings raise questions about arming teachers


SEATTLE (AP) — As the country looks for ways to deal with mass shootings at schools, some have responded by saying more people should carry guns, including teachers.

“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” President Donald Trump told the National Rifle Association convention in April. More states are allowing teachers to carry guns, he said, and “who better to protect our children than our teachers, who love them.”

But a close look at unintentional shootings by law enforcement officers, including at schools, raises doubts about whether more guns would help keep students safe.

An Associated Press investigation has found accidental shootings occur at law enforcement agencies large and small across the United States every year. The examination of public records and media reports documented 1,422 unintentional shootings by officers at 258 agencies since 2012.

Twenty-two occurred at schools or college campuses.

COMMENT:-

What I found to be of especial interest was the statement of Doug Tangen (firearms program manager at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, the state police academy) that "Most people, cops included, don’t devote that practice time to be able to shoot it responsibly or carry it responsibly,” (emphasis added).

On the other hand ONLY an average of three kids have been accidentally shot by their protectors per year and that is a small price to pay for safety and freedom - isn't it.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Article I Section 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
 
something those who are not trained in dealing with active shooting situations and firearms self defense rarely understand is this:

the reason why private citizens have a much higher hit ratio on bad guys and a much lower percentage of shooting the wrong person over cops is this: the private citizens involved in justifiable shootings are often the TARGET of the criminal who is shot. The cops-very rarely. This means a private citizen has a much easier time in identifying the proper target. When I was involved in a shooting, there was no chance of me misidentifying the target. It was the mope standing right in front of me who had just hit me in the face. And his partner who was trying to choke me out. My shot was a contact shot. Gun slammed in the torso of the attacker when I pulled the trigger.

The current training -at least here in Ohio-of teachers who are armed is this: the teacher is instructed to protect his or her classroom. The teacher is not supposed to go out looking for the active shooter. Rather the teacher is instructed to guard the entrance of his or her classroom with the firearm. To lock or barricade the door-while instructing the students to remain sheltered in the classroom. Someone trying to breech the door would then be engaged. This substantially eliminates the chance of the armed teacher shooting "the wrong" person.
 
If no one knows the teacher is carrying (it's called concealed for a reason), or has one stashed in a fingerprint (or similar) lockbox in desk...and it's never touched unless there is an active shooter...how will the accidental shooting occur?

The schools would/could have specific policies on what threats to recognize and how to react to them.
 
Please produce your statistics to validate your point.

PLEASE NOTE - Those statistics are to be in respect of MASS KILLING attempts only.



Which is the equivalent to saying "I know that your source knows what he is talking about - because it is his business to - but I don't want to talk about THAT so let's look at something completely unrelated." - isn't it?



Yep - absolutely 100% identical conditions to being in the middle of a mass killing attempt.



Yep - absolutely 100% identical conditions to being in the middle of a mass killing attempt.



Yep - and that "formal training" consists of intensive training under realistically simulated conditions in what to do when in the middle of a mass killing attempt - oh sure it does.



Yep - someone who took "Driver Ed" in High School 15 years ago and who drives an average of 14 days per year is completely trained and qualified to drive in the Daytona 500 and deal with what to do if they see a 10 car pileup that they are 100 yards away from and approaching at 120mph - if you use your logic.



I rather suspect that the REAL answer to your question (if you include EVERYONE who actually carries a firearm) is "someone that does not".

However, I know that you have all the data on how many days per year (on average) the person who chooses to carry a firearm spends doing realistic training in what to do (and how to do it) when in the middle of a mass killing attempt so I eagerly await your production of that data (which I know that you are just dying to share with the rest of us).
Guilty Plea Entered In Plymouth Shooting Death | WNEP.com
Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square - Chicago Tribune
Vaughan Foods beheading incident - Wikipedia
Pearl High School shooting - Wikipedia
Clackamas Town Center shooting: Story of armed shopper fuels national debate - oregonlive.com
https://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html
https://www.denverpost.com/2012/04/22/2-die-in-shooting-outside-aurora-church-2/
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=51236957&itype=CMSID
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/shooting-wellness-center/13113555/
https://americanhandgunner.com/the-ayoob-files/the-brunswick-massacre/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911219/posts
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1446
https://www.ammoland.com/2009/07/gun-owner-saves-lives-in-the-richmond-va-golden-market-shooting/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Middle_School_dance_shooting
https://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html
https://www.uticaod.com/article/20100527/News/305279879

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.
https://www.concealedcarry.com/news...-95-of-the-time-at-active-shooter-events-fbi/

WHat you find is that until you are at the pointy end of the stick, no one...not a private citizen or a cop...knows how they will actually respond. What we have found is that on a regular basis...when challenged...private citizens have risen to the occasion in numerous incidents of mass shooting.

I take it thats very hard for you to be honest about and accept. Too committed to your bias.
 
something those who are not trained in dealing with active shooting situations and firearms self defense rarely understand is this:

the reason why private citizens have a much higher hit ratio on bad guys and a much lower percentage of shooting the wrong person over cops is this: the private citizens involved in justifiable shootings are often the TARGET of the criminal who is shot. The cops-very rarely. This means a private citizen has a much easier time in identifying the proper target. When I was involved in a shooting, there was no chance of me misidentifying the target. It was the mope standing right in front of me who had just hit me in the face. And his partner who was trying to choke me out. My shot was a contact shot. Gun slammed in the torso of the attacker when I pulled the trigger.

The current training -at least here in Ohio-of teachers who are armed is this: the teacher is instructed to protect his or her classroom. The teacher is not supposed to go out looking for the active shooter. Rather the teacher is instructed to guard the entrance of his or her classroom with the firearm. To lock or barricade the door-while instructing the students to remain sheltered in the classroom. Someone trying to breech the door would then be engaged. This substantially eliminates the chance of the armed teacher shooting "the wrong" person.
Armed response training for police officers usually doesnt involve the kind of armed response training private citizens do. At most professional training sites, armed responders are not firing one or two rounds and assessing for results. In most cases, law enforcement officers are draining magazines and doing tactical reloads.

But heres the thing...police, like citizens...dont train when the bad guy is shooting back. Once you are standing in front of someone with a weapon actively engaged in evil intent....your world changes.
 
Armed response training for police officers usually doesnt involve the kind of armed response training private citizens do. At most professional training sites, armed responders are not firing one or two rounds and assessing for results. In most cases, law enforcement officers are draining magazines and doing tactical reloads.

But heres the thing...police, like citizens...dont train when the bad guy is shooting back. Once you are standing in front of someone with a weapon actively engaged in evil intent....your world changes.

yep, which is why I have done extension training with simunitions where people are shooting at you. But the next best thing is shooting under time pressure with shoot/no shoot targets. We have a few gun banning "centurions" on this board who blather on about how shooting at paper targets is worthless. Those people are neither knowledgeable about current police and private citizen training nor are people who would last very long in a civilian environment gun fight either.
 
yep, which is why I have done extension training with simunitions where people are shooting at you. But the next best thing is shooting under time pressure with shoot/no shoot targets. We have a few gun banning "centurions" on this board who blather on about how shooting at paper targets is worthless. Those people are neither knowledgeable about current police and private citizen training nor are people who would last very long in a civilian environment gun fight either.
I actually feel bad for them. People like them seldom realize their potential in life. They are beat before they begin.

We have an entire worlds history of normal people doing extraordinary things. In the Parkland shooting we had a normal man...a teacher...that was willing to use his body as a human shield to save the lives of students. That is a testament to the individual. I have a hard time understanding people that can see that teachers sacrifice and still believe that had he been armed, he would be less of a hero.
 
"Arming teachers" is NOT - per se - a stupid idea.

"Arming ALL teachers WITHOUT providing the requisite level of training and practice (and requiring an actually demonstrated ability to use that training and practice in a safe and appropriate manner) - and annual refresher training and practice - " IS a VERY stupid idea.

On the other hand it WOULD be <SARC>"**D*O*I*N*G** **S*O*M*T*H*I*N*G** **A*B*O*U*T** **T*H*E** **P*R*O*B*L*E*M**</SARC> (and that is all that is required [regardless of whether or not what is done is actually going to produce positive results]).

Right?

No, arming teachers IS a stupid idea. It is an unrefutable fact, more guns equal more gun related incidents. The statistic show just by owning a gun your risk of being involved in gun related incident goes up. Plus, the ridiculous amount of guns we have in the US and how many shootings we have confirm that.

Why is it stupid.

1. People in general are idiots, yes, even highly trained cops/military etc have gun mishaps, accidental shootings. A cop, under pressure situation, hits the target 1 out of 3 times, and they are trained and also trained to know when to avoid shooting their weapon. Now you want someone who will likely get far less training having a gun.

2. The likelihood of a school shooting happening where a gun is needed, is so small, its not worth the risk and/or money to train the teacher to have a gun. Even if the event happens, the chance teh armed teacher can stop the school shooting is small as well. Even highly trained people can freeze up and not take action, like we saw with the cop in one of the shootings (I think florida) that stood outside.
 
Last edited:
No, arming teachers IS a stupid idea. It is an unrefutable fact, more guns equal more gun related incidents. The statistic show just by owning a gun your risk of being involved in gun related incident goes up. Plus, the ridiculous amount of guns we have in the US and how many shootings we have confirm that.

Why is it stupid.

1. People in general are idiots, yes, even highly trained cops/military etc have gun mishaps, accidental shootings. A cop, under pressure situation, hits the target 1 out of 3 times, and they are trained and also trained to know when to avoid shooting their weapon. Now you want someone who will likely get far less training having a gun.

2. The likelihood of a school shooting happening where a gun is needed, is so small, its not worth the risk and/or money to train the teacher to have a gun. Even if the event happens, the chance teh armed teacher can stop the school shooting is small as well. Even highly trained people can freeze up and not take action, like we saw with the cop in one of the shootings (I think florida) that stood outside.

This sort of sums up the underlying value system of the far left. This is the attitude that demands more and more government control over everyone. On top of it, this post of his is fraught with a tsunami of ignorance about guns and gun use
 
From Associated Press

Accidental shootings raise questions about arming teachers


SEATTLE (AP) — As the country looks for ways to deal with mass shootings at schools, some have responded by saying more people should carry guns, including teachers.

“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” President Donald Trump told the National Rifle Association convention in April. More states are allowing teachers to carry guns, he said, and “who better to protect our children than our teachers, who love them.”

But a close look at unintentional shootings by law enforcement officers, including at schools, raises doubts about whether more guns would help keep students safe.

An Associated Press investigation has found accidental shootings occur at law enforcement agencies large and small across the United States every year. The examination of public records and media reports documented 1,422 unintentional shootings by officers at 258 agencies since 2012.

Twenty-two occurred at schools or college campuses.

COMMENT:-

What I found to be of especial interest was the statement of Doug Tangen (firearms program manager at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, the state police academy) that "Most people, cops included, don’t devote that practice time to be able to shoot it responsibly or carry it responsibly,” (emphasis added).

On the other hand ONLY an average of three kids have been accidentally shot by their protectors per year and that is a small price to pay for safety and freedom - isn't it.
What were the circumstances of those three shootings? Was drawing the weapon justified? An active shooting nearby? Your question doesn't have a simple yes or no answer.
 
So if we understand the anti-gun logic....

We dont want TEACHERS to be armed because COPS shoot people accidentally.
Fact: Police are Much More Likely to Shoot the Wrong Person than Armed Citizens

Lets look at the historical reality. Police have a dismal record responding to mass shootings. Whether its an accidental shooting or not, the fact is...police arent THERE and when they ARE there...they dont engage. At Columbine, the armed school resource officer was outside of the building and never entered. The responding cops didnt enter the building for over an hour and a half. Sandy hook...nearly 15 minutes AFTER the last shot was fired. Parkland...the cop HID outside and police didnt enter the building for 20 minutes til long AFTER the shooting stopped.

But anti gun types would STILL rather have the students and teachers left defenseless at the whim of an armed shooter. Knowing cops dont respond. Knowing cops have a higher accidental shooting rate.

I dont believe the answer is to ARM TEACHERS. That isnt the goal. The goal would be to allow citizens...law abiding armed citizens...to exercise their Constitutional right and carry concealed IN CASE ( and the possibility that it will be needed is infinitesimally small... like .0000000000167% chance that any given school at any given time will face a mass shooting) in CASE it is necessary.

And frankly...if you arent going to let teachers carry armed, then teaching students how to fight back is the only real alternative.

This is what "they" think:

giphy.gif
 
No, arming teachers IS a stupid idea. It is an unrefutable fact, more guns equal more gun related incidents. The statistic show just by owning a gun your risk of being involved in gun related incident goes up. Plus, the ridiculous amount of guns we have in the US and how many shootings we have confirm that.

Why is it stupid.

1. People in general are idiots, yes, even highly trained cops/military etc have gun mishaps, accidental shootings. A cop, under pressure situation, hits the target 1 out of 3 times, and they are trained and also trained to know when to avoid shooting their weapon. Now you want someone who will likely get far less training having a gun.

2. The likelihood of a school shooting happening where a gun is needed, is so small, its not worth the risk and/or money to train the teacher to have a gun. Even if the event happens, the chance teh armed teacher can stop the school shooting is small as well. Even highly trained people can freeze up and not take action, like we saw with the cop in one of the shootings (I think florida) that stood outside.
1-Ive seen enough of you posting on this site that I am willing to cede your first point.

2-I...sort of agree. The likelihood of a school shooting happening is infinitesimally small. Despite the best efforts of the anti-gun left to paint mass shooting snand especially school mass shootings as every day events, the simple fact is that since 1982...37 years...there have only been 18 mass shootings at any type of school including language schools, an Amish school, public, private and universities. Considering there are some 360,000 education institutions in the country, the odds of any school on any given day experiencing a mass shooting is ridiculously small...something along the order of .0000000000167%. So you are right...it doenst make sense to 'arm' teachers, nor does it make sense to turn schools into locked down armed guard protected facilities. Now there are some schools that have routine violence, usually associated with gang violence, where armed guards and metal detectors DO make sense...for day to day safety. but in the grand scheme...no.
However...
There is a difference between arming teachers and allowing teachers to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights. AND, we have enough actual evidence of actual incidents thwarted by armed civilian response to justify that action. There is plenty of historical evidence to draw from regarding armed citizens and the question of whether or not they add to a dangerous situation in public. History says no...and in fact they have stopped MANY more violent crimes than they have ever put people at risk. And just like I have no fear of my house burning down...an incident that is a statistical anomaly...that doesnt mean it isnt smart to keep a fire extinguisher on all floors of my house.

Just in case.
 
Back
Top Bottom