My idea on how to protect our schools

[bierbelly]

Originally Posted by Yerf Dog

Did you read the title of the thread?

So schools are all that's threatened/protected?

[lander]

Originally Posted by TxAg

The topic of the thread is SCHOOLS.

Get it?

Quit being obtuse.

[Blademaker]

Originally Posted by vtelvr

Because we elect idiot politicians into office. They want nothing more than to make us all drones of themselves and want to do nothing but suck on the governments tits.

X eleventyfukkinbillion

[bierbelly]

Originally Posted by TxAg

The topic of the thread is SCHOOLS.

Get it?

Quit being obtuse.

OK, so do these gun-totin' teachers get hazardous duty pay, or do they just put themselves in harm's way for the good of all?

[onedef92]

Originally Posted by Olustee bus

Not a bad idea to me.

didn't the scum break through a window.

Shot through a window is the way I read it....

[onedef92]

Texas gun shop offering concealed license course to all teachers free of charge.



Posted on December 18, 2012 at 7:15 AM
Updated yesterday at 5:01 PM

SCHERTZ -- LoneStar Handgun is offering its concealed handgun license course to all teachers free of charge.

Josh Felker, who owns the gun shop off I-35 in Schertz, said his phone has been ringing nonstop since the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

"I don't advocate anybody having to carry a gun; it's having that option," Felker said. "When evil does confront me, I have a fighting chance versus being defenseless."

Right now, school districts in Texas can implement policies which would allow teachers to carry guns on campus. But so far, only one school district has done so.

The Harrold Independent School District in North Texas made news in 2008 when it became the first district to allow teachers to meet certain requirements to carry concealed weapons on campus.

"Currently, Texas law allows teachers or any school to allow anybody to carry a firearm onto campus as long as it's by written authorization or by school policy," Felker explained.

LoneStar Handgun is hoping to reach teachers while they have time off over the holiday break.

The $125-course is free through Jan. 6 to anyone who works with students at a school.

[bierbelly]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Your attitude shows you have zero interest in actually have an intelligent conversation on the issue.

For that reason along I'm done with you. Back under your bridge.

Don't want to answer the question huh? Is that because of the obvious consequences? Somebody's gonna have to pay more for protection. Why not hire more cops? More taxes, that's why. Round and round we go.

[vetteman9368]

Originally Posted by bierbelly

Don't want to answer the question huh? Is that because of the obvious consequences? Somebody's gonna have to pay more for protection. Why not hire more cops? More taxes, that's why. Round and round we go.

I'll tell you why to do it the way I suggested.

1. Keep the cost in the education budget, not the LE budget. The costs would be minimal, just the training and education of existing teachers. Adding cops would cost a lot more money, and isn't necessary.

2. By having existing staff carry, its concealed. Out of sight out of mind. It keeps our schools from looking like a prison, the outward appearance of the schools would not change.

3. By not having a uniformed officer on campus, you're not making a target out of anyone in particular. Here is a scenario; A gunman walks into the front office, where there is a uniformed officer, but its otherwise a gun free zone. He knows who to shoot first, and knows that he has eliminated the only defensive threat. By arming the faculty, it could be any or all of several dozen people. The shooter now has multiple targets which will fire back.


I absolutely guarantee, without a doubt, that had there been a few teachers/faculty carrying firearms, there would not be 20 dead children right now. Someone would have stopped him.

The only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. And the bad guys will always be able to get guns, no matter what laws you morons pass.

[erickpl]

Originally Posted by bierbelly

Don't want to answer the question huh? Is that because of the obvious consequences? Somebody's gonna have to pay more for protection. Why not hire more cops? More taxes, that's why. Round and round we go.

As you saw in CT, teachers are already doing that job. 6 lost their jobs protecting 'their kids'. But they didn't have comparable tools to ward off the attack. They put themselves in the way for the good of all - and it cost them their lives.

If the district wants to pay for training, I think they should. The recipient of said training receives training for use at work AND in their personal lives. Just like there is continuing education in many job fields (medical, technical, etc), why not make safety/firearms training classes eligible for receiving support just like other training they receive as a benefit of their job?

My employer paid for me to get my MBA. In a comparable fashion, under a program like this, they could pay for me to take safety and firearms training and have it count towards my continuing education. It would already be paid for through the benefits programs of the teachers.

No additional pay since they are working in their normal environment and working to protect themselves (AND the kids). But I'm sure many would see the ability to protect themselves in their workplace as a reward. Sure, not every teacher will have the ability, will, or desire to do so. But having them concealed means any attacker would be uncertain as to who was carrying, thereby causing pause and perhaps rethinking the plans.

Is this a perfect solution? No.
IS there a perfect solution? No.

To me this is just one piece.

Look back over the last 50 or so years at mass shootings (and even some that didn't qualify as mass shootings due to 5 or fewer being shot) and a HUGE majority of them are at designated gun-free locations (schools, churches, malls, public gathering places like theaters). To me, THAT is a HUGE issue. Criminals hell-bent on doing harm tend to gravitate towards places where they know resistance will be low. That is not me making crap up. Go look up 'mass shootings for the last 50 years' and do the check yourself.

Some will call it a coincidence, but history is continuing to show that it is a lot more than a coincidence.

THAT policy needs to be addressed. But since those gun-free zones are private property (malls, churches, theaters, etc), only the owners can make THAT call. And the public has been convinced that gun-free is the way to be around our kids. In a perfect world, that would be the case. But we are in a far from perfect world, where evil will seek the path of least resistance to inflict pain, misery, suffering, and death.

Our job, as a good, law-abiding citizen and a decent human being is to do what we can to prevent evil from harming our loved ones and innocent children.

But ultimately, you have your opinion, I have mine, and everybody else has their opinions. Gun control and protection of our kids is an emotionally charged issue - no doubt about it. But when one side, the criminals, are playing by their own rules and not following the rules of their society, the rules need to be updated to make the playing field a bit more level.

If you are so opposed to guns in school zones, answer these questions:

How would YOU explain to these dead children that they died because somebody said the adults cannot have the necessary means to protect against an armed attacker and intruder?
How do you tell them that not having that level of protection caused them to die?
How do you tell the parents that their children watched friends die?
How do you tell the parents the gun-free zone worked and kept their children alive and safe?

Now imagine being one of those parents. They put all their trust into that school, mall, or church to keep their innocent loved ones safe. That trust was broken. The protection parents provide their children was forfeited by the schools, churches, malls, and movie theaters they entered and they had no say in how their children were being protected. Yes, I’m sure most of them would likely not want firearms in the teachers’ hands, but the option was not even *possible* for non-teaching staff.

The anti-firearms people call pro-firearms people that bad, evil, deranged, psychotic, or whatever your insult-du-jour is. But in my view, anti-firearms people putting trust into an idea that has repeatedly failed and led to the injury and death of far too many is even worse, more evil, more deranged, and utterly psychotic and insane.

The definition of insane is repeatedly trying something that doesn’t work thinking it finally will. Guess what? Gun-free zones are insane.

While you are entitled to your ideas; so are we. The difference is: our ideas work far better than yours have done so far.

[bierbelly]

Originally Posted by vetteman9368

I'll tell you why to do it the way I suggested.

1. Keep the cost in the education budget, not the LE budget. The costs would be minimal, just the training and education of existing teachers. Adding cops would cost a lot more money, and isn't necessary.

2. By having existing staff carry, its concealed. Out of sight out of mind. It keeps our schools from looking like a prison, the outward appearance of the schools would not change.

3. By not having a uniformed officer on campus, you're not making a target out of anyone in particular. Here is a scenario; A gunman walks into the front office, where there is a uniformed officer, but its otherwise a gun free zone. He knows who to shoot first, and knows that he has eliminated the only defensive threat. By arming the faculty, it could be any or all of several dozen people. The shooter now has multiple targets which will fire back.


I absolutely guarantee, without a doubt, that had there been a few teachers/faculty carrying firearms, there would not be 20 dead children right now. Someone would have stopped him.

The only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. And the bad guys will always be able to get guns, no matter what laws you morons pass.

Or he walks away as it is no longer a "gun free zone", much as the police station hypothetical...and heads to the movie theater.

[ApexOversteer]

California Sentator Barbara Boxer [D] has introduced a bill that would allow states to use the National Guard to protect schools. The bill is modeled on similar legislation that allows states to use the National Guard to assist in border security.

[ApexOversteer]

Originally Posted by bierbelly

Or he walks away as it is no longer a "gun free zone", much as the police station hypothetical...and heads to the movie theater.

Where he takes the risk of running into the retarded, like I just did.

Take a break Corky.

[jaxgator]

Originally Posted by ApexOversteer

California Sentator Barbara Boxer [D] has introduced a bill that would allow states to use the National Guard to protect schools. The bill is modeled on similar legislation that allows states to use the National Guard to assist in border security.

Oh good Lord!

Let's just scare the hell out of kids and make them feel like they're in a prison.

[ApexOversteer]

Originally Posted by jaxgator

Oh good Lord!

Let's just scare the hell out of kids and make them feel like they're in a prison.

She claims the Guard would do police office work, so more officers could be protecting schools...

Originally Posted by Politico

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is proposing allowing governors to use National Guard troops to increase security at schools in the wake of the Newtown, Conn. shooting.

Boxer, who said the legislation is modeled after a previous law that had National Guard troops help with border security, would allow governors to decide how troops would be used at schools. While a governor already has the power to send troops to a school, the legislation would allow for the governors to access federal funds for those troops, she said.

While not ruling out the possibility of military-clad National Guard troops at school entrances, Boxer also said those troops could be used to help improve infrastructure at schools or relieve police officers from desk work that would allow the police departments to assign more cops to schools.

[lander]

Originally Posted by ApexOversteer

California Sentator Barbara Boxer [D] has introduced a bill that would allow states to use the National Guard to protect schools. The bill is modeled on similar legislation that allows states to use the National Guard to assist in border security.

And we all know how secure our borders are. Useless LFT "feel good, do nothing" legislation.

[onedef92]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Nice marketing job.

Very compelling photograph, too.

[Iron Chef]

I think there's one aspect of this that no one is looking at: That of taking another life. The psycopaths of the world don't think about it because, well, they're nuts, and conventional rules don't apply to them. But for the rest of us, taking a human life is something that not many can do. Oh sure...it's really easy to talk about it on the internet...on a car website...where almost none of us would be exposed to this. I'm sure we could all empty a magazine into a nutjob...in our minds. Or at your next cocktail party. But in real life, if you're faced with it, most people know that when you cross that rubicon, there's no going back. It would give any normal person pause.

It's the kind of pause that a deranged individual doesn't have. It could, and likely has, cost people their lives. To be composed to that level requires police level training and psych evals or higher. The 20 hours or so you get to obtain a CCW permit isn't gonna cut it.

I'm not suggesting we be sitting ducks, and this isn't a gun/anti-gun rant. I don't have a public position on that. I'm simply willing to bet that when confronted with a whack job who wants to indiscriminately kill people, the overwhelming majority of school employees won't be able to bring themselves to pull the trigger.

Just my .02

[lander]

Originally Posted by Iron Chef

I'm not suggesting we be sitting ducks, and this isn't a gun/anti-gun rant. I don't have a public position on that. I'm simply willing to bet that when confronted with a whack job who wants to indiscriminately kill people, the overwhelming majority of school employees won't be able to bring themselves to pull the trigger.

Just my .02

I get asked a lot by people about getting a gun or getting their CCW permit. The very first question I ask each of them is if they could kill someone.

If they hesitate or so no, then I tell them they should not get a gun/permit.

If you can't kill someone, the last thing you need is a gun in your hand that can be taken from you and used against you or someone else.

[bierbelly]

Well, let's just hope the schools will do a better job deciding who gets to pack than these bozos did evaluating child care providers:

The Defense Department has launched a worldwide investigation into hiring practices at military child-care centers after a criminal probe of employees at an Army base near the Pentagon sparked a review that found more than 30 staffers who officials say should have been barred from contact with children.

Two civilian employees at the Child Development Center at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall appeared in federal court Wednesday in Alexandria to face charges of assaulting 2-year-olds in their care.

[bierbelly]

Originally Posted by Iron Chef

I think there's one aspect of this that no one is looking at: That of taking another life. The psycopaths of the world don't think about it because, well, they're nuts, and conventional rules don't apply to them. But for the rest of us, taking a human life is something that not many can do. Oh sure...it's really easy to talk about it on the internet...on a car website...where almost none of us would be exposed to this. I'm sure we could all empty a magazine into a nutjob...in our minds. Or at your next cocktail party. But in real life, if you're faced with it, most people know that when you cross that rubicon, there's no going back. It would give any normal person pause.

It's the kind of pause that a deranged individual doesn't have. It could, and likely has, cost people their lives. To be composed to that level requires police level training and psych evals or higher. The 20 hours or so you get to obtain a CCW permit isn't gonna cut it.

I'm not suggesting we be sitting ducks, and this isn't a gun/anti-gun rant. I don't have a public position on that. I'm simply willing to bet that when confronted with a whack job who wants to indiscriminately kill people, the overwhelming majority of school employees won't be able to bring themselves to pull the trigger.

Just my .02

Salient observation.