22 of 25
22
Gun control - again
Posted: 14 June 2013 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 316 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
LogicMan - 14 June 2013 04:59 PM
Lois - 14 June 2013 11:28 AM

Great idea.  That way half the class would be dead before the teacher gets the gun. Or the teacher would likely be dead. This is the best idea gun nuts can come up with?

How so? If the teacher hears shooting, there are fingerprint-operated gun safes that can be opened very quickly. Lanza went to the main office of the school first and shot the people in there, then proceeded to the classroom. As for concealed carry, there are handguns specifically designed for concealed carry. They are designed not to catch onto clothes when being drawn, and there are concealed carry holsters for said gun, so you can draw it fairly quickly. It’s a lot better than the “gun free zones” that so many of the gun control people advocate.

There are a lot of ifs, ands and buts in that. Who’s to say the next nut will do it the same way? And who’s to say the teacher won’t become immobilized with panic and be unable to do anything? You can make all kinds of plans but you can’t know what anyone will do when there’s a gun being held on him or her or on a classful of students, or wnen people are being shot in front of the teacher, no matter how easy it might be to access a gun in theory.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2013 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 317 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2885
Joined  2011-08-15

As said, I disagree with forcing teachers to carry guns. Things like bullet-proof glass (actually bullet-resistant glass as none are bullet-proof), more secure entrance methods, metal detectors, etc…all of that costs money is the problem. Charging the scenario with more deadly force is not a problem if deadly force is needed to stop a hostile threat. It’s like saying that having armed guards or police in the school would charge the situation with more deadly force, yet it is done in half the schools in the country.

As for mall cops, a few things:

1) Regular police are not paramilitary-trained and are oftentimes very poorly trained in the use of firearms. The notion that the average police officer is well-trained in the use of firearms is one of the great misconceptions.

2) I’d think the reason mall security don’t carry guns (I believe some do have some type of firearm depending on the mall) is legal issues.

Bullet proof-bullet resistant, you say tomato ... . So by implication your contention is that teachers should carry weapons in schools because it’s cheaper? Certainly it would take a bite out of the budget but it’s do able via levies and state subsidies. I don’t think it would be a stretch for parents to pay a little more on their local taxes in order to keep their kids safe. And your armed guard allusion doesn’t work if as you say “half the schools in the country” have them on site. Stats please and I doubt it’s anything like half, the expense you know. How many armed guards are there BTW? One, two per school? Our rural school has 23 teachers on the high school side and 24 on the other. That’s 47 armed, semi trained people of varying age (from 23 to 72) of various personalities and temperament wielding dangerous firearms in front of excitable children from ages 11-18. I would say that the potential danger is obvious. And:

1. I don’t know where you are, urban or rural but even our village and county police officers must take periodic field and classroom tests in order to qualify for carrying. They also participate in video scenarios reenacting real life confrontations. But then again, maybe they aren’t considered “average” police officers.

2. And once again, just to tie up some loose ends, what legal issues prevent mall cops from carrying?

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2013 08:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 318 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2779
Joined  2011-11-04
LogicMan - 14 June 2013 05:02 PM
TimB - 14 June 2013 11:17 AM

Locking a gun in a safe would defeat the purpose.  Not to encourage you, but if teachers were compelled or allowed to carry a gun at school, it should have a fingerprint safety (and of course should be concealed).

Not if its a safe that can be accessed quickly via fingerprint. As for guns, if you mean a fingerprint safety on the trigger, that is a very unreliable technology (don’t believe the recent James Bond film). It has numerous flaws, ranging from increasing the size of the handgun, which makes it more difficult to be concealed to the fact that if the teacher’s hands are dirty (chalk maybe) then the scanner might not recognize their finger and not fire when they need it to.

Chalk or dirt on the finger, I take it, don’t effect accessing a fingerprint operated safe?  You clearly seem to want us to assume not.  And to assume that a teacher would have time to access the safe before being mowed down.  And to assume that a gun safe in a classroom would not be a neon flashing sign to some precosious kid, saying “FIGURE OUT A WAY TO OPEN ME WHEN NO-ONE IS AROUND!”

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 319 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Lois - 14 June 2013 05:58 PM

There are a lot of ifs, ands and buts in that. Who’s to say the next nut will do it the same way? And who’s to say the teacher won’t become immobilized with panic and be unable to do anything? You can make all kinds of plans but you can’t know what anyone will do when there’s a gun being held on him or her or on a classful of students, or wnen people are being shot in front of the teacher, no matter how easy it might be to access a gun in theory.

But at least it gives the teachers and administrators somewhat of a fighting chance, as opposed to being completely at the mercy of the shooter. It like having fire extinguishers in your home. Doesn’t mean if a fire breaks out, that all will be well, but it gives you a chance to possibly put out the fire, as opposed to it breaking out and you being unable to do anything.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 320 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Thevillageatheist - 14 June 2013 06:01 PM

Bullet proof-bullet resistant, you say tomato ... . So by implication your contention is that teachers should carry weapons in schools because it’s cheaper? Certainly it would take a bite out of the budget but it’s do able via levies and state subsidies. I don’t think it would be a stretch for parents to pay a little more on their local taxes in order to keep their kids safe.

I say “bullet-resistant” because Hollywood gives the impression that armored glass (really transparent armor) will stand up to constant gunfire. It won’t. Unless it is very thick, it will eventually give after enough shots. So it is bullet-resistant. I favor allowing teachers to carry not so much because it is “cheaper” but because I think the costs for truly making the schools as secure as you suggest would be too prohibitive cost-wise. I mean sure, if you can have scanners for every student to go through at every entrance to scan for a gun, bullet-resistant glass for every window, armored doors so that you could lock down the school and the shooter couldn’t break into any classroom, then go for it. But the average school doesn’t have a budget for that, at least from my understanding.

And your armed guard allusion doesn’t work if as you say “half the schools in the country” have them on site. Stats please and I doubt it’s anything like half, the expense you know. How many armed guards are there BTW? One, two per school? Our rural school has 23 teachers on the high school side and 24 on the other. That’s 47 armed, semi trained people of varying age (from 23 to 72) of various personalities and temperament wielding dangerous firearms in front of excitable children from ages 11-18. I would say that the potential danger is obvious. And:

If they are mentally qualified to be teachers, I think they are mentally qualified to carry a gun. Same as with police officers. The statistic about half of schools having security comes from a Department of Justice report: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e041028272-assign-officers-to-schools.pdf Scroll down to page 1, the Introduction, where it says this.

1. I don’t know where you are, urban or rural but even our village and county police officers must take periodic field and classroom tests in order to qualify for carrying. They also participate in video scenarios reenacting real life confrontations. But then again, maybe they aren’t considered “average” police officers.

Periodic field and classroom tests they do take, but that doesn’t mean they are highly-qualified in firearms or anything. You think when you see one of those over-weight police officers, that they are highly-skilled in firearms?

2. And once again, just to tie up some loose ends, what legal issues prevent mall cops from carrying?

Cap’t Jack

Not an expert there, but since malls are private-sector businesses, I think the mall companies fear being sued if one of their security guards wrongly shot someone. However, upon doing some Googling, certain malls do have their security armed. Some malls also have a police presence at the mall.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 321 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
TimB - 14 June 2013 08:11 PM

Chalk or dirt on the finger, I take it, don’t effect accessing a fingerprint operated safe?  You clearly seem to want us to assume not.  And to assume that a teacher would have time to access the safe before being mowed down.  And to assume that a gun safe in a classroom would not be a neon flashing sign to some precosious kid, saying “FIGURE OUT A WAY TO OPEN ME WHEN NO-ONE IS AROUND!”

1) That is a good point on the fingerprint safe, flew right over my head while I was typing it. However, fingerprint-opened safes work a lot more reliably than fingerprint-operated guns in terms of the existing technology (because the place to put one’s finger is larger and the technology doesn’t increase the size of the safe in any prohibitive way). Also there are other types of quick-access safe, such as ones you open with a code.

2) Why wouldn’t a teacher have time to access the safe before being shot? If you are a teacher in a classroom and hear gun fire down the hall because a maniac is shooting in the main office, you’re going to have plenty of time to access the gun safe. The shooter can’t be everywhere instantly.

3) They have quick-access safes that require a push button combination

[ Edited: 15 June 2013 05:56 PM by LogicMan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 11:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 322 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Boy, some people are just happier than pigs in mud right now.  Having what appears to be a well reasoned discussion about arming school teachers.
Exploring all the possibilities.  Well thought out.  Congenial.
Gotta get those teachers armed!  Embrace the goodness of guns!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 05:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 323 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5176
Joined  2010-06-16

From some of the stories I’ve heard about how snarky some kids are today, I’d be afraid to arm school teachers because we’d probably be reading daily news about some teacher getting pissed at an obnoxious kid and shooting him/her. smile

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 06:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 324 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2885
Joined  2011-08-15

I say “bullet-resistant” because Hollywood gives the impression that armored glass (really transparent armor) will stand up to constant gunfire. It won’t. Unless it is very thick, it will eventually give after enough shots. So it is bullet-resistant. I favor allowing teachers to carry not so much because it is “cheaper” but because I think the costs for truly making the schools as secure as you suggest would be too prohibitive cost-wise. I mean sure, if you can have scanners for every student to go through at every entrance to scan for a gun, bullet-resistant glass for every window, armored doors so that you could lock down the school and the shooter couldn’t break into any classroom, then go for it. But the average school doesn’t have a budget for that, at least from my understanding.


You’re nitpicking again LM. Hollywood is fantasy; I’m pretty certain that most people know that glass isn’t completely bulletproof. It’s an expression. Armor piercing bullets would penetrate it after a few rounds. So what? It would take more time to destroy than regular glass panes. That’s not the point. the delay could give that extra time to react to the gunman. And what is the difference in your statement that it would cost less to arm teachers (who’s paying for those $400.00 Glocks BTW) than to better prepare a school building and the word cheaper? Again, nitpicking. Also, I only mentioned a few examples of how to better prepare a school; another would be funneling all traffic to one secure entrance while installing one way doors with inside bolt locks. Our school was outfitted with them when it was built, plus a closed circuit camera system and monitors covering all entrances and hallways, which once again, was put in place when the school was built.

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 06:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 325 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2885
Joined  2011-08-15

If they are mentally qualified to be teachers, I think they are mentally qualified to carry a gun. Same as with police officers. The statistic about half of schools having security comes from a Department of Justice report: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e041028272-assign-officers-to-schools.pdf Scroll down to page 1, the Introduction, where it says this.

An excellent report and one that for the most part I agree with except that the statement was NEARLY half of schools in the country already have SROs in place. That doesn’t mean that the standard is one per building either. We have one for the entire district who makes periodic rounds in every school. He is a deputy sheriff, well trained and accompanied by a drug dog trained to attack if necessary. Personally, I would much rather be protected by him than our Phys. Ed teacher with a firearm. He’s a dead shot with a basketball at the student-faculty ball game but a bit near sighted, even if he is mentally competent but I wouldn’t stake my life on it!

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 06:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 326 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2885
Joined  2011-08-15

Periodic field and classroom tests they do take, but that doesn’t mean they are highly-qualified in firearms or anything. You think when you see one of those over-weight police officers, that they are highly-skilled in firearms?

I don’t know any overweight police officers LM. All of the cops around here ( state, county and village)  have to pass an annual physical plus a range test to qualify. Sounds like you’re watching too many of those Hollywood movies you mentioned.

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 06:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 327 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2885
Joined  2011-08-15

Not an expert there, but since malls are private-sector businesses, I think the mall companies fear being sued if one of their security guards wrongly shot someone. However, upon doing some Googling, certain malls do have their security armed. Some malls also have a police presence at the mall.


Ours are not armed but rely on the county or state police forces to assist. They can detain shoplifters and such but have limited police powers. Ok, train and arm them appropriately.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 06:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 328 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2885
Joined  2011-08-15

Boy, some people are just happier than pigs in mud right now.  Having what appears to be a well reasoned discussion about arming school teachers.
Exploring all the possibilities.  Well thought out.  Congenial.
Gotta get those teachers armed!  Embrace the goodness of guns!

“Happiness is a warm gun, bang bang, shoot shoot”!

Lennon, McCartney

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 08:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 329 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Thevillageatheist - 15 June 2013 06:42 PM

Boy, some people are just happier than pigs in mud right now.  Having what appears to be a well reasoned discussion about arming school teachers.
Exploring all the possibilities.  Well thought out.  Congenial.
Gotta get those teachers armed!  Embrace the goodness of guns!

“Happiness is a warm gun, bang bang, shoot shoot”!

Lennon, McCartney

Has anyone thought about how arming school faculty could be more of an incentive for these mass shooters?
Given their usual suicidal tendencies.  It seems like it’s almost egging more of them to come out of the woodwork.
And of course it would be tragedy even further amplified.
How have we gotten to this?  People advocating arming teachers….
It certainly would NOT be any kind of deterrent, and the end result could wind up being so much more heinous.
Tasking an educator with the responsibility and the possibility of shooting someone is headed in the exact opposite direction that we should be going.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 08:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 330 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2885
Joined  2011-08-15

I’ll bottom line it for you Vy, there’s no way that anyone of us will EVER bring a deadly weapon into our classrooms that could potentially harm one of our students. we’re all concerned that this madness may happen again but bringing a gun into a class? I can only imagine the tension and stress it would cause, not just the teachers but the kids as well. Proponents haven’t thought out the psychological implications that would result from knowing that a teacher is armed. Would the students feel safer knowing that I had a gun in my drawer, or on my hip? Hell no! But they would feel intimidated and in no mood to learn U.S. history. it would totally upset the relationship and trust between teacher and student. Guns belong in the field or on the range; they don’t belng in schools.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
   
22 of 25
22
 
‹‹ Korea      Rand Paul at Howard U. ››