Bring a gun to school

No offense JohnSSC, but you gotta get out of that ivory tower too. The REALITY is that the world in many areas is not a safe place. I think it would be great if it wasn't, but all the volunteering in the world isn't going to cure the real whackos floating around. Do you think lives would have been saved in Columbine if there was an armed person on the inside? Maybe, maybe not. But when the E36 M3 hits the fan I don't want to be under a desk without a weapon. I see nothing wrong with a trained, licensed adult to be armed.

Like it or not, to me it comes down to 2 aspects;

1. This is in texas...

2. What are the odds of this going to the courts to decide?

JohnSSC wrote: Thanks ignorant. I just hope that my actions are worthy of your respect.

I was three or four years old when I was on Habitat job sites with my dad. Left an impression on me I guess. We'll see where life leads. I just got done with an MBA and going to work for an NGO is on the table......

JohnSSC wrote: Thanks ignorant. I just hope that my actions are worthy of your respect.

I agree with nearly everything you wrote. The need for understanding, compassion, volunteerism. But, in the end, if some wayward soul decides they want out of life, society, etc. and wants to take a classroom full of kids (especially mine) with them, if the last line of defense is an armed response to an armed threat of grave bodily harm to mine or someone else's children, I would wholeheartedly support that armed response.

For anyone that questions this logic, try visiting a grade school in Israel. They used to be the site of armed terrorist attacks until the government of Israel decided to arm the teachers and adult volunteers. There hasn't been a terrorist school massacre in Israel since the first few attacks were foiled by these armed adults.

I would happily enroll my kids in a school with armed teachers. Including the armed teachers in my family, extended family, etc.

The Garden of Eden no longer exists. We should continue to strive to recreate it, but until disturbed, violent people can be successfully isolated from society, the need for armed "good guys" to resist armed "bad guys" will continue to exist. Until then, I prefer the armed "good guys" out number the armed "bad guys".

Cheers, WW

Tommy, you raised an honest, valid question from your perspective. No need to apologize for it!

In my view, what we need to do is to end the mentality in this country that we all need to be carrying a weapon. If cops having guns isn't deterring kids criminals and, apparently a number of folks on this board (not everyone seems to have a permit) from carrying, why would the teachers?

Osterkraut. I am not leasing space anywhere - especially not in any towers. If you dare, go out and look for the book "Urban Sanctuaries." It is written about 4 (or five) urban youth centers where effective programs are run - I used to volunteer at one of them.

I do go out into "the real world." I pick up and drop off kids all the time in the real live actual dangerous neighborhoods. The program I currently work with is located in what is described as an "underserved" area. Maybe the people who need to get out of the "tower" are folks like you, who are just itching for the chance to "clean-up" a few "problems" by spraying a few rounds and saving on those silly court appearances - what the heck. You have apparently deemed these folks unworthy anyway, so why not?

As far as the Israel example, please. Just how many school shootings are there? Y'all make it sound like the halls are running with blood and they are stacking bodies out back like cordwood or some post-Gettysburg battle scene.

Rather than trying to deal with the root causes for what is actually a statistically miniscule event, I get the sense that there is almost a desire on the part of some here to see a sheet carelessly thrown over some actor with a nice little trail of blood. Y'all don't want to solve a problem or even to protect anyone. You just want entertained. Or worse, you just want your own low opinion of everyone else out there validated by saying: "Well he/she got what they deserved!"

So keep on driving with the windows up, the doors locked and the A/C on. Don't make eye contact. Look away when someone says they really need help at signups or that there are kids who can't partcipate because they can't afford shoes or shin guards or have too far to walk. Be the first one to complain that those same kids aren't being punished enough when they step across the line.

As if they, by your disinterest and your scorn, aren't being punished enough already.

Tommy Suddard wrote: The last thing I want is our schools turning into the wild west.

The wild west was anything but wild. That's a myth, a romanticism. The west was by and large very safe, especially for women and children, in large measure because of guns. Personally I'd love to see our schoold turned into "wild west" schools. They'd be much more peacefull and respectful.

The Columbine death count got so large because (1) no civilians were armed and able to stop the killers, and (2) because the armed cops refused to stop the killers.

A very similar incident quite close by had happened years past. The armed students (back then guns were regularly carried to school) and teachers stopped it, immediately.

Yeah, we all want to see bloody sheets over bodies. Ya peered right into my head.

Look, I would a damn sight rather that those 'miniscule, statistically speaking' school shootings never occur. The flat truth is, they do happen.

Would it be better to stop it at the roots? Sure it would. Does it work? Not always. How about the Va. Tech killer; he was identified as a potential problem LONG before it ever occurred (as far back as high school, IIRC) and counseling etc did not help. Even before that, the Texas shootings from the campus tower.

In a perfect world, things like this would never happen. In our imperfect world, the bald fact is that sometimes that 'poor confused kid' who 'just needs someone to listen' will have someone 'listen' and then will continue right on with his plan to hurt/kill those who he feels have scorned him.

At that point, we are at the last line of defense. If a gun or other weapon has been pulled, I'd a damn sight rather have a teacher with a CC permit step in and end the situation than to have that 'poor confused kid' shoot up 20 or 30 others.

But maybe that's just me.

Interesting, Jensenman. "Counseling" as a cure for mental illness. I cannot remember all of the particulars of the poor soul who did the kills of the other poor souls at VT and then took his own life, but one of the issues was a lack of inpatient beds to properly treat his mental health issues.

This individual had a disease. He was not simply "troubled" or in need of "counseling." He needed treatment in the same way one would need treatment for a cardiac arrhythmia or cancer or kidney failure. Of course, based on his diagnosis (multiple) he should never have been able to purchase all of the guns, clips and ammo that he did, but no need to address that little detail, is there?

Of course, rather than having a health care system that actually works, the solution is to arm everyone to the teeth so we can kill anyone who slips through the cracks.

So let me ask you: How do we tell which ones to shoot? The ones who look crazy? The ones who act crazy? How does a non-clinician know the difference. Oh, wait! We wait until they pull a gun! And how many people get nailed when they pull a toy gun? I mean if a cop has trouble making that distinction, can Miss Jan at Romper Room Kindergarten do better or is it ok if she pulls out a Glock and pumps Mr McFeely full of lead in front of 20 5 year olds?

Maybe everyone who has been diagnosed with any mental illness should be forced to wear a yellow badge with a special symbol on it - we can mandate it be placed over the heart for targeting purposes, right?

I love the solutions here.

JohnSSC wrote: So let me ask you: How do we tell which ones to shoot? The ones who look crazy? The ones who act crazy? How does a non-clinician know the difference. Oh, wait! We wait until they pull a gun! And how many people get nailed when they pull a toy gun? I mean if a cop has trouble making that distinction, can Miss Jan at Romper Room Kindergarten do better or is it ok if she pulls out a Glock and pumps Mr McFeely full of lead in front of 20 5 year olds?

I always love these sorts of trollings.

Statistically, civilians do a better job of target selection and shot accuracy than cops do. So by all means, give Miss Jan at Romper Room a gun. Especially since she's there, and the cops aren't. Waiting for the cops to show up just means a killing spree with lots of dead children that would have lived if Miss Jan was allowed to defend herself and the kids.

Now personally, I can quite confidently say given the choice of letting my child die waiting for a cop to show up or letting Miss Jan shoot a person, I prefer my child to live.

You may prefer having your child die while waiting for the cop to show up. If those are your values, so be it. Put a note in your kids bookbag for Miss Jan so she knows you want your child dead and that she absolutely must not defend your child. You might not want to let your child see that note of yours requesting they be killed. It can upset them.

Though in the stress of a situation there's a fair likelyhood that Miss Jan would screw up and accidently defend your child against your express wishes to let your child die. Which would let you sue for millions over the horrible stress of having a living child instead of a suitably dead one.

And it may be that the screaming manic that charged into the classroom with a gun is carrying a toy gun that they learned to play with because it "isn't real". They aren't there to kill anyone, they're just acting out a fantasy.

Note to screaming maniac, that's really dumb. You might die from such stupidity. Don't do that.

SSC is of the "you're cool" school.

Basically, he's hoping that thanks to all of his work in the inner-city, when the E36 M3 hits the fan he'll be let go, because "he's cool."

He obviously doesn't know me, and assumes because I'm apparently a gun-toting pyscho, that I've spent no time in service of community and those less fortunate than me. That's mildly amusing, as I'm both an Eagle Scout and actively involved in my ROTC's community service programs.

I've got most bases are covered. I hope you never find out you don't.

And to be honest, I find it embarrassing to the English side of my family to have someone as narrow minded as you (if the "John" thing is a hint at your lineage) spouting the stuff you spout - but hey - it is your privilege.

I'd probably have more to say, but I've got a nice tropical-storm party buzz going, and don't have the moxie right now to argue with someone so mind-boggling. Of course, you probably don't experience bad weather because of your work for the environment.... Cheers!

JohnSSC wrote: In my view, what we need to do is to end the mentality in this country that we all need to be carrying a weapon. If cops having guns isn't deterring kids criminals and, apparently a number of folks on this board (not everyone seems to have a permit) from carrying, why would the teachers?

The question here is not whether society is "doing enough" to create a paradise on earth. The question is, when someone WANTS to and has TAKEN ACTION to cause death or grave bodily harm to someone else on school grounds, should the teachers who have knowledge of the students and faculty be allowed to defend themselves and their students in the UNLIKELY event someone wants to commit a heinous act. The victims of violence are much more likely to be able to identify a criminal violent act sooner than the police that show up a half hour later and then spend another hour working on a dynamic entry plan to engage the shooter and hope they don't shoot an innocent bystander through mis-identification. I can guarantee you, the teacher with the gun confronting the attacker actively engaged in SHOOTING students and faculty will have little problem identifying the perpetrator.

It's like insurance, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

I am entertained by the way you paint everyone who disagrees with you as a gun toting lunatic just looking for their chance to play "Dirty Harry". The 40 states that have "Shall Issue" concealed carry have proven this perspective wrong in every state, to the embitterment of the programs detractors. With VERY few exceptions, those who go through the licensing process have proven over and over again they are SIGNIFICANTLY more responsible and least likely to be involved in violence than the "average" citizen.

This is generally because they don't take lightly the possibility that they could loose EVERYTHING they own in the event they make a mistake.

Individual police officers are largely "indemnified" from legal liability (both criminal and civil) when required to exercise the use of lethal force "In The Line of Duty". Private citizens with Concealed Weapons Permits do not share in the same indemnification and have proven over the last 20 years that they will most likely use great discretion before resorting to lethal force and generally have a better record of "positive identification" of a violent attacker than the police.

That is pretty amazing.

Not only do you make some major (and very incorrect) assumptions about me, you do it while at the same time complaining about your feeling that I am making assumptions about you all.

I am not stupid. If it hits the fan, I am just as likely to be a random victim as any other common ordinary slob out there. Further, while I do try to be somewhat conscious of the environment, I have not tried to "save" it through my "work" for the environment. Thankfully you at at least admit that you are drunk so I won't have to go into detail regarding how bad weather is indeed possible where I live too, nor explain that I grew up in a house with guns and did not view my father as a "gun-totting psycho" simply because he owned them.

The point I have been trying to make and which y'all have pointedly made sure to miss in your earnest efforts to hang on to your stereotypes about me is that there are better, more comprehensive solutions to this problem than arming teachers.

It is interesting though that rather than present your viewpoint with any sort of facts or even a hint that while you were in school you were doing much of anything other than dreaming of fondling Glocks and Walther P22's, you try to belittle the person (namely me) by throwing these ridiculous insults around as if I am riding around in a Greenpeace boat with a halo of holy protection because I wiped the snot off of some little poor kids' nose today. Meanwhile you virile manly men are swaggering around with your permits doing some really manly stuff - or at least that is what you imply here.

Newsflash for y'all. I grew up in one of these here "underserved" neighborhoods. No silver spoon. No illusions. Just saw a lot of reality growing up.

So take your assumptions and save them for somebody who hasn't seen somebody bleed out after an armed robbery or walked past a shooting gallery on the way to work or watched their neighborhood get decimated by drugs.

Oh yeah, Osterkraut - as far as the "I'm cool school" comment - no, I am not "cool." I never was. But at least I didn't ever feel the need to dress up to "look" cool either. Nice picture.

But there you go. If you can't make a point, bully or belittle the person.

wow.

I'd talk more but only to say, that when I was in school. Noone listened to me. Noone cared about the incessant bullying. And years before the Columbine deal, i had daydreams of locking all of my tormentors into the auditorium and one by one eliminating them. Not just one or two incidents of daydreams, but tons. I shared those things with my friends and they had similar thoughts as well.

Two things saved those kids lives... 1. My father is a quaker/Hippy (it's really hard to nail down his beliefs) and there were no guns in the house. 2. I knew that killing is wrong and wouldn't act on my ideas.

So. Are teachers with guns a solution, NOPE!. The thought is just one more case of treating the symptoms and not the disease.

I still say to this day, about columbine, that any true geek or nerd, not that they condone the actions, understands.

So there it is.. deep personal thoughts and feelings on the internet, go ahead make fun of me for them. It's ok. I'll be your boss soon.

The unfortunate thing: in this case the symptoms kill as surely as the disease. They are impossible to separate and the final outcome is the same- unless someone steps in as that last line of defense.

Yeah, the VT guy was off his rocker. That doesn't change the fact that he could have been stopped long before he was able to complete his madness. How many did he kill? 32. According to Wiki (and I'm sure I'll be chastised for sourcing from them), at least one professor at VT had advised him to seek counseling. There's the latest in a long string of people who stopped and took an interest in this poor misguided soul. Another part of that problem: privacy and other laws governing school/student relationships hamstrung many of the possible avenues to remove him as a danger. For some reason, you seem to think this world is perfect; everybody's boo boos get kissed and they'll never experience pain or loss. News flash: the world is not perfect. We all experience pain, loss and bullying. (Remind me sometime to tell you about the preacher's kid who made it his life's work to make me miserable in high school.) That means that no matter how hard we try as a society, there will always be those who slip through the cracks.

Don't forget that some people who have problems refuse treatment. I have a very good friend whose younger brother is bipolar. At times, he will refuse to take the lithium treatments because he loves the 'rush' of being on the 'up' side. I have known this guy for 20 some years and he's never changed. Everybody I know (including me) has sat down and taken time to talk to him and it's done no good. Oh, damn, I forgot; I'm one of those people who rolls up the window and cranks up the stereo and goes right on by those who need help. (smacks forehead with heel of hand)

FWIW, I do not carry a handgun. I have not felt the need- yet. So I guess I don't have a 'big permit'. Oh, well, can't win 'em all. My dad has a CC permit and his attitude is he has it just in case but he'd really rather never have to pull his gun. He also taught me gun safety at a very young age and that was a big part of it, along with there's no such thing as an unloaded weapon.

Pigeonhole us all you want. I personally don't care what you think of me; I know better. I will still feel that in the case of my 11 year old daughter, if there is an option of her being shot by some wacko or her watching a teacher nail some wacko with a Glock, I'll go with #2. At least she'll still be here for me to comfort and try to explain to her that some people just refuse to put things behind them.

JohnSSC wrote: Various posts (I dislike the new quote system)

Alright. Maybe you originally didn't get the levity I was attempting to bring to a rather serious discussion. It looks like Ignorant did, but the internet has a way of twisting intentions. Saying that I was a bit mystified at your claim that I brought shame to an entire ethnicity is making a vast understatement. Are you an ex-girlfriend/jilted lover I don't know about (a possibility, as I pull more hoes than a stock boy at Home Depot)? That was some intense E36 M3! Nonetheless, I generally try to avoid e-throw downs, especially on GRM, where I'd enjoy shooting the E36 M3 with anybody on here, from the Good Dr. to Wowak. So, you got more light-hearted verbal jousts. I understand if you've misread the intentions of my initial "jab" at you. That, or you're the most spectacular troll I've ever met, and deserve a hearty handshake- you really got my goat.

I could have put all that behind me, but you blew it. A Glock? Seriously? Ergonomically-uncomfortable-lax-trigger-tendency-to-blow-up-in your hand Glock? Sir, you have gone to far! Then, suggesting that I have sexual activity with an overpriced German .22 when I could get freaky-deaky with its superior and less expensive American best friend? For shame.

I challenge you to a duel! Tomorrow, sunup on the grassy knoll, with pist...oh wait. You don't do that because you're...(whoops, almost made an assumption there!) and I don't do that because I don't fall back on weapons to solve arguments.

RE: The dress-up comment. Really? Really? I mean, it is a slight ego trip, but honestly I've never been more proud to earn the right to play dress up. Ever. It's also not a bad picture, and most that know me say it makes a pretty fitting avatar.

Further agressive e-thuggary will now be replied to in kind.

Okay, I'm pretty well in the middle ground as far as the sides of this debate.

In summary: treating the disease and treating the symptoms of it are not mutually exclusive. We can and should take care of both.

I think JohnSSC is unhappy about the increasing Us vs. Them mentality and in our country. This is paired with people being more isolated and not taking the opportunity to reach out and care about their community. This is very unhealthy and leads to a lot of animosity in our society.

I get the perception that a significant number of people who want citizens to arm themselves do so from an Us vs. Them mentality. If everyone is worried that "They" are going to attack "Us", that turns into a downward spiral.

The best thing we can do is make efforts to break down that divide.

However, E36 M3 Happens. No matter what you do, something is bound to go wrong. Sometimes that means having the ability to meet deadly force in kind.

Teachers who have been trained and certified would be excellent people to arm. They know their community and can read behaviors far better than an outsider. They aren't trying to judge the actions of a stranger in a dark doorway, they're reading the behaviors of children they deal with on a daily basis in a familiar environment. Teachers will have a good sense of what's going on.

Also, as I've tried to point out, the community will go nuts if a teacher ever presents a firearm in a classroom. Police have a mindset that they're behind enemy lines with a target on their chest and have a system that protects them if they react to a perceived potential threat. Teachers are in an environment where they care about their students. They do not view students as "them", the enemy. They will not be protected if they ever use a weapon, and will have to be absolutely certain of what they're doing before they fire.

Carrying a firearm does not make a teacher violent or cause them to inflict violence on their students. If a teacher carries and you ask them why, they'll probably say something like: "in case I ever need to protect my students from some threat." That's not violent. That's caring.

Not all teachers have to carry. Most won't. A few will. If those few hear shots fired in another room, you can bet they'll come running and that will prevent someone with nothing left to loose from going room to room and taking people with him.

Salanis wrote: Not all teachers have to carry.

The significance of that is lost on the anti crowd, and of course on those in this thread. Somehow they've concluded that if you merely let a teacher carry a gun they assuredly will carry. As if a choice to carry is an order to carry.

You're right, most won't, a few will.

Of course the representation of gun owners as slavering dogs of blood barely restrained from opening fire on the innocent except by current gun restrictions isn't steriotyping by the anti folk. Nor is it a twisting or misrepresentation by them either.

Right. And can anyone point to a better demographic than teachers to have carrying? I mean, public servants who are willing to put their community ahead of themselves. They are observant, calm, responsible, and compassionate. All that I've met take their responsibilities as role models for their children quite seriously.

I don't think too many people would argue that we should disarm cops. Most of us think cops are responsible and accountable enough to be armed. Do people think teachers are less responsible and accountable for their actions than cops?

Daily carry is difficult, and takes dedication far beyond the "hey, it's a penis that can kill people" crowd.

Ducttape your wallet and cellphone together, and put them in a spot where you've got easy, consistant access, doesn't print against your clothes, and is comfortable enough to not be a problem as you go about your daily life.

That's dedication to a belief.

As for a "bloodbath" statistic, how about Florida's published CCP information? http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

In 21 years, 165 out of 1,372,928 or 0.0001% have had their CCP's revoked for weapons related offenses, 3,595 overall. Or Vermont, which doesn't require a permit of any kind for concealed carry? These are people I don't have a problem interacting with. Hell, plenty of you interacted with, and maybe even got into an arguement with, carriers and came out of it alive.

Salanis wrote: Okay, I'm pretty well in the middle ground as far as the sides of this debate. In summary: treating the disease and treating the symptoms of it are not mutually exclusive. We can and should take care of both. I think JohnSSC is unhappy about the increasing Us vs. Them mentality and in our country. This is paired with people being more isolated and not taking the opportunity to reach out and care about their community. This is very unhealthy and leads to a lot of animosity in our society. I get the perception that a significant number of people who want citizens to arm themselves do so from an Us vs. Them mentality. If everyone is worried that "They" are going to attack "Us", that turns into a downward spiral. The best thing we can do is make efforts to break down that divide. However, E36 M3 Happens. No matter what you do, something is bound to go wrong. Sometimes that means having the ability to meet deadly force in kind. Teachers who have been trained and certified would be excellent people to arm. They know their community and can read behaviors *far* better than an outsider. They aren't trying to judge the actions of a stranger in a dark doorway, they're reading the behaviors of children they deal with on a daily basis in a familiar environment. Teachers will have a good sense of what's going on. Also, as I've tried to point out, the community will go nuts if a teacher ever presents a firearm in a classroom. Police have a mindset that they're behind enemy lines with a target on their chest and have a system that protects them if they react to a perceived potential threat. Teachers are in an environment where they care about their students. They do not view students as "them", the enemy. They will not be protected if they ever use a weapon, and will have to be absolutely certain of what they're doing before they fire. Carrying a firearm does not make a teacher violent or cause them to inflict violence on their students. If a teacher carries and you ask them why, they'll probably say something like: "in case I ever need to protect my students from some threat." That's not violent. That's caring. Not all teachers have to carry. Most won't. A few will. If those few hear shots fired in another room, you can bet they'll come running and that will prevent someone with nothing left to loose from going room to room and taking people with him.

That may be the most reasoned response to a political debate I've ever read. Well done.

No, I am not "trolling." I happen to believe very strongly in what I am saying, and Dilsyi Dave hits it right on the head when he notes that I am extremely tired of the "Us vs Them" mentatlity that has grown into this country's fabric.

Osterkraut, I did indeed miss the subtle humor, and for that I apologize. As far as a duel, as soon as my surplus M1A1 Abrams comes back from it's overhaul I will call you to schedule...

Personally, I don't think that we can ever plan for the "worst case scenario" because when it comes to mental illness, there are some folks scampering around out there who make some of the folks who you have already heard of look and sound like Mr. Rogers...

The VT shooter is a perfect storm of how someone can be identified, referred and then get only some of the help they need. Then, because they were never involuntarily committed are still able to go out and purchase weapons.

JohnSSC wrote: No, I am not "trolling." I happen to believe very strongly in what I am saying, and Dilsyi Dave hits it right on the head when he notes that I am extremely tired of the "Us vs Them" mentatlity that has grown into this country's fabric.

First, that was me he was quoting.

Second, in being so against "Us vs. Them", you are falling prey to that exact same mentality that you are so tired of. You are speaking to the people who think arming citizens is a good idea as a "them" who is putting your good ideas in danger and who should just fall in line with your way of thinking.

Unfortunately, your lecturing them about how they're only looking at the surface problem has turned them off to your real point that we need to address the core ills.

That said, I completely agree with you that our focus needs to be more on addressing the core social ills of this country. Whether people go armed or unarmed does nothing to bridge or widen the divides in our society.

I can't think of a single teacher I had that I would have wanted carrying a gun.

I think it's odd that we have spent decades now of taking authority away from teachers because our kids can do no wrong and we don't want their heads filled with ideas that might be different than ours, and then we want to turn around and arm these same people.

Life is a weird thing.

doitover wrote: I can't think of a single teacher I had that I would have wanted carrying a gun. I think it's odd that we have spent decades now of taking authority away from teachers because our kids can do no wrong and we don't want their heads filled with ideas that might be different than ours, and then we want to turn around and arm these same people. Life is a weird thing.

You've had some awful teaches. I would trust most of my teachers to do what is right

I don't know about you guys, but I feel like entrusting someone with the care of a couple dozen children is a more serious matter than carrying a handgun, and if someone can't be trusted to do one, they shouldn't be trusted to do the other.