One other hilarous logic fail I keep on seeing incmeme format on my social media news feed is that any sigh that says "gun free zones" means an open target for any deranged mass shooter . That actually implies that there have been mass shooters who thought to themselves "I'm getting out of this alive and not in custody". Ya, there has never been a single school mass shooter that had that mentality. All of them wanted to go out in a bale of fire. Infact I would argue that their deranged minds would want more ressistence as the thought of a shootout is more intriguing and "bad ass".
So let's say we go with this, which teachers get the training/guns? All of them or just a select few? If we only train/arm certain teachers, do we have to strategically reassign which classroom those teachers belong to? Can't have all the teachers with the guns in building A and completely leave building B with the unarmed teachers. Every classroom now should have a gun safe right? Can't just leave it anywhere or even in their bags. What about schools who already have low funding? They don't even have funding for school supplies but now magically they can afford to buy 10 handguns? And thats lowballing since most schools have way more than 10 teachers.
Yes she is well trained and a much better shot with a handgun than me although I am better than her with a rifle (of course I do NOT (edit)have a license and do not own a handgun). Is she trained for a stress shoot? I would suppose not so that is why I support state provided training for volunteers and think that should be part of it. In no way do I support making this mandatory.
Yeah... no. If you think this is a viable option, you don't know many teachers. My wife is a high school teacher as I've said before, and the last thing she needs is another liability in the classroom, or in her case, in her extracurricular department where she has kids after school hours. Just in the past 2 years, she's had not one but TWO suicide attempts in her wing of the high school. One of those kids was sent to a special school outside of Texas, and the other had to be admitted back into school. Having a gun anywhere in the classroom is problematic for a number of reasons. In the case of the FL shooter, the guardian had a safe, and THOUGHT he had the only key. While many of you seem to think there are safe ways to have guns in the school, its a liability that YOU YOURSELF aren't dealing with on your end, and you probably aren't paid the small amount that teachers are paid to take on that additional liability.
Cruz did apparently walk out of the chaos disguised as a student. He is one that you could argue tried to get away with it. My thoughts are conflicted. Of course it shouldn't be forced to arm all teachers, but we shouldn't deny teachers the right to protect themselves. The chance of negligent discharge or a student getting his/her hands on the firearm is the biggest risk. What if teachers were not allowed to carry but instead could place their firearm in a locked safe, either in the classroom or other office?
IMHO, anyone who volunteers should be trained. In no way do I support making this mandatory. That would be up to individual districts. That is putting the cart before the horse. Yes, the guns would have to be secured in some manner. I think the funding for the training should come from the state level and not the district level and I never said the guns should be provided although I am not opposed to that.
Important point here: who the eff is gonna write the insurance for these schools when they start handing out guns to their employees? A teacher shooting a kid isn't gonna get an extension of government immunity, even in a public school. This is not a serious conversation. It's implausible and dangerous. Our leaders need to be focused on real possible solutions.
See my above post. From a liability perspective, you are better off having the firearm strapped to you than having in a safe. If conceal and carry will now apply to school grounds (something I personally think is nuts but in theory lets say that happens), you are likely to see enforcement that they actually have to have the gun on them in holster, and in possession rather than in a safe. Basically.... from a liability standpoint, I don't see a way to do this without the teachers essentially being armed law enforcement. If you put the guns in a safe under the teachers desk, or in their office - that's a major liability as kids could potentially break in. If you put the guns in an admin office, the reaction time will be too slow in a shooting case, and you are probably better off waiting on SWAT. I just don't see a viable way to do this unless teachers are allowed to carry in class, and around the campus.
What part of the fact that I support training do you not get? Yes, this initiative would require extra training for volunteers which I fully support.
We did? I don't even know if it's accurate to presume this any more, given the developments over the last year.
I actually take back the question of funding. I honestly believe that if somehow arming teachers happens, people would actually donate some firearms to schools. I don't believe you can train teachers to be capable of handling high stress situations with firearms. Maybe some, but not the vast majority. We question the quality of police training and yet we're supposed to think that training these everyday teachers will help prevent/stop future school shootings? Very hard to imagine that working.
