posted by Automatik

My jab regarding 30k/year is more that I feel teachers are not paid enough for what they do as it is, but that's another topic.

Then you add on a responsibility of carrying in an attempt to stop a would be shooter. Sure there will be ones who be adept and willing to do this. I just don't see it being common enough to be a feasible solution.

Standardized security protocol across the entire country. It's actually crazy that it's not already a thing.

I'm not familiar with police training and their program choices, but what about a focus/path that sends on your way to becoming an armed school guard? 

Here is a better idea.  The DoD already has a bloated budget.  How about stop wasting billions in the middle east, bring young men back home, and have them patrol schools?

Or put a school security levy on your ballot and see how it plays out.  If it's voted no, you can blame yourselves when tragedy occurs. 

All school boards have to do is announce that they would allow teachers to do this and its going to deter shootings.

Cut down on administrators and direct that money towards securing the schools.

posted by Spock

All school boards have to do is announce that they would allow teachers to do this and its going to deter shootings.

You may be right.  But a lot of these shooters are suicidal.  Why would this deter someone who doesn't plan to survive the attack?

posted by Automatik

Yeah, let's have the 30k/year teacher start packin. It's a decent thought, but not feasible. He's just blabbing.

Just did a quick run through of my highschool teachers, none with any significant military/police experience

One does not need military or police experience to be properly trained on a firearm. Pretty much everyone in my family (dad, mom, sister, me, etc) have been properly trained and 3 of us have CCWs which requires proper training.

If I was a HS teacher right now I would WANT to be allowed to carry with a CCW.

posted by jmog

One does not need military or police experience to be properly trained on a firearm. Pretty much everyone in my family (dad, mom, sister, me, etc) have been properly trained and 3 of us have CCWs which requires proper training.

If I was a HS teacher right now I would WANT to be allowed to carry with a CCW.

Tell that to Donald. I was just going off of what he said.

posted by Automatik

Tell that to Donald. I was just going off of what he said.

Hold on, let me look him up in my phone's contacts...

Oh wait, you posted it on this thread so yes, I responded to you. Regardless of who originally said it, it's mostly a dumb statement.

posted by Spock

All school boards have to do is announce that they would allow teachers to do this and its going to deter shootings.

Troubled people deciding to go out with a blaze of glory would be stopped because someone else at the school has a gun? Not likely. I highly doubt that people who're planning to take a gun into a crowded building/venue are expecting to get away after causing some carnage -- more like an "I'm gonna kill until I get stopped!" mindset. The benefit to having qualified armed people is to hopefully reduce the amount of carnage that a shooter can cause.

posted by jmog

Hold on, let me look him up in my phone's contacts...

 

Oh wait, you posted it on this thread so yes, I responded to you. Regardless of who originally said it, it's mostly a dumb statement.

You don't need it. @ him on Twitter!

posted by Heretic

Troubled people deciding to go out with a blaze of glory would be stopped because someone else at the school has a gun? Not likely. I highly doubt that people who're planning to take a gun into a crowded building/venue are expecting to get away after causing some carnage -- more like an "I'm gonna kill until I get stopped!" mindset. The benefit to having qualified armed people is to hopefully reduce the amount of carnage that a shooter can cause.

If they had the choice between the following two options, which do you think they would go with?

1. School with "gun free zone" signs posted.
2. School that allows trained faculty and staff to be armed.

Didn't the Aurora theater shooter chose the theater he did because it was the only theater within a 20 mile radius that was specifically a gun-free zone?

That's not to say it would never happen in a place where guns are allowed to be carried, but I'd say it's a bigger deterrent than you're giving it credit for.

posted by Heretic

Troubled people deciding to go out with a blaze of glory would be stopped because someone else at the school has a gun? Not likely. I highly doubt that people who're planning to take a gun into a crowded building/venue are expecting to get away after causing some carnage -- more like an "I'm gonna kill until I get stopped!" mindset. The benefit to having qualified armed people is to hopefully reduce the amount of carnage that a shooter can cause.

It won't stop them but there is a good chance it will lessen the damage.

A suicidal active shooter will keep shooting until they are dropped. If one has to wait for the police that is already shown to be 5-10 minutes easily.

If said student runs into a few teachers with guns, they probably are dropped before the cops get there. Let's say lets use brutally honest kill rates of 1 or 2 a minute, if they are taken down in 3 minutes by a teacher rather than 10 when the police get there that lessens the body count from almost 20 down to 5 or 6.

I don't think anyone is saying it will stop them from showing up, but it can help it from being a massacre.

posted by justincredible

If they had the choice between the following two options, which do you think they would go with?

1. School with "gun free zone" signs posted.
2. School that allows trained faculty and staff to be armed.

Didn't the Aurora theater shooter chose the theater he did because it was the only theater within a 20 mile radius that was specifically a gun-free zone?

That's not to say it would never happen in a place where guns are allowed to be carried, but I'd say it's a bigger deterrent than you're giving it credit for.

Well, if you're talking random shooters shooting up random places, sure, I'd think it'd potentially be a deterrent. But aren't most school shootings (which is what I was referring to, based on how that was what the conversation was about currently on the thread) related to current/past students? If you're a teen and you're pissed at life and blame that on the assholes in your school and the voices tell you to lash out violently, what are you going to shoot up? Your school where all the people you hate are at or one that's 20 miles down the road? Doubt they'd be worried about who's carrying guns other than in a "I'll have the element of surprise and I think/know he/she carries, so that person's first" sort of way.

Fair point.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

You may be right.  But a lot of these shooters are suicidal.  Why would this deter someone who doesn't plan to survive the attack?

If It HeLpS a LiTtLe iTs WoRtH iT.

posted by superman

If It HeLpS a LiTtLe iTs WoRtH iT.

Does that argument also apply to banning semi-auto guns?

posted by superman

If It HeLpS a LiTtLe iTs WoRtH iT.

Fair point

The Donald now at 50% ..................despite the unending media barrage that has lasted non-stop for 2 years.

The harder the media tries, the more it backfires. 

lol....a poll of 500 people. Another showing 37% from 1200 people. Polls are meaningless.

posted by jmog

It won't stop them but there is a good chance it will lessen the damage.

A suicidal active shooter will keep shooting until they are dropped. If one has to wait for the police that is already shown to be 5-10 minutes easily.

If said student runs into a few teachers with guns, they probably are dropped before the cops get there. Let's say lets use brutally honest kill rates of 1 or 2 a minute, if they are taken down in 3 minutes by a teacher rather than 10 when the police get there that lessens the body count from almost 20 down to 5 or 6.

 

I don't think anyone is saying it will stop them from showing up, but it can help it from being a massacre.

Correct. And that is why I had this: "The benefit to having qualified armed people is to hopefully reduce the amount of carnage that a shooter can cause." as the final sentence of my post.

Another big up day for the market ............enjoy your portfolios this weekend.

posted by QuakerOats

Another big up day for the market ............enjoy your portfolios this weekend.

 

 

Lol, are you going to post this every time the markets up a few points? 

posted by SportsAndLady

Lol, are you going to post this every time the markets up a few points? 

LOL....and it's just self-torture to watch the markets every day.  I mean, I see the numbers every time I go to WSJ.com, but I try not to notice much.

Why not post it.  Stock market up 39% for a year

posted by Spock

Why not post it.  Stock market up 39% for a year

The Dow is not the market.  S&P500 is a much better proxy and it's up "only" about  24% over the past year.

posted by QuakerOats

The Donald now at 50% ..................despite the unending media barrage that has lasted non-stop for 2 years.

 

The harder the media tries, the more it backfires. 

First of all, there’s plenty of media outlets that suck Trump’s ass everyday - hell, you post links constantly. Second, the paranoid media conspiracy storyline is so overstated. Much of the people who are heavy users of media are ultra conservatives like yourself. What would you do with a day where you couldn’t comb Drudge, Fox or Brietbart and find links to stories about the horrific “progressives”?