Arm the teachers...seriously?

In some few (FEW) cases, it might be useful to arm the teachers, but for about 99% of them it would be a total waste, and, very likely create additional dangers.

The huge majority of teachers I'm aware of are very liberal, anti-gun, bleeding-heart socialists. They'd be more likely to try to sing "Kumbaya" to a mass-murderer than to shoot at him. Hell, most of these teachers are so Left-wing that they've never understood that "guns don't kill people -- PEOPLE kill people...." I wonder if most of them even know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of....

No. The answer is elusive, but it must begin with PROACTIVELY getting the criminally insane among us into detention of some kind where they cannot hurt others. Everything else is, at best, speculative, and at worst, likely to make everything more dangerous than it already is....

 

First of all, what is this rant doing in Current Events?

Second, how does the idea of arming teachers qualify as "insanity"?

Are teachers a special breed of cowardly imbeciles who are uniquely incapable of defending themselves and others?

Good grief. Let's not explore the options at our disposal - let's rail at Trump, the NRA, the Second Amendment, etc., instead. That will solve everything.

 

I appreciate your confidence however it would never work in NYC, it might most likely in other schools outside the city but not in the city. Trust me on this.

 

That's right.

So I guess you'll have to come up with another bumper sticker idea.

 

If they needed a gun (remember some gang members are in school), gang members working in pairs or even more could jump him/her and gain control of a gun rather quickly. As I mentioned in here in an earlier post, It won't work in NYC, but outside the city and in other states it could work. NYC is a different animal.

 

after a while of thinking this over, im going to have to agree with the liberals on this one. We need better security. Arming teachers worries me because they aren't trained professionals at taking down a shooter. Sure they can take some classes and qualify, but their job is to teach, not prevent or deter a shooter like security is.
-maybe the carribean sun has got to my brain

 

Teachers come in all shapes, sizes and political stripes. I would agree that most are well left of center regarding economic matters because their compensation is derived through taxation ("collective bargaining" + tax and spend Democrat administrations and majorities = a better chance at more lavish pay and benefits), but when it comes to protecting their charges, they're mama grizzlies.

 

It is not about dismissing, it is about a proportional response. What is more important the fact that children were killed or that they were killed by a gun? I say it is the fact that children were killed. As such the response should be in proportion to the chance of that happening again. Also the response should actually do what its intended goal is, ie preventing future acts of murder. Having armed personnel at locals of potential violence could prevent or lesson the effects of future killers no matter the means they employ to kill. Also this response would not infringe on law abiding citizens rights. Both agreeable outcomes.

 

Kids being gunned down mercilessly on school grounds deserves the most resounding, massive response we as society can give.

I am sick and tired of this debate.

 

I think if these liberal teachers had a gun pointed at them they'd be like

 

Because of the inactions of 1?. Try again.

 

And 100 new laws are going to change what?

 

Dude, you don't need 100 new laws, jesus Christ the right is so ****ing absurd with this lunacy. It's like you've all drank lead water.

 

Oh please save us. Pass to us your awesome wisdom.

 

Grow up and stop acting like such an entitled rotten brat, crazily grasping. No one is doing anything to curtail your ****ing rights.

 

hey, if the actions of a handful of people should result in the whole of society having their rights revoked, the actions of one should be more than enough to impugn the legitimacy of proposals they find objectionable. lol

 

Translation - you've got nothing but invective. No ideas - just a foul keyboard.

 

More leftist hypocrisy. I have noticed that lately the liberals have been reading their talking points and mocking the phrase "hopes and prayers" which I do agree with since its nothing but talk and then talking about real change. But when it comes to kids in a classroom all of a sudden the only way they want teacher to protect their students is in fact only "hopes and prayers".

Well we know now that you cant even rely on the police, multiple tips and nothing was done.....yet again. The officer on campus at the Cruz shooting stood outside and did NOTHING for four minutes. I hope he is hounded so much that he kills himself for being such a coward, although he probably doesn't even have the balls or the decency to do that.

You want to protect your kids then have multiple officers stationed at all times at the school and only officers who have seen actual combat and you know will actually have the balls to do something instead of wetting themselves outside. No more "school resource officer of the year" useless awards people.

There is literally no reason that you should deny a teacher who is capable and willing the chance to protect students instead of hoping that the gunman doesnt find his room full of students.

 

Yet the response needs to be one that ACTUALLY would prevent future killings. For instance most killing on school grounds are done my hand guns not rifles, most are not multiple murders, and most involve the poorest of our citizens, and most of the firearms used are obtained illegally. Banning AR's, bump stocks, large magazines, or increasing licensing or background checks would not impact ANY of those facts.

 

Because this guard didn't act doesn't mean the next guard won't act. And it actually argues in favor of arming the teachers.

 

Larry in the math dept. is in the school. Larry in the math dept. is defending his own life as well as others.
Why don't you want Larry in the math dept. to defend himself?

 

I don't wonder about this at all.

They're quiet about the violence racking our cities because it is a symptom of their failed social welfare policies. I've posted this before, but I'll post it again:

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.
--Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 1965

But this time, let's consider this, as well:

Shall we connect the dots?

How did we wind up with these poor urban areas full of male juveniles and young adult males who grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future?

Did somebody's social welfare policies wind up marginalizing fathers and rewarding females to have children out of wedlock in poor urban communities that lack economic opportunities? Did that drive many male juveniles and young adult males into the drug trade and other criminal activity to support themselves, which in turn drove many of them into gangs?

"Progressives" don't want to talk about THAT. Heck, they don't want anyone talking about THAT. They'll shut that discussion down as they always do, by slandering anyone who dares to question their moral and intellectual infallibility.

They're willing to let people focus on the symptoms of their failed social welfare policies - gun violence, etc. - but they're not willing to focus attention on the failed social welfare policies themselves. Democrats know full well what an existential threat that discussion poses to their party, so that discussion is off-limits and they'll do whatever it takes to keep that discussion off-limits.

 

Because Larry will take out six kids when he sees a kid showing another kid his new bb gun

 

What "teacher's" what? duh. You're making crap up.

 

I agree....arm the people who are most invested and always on the scene. The more the better, but if only 10% of a school's 150 teachers/staff are armed and committed to establishing protocols and training on tactics, if one or two freeze under pressure that still leaves more than enough to track down and disable a young, tactically ignorant shooter.