skydyvr 0 #26 February 4, 2008 QuoteWhich is more dangerous, a teacher with a gun but no tactical weapons training, or a security guard with a stick of chalk? Given the IQ and mentality of the average rent-a-cop, I'd vote for the latter. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #27 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteTeachers are not trained to be security guards, regardless of whether in their private lives they choose to be gun owners. Maybe fire all the teachers and just have security guards teach classes too. you are completely off your game, your normal tangential nonsense usually has more flare - I have trust, though, it'll come back Which is more dangerous, a teacher with a gun but no tactical weapons training, or a security guard with a stick of chalk? Did you miss the part of the discussion that stated if a teacher "chooses" to carry he or she would have training? I know that "choice" should only be granted to enlightened individuals like yourself, but try to pay better attention going forward.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteTeachers are not trained to be security guards, regardless of whether in their private lives they choose to be gun owners. Maybe fire all the teachers and just have security guards teach classes too. you are completely off your game, your normal tangential nonsense usually has more flare - I have trust, though, it'll come back Which is more dangerous, a teacher with a gun but no tactical weapons training, or a security guard with a stick of chalk? Why do you feel the teacher NEEDS tactical training? Are you expecting the teacher to storm a barricaded position? Protecting against someone with a knife or gun breaking down the classroom door hardly needs superhuman powers of observation or discernment of intent. What *is* needed is an effective method of defense and, of course, the will to use it as a last resort.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #29 February 4, 2008 QuoteWhich is more dangerous, a teacher with a gun but no tactical weapons training, or a security guard with a stick of chalk? A Marine with a straw and 7 toothpicks ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #30 February 4, 2008 >Let's pretend teachers are just individuals and should be able to decide for >themselves if they'd like get the training and own - or not own - private >property of various kinds. Oh, so you support disarming teachers who don't have some liberal-inspired expensive "safety training?" Maybe you could just put up some posters that say "DISARMED SCHOOL - TERRORISTS WELCOME!" Seriously, requiring training (and safe storage/carriage of the gun while on school premises) isn't a bad compromise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #31 February 4, 2008 When are people going to realize that there are some inherently shitty people who don't give a fuck what feel-good, bullshit legislation you pass, will still try to fucking shoot people in a "gun free zone"--Simply because they know 99.9% of the people in these zones are unarmed victims-in-waiting. To hell with those who won't allow me to not be a victim. The actions, not the firearms, are the culprits here.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #32 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteTeachers are not trained to be security guards, regardless of whether in their private lives they choose to be gun owners. Maybe fire all the teachers and just have security guards teach classes too. you are completely off your game, your normal tangential nonsense usually has more flare - I have trust, though, it'll come back Which is more dangerous, a teacher with a gun but no tactical weapons training, or a security guard with a stick of chalk? Why do you feel the teacher NEEDS tactical training? Are you expecting the teacher to storm a barricaded position? Protecting against someone with a knife or gun breaking down the classroom door hardly needs superhuman powers of observation or discernment of intent. What *is* needed is an effective method of defense and, of course, the will to use it as a last resort. ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 February 4, 2008 QuoteMaybe you could just put up some posters that say "DISARMED SCHOOL - TERRORISTS WELCOME!" Isn't that what we have now? (as a practical matter)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteTeachers are not trained to be security guards, regardless of whether in their private lives they choose to be gun owners. Maybe fire all the teachers and just have security guards teach classes too. you are completely off your game, your normal tangential nonsense usually has more flare - I have trust, though, it'll come back Which is more dangerous, a teacher with a gun but no tactical weapons training, or a security guard with a stick of chalk? Why do you feel the teacher NEEDS tactical training? Are you expecting the teacher to storm a barricaded position? Protecting against someone with a knife or gun breaking down the classroom door hardly needs superhuman powers of observation or discernment of intent. What *is* needed is an effective method of defense and, of course, the will to use it as a last resort. ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #35 February 4, 2008 >Isn't that what we have now? Joke, Mike, that was a joke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #36 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteTeachers are not trained to be security guards, regardless of whether in their private lives they choose to be gun owners. Maybe fire all the teachers and just have security guards teach classes too. you are completely off your game, your normal tangential nonsense usually has more flare - I have trust, though, it'll come back Which is more dangerous, a teacher with a gun but no tactical weapons training, or a security guard with a stick of chalk? Why do you feel the teacher NEEDS tactical training? Are you expecting the teacher to storm a barricaded position? Protecting against someone with a knife or gun breaking down the classroom door hardly needs superhuman powers of observation or discernment of intent. What *is* needed is an effective method of defense and, of course, the will to use it as a last resort. ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #37 February 4, 2008 Quoteone gun is a problem but two is the solution. No. One gun is NOT, in and of itself, a problem. One gun in the hands of a wrongdoer MAY be a problem. What happens if TWO guns are in the hands of TWO wrongdoers? I'll ask you this - what tools do policemen and the military use against gun-wielding threats? That's right - guns. Because you do not bring a fist to a gun fight if you hope to live. So, in the US, if you want to kill a bunch of people, the easiest way to do it is to go to where the people are unarmed. With 30 people in one room and nobody with any defense, it's easy and you won't get stopped until armed people respond from a distance. QuoteJanitors, bus drivers and honor students should get a gun each as well. I don't know about Janitors - they don't get paid enough and apparently aren't killed. Teachers are killed and are already in the line of fire. I don't think it appropriate for janitors to be armed responders. But teachers would make good armed protectors. Quotethe principal (due to his responsability) should get no less than a bazooka That's not a point target. The point is to take out the shooter without killing the kids. A bazooka would cause a whole lot of collateral damage. A bazooka would take out a lot more than the bad guy. I could understand why those who are averse to guns would misunderstand a simple thing. It's like, "Why not shoot him in the leg?" Something that is counterinutive until you deal with the reality fo the situation. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #38 February 4, 2008 QuoteANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? If it's a public school, the teacher won't get fired unless he or she mentions God. But, in that case, I would think the teacher would be arrested. QuoteOn the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. On the whole I would think it would be better for teachers to actually be trained in the subjects they teach BEFORE they start teaching them, and that they receive continuing training and education on those subjects. But also, I would think that teachers could benefit from eight hours per year of training if they wanted to carry a firearm in school. The benefit could even be seen if nobody knew which teachers had guns. All it woul dtake is 3 or 4 in a school, and nobody would know what they would be getting themselves into. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #39 February 4, 2008 Most Israeli soldiers have less firearms training than some of the guys I hang out with.It is not like the Israelis are all "super duper commandos". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #40 February 4, 2008 Serious question - do security problems in US schools really bear comparison to those in Israel? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #41 February 4, 2008 Why would you assume that the teacher is untrained in the use and employment of weapons? A teachers, like any citizen, would get the state-mandated training prior to being issued a state concealed carry permit. That training deals with when you can use deadly force and when you can't in addition to demonstrating proficiency with a handgun. A teacher, just like any citizen, can also go to various weapons training facilities (ie Gunsite) for additional training."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #42 February 4, 2008 Why wait until there is enough similarity? "Hard targets" dissaude these types of attacks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 February 4, 2008 QuoteWhy would you assume that the teacher is untrained in the use and employment of weapons? because in the perfect little socialistic world the lefties pine for, everyone has only one specialty and is vigorously discouraged from learning to do multiple things. Instead, they are told to rely on the state to care for all that which they are not permitted to learn for themselves. remember, do your job, stay in you place, don't speak up. {{{was that over the top? a bit TOO stereotyped? hmmmm maybe. But I bet a couple of the lefties here might even feel that way - not most. And a couple righties here believe that - not most}}} ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #44 February 4, 2008 Well if teachers were armed, I for one would have been more polite to my teachers in high school. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #45 February 4, 2008 Quote Most Israeli soldiers have less firearms training than some of the guys I hang out with. AFAIK, in Israel, at age 18, virtually every male is required to serve 2 years active duty, and virtually every female is required to serve 1 year active duty -both including military basic training. Are you implying that they have any less firearms training than any other properly-trained soldier who has completed basic training in the army of any other modern, industrialized country? And who (in the case of males), on top of that, is required to regularly serve duty in the active reserves for the rest of his life until he's well into middle-age? If so, I'd think the burden is on you to support that suggestion. Quote It is not like the Israelis are all "super duper commandos". Nobody else reading this thread thinks I was suggesting that. Quit bustin' my balls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #47 February 4, 2008 Quote you agree with drew's position to ban teacher's from protecting the school and then give an example of a teacher that was capable and willing to do just that and did it responsibly and well. ??? First off, I never said ban anything. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. No really, it's cool. I love how I can write one thing and when you repeat it, it's something completely different. I said it wasn't the responsibility of the teachers to carry guns and protect the kids, it is the responsibility of the institution. There's a big difference between that and Banning something. That's my position... get it? If you need me to explain that anymore, let me know, ok? The problem with your example is that all you see is teacher had gun and protected class, but the bigger picture that you are missing is that there was no system of security or protection in place. People who don't belong on campus shouldn't be allowed to wander around, and it's up to the school to provide that protected environment. Anyway, like I also said, I work at a school, and am surrounded my teachers who think it's ridiculous to consider that they should carry weapons into a school. (I went to the faculty room and asked around just to get an idea of people's thoughts) I also suggested that schools should increase security and install surveillance. For example, we are in the middle of installing a $200,000 HD surveillance system. Over the past 4 years we have developed a security team of Police Officers, some full time and some part time. Our security team is the real deal, and they carry real guns. The city police also show their presence on campus. We've never had an incident on this campus, but the Board of Trustees feel that it is necessary to have the security system in place. We even go so far as to practice campus lock-downs in case something happens here and we need to protect the kids. You see, at this school, educating is the responsibility of the teachers and security is the responsibility of the security staff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #48 February 5, 2008 Quote A value judgment needs to be made, comparing the risk of a teacher carrying a gun in school (such as the gun getting stolen in school or him getting overpowered by a group of students and the gun taken from him), versus the chances that the teacher may need to use it to ward off an armed attack. In Israel, there is, historically (as well as statistically), a sufficiently high enough risk of terrorist attack against a soft target like a school that teachers often carry guns. So in order to make a useful comparison, one would need to evaluate the risk of an armed attack in a U.S. school, which may very well vary greatly from one school to another. As an aside, it can be assumed that virtually every Israeli teacher has had military service, and thus has a fairly high level of training in handling a firearm in a "situation" in the field. It's called CONCEALED carry. Why would the studends even know the teach was packing? I'm all for it. Maybe if the kids THOUGHT the teach was packing they'd show a little more RESPECT.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #49 February 5, 2008 Quote Most Israeli soldiers have less firearms training than some of the guys I hang out with.It is not like the Israelis are all "super duper commandos". I dare you to say that to one of THESE GUYS>http://www.rense.com/general32/ruth.htmI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
