in the latest situation in which multiple classrooms were shot up, after the first classroom was shot up and the shots were being heard through out the school. One of the other teachers could grab the gun quickly and be "ready" before the shooter ever arrived to the room, and as soon as he entered the room she could unload on him. In a situation like this latest one I can see how a teacher Trained in the use of firearms could be helpful.

theoretically be trained in the use of firearms if anything like this were to be implemented. If she was the first class that the killer choose and caught off guard then there isn't much you would be able to do either way. All I am saying is that if one of those teachers in that school had a firearm and was trained to use it, then the number of deaths wouldn't be nearly as high. It can't be proven but I can't see how it would of made the death toll higher.

> All I am saying is that if one of those teachers in that school had a firearm and was trained to use it, then the number of deaths wouldn't be nearly as high.

Wrong. Many other scenarios are possible beside the "Rambo Syndrome" one so beloved of Delicate Flowers. How about the teacher screws up in the moment and shoots some more children? Or how about the cops get there, see a second person with a gun, and start firing even more bullets?

The movies aren't a good model of what happens in real life, especially Rambo movies.

WOLVERINES!!!11!!!

There is a trilogy of reasons that Delicate Flowers (gun nutz) lust after their Precious:

1) unless armed, they're scared stiff of going anywhere except that "safe spot" under their bed

2) Rambo Syndrome, where you'll kill the "bad guy" & be acclaimed as a Mighty Warrior

3) Wolverine Syndrome, where a motley group of untrained cowards (see #1, above) defeat a vast armada of drones, tanks, microwave weapons, lasers, missiles etc etc etc with a few popguns

you become more educated later on down your life.

... got his pizza.

yea I see a lot of people trying to sensationalize what I am saying... can someone explain to me how the opportunity to be able to defend yourself is "Rambo syndrome". It seems that if you are not in law enforcement that it is absolutely impossible to be competent enough to be able to defend your self.

"Wrong. Many other scenarios are possible beside the "Rambo Syndrome" one so beloved of Delicate Flowers. How about the teacher screws up in the moment and shoots some more children?"
Or maybe the teacher does not screw up and shoots the killer and the death toll is smaller than it was.


"Or how about the cops get there, see a second person with a gun, and start firing even more bullets? "
It took the cops 20 minutes to get there after the first shot was taken.


"The movies aren't a good model of what happens in real life, especially Rambo movies."
the only one talking about movies is you.

Oh and one more thing...what do you propose we do...just leave things the way they are now?

You want kindergarteners to learn how to learn how to shoot assault weapons.

#11: "your daughter would theoretically be trained in the use of firearms..."

his daughter is a teacher there not a student... you should try to know what you are talking about before you start talking. Did you even read the OP. Oh yea and i never said assault weapons. So stop putting words in my mouth baldguy.

right next to the desks, all loaded, safety off, one in the chamber. That way if someone bursts in, the teacher can rain righteous lead on them without even getting up from her desk.

since you have such an opposing view on this what do you think we should do? Just leave things the way they are now?

(at least your scenario has "one&quot we could give her a bad evaluation, fire her, prosecute her and throw her ass in jail. We could say, 'You had your training, bitch', you're responsible for the kids that do die.

Dumbfuckingidea.

you are bringing logic to the conversation, thanks for your input!

did you use in that statement...and what "wishful thinking" did i do?

gun humpers love. That scenario is too pure and very unlikely. Guns in ANY location are far more likely to be used to hurt or kill someone innocent than to stop a "bad guy".

like that... I was simply answering the OP's question. If guns are bad in every situation why do we let cops have them, why do we allow the secret service to have them? I understand where you are coming from, but making a blatant statement like you saying "Guns in ANY location are far more likely to be used to hurt or kill someone innocent than to stop a "bad guy" is just a complete and utter LIE. But if that is what you choose to believe, that is your right.

After all, cops were once children and there are more of them in the classroom then teachers.
With the proper training of course.

And then squeeze off some shots.

What could go wrong?

I figured my input is at least as useless as yours, yes?
If not, I can strive harder.

Do you REALLY think the average person is prepared to act in a tactical situation? If you do, you're fucking wrong.

http://wonkette.com/494403/study-you-are-not-actually-bruce-willis-it-turns-out

You live in a dream world.

teachers who are trained in the use of firearms. If a teacher is protecting the children in a class I do not think it would be difficult to shoot someone who is killing children. And if 1 teacher can't do it, then maybe the next one can. I am just saying that I don't believe there would of been as many deaths if there were some teachers trained in using firearms present.

answer this question. Do you think if the teachers had guns the death toll would of been higher or lower? And what is the alternative just leave everything the way it is now? Or completely ban guns and hope we get them from the crazy criminals who want to do this? Make them harder to get legally? That scenario doesn't do much to keep them out of the hands of criminals who do not acquire firearms legally?

And that having more guns is not the answer. In fact, having more guns will likely result in more tragedy.... more people 'snapping' and killing themselves and/or others. More tragic victims of domestic violence. More veterans of war snapping.

to simply leave things the way they are and "hope" these kinds of things do not happen again?

I don't have all of the answers, but I assure you, more guns is not part of the equation.

simply answering the OP's question. I don't have all the answers either, but I am not going to simply throw an idea out the window without a real discussion. Cops were ordinary average people before they were trained in the use of firearms.

with a handgun so the muscle memory takes over in a crisis.

you don't know what your talking about.

You imagine somehow that a little training... or even a lot of training... would turn a teacher (or anybody) into somebody who could stop a person bent on mass murder.

Nobody... not trained troops, not cops, and sure as hell not teachers... reacts smoothly to life-or-death situations with firearms. At least not the first few times.

In the 1980's, a company of Marines in Panama got into a two hour firefight. They brought up extra ammo, too. Against shadows. No evidence that they had been under fire. Buck fever.

Cops... ? In LA, cops fired 90 shots at an unarmed man. They hit him 15 times and killed him. Where do you think the other 75 shots went...? Imagine that kind of shit in a school.

Read my post below about "friendly fire", too.

Take it from somebody who's been there. When the shit starts flying, it's all noise and fear and instinct. After a few times, things make a little more sense, and training takes over. But to expect people who've never fired a shot in anger to maintain their composure and fight effectively the first time under fire is naive. Embarrassingly naive.

propose we do? Leave things the same? Do you think mass murders are more likely to happen in a school if a the shooter knows there are multiple teachers that know how to use firearms? Do you think the mere presence of the firearm could make the criminal think twice before doing at a school? What we have now is obviously not working, so instead of you telling me I don't know what I am talking about, and I am wrong....maybe propose your own solution.

Guns are the problem. More guns is not a solution.

lets talk, what are your thoughts on disarming criminals...how do you go about getting that done? We have been trying to get drugs out the hands of criminals for decades and we can't even do that...so how do you get the law breakers to follow a law banning guns?

... by taking one unlikely fantasy scenario and then generalizing it to reality. Security would be better served by redesigning the doors and exits and communications in the building. In many schools the last time any of that infrastructure was updated was in the 70s or earlier.

To answer you question, it might have made a difference and it might have made it worse. It is impossible to say. And that is the problem with those kind of solutions. I can tell you that if you take that gun out of your fantasy scenario, and place it there all the time, then the chance of problems increase with each day of placement of that weapon in the school.

And will you make firearms training and competence a requirement for teachers? So answer this question, where is the money going to come from?

Lee Ann

to do anything...but those of them that want to carry, once they show they have completed a certain amount of hours of training, i think they should be able to do so. The teacher would have to pay for their own training...like I said it would not require any one to do so.

There are many more costs involved. My husband, rest his soul, was an expert in hostage rescue and did that job for years.

And he told me several times that he would not want to be in a room full of kids with a gun and a potential shooter / hostage situation because there would be WAY too many factors to control and the primary responsibility of those teachers is the students. That includes student management and not cowboy fantasies.

So again I ask, who will pay? (hint - if you say that Lloyd Blankfein will be personally responsible for every increase in cost I might agree with the idea just to fuck that asshat).

a little 27 year old teacher totally surprised by said killer.

You sound like another killer apologist.

so 20 year old kids are "trained" killers, but teachers can not get training for defense? And how am I a killer apologist?

I think for a teacher to be armed and expected to protect their students with their guns actually sets teachers up for suicide missions.

I urge you to talk to a certified self-defense shooting instructor.

These are the kinds of things I see happening (although I really would hope I could at least get the gun out!). In most cases I think I (and my students) would be better off if we acted defensively (hid or escaped).

I also resent the idea that I am REQUIRED to be a hero under the NRA's scenario of armed teachers. I'm really not a heroic person, but if I did manage to pull off a maneuver that would save lives, I'd really rather be appreciated for it, than having it assumed that's what I am obligated to do. And I certainly don't want to be BLAMED if I am unable to stop a gunman.

Remember Columbine? The cops were outside the school for hours after the killers were already dead. Some of the victims bled to death because nobody dared enter the school. One boy saved his own life by thrusting himself out a window. The police did not want to risk their own lives to save the kids, and that is actually what they are trained and paid to do!

And now the teachers are supposed to take on that responsibility?!?

It has as much validity and reality as the "exploding gas tanks" that had to be wired with fireworks.

The dreamworld is yours.

Reduced field of vision
Impaired Thinking
Tunnel Vision, Temporary Blindness, and Auditory Exclusion ("tunnel hearing&quot

Tactical officers train at length for muscle memory to react properly in crisis. The average American is not. Firearms are dangerous and most Americans are too stupid to properly use them, despite the 2nd Amendment. The reality is most people with guns in crisis will cause more harm.

CCW holders have killed 499 people, including 14 LEO's and 23 mass murders.: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

I have 30 years experience as a teacher and 4 years in the Marine Corps... 13 months in Vietnam.

Trust me.

A "teacher trained in the use of firearms" isn't going to mean diddly if a bad guy comes into the school...

Do you imagine some kindergarden teacher... even heavily armed and trained... kindergarten teacher is gonna be able to “hold 'em and squeeze 'em” while under fire and trying to shield her kids..? Somebody who has never fired a round in combat is going to calmly fire a head shot on somebody wearing body armor? Dream on. The "Die Hard" movies are not documentaries.

Where is the teacher going to wear or store their weapon? Kids get into everything in classrooms. Any teacher will tell you about how their keys/purse/grade book was stolen. A locked drawer is just a challenge to kids.

Imagine a handgun going adrift in a school. You really want teachers wearing a handgun at their waists? That’s a recipe for an accidental discharge. If the teacher’s weapon is locked away securely, how long would it take to retrieve it in an emergency?

Ever hear of fratricide... blue on blue... friendly fire...? It happens with the best of trained troops. Think Pat Tilman. Now think 3 or 4 untrained shooters spraying rounds around a school.

Ever hear of "buck fever"..? A hunter is so shaken by actually seeing a deer that he's shaking like a dog passing a peach pit. Now imagine that teacher trying to open that locked drawer, take up a good shooting location, take the safety off (maybe jack a round into the chamber)... meanwhile her kids are screaming and there's a monster coming to kill them.

With teachers - or anybody else, you're talking about a bloodbath before the bad guy gets off a single round. How would the teacher/guard know that anybody with a weapon wasn't the bad guy? They’d shoot each other, or more probably miss and kill those they are trying to protect.

And what do think the cops are going to see when they arrive...? A teacher standing there with a weapon. Bye-bye (hero) teacher!

Teachers are trained to teach. They are not warriors. These days, I'd even be nervous having a cop armed with a handgun on campus... he could be overpowered and the weapon used on students.

I have no idea what to do to stop the school shootings, but I know arming the teachers or students is dumber than hell.

Besides, teachers - especially elementary teachers - are surrogate parents, counselors, nurses.....are you gonna ask them to be armed guards, too.? Anybody willing to pay teachers combat pay..?

she is 100% girly.... much, much more than her momma.

I don't think she has ever held a gun. Her dad owns them but never put one in her hand.

The whole thing terrifies me, especially with a kid in her class that already is showing violent tendencies.

How very sad.

with a handgun so the muscle memory takes over in a crisis.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/uninthree.htm

Also, experts on the use of handguns for self-defense reel off a number of real-life factors for which range shooting does not prepare the handgun owner:

The Physical Environment. One obvious difference is that shooting ranges optimize lighting and view. The handgun owner, however, has no control over the environmental conditions under which he may perceive the need to use his gun. The experience of police officers in real shootouts shows that "light conditions are often too poor to allow using the sights. Officers normally practice and qualify on well-lit ranges that allow full use of sights. Conditions on the street are rarely as favorable as range conditions."134 Poor lighting and confusing situations in real life increase the risk that the gun owner will make an error in judgment and harm an innocent person, or be harmed himself because he cannot use his handgun effectively. The range of potential environmental differences from a shooting range is enormous, from a dark bedroom to a rainy street corner or a bitter cold evening when the gun owner is wearing bulky gloves.

Physiological Stress. Mortal fear does not accompany shooting at paper targets. But in a life or death situation "your heart thuds in your chest and your breathing accelerates and you have to react rapidly."135 This fear seriously affects one's shooting ability. "The real world of combat means a highly stressful event in which a very small percentage of bullets fired even strike the target."136 Even well-trained police officers who are taught to expect such stress reactions miss their targets many more times than they hit them.

Assailant Movements. A handgun owner may be quite proud of the hits he has scored in the "kill zone" on stationary paper targets. But, as many police officers have learned, assailants don't stand still waiting to be shot. "What a revelation. I was never so terrified in my whole life. They never told me in the academy that the targets were going to jump and move all over the place. There wasn't one 3' by 2' target to shoot at like on the police range."137

Unexpected Assailant Reaction. More often than not, in the movies and on television, people who are "shot" simply fall down and stay down. End of fight. In real life, the opposite is often true, especially if the assailant is on alcohol or drugs. They either don't fall down, or they get back up and keep coming. "We can presume that in half of the police-involved shootings, the felon will not lay down and be cooperative instantly. In fact, many shooting reports included information to suggest that the felon showed no indication that he had been hit....Hitting such a moving target with a handgun, under extreme stress, is not easy."138

Ambiguous Situations. There is no doubt about whether to shoot the targets at a shooting range—they are there as surrogate bad guys. But many real-life situations are ambiguous: is the "assailant" really a threat? Is the threat deadly enough to justify the use of lethal force? From his own experience, seasoned New York City police officer and author Jim Cirillo notes: "Many times, situations looked like armed robberies but turned out to be innocent. At such times, a man with no compassion might shoot when he shouldn't, or he might not consider bystanders during his moment of danger."139

Disarmament Moves. Is the civilian gun owner prepared when the assailant attempts to disarm him, or simply shoots anyway? Is he aware that some criminals learn specific procedures to do just that? Probably not. But being suddenly disarmed or outgunned is a threat in the real world. "There are many instances where the suspect has drawn a weapon and killed an officer after the officer pointed his weapon and issued the proper challenge. The suspect just plain beat the officer....The Aryan Brotherhood prison gang, along with the Hell's Angels outlaw motorcycle gang, have developed a technique to disarm an officer from a distance of 21 feet. It works in conjunction with an officer's natural lag time."

You may be an exception. You may just think you're the exception, but the reality is most people with guns in crisis will cause more harm.

I suggest you talk to people actually qualified in the field. Looking to VPC for facts on self-defense is rather like talking to PETA about what type of meat to have for dinner.

Why do you think people like the cops and military shoot so often, and so much, to stay qualified?

Neither we, nor they, shoot much at all (on the government dime anyway).

Really. It's quite a sad state of affairs actually. Our training really isn't anywhere near as good as you think it is.

In the Marine Corps we fired a lot of weapons a lot of times. Familiarization with our weapons was kinda necessary.

If you are in combat arms and you don't shoot all the time.... good luck.
If your training with weapons isn't constant, do you somehow imagine you'd be able to effectively respond with a weapon in a tight situation?

If cops qualify every 6 months, how often should teachers qualify? You think a couple of hundred rounds over a couple of years is going to make them proficient?

Did you even read Peacenikki's post?

What she said... X100.

that cannot seem to learn to adjust.
LaPierre has got to be the most ignorant person I have heard in my lifetime.

think she is safer there with out one. That is your stance? That if a raging killer came through the school she should just sit in her desk and wait for her turn? Come on give your daughter's learning capacity a little more credit than you are.

I understand that the military and law enforcement use the MMPI to identify individuals who might create mayhem if given access to unsecured weapons and weed them out of service. If you want a gun, prove your not a sociopath first. Let teachers teach instead of arming them against a few sociopaths.

The authors of that test have specifically stated that it doesn't work that way. It doesn't stop stupid RW cop admin types from using it just to feel good about themselves.

I'm not snapping at you. It just bugs me when science isn't used correctly.

It's good to get corrected.

It's always good to talk to an adult.

LeeAnn

I appreciate someone who actually has experience in combat debunk the notion that more guns are the answer.

Here's another small thought: I myself am not (and never will be) a classroom teacher. I am someone who is adamantly opposed to guns and would like to see them severely regulated and restricted. Because of my feelings on that topic, I would absolutely not agree to have a gun in my classroom. Yes, I hear the gun apologists saying, but you'd be trained! Nothing could possibly train me to be comfortable with a gun. I realize I can only speak for myself, and I'll repeat that I've never been and never will be a classroom teacher, but I have a feeling there's a reasonable number of classroom teachers who also would not ever be comfortable with a gun.

And none of this deals with the "locked up" idiocy.

..is a real problem. With trained troops.

Imagine with somebody who has fired a couple of hundred rounds on a range, but never faced a situation...

Some samples...


US troops killed at least seven and wounded 34 of their compatriots in 18 suspected friendly fire incidents after the invasion of Iraq, only the most serious of which have previously been made public.

The catalogue of "blue on blue" deaths and injuries shows how serious the wrong call from a young man in charge of deadly weaponry can be in the stress, confusion and bureaucracy of modern war – and how events that seem clear one moment may be perceived differently soon afterwards.

When a unit from the 502nd Infantry Regiment came under small arms fire in Baghdad on 4 November 2005 they assumed they were being attacked by the enemy. Five men were injured and another, Staff Sergeant Joseph Fegler, 24, was killed. Two hours after the engagement it emerged that the damage had been done by the rear gunner of another US convoy up ahead. The first shots the victims heard had been warning shots fired to get them to keep their distance.

Three weeks later a patrol from another company of the same regiment, moving on foot through farmland south-west of Baghdad, came under heavy fire from insurgents. Some of the platoon were wounded and the senior sergeant commandeered a civilian car to take them back to the company vehicles. As it raced back another part of their company, drawn by the sound of shooting, headed their way. They saw a civilian car filled with armed men moving towards them at high speed, and opened fire, killing two of their comrades, Sergeant Aram Bass and Sergeant William Meeuwsen, and injuring four others, including a civilian interpreter.

Corporal Ryan Collins of the 501st Parachute Regiment, who died from a gunshot wound; and Private Shawn Hensel, who appears to have been among a group of 23rd Infantry soldiers hit by a burst of heavy calibre machine gun fire from a US Stryker armoured vehicle.

One night in October 2006 a British patrol, festooned with the blue light sticks, agreed on as a sign to identify themselves as friendly, reported they had been shot at by US troops who had no night vision goggles and had been listening to their iPods.

What if it weren't the shooter? What if the sound they heard wasn't a gun shot?

...


UNLOAD ... as soon as he entered the room.

There is a whole bucket of dumb in this post.

LeeAnn

with a dozen rehearsals before they actually roll the cameras.

Of course real life is not a carefully scripted movie like so many nutty gun jockeys seem to think it is.

would likely confront a person that is MOVING AROUND and has head to toe body armor on. Your idea is a recipe for getting those teachers killed along with their student by an agitated psychopath. A better idea is keeping the asshole out of the school buildings and grounds to begin with. I am not one on DU that thinks banning guns of any type solves the problem of mass shootings, because it won't IMO. But, I also don't buy into the fucking insane idea that a person that has had minimal training with a gun and hasn't spent hundreds and even thousands of hours in live fire target practice with both stationary and moving targets and surprise rise targets has a fucking iota of a chance of stopping a psychopathic shooter that is dressed for outright combat. Instead of praying for a lucky shot, it is better to setup school buildings and grounds in a way to prevent deranged shooters from getting into near contact with teachers and students. Even with best efforts, mass shootings will happen in an open society if we don't delve into the deeper reasons why people go off the rails and kill masses of other human beings - part of the solution will be better mental health care and identification of potentially dangerous people using constitutional methods - part of the solution will be regulation of gun ownership and setting an expectation that people be responsible for the guns that they buy - part of the solution will be immediate imprisonment for ANYONE caught with an unregistered gun or a gun that doesn't have a registered serial number, laws can be written so that law abiding citizens that already own unregistered guns can get them registered and into a database.

I will leave it up to parents of children to find out whether the parents of their children's friends own guns, if parents don't want their kids a round guns, they have a right to ask other parents about their gun ownership and not let their kids visit if no answer is given or a household owns guns - that area isn't the domain of government.

Lastly. I want to take on the Second Amendment. Your post leads me to believe that you are the type that think that Amendment gives unlimited ownership of guns to anyone that wants a gun, in addition to ownership of any type of gun. Amendments to the Constitution were written for the time period that they were designed to cover. Up until and during the Civil War and the War of 1812, fighters were largely drawn from ordinary citizens and fighters from each state were organized and under the direction of each state, that is why, if you study the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War and to a more limited extent, the War of 1812, you will see that fighting was largely conducted by a loosely affiliated collection of state militias. The Second Amendment was a document for it's time, a time when farmers, carriage drivers, regular citizens could be asked to join a military effort and bring their own guns and ammunition. The Second Amendment gave gun ownership rights ONLY for the purpose of protecting the budding nation, that role is conducted wholly by a professional, national military today and has been since after the War of 1812. The Second Amendment was a document for the time that document was crafted, but has been out of date for over 200 years, it should be repealed and in it's place an Amendment that deals with the realities of the age that we live in now, TODAY.

Your scenario does point out the problem with a gun locked away somewhere (no quick access). However, this kind of setup could be easily workable for the staff in the school's office.

For the teacher to be armed, the gun would need to be in a holster worn by the teacher, the normal proposals being a concealed-carry holster.

other point of access, the office staff wouldn't help.

I'm not trying to argue, I really care about this especially since in my state - Az - they are pushing for all teachers to be armed.

Not to mention the fact that when mass shooters are headed into a school, they don't generally sign in at the office. In many schools, its possible to completely bypass the office and go to classrooms undetected because of the way the school is laid out.

Another Dumbfuckingidea.

Yes, kids are often in the office. No one suggested otherwise. That is a good reason to keep any firearms under lock and key.

No one said anything about visitors/killers checking in at the office first. However, the office does make a good central and staffed location for emergency equipment should the need arise.

Anyone in favor of assault rifles, semi automatics or auto any gun will not receive one iota of understanding from those of us who do work, and apparently die, in service to kids in schools. While you dream up ridiculous shit about Rambo via the school secretaries, who are usually well into middle age, we're actually doing the job of protecting kids. We know what is needed.

The only emergency equipment in an office are band aids stupid. AND its going to stay that way. Because unlike you, Maniac, we who work in the schools don't expect to make you all feel better in society by keeping a loaded firearm in a fucking office when no one would have the time to get to it anyway.

At the very least, these firearms needs to go. Deal with it. We have since Columbine. Nobody gave a shit when the bans were lifted. Now we don't give a shit.

locked in a drawer in the desk. I understand it wouldn't do the first teacher any good, but once the killer started moving from class to class, one of the other teachers would of have had time to get the firearm and be ready. Put all the kids behind you in a corner and be ready pointing the gun at the door and when the killer enters unload. I'm not saying it is easy but I think any teacher who loves the children they teach would be able to pull the trigger to save the kids lives.

do you propose to do? Do you think things should stay the way they are and just hope nothing like this happens again?

A 50-year federal sentence for having an illegal weapon sounds about right to me. And life with no parole sounds good for someone who commits a crime with a gun.

Do you have other questions?

You don't seem to even have a basic grasp on just how ludicrous this is?


Good grief!


<<<<<<

near that target and is shooting back at you? You sound like one that is a person that thinks a gun imparts magical ability to defend against any situation, it doesn't. Until you have been in a live fire situation with the target firing back at you, you have no idea what a teacher will face - most people will freeze up cold in such a situation or start wildly firing about without aiming - such a thing will insure two outcomes, the teacher will get killed and will accidentally kill or harm the people he or she was trying to protect in the process. Look, there is a reason why soldiers spend huge amounts of time in gun training with a drill instructor breaking down their instinct to freeze up or panic - there is also a reason why those soldiers are put through simulated combat situations well before the real thing happens - I don't see schools being able to do any of that with teachers.

And by the way, arming Teachers WILL become a union bargaining issue in the areas that have union representation.

goes to the bulletproof door installed on the classroom with less money than it would have taken to buy guns and train the teachers, and locks it. Then through the bulletproof glass window s/he watches for the all clear. Maybe to kill some time make faces at the shooter.

Now bulletproof glass for all the outside windows is another story.

middle schooler got the key and threatened, hurt or killed a classmate.

fires a round or two to get everyone's attention. We can't be taking this seriously. Nothing will go wrong?

And LaPierre is the pied piper leading the way.

And you know who is following him because they always preface their statements by saying, "I don't support the NRA but..."

40% overnight.

I sure as HELL wouldn't permit my kids into a classroom if I knew the teacher had a gun, as it would greatly increase their chance of being shot while at school. The people recommending that teachers be armed (not you, jilian) either don't have kids at home, or shouldn't have kids at home.

bangbangbang

It would be presumed to be on his/her person, presumably concealed. That would eliminate that particular problem, the one of access taking too long to be tactically useful. But it's still a very bad idea, IMO. A crowded classroom is a place where only flawless accuracy in shot placement is good enough. That kind of accuracy under stress is possible...but it takes a tremendous commitment to training and practice. It's not a dissimilar situation to using a handgun in the cabin of an airliner...and Air Marshals are some of the most rigorously trained (in pistol shooting) of all law enforcement personnel. Their qualification standard is hard to attain.

While some educators might be willing and able to attain that standard, I doubt most have the time to do so, even if so inclined. They already have a full-time job.

Armed teachers is just a bad idea, regardless of whether it's one of my heroes (Bill Clinton) proposing it, or one of my villains (Wayne LaPierre).

"Nationwide, at least 23,000 schools — about one-third of all public schools — already had armed security on staff as of the most recent data, for the 2009-10 school year, and a number of states and districts that do not use them have begun discussing the idea in recent days. " 6th paragraph here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/us/nra-calls-for-armed-guards-at-schools.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Course most, if not all, are in the high schools. And yes I am aware that Columbine had an armed police officer assigned to the school, he was off site when the Columbine shooting occurred

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

I will also note that the Newtown, CT police department has 1 Youth Services officer and 2 School Resources officers, which I presume are assigned to the high school:

http://www.newtown-ct.gov/Public_Documents/NewtownCT_Police/Roster%20Folder/roster2

I have read that from the time the first shot was fired until the first police officer responded was 20 minutes. I am not sure where in that timeframe the first 911 call was placed.

nt

For 40 years now Chicago has assigned a two man squad car to all their high schools. There have been plenty of kids killed in gang battles and drive by shootings in areas outside of schools but no mass shootings or killings inside the schools even though their schools are invested with gangs.

Weird, cuz I haven't seen the gang connection made with frankly ANY of the recent mass killings. Enlighten me, please? I was under the impression they were suburban white men mostly.

It has worked in Chicago. If you know anything about Chicago there are regular gang battles where large numbers are shot. This would be going on in schools if police weren't there. I haven't cataloged all the mass killings so I have no idea if they are all "suburban white men". Although I doubt the Ft. Hoot shooter and the biggest mass killer of all, Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech were "suburban white men".

I was commenting on the usefulness that Chicago has found in armed security in its schools. Your post has nothing to do with that.

Just because there has not been one there does not mean they have or could stop one.

There has not been an alien invasion in Chicago schools either. I suppose we also have them and their guns to thank for that?

A neutral person would be laughing at your post when you have to bring in alien invasions to try and save your point. These shootings take place in 'gun free' zones. Chicago schools are not gun free. If you don't think that has anything to do with it fine. Have a nice day. Any snow in WI?

Also, I don't agree with your premise that bringing more murder weapons to school is a good idea. It just isn't.

Neutral means they have not made up their mind whether armed security is schools is good or bad. Get it? I guess President Obama should get rid the Secret Service because they have "murder weapons".

I didn't say any of these things you're attributing to me.

No, I don't want to disarm the Secret Service. And for that matter, I don't want to disarm the Marine Corps. And no, no one should remain neutral when it comes to stopping the slaughter of little children. I should not even have to say that, but there it is. There are some people, even people on this board, who are much more interested in talking about their "rights" than about stopping this violence. Those people are not neutral, and fuck them anyway.

After all, Boosh kept us safe from the Iraqi Al Quida terrorists who blew up NYC and shit.

He was a state senator from a Chicago district with plenty of schools in it.

But the current mayor of Chitown is his former aide de camp.....

Since you are keeping track tell us both of them.

Your diversion from the second amendment to the first.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072202#post12

You are now saying you didn't bring up the subject of how many white men were involved in mass shootings? Please reread your post #49.

I think you try to change the subject as a diversion. I am starting to see a pattern.