Posted on 03/02/2018 8:44:31 PM PST by mdittmar
No. What stops a mass murderer is either he/she runs out of targets and or ammunition, or someone shows up with a firearm and puts the shooter down. The first option isn't very attractive - it means the whack job has accomplished maximum casualties. The second option is far better, and the sooner the better. Rather than wait for law enforcement to arrive and screw up the courage to intervene - something that is demonstrably a minutes long process and apparently not a sure thing... Why not arm, or at least allow to be armed the people who are already there. The sooner one of these incidents is stopped, the more lives are saved. Why would anyone be against the one provably effective measure that could save lives? They must have some overriding agenda, something more important to them than saving lives.
Damn straight!
Agreed. I had a coach in HS that would have tanned anyone’s hide today. Not one HS pussy I’ve met in the last 10 years could have made it through one semester with him without breaking down into tears. These snowflakes and safe space seeking wimps today wouldn’t last one hour with him.
Amazing that Republican men also want to defund NPR. Coincidence? I don’t think so. I sure do want armed teachers.
Who wants men to eat more so: NPR
I know that's a tall order today because I'm 66 years old and that was a different time. Many of the male teachers today are pulling kids out from under desks to crawl under themselves. But there are a few candidates that I believe could pass muster if they aren't new to guns and have had some experience in the field where they wouldn't shoot more kids than perps and might not flinch and pull their shots under pressure. How about a few deer or hogs killed and field dressed under the belt so they will know what to expect when they shoot a perp and guts are on the wall. Shooting targets are much different than shooting people. You must make decisions quickly and have your mind made up before it happens.
I'm not against it, but there has to be more required than just a CCL and a written test. I can almost guarantee a problem with the teachers union. It will never be a judgment call, but a formula the school board or someone else will vote on. Then there is always the fact that most teachers are Dems. They will be hesitating to take a life because they don't like guns, never hunt, and are against the death penalty. Anyone can learn to shoot to pass a test, but having the commitment to do it is another thing. How many times have you heard of someone having the drop on a perp and they freeze to pull the trigger? The whole program would be fraught with trouble depending on the school district, the part of the country and the political leanings of the area. Then there is always the Chicago district where a 6ft 225lb 15 yo is beating the hell out of the French teacher and some guy loses it. I find if you don't have a BB Bat, Pepper spray, or a taser, you might pull a .40 Glock to fix the situation. I've never understood why ANY teacher is unarmed today. Rather than pull your Glock, wouldn't it be better with a 2x4 carved in wood shop or pepper spray?
Libs’ weapons of choice include staplers or cans of veggies wrapped in socks or spitballs.
Bwahahahaha
Upside and NPR. Now that’s a reliable poll
I swear, they make it sound like teachers are going to have guns forced on them as they come to work. We are JUST asking for those who are trained to carry be allowed to do so!
On a cruise ship a man let his friends know that he brought his pistol in his luggage. This was long ago when this was actually possible on cruise ships. His friend’s wife was very upset with him, you see, she hated the idea of guns. However one night she ran to his room and woke him, get your gun she said, someone is in our room and he is beating my husband. The story ends happily, and her husband was not too badly hurt, but when she needed a weapon, who did she run to? This guy with the gun was well trained, back then we had a shooting range at our workplace. But he did not even have to use the gun, just showing it was enough to stop the fight and have the guy taken into ship’s custody.
As I have said on other postings, I am now a retired teacher but I would have taken the training only to be able to protect myself and students in the classroom. The worst thing I can imagine in a school shooting situation is to have the shooter enter my room and all I could do was throw my computer at him. Given a choice to be armed, — or to have the teacher in the next room armed— or to wait for the police and crawl under a desk, what would most teacher’s prefer? I bet that is not the question they asked.
Yeah... because we are men, not liberal babies who would run from danger.
But the good teachers are also the ones who would volunteer to carry guns.
Toppenish, WA, has some voluntarily-armed teachers. They train twice a month.
Yes! When it is your own fat in the fire, it would be better to have some recourse for self/student defense. That would go well beyond deputies waiting outside with no stake in the skin game.
It generally isn’t the teachers who degrade education. It is the usually administration that fears being sued by parents. Teachers are not supported by the system. Teachers must protect themselves from the system. It is from on high to provide easy passing grades, “do overs”, and little expectation of discipline.
I saw the quality of education at my home town high school degrade immediately following the takeover by the NEA.
I can see an easy solution to this problem :-)
I’m with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
