Active Shooter at High School in Parkland, FL

#301
#301
bignewt said:
What would be the purpose of that?

Teachers teach, marshals marshal.

It is so unbelievably unrealistic to think that a civilian will act like Dirty Harry when there are people getting gunned down outside the door and if you think that it will be a deterrent how so when we aren't supposed to know who is strapped?

Veterans with extensive psych evals and clearance at schools for the sole purpose of protection. Hard to argue that logic.
Click to expand...

No one said they would act like dirty Harry. It would be like the last line of defense. I think you're over complicating this. I think it's practical for a teacher to be able to teach and be proficient and responsible with a handgun. Are all teachers equipped mentally and physically to be armed? Absolutely not. Are there some that I would not want armed? Absolutely.

They go through continuing education all the time. I don't see it as a stretch to have them go through annual training to learn and keep proficient. They could give them a few $1000 a year to be certified.

I don't think this is 100% of the solution but it could be part of the solution.
 
#302
#302
School shooters don't shoot up schools expecting to live. I believe it's a false equivalence to equate it to what a robber plans to rob. It might equate to fewer deaths per shooting, but I don't believe armed teachers will result in fewer shootings. I also think that armed teachers will struggle with shooting a student, if that's the school shooter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#303
#303
crusse10 said:
School shooters don't shoot up schools expecting to live. I believe it's a false equivalence to equate it to what a robber plans to rob. It might equate to fewer deaths per shooting, but I don't believe armed teachers will result in fewer shootings. I also think that armed teachers will struggle with shooting a student, if that's the school shooter.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's not a deterrent. I think the goal would be to limit casualties. As to struggling to shoot a student, I think when you're faced with a life or death situation you do things for survival you normally wouldn't do, sort of like jumping out of the window of a 10 story building on fire.
 
#304
#304
InVOLuntary said:
No one said they would act like dirty Harry. It would be like the last line of defense. I think you're over complicating this. I think it's practical for a teacher to be able to teach and be proficient and responsible with a handgun. Are all teachers equipped mentally and physically to be armed? Absolutely not. Are there some that I would not want armed? Absolutely.

They go through continuing education all the time. I don't see it as a stretch to have them go through annual training to learn and keep proficient. They could give them a few $1000 a year to be certified.

I don't think this is 100% of the solution but it could be part of the solution.
Click to expand...

I look at like this. You arm say 1000 teachers. A conservative estimate is that 100 of them are either idiots, cowards, crazy or will just happen to miss when called upon and strike down an innocent child. That is not a risk worth taking when you can hire trained former military that need jobs and put them in schools visibly armed. That is a deterrent and they will be able to act and act decisively at a much higher percentage.

If I had kids in a school I would feel much better about option B than option A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#305
#305
InVOLuntary said:
I agree, it's not a deterrent. I think the goal would be to limit casualties. As to struggling to shoot a student, I think when you're faced with a life or death situation you do things for survival you normally wouldn't do, sort of like jumping out of the window of a 10 story building on fire.
Click to expand...

So survival would be to run, not to try and shoot anything so how does having a gun help in that situation?
 
#306
#306
crusse10 said:
School shooters don't shoot up schools expecting to live. I believe it's a false equivalence to equate it to what a robber plans to rob. It might equate to fewer deaths per shooting, but I don't believe armed teachers will result in fewer shootings. I also think that armed teachers will struggle with shooting a student, if that's the school shooter.
Click to expand...

All very valid points and I would hope a teacher would give pause before shooting anyone but it's still better than not having the option.
 
#308
#308
bignewt said:
I look at like this. You arm say 1000 teachers. A conservative estimate is that 100 of them are either idiots, cowards, crazy or will just happen to miss when called upon and strike down an innocent child. That is not a risk worth taking when you can hire trained former military that need jobs and put them in schools visibly armed. That is a deterrent and they will be able to act and act decisively at a much higher percentage.

If I had kids in a school I would feel much better about option B than option A.
Click to expand...

You're pulling numbers from your anus.

I'm all for putting armed trained security in schools too. I think it has to be a multi-pronged approach. And what happens when one of the military security forces dude has PTSD and shoots up the school himself?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#310
#310
InVOLuntary said:
You're pulling numbers from your anus.

I'm all for putting armed trained security in schools too. I think it has to be a multi-pronged approach. And what happens when one of the military security forces dude has PTSD and shoots up the school himself?
Click to expand...

Hence that psych eval and I will take that chance over an ill-equipped civilian teacher making 40k a year any day.
 
#320
#320
hog88 said:
What if the teacher is a combat vet?
Click to expand...

Still no. I do not like the double duty aspect of it. Let teachers worry about teaching that is hard enough lets not tack on active shooter response training.
 
#322
#322
bignewt said:
Aren't we all? I just wish i could meet some of the stone cold teachers you guys had...
Click to expand...


No were not. Quite the opposite.

You are younger. Back in the day there were several teachers I didn't want to cross. Out of curiosity, I asked my 18 yo who's a senior in high school if he had any teachers that he felt would be comfortable carrying in class. He said there were at least three or four. One being a woman. He said one day this woman teacher was late to class and she explained she'd forgot her handgun was in her ford f250 and she had to return home to leave it there so as not to get into trouble. While there may not be many there are some.

I'm not painting with a broad brush at all. I'm simply stating there are some that could responsibly carry and be counted on in case of a catastrophe. You're stating there are none.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#324
#324
bignewt said:
Still no. I do not like the double duty aspect of it. Let teachers worry about teaching that is hard enough lets not tack on active shooter response training.
Click to expand...

Thank you. We are already understaffed with para-professionals, special education teachers, behaviorists, counselors, psychiatrists and social workers and day to day have to pick up the slack. I have no desire to become a security guard as well.
 
#325
#325
wildnkrazykat said:
Thank you. We are already understaffed with para-professionals, special education teachers, behaviorists, counselors, psychiatrists and social workers and day to day have to pick up the slack. I have no desire to become a security guard as well.
Click to expand...

I never thought it should be mandatory but some would welcome the challenge. Pay the ones that want to some extra money. Mandatory training every year. It's not like it would take extra time away from the classroom. Chances are the skills would never be needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top