Should teachers in the US be armed?
- Thread starter jameen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'm not sure allowing teachers to conceal carry is a good or a bad thing. What I do know is that there is a high potential for friendly fires in the event there was a school shooting (teacher shoots wrong kid, policeman shoots teacher thinking he/she is the one shooting up the school). I mean, agents go through vigorous training multiple times a year to be able to carry their weapon... I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, it just seems impractical for teachers to get tactical training in the same way agents do on top of having their day job. There are better alternatives that we should try. What are those alternatives you say?
1.) Make local/state entities federally obligated to report ALL crime. There may have been incentives for local entities to NOT report crime to the National Crime Information Center in the form of federal grants. This makes background checks useless if there is nothing on them. This is probably the easiest thing to fix and would have the most impact pertaining to legal guns (like the kind the gunman used).
2.) Background checks on all weapons, all the time. No loop-holes.
3.) Beef up schools with more police officers who won't go hiding behind a tree when shots are fired. What happened in Florida really makes people lose faith in law enforcement who are suppose to protect and serve. A coach uses his body as a shield to save student's life... meanwhile, an armed policeman (I'm hearing there were 4 now?) hides behind a tree outside... Huh? Metal detectors would be nice as well.
For these first three, the majority of the left AND the right agree. Instead of banging your heads against the wall, arguing with the opposing party about banning assault weapons, get the part we agree on fixed! Once we have the things we agree on fixed, then by all means... go at it about banning/not banning rifles. It would be absolutely insane to not fix what's broken unless and until we ban rifles. Neither side will concede any time soon... it doesn't mean we should be vulnerable until we all do agree on rifles being banned or not banned.
I'll add my personal idea to make Stoneman Douglas High School safer... REMOVE Scott Israel! He has no business being sheriff. He is a disgrace to his county, to all law enforcement, to his state, and to the United States of America. We cannot have sheriff's like Scott Israel... I hope Scott Israel (I refuse to call him Sheriff) resigns (he said he won't), I hope if he stays for his full term and tries to campaign for another 4 years, voters read his name and instantly think of "danger", "incompetence", "coward", etc...
1.) Make local/state entities federally obligated to report ALL crime. There may have been incentives for local entities to NOT report crime to the National Crime Information Center in the form of federal grants. This makes background checks useless if there is nothing on them. This is probably the easiest thing to fix and would have the most impact pertaining to legal guns (like the kind the gunman used).
2.) Background checks on all weapons, all the time. No loop-holes.
3.) Beef up schools with more police officers who won't go hiding behind a tree when shots are fired. What happened in Florida really makes people lose faith in law enforcement who are suppose to protect and serve. A coach uses his body as a shield to save student's life... meanwhile, an armed policeman (I'm hearing there were 4 now?) hides behind a tree outside... Huh? Metal detectors would be nice as well.
For these first three, the majority of the left AND the right agree. Instead of banging your heads against the wall, arguing with the opposing party about banning assault weapons, get the part we agree on fixed! Once we have the things we agree on fixed, then by all means... go at it about banning/not banning rifles. It would be absolutely insane to not fix what's broken unless and until we ban rifles. Neither side will concede any time soon... it doesn't mean we should be vulnerable until we all do agree on rifles being banned or not banned.
I'll add my personal idea to make Stoneman Douglas High School safer... REMOVE Scott Israel! He has no business being sheriff. He is a disgrace to his county, to all law enforcement, to his state, and to the United States of America. We cannot have sheriff's like Scott Israel... I hope Scott Israel (I refuse to call him Sheriff) resigns (he said he won't), I hope if he stays for his full term and tries to campaign for another 4 years, voters read his name and instantly think of "danger", "incompetence", "coward", etc...
Last edited:
I would agree. It's one thing to be licensed and know how to shoot a gun/abide by the laws required to conceal. Imagine taking a random 50 year old LTC citizen, no military training, no law enforcement training... but they do have their license to carry... being dropped off in a war zone with trained military men. Their license does jack squat when crap hits the fan and bullets are flying...
I'll repeat, I don't think it's impossible for teachers to be trained, I just think it's really impractical and improbable. Let's get the other things that would have a greater impact and both sides agree on fixed first at the very least, before having this teachers/guns debate.
I'll repeat, I don't think it's impossible for teachers to be trained, I just think it's really impractical and improbable. Let's get the other things that would have a greater impact and both sides agree on fixed first at the very least, before having this teachers/guns debate.
Repeatedly asking for something that does not exist, somehow expecting someone to give it to you, is a classic example of "the definition of insanity".... doing something the same way time after time, but expecting different results.
I understand your point, but we are not taking an average 50 yr old LTC person and dropping them into a war zone against militarily trained fighters. We are arming people who have a very strong desire to defend "their" kids.
I would challenge you to train a woman how to use a handgun, and then let some murdering criminal start shooting at her kids, and see what happens. I think you would be surprised what a woman (or a man, for that matter) would be capable of, when protecting their children. If they are willing to use their own body as a human shield, what do you think they would do if they were armed and could fight back?
I would challenge you to train a woman how to use a handgun, and then let some murdering criminal start shooting at her kids, and see what happens. I think you would be surprised what a woman (or a man, for that matter) would be capable of, when protecting their children. If they are willing to use their own body as a human shield, what do you think they would do if they were armed and could fight back?
It may be hard to vet each teacher for mental stability in order to have a firearm in class. It would be a real tragedy if some kid dissed the teacher and instead of reaching for a paddle the teacher reached for a gun. Of course, there are those that think a paddle is a deadly weapon that can't be used for discipline and would subject the teacher to arrest trying to maintain an orderly classroom. If the paddle is a deadly weapon than I wouldn't have made it through the 7th grade.
i know a lot of teachers. i know a lot of them that i wouldn't trust with a gun. i know a lot of them who would be very much opposed to being coerced to carry one. i know a lot of them who would not wear it on their person if they were required to have it.
that's an issue.
my initial reaction to this whole subject is a combination of the preceding paragraph & 'good grief, we can't fund the things they need in order to operate the classroom and take care of the emotional and educational needs of the children, but we can come up with the money to put kill-people-devices in schools, potentially in the hands of a lot of people who don't want them?'
no chalk, no textbooks, no guidance services, no infrastructure or living wage, but yes, death rays, look under your desks! you get a death ray, you get a death ray, everyone gets a death ray!! hooray now we're safe! because everyone has death rays!!!
*sigh*
that's an issue.
my initial reaction to this whole subject is a combination of the preceding paragraph & 'good grief, we can't fund the things they need in order to operate the classroom and take care of the emotional and educational needs of the children, but we can come up with the money to put kill-people-devices in schools, potentially in the hands of a lot of people who don't want them?'
no chalk, no textbooks, no guidance services, no infrastructure or living wage, but yes, death rays, look under your desks! you get a death ray, you get a death ray, everyone gets a death ray!! hooray now we're safe! because everyone has death rays!!!
*sigh*
Likewise, I understand your point that a teacher has the ability to shoot a gun and potentially defend her life as well as students. Similarly, a civilian with no training but has an LTC has the potential to kill an enemy if dropped in a war zone... It's not an "either we have armed teachers or keep the status quo" argument. The potential risks of friendly fire is present even amongst those trained, but exponentially more so for someone who's primary job is teaching. I would rather rely on beefing up schools with more security, more police, metal detectors, etc..., in addition to making local authorities inputting criminal data into the National Criminal Information Center to make background checks actually functional before letting teachers carry on campus.
The same is true for boarding an aircraft. It makes more practical sense to have more air marshals on a plane before letting flight attendants carry on board. Would you advocate for flight attendants/cabin crew to carry on-board an aircraft (provided they got their LTC)?
The same is true for boarding an aircraft. It makes more practical sense to have more air marshals on a plane before letting flight attendants carry on board. Would you advocate for flight attendants/cabin crew to carry on-board an aircraft (provided they got their LTC)?
Last edited:
S
It's a bad idea. In fact, it really stinks big time. We train our law enforcement officers and soldiers at a very early stage of life for a reason. They are like clay at that age, and can be whatever the instructor what them to be.
A 30-50 years old school teacher not so much.
You can put a gun in their hand, but a fair guess is that less than 1% will be doing any good with that piece of iron. The rest of them will most likely do more harm than good.
Besides, like someone else has already pointed out, it'll just make a chaotic crime scene getting even more chaotic with teachers firing guns and/or hiding under tables.
Bad idea!
A 30-50 years old school teacher not so much.
You can put a gun in their hand, but a fair guess is that less than 1% will be doing any good with that piece of iron. The rest of them will most likely do more harm than good.
Besides, like someone else has already pointed out, it'll just make a chaotic crime scene getting even more chaotic with teachers firing guns and/or hiding under tables.
Bad idea!
I don't think anyone is suggesting that all teachers be armed. Goodness knows most them would shoot themselves by accident long before they engaged a threat.
At least some teachers have served in the military and some also have grown up in rural or agrarian environments where guns are a part of normal life. The idea is that if these people who would seek to do harm to school kids had to contend with the possibility of an armed teacher they would reconsider their evil endeavor.
No plan is perfect and they will never bring God back into the public schools. No fear of God means they will need to fear other men.
Cyber schools are a very good alternative to massing the flock to form a target rich environment.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
At least some teachers have served in the military and some also have grown up in rural or agrarian environments where guns are a part of normal life. The idea is that if these people who would seek to do harm to school kids had to contend with the possibility of an armed teacher they would reconsider their evil endeavor.
No plan is perfect and they will never bring God back into the public schools. No fear of God means they will need to fear other men.
Cyber schools are a very good alternative to massing the flock to form a target rich environment.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I agree with you here, 100%.
The big issue that I see is getting Congress off their collective behinds and getting them to force the 12 states that do not provide information to the NICS system to provide that data. And to figure out a workable way to have mental instability reported/updated to the NICS system.
Also to provide funding for increased numbers of armed guards and metal detectors at ALL schools. I don't mean total funding, but a sizeable percentage of funding, perhaps 50% of the money necessary.
It has to start somewhere.
The big issue that I see is getting Congress off their collective behinds and getting them to force the 12 states that do not provide information to the NICS system to provide that data. And to figure out a workable way to have mental instability reported/updated to the NICS system.
Also to provide funding for increased numbers of armed guards and metal detectors at ALL schools. I don't mean total funding, but a sizeable percentage of funding, perhaps 50% of the money necessary.
It has to start somewhere.
K
Do you realize how condescending that is? I don't have children,but I do have two nephews that I love as my own children. Its incredibly insensitive of you to make it look like you are the only person here that cares about the lives of children. So far all I've heard is you restating your own opinion. You keep talking about science but have no proof to back up your own claims and bias.Then you turn around and trash people for giving their opinion. smh.
Says the person that copy/pastes from Wikipedia.
So we can never make a change or come to a solution because we don't know whether the outcome is positive? How do we know taking guns away will be the right solution? Science hasn't backed that up. In fact the opposite has shown to be true. People are screaming for a solution and then when several are proposed "we can't do that because it doesn't back my opinion".
Well at least you admit it may be part of the problem.
Have you ever been in an active shooter situation? I can tell you it's a frightening thing to experience,even more so when you are unable to defend yourself.I was in one of those situations many years ago. Its not something you soon forget,being a sitting duck,praying shots won't hit your loved ones,or you. At the time I was in a country where people were not allowed to protect themselves. So until you go through that type of horrifying situation and paralyzing fear perhaps you should refrain from trashing other people and their opinions.
Have you ever been in an active shooter situation? I can tell you it's a frightening thing to experience,even more so when you are unable to defend yourself.I was in one of those situations many years ago. Its not something you soon forget,being a sitting duck,praying shots won't hit your loved ones,or you. At the time I was in a country where people were not allowed to protect themselves. So until you go through that type of horrifying situation and paralyzing fear perhaps you should refrain from trashing other people and their opinions.