What you gun nuts look like to us nor...
Anon

Herndon, PA

#82 Jan 26, 2013
Moreno Jay wrote:
I do. Armed teachers. It's quite simple, really.
Actually, arming untrained people and putting them in classrooms is ill advised and potentially very dangerous. On the other hand, armed, well trained police officers in schools would very likely deter some from committing these crimes.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#83 Jan 26, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason that we almost never hear of someone successfully defending themselves is because it almost never happens.
Yes, it does. People defend themselves with their firearms successfully often enough. Those incidents, more often than not, don't 'bleed'.....so it won't 'lead'.

To say it almost never happens is wrong.
Anon

Apo, AE

#84 Jan 26, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, arming untrained people and putting them in classrooms is ill advised and potentially very dangerous. On the other hand, armed, well trained police officers in schools would very likely deter some from committing these crimes.
I am all about having gun shooting safety courses for this. It would take care of the untrained part.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#85 Jan 27, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I am all about having gun shooting safety courses for this. It would take care of the untrained part.
Gun safety courses are just what the name says and little more. They are designed to teach the basics of gun ownership, use, and safety. They are far from the level of training needed to qualify a person to use a gun to fend off an attacker in a crowded classroom.
Bobby

Herndon, PA

#86 Jan 27, 2013
Every applicant for clearance to purchase a gun or for a concealed carry permit should have to produce proof that they are not mentally unstable. This would do more than any of the other proposed gun controls to keep guns away from crazies.

“It's comong.”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#87 Jan 27, 2013
Bobby wrote:
Every applicant for clearance to purchase a gun or for a concealed carry permit should have to produce proof that they are not mentally unstable. This would do more than any of the other proposed gun controls to keep guns away from crazies.
Lets use the Sandy Hook scenario. Can you show us how this process would have prevented the incident?
Anon

Herndon, PA

#88 Jan 27, 2013
Senora de la Iglesia wrote:
<quoted text>Lets use the Sandy Hook scenario. Can you show us how this process would have prevented the incident?
I don't think this process would have had any effect. The perpetrator did not own the guns and did not have a carry permit. This just points up the uselessness and futility of the contention of the NRA and others that the answer lies in "doing something about mental illness." The answer remains elusive.

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#89 Jan 27, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun safety courses are just what the name says and little more. They are designed to teach the basics of gun ownership, use, and safety. They are far from the level of training needed to qualify a person to use a gun to fend off an attacker in a crowded classroom.
I think you miss at least part of the point. Making schools and other locations "Gun Free Zones" only advertises to a would be killer that his prey can't fight back.

The simple public knowledge that even some of the staff at a school is armed will do more than anything else to dissuade an attacker.

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#90 Jan 27, 2013
Bobby wrote:
Every applicant for clearance to purchase a gun or for a concealed carry permit should have to produce proof that they are not mentally unstable. This would do more than any of the other proposed gun controls to keep guns away from crazies.
You have it backwards. It is the duty of the state to prove a citizen unfit.

Look at your statement above: "Every applicant for clearance to purchase a gun or for a concealed carry permit should have to produce proof that they are not mentally unstable."

You are demanding that a concealed carry applicant prove a negative. This is a logical impossibility.

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#91 Jan 27, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think this process would have had any effect. The perpetrator did not own the guns and did not have a carry permit. This just points up the uselessness and futility of the contention of the NRA and others that the answer lies in "doing something about mental illness." The answer remains elusive.
And the solution remains. The only sure way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.
Bobby

Herndon, PA

#92 Jan 27, 2013
LonePalm wrote:
<quoted text>
You have it backwards. It is the duty of the state to prove a citizen unfit.
Look at your statement above: "Every applicant for clearance to purchase a gun or for a concealed carry permit should have to produce proof that they are not mentally unstable."
You are demanding that a concealed carry applicant prove a negative. This is a logical impossibility.
My error. "Every applicant for clearance to purchase a gun or for a concealed carry permit should have to produce proof that they ARE MENTALLY STABLE."
Joe

United States

#93 Jan 27, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
My error. "Every applicant for clearance to purchase a gun or for a concealed carry permit should have to produce proof that they ARE MENTALLY STABLE."
Post #90
Bobby

Herndon, PA

#94 Jan 27, 2013
LonePalm wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you miss at least part of the point. Making schools and other locations "Gun Free Zones" only advertises to a would be killer that his prey can't fight back.
The simple public knowledge that even some of the staff at a school is armed will do more than anything else to dissuade an attacker.
We have to accept the simple truth that arming teachers will not accomplish anything other than putting the students in more danger. ARMED TEACHERS ARE DANGEROUS. Put one or more trained, qualified police officers in each school and attackers could be dissuaded.

You, Moreno, and the NRA have got it all wrong. Guns do not turn ordinary people into heroes. Guns do not kill, but neither do they prevent killings. Only competent trained individuals can prevent a killing and they may use a gun to do it.

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#95 Jan 27, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
My error. "Every applicant for clearance to purchase a gun or for a concealed carry permit should have to produce proof that they ARE MENTALLY STABLE."
You still have it backwards. The right is keep and bear arms. It is up to the state to prove the individual should not have a weapon due to mental incapacity. That must be done court since the individual still has due process rights.

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#96 Jan 27, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
We have to accept the simple truth that arming teachers will not accomplish anything other than putting the students in more danger. ARMED TEACHERS ARE DANGEROUS. Put one or more trained, qualified police officers in each school and attackers could be dissuaded.
You, Moreno, and the NRA have got it all wrong. Guns do not turn ordinary people into heroes. Guns do not kill, but neither do they prevent killings. Only competent trained individuals can prevent a killing and they may use a gun to do it.
Where do you get the idea that armed teachers are dangerous, per se? I have never advocated arming all teachers. I would allow those who are willing, able, and properly trained to voluntarily carry while they teach. The armed person in a school need not be a police officer or a teacher. There are many former and retired military members that are quite proficient with any number of weapons who could serve effectively.

The great deterrent here is not the guns. It is the public knowledge that at least SOME of the adults within a school are armed. This introduces an unacceptable element of risk into the plans of anyone thinking of attacking a school. Currently schools are chosen precisely BECAUSE they are "Gun Free Zones". Those with evil intent know they will not face armed resistance.

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples’ liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”-- George Washington

There is an additional reason that Washington thought that the people should be armed.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
Tom

United States

#97 Jan 27, 2013
Teachers need to carry to protect themselves only.

“Master o Public Administration”

Since: Oct 10

St. Marys, GA

#98 Jan 27, 2013
I see.

So if the invader says " I just came for the children, the armed teacher can just go to the teachers' lounge for a break until the shooter is done, eh?
Tom

United States

#99 Jan 27, 2013
Moreno Jay wrote:
I see.
So if the invader says " I just came for the children, the armed teacher can just go to the teachers' lounge for a break until the shooter is done, eh?
No wonder you posts gets the marks it does.
Tom

United States

#100 Jan 27, 2013
I read your posts and see a serious lack of reasoning. A teacher's job is to teach. They are not trained on interdiction.It would be a liability.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#101 Jan 27, 2013
LonePalm wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get the idea that armed teachers are dangerous, per se? I have never advocated arming all teachers. I would allow those who are willing, able, and properly trained to voluntarily carry while they teach. The armed person in a school need not be a police officer or a teacher. There are many former and retired military members that are quite proficient with any number of weapons who could serve effectively.
The great deterrent here is not the guns. It is the public knowledge that at least SOME of the adults within a school are armed. This introduces an unacceptable element of risk into the plans of anyone thinking of attacking a school. Currently schools are chosen precisely BECAUSE they are "Gun Free Zones". Those with evil intent know they will not face armed resistance.
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples’ liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”-- George Washington
There is an additional reason that Washington thought that the people should be armed.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
I agree with "Bobby."

Of course putting armed, basically untrained, and unprepared teachers in a classroom with a group of young children creates a potentially dangerous situation. Get off your rhetorical gun rights podium and think about it.

Where will an armed teacher keep his or her gun every day? Are they going to strap it on in a holster? Carry it in a purse? Lock it in their desk?

Have you been in some of our rougher schools lately? Ho long will be until the first teacher's gun is stolen by a student? What will be the consequences then?

What happens if one of these armed teachers is a little twitchy and paranoid and student gives the him or her a bunch of lip, stands up and yells obscenities? If the teacher even threatens to use a gun, it's all over for that teacher's career. If it escalates, the results could be fatal to someone.

What is going to be the headlines when the first unarmed student is killed by a teacher?

If a school is under attack, don't you suppose responding police officers, especially plain clothed officers, would hesitate to rush into a classroom where they know, or even suspect, that an armed, untrained civilian is waiting?

In a moment of panic, could anybody expect every untrained, unqualified teacher to be disciplined enough to not fire at an attacker if there is a possibility that an innocent person, especially a young student, could be hit?

You stated, "There are many former and retired military members that are quite proficient with any number of weapons who could serve effectively." This could well be true if they were employed as police officers and their training was refreshed. This could be a source of the additional police we need in the schools.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

St. Marys Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The corrupt democrap party and their tools hit ... 1 hr I was a Democrat 2
Woodbine-Galactic Culture Center 6 hr Out of Control 7
St Marys Marine Center 20 hr LonePalm 5
Camden County Leadership 21 hr Jack 5
New two-story retail center planned Wed Not a pine left 2
Sarah Sanders shuts down CNN star Jim Acosta's ... Wed Caped Crusader 8
A Man with a Big Best Beutiful Plan Wed Floozy Spotter 4

St. Marys Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

St. Marys Mortgages