In the last 15 years, there have been several shootings at schools.

How many were caused by teachers that carried guns?

How many lives might have been saved if every teacher carried a gun and made an effort to kill the intruder who was killing the students?

:1rotfl:




Not fear.............I choose to protect my family if needed.


A good indicator is how many retired police officers carry or have guns at home.

But...? Teachers were never allowed to carry guns in school, so no shootings were caused by teachers that carried guns.

I understand the drive to protect your family, believe me as a mother I really do. I think it is a noble effort.

you made me think twice, Velvet. I normally stay out of gun right discussions and am not a gun owner, but now I'm thinking...

1. I think most teachers view their students, not quite but almost, like their kids. The need to protect them must be great and maybe with proper training, carrying guns might work.

2. Teachers carrying guns might deter kids from charging the shooter and getting killed. Recently it has been espoused that fighting is better than "flighting." But it usually means some innocent child gets killed.

It certainly could all go wrong. It's a conundrum.

It probably would and will go wrong in certain situations. Being able to take someone else's life is also something I am not that sure most teachers could actually do. And that failure could lead to tragedy.

I feel teachers and faculty that are ready, willing, able and trained, to carry concealed in the schools, and we are not just talking carrying in classrooms here, would be the ones willing and prepared to take a life to try to save the children and themselves. The other option just might be the death of many.
Would you fight to the death to try and save your children if someone broke into your home and proceeded to rape and beat your son or daughter? What if you had access to a weapon? A firearm, a club, a knife,.........? Fight or flight,? Your kids lives depend on it.
Steve

Just the fact that there MAY be an armed teacher in the school most likely will accomplish the goal. I was armed in the cockpit of an airliner after 9-11 and since then there have been no cockpit breaches. Perhaps that did accomplish the goal but who knows. And based on the training we went through plus the continuous semi annual training there should be little to worry about with proficiency. JMHO

But they also went to a hardened cockpit door with controlled access. That probably has as much to do with keeping people out as an armed pilot.

If you want to know how this could work, look at the states that already have similar laws.
Some states have allowed this for years.

Good point. I had t look it up

Redirect Notice

Steve

Yes, and it has been studied a bit.

As a break from all the macho talk by folks who will never be placed in the situation being discussed, maybe read some...example from NIH....

"
"Although no empirical evidence is currently available regarding whether arming teachers would deter gun violence in elementary and secondary school settings, we can extrapolate from existing research on the possible outcomes of such efforts. Research has shown that increased gun access and gun possession are not associated with protection from violence,6 which suggests that increasing the presence of guns in the hands of civilians in schools, no matter how well intentioned, may backfire. Furthermore, exposure to gun violence across a broader spectrum—hearing gunshots, witnessing gunfire, and knowing someone who has been injured with a firearm—can adversely affect a child’s health and development. Whether arming teachers would decrease these types of negative exposures is unclear."

Arming Schoolteachers: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go From Here?

We also should consider what we have learned from past experience and enact laws....a few exist, passed but senate refuses to bring to the floor.

I suggest I have no answer but in dealing with our children, we should act like adults.

First I do not consider myself "macho", but if being macho means wanting to protect the children at all costs, then I guess I am.

Let's get to the above;

"no empirical evidence is currently available"
Empirical meaning: based on, concerned with. or "verifiable" by observation or experience, rather than theory or pure logic.

"we can extrapolate"
Extrapolate meaning; extend the application to an "unknown situation" by "assuming" that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.

"may" backfire."
no need to extrapolate

"across a broader spectrum—hearing gunshots, witnessing gunfire, and knowing someone who has been injured with a firearm—can adversely affect a child’s health and development. Whether arming teachers would decrease these types of negative exposures is unclear."
Would you rather them be dead?

"I suggest I have no answer but in dealing with our children, we should act like adults."

I have no cut and dry answer either, but in dealing with our children, we should protect them at all costs, and keep an open mind to all options.

Steve

While I offer no solution, I am reluctant about arming teachers and offer this...

"claim that “gun-free zones” invite mass shootings has been thoroughly debunked by research showing that the overwhelming majority—nearly 90%—of all high-fatality gun massacres since 1966 have occurred wholly or partly in locations where civilian guns were allowed or there was armed security or law enforcement present.11

Guns in Schools | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence