Teachers with guns?

[Guest]

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Imagine if the Sergeant at Arms Kevin Vickers wasnt there to shoot the terrorist on parliment hill. The stat about how many lives he saved that day will never be listed because nobody knows.

Lucky it didn't happen with this administration, would probably get arrested for hurting a terrorist .

[samhill]

IDK, I have an opinion. I think armed guards in US schools may be the answer. In our schools we have 3
exit/entrances, so 3 guards would suffice. Only one door is open during class time.
I wouldn’t be against armed teachers if they wanted to be and be properly trained.
A little training goes a long way. I have had self defence training. It wouldn’t stop Jason Bourne, but it would give me an advantage over someone with no training. Also agree video games could have a harmful effect on some personalities, but don’t see how that can be controlled.
FWIW

[dmlfarmer]

Here is a voice that needs to be heard in this debate. He is a former marine, top notch shooter, and a teacher. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/opinion/sunday/marine-gun-classroom.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/opinion/sunday/marine-gun-classroom.html

[burnt]

Here is a voice that needs to be heard in this debate. He is a former marine, top notch shooter, and a teacher. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/opinion/sunday/marine-gun-classroom.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/opinion/sunday/marine-gun-classroom.html

A good article but, unfortunately, he actually includes factual errors and opinion.The first in completely counterproductive and the second is - well - opinion.

As has been said before, the US has a big underlying problem and until it is acknowledged and addressed, giving out more guns or taking them away is not going to make an iota of difference.

[dmlfarmer]

A good article but, unfortunately, he actually includes factual errors and opinion.The first in completely counterproductive and the second is - well - opinion.

As has been said before, the US has a big underlying problem and until it is acknowledged and addressed, giving out more guns or taking them away is not going to make an iota of difference.

Burnt, it was an opinion piece. It says so right at the top of the article. It is his opinion, and given his background I value his opinion on guns a lot more than yours.

As far as factual errors, do enlighten us as to what those errors are. It is easy to call someone a liar as you are doing, especially when you do not back up your attack by pointing out what he said was in error and what the real truth is. So what are the factual errors you claim is made.

[agstar77]

Yes, the answer is always more guns and there are more guns. Guess what ? There are more shootings.

[Sheepwheat]

Burnt, it was an opinion piece. It says so right at the top of the article. It is his opinion, and given his background I value his opinion on guns a lot more than yours.

As far as factual errors, do enlighten us as to what those errors are. It is easy to call someone a liar as you are doing, especially when you do not back up your attack by pointing out what he said was in error and what the real truth is. So what are the factual errors you claim is made.

He states things that ppl who fear guns lap up. Those of us who appreciate guns understand this. In fact he sounds surprisingly scared of guns considering who he says he is. Lol

[dmlfarmer]

He states things that ppl who fear guns lap up. Those of us who appreciate guns understand this. In fact he sounds surprisingly scared of guns considering who he says he is. Lol

So what? It is his opinion. As I pointed out it was an opinion piece. Is he not allowed to voice his opinion because it is different than yours.

Expressing an opinion does not automatically mean that opinion is factually incorrect. However, unless Burnt steps up and details the "factual errors" which Burnt claims the writer made, Burnt is the one who should be scrutinized for trying to mislead readers with misleading claims and opinions he is trying to disguise as fact.

[biglentil]

Yes, the answer is always more guns and there are more guns. Guess what ? There are more shootings.

Hmm tell that to some Mexican states that have 40 times the murder rate as US states with many times more guns and concealed carry. Infact US states with concealed carry all tend to have the lowest number of shootings, robberies and violent crimes. Proper backround vetting and a individual licensing program like we have here in Canada works well. Long term friends and family are interviewed to ensure the applicant is sane and responsible enough to own firearms. Its too bad the FBI and police did not act on all the information they had on this fellow. Thats a problem.

[samhill]

I would agree that some of the exmarine/teacher’s opinion are not sensible. But maybe guards and not teachers make more sense. In a school, short distance a hand gun in trained hands would be effective.
Police officers with hand guns miss, yes, but likely at distance targets. There are not many shootings at military institutions, but have been some.
I don’t like or want firearms in a school, hopefully a better solution is found, but mental illness is a fact, and innocents need protection. I agree assault weapons should be difficult to obtain. But citizens should have the right to firearms, b/c the bad guys will have them, and police protection is too late.

[dmlfarmer]

...In a school, short distance a hand gun in trained hands would be effective.
Police officers with hand guns miss, yes, but likely at distance targets.

Really??? What are you basing these statements on?

Let me provide you with some facts. Following is from 2007 New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html
"New York City police statistics show in 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.

In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.

In all shootings — including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away.

In Los Angeles, where there are far fewer shots discharged, the police fired 67 times in 2006 and had 27 hits, a 40 percent hit rate, which, while better than New York’s, still shows that they miss targets more often they hit them.

Bad marksmanship? Police officials and law enforcement experts say no, contending that the number of misses underscores the tense and unpredictable nature of these situations. For example, a 43 percent hit rate for shots fired from zero to six feet might seem low, but at that range it is very likely that something has already gone wrong: perhaps an officer got surprised, or had no cover, or was wrestling with the suspect."


In a followup 2008 article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html
Officers hit their targets roughly 34 percent of the time.

When they fire at dogs, roughly 55 percent of shots hit home. Most of their targets are pit bulls, with a smattering of Rottweilers and German shepherds.

While officers hit their targets about a third of the time over all, far fewer bullets generally found their mark during gunfights. In 1999, only 13 percent of bullets fired during a gunfight were hits.

What possibly could make you think a teacher or even a security guard, when surprised by a shooter in a crowded school would be a better shot than trained and continually recertified police officer. How many more students could be hurt or killed by stray bullets from a gunfight? I would not want my child depending on the marksmanship of the English teacher. Hell, my English teacher could not even hit me with thrown chalk or blackboard brush from 5 feet away even though I was seated and not a threat to him or anyone else!

[Sheepwheat]

So the hit pc is lower than u like? How many civilians caught in crossfire did the police kill in those instances? Who cares if they miss? They still are engaging the shooter, and taking him out.

Kind of a strange argument, no? That armed teachers or guards may miss. So what? They still will make hits. And once engaged, the shooter will be distracted from further carnage. Misses have nothing at all to do with anything.

[dmlfarmer]

So the hit pc is lower than u like? How many civilians caught in crossfire did the police kill in those instances? Who cares if they miss? They still are engaging the shooter, and taking him out.

Kind of a strange argument, no? That armed teachers or guards may miss. So what? They still will make hits. And once engaged, the shooter will be distracted from further carnage. Misses have nothing at all to do with anything.

I believe the 9 pedestrians injured by shots fired by 2 police officers at a gunman in front of the empire state building in 2012 cared! Yes the gunman had just shot and killed (a person whom he knew), on the street, so I believe the 2 officers were fully justified in using lethal force. However, even though the gunman did not fire a shot at police, they still missed with 9 of the 16 shots fired and injured 9 bystanders. This is just one case I remember off the top of my head, I am sure there are other incidents where bystanders are hurt by stray gunfire from well trained police. I feel it is naïve to think the collateral damage would not be higher when the gun is in the hands of an outgunned teacher reacting to a severe threat in a crowded hallway or classroom.

And what happens if the gunman is wearing body armor. Cruz posted pictures on Instagram of the body armor he purchased before shooting up the school. It is bad enough promoting arming the teachers with handguns up against typically heavily armed psychos who likely could care less if they live or dy. Do also you feel armed teachers should also be allowed to wear bullet proof vests in class? IMHO arming teachers is not only stupid, it is escalating an already out of control problem.

[dmlfarmer]

Sheepwheat, you deserved a better answer than I gave you so I googled bystanders killed by police gunfire and the second response was a story from the Washington post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/15/a-boy-in-louisiana-a-mother-in-iowa-when-officers-kill-innocent-bystanders/?utm_term=.f74e29c12cb2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/15/a-boy-in-louisiana-a-mother-in-iowa-when-officers-kill-innocent-bystanders/?utm_term=.f74e29c12cb2

So you do not have to follow the link here is the second paragraph of the story: "A Washington Post database of fatal police shootings shows that law enforcement officers have accidentally killed at least eight people over the past year, from a 6-year-old boy in Louisiana to a 55-year-old mother of five in Chicago who was shot when she answered the door for police. In nearly all the cases documented by The Post, innocent bystanders seem to have wound up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Often, they are with — or merely near — suspects whom officers have intended to shoot."

Is 8 bystanders killed in 2015 okay with you? Or does it not matter if the police also killed the intended target?

[burnt]

Burnt, it was an opinion piece. It says so right at the top of the article. It is his opinion, and given his background I value his opinion on guns a lot more than yours.

As far as factual errors, do enlighten us as to what those errors are. It is easy to call someone a liar as you are doing, especially when you do not back up your attack by pointing out what he said was in error and what the real truth is. So what are the factual errors you claim is made.

DLM, Why all the anger? I did not call him a liar!

One of the errors was that the Ft. Hood shooting was carried out in a no-weapons zone, as compliant with military policy. So to call it heavily armed, as the writer did, is a factual error.

I know you may have trouble accepting that but that's the facts.

As for putting more credence in his opinion on weapons than mine, well, of course you should since he is trained.

But as for his philosophical views - those are opinion and worth no more or less than those of anyone else -including yours.

Chill out man, and unwind a little, will you?! Remember, it was Aaron Alexis' anger issues that led to the Navy Yard shooting. Mental illness, again, was the contributor there...