Arm the teachers...seriously?

all guns should be registered...if you choose to sell that gun authorities need to track it just like a car to know it's not ending up being sold to someone who isn't permitted to have it...with cars it's more a deterrent to stop car theft...

I had an acquaintance who ended up in psychiatric care because he tried to kill someone, some years after his release he was pissed that he couldn't get a permit to buy a rifle and shotgun for hunting...he tried to buy one from his friends but no one would sell him one, why? because they all knew he wasn't permitted to own one and they'd be held criminally responsible if he shot someone ....

 

No.

 

again, only if you intend to drive it in public.

if we registered guns the same as cars, you could have/use it at home and carry it in public with no liscence or registration. you would just have to liscence/register it to shoot it in public. which I dont really have a huge problem with, though its certainly not going to do any good that way

the problem is you want to force registration for mere ownership (which is NOT like how we register cars), which is unenforcible upon the criminal element. guns are far easier to hide than cars. the only people registering guns will be law abiding citizens, which is an expensive program that neither prevents nor catches any crime.

we've had registration by proxy here in WA for years now with mandatory transfer registries. it has lead to precisely zero criminal convictions and precisely zero reduction in gun crime.

 

You are just blowing smoke

There was nothing intelligent in your rant that required a retort

 

I am far more real and far more experienced than you. This much is clear. I've a teaching degree in order to get n a class room I had to under go psychological testing. YOur Arguments basically boil down to the idea that doing nothing is basically better than doing something. That is the epitome of stupid. And banning semi auto weapons is essentially doing nothing. Forcing psychos to become more inventive is not a workable solution or a good idea.

 

Do the math. A teacher will volunteer for the training, carry their own weapon, and work for what they are already paid to teach. They know the children and care for their safety. We call them “school marshals in Texas. Nobody knows they are carrying except other school marshals, administrators, and police. School marshals receive text updates from school resource officers during lockdowns. They can secure their class or a whole wing of a school by guarding an entrance. A school shooter would not be able to move through a school for fear of being ambushed by a teacher guarding an entrance from a covered post.

My brother teaches high school. He isn’t armed, but he is part of a security council. There was a shooting across the street from the school. My brother’s students were worried when they heard about the shooter. My brother calmed them and showed the class the string of texts from school resource officers. They showed where the shooter was and how the SROs were protecting the school. Not every school can afford 5 or 6 SROs. One SRO can be supplemented by volunteer teachers and principals. The school can provide ammo for monthly training with the SRO and local police. It’s a lot cheaper than paying a bunch of security guards $40k/year each + benefits.

 

Why do you need a gun that can kill dozens in a few minutes..curious, where do you live that you had to Undergo psychological testing

 

I,am a teacher and this rambling makes me sick!

 

Or...how about we shut down the minimum-security prisons we send our kids to from the age of 5. Then there would be no teachers to arm.

 

RE:

There are thousands of firearms that could fulfill that role.

In a neighborhood I used to live in, there was a rash of "Home Invasions" during which multiple assailants broke in & proceeded to rape, rob & massacre.
The police are not there to protect you only to sort out the mess.
Generally its' the man of the house that is responsible for the defense of his family & this man who has been trained to use an M-16 would like to have an effective defensive tool to fulfill that role.
You can be assured that the criminal thugs throughout our society will always have AR-15, AK-47s etc regardless of the laws passed banning them from law abiding citizens.
Why shouldn't law abiding citizens be equally well armed as the thugs that prey on them?

 

Since almost 1/5 of teachers would like to be allowed to protect themselves, why do you think they would be less qualified than a 19 year old fresh out of school? Too educated? Too immature? You must not think very highly of your coworkers? I know lunch ladies who carry everywhere except school.

 

What an Ugly country this has become. It breaks my heart

 

I think you're missing the whole point of arming the teachers. The idea is to sell more guns, enrich the arms manufacturers, and thereby stimulate the economy. One gun company just declared bankruptcy. Perhaps if we sucker..... errr.... I mean convince enough school districts to stop buying those useless pencils and tables, our gun industry can yet be rescued.

 

That’s 2 posts you couldn’t argue with. You run on with your little broken heart and let adults worry about your security. It seems you refuse to do so.

 

Yes I run on my little broken heart when I see dozens and dozens of people killed with guns that we don’t need and whose only purpose is to make insecure men feel good. No one needs a gun like that. I wish your little broken heart wasn’t for guns but rather for children

 

My sons are just fine. They are hard workers, love their country, and have very good manners. They also own guns, but my 16 year old’s stay in my safe. My 24 year old is active duty military, my 22 year old is a ranch hand on a beef cattle farm, and my 16 year old plays any saxophone like Adolph Sax wished he could and does part time work at a friend’s construction company. Thanks for your concern.

I love my kids and would gladly give my life for any of them, but I’d rather be around to protect them with the means to do so.

 

You have not presented anything of factual content to refute. I have not read all your posts, the ones I have read (and all of the ones addressed to me) were you simply posting "you are wrong" with no other content.

Post a factual claim. Then we will see if you are the brainwashed gun banner you clearly are.

 

Why do you need a car that goes more than 55 mph and can kill dozens?

But the writers of the Constitution answered your question already - people "need" firearms as the last check on an out of control govt.

 

In the middle of the country Used to be SOP back in the day, Granted the test wasn't terribly good the Old Minnesota multiphase personality test. Or gun that can put dosens of holes in a paper target and shoot half inch groups at two hundred yards? Why do you need anything beyond basic food clothing and shelter? What I want can be anything however and that isn't any of your business.

 

Again, whether you like it or not, believe it or not, you buy a car you must have it registered by law. Whether you drive it or have it delivered to sit and rust in your backyard. A matter of history, a matter of fact. Period.

Not so fast....you just contradicted yourself. YOU put forth the premise that purchasing a car doesn't need a license if you are just going to have it sit in your driveway. That still requires registration. Likewise, you could purchase a gun just for collectors purpose...that would still require registration. BUT, if you want to carry it out in public, THAT would require a license, just like driving a car would.

And why do you make the moot point of law abiding citizens paying for such? That's a given, as criminals pay a hell of a lot more for illegal guns, don't cha know.

Also, I'd like to see some official police stats regarding your last sentence, as your personal supposition and conjecture are NO substitute.

 

translation: Mac-7 doubling down on his inability to provide a fact based retort to what I previously posted. He's finished.

 

Please provide the link to the state you allegedly teach in that requires a psychological evaluation before you teach from kindergarten through high school.
The epitome of stupid is your just parroting the empty rhetoric of the gun lobby while lying and ignoring anything said to the contrary. Try dealing with the OP questions with the BS...and if you're that hyped about armed security, then lobby to have a PROFESSIONAL armed guard in the school.

 

what about some kind of sleeping gas that fills the hallways after the safety bullet proof glass doors in each class shut and a teacher with access card could initiate the alarm sequence doing that.

oh never mind, the would be crazy student will have gotten a gas mask from Army surplus store, so ..oh well, maybe some stun gun devices in the ceiling,..

 

You say "do the math" then you make my point regarding the affordability of an SRO..because if they are as you say NOT getting additional pay for their additional responsibility, then why are they being supplemented for ammo and monthly training? You can't have it both ways...just higher the professional, if the need arises because as you admitted NOT EVERY SCHOOL can afford such.