I see where a Paki teacher started firing back at gunmen
- Thread starter rog1187
- Start date
Maybe what " I " want may be changing, and " I " will have to pack up and leave. You never know.
In this incident more than one life was saved...I'd say this teacher shooting back at the gunmen was worth it.
LOL...nice reply...move to Australia...they don't have guns there...see how that works. Many anti-gun people argue that if it saves one life, then (insert anti-gun measure) it is worth it...funny how when it goes the other way folks like you can't take it (queue the whaaambulance).
I agree much better to let them be sitting ducks with only dry erase markers and staplers to throw at a shooter.
Smartassed responses aside. IMO, just having the knowledge that there are armed individuals (teachers/security guards) able to respond might be enough of a deterrent to keep a crazy from being crazy. Making a hard target is often deterrent enough.
I wouldn't mind moving to Australia and being safer after retirement. But you better hurry and get your plane ticket to Pakistan since you admire it so much.
In particular instances, I am not against armed security guards protecting a school. Discussion was on a teacher being armed.
Knowing a teacher "may" be armed "could" be enough of a deterrent. That is my point. If it comes to actual shooting, having an armed teacher "IS" better than one that is not.
I didn't say it was a bad place. I know I am not interested in a place that allows guns in classrooms as an everyday occasion
It's hard to argue my logic Bru. If you just don't like it, that's fine. I respect that. Respect the fact you are wrong though.
Armed teachers are the psychologically the same deterrent as a police presence is.
In the event of an actual shooting, having someone there who could do something is better than all the little kiddies being bullet sponges. That is reality.
No, you are showing one instance that having an armed teacher worked out for the best. At least I think that is what you are doing. I don't know the story you are discussing.
I won't move as I love America and support policies that hopefully will make situations better in the future.
No, i am not wrong. It is a difference of an opinion. Right wing nuts have to learn not everything is a one way street.
I'll be waiting for the instance where you can show an armed teacher didn't stop a gunman. One thing is for certain chalk board erasers are not a threat to gunmen.
This is certainly a valid point ... but could it also open up a possible scenario in which an assailant doesn't bring a weapon to school and instead just takes the one from the teacher that is already there? Just a thought. If I were to put percentages on it, I would say it would probably favor your point of view about 90/10.
Teachers already have so much on their plates and so much to worry about, I could see how it would be easy to get complacent about the security of the gun. It wouldn't take much of a distraction, probably, for somebody to get the gun ... distractions that are already pretty commonplace in the school systems.
Ultimately I think the benefits would far outweigh the risks, but I like looking at things from different angles.
In this case it's not a difference of opinion.
Psychologically, a police presence is a deterrence factor. Same thought behind an armed teacher. Deterrence.
Not even sure how you could remotely argue having no chance is better than having a chance. That doesn't pass the common sense test.
I understand you want zero guns. I respect that opinion. However, and this is where we do have a difference of opinion, operating as if we are in an environment that might be desirable is a dangerous proposition considering the actual environment we are currently in. The one we really live in has over 300 million guns floating around, a constitutionally protected amendment allowing for that, a society where tragic occurrences like school shootings take place, faulty laws, a lack of enforcement of said laws, and a society where present circumstances prohibit people from being able to fully protect themselves.
When we get to your reality inbthebland of make believe then we can talk about not needing to arm ourselves if we should so desire. Because, I'll tell you right now, if something ever happened to my kids due to shooting violence, the lawsuits I would bring would be game changing.
You know that libtards would rather have a whole classroom of kids killed rather than having an armed teacher.
Is the gun laying out like an apple on the teachers desk? Are you going to take the risk of trying to distract someone that has a gun in order to try and get their gun from them? Maybe we should take guns away from the police because people trying to steal their guns from them would become rampant. There is a schools district in Texas that probably does it the best - their training is only topped by the Texas State Police - if the teacher doesn't go through that training, they don't carry a weapon.
I understand not wanting to overload teachers. My sister and my sister-in-law are both teachers, both may not feel comfortable in carrying in a school. But as someone who trains a couple times a month (in the warmer months that is) I shouldn't have to disarm every time I go to the schools that my kid attend, they and their fellow students should be afforded that small amount of extra security that I could provide at that time.
In my perfect world, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not saying we just start arming 76 yr old Mrs. Kennedy with zero training. I would require annual qualifications to go along with active shooter and mass casualty training.
I might even go so far to say that the gun has to be kept in a safe with a bio-metric style device on it. I think the decision for anyone to carry a loaded weapon is not an easy one - I have a CCW and I don't carry that often...it's not an easy decision to carry...its' not like which watch am I going to wear...I would think most people if not all people think hard about that decision before they do it. People that don't handle weapons probably wouldn't understand that.
My mom was a teacher and other family members as well. A lot of crap goes on in class rooms, and they are already largely overloaded the majority of the time as it is. When you are talking HS kids, especially if they aren't acting alone, it wouldn't be hard for them to get the gun from the teacher. People get complacent, they aren't going to be looking for or expecting something to happen every day.
I will reiterate that I put that risk pretty low ... but if we were to enact something like this it is something that should be considered. I'm not throwing this thought out there to make the statement/excuse that we can't do this and it would be too dangerous.
I think you have to have it in a safe inside the classroom. I guess you have to figure out what to do with those weapons after school hours, during school breaks, etc.
Fair concern...but like some have said on here - it the policy saves one life then it's worth it. Background check, training and safe storage (bio metric style safe) would be the pre-cautions I could think of.
I have to think you take them home. I'll have to look up the Texas school district that has them and see if they say what they do, but I bet they take them home.
Since there are so many self proclaimed experts on the subject and hypothetical games are being played, here is one.
What are the chances that an armed teacher has a child shot in his classroom by accident versus a child being shot in a classroom in which there is no possible way a gun will get there in the first place?
Remember just a hypothetical but please tell me which has a higher risk.
I will support policies with the lower risk as we move towards that perfect scenario.
What are the chances that an armed teacher has a child shot in his classroom by accident versus a child being shot in a classroom in which there is no possible way a gun will get there in the first place?
Remember just a hypothetical but please tell me which has a higher risk.
I will support policies with the lower risk as we move towards that perfect scenario.
Last edited:
Are you serious? LMAO.... That's one hell of a thought coming from a narrow minded intolerant like you.
There are many topics in which people can know a lot more than I do and still not be considered an expert, or proclaim themselves as an expert. It's wise to listen when they speak.
I assume you meant hypothetical and not hypocritical, I didn't see anything I'd call hypocritical.
Of course in your hypothetical scenario there is more risk in getting shot if there is a gun than if there is no possible way for a gun to be there ... but how exactly do you propose to reach this state of "no way possible a gun will get there"? If we're going to go with scenarios without a basis in reality, suppose there is a gun in the classroom but the classroom is reserved for people with no fingers.
Yes, i meant hypothetical. Typing on my phone with words self populating and i didn't catch it
It is possible to have totally gun free schools. It isn't going to happen as it will require too much change and the public won't change that drastically. That is why I said I will support policies that will head in that direction. Your fingerless comment is just irrelevant
Again, we're back to Bru's fantasy land and not reality. There are already laws on the books and policies prohibiting guns from being on campus and in classrooms. I guess that means we shouldn't have school shootings. Let's solve reality based problems and not Bru's fantasy land where we all sit around in a bongo drum circle.
As to your question, I think you can put enough policy and structure into place where that will be a very minimal if not minute risk. By your logic there would be a hell of lot more accidental shootings on military installations. I would say considering the amount of rounds fired on the military bases of the world, you are talking probably .000001%. That is acceptable, especially when we have had active shootings in a school, it has been 100% that there have been fatalities. Great logic Bru.