Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Springfield News-Leader)   None of my teachers growing up were crazy. Not one   (news-leader.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Springfield, Greene County, Dodge City, concealed weapons, National Education Association  
•       •       •

2518 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Dec 2012 at 10:51 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-12-19 08:23:35 PM  
YOU JUST MADE A FATAL MISTAKE MISTER CANDYASS!  I HOPE YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT!
 
2012-12-19 08:25:47 PM  
But what troubles me most about this suggestion - and the general More Guns approach to social ills - is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian "war of every man against every man" in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor  for now - but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.
 
Whatever lack of open violence may be procured by this method is not peace or civil order, but rather a standoff, a Cold War maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. Moreover, the person who wishes to live this way, to maintain order at universal gunpoint, has an absolute trust in his own ability to use weapons wisely and well: he never for a moment asks whether he can be trusted with a gun. Of course he can! (But in literature we call this  hubris.) Link
 
2012-12-19 09:02:30 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: But what troubles me most about this suggestion - and the general More Guns approach to social ills - is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian "war of every man against every man" in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor  for now - but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.
 
Whatever lack of open violence may be procured by this method is not peace or civil order, but rather a standoff, a Cold War maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. Moreover, the person who wishes to live this way, to maintain order at universal gunpoint, has an absolute trust in his own ability to use weapons wisely and well: he never for a moment asks whether he can be trusted with a gun. Of course he can! (But in literature we call this  hubris.) Link


The gunfight at the OK Coral solved problems, Mister!
 
2012-12-19 09:37:41 PM  
Think back(waaay back) the only teachers I had that I'd trust with a gun probably wouldn't want one.
 
2012-12-19 10:51:08 PM  
FTA: "In addition, the applicant must shoot a minimum of 50 rounds each from a revolver and semi-automatic pistol at a silhouette target from a distance of seven yards.
 
The applicant must hit the target at least 15 times from each gun to pass, or 30 percent of the time."

 
Seriously? They want people that can hit a paper target 30% of the time from 7 yards away to carry guns in a school full of kids?
 
2012-12-19 10:51:35 PM  
When I was doing my student teaching, I had a student who came to me with a journal that rang a bit too true to simply be usual teen age angst. Turned out, that she was being sexually abused by her step father, and my team got her and her mother to press charges, and when she and her mother asked me to be there when they came for him. Against my team's advice, I went, because I was proud of her--she was a troubled kid, but she thought she was protecting her younger sister from her stepfather's attention.
 
When he was about to be arrested he realized exactly who had gotten his stepdaughter to come forward, and he came at me. I laid him out, and the State police who were there assured me that even if he wanted to press charges, that they'd quash them.
 
It was about then, that I realized that I was not good teacher material. Despite the years into the program, despite being in my student teaching with only about a month or so left to graduation. I didn't leave the work behind: these were my kids. I was involved in their lives, and I took that seriously, but I didn't have the reserve that a good teacher needs. A good teacher has to be involved, has to be an advocate for their students, to be a judge of character as well as academic achievement, and their potential, but there has to be a line between your lives to be good at it. I had been in kitchens perhaps too long. My kids were family. An extended family, and yes, you are mentor, but teaching has to have a certain reserve, that I am just not good at. I'm glad I had that moment of clarity, because my teaching career would have been storied and not terribly long. What made me a good bouncer, made me a not great teacher. We need dedicated professionals in the classroom--not security personnel who happen to have a teaching cert. We need dedicated professional educators, who have the training to understand developmental psyche, to understand issues that face our kids, and yes, a good teacher is fiercely protective of their kids, and even physically so, but what made me a good bouncer is not good for an educator. Not in Language Arts.
 
I only teach a bit today. Mostly jujitsu, and only with selected students, and I tutor, but I also understand that I am not cut out professionally to teach in the classroom setting. I get too involved, and a good teacher needs a bit more reserve and distance to do the job well. In the wake of the Connecticut tragedy, I know that folks want to try to "fix" this. The problem is, that in order to "fix" this, we need more than armed guards. We need to address the underlying issues, we need to address how we approach mental health, how we approach creating monsters in our midst, how we deal with issues of violence and perpetuation and training young folks to simply not care about one another, to be consumed with rage and without outlet. We can't approach the issue with band aid fixes, that ignore the real wounds. It's not a matter of getting rid of guns, or adding more guns, or being tougher, or softer, but we need to look at the kind of society that we are crafting, and the kinds of people that we are molding, because like it or not, our young folks and our adults are learning the lessons we keep teaching, even if they're not the ones that we intend.
 
2012-12-19 10:56:47 PM  
dailygrindhouse.com

/approves
 
2012-12-19 10:57:31 PM  
Female. Bad PMS twice a year. Yeah, some days I shouldn't be around people.
 
2012-12-19 10:57:37 PM  

CruiserTwelve: FTA: "In addition, the applicant must shoot a minimum of 50 rounds each from a revolver and semi-automatic pistol at a silhouette target from a distance of seven yards.
 
The applicant must hit the target at least 15 times from each gun to pass, or 30 percent of the time."
 
 
Seriously? They want people that can hit a paper target 30% of the time from 7 yards away to carry guns in a school full of kids?


Sure! They fire three shots, as long as at least one hits the gunman, does it matter where the other two hit? And if six or seven teachers are firing at once, one of those shots is bound to hit the gunman, so what's the problem?
 
Anyone would think you see something wrong with a 30% hit rate. All those other shots go harmlessly into the backstop, right?
 
2012-12-19 11:00:44 PM  
http://newlenox.patch.com/articles/former-l-way-teacher-allegedly-thre atened-to-shoot-school-officials

/thread over.
 
2012-12-19 11:01:41 PM  
The US is first in the world for gun ownership. No country on the planet has more than us. Virtually one gun for every man, woman, and child. We're 10th in the world for gun related homicides, barely behind a bunch of drug war ravaged hellholes.

How many more guns do we need before society becomes safer?
 
2012-12-19 11:01:42 PM  
walk-hard.trailertheater.com

And you never once paid for drugs. Not even ONCE!
 
2012-12-19 11:01:43 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: But what troubles me most about this suggestion - and the general More Guns approach to social ills - is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian "war of every man against every man" in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor  for now - but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.
 
Whatever lack of open violence may be procured by this method is not peace or civil order, but rather a standoff, a Cold War maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. Moreover, the person who wishes to live this way, to maintain order at universal gunpoint, has an absolute trust in his own ability to use weapons wisely and well: he never for a moment asks whether he can be trusted with a gun. Of course he can! (But in literature we call this  hubris.) Link


I came here to say something similar, but... heck, you phrased it better than I could.
 
2012-12-19 11:05:04 PM  
Won't make a difference in the 5 minute period between classes
 
2012-12-19 11:06:00 PM  
I'm a teacher. I could not shoot one of my students. Not for any reason. Many teachers could not. They are our kids, down to the most damaged.

This idea is stupid.
 
2012-12-19 11:06:19 PM  
In high school, two teachers got into a fistfight in the hallway between classes, hallway full of students. I shiat you not. The addition of firearms would have been hi-larious.
 
2012-12-19 11:06:43 PM  
Two weeks ago at a local high school a teacher was escorting a student out of the classroom because they were being disruptive. The student attacked the teacher. What if that teacher had been armed and the student had grabbed their gun?
 
2012-12-19 11:06:56 PM  
"Are we going to have holsters? Is it going to be like Dodge City?"

No. In Dodge City you had to check your guns with the Sheriff.
The wild west was not really the wild west, you know.
 
2012-12-19 11:10:15 PM  

KushanMadman: I'm a teacher. I could not shoot one of my students. Not for any reason. Many teachers could not. They are our kids, down to the most damaged.

This idea is stupid.


Any reason? Even if you had a Columbine repeat?
 
2012-12-19 11:10:20 PM  

Gyrfalcon: CruiserTwelve: FTA: "In addition, the applicant must shoot a minimum of 50 rounds each from a revolver and semi-automatic pistol at a silhouette target from a distance of seven yards.
 
The applicant must hit the target at least 15 times from each gun to pass, or 30 percent of the time."
 
 
Seriously? They want people that can hit a paper target 30% of the time from 7 yards away to carry guns in a school full of kids?

Sure! They fire three shots, as long as at least one hits the gunman, does it matter where the other two hit? And if six or seven teachers are firing at once, one of those shots is bound to hit the gunman, so what's the problem?
 
Anyone would think you see something wrong with a 30% hit rate. All those other shots go harmlessly into the backstop, right?


There is a reason that we didn't carry guns in the clubs. We didn't use pepper spray. My boss offered us stun guns, and we turned them down, because there was no way in Hells that we wanted to have folks getting sprayed or tased, and for damn sure, we didn't want guns in a crowded room. I carried for a short time, when I was in Boston, because I was making night deposits, and the amount of cash, coupled with the neighborhood, it made sense to carry, and I don't regret carrying, or keeping up the concealed carry permit, but there are a lot of places that I don't ever want to carry a gun, and in a crowd with kids is pretty much at the top of that list.
 
I chalk this nonsense up to over-reaction, which is going to continue for some time. Folks are going to lose they damn minds on this for a while, and each is going to want to out crazy the other to be MOAR on top of the situation than they feel others are, and it's a game of oneupsmanship at this point--on both sides of this ridiculous spectrum--until we can get to a point where we can clear out the Crazy Train on both sides, and maybe get to a point where we can have a serious discussion on what we need to do to reduce the damage that we are doing to ourselves...
 
2012-12-19 11:13:24 PM  
So we're trusting teachers with our children's future, but not their security?
As long as they get training and are held responsible for their firearms, I don't really see what the problem is.

/I'd trust them more than the cops at this point.
 
2012-12-19 11:13:40 PM  

hubiestubert: Gyrfalcon: CruiserTwelve: FTA: "In addition, the applicant must shoot a minimum of 50 rounds each from a revolver and semi-automatic pistol at a silhouette target from a distance of seven yards.
 
The applicant must hit the target at least 15 times from each gun to pass, or 30 percent of the time."
 
 
Seriously? They want people that can hit a paper target 30% of the time from 7 yards away to carry guns in a school full of kids?

Sure! They fire three shots, as long as at least one hits the gunman, does it matter where the other two hit? And if six or seven teachers are firing at once, one of those shots is bound to hit the gunman, so what's the problem?
 
Anyone would think you see something wrong with a 30% hit rate. All those other shots go harmlessly into the backstop, right?

There is a reason that we didn't carry guns in the clubs. We didn't use pepper spray. My boss offered us stun guns, and we turned them down, because there was no way in Hells that we wanted to have folks getting sprayed or tased, and for damn sure, we didn't want guns in a crowded room. I carried for a short time, when I was in Boston, because I was making night deposits, and the amount of cash, coupled with the neighborhood, it made sense to carry, and I don't regret carrying, or keeping up the concealed carry permit, but there are a lot of places that I don't ever want to carry a gun, and in a crowd with kids is pretty much at the top of that list.
 
I chalk this nonsense up to over-reaction, which is going to continue for some time. Folks are going to lose they damn minds on this for a while, and each is going to want to out crazy the other to be MOAR on top of the situation than they feel others are, and it's a game of oneupsmanship at this point--on both sides of this ridiculous spectrum--until we can get to a point where we can clear out the Crazy Train on both sides, and maybe get to a point where we can have a serious discussion on what we need to do to reduce the damage that we a ...


I'm not holding my breath anytime soon. I've been posting reasonable solutions and serious options to this since it happened, and have simply been ignored or laughed at. What's going to happen is that it will be crazy overreaction MOAR GUNZ for a couple weeks, and then back to apathy and ignore the problem, like the last 42 times it happened.
 
2012-12-19 11:13:57 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: But what troubles me most about this suggestion - and the general More Guns approach to social ills - is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian "war of every man against every man" in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor  for now - but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.

Whatever lack of open violence may be procured by this method is not peace or civil order, but rather a standoff, a Cold War maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. Moreover, the person who wishes to live this way, to maintain order at universal gunpoint, has an absolute trust in his own ability to use weapons wisely and well: he never for a moment asks whether he can be trusted with a gun. Of course he can! (But in literature we call this  hubris.) Link


I honestly cannot believe that in 21st century America we have a significant portion of the population that advocates arming school teachers. It's quite literally incomprehensible,

You know what may favorite part is though? They don't want to actually PAY for the guns or training, because
Socialism or some shiat. I also don;t think they've really thought through the adviseability of arming Union Thugs, but whatever.
 
2012-12-19 11:15:10 PM  

dstrick44: "Are we going to have holsters? Is it going to be like Dodge City?"

No. In Dodge City you had to check your guns with the Sheriff.
The wild west was not really the wild west, you know.


Don't take your guns to town son
 
2012-12-19 11:19:34 PM  

way south: So we're trusting teachers with our children's future, but not their security?
As long as they get training and are held responsible for their firearms, I don't really see what the problem is.

/I'd trust them more than the cops at this point.


Sure, as long as they're only allowed to miss the target 70% of the time in order to get (and stay?) certified, what could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-12-19 11:23:26 PM  

dstrick44: "Are we going to have holsters? Is it going to be like Dodge City?"

No. In Dodge City you had to check your guns with the Sheriff.
The wild west was not really the wild west, you know.


Town Marshall, not sherrif. Sherrifs were, and still are, over an entire county (shire-rieve, or police of the shire, which in England is another word for a county), not just over a town.

/pedant
 
2012-12-19 11:23:38 PM  
Now that I think about it, not one of my teachers growing up were crazy. They all became crazy when they were adults.
 
2012-12-19 11:25:11 PM  

CruiserTwelve: FTA: "In addition, the applicant must shoot a minimum of 50 rounds each from a revolver and semi-automatic pistol at a silhouette target from a distance of seven yards.
 
The applicant must hit the target at least 15 times from each gun to pass, or 30 percent of the time."
 
 
Seriously? They want people that can hit a paper target 30% of the time from 7 yards away to carry guns in a school full of kids?


~I'm entirely sure I'd want my kid in that school.~
 
2012-12-19 11:35:35 PM  
This is great. You can have teachers working for free at night as cops, since during the day they're babysitting the kids at school. That'll save the town lots in police salaries.
 
2012-12-19 11:36:55 PM  

apoptotic: way south: So we're trusting teachers with our children's future, but not their security?
As long as they get training and are held responsible for their firearms, I don't really see what the problem is.

/I'd trust them more than the cops at this point.

Sure, as long as they're only allowed to miss the target 70% of the time in order to get (and stay?) certified, what could possibly go wrong?


There's more to shooting than hitting the target. There's also the choice of when to shoot and when to gamble on the backstop.
Say they get an angle where they see the shooter and there's a concrete wall behind him. Missing seven for ten wont matter so much.

/They are responsible for their shots and they know no one will excuse them for hitting a kid.
/The responsibility and the risk is theirs to choose. They could opt out and run like everyone else, no one would question that.
 
2012-12-19 11:40:51 PM  

CruiserTwelve: FTA: "In addition, the applicant must shoot a minimum of 50 rounds each from a revolver and semi-automatic pistol at a silhouette target from a distance of seven yards.

The applicant must hit the target at least 15 times from each gun to pass, or 30 percent of the time."


Seriously? They want people that can hit a paper target 30% of the time from 7 yards away to carry guns in a school full of kids?


From 7 yards at a shooting range if you don't have 100% hit rate, you shouldn't have a gun.
 
2012-12-19 11:41:50 PM  

CruiserTwelve: FTA: "In addition, the applicant must shoot a minimum of 50 rounds each from a revolver and semi-automatic pistol at a silhouette target from a distance of seven yards.

The applicant must hit the target at least 15 times from each gun to pass, or 30 percent of the time."


Seriously? They want people that can hit a paper target 30% of the time from 7 yards away to carry guns in a school full of kids?


To be fair, we've lowered the bar so far in schools that a 30% is now a B+. If it''s good enough to pass high school, it should be good enough to pack heat in crowded public venues.
 
2012-12-19 11:49:22 PM  

way south: apoptotic: way south: So we're trusting teachers with our children's future, but not their security?
As long as they get training and are held responsible for their firearms, I don't really see what the problem is.

/I'd trust them more than the cops at this point.

Sure, as long as they're only allowed to miss the target 70% of the time in order to get (and stay?) certified, what could possibly go wrong?

There's more to shooting than hitting the target. There's also the choice of when to shoot and when to gamble on the backstop.
Say they get an angle where they see the shooter and there's a concrete wall behind him. Missing seven for ten wont matter so much.

/They are responsible for their shots and they know no one will excuse them for hitting a kid.
/The responsibility and the risk is theirs to choose. They could opt out and run like everyone else, no one would question that.


And if they don't have the angle, and instead have a wall or door where there is a corridor flooded with kids who are likewise fleeing, then what?  Firing through a blackboard?  A particleboard partition?  Windows that look out onto a playground?
 
There is a REASON the cops train fairly heavily on shoot/no shoot situations. And even with that training mistakes happen. SWAT trains more than their beat cop counterparts, and oddly enough, that's for a reason.
 
A teacher is a professional. An education professional. Not a security professional. Not a law enforcement professional. You going to pay these teachers to get their SWAT training to deal with close quarters situations? Commiserate with the level of training, because this ill conceived band aid puts essentially more kids at risk from their own teachers, and their own lack of training beyond simple target practice. You want them to be security professionals AS WELL as education professionals, you can bet your Bippy that you are going to see HUGE risers in pay...
 
2012-12-19 11:51:35 PM  
The US has a way more prevalent mental health illness rate than we realize. It's the only explanation for something like the Connecticut shooting happening and then people saying the solution is "MOAR GUNZ!"
 
2012-12-19 11:53:28 PM  

The_Sponge: KushanMadman: I'm a teacher. I could not shoot one of my students. Not for any reason. Many teachers could not. They are our kids, down to the most damaged.

This idea is stupid.

Any reason? Even if you had a Columbine repeat?


Try to stop it, try to talk them down, try to protect my other kids, blockade, barricade.... But try to kill them?

I just don't see it.
 
2012-12-19 11:56:13 PM  

way south: apoptotic: way south: So we're trusting teachers with our children's future, but not their security?
As long as they get training and are held responsible for their firearms, I don't really see what the problem is.

/I'd trust them more than the cops at this point.

Sure, as long as they're only allowed to miss the target 70% of the time in order to get (and stay?) certified, what could possibly go wrong?

There's more to shooting than hitting the target. There's also the choice of when to shoot and when to gamble on the backstop.
Say they get an angle where they see the shooter and there's a concrete wall behind him. Missing seven for ten wont matter so much.

/They are responsible for their shots and they know no one will excuse them for hitting a kid.
/The responsibility and the risk is theirs to choose. They could opt out and run like everyone else, no one would question that.


None of which they would have to be tested on. They'd only be tested on whether they could hit a stationary, non-threatening paper target thirty percent of the time under calm conditions. That's ridiculous.
The potential for an armed teacher to either greatly overestimate their abilities in a crisis based on their success at the range, or to accurately assess their abilities and choose to "opt out and run" (in which case they're armed for no reason, and I totally disagree that no one would question that choice) is huge.
 
2012-12-19 11:56:41 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Think back(waaay back) the only teachers I had that I'd trust with a gun probably wouldn't want one.


On the other hand, I bet I would have been inspired to turn my papers in on time.  Acting up in class?  Not a goddamn chance if I knew that the teacher was packing.
 
2012-12-19 11:59:36 PM  
A few weeks into my first year of high school my mother asked me how my teachers were. I told her they were ok except for my English teacher who was crazy. Mother gave me a long lecture about why I shouldn't say things like that about a teacher.

A few weeks into my sophomore year my mother asked me if I had the same English teacher. I told her no. When she asked why, I explained that over summer vacation she had been committed. Mother gave me short apology.

/Teacher made it back for my senior year but that was her last gasp at sanity.
//Very glad she wasn't allowed to carry.
 
2012-12-20 12:04:56 AM  

hubiestubert: way south: apoptotic: way south: So we're trusting teachers with our children's future, but not their security?
As long as they get training and are held responsible for their firearms, I don't really see what the problem is.

/I'd trust them more than the cops at this point.

Sure, as long as they're only allowed to miss the target 70% of the time in order to get (and stay?) certified, what could possibly go wrong?

There's more to shooting than hitting the target. There's also the choice of when to shoot and when to gamble on the backstop.
Say they get an angle where they see the shooter and there's a concrete wall behind him. Missing seven for ten wont matter so much.

/They are responsible for their shots and they know no one will excuse them for hitting a kid.
/The responsibility and the risk is theirs to choose. They could opt out and run like everyone else, no one would question that.

And if they don't have the angle, and instead have a wall or door where there is a corridor flooded with kids who are likewise fleeing, then what?  Firing through a blackboard?  A particleboard partition?  Windows that look out onto a playground?

There is a REASON the cops train fairly heavily on shoot/no shoot situations. And even with that training mistakes happen. SWAT trains more than their beat cop counterparts, and oddly enough, that's for a reason.

A teacher is a professional. An education professional. Not a security professional. Not a law enforcement professional. You going to pay these teachers to get their SWAT training to deal with close quarters situations? Commiserate with the level of training, because this ill conceived band aid puts essentially more kids at risk from their own teachers, and their own lack of training beyond simple target practice. You want them to be security professionals AS WELL as education professionals, you can bet your Bippy that you are going to see HUGE risers in pay...


Not all cops get swat training, and many of them make very bad decisions on when to shoot.
Those instances become Fark headlines.

TFA is saying the teachers will get both basic marksmanship and CCW training. There is also advanced training if the teachers want to know more. Those kinds of courses cover shooting and moving, how to clear buildings and such.

They'll know what kind of accuracy to expect from a gun, what kind of damage a bullet can do, what a good or bad time to shoot will look like, and what kind of legal trouble the're in for if they take the chance. Armed with all of that knowledge, they can make as fair a judgement as any CCW holder.

/Unlike a cop, there's no weaseling out if they make a mistake.
 
2012-12-20 12:20:49 AM  

apoptotic: The potential for an armed teacher to either greatly overestimate their abilities in a crisis based on their success at the range, or to accurately assess their abilities and choose to "opt out and run" (in which case they're armed for no reason, and I totally disagree that no one would question that choice) is huge.


But we agree that teachers aren't cops and have no obligation to go roving the campus, looking for a man to shoot.
If they can get the drop on the guy, good. If they screw up, they had training and knew the risks. If they rather hunker down and protect the class, most people would understand that.
If they see the perp but refuse to take a shot because of whatever factors, I doubt a jury is going to convict them for not doing the deed.

I've said before that I believe the real solution is professional security. But failing to get that, no security at all isn't sensible.
If the staff is armed lawfully and educated properly, there's no reason to deny them the right to self defense.
 
2012-12-20 12:23:55 AM  

way south: /Unlike a cop, there's no weaseling out if they make a mistake.


If holding them to a higher standard than cops, but with less training, lower pay, and it not even being their freaking job doesn't seem at all ridiculous to you, I don't even know what else I can say.
 
2012-12-20 12:28:50 AM  
way south:
Not all cops get swat training, and many of them make very bad decisions on when to shoot.
Those instances become Fark headlines.

 
TFA is saying the teachers will get both basic marksmanship and CCW training. There is also advanced training if the teachers want to know more. Those kinds of courses cover shooting and moving, how to clear buildings and such.
 
They'll know what kind of accuracy to expect from a gun, what kind of damage a bullet can do, what a good or bad time to shoot will look like, and what kind of legal trouble the're in for if they take the chance. Armed with all of that knowledge, they can make as fair a judgement as any CCW holder.
/Unlike a cop, there's no weaseling out if they make a mistake.

 
You missed the point: this is not just a matter of teachers getting firearms training, but being expected to be to what amounts to professional security IN ADDITION to being an education professional. You think that tax payers are really going to shell out an additional riser in pay for this?  Because this amounts to changing the job description enough to warrant new contracts, beyond just the "training" but essentially turning these teachers into a town militia/security service.
 
Not being just a security guard who wanders halls and gets middle age spread, but being a Masters or PhD trained professional IN ADDITION to being a private security. What do you think that translates to for additional pay for the expansion of their duties? This is the issue. Towns are already complaining bitterly that their teachers are already draining their coffers dry, and now this yahoo wants to essentially give the union a reason to renegotiate all their contracts for substantial risers in pay for additional duties.
 
You want to mandate carrying weapons for teachers?  You'd best be ready to watch teacher pay go up by several notches. Just allowing teachers to carry if they want on school grounds, means a LOT more training is necessary than what this bill is looking at. This is reactionary tripe that had best be killed in committee, because it is not just asinine, it looks to something, as opposed to doing something useful...
 
Guess what? Many teachers already know how to shoot. Guess what, many of them even have concealed carries on their own. What this bill is attempting to do is get cheap security without actually paying for it, and to be quite honest, that is something that I don't think our lawmakers are thinking of, when they want to weaken unions. Do you REALLY want to arm a bunch of teachers who are already upset at what you're doing to their pensions and reimbursement for professional development?  And give them just cause to carry when coming in to negotiate said contracts? REALLY?
 
2012-12-20 12:36:29 AM  

dstrick44: "Are we going to have holsters? Is it going to be like Dodge City?"

No. In Dodge City you had to check your guns with the Sheriff.
The wild west was not really the wild west, you know.


This must be a lie. If it were true, surely Justice Scalia would have mentioned it in the historical background surveyed in the Heller opinion. You're not suggesting that Justice Scalia is intellectually dishonest, are you? Well? Are you?
 
/Justice Scalia is intellectually dishonest.
 
2012-12-20 01:10:01 AM  

way south: apoptotic: The potential for an armed teacher to either greatly overestimate their abilities in a crisis based on their success at the range, or to accurately assess their abilities and choose to "opt out and run" (in which case they're armed for no reason, and I totally disagree that no one would question that choice) is huge.

But we agree that teachers aren't cops and have no obligation to go roving the campus, looking for a man to shoot.
If they can get the drop on the guy, good. If they screw up, they had training and knew the risks. If they rather hunker down and protect the class, most people would understand that.
If they see the perp but refuse to take a shot because of whatever factors, I doubt a jury is going to convict them for not doing the deed.

I've said before that I believe the real solution is professional security. But failing to get that, no security at all isn't sensible.
If the staff is armed lawfully and educated properly, there's no reason to deny them the right to self defense.


This legislation isn't being proposed to give teachers the right to self defense. Teachers already have that right; if they want to CCW they can do so. This is being proposed to PROTECT THE STUDENTS from crazed shooters like the one at Sandy Hook. The idea IS, in fact, to have the teachers here acting to defend not just themselves but in defense of others.
 
You all who are proposing this as a good idea need to make up your minds what, exactly, you want teacher to do. Are they defending themselves or the students? Because if you expect them to defend the students, or if you think they're going to defend the students, then you can't claim you're protecting their "right to defend themselves." Those are two different scenarios, with two sets of requirements and two sets of potential outcomes. In one, it's an individual choice made for an individual. In the second, it's a mandate to defend others, which is both morally and legally different.
 
Pick one  and stick with it. And accept ALL the consequences.
 
2012-12-20 01:18:44 AM  
I think that a good quarter of my high school teachers were a bit looney. A couple certainly drank alcohol out of their little Thermos. I'm pretty convinced that one couldn't remember the previous day. One would clean the chalk off of her hands with her hair. That was a unique look by the end of the day. My electronics teacher would show R rated films and porn when he couldn't think of what to do (he was out in the portable building ghetto). Computer teacher was farking his student/babysitter. There were more that have faded from my brain. The school has only gone downhill since then.
 
2012-12-20 01:24:47 AM  

BitwiseShift: This is great. You can have teachers working for free at night as cops, since during the day they're babysitting the kids at school. That'll save the town lots in police salaries.


This. Teachers are not police.
 
2012-12-20 01:45:15 AM  
Ms. Macklin used to put the yardstick to me until I confessed to having a boner.
 
2012-12-20 01:46:19 AM  
If teachers are required to carry guns, how many will just up and quit? I know many of my teachers (the better ones, actually) would not want that responsibility, as their personalities would be incompatible with wanting to carry a firearm. Some people seem to assume that the default state of humanity is a desire to be as armed as possible, and are surprised when others don't actually want to be armed.
 
2012-12-20 01:51:36 AM  
If they're too unstable to be trusted with a firearm, are they to be trusted in a classroom every day with your kids?
 
2012-12-20 01:54:15 AM  

epoch: If teachers are required to carry guns, how many will just up and quit? I know many of my teachers (the better ones, actually) would not want that responsibility, as their personalities would be incompatible with wanting to carry a firearm. Some people seem to assume that the default state of humanity is a desire to be as armed as possible, and are surprised when others don't actually want to be armed.


Nobody is talking about requiring teachers to carry, just like the federal regs don't require pilots to have firearms in the cockpit. They allow it for those who qualify and want to do it. That's how it would work with teachers if one of these measures ever passes.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report