Maybe because they are not trained for combat or to take a life if necessary. Teachers are not paid enough and have way too much to worry about. They don't need the added pressure and responsiblity to potentially take the life of a student if called upon.

Those are some pretty big drawbacks. I can see having an armed officer or security guard available at school but arming teachers doesn't make one bit of sense IMO. Let professionals handle the job if necessary.

Then that is arming them, correct?

Yes, allowing teachers to bring a gun to school is arming them and those are clearly not non-issues. Again, if necessary, professionals should always handle the job.

On another note, if you really want to stop these shootings, then repeal the Smith-Mundt Act which made it legal for the government to use weaponized propaganda against its own citizens in the first place.

"Arming" is the act of supplying or furnishing. That isn't the same as "allowing" a teacher to be armed.

Semantics. Same priciple as both ways an untrained teacher is carrying a gun.

It isn't just semantics. They are different concepts. Arming teachers is making it part of their job. Allowing a teacher to be armed voluntarily is a totally different thing.

And who said anything about untrained? There is nothing stopping the school from making strict training requirements.

Which goes back to my point. Teachers are not paid enough and have more than enough responsibilities. You want to train them for combat and taking a life? Now we are arming and training them as a cop. Why not just have an armed officer? Your argument is not very strong as it all boils down to the same principle: arming a teacher and training them for combat whether they are already bringing one with a carry and conceal permit or they are given one by law enforcement. Let the professionals handle the job if necessary.

Again, why put that responsibility on teachers? And how many teachers are trained for combat/taking a life? Knowing how to shoot and doing so against a moving target who is also firing back are two very different things. On top of that is the emotional trauma of having to take the life of a student. It makes no sense to put that on a teacher when there are plenty of officers or even retired military vets who could use a security job.

If they are bringing a gun to school then you are saying to them to use the gun if the situation arises, correct?

Then what is the point in allowing teachers to bring guns? Why not use law enforcement or security guards? I'm not trolling. Your argument does not make sense at all logically.

You already listed them earlier. Before I go through and list them again, do you know any teachers trained better than law enforcement to handle an active shooter situation? I highly doubt it. If you do, they should be doing security for the school full time instead of teaching.

Because they are teachers and their job is to teach not take out kids with guns. Why do you want teachers to carry guns to school so badly? Wouldn't a 24/7 law enforcement officer or security guard devoted to the schools safety be more logical?

Wow, you sure assume a ton. I actually never thought you were pro-Trump at all nor do I care. Didn't give it a thought at all really. I just believe your argument is entirely flawed and not logical. I'm happy to see you find what I am saying more logical. Since we agree on that point and seeing as you have now turned to childish insults, we can call it a day.

We are talking voluntary . OP isn't suggesting a requirement.

It isn't your business how much responsibility a teacher takes on, how much training they decide to have. I mean, if I'm paid the regular salary as a teacher yet decide on my own to spend my summer in an advanced course in literature and bring that to my classroom, that is my business.

And frankly, we are expecting teachers to take responsibility for the children in their charge, but with the added burden of not being able to defend themselves.

So it is a better idea to arm a teacher rather than have a trained law enforcement official or security officer at the school?

Again, OP isn't suggesting that anyone "arm a teacher" only allow a well-trained teacher to be armed. And, yes. I would rather my kid's teacher be allowed to carry if he or she wished to and was well trained than be defenseless until someone else showed up.

You know any teachers trained for combat better than law enforcement? I highly doubt that. A better idea would be to have an armed officer or security guard. A teacher is not trained to take a life.

They wouldn't be defenseless if there is an officer on the grounds.

There was an officer on the grounds in Florida. It didn't help, because he stayed outside where people were not getting shot. OP is just saying maybe having a back up plan inside the building would be nice.

Let's pretend for a minute that the officer failed at his job instead of actually being told to stand down because an active shooter drill (as reported by numerous students and faculty) was taking place and he had to take a fall because they were caught so he was given early retirement and a full pension for failing at his job due to his "cowardice." This was an officer who had numerous years of experience and was actually trained for situations such as this and yet failed to do his job. You believe a teacher with no training for active shooters and no experience with combat would have done a better job? Why? Also, there were apparently four officers who failed to do their job. You don't wonder why?

Wait... So cops are not sufficient? You seem to be making arguments both for and against just relying on the police. I don't want an untrained novice with a gun defending my kids. But we could let them write off the concealed carry and defensive shooting courses in their area maybe? There would be training requirements if this was implemented. The teacher is already going to be huddled up and praying, let it be about them not having to kill someone instead of praying not to die or watch their students die.

No I believe officers are more than capable. I don't believe for a second any of the officers at Parkland were cowards. I believe they were told to stand down due to the planned active shooter drills which multiple students/faculty spoke about and are now taking a hit for not doing their job they were told not to do during a false flag event.

My argument is it is more logical if a real school shooting occurs to have a trained officer or security guard on the school 24/7 rather than arming teachers and asking them to go Tom Berenger during an active shooter situation.

I am not familiar enough with the drill stuff, and will have to read up on it.

I agree in regards to an on site police officer or armed security guard(s?). But let's say a teacher at the school has a ccw, and wants to just wear it at work as OP suggests. Liability lawsuits being a real bitch, let's say they have to be certified by someone, the aforementioned paid security/officer perhaps.

How is that not better than just the cop?

Here, I'll share with you what I shared with another commenter:

"This was already discussed by the OP but here are a few pretty good write-ups:

"What are the chances of an armed, trained, literally-cool-under-fire social studies teacher taking down a gunman? The odds are much higher of an accidental discharge during study period, or a disturbed student disarming the teacher. Worse, we picture an angry teacher on a bad day pulling a gun on a student with an attitude. And if there were a shooter in the hallways? Given the chaos, terror and suddenness of an attack, chances are an armed teacher strikes a bystander, or gets shot mistakenly by law enforcement rather than disarming or disabling the bad guy.

Even contemplating this scenario presupposes that faculty members would enlist. We expect many would reject the idea of being armed. They wouldn’t want the responsibility and see the folly. These are teachers, after all, who recognize the dystopian lesson: Kids, you live in a dangerous world you can never hope to improve through peaceful means. So let’s lock and load.

Teachers and administrators do important work, as do police and other first responders. Let teachers educate children, and leave the protection of civilians to other professionals."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-arm-teachers-guns-schools-20180223-story,amp.html

"This approach would require us to be placing guns in schools now—guns that could easily be used inappropriately. Don't for a minute think that a secured gun, stored in a school, would be inaccessible. For a gun to be available for defense, it needs to be accessible. That means it would be accessible to more than just the principal or teacher. This will become an even greater concern should more states pass gun laws that allow people with valid pistol permits to also carry them in schools.

Although in New York state, where I am a principal, it is illegal to bring a gun into a school, more than two dozen states have passed such laws, and seven of those states allow teachers and school staff members to carry guns, according to an NBC report from September. Earlier this month, a 6th grade teacher in Utah wounded herself at school when her handgun, which she was legally carrying, accidentally discharged. An isolated incident, perhaps. But what if a child had been nearby? If more states jump on the bandwagon, more guns will be in schools and accessible to more than just the legal user."

http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25919971&bcid=25919971&rssid=25919961&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Few%2Findex.html%3Fuuid%3D561281D0-5B90-11E4-A887-BDA3B3743667

Countless law enforcement and school safety experts believe schools that arm their staff are inviting an unacceptable level of risk. Guns could be secured by students, or a manageable situation could easily turn deadly, for example. Proponents argue that staff would undergo extensive training to avoid these kinds of incidents, but critics respond that educators aren’t in school to be armed guards and no amount of training is going to change that.

“Suggesting that by providing staff with 8, 16, 40, or even 60 hours of firearms training on firing, handling, and holstering a gun somehow makes a non-law enforcement officer suddenly qualified to provide public safety services is a high-risk to the safety of students, teachers, and other school staff,” said Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services.

The potential for an accident or a misjudgment was an overriding concern at a recent hearing in northern Idaho where a local school board is considering a measure to arm school staff. Social Studies teacher Tyler Haynes told the board that one bad decision or impulse by a member of the staff could easily result in an unnecessary injury or death.

http://neatoday.org/2014/01/16/arming-educators-a-bad-idea-that-hasnt-gone-away/

I hate to admit it, this is all just what ifs and the opinions of several people to me. :/ what if it did work? What if there were teachers that did want to sign up and were both capable and qualified? What if the on site cop or guard gets shot first thing and doesn't get the chance to make a difference?

What if the teacher panics and shoots another kid? What if some deranged kid gets the teachers gun and kills someone? What if the teacher gets in a heated argument with a student or staff member and uses the gun?

Maybe it's best not to open that can of worms at all and leave teachers to do the job they were hired to do and cops/security guards to do the job they were hired to do as well.

I do, actually, and likely more so. A friend of mine has a survival camp that includes rigorous military grade training and he has teachers groups train fairly often. He, himself, was army trained, became a nurse, then a teacher and now has a survival camp.

And how many teachers around the country are there like your friend? More than, say, qualified law enforcement? Or would you concede he is probably a rarity and that other teachers would need to be armed and trained? Would it make more sense to have an armed teacher available or have an officer/security guard solely devoted to the school's protection available during the school day?

I've no idea how many, but I know that a lot of ex-military become teachers . I also know there would be a lot more weapon trained teachers if they were allowed to carry.

Exactly, so why start training teachers instead of hiring law enforcement or security guards devoted only to the school's safety and security?

Who the fuck said anything about training teachers except you? What are you not getting about allowing teachers to be voluntarily trained ?

And my link is showing that there is already a program for ex-military to become teachers- so they are trained. Why not allow them to carry. Why not allow teachers to carry and have a security guard?

Why not allow teachers to focus on teaching and law enforcement or security to protect the school? No confusion, no issues.

No one is talking about disallowing concentration on teaching . I would consider it "allowing a teacher to protect themselves and their students if necessary". Any teacher that wants to not go that extra step is allowed to do so.

Again, why ask them to when an armed officer/security guard can be present instead? Shouldn't they be locking the doors and protecting their class vs chasing down an active shooter?

No one is asking them to. What do you not get about that. The OP is about allowing them if they want to .

Better question, why disallow them if they are properly trained and want to ?

This was already discussed by the OP but here are a few pretty good write-ups:

"What are the chances of an armed, trained, literally-cool-under-fire social studies teacher taking down a gunman? The odds are much higher of an accidental discharge during study period, or a disturbed student disarming the teacher. Worse, we picture an angry teacher on a bad day pulling a gun on a student with an attitude. And if there were a shooter in the hallways? Given the chaos, terror and suddenness of an attack, chances are an armed teacher strikes a bystander, or gets shot mistakenly by law enforcement rather than disarming or disabling the bad guy.

Even contemplating this scenario presupposes that faculty members would enlist. We expect many would reject the idea of being armed. They wouldn’t want the responsibility and see the folly. These are teachers, after all, who recognize the dystopian lesson: Kids, you live in a dangerous world you can never hope to improve through peaceful means. So let’s lock and load.

Teachers and administrators do important work, as do police and other first responders. Let teachers educate children, and leave the protection of civilians to other professionals."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-arm-teachers-guns-schools-20180223-story,amp.html

"This approach would require us to be placing guns in schools now—guns that could easily be used inappropriately. Don't for a minute think that a secured gun, stored in a school, would be inaccessible. For a gun to be available for defense, it needs to be accessible. That means it would be accessible to more than just the principal or teacher. This will become an even greater concern should more states pass gun laws that allow people with valid pistol permits to also carry them in schools.

Although in New York state, where I am a principal, it is illegal to bring a gun into a school, more than two dozen states have passed such laws, and seven of those states allow teachers and school staff members to carry guns, according to an NBC report from September. Earlier this month, a 6th grade teacher in Utah wounded herself at school when her handgun, which she was legally carrying, accidentally discharged. An isolated incident, perhaps. But what if a child had been nearby? If more states jump on the bandwagon, more guns will be in schools and accessible to more than just the legal user."

http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25919971&bcid=25919971&rssid=25919961&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Few%2Findex.html%3Fuuid%3D561281D0-5B90-11E4-A887-BDA3B3743667

Countless law enforcement and school safety experts believe schools that arm their staff are inviting an unacceptable level of risk. Guns could be secured by students, or a manageable situation could easily turn deadly, for example. Proponents argue that staff would undergo extensive training to avoid these kinds of incidents, but critics respond that educators aren’t in school to be armed guards and no amount of training is going to change that.

“Suggesting that by providing staff with 8, 16, 40, or even 60 hours of firearms training on firing, handling, and holstering a gun somehow makes a non-law enforcement officer suddenly qualified to provide public safety services is a high-risk to the safety of students, teachers, and other school staff,” said Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services.

The potential for an accident or a misjudgment was an overriding concern at a recent hearing in northern Idaho where a local school board is considering a measure to arm school staff. Social Studies teacher Tyler Haynes told the board that one bad decision or impulse by a member of the staff could easily result in an unnecessary injury or death.

http://neatoday.org/2014/01/16/arming-educators-a-bad-idea-that-hasnt-gone-away/

These are three opinion pieces.

Your point? They all provide incredibly valid reasons for why guns should be left to law enforcement instead of teachers. One was from a prinicipal who has a conceal and carry permit, an avid hunter, and plenty of experience firing guns and he still believes arming teachers (himself included) is a mistake. What makes his or any of the other opinions invalid?

So, if I find four opinion pieces in favor of allowing trained teachers to carry I win?

No, you would be presenting valid reasons to back your claim as I did. No one wins one way or the other as this basically boils down to ouelr own opinions. You asked for reasons and those pieces I shared wrote/stated them better than I could. If you have valid reasons for why teachers should be armed at the school instead of a law enforcement officer or security guard, please present them.

If you are training them, then you are arming them. As I continue to point out, teachers have enough responsibilities and there are numerous slippery slopes that the arming them door unlocks. Leave the job to professionals and hire an armed officer.

Then you are asking for a teacher to be put in a position to use a gun if called upon. If they do not have proper training, and even if they do, you don't see how that could end badly? I would have to imagine no matter what, if a school were to allow teachers to bring guns, they would require them to undergo combat training, otherwise what is the point? Again, having a gun and knowing how to fire it is not the same as having to use one in a combat situation.

Yet they would be forced into using the gun in an active shooter situation if they have it. Why would you rather have an armed teacher than a armed/trained law enforcement/security guard devoted to the school's security?

No, not confused at all. I can't comprehend why you want teachers to carry guns when having trained law enforcement officers or security guards devoted only to the school's protection makes way more sense.

Different principle. Not semantics. Definitions. Nothing wrong with the structure and no connotations to draw besides OPs clearly defined example. This is not for you, it is for those reading.

Please explain. Both situations involve armed teachers whether the school arms them or they bring in their own guns with carry and conceal.

Armed teachers, not an army of teachings. One concept implies buying guns, training teachers, supplying guns, and ammo. The other is letting teachers who have conceal and carry licenses carry on site, all of which the teachers would have to seek out on their. More of permission to carry, not a mandate to carry. The difference is incredibly vast and thus not semantics in any way.

Both involve having teachers carrying guns in school instead of trained law enforcement or security guards, correct? The way it happens matters little. The argument is completely illogical and highly flawed no matter how you look at it.

No its not. And law enforcement in schools is not conducive to learning, thats a prison move. Besides that, realistically no ones going to pay for that. So one side you dont agree with and the other is unsustainable.

Except plenty of schools already have an armed officer/security guard on the grounds. Even Parkland did. You should research this a little more.

One armed guard, on school duty which isnt super highly prioritized. And if you wanna get into parkland what do you know about that counties complicity between the educational branch and law enforcement to lay low in schools. Also, that cop didnt follow protocol, not all schools have an officer. Also dont act like police training isnt an issue. Or the effect a school officer interacted with adol scent minds all day. Theres no neat package here that sells either concept. And if youd been paying attention and havijng a conversation insead of looking for agreement with your statement, you would feel differently(also not for you, for those reading(FTR))

Your comment is very confusing. Are you really arguing that an armed teacher is better suited to protect students than an armed officer/security guard?

I get what your saying, but your are assuming that owning a gun means that someone has done the "due-care" in getting the proper training. I've been around guns my entire life. I have family in law enforcement, avid hunters, and know that out if all of them, I am the most trained in combat/high stress situations. Most gun owners show care in gun safety, but how many have ever had to unload 15+ rounds into a direct threat while innocent life are chaotically moving to safety?

I think you have me mistaken with others commenting. I agree with what you are saying completely and have been arguing that very thing.

Theyre also not paid enough to get shot and not defend themselves. Thats not the reason. The reason is teenagers can stupid, emotional, impulsive, aggressive. That with a gun in reach is dangerous in the moment. Its not so teachers cant bring guns, its so students cant bring weapons at all. Ive known some vindictive homicidal teens, theyre way better now or better at hiding it, but some of the shit out of peoples mouths that age is beyond disturbing.

That's valid as well. My argument stands that law enforcement or security guards should be on the school grounds vs arming teachers.

They should carry sleep darts and stun guns at most, not guns.

I agree but man I would love to see all the vids of people being inadvertently shocked by tasers. Sleep darts may also be somewhat funny in a narcoleptic animal sort of way. Or I just have a horrible sense of humor, I don't know...

I’d love to see it too, no one will die. They either gat tasered, or night night until cops come.

Awesome! I would pay to see those vids on a loop any time I needed cheering up ;)

In the last 24 hours, a cop giving a talk at an elementary school had his holstered weapon fire when a 3rd grade touched it AND a teacher with a concealed weapon accidentally fired it in a class full of kids.

That's why.

Mind giving sources?

Yea I don’t think those happened in the last 24 hours.... here’s what I could find

First claim: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/02/05/maplewood-third-grader-cops-gun-unhurt

Second claim: honestly I have no idea what he is talking about, but here is one I found from a few years ago of a teacher in Utah accidentally firing her concealed weapon in the faculty bathroom...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256

27812420/teacher-hurt-after-gun-goes-off-in-school-bathroom

I remembered it wrong. The gun went off in the bathroom and caused to toilet to explode.

I apologize.

You should edit your original comment. You claimed both of those things happened in the last 24 hours.

I don't know how. However, I was wrong abt some details and for that, I apologize.

Teacher here. Would you like my opinion?

I think that teachers should be able to have guns with only an extreme and proper training.

People trust us with their kids all day. Why can't we defend their lives if necessary?

Still, there would need to be some serious protocols in place.

Exactly.

The world has changed. If teaching needs to change it should. If I had to take classes on self-defense, shooting, and so on, I would to protect the kids in my class.

With that being said, classrooms in America are largely out of control.

Tell us the truth is there at least one kid in your class if you could justifiably shoot and get away with it scott free, would you?

You seem to have either had really bad relationships with your teachers, or just a hard on for the concept of a teacher shooting a student.

No. Have a great relationship with students.

I have no doubt that is true, all I'm saying is at some point you will have a Dennis the Menace type student and if he threatens you and you could get away with it no problem, you might be the last teacher he ever messes with.

Honestly our education system is such a joke it is hard for me to gather a response haha

I have LOATHED kids in the past, but at the end of the period they leave my room and I'm done with them. It's a very temporary problem. I have NEVER thought about seriously injuring or worse yet, killing a student. That is something that I think is pretty antithetical to most teachers. That's just not how teachers are built.

To be honest, if the 2nd amendment allows me to concealed carry, with proper training and certification, pretty much anywhere but my job, but my job has been a hotbed of mass killing or could be the victim of a copycat, it seems to be pretty unfair that to be able to do my job, I have to give up my personal right to self defense. Do I not have children that I want to go home to as well? If a shooter walked in to wal-mart and I was carrying and I took him down, people would be yelling that I saved lives and how good it was that a good guy with a gun was there, but now I'm at my job and am not allowed to do the same? Seems pretty unfair.

Ever mess around with one?

Agreed. The hard part too as that if your against lethal rounds, even teachers with beanbag and rubber bullets would be a huge assist

Wait until they’re used against recalcitrant “students” (inmates).

[deleted]

Because then they become prison guards.

Guns handled by public servants are never intended against the actual criminals. Government is the problem, don’t go giving guns to its servants. Enough of them running around in costumes waving guns already.

No one is suggesting giving guns to teachers. We are suggesting that adults with the proper paperwork be allowed to legally carry firearms in school zones in the same manner they would in any other public space.

You've had the patience of a saint in this thread, OP. I can't get over the number of comments that are purposely misconsruing your entire post.

Let's be honest, isn't that really what they want.

I’ve heard the arguments that what if little Timmy takes teach’s gun from her purse and goes postal. I support a system in which trained teacher have access to weapons via “in plain sight” hiding places like faux shelves that double as gun cabinets. The key is here ARMED AND TRAINED. Not just throwing a gun in old lady wallowix’s purse.

Argument: you get what you pay for and teachers are paid like shit.

We have cops that aren't properly trained in using their guns. Why do we think teachers would get adequate training?

Some already own and are trained to use them.

Some own, and fewer are trained.

And I see this as something they would never need to use unless there is literally a student in the classroom with a gun, ya know?

Yeah, that's the whole point.

So the biggest risk is they have the gun and try to stop the student and harm someone else in the process. This is probably the main reason.

Yeah, which is why adequate training would be necessary. But I don't think many teachers could/would be able to handle a gun in high-pressure situations. That's the kind of training we'd need. Not just your basic handgun safety course.

So, since we're on the same page, what makes you think the teachers would be able to get that kind of training across the board? I'd wager the majority of our national police force doesn't have that kind of training and/or couldn't respond properly in a high-pressure situation.

My suggestion was for those who already own a weapon and are already trained in its use to be able to bring it with them to the school.

You can probably count on one hand how many teachers are trained in high-stress firearm handling. It's not worth opening a can of worms over.

So former military teachers? Or how about, have you heard of the Midwest? Or Texas?

Texas already has concealed carry, other states, too. There is a “threat assessment” committee and designated deacons are guarding the sanctuary at churches across the South. We are returning to the lawless days of the old west. Everyone carried back then, you’d be stupid with a capital “S”if you didn’t. Here we are approaching 2020. It is starting to sink in that we ARE the country, we MUST deal with this, because the highly-paid buffoons that we sent to Washington are there to line their own pockets, mostly. WOKE

I agree. Completely. This is additive to my statement. It just points out more that our "representatives" dont represent shit but self interest.

Most people willing to take the time and, depending on where you are, take a test and pay a fee to get a concealed carry license are the types that go to the range regularly. I would think so at least... also if the school has JROTC, there is likely someone with actual military training around.

I am not saying every one of them will have the brains to do it right, and the balls to do it right under pressure when it counts, but they will be there, on site. Not a phone call, dispatch, and drive away.

Wait. What makes a teacher incapable of enduring weapons training? What other things are teachers not capable of?

My point isn't that the teachers can't do it. My point is that if the government can't standardize and meet proper training for police, based on the amount of police-involved shootings we have, then why should we think that it would happen for teachers?

There are highly rated courses out there. I'm sure a school board could decide which they approve in order to allow carry on premises. And we aren't talking about someone having constant run-ins with volatile situations, just an opportunity to defend their classrooms in an emergency- which they are already expected to do but while unarmed.

If you ever had to sit in a locked classroom in the dark with 30 kids cowering against the wall during an "active shooter drill", the thought might occur to you that you would be better off with a 12 gauge shotgun rather than a chalkboard eraser to use in their defense.

Teachers will start shooting thier students and claim they "saw him pull a weapon" just like the cops do

Like teachers don't already put up with a lot of stress with all kinds of them quitting every year due to mental or emotional problems they've developed on the job.

Never mind the idea of some teacher having to confront and shoot some armed student turned killer when there's just as much of a likelihood of a teacher shooting one that isn't but that's tried their patience just one too many times or wigging-out and going on a shooting rampage in a classroom themselves.

Does anyone honestly think that the potential for something like that happening isn't just as likely a prospect?

Public education is already about as fucked-up and underfunded as it can possibly get and Florida tops the list when it comes to that and that's a major part of the issue at hand that's not being talked about.

Don't give me any bullshit about the overwhelming concern for the students and talk about the need to be able shoot and kill some of them in the hallways of their schools before they shoot and kill someone else themselves.

Do you have any idea of just how completely insane that entire conversation is?

Teachers are already defuncto parent, teacher, social worker, nurse and librarian. We need to add security guard to that? Wouldn't it just be a matter of time before a teacher shoots a kid or parent, or someone takes their gun?

The fact that Trump suggests that training some teachers and giving them a bonus, but appointed Betsy DeVos to strip funding from public schools, is particularly sociopathic.

Look at the vote count on this post. Someone doesn't want this conversation to occur.

There is no good argument against this. When shit goes down, who do we call? We've all heard the saying, "When seconds count, police are minutes away." It's true. With that said, there should be stringent requirements for teachers to be able to carry on campus. They should be required to train with local first responders for tactical, stress conditioning, and IFF purposes, and it should be done on a volunteer basis. Another thing that should be done is to require guarded, single point entrance. This would stop school shootings.

There's many:

First, it'd be expensive, and the same politicians calling for it tend to be the ones who don't want the government to pay for school supplies.

Second, it's unlikely to be effective: there was an armed guard at Parkland who didn't stop the shooting, and there have been 10,000+ armed guards hired since Columbine, none of whom have stopped a shooting, despite having better training and fewer distractions than teachers would.

Third, it'd likely cause new casualties, as tempers, mental health issues, and the mass chaos that dozens of children tend to cause would create numerous opportunities for unintended discharges and gun theft.

Fourth, it'd likely just be a corrupt payday for whatever company made the guns or hired the guards.

Fifth, its implementation would almost certainly worsen racial inequality. The thousands of guards hired since Columbine (who haven't stopped shootings) have arrested tens of thousands of predominantly non-white students, and there are innumerable cases of even well trained armed officers shooting black people without consequence, including at least one high profile legally armed teacher (Philando Castille, whose death, btw, was not acknowledged or protested in the slightest by the NRA shills now pushing to arm teachers like him.

Until Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, It was not uncommon for at least one or more teachers in the school to have firearms, in fact several coaches and students commonly had hunting rifles in their trucks when I was in high school. Statistically speaking, fewer shootings happened on school property before that law, than after it. It should also be noted, none of the shootings prior to 1990 where carried out by an educator.

I disagree that there would be a great expense to this proposition. Allowing a school employee ( not necessarily a teacher) already licensed as CHL or equivalent to carry on school grounds would likely cost nothing in many rural districts where there is likely already someone willing to do so. If a district had no such people then I see some cost to the district. As someone who has served on a school board, I disagree that budgets could not be adjusted to compensate.

All gun owners should be required to spend two years in service of their local state militia, and remain on reserve for 10 years.

In school I had a teacher who was a former Ranger and several more vets. Two more were reserve deputies. I would definitely be fine with them having their pistols in them.

I can think of so many ways this can go wrong, btw. Here's a small example: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Texas-police-shoot-man-who-disarmed-possible-12704202.php

Now imagine a large high school with maybe 2000 kids, 70 teachers. 25 of them with guns drawn in the case of a shooter incident. And a smart shooter who deimates the second and then goes up to the third floor to pretend he's a teacher.

You're a cop and you enter the building. Quick, neutralize the shooter. Quick!!

I saw a teacher throw a kid into a trash can once. Physically. There are also numerous videos online of teachers losing their shit at kids.

On top of that, teachers who have experience with weapons have come out and said no way in hell they want a gun in an environment with exposure to classrooms full of teenagers all day-- teacher steps out, kid jimmies the gun out, chaos ensues.

Basically, the more guns there are in schools, the more shootings there will be.

So, you think people want a teacher to simply leave his gun on his desk when he's armed?

I think concealed carry is the only option. Kids can't grab a gun hidden in someone's waistband. The weapon should be on their person and if its not attatched to them it needs to stay in a locked case.

Kids can't grab a gun hidden in someone's waistband.

Yes they can.

Do you seriously think no one's ever been disarmed in a struggle and shot with their own gun?

[deleted]

You don't shoot someone who punches you.

Just thought you should know.

There's also like 100k schools and how many teachers at each school?

Because the left is terrified of losing their narrative. Imagine a culture where educators and students were routinely exposed to the presence and benefits of guns. It would very likely draw more men into education.

Changing the education system from an anti gun culture to a pro gun culture scares the shit out of them.

One of the interesting facts that needs more play is that, while almost all guns in the United States are initially legally purchased, almost all gun crime (80%+ I believe) are committed by people who are not the legal owner of the gun.

That renders proposals to outlaw or limit access pretty much useless. So far it seems like all of the proposals from the left are just that.

Why shouldn't students be allowed to carry their guns with them to school, for that matter? See where that goes? Look further down the thread and see what your solution to a student having a gun is.

See how that escalation of arms has a terrible end-game?

Not generalizable to colleges, then, where there are legal adults. Fair enough.

But are teachers the people we trust to defend children against shooters? Is that part of a teacher's responsibility? Is it in their contracts?

Or maybe the local police should handle that? Or should we even have a local police, if everyone can take care of their own security?

What if I don't want someone with a gun already in the classroom with my kids? Is that a realistic expectation for a parent?

Honesty, maybe? Do you need pat downs and metal detectors to ensure a professional follows the rules?

• Because it's a gun in a classroom. It's a classroom, where learning happens. Not a war zone.

• Because every argument for more legal guns doesn't account for a certain percentage of them being stolen, falling off the truck, etc... leading to more guns on the street in the hands of the wrong people.

• Because guns do discharge accidentally.

• Because police coming in to defend against a shooter would see a lot of civilians carrying guns. Sure, they can say they're teachers, but wouldn't a shooter have that option, too?

Fair rebuttal. I appreciate the back-and-forth here, but recognize that my own cultural programming is extremely anti-gun. I'm Canadian. It's just not the way we view the solution to the problem.

Isn't the right to bear arms about protecting against totalitarian governments, though?

The weapon money could be spent on books

Because it will be just a matter of time before there is a shootout between a teacher and a student during class.

Is your implication that the teacher will shoot at someone, or that a kid will try to shoot the teacher resulting in the teacher returning fire?

Does it matter really, a shootout is a shootout

It has gotten us mass shootings only, not shoot-outs. If some teachers have guns then some students will the need to arm themselves in response and then the climate will be ready for a classroom shootout and not just a shooting

The more teachers that have guns the more students will have guns and the more students that have guns the more teachers will have guns and so on and so on and so on until classrooms look more like Clint Eastwood teaching Yosemite Sam

Yeah but how many? Once teachers start to open carry then some students will feel they have no other choice but to carry in class as well.

Proper training like the cops who stood outside the school during the shooting.

Cops are not there to protect the public as was demonstrated in Florida and In Las Vegas where the swat team took over 45 minutes to enter the hotel room.

No-one is saying the teacher should have a shotgun mounted in the wall over the chalkboard... Unless they are idiots in implementation of the suggestion, the students would never see the firearm. Hell, ideally it would never be used at all.

That is a good idea!!! Shotgun over the AaBbCc.... Any students even think about messing around teacher will causualy glance at shotgun and then look back at student.

I have no idea how this relates to the subject of OP's post.

Good talk.

Well, the teacher returning fire in the second scenario kinda proves the point in my opinion.

Right on, and the teacher can fail a student without fear of repercussions.

You don't shoot someone who punches you.

Just thought you should know.

Then what is the point in allowing teachers to bring guns? Why not use law enforcement or security guards? I'm not trolling. Your argument does not make sense at all logically.

No. Have a great relationship with students.

You seem to have either had really bad relationships with your teachers, or just a hard on for the concept of a teacher shooting a student.

Again, why ask them to when an armed officer/security guard can be present instead? Shouldn't they be locking the doors and protecting their class vs chasing down an active shooter?