Gun Violence

[Atlanticmike]

Yes, I'm sure there's armed security in my state. In my area I've only seen resource officers that a lot of the time are traffic officers that needed a break or officers that like to interact with youth. They do a great job. Why do you ask?

You are specifically making a recommendation of adding more guns into schools, which is why I asked my very specific question. Your comment above still didn’t clearly answer the question, unless you really just don’t know, so I will try a third time : Do you or do you not know whether you have armed security positions in public schools in your state?

Yes we do. Why?

[Lem]

You are specifically making a recommendation of adding more guns into schools, which is why I asked my very specific question. Your comment above still didn’t clearly answer the question, unless you really just don’t know, so I will try a third time : Do you or do you not know whether you have armed security positions in public schools in your state?

Yes we do. Why?

Then there is no need to take the very unnecessary risks associated with this:

...What if we give school teachers the option to attend their cities police academy and if they complete the training they can be given leo status or be deputized? They'll be given a badge and a gun and required to qualify with their weapon annually just like a police officer.

And with armed security in the public schools in your state this is already covered:

...Another option would be to allow retired police and military members with combat training to volunteer to walk the halls and stand at the entrances of every school in the city. There's many retired Patriots who would volunteer to take on that task without thinking twice about it.

It's a far better solution that is already being enacted with armed security in schools. Adding more guns is a completely unnecessary risk to add.

[Jersey Girl]

Arming teachers in schools? No. Make that a hell no.

[Atlanticmike]

Yes we do. Why?

Then there is no need to take the very unnecessary risks associated with this:

...What if we give school teachers the option to attend their cities police academy and if they complete the training they can be given leo status or be deputized? They'll be given a badge and a gun and required to qualify with their weapon annually just like a police officer.

And with armed security in the public schools in your state this is already covered:

...Another option would be to allow retired police and military members with combat training to volunteer to walk the halls and stand at the entrances of every school in the city. There's many retired Patriots who would volunteer to take on that task without thinking twice about it.

It's a far better solution that is already being enacted with armed security in schools. Adding more guns is a completely unnecessary risk to add.

I don't follow your logic, please help me understand. So we can have 100 armed officers guarding the president. 100 armed officers guarding Congress. We can have 10 to 40 armed officers protecting our courts buildings and judges all around the United States. We can have srmed officers protecting city hall. State police protecting governors and so on and so on. But we need to make sure that we have the least amount of guns possible when protecting our children while at school? Is that what you're saying?

[canpakes]

You are specifically making a recommendation of adding more guns into schools, which is why I asked my very specific question. Your comment above still didn’t clearly answer the question, unless you really just don’t know, so I will try a third time : Do you or do you not know whether you have armed security positions in public schools in your state?

Yes we do. Why?

Cool. Sounds like an even matchup. One crazy student shooter, one armed security guard with hopefully better arms training.

We can leave the teachers out of it. ; )

[Lem]

You are specifically making a recommendation of adding more guns into schools, which is why I asked my very specific question. Your comment above still didn’t clearly answer the question, unless you really just don’t know, so I will try a third time : Do you or do you not know whether you have armed security positions in public schools in your state?

Yes we do. Why?

Then there is no need to take the very unnecessary risks associated with this:

...What if we give school teachers the option to attend their cities police academy and if they complete the training they can be given leo status or be deputized? They'll be given a badge and a gun and required to qualify with their weapon annually just like a police officer.

And with armed security in the public schools in your state this is already covered:

...Another option would be to allow retired police and military members with combat training to volunteer to walk the halls and stand at the entrances of every school in the city. There's many retired Patriots who would volunteer to take on that task without thinking twice about it.

It's a far better solution that is already being enacted with armed security in schools. Adding more guns is a completely unnecessary risk to add.

I don't follow your logic, please help me understand. So we can have 100 armed officers guarding the president. 100 armed officers guarding Congress. We can have 10 to 40 armed officers protecting our courts buildings and judges all around the United States. We can have srmed officers protecting city hall. State police protecting governors and so on and so on. But we need to make sure that we have the least amount of guns possible when protecting our children while at school? Is that what you're saying?

No, that's not what I said.

I said there is no need to take the very unnecessary risks associated with your idea here:

...What if we give school teachers the option to attend their cities police academy and if they complete the training they can be given leo status or be deputized? They'll be given a badge and a gun and required to qualify with their weapon annually just like a police officer.

I also said that given there is already armed security in the public schools in your state, which you acknowledged, adding more guns is a completely unnecessary risk.

[Jersey Girl]

Just as a matter of interest...or not...during incidents of active shooter, teachers already have a list of procedures to facilitate (depending on which scenario applies and as the incident develops) in order to keep students safe when they shelter in place in the classroom (or other building location) and that includes class evacuation when appropriate--accounting for the safety of all students and staff in their classrooms, and communication procedures.

[canpakes]

Just as a matter of interest...or not...during incidents of active shooter, teachers already have a list of procedures to facilitate (depending on which scenario applies and as the incident develops) in order to keep students safe when they shelter in place in the classroom (or other building location) and that includes class evacuation when appropriate--accounting for the safety of all students and staff in their classrooms, and communication procedures.

This point is important. It’s not preferred that the teacher leave students to fend for themselves while the teacher is tasked with engaging the shooter.

To be fair, I understand the idea behind letting teachers carry in class for purely defensive reasons in the case of a shooter scenario, but even that becomes problematic from a distraction/weapon security standpoint, or the temptation to target that teacher first (as RI pointed out earlier).

[Jersey Girl]

Just as a matter of interest...or not...during incidents of active shooter, teachers already have a list of procedures to facilitate (depending on which scenario applies and as the incident develops) in order to keep students safe when they shelter in place in the classroom (or other building location) and that includes class evacuation when appropriate--accounting for the safety of all students and staff in their classrooms, and communication procedures.

This point is important. It’s not preferred that the teacher leave students to fend for themselves while the teacher is tasked with engaging the shooter.

To be fair, I understand the idea behind letting teachers carry in class for purely defensive reasons in the case of a shooter scenario, but even that becomes problematic from a distraction/weapon security standpoint, or the temptation to target that teacher first (as RI pointed out earlier).

Try leaving a class of elementary students to fend for themselves.

There are districts that allow teachers to carry in school but to promote this as a new norm? No, and anyone who suggest that's a good idea clearly has never taught. We've got enough guns floating around this society as it is. Can you imagine if a teacher struck one of their students? Just camp on that thought for a few minutes and when you do, try to put yourself inside the head of a teacher.

Building security is top priority. I spelled this out on the now broken board, I'm not doing it again here.

[canpakes]

… 100 armed officers guarding Congress… But we need to make sure that we have the least amount of guns possible when protecting our children while at school?

Usually, school shooters don’t attack in large groups.