Comments on: The Republican Solution To Preventing School Shootings? Armed Teachers

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:59:00 +0000

Bernie and Fred- you’re absolutely right: an armed society is a polite society. You’re plan is to take guns away from everybody. Well, criminals always seem to find a way to get a gun, don’t they, Kiddies? Yes, yes, they do. We have an illegal immigrant and illegal drug importation problem, and you think if we suddenly outlaw all guns in the US (“Oh yeah! Now we’ll all be safe and there will be no more murders because we’ve banned all those nasty, dirty, evil-looking, sinister guns that get up out of their boxes, load themselves and kill people!”) then guns won’t get across our border and into the criminals’ hands?! I want to take some of YOUR drugs, what a loony world you live in. But your plan doesn’t cover a contingency for when the criminal is invading your home, the school, the theater, and shooting people to death. The Bernie-Freddie, et al, Plan? Cower where you are and HOPE (Ah, HOPE as a plan, Nice.) the police get there to save your lives. Ah yes, when seconds count, the police will be there in minutes. Just like what happened in Newton, Aurora, Ft. Hood, Stockton, Columbine, Va Tech. And that’s not taking away anything from our brave policemen, but it’s not their responsibility to protect you, the individual. Why don’t you delusional types go ask your local police chief to take responsibility for protecting you and your family’s lives? He won’t do it. You know why? It’s NOT. THEIR. JOB! They come in after the crime is committed. YOU, the U.S. citizen, have personal responsibility to protect your life. I get it that you don’t want to exercise your right to own & bear arms. You obviously don’t have the maturity, responsibility and presence of mind to own a firearm, do I don’t want you to have a firearm. But don’t infringe on the rights of those of us who do.
And really, Cats and Kittens, you want to directly tie the stance on breaking the tyrannical power of labor unions (using the power of the state to enforce their money collection) to allowing U.S. citizen’s to exercise their right to protect themselves- who happen to be teachers? Really. Get off the illegal drugs, and start taking your meds like your doctor told you to do.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:27:00 +0000

“Say some madman comes in. The first person he would probably try to take out was the resource officer. But if he doesn’t know which teacher has training, then he wouldn’t know which one had [a gun],”
Ever notice how the right always seem to couch their arguments in hypotheticals and “common sense?” It’s much harder to argue the facts with someone whose only “facts” are products of his own twisted imagination. One might respond to the above quote with another hypothetical. If I was a madman bent on killing myself (like say the one at Newtown or Columbine, or….) and as many others as I could, I might avoid a confrontation with Mr Schwartzenegger or Mr Stalone or whoever the action hero, err….resource officer might be. That way I could take as many innocent victims with me before having to face a lethal hero (sorry)…. responsive resource officer.

By: Bob in Boston

Bob in Boston — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 04:32:00 +0000

What it comes down to is that our founding fathers had a strong distrust of centralized government. To the point that they didn’t want ANY standing army, because a standing army under centralized control is inevitably abused. So they organized our Nation’s defense around state militias, and through the 2nd amendment ensured that the people would always maintain the ability to resist and even abolish the government if it got out of control and broke out of the constraints put on it by the constitution. So you can say that normal citizens shouldn’t have the same capabilities as the military, but if you read the Federalist Papers you’ll learn that that is EXACTLY what they intended the second amendment to accomplish. They understood that this represented some risk, but they wisely realized that the only way true liberty and freedom can be realized is by taking on that level of risk, as the alternatives were even worse.
Now I’m not saying average citizens should have nukes (nobody should) or even full automatic weapons like M4s (the successor to the M16 you mentioned) or missiles or other such weapons, but we the people need to represent enough of a threat that corrupt leaders can’t abuse their power to the detriment of the country. There are plenty of people out there who are fine with the fact that we are currently borrowing 42 cents on every dollar from China and then giving that money to countries that don’t even like us, or that the 2012 NDAA (section 1021) opened the door for the US military to arrest and indefinitely detain (without charges or trial!) US citizens, or that our government kills thousand of innocent people in a manufactured “war on terror” that many believe isn’t worth fighting, killing and dying for, or that the federal government has used the threat of terrorism to justify shredding the portions of the constitution that say we shouldn’t be subject to illegal search and seizure, and should be secure in our “papers and effects” – the modern equivalent of which would be emails and cell phone conversations. We’re not quite at the tipping point yet, but you’ll know when it’s here because the federal govt will attempt to disarm the populace, just like every major empire before them, from China to Nazi Germany. Because once the populace is disarmed, evil people can do pretty much whatever they want, but while US citizens are armed, there is still the a chance for justice.

By: Bob in Boston

Bob in Boston — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 03:42:00 +0000

“Automatic guns” have been illegal since the 1920s. And teachers are no more or less likely to flip out then anyone else. If a teacher flipped out today, you would have the exact same scenario we had from two weeks ago, but if we allow and/or encourage trained teachers to exercise their 2nd amendment right, then even a teacher who goes crazy can be stopped before they do too much damage. As things stand today, a teacher could go amok and there would be nobody to stop them, so multiple teachers armed is still the most logical course of action.

By: leadvillexp

leadvillexp — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:27:00 +0000

Silly comments. Yes arm teachers that want to be armed and TRAIN them. A small handgun in the brave principals hands might have stopped this. Navy Seals? Most police, military and evan SWAT are not Navy Seals. They are rare and few. How about a few teachers trained and armed like Air Marshalls. Unlike Guards they would not stand out and the school would not look like a prison.

By: FredAppell

FredAppell — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:14:00 +0000

Alright Bob, since your to toning down the rhetoric I will talk to you. I don’t have a personal beef with people who own firearms, but from my vantage point I don’t see the need for military grade weapons in the hands of civilians. I realize you are trying to educate most of us on the differences between the AR15 and the military version M16. But, when I hear weapons experts making a strong distinction between AR15′s and other guns than what am I supposed to believe. I am left with 2 choices. 1) I could trust the experts whom I believe to have the public’s best interest at heart or 2) I could take the word of people such as your self who sound like you are only protecting your own self interest. Please don’t take that as an insult because that is not how I intended it . Bob, there are millions of Americans out there who own guns from all walks of life and different political beliefs and many of them even said there is no justification for a civilian to have such a weapon. I admit I don’t know squat about firearms and I live directly next to an indoor firing range literally 60 or so feet from my back porch and I never give it a second thought. But when you give me the information such as you did , you might as well be talking Chinese to me. Bob, do you remember when Obama made the comment about when times get tough many people cling to god and their guns? He caught so much flak for saying that, I thought that was going to end his political career because it was taken way out of context. He didn’t mean it as a slight, he meant that he understood how they feel and he wanted to make things better for all of us. However, I have noticed that the people he was directing that comment towards actually do precisely what he described. The reason I used the words fear, paranoia and fetish is because from my perspective, that is exactly what they do. The over reaction of many gun owners does not help your cause. Most everyone knows the history of the wild west, do you really want to go back to that? I got news for you, in spite of what you think , people haven’t changed a whole lot since that period in our history. We really don’t need to have that good old fashion pioneering spirit any longer. It is an obsolete idea and frankly there are still to many Americans who embrace it. I don’t advocate for someone doing everything for us either but why does everything have to be extreme in this country? What about common sense? What about balance? I’ll tell you what, I will meet you half way on this. No, we should not be arming teachers, there are other solutions. Yes, you do have the right to arm and protect yourself but within reason.

By: Bob in Boston

Bob in Boston — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:35:00 +0000

YOU Made the statement “many gun enthusiast either have a paranoia, fetish or an addiction to fire arms.” I’m not the one who started talking about fear. I personally am not afraid – I *could* legally carry a pistol with me, but usually don’t just because where I live there isn’t really a reason to. Of course the same could have been said about Newton, CT, so I’m starting to re-evaluate whether I should start carrying…
I feel a bit irresponsible for not carrying now.

I keep my pistol mostly for home protection, but have an AR15 as well. Why you ask? First, it’s a very customizable gun and it’s an absolute blast at the range. If I have a fetish it’s for good design, and Stoner did a great job designing the AR15 platform. But the other reason I have an AR15 is Because the best way to figure out the gun you need is to ask “the experts”. What do police keep with them in case of emergencies? Some of them carry pump shotguns (I have one of those too) but almost all police forces now have AR15s either in the trunk of the car or in a rack in the front seat. Why? Because you really don’t know what you might be facing, and if you get into a situation where a criminal is heavily armed, the last thing you want to worry about is running out of ammo, or having to reload magazines. (not clips – my god people at least learn THAT much if you’re going to talk about guns!!) I can swap a magazine in about a second (if I drop them) but why take the chance? If I have to keep someone pinned down until police get there, why take a chance of using reduced capacity magazines (10 rds) instead of standard capacity mags (30 rds)? That wouldn’t make sense – I’d be giving an advantage to a criminal for no reason.

If you want to contend that people don’t need the “assault rifles” (mis-named because real assault rifles are by definition fully automatic, NOT semi-automatic like AR15s) to defend themselves, then you can start by disarming police of them. Ask the police what they think of that. What do they say? They are probably going to say “absolutely not, because we need to fight criminals who may be heavily armed, and so we need to have at least what they are packing.”

So are they fighting different criminals then the ones YOU might run into? No, they aren’t – they are all the EXACT SAME CRIMINALS. So if police need AR15s, then it stands to reason that armed citizens would want them as well. I don’t have as much training as many police officers, but I have enough to store, carry, and use my weapons safely, and I would NEVER get caught in a “cross fire” as everyone keeps saying. I can’t imagine ANYONE who has attended a concealed carry class doing something so stupid, even if people who have never even been to any firearms training seem to think it’s inevitable.

BTW – the purpose of the 2nd amendment had ZERO to do with hunting and hunting weapons. Nothing. The 2nd amendment was about two things:
1) being able to protect your life and property from others, and
2) being armed in the event of a corrupt government. Our founding fathers specifically said that it is the DUTY of every citizen to abolish the government if it became corrupt. Not just that we could, but that it was our DUTY. I don’t think we’re anywhere near that (yet) but there was a very good reason they made the 2nd amendment about “the people” not the army/militia, and there’s a reason they made it amendment #2 – it’s the one that allows “the people” to enforce #1 and all other amendments. It’s just about the most important amendment, other than the 1st which allows us to talk about this stuff.

By: Bob in Boston

Bob in Boston — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:37:00 +0000

I’ve taken “tactical shooter” courses at a gun club. They are courses offered by the NRA to help people react better and understand concepts like “cover” versus “concealment” and how to pin someone down until help arrives – the basics of what to do when dealing with dynamic situations.

Guess who attends these courses… Concealed carry holders and local police officers. That’s right – concealed carry holders often take the EXACT SAME COURSES as the cops. I know anti-gun extremists often have this unfounded belief that cops and military are these hyper-trained soldiers who have perfect control and know exactly what to do in any situation, but the reality is that for about $250 ANYONE can take the same courses the cops take. It’s not perfect (as demonstrated by the NYC police who shot 8 bystanders while trying to take down that murderer near the Empire State Building) but the belief that somehow cops are going to be able to handle the situation without your dreaded “cross fire” or a concealed carry holder is going to be spraying bullets into children are just completely unfounded. Again, even if you have no intention of EVER getting a gun, you should go take the concealed carry courses in your area so you at least know what you are talking about.

By: Bob in Boston

Bob in Boston — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:15:00 +0000

Actually it’s now coming out that the guy didn’t even HAVE a rifle – the AR15 was in the car and he only had two pistols in the school with him!

By: Bob in Boston

Bob in Boston — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:14:00 +0000

Every account says that the principal heard the shots first, while they were in a meeting, and then walked out to find out what the commotion was. If she had heard that noise and had a weapon available, obviously it would have been a completely different story in that the principal would have at least had a CHANCE to defend the school. What all of you seem to be missing is that the way things were, there was NO CHANCE to protect those students. NO CHANCE. Zero. Some number of children were guaranteed to die, because that just can’t be helped in these sorts of situations – a criminal who wants to create mayhem can find ways to do it, and it doesn’t require guns. But the real tragedy here is that MORE children were guaranteed to die because of the “no guns” legislation.

If there was an AR in a biometric safe in the office, OR if teachers had been allowed to carry their own weapons, then at least they would have had a CHANCE. Some number of little lives could have been saved – maybe most of them. Just like in that mall in Oregon the week before the Newton shooting – a concealed carry holder confronted and stopped an armed assailant after only two deaths – without that armed citizen who knows how many people would have died!

All the talk about “cross fire” and “accidents” and stuff like that is mostly coming from people who have ZERO experience or training with guns, and just believe the anti-gun propaganda because they don’t know any better. A gun accident while firearms are locked in a biometric safe is statistically almost impossible, and “cross fire” just wouldn’t happen in real life because one of the first things you learn is not to shoot when you don’t know the target and what’s behind it. Frangible bullets, besides being really good for stopping targets, don’t penetrate drywall with any real force, so you don’t have to worry about penetration as much.

So basically what you anti-gunners are saying is that having a gunman walking around literally putting the gun against little heads and pulling the trigger is preferable to having the slim-to-none chance of a teacher hitting someone with a stray round. That is the sickest thing I’ve ever heard, and I just can’t wrap my head around how any intelligent person could believe that!