PDA

View Full Version : Tasers, Schools, and a real response to Newtown


Pages : [1] 2

hoffmang
12-16-2012, 10:36 PM
Our community jumps way too quickly to "arm the teachers with guns." Stop.

The average kindergarten teacher is at best uncomfortable with firearms and at worst is strongly against them. It's a selection bias that we all should understand. Also, there are real and serious issues about safe storage of firearms around kids as we all know. We're not going to see a wave of teachers in LA schools start concealed carrying. Just get over that idea.

However, almost no serious teacher who wants to protect school children - and as we see from various amazingly heroic acts at that school that they basically all were heroic beyond the pale - doesn't want to do something. Arm teachers and administrators with Tasers and fund yearly end of summer training on how to use them. 1 to 3 modern Tasers deployed by administration or a teacher would have ended this. And the less lethal option means those (mostly women) would not be as reticent to have the tool or use the tool.

There are fire extinguishers and fire drills for teachers and administration. Let's make sure the security plan actually includes something that gives them a fighting chance and takes into consideration the practical reality of who is called to teach our children. It has the added benefit of being quite a bit more cost effective and liberty respecting than adding armed law enforcement or security guards to our elementary schools.

-Gene

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 10:38 PM
Give 'em a big can of bear spray, too.

Our community jumps way too quickly to "arm the teachers with guns." Stop.

The average kindergarten teacher is at best uncomfortable with firearms and at worst is strongly against them. It's a selection bias that we all should understand. Also, there are real and serious issues about safe storage of firearms around kids as we all know. We're not going to see a wave of teachers in LA schools start concealed carrying. Just get over that idea.

However, almost no serious teacher who wants to protect school children - and as we see from various amazingly heroic acts at that school that they basically all were heroic beyond the pale - doesn't want to do something. Arm teachers and administrators with Tasers and fund yearly end of summer training on how to use them. 1 to 3 modern Tasers deployed by administration or a teacher would have ended this. And the less lethal option means those (mostly women) would not be as reticent to have the tool or use the tool.

There are fire extinguishers and fire drills for teachers and administration. Let's make sure the security plan actually includes something that gives them a fighting chance and takes into consideration the practical reality of who is called to teach our children. It has the added benefit of being quite a bit more cost effective and liberty respecting than adding armed law enforcement or security guards to our elementary schools.

-Gene

wash
12-16-2012, 10:51 PM
Gene, I agree but I think a brave person wielding a good desk could have stopped it too.

What we need are practical deterrents.

If these nut cases can't know who is carrying and who is not, they won't be so anxious to walk in to that situation.

What we need is true court house style controlled access or teachers that can carry (with a shall issue LTC policy).

I think there is room for both approaches because at some schools the students are the threat.

A taser might be a good option for a teacher that doesn't like guns but it's not going to deter a psychotic spree killer if it's the only arm a teacher is allowed.

I would rather have ten nuts choose not to attack innocent children than one attack be stopped by a taser and I think that's about the ratio you would see because the best taser only has about a 35' range and most only give you one shot to hit your target.

Buckeye Dan
12-16-2012, 10:56 PM
Hoffmang,

We don't need to arm every teacher. We need to screen and arm the teachers/staff that can be armed.

Based on the needs of the community that hires teachers, this could become part of their resume.

The problem is the no tolerance policy towards weapons. These are hunting grounds for mass killing predators. We don't need to strap M4's on the backs of every teacher but we do need to eliminate these weapon free zones.

Convert soft targets to hard targets and the remaining soft targets will become the most desirable. Why does the federal government mandate a school must be a soft target?

NightOwl
12-16-2012, 10:57 PM
The teachers and administrators have an obligation to protect the students in their care. If they're too uncomfortable being armed (or having access to a safe in the classroom with a gun and knowing how to use it) then they're unwilling to effectively protect the children and probably should look into another line of work.

FiveSeven
12-16-2012, 10:58 PM
Do not agree.
Teasers have VERY limited range (point blank), They don't have good accuracy and it's very easy to miss or have malfunction with probes (even with multiple launch bulky model).
Deploying a Taser against someone with a firearm is not heroic but suicidal at best, foolish anyway you cut it. No teacher signs up for a job with that possibility/expectation.

Having armed properly trained security officers is a better solution. Some or most schools have Police officers (in small #'s). Security would be cheaper and in bigger numbers where need be.
The biggest issue is "You get what you pay for", lower budget will get lower quality service.

voiceofreason
12-16-2012, 11:00 PM
I'd agree with NOT training and arming teachers that do not wish/want to be doing so.

There ARE teachers out there that already have or would qualify for CCW/LTC and have the training or would be willing to undergo training in order to CCW at their work.

A teacher's aide assigned full time to that teacher's class would be very helpful should a situation arise.

This would be 100% voluntary.

hoffmang
12-16-2012, 11:00 PM
The teachers and administrators have an obligation to protect the students in their care. If they're too uncomfortable being armed (or having access to a safe in the classroom with a gun and knowing how to use it) then they're unwilling to effectively protect the children and probably should look into another line of work.

And that is wildly unrealistic about who is called to teach children. Stop playing into the other side's demonization and start thinking in ways that are hard for the other side to handle as responses.

It has the added benefit of being a good idea too for the reasons I outlined above. If you don't believe me, find a Kindergarten teacher in a blue county and ask her.

-Gene

Buckeye Dan
12-16-2012, 11:00 PM
The teachers and administrators have an obligation to protect the students in their care. If they're too uncomfortable being armed (or having access to a safe in the classroom with a gun and knowing how to use it) then they're unwilling to effectively protect the children and probably should look into another line of work.

I fundamentally disagree with this position. The firearm should be kept on person at all times.

Toby's Tactical
12-16-2012, 11:03 PM
My wife is a teacher. She has no gun training. I think even if trained she wouldn't shoot. She's not the type (I hope, for my sake). Even cops have a lot of training and make mistakes with firearms.

welchy
12-16-2012, 11:04 PM
Forcing teachers to be armed is stupid. Denying teachers to be armed is also stupid. Let me protect myself and my students. I don't tell you how to do your job, stop telling me how to do mine.

mag360
12-16-2012, 11:08 PM
At least a shotgun in a locked safe, but really just repealing the gun free school zone laws. We dont have to "arm teachers", just let the ones who want to carry,carry. No way should we in any form add additional cost to public educarion by creating a new school police force.

Calgunner739
12-16-2012, 11:09 PM
Our community jumps way too quickly to "arm the teachers with guns." Stop.

The average kindergarten teacher is at best uncomfortable with firearms and at worst is strongly against them. It's a selection bias that we all should understand. Also, there are real and serious issues about safe storage of firearms around kids as we all know. We're not going to see a wave of teachers in LA schools start concealed carrying. Just get over that idea.

However, almost no serious teacher who wants to protect school children - and as we see from various amazingly heroic acts at that school that they basically all were heroic beyond the pale - doesn't want to do something. Arm teachers and administrators with Tasers and fund yearly end of summer training on how to use them. 1 to 3 modern Tasers deployed by administration or a teacher would have ended this. And the less lethal option means those (mostly women) would not be as reticent to have the tool or use the tool.

There are fire extinguishers and fire drills for teachers and administration. Let's make sure the security plan actually includes something that gives them a fighting chance and takes into consideration the practical reality of who is called to teach our children. It has the added benefit of being quite a bit more cost effective and liberty respecting than adding armed law enforcement or security guards to our elementary schools.

-Gene

This is not just about kindergartens, this is about all campuses. What does safe storage of the firearms have anything to do with CCWs on school grounds? The CCWs would be on their persons, as is the point.

The whole point of CCW for private citizens is that police officers cannot be everywhere. Even if a single cop could be allocated to every single campus in the U.S., which would be insanely expensive, it would not drastically improve the situation; and that would still be a single person. That is not reliable.

Thus, lift the ban on CCWs on campuses for students (legal carrying age) and teachers. Then let parents decide where they want their children to attend; schools where teachers and administrators are armed, or "gun-free zone" shooting galleries.

This makes CCW an option, not an obligation. Then over time we will see a pattern of shootings not taking place at CCW zones, and continue to happen at "gun free zones" where teachers are armed with tazers.

wjc
12-16-2012, 11:11 PM
What alternative do you propose, Gene?

hoffmang
12-16-2012, 11:12 PM
Then over time we will see a pattern of shootings not taking place at CCW zones, and continue to happen at "gun free zones" where teachers are armed with tazers.

I'm going to be crass. The teachers who actually had to try to stop a guy with an AR - they are not the ones who are going to go get a basically shall issue CT carry permit.

Too many people are going to want to do something. Hell, I want my six year old to have a fighting chance too. We can get schools to require less lethal weapons and train on them with a whole lot less resistance.

Guns are not always the answer. If you think they are you sound exactly like those who think guns are always the problem.

-Gene

dodge
12-16-2012, 11:16 PM
if homeland secuity has been affective w/aero flights. why can't we have similar protection @ most of this countries elementary & middle schools. i think most high school have security of some sort already in place

wjc
12-16-2012, 11:21 PM
if homeland secuity has been affective w/aero flights. why can't we have similar protection @ most of this countries elementary & middle schools. i think most high school have security of some sort already in place

Specious argument.

TSA hasn't located one terrorist. All they've done is teach Americans who fly to be compliant to government control.

Homeland (read "Fatherland)" Security is a joke.

tommyfly
12-16-2012, 11:24 PM
ill probably get some heat for this, but i think we need an armed LEO at every school in the country. Not enough schools have them.
If you guys think all schools should be armed, this is the way to compromise and get it done.
Liberals would be comfortable with a "Trained Professional" having a gun in a school.

I think most of us would be satisfied, because the sheer presence of a gun stops most crime from ever happening.

Calgunner739
12-16-2012, 11:26 PM
I'm going to be crass. The teachers who actually had to try to stop a guy with an AR - they are not the ones who are going to go get a basically shall issue CT carry permit.

I don't understand. Can you please rephrase?


Too many people are going to want to do something. Hell, I want my six year old to have a fighting chance too. We can get schools to require less lethal weapons and train on them with a whole lot less resistance.

Guns are not always the answer. If you think they are you sound exactly like those who think guns are always the problem.


When someone is walking around shooting people at point blank range, indiscriminately, I want to have the best possible tool to stop said person.

Since death rays don't exist, and I can't walk around everywhere I go with a long gun, a concealable handgun is the best choice. I am not going to make myself a target so I can take a chance using a tazer. People have been shown to be able to remove the metal prongs while seizing and falling to the ground, from there after they gather themselves they can get right back up. And if he/she has a buddy to back up the 1st shooter then while I'm reloading my little tazer assuming it didn't malfunction in the first place, I have just punched out my timecard. It puts me in a bad position.

FiveSeven
12-16-2012, 11:27 PM
less lethal weapons and train on them with a whole lot less resistance.

Guns are not always the answer.

-Gene

Absolutely wrong.... The fastest possible way to stop someone with a gun is with another gun (period)
At lest in our current technological age.

P5Ret
12-16-2012, 11:29 PM
Tasers really? Less than lethal Vs. lethal force is a recipe for a suicide. One of the first things that happens when someone is hit with a taser is involuntary muscle contraction. That includes the booger hook that is no doubt on the bang lever. Range is max 30 feet and that is iffy at best. I think it was Burlingame a year or so back that had ineffective multiple taser hits, and ended up shooting the person anyway.

I do agree that arming teachers is not the answer. As for adding additional security or police that won't last long either. Someone will cut that from a budget since nothing has happened it will become unsustainable. Until there is viable way to secure access to schools we will see incidents like this every couple years. I've seen a few people suggest one way in one way out designs, that is all well and fine until there is a fire, and no one can get out that one way. It's a balancing act but no one can find a good point to balance it on with out a tip one way or the other.

wjc
12-16-2012, 11:29 PM
ill probably get some heat for this, but i think we need an armed LEO at every school in the country. Not enough schools have them.
If you guys think all schools should be armed, this is the way to compromise and get it done.
Liberals would be comfortable with a "Trained Professional" having a gun in a school.

I think most of us would be satisfied, because the sheer presence of a gun stops most crime from ever happening.

What happens when the one LEO is targeted and taken out in the first 3 minutes?

Just posting the scenario.

jj805
12-16-2012, 11:29 PM
Gene, there was a thread in the LEO subfourm (I think) about LTL weapons. The concensus of the LEO was that LTL might be a good choice, it is ALWAYS backed up with a threat of lethal force. Basically, one LEO will fire the taser, another LEO is backing him up with a gun. I personally think before saying that tasers are GTG, you should talk to the leo here about their limitations. The LEOs will have the real world experience with them to let you know if it is a feasible idea or not.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 11:30 PM
And that is wildly unrealistic about who is called to teach children. Stop playing into the other side's demonization and start thinking in ways that are hard for the other side to handle as responses.

It has the added benefit of being a good idea too for the reasons I outlined above. If you don't believe me, find a Kindergarten teacher in a blue county and ask her.


If you go down this particular road, I expect it'll be very bad for us.

After all, if a taser is enough for a teacher protecting the most precious of us (our kids), then why do we "need" anything more in public?

Calgunner739
12-16-2012, 11:32 PM
Come on, more police vs. CCWs shouldn't even be debated on this forum. This is a gun forum, where we endorse concealed carry.

How are we going to afford hiring all these new campus police officers/security? Anyone who proposes a police officer at every school campus should get off this forum and read about the economic problems and budget issues that all levels of government are having, because you are obviously ignorant of that issue this country is having. I'm giving said person the benefit of the doubt that they are not choosing to ignore that tiny bit of information.


If you go down this particular road, I expect it'll be very bad for us.

After all, if a taser is enough for a teacher protecting the most precious of us (our kids), then why do we "need" anything more [i]in public?

That is a very good point.

Once again, I'm not saying we shove handguns in the faces of teachers and say "here take this, is goes bang on this end."

I'm saying make it an option, make it voluntary. Then at the end of the day, it is the fault of the teacher for not arming themselves, not practicing with their tool, and not taking their responsibility to protect the students under their watch seriously, along with the parents for placing their children in a shooting gallery.

Sidenote:
Because honestly, education before high school is really just glorified day care, and as babysitters it is their responsibility to protect those under their watch. I could say the same about high school because you go over the same material again in general education in college, and during college age years students can legally CCW handguns off campus...

nothinghere2c
12-16-2012, 11:35 PM
I can see the perspective that many people are just not comfortable with guns and disagree with having them. not to mention the accident that could happen should a child someone get access to a teachers concealed weapon.

Imo, a middle ground could be reached. We often have security guards at schools, why not ensure they are armed while also training teachers and staff with LTL weapons.

Forcing someone who doesn't necessarily like firearms to carry one may not be the correct answer.

wjc
12-16-2012, 11:35 PM
If you go down this particular road, I expect it'll be very bad for us.

After all, if a taser is enough for a teach protecting the most precious of us (our kids), then why do we "need" anything more in public?

Because public no longer seems to be respected, i.e unwritten rule.

Remember when no one would think of robbing a church? The lack of off limits is ndicative of a deeper problem.

jj805
12-16-2012, 11:36 PM
If you go down this particular road, I expect it'll be very bad for us.

After all, if a taser is enough for a teacher protecting the most precious of us (our kids), then why do we "need" anything more in public?

This^

hoffmang
12-16-2012, 11:36 PM
If you go down this particular road, I expect it'll be very bad for us.

After all, if a taser is enough for a teach protecting the most precious of us (our kids), then why do we "need" anything more in public?

We can worry about the political outcomes of shaming government for not giving teachers tools they would actually use or we can fight to get back to a status quo where the next school shooting still has no one armed and nothing stronger than a chair to use against a guy with an AR.

Why is it so hard for folks to understand that teachers are not, in the main, going to carry firearms. That GFSZ aren't going away anytime soon. That not doing something is going to instead be channeled to things that are really bad for other reasons...

I dare one of you to tell me that any adult at that school in Newtown would have been worse off with a Taser than they were with the nothing that was what they'd accept before this.

-Gene

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 11:37 PM
Because public no longer seems to be respected, i.e unwritten rule.

Remember when no one would think of robbing a church? The lack of off limits is ndicative of a deeper problem.

You misunderstand the argument I'm making here.

The argument I cited is precisely what the opposition will use against us should Gene's approach be implemented.


If you're willing to bet the lives of your children on the teacher with the tazer being sufficient to neutralize the bad guy, then why aren't you limiting yourself to a tazer as well?


These are our children we're talking about here. We can't afford to screw around with ineffective measures on this.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 11:42 PM
I dare one of you to tell me that any adult at that school in Newtown would have been worse off with a Taser than they were with the nothing that was what they'd accept before this.


You'll get no argument from me that a taser is better than nothing. But to argue that it's sufficient is skating on very thin ice. Beware.

And if it's not sufficient, then we do everyone a disservice by pushing solely for it.

If we're going to go the taser route, it needs to be part of a more comprehensive plan.

jj805
12-16-2012, 11:45 PM
We can worry about the political outcomes of shaming government for not giving teachers tools they would actually use or we can fight to get back to a status quo where the next school shooting still has no one armed and nothing stronger than a chair to use against a guy with an AR.

Why is it so hard for folks to understand that teachers are not, in the main, going to carry firearms. That GFSZ aren't going away anytime soon. That not doing something is going to instead be channeled to things that are really bad for other reasons...

I dare one of you to tell me that any adult at that school in Newtown would have been worse off with a Taser than they were with the nothing that was what they'd accept before this.

-Gene

Yes, the one that missed with the only shot they had, and now is the target. Hell, a baseball bat is better than a taser, especially when the cops ar 7 minutes away. Exactly how long dose the shock from a taser last? Can you name one adult at that school, with the exception of the shooter, that would NOT be better served with a gun

wjc
12-16-2012, 11:46 PM
You misunderstand the argument I'm making here.

The argument I cited is precisely what the opposition will use against us should Gene's approach be implemented.


If you're willing to bet the lives of your children on the teacher with the tazer being sufficient to neutralize the bad guy, then why aren't you limiting yourself to a tazer as well?


These are our children we're talking about here. We can't afford to screw around with ineffective measures on this.

Nope, I saw it. I was trying to submit that the reason for a lot of these incidents was the lack of respect for places that are "out of bounds". by societal standards.

Personally, I think a teacher should have the option to carry.

...but that's me.

btw, I respect Gene's opinion highly so no disrespect to him.

hoffmang
12-16-2012, 11:48 PM
Does anyone really think we can actually get elementary school teachers and administrators to carry firearms in even the same numbers that civilians do? Anyone?

If we don't propose actual, serious responses we'll get non serious, knee jerk responses that are far worse than any worry about political outcomes from advocating that we at least get tasers in the classroom.

Does everyone remember that every school in America is a gun free school zone except for those who have a license to carry?

-Gene

Librarian
12-16-2012, 11:50 PM
These are our children we're talking about here. We can't afford to screw around with ineffective measures on this.

OTOH, arming teachers (with guns) in general seems to be a bit like expecting 'constitutional carry' to be implemented in California.

I think Gene is correct in suspecting that very few - not none, but very few - teachers would be willing to carry.

The best is sometimes the enemy of the good - or, in this circumstance, the better-than-nothing.

Emphasis on 'this really isn't the best answer, but there's too much institutional resistance to get the best' would be the response to 'if it is good enough to protect our kids, why do you need something else?' -- it ISN'T good enough, it's just more likely (less unlikely?) to happen.

jj805
12-16-2012, 11:55 PM
Does anyone really think we can actually get elementary school teachers and administrators to carry firearms in even the same numbers that civilians do? Anyone?

If we don't propose actual, serious responses we'll get non serious, knee jerk responses that are far worse than any worry about political outcomes from advocating that we at least get tasers in the classroom.

Does everyone remember that every school in America is a gun free school zone except for those who have a license to carry?

-Gene

There are allot of teachers on this site saying that there are enough to at least have a presence. I would tend to think that they would know.

wjc
12-16-2012, 11:56 PM
Does anyone really think we can actually get elementary school teachers and administrators to carry firearms in even the same numbers that civilians do? Anyone?

If we don't propose actual, serious responses we'll get non serious, knee jerk responses that are far worse than any worry about political outcomes from advocating that we at least get tasers in the classroom.

Does everyone remember that every school in America is a gun free school zone except for those who have a license to carry?

-Gene

No, I don't believe a teacher would, Gene.

Are tazers effective enough?

mag360
12-16-2012, 11:59 PM
Eh my moms an elementary teacher, she'd carry if it was ok.

The problem with the taser is that whole it can save lives, to be deployed successfully will require certain death by the user if facing an armed accomplice.

Teachers need to sack up and accept responsibility.

Calgunner739
12-16-2012, 11:59 PM
Does anyone really think we can actually get elementary school teachers and administrators to carry firearms in even the same numbers that civilians do? Anyone?

If we don't propose actual, serious responses we'll get non serious, knee jerk responses that are far worse than any worry about political outcomes from advocating that we at least get tasers in the classroom.

Does everyone remember that every school in America is a gun free school zone except for those who have a license to carry?

-Gene

We can worry about the political outcomes of shaming government for not giving teachers tools they would actually use or we can fight to get back to a status quo where the next school shooting still has no one armed and nothing stronger than a chair to use against a guy with an AR.

Why is it so hard for folks to understand that teachers are not, in the main, going to carry firearms. That GFSZ aren't going away anytime soon. That not doing something is going to instead be channeled to things that are really bad for other reasons...

I dare one of you to tell me that any adult at that school in Newtown would have been worse off with a Taser than they were with the nothing that was what they'd accept before this.

-Gene

So you want the firearms community to endorse an option that puts users in worse situations that will guarantee their death if their finicky tazer fails, just to appease irrational people?

Yes, the one that missed with the only shot they had, and now is the target. Hell, a baseball bat is better than a taser, especially when the cops ar 7 minutes away. Exactly how long dose the shock from a taser last? Can you name one adult at that school, with the exception of the shooter, that would NOT be better served with a gun

To be honest, I would rather take a firearm or just my bare hands vs. a shooter. Either I am going to neutralize him with a firearm or get in close and disarm him. I would want to get control of that firearm as quickly as possible, with both hands on it.

My background is years of self defense training with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, etc. with electric zapper knives, wooden bokkens, dummy handguns, etc.

Have you had to neutralize a person using a gun? Thankfully I have not, but I have come across many stories from people who have. And it aligns pretty well with my experiences grappling with another human being and having to choke them out. Both from stories involving taking someone down with a firearm and my own experiences tell me one thing; it takes a lot to put a person down, and I am not going to use a tazer to do it.

hoffmang
12-17-2012, 12:00 AM
Are tazers effective enough?

They are better than the nothing that we have at most elementary, secondary and high schools.

-Gene

taperxz
12-17-2012, 12:01 AM
Does anyone really think we can actually get elementary school teachers and administrators to carry firearms in even the same numbers that civilians do? Anyone?

If we don't propose actual, serious responses we'll get non serious, knee jerk responses that are far worse than any worry about political outcomes from advocating that we at least get tasers in the classroom.

Does everyone remember that every school in America is a gun free school zone except for those who have a license to carry?

-Gene

Not all would be armed or should be armed. I personally know teachers who do shoot, hunt and would have no problem carrying. One of them is a special needs teacher too. If this were allowed to happen, it would certainly make someone think twice about shooting people in schools as the target would no longer be considered a soft target. It would also be a good idea to have tasers available for those instructors who would not carry. JMO

taperxz
12-17-2012, 12:05 AM
When my daughters school was invaded by Alex Youshak, several teachers risked their lives tackling this guy down when he still had 6 pipe bombs strapped to his vest. One of the people was the principal. I personally would have like to see him armed so that he didn't have to hold down a person trying to detonate those bombs.

hoffmang
12-17-2012, 12:06 AM
So you want the firearms community to endorse an option that puts users in worse scenarios, just to appease irrational people?


In fact, absolutely not. I'm telling you the practical reality. We can not get 3-5% of elementary teachers to carry in CT, IL, NY, NJ, or CA anytime soon. We can get school systems to realize they at least should have some sort of serious less lethal system that administrators or teachers can use in these situations.

We do not have a lack of heroism. We have a lack of tools because the heros have a blind spot.

We can ask for that blind spot to go away, but that's denial. Instead we can assume the blind spot and try to figure out the next best thing.

If we use the usual playbook here we're going to get hurt. It's not unlike someone asking you when you stopped beating your wife. Here the gooey middle is going to ask us how many kids have to die. It's wrong, but it's the political truth. The usual answers didn't work in the past. Maybe they'll work this time. Me, I'd prefer to channel the knee jerk reaction in a better direction.

If we make serious and real proposals, phrased correctly (which includes that we'd also like to let those who would, carry) we have a chance to undermine the coming attack while actually improving the security situation for our children.

I know for sure that there is no way my 6 year old's Kindergarten teacher in Redwood City would carry. I, however, think that we all could get her to take training on tasers from RwCPD or SMSO and have one behind a "break glass" that would give her a chance to defend my child from the next copycat.

Everyone wants machine guns. We're not getting them. This issue is in the same category.

-Gene

jj805
12-17-2012, 12:06 AM
To be honest, I would rather take a firearm or just my bare hands vs. a shooter. Either I am going to neutralize him with a firearm or get in close and disarm him. I would want to get control of that firearm as quickly as possible, with both hands on it.

My background is years of self defense training with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, etc. with electric zapper knives, wooden bokkens, dummy handguns, etc.

Have you had to neutralize a person using a gun? Thankfully I have not, but I have come across many stories from people who have. And it aligns pretty well with my experiences grappling with another human being and having to choke them out. Both from stories involving taking someone down with a firearm and my own experiences tell me one thing; it takes a lot to put a person down, and I am not going to use a tazer to do it.

You misread my post. Baseball bat beats taser, gun beats baseball bat.

Calgunner739
12-17-2012, 12:13 AM
You misread my post. Baseball bat beats taser, gun beats baseball bat.

No, what I'm saying is that from my experience, I would never use a close combat weapon (baseball bat, knife, etc) against a person with firearm because I would be better off using my hands to get control over the firearm that the shooter is wielding, because otherwise at best you get a good few hits on the shooter and he gets a few good shots on you which means you lose. And the tazer might just make myself a target while exposing myself without actually stopping the shooter.

Re-Re-reading your post, makes me even wonder why you even mention a baseball bat instead of a tazer when you think a gun still beats a baseballs bat...

Stubby
12-17-2012, 12:15 AM
First, I think every school district that cares about security needs to sit down and design a real and effective response plan. I agree with Gene, most teachers would not even think about carrying a gun. It is something that is foreign and scary to them. Remember they have spent most of their educational life being told guns are bad and people who own them are bad. That being said some teachers will be willing to carry a firearm and should be allowed to do so (with proper training and mindset).

Though as Gene stated the idea that LAUSD or any district in the big cities of California would allow teachers to carry firearms is laughable. Taser's and pepper spray and whatever else is a much better proposal. Force the district administrators and the blow hard politicians to propose an effective plan. Time and time again there only "response" to safety is to blame the "culture of gun ownership in America". Time for them to pony up!

wjc
12-17-2012, 12:16 AM
In fact, absolutely not. I'm telling you the practical reality. We can not get 3-5% of elementary teachers to carry in CT, IL, NY, NJ, or CA anytime soon. We can get school systems to realize they at least should have some sort of serious less lethal system that administrators or teachers can use in these situations.

We do not have a lack of heroism. We have a lack of tools because the heros have a blind spot.

We can ask for that blind spot to go away, but that's denial. Instead we can assume the blind spot and try to figure out the next best thing.

If we use the usual playbook here we're going to get hurt. It's not unlike someone asking you when you stopped beating your wife. Here the gooey middle is going to ask us how many kids have to die. It's wrong, but it's the political truth. The usual answers didn't work in the past. Maybe they'll work this time. Me, I'd prefer to channel the knee jerk reaction in a better direction.

If we make serious and real proposals, phrased correctly (which includes that we'd also like to let those who would, carry) we have a chance to undermine the coming attack while actually improving the security situation for our children.

I know for sure that there is no way my 6 year old's Kindergarten teacher in Redwood City would carry. I, however, think that we all could get her to take training on tasers from RwCPD or SMSO and have one behind a "break glass" that would give her a chance to defend my child from the next copycat.

Everyone wants machine guns. We're not getting them. This issue is in the same category.

-Gene

ok, but no "break glass". They would have to carry the tazer.

Response time...and you did see Andromeda Strain (the original) when Hall was trying to find an active substation? Wasn't too effective.

jj805
12-17-2012, 12:17 AM
In fact, absolutely not. I'm telling you the practical reality. We can not get 3-5% of elementary teachers to carry in CT, IL, NY, NJ, or CA anytime soon. We can get school systems to realize they at least should have some sort of serious less lethal system that administrators or teachers can use in these situations.

We do not have a lack of heroism. We have a lack of tools because the heros have a blind spot.

We can ask for that blind spot to go away, but that's denial. Instead we can assume the blind spot and try to figure out the next best thing.

If we use the usual playbook here we're going to get hurt. It's not unlike someone asking you when you stopped beating your wife. Here the gooey middle is going to ask us how many kids have to die. It's wrong, but it's the political truth. The usual answers didn't work in the past. Maybe they'll work this time. Me, I'd prefer to channel the knee jerk reaction in a better direction.

If we make serious and real proposals, phrased correctly (which includes that we'd also like to let those who would, carry) we have a chance to undermine the coming attack while actually improving the security situation for our children.

I know for sure that there is no way my 6 year old's Kindergarten teacher in Redwood City would carry. I, however, think that we all could get her to take training on tasers from RwCPD or SMSO and have one behind a "break glass" that would give her a chance to defend my child from the next copycat.

Everyone wants machine guns. We're not getting them. This issue is in the same category.

-Gene

Ok, now I see what you are getting at. My only issue would be the effectiveness of a taser. How long would the taser put the person down? Would it be long enough for help to arrive to keep the person down until LEO arrive? I also don't trust the taser to be accurate enough for an inexperienced person to be effective with at any sort of distance over 10 feet. I don't think the LEO here will disagree with me on this, but I have been wrong before.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 12:18 AM
I also GUARANTEE! That there are plenty of LEO's collecting a workers comp paycheck or on light duty only that can be put in these schools. All on light duty are still collecting pay checks and pushing paper like a $10 per hour admin.

jj805
12-17-2012, 12:21 AM
Re-Re-reading your post, makes me even wonder why you even mention a baseball bat instead of a tazer when you think a gun still beats a baseballs bat...

I was simply saying that a baseball bat would be better than a taser, but not as good as a gun. I was also replying to a question, so that needs to be taken into consideration.

voiceofreason
12-17-2012, 12:23 AM
Does anyone really think we can actually get elementary school teachers and administrators to carry firearms in even the same numbers that civilians do? Anyone?

If we don't propose actual, serious responses we'll get non serious, knee jerk responses that are far worse than any worry about political outcomes from advocating that we at least get tasers in the classroom.

Does everyone remember that every school in America is a gun free school zone except for those who have a license to carry?

-Gene

One of the main issues NOW is that even if the faculty/staff member has an LTC/CCW, the job contract/employment rules usually do not allow them to carry weapons in any form. Being caught with one at work/school (even if exempt via LTC) is likely grounds for termination from the district with the chances of getting another position in the state being very poor. Few credentialed or otherwise committed educators would be willing to take that risk now.

hoffmang
12-17-2012, 12:25 AM
Ok, now I see what you are getting at. My only issue would be the effectiveness of a taser. How long would the taser put the person down? Would it be long enough for help to arrive to keep the person down until LEO arrive? I also don't trust the taser to be accurate enough for an inexperienced person to be effective with at any sort of distance over 10 feet. I don't think the LEO here will disagree with me on this, but I have been wrong before.

In Clackamas, simply seeing a licensed carrier point a firearm at the shooter made him retreat and suicide. In Newtown, sirens were all that was needed for the shooter to suicide.

Regular civilian tasers have a 15' range. Law Enforcement go out to 35'. We should probably put longer range ones in schools.

Also, looking at actually what happened - "break glass" storage wouldn't have stopped this cold, but it would have kept the death toll in the single digits.

-Gene

Garand
12-17-2012, 12:26 AM
Any teacher who wants to be armed should be professionally trained and allowed to be armed. The rest can get pepper spray. This is not an either/or.

http://thecampofthesaints.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/israeli-schoolchildren-and-teacher-001x.jpg


Pic is from Israel BTW, where they don't have mass public shootings.


Garand

taperxz
12-17-2012, 12:33 AM
In Clackamas, simply seeing a licensed carrier point a firearm at the shooter made him retreat and suicide. In Newtown, sirens were all that was needed for the shooter to suicide.

Regular civilian tasers have a 15' range. Law Enforcement go out to 35'. We should probably put longer range ones in schools.

Also, looking at actually what happened - "break glass" storage wouldn't have stopped this cold, but it would have kept the death toll in the single digits.

-Gene

Know one knows this. Armed LEO would have prevented the whole incident if in fact as reported the perp was carrying an AR onto the school grounds. Even if something were to happen to the guard a signal by him (perhaps electonically to the office) would have warned teachers and administrators to a problem so they can prepare. LEO'S are always around or parked at many high schools already.

hoffmang
12-17-2012, 12:43 AM
Know one knows this. Armed LEO would have prevented the whole incident if in fact as reported the perp was carrying an AR onto the school grounds. Even if something were to happen to the guard a signal by him (perhaps electonically to the office) would have warned teachers and administrators to a problem so they can prepare. LEO'S are always around or parked at many high schools already.

You really think we can tie up 130,000 police every school day? That's 16% of all police employees in the US today.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

-Gene

Chatterbox
12-17-2012, 12:43 AM
Tasers are better then nothing - but in the same way that a microscope is a better hammer then bare hands.

tommyfly
12-17-2012, 12:51 AM
You really think we can tie up 130,000 police every school day? That's 16% of all police employees in the US today.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

-Gene

Cool. Law enforcement agencies can start employing and making jobs.

Im willing to bet that 16% of LEO's spend their days writing BS traffic tickets to generate revenue anyway.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 12:55 AM
If we use the usual playbook here we're going to get hurt. It's not unlike someone asking you when you stopped beating your wife. Here the gooey middle is going to ask us how many kids have to die. It's wrong, but it's the political truth. The usual answers didn't work in the past. Maybe they'll work this time. Me, I'd prefer to channel the knee jerk reaction in a better direction.


Maybe we should be asking them how many kids have to die.

After all, it's their policies and laws that completely and pathetically failed.

call-in
12-17-2012, 12:58 AM
Is this an either or situation? Why can't we shoot down (pardon the pun) the gun ban in schools, let willing teachers carry and train the rest in LTL? I am against forcing anyone to use deadly force if they are not up for it.

Calgunner739
12-17-2012, 1:01 AM
Cool. Law enforcement agencies can start employing and making jobs.

Im willing to bet that 16% of LEO's spend their days writing BS traffic tickets to generate revenue anyway.

That means more taxes to pay for more LEOs... :facepalm:

tommyfly
12-17-2012, 1:04 AM
That means more taxes to pay for more LEOs... :facepalm:

:(

theres got to be some middle road that im not seeing

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 1:18 AM
In fact, absolutely not. I'm telling you the practical reality. We can not get 3-5% of elementary teachers to carry in CT, IL, NY, NJ, or CA anytime soon. We can get school systems to realize they at least should have some sort of serious less lethal system that administrators or teachers can use in these situations.

We do not have a lack of heroism. We have a lack of tools because the heros have a blind spot.


We have a lack of effective tools because the heroes have a blind spot.

Giving them relatively ineffective tools doesn't fix the problem.



We can ask for that blind spot to go away, but that's denial. Instead we can assume the blind spot and try to figure out the next best thing.


And if you implement this "next best" thing, then there are two possible outcomes:


It works. Gun control advocates then push for a ban on carry of firearms in public because clearly tasers are "sufficient".
It fails, and another killing spree happens despite the presence of tasers. Gun control advocates turn to us and tell us that our suggestion didn't work and that the only "reasonable" alternative left is more gun restrictions.


No, I don't see any real win here at all.



Everyone wants machine guns. We're not getting them. This issue is in the same category.


We want options that will work. This isn't anything like machine guns, because machine guns aren't a necessary solution to a problem like this, while having armed school personnel is. If we're not going to get options that will actually work effectively then we'll just get more of the same ineffective crap like the gun free school zones. And if we're going to get more of the same, then we're best off not playing the game at all, and to not suggest anything.

Calgunner739
12-17-2012, 1:21 AM
:(

theres got to be some middle road that im not seeing

Continue to cite this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4&feature=player_embedded), and this (http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381). Do not settle for weak alternatives for protecting young children in schools. Do not tolerate ignorant hatred speeches against the 2nd amendment. Do not accept more gun laws as a solution. Continue to cite statistics. Kindly correct anyone you come across that is ill informed. Make your presence known.

Whatisthis?
12-17-2012, 1:21 AM
I definitely understand where Gene is coming from on this, but I still feel that LTL is very undesired in these cases. Maybe there is a way, like others have suggested, to do a combination of a few ideas.

While the idea of armed personnel is good, the cost makes it impractical for the most part.

If a lot of teachers won't want to conceal carry, let them train with tasers then. Then for the teachers that want to conceal carry, allow them to go through the normal process to obtain a CCW/LTC.

Sobriquet
12-17-2012, 3:29 AM
They are better than the nothing that we have at most elementary, secondary and high schools.

-Gene

I completely agree that the time has long since passed for us to do more to secure schools. The Israelis learned their lesson in 1974 with the Ma'alot massacre.

That said, I strongly agree with KC Brown's assertion. Not only is advocating for the installation of Tasers alone unwise from both a strategic civil rights perspective, but it also is not the best solution to the problem. All schools over a certain size should be required to have armed guards. Period. If you want to talk about giving Tasers to administrators in addition to providing an armed presence, I see nothing wrong with that given appropriate training.

Gene makes an excellent point about self-selection. The type of person that is afraid of firearms or reticent to use one is also not the type of person I would be confident could hit an armed, moving target with what amounts to a single shot weapon. Are there those that could do it? Sure. I'm dating an elementary school teacher right now that is competent with firearms. As you point out though, they're in the minority.

This is not a good idea. Even if it takes federal grants through DHS to local law enforcement agencies and school districts, armed guards are definitely preferable to what is being advocated here.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 3:58 AM
I have a fundamental question:

Why are we letting the gun control advocates control the narrative here?

Their entire approach has just been blown to kingdom come. The madman who took the lives of all those children blew through several of the very laws those same gun control advocates demanded. The very same laws that those gun control advocates pushed for blew up in their faces in spectacular and horrific fashion, including the very "assault weapons" ban they are calling for now.

The real world has utterly discredited them.


We should be on the offensive here. We should be discrediting the gun control advocates in front of those who are on the fence because it was the gun control advocates' own laws that failed utterly here. By all rights, they should be finished, because their entire approach has been shown to be completely ineffective. Indeed, it's even worse than that for them, because it's the very laws and policies they insisted upon that prevented anyone from being able to mount an effective defense.

So why are we letting them control the narrative, when it is they who should be on the defensive?

lilro
12-17-2012, 4:26 AM
The teachers and administrators have an obligation to protect the students in their care. If they're too uncomfortable being armed (or having access to a safe in the classroom with a gun and knowing how to use it) then they're unwilling to effectively protect the children and probably should look into another line of work.

Agreed. And if you cannot trust a teacher with a gun, how in the hell can you trust them with your CHILDREN, 6 hours a day?

And how can you trust ANY adult with your child, every day, who is UNWILLING to protect your child? IMO protection of children should be a part of teacher training. Whether they use firearms, tasers, or baseball bats. SOMETHING.


Ask yourself this question. Are you willing to KILL someone to protect your children? If yes, why would you leave your child with someone (everyday, for multiple hours, for multiple years) who is not?

tenpercentfirearms
12-17-2012, 6:04 AM
I am a teacher. Let me tell you how this works.

Right now, I can legally carry any/all of the 15 guns on my LTC into Taft Union High School in the State of California. 100% legal in this state. However, my contract has a no guns clause so I would get fired if caught.

California already allows CCW on campus.

So the statistical odds of needing my CCW on my campus are so minute that it is not worth the larger odds of someone figuring out I am packing and me getting fired. So I do not carry at work.

So that leaves me with a whole lot of nothing to defend myself with. Or does it? In high school, we already were told we were going to have a lock down drill sometime over the last two months. I took that time to prepare my students. I trained every single class how if we get the call, we were going to stack up in my class and arm ourselves and anyone who comes through our locked door is going to face us close in. I told my students I do not want to die for them, I would rather kill someone for them and we all live. I do tell them if I take a bullet, they better make sure that whoever comes in doesn't walk out under their own power, because I am making the same promise to them.

I was going to be absent Friday and my students asked when our drill was going to be and what the procedure was if we had a sub and we had a lock down. I told them the drill is the same and if I am not here, they know what to do.

Then Friday happened while I was gone.

I thought about how I am feeling pretty confident with a classroom of about 30 high school juniors and seniors and about 10 per class that could probably seriously mess up a shooter, we have pretty good odds if we can stack up and wait for a shooter to break in.

Yet, in CT, they had virtually no chance. You can't do that with 6 year olds. And that is when I realized, there is no real answer for CT. Bad things happen and there isn't much you can do about it.

Gene is correct. There are very, very few kindergarten teachers out there that are going to want to carry. I agree that anyone who is advocating we arm all the teachers is not making a decent point at all. It just isn't realistic given the type of people that are teachers.

That being said, many people might think having a taser in the classroom is okay. If they won't let me carry a gun, but I can carry a taser? Well that is better than nothing. It would definitely ramp up my classroom defense plan.

Of course I would be much better off with my Glock 27 or my DB380. Really I would be much better off with any of my AR15s. However, reality is that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Yet, I would find a taser at the point blank range quite more effective than just a pencil or a book (we have sprinklers in our rooms so no fire extinguisher to use as a blunt force object).

Get realistic. We have two good Supreme Court cases and the 2nd Amendment. Tasers are not arms that any militia in the world would use to secure freedom. The anti's have just as much odds of convincing lawmakers we have to give up our arms for tasers as you are going to convince every teacher in the country to arm themselves with firearms.

Here is the real truth. School shooting are rare. Really rare. Our children are much more likely to die in a car accident or get run over on the way to school than they will ever be in a school shooting. Soon this will die down until the next shooting. Sometimes in life there just isn't much you can do. Even if armed, your number might just be up.

I like Gene's idea. It is not optimal by any means, but it has a chance of succeeding.

I might actually start asking my board members why we have a no guns clause in our contract. We are a conservative enough town removing it might not shatter the world. Plus, I have heard stories that in the 60s and 70s the clause wasn't in the Kern High School District's contract and it was implemented only because teachers were leaving guns in their briefcases and students were getting a hold of them.

Nodda Duma
12-17-2012, 6:22 AM
My 6 yr old daughter went through a drill a few months back where they practiced what to do if someone gets in the building. She told me she sat huddled together with her classmates in the middle of a darkened room. Her school here in NH has the same security policy (that I know of) as the CT school: door buzzer, check-in, etc.

I told her that's fine for a drill. However, if there really is a bad guy in the school and she can hear shooting, she is supposed to do whatever she can to break the window open, jump out, and run to the tree line (not far). I told her make sure her classmates come with her. There is a good old fashioned farmer's stone wall along the tree line that she can hide behind.

I told her that if the bad guy comes in her room to throw whatever she can get her hands on at him and to get away.

At 6 yrs old she seemed to understand the difference between a drill and the real thing.

katokahn99
12-17-2012, 6:35 AM
ALLOWING teachers to be legally armed is not FORCING unwilling and/or untrained teachers to be harmed. I will readily admit that MOST teachers that I have met should not be armed...they are much too twitchy and emotional to do so in a responsible and safe manner. I think the thought that teachers MIGHT be armed is a step in the right direction. Remember the Wright Rossi study? They found that 40% of felons said that they had been DETERED from comitting a particular crime because they BELIEVED that a particular victim was armed. They BELIEVED that they were faced with a hard target rather than a soft target. Gun free zone=soft target.

A LTL "solution" is at least a reasonable step in the right direction of positive action being taken to "help" improve the response options for teachers/administrators; and, can probably be implemented a heck of a lot faster than allowing firearms onto school grounds.

One of my options for what to do with my life after I retire from the military is to teach 1st and/or 2nd grade. If/when I do, I would be more than happy about being allowed to be armed while on the job.

A few years ago, I had a discussion with my wife about post-retirement careers. She was adamant about me not choosing a career in law enforcement. She said it was "too dangerous." I mentioned teaching and she was very happy about that...until I said that as a COP I would at least be able to shoot back. To which she replied, "You're not teaching either, then."

[/.02]

Charlie50
12-17-2012, 6:41 AM
In a more perfect world there would be somebody that is competent / trained with at least a handgun in every school. If anybody thinks, for even a millisecond, that our politician's children (or Finestine' grandchildren) are not protected with firearms underestimates the depths of their hypocrisy. I understand the costs, the complexity but it is being done everyday right here in the golden state for the children of our "esteemed" leaders. Will this happen in our (government) public schools .... Nope not in my lifetime. If I had young children I would run to the nearest private school that took security serious. BTW I legally carry and although not law enforcement, I do believe that sometimes, even an underguned determined Good Samaritan could turn the tide.

bbogert
12-17-2012, 7:04 AM
I agree tasers are better than nothing.

I find it hard to imagine most of the teachers (if not all) using a weapon to take down an attacker. I suppose select teachers, with appropriate training and the right frame of mind could.

Maybe get the janitors/maintenance people to be onsite security and allow them to carry, and keep a taser in the main office and select classrooms where teachers with the right mindset, and training are.

The status quo should change.

Tarn_Helm
12-17-2012, 7:07 AM
I have a fundamental question:

Why are we letting the gun control advocates control the narrative here?

Their entire approach has just been blown to kingdom come. The madman who took the lives of all those children blew through several of the very laws those same gun control advocates demanded. The very same laws that those gun control advocates pushed for blew up in their faces in spectacular and horrific fashion, including the very "assault weapons" ban they are calling for now.

The real world has utterly discredited them.


We should be on the offensive here. We should be discrediting the gun control advocates in front of those who are on the fence because it was the gun control advocates' own laws that failed utterly here. By all rights, they should be finished, because their entire approach has been shown to be completely ineffective. Indeed, it's even worse than that for them, because it's the very laws and policies they insisted upon that prevented anyone from being able to mount an effective defense.

So why are we letting them control the narrative, when it is they who should be on the defensive?

Yep.

GFSZ are the problem, along with the need to reform HIPAA and FERPA.

PAWG (perp armed with gun) requires DAWG (defender[s] armed with gun) to take him/her out.

Not a "tazer."

Many teachers would be ready, willing and able to carry.

Every school should have armed security, whether private or public--that's just a cost of doing business prudently.

Lastly, we must control the narrative and cite sources in all "water cooler discussions."

:beatdeadhorse5:

theskunk
12-17-2012, 7:16 AM
You need someone in those schools with a gun. And as far as tasers - they are better than nothing.

FatCity67
12-17-2012, 7:22 AM
Approx 15-20billion a year to put a well trained armed with full benefits guard in every school in the nation. Public and Private. Many already have them.

It's very doable.

Couple that with non-lethal tazers and professional training for teachers to use them.

Think layers of psychological and physical defense instead of just one solution.

It's the same that was done for Airline security after 911. Layers mostly psychological for both the sheep and the wolves.

CitaDeL
12-17-2012, 7:54 AM
Arm teachers and administrators with Tasers and fund yearly end of summer training on how to use them. 1 to 3 modern Tasers deployed by administration or a teacher would have ended this.

I would agree with to the extent that the teachers and administrators deployed the tazer and discharged it until the battery was exhausted (or the perpetrator was exhausted- whichever came first).

I would say I would fully agree with another poster, that there should be a range of defense options, rather than relying upon just one.

YubaRiver
12-17-2012, 7:55 AM
Gene,
Aren't you missing an opportunity here to introduce the importance of firearms to many in an area of society with an ignorance of guns?

Teachers and administrators are primed right now to keep their kids safe.

Self defense is a deadly serious matter. With the right introduction and level of serious instruction, this could be a time to head toward concensus.

The flippant remarks by our side do not help, the tone of how this is approached is critical.


An aside- in Grizzly country, a giant can of pepper spray (as a poster mentioned at first) is proving to be more effective than firearms for defense.
It shoots a wide spray and is another non-lethal method.

However, these mass murderers are often well planned events to circumvent
defenses. Gas masks, Thick clothing etc. may very well nullify non lethal
means. There should be a backup of lethal means.

Our current elementary principle was a war time army sniper. Many of the grade school teachers hunt. Some people get the job as teachers because the
are also able to coach. Why not some have LEO training.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 7:59 AM
You really think we can tie up 130,000 police every school day? That's 16% of all police employees in the US today.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

-Gene

So what if its 16%! Offer retired, limited duty LEO (plenty of those around) or those LEO out on a workers comp claim that can still sit and guard kids.

Remember! If it only saved one life!! Its kinda funny when you start running into people with kids in these schools right now how even the most active gun rights folks are clamoring for keeping guns out of schools.

People keep throwing the Kindergarten teacher thing out as if all kindergarten teachers are either young and defenseless, old and crotchety, or stupid and unable to handle a firearm.

My daughters are PERFECT examples of those who could be Kindergarten teachers. Would anyone like to see if they are capable of shooting a handgun with efficiency?

gomatty
12-17-2012, 8:13 AM
I think Gene's got this one wrong. Any teacher who has an LTC should be able to carry (concealed only possibly?) in their classroom. We don't need to mandate any teacher carry, but perhaps require an additional special training class to help deal with this specific issue. Not to dismiss tasers completely but they cannot be relied on exclusively. And it's not going to take 3-5% of teachers who immediately start carrying to make a difference. It's going to take one teacher at one school in one town in one state. Plant the seed and it will grow. Once the crazies know there is a chance force will be met with force they'll look elsewhere. C'mon people...we know this...

Bolillo
12-17-2012, 8:16 AM
We all like to think that just arming teachers might be a way to head off the next one of these terrible events. We all understand guns and think that's the obvious solution. But I think Gene is onto something:

I think those pictures of Israeli school teachers are cool. But remember, most everybody over 18 in Israel has done a stint in the IDF. They have a good familiarity with weapons that comes from serious basic training.

In this country, I would suggest that there is only a miniscule percentage of grade school teachers that have ever received basic military firearms training, much less active shooter or CQB training.

Trying to get the current crop of teachers trained with some kind of armed response scheme is unlikely. I have a couple of relatives that are teachers. Good folks, very dedicated to their job. But neither of them know which end of a screwdriver to hold, much less how to handle a firearm. Engaging an active shooter using defensive cover, while a bunch of little kids are running around, all while considering shot placement and over-penetration issues, is just not something they are ever going to be trained in. Or even want to be trained in.

Consider that most of the nutjobs doing these spree shootings fully intend to cause the death of many others, followed by punching their own ticket at the end. Or, suicide by cop.

There may be some small deterrent value to denying them from going out in a blaze of sick glory, and instead having them think twice before going into a school and possibly end up drooling and peeing from a Taser zap wielded by a 1st grade teacher, all while surrounded by laughing seven year olds.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 8:23 AM
We all like to think that just arming teachers might be a way to head off the next one of these terrible events. We all understand guns and think that's the obvious solution. But I think Gene is onto something:

I think those pictures of Israeli school teachers are cool. But remember, most everybody over 18 in Israel has done a stint in the IDF. They have a good familiarity with weapons that comes from serious basic training.

In this country, I would suggest that there is only a miniscule percentage of grade school teachers that have ever received basic military firearms training, much less active shooter or CQB training.

Trying to get the current crop of teachers trained with some kind of armed response scheme is unlikely. I have a couple of relatives that are teachers. Good folks, very dedicated to their job. But neither of them know which end of a screwdriver to hold, much less how to handle a firearm. Engaging an active shooter using defensive cover, while a bunch of little kids are running around, all while considering shot placement and over-penetration issues, is just not something they are ever going to be trained in. Or even want to be trained in.

Consider that most of the nutjobs doing these spree shootings fully intend to cause the death of many others, followed by punching their own ticket at the end. Or, suicide by cop.

There may be some small deterrent value to denying them from going out in a blaze of sick glory, and instead having them think twice before going into a school and possibly end up drooling and peeing from a Taser zap wielded by a 1st grade teacher, all while surrounded by laughing seven year olds.

What?

Now the conversation is really getting funny!! You talk about more kindergartens teachers and saying they are not capable!!

WTF! Do we now have people here who think the 2A right is to much for a kindergarten teacher??? What a prejudicial blanket statement!!!

Perhpas i should judge those out there that own firearms but have never actually shot anything but targets with it:rolleyes:

Buckeye Dan
12-17-2012, 8:33 AM
Teachers have long vacations. Time that can be used to drill and train in the environment they work in. Since they know their surroundings, students and coworkers they can be trained so effectively that they would outperform law enforcement. Not all of them but at least some of them.

As long as schools remain a gun free zone they will always be a target. The best way to insure a mass killer a high body count is to disarm their victims. Period. The risk of friendly fire is still better than being executed while you hide.

CCWFacts
12-17-2012, 9:06 AM
I support Gene's idea. It makes sense.

I have a feeling that Obama is going to use this recent tragedy to try to pass another AWB or some kind of gun control. It won't make any difference but he will not rest until the US has Mexican-style gun laws: a near total ban, and constant shootings.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-17-2012, 9:09 AM
Arm the teachers with rape whistles lol. :laugh:

"Excuse me mr. shooter, you are beyond the 15 foot range of my taser, can you move a little closer?"

taperxz
12-17-2012, 9:10 AM
I support Gene's idea. It makes sense.

I have a feeling that Obama is going to use this recent tragedy to try to pass another AWB or some kind of gun control. It won't make any difference but he will not rest until the US has Mexican-style gun laws: a near total ban, and constant shootings.

In what respect? You really want have a maximum effect of force by using tasers against an armed individual?

Thats like trying to shoot down an F-18 with an AR-15 and thinking your rifle will keep you safe from the plane.

MudCamper
12-17-2012, 9:18 AM
I think Gene's suggestion is a good one. Yes we all know firearms would be far better tools, but that will never happen. My sister is an elementary school principal, and this subject came up yesterday at a family get-together. I briefly mentioned the "Israeli Solution" and it just made her shut down. The conversation was over. People who work in schools, particularly here in CA, are incurable hoplophobes. I think the Taser idea has merit.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 9:23 AM
I think Gene's suggestion is a good one. Yes we all know firearms would be far better tools, but that will never happen. My sister is an elementary school principal, and this subject came up yesterday at a family get-together. I briefly mentioned the "Israeli Solution" and it just made her shut down. The conversation was over. People who work in schools, particularly here in CA, are incurable hoplophobes. I think the Taser idea has merit.

What happens if there is another shooting in a school and there are a bunch of people killed with tasers in their hand?

The only thing that could be said is, "whose bright idea was that?"

Californio
12-17-2012, 9:28 AM
Many California High Schools used to have Junior ROTC training, its been phased out by the anti's, but teachers that taught those courses would surely carry.

Many rural schools in this nation would have no problem fielding teachers that would be willing to protect the student body.

I don't think Taser's would be the way to go, better than nothing but still deficient.

MudCamper
12-17-2012, 9:31 AM
What happens if there is another shooting in a school and there are a bunch of people killed with tasers in their hand?

The only thing that could be said is, "whose bright idea was that?"

That attitude is extremely annoying, and borderline cowardice. (I know it's not you, taperxz, it's a hypothetical idiot.) I don't care what idiots and cowards and Monday morning quarterbacks say. Put the "blame" (responsibility) on me. I'll gladly take it.

In this shooting, we had what, 2 faculty go up against an AR-15 with nothing but their bare hands? They'd have had much better odds with Tasers. I'd take the better odds. They deserved better odds. Our children deserve better odds.

Like I said, sure, firearms would be even better. But we all know that is simply not a political reality in this country.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 9:34 AM
Just to add, IF anyone here is an advocate of carrying a concealed or open carried gun in this country, by claiming guns in the school are not the answer, you are in effect admitting that guns have no place in public (period). Do you really think that these children, kindergarten teachers, administrators, and school staff never leave a school?

Whats the difference between a school, shopping center or church? Don't the same innocent people also frequent these same places at different times of day?

You really are playing into the mentality of the antis by conceding there is no place for guns in a public place by admitting so.

Fufodog
12-17-2012, 9:36 AM
Tazers are fine, guns are better. An all of the above approach is what's needed. There was one adult in that school who owned guns and, according to reports, regularly used them at the range: The mother of the shooter. If she were allowed to carry one to work, perhaps there would have been a much better outcome.

hvengel
12-17-2012, 9:38 AM
Any teacher who wants to be armed should be professionally trained and allowed to be armed. The rest can get pepper spray. This is not an either/or.

Pic is from Israel BTW, where they don't have mass public shootings.


Garand

Anymore! They had massive problems with this in the 1970s particularly in schools. The solution was to arm teachers and volunteers around schools. It was so effective that eventually they allowed almost everyone to go armed almost anywhere. After they started doing this the terrorists complained about the armed civilians when they were interviewed in the hospital after surviving being shoot by one of them. Now no more mass public shootings anywhere including schools since the bad guys know that they will get shot at with in seconds of the indecent starting. Of course the terrorists changed tactics and now use bombs instead of guns because of this but evil is evil no matter what weapons they are using.

Also keep in mind that at the time the Israelis started doing this that they had gun control laws that were very strict (think British strict - way stronger laws than any place in the US).

I do agree with Gene that this is a hard sell but we do have the facts on our side and the other side has only platitudes and nothing more. I think a good starting point is that teachers who have a CCW and perhaps some additional (specialized?) training should be allowed to carry at school and school events. In addition, police quality Tasers (in a break box?) and training should be mandatory for all teachers.

In the recent incident it appears that the gunman was confronted by 3 or 4 staff members as he entered the school. What would have happened if three of them had a Taser and the fourth had a hand gun. I suspect that the death toll would have been in the single digits and the number of children killed would have been very small. In addition, if the gunman had known in advance that some of the staff had guns, he would have known because his mother worked there, and all of the staff had Tasers he might not had even attempted this.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 9:40 AM
That attitude is extremely annoying, and borderline cowardice. (I know it's not you, taperxz, it's a hypothetical idiot.) I don't care what idiots and cowards and Monday morning quarterbacks say. Put the "blame" (responsibility) on me. I'll gladly take it.

In this shooting, we had what, 2 faculty go up against an AR-15 with nothing but their bare hands? They'd have had much better odds with Tasers. I'd take the better odds. They deserved better odds. Our children deserve better odds.

Like I said, sure, firearms would be even better. But we all know that is simply not a political reality in this country.

I have been at the other end of an emergency response call from my daughters school when a nut was trying to detonate pipe bombs and carrying a chainsaw and sword. So for what its worth, i am of the opinion that there is reasonable cause to have some people armed in schools.

If our kids deserve much better odds, lets pay to have them protected. I don't think Obama or the democrats ever turned down an opportunity to higher government workers to do a job that the government will pay them for even if it means sitting in a school waiting for something bad to happen.;)

JDoe
12-17-2012, 9:51 AM
1. Guns aren't going to be deployed with teachers or extra security in schools anytime soon so forget about it for the time being.

2. Tasers are more acceptable in schools because they are a less lethal (read non-lethal by many people) approach to defense that more anti's can accept.

Tasers are not great protection against an armed assailant and are known to fail to work as intended often enough that we can expect a failure in a school active shooter situation.

The use of Tasers will be called into question when the first kindergarten teacher and her class is blown away after the Taser fails. At this point we can expect the thought of arming some teachers with real firearms to be discussed more openly. But we need to get the concept of active defense using defensive weapons accepted first.

It takes time to overcome the blatant lies of the anti-gun crowd and introducing Tasers into schools for those staff members that want to carry them is a good first step in the right direction.

**************************

Note: Tasers have a purpose and a place. I own several Tasers, wouldn't be without them and see them as just one part of a layered defensive strategy for me and my family.

Wiz-of-Awd
12-17-2012, 9:51 AM
...What we need are practical deterrents...

Practical deterrents.

Much like locks are meant to keep honest people honest, the same is to be said for deterrents.

A person who can do such things as, isn't affected by deterrents any more than they are by laws in general.

The real problem, is people. Some are just freaking nuts, and there isn't much than can be done about an emotional time bomb until after it explodes I'm afraid.

Until we rid the world of Mankind, we will continue to have such problems in our society.

A.W.D.

randomBytes
12-17-2012, 9:53 AM
The average kindergarten teacher is at best uncomfortable with firearms and at worst is strongly against them.

Spot on.
Giving teachers something they might be prepared to use would be a big step forward.

Perhaps the "gun free zone" laws should be amended though...
you cannot have a "gun free zone", unless you provide security.
A sign does not count.

CalTeacher
12-17-2012, 9:57 AM
Gene makes a point that many here are failing to grasp. Arming teachers is easy to say, but difficult to do. Why? Well, a vast majority of teachers are female, which severely diminishes the likelihood they will actually carry a firearm for a plethora of reasons. Arming teachers is a decent idea in theory, but nearly impossible to implement on a practical level. I carry my firearm everyday, and so do several others on campus, but our school is probably the exception in that regard. I realize that most teachers would be, at the minimum, extremely uncomfortable with the idea of arming themselves while on campus.

Beyond having armed officers present at every school, it is a very difficult situation we are in with regards to our ability to defend against an armed attacker. Tasers are one step towards giving schools a fighting chance, but they have some pretty severe limitations. For instance, if there are multiple attackers, attackers armed with rifles that allow them to shoot at distances that render tasers as ineffective as spitwads, attackers wearing protective clothing making it difficult to deploy said taser, etc. But even given these shortfalls, it is at least SOMETHING. The fact of the matter is that making a school secure against a freak occurrence like this is a very difficult thing to accomplish.

Furthermore, you also must consider the attitude of many parents who have kids at our schools that would be opposed to armed teachers. What happens if these parents decide to sue the school for creating an unsafe school environment because they are opposed to firearms? These are all things to consider in this debate, and I don't think anyone has any definitive answer at this point in time about how to effectively solve this problem.

HowardW56
12-17-2012, 10:00 AM
And that is wildly unrealistic about who is called to teach children. Stop playing into the other side's demonization and start thinking in ways that are hard for the other side to handle as responses.

It has the added benefit of being a good idea too for the reasons I outlined above. If you don't believe me, find a Kindergarten teacher in a blue county and ask her.

-Gene

I happen to know one teacher who admitted that if she could, be sure to beep the gun from children and not get fired, she would carry a gun. I've known her many years, and no doubt she would react like a mama bear protecting her cubs, but I believe she is an exception.

I believe restoring the option for the teachers and staff who are willing to, and wish to be armed is, would be a good step. There is no guarantee that any one staff member at a school would have been able to stop this carnage, but we know what the alternative was.

Now to look for an answer that would be acceptible to both sides...

jj805
12-17-2012, 10:01 AM
Less than lethal force needs to be combated with less than lethal force. Lethal force needs to be combated with lethal force, period. Applying the wrong method is stupid.

Ossa
12-17-2012, 10:03 AM
First, I believe that we should start with some of the simpler things, like installing laminated windows in the classes, sturdy doors with improved door jams that can't be kicked in (or a safety bar that can barricade the door from the inside), a 911 alarm ( like a fire alarm) in each class that can be pulled in the event of some catastrophic event. Maybe even tinted outside windows so people can't see in (this could be good and bad at the same time).

randomBytes
12-17-2012, 10:03 AM
If you go down this particular road, I expect it'll be very bad for us.

After all, if a taser is enough for a teacher protecting the most precious of us (our kids), then why do we "need" anything more in public?

You are all missing the point.
The 2A gives you a right to self defense not an obligation.
If a teacher wants to carry a firearm - and there is evidence that some do, they should be allowed to (ie. get rid of gun free zones).

BUT the sad fact is, that most teachers do not want to be armed, and you cannot force them to use a firearm.

That doesn't make them cowards - the teachers at CT sacrificed themselves trying to protect the kids, giving them something more than a pencil to protect themselves and the kids with is a step in the right direction.

The two ideas go together well - provide teachers with something they will use, and get rid of the stupid "gun free zone".

jorgyusa
12-17-2012, 10:04 AM
This LEO has a different idea:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/county-police-chief-recommends-arming-school-personnel/

I think there is room for both.

truthseeker
12-17-2012, 10:05 AM
If someone is wearing a bullet proof vest, does a taser even work?

taperxz
12-17-2012, 10:06 AM
Gene makes a point that many here are failing to grasp. Arming teachers is easy to say, but difficult to do. Why? Well, a vast majority of teachers are female, which severely diminishes the likelihood they will actually carry a firearm for a plethora of reasons. Arming teachers is a decent idea in theory, but nearly impossible to implement on a practical level. I carry my firearm everyday, and so do several others on campus, but our school is probably the exception in that regard. I realize that most teachers would be, at the minimum, extremely uncomfortable with the idea of arming themselves while on campus.

Beyond having armed officers present at every school, it is a very difficult situation we are in with regards to our ability to defend against an armed attacker. Tasers are one step towards giving schools a fighting chance, but they have some pretty severe limitations. For instance, if there are multiple attackers, attackers armed with rifles that allow them to shoot at distances that render tasers as ineffective as spitwads, attackers wearing protective clothing making it difficult to deploy said taser, etc. But even given these shortfalls, it is at least SOMETHING. The fact of the matter is that making a school secure against a freak occurrence like this is a very difficult thing to accomplish.

Furthermore, you also must consider the attitude of many parents who have kids at our schools that would be opposed to armed teachers. What happens if these parents decide to sue the school for creating an unsafe school environment because they are opposed to firearms? These are all things to consider in this debate, and I don't think anyone has any definitive answer at this point in time about how to effectively solve this problem.

Whats the difference between a kindergarten teacher and this,

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=337830

CalTeacher
12-17-2012, 10:22 AM
Whats the difference between a kindergarten teacher and this,

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=337830

Arming oneself at home and carrying a gun at school whilst working around kids are two very different things. Most people are far less willing to do the latter for a number of reasons. Add to the fact that females in general are less likely to carry a firearm anywhere, not to mention at school, and the idea of arming teachers becomes a far fetched idea very quickly. I'm not happy with this situation, but it is the situation nonetheless.

Lets just establish something. Females are less likely to carry a firearm. Female teachers make up a vast majority of the teachers at our schools. The females that teach at our schools are less likely than most other females to carry a firearm to work. These are facts that won't be changing any time in the near future.

razorx
12-17-2012, 10:24 AM
Generally speaking, school teachers should teach, that's their job. That is how they are paid.

Security personnel should "secure", that's their job. That is how they are paid.

N'er the twain should mix, this is not a problem that can be solved by "tools". It is a people constraint, the hand that wields the tool.

To summarize, inappropriate tools in the wrong hands at the wrong time means someone is walking around smelling like pepper and jingling at the same time. Hardly an inconvenience.

A quick google was that back in 1999 roughly 50% of high schools had some amount of armed security. Apparently, cost is fundamentally a manageable problem, though difficult.

Narrative may not necessarily be controlled, but relative silence is not good. Typical approach guiding dialogue is to take a point issue and generalize to a broader solution, this deflects all of the attention focused on one "solution" and gives opportunities to spread across multiple avenues to resolve the problem. Crassly and conveniently, spread the blame. Benefit is that this is also necessary, to provide a more comprehensive solution. Potential solutions can be law driven or can be community driven through social agreements.

Comprehensive solution could entail:

Additional security for schools
Funding for school counseling programs professionally and adequately staffed (which aren't)
Additional steps for managing mental health and access to tools of violence (firearms one of...)
Changes in news media policies reporting on incidents (ie. ban Wolf Blitzer as a start)
Modifications for entertainment(Movies, TV) and gaming industry violence
Etc.,

No one action will achieve the expectation for results and a perception that the pro-gun community is listening, is crucial. Reality of listening would even be better.

Side comment, one possibility would be if a teacher also has significant "security" training (whatever that is), that their annual compensation is increased by 10-20k to reflect the additional value they are providing. In complete contradiction to my earlier point.

Relative merits (or lack) of actions can be argued, but allowing the national discourse silo onto gun-control as the sole action is a mistake.

Bunkering down is the wrong action to take(this time), pro-gun should propose a comprehensive solution and be proactive. Head in sand, while effective in the past probably won't work this time.

CessnaDriver
12-17-2012, 10:28 AM
At a MINIMUM... a few trained individuals who volunteer, just like people train to do CPR, with access to a secured firearm would make all the difference in the world. Granted these incidents are statisically rare as hell, but so are school fires but there are drills for those. There should be different types of drills practiced. This doesn't have to cost a fortune or take away liberties.

Sadly, we know what is coming instead.

Curtis
12-17-2012, 10:33 AM
I agree with Gene….but I think it needs to go further. My wife would be unable to use a gun to kill an intruder; so next to my HD gun I keep a Taser.

I think that teachers should be given options to defend their classes. This should include LTC for some, Tasers for most or all teachers, and the final option would be those outlined by TenPercentFirearms (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9939462&postcount=68)’ post. At college, the campus police would teach a self defense class that told women to carry a Tootse Pop; it would pass airport and court security but could be used to defend against an attacker. Teachers should be trained to use things in their class to provide a more pro-active defense.

I think Gene’s suggestion is a great start. It isn’t ideal, but it is better than putting all the kids into one corner or a closet. The ideal solution would be a combination of many of the suggestions give. This includes teaching your own kids how to defend themselves (and having it tailored for their specific school/surroundings).

taperxz
12-17-2012, 10:33 AM
Arming oneself at home and carrying a gun at school whilst working around kids are two very different things. Most people are far less willing to do the latter for a number of reasons. Add to the fact that females in general are less likely to carry a firearm anywhere, not to mention at school, and the idea of arming teachers becomes a far fetched idea very quickly. I'm not happy with this situation, but it is the situation nonetheless.

Lets just establish something. Females are less likely to carry a firearm. Female teachers make up a vast majority of the teachers at our schools. The females that teach at our schools are less likely than most other females to carry a firearm to work. These are facts that won't be changing any time in the near future.

First and foremost i am not saying all teachers should be armed. It is reasonable to assume that some are capable and willing.

Females are only not willing to be armed because they have not been exposed as much to firearms as men, generally speaking. Educating them and showing them how to use that tool IMHO would not be that hard to do.

I think its sad that we are speaking about women as not able!! Wasn't the reason to not let women or blacks vote back in the day because it was widely thought that they were also incapable of making important decisions?

CalTeacher
12-17-2012, 12:35 PM
First and foremost i am not saying all teachers should be armed. It is reasonable to assume that some are capable and willing.

Females are only not willing to be armed because they have not been exposed as much to firearms as men, generally speaking. Educating them and showing them how to use that tool IMHO would not be that hard to do.

I think its sad that we are speaking about women as not able!! Wasn't the reason to not let women or blacks vote back in the day because it was widely thought that they were also incapable of making important decisions?

I said no such thing. It is a reality that fewer females are willing to carry a firearm at the workplace (schools especially) than males. I don't know how you got that from what I said.

YubaRiver
12-17-2012, 12:41 PM
I agree with Gene….but I think it needs to go further. My wife would be unable to use a gun to kill an intruder; so next to my HD gun I keep a Taser.

I think that teachers should be given options to defend their classes. This should include LTC for some, Tasers for most or all teachers, and the final option would be those outlined by TenPercentFirearms (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9939462&postcount=68)’ post. At college, the campus police would teach a self defense class that told women to carry a Tootse Pop; it would pass airport and court security but could be used to defend against an attacker. Teachers should be trained to use things in their class to provide a more pro-active defense.

I think Gene’s suggestion is a great start. It isn’t ideal, but it is better than putting all the kids into one corner or a closet. The ideal solution would be a combination of many of the suggestions give. This includes teaching your own kids how to defend themselves (and having it tailored for their specific school/surroundings).

Bunch of Californians. You need to hire a few redneck teachers and principles, the sweet gentle kind for the little kiddies. Give them rolling pins,
pepper spray, and an LTC.

press1280
12-17-2012, 1:49 PM
The teachers ought to push their unions to be able to carry(tazer or firearm) at school. If the unions go along with it, then they'll be at odds with Democratic party, who rely on Union support. Then it'll be much easier to overturn the state prohibitions on school carry and eventually the Federal GFSZ is dissolved.

Gray Peterson
12-17-2012, 2:04 PM
You folks who oppose this aren't getting it.

Tasers are not regarded as deadly instruments in of itself by the wider public. That might be somewhat incorrect, but it is.

Kindergarten teachers who want to carry guns if allowed by law & policy would be statistically negligible. Read that again. American public school teachers are not Israeli public school teachers who are facing direct threats from Hamas & Hezbollah.

Here's what'll happen if we suggest gun armament in schools: A negligible amount of teachers carry guns. Another school massacre occurs. I can almost say for a certainty that there's probably only a 2-3 percent chance the gunmen will get resistance. The guy offs himself. The policy is called bad because of LACK OF EFFECTIVENESS and the gun control train rides on again.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 2:18 PM
You folks who oppose this aren't getting it.

Tasers are not regarded as deadly instruments in of itself by the wider public. That might be somewhat incorrect, but it is.

Kindergarten teachers who want to carry guns if allowed by law & policy would be statistically negligible. Read that again. American public school teachers are not Israeli public school teachers who are facing direct threats from Hamas & Hezbollah.

Here's what'll happen if we suggest gun armament in schools: A negligible amount of teachers carry guns. Another school massacre occurs. I can almost say for a certainty that there's probably only a 2-3 percent chance the gunmen will get resistance. The guy offs himself. The policy is called bad because of LACK OF EFFECTIVENESS and the gun control train rides on again.

Gray you usually are a fact based person from my understanding of some of you stuff here. Can you back your assertion up with facts and stats on this? OR are you speculating an opinion?

If your statement is accurate, then the anti's can argue without a doubt that concealed carry would have a similar result in public.

Gray Peterson
12-17-2012, 2:23 PM
BTW, shame on the folks in this thread (including KCBrown especially) who are more publicly worried about how suggesting one type of arm (Tasers are arm) will somehow make it difficult for us to carry guns in public. That sort of public statement is akin to someone saying as a first reaction to the CT shootings as "Here we go, Obama's gonna take our guns this time!!!"

This is a Kobayashi Maru scenario for us. "Standing our ground" on guns on this particular issue is a no-win scenario. Firearms are merely one type of arm, and not the solution for everything.

I want to realistically stop the massacres, and get as many people carrying arms as possible. Note I said "arms".

Gray Peterson
12-17-2012, 2:23 PM
BTW, shame on the folks in this thread (including KCBrown especially) who are more publicly worried about how suggesting one type of arm (Tasers are arm) will somehow make it difficult for us to carry guns in public. That sort of public statement is akin to someone saying as a first reaction to the CT shootings as "Here we go, Obama's gonna take our guns this time!!!"

This is a Kobayashi Maru scenario for us. "Standing our ground" on guns on this particular issue is a no-win scenario. Firearms are merely one type of arm, and not the solution for everything.

I want to realistically stop the massacres, and get as many people carrying arms as possible. Note I said "arms".

AAShooter
12-17-2012, 2:36 PM
Our community jumps way too quickly to "arm the teachers with guns." Stop.

The average kindergarten teacher is at best uncomfortable with firearms and at worst is strongly against them. It's a selection bias that we all should understand. Also, there are real and serious issues about safe storage of firearms around kids as we all know. We're not going to see a wave of teachers in LA schools start concealed carrying. Just get over that idea.

However, almost no serious teacher who wants to protect school children - and as we see from various amazingly heroic acts at that school that they basically all were heroic beyond the pale - doesn't want to do something. Arm teachers and administrators with Tasers and fund yearly end of summer training on how to use them. 1 to 3 modern Tasers deployed by administration or a teacher would have ended this. And the less lethal option means those (mostly women) would not be as reticent to have the tool or use the tool.

There are fire extinguishers and fire drills for teachers and administration. Let's make sure the security plan actually includes something that gives them a fighting chance and takes into consideration the practical reality of who is called to teach our children. It has the added benefit of being quite a bit more cost effective and liberty respecting than adding armed law enforcement or security guards to our elementary schools.

-Gene

I am surprised at your tone and your broad brush characterization of teachers and administrators. There is no reason to believe they deviate significantly from a typical population. I think the California Teachers Associate has over 1/3 of million members. Many will be veterans and/or law enforcement.

This situation reminds me of arming the airplane pilots. Not all will choose to carry but some will. We just need a percentage to carry. The whole issue of firearms storage for airplane pilots was a big issue but it was resolved.

pHredd9mm
12-17-2012, 2:37 PM
Police who use tazers are backed up with a real handgun if the tazer doesn't work. Tazers are one shot. Tazers are expensive (they cost more than some of my handguns). Tazers take a lot of training (I am trained/certified) and refresher training. Tazers have to be kept close/on the person. They are difficult to carry concealed (not talking about the little c2 tazer). They have batteries which have to be checked/replaced periodically. I would personally rather use a good long range pepper spray and/or pepper spray bombs in school. More than one "shot" with pepper spray.

But, the REAL PROBLEM is that the bad guys, the crazies and the terrorists KNOW that schools are shooting galleries with complacent personnel. We have state mandated "gun free zones" for the good guys. And NO restrictions on the crazies and bad guys. We have a school environmental culture (think airlines and 9-11) of being complacent when confronted with evil-doers. Schools TEACH and MANDATE that violence of any kind (even in self defense) is BAD. We have to change the CULTURE of school administrators and those that teach teachers how to manage their classrooms.

Gray Peterson
12-17-2012, 2:45 PM
Gray you usually are a fact based person from my understanding of some of you stuff here. Can you back your assertion up with facts and stats on this? OR are you speculating an opinion?

Gene speaks from his experience with dealing with Kindergarten teachers.

Statistically, most teachers are women, not men.

Second graph (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_holders.pdf)

You'll notice that license holders are only 20 percent women. Even though there have been significant increases in women getting involved in gun carry, it would take decades, if ever, to achieve gender parity.

I would never suggest at all that women are in any way less capable of defending their classrooms with a deadly weapon. There simply is not enough of them to make a statistical difference.

If your statement is accurate, then the anti's can argue without a doubt that concealed carry would have a similar result in public.

The only place where the "carry outside of the home" argument is really going to occur is in the circuit courts and in 1 First Street in DC. Getting baited into a "guns in schools" argument with the "mushy middle" who now are starting viewing us as the people indirectly responsible for murdering 20 children & 6 adult school faculty members, is political suicide.

You severely underestimate the danger we are all in. It's 1993 all over again, if not worse. We will not be able to get a sunset provision into a so-called AWB, and there will be no "Second Phase" NICS system to sunset a waiting period.

Gray Peterson
12-17-2012, 2:47 PM
I am surprised at your tone and your broad brush characterization of teachers and administrators.

An extremely high percentage of educators and teachers, especially in CA, hating guns & being unwilling to take the kill shot shouldn't surprise you.

YubaRiver
12-17-2012, 2:47 PM
A big can of bear spray costs about $50 and has a shelf life of 3 years. I don't know how
much the people version costs. And not a whole lot different than operating a fire extinguisher.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 2:57 PM
Gene speaks from his experience with dealing with Kindergarten teachers.

.

You severely underestimate the danger we are all in. It's 1993 all over again, if not worse. We will not be able to get a sunset provision into a so-called AWB, and there will be no "Second Phase" NICS system to sunset a waiting period.

I'm sorry, does Gene have some special relationship with Kindergarten teachers that the rest of America doesn't?

No one here is really saying arm the Kindergarten teachers. Thats drama being put into the discussion.

Additionally, this is not 1993, even after this shooting the politicians are not just on the anti gun ban wagon. I suspect that the gun show loop hole will disappear and thats about it. I can't see the house going down for the count on this. AWB? Thats about as high as the bar has been set by anti dems. I see a middle ground that will get passed in congress on back ground checks only.

skyscraper
12-17-2012, 3:01 PM
I'm with Gene and Wes on this one. The minute i heard people on here and in the news wanting to arm the teachers, I though, good luck. Of all the teachers I know, very few would want to carry a gun.

randomBytes
12-17-2012, 4:08 PM
I'm sorry, does Gene have some special relationship with Kindergarten teachers that the rest of America doesn't?


I've been dealing with teachers in CA for 10+ years, and don't know any that would be prepared to use a firearm.
That does not mean they do not exist.
Nor does it mean that they are especially rare,
it does however suggest that shouting "arm the teachers" isn't a sound strategy.

On the other hand, saying "let those willing to carry a firearm, do so", and try to come up with practical alternatives for those not so willing, is hard to argue against.

The status quo clearly isn't good enough, and neither extreme ([dis]arm everyone) isn't going to happen.

stix213
12-17-2012, 4:18 PM
I would suggest an all of the above strategy.

* Allow teachers with carry permits to carry on school grounds. Yes I know kindergarten teachers are not a demographic prone to carry, but I doubt the number who would is 0
* I like the Taser idea
* Schools already have yard duty guards of some kind. It doesn't seem out of the question to replace them with guards that can CCW
* Improve mental health services


I also think requiring gun owners, who also have a roommate or child that is mentally unstable, to own a safe, is not a bad idea

Patrick Aherne
12-17-2012, 4:20 PM
I would be interested in a lock-box in the classroom with a special school model TASER like the X2 with a 30 second countdown. Also, there should be a MkIX OC projector with a stream spray. I could teach any teacher who wanted to learn to use these in about 8 hours.

Further, for teachers that have CCWs, I would support that option, also. However, I would want to work with them and have them come to our ranges so we know who they are if and when an incident goes down. I would hate to have a blue-on-blue of a CCW teacher by a cop.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 4:21 PM
I've been dealing with teachers in CA for 10+ years, and don't know any that would be prepared to use a firearm.
That does not mean they do not exist.
Nor does it mean that they are especially rare,
it does however suggest that shouting "arm the teachers" isn't a sound strategy.

On the other hand, saying "let those willing to carry a firearm, do so", and try to come up with practical alternatives for those not so willing, is hard to argue against.

The status quo clearly isn't good enough, and neither extreme ([dis]arm everyone) isn't going to happen.

Again, i am not suggesting arming all teachers. My suggestions have always been to introduce firearms into the schools to protect students in a proactive way. "kindergarten teachers" was injected into this thread as a way for someone to dramatize the conversation.

Ironically after my wife was watching the view? during the show they they were talking about arming schools. She told me that online there was a favorable opinion by women/moms/parents that arming schools under the right guidelines would be acceptable to the majority of the polled. LE/retired/ guards ect.

Sunday
12-17-2012, 4:22 PM
Any teacher who wants to be armed should be professionally trained and allowed to be armed. The rest can get pepper spray. This is not an either/or.

http://thecampofthesaints.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/israeli-schoolchildren-and-teacher-001x.jpg


Pic is from Israel BTW, where they don't have mass public shootings.


Garand
People in Israel aren't as dumb as people in this country. They also don't have people on anti depressants like Paxil ,Prozac and Wellbutrin. I bet all the mass killers were on such drugs. The corporate owned medias will not report it.

Wherryj
12-17-2012, 4:29 PM
Our community jumps way too quickly to "arm the teachers with guns." Stop.

The average kindergarten teacher is at best uncomfortable with firearms and at worst is strongly against them. It's a selection bias that we all should understand. Also, there are real and serious issues about safe storage of firearms around kids as we all know. We're not going to see a wave of teachers in LA schools start concealed carrying. Just get over that idea.

However, almost no serious teacher who wants to protect school children - and as we see from various amazingly heroic acts at that school that they basically all were heroic beyond the pale - doesn't want to do something. Arm teachers and administrators with Tasers and fund yearly end of summer training on how to use them. 1 to 3 modern Tasers deployed by administration or a teacher would have ended this. And the less lethal option means those (mostly women) would not be as reticent to have the tool or use the tool.

There are fire extinguishers and fire drills for teachers and administration. Let's make sure the security plan actually includes something that gives them a fighting chance and takes into consideration the practical reality of who is called to teach our children. It has the added benefit of being quite a bit more cost effective and liberty respecting than adding armed law enforcement or security guards to our elementary schools.

-Gene

Steel corridors with large capacitors, kids locked inside the classroom behind insulated doors-and a high voltage switch in the Principal's office?

Treb5
12-17-2012, 4:29 PM
My daughter is an elementary school teacher and would carry if trained and authorized.

She is already very competent with a handgun.

deckhandmike
12-17-2012, 4:33 PM
Bear spray/high strength pepper spray is awesome! I work in a corrections type facility and we use it in a small hip holstered unit the size of a small fire extinguisher and that thing will drop you in its tracks even if you completely miss. I've seen many a felon just drop instantly when sprayed. Takes the paint off the walls from 25' and also works great for marking suspects. The dye will turn you orange. You could seriously just close the classroom door and preemptively set it off in a worst case scenario (i.e. no exits available). No one wants to to walk in once they get a wiff. Plus the training is about as complicated as a fire extinguisher which every teacher should be able to use. Guns would be great but good luck. For some reason I think most women would be more comfortable with pepper spray than a taser. It's an already accepted self defense item many women carry.

CalTeacher
12-17-2012, 4:38 PM
The teachers ought to push their unions to be able to carry(tazer or firearm) at school. If the unions go along with it, then they'll be at odds with Democratic party, who rely on Union support. Then it'll be much easier to overturn the state prohibitions on school carry and eventually the Federal GFSZ is dissolved.

Could you please provide a citation for your statement about Unions not allowing tazers on campus?

As it stands I can carry on campus.

Tmckinney
12-17-2012, 4:51 PM
Too many young children are incapable of behaving safely around guns. They lack the impulse control and understanding of the consequences. They should not be around firearms, it's just not safe. The real risk of another shooting of this type occurring is simply to small compare to the risk of a gun accident if teachers all carried. IMHO the same is true for the idea of armed parents protecting the school. Too many idiots, too much government involvement.

It is my understanding that the principal of the school tried bare handed to stop this guy. Pepper spray or similar would have helped, maybe even worked without the risk of more injuries or death from misuse.

I really think Gene hits it on the head when he points out guns won't fix the problem and assuming they will makes you sound like the anti guns who think guns are always a problem.

It's like porn. I think, morally it's not a good thing. I have to admit to having viewed some. I wish it would go away, but I'll be damned if I will ever let the government try to make it go away. So too are guns. I own some, I know they can be used for evil, I know a lot people who are too stupid to own them and I hope they won't buy them. But I'll be damned if I am going to let the government take them away.

Tarn_Helm
12-17-2012, 4:55 PM
I have a fundamental question:

Why are we letting the gun control advocates control the narrative here?

Their entire approach has just been blown to kingdom come. The madman who took the lives of all those children blew through several of the very laws those same gun control advocates demanded. The very same laws that those gun control advocates pushed for blew up in their faces in spectacular and horrific fashion, including the very "assault weapons" ban they are calling for now.

The real world has utterly discredited them.


We should be on the offensive here. We should be discrediting the gun control advocates in front of those who are on the fence because it was the gun control advocates' own laws that failed utterly here. By all rights, they should be finished, because their entire approach has been shown to be completely ineffective. Indeed, it's even worse than that for them, because it's the very laws and policies they insisted upon that prevented anyone from being able to mount an effective defense.

So why are we letting them control the narrative, when it is they who should be on the defensive?

Yep.

GFSZ are the problem, along with the need to reform HIPAA and FERPA.

PAWG (perp armed with gun) requires DAWG (defender[s] armed with gun) to take him/her out.

Not a "tazer."

Many teachers would be ready, willing and able to carry.

Every school should have armed security, whether private or public--that's just a cost of doing business prudently.

Lastly, we must control the narrative and cite sources in all "water cooler discussions."

:beatdeadhorse5:

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 5:12 PM
BTW, shame on the folks in this thread (including KCBrown especially)

Thanks. :D


who are more publicly worried about how suggesting one type of arm (Tasers are arm) will somehow make it difficult for us to carry guns in public. That sort of public statement is akin to someone saying as a first reaction to the CT shootings as "Here we go, Obama's gonna take our guns this time!!!"


My concern is not specifically that we will not be able to carry firearms in public because they are firearms, but rather that we will be somehow forced to carry something in public that is ineffective in that environment (or, more precisely, significantly less effective than firearms, which are the most effective tools for self-defense available). The bad guys will be carrying firearms no matter what we do, and that is part of the entire point here.

Believe me, if tasers were actually proven to be as effective as firearms in a self defense situation, I'd be advocating their use without fail, and I expect the same is true of most here.


No, it is effectiveness alone that concerns me. Someone with a taser going up against someone with a gun has a better chance than does someone without anything at all, but if the difference in that chance is very close to zero then we will lose credibility by suggesting it as an effective option.



This is a Kobayashi Maru scenario for us. "Standing our ground" on guns on this particular issue is a no-win scenario. Firearms are merely one type of arm, and not the solution for everything.


They are not the solution for everything. They are the solution for this specific problem. They might not be politically appealing, but the political appeal of an option is independent of the real-world effectiveness of that option, for the latter depends solely on the real world itself, while the former depends upon the opinions people have.


And again: why are we letting the gun control advocates control the narrative here, when their entire position has just been blown to smithereens?



I want to realistically stop the massacres, and get as many people carrying arms as possible. Note I said "arms".

If you want to realistically stop the massacres, then you have to suggest solutions that will actually work. And if the set of solutions that will actually work does not intersect the set of solutions that are politically acceptable, then is it not better to simply suggest nothing at all? Otherwise, all we're doing is exactly what the other side has been doing (suggesting ineffective "solutions"), and makes us no better than them in the end.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 5:20 PM
Perhaps the right approach is to simply tell it like it is: a taser is better than nothing, but is likely to result in failure nonetheless. A firearm, if used properly, is quite a lot more likely to result in success than any other option on the table.

If we're going to insist on letting the gun control advocates control the narrative, then at the very least we can lay the options on the table including their likely effectiveness, and let the gun control advocates choose what they want to do from there.

If we're going to offer up ineffective solutions, then we'd better include mountains of caveats and disclaimers to go with them.

gazzavc
12-17-2012, 5:27 PM
Thinking back to some of the teachers I had in school, I wouldn't trust the buggers with a squirt gun. They were some of the biggest whack-job socialists that ever roamed the planet...........

But thats just my tuppence worth.

Trenchfoot
12-17-2012, 5:45 PM
Food for thought. I was a teacher until 9/11 upon which time I enlisted in the military. I think the reason why it is unlikely that many states/school districts would go along with arming teachers is because of liability.

What happens when the teacher with the gun is the one that snaps or shoots a student because they felt threatened? I've seen teachers assaulted. When I was teaching in NY, I had gang members threaten me. Once one teacher goes off the deep end and kills a student or even if he/she kills one in self defense, there are going to be ugly lawsuits.

Who knows, I may be wrong, but I think as 2A supporters we need to offer more possible solutions that just "throw more guns at the problem". I for one would rather that the teacher not have to be in that situation if at all possible. How about reinforced doors and windows on all classrooms being written into building codes? I mean even if a couple of teachers were armed in Sandy Hook, unless he picked the wrong 2 or 3 rooms to start his killing spree, he would have been able to kill a lot of people before an armed responder got there. A better option in my opinion would be an alarm system that could be triggered anywhere in the school to give the teachers the opportunity to quickly get their kids in a classroom behind a reinforced door and barricade themselves in until the police arrive.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 5:46 PM
Thinking back to some of the teachers I had in school, I wouldn't trust the buggers with a squirt gun. They were some of the biggest whack-job socialists that ever roamed the planet...........


Don't confuse someone's ideological leanings with their unwillingness to effectively defend the lives of children when the chips are down.

I somehow suspect that we're giving teachers far too little credit here.


It may be that the only workable middle ground that keeps us standing on firm ground is to simply propose that those teachers who have CCWs should be allowed to carry on the job, and that the school systems should offer training to anyone who wants it. I'm not opposed to tasers being made available as long as it's make crystal clear that the taser is highly likely to be ineffective against an attacker armed with a firearm.


If tasers were truly effective against attackers with firearms, police would deploy them against armed bad guys. But they don't -- they deploy their firearms when faced with such threats, despite the fact that they generally have a preference for not killing the bad guy.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 5:48 PM
Who knows, I may be wrong, but I think as 2A supporters we need to offer more possible solutions that just "throw more guns at the problem". I for one would rather that the teacher not have to be in that situation if at all possible. How about reinforced doors and windows on all classrooms being written into building codes? I mean even if a couple of teachers were armed in Sandy Hook, unless he picked the wrong 2 or 3 rooms to start his killing spree, he would have been able to kill a lot of people before an armed responder got there. A better option in my opinion would be an alarm system that could be triggered anywhere in the school to give the teachers the opportunity to quickly get their kids in a classroom behind a reinforced door and barricade themselves in until the police arrive.

The doors and windows you speak of had better be bulletproof. Otherwise, the bad guy will just shoot through them, and the end result won't be much better than not having the barricades at all.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 5:51 PM
Food for thought. I was a teacher until 9/11 upon which time I enlisted in the military. I think the reason why it is unlikely that many states/school districts would go along with arming teachers is because of liability.

What happens when the teacher with the gun is the one that snaps or shoots a student because they felt threatened? I've seen teachers assaulted. When I was teaching in NY, I had gang members threaten me. Once one teacher goes off the deep end and kills a student or even if he/she kills one in self defense, there are going to be ugly lawsuits.

Who knows, I may be wrong, but I think as 2A supporters we need to offer more possible solutions that just "throw more guns at the problem". I for one would rather that the teacher not have to be in that situation if at all possible. How about reinforced doors and windows on all classrooms being written into building codes? I mean even if a couple of teachers were armed in Sandy Hook, unless he picked the wrong 2 or 3 rooms to start his killing spree, he would have been able to kill a lot of people before an armed responder got there. A better option in my opinion would be an alarm system that could be triggered anywhere in the school to give the teachers the opportunity to quickly get their kids in a classroom behind a reinforced door and barricade themselves in until the police arrive.

Since you were once a teacher let me ask you this, IF your life was in danger of being taken, would you really care if you were going to have to go to court? Or would you at least be happy enough to be alive and get to go to court?

By the time the police arrive, the deadly deed has been done in most cases.

mc21
12-17-2012, 5:54 PM
You don't necessarily need the teachers to stop the shooter. All you would need is something to slow them down enough that the cops can respond before anyone is hurt. This can be as simple as a thick metal door at each class room or just an alternative exist so that they don't have to run into the hallway with the shooter. Arming a limited number of teachers may also just make the shooter more quick to shoot anyone and everyone.

Trenchfoot
12-17-2012, 6:00 PM
The doors and windows you speak of had better be bulletproof. Otherwise, the bad guy will just shoot through them, and the end result won't be much better than not having the barricades at all.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. To me that is the only realistic solution aside from having bank vault style doors on all entrances that can only be opened from the inside and having no windows on the ground floor of schools. And that isn't an option for open air schools like many in California.

Trenchfoot
12-17-2012, 6:12 PM
Since you were once a teacher let me ask you this, IF your life was in danger of being taken, would you really care if you were going to have to go to court? Or would you at least be happy enough to be alive and get to go to court?

By the time the police arrive, the deadly deed has been done in most cases.

It's not my decision. School board officials and local and state officials who will never be in that situation will be the ones making the call. I would gladly carry a weapon to defend my students. I'm just being realistic about things. And I think the most realistic and better option is to make classrooms very difficult to breach. If it gets to the point where you have to draw your weapon, that means the gunman has targets. If he can't get to you, he has no targets. I'd rather not have to get into a gunfight to keep my students safe, but if it came to that I would do it until my last breath.

nobody_special
12-17-2012, 6:16 PM
Whats the difference between a school, shopping center or church? Don't the same innocent people also frequent these same places at different times of day?

The difference is that kids are required by law to go to school.

Parents will never go for guns in school. Neither will the vast majority of teachers and essentially all administrators.

I think there is a good chance of a permanent AW and high cap mag ban passing Congress. Possibly a ban on all semi autos. And after last Friday, I'm not at all sure the Heller 5 would strike those laws down.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 6:41 PM
You don't necessarily need the teachers to stop the shooter. All you would need is something to slow them down enough that the cops can respond before anyone is hurt. This can be as simple as a thick metal door at each class room or just an alternative exist so that they don't have to run into the hallway with the shooter.


The problem is that the amount of time you'd need to buy is minutes at least. In the kind of situation we're talking about, that is an eternity.

No, something more immediately effective is needed here.


Don't get me wrong, what you're proposing would be a good idea, but it's not sufficient.


We need defense in depth, but in the end, firearms are the only things I know of that are likely to end the situation once and for all.



Arming a limited number of teachers may also just make the shooter more quick to shoot anyone and everyone.

Um, what? The killer is on a killing rampage already. What "more quick" is there??

wash
12-17-2012, 6:46 PM
My cousin is a public school teacher. She also is fluent in Spanish.

She put that on her resume to get hired and was immediately given a class full of ESL students and she is paid more for that.

If you start with a shall issue LTC policy and then add maybe $200 a week for teachers that carry and get training, you can get 10% carrying I bet.

It doesn't have to be every teacher every day to be an effective practical deterrent.

Guaranteeing that schools have zero or minimal armed and trained personell just ensures that the next attack will be just as bad.

I think it's counter productive for second amendment advocates to suggest a solution that won't solve anything.

flyinverted
12-17-2012, 6:54 PM
One shoe bomb attempt and we all took our shoes off at the airport for years, some still do today. What the TSA has figured out is controlled access to secure areas. Let's make our schools "secured areas" as a first step.

With friends and family members as "FFDO's" Federal Flight Deck Officers (Pilots with guns), they all agree if it comes to the point where they need to use their weapon in the cockpit, way too many layers of security have failed. Let's offer our most precious kids a similar level of multi step security.

AAShooter
12-17-2012, 6:59 PM
One shoe bomb attempt and we all took our shoes off at the airport for years, some still do today. What the TSA has figured out is controlled access to secure areas. Let's make our schools "secured areas" as a first step.

TSA groping at every school! :confused:

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 6:59 PM
One shoe bomb attempt and we all took our shoes off at the airport for years, some still do today. What the TSA has figured out is controlled access to secure areas. Let's make our schools "secured areas" as a first step.

Yeah, but have the TSA gone up against a well-armed nutcase yet? I've not heard of such a thing, but I might have missed it.

JaeOne3345
12-17-2012, 7:07 PM
I am a public school teacher. I personally would be willing to carry on campus and go through required training if allowed. 200 students walk through my classroom door each and everyday. I teach at the intermediate level but also taught elementary for five years. On both campuses, there is/was really nothing stopping anybody from walking onto the campus. The gates are generally unlocked during school hours, and we are supposed to keep our doors unlocked during times of instruction for other issues like fire safety, etc. We have nobody/nothing on campus who/that serves as a defense/deterrent. At the intermediate level, we get so called security guards sometimes. They get their nifty little windbreaker and a walkie-talkie. That's about it. The students know they are a joke and don't really show any respect for them.

Schools are being targeted just like airports, train stations, etc. There should be some sort of armed security on campus, but our budgets are so f*cked I don't see that happening unfortunately.

It's wild. I really have no way of protecting myself or my students if it happened on my campus. I guess I could throw hydrochloric acid on the perp? (sarcasm)

Trenchfoot
12-17-2012, 7:38 PM
I think it's counter productive for second amendment advocates to suggest a solution that won't solve anything.

Just because I am a 2A supporter doesn't mean I think that arming teachers is the best way to make our schools safer. And I certainly don't think that arming teachers is coming to CA or the majority of other states anytime soon, so I think it is good to discuss options that have the possibility of getting done. Armed professional security guards is something i could see passing though. Denying entry to an intruder is always better that shooting it out with him.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 8:15 PM
Just because I am a 2A supporter doesn't mean I think that arming teachers is the best way to make our schools safer. And I certainly don't think that arming teachers is coming to CA or the majority of other states anytime soon, so I think it is good to discuss options that have the possibility of getting done. Armed professional security guards is something i could see passing though. Denying entry to an intruder is always better that shooting it out with him.

The Connecticut school apparently attempted to deny entry to the intruder. He just shot his way in past the locked glass door, apparently.

So whatever you come up with has to account for the reasonably likely contingency that the bad guy will get past the locked doors, either by overcoming them or by forcing someone to open them up (the latter can be avoided only by having everyone who is in a position to open the door protected by bulletproof materials).


The best way to secure the schools is through significant numbers of armed guards, combined with multiple exit paths for the teachers and kids as well as bulletproof areas located throughout the school, along with letting as many school personnel be armed as are willing. But implementing any one of those things (except the last) would probably require more resources than are likely available.

The second best way to secure the schools is by arming the school personnel, preferably including the teachers (since they are closest to the kids, they are in a position to defend the kids when all other defenses have failed).


The bottom line is that whatever you implement has to include something that makes it possible to engage the intruder with a reasonable expectation of success. Tasers just don't cut it for that.

the_natterjack
12-17-2012, 8:28 PM
I know a system exists where the sound of a firearm being shot can be triangulated to within a few house on a public street.

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to take that technology and connect it into a schools security system. At the first "sound" of a firearm being discharged an alarm goes off, doors lock, calls are made to the police, super bright disorienting strobes go off, police and school admins can then respond.

- Brian

CCWFacts
12-17-2012, 8:30 PM
In what respect? You really want have a maximum effect of force by using tasers against an armed individual?

Thats like trying to shoot down an F-18 with an AR-15 and thinking your rifle will keep you safe from the plane.

No it isn't. A few tasers vs. one crazy shooter, the tasers will have a good chance.

And Gene's fundamental point is that the bulk of people who select themselves to be in the teaching profession do not want anything to do with guns. Fine. Then give them the closest possible thing they would be comfortable with, which is a Taser. I don't get how people here don't see this...

While there may be a small sliver of teachers and school boards and administrators that are comfortable with the armed teachers idea, most are not. Most are left-wing Marxists and will not touch a gun. Come on, this is obvious. Give them Tasers.

The others who have proposed deploying LEOs for this job: it will cost billions of dollars. You cannot use retired LEOs or pseudo-LEOs (TSA "officers"). No, these would be full-blown unionized LEOs, at a fully burdened cost of about $300k a year, and schools can't afford that.

I agree, arming teachers or hiring real LEOs would be better but those are not real-world options.

Gene's idea is a real-world option, a real-world way to channel the current Zeitgeist into something that helps student safety and helps us RKBA activists.

I'm getting frustrated at all the arguments in this thread. Let's all get behind this. Gene's idea is the smartest concept I've heard in a long time as a response to mass shootings.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 8:39 PM
No it isn't. A few tasers vs. one crazy shooter, the tasers will have a good chance.

And Gene's fundamental point is that the bulk of people who select themselves to be in the teaching profession do not want anything to do with guns. Fine. Then give them the closest possible thing they would be comfortable with, which is a Taser. I don't get how people here don't see this...

While there may be a small sliver of teachers and school boards and administrators that are comfortable with the armed teachers idea, most are not. Most are left-wing Marxists and will not touch a gun. Come on, this is obvious. Give them Tasers.

The others who have proposed deploying LEOs for this job: it will cost billions of dollars. You cannot use retired LEOs or pseudo-LEOs (TSA "officers"). No, these would be full-blown unionized LEOs, at a fully burdened cost of about $300k a year, and schools can't afford that.

I agree, arming teachers or hiring real LEOs would be better but those are not real-world options.

Gene's idea is a real-world option, a real-world way to channel the current Zeitgeist into something that helps student safety and helps us RKBA activists.

I'm getting frustrated at all the arguments in this thread. Let's all get behind this. Gene's idea is the smartest concept I've heard in a long time as a response to mass shootings.

Gene doesn't know what he is talking about, and neither do you. Think about what you are saying!! A taser V a suicidal maniac with an AR 15? please!!!

"Would you please come a little closer so i can taze you bro?"

Gunlawyer
12-17-2012, 8:52 PM
ill probably get some heat for this, but i think we need an armed LEO at every school in the country. Not enough schools have them.
If you guys think all schools should be armed, this is the way to compromise and get it done.
Liberals would be comfortable with a "Trained Professional" having a gun in a school.

I think most of us would be satisfied, because the sheer presence of a gun stops most crime from ever happening.

I agree. This would be far better than nonlethal from a protection standpoint and if we could get it done would start to change the political landscape when a nut like this is prevented from doing a massacre by an armed LEO on campus. Then the antis whld start to think that an armed citizen is the best way to reduce this nonsense. Politically I see where Gene is coiming from though and this might be a way to help but I personally dont think it would detour or stop many of these type of threats. I say get an armed LEO at each campus is a better goal but yes expensive. I rather pay $25.00 higher property taxes per year for an armed LEO than the other nonsense bonds that the local schools put on the ballot each season. Id say in this climate most people wuld pony up a small increase in taxes for an armed LEO and it would help the CCW cause and political climate for us. Just MHO.

the_natterjack
12-17-2012, 8:53 PM
No it isn't. A few tasers vs. one crazy shooter, the tasers will have a good chance.

And Gene's fundamental point is that the bulk of people who select themselves to be in the teaching profession do not want anything to do with guns. Fine. Then give them the closest possible thing they would be comfortable with, which is a Taser. I don't get how people here don't see this...

While there may be a small sliver of teachers and school boards and administrators that are comfortable with the armed teachers idea, most are not. Most are left-wing Marxists and will not touch a gun. Come on, this is obvious. Give them Tasers.

The others who have proposed deploying LEOs for this job: it will cost billions of dollars. You cannot use retired LEOs or pseudo-LEOs (TSA "officers"). No, these would be full-blown unionized LEOs, at a fully burdened cost of about $300k a year, and schools can't afford that.

I agree, arming teachers or hiring real LEOs would be better but those are not real-world options.

Gene's idea is a real-world option, a real-world way to channel the current Zeitgeist into something that helps student safety and helps us RKBA activists.

I'm getting frustrated at all the arguments in this thread. Let's all get behind this. Gene's idea is the smartest concept I've heard in a long time as a response to mass shootings.

Tasers and bear spray.

Cheap, fast, effective. I like it.

Will this be a NRA / Calguns joint project?

- Brian

Gunlawyer
12-17-2012, 8:54 PM
ill probably get some heat for this, but i think we need an armed LEO at every school in the country. Not enough schools have them.
If you guys think all schools should be armed, this is the way to compromise and get it done.
Liberals would be comfortable with a "Trained Professional" having a gun in a school.

I think most of us would be satisfied, because the sheer presence of a gun stops most crime from ever happening.

I agree. This would be far better than nonlethal from a protection standpoint and if we could get it done would start to change the political landscape when a nut like this is prevented from doing a massacre by an armed LEO on campus. Then the antis whld start to think that an armed citizen is the best way to reduce this nonsense. Politically I see where Gene is coiming from though and this might be a way to help but I personally dont think it would deter or stop many of these type of threats. I say get an armed LEO at each campus is a better goal but yes expensive. I rather pay $25.00 higher property taxes per year for an armed LEO than the other nonsense bonds that the local schools put on the ballot each season. Id say in this climate most people wuld pony up a small increase in taxes for an armed LEO and it would help the CCW cause and political climate for us. Just MHO.

jj805
12-17-2012, 8:55 PM
No it isn't. A few tasers vs. one crazy shooter, the tasers will have a good chance.

And Gene's fundamental point is that the bulk of people who select themselves to be in the teaching profession do not want anything to do with guns. Fine. Then give them the closest possible thing they would be comfortable with, which is a Taser. I don't get how people here don't see this...

While there may be a small sliver of teachers and school boards and administrators that are comfortable with the armed teachers idea, most are not. Most are left-wing Marxists and will not touch a gun. Come on, this is obvious. Give them Tasers.

The others who have proposed deploying LEOs for this job: it will cost billions of dollars. You cannot use retired LEOs or pseudo-LEOs (TSA "officers"). No, these would be full-blown unionized LEOs, at a fully burdened cost of about $300k a year, and schools can't afford that.

I agree, arming teachers or hiring real LEOs would be better but those are not real-world options.

Gene's idea is a real-world option, a real-world way to channel the current Zeitgeist into something that helps student safety and helps us RKBA activists.

I'm getting frustrated at all the arguments in this thread. Let's all get behind this. Gene's idea is the smartest concept I've heard in a long time as a response to mass shootings.

That is your opinion. not mine. Feel free to get behind it all you want. Feel free to get frustrated about every other idea out there. My daughter is an elementary school student. I am not getting behind any position until it has been thoroughly thought out. Tasers in the classroom as a primary defence against lethal force doesn't sound thoroughly thought out to me. I am not going to get behind it until it dose. I am trying to be open minded, but so far, this idea doesn't sound like a "winner" to me.

Gunlawyer
12-17-2012, 8:58 PM
ill probably get some heat for this, but i think we need an armed LEO at every school in the country. Not enough schools have them.
If you guys think all schools should be armed, this is the way to compromise and get it done.
Liberals would be comfortable with a "Trained Professional" having a gun in a school.

I think most of us would be satisfied, because the sheer presence of a gun stops most crime from ever happening.

I agree. This would be far better than nonlethal from a protection standpoint and if we could get it done would start to change the political landscape when a nut like this is prevented from doing a massacre by an armed LEO on campus. Then the antis would start to think that an armed citizen is the best way to reduce this nonsense. Politically I see where Gene is coming from though and this might be a way to help but I personally dont think it would deter or stop many of these type of threats and wiuld hurt our cause IMHO. I say get an armed LEO at each campus is a better goal but yes expensive. Id rather pay $25.00 higher property taxes per year for an armed LEO than the other nonsense bonds that the local schools put on the ballot each season. Id say in this climate most people would pony up a small increase in taxes for an armed LEO and it would help the CCW cause and political climate for us long term when an LEO saves lives from a nut (Think longterm chess not checkers philosophy). Just MHO.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 8:59 PM
I agree. This would be far better than nonlethal from a protection standpoint and if we could get it done would start to change the political landscape when a nut like this is prevented from doing a massacre by an armed LEO on campus. Then the antis whld start to think that an armed citizen is the best way to reduce this nonsense. Politically I see where Gene is coiming from though and this might be a way to help but I personally dont think it would deter or stop many of these type of threats. I say get an armed LEO at each campus is a better goal but yes expensive. I rather pay $25.00 higher property taxes per year for an armed LEO than the other nonsense bonds that the local schools put on the ballot each season. Id say in this climate most people wuld pony up a small increase in taxes for an armed LEO and it would help the CCW cause and political climate for us. Just MHO.

For the win! Whats money anyway and like the antis say, "if it only saves one childs life" OK lets pony up and pay for this security and NOT infringe on our 2A rights!

speedrrracer
12-17-2012, 9:00 PM
Lotta good thinking in this thread! CalGuns on top of it's game! We should forward this to fricking Congress -- probably save them months of wasting time.

#1 thought as I read through it all --

Gene's suggestion has hidden merit that Gray touched on -- you get teachers (who as a group are terrified of weapons) to carry LTL. Not a perfect nor ideal solution, but you've got them carrying.

Let that sink in.

Yes. That's what I'm talking about. You've got them carrying. See the genius here. You just turned tens of thousands of the most rabid anti-gun folks in the nation into concealed carriers. Or maybe open carriers.

In their minds, the fact that they're carrying an LTL device is far less significant than the fact that they are carrying. In a few months / years, strapping on the old taser is no different than strapping on a pocket protector. They learn that it's a tool to do a job, and not the devil.

Guarantee that would cause a fundamental shift in the way firearms are perceived in this nation, and drastically reduce the demonization of firearms.

wash
12-17-2012, 9:04 PM
I think some teachers would choose a taser but the practical deterrent is armed guards or armed teachers and armed does not mean less than lethal.

Some armed plus some taser is fine, all taser is about as good as handing out slingshots.

If we back a policy choice that is doomed to failure, we are no better than the antis.

As much as I dislike this option, I think keeping schools gun free is the safe option for us. Next time it happens we say "I told you so" and look like *******s but eventually people will get tired of seeing kids die and they will figure out that bullies, criminals and the insane only respond to force.

If we back tasers and kids still die, the antis will say "the gun people are wrong, now let's ban all the guns."

There is no win for anyone here except a dead psycho and kids going home alive. The antis just have to accept that the dead psycho is the price for saving those kids lives.

CCWFacts
12-17-2012, 9:12 PM
Gene doesn't know what he is talking about, and neither do you. Think about what you are saying!! A taser V a suicidal maniac with an AR 15? please!!!

"Would you please come a little closer so i can taze you bro?"

Yes I do know what I'm talking about. I own a RAW AR-15 and have taken a whole lot of tactical classes with it. I know exactly what it does. It gives me the ability to make a lot of hits in a short period of time at ranges from 0 to +100m. Other than (arguably) weak stopping power of the 22cal bullet, the AR-15 is a very deadly weapon. This is why, despite repeated efforts to find a substitute, our military has used the same platform for the past 50 years. If I could only have one weapon, it would be my AR-15, and I would be just fine with it. It's my top choice weapon for any situation where I can use a long arm.

Would any sane person feel confident using a Taser to stop a guy with an AR-15? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Any sane person would choose an AR-15, or a Mk 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_19_grenade_launcher) or a friend with a Predator drone.

But this is all irrelevant! Legislators, school boards, administrators, and teachers themselves are not going to accept armed teachers in this country, outside of some very very red-state areas. You know this is true! Be honest with yourself!

What could be accepted is teachers having access to Tasers. Tasers aren't regulated as firearms, and aren't viewed as lethal firearms.

Firearms aren't an option. Would you prefer teachers to have Tasers or be limited to sharpened pencils?

Tasers and bear spray.

(Eh, can't use bear spray. It would work fine, but it's not a legal self-defense option. This has been discussed many times. )

Focus on Tasers. They are accepted by the public and in fact I've heard a lot of anti-gun types recommending them: "why don't you carry a Taser instead?" Ok, we should suggest that as an option for teachers. That's what Gene is saying and it's a good idea for the real world we live in.

Will this be a NRA / Calguns joint project?

I hope so. IT'S A GREAT IDEA GENE!!!!

jj805
12-17-2012, 9:13 PM
Lotta good thinking in this thread! CalGuns on top of it's game! We should forward this to fricking Congress -- probably save them months of wasting time.

#1 thought as I read through it all --

Gene's suggestion has hidden merit that Gray touched on -- you get teachers (who as a group are terrified of weapons) to carry LTL. Not a perfect nor ideal solution, but you've got them carrying.

Let that sink in.

Yes. That's what I'm talking about. You've got them carrying. See the genius here. You just turned tens of thousands of the most rabid anti-gun folks in the nation into concealed carriers. Or maybe open carriers.

In their minds, the fact that they're carrying an LTL device is far less significant than the fact that they are carrying. In a few months / years, strapping on the old taser is no different than strapping on a pocket protector. They learn that it's a tool to do a job, and not the devil.

Guarantee that would cause a fundamental shift in the way firearms are perceived in this nation, and drastically reduce the demonization of firearms.

What happens when one of these potential converts goes full hero, leaves his class to protect others, misses with his/her ONLY shot, and get shot himself, but with a lethal weapon? Now you have a full class of children with no authoritative figure to guide them to safety. At least with a gun, follow up shots will be an option.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 9:19 PM
Yes I do know what I'm talking about. I own a RAW AR-15 and have taken a whole lot of tactical classes with it. I know exactly what it does. It gives me the ability to make a lot of hits in a short period of time at ranges from 0 to +100m. Other than (arguably) weak stopping power of the 22cal bullet, the AR-15 is a very deadly weapon. This is why, despite repeated efforts to find a substitute, our military has used the same platform for the past 50 years. If I could only have one weapon, it would be my AR-15, and I would be just fine with it. It's my top choice weapon for any situation where I can use a long arm.

Would any sane person feel confident using a Taser to stop a guy with an AR-15? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Any sane person would choose an AR-15, or a Mk 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_19_grenade_launcher) or a friend with a Predator drone.

But this is all irrelevant! Legislators, school boards, administrators, and teachers themselves are not going to accept armed teachers in this country, outside of some very very red-state areas. You know this is true! Be honest with yourself!

What could be accepted is teachers having access to Tasers. Tasers aren't regulated as firearms, and aren't viewed as lethal firearms.

Firearms aren't an option. Would you prefer teachers to have Tasers or be limited to sharpened pencils?



(Eh, can't use bear spray. It would work fine, but it's not a legal self-defense option. This has been discussed many times. )

Focus on Tasers. They are accepted by the public and in fact I've heard a lot of anti-gun types recommending them: "why don't you carry a Taser instead?" Ok, we should suggest that as an option for teachers. That's what Gene is saying and it's a good idea for the real world we live in.



I hope so. IT'S A GREAT IDEA GENE!!!!

No you don't know what you are talking about! Classes are great but how often do you actually take a life? Have you ever actually killed something with a firearm and know what happens in front of your face? Do you realize that a taser does not always work. How in gods green earth is a teacher that cant handle a gun (yours and genes opinion of kindergarten teachers) going to approach a nut shooting an AR15 and get close enough to taze them!!!!!!!!

You MUST live in an alternate world! The teacher that has the mind set to actually approach this person would still have to have enough balls to use a gun in order to taze a shooter pointing a gun at them!

wash
12-17-2012, 9:27 PM
Why aren't firearms an option?

How would a certain CGF board member feel if his LTC application was returned with a note saying "we think you should carry a taser instead"?

Enough teachers would train and carry for a few dollars just like they take CPR courses, teach ESL, monitor recess, etc.

Even if there were not many teachers carrying, it would still be a deterrent because the school districts could inflate the numbers and get the same effect. It's only when the criminal knows the number of weapons is ~zero that they dare an attack.

speedrrracer
12-17-2012, 9:34 PM
What happens when one of these potential converts goes full hero, leaves his class to protect others, misses with his/her ONLY shot, and get shot himself, but with a lethal weapon? Now you have a full class of children with no authoritative figure to guide them to safety. At least with a gun, follow up shots will be an option.

You are missing the point. By a mile.

We're not trying to state that tasers have a chance against guns. Forget about that.

We're saying that a political crapstorm of epic proportions is about to rain down on all our heads. Your 2A rights are going to be used as pinatas for the next several months. Want another AWB?

I didn't think so.

So what can we do? How can we avoid taking the fall for this?

By getting allies. By converting the enemy. People who now think weapons are the devil, and will vote for any resurrected AWB, becoming pro-2A types.

How is that possible?

That's the genius in Gene's idea. You get them to dip their toe in the water. "It's just a taser, nothing to worry about, right?" It's a start.

Ever taken someone shooting for their first time? See the light bulb go on? Same principle at work here. You're inoculating them to the concept of carrying weapons. You're showing them they are just tools. You're de-mystifying the Devil.

Now, next time the rhetoric comes up about how all these killing machines are blah blah blah, we have tens of thousands of people, who used to join in that chorus, now instead saying, "No, I've carried a weapon for years, and I've never hurt anyone. Weapons aren't evil, they're just tools."

taperxz
12-17-2012, 9:40 PM
You are missing the point. By a mile.

We're not trying to state that tasers have a chance against guns. Forget about that.

We're saying that a political crapstorm of epic proportions is about to rain down on all our heads. Your 2A rights are going to be used as pinatas for the next several months. Want another AWB?

I didn't think so.

So what can we do? How can we avoid taking the fall for this?

By getting allies. By converting the enemy. People who now think weapons are the devil, and will vote for any resurrected AWB, becoming pro-2A types.

How is that possible?

That's the genius in Gene's idea. You get them to dip their toe in the water. "It's just a taser, nothing to worry about, right?" It's a start.

Ever taken someone shooting for their first time? See the light bulb go on? Same principle at work here. You're inoculating them to the concept of carrying weapons. You're showing them they are just tools. You're de-mystifying the Devil.

Now, next time the rhetoric comes up about how all these killing machines are blah blah blah, we have tens of thousands of people, who used to join in that chorus, now instead saying, "No, I've carried a weapon for years, and I've never hurt anyone. Weapons aren't evil, they're just tools."

NO! ITS A BUNCH OF HOG WASH!! This is about saving the lives of children in school! Genes idea of tasers as dipping your toes may end up getting children killed again because all they have is tasers!

2A rights is for self defense of yourself and loved ones. This is not a political game. The 2A was not meant for political fodder or making people like CGF famous or powerful! Gene is wrong, has been wrong before and will be wrong again. Just like the rest of us. We are all human regardless of what our moral imperatives are.

nicki
12-17-2012, 9:43 PM
As Gene pointed out, guns are only effective if people are willing to learn to use them.

The problem with "arming the teachers" is many of them hate guns, so even if we did somehow get them to qualify, they would do only enough to pass.

Mossberg shotguns actually has a new taser that is fired out of a modified shotgun and of course it can carry mulitple rounds. It is designed so that it can't fire standard shotgun ammo.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/02/06/mossberg-taser-x12-shotgun/

Standard civilian tasers have a max range of 15 feet, but this one has a range up to 100 ft which would mean it would be practical in a school setting.

Yes I would rather have a AR to deal with a active shooter, but again many teachers wouldn't.

I wouldn't expect teachers to go hunting for active shooters, rather I would see using such a tool as a defensive arm to allow teachers to barricade or evacutate as needed.

This type taser shotguns could be positioned throughout the school so that in the event that they are needed, staff could quickly access.

The taser shotguns could be checked on a daily basis similar to fire extingushers I guess.

A female kindergarden teacher would be more likely to pull the trigger on a taser shotgun than a real one.

Ironically 20 guage shotguns loaded with low recoil slugs would probably be a cost effective training tool.;)

Nicki

Theseus
12-17-2012, 9:43 PM
Look, allow the ones that want to arm themselves to do so. The ones that don't would have a LTL alternative... Or do you really wanna make this an "all our nothing" position?

IMHO, a teacher willing to carry a tazer is better than one who won't carry anything.

Sent via Note 2 Lte

Librarian
12-17-2012, 9:46 PM
Gene doesn't know what he is talking about, and neither do you. Think about what you are saying!! A taser V a suicidal maniac with an AR 15? please!!!

"Would you please come a little closer so i can taze you bro?"

I'm sure you don't prefer the current resource, 'Please don't kill me'. We already know how that works in practice.

Firearm-equipped teachers simply is not going to happen; the best solution is off the table.

jj805
12-17-2012, 9:46 PM
You are missing the point. By a mile.

We're not trying to state that tasers have a chance against guns. Forget about that.

We're saying that a political crapstorm of epic proportions is about to rain down on all our heads. Your 2A rights are going to be used as pinatas for the next several months. Want another AWB?

I didn't think so.

So what can we do? How can we avoid taking the fall for this?

By getting allies. By converting the enemy. People who now think weapons are the devil, and will vote for any resurrected AWB, becoming pro-2A types.

How is that possible?

That's the genius in Gene's idea. You get them to dip their toe in the water. "It's just a taser, nothing to worry about, right?" It's a start.

Ever taken someone shooting for their first time? See the light bulb go on? Same principle at work here. You're inoculating them to the concept of carrying weapons. You're showing them they are just tools. You're de-mystifying the Devil.

Now, next time the rhetoric comes up about how all these killing machines are blah blah blah, we have tens of thousands of people, who used to join in that chorus, now instead saying, "No, I've carried a weapon for years, and I've never hurt anyone. Weapons aren't evil, they're just tools."

I am not missing your point. I am ignoring it because it is stupid. Lets create a false sense of security for the public, and our teachers to forward our agenda? That's a brilliant idea.:rolleyes: Right up there with using the killing of 20 kids to further an agenda. It is pathetic. Do you also know what will happen if this backfires? Eating crow will be the least of your worries.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 9:48 PM
Yes. That's what I'm talking about. You've got them carrying. See the genius here. You just turned tens of thousands of the most rabid anti-gun folks in the nation into concealed carriers. Or maybe open carriers.

In their minds, the fact that they're carrying an LTL device is far less significant than the fact that they are carrying. In a few months / years, strapping on the old taser is no different than strapping on a pocket protector. They learn that it's a tool to do a job, and not the devil.


Wrong. It is only because it's a LTL device that they would consider carrying it at all.

Worse, they'll start wondering why we want to be carrying firearms when clearly carrying LTL devices like tasers is "sufficient".



Guarantee that would cause a fundamental shift in the way firearms are perceived in this nation, and drastically reduce the demonization of firearms.

No, it won't. Firearms are lethal. Tasers, in the minds of the people we're talking about, are not. It is precisely and only that distinction that makes the difference.

the_natterjack
12-17-2012, 9:49 PM
(Eh, can't use bear spray. It would work fine, but it's not a legal self-defense option. This has been discussed many times. )



Is that a state or fed issue? We should have it changed, it's for the children.



I hope so. IT'S A GREAT IDEA GENE!!!!



If it's a NRA/Calguns project tell me where to send my money.

- Brian

scobun
12-17-2012, 9:50 PM
And that is wildly unrealistic about who is called to teach children. Stop playing into the other side's demonization and start thinking in ways that are hard for the other side to handle as responses.

It has the added benefit of being a good idea too for the reasons I outlined above. If you don't believe me, find a Kindergarten teacher in a blue county and ask her.

-Gene

You are basing your entire premise on a stereotype, and as a result your entire argument fails. Teachers are a broad swath of society. While Kindergarten teachers might be a little more puppies and kittens, almost every school is going to be K-5 with a very large and diverse staff.

Please stop using this inflamatory, inaccurate and ignorant stereotype. All you need is one well armed and trained teacher at a site and that would make a world of difference. I completely respect your understanding of the law, but when it comes to a practical understanding of the needs, challenges and staff at a school you're severely lacking.

CCWFacts
12-17-2012, 9:55 PM
Classes are great but how often do you actually take a life? Have you ever actually killed something with a firearm and know what happens in front of your face?

Never have, hope I never will. I don't hunt and never will, and I hope I'm never in need of self defense, especially armed self-defense.

Do you realize that a taser does not always work.

Do I realize that a Taser won't always work? Did you read what I said? I said no sane person would be confident in a Taser vs. someone with an AR-15. It's a very desperate choice, but it's better than a sharp pencil and it's politically viable.

Everyone arguing against this is not understanding the framing of the proposal, so let me explain.

Gene and I are not saying that a Taser is a fantastic weapon and a good choice to stop someone who is well armed. No. Gene is not making a tactical suggestion of how to respond to a tactical threat in a classroom.

He is making a political suggestion of how to respond to an emotional threat to our gun rights.

And that is more important than tragic, but extremely rare tactical situations.

We need to channel political and emotional energy. That's what Gene's suggestion is for. It is not a suggestion of "what's the most tactically effective response to a shooter". The most tactically effective response is what Israel has done, but they have a different situation, where all their teachers have military experience, and mass shooting threats are common, not vanishingly rare as they are here.

Do you understand? This isn't tactical advice to stop a physical threat, but political advice to stop a political threat.

How in gods green earth is a teacher that cant handle a gun (yours and genes opinion of kindergarten teachers) going to approach a nut shooting an AR15 and get close enough to taze them!!!!!!!!

I hesitate to get drawn into a discussion of tactical stuff because that isn't the frame Gene posted in, but I'll say that a crazed shooter is not focusing on defending himself. They often commit suicide anyway, and they are looking for easy targets to kill. They are not carefully slicing the pie to look for counter-attackers. A teacher, or a few teachers, might have a chance with a Taser. Not a wonderful chance, not an ideal chance, but it could work.

You MUST live in an alternate world! The teacher that has the mind set to actually approach this person would still have to have enough balls to use a gun in order to taze a shooter pointing a gun at them!

In the most recent shooting (I haven't followed the details) I think that a principal rushed the shooter and died doing so. He obviously got pretty close to the guy and if he had fired a Taser instead of attempting a tackle, it could have worked.

Why aren't firearms an option?

It's not a politically viable proposal, for so many reasons. I agree, it's the better tactical option but the goal here is to find a way to deflect a political problem, and Gene's proposal can do that.

How would a certain CGF board member feel if his LTC application was returned with a note saying "we think you should carry a taser instead"?

You're mixing up things which are unrelated.

Enough teachers would train and carry for a few dollars just like they take CPR courses, teach ESL, monitor recess, etc.

Yeah I agree in an ideal world that would happen. It will not happen with the real set of teachers especially in blue states.

Even if there were not many teachers carrying, it would still be a deterrent because the school districts could inflate the numbers and get the same effect.

And school boards are going to go along with that? California's legislature could pass a law forcing them to go along with that? It's not a serious argument.

But proposing that teachers have access to LTL weapons (Tasers) is a serious proposal and one we should get behind.

scobun
12-17-2012, 10:12 PM
It is IDIOCY to mandate that teachers carry tasers. The ones who you all think of, the ultra liberals, won't take them seriously and won't use them. The ones who you don't all realize exist, like the 30 year old with military experience with a CCW (me) will refuse to carry one. I'm not going to make myself a target to be taken out by carrying a useless less than lethal weapon. Not happening.

The solution is simple. If a teacher wants to CCW, let them do it at work. I would gladly sign up for a full POST firearms LEO certification if it meant I could carry at work. Get rid of the whole gun free school zone so I can keep a rifle in my truck. The liberal pacifist teachers should not be forced to arm themselves. That is pointless and very counterproductive. The teachers who want to arm themselves shouldn't be denied the right. How would you feel if you got your CCW letter in the mail and they told you that you don't need a gun, and here is a taser catalog, so good luck. If you want me to protect your kids, give me a weapon. Otherwise, I'm not playing John Wayne and I'm taking cover with the kids. Call me what you want, but I get paid to teach kids, not to become a bullet sponge. I'd welcome the chance to have a fair shot at saving lives with a firearm and I would do it if I had a rifle/handgun/shotgun, but if you think I'd take on a person armed with a rifle/handgun/shotgun using just a taser, you're out of your mind.

Tasers won't ever happen. The best and only realistic shot is to do away with the prohibitions that keep guns out of staff vehicles and out of the hands of legal CCWers. Tasers are too in your face and totally a totally useless feel good measure.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 10:22 PM
Never have, hope I never will. I don't hunt and never will, and I hope I'm never in need of self defense, especially armed self-defense.



Do I realize that a Taser won't always work? Did you read what I said? I said no sane person would be confident in a Taser vs. someone with an AR-15. It's a very desperate choice, but it's better than a sharp pencil and it's politically viable.

Everyone arguing against this is not understanding the framing of the proposal, so let me explain.

Gene and I are not saying that a Taser is a fantastic weapon and a good choice to stop someone who is well armed. No. Gene is not making a tactical suggestion of how to respond to a tactical threat in a classroom.

He is making a political suggestion of how to respond to an emotional threat to our gun rights.

And that is more important than tragic, but extremely rare tactical situations.

We need to channel political and emotional energy. That's what Gene's suggestion is for. It is not a suggestion of "what's the most tactically effective response to a shooter". The most tactically effective response is what Israel has done, but they have a different situation, where all their teachers have military experience, and mass shooting threats are common, not vanishingly rare as they are here.

Do you understand? This isn't tactical advice to stop a physical threat, but political advice to stop a political threat.



I hesitate to get drawn into a discussion of tactical stuff because that isn't the frame Gene posted in, but I'll say that a crazed shooter is not focusing on defending himself. They often commit suicide anyway, and they are looking for easy targets to kill. They are not carefully slicing the pie to look for counter-attackers. A teacher, or a few teachers, might have a chance with a Taser. Not a wonderful chance, not an ideal chance, but it could work.



In the most recent shooting (I haven't followed the details) I think that a principal rushed the shooter and died doing so. He obviously got pretty close to the guy and if he had fired a Taser instead of attempting a tackle, it could have worked.



It's not a politically viable proposal, for so many reasons. I agree, it's the better tactical option but the goal here is to find a way to deflect a political problem, and Gene's proposal can do that.



You're mixing up things which are unrelated.



Yeah I agree in an ideal world that would happen. It will not happen with the real set of teachers especially in blue states.



And school boards are going to go along with that? California's legislature could pass a law forcing them to go along with that? It's not a serious argument.

But proposing that teachers have access to LTL weapons (Tasers) is a serious proposal and one we should get behind.

I don't know whats wrong with this site but you last 4 quotes were not mine.

You and Gene can play political fodder all you want! I want lives saved! As i mentioned before, i got a call from the emergency response when my daughters school was attacked by a pipe bomber carrying 8 bombs a chain saw and a sword. I was required to wait to find her to make sure she was in fact at an a middle school and well.

Unless you have received that call you have no idea how nerve racking leaving work to see if your child is alright can be!

Screw the politics! Keep the kids safe and put armed people in the schools! Quit pretending tasers are the answer. Thats simple political jockeying.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 10:24 PM
Gene and I are not saying that a Taser is a fantastic weapon and a good choice to stop someone who is well armed. No. Gene is not making a tactical suggestion of how to respond to a tactical threat in a classroom.

He is making a political suggestion of how to respond to an emotional threat to our gun rights.


Yes, but he is, ostensibly, making it appear like it's a tactical suggestion of how to respond to a tactical threat. Why else would they even consider it?

Can you imagine how the conversation might go?

Us: "We think teachers should carry tasers so that they can respond to a threat like the Connecticut murderer."

Them: "Uh, okay. Do you believe that will be an effective defense against a maniac armed with an assault weapon?"

At this point, the conversation can go one of two ways. The first:

Us: "Yes, absolutely it will be effective."

Them: "Okay, thanks. By the way, if you believe it'll be effective, why aren't you pushing for carry of tasers in public instead of firearms?"


The second:

Us: "Um, no, not really. I mean, it might be! But anyway, it's better than nothing!"

Them: "Get out of here. We don't need you to waste our time with worthless suggestions."



Now, how could that possibly be a win for us? No, it appears to me that it will make us look either like idiots or, worse, like hypocrites.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 10:31 PM
I'm sure you don't prefer the current resource, 'Please don't kill me'. We already know how that works in practice.

Firearm-equipped teachers simply is not going to happen; the best solution is off the table.

I never said to arm all teachers. My solution is to arm the school. Tax us to put an armed LEO in there. IF teachers wish to be armed thats just a plus.

There will be some willing to do so and i say let em if they are trained to do so.

Some recent results

‎...Did you know.....• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon. 2500 times last year alone legal gun owners stopped violent crime when confronted with it long before any police assistance ...

Funtimes
12-17-2012, 10:36 PM
If you go down this particular road, I expect it'll be very bad for us.

After all, if a taser is enough for a teacher protecting the most precious of us (our kids), then why do we "need" anything more in public?

There is a huge difference, and I think you are kind of overlooking it. Stopping the active shooter generally means pursuing him offensively, that isn't going to be the position of a teacher (Unless they are freelancing most of their free time on the range training). Our reality is that most of them are just not going to carry, and have no interest in it.

Just yesterday a school principal here said, "I wouldn't want retired police with concealed carry permits on my campus. I would rather wait for police, because they will be able to handle it."

Firearms, specifically handguns, are the quintessential item for self-defense, and I don't think it's going to come to the scenario that you are insinuating. Instead, we could pressure them to require less lethal devices be carried or stored etc. something!

Trenchfoot
12-17-2012, 10:36 PM
As much as I dislike this option, I think keeping schools gun free is the safe option for us. Next time it happens we say "I told you so" and look like *******s but eventually people will get tired of seeing kids die and they will figure out that bullies, criminals and the insane only respond to force.




You really think that if mass school shootings keep happening, anti-gun people will suddenly start calling for less gun control? To them that would be evidence that guns are the problem, not the solution.

scobun
12-17-2012, 10:38 PM
Yes, but he is, ostensibly, making it appear like it's a tactical suggestion of how to respond to a tactical threat.

Can you imagine how the conversation might go?

Us: "We think teachers should carry tasers so that they can respond to a threat like the Connecticut murderer."

Them: "Uh, okay. Do you believe that will be an effective defense against an intruder armed with an assault weapon?"

At this point, the conversation can go one of two ways. The first:

Us: "Yes, absolutely it will be effective."

Them: "Okay, thanks. By the way, if you believe it'll be effective, why aren't you pushing for carry of tasers in public instead of firearms?"


The second:

Us: "Um, no, not really. I mean, it might be! But anyway, it's better than nothing!"

Them: "Get out of here. We don't need you to waste our time with worthless suggestions."



Now, how could that possibly be a win for us?

This.

If you want me to take on someone with a firearm, then you had better give me a firearm. I'd take my chances making a dash to my car to get a rifle. I will not take my chances with a taser. LEO are trained that if you are going to try less-than lethal like a beanbag, you need someone backing you up with a firearm. Just relaxing the laws on having firearms in cars would be a huge step. I'd fell 1000 times better as a parent if I could drop my kid off at a school and I knew that the principal kept an M4 in his office and trained with it once a year or that staff could CCW and took annual summer firearms training if they opt into the program. Armed school security wouldn't fly because it is too in the face of those opposed to violence (yes, they are idiots, but they'll still raise hell), it is too expensive, and in the end, if I'm a schoool shooter I know who gets the first bullet. I'd bet that 1:50 teachers would carry at a minimum. Not knowing who the 1 is in the 50 is a huge advantage.

I appreciate the advocacy that I should go kamikaze into certain death to save your kids, but no thanks.

Trenchfoot
12-17-2012, 10:46 PM
I think pushing for armed security has a much better possibility of happening than arming teachers. That being said, I'm off to bed. Picking up my new Sig 1911 tomorrow morning.

CCWFacts
12-17-2012, 10:46 PM
Yes, but he is, ostensibly, making it appear like it's a tactical suggestion of how to respond to a tactical threat. Why else would they even consider it?

Can you imagine how the conversation might go?

You're not thinking from the mindset of our anti-RKBA opponents.

To them, guns are not physical things. They are symbols. Banning guns (physical things) is a symbolic way of saying "no" to violence. If we can ban guns, we can tell everyone "violence is not ok", and then violence will stop. It's the same thinking behind magical beliefs: I can manipulate some symbols (a voodoo doll or something) or chant a spell and that will send a message to change things in the real world. The best way to change this magical thinking is, of course, to take an anti-RKBA activist shooting, but that's a long-term effort.

The tactical stuff and realities don't matter at all. The anti-RKBA advocates don't understand physical guns at all. We've all seen the clip about "the shoulder thing that goes up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U)". That kind of conversation won't happen because they have no idea about the technology itself. If they understood it they wouldn't be passing dumb laws banning flash hiders and bayonet lugs.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 10:48 PM
There is a huge difference, and I think you are kind of overlooking it. Stopping the active shooter generally means pursuing him offensively, that isn't going to be the position of a teacher (Unless they are freelancing most of their free time on the range training).

No. Stopping the active shooter means bringing sufficient force to bear that they are no longer a threat. Whether that is done through active pursuit or through defensive action is irrelevant.

The only difference between defensive force and offensive force is whether the force is used in response to a threat or used without being in response to a threat.

When you stop the bad guy who just broke into your house from shooting you by shooting him, you are using defensive force. You don't have to be taking fire for the force you use to be defensive in nature.


You must understand this: if a bad guy breaks into the classroom with the intention of killing all the kids, there is no difference at all between the teacher bringing force to bear to keep the bad guy from going through with it and you, in your home, bringing force to bear to keep the bad guy from killing your family. It's the exact same thing.

To even hint, as is being done here, that a taser is "sufficient" in any way to meet the threat of a bad guy armed with a firearm, is to lie, because if it weren't a lie then we'd be favoring tasers over firearms as defensive tools due to their nonlethal nature.

jb7706
12-17-2012, 10:49 PM
Gene, I agree that we will likely never get even 2% of teachers to carry. That does not mean that we should not give the option to those that can and will. I know full well that the day CA is as close to shall issue as it will get we will likely not see >5% of those able choose to carry in the general population. I know and understand that, but it does not mean that I don't advocate to anyone willing to listen they investigate and make the decision that is right for them.

I'm willing to put tasers in classrooms. I'm willing to see anything that teachers and administrators can use and control that will give them more than what they have. I want them to have everything they need to keep my children safe. I know very well what the teacher of little children often thinks of guns, I have friends that perform that work, but I also know that not all of them think alike. Those that wish to carry should be allowed to do so.

Would I love to see every teacher carrying? Absolutely.
Is it reasonable to demand that? No.

I do not advocate forcing anyone to carry, teacher, parent, computer geek, CEO or dog catcher. Not everyone is cut out for it. I still want to see any teacher charged with the safe keeping of my children able to stop a scumbag without making themselves a bullet sponge. I'm willing to take bullets to save a room full of kids, but given the choice I'd rather avoid that and shoot the bastard instead. Teachers should have the same choice.

BrokerB
12-17-2012, 10:52 PM
Train mandatory tazer
Option to carry Concealed
Mandatory gun safety training

Those three for all school staff

Hire atleast one guard with funds from the cta union bosses bermuda vacation training workshop , if you have no less then 2-3 staff who would LTC


The 'cta's and federal Nea are bloated and have billions to trim

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 10:55 PM
You're not thinking from the mindset of our anti-RKBA opponents.


Yes, I am.



To them, guns are not physical things. They are symbols.


No, to them, guns are not merely symbols, they're magical killing devices. And we're talking about selling the use of tasers as effective defense against someone armed with what the people we're selling this idea to regard as a magical destructive device, one that confers near magical powers to its possessor.


We're talking about an audience who is deathly afraid of guns, and you're offering up a "solution" that you're selling as a way to neutralize someone with one of them. So of course they're going to ask you how effective it's going to be! You're proposing its use against someone with "magic powers"!

Librarian
12-17-2012, 11:05 PM
I never said to arm all teachers. My solution is to arm the school. Tax us to put an armed LEO in there. IF teachers wish to be armed thats just a plus.

There will be some willing to do so and i say let em if they are trained to do so.

Some recent results



I never said 'all teachers' either.

I don't oppose allowing willing teachers to carry. Makes sense to me.

I fully agree a firearm is the right thing to oppose a firearm-equipped attacker.

Now, write an email to California Teacher's Association (http://www.cta.org/About-CTA/Help-Center.aspx); ask them how they feel about it.

Adding armed guards came up in a LEO Forum thread a couple days ago. There are 10,000 k-12 schools in CA. Figuring 6 days per week, September through June, that's 60,000 person-days or 3,000 FTE across the state, for ONE guard. Some schools are so big they would need several.

Where would the money come from, please? You and I may agree that such would be an urgent, important expenditure. Please call your local school district manager and ask them how their budget money is spent, and see if s/he agrees with the same urgency. (Some might - that would be a good thing.)

Step away from tactical thinking. Pull back to see a bigger picture into which tactical thinking must play a part, but cannot be the whole.

Librarian
12-17-2012, 11:11 PM
We're talking about an audience who is deathly afraid of guns, and you're offering up a "solution" that you're selling as a way to neutralize someone with one of them. So of course they're going to ask you how effective it's going to be! You're proposing its use against someone with "magic powers"!

I think you mis-state the presentation necessary.

If the audience is deathly afraid of guns, and I agree many are, how would you say to them 'time to pick up a gun and defend yourself' and expect a positive response?

Men with guns stop other men with guns. We know that here. Many, many people wish that was not true, and refuse to accept it.

One says something like 'Your winning smile and degree in counseling will not dissuade a nutcase; you have to realize that by now. You need something more, until the men with guns come to stop the attack.'

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 11:21 PM
One says something like 'Your winning smile and degree in counseling will not dissuade a nutcase; you have to realize that by now. You need something more, until the men with guns come to stop the attack.'

And that "something more" has to be sufficiently effective that the men with guns have time to respond.

But that situation is identical to the typical self-defense scenario.


So again, if you're pushing tasers as an effective defensive solution, then you're going to have to answer why you're not pushing the same solution for use in public, because there are men with guns who can, if given enough time, stop the attack there as well.


No, the reality is that the only means of stopping a guy with a gun with any significant chance of success is with a gun. That's why the police don't bother with tasers when confronted with an armed bad guy. Therefore, to sell such a "solution" anyway is to lie. And I guarantee, we will be caught in it if we try it.

If we keep assuming that our opposition is as dumb as a fencepost, we will lose.

jj805
12-17-2012, 11:44 PM
Yup, this sounds like a great idea. :rolleyes: Much better than a gun. :facepalm:

http://www.taser.com/images/resources-and-legal/product-warnings/downloads/citizen_warnings.pdf
http://i1154.photobucket.com/albums/p532/jeremyaj2001/Capture1_zps1a9e1f46.png


http://www.taser.com/images/resources-and-legal/product-warnings/downloads/law-enforcement-warnings.pdf
http://i1154.photobucket.com/albums/p532/jeremyaj2001/Capture2-1_zpsd3914231.png

gomatty
12-17-2012, 11:47 PM
What we should be doing is offering firearm information, classes and training to teachers - for free even. And I mean shouting it from the rooftops. Now is the time, if ever there was a time, that teachers are scrutinizing how they would protect their students if a situation like what happened in CT happened in their school. There is not a more absolutely appropriate time to encourage them to consider the most effective way to protect their students and themselves. Maybe then attitudes change and teachers will start to demand the ability to carry in their classroom.

hoffmang
12-17-2012, 11:52 PM
Yup, this sounds like a great idea. :rolleyes: Much better than a gun. :facepalm:

You keep making a fatal mistake. "Much better than a schoolbook" is the appropriate analysis because that is the actual comparison that reality forces.

Lots of people are living political fantasy in this thread.

Nuclear weapons are a valid tactical response to an active shooter, but the political reality would never allow it.

-Gene

chiselchst
12-17-2012, 11:59 PM
This is a very complicated issue. But remember, we are not just talking about CA. Many states might consider it an option, others likely not - such as CA, CT, NY, etc.

I personally beleive firearms should not be taken off the table as an option. I'm not talking about requiring them, or forcing anyone to carry, but reevaluating some of the school policies prohibiting LTC'ers to carry on campus.

We just had our Christmas Family get together. One family member is a recently retired school admin, another is a young teacher (her son). Both did not object to this option. They were actually curious about it.

I've seen a growing contingent of LEO's in the media recently making the same statement as this retired NYPD detective expresses:

http://www.therightscoop.com/nypd-detective-we-need-to-repeal-gun-free-school-zones/

jj805
12-18-2012, 12:08 AM
You keep making a fatal mistake. "Much better than a schoolbook" is the appropriate analysis because that is the actual comparison that reality forces.

Lots of people are living political fantasy in this thread.

Nuclear weapons are a valid tactical response to an active shooter, but the political reality would never allow it.

-Gene

You are trying to sell false hope. A LEO has opined that this is a bad idea. There are teachers that are willing to carry. And I don't know when the last time you were in a classroom, but ALL the classrooms I have been in are larger than 35 feet in any direction, which happens to be the max range of all the tasers that I have researched. Your idea doesn't add up. You are feeding a sense of false security to everyone. The teachers, the parents, the students, and the politicians.

Librarian
12-18-2012, 12:14 AM
You are trying to sell false hope. A LEO has opined that this is a bad idea. There are teachers that are willing to carry. And I don't know when the last time you were in a classroom, but ALL the classrooms I have been in are larger than 35 feet in any direction, which happens to be the max range of all the tasers that I have researched. Your idea doesn't add up. You are feeding a sense of false security to everyone. The teachers, the parents, the students, and the politicians.

I think you can't see beyond the 'best' to the 'possible'.

I cannot imagine anyone is trying to sell this idea as 'false security'. Again, step away from the 'tactical' - where a gun opposing a gun is really the right answer - to the political, where the CTA and all the other hand-wingers must be brought along.

Librarian
12-18-2012, 12:17 AM
So again, if you're pushing tasers as an effective defensive solution, then you're going to have to answer why you're not pushing the same solution for use in public, because there are men with guns who can, if given enough time, stop the attack there as well.

So, persuade me that pushing guns in schools - whatever of teachers or guards or gun-in-the-office or other solution - will be accepted.

jj805
12-18-2012, 12:21 AM
I think you can't see beyond the 'best' to the 'possible'.

I cannot imagine anyone is trying to sell this idea as 'false security'. Again, step away from the 'tactical' - where a gun opposing a gun is really the right answer - to the political, where the CTA and all the other hand-wingers must be brought along.

My point is, the taser is worthless in this situation. All having the taser accessible to a teacher is good for is to make people, that haven't thought it through, feel warm and fuzzy. If CGF is spending time and money on this, there are serious issues.

kcbrown
12-18-2012, 12:21 AM
So, persuade me that pushing guns in schools - whatever of teachers or guards or gun-in-the-office or other solution - will be accepted.

While that's what I would like to push, I recognize that it may not be politically feasible.

Given no real options to push, our only reasonable course of action is to not push anything at all. Because to push something that we know to be mostly, if not entirely, ineffective as if it were effective is political suicide for sure.

What, you don't think the legislative hearing on the subject is going to bring in police officers to testify on the likely effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the option being proffered?


Pushing for armed guards in schools, in the face of Connecticut, might actually be politically feasible. In California, a state that is spending its way into the grave anyway, funding for "feel good" measures like that isn't going to be a problem, especially since this is a "protect the children" measure, and this particular measure actually has some practicality in that it is likely to yield real results. It might even be feasible for the prohibition on firearms at schools to be lifted for certain school employees who have the proper training and/or certifications. It seems to me that, as regards political appeasement of the opposition (which, in this case, is the majority of legislators in California and other anti-gun states), the most important thing is retaining the notion that only "special" people may carry firearms. It's just a question of deciding who is "special" and who isn't.

Danz la Nuit
12-18-2012, 12:25 AM
Send your children to a government school is amazingly irresponsible IMO

Librarian
12-18-2012, 12:51 AM
While that's what I would like to push, I recognize that it may not be politically feasible.

Given no real options to push, our only reasonable course of action is to not push anything at all. Because to push something that we know to be mostly, if not entirely, ineffective as if it were effective is political suicide for sure.

What, you don't think the legislative hearing on the subject is going to bring in police officers to testify on the likely effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the option being proffered?


Pushing for armed guards in schools, in the face of Connecticut, might actually be politically feasible. In California, a state that is spending its way into the grave anyway, funding for "feel good" measures like that isn't going to be a problem, especially since this is a "protect the children" measure, and this particular measure actually has some practicality in that it is likely to yield real results. It might even be feasible for the prohibition on firearms at schools to be lifted for certain school employees who have the proper training and/or certifications. It seems to me that, politically, the most important thing is retaining the notion that only "special" people may carry firearms. It's just a question of deciding who is "special" and who isn't.

And at those same hearings, what would the nice officers say when asked 'would you prefer to be armed with a taser or a book?'

And 'retaining the notion that only "special" people may carry firearms.' - have you taken a job with an urban county California Sheriff?

"funding for "feel good" measures like that isn't going to be a problem" - maybe we can get them to scrap the damned high speed rail project and spend the already allocated money on something useful.

locosway
12-18-2012, 1:16 AM
Our community jumps way too quickly to "arm the teachers with guns." Stop.

The average kindergarten teacher is at best uncomfortable with firearms and at worst is strongly against them. It's a selection bias that we all should understand. Also, there are real and serious issues about safe storage of firearms around kids as we all know. We're not going to see a wave of teachers in LA schools start concealed carrying. Just get over that idea.

However, almost no serious teacher who wants to protect school children - and as we see from various amazingly heroic acts at that school that they basically all were heroic beyond the pale - doesn't want to do something. Arm teachers and administrators with Tasers and fund yearly end of summer training on how to use them. 1 to 3 modern Tasers deployed by administration or a teacher would have ended this. And the less lethal option means those (mostly women) would not be as reticent to have the tool or use the tool.

There are fire extinguishers and fire drills for teachers and administration. Let's make sure the security plan actually includes something that gives them a fighting chance and takes into consideration the practical reality of who is called to teach our children. It has the added benefit of being quite a bit more cost effective and liberty respecting than adding armed law enforcement or security guards to our elementary schools.

-Gene

I have kids in a public school so I will not "STOP" as you put it. Giving staff at schools the OPTION to carry is the ONLY way to keep kids safe outside of staffed armed security at multiple locations of each campus.

We can't keep up with the idea that this is just not an option. Why can't it be? If LEO's and others got behind the idea to at least give staff the OPTION to carry (Note, we're not forcing anyone to carry), we might start bucking the trend that we should remain defenseless in schools.

kcbrown
12-18-2012, 1:19 AM
And at those same hearings, what would the nice officers say when asked 'would you prefer to be armed with a taser or a book?'


The legislators aren't going to be asking that question.

You're presuming that we get to frame the conversation. We don't. They do.



And 'retaining the notion that only "special" people may carry firearms.' - have you taken a job with an urban county California Sheriff?


If you insist on talking about political realities here, then you have to acknowledge that the "only 'special' people should be able to carry firearms" angle is the political reality in California and other anti-gun states. The legislators in California don't want every law abiding individual to be able to carry. They only want "special" people to carry.

If we didn't have to worry about that, then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, would we?

EDIT: But I can see where the confusion on that statement came from, and have corrected my original message appropriately.



"funding for "feel good" measures like that isn't going to be a problem" - maybe we can get them to scrap the damned high speed rail project and spend the already allocated money on something useful.

California will just borrow more money if it has to. And in any case, a measure already passed to further fund schools: Proposition 30. What says that money can't go towards funding armed guards in schools?

The bottom line is that in California, if the legislators really want to do something, they will do it, and they will not let funding get in the way of it no matter how much is required. This is why Yee's upcoming bullet button ban is much more of a threat now: with a Democrat supermajority, they'll pass it regardless of how much it may cost the state, because they don't care about how much anything costs. It's why the state is in such fiscal trouble, and will remain in fiscal trouble until its ultimate demise.

tkjr
12-18-2012, 1:24 AM
No reason to force teachers to carry. in reality it would only take a few teachers or staff willing to take on that responsibility to possibly stop a shooter early in their shooting spree. It would be a good idea to a design a training program on SOP's and ROE's.

Sakiri
12-18-2012, 1:46 AM
I'd agree with NOT training and arming teachers that do not wish/want to be doing so.

There ARE teachers out there that already have or would qualify for CCW/LTC and have the training or would be willing to undergo training in order to CCW at their work.

A teacher's aide assigned full time to that teacher's class would be very helpful should a situation arise.

This would be 100% voluntary.

And how many of these anti paranoid parents do you think would pull their kids out of that school the instant they found out that they kept armed teachers/security/whatever there?

Most parents are going to be more comfortable with non lethal weapons such as tazers and pepper spray(give em a fire extinguisher full of it) than they are with staff carrying firearms.

locosway
12-18-2012, 1:55 AM
And how many of these anti paranoid parents do you think would pull their kids out of that school the instant they found out that they kept armed teachers/security/whatever there?

Most parents are going to be more comfortable with non lethal weapons such as tazers and pepper spray(give em a fire extinguisher full of it) than they are with staff carrying firearms.

Who cares? Let them home school or send them to a private school if they're worried about such things. Firearms are a part of life, always will be. The sooner we come to terms with this as a society the faster we can get over silly things like, "OMG, a teacher with a legal gun and permit!".

press1280
12-18-2012, 3:35 AM
Could you please provide a citation for your statement about Unions not allowing tazers on campus?

As it stands I can carry on campus.

Most schools(or jobs in general) have no weapons policies. If yours doesn't then it's the exception rather than the rule. Maybe the union itself doesn't have a rule but the school district probably does.

CalTeacher
12-18-2012, 6:13 AM
Most schools(or jobs in general) have no weapons policies. If yours doesn't then it's the exception rather than the rule. Maybe the union itself doesn't have a rule but the school district probably does.

No weapons policies would be part of an larger set of policies meant to govern the school or district. These policies are generally set by the board. The union has no say in these policies unless it is contractual.

billmaykafer
12-18-2012, 6:33 AM
as soon as i get the last part for my time machine i can go back and prevent this.

speedrrracer
12-18-2012, 8:19 AM
Can you imagine how the conversation might go?

Us: "We think teachers should have the option to carry firearms so that they can respond to a threat like the Connecticut murderer."

Them: "Uh, we will never allow teachers to carry on school grounds."


Us: "Then hire professionals to carry the weapons."

Them: "We can't afford that, and we don't want guns on campus under any circumstances."


Us: "Then turn the schools into fortresses."

Them: "We can't afford that, and we don't want children learning in a prison-like setting."


Us: "Then consider having teachers carry tasers and / or bear spray."

Them: "Okay, thanks. Do you believe they'll be effective against someone with an assault rifle?"



Us: "A teacher with a taser is probably not a fair match for a lunatic with a gun, but it will be a million times more effective than what the teachers currently have, and you are unwilling to consider more effective options within your budget."

Them: "We want to go wring our hands some more."





Fixed it for you.

1) We propose the optimal solution, and thus bear no responsibility for the "next one".
2) We make no false promises, and thus bear no responsibility for the "next one".

In the end, if they accept tasers, they rejected what we represented as more effective options.

And, imo, we'll have the end-result of vastly improved opinions towards weapons in schools and public in general. This means, of course, that when the next one happens, we'll be able to say, "How many more have to die?" but we'll be saying that question in a vastly different context -- one where there has already been years of carrying of weapons in schools by the teachers themselves.

I don't think you can get "there" (no GFSZ, teacher carry, etc) from here. As shown above, I think we should try, but expect a laugh-off.

I think we need this intermediate step (tasers) as a result of the current context. Regrettable, because we all know some lunatic will shoot up a mall or a hospital or a post office or GFSZ in the meantime.

YubaRiver
12-18-2012, 9:11 AM
Something that can be done right away. Eyes and ears. Perhaps some insight gained too on what else can be done.


"A group of men is patrolling the grounds of Roosevelt Elementary School in Spokane.

The “Watch Dogs” group organized earlier this year as part of a national program to involve more fathers and male role models in schools."



http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/dec/18/dads-serve-watch-dogs-spokane-school/

randomBytes
12-18-2012, 10:07 AM
Gene doesn't know what he is talking about, and neither do you. Think about what you are saying!! A taser V a suicidal maniac with an AR 15? please!!!

Its the other way around.

You seem to be denying the proposition that some people just don't want to carry a gun and insisting that they must.
That argument cannot win.

A tazer is no where near as effective as a gun, but is better than nothing

Mitch
12-18-2012, 10:22 AM
Guns are not always the answer. If you think they are you sound exactly like those who think guns are always the problem.

Damn! QFT!

Patrick Aherne
12-18-2012, 11:00 AM
I think everyone here is failing to see the logic involved and basically shouting past each other.

1. MOST teachers should not be armed. They are not the sort of folks who would own or carry a gun.
2. ALMOST everyone here recognizes a LTL tool against a gun is the wrong answer to a TACTICAL question.
3. However, a TASER or a MkIX OC spray canister certainly beats a sharpened pencil or an algebra book vs. a gun.


Politically and philosophically, we will not be able to have anywhere close to a majority of teachers carry guns. Ain't gonna happen.

However, offering the TASER/OC spray alternative AND implementing a program similar to the Federal Flight Deck Officer one would sound rational and provide a real alternative to ban all black, evil, scary guns. It might also stop a few school shootings which a gun ban will not.

Gene is thinking outside the box, most of you guys are playing the, "from my cold, dead hands," mantra and missing the point. This is ALL about emotion and the other side using a horrible tragedy to strip rights from law-abiding Americans.

It has noting to do with preventing future mass-killings.

razorx
12-18-2012, 11:02 AM
You keep making a fatal mistake. "Much better than a schoolbook" is the appropriate analysis because that is the actual comparison that reality forces.

Lots of people are living political fantasy in this thread.

Nuclear weapons are a valid tactical response to an active shooter, but the political reality would never allow it.

-Gene

Accepted point but only within clearly defined and understood conditions.

1.a) Teachers have no lawful obligation to protect students
1.b) Teachers have no contractual obligation to protect students
1.c) Teachers may have a moral obligation to protect students, individual right of choice applies
1.d) Teachers may or may not have legal liability coverage from school affecting decisions to protect others
3) Teachers have an inherent right to self-protection as do all citizens
4) Tasers and pepper spray are consistent with supporting teacher's right to protect themselves
5) Teachers may choose to use tasers and pepper spray to protect students given conditions of "1.x"
6) Teachers through contractual/compensation adjustments may take additional responsibility for student protection given additional umbrella coverage for legal liability issues
7) Teachers carrying firearms as part of CCW is inconsistent with overall school protection policies if armed security is in place
8) Teachers may carry firearms if "advanced" training through LEO, Military, etc. AND teachers sign up for contractual obligation to protect students AND if there is no armed security available at schools.
9) Different policies apply given size and geographical location, however armed protection is required either through security agency or through certified armed teachers. Tasers and pepper spray not consider "armed".
10) There is no requirement or obligation to force a teacher to use any means of self-protection
11) All school operational,liability, and educational impacts clearly understood by allowing teachers to be armed. Teachers that are armed no longer can provide ANY physical restraint to a student for example...
12) Risk of teachers being armed given statistical probability of a "nut-case" incident by a teacher, infringing on another's teacher's expectation to work in a safe and secure environment. Female teacher mad at her under-aged boyfriend or whatever...
Etc.,

Broader policy questions/issues at stake here, above is just a representative sample. Not sure I agree with all or any of them, but just discussion points.

However, tasers positioned as a one-off solution approach will not achieve desired results. In fact, could even "net-net" make the situation worse by deflecting from tackling the more difficult and substantive changes that need to be made by providing an easy "fix", which doesn't.

Is it better than nothing? Sure. But still not good enough. This incident needs to be used to comprehensively drive positive change for teacher's rights and expanded protection for students, not just manage negative fallout as we jump into our 2A bunker.

ps. Side note, a "typical" teacher will have greatly limited ability to hit a target under high stress with a taser and only two available shots. Better than nothing? Still yes. Just set the expectations really low for what level of protection this does provide.

All key solution pillars still need to be addressed comprehensively:

School security
Mental health
Media
Firearm law review

taperxz
12-18-2012, 12:20 PM
So, persuade me that pushing guns in schools - whatever of teachers or guards or gun-in-the-office or other solution - will be accepted.

Instead of speculating that it won't be acceptable, we really need to find out with real data. For starters NO ONE has ever batted an eye when LE comes to the school, obviously armed. With that being said, i would have to think that anyone "trained for such duty" would also be accepted by the local schools.

The problem i have here is that some are jumping to conclusions that in no way shape or form would guns ever be allowed in schools to protect kids. The problem here is that you have CGF leadership stating here and on TV that tasers would be the way to go without even seeing hard data and conceding armed people as protection in schools!

I think that was a huge mistake without the data AFTER the shooting in Conn.

Certainly after what happened, many people are wondering what to do for the schools to keep them safer. Why would anyone consider less lethal methods and offer them up when there is no hard data that shows its needed?

I think CGF have given the antis exactly what they want without even letting the situation and opinions of the nation settle.

Anyone notice how the NRA is smart enough to reserve comment on this? Why show a poker hand when you don't need to?

IPSICK
12-18-2012, 12:59 PM
This topic had me kind of thinking for quite a bit to solutions on this issue and this is what I have come up with so far. Please excuse me if someone has already come up with this idea.

1. I realize that many if not most teachers have an aversion/objection to carrying a firearm.

2. However, I'm not convinced all teachers share this aversion.

3. I propose that those who object to carrying, continue not to do so nor should they ever be expected to do so.

4. If they wish, they can continue to have nothing for their active defense or carry some degree of active defense such as stun/taser guns, bear spray, etc.

5. Now for those who are willing to carry let them do so concealed and with allowances for periodic training.

6. If possible, keep long arms in the administrative area locked in a safe and concealed from view. Hopefully an administrator will be able to be proficient and trained in long arms use.

7. As part of the action plan, I stipulate that in times of a shooting emergency teachers wear large visible highlight color bands around their arms. (And only in such emergencies).

8. The color bands will identify the educators and faculty to each other and law enforcement.

9. Additionally, the bands will be color coded to identify armed faculty and unarmed. (Colors will rotate randomly with only faculty and law enforcement knowing the color codes).

This plan is so far incomplete but it is what I am coming up with so far.

Please add and criticize as you see fit.

Sakiri
12-18-2012, 1:15 PM
Who cares? Let them home school or send them to a private school if they're worried about such things. Firearms are a part of life, always will be. The sooner we come to terms with this as a society the faster we can get over silly things like, "OMG, a teacher with a legal gun and permit!".

Not sure about you but I don't want some half brained twit homeschooled by parents that have no idea what the eff they're doing running my country some day.

And that's what's going to happen. They'll be homeschooled by the parents, who will generally be unqualified to fart(I mean who the heck wants to be paranoid about firearms other than people unqualified to so much as fart?) and then that snit generation is going to be the one running the country when I'm older than dirt.

No thanks.

Librarian
12-18-2012, 1:55 PM
Instead of speculating that it won't be acceptable, we really need to find out with real data. For starters NO ONE has ever batted an eye when LE comes to the school, obviously armed. With that being said, i would have to think that anyone "trained for such duty" would also be accepted by the local schools.

The problem i have here is that some are jumping to conclusions that in no way shape or form would guns ever be allowed in schools to protect kids. The problem here is that you have CGF leadership stating here and on TV that tasers would be the way to go without even seeing hard data and conceding armed people as protection in schools!

I think that was a huge mistake without the data AFTER the shooting in Conn.

Certainly after what happened, many people are wondering what to do for the schools to keep them safer. Why would anyone consider less lethal methods and offer them up when there is no hard data that shows its needed?

I think CGF have given the antis exactly what they want without even letting the situation and opinions of the nation settle.

Anyone notice how the NRA is smart enough to reserve comment on this? Why show a poker hand when you don't need to?

In Lake county, you might not have a lot of problems making an acceptable case. Call your school district, and tell us how the idea is received. They're probably thinking about such things this week.

Now, suggest an argument acceptable to the San Francisco Unified School District (http://www.sfusd.edu/en/). I think they would be a perfect example of "There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See". Find some that will influence Tom Torlakson (http://www.tomtorlakson.com/contact), our state Superintendent of Public Instruction - who, while a member of the Assembly and the State Senate, never saw a gun control law he could vote against.

It would be nice to turn "It's for the childrennnnnnnnnnnnnn!" back on them.

taperxz
12-18-2012, 2:03 PM
In Lake county, you might not have a lot of problems making an acceptable case. Call your school district, and tell us how the idea is received. They're probably thinking about such things this week.

Now, suggest an argument acceptable to the San Francisco Unified School District (http://www.sfusd.edu/en/). I think they would be a perfect example of "There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See".

I understand what you are saying perfectly and agree. However, this event HAS changed hearts and minds on both sides. You bring up San Francisco and since this is a national discussion, i'll bring up Dallas Texas.

Point being is that in giving in with the idea of tasers, CGF may only have been speaking out to appease our local big cities here in CA. THIS WILL BE MORE OF A NATIONAL DEBATE THOUGH. IMHO.

Don't forget Librarian, i have two residences. One smack dab in Jackie Spiers and Leyland Yee's districts too. ;)

CGF leadership is basically run by 1 1/3 people. One, went on TV and conceded something that should not have been conceded. This isn't about 1 man. Its about rights for 300 million Americans.




Isn't this ironic and exactly what i was talking about.

http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-considers-training-arming-schoolteachers-protect-against-shootings-192556978--politics.html

Gray Peterson
12-18-2012, 2:16 PM
I understand what you are saying perfectly and agree. However, this event HAS changed hearts and minds on both sides. You bring up San Francisco and since this is a national discussion, i'll bring up Dallas Texas.

Point being is that in giving in with the idea of tasers, CGF may only have been speaking out to appease our local big cities here in CA. THIS WILL BE MORE OF A NATIONAL DEBATE THOUGH. IMHO.

Don't forget Librarian, i have two residences. One smack dab in Jackie Spiers and Leyland Yee's districts too. ;)

CGF leadership is basically run by 1 1/3 people. One, went on TV and conceded something that should not have been conceded. This isn't about 1 man. Its about rights for 300 million Americans.




Isn't this ironic and exactly what i was talking about.

http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-considers-training-arming-schoolteachers-protect-against-shootings-192556978--politics.html

That concession was made in Heller.

taperxz
12-18-2012, 2:19 PM
That concession was made in Heller.

It was acknowledged as current law.

The current law allows for LTC holders to bear arms on school grounds or with permission from the school.

taperxz
12-18-2012, 2:22 PM
It should also be mentioned Gray that the law was not challenged in Heller. Therefore the law would have to be followed until challenged.

mc21
12-18-2012, 2:23 PM
The problem is that the amount of time you'd need to buy is minutes at least. In the kind of situation we're talking about, that is an eternity.

Not sure what your point is. A steel door is going to buy more than minutes....I don't think the shooter is going to sit there with a torch.

No, something more immediately effective is needed here.

Like Libertarian said, the best and the possible are two different things. Of course arming the teachers would be the best solution. This is not going to happen, at least not anytime soon.

Don't get me wrong, what you're proposing would be a good idea, but it's not sufficient.

I guarantee that more people (general public, not calguns) will favor what I stated. Another thing with arming teachers is you will have to worry about kids getting access to the gun. A few high school students that may not have had access to a gun could just jump a teacher with one.

We need defense in depth, but in the end, firearms are the only things I know of that are likely to end the situation once and for all.




Um, what? The killer is on a killing rampage already. What "more quick" is there??


The shooter stopped and asked the teacher where the kids were before shooting her. He would have shot as soon as he saw her if he thought she might be armed. It wouldn't have affected the outcome in this situation but it would definitely alter how quickly the shooter opens fire.

Gray Peterson
12-18-2012, 2:46 PM
It was acknowledged as current law.

The current law allows for LTC holders to bear arms on school grounds or with permission from the school.

Until the Legislature bans it.

You are tone deaf.

taperxz
12-18-2012, 2:58 PM
Until the Legislature bans it.

You are tone deaf.

This^^^ is what sux about you guys. You are again speculating! Making this crap up when absolutely no action has even been taken at the local, state or federal levels.

If i'm tone deaf you are either blind or flat out making things up to scare the masses into a frenzy.

For someone who is going through the court process, i'm surprised how little in facts you are bringing to the table in regards to this thread.


NO ONE knows what will or won't be on the table yet!!

celery
12-18-2012, 3:12 PM
Let's be honest, this is not about protecting the kids. If we had started with the idea of protecting children, we would have looked at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_All_Deaths_By_Age_Group_2010-a.pdf, or http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a5.htm?s_cid=mm6115a5_w, and we would instead be discussing driving/pedestrian laws and whether we really need private swimming pools. Newtown was a terrible tragedy, but if you'll excuse me, a blip of 20 deaths barely registers statistically.

So what is this about? It's about a media feeding frenzy and a 24/7 news cycle racing to sensationalize and profit off a tragedy, even if (especially if, if you've got your tinfoil hat on) it encourages copycat events. It's about politicians taking advantage of heightened public emotions to push their own agenda, Constitution be damned.

We should keep that in mind when responding to the event. Any solution is unlikely to save lives (because so few lives are at risk), but it will likely be very costly, whether in terms of budget, or constitutional rights. The basic requirement from the public is "do something, anything." I like Gene's suggestion because it does that while not infringing on firearm rights, is fairly feasible, and it has the benefit of suggesting that force is the correct response to force.

wash
12-18-2012, 3:15 PM
You really think that if mass school shootings keep happening, anti-gun people will suddenly start calling for less gun control? To them that would be evidence that guns are the problem, not the solution.
I think that has more chance of working than suggesting a solution that is doomed to fail.

taperxz
12-18-2012, 3:19 PM
We should keep that in mind when responding to the event. Any solution is unlikely to save lives (because so few lives are at risk), but it will likely be very costly, whether in terms of budget, or constitutional rights. The basic requirement from the public is "do something, anything." I like Gene's suggestion because it does that while not infringing on firearm rights, is fairly feasible, and it has the benefit of suggesting that force is the correct response to force.

REALLY? Thats why last night CBS News preceded Genes interview and suggestion that tasers will be a good option with Leland Yee calling for more gun control laws and presenting SB 47?

Gray Peterson
12-18-2012, 3:35 PM
This^^^ is what sux about you guys. You are again speculating! Making this crap up when absolutely no action has even been taken at the local, state or federal levels.

If i'm tone deaf you are either blind or flat out making things up to scare the masses into a frenzy.

For someone who is going through the court process, i'm surprised how little in facts you are bringing to the table in regards to this thread.


NO ONE knows what will or won't be on the table yet!!

Let me point out that you are facing an Illinois style FOID system, mandatory registration of all firearms, even pre 1991 private transfers, & a requirement to pay for a mental health evaluation (on your own dime) to even continue being a licensed or registered gun owner. Something a wrong panel of 9th circuit may uphold as constitutional.

Teachers having guns in California is unobtainium. California will never follow what Tennessee is about to do, or what Utah currently does.

Even heavily Republican Michigan, which passed "Right To Work" strongly, causing enormous dem backlash, vetoed a law allowing school carry with additional training. You think California legislature will do that?

Gene's doing the best he can with the **** sandwich he was handed. It's a pretty thankless job, considering now many well known gun rights activists & stores like SBR are getting death threats (pipe bombs, threats of kidnapping of family members while they are away from home etc.)

You need to show more respect. You are in California, not Utah.

taperxz
12-18-2012, 3:38 PM
Let me point out that you are facing an Illinois style FOID system, mandatory registration of all firearms, even pre 1991 private transfers, & a requirement to pay for a mental health evaluation (on your own dime) to even continue being a licensed or registered gun owner. Something a wrong panel of 9th circuit may uphold as constitutional.

Teachers having guns in California is unobtainium. California will never follow what Tennessee is about to do, or what Utah currently does.

Even heavily Republican Michigan, which passed "Right To Work" strongly, causing enormous dem backlash, vetoed a law allowing school carry with additional training. You think California legislature will do that?

Gene's doing the best he can with the **** sandwich he was handed. It's a pretty thankless job, considering now many well known gun rights activists & stores like SBR are getting death threats (pipe bombs, threats of kidnapping of family members while they are away from home etc.)

You need to show more respect. You are in California, not Utah.

Respect is earned. Its not an enumerated right.

taperxz
12-18-2012, 3:42 PM
Just because i disagree with the course of action in regards to this thread, does not mean i disagree with everything that has been done.

I'm not a sheep and i don't need to "fall in line" with everything proposed. I'm a middle aged man who has been around firearms all his life and uses them on a daily basis. I don't need the "hierarchy" to preach to me what I think is a better course of action. Especially when they have no course to pursue as of yet in the aftermath of a tragedy.

Gray Peterson
12-18-2012, 3:56 PM
Respect is earned. Its not an enumerated right.

With the threats to all of your gun rights currently percolating in the state house, & lack of recognition of the political realities of California, you hectoring & mad dogging Gene, shows a lack of basic respect for your fellow man.

I respect him because of the tireless effort he does for all of us. Ed Worley is the only guy who can compare (he's the NRA state full time lobbyist in Sacramento). Would you like me to call up Mr. Worley & ask him how teachers with guns in school would go over in the state capitol?

wildhawker
12-18-2012, 4:01 PM
It might be more productive to talk about how we each plan to help our cause in 2013.

-Brandon

taperxz
12-18-2012, 4:03 PM
With the threats to all of your gun rights currently percolating in the state house, & lack of recognition of the political realities of California, you hectoring & mad dogging Gene, shows a lack of basic respect for your fellow man.

I respect him because of the tireless effort he does for all of us. Ed Worley is the only guy who can compare. Would you like me to call up Mr. Worley & ask him how teachers with guns in school would go over in the state capitol?

I know whats going on Gray! I think i spend enough time here and talking to Bill and Brandon!

Perhaps i am a little biased on this subject. As i noted earlier in the thread, I have been a parent who was contacted by the school emergency response system in regards to an attempted bombing of my childs school. (alex youshock)

I want something done NOW and i want maximum effectiveness of that. Not BS tasers to pretend like it will work against a suicidal maniac.

As a human being and a loving parent, i want real solutions NOT political pandering. Regardless of my minority status on the subject.

celery
12-18-2012, 4:03 PM
REALLY? Thats why last night CBS News preceded Genes interview and suggestion that tasers will be a good option with Leland Yee calling for more gun control laws and presenting SB 47?

Why does the media do anything it does? They have no obligation to be fair or even logical.

taperxz
12-18-2012, 4:05 PM
It might be more productive to talk about how we each plan to help our cause in 2013.

-Brandon

Ya, well, this thing hits home for me. Its just my opinion and i simply disagree with others opinions on this matter. Whether i'm right or wrong.

razorx
12-18-2012, 4:32 PM
Let's be honest, this is not about protecting the kids. If we had started with the idea of protecting children, we would have looked at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_All_Deaths_By_Age_Group_2010-a.pdf, or http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a5.htm?s_cid=mm6115a5_w, and we would instead be discussing driving/pedestrian laws and whether we really need private swimming pools. Newtown was a terrible tragedy, but if you'll excuse me, a blip of 20 deaths barely registers statistically.

The only organism on the planet "colder" than a reptile is an actuary...

Ah, the "one death too many" argument. Clearly, this argument that is being thrown around right now is patently false in all it's permutations. If this argument applied, there would be no left-hand turns allowed. The speed limit would always be 10mph. All crosswalks would be bridges across streets. ad infinitum.

I also would not have been in three cars totaled in my lifetime from accidents by people turning left in front of me, or correction, women turning left in front of me. Maybe if women... :43:

As a society, we always trade deaths for a certain amount of other "stuff". "Stuff" is money, convenience, and even perceived "principles". And we are ok with that. Sucks for the people on the wrong side of the statistics, sucks for cows, chickens, other creatures as well... digression.

But we are good with inflatable pools, over 2001-2009 caused 244 deaths. Average of over 20 deaths/year... Or over 800 deaths/year from drowning 14 years and younger...

Never ceases to amaze me how the big picture is ignored and even simple safety steps (ie. ban inflatable pools) don't get Wolf Blitzer's attention...

Trenchfoot
12-18-2012, 4:40 PM
I think that has more chance of working than suggesting a solution that is doomed to fail.

Isn't proposing doing nothing if we can't have our way doomed to fail to protect our kids? Proposing to sit idly by and waiting/hoping for another mass school shooting to prove us "right" is pretty sick. This isn't an issue about "caving" on gun rights. It's about doing our best to protect this nation's children. If they won't let teachers carry, we propose armed guards, if that doesn't pass we propose LTL devices, if that fails we propose stricter building codes in regards to schools including reinforced classrooms with bulletproof doors.

Refusing to consider any other options to make our schools safer other than arming teachers is akin to a starving man at a Chick-Fil-A demanding a Big Mac.

I agree with you in principle, if it were up to me, all willing and trained teachers would be allowed to carry in schools. Unfortunately we live in the real world, and not trying to come up with solutions that are politically feasible at this point in time isn't an option for me.

Fight for the right for teachers to carry, but have other plans in your back pocket for when what you want doesn't happen. That is only prudent.

OleCuss
12-18-2012, 4:46 PM
I think Gene's OP makes a lot of good sense. I know that I'd still like to have a few good pistol-packing teachers around, but Gene made some good points.

Important to realize that this current crop of monsters tends to wilt when there is active opposition.

So in Clackamas it seems you have a guy just briefly point a Glock at the bad guy - and bad guy offs himself.

In Newtown the mass murderer stops the slaughter and offs himself when he hears that the cops are on the way.

The guy who shot up the movie theater gave himself up rather than engage in a gun battle with the cops.

The bastard who shot Gabby Giffords was taken down by the unarmed.

It seems that in at least some cases these jerks have a scenario they are following which does not really anticipate or prepare for a real fight.

Also, some of this shooting is happening at fairly close range. So a taser, fire extinguisher, bear spray, or other relatively non-lethal device really could prove enough to stop an Adam Lanza in his/her tracks and reduce the carnage.

Oh, and I saw a statistic earlier today which said that there are more non-firearm homicides in the US than there are firearm-related homicides.

Lethality does not mean a firearm. You can be pretty effective with all kinds of stuff.

razorx
12-18-2012, 4:49 PM
I want something done NOW and i want maximum effectiveness of that. Not BS tasers to pretend like it will work against a suicidal maniac.

As a human being and a loving parent, i want real solutions NOT political pandering. Regardless of my minority status on the subject.

Don't think you are in the minority on this, but still, navigation of the political waters is necessary to make any progress.

If those who are leading the charge for gun rights do not broaden the national dialogue and engage across all solution fronts to address this incident, then not only will individual rights be set back but this incident will not be addressed either.

Kind of curious, who will the NRA throw under the bus? As a sacrifice? Hunters are protected, and likely individual self-protection, but those "fringe" groups using militia arguments? Bus time I would think. Might not even feel the bump.

Will come back to bite NRA giving "A" grades to politicians who only support 2A in context of hunting and self-protection, and SCOTUS has left plenty of room to narrowly define/regulate firearms within that capacity. Hunting rifles single shot only, six cylinder revolvers only, just to be extreme. And now that we have based gun rights on Supreme Court rulings for 2A, judicial decisions can now be enforced nationally vs. a "distributed" fight state by state.

Oh well... Live and die by SCOTUS...

Demonicspire
12-18-2012, 4:53 PM
I think we're thinking too narowly about the issue. Shooters choose schools because they are inflammatory targets, not because there is anything particular about the school (though there is often a social factor if they have been bullied). Even if we tool up the schools and make them safe, who is to say the next psychopath might not go to the community park, the pool, or the mall to find similair concentrations of soft targets. We have to cut this off at the supply side, if anywhere.

However I am uncomfortable with psych evaluations being part of gun ownership, that just seems orwellian. Maybe this kind of crap is the price of living in af ree society.

kcbrown
12-18-2012, 5:08 PM
Let me point out that you are facing an Illinois style FOID system, mandatory registration of all firearms, even pre 1991 private transfers, & a requirement to pay for a mental health evaluation (on your own dime) to even continue being a licensed or registered gun owner. Something a wrong panel of 9th circuit may uphold as constitutional.


Precisely. But what you are failing to acknowledge is that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop that except court action.



Gene's doing the best he can with the **** sandwich he was handed.


Not if he's selling tasers as an effective option. Because if he is, the next time a homicidal maniac mows through all the school personnel armed with tasers and then takes out a bunch of kids, the blame will rightfully be placed squarely on our shoulders for suggesting something that is impotent.

No, the only thing you can do with a **** sandwich like what we've been handed here is to drop it on the floor. If we can't suggest effective solutions then we shouldn't be suggesting anything at all. To do anything else is to destroy our credibility.

taperxz
12-18-2012, 5:11 PM
Precisely.





No, the only thing you can do with a **** sandwich like what we've been handed here is to drop it on the floor. If we can't suggest effective solutions then we shouldn't be suggesting anything at all. To do anything else is to destroy our credibility.

I agree with this. This is why i think what was said on CBS and here was a mistake.

OleCuss
12-18-2012, 6:02 PM
.
.
.
Not if he's selling tasers as an effective option.
.
.
.

In the Army they taught me that a whole lot of things can be used as deadly weapons if you think about using them and actually employ them.

A taser can be effective.

If you had a classroom full of little kids ready to charge an assailant - they would be effective as well (really tough to arrange).

Bear spray - can be plenty effective. Properly applied the murderer is going to have trouble seeing what he wants to slaughter - not saying it would necessarily totally stop the slaughter, but it might - and if it doesn't stop the slaughter it might slow it until other means can actually stop the killing.

A shovel can very deadly.

Not more than a few miles from where I sit a guy was killed by a rock.

In any case, any time you can complicate the tactical situation for the bad guy you are giving us a little bit of (or a lot of) an edge.


An empowered staff trained to be active in defeating the murderer is a huge advantage both tactically and strategically.

Get the teachers ready to use relatively non-lethal means of self-defense and you may be able to stop some murderers or at least diminish the slaughter. Even just training Newtown teachers in how to hide and divert the killer saved a lot of lives - imagine what empowering them to fight might have done? Tactical win!

Strategically? You get all these teachers thinking about actively defending themselves? Pretty soon a few of them are going to be thinking that they would like to have more effective tools and as that spreads you will get a shift in attitudes toward firearms as well.


The biggest problem we have is that people in this country are trained to leave all active security to the government. Anything you do to shift the focus to the citizenry being active in its self-defense is a big win for us.

What Gene proposes may actually be doable. If it can be done, it may prove to eventually be a big win for freedom.

Librarian
12-18-2012, 6:13 PM
Not if he's selling tasers as an effective option.

I didn't see the TV spot - is that what he said - tasers are effective?

Because all along I have seen the taser suggestion as 'if you cannot bear to implement what really works, a taser may buy some time until the Men With Guns can show up.'

Old Batman greeting card: 'It is well to remember that when one chooses the Lesser Evil, one is still choosing Evil.'

School districts need driven home 2 things:
1) gun free zones aren't.
2) the Men With Guns (the 'official ones') can be 20 minutes away.