Social Tennessee lawmakers pass bill to allow teachers to be armed

[shunyata]

There's just no way this could ever go wrong.

Every time this arming teachers hypothesis comes up I cannot help but think:

1) a gun in the classroom is a gun that can be stolen

2) middle school and high school students steal shit all the time, including locked up equipment

 

[Copper Burner]

They’d care if it was certain race .

True

 

[Sinister]

I think most of us would. But to cast a blind eye to the cases where this isn't possible is short-sighted. Those are the times when an armed teacher meeting the attacker at the door of their classroom might be needed.



Didn't you say something previously about shooters being committed to suicide by cops or not being discouraged by armed teachers? How do you think trying to talk someone like that down might go most of the time?



It's never the preferred option. I've never indicated that it should be. I've said several times it should only be the option of last resort and last line of defense when absolutely needed.

What do you think are the chances the teacher meets the armed attacker at the door in a manner in which the armed attacker isnt firing INTO the room full of children? As I said to terrapin, teachers arent going to be posted up at doors waiting for attackers. They have to teach. Its just telling that we have to keep whittling down and whittling down and whittling down past a bunch of better ideas to get to the minute possibility it could be a good idea...so we can change laws to allow firearms in classrooms.

Okay the second statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of dealing with the situation. Just because someone isn't deterred by the threat of violence doesnt mean they absolutely cannot be delayed by talking, in fact that's one of the best ways to delay people who do sh*t like this because they often have things to say before they act. Time is a huge advantage in these situations, them thinking they're for sure going to be in a gunfight is a good way to let them know all the time is over once they've committed to going in.

 

[spamking]

What do you think are the chances the teacher meets the armed attacker at the door in a manner in which the armed attacker isnt firing INTO the room full of children? As I said to terrapin, teachers arent going to be posted up at doors waiting for attackers. They have to teach. Its just telling that we have to keep whittling down and whittling down and whittling down past a bunch of better ideas to get to the minute possibility it could be a good idea...so we can change laws to allow firearms in classrooms.

Okay the second statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of dealing with the situation. Just because someone isn't deterred by the threat of violence doesnt mean they absolutely cannot be delayed by talking, in fact that's one of the best ways to delay people who do sh*t like this because they often have things to say before they act. Time is a huge advantage in these situations, them thinking they're for sure going to be in a gunfight is a good way to let them know all the time is over once they've committed to going in.

Wow. You're taking a huge amount of liberty with how you're inferring what I mean with my posts, but couldn't understand that my comment about a teacher defending their classroom would only happen if someone breaches the school building/school security and is an active threat inside the school? I never said they would wait at the door for an attacker instead of teaching. How you got that from anything I've posted is pretty scary.

My second statement is about as accurate as you can get when someone is actively attacking a school, an area inside a school, or trying to break into a classroom the time for talking has passed. Waiting to be saved by the cops is fine, but not if you're a sitting duck in a classroom full of kids. Blocking the door of a classroom while unarmed and trying to talk to someone who is currently shooting up the place isn't going to buy any one time. It's going to get that unarmed person killed and leave their classroom full of kids even more vulnerable. What buys time is better physical security, effective barriers to discourage an attack, and better resistance to said attack.

 

[Sinister]

Wow. You're taking a huge amount of liberty with how you're inferring what I mean with my posts, but couldn't understand that my comment about a teacher defending their classroom would only happen if someone breaches the school building/school security and is an active threat inside the school? I never said they would wait at the door for an attacker instead of teaching. How you got that from anything I've posted is pretty scary.

My second statement is about as accurate as you can get when someone is actively attacking a school, an area inside a school, or trying to break into a classroom the time for talking has passed. Waiting to be saved by the cops is fine, but not if you're a sitting duck in a classroom full of kids. Blocking the door of a classroom while unarmed and trying to talk to someone who is currently shooting up the place isn't going to buy any one time. It's going to get that unarmed person killed and leave their classroom full of kids even more vulnerable. What buys time is better physical security, effective barriers to discourage an attack, and better resistance to said attack.

How are they supposed to intercept the shooter at the door? On a hunch? I just think you are arguing from this ideal scenario in your mind and am posing that not everyone who is pushing laws like these are even going to be in favor of even providing funding for adding the layers that create your ideal scenario where the chances of engaging in live combat inside a classroom is almost none. That's not what's happening in these small towns making these politically-charged laws.

Sorry but the contention that barricading and communicating doesnt buy time is just not true. Those are tried and true procedures from delaying a shooter so much so that they're the first things trained professionals would do when unarmed. Obstruction and distraction are applied tactics.

 

[spamking]

How are they supposed to intercept the shooter at the door? On a hunch?

At the door of their classroom? How far do you think a shooter would get inside the school before the alarm sounded or the lockdown procedure was implemented to give them notice that a situation was happening to allow them time to secure their classroom?

I just think you are arguing from this ideal scenario in your mind

This is cute coming from you in this discussion. You've been arguing against points I didn't make but came from your own mind.

and am posing that not everyone who is pushing laws like these are even going to be in favor of even providing funding for adding the layers that create your ideal scenario where the chances of engaging in live combat inside a classroom is almost none. That's not what's happening in these small towns making these politically-charged laws.

And then posting this garbage to distract from the discussion. I have not one time said I wanted teachers to be first responders to a shooting or actively engage a shooter in an offensive position. I have very clearly stated probably a half dozen times that an armed teacher should be the last line of defense for themselves and a classroom full of kids. You interpreted that to mean that I thought an armed teacher should just post up at the door waiting for action instead of teaching.

Sorry but the contention that barricading and communicating doesnt buy time is just not true. Those are tried and true procedures from delaying a shooter so much so that they're the first things trained professionals would do when unarmed. Obstruction and distraction are applied tactics.

Leaving a teacher with their only defense being an attempt to talk down an active shooter hoping to delay them until help arrives is stupid. You're basically okay with a teacher sacrificing themselves so their kids might not be shot instead of allowing the teacher to have a fighting chance.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Yep, we disagree. I have fought countless people with my gun open carry and never had an issue. Maybe along with gun retention, they go through some defensive tactics training as well. My point has been that it needs to be more than 40 hours. More like 40 days

- I would prefer hall security guards. The teacher is already very stressfull job, let alone carrying a gun. Working as a armed security guard, you shond't turn your back on the people. so how are they gonna teach the classes?

Also arent the security guards courses in usa very few days? I get that you guys usually get former military guys, but that isnt the public that is gonna become school teachers.

Also all the riscs with a shot out? Who is gonna pay for that?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Better be careful with those pronouns

 

[nhbbear]

- I would prefer hall security guards. The teacher is already very stressfull job, let alone carrying a gun. Working as a armed security guard, you shond't turn your back on the people. so how are they gonna teach the classes?

Also arent the security guards courses in usa very few days? I get that you guys usually get former military guys, but that isnt the public that is gonna become school teachers.

Also all the riscs with a shot out? Who is gonna pay for that?

My wife wanted me to consider working at our kids’ school as a school cop. They started hiring retired cops but I am not real big on directing traffic. It seems almost as boring as the job I have now which requires 12 hours of nothing for less pay

 

[terrapin]

I just think there's almost no limit to the State power people will give under the guise of "we must protect the kids"...which has been a mantra of every single authoritarian regime throughout History. You are advocating for common sense gun laws, which is good (bye the way many Americans HATE the idea of added fun regulations other armed Countries use because of the politicization of the issue), and if we had those laws, turning schools into these impenetrable fortresses wouldn't even be necessary to begin with.

you might be right and man I would love to see those laws passed and find out. the sheer absurdity of where we are in this country is hard to believe.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

My wife wanted me to consider working at our kids’ school as a school cop. They started hiring retired cops but I am not real big on directing traffic. It seems almost as boring as the job I have now which requires 12 hours of nothing for less pay

- I watched a 80's movie that had a type of police station in the school. I remember someone saying those doesn't exist anymore.

 

[jk7707]

They happen because most of the locations attacked have little to no resistance. These people know they'll get to shoot up a place without worry.

There have been people who have bought legally with no history of violence and then decided to go commit an evil act.



This is fine with me . . . as long as physical security upgrades are included. I'm perfectly fine with not arming teachers if others on-site are armed and the location is sufficiently protected.



I think it's very reasonable to offer the opportunity to properly trained educators to be armed for a last line of defense if their school is breached.



What factors do you think are involved?

Can't have proof of something if it's never been implemented.

-Little to no resistance? Sorry but the data doesn't support that for school shootings.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...hool-officials-and-fatal-and-nonfatal-gunshot

However, the data suggests no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases. An armed officer on the scene was the number one factor associated with increased casualties after the perpetrators’ use of assault rifles or submachine guns. The well-documented weapons effect explains that the presence of a weapon increases aggression. Whenever firearms are present, there is room for error, and even highly trained officers get split-second decisions wrong. Prior research suggests that many school shooters are actively suicidal, intending to die in the act, so an armed officer may be an incentive rather than a deterrent. The majority of shooters who target schools are students of the school, calling into question the effectiveness of hardened security and active shooter drills.

-I agree. Teachers have a stressful enough job already. If you want security guards, hire security guards, but it's not a great solution either.

-It's not reasonable when the vast majority of the workforce doesn't want to work in an environment where a secret amount of their colleagues may be secretly armed, and they have no right to know who, or how many. This doesn't even take into account parents of students who disagree with this and would also have no right to know if their children's teacher was carrying a concealed weapon while teaching.

-The factors involved in school shootings is something for another thread.

-Well you can, as I posted above. Even armed guards don't necessarily prevent school shooting deaths, so why would a few teachers armed with handguns?

 

[spamking]

-Little to no resistance? Sorry but the data doesn't support that for school shootings.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...hool-officials-and-fatal-and-nonfatal-gunshot

However, the data suggests no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases. An armed officer on the scene was the number one factor associated with increased casualties after the perpetrators’ use of assault rifles or submachine guns. The well-documented weapons effect explains that the presence of a weapon increases aggression. Whenever firearms are present, there is room for error, and even highly trained officers get split-second decisions wrong. Prior research suggests that many school shooters are actively suicidal, intending to die in the act, so an armed officer may be an incentive rather than a deterrent. The majority of shooters who target schools are students of the school, calling into question the effectiveness of hardened security and active shooter drills.

-I agree. Teachers have a stressful enough job already. If you want security guards, hire security guards, but it's not a great solution either.

-It's not reasonable when the vast majority of the workforce doesn't want to work in an environment where a secret amount of their colleagues may be secretly armed, and they have no right to know who, or how many. This doesn't even take into account parents of students who disagree with this and would also have no right to know if their children's teacher was carrying a concealed weapon while teaching.

-The factors involved in school shootings is something for another thread.

-Well you can, as I posted above. Even armed guards don't necessarily prevent school shooting deaths, so why would a few teachers armed with handguns?

A single armed officer without additional physical security enhancements isn't going to cause much improvement.

Again, I think it's very reasonable to offer the opportunity to properly trained educators to be armed for a last line of defense if their school is breached.

If you honestly don't think an armed teacher as a last line of defense in a classroom would save lives you're very biased.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

-Little to no resistance? Sorry but the data doesn't support that for school shootings.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...hool-officials-and-fatal-and-nonfatal-gunshot

However, the data suggests no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases. An armed officer on the scene was the number one factor associated with increased casualties after the perpetrators’ use of assault rifles or submachine guns. The well-documented weapons effect explains that the presence of a weapon increases aggression.

- How is the security face the threat without being armed?

Theres should be at last four security guards at schools. And brigadists also, since fire is a bigger risc. Now arming teachers is absurd to me.

Also security guards should have obrigated to have courses, he some places hire guards without the basic training. First aid is a very important knowledge, but gets forgoten.

But id do agree, they get more powerful guns because the threat of a armed guard. But the thing is usually the attackers dont care, they're already going to makethe most wreakage they can get.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

"Welcome to your first day of math class students."

 

[Sinister]

- How is the security face the threat without being armed?

Theres should be at last four security guards at schools. And brigadists also, since fire is a bigger risc. Now arming teachers is absurd to me.

Also security guards should have obrigated to have courses, he some places hire guards without the basic training. First aid is a very important knowledge, but gets forgoten.

But id do agree, they get more powerful guns because the threat of a armed guard. But the thing is usually the attackers dont care, they're already going to makethe most wreakage they can get.

Having security guards doesnt matter, it's an ideological argument. First of all the presence of armed security doesnt always work. Multiple mass shooting in the US occurred at places with armed security present, or school Police present. Secondly, none of them are obligated, by law, to put themselves at risk to save children, which is why no officers who stood by or retreated while children were executed have been reprimanded aside from maybe being fired. American citizens should not trust the push to arm teachers WHILE political battles are going on in schools. Right wingers are constantly wanting to ban things from schools, or dismantle them altogether. We've seen in this thread, people suggesting that politically left teachers would NOT arm themselves, which means all the teachers with right wing bias will now be carrying guns. That's just a little too convenient for the side who often suggests a second Civil War. There is very little to guarantee any of this is politically neutral, paired with the cavalier language about classrooms being battle zones as if this is a 1980's action movie.

This idea stinks on numerous levels.