Home Forums Hunting Firearms Legislation Discussing and Implementing Ideas for Protecting Our Schools

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 150 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • fowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    I appreciate everyone’s input. I know it seems like these school shootings are happening with a lot of frequency. But as I stated before children are more likely to be in an accident on the bus than in a school shooting….and buses don’t have seat belts and sometimes they barely have a qualified driver. That should tell you right there the value placed on safety. We have always gambled with the safety of our children.

    BrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    No 3, school faculty are government employees. They would really have no choice in the matter. Insurance should logically be in favor of qualified school faculty carrying firearms, in lieu of the school murders of the past 1-2 decades.

    If you really think this then there’s really no sense continuing on with the conversation.

    Public school faculty / teachers are most certainly government employees. I’d like to see evidence that proves otherwise.

    Firearm training should be treated similar to CPR training, which is already mandatory for public school teachers in several states. https://schoolcpr.com/requirements/teachers/

    If you’re referring to my ‘insurance’ statement, I said “should logically be in favor of …”. This is purely my opinion. I’ve worked off and on in the insurance industry, and I know this isn’t how they function.

    So the “government” can mandate anything they want based on them being the “government”? I can see it now, hundreds of thousands of teachers no longer teach because the “government” has mandated firearms and self defense training courses. C’mon man, let’s use a little logic here, you’re starting to sound like a progressive.

    No. That’s not at all what I’m saying. However, if legislation were passed, public school teachers / faculty would have no choice but to comply or leave. In lieu of mass school murders carried out within the past 1-2 decades, this has become a very real threat that could happen at any public school, at any time. With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    Anonymous
    Post count: 2517
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    For starters, one is designed to save a live and the other to potentially take a life. In all honesty, I can’t believe this is even being discussed as logical.

    iowavf
    Participant
    Post count: 3575
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Some good points made. I’m not sure where we’d get the 5 National Guardsmen for our buildings? Our door already have key fobs and are locked, but several doors are unlocked in the morning for 45 minutes for students to enter the building and main entrances unlocked for 30 minutes when schools out. You do have to be buzzed in after the doors are locked and the main entrances have a camera which the person can view before letting them in. Alarms on other exit doors might become a game and who would the alarms notify if tripped? Although our staff went through ALICE training and we even did a mock incident at our High School, some in the other buildings were pretty reluctant when it came to police even having the fake guns they use for training around them. You could try and make it mandatory, but the teacher’s union could be an obstacle. I’m not against teachers or staff carrying concealed if they pass the proper training and have maybe a 4 hour refresher a couple times a year, but I would try and keep those anonymous as to whom might be carrying.

    BrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    This is where I will leave my opinion, take it or leave it.

    Schools do not have security budgets.

    A teacher is paid by the government, yes. Forcing them to mandatory firearms training would cause an uproar. Teachers are not legally allowed to strike in the state of Iowa, but if enough felt the urge to walk away from their assignments they might, or at the encouragement of the Teachers Association. Then the Board of Educational Examiners would be forced to investigate each case as to whether or not that person should maintain their teaching license, this would take years to sort out. And in the mean time while the BOEE is trying to figure out who’s license to suspend or revoke schools would be forced to hire new teachers, who would also need a teaching license issued by the BOEE. Remember they are off investigating the cases of teachers who left, so there will be longer delay issuing licenses (currently it is 4-6 weeks). This would be a nightmare for school districts to attempt to implement mandatory firearms training.

    I would be all for local/state building codes for schools being updated to require certain entrance security measures (cameras, buzz in locks etc) Give school districts a time frame, mandate that local option sales tax be used for security measures to reach code before other building improvements are made. Does this happen over night? No but eventually it would lead to an increase in security without having to raise taxes, just using what is available first to meet new building codes.

    I appreciate your input TeamAsgrow. State and Federal governments do have security budgets, and they are responsible for managing our public schools. Not only that, but school budgets can be increased at any time. Put enough pressure in the right places and budgets will increase to meet the needs/demands of the constituents. I’d say the mortal protection of our children is a better cause than any for demanding an increase in school budgets. Wouldn’t you?

    My question to you is, why is CPR training promoted / recommended, and even mandatory in many states and schools? Answer, because there is a very real threat of something occurring that would require a teacher/faculty member to use it.

    School shootings are also a very real threat today. Knowing how to use a firearm, (better yet, also possessing a firearm), are the ways I know of to best protect yourself and others if/when you find yourself cornered, in a life or death situation. Again though, we are ONLY talking about mandatory ‘Training’, not mandatory carrying of firearms or mandatory use of firearms within a violent situation. That would be up to the discretion of the teacher/faculty member if/when they found themselves in a life or death situation.

    Will updating our school buildings for better security cost additional money? Of course it will, but again, what’s the value of a human life? There’s no better reason for demanding increased budgets than for the protection of our children.

    BrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: fowl_attitude

    I appreciate everyone’s input. I know it seems like these school shootings are happening with a lot of frequency. But as I stated before children are more likely to be in an accident on the bus than in a school shooting….and buses don’t have seat belts and sometimes they barely have a qualified driver. That should tell you right there the value placed on safety. We have always gambled with the safety of our children.

    I agree fowl_attitude, but masses of people don’t attempt to chip away at or overturn the 2nd Amendment because of a bus accident. Seat-belts should be required in school buses. Bus drivers should pass some sort of qualification or examination. Unfortunately, you’re right, we have always gambled with the safety of our children.

    BrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    For starters, one is designed to save a live and the other to potentially take a life. In all honesty, I can’t believe this is even being discussed as logical.

    llewellinsetter, if you persist in dissing on me for not being ‘logical’, I can continue taking you to task with more ‘logical’ debate. I’d prefer not to do it on this topic beyond this response though, so please feel free to PM me and we can go from there.

    CPR and firearms are both ‘designed’ to save lives. (Firearms can also be used for hunting and recreation however, where CPR cannot.)

    It is possible to kill someone by performing CPR, (e.g. chest compressions are extremely dangerous, forcing lodged obstructions further in, etc.).

    When used properly in self defense, a firearm is used to save lives. If you kill the the criminal in the process, you are stopping them from committing murder. Murder is much different than killing in self defense.

    BrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: iowavf

    Some good points made. I’m not sure where we’d get the 5 National Guardsmen for our buildings? Our door already have key fobs and are locked, but several doors are unlocked in the morning for 45 minutes for students to enter the building and main entrances unlocked for 30 minutes when schools out. You do have to be buzzed in after the doors are locked and the main entrances have a camera which the person can view before letting them in. Alarms on other exit doors might become a game and who would the alarms notify if tripped? Although our staff went through ALICE training and we even did a mock incident at our High School, some in the other buildings were pretty reluctant when it came to police even having the fake guns they use for training around them. You could try and make it mandatory, but the teacher’s union could be an obstacle. I’m not against teachers or staff carrying concealed if they pass the proper training and have maybe a 4 hour refresher a couple times a year, but I would try and keep those anonymous as to whom might be carrying.

    I’m not sure where you got the number of 5 National Guardsmen/women iowavf. If the school is small enough, one or two should be adequate. Larger schools would probably require more, but I don’t know the size of your specific school. This would of course be hammered out in the planning phase, after the idea was at least being taken into consideration.

    Your school already has some security devices and procedures in place. That’s great! I would imagine it would take less than others to implement these additional items, if needed.

    I can almost guarantee the teacher’s union would be an obstacle on making self defense and firearm training mandatory. I stress the importance of selling this to them as required training similar to CPR training. It’s learning proper skill sets to best be equipped to respond to a situation if one were to occur. School shootings / murders are a very real threat, so I don’t see how the teacher’s union could logically be opposed to this. It’s ONLY training, and they are responsible for the safety of our children.

    Anonymous
    Post count: 2517
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    For starters, one is designed to save a live and the other to potentially take a life. In all honesty, I can’t believe this is even being discussed as logical.

    llewellinsetter, if you persist in dissing on me for not being ‘logical’, I can continue taking you to task with more ‘logical’ debate. I’d prefer not to do it on this topic beyond this response though, so please feel free to PM me and we can go from there.

    CPR and firearms are both ‘designed’ to save lives. (Firearms can also be used for hunting and recreation however, where CPR cannot.)

    It is possible to kill someone by performing CPR, (e.g. chest compressions are extremely dangerous, forcing lodged obstructions further in, etc.).

    When used properly in self defense, a firearm is used to save lives. If you kill the the criminal in the process, you are stopping them from committing murder. Murder is much different than killing in self defense.

    You’re right…

    It’s logical to force teachers to take a mandated firearms course and also within the Constitution to do so.
    It’s logical to place armed soldiers at entrances to schools, BTW, our high school has about fifteen different entrances and exists, and expect it to be budget and Constitutionally friendly.
    It’s logical to get insurers to side with arming teachers as a cost savings.
    It’s logical to compare CPR with firearms training.
    It’s logical to compare a school shooting to a National Security issue.

    I understand your passion on the issue and maybe if everyone in America had the same mindset as you it might be feasible but that’s not reality. Take a step back, slow down and analyze each of these solutions and see how they fit into a society governed by laws and individual rights. There’s not a simple fix, and quite frankly most of these suggestions would create more problems for the group than would be solutions. Sorry you don’t like the argument but what’s the sense of posting the question if all you want is agreeable answers?

    iowavf
    Participant
    Post count: 3575
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: iowavf

    Some good points made. I’m not sure where we’d get the 5 National Guardsmen for our buildings? Our door already have key fobs and are locked, but several doors are unlocked in the morning for 45 minutes for students to enter the building and main entrances unlocked for 30 minutes when schools out. You do have to be buzzed in after the doors are locked and the main entrances have a camera which the person can view before letting them in. Alarms on other exit doors might become a game and who would the alarms notify if tripped? Although our staff went through ALICE training and we even did a mock incident at our High School, some in the other buildings were pretty reluctant when it came to police even having the fake guns they use for training around them. You could try and make it mandatory, but the teacher’s union could be an obstacle. I’m not against teachers or staff carrying concealed if they pass the proper training and have maybe a 4 hour refresher a couple times a year, but I would try and keep those anonymous as to whom might be carrying.

    I’m not sure where you got the number of 5 National Guardsmen/women iowavf. If the school is small enough, one or two should be adequate. Larger schools would probably require more, but I don’t know the size of your specific school. This would of course be hammered out in the planning phase, after the idea was at least being taken into consideration.

    Your school already has some security devices and procedures in place. That’s great! I would imagine it would take less than others to implement these additional items, if needed.

    I can almost guarantee the teacher’s union would be an obstacle on making self defense and firearm training mandatory. I stress the importance of selling this to them as required training similar to CPR training. It’s learning proper skill sets to best be equipped to respond to a situation if one were to occur. School shootings / murders are a very real threat, so I don’t see how the teacher’s union could logically be opposed to this. It’s ONLY training, and they are responsible for the safety of our children.

    Pretty easy we have five main buildings with students in them, each building has it’s own main entrance and are several blocks from each other. We’re like a lot of other schools and aren’t able to have K – 12 in one building. I think it depends on what skill level and depth of mandatory firearm training you’re talking about? I’m just sure what the mandatory firearm training would consist of unless they had to handle a gun which there lies the issue for many. You’re not going to make them carry a gun or loose their job if they don’t, nor would I want any of them to have one! I think you’re comparing CRP training as the same as mandatory firearm training is like comparing apples to oranges, just not the same. We have fire training and drills, yet I haven’t seen any teachers or staff be made to come out to our fire department for fire training? Why is that?

    TeamAsgrow
    Participant
    Post count: 9152
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    If you are planning to compare firearms training to mandatory trainings that teachers must complete at least compare the required trainings.

    BrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    For starters, one is designed to save a live and the other to potentially take a life. In all honesty, I can’t believe this is even being discussed as logical.

    llewellinsetter, if you persist in dissing on me for not being ‘logical’, I can continue taking you to task with more ‘logical’ debate. I’d prefer not to do it on this topic beyond this response though, so please feel free to PM me and we can go from there.

    CPR and firearms are both ‘designed’ to save lives. (Firearms can also be used for hunting and recreation however, where CPR cannot.)

    It is possible to kill someone by performing CPR, (e.g. chest compressions are extremely dangerous, forcing lodged obstructions further in, etc.).

    When used properly in self defense, a firearm is used to save lives. If you kill the the criminal in the process, you are stopping them from committing murder. Murder is much different than killing in self defense.

    You’re right…

    1: It’s logical to force teachers to take a mandated firearms course and also within the Constitution to do so.
    2: It’s logical to place armed soldiers at entrances to schools, BTW, our high school has about fifteen different entrances and exists, and expect it to be budget and Constitutionally friendly.
    3: It’s logical to get insurers to side with arming teachers as a cost savings.
    4: It’s logical to compare CPR with firearms training.
    5: It’s logical to compare a school shooting to a National Security issue.

    I understand your passion on the issue and maybe if everyone in America had the same mindset as you it might be feasible but that’s not reality. Take a step back, slow down and analyze each of these solutions and see how they fit into a society governed by laws and individual rights. There’s not a simple fix, and quite frankly most of these suggestions would create more problems for the group than would be solutions. Sorry you don’t like the argument but what’s the sense of posting the question if all you want is agreeable answers?

    I’ve numbered your items above, so I can address them individually below.

    1: YES. When our public schools are soft targets that are being attacked by murderous terrorists, ABSOLUTELY. Yes, it is as Constitutional as mandatory CPR training, or any other ‘safety’ training.
    2: YES. When our public schools are soft targets that are being attacked by murderous terrorists, ABSOLUTELY. Turn a majority of those 15 entrance into Emergency Exit’s ONLY, similar to many LARGE office buildings and stores today. Yes, compared to the budgets required for other types of actions. Yes, I believe this is all Constitutional as well.
    3: It depends. If I were a parent that lost a child in a school massacre, I would file a civil suit against said school for not taking proper measures to protect my child. Now, I win the civil law suit against said school for multi-millions of dollars. (And I am only one of several parents who won similar civil law suits against said school…) Who would be responsible for paying me? If said school’s insurance provider would be on the hook for paying me, then YES, it is logical for insurers to side with arming teachers as cost savings. If said school’s insurance provider would not be responsible for paying me, then NO, it is not logical for insurers to side with arming teachers at cost savings.
    4: YES. Both are designed and intended to save the lives of our children.
    5: YES. Terrorist threats to the mortal safety of our school children should most definitely be considered an issue of National Security.

    I welcome feedback llewellinsetter, and even intelligent debate, (iron sharpens iron), but your previous statements, (in this topic and previous topics that I’ve participated in), tend to be slanderous in nature. I appreciate the feedback, but I don’t appreciate you ridiculing me or my statements in an attempt to make your self seem more intelligent, if only in your own mind.

    The majority of what I’m hearing in the MSM, is ban the evil AR ‘Devil’ rifles. I’m trying to bring a few ideas to the table that would most certainly deter school shootings. Throughout this conversation you have torn me and my ideas down without providing your own. I ask you… Which one of us sounds like a progressive in this discussion llewellinsetter?

    Loomis13
    Participant
    Post count: 292
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    For starters, one is designed to save a live and the other to potentially take a life. In all honesty, I can’t believe this is even being discussed as logical.

    llewellinsetter, if you persist in dissing on me for not being ‘logical’, I can continue taking you to task with more ‘logical’ debate. I’d prefer not to do it on this topic beyond this response though, so please feel free to PM me and we can go from there.

    CPR and firearms are both ‘designed’ to save lives. (Firearms can also be used for hunting and recreation however, where CPR cannot.)

    It is possible to kill someone by performing CPR, (e.g. chest compressions are extremely dangerous, forcing lodged obstructions further in, etc.).

    When used properly in self defense, a firearm is used to save lives. If you kill the the criminal in the process, you are stopping them from committing murder. Murder is much different than killing in self defense.

    You’re right…

    It’s logical to force teachers to take a mandated firearms course and also within the Constitution to do so.
    It’s logical to place armed soldiers at entrances to schools, BTW, our high school has about fifteen different entrances and exists, and expect it to be budget and Constitutionally friendly.
    It’s logical to get insurers to side with arming teachers as a cost savings.
    It’s logical to compare CPR with firearms training.
    It’s logical to compare a school shooting to a National Security issue.

    I understand your passion on the issue and maybe if everyone in America had the same mindset as you it might be feasible but that’s not reality. Take a step back, slow down and analyze each of these solutions and see how they fit into a society governed by laws and individual rights. There’s not a simple fix, and quite frankly most of these suggestions would create more problems for the group than would be solutions. Sorry you don’t like the argument but what’s the sense of posting the question if all you want is agreeable answers?

    I understand where you are coming from but you seem to be taking stuff too far. He is saying firearm training and it stops at training. Every teacher would be required to take the training but not every teacher would be required to do anything else with it (like carrying a firearm during class hours).The people that do end up wanting to carry would be carrying for the reason they learn CPR…to save a childs life, not because they want to kill another person. So, I think it is logical.

    Also, how I can see how someone thinks it is a national security issue. Just because you think it isnt a national security doesnt make it illogical (is that even a word lol).

    There was also other options aside from a National Guard member or security personel at every door. Like locking the doors down from the outside and have security at the few main entrances. You could also go as far as giving the school the option to do this. If they wanted to take it out of their budget to so this stuff they could, if they don’t fine. They just run the risk of a shooting happening quicker than had they opted for security.

    BrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: iowavf

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: iowavf

    Some good points made. I’m not sure where we’d get the 5 National Guardsmen for our buildings? Our door already have key fobs and are locked, but several doors are unlocked in the morning for 45 minutes for students to enter the building and main entrances unlocked for 30 minutes when schools out. You do have to be buzzed in after the doors are locked and the main entrances have a camera which the person can view before letting them in. Alarms on other exit doors might become a game and who would the alarms notify if tripped? Although our staff went through ALICE training and we even did a mock incident at our High School, some in the other buildings were pretty reluctant when it came to police even having the fake guns they use for training around them. You could try and make it mandatory, but the teacher’s union could be an obstacle. I’m not against teachers or staff carrying concealed if they pass the proper training and have maybe a 4 hour refresher a couple times a year, but I would try and keep those anonymous as to whom might be carrying.

    I’m not sure where you got the number of 5 National Guardsmen/women iowavf. If the school is small enough, one or two should be adequate. Larger schools would probably require more, but I don’t know the size of your specific school. This would of course be hammered out in the planning phase, after the idea was at least being taken into consideration.

    Your school already has some security devices and procedures in place. That’s great! I would imagine it would take less than others to implement these additional items, if needed.

    I can almost guarantee the teacher’s union would be an obstacle on making self defense and firearm training mandatory. I stress the importance of selling this to them as required training similar to CPR training. It’s learning proper skill sets to best be equipped to respond to a situation if one were to occur. School shootings / murders are a very real threat, so I don’t see how the teacher’s union could logically be opposed to this. It’s ONLY training, and they are responsible for the safety of our children.

    Pretty easy we have five main buildings with students in them, each building has it’s own main entrance and are several blocks from each other. We’re like a lot of other schools and aren’t able to have K – 12 in one building. I think it depends on what skill level and depth of mandatory firearm training you’re talking about? I’m just sure what the mandatory firearm training would consist of unless they had to handle a gun which there lies the issue for many. You’re not going to make them carry a gun or loose their job if they don’t, nor would I want any of them to have one! I think you’re comparing CRP training as the same as mandatory firearm training is like comparing apples to oranges, just not the same. We have fire training and drills, yet I haven’t seen any teachers or staff be made to come out to our fire department for fire training? Why is that?

    Ah, 5 buildings would equal at least 5 Guardsmen/women. Now I understand. Yes.
    The last time I took CPR training, I learned how to operate a defibrillator. Training someone how to handle a firearm should be comparable with that, within this discussion. Even thought they are two completely different things, they are both ‘tools’ used to save lives in case of an emergency.
    I didn’t mention the level of firearm training or self defense training before, because again, those would be details that could be hammered out after the idea were at least being considered. I’m thinking along the lines of Hunters Safety Course level, so nothing too extreme. Heck, I took my carry permit course and testing all Online, and frankly, it was a joke. If that’s as much as could be agreed upon, then so be it. It’s better than the nothing that most teachers/faculty have now.
    I addressed above why I feel firearm training and CPR training are comparable as apples to apples.
    As for fire training, this should also be mandatory.

    It’s amazing anyone feels comfortable allowing their children to attend public school! Watch the school bus pick them up in the morning and expect them to be safe all day because there are SO MANY safety measures in place… Err, nope. I guess there aren’t…

    BrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    If you are planning to compare firearms training to mandatory trainings that teachers must complete at least compare the required trainings.

    I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, so I can’t accurately respond.

    BrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: Loomis13

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    You’re right…

    It’s logical to force teachers to take a mandated firearms course and also within the Constitution to do so.
    It’s logical to place armed soldiers at entrances to schools, BTW, our high school has about fifteen different entrances and exists, and expect it to be budget and Constitutionally friendly.
    It’s logical to get insurers to side with arming teachers as a cost savings.
    It’s logical to compare CPR with firearms training.
    It’s logical to compare a school shooting to a National Security issue.

    I understand your passion on the issue and maybe if everyone in America had the same mindset as you it might be feasible but that’s not reality. Take a step back, slow down and analyze each of these solutions and see how they fit into a society governed by laws and individual rights. There’s not a simple fix, and quite frankly most of these suggestions would create more problems for the group than would be solutions. Sorry you don’t like the argument but what’s the sense of posting the question if all you want is agreeable answers?

    I understand where you are coming from but you seem to be taking stuff too far. He is saying firearm training and it stops at training. Every teacher would be required to take the training but not every teacher would be required to do anything else with it (like carrying a firearm during class hours).The people that do end up wanting to carry would be carrying for the reason they learn CPR…to save a childs life, not because they want to kill another person. So, I think it is logical.

    Also, how I can see how someone thinks it is a national security issue. Just because you think it isnt a national security doesnt make it illogical (is that even a word lol).

    There was also other options aside from a National Guard member or security personel at every door. Like locking the doors down from the outside and have security at the few main entrances. You could also go as far as giving the school the option to do this. If they wanted to take it out of their budget to so this stuff they could, if they don’t fine. They just run the risk of a shooting happening quicker than had they opted for security.

    YES!!! I don’t know how so many people missed this in my initial topic post, or the multiple times that I have stated it throughout this discussion. Mandatory training ONLY. Thank you!

    I agree, there are absolutely other options aside from NG personnel at every door. Thanks for your feedback Loomis13.

    TeamAsgrow
    Participant
    Post count: 9152
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    If you are planning to compare firearms training to mandatory trainings that teachers must complete at least compare the required trainings.

    I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, so I can’t accurately respond.

    You keep blurting “cpr” training like it is required in order to teach. Actually knowing what trainings are required would lend your argument more credence. I just keep hearing ” more guns in schools, fall in line” from your comments.

    You blow over my suggestion of updating building codes with funds that are already in place. Probably because it doesn’t fit into your agenda.

    You missed the point of why an insurance company wouldnt want to arm people trained to teach not handle fire arms. Who will be on the hook if an accident happens with an armed teacher.

    You believe money for budgets can be bumped by putting pressure on local entities, when in reality we have a leader in the department of ed that would love to defund public schoools with a voucher system.

    We can come up with measures that are better than mandatory firearm training and arming teachers.

    Anonymous
    Post count: 2517
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: Loomis13

    I understand where you are coming from but you seem to be taking stuff too far. He is saying firearm training and it stops at training. Every teacher would be required to take the training but not every teacher would be required to do anything else with it (like carrying a firearm during class hours).The people that do end up wanting to carry would be carrying for the reason they learn CPR…to save a childs life, not because they want to kill another person. So, I think it is logical.

    Also, how I can see how someone thinks it is a national security issue. Just because you think it isnt a national security doesnt make it illogical (is that even a word lol).

    There was also other options aside from a National Guard member or security personel at every door. Like locking the doors down from the outside and have security at the few main entrances. You could also go as far as giving the school the option to do this. If they wanted to take it out of their budget to so this stuff they could, if they don’t fine. They just run the risk of a shooting happening quicker than had they opted for security.

    Taking it too far? Are you kidding me? There is now way on earth you can implement mandatory firearms training for anyone, especially teachers. Hell we have soldiers that can get away with never handling a firearm. Go to a school board meeting and discuss this, I dare you.

    Also, Iowa has over 1700 schools serving nearly 500,000 kids. In Des Moines alone, East High, Valley, Lincoln, Waukee, etc. have at or near 2000 kids. Let’s just use your (5) guards per school number for the sake of needing a number. Are you going to permanently deploy over 8000 guard members or hire private security at around $60K a year plus benefits to cover this? That’s nearly $500 Million a year just in salaries. It’s insane.

    Also, schools don’t get options. Sometimes Districts do but not individual schools. This is so much bigger that you aren’t even considering the red tape that would be thousands of miles long, let alone the parents and the teachers, local law enforcement, etc. It would be worse than the TSA for crying out loud.

    As for not a National Security issue, I think this is pretty self explanatory.

    Again, I get the desire for a solution, I really do, but these are pushing the line of absurd and I know the left would definitely think it’s absurd. And if you think they are anti 2A now just think how far this kind of thinking will push them.

    Solutions HAVE TO BE social and community based. Meaning, everyone has to be on the same team. Alienating one side or another never works and that’s all this will do. So while the left pushes the anti gun agenda, those on the side of the Constitution have to put forth some realistic ideas that are thoughtful and meaningful. Security measures, like retrofitting doors, key cards, maybe even a fast pass to get into a parking structure might work but even these will be such a headache for a large school to accommodate I don’t know what the solution is.

    BrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    If you are planning to compare firearms training to mandatory trainings that teachers must complete at least compare the required trainings.

    I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, so I can’t accurately respond.

    You keep blurting “cpr” training like it is required in order to teach. Actually knowing what trainings are required would lend your argument more credence. I just keep hearing ” more guns in schools, fall in line” from your comments.

    You blow over my suggestion of updating building codes with funds that are already in place. Probably because it doesn’t fit into your agenda.

    You missed the point of why an insurance company wouldnt want to arm people trained to teach not handle fire arms. Who will be on the hook if an accident happens with an armed teacher.

    You believe money for budgets can be bumped by putting pressure on local entities, when in reality we have a leader in the department of ed that would love to defund public schoools with a voucher system.

    We can come up with measures that are better than mandatory firearm training and arming teachers.

    I’m not going to go into the specific details about the CPR training required within specific states, but I did provide a hyperlink to a website a couple of times already. Firearm training requirements wouldn’t be anything extensive. I’m thinking along the lines of a Hunters Safety Course. When terrorists are using guns to attack our children as they attend school, I see properly training and arming school staff as a MUCH better option for protecting our students than running and hiding, barricading doors that can be shot through, or throwing things, etc.

    I didn’t blow over your suggestion of updating building codes with funds already in place. I actually agree with this, but didn’t touch on it. In case you didn’t notice, I’ve been trying to respond to everyone. If I missed responding to this particular item, and you wanted me to, I’m sorry.

    No, I totally got it. Who’s on the hook for paying a civil suit if a parent sues the school for not protecting their child?

    OK

    Let’s hear them. Please.

    Kent T
    Participant
    Post count: 274
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    This is not a discussion about support for or opposition to our 2nd Amendment rights, firearm legislation, mental illness, or the depravity of our current culture, etc.

    I am interested in discussing the following ideas with people who have the power to get them implemented within our public schools. Who do I need to get in front of, and how do I go about doing it? Is this something that should be approached at the school district level, county level, state level, or national level? Thanks in advance for your feedback.

    Below are a few ideas that I believe will deter school shootings from taking place. Please feel free to add your own ideas, but I’d like to mainly focus on these, or variations of these, as I believe they are budget friendly and could be implemented relatively quickly and easily.

    1. Place one or multiple armed National Guard men/women at main entry points of all public schools. Screen all people entering, similar to how courthouse entries are screened today. If this means use of metal detectors, banning certain items, capping the size of backpacks, etc., so be it.

    2. Lock all other entry points and establish security devices on them to stop unauthorized entry. Similar to many office buildings today.

    3. Make annual self defense and firearm training courses mandatory for all faculty, and support qualified faculty to carry a firearm. Faculty would not be required to be armed, but carrying a firearm would be promoted.

    Thanks again, BID

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 150 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.