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

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 150 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602

    You can not mandate or require teachers take a firearm training and carry a firearm any more than you can any other job. You can just forget that requirement to be a teacher otherwise you will not have any teachers. We have a staff of about 120 and I am guessing there are less than 30 who would support having teachers carry a gun. I didn’t say carry themselves. I said support. There are probably only 5-8 that would be comfortable being armed while at work. And the reason has nothing to do with 2nd amendment support or fear of guns. It has to do with they don’t want to be in the military. They don’t want to be put in a position where they would have to shoot someone, possibly a student. Teachers will do everything they can to keep kids safe, but I don’t think you will find many willing to do this. Someone is going to say fine then quit and we will replace you with teachers that will carry. And that isn’t realistic. There aren’t enough teachers that would feel this way.You will be hiring people willing to carry, but can’t teach the subject. That makes sense. Kids are safe, but not learning anything. Making it an option will be tough. Making it a requirement is impossible.

    Refurbishing buildings is the best bet and that should be the focus. That could get done.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Analogy time…

    When you or someone you love is bullied or threatened, and the local ‘protection’ channels aren’t doing anything for you, (and have repeatedly failed others in similar situations who ended up being murdered), what do you do?

    If you’re wealthy, the sky is the limit. You change your name and move. You fortify your home and vehicles. You hire private security that goes everywhere with you. Etc. Etc.

    If you’re on a budget, you work within your means. You throw a highly visible “Have Gun, Will Shoot” type of sign up in your front yard. You buy and begin carrying a firearm, (or other type of defensive weapon). You take self defense courses. You ask friends and relatives to watch your back. Etc. Etc.

    This is my line of thinking…

    AvatarTrapCyclone
    Participant
    Post count: 2552

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: TrapCyclone

    I haven’t read every post here, but I recently came across something that really fascinated me. I’m sure most of us have heard of the movie Minority Report wherein some “precogs” are able to predict when and where crimes of passion will occur and the police are then dispatched to stop the criminal act when or before it happens. Fascinating stuff and pure science fiction, right? Or is it? Turns out there actually is something akin to this and it is called Predictive Policing. There is an informative web page on the National Institute of Justice on this (https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/strategies/predictive-policing/Pages/welcome.aspx). They describe Predictive Policing as follows:

    Predictive policing leverages computer models � such as those used in the business industry to anticipate how market conditions or industry trends will evolve over time � for law enforcement purposes, namely anticipating likely crime events and informing actions to prevent crime. Predictions can focus on variables such as places, people, groups or incidents. Demographic trends, parolee populations and economic conditions may all affect crime rates in particular areas. Using models supported by prior crime and environmental data to inform different kinds of interventions can help police reduce the number of crime incidents.

    Seems this is basically the kind of thing that could be useful in predicting and preventing mass shootings. I don’t know exactly how these computer models work, but I would imagine they can and do mine data from peoples’ social media postings, from crime trends in specific locations, from firearms purchases, and so on and so forth and issue a probability analysis that predicts whether a crime is likely to occur. This is both fascinating and yet a bit scary in terms of how the information could be gathered and used (see also http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/can-predictive-policing-prevent-crime-it-happens.

    Seems this approach is something that could be and perhaps is being used to help deter these types of events.

    I appreciate the feedback TrapCyclone. IF it worked, it could be a way to identify when to beef up security or look into specific individuals, but I don’t like the idea of using predictive modeling to charge people for crimes they have yet to commit, (as in the movie). My response to this is that there were lots of red flags raised about this recent FL shooter, and nothing was done about it. So, no matter what types of extensive predictive models we put in place, unless we have qualified resources to interpret and respond accordingly, (take action), it won’t give us a very good ROI. My ideas concentrate on putting the ability to protect our children directly in the hands of the people who are physically with and responsible for our children.

    I also don’t agree with the notion of charging people with crimes they haven’t committed. The idea here is that data can be mined in order to obtain warnings and/or predictive models on potential behaviors. Say someone makes some threatening comments via social media then also makes a firearm purchase some time later. There even are license plate readers on toll booths, at mobile speed cameras, and the like as well as facial recognition software that can detect a persons’s movements and this information could all be gathered and correlated. Presumably this data can be detected and mined by these computer systems in order to give police an alert that there is a high probability of something happening with the individual that performed these actions. Police could then beef up security and/or initiate some kind of surveillance to ensure that a crime is not committed. It is a pretty fascinating and even somewhat scary concept. As the saying goes, an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    AvatarTeamAsgrow
    Participant
    Post count: 9151

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Analogy time…

    When you or someone you love is bullied or threatened, and the local ‘protection’ channels aren’t doing anything for you, (and have repeatedly failed others in similar situations who ended up being murdered), what do you do?

    If you’re wealthy, the sky is the limit. You change your name and move. You fortify your home and vehicles. You hire private security that goes everywhere with you. Etc. Etc.

    If you’re on a budget, you work within your means. You throw a highly visible “Have Gun, Will Shoot” type of sign up in your front yard. You buy and begin carrying a firearm, (or other type of defensive weapon). You take self defense courses. You ask friends and relatives to watch your back. Etc. Etc.

    This is my line of thinking…

    So your line of thinking is that school districts are in the Wealthy category? Hire security and fortify buildings. After all, they are tax paid right?

    Schools do work within their budgets, emergency procedure drills and protocols but that has it’s flaws.

    Statistically there are more deaths on school buses per year than due to active shooters.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Its good that people are thinking, number 2 might even be practical.

    As already said, law would be state level, policy would be local districts.

    No 1 is a violation of Posse Comitatus and just plain bad policy. I disagree with the premise of armed guards but if you did is has to be law enforcement or private security, not military.

    No 3 would never work, lots of anti gun people in teachers unions and forcing them to train with a gun will be a no go. Allowing teachers to voluntarily participate may be viable although I dont know what it does to insurance. Voluntary would also likely be more effective or as least as effective as mandatory.

    I don’t believe No 1 is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, but that’s where attorneys would need to be involved.

    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.

    The express purpose of the act was to prevent US Military from being deployed on US soil in a law enforcement capacity. It seems pretty clear.

    Beyond that, there are right around 100,000 public schools in the US. Most have multiple entry points and many have multiple buildings. There are roughly 350,000 people in the national guard in the US. If we had 100% of the national guard deployed all the time and 100% of them were in this role that would be 3.5 per school which would likely not be enough on average.

    Add to that most national guard are not deployed 100% of the time and if they were enlistment and retention would plummet especially if the deployment was being a security guard at a school. This idea cannot work even if it was legal.

    Asgrow’s options on building and security and funding are about the closest thing to reality.

    The other ideas are about as realistic as me saying I will start a Dragon hatchery and build an army of Dragons to protect our schools.

    Any manned front security / screening posts would be better than none, in that they would at least add some deterrence for terrorists who target soft targets. But, I hear what you’re saying. I wouldn’t be against combining the NG effort with volunteer security officials, local law enforcement, active military, retired military, etc. If the NG doesn’t have the capacity to provide this service, there are other groups to look to for helping to fill in the gaps. I ran with the NG because of the fact that they ‘should’ already have the appropriate training, or could get it relatively easily, and they are a tax paid, funded resource that is currently available.

    I’m all for building security into our school buildings as well. I see this as not being a very budget friendly option, (bullet proofing rooms, trapping and gassing terrorists, etc.), but I would be willing to entertain ideas, above and beyond making most exit/entry points Emergency Exits ONLY (alarms sounding if unauthorized open), and providing security devices for main manned entry points.

    Dragon’s aren’t real, or at least they don’t exist today… The threat of our children being killed in their school buildings by unopposed terrorists is very real. The original ideas that I’ve suggested are realistic methods to take into consideration, especially when compared to how realistic it is for attempting to ban and confiscate AR or semi-automatic rifles in general.

    Just because National Guard are tax paid would not make them budget friendly either! There are not nearly enough full time NG to come anywhere close to providing security measures. There are 357 school districts in Iowa, some districts have one building while others have multiple, the number of National Guard needed would be in the thousands that would need to be hired full time. Once again, just because they are “tax paid” doesn’t mean that money can just magically appear.

    Did you miss this part, “I wouldn’t be against combining the NG effort with volunteer security officials, local law enforcement, active military, retired military, etc. If the NG doesn’t have the capacity to provide this service, there are other groups to look to for helping to fill in the gaps.”?

    I don’t believe in magic. Again, “I ran with the NG because of the fact that they ‘should’ already have the appropriate training, or could get it relatively easily, and they are a tax paid, funded resource that is currently available.”. They are an entity that already exists that could / should be leveraged for something like this. At least looked at as being leveraged. I believe the use of the NG would be extremely budget friendly when compared to the expense of using private security companies, or creating an entirely new military / law enforcement branch to provide this service, etc.

    Work with me here TeamAsgrow. I’m getting a ton of “Nope, this won’t work”, and not much, “I like the idea, but this may be something to take into consideration…”.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: fowl_attitude

    You can not mandate or require teachers take a firearm training and carry a firearm any more than you can any other job. You can just forget that requirement to be a teacher otherwise you will not have any teachers. We have a staff of about 120 and I am guessing there are less than 30 who would support having teachers carry a gun. I didn’t say carry themselves. I said support. There are probably only 5-8 that would be comfortable being armed while at work. And the reason has nothing to do with 2nd amendment support or fear of guns. It has to do with they don’t want to be in the military. They don’t want to be put in a position where they would have to shoot someone, possibly a student. Teachers will do everything they can to keep kids safe, but I don’t think you will find many willing to do this. Someone is going to say fine then quit and we will replace you with teachers that will carry. And that isn’t realistic. There aren’t enough teachers that would feel this way.You will be hiring people willing to carry, but can’t teach the subject. That makes sense. Kids are safe, but not learning anything. Making it an option will be tough. Making it a requirement is impossible.

    Refurbishing buildings is the best bet and that should be the focus. That could get done.

    fowl_attitude, this is the last time I respond to you. “You can not mandate or require teachers take a firearm training and carry a firearm…” It helps to read/listen before responding.

    Yes to the mandatory firearm training, similar to a Hunters Safety Course.
    No to mandatory carrying of a firearm.

    AvatarMaverick
    Participant
    Post count: 4709

    I’m glad the use of predictive modeling was brought up. Because that is the exact reason insurance companies will not be on board with arming teachers. They will have the actuaries plug in the numbers to compare the potential lawsuits that may arise from shootings vs. the potential lawsuits that may arise from negligent discharges, mishandling, theft, or misuse when you place hundreds of thousands of firearms into the hands of people who’s chosen profession is that of an educator, not an armed guard. I just don’t see the companies willing to assume the risk of arming teachers.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Analogy time…

    When you or someone you love is bullied or threatened, and the local ‘protection’ channels aren’t doing anything for you, (and have repeatedly failed others in similar situations who ended up being murdered), what do you do?

    If you’re wealthy, the sky is the limit. You change your name and move. You fortify your home and vehicles. You hire private security that goes everywhere with you. Etc. Etc.

    If you’re on a budget, you work within your means. You throw a highly visible “Have Gun, Will Shoot” type of sign up in your front yard. You buy and begin carrying a firearm, (or other type of defensive weapon). You take self defense courses. You ask friends and relatives to watch your back. Etc. Etc.

    This is my line of thinking…

    So your line of thinking is that school districts are in the Wealthy category? Hire security and fortify buildings. After all, they are tax paid right?

    Schools do work within their budgets, emergency procedure drills and protocols but that has it’s flaws.

    Statistically there are more deaths on school buses per year than due to active shooters.

    NO! School districts are most certainly ‘on a budget’. Wow!!! Holy crap! I’m a statistics guy myself, so I agree with what you’re saying about school buses. Personally, I believe school buses should be mandated to be equipped with seat-belts. Unfortunately, school bus accidents aren’t threatening to chip away at or repeal our Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights. School shootings are.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: TrapCyclone

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: TrapCyclone

    I haven’t read every post here, but I recently came across something that really fascinated me. I’m sure most of us have heard of the movie Minority Report wherein some “precogs” are able to predict when and where crimes of passion will occur and the police are then dispatched to stop the criminal act when or before it happens. Fascinating stuff and pure science fiction, right? Or is it? Turns out there actually is something akin to this and it is called Predictive Policing. There is an informative web page on the National Institute of Justice on this (https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/strategies/predictive-policing/Pages/welcome.aspx). They describe Predictive Policing as follows:

    Predictive policing leverages computer models �¢ï¿½ï¿½ such as those used in the business industry to anticipate how market conditions or industry trends will evolve over time �¢ï¿½ï¿½ for law enforcement purposes, namely anticipating likely crime events and informing actions to prevent crime. Predictions can focus on variables such as places, people, groups or incidents. Demographic trends, parolee populations and economic conditions may all affect crime rates in particular areas. Using models supported by prior crime and environmental data to inform different kinds of interventions can help police reduce the number of crime incidents.

    Seems this is basically the kind of thing that could be useful in predicting and preventing mass shootings. I don’t know exactly how these computer models work, but I would imagine they can and do mine data from peoples’ social media postings, from crime trends in specific locations, from firearms purchases, and so on and so forth and issue a probability analysis that predicts whether a crime is likely to occur. This is both fascinating and yet a bit scary in terms of how the information could be gathered and used (see also http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/can-predictive-policing-prevent-crime-it-happens.

    Seems this approach is something that could be and perhaps is being used to help deter these types of events.

    I appreciate the feedback TrapCyclone. IF it worked, it could be a way to identify when to beef up security or look into specific individuals, but I don’t like the idea of using predictive modeling to charge people for crimes they have yet to commit, (as in the movie). My response to this is that there were lots of red flags raised about this recent FL shooter, and nothing was done about it. So, no matter what types of extensive predictive models we put in place, unless we have qualified resources to interpret and respond accordingly, (take action), it won’t give us a very good ROI. My ideas concentrate on putting the ability to protect our children directly in the hands of the people who are physically with and responsible for our children.

    I also don’t agree with the notion of charging people with crimes they haven’t committed. The idea here is that data can be mined in order to obtain warnings and/or predictive models on potential behaviors. Say someone makes some threatening comments via social media then also makes a firearm purchase some time later. There even are license plate readers on toll booths, at mobile speed cameras, and the like as well as facial recognition software that can detect a persons’s movements and this information could all be gathered and correlated. Presumably this data can be detected and mined by these computer systems in order to give police an alert that there is a high probability of something happening with the individual that performed these actions. Police could then beef up security and/or initiate some kind of surveillance to ensure that a crime is not committed. It is a pretty fascinating and even somewhat scary concept. As the saying goes, an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    Totally for it. Can it be implemented tomorrow, and what are the expenses related to implementing it? Also, will the appropriate service providers ‘act’ upon this information in a timely manner? (Again, without that last part, ‘take action’, the rest is expensive and useless, as was proven by how the police and the FBI dropped the ball on the most recent FL school shooting.)

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: Maverick

    I’m glad the use of predictive modeling was brought up. Because that is the exact reason insurance companies will not be on board with arming teachers. They will have the actuaries plug in the numbers to compare the potential lawsuits that may arise from shootings vs. the potential lawsuits that may arise from negligent discharges, mishandling, theft, or misuse when you place hundreds of thousands of firearms into the hands of people who’s chosen profession is that of an educator, not an armed guard. I just don’t see the companies willing to assume the risk of arming teachers.

    Maverick, I hope you aren’t one of the MANY who inaccurately believe I have ever said it should be mandatory all of our school faculty/teachers to be armed. I have not ever said that…

    I have said that qualified faculty/teachers should be allowed and promoted/supported to carry firearms. I’m thinking along the lines of a concealed carry handgun for those who are qualified and desire to carry.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Its good that people are thinking, number 2 might even be practical.

    As already said, law would be state level, policy would be local districts.

    No 1 is a violation of Posse Comitatus and just plain bad policy. I disagree with the premise of armed guards but if you did is has to be law enforcement or private security, not military.

    No 3 would never work, lots of anti gun people in teachers unions and forcing them to train with a gun will be a no go. Allowing teachers to voluntarily participate may be viable although I dont know what it does to insurance. Voluntary would also likely be more effective or as least as effective as mandatory.

    I don’t believe No 1 is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, but that’s where attorneys would need to be involved.

    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.

    In your first post, you said it would not be required. But here, as I read it, you say they would not have any choice. Sorry for misinterpreting your comment.

    As I have said several times. I appreciate this discussion. As a public school teacher, I appreciate it. As a parent, I appreciate it.

    AvatarMaverick
    Participant
    Post count: 4709

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: Maverick

    I’m glad the use of predictive modeling was brought up. Because that is the exact reason insurance companies will not be on board with arming teachers. They will have the actuaries plug in the numbers to compare the potential lawsuits that may arise from shootings vs. the potential lawsuits that may arise from negligent discharges, mishandling, theft, or misuse when you place hundreds of thousands of firearms into the hands of people who’s chosen profession is that of an educator, not an armed guard. I just don’t see the companies willing to assume the risk of arming teachers.

    Maverick, I hope you aren’t one of the MANY who inaccurately believe I have ever said it should be mandatory all of our school faculty/teachers to be armed. I have not ever said that…

    I have said that qualified faculty/teachers should be allowed and promoted/supported to carry a firearms. I’m thinking along the lines of a concealed carry handgun for those who are qualified and desire to carry.

    I see you chose to not address my point at all and accuse me of not understanding your posts. I’ll play along. What percentage of teachers do you think would choose to carry or what percentage would be enough to prevent/stop a threat?

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: fowl_attitude

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Its good that people are thinking, number 2 might even be practical.

    As already said, law would be state level, policy would be local districts.

    No 1 is a violation of Posse Comitatus and just plain bad policy. I disagree with the premise of armed guards but if you did is has to be law enforcement or private security, not military.

    No 3 would never work, lots of anti gun people in teachers unions and forcing them to train with a gun will be a no go. Allowing teachers to voluntarily participate may be viable although I dont know what it does to insurance. Voluntary would also likely be more effective or as least as effective as mandatory.

    I don’t believe No 1 is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, but that’s where attorneys would need to be involved.

    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.

    In your first post, you said it would not be required. But here, as I read it, you say they would not have any choice. Sorry for misinterpreting your comment.

    As I have said several times. I appreciate this discussion. As a public school teacher, I appreciate it. As a parent, I appreciate it.

    Thank you! It’s all good. Sorry I snapped at you.

    AvatarTeamAsgrow
    Participant
    Post count: 9151

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Its good that people are thinking, number 2 might even be practical.

    As already said, law would be state level, policy would be local districts.

    No 1 is a violation of Posse Comitatus and just plain bad policy. I disagree with the premise of armed guards but if you did is has to be law enforcement or private security, not military.

    No 3 would never work, lots of anti gun people in teachers unions and forcing them to train with a gun will be a no go. Allowing teachers to voluntarily participate may be viable although I dont know what it does to insurance. Voluntary would also likely be more effective or as least as effective as mandatory.

    I don’t believe No 1 is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, but that’s where attorneys would need to be involved.

    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.

    The express purpose of the act was to prevent US Military from being deployed on US soil in a law enforcement capacity. It seems pretty clear.

    Beyond that, there are right around 100,000 public schools in the US. Most have multiple entry points and many have multiple buildings. There are roughly 350,000 people in the national guard in the US. If we had 100% of the national guard deployed all the time and 100% of them were in this role that would be 3.5 per school which would likely not be enough on average.

    Add to that most national guard are not deployed 100% of the time and if they were enlistment and retention would plummet especially if the deployment was being a security guard at a school. This idea cannot work even if it was legal.

    Asgrow’s options on building and security and funding are about the closest thing to reality.

    The other ideas are about as realistic as me saying I will start a Dragon hatchery and build an army of Dragons to protect our schools.

    Any manned front security / screening posts would be better than none, in that they would at least add some deterrence for terrorists who target soft targets. But, I hear what you’re saying. I wouldn’t be against combining the NG effort with volunteer security officials, local law enforcement, active military, retired military, etc. If the NG doesn’t have the capacity to provide this service, there are other groups to look to for helping to fill in the gaps. I ran with the NG because of the fact that they ‘should’ already have the appropriate training, or could get it relatively easily, and they are a tax paid, funded resource that is currently available.

    I’m all for building security into our school buildings as well. I see this as not being a very budget friendly option, (bullet proofing rooms, trapping and gassing terrorists, etc.), but I would be willing to entertain ideas, above and beyond making most exit/entry points Emergency Exits ONLY (alarms sounding if unauthorized open), and providing security devices for main manned entry points.

    Dragon’s aren’t real, or at least they don’t exist today… The threat of our children being killed in their school buildings by unopposed terrorists is very real. The original ideas that I’ve suggested are realistic methods to take into consideration, especially when compared to how realistic it is for attempting to ban and confiscate AR or semi-automatic rifles in general.

    Just because National Guard are tax paid would not make them budget friendly either! There are not nearly enough full time NG to come anywhere close to providing security measures. There are 357 school districts in Iowa, some districts have one building while others have multiple, the number of National Guard needed would be in the thousands that would need to be hired full time. Once again, just because they are “tax paid” doesn’t mean that money can just magically appear.

    Did you miss this part, “I wouldn’t be against combining the NG effort with volunteer security officials, local law enforcement, active military, retired military, etc. If the NG doesn’t have the capacity to provide this service, there are other groups to look to for helping to fill in the gaps.”?

    I don’t believe in magic. Again, “I ran with the NG because of the fact that they ‘should’ already have the appropriate training, or could get it relatively easily, and they are a tax paid, funded resource that is currently available.”. They are an entity that already exists that could / should be leveraged for something like this. At least looked at as being leveraged. I believe the use of the NG would be extremely budget friendly when compared to the expense of using private security companies, or creating an entirely new military / law enforcement branch to provide this service, etc.

    Work with me here TeamAsgrow. I’m getting a ton of “Nope, this won’t work”, and not much, “I like the idea, but this may be something to take into consideration…”.

    I have given plausible measures, but they weren’t what you wanted to hear. I am simply pointing out why your proposals have flaws. The monetary implications for having armed guards isnt plausible due to budget restrictions. But you have said so because it is tax paid, which simply isn’t true.

    You only want to have everyone agree with your agenda. Good luck.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: Maverick

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: Maverick

    I’m glad the use of predictive modeling was brought up. Because that is the exact reason insurance companies will not be on board with arming teachers. They will have the actuaries plug in the numbers to compare the potential lawsuits that may arise from shootings vs. the potential lawsuits that may arise from negligent discharges, mishandling, theft, or misuse when you place hundreds of thousands of firearms into the hands of people who’s chosen profession is that of an educator, not an armed guard. I just don’t see the companies willing to assume the risk of arming teachers.

    Maverick, I hope you aren’t one of the MANY who inaccurately believe I have ever said it should be mandatory all of our school faculty/teachers to be armed. I have not ever said that…

    I have said that qualified faculty/teachers should be allowed and promoted/supported to carry a firearms. I’m thinking along the lines of a concealed carry handgun for those who are qualified and desire to carry.

    I see you chose to not address my point at all and accuse me of not understanding your posts. I’ll play along. What percentage of teachers do you think would choose to carry or what percentage would be enough to prevent/stop a threat?

    I never accused you of anything Maverick. I’ve actually addressed your point a few times within this discussion. If my child was murdered in a school that I was told was a ‘safe environment’, by an unopposed terrorist that walked right in and started shooting up the place, I’m filing and probably winning a hefty civil suit. If the school’s insurance provider is on the hook for paying me, then YES, I believe insurance companies will step back and look at the benefit of allowing and even supporting armed faculty/teachers to protect the children that are within their care.

    My insurance didn’t go up when I started carrying my personal firearm, did yours? I’ve never been asked on an insurance application if I carry a firearm, have you?

    Play along? This isn’t a game Maverick.

    As for how many faculty/teachers do I think would choose to carry a firearm… My personal guess would be a low percentage, probably under 10%, (again, this is just a guess). Some is better than none though, because it only takes one to make a difference. And the difference they can make in this type of situation can save multiple lives.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 150 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.