School Shootings-Should The Teachers Be Armed?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:54 pm

Lawmaker Wants Teachers Armed With Guns

Rep. Lasee To Propose Gun Legislation

MADISON, Wis. -- In the wake of school shootings in Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennsylvania during the last two weeks, a Wisconsin state legislator said he plans to introduce legislation that would allow teachers, principals, administrators and other school personnel to carry concealed weapons.

Rep. Frank Lasee, R-Bellevue, said Wednesday that, while his idea may not be politically correct, it has worked effectively in other countries.

"To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table," he said. "Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin."

Lasee stressed that the measure would hinge on school staff members getting strict training on the use of the weapons.

But Pete Pochowski, director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, expressed opposition to the proposal.

"Statistically, the safest place for a child to be is in school," Pochowski aid . "We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals."

Children in countries such as Israel and Thailand are far more vulnerable to daily violence than students in America, he said.

"In the country we live in, we have a lot of freedom," Pochowski said, "and we have to expose ourselves to some danger to keep that."

Funeral services were held Wednesday for Principal John Klang, who was shot and killed Friday at Weston High School.

I wondered how soon it would be before I saw a suggestion such as this. What do you guys think of this - should they be permitted to carry concealed weapons?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:58 pm

Beagle wrote: Lawmaker Wants Teachers Armed With Guns

Rep. Lasee To Propose Gun Legislation

MADISON, Wis. -- In the wake of school shootings in Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennsylvania during the last two weeks, a Wisconsin state legislator said he plans to introduce legislation that would allow teachers, principals, administrators and other school personnel to carry concealed weapons.

Two points :-

The presence of arms encourages the use of arms - it would make schools less safe rather than more.

Headmasters / Goveners would start to select teachers for their ability with a gun rather than for their ability to teach.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:07 pm

I agree Bryn, presence of guns encourages more violence.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:27 pm

Beagle wrote: Lawmaker Wants Teachers Armed With Guns

[snip]

I wondered how soon it would be before I saw a suggestion such as this. What do you guys think of this - should they be permitted to carry concealed weapons?

Maybe. Perhaps the children should be permitted (after suitable training, of

course) to carry concealed weapons as well! Just in case a teacher, one of

their compatriots, or anyone in the population at large "goes bad"? Mm?

What would that person say to such a suggestion, I wonder?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:50 pm

We are going to start seeing metal detectors in middle class suburban classrooms now, as opposed to only inner city life. Also, you would think they would propose to have agents in every school, much like air marshals post 911, before arming average everyday citizens with high caliber weapons(no offense - but when I think sharp shooter, teachers are far from my thoughts). As if school taxes arent thin as it is.

BTW -- I'm failing to see how the presence of firearms would escalate violence. You would think it would deter the use of aggression out of fear for ones own life....then again we're talking about maniacs with content to kill....so I have no clue....makes you wonder what this world is coming to.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:56 pm

K.Snyder wrote: We are going to start seeing metal detectors in middle class suburban classrooms now, as opposed to only inner city life. Also, you would think they would propose to have agents in every school, much like air marshals post 911, before arming average everyday citizens with high caliber weapons. As if school taxes arent thin as it is.

BTW -- I'm failing to see how the presence of firearms would escalate violence. You would think it would deter the use of aggression out of fear for ones own life....then again we're talking about maniacs with content to kill....so I have no clue....makes you wonder what this world is coming to.

When the opposition is armed then you arm yourself.

Where the British police have advertised the fact that officers are armed the number of incidents where criminals have carried arms has increased.

This is why the majority of the British Police are against any proposal for them to be armed on a regular basis - special units only.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:10 pm

Diuretic wrote: The funny thing about this is that the New York City police were originally unarmed (except for a nightstick) and only armed in response to criminals who were armed. So as a slight aside the British police might need to think about that fact. But that's probably a different hot topic for another thread (I omit PSNI from the discussion of course).

As for firearms in schools - not sure about this. I think that schools should be made more secure but then the question arises can we do that in every situation where there are large numbers of people? If schools are secure then the average armed nutter will try a college or university campus (yes I remember the UT Austin shooting by Charles Whitman back in 1966). If the campuses are secure then the shopping malls will present a likely target. And so on.

The NYPD do not exist in isolation to the rest of the USA. If the criminals in the rest of the USA are used to carrying firearms then this will carry over into New York. (I totally agree that Ulster is a different topic within this discussion).

As to moving the problem elsewhere by defending schools, I think that they are a special case - the motive appears to be specifically directed at young children rather than society in general.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:28 pm

Diuretic wrote:

The New York city police really do exist in isolation to the rest of the US - in fact each local law enforcement agency does and this is due to the political history and culture of the US, there is nowhere near the uniformity in policing you would be used to in the UK (even allowing for PSNI and the Scottish forces).

The NYPD might well be totally separate but the point I was making is that the criminal fraternaty are not - they opperate across city and state boundaries.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:39 pm

I have to say that the idea of having to train school teachers in the use of firearms and teaching a class of school children while carrying a loaded gun sounds pretty extreme to me. I know that America is a society where owning handguns etc is normal and yes there is a lot of gun crime as well, but surely things are not that bad? I will admit as being someone who lives in Western Europe I don't really understand American attitudes sometimes to guns, but I don't think its my place to say to anyone in another country how they live their lives, but I do find the idea of having to arm school teacher as being a depressing idea. Would I be right in thinking that this arming of teachers would not be an idea that most people would agree with anyway in the U.S., whatever their position is on gun laws and all that?

I worked as a teacher for a short while (in Ireland which is different than the U.S. in terms of guns though we do have our problems too, like anywhere), and I couldn't imagine that most, if any, teachers would want that kind of situation?

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:48 pm

#1. If a child would some how get a hold of the gun, it could have undesired effects.

#2. There are better ways to secure a school than arming the teachers. Guns should be the LAST resort; not the first one.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:52 pm

Peg wrote: #1. If a child would some how get a hold of the gun, it could have undesired effects.

#2. There are better ways to secure a school than arming the teachers. Guns should be the LAST resort; not the first one.

Too true!

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:56 pm

I agree Peg!

*ghads, look at your siggie Peg! I'm looking over my shoulder for "Here's Johnny!"*

:eek:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:24 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: When the opposition is armed then you arm yourself.

Where the British police have advertised the fact that officers are armed the number of incidents where criminals have carried arms has increased.

This is why the majority of the British Police are against any proposal for them to be armed on a regular basis - special units only.

Oh....yeah with it being said that way, I can see how criminals would want to carry a gun so as to protect themselves from the police while in the act of being criminalistic, sure.

Although, I think that these school shootings are a little different than that. I don't believe these people actually carry them around, instead seek to get a gun as a result of something that has made them "fall over the deep end". I think in this case anyone carrying a gun around school premises would deter these kids(and Crazed adults)from seeking to get a gun or happen to grab a gun that they normally wouldn't when not being strapped with one at all times. Unless of course they're suicidal....then I'm afraid there just isn't anything anyone can do, aside from emphasizing the need to prevent such occurrences from a psychiatric standpoint.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:58 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: When the opposition is armed then you arm yourself.

Where the British police have advertised the fact that officers are armed the number of incidents where criminals have carried arms has increased.

This is why the majority of the British Police are against any proposal for them to be armed on a regular basis - special units only.:yh_rotfl I love it! It's the cops' fault that criminals are dangerous! :yh_rotfl

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:01 pm

Whew! Thanks I needed that laugh.

The kids need to be taught how to act in such situations. We constantly teach them compliance. In cases such as this, the best thing to do would be attack - with vengeance.

There are some who teach kids (and women) to fight back against strangers/attackers. It's very effective.

I don't imagine the gunman would have hurt many people if 30 kids gang-tackled him and started biting, scratching, and kicking him.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:28 pm

If you are going to arm the teachers - why not arm the students too. I mean - in most cases of school shootings - the shooter has shown up at the building armed with rifles of some sort. If all the kids were packing concealed weapons then they could get the drop on the attacker.

Forget the NRA - the only use for an automatic weapon is to kill PEOPLE. You don't need an Uzi to defend your home from a burglar or to kill a deer for dinner. Yeah, yeah I know. Guns don't kill people, people do. But it sure seems like an awful lot of them are killing children lately.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:41 pm

Accountable wrote: Whew! Thanks I needed that laugh.

The kids need to be taught how to act in such situations. We constantly teach them compliance. In cases such as this, the best thing to do would be attack - with vengeance.

There are some who teach kids (and women) to fight back against strangers/attackers. It's very effective.

I don't imagine the gunman would have hurt many people if 30 kids gang-tackled him and started biting, scratching, and kicking him.

Yeah but think realistically....

Anytime anyone sees someone with a gun your last thought is to escalate the situation knowing doing so will provoke the very thing you're afraid of, which is bodily harm, let alone dieing. A lot of the time people think if they remain passive then the person waving the gun will simply go away. No one knows what these people are going to do, and the last thing you want is to create chaos against an assailant who has no desire to use that weapon, only for them to use it out of sheer paranoia.

And if the person has already let loose, then you have two options, run like hell(ever seen those cafeterias that are so wide open you can play a football game in them?), or second if you know you cant get away, If your going to go down go down fighting - way I look at it....you have any idea how fast and unhesitant you would have to be to pull that off? GOOD LUCK either way.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:43 pm

LilacDragon wrote:

Forget the NRA - the only use for an automatic weapon is to kill PEOPLE. You don't need an Uzi to defend your home from a burglar or to kill a deer for dinner. Yeah, yeah I know. Guns don't kill people, people do. But it sure seems like an awful lot of them are killing children lately.

I would want an Uzi if I were staring a 13' Grizzly in the face. In fact I would want an AK-47 or an M16. Then again, I would love to have one just to shoot.

http://killsometime.com/Video/video.asp?ID=429

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:54 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Yeah but think realistically....

Anytime anyone sees someone with a gun your last thought is to escalate the situation knowing doing so will provoke the very thing you're afraid of, which is bodily harm, let alone dieing. A lot of the time people think if they remain passive then the person waving the gun will simply go away. No one knows what these people are going to do, and the last thing you want is to create chaos against an assailant who has no desire to use that weapon, only for them to use it out of sheer paranoia.

And if the person has already let loose, then you have two options, run like hell(ever seen those cafeteria that are so wide open you can play a football game in them?), or second if you know you cant get away, If your going to go down go down fighting - way I look at it....you have any idea how fast and unhesitant you would have to be to pull that off? GOOD LUCK either way.It's easier than you might think. You teach the kids "when this happens, this is what you do." Then practice, practice, practice. If I see a person inside a burning building or car, the first thing I do is go toward the danger to try and save the person. It's part of my training. If I sat and thought on it a second, I'd surely see the idiocy of such an act, but I don't think - I react per my training.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:05 pm

Accountable wrote: It's easier than you might think. You teach the kids "when this happens, this is what you do." Then practice, practice, practice. If I see a person inside a burning building or car, the first thing I do is go toward the danger to try and save the person. It's part of my training. If I sat and thought on it a second, I'd surely see the idiocy of such an act, but I don't think - I react per my training.

Don't you think that's a little neurotic though?

"Next lesson children, how to take down a crazed gunmen fast and effectively". "It could very well be the person sitting next to you, so you have to be sharp and efficient"(Children still eyeing each other from paranoia)

This thing has been escalating since the Columbine incident, but hardly as frequent enough to call for something that drastic.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:28 pm

Accountable wrote: :yh_rotfl I love it! It's the cops' fault that criminals are dangerous! :yh_rotfl

If the criminals know that they will be facing police with guns then they will carry guns.

If the know that being caught with a gun will make their sentence 3 or 4 times worse then they will think twice.

Why do you think that the UK police are not armed and how do you think they survive?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:35 am

There is something badly wrong in America if you even have to contemplate this. You're supposed to be a civilised nation and people yet you seriously think it's normal for everybody to need guns to protect themselves in everyday life from their fellow citizens. It's truly bizarre. You must all live in fear of each other. To arm Primary teachers in case somebody slaughters the kids and think that an acceptable solution is really really sick.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:00 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: If the know that being caught with a gun will make their sentence 3 or 4 times worse then they will think twice.

AOL. The sentencing isn't currently tough enough IMO.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:04 am

Accountable wrote: The kids need to be taught how to act in such situations. We constantly teach them compliance. In cases such as this, the best thing to do would be attack - with vengeance.

There are some who teach kids (and women) to fight back against strangers/attackers. It's very effective.

Just what both LD and I said - arm the entire school population, children

and teachers. Train them to use their school-issue guns properly, and they

could fight back against strangers/attackers. I'm sure it would be, as you

say, very effective.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:53 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: If the criminals know that they will be facing police with guns then they will carry guns.Of course, because we all know that criminals only carry guns to protect themselves from the police. :yh_eyebro

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:54 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Just what both LD and I said - arm the entire school population, children

and teachers. Train them to use their school-issue guns properly, and they

could fight back against strangers/attackers. I'm sure it would be, as you

say, very effective.I really hope you're being sarcastic.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:57 am

K.Snyder wrote: Don't you think that's a little neurotic though?

"Next lesson children, how to take down a crazed gunmen fast and effectively". "It could very well be the person sitting next to you, so you have to be sharp and efficient"(Children still eyeing each other from paranoia)

This thing has been escalating since the Columbine incident, but hardly as frequent enough to call for something that drastic.I'll try to find the program. The one I'm thinking of not only teaches kids to be wary of strangers, it give them real things they can do to keep a pedophile from grabbing them and throwing them in a car. The same or similar program teaches women how to fight rapists.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:09 am

Here's what I was talking about. The first link is a program for women to defend against rape, the second is advice for kids' self defense. This same idea can be applied to an attacker entering the school (if I'm not mistaken, there was a news story about a man that trains exactly that). First, scatter. Run for the hills and get to a predesignated safe place. If you can't run, attack as a group.

I really think it's a practical idea.

http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370, ... 23,00.html

http://vtvt.essortment.com/unarmedselfdef_rlkr.htm

Here's a part of the second site

There are also a few maneuvers you can practice with your child. One is to come up behind them and grab them in a bear hug. After you have them in a good grip, lift them off the ground and begin to move.

At the first grab the child should begin yelling for all he or she is worth. As the yelling is going on, have them start running as hard as they can in the air while attempting to kick themselves in the rear. If an assailant is moving, he is unlikely to be protecting his groin. The flailing heels can be very painful if a good solid strike is made.

In this same position they can drop their head as far as possible and then attempt to hit the attacker in the face with the back of the head. Busted lips and bleeding noses are painful as well as psychologically daunting.

After these, try holding the child in other ways and have them look around. Can they use a different type of head butt? What about their teeth? Is there anyway of sinking them into the assailant and pulling off a piece of meat? The child would use the same type of biting/tearing motion as he or she would in biting into a crisp apple and removing a chunk with their teeth.

If they are cornered, is there some type of weapon they can use? The child may be too small to hit the assailant upside the head but a good whack to the knees; arch of the foot or toes can sometimes slow the “bad guy down.

One of the most important things a parent needs to make clear to the child is to run away and put as much distance as possible between them and their assailant if they become free.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:16 am

Sikes: issue children and teachers guns

Accountable wrote: I really hope you're being sarcastic.

Well, why not?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:34 pm

Accountable wrote: Here's what I was talking about. The first link is a program for women to defend against rape, the second is advice for kids' self defense. This same idea can be applied to an attacker entering the school (if I'm not mistaken, there was a news story about a man that trains exactly that). First, scatter. Run for the hills and get to a predesignated safe place. If you can't run, attack as a group.

I really think it's a practical idea.

http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370, ... 23,00.html

http://vtvt.essortment.com/unarmedselfdef_rlkr.htm

Here's a part of the second site

That would be like choking a dead horse. Showing aggression towards someone with a gun is only going to make things worse. Besides, it would be much cheaper just to install metal detectors in the entrances to every school than to impose such a program, not to mention their learning time being cut short to have to strenuously practice self defense when faced against a confused kid with the intent to flat murder in cold blood. (My opinion of course)

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:41 pm

Our doors are locked also. If I take my walk, I have to buzz in.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:37 pm

chonsigirl wrote: Our doors are locked also. If I take my walk, I have to buzz in.

You're buzzn'? :sneaky:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:38 pm

K.Snyder wrote: That would be like choking a dead horse.

K.Snyder wrote: Showing aggression towards someone with a gun is only going to make things worse.You missed the first step: scatter. The "agression" as you call it is if you can't get away. I think fighting back is preferable to standing petrified and being executed ... or worse.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:52 pm

Accountable wrote:

You missed the first step: scatter. The "agression" as you call it is if you can't get away. I think fighting back is preferable to standing petrified and being executed ... or worse.

Well yeah....that would fall under the category of "Dad don't let your babies grow up to be pansies"...That all should be human instinct....although I'm sure there are some grown men out there that would waddle away in a corner peeing himself and sucking on his thumb. Of course that would be reasonable, but I myself would think it would be much more easier and more efficient to just install metal detectors in every school -- but you know what that means. More taxes on school districts in each state(Cheaper than a self defense program, I'm sure), to go along with paranoid parents and more homeschooling just from the very idea.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:11 pm

I don't know what the answer is to protecting our children at school, but arming the teachers isn't it.

Yes our schools are perfect target why do you think they choose them. We need to lock down the schools from the outside in period. If necessary camera's in and out of the building and sceurity centers on CAMPUS.

You don't have to scare the kids half to death in doing this, it just has to be done and now is good

As and example I work in a United Jewish Federation building here in San Diego we rent office space from them very nice.

When the War between Israeli with Hezblaha (SP) and the shooting in a UHF building in LA happened we were orders to not enter the building until it was totally secured. We now enter and exit through one door every day 7 days a week. A gun carrying guard is on duty 24/7 and it doesn't matter if your an employee or not you go through security each and every time you go in and out of the builiding. Just the way it is and I feel very safe.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:52 pm

Diuretic wrote: They carry them even though most police in Britain (not NI) don't carry firearms. I don't think that Yardies, for example, carry guns to protect themselves from the police but rather their criminal competitors (the Yardies I mean, not the police). This of course doesn't stop armed criminals from shooting unarmed police officers.

Exactly the same point as was made previously about the New York Police - as the world became less localised and external elements moved in the NYPD had to react to armed elements moving in form outside.

In the same way armed elements are not moving into the UK bringing a gun culture wiuth them - the Yardies, the Triads the Russian Maffia etc. Prior to this the use of guns by criminals we fairly rare in this country.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:19 pm

Diuretic wrote: Out of touch police management still believing that policing in Britain can be done by PC Dixon with a kindly smile and a wink, politicians who won't face up to the fact that sending police officers out to work without a handgun to defend themselves is blatantly stupid policy.

That's not representative of how the police feel.

80% are against arming every police officer, although many want more armed officers.

I think that the public relations gains are good enough to justify not routinely arming police officers, and it is difficult to establish whether an armed police force is safer. One must suspect that at least it's not safer for the public, and that, perhaps, is counter to the whole basis of having a police force.

... but I digress ...

There is no way that teachers should be armed.

It has been shown that having a gun in the home increases the chance of being murdered in the home by nearly three times (due solely to an increase of nearly six times in the change of being murdered in the home with a gun.)

One would imagine that guns in schools would provide similar protection.

And anyone who is not sickened by being trained in how to shoot people should not be teaching children.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:23 pm

Bored_Wombat wrote: That's not representative of how the police feel.

80% are against arming every police officer, although many want more armed officers.

I think that the public relations gains are good enough to justify not routinely arming police officers, and it is difficult to establish whether an armed police force is safer. One must suspect that at least it's not safer for the public, and that, perhaps, is counter to the whole basis of having a police force.

... but I digress ...

There is no way that teachers should be armed.

It has been shown that having a gun in the home increases the chance of being murdered in the home by nearly three times (due solely to an increase of nearly six times in the change of being murdered in the home with a gun.)

One would imagine that guns in schools would provide similar protection.

And anyone who is not sickened by being trained in how to shoot people should not be teaching children.

Thank you.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:56 pm

Bored_Wombat wrote: And anyone who is not sickened by being trained in how to shoot people should not be teaching children.wrong