# Parkland shooting videos released



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Nikolas-Cruz-stalking-halls-school-AR-15.html


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

That video is truly horrific. 

This quote from the article is terrifying as well. 

"The Sun-Sentinel report describes the aftermath of the shooting as '58 minutes of chaos on campus marked by no one taking charge, deputies dawdling, false information spreading, communications paralyzed and children stranded with nowhere to hide.'"


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

You may find the movie "We Need to Talk About Kevin" somewhat enlightening. Even though it's a work of fiction, it's well worth watching.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Its sad they will protect banks with money and senators, but do nothing to protect children...…….sad world with skewed priorities of what to protect and what to leave unguarded......it is not like we do not know how to guard/secure or protect a area,....hundreds of public places are secured. There is more security at the average mall than a school....I guess there is no money in protecting kids.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

No there just isnt a need.
Kids are very safe at school.
How many kids do you know that were shot at school?
How many people do you know hurt in a car?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> No there just isnt a need.
> Kids are very safe at school.
> How many kids do you know that were shot at school?
> How many people do you know hurt in a car?



How many people do you know that were shot at a bank or in a courthouse ?

I am sure the parents with dead kids would offer a different opinion...….we protect things that are valuable...…..even if the chances are slim.

I had all manner of hunting rifles in a closet for 45 years and nothing ever happened to them, I now have them protected in a safe....protection is prevention, why....because I care about them.

I have never been in a car wreck, but I have insurance, my house has never burnt down, but I have home insurance.


You are correct that the kids are very safe based on stats, far more likely to be hurt in a bus accident or on the playground, however people feel the need to "DO" something......and its pretty clear how it is done when we want to secure and protect other locations.


The last time people felt a need to do, resulted in duck and cover, which in my opinion did more harm than good as it effected the mental state of a lot of people.....people still to this day remember it if they had to do it and chances are at best it would have cut down on lacerations if it was effective at all.

Rather than traumatize the kids, I know I would have felt pretty secure with some form of guards and security.....since most people/kids are used to seeing guards and security every where....it is not out of the norm,...banks, court houses,malls, parking lots all have security, police are the greater uniformed presence of security...….having security at school would be no different.


We could have the kids run drills like duck and cover or tornado drills, which in my opinion would do more to scare them, than keep them safe....drills that involve running and hiding are just reminders, not solutions. Security is a solution or the best prevention we can muster.....that stays within the norms and does not provoke more fear, that's why it is called security....it makes us feel secure, wheather a illusion or not.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It would cost more lives to protect schools than it would save. 
The net result would be more lives wasted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

It's a shame there were no willing, armed personnel there who could have stopped him sooner.

A teacher with a firearm on that stairwell would have had a clear shot at an unsuspecting target at close range, while being in no immediate danger themselves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> "The Sun-Sentinel report describes the aftermath of the shooting as '58 minutes of chaos on campus marked by no one taking charge, deputies dawdling, false information spreading, communications paralyzed and children stranded with nowhere to hide.'"


That's why people need to realize only they can protect themselves...
but they must be allowed the means to do so.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> How many people do you know that were shot at a bank or in a courthouse ?
> 
> I am sure the parents with dead kids would offer a different opinion...….we protect things that are valuable...…..even if the chances are slim.
> 
> ...


My grand kids (ages 7 and 5) already have shelter in place drills at school. It made me cry when they described the first one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> My grand kids (ages 7 and 5) already have *shelter in place* drills at school.


They had those in Newtown too.

They found piles of bodies where they "sheltered in place" along with the teachers who had no way of stopping the shooter.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> It would cost more lives to protect schools than it would save.


Explain how it will "cost lives" to provide more armed security?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> My grand kids (ages 7 and 5) already have shelter in place drills at school. It made me cry when they described the first one.





Bearfootfarm said:


> They had those in Newtown too.
> 
> They found piles of bodies where they "sheltered in place" along with the teachers who had no way of stopping the shooter.


She’s talking about her grandkids, man. That comment was horrifically mean and isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. No debate is worth losing one’s humanity.

Pixie, for what it’s worth, at that age, I found fire-drills and tornado-drills, at home and at school, terrifying. And, if you think about it, it’s no different. Random bad things can happen anywhere, and preparedness drills, no matter what they’re for, are a necessity.

Long before schools started added shelter-in-place to list of drills, murders happened in schools, so it’s not like your grandkids are in any new sort of danger, they’re just being taught preps that you and I didn’t get.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> She’s talking about her grandkids, man. That comment was horrifically mean and isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. No debate is worth losing one’s humanity.


I realize who she's talking about.
It was in the post.

I also realize it was mainly for emotional effect.
I care more about solutions that work to stop the shooters than angst over having to face reality.

I always thought fire drills were fun because we got out of classes.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> She’s talking about her grandkids, man. That comment was horrifically mean and isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. No debate is worth losing one’s humanity.
> 
> Pixie, for what it’s worth, at that age, I found fire-drills and tornado-drills, at home and at school, terrifying. And, if you think about it, it’s no different. Random bad things can happen anywhere, and preparedness drills, no matter what they’re for, are a necessity.
> 
> Long before schools started added shelter-in-place to list of drills, murders happened in schools, so it’s not like your grandkids are in any new sort of danger, they’re just being taught preps that you and I didn’t get.


Thank you. I appreciate your comment.

It is different than weather or fire related drills tho, it's a human being that would be doing the killing, and they know it. And I'm glad they're being taught, the better prepared they are the happier I am.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I wish a qualified teacher would have been armed. The number killed could have been a lot smaller


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I realize who she's talking about.
> It was in the post.
> 
> I also realize it was mainly for emotional effect.
> ...


Isn’t that what emotional responses should be reserved for, though- when one of these issues actually touches your life?

Pointing out that the children in your life told you about what’s come into their lives, due to these events, is exactly when emotional response should kick in, and is appropriate. 

I happen to agree with you (I think) that have armed responders as close as possible is the best defense, but telling someone that the preps that their little-ones are learning resulted in “piles of bodies” in another scenario is just crass and shameful.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you. I appreciate your comment.
> 
> It is different than weather or fire related drills tho, it's a human being that would be doing the killing, and they know it. And I'm glad they're being taught, the better prepared they are the happier I am.


I suppose I can see that they’re not exactly the same- but I don’t see how the human element changes anything.

The deadliest school massacre in the US was a bombing, in 1927. There’s not a lot you can do to prepare for a bombing, and they didn’t add anything to our drills to address it when I was in school.

The Columbine massacre happened when I was in school. It was planned as a bombing as well- the guns were just an afterthought that the psychopaths included to harass the first-responders.

The point is, I guess, that bad things are often random, and can’t be avoided. The best we can hope for is a fast, proper response. In the case of mass-shootings in school, drilling the kids on how to take shelter is a necessary evil. I never had a shelter-in-place drill as a little one, but I can’t imagine it being any more or less scary than a get-to-the-bathrooms-as-quick-as-you-can-in-the-dark-drill.

Likewise, having armed response as close as possible gives those kids their best chance at being defended once the random act has occurred.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Isn’t that what emotional responses should be reserved for, though- when one of these issues actually touches your life?


No. 
I think it was only mentioned here for the anti-gun implications. 
(But she's "not anti-gun")

The proper "emotional response" would be anger that all they are doing is teaching them how to cower in place, while doing little else that will actually help solve the problem.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> telling someone that the preps that their little-ones are learning resulted in “piles of bodies” in another scenario is just crass and shameful.


Reality isn't always unicorns and rainbows.
If we're going to discuss "school shootings" we should stick to the facts.

How many lives will be saved by needless crying over useless drills?


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

I've never been in a bank where there is security other than cameras...
Nor even in a mall...there may be one security person walking around a large mall, but nothing at entrances, or even how to reach a security person if the need arose. I think that maybe it might be different in larger cities...I'm about 25 miles to the nearest city.
I think BFF example was really a statement saying that the shelter in place solution didn't work and therefore, an armed teacher could have prevented a lot. Sorry if the snowflakes found his statement traumatic...just reality, in my opinion...some people find that hard to accept.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I suppose I can see that they’re not exactly the same- but I don’t see how the human element changes anything.
> 
> The deadliest school massacre in the US was a bombing, in 1927. There’s not a lot you can do to prepare for a bombing, and they didn’t add anything to our drills to address it when I was in school.
> 
> ...


I understand what you're saying, and I agree, but the human element puts a face on the danger in way that weather and fire drills never could. It's innocence lost way too early, they both still believe in Santa Claus.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> It would cost more lives to protect schools than it would save.
> The net result would be more lives wasted.



But people have a need to always "Do" something, even if history has shown we usually create new or worse problems.


So if they need to "Do" something, might as well be something that works.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No.
> I think it was only mentioned here for the anti-gun implications.
> (But she's "not anti-gun")


Your “I think” doesn’t always serve you so well. You shouldn’t depend on it. 

Maybe her comment was entirely a veiled anti-gun heartstring-tug. Maybe it was just her being a human. I don’t expect you’ll ever know. 


Growing up in the Midwest, tornado drills were a regular occurrence. They’d turn off all the lights in the school (and cover the hallway windows, if it was a sunny day, to simulate a storm overcast), and rush us to the bathrooms. I was terrified of the drills, and it accentuated my fear of tornados as a little one. 

I have a niece who had a really hard time with storms and the drills. It was heartbreaking trying to talk her through it. 

Maybe Pixie was taking a veiled shot at gun rights, or maybe she was just expressing how much it sucks to see a child distressed by something they experienced- and knowing they’re going to have to experience again. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> ...The proper "emotional response" would be anger that all they are doing is teaching them how to cower in place, while doing little else that will actually help solve the problem.
> 
> 
> Reality isn't always unicorns and rainbows.
> ...



Shelter-in-place actually is the right response in a lot of these cases- and almost always the right one for the kids. If you watch the Parkland massacre timeline video, there was a classroom of students on the third floor that sheltered-in-place, as they were taught- without a teacher in sight. 

Of all the classrooms in that building, it was the one with the most students in it, and the killer never got at them. They all survived. 

That said, the timeline also shows, without a doubt, where additional kids and adults died, in the hallways, because no one was able to confront the killer with deadly force. 

The solution, if there is such a thing, is multi-faceted, and teaching kids how to take shelter during an attack is part of it. Having armed, trained teachers is another part of it. Both are necessary. 

Marginalizing teaching kids to take shelter when there is shooting going on around them is just narrow-sighted, and doesn’t help the cause of getting armed-response included in the solution one bit.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

anniew said:


> I've never been in a bank where there is security other than cameras...
> Nor even in a mall...there may be one security person walking around a large mall, but nothing at entrances, or even how to reach a security person if the need arose. I think that maybe it might be different in larger cities...I'm about 25 miles to the nearest city.
> I think BFF example was really a statement saying that the shelter in place solution didn't work and therefore, an armed teacher could have prevented a lot. Sorry if the snowflakes found his statement traumatic...just reality, in my opinion...some people find that hard to accept.


I’ve been in plenty of banks, malls, and even hotels that armed security was in-place. I’m not sure I get your point. 

Shelter-in-place, ALONE, is only half a solution, and not a particularly good half, but it is part of a comprehensive response. If teachers are going to be armed and trained, then, in the event they engage the attacker, the kids need to be drilled on how to get out of the way and take cover without the teacher having to hold them down.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Maybe her comment was entirely a veiled anti-gun heartstring-tug. *Maybe it was just her being a human.* I don’t expect you’ll ever know.


Or maybe not. You will never know either.
I just know it won't *help* the problem, and you know that too.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Growing up in the Midwest, tornado drills were a regular occurrence.


We have them too.
We had "atom bomb" drills too.
This thread is about a school shooting, and solutions to that problem.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Of all the classrooms in that building, it was the one with the most students in it, and *the killer never got at them*. *They all survived*.


Yes, people survived *everywhere* the shooter *didn't* go.
They died everywhere he went where he met no resistance.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> *Marginalizing* teaching kids to take shelter when there is shooting going on around them is just narrow-sighted, and doesn’t help the cause of getting armed-response included in the solution one bit.


Teach it as much as you like.
Just admit it does nothing to stop any killings, and can often make it worse by putting lots of targets in one small area.

"Shelter in place" really means "Hide and hope you get lucky".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

@GunMonkeyIntl 

"Keep the pressure on."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
I'll share the other 11 rules if you want them


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> @GunMonkeyIntl
> 
> "Keep the pressure on."
> "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
> I'll share the other 11 rules if you want them


I think I get what you’re saying, but I’m more for the non-agenda driven, holistic approach. Shelter-in-place, together with armed, trained teachers ready to respond quickly is the best we’re ever going to get for protecting students from would-be mass-murderers. 

Let them follow Alinsky, if they like. I’d prefer taking the high-road.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> ...Yes, people survived *everywhere* the shooter *didn't* go.
> They died everywhere he went where he met no resistance.
> 
> 
> ...


You’re looking at it one-tracked, and dismissing, out of hand, everything that doesn’t perfectly match what you think is THE solution. That makes you no better than the intellectually-dishonest people who say that THE solution is gun control. 

There’s a thread over in PRD&C where I put forth some very compelling (to anyone actually willing to listen) argument as to why teachers should be able to train and arm, so suggesting that I’m only for one specific type of preparedness is dishonest. 

Looking at this problem as if it had only one facet, and only one appropriate response is a recipe for failure. I happen to believe that the most effective _single_ action we can take is to get armed, trained teachers in and as close to the targeted victims as possible. 

But, even if we accomplish that, we’ll need to have the students trained in how to get out of the way and take cover. AND, for added effectiveness, look into the things we can do to prevent people from going “off the ledge” in the first place. 

This is too serious, in my opinion, to take a “your team-your playbook vs. their team-their playbook” approach. Saying that you’re for arming/training teachers, but, somehow against teaching the students what to do, is just short-sighted and counter-productive. 

You say that SIP doesn’t do anything to prevent killing, but the Parkland timeline showed that it can help. The killer tried to get in that room and couldn’t. Had the children broke with their training and rushed out into the hallway, the results likely would have been tragically different. Had the killer been determined to get into that specific room, he could have, and there would have been no one there to protect them. 

Likewise, again, the fact that there was not an armed adult present resulted in the killer being able to go on and kill more people, because none of the adults he encountered were prepared to engage him. 

The last thing this debate needs is another us-or-them agenda to fuel it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’re looking at it one-tracked, and dismissing, out of hand, everything that doesn’t perfectly match what you think is THE solution.


No, you're just not paying attention to what I'm saying.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> There’s a thread over in PRD&C where I put forth some very compelling (to anyone actually willing to listen) argument as to why teachers should be able to train and arm, so *suggesting that I’m only for one specific type of preparedness* is dishonest.


I made no suggestions about what you are "for" at all.
Again, you don't read what I say.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You say that SIP doesn’t do anything to *prevent* killing


It doesn't, and I said "*stop*" not "prevent", which reiterates what I said about you not paying attention. 

Hiding doesn't stop the shooter.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> *The last thing this debate needs* *is another us-or-them agenda* to fuel it.


Then stop making it one and just stick to real facts about the shootings.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I think I get what you’re saying, but I’m more for the non-agenda driven, holistic approach. Shelter-in-place, together with armed, trained teachers ready to respond quickly is the best we’re ever going to get for protecting students from would-be mass-murderers.
> 
> Let them follow Alinsky, if they like. I’d prefer taking the high-road.



I agree with most of what you say...…

But training up teachers for combat is not one of them, some of them could be trained for years and still fail. It certainly should be available to those who want to and can as taking cover and blasting the bad guy is not hard or technical, but will never be what real trained security can do in most cases.

Sending a armed teacher from one class, leaving the entire class unprotected on a search and destroy mission is just not a feasible solution. When there is a active shooter, there needs to be active engagement and hunting them down to end the situation as fast as possible.

Security is what they need, most schools have some form of security, so a minimal budget is already in place, so replace paul blart with a real trained person, it is not that hard to take security who is already licensed to carry a gun and has passed basic training, to tack on some additional training for a school scenario. Not a lot changes with scenarios, stop bad guys, do not shoot innocents, pretty standard stuff....usually what changes is protocols…..when to engage, when not to engage and who sends the green light to take them out or if they get to make the call real time in the field, all basic trainings stay in place.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

shawnlee said:


> I agree with most of what you say...…
> 
> But training up teachers for combat is not one of them, some of them could be trained for years and still fail. It certainly should be available to those who want to and can as taking cover and blasting the bad guy is not hard or technical, but will never be what real trained security can do in most cases.
> 
> ...


A distinction needs to be made about what “arming and training teachers” really means.

There are at least as many who are against the concept as BearFoot is against the idea of teaching kids to take cover, and they’re equally as willing to shroud the concept in strawmen and red-herrings. 

Arming and training doesn’t have to mean forcing teachers to train for combat. The first thing to understand is that the armed-teachers piece of the puzzle is entirely voluntary- it has to be. Some schools may have no teachers who opt to do it. That will be detrimental to the overall security of those schools, but is a necessary acceptance. 

Second, a level of training comes with that. Something as simple as putting the teachers who opt in through an annual 2-3-4 week course would actually give those teachers a higher level of firearms training than the cops they’ll be waiting on to respond. A lot of people seem to think that cops are highly trained, firearms experts, but that’s not the case. The training to be a cop is extensive, but the firearms training is only a very, very small part of it. 

The average cop undergoes an annual re-qualification of less than a box or two of rounds, once or twice per year. Opt-in teachers going through a 2-4 week re-cert, during their summers off, would actually have more intensive firearms training than police officers. 

Third; specialized security is no more a guarantee than the cops you’d be waiting on. At Parkland, the school had an armed officer on duty. He identified the building where the shooting was happening, and hung outside the door like a coward, until long after the shooter got bored and left. 

On the other hand, three teachers did enter the building, none of which were authorized to carry a gun. All three encountered the shooter, in the open where they could have fought back with no risk of hitting another student. All three died, and additional students were killed after they were murdered. 


Watch the timeline of the Parkland massacre. It’s absolutley clear that the most effective response is going to require both training the students how to take cover, and allowing teachers who wish to to train and arm to mount a defense.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Ever wonder why very few of these mass shootings take place at your local police station? Or donut shop? Could it be there are a bunch of folks there who are armed to the teeth and trained to take people out of the game in a heartbeat?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

shawnlee said:


> But training up teachers for combat is not one of them


No one has ever suggested any such thing.



shawnlee said:


> Sending a armed teacher from one class, leaving the entire class unprotected on a search and destroy mission is just not a feasible solution.


That's the only thing that stops them.
The class isn't "protected" by hiding with an unarmed teacher, but that's been the only plan in most places so far. (Unless you count handing out hockey pucks)



shawnlee said:


> Security is what they need


*Armed* security is what they need.
The more the better.
Cops get about 2 weeks of actual firearms training before they get a badge and a gun.
Most people can learn the basics in a week.

They don't have to be precision target shooters or snipers to stop a maniac.
They just need to have the right tool and the willingness to act.

Average people do it every day.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> There are at least as many who are against the concept as BearFoot is *against the idea of teaching kids to take cover*, and they’re equally as willing to shroud the concept in strawmen and red-herrings.


There you go again, confusing what I *said* with what you think I said.
I don't care what you "teach" them.

Just don't fool yourself into thinking it does anything to stop an active shooter.
It's simple English anyone should be able to understand.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Here's something for all the hypothetical problem solvers to think about.
Cruz pulled a fire alarm, on purpose, and we know why.

So in a scenario of either a lockdown or armed teachers on the offensive, how does that complicate or interfere with the response and the intended results?

Do you untrain the kids to stay put when a fire alarm goes off?
If you don't, how effective can you be in shooting the attacker?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Do you untrain the kids to stay put *when a fire alarm goes off*?


The teachers here say they "follow school policy" so that would mean they march all the students out in an orderly fashion.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The teachers here say they "follow school policy" so that would mean they march all the students out in an orderly fashion.


That *used* to be true, but is that the policy everywhere now?

national school policy fire alarms/active shooter


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> Here's something for all the hypothetical problem solvers to think about.
> Cruz pulled a fire alarm, on purpose, and we know why.
> 
> So in a scenario of either a lockdown or armed teachers on the offensive, how does that complicate or interfere with the response and the intended results?


Well, security at the doors would be a helpful step. You can pull all the fire alarms you want at the courthouse but you won't likely be carrying a weapon when you do it.

To this day, and my kids have all graduated, I can pull into my local high school parking lot, push the buzzer button, wait for the staff to remotely unlock it from the office, and I am in without any id. I can be carrying and no one would know. I could have "my son's backpack" full of explosives and no one or device would be present to detect it.
Can I enter a federal building like that? No,
Can I enter my local county courthouse like that? No.
Is the judge more important than my grandson? No.
If the local health inspector's office more important than a classroom? No.

The mindset with the idea of any armed school security on a state or nationwide scale seems to be that unless it can be proven 100% safe and 100% effective, nothing like it will be done. Not incrementally, nothing.

Suppose all congressional buildings, the white house, the court houses, the FBI, etc, eliminated their metal detectors, K9 dogs, search procedures and all security at the doors. Anyone could walk into the buildings armed or strapped with bombs, yet there would be armed security somewhere in the building. Do you believe that would suffice?

Ignoring the obvious in search of the impossible.

Reminds me of an old joke about a guy walking along a city street late one night and comes up on his buddy crawling around on his hands and knees under a light pole.
"What are you doing Joe?"
"I lost my watch somewhere over by the fire hydrant and I'm trying to find it."
"The fire hydrant is down the block."
"I know but the light is better here."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The first thing to understand is that the armed-teachers piece of the puzzle is entirely voluntary- it has to be.


Why ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I’ve never understood the shelter in place logic. 
Seems like a “run like heck at the sound of the bell” would be a better choice.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> Suppose all congressional buildings, the white house, the court houses, the FBI, etc, eliminated their metal detectors, K9 dogs, search procedures and all security at the doors. Anyone could walk into the buildings armed or strapped with bombs, yet there would be armed security somewhere in the building. Do you believe that would suffice?"



I think it’s far to much. In fact I think it’s in defiance of the principles of the constitution.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> @GunMonkeyIntl
> 
> "Keep the pressure on."
> "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
> I'll share the other 11 rules if you want them


This post is completely and utterly ridiculous, to the point of absurdity. 

The Rules for Radicals? Me? bwahahahaha 

I'm a grandma worried about her grand kids.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> This post is completely and utterly ridiculous, to the point of absurdity.
> 
> The Rules for Radicals? Me? bwahahahaha
> 
> I'm a grandma worried about her grand kids.


That would be rule:

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Maybe her comment was entirely a veiled anti-gun heartstring-tug. *Maybe it was just her being a human.* I don’t expect you’ll ever know.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Or maybe not. You will never know either.
> I just know it won't *help* the problem, and you know that too.


First, some clarification is in order. Irish Pixie is indeed a great human being. She deplores unnecessary suffering and is willing to do what she can to contribute constructively toward preventing it, be it voting or acting directly. Suggesting that her concerns are merely part of a larger political agenda would be a mischaracterization.

Second, human and emotional responses do in fact help. Without them, why would this make a difference to anyone? It would be no different than a car running off the road and destroying a couple dozen corn plants.

Third, in case I understood that second statement and it refers to shelter in place rather than emotional responses, teaching the kids not to jump up and be easier targets is a constructive element, especially with a locked door. It is certainly not a definite solution, but it does add a layer of difficulty, an inclination to take the path of least effort and resistance, and contributes to fluttering away the attacker's time. Please bear in mind that the passage of time is the ally of the children, not the attacker unless of course they are depending on people who make Barney Fife look like Robocop--but the efficiency of law enforcement is another topic. This takes us back to the issue of armed school staff. At a time like this, one custodian with the fortitude to run toward danger rather than away from it could carry the day.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Explain how it will "cost lives" to provide more armed security?


I'd like to see the math on that one too.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> My grand kids (ages 7 and 5) already have shelter in place drills at school. It made me cry when they described the first one.


It's a sad world we live in, I have grandchildren, 7 and 4 doing the same thing.
I hope and pray that someday, the politicians will stop using tragedy to push their agenda and start to work on real solutions.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

GTX63 said:


> Well, security at the doors would be a helpful step. You can pull all the fire alarms you want at the courthouse but you won't likely be carrying a weapon when you do it.
> 
> To this day, and my kids have all graduated, I can pull into my local high school parking lot, push the buzzer button, wait for the staff to remotely unlock it from the office, and I am in without any id. I can be carrying and no one would know. I could have "my son's backpack" full of explosives and no one or device would be present to detect it.
> Can I enter a federal building like that? No,
> ...


Would you like to know 3 different ways to get around that security?
They have already been used before, but I guess people don't remember or pay attention.
Unless the plan is turn every school into a SuperMax prison, there are going to be easy ways to get by security.



> The mindset with the idea of any armed school security on a state or nationwide scale seems to be that unless it can be proven 100% safe and 100% effective, nothing like it will be done. Not incrementally, nothing.


Yep, that's why I encourage thought and debate. There IS no silver bullet, pun intended.
Passing a new law won't do it, CCW's for teachers won't do it, repealing the 2nd amendment won't do it and I sure as heck won't advocate sending 1st graders to prison instead of school.

Could various parts be used to increase safety?
Sure.
But I said this many times and posted the elephant in the room.

1 or 2 generations ago, we brought knives, guns and explosives to school that would get us 30 years of fed time today.
*But we didn't use any of that to kill anyone at school. Ever.*
What changed?
When everyone gets done advocating their individual "fool proof" plans, THEN maybe the root of the problem fan be the center of focus.
Maybe.
But I won't get my hopes up.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Folks can get into a court house armed as well, and do. No, no plan is fool proof.
The elephant in the room is being used for hanging pictures and shelves. No one pays it much mind so it's talked around.
Sort of like saying "Yeah we know Jesus saves and all, but we need a better plan for today."


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> Would you like to know 3 different ways to get around that security?
> They have already been used before, but I guess people don't remember or pay attention.
> Unless the plan is turn every school into a SuperMax prison, there are going to be easy ways to get by security.
> 
> ...


That last paragraph of yours pretty much hits the nail right on the head. We won’t seek real solutions because, as a society, we don’t want real solutions. Real solutions require everyone to step up and contribute something. That’s not how we roll.

The fact of the matter is that the only effective way to stop mass shootings regardless of location is to prevent them from happening in the first place. And the only effective way to do that is to stop people from developing the mindset to become a mass shooter. 

We have increasing numbers of children (people in general but I will focus on children here because we are discussing school shootings) who are filled with rage. Not merely angry but rage filled. Their go to response to that rage is violence. We feed that response when we show by our example (throwing and slamming things around when angry, saying things like “I could just slap that idiot”, etc.) that violence is an acceptable response to the most minor of slights. Many children do not have role models to show them the right way. We need more positive role models and mentors, especially men.

We also have increasing numbers of children who are mentally ill or being raised by someone who is mentally ill. We need more treatment options for these folks. We need more social workers in the schools. I work in a school with approximately 550 students. We have 1 social worker and, because of funding restrictions, 90% of her time needs to be devoted to the special education students. Some schools have zero. 

We also have increasing numbers of families who are isolated from the larger community. How many people don’t even know the names of their neighbors? More than you would think. Once upon a time, we looked out for each other. We knew our neighbors. We helped each other when someone in our neighborhood was suffering. It was not unknown, if you were doing something wrong, for one of the neighbors to give you an earful or a swat on the rear and then to be on the phone to your mother. Very often my mother knew all about whatever had happened before I even got in the house. When we needed clothes and my parents couldn’t afford them, a bag of hand-me-downs would miraculously appear on the porch. We have lost that sense of responsibility to our larger community.

However, these solutions require something from everyone so we, as a society, will do nothing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Irish Pixie is indeed a great human being


I've heard this speech before.
You opinion is biased.
It has nothing to do with stopping active shooters.



IndyDave said:


> Please bear in mind that the passage of *time is the ally of the children, not the attacker*


Reality has shown the sooner the shooter is confronted with armed resistance, the sooner the killing is stopped.
That's why police policies were changed after Columbine.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> That *used* to be true, but is that the policy everywhere now?
> 
> national school policy fire alarms/active shooter


The new policy assumes they know about the shooter when the fire alarm is heard.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> The fact of the matter is that the only effective way to stop mass shootings regardless of location is to prevent them from happening in the first place. And the only effective way to do that is to stop people from developing the mindset to become a mass shooter.


We've had this conversation before too.

Your method isn't working.
It's the same rhetoric we've heard for years while nothing has been accomplished.

You can't stop insanity by talking about it.

You even admitted it yourself:


SLFarmMI said:


> However, these solutions require something from everyone so *we, as a society*, *will do nothing*


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We've had this conversation before too.
> 
> Your method isn't working.
> It's the same rhetoric we've heard for years while nothing has been accomplished.
> ...


In your zeal to attempt to portray yourself as some kind of expert, you have completely missed the point. Constantly trying to push the agenda of “arm the teachers” or “ban the guns” is diverting attention from real solutions. It is the folks in those camps who are throwing up roadblocks to real solutions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> In your zeal to attempt to portray yourself as some kind of expert, you have completely missed *the point*.


There is *no point* in repeating all your rhetoric.
I've heard it all many times before.



SLFarmMI said:


> It is the folks in those camps who are throwing up roadblocks to real solutions.


There's only one "real solution" to an active shooter.
That's active resistance.
You want to ramble about "society" and Utopia.

I'm talking about a specific scenario and how to end it.

As a teacher you should be able to understand the difference, but it's clear you aren't really listening at all.

You're too caught up in the fantasy that you can change the world.

No one has stopped you from doing anything.

Nothing you've done has stopped a single shooter.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

SLFarmMI said:


> That last paragraph of yours pretty much hits the nail right on the head. We won’t seek real solutions because, as a society, we don’t want real solutions. Real solutions require everyone to step up and contribute something. That’s not how we roll.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the only effective way to stop mass shootings regardless of location is to prevent them from happening in the first place. And the only effective way to do that is to stop people from developing the mindset to become a mass shooter.
> 
> ...


I agree, the only thing I would add that I feel was left out, is reinstalling basic discipline.
When we "acted out" as kids, the part about or butts hurting afterward wasn't seen as an act of violence to duplicate, rather exactly the opposite.
Listening to modern psychology has taught NOT to discipline kids.
The result of that advice contradicts what we've been told would happen.




Bearfootfarm said:


> The new policy assumes they know about the shooter when the fire alarm is heard.


No.
The new policy is what some of us were taught about making assumptions.
If you bother to read any of it, the "new" policies teach to verify what's really going on INSTEAD of assuming.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've heard this speech before.
> You opinion is biased.
> It has nothing to do with stopping active shooters.
> 
> ...


First, yes, my opinion is biased. It is biased with the consideration of facts beyond a few political opinions which take into account that we are in fact discussing an entire human being, not a political issue on legs.

Second, yes it does have to do with stopping active shooters. The will to do so is critically important.

Third, you have taken a valid point and turned it into a disingenuous half-truth. While it is absolutely true that the danger is stoped with the neutralization of the active shooter, you have taken that and twisted it into the idea that nothing else should be attempted which may delay the attacker long enough to mitigate the damage until that armed response can be brought to bear. Such 'my solution only or no solution' thinking is counterproductive both to the political process of solving the problem and the process of confronting an active attacker.

In the end, the best solution I can see is much like that advocated by gunmonkey. Teach the kids to shelter in place behind a substantial locked door. Set the building up so that it can be locked down into zones from a central location. In other words, have as many passive and non-controversial methods as possible to delay the attacker as much as possible in order to minimize the carnage while armed staff or law enforcement are en route. I don't understand why you object to additional measures to hinder the attacker until a responsible person can put him down


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is *no point* in repeating all your rhetoric.
> I've heard it all many times before.
> 
> 
> ...



Repeating how to stop an "active shooter" is beating a dead horse.
Can you think about anything else?
Oh, I dunno, try giving a solution like, not having active shooters in schools like the way it was for centuries.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> First, yes, my opinion is biased. It is biased with the consideration of facts beyond a few political opinions which take into account that we are in fact discussing an entire human being, not a political issue on legs.
> 
> Second, yes it does have to do with stopping active shooters. The will to do so is critically important.
> 
> ...


Yep.
A closed mind is harder to open than closed door, ain't it?
Now if we could only patent that device, we'd be millionaires.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No.
> The new policy is what some of us were taught about making assumptions.
> If you bother to read any of it, the "new" policies teach to verify what's really going on INSTEAD of assuming.


I read enough to know the policy for a "fire alarm" hasn't changed.
There's a policy added for a "fire alarm during a lock down", which verifies what I said about them having to know about the shooter first.

While it's taking *years *to implement these "new policies" no one is doing anything that actually increases security

There's lots of *"talking"* about what should be done.



> The current editions of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1 The Fire Code, NFPA 101, Life Safety Code and the International Fire Code (IFC), are the 2018 editions. In many states and other jurisdictions, *it takes two, and in most cases three or even more years before that edition will be officially adopted.*
> 
> We strongly urge fire chiefs and staff to review the current code requirements for new and existing school buildings. This is the most up to date resource for you on dealing with drills, training, and fire alarm systems. It is our belief even if not adopted directly by a community, this is your best resource at this time for dealing with school safety and fire protection systems.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Repeating how to stop an "active shooter" is beating a dead horse.
> Can you think about anything else?
> Oh, I dunno, try giving a solution like, not having active shooters in schools like the way it was for centuries.


Unless you can come up with a time machine you aren't going back to the good old days.
I want to stay focused on the actual problem (stopping an active shooter) rather than rambling on about "solutions" that won't work.

It's like teaching people to always tell the truth.
You can teach and teach, but there will always be compulsive liars.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> But we didn't use any of that to kill anyone at school. Ever.
> *What changed?*


Demographics, and the entire world.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> you have taken that and twisted it into the idea that nothing else should be attempted


I've not said that at all.
I've said nothing else is working.
I don't care what is "taught".
You really aren't reading what I said, because this has been explained more than once.



IndyDave said:


> First, yes, my opinion is biased. It is biased with the consideration of facts beyond a few political opinions which take into account that *we are in fact discussing an entire human being,* not a political issue on legs.


I'm trying to discuss how to stop an active shooter.
Crying over school drills accomplishes nothing.

Crying is not a solution to anything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> *I don't understand* why you object to additional measures to hinder the attacker *until a responsible person can put him down*


You don't understand because you aren't listening.
You're too caught up in the emotional hype.

You want to *wait* for the *same* solution I say should already be there. 

One more time:
Teach the kids anything you like, but in the end, armed resistance is what it takes to *stop* the shooter.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

If we truly want to solve this problem without tackling the societal issues underlying the mind of an attacker, we are left with something like this:

Start with new construction. First, see that a person being admitted to the building is positively identified. It seems that the first problem has been pushing the button at a cursory glance. Of course, this wasn't such a problem back when we had actual communities and people knew each other, but that ship has already sailed. Build the buildings so that they can easily have corridors sealed from a remote location so the attacker is locked into a relatively small portion of the building. Make provisions for armed responders to access that area with a tactical advantage. Make the classroom doors resistant to attack with locks that are easily workable from the inside to allow an instant response without fumbling for keys or under the circumstances of the teacher being out of the room. At this point, we have the attacker isolated with few or no targets if those holding the locks are on top of their game. At this point, armed staff could engage the attacker, or even just stay behind locked doors as a threat to discourage the attacker who would not know which staff may be armed.

While I personally believe in arming willing staff members, there are effective layers that can be used either in addition to or without arming staff. At the end of the day, no system of security is impenetrable. Every layer of difficulty helps. The purpose should be making the children as safe as possible without turning schools into prisons. Much can be done without making the place look and feel like a prison. Most important, as addressed here:



SLFarmMI said:


> In your zeal to attempt to portray yourself as some kind of expert, you have completely missed the point. Constantly trying to push the agenda of “arm the teachers” or “ban the guns” is diverting attention from real solutions. It is the folks in those camps who are throwing up roadblocks to real solutions.


The first step is not allowing some among us to turn the children into political footballs.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't understand because you aren't listening.
> You're too caught up in the emotional hype.
> 
> You want to *wait* for the *same* solution I say should already be there.
> ...


Since you are as bad at reading comprehension as you accuse me of being, let me remind you that I support arming staff. It just so happens that I am not a one-trick pony and do not advocate dismissing other helpful contributions to safety.

You may want to consider that in the post you quoted, an armed staff member is included under the umbrella of a responsible person. I did NOT specify law enforcement for a reason


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> It just so happens that I am not a one-trick pony and do not advocate dismissing other helpful contributions to safety.


I haven't advocated dismissing anything that's actually *helpful when it comes to stopping an active shooter.
*


IndyDave said:


> You may want to consider that in the post you quoted, an *armed* staff member is included under the umbrella of a responsible person. I did NOT specify law enforcement for a reason


I already pointed out we both know the real solution is armed resistance.
Hiding does nothing to stop the active shooter.
If that's the best one can do, they simply need to understand it may not help at all.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't advocated dismissing anything that's actually *helpful when it comes to stopping an active shooter.
> *
> 
> I already pointed out we both know the real solution is armed resistance.
> ...


I suspect that you haven't had any real experience with security. You are presuppising that an armed teacher magically guarantees an outcome. You have failed to account for the fact that a gun only guarantees a teacher a reasonably fair chance. This isn't a western where the good guy always wins.

Which do you prefer: A door snaps shut quarantining an active shooter while Mr. Armed Teacher is writing out a long complex math problem unaware of the attacker's presence or the attacker walking in the door and shooting Mr. Armed Teacher in the back while his mind is filled with the order of operations? This isn't to say that the armed teacher will always be caught off guard, but it can happen. It also possible that it could work the other way around and the lockdown doesn't isolate this class from the attacker, but the teacher puts him down.

It is critically important to understand that multilayered plans are necessary since any one element can fail, but with enough, something will most likely slow or stop the attacker long enough for a coordinated defense to be effective.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Someone cue up the old commercial from the ***** College Fund.............


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Crying is not a solution to anything.


Well, maybe dry eyes.
Someone preciously said something about time being on the side of the children in those situations.
Here's a timeline here that show, due to incompetence and stupidity, time was the shooter's friend.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Cornhusker said:


> Well, maybe dry eyes.
> Someone preciously said something about time being on the side of the children in those situations.
> Here's a timeline here that show, due to incompetence and stupidity, time was the shooter's friend.


That is why I specified that time is on the children's side with competent responders.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> GunMonkeyIntl said:
> 
> 
> > The first thing to understand is that the armed-teachers piece of the puzzle is entirely voluntary- it has to be.
> ...


Because forcing someone to be armed, who doesn’t want to be, is never a good idea.

A good bit of my adult life has been spent training others in the use of guns. I’ve ran into plenty of folks who did not want to be there, or were pushed into it by a friend/family member. In a few instances, it was possible to turn them around, and get something productive out of it for them. In most, it was not. Someone who is not interested, or even afraid of a weapon generally can’t even train safely with it, let alone be expected to deploy it safely or effectively.

A teacher interested in learning to use a firearm for defense can quickly be brought up to at least the level of the local police, but forcing anyone who doesn’t want to can do more harm than good.




AmericanStand said:


> I’ve never understood the shelter in place logic.
> Seems like a “run like heck at the sound of the bell” would be a better choice.


Gunfights are too dynamic to say one response is “a better choice”. Whether armed or not, there will be times when taking cover is best, and times when fleeing is best.

Kids have been drilled, for generations, on how to exit the building, or meet at a rally point quickly. Drilling them to shelter in place is another option. They need to know how to do both in a quick and orderly fashion.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> That last paragraph of yours pretty much hits the nail right on the head. We won’t seek real solutions because, as a society, we don’t want real solutions. Real solutions require everyone to step up and contribute something. That’s not how we roll.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the only effective way to stop mass shootings regardless of location is to prevent them from happening in the first place. And the only effective way to do that is to stop people from developing the mindset to become a mass shooter.
> 
> ...


I don’t think any (honest) person can disagree with you that the best solution would be to stop the killer from becoming a killer, but that same honesty requires that we accept that we’ll never be able to stop them all. 

The things it’s going to take to stop the killers’ genesis are likely going to be difficult, and controversial. And, even if implemented as effectively as possible, are not going to completely eliminate the problem. 


So, we’re left with dealing with the fact that it will happen at some point. Drilling the students on the basic cover/flee responses is an important tool for the teachers to have, so they can exercise at least some control over the heard when the event happens. 

Also, getting armed resistance against the killer, as quickly as possible, is the only way to gain any control over when the killer stops killing. 


Ignoring any one of those facets of response sets us up for failure.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> That is why I specified that time is on the children's side with competent responders.


That's not really accurate.
This is what you actually said:



IndyDave said:


> Please bear in mind that the passage of *time is the ally of the children, not the attacker* unless of course they are depending on people who make Barney Fife look like Robocop--but the efficiency of law enforcement is another topic.


The documented facts show just the opposite.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not really accurate.
> This is what you actually said:
> 
> 
> The documented facts show just the opposite.


Your post is the stupidest thing I have read all day. Go past the bolded text and read the rest of what I said. A sarcastic turn of phrase does not change the fact that I addressed the issue.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Because forcing someone to be armed, who doesn’t want to be, is never a good idea.
> 
> A good bit of my adult life has been spent training others in the use of guns. I’ve ran into plenty of folks who did not want to be there, or were pushed into it by a friend/family member. In a few instances, it was possible to turn them around, and get something productive out of it for them. In most, it was not. Someone who is not interested, or even afraid of a weapon generally can’t even train safely with it, let alone be expected to deploy it safely or effectively.
> 
> ...


 If we make being well trained and competent with fire arms part of the requirements for being a teacher the teachers that show up at firearms training will want to learn and be armed.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> If we make being well trained and competent with fire arms part of the requirements for being a teacher the teachers that show up at firearms training will want to learn.


As hard as it is to find competent teachers as it already is, this would be dead on arrival if it ever received official consideration. Israel did require this, at least for a time, but it is entirely different in a society with compulsory military service for everyone and simply issuing the teachers the same guns they had already trained with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Your post is the stupidest thing I have read all day. Go past the bolded text and read the rest of what I said. A sarcastic turn of phrase does not change the fact that I addressed the issue.


I've read it all several times.
The end result is still the same.

Time is *not* on the side of the victims.
Countless events have proven that to be true.

Let's just stick to the actual facts.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've read it all several times.
> The end result is still the same.
> 
> Time is *not* on the side of the victims.
> ...


You are telling me that refraining from stalling the shooter and letting him get straight to killing the kids in the time it takes to bring armed response to bear is a good idea?

No, time is NOT their friend if all anyone is going to do is point at a sign with a circle and slash over a gun, but if that is all you are getting from what I have said, either you are dishonest or your reading comprehension is nonexistent.

Further, your so-called "facts" are predicated on an extremely narrow narrative that you have manufactured. It is incredibly obvious you have never dealt with actual security beyond locking the doors on your house.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> As hard as it is to find competent teachers as it already is, this would be dead on arrival if it ever received official consideration. Israel did require this, at least for a time, but it is entirely different in a society with compulsory military service for everyone and simply issuing the teachers the same guns they had already trained with.


 You think it’s hard to find competent teachers ?

I suppose that’s a entirely different thread .


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

What would be the liability of a weapon trained teacher accidentally shooting a student? What if it was intentional?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> I suspect that you haven't had any real experience with security. You are presuppising that an armed teacher magically guarantees an outcome.


I never said it would guarantee anything.

I do know without a doubt that being unarmed allows the shooter to do whatever they want for as long as they want.

That's been proven over the years.

Security doesn't require lots of "experience".
It only requires some common sense and a few basic tools.



IndyDave said:


> *Which do you prefer*: A door snaps shut quarantining an active shooter while Mr. Armed Teacher is writing out a long complex math problem unaware of the attacker's presence or the attacker walking in the door and shooting Mr. Armed Teacher in the back while his mind is filled with the order of operations?


I prefer you stop fabricating fantasy scenarios based on things not in use and not really practical, and just listen to what I said about *stopping active shooters*.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> You think it’s hard to find competent teachers ?
> 
> I suppose that’s a entirely different thread .


It is here. I am not talking proficiency even. Locally, there have been problems finding a warm body with a sheepskin in the discipline that needs covered.



SRSLADE said:


> What would be the liability of a weapon trained teacher accidentally shooting a student? What if it was intentional?


I would like to think that with proper training and teachers of a temperament to be teachers that wouldn't be an issue, but you are correct that wishful thinking isn't any better here than it is with externally-sourced attackers. I suppose it would come down to weighing the competing risks and benefits. In any event, I believe that it should be a local decision. Earlier the question was raised of what is different between then and now. I didn't think of it until now, but back when almost all decisions were made in the schoolhouse or by a local school board.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said it would guarantee anything.
> 
> I do know without a doubt that being unarmed allows the shooter to do whatever they want for as long as they want.
> 
> ...


If you believe any of what you just said, then why the he'll are you arguing? What it tells me is that for some bizarre reason, you are fixated on armed teachers and nothing else. If anything else were true, we wouldn't have this argument.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You are telling me that refraining from stalling the shooter and letting him get straight to killing the kids in the time it takes to bring armed response to bear is a good idea?


It's clear you aren't reading what I write.
If you were, there's no way you could think I said any such thing.



IndyDave said:


> Further, your so-called "facts" are predicated on an extremely narrow narrative that you have manufactured. It is incredibly obvious you have never dealt with actual security beyond locking the doors on your house.


They aren't "my facts".
They are the evidence documented in actual shootings.
The faster the armed response, the sooner the events are ended.



IndyDave said:


> It is incredibly obvious you have never dealt with actual security beyond locking the doors on your house.


You only think that because you still aren't listening and understanding anything I've said.
You just pretend you know.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> If you believe any of what you just said, then *why the he'll are you arguing*?


I'm not.
You are



IndyDave said:


> What it tells me is that for some bizarre reason, you are fixated on armed teachers and nothing else. If anything else were true, we wouldn't have this argument.


I said to begin with I was talking about *how to stop* *active shooters*.
You seem surprised, but it's not my fault you are confused.

I haven't changed that at all.
Go back to the beginning and read it slowly and you'll find that's true.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's clear you aren't reading what I write.
> If you were, there's no way you could think I said any such thing.
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, then take this from the top and tell us what all you would do to solve this problem.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Logic dictates that keeping guns out of schools is more intelligent than bringing guns into schools.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Ok, then take this from the top and tell us what all you would do to solve this problem.


Read the thread.
We've had this conversation before.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Read the thread.
> We've had this conversation before.


Here we go. Not once have you supported any measure of any type other than arming teachers. You clearly have no concept of security and bring nothing to the table other than the love of being an irritation.



Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a shame there were no willing, armed personnel there who could have stopped him sooner.
> 
> A teacher with a firearm on that stairwell would have had a clear shot at an unsuspecting target at close range, while being in no immediate danger themselves.





Bearfootfarm said:


> That's why people need to realize only they can protect themselves...
> but they must be allowed the means to do so.





Bearfootfarm said:


> They had those in Newtown too.
> 
> They found piles of bodies where they "sheltered in place" along with the teachers who had no way of stopping the shooter.





Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has ever suggested any such thing.
> 
> 
> That's the only thing that stops them.
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> I've heard this speech before.
> You opinion is biased.
> It has nothing to do with stopping active shooters.
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't advocated dismissing anything that's actually *helpful when it comes to stopping an active shooter.
> *
> 
> I already pointed out we both know the real solution is armed resistance.
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said it would guarantee anything.
> 
> I do know without a doubt that being unarmed allows the shooter to do whatever they want for as long as they want.
> 
> ...


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

SRSLADE said:


> Logic dictates that keeping guns out of schools is more intelligent than bringing guns into schools.


You could use the same foundation to argue that the police shouldn't have guns.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Here we go. Not once have you supported any measure of any type other than arming teachers.


Why would I "support" something that has nothing to do with what I was talking about?]
I said repeatedly you can teach them anything you like, but it won't *stop* the active shooter.

You just keep repeating the same things.



IndyDave said:


> You clearly have no concept of security and bring nothing to the table other than the love of being an irritation.


We've had this discussion too.
That's why I said go back and read it again.
You still won't get it.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

IndyDave said:


> You could use the same foundation to argue that the police shouldn't have guns.


I could but I wouldn't.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would I "support" something that has nothing to do with what I was talking about?]
> I said repeatedly you can teach them anything you like, but it won't *stop* the active shooter.
> 
> You just keep repeating the same things.
> ...


You can play all the stupid word games you want. You are clueless about security and understand only one element of several needed to set up a proper defense.

Incidentally, you accused me of "fantasizing" about resources that aren't there. News flash: guns fall in that same class of not currently in use measures.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> IndyDave said: ↑
> You could use the same foundation to argue that the *police shouldn't have guns*.


Many of them probably shouldn't.

They only shoot once or twice a year when they are forced to requalify.
Here they can miss 30% and still carry their guns.

There are others though who enjoy shooting and do it quite often.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many of them probably shouldn't.
> 
> They only shoot once or twice a year when they are forced to requalify.
> Here they can miss 30% and still carry their guns.
> ...


You expect teachers on average to be better?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You can play all the stupid word games you want. You are clueless about security and understand only one element of several needed to set up a proper defense.


I understand "security".
I also understand hiding in a closet doesn't stop an active shooter.

I'm not playing word games.
You're just not comprehending the things I've said.



IndyDave said:


> Incidentally, you accused me of "fantasizing" about resources that aren't there. *News flash:* *guns fall in that same class of not currently in use measures*.


Once more you're mistaken.
They are currently allowed in 18 states.
There may actually be more now since this article is from 5 years ago:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/guns-in-schools-firearms-_n_2482168.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You expect teachers on average to be better?


I expect *anyone* who likes and wants to shoot to be better than the Deputy who stood outside at Parkland when two unarmed teachers *died* while trying to take action to stop the shooter.

They don't have to be especially "good".
Often just the sight of another gun or a single shot fired in resistance ends the situation.
This stuff is all well documented if you'd simply take the time to do a little research.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I understand "security".
> I also understand hiding in a closet doesn't stop an active shooter.
> 
> I'm not playing word games.
> ...


You have taken a plan for a layered defense, converted into "hiding in a closet" and then attacked what you want me to have said rather than what I have said. OK, so it is legal in some places. Have there been any schools actually arm up? Have they had any actual active shooter situations? Have there been any accidents or incidents. Just because it says on paper that the schools may do so, that doesn't establish anything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Have there been any schools actually arm up?


Look it up yourself.
If you have time to keep asking me, you can ask Google.



IndyDave said:


> attacked what you want me to have said *rather than what I have said.*


That's what you've been doing to me the whole thread.
Go learn about the topic instead of asking me to educate you.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I expect *anyone* who likes and wants to shoot to be better than the Deputy who stood outside at Parkland when two unarmed teachers *died* while trying to take action to stop the shooter.
> 
> They don't have to be especially "good".
> Often just the sight of another gun or a single shot fired in resistance ends the situation.
> This stuff is all well documented if you'd simply take the time to do a little research.


Don't give me this s**t. I have followed such things since discovering Gary Kleck's research when I was in the eighth grade. I am also well aware of the things of this nature that I learned from the criminals themselves.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Look it up yourself.
> If you have time to keep asking me, you can ask Google.
> 
> 
> ...


You are blowing smoke up our rear ends and you know it.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> If we make being well trained and competent with fire arms part of the requirements for being a teacher the teachers that show up at firearms training will want to learn and be armed.


I would love for every teacher to be armed and competent with a firearm, but I also recognize that’s not realistic. 

There are ways to serve in the US military that don’t require ever touching a firearm, beyond basic training, and I’ve been told that conscientious objectors can complete basic without (don’t know for sure, but that’s beside the point). 

As beneficial as it might be to have armed teachers at ground-zero in a mass shooting, it makes no sense to force anyone who isn’t interested in defending themself or others to do so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You are blowing smoke up our rear ends and you know it.


Says the one who *didn't know* there are guns already allowed in many schools and have been for lots of years.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

SRSLADE said:


> Logic dictates that keeping guns out of schools is more intelligent than bringing guns into schools.


There’s the rub, though.


Logic also dictates that you can’t.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

SRSLADE said:


> What would be the liability of a weapon trained teacher accidentally shooting a student? What if it was intentional?


I’m no lawyer, but I’d think it’s exactly the same liability as if a teacher were to stab a student to death with scissors- intentionally or unintentionally. 


....or if they ran them over in the parking lot- intentionally or unintentionally. 



....or if they poisoned them to death- intentionally or unintentionally....


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I’m no lawyer, but I’d think it’s exactly the same liability as if a teacher were to stab a student to death with scissors- intentionally or unintentionally.
> 
> 
> ....or if they ran them over in the parking lot- intentionally or unintentionally.
> ...


I'm not pretending to be a lawyer but in 1 scenario you would be wrong. That would be the one where she is trained.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

SRSLADE said:


> I'm not pretending to be a lawyer but in 1 scenario you would be wrong. That would be the one where she is trained.


Not sure I’m following you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> I'm not pretending to be a lawyer but in 1 scenario you would be wrong. That would be the one where she is trained.


Training makes little difference in liability.
Details of the exact circumstances are what matter the most.



> SRSLADE said: ↑
> Logic dictates that *keeping guns out of schools* is more intelligent than bringing guns into schools.


How many shootings has that policy stopped?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The first thing to understand is that the armed-teachers piece of the puzzle is entirely voluntary- it has to be.





AmericanStand said:


> Why ?


Forcing someone to be armed is just stupid. But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that this little bit of stupidity actually gets encoded into law, God forbid. Let’s take a look at the practical ramifications.
1. Who pays for the weapon, ammunition and training? If you make it a requirement, then you have to supply the tools necessary for the job.
2. How much of a bump in salary are you proposing for this new requirement? GunMonkey proposes training in the summer but here’s a little known fact about teacher salaries—we don’t get paid for the summer. If a teacher chooses to get a paycheck through the summer months, as I do, what that paycheck really is is payment for days that they’ve already worked. 
3. Who pays for the additional liability insurance that would be required?
4. Who pays for the inevitable lawsuits that would follow such a policy? If a teacher decides that it is best to enact a different security option rather than shooting, who pays for the lawsuits that would follow as everyone second guesses his or her actions? 

Bottom line, if I wanted to be a cop or an armed security guard, then I would have gone into those fields.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Remeber what I told you about intellectually-honest positions? This is what the defense of one looks like... for future reference.

Note how progress of the conversation doesn’t immediately get shut down by straw men and red-herrings.



SLFarmMI said:


> 1. Who pays for the weapon, ammunition and training? If you make it a requirement, then you have to supply the tools necessary for the job.


I’m not for making it a requirement, but I’ll still take a swing at it:

Guess what, there are plenty of municipalities in the US that require cops/deputies to buy their own duty weapons. Many even have to buy their own training ammo. Some of those who do are at least able to at the city/state contract rate. Allow the same for the teachers who opt-in.

Why do some people carry jumper-cables even after having a new battery put in their car? Why do some people carry a spare handkerchief?

Some are willing, and the rest of us are thankful for them. Of course, we don’t think any less of those who don’t...



SLFarmMI said:


> 2. How much of a bump in salary are you proposing for this new requirement? GunMonkey proposes training in the summer but here’s a little known fact about teacher salaries—we don’t get paid for the summer. If a teacher chooses to get a paycheck through the summer months, as I do, what that paycheck really is is payment for days that they’ve already worked.


Bump in salary? I’d say none, as that might incentivize those who shouldn’t be in the program to sign up for selfish reasons, but each state/municipality can make that decision for themselves.

Many teachers are already required to post annual continued-learning. LE agencies refer to it as POST-requirements. Allow those who do opt-in for armed defense to count it toward their re-cert credit.

Heck, for those states/municipalities who opt to pay their opt-in teachers salary for those extra 2-4 weeks, let the tax-payers decide.

Remember this guy? The tax payers were paying this coward almost $100k to smile at kids every morning, and play hero, until it actually came time for him to be one. When that time came, he held his tired arms up with his tired belly, and let three unarmed teachers pinch-hit for him.

Those teachers died.

As did more students after the psychopath murdered each of the defenseless teachers.










That was one SRO for a multi-building campus, paid at a senior-deputy rate... year-round. Paying the 5-10% of teachers who opt-in, a couple weeks extra pay (even at full-salary instead of the part-timer rates a summer teacher can hope for) should the municipality decide to, would be a minor expense, comparatively speaking.




SLFarmMI said:


> 3. Who pays for the additional liability insurance that would be required?


Who pays for your liability insurance now? That guy.

Oh yeah, it’s me.

That’s actually a red-herring argument. Both of us us know it, but only one of us will admit it. But, either way, the answer is the same: you and I will. Those of us who pay taxes already pay for state/local legal settlements, and we will continue to do so.



SLFarmMI said:


> 4. Who pays for the inevitable lawsuits that would follow such a policy? If a teacher decides that it is best to enact a different security option rather than shooting, who pays for the lawsuits that would follow as everyone second guesses his or her actions?


See #3




SLFarmMI said:


> Bottom line, if I wanted to be a cop or an armed security guard, then I would have gone into those fields.


I see.

So you did also sign up to me a paramedic? Or if a kid were dying on your playground, without another adult in sight, would you perform what CPR you knew?

I doubt ANY teacher “signed up” to be a cop at the same time they signed on to be a teacher, but no one is asking any of them to be one.

Nothing in the “allow teachers to arm and train” proposal expects teachers to go settle domestic-disturbances at 0stupid30, or clean up the brains on the road from a DUI accident.

No one- and this is key to the intellectually honest discussion here- is asking any teacher to even train and carry a gun.

We’re just asking some teachers to put aside their political agenda long enough to allow those who do want to defend themselves and their students to do so.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Says the one who *didn't know* there are guns already allowed in many schools and have been for lots of years.


Piss off. I have enough time invested in my own state that combing nationwide laws without provocation is not a priority. There has yet to be an incident testing the effectiveness of this for comparative measure nor am I aware of any other measures used in tandem. You must live a pretty miserable existence if you live to argue.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> Forcing someone to be armed is just stupid.


No one has *seriously* proposed that.



SLFarmMI said:


> 1. *Who pays* for the weapon, ammunition and training? If you make it a requirement, then you have to supply the tools necessary for the job.


That can be figured out.
Guns aren't overly expensive.



SLFarmMI said:


> 2. *How much* of a bump in salary are you proposing for this new requirement?


That would vary depending on location.
Not all teachers earn the same now.



SLFarmMI said:


> 3. *Who pays* for the additional liability insurance that would be required?


Why would more be required?
There should be enough coverage already.



SLFarmMI said:


> *Who pays* for the inevitable lawsuits that would follow such a policy?


The same people who pay everything else.



SLFarmMI said:


> *Bottom line*, if I wanted to be a cop or an armed security guard, then I would have gone into those fields.


No one has said you have to do anything you don't want to do.
You just keep repeating the same excuses to do nothing that will help at all.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Since their have been claims made as facts on outcomes in active shooter events, it might be a good idea to see the documentation.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view



> The FBI’s analysis of active shooters between 2000 and 2013 has another relevant data point: “Law enforcement suffered casualties in 21 (46.7%) of the 45 incidents where they engaged the shooter to end the threat.” These are people trained to do this kind of thing full time, and nearly half of incidents resulted in at least one officer being wounded or killed. Teachers with limited training would very likely fare much worse.


Half ended in suicide before police arrived.
The average length of time start to finish was less than 5 minutes.


Page 11 has a good summary.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> *Piss off.* I have enough time invested in my own state that combing nationwide laws without provocation is not a priority. There has yet to be an incident testing the effectiveness of this for comparative measure *nor am I aware* of any other measures used in tandem. You must live a pretty miserable existence *if you live to argue*.


LOL.
You're the one arguing.
I merely stated some facts and you've wanted to take issue with most of them.

If you don't want to educate yourself about the topic, I'll just disregard all your comments on it.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

IndyDave said:


> Piss off. I have enough time invested in my own state that combing nationwide laws without provocation is not a priority. There has yet to be an incident testing the effectiveness of this for comparative measure nor am I aware of any other measures used in tandem. You must live a pretty miserable existence if you live to argue.


Take it easy, bro. Don’t get this thread kicked. It’s a valuable one, for those who don’t want to see, to have no excuse not to see.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Half ended in suicide *before police arrived*.


And *after* lots of people were killed or wounded.
Those were "active shooter" incidents.
They weren't only "*school* shootings".

This is a more recent report that shows 8 incidents were stopped by citizens during a 2 year period. Some shooters who "committed suicide" did so after meeting armed resistance.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And *after* lots of people were killed or wounded.
> Those were "active shooter" incidents.
> They weren't only "*school* shootings".
> 
> ...


Correct.
The school shootings are separated on pages 15-17.

They did have the highest casualties, but the percentages of being stopped by suicide, police or unarmed citizens along with the length of time were about the same as the rest of the locations.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> They did have the highest casualties, but the percentages of being stopped by suicide, police or unarmed citizens along with the length of time were about the same as the rest of the locations


The goal is to drastically reduce that "length of time" so as to stop the killings much sooner.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The goal is to drastically reduce that "length of time" so as to stop the killings much sooner.


Good goal to have but the question is, will arming teachers accomplish it?
Maybe, I don't know, but would probably help more than hurt.

Here's the starting point to go from......


> Findings
> 
> In this study, the FBI identified 160 active shooter incidents, noting they occurred in small and large towns, in urban and rural areas, and in 40 of 50 states and the District of Columbia. Though incidents occurred primarily in commerce and educational environments (70.0%), they also occurred on city streets, on military and other government properties, and in private residences, health care facilities, and houses of worship. The shooters victimized young and old, male and female, family members, and people of all races, cultures, and religions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

I didn't read all 6 pages, but wanted to say, as someone who's husband teaches firearm safety, if a teacher WANTS to carry, takes the classes, is confident and comfortable with a handgun, can keep it on them, and as a woman there are MANY ways to do so discretely with a smaller handgun that still packs a punch, then why can't they? Allow them to do so. 

Has anyone ever wondered why active shootings happen at schools? Could it be because there is a no gun policy and the students and staff are easy targets? Does anyone not see the harm of them being all jam packed into one place? That is like shooting fish in a barrel. They are easy targets. Going onto a campus where no firearms are allowed is just that, those who do so know they won't be stopped soon and can, and often do, take out countless lives before they either coward out and kill themselves or are taken out by a sniper or a police officer, but by then as I said, the lives already lost is devastating. Perhaps if we allow firearms on campuses the number of school shootings will go down, if they think that a teacher or multiple teachers are armed, they may think twice.

I know I could easily shoot someone who was going to harm someone in my care. Double tap to the chest. I also could probably hit them in the head, but then again, I practice often, in different positions and with targets that aren't very big or very wide. Teach people to be more proactive in their personal safety. Stop being afraid of an inanimate object made of metal, plastic and springs. Be respectful of them yes, be safe around them always.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Good goal to have but the question is, will arming teachers accomplish it?


It certainly can't hurt.
Had the two teachers at Parkland been armed things may have ended a lot differently.



> In 63 incidents where the duration of the incident could be ascertained, 44 (69.8%) of 63 incidents ended in *5 minutes or less*, with 23 ending in 2 minutes or less.


If we can get that down below 2 we will have made progress.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

I like the simple lock suggestion on the already crazy heavy doors that used to be in schools......I guess they could blindly blast thru the walls…...but a secured room would likely have them move on to a easier target as they know time is limited.


Some minimal precautions might have minimized a lot of this.

On site response is the only way to minimize it, off site response will always allow many to be harmed.


When I see people talk about more laws are needed, I know they do not have a clue, since criminals do not follow the law and everything done was already illegal. Just sock puppets parroting things.


As already pointed out here and by thousands of others, its pretty simple to minimize, there are tried and true ways to secure a location as much as possible, schools are secured the least as possible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Don't give me this s**t. I have followed such things since discovering Gary Kleck's research* when I was in the eighth grade*. I am also well aware of the things of this nature that I learned from the criminals themselves.


By the time you "discovered" that research, I had been into guns, hunting and firearms training for about 35 years, and was working at a gun shop where lots of the customers were LEO's who loved to sit around and talk about just this sort of stuff.

But none of that has much to do with the facts about how to *stop* active shooters.
I only mentioned it because you brought it up.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> By the time you "discovered" that research, I had been into guns, hunting and firearms training for about 35 years, and was working at a gun shop where lots of the customers were LEO's who loved to sit around and talk about just this sort of stuff.
> 
> But none of that has much to do with the facts about how to *stop* active shooters.
> I only mentioned it because you brought it up.


Have you ever worked in a secure facility or been involved in the construction of one? I was hoping for a little more than gun shop chatter for a background.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Have you ever worked in a secure facility or been involved in the construction of one?


I've built lots of buildings of various types.
They are all quite similar.

That has nothing to do with school shootings, or how to stop active shooters either.



IndyDave said:


> I was hoping for a little more than gun shop chatter for a background.


You've yet to show anything I've said is incorrect.
I've shown you proof of things you didn't know.

I was hoping you'd do your own research instead of just asking endless questions that really have little meaning.

I'm still not sure why you think something you "discovered" in the 8th grade is important.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I think most people know how to react defensively to an oncoming threat. Naturally the better you're armed, the more advantage you have and likelihood of surviving.
There's no point in arguing that to death.

What isn't apparent yet is that playing whack-a-mole with these school attacks isn't going to stop or reverse this terrible trend.
OK, so you manage to deter or quickly deal with kids bringing guns and shooting up the school.
Bang, Bang, you got most of them and only had a few casualties.
Have you thought about what's next?

I don't wanna say what I'm thinking, but we should know by now how creative and destructive a terrorist can be.
It isn't locks and guns that prevent someone from doing harm, it's only a person's conscience that does.
Think about it.......


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

On a lighter note.....


Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm still not sure why you think something you "discovered" in the 8th grade is important.


Seriously?
Ask your buddies next time you see them how many "discoveries" around that age they still think were awesome!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> Have you ever worked in a secure facility or been involved in the construction of one? I was hoping for a little more than gun shop chatter for a background.


I've worked in some extremely secure facilities because of the threat of oilfield terrorism and they aren't nearly as secure as people think. Almost daily, people would prop doors open with book and binders, because they forgot their swipe card at home and needed to move between floors. Security would simply admit familiar faces who'd left their swipe cards and home and more times than not, people would hold open those secure doors and let several people go in before them.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> I think most people know how to react defensively to an oncoming threat. Naturally the better you're armed, the more advantage you have and likelihood of surviving.
> There's no point in arguing that to death.
> 
> What isn't apparent yet is that playing whack-a-mole with these school attacks isn't going to stop or reverse this terrible trend.
> ...


That awful optimistic...…...true, but optimistic.


I see a future where the trend suggests we are losing morals, so this will only get worse......we are on the uphill swing at this time sadly.

Even if the percentage stay the same, the numbers will go up due to population increases that are exponential right now.


I think while people figure out the long term solutions we need immediate actions to mitigate damages …..


Armed security and teachers, locking doors in the class rooms, security etc...…..and lose the PC garbage, if a few say another student is batloco, jerk him out of class and figure out what`s wrong with him, inform the parents so they can be aware of these actions since most parents have no clue what the kid is doing or how the kid is doing.


A immediate multiprong approach is the only way to mitigate and this needs to happen at ground zero, not some kooky laws.……..where there is a will, there is a way on both sides, except one side is doing nothing at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I think most people know how to react defensively to an oncoming threat.


Did you see the link Cornhusker posted?

It shows several at Parkland avoiding the shooter or running to hide, while doing nothing at all to let anyone else know what was going on during those critical first few minutes.

They didn't follow their own protocols.



farmrbrown said:


> What isn't apparent yet is that playing whack-a-mole with these school attacks isn't going to stop or reverse this terrible trend.


The trends won't be reversed until the media stops turning the shooters into celebrities. 

That only encourages more who want to outdo the last one.



> Police believe that *Lanza extensively researched earlier mass shootings*, including the 2011 Norway attacks and the 2006 West Nickel Mines School shooting at a one-room school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. Police found that Lanza had downloaded videos relating to the Columbine High School massacre, other shootings and two videos of suicide by gunshot.[113]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#cite_note-nbc_investigation-114



> The source stated that the investigation had found that Lanza had created a 7-by-4-foot sized spreadsheet listing around 500 mass murderers and the weapons they used, which was considered to have taken years of work and to have been used by Lanza as a "score sheet"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Perpetrator


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Ask your buddies next time you see them how many "discoveries" around that age they still think were awesome!


Lots of things were (and still are) awesome.
They just have nothing to do with this conversation nor my comments.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> I've worked in some extremely secure facilities because of the threat of oilfield terrorism and they aren't nearly as secure as people think.


My dad worked at a place that built guided missiles designed to shoot down Soviet ICBM's.

The guards at the front gate and others at the entrance to the building were armed with Thompson submachine guns.

https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/16000219.htm


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

shawnlee said:


> Even if the percentage stay the same, *the numbers will go up due to* *population increases* that are exponential right now.


That's a *big* part of the problem.

It's growing exponentially:



> World population increased from 3 billion to 6 billion between 1960 and 1999, a doubling time of 39 years.
> 
> The previous doubling time—the time it took the world to grow from 1.5 billion to 3 billion—was about 70 years.
> 
> The doubling before that took about 150 years, the one before that about 500 years, and the doubling before that about 1200 years


We're up to about 7.5 Billion now.
Too many rats, too small a cage.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did you see the link Cornhusker posted?
> 
> It shows several at Parkland avoiding the shooter or running to hide, while doing nothing at all to let anyone else know what was going on during those critical first few minutes.
> 
> They didn't follow their own protocols.


Yes I did. There were many excerpts from that excellent link I could quote, but this one best summarizes whet the FBI concluded about civilian vs. officer confrontations with active shooters.


> Though police officers since Columbine have been trained to immediately confront the killer, some Broward deputies at the Parkland massacre would later struggle to recall when they last had active shooter training or details of what they learned.


There were as many as 8 officers on the scene and none entered the building until after Cruz stopped shooting.
They were sitting in cars, blocking traffic, putting on vests or hiding instead. 
That's why I used the word *"defensive"* actions, not offensive. Most people don't need help in survival instincts, teaching them to react the *opposite* way, run *towards danger*, is harder.
I don't remember the exact numbers from the FBI, but it was something like 23% of active shooters were confronted and stopped by LEO's and 10% or less stopped by civilians, both armed and unarmed.
The bottom line was that the shooters put a bullet in their own heads twice as often as the cops did and the cops were 2 or 3 times more effective than civilians were at stopping them.
The only area where an appreciable advantage will be, is in response time. Whether that will result in saving any more lives than we are doing now, remains to be seen.

Based on the numbers documented so far, I can see it making a difference of about a 10% reduction in deaths, assuming everything goes as planned and the attackers methods don't change, which is unrealistically optimistic.

That still leaves 90% of the problem intact, which is why I don't bother arguing about CCW's in the classroom.
Yes, a bullet will stop an attacker, but it won't stop the attackers from trying. That's the other 90% of the problem which also corresponds to the huge difference between today and 30 years ago.
Population increase won't cover that dramatic rise, it has to be something else.

And after 8 pages, at least we have another issue to address for a possible reason _why......._


> The trends won't be reversed until the media stops turning the shooters into celebrities.
> 
> That only encourages more who want to outdo the last one.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> The bottom line was that the shooters *put a bullet in their own heads twice as often as the cops did* and the cops were 2 or 3 times more effective than civilians were at stopping them.


The shooter may have killed themselves, but many times it was only *after* they were met with armed resistance, either from police or civilians. 

It's quite common for that to happen after a "stand-off".
The killing of innocent people has usually been stopped at that point, solely due to that resistance.

Cops *seem* "more effective" because most people aren't allowed to protect themselves.

Those statistics don't really show cops are better at stopping shooters. 
It just shows they are more likely to be armed.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes I did. There were many excerpts from that excellent link I could quote, but this one best summarizes whet the FBI concluded about civilian vs. officer confrontations with active shooters.
> 
> 
> There were as many as 8 officers on the scene and none entered the building until after Cruz stopped shooting.
> ...


The part you seem to be missing is that an armed/trained teacher would be a defensive asset. Since they are already at ground-zero, their reaction would be, at least, one of instinctive self-preservation. 

Review the timeline at Parkland again. Two of the three teachers murdered weren’t even in the building when the shooting started. They still made it there before any cop entered, and both encountered the killer before half of the murders had been committed. The third was already in the building, and died while implementing his shelter-in-place procedure, because he didn’t have any way to fight back.

One of the teachers was shot, and took took shelter in a doorway. For a full 30 seconds, he was alone in the hallway with the shooter, and had a position of cover. The killer eventually walked back up to him and executed him at bad-breath range.

No one can say, for sure, what the outcome would have been, had one or more of those teachers had training and a gun (again, equal to or better than the deputy cowering outside), but it’s entirely reasonable to suspect that the killing would have stopped earlier- in fact, all of the statistics indicate that it would have.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The part you seem to be missing is that an armed/trained teacher would be a defensive asset. Since they are already at ground-zero, their reaction would be, at least, one of instinctive self-preservation.
> 
> Review the timeline at Parkland again. Two of the three teachers murdered weren’t even in the building when the shooting started. They still made it there before any cop entered, and both encountered the killer before half of the murders had been committed. The third was already in the building, and died while implementing his shelter-in-place procedure, because he didn’t have any way to fight back.
> 
> ...


Armed in your scenario, I am going to assume would mean carrying. Correct me if I am assuming too much. 

An armed teacher who is carrying is another opportunity for someone to use that weapon to kill and injure others. That weapon can be taken and used. The more teachers carrying, the more chances for this to happen.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Armed in your scenario, I am going to assume would mean carrying. Correct me if I am* assuming* too much.
> 
> An armed teacher who is carrying is another opportunity for someone to use that weapon to kill and injure others. That weapon can be taken and used. The more teachers carrying, the more chances for this to happen.


Show us *examples* of the actual frequency of people taking guns away from others who carry open or concealed weapons.



painterswife said:


> The more teachers carrying, the more chances for this to happen.


The more carrying, the less chance of massacres happening.
Concealed carry laws have not caused any increases in crime.
There has been a steady decrease as more are allowed to protect themselves.

"What if's" do nothing useful.
It's just hoplophobic anti-gun rhetoric.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Armed in your scenario, I am going to assume would mean carrying. Correct me if I am assuming too much.
> 
> An armed teacher who is carrying is another opportunity for someone to use that weapon to kill and injure others. That weapon can be taken and used. The more teachers carrying, the more chances for this to happen.


I tend to think carrying would be the best option, but, like with most details in my proposal, that would be up to the individual/municipality. Maybe the teacher carries it, maybe it is in a near-by safe.

But, assuming that the teacher is carrying, that’s already allowed in eight states. Can you cite an incident of a teacher having their gun taken and used to kill?

There are many reports of cops leaving their gun in a restroom after dropping a duke. There was even a video recently of an FBI dancing-machine doing a backflip and dropping his pistol... which he promptly attempted to pick up by the trigger, shooting another club-goer.


Much of this discussion seems to get colored by the perception that LEOs are highly trained individuals, much less likely to have a mishap than a teacher, but, when it comes to safe and responsible firearms use, it’s not at all difficult to bring someone up to exceed the level of training of the police.


All I’m suggesting is that we give the true first-responders the option to take on that additional training and have another tool with which to respond.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

In 1965, a brand new school teacher started at our school, teaching all 4 high school years of Spanish. We also had a Cuban refugee boy who had just moved here, and took Spanish as his only guaranteed A+(although he made an awful lot of A's and learned English in about 2 hours, an A in Spanish was a given)
Well, if that particular teacher had access to a gun on the day Rolando showed up in her class and immediately started correcting her, it would not have turned out good. OK for him, but the rest of us laughed, because she was always hateful, and generally enraged. She even broke a tooth one time, clenching her teeth so tightly. Of course, the only way we could tell was that in a giant mouth full of bad teeth, the broken part looked clean. Ish.

At any rate, since that time, I've met and known quite a few school teachers. I'd be pretty concerned if the ones I've met had sanctioned access to guns during school hours. But that's not all that realistic, because: there was and still is nothing to have stopped them from bringing their own to school, and killing everybody except the hall monitor, and that never happened.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I tend to think carrying would be the best option, but, like with most details in my proposal, that would be up to the individual/municipality. Maybe the teacher carries it, maybe it is in a near-by safe.
> 
> But, assuming that the teacher is carrying, that’s already allowed in eight states. Can you cite an incident of a teacher having their gun taken and used to kill?
> 
> ...


I am only illustrating that arming teachers adds its own problems and will not be the panacea that so many think it will be. The majority of teachers don't want to be armed or do they want other teachers armed.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Armed in your scenario, I am going to assume would mean carrying. Correct me if I am assuming too much.
> 
> An armed teacher who is carrying is another opportunity for someone to use that weapon to kill and injure others. That weapon can be taken and used. The more teachers carrying, the more chances for this to happen.


Not really no...

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/336448.php
“He pulled out his gun and started pointing it at people,” Thacker said.

Cowan trained a .380-caliber semi-automatic pistol at Riden’s face, said Sullivan County Sheriff Wayne Anderson. Carolyn Gudger, the school resource officer, drew her gun, then shielded the principal’s body with her own.

Thacker remembers Cowan shouting something – possibly including the words “10 years” – but she isn’t sure. She turned and ran out the set of public doors to the mulch pile in the front of the school, and hid behind bushes.

“He might shoot someone,” Thacker remembered thinking. “I just wanted to get out of there.”

Riden fled and Gudger inched back into the school, leading Cowan through the scattered pastel chairs in the empty cafeteria. It was a tactical move, meant to lure the gunman into a more contained place, Anderson said."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/27/teacher-brady-olson-shooter_n_7154554.html
This teacher was proactive and tackled the student with the firearm.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-teachers-and-school-officials-to-carry-guns/
Parents with children younger than 18 in the household were no more or less likely than non-parents to express support for allowing teachers to carry guns in schools: 46% of parents and 44% of non-parents said they would favor it. Instead, opinions divided primarily along party lines and by gun ownership status, with Republicans and those who own guns particularly likely to say they would support allowing teachers to carry guns in schools.

About seven-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (69%) said they would favor allowing teachers to carry guns in schools. In contrast, just about a quarter of Democrats and those Democratic leaners (26%) shared this view. Similarly, while a majority of gun owners (66%) said they would support this proposal, about a third of non-gun owners (35%) said the same.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/02/24/schools-already-armed-teachers-show-way-schools-dont/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Clem said:


> In 1965, a brand new school teacher started at our school, teaching all 4 high school years of Spanish. We also had a Cuban refugee boy who had just moved here, and took Spanish as his only guaranteed A+(although he made an awful lot of A's and learned English in about 2 hours, an A in Spanish was a given)
> Well, if that particular teacher had access to a gun on the day Rolando showed up in her class and immediately started correcting her, it would not have turned out good. OK for him, but the rest of us laughed, because she was always hateful, and generally enraged. She even broke a tooth one time, clenching her teeth so tightly. Of course, the only way we could tell was that in a giant mouth full of bad teeth, the broken part looked clean. Ish.
> 
> At any rate, since that time, I've met and known quite a few school teachers. I'd be pretty concerned if the ones I've met had sanctioned access to guns during school hours. But that's not all that realistic, because: there was and still is nothing to have stopped them from bringing their own to school, and killing everybody except the hall monitor, and that never happened.


Might the admin of the school have a say on who does or does not get gun?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I am only illustrating that arming teachers adds its own problems and will not be the panacea that so many think it will be. The majority of teachers don't want to be armed or do they want other teachers armed.


No gun deaths without a gun. We got it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Grey Mare said:


> Parents with children younger than 18 in the household were no more or less likely than non-parents to express support for allowing teachers to carry guns in schools: 46% of parents and 44% of non-parents said they would favor it. Instead, opinions divided primarily along party lines and by gun ownership status, with Republicans and those who own guns particularly likely to say they would support allowing teachers to carry guns in schools.
> 
> About seven-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (69%) said they would favor allowing teachers to carry guns in schools. In contrast, just about a quarter of Democrats and those Democratic leaners (26%) shared this view. Similarly, while a majority of gun owners (66%) said they would support this proposal, about a third of non-gun owners (35%) said the same.
> 
> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/02/24/schools-already-armed-teachers-show-way-schools-dont/


Telling


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Might the admin of the school have a say on who does or does not get gun?


That would be the "sanctioned" part. However, suppose Gertrude X is a high school teacher. What, other than her own conscience, prevents her from taking a large caliber handgun, 4 boxes of 158 grain semi wadcutters to school one morning, drinking some cafeteria coffee(or whatever they have in school now) and deciding today's the day?
that's what I mean when I say "there was and still is nothing to have stopped them..." After all, if you have decided to kill a bunch of people, surely the school rules won't make you change your mind.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Clem said:


> That would be the "sanctioned" part. However, suppose Gertrude X is a high school teacher. *What, other than her own conscience, prevents her from taking a large caliber handgun, 4 boxes of 158 grain semi wadcutters to school one morning*, drinking some cafeteria coffee(or whatever they have in school now) and deciding today's the day?
> that's what I mean when I say "there was and still is nothing to have stopped them..." After all, if you have decided to kill a bunch of people, surely the school rules won't make you change your mind.


Same thing that stops her today


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Exactly. Nothing at all.(other than herself)


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I am only illustrating that arming teachers adds its own problems and will not be the panacea that so many think it will be. The majority of teachers don't want to be armed or do they want other teachers armed.


Whether you intend it as such or not, that’s a straw-man argument, and straw men stifle the progress of the discussion. 

This is a debate I’m heavily involved in, in real life, and I’ve yet to hear even a single person claim that allowing teachers to carry would be a panacea- let alone “many think”ing it. 

NO ONE is claiming that allowing teachers to train and arm would eliminate mass murder in schools- _not one single person. 
_
If we can’t have an honest discussion, why bother having a discussion at all?

And you didn’t “illustrate” that allowing teachers to arm adds it’s own problems. It was pointed out that, in eight states, they can. You were asked to cite examples of armed teachers accidentally (or intentionally) shooting students, and you didn’t “illustrate” the conversation with any. 

If you Google it, you will find examples of cops accidentally firing their guns in schools, losing their guns in schools, and even a teacher who was also a reserve police officer, barricading himself in a room, but not a whole lot from the nearly 20% of the country where teachers are allowed to carry, and we don’t even know when they do. 

I’m not saying there would never be an incident of a trained/armed teacher making a mistake or a doing something wrong with a gun, but just saying you’re “illustrating that armed teachers add its own problems” isn’t the same thing as actually illustrating it. 


Are you interested in having an honest discussion about this, or are the students not as important to you as your ideology?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SLFarmMI said:


> Forcing someone to be armed is just stupid. But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that this little bit of stupidity actually gets encoded into law, God forbid. Let’s take a look at the practical ramifications.
> 1. Who pays for the weapon, ammunition and training? If you make it a requirement, then you have to supply the tools necessary for the job.
> 2. How much of a bump in salary are you proposing for this new requirement? GunMonkey proposes training in the summer but here’s a little known fact about teacher salaries—we don’t get paid for the summer. If a teacher chooses to get a paycheck through the summer months, as I do, what that paycheck really is is payment for days that they’ve already worked.
> 3. Who pays for the additional liability insurance that would be required?
> ...


 1 Since we don’t force people to be teachers we are not forcing them to learn how to properly use firearms, they are doing that voluntarily. 
2You do not have to pay for the tools someone would voluntarily bring to a new job .
3 I guess if you want them you do. 
4 The insurance you bought in number three


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Clem said:


> Exactly. Nothing at all.(other than herself)


Exactly. And if Gertrude X does decide to go postal someday, I hope Ethel Y is able to defend herself and her classroom.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SRSLADE said:


> Logic dictates that keeping guns out of schools is more intelligent than bringing guns into schools.


 Poor logic might. 
In the years of the civilian marksmanship program most schools had lots of guns in them. 
Entire firing ranges in fact ,stocked with guns both short and long. 
Lots of kids carryed guns to school even. 
Never heard of a school shooting in even one of those school.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> There’s the rub, though.
> 
> 
> Logic also dictates that you can’t.[/QUOT





AmericanStand said:


> Poor logic might.
> In the years of the civilian marksmanship program most schools had lots of guns in them.
> Entire firing ranges in fact ,stocked with guns both short and long.
> Lots of kids carryed guns to school even.
> Never heard of a school shooting in even one of those school.


This is not back in the day. Try to get with the times.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Whether you intend it as such or not, that’s a straw-man argument, and straw men stifle the progress of the discussion.
> 
> This is a debate I’m heavily involved in, in real life, and I’ve yet to hear even a single person claim that allowing teachers to carry would be a panacea- let alone “many think”ing it.
> 
> ...


My part in the discussion was perfectly honest. You chose to put it down and characterize it as dishonest. I think you will then need to continue on without me.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SRSLADE said:


> This is not back in the day. Try to get with the times.


 The times that you were talking about is the times where children come to school and kill lots of other children 
I think I prefer my times ...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I’ve been thinking about this a lot and there is one thing that enables a child walking in to school and killing a lot of kids and that is having a lot of kids in school. 
I think we should ban large schools


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I am only illustrating that arming teachers adds its own problems and will not be the panacea that so many think it will be. The majority of teachers don't want to be armed or do they want other teachers armed.




More PC garbage...….^^^^^ Who cares what the teachers think/want...….they are not authorities on active shooter response, they can like it or find another job just like the rest of us.


Backhand junior across the mouth, turn the garbage Hollywood is pumping in them off and spend some time with the kid ……..…...by all means buy him another rap tape of boom boom music, that will open his mind and expand his horizons or let the internet baby sit him and feed him full of twisted perspectives.


Kids turn out exactly how they are made, we are creating these monsters, it aint in the water......but go on believing the violent video games, Hollywood kill movies drug addled music lyrics and gender neutral stuff is what we need to feed little johnny…….garbage in,...garbage out.


It is certainly not the 3 tooth mommas fault who should have never been allowed to breed a child into ignorant squaller.


Like most of the things I have seen in my life, they create a problem and then stand waist deep in it and scream what shall we do, how did this happen.....I see another one that was lucky to escape the pit in sparta.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The part you seem to be missing is that an armed/trained teacher would be a defensive asset. Since they are already at ground-zero, their reaction would be, at least, one of instinctive self-preservation.
> 
> Review the timeline at Parkland again. Two of the three teachers murdered weren’t even in the building when the shooting started. They still made it there before any cop entered, and both encountered the killer before half of the murders had been committed. The third was already in the building, and died while implementing his shelter-in-place procedure, because he didn’t have any way to fight back.
> 
> ...


No, I didn't miss it. I just didn't need Bearfoot to repeat it for 8 pages as if there was no other discussion involved here about school safety.
And I saw the whole timeline and looked over the 160+ cases in the FBI report I linked. Half the time that civilians stopped an attacker *unarmed* teachers and even students took charge.
It's no secret that a single hero can make all the difference in the world.
The part I keep going back to is that we're running short on heroes and getting overrun by villains.
If we don't start teaching our kids NOT to do this, it ain't gonna be pretty, no matter what else we do.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The shooter may have killed themselves, but many times it was only *after* they were met with armed resistance, either from police or civilians.
> 
> It's quite common for that to happen after a "stand-off".
> The killing of innocent people has usually been stopped at that point, solely due to that resistance.
> ...


Thanks for stating the obvious..........again.......and again...........

It also *seems* that 2+2=4, but then again people don't think math and statistics are that important.
BTW, did you make your statement above AFTER reading the FBI report?
You may want to check that against the facts.......or then again, maybe not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Thanks for stating the obvious..........again.......and again...........


Not everyone notices the "obvious" from the way those reports are worded.



farmrbrown said:


> BTW, did you make your statement above AFTER reading the FBI report?


I've read lots of reports for lots of years.
I've seen lots of word games too.

Saying they killed themselves or fled "before police arrived" tells you nothing about any other armed resistance.



farmrbrown said:


> I just didn't need Bearfoot to repeat it for 8 pages as if there was no other discussion involved here about school safety.


No one is forcing you to read it.
I'm not stopping anyone from discussing anything.

I'm saying (as I have from the beginning) many of those things do *nothing* to stop an active shooter.

That's another "obvious" fact that keeps being overlooked.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I am only illustrating that arming teachers adds its own problems and will not be the panacea that so many think it will be. The majority of teachers don't want to be armed or do they want other teachers armed.


You've shown no evidence it "adds it's own problems".
You just push the same old anti-gun buzzwords.



painterswife said:


> The majority of teachers don't want to be armed or do they want other teachers armed.


Lots of people don't want lots of things.
More empty rhetoric.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've built lots of buildings of various types.
> They are all quite similar.
> 
> That has nothing to do with school shootings, or how to stop active shooters either.
> ...


Thank you for doing a masterful job of demonstrating your own ignorance.

I find it fascinating that you consider yourself an expert through snippets of vicarious experience.

For you to have said the things you have, you could not possibly have any viable understanding of secure facilities, otherwise you would know better than what you said.

Why do you have a problem with my sharing a turning point early in my life when I started paying attention to such issues?

Since all buildings are alike and you are an expert, what are the relative merits of solenoid-activated locks and motorized bolts on remotely opened or card-activated doors?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *My part in the discussion was perfectly honest.* You chose to put it down and characterize it as dishonest. I think you will then need to continue on without me.


We've heard all that before.
We are still waiting to see your evidence.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Why do you have a problem with my sharing a turning point early in my life *when* *I started paying attention* to such issues?


Because it's meaningless trivia.



IndyDave said:


> Since all buildings are alike and you are an expert, what are the relative merits of solenoid-activated locks and motorized bolts on remotely opened or card-activated doors?


It doesn't matter.
It's just more meaningless trivia in this context.

No one called for a lockdown in time to stop the killings.
The shooter knew when doors would be unlocked, and knew a fire alarm would make people leave the class rooms.

The only teachers/staff who could have stopped him did nothing, and had no weapons to even save themselves.

You keep trying to change the subject to your "superior expertise" but I'm still not seeing it.
You didn't even know lots of schools allow teacher to carry now.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We've heard all that before.
> We are still waiting to see your evidence.


This from the guy who considers gun shop chatter superior to other people's actual experience?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> This from the guy who considers gun shop chatter superior to other people's actual experience?


You've not shown you have any actual experience.
You've shown you started "reading about it" decades after I did.

My "gun shop chatter" came from professional LEO's.
I was trained to shoot at an early age by certified instructors, many of whom were LEO's.

If you want to talk about door locks, then have at it.
We've covered "cowering" already though.

I'm talking still about how to stop active shooters.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Whether you intend it as such or not, that’s a straw-man argument, and straw men stifle the progress of the discussion.
> 
> This is a debate I’m heavily involved in, in real life, and I’ve yet to hear even a single person claim that allowing teachers to carry would be a panacea- let alone “many think”ing it.
> 
> ...


Dan Combs, famous Oklahoma lawman and gun shot, shot himself one time. It happens.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I’ve been thinking about this a lot and there is one thing that enables a child walking in to school and killing a lot of kids and that is having a lot of kids in school.
> I think we should ban large schools


I am guessing you were being factious, but that is a very good idea.

These giant schools breed gangs, cliques, anger and resentment.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because it's meaningless trivia.
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.
> ...


First, you smart off about my research or lack thereof and then say it is irrelevant when I point out that I started with it a very long time ago.

You tell me you are an expert in your own mind and based on that you assert all buildings are alike and you know all about it, yet you dodge because you can't explain one of the more significant compromises in the design of a secure facility.

Just because YOU are disinterested in any possible solution outside of arming teachers, that does not establish that no one is interested.

So I don't have time to follow what every other state is doing when it has made zero difference to bring it to my attention? I am glad you are enjoying that given that you are remarkably short of understanding and as usual are demonstrating your ability to blow hot air.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

"I'm the only one in this room professional enough to handle this firearm...."

http://lonelymachines.org/2006/04/16/im-the-only-one-in-this-room-professional-enough/


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've not shown you have any actual experience.
> You've shown you started "reading about it" decades after I did.
> 
> My "gun shop chatter" came from professional LEO's.
> ...


ok, I have worked in two different secure facilities, was involved in the construction of another, and visited and observed the construction of another out of professional curiosity. I also was involved in the political side of yet another in its early phases.

You apparently don't know enough to realize you don't know and this is especially obvious regarding "cowering". If you had a small modicum of understanding, you would realize that isolating an attacker from his target(s) and cowering are two entirely different things.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> First, you smart off about my research or lack thereof and then say it is irrelevant when I point out that *I started with it a very long time ago.*


So did I.
We already had this conversation.



IndyDave said:


> *You tell me you are an expert* in your own mind and based on that you assert all buildings are alike and you know all about it, yet you dodge because you can't explain one of the more significant compromises in the design of a secure facility.


I never said any such thing.
I answered the question you asked.
You just don't like the answer I gave.
No "dodging".



IndyDave said:


> Just because YOU are disinterested in any possible solution outside of arming teachers, *that does not establish that no one is interested*.


Haven't I said multiple times *you* can talk about anything *you* want?
Comments like that are why I question your comprehension at times.
You aren't paying attention at all.



IndyDave said:


> So* I don't have time* to follow what every other state is doing when *it has made zero difference* to bring it to my attention?


You've got all the time in the world to rant at me about meaningless trivia.
Everything you're saying is making zero difference to me.
You're still upset because I showed proof your statement was incorrect, and you've been ranting ever since.



IndyDave said:


> ok, I have worked in two different secure facilities, was involved in the construction of another, and visited and observed the construction of another out of professional curiosity. I also was involved in the political side of yet another in its early phases.


And yet the number of shootings has dramatically *increased*, indicating to me nothing you've done so far has *stopped* any active shooters.



IndyDave said:


> You apparently don't know enough to realize you don't know and this is especially obvious regarding "cowering". If you had a small modicum of understanding, you would realize that *isolating an attacker from his target*(s) and cowering are two entirely different things.


More meaningless trivia, since no shooters have been isolated from their targets.
They had solenoid locks at Newtown.
They hid in closets and classrooms.
It made things easy for Lanza.

If you're just going to repeat yourself more, leave me out of it.
Talk all you want about fancy door locks and "secure buildings"

It has nothing to do with most schools in the world.
But if it makes you *feel* better.....


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I had avoided this thread because I didn’t want to see the videos. 

Just read the last post only. 

Amazing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I had avoided this thread because I didn’t want to see the videos.


The video shows 18 seconds of Cruz entering a stairwell, removing a rifle from a case and walking into a hallway.
A student came in the stairwell and Cruz told him to leave.
There's nothing else to see.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

SRSLADE said:


> This is not back in the day. Try to get with the times.


Once again. 
What?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Once again.
> What?


It is best just to move along sometimes.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I'm positive it was in reference to the other post SRSlade quoted at the same time.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> My part in the discussion was perfectly honest. You chose to put it down and characterize it as dishonest. I think you will then need to continue on without me.


You can claim offense if you like, but that’s disingenuous as well. I offered that your straw man could have been unintentional, and _asked_ if you were willing to have an honest discussion. 



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Whether you intend it as such or not, that’s a straw-man argument, and straw men stifle the progress of the discussion.
> ....
> Are you interested in having an honest discussion about this, or are the students not as important to you as your ideology?


Here is your post is quoted again for clarity:


painterswife said:


> I am only illustrating that arming teachers adds its own problems and will not be the panacea that so many think it will be. The majority of teachers don't want to be armed or do they want other teachers armed.


No one, in the history of anyone, has claimed that _allowing_ teachers to train and arm would be a “panacea”. No one has said that it would solve the problem, so spiking an argument on how “many think it will be (a panacea)”, is a strawman- by definition. 

The discussion does not benefit, in the slightest, from you saying that some thing the other side never said is not true. That is a straw man. 

And you didn’t “illustrate” anything. You claimed that you were illustrating a point (that armed teachers add some additional problem) but didn’t actually point to any “added problems”- just that @painterswife _thinks so_. That doesn’t illustrate a point. That’s nothing more than claiming a point without actually making one- the “participation trophy” of debate.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

As of last February, 172 schools in Texas allow teachers to carry after being trained.

I haven’t heard of any problems.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> As of last February, 172 schools in Texas allow teachers to carry after being trained.
> 
> I haven’t heard of any problems.


It's a good start.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> As of last February, 172 schools in Texas allow teachers to carry after being trained.
> 
> I haven’t heard of any problems.



I doubt we will, problems will be eliminated and cowards like soft targets, armed teachers are problem stoppers, not problem creators.


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

OK guys, I'll not try to convince anyone of anything. Just think about your 'fixes'.

Have you ever spoken to any of the teachers or kids that were actually under fire? Maybe it would be a good idea. 
When under attack, the first thing most hear is the hiss of the round doing what it does, or a hard slap if it hits flesh, with a spray of blood. Then comes the 'bang', and you realize what is happening. The fear you will feel is overwhelming. Some, then think about what to do. (most don't)
Don't know the combat level experience of anyone here but that's who I would hire, teachers are like solders, it takes experience under fire, to know how someone will react. 
Many reactions to their first, "someone is going to kill me", moment is not always good.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

SRSLADE said:


> This is not back in the day. Try to get with the times.


Ummmm.......can we have another option?
I'd rather not "get" with _these times.
_


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Nope. There isn’t an option like that. 

However, I highly recommend not watching television news.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

hardrock said:


> OK guys, I'll not try to convince anyone of anything. Just think about your 'fixes'.
> 
> Have you ever spoken to any of the teachers or kids that were actually under fire? Maybe it would be a good idea.
> When under attack, the first thing most hear is the hiss of the round doing what it does, or a hard slap if it hits flesh, with a spray of blood. Then comes the 'bang', and you realize what is happening. The fear you will feel is overwhelming. Some, then think about what to do. (most don't)
> ...


My guess is that interviewing survivors is superfluous. While I didn't explore this angle, it is part of my reasoning for building a multilayered defense which has a high probability of quarantining the attacker prior to direct contact, with the armed teacher being the last layer of the defense.


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

http://www.thecmp.org/

Don't click if you think these people live in the past.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not everyone notices the "obvious" from the way those reports are worded.
> 
> 
> I've read lots of reports for lots of years.
> ...


Yes, thank you for repeating this....


> *nothing* to stop an active shooter.


........for *9* pages now.
Do you have more than 1 string on that banjo?



BUT, since you read lots of reports and like documentation to back up what is said, how bout posting the link that proves these statements true?



Bearfootfarm said:


> The shooter may have killed themselves, but many times it was only *after* they were met with armed resistance, either from police or civilians.
> 
> It's quite common for that to happen after a "stand-off".
> The killing of innocent people has usually been stopped at that point, solely due to that resistance.
> ...


You can start by quantifying "usually"......



> The killing of innocent people has usually been stopped at that point, solely due to that resistance.


We can agree "usually" is over 50% of the time, right?
But what do YOU say it is?
55%, 66%, 75%, 80 or 90%?
You decide, not me.
Then *SHOW* me you really know what you're talking about.
(If it turns out it's actually about 30% of the time, you can change your post from "usually" to "sometimes". )
Next show me the stats where civilians are better at stopping active shooters than the cops.
Hey, you might have a shot at proving that one, who knows?
But if you dissect the 160+ cases and do the math before you make your statements, you'll look a lot smarter.
You can even single out the dozens of school only shootings and see if the percentages will fall in your favor.
Just tryin' to help.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Nope. There isn’t an option like that.
> 
> However, I highly recommend not watching television news.


Why?
We grew up watching TV, even violent ones. But we didn't kill each other.
Are you being facetious or do you really think we can't raise kids right anymore?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

hardrock said:


> OK guys, I'll not try to convince anyone of anything. Just think about your 'fixes'.
> 
> Have you ever spoken to any of the teachers or kids that were actually under fire? Maybe it would be a good idea.
> When under attack, the first thing most hear is the hiss of the round doing what it does, or a hard slap if it hits flesh, with a spray of blood. Then comes the 'bang', and you realize what is happening. The fear you will feel is overwhelming. Some, then think about what to do. (most don't)
> ...


I actually read an article after several university students were stabbed and killed at a house part. I honestly couldn't understand how one person could actually stab each victim repeatedly and your last comment was backed by a psychologist who was explaining why people neither fled nor made any real effort to stop the attacker. 

According to the article I read, the 'someone is going to kill me moment', is complicated by young minds who have insufficient life skills to actually assemble the thought that someone is going to kill them, which initially causes them to freeze and after they freeze panic sets in when they need a clear mind to formulate an escape plan.


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

Very true. We had a running joke about this phenomenon, (Army) You can think about it, dream about it, read about it, look at photo's, hear about it, forever, and ever, and until you actually experience it you don't understand. The new replacements thought we were talking about combat, the secret was we were talking about sex.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Why?
> We grew up watching TV, even violent ones. But we didn't kill each other.
> Are you being facetious or do you really think we can't raise kids right anymore?



Not even on the same level now when it comes to violence..... add in role models like emininem , a lack of discipline and no role models, minimal parenting skills from dr spock…….sounds the recipe I would expect to find on the box for raising a deviant.


You think Osama is influencing the kids or tainted red bulls are the cause.

Of course it is society and the parents and movies and music and games...…..every action has a consequence. It is inescapable.


Maybe it is chemtrails or aliens...….you choose the more likely scenario.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a good start.


It is a good start. Good for Texans. 

Used to we could count on Cali to enact the absurd, and for Texas to make sense. I think Texas's days are numbered.


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

We had an active shooter in service at the high school where I work.
Blanks were shot in various areas while we were all in the cafeteria. 
It was extremely disconcerting to realize that due to the acoustics of the building, most of us failed to accurately pinpoint exactly where the shots were fired.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

shawnlee said:


> More PC garbage...….^^^^^ Who cares what the teachers think/want...….they are not authorities on active shooter response, they can like it or find another job just like the rest of us.


It is obvious from the above that you have absolutely no clue. We have a nationwide shortage of teachers and you think adding more burdens on teachers, especially stupid ones like requiring teachers to be armed, is going to improve that? 

My job is to teach effectively. I have no need to be armed to do that job.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> It is obvious from the above that you have absolutely no clue. We have a nationwide shortage of teachers and you think adding more burdens on teachers, especially stupid ones like requiring teachers to be armed, is going to improve that?
> 
> My job is to teach effectively. I have no need to be armed to do that job.


Why is being prepared to defend your life or those in your care and custody a burden?
Where have you read or heard that every teacher would be "required" to carry a firearm?
Determining your sole purpose is to teach is noble but it doesn't somehow part the seas and allow you to pass safely thru the world and it's hazards.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> It is obvious from the above that you have absolutely no clue. We have a nationwide shortage of teachers and you think adding more burdens on teachers, especially stupid ones like requiring teachers to be armed, is going to improve that?
> 
> My job is to teach effectively. I have no need to be armed to do that job.


I've been reading about the teacher shortage, and found this:

"The teacher shortage emerged in the wake of the Great Recession, when school districts cut their staffing as funding dried up. But student enrollment has only grown, adding to the pressures on local schools. At the same time, fewer college students are opting to become teachers because of the economics of college debt, said Linda Darling-Hammond, the president and CEO of the Learning Policy Institute, a nonpartisan organization that focuses on education policy. 

"There are studies about this that show people choose careers based on the salary in relation to the debt they have from college," Darling-Hammond said. "In many many states, salaries were frozen and never kept up with inflation." 

She added: "*People can't stay in a profession where they can't afford to support their own families*.""

From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-new-education-crisis-a-teacher-shortage/


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> It is obvious from the above that you have absolutely no clue. We have a nationwide shortage of teachers and you think adding more burdens on teachers, especially stupid ones like requiring teachers to be armed, is going to improve that?
> 
> My job is to teach effectively. I have no need to be armed to do that job.



I have attempted to read through this thread, I must need to go back to school myself. Could you please point out where anyone said teachers should be required to be armed?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

shawnlee said:


> More PC garbage...….^^^^^ Who cares what the teachers think/want...….they are not authorities on active shooter response, they can like it or find another job just like the rest of us.
> 
> 
> Backhand junior across the mouth, turn the garbage Hollywood is pumping in them off and spend some time with the kid ……..…...by all means buy him another rap tape of boom boom music, that will open his mind and expand his horizons or let the internet baby sit him and feed him full of twisted perspectives.
> ...


 Perhaps its just my perception but most of these shooters seem to come from middle class or higher type homes.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SLFarmMI said:


> It is obvious from the above that you have absolutely no clue. We have a nationwide shortage of teachers and you think adding more burdens on teachers, especially stupid ones like requiring teachers to be armed, is going to improve that?
> 
> My job is to teach effectively. I have no need to be armed to do that job.


So you dont think we need additional security in schools? you are fine with it as i is now?
Perhaps some potential teachers would be willing to try the job if the knew they would be firearm trained and carrying? I suspect it would depend a lot on the school situation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

shawnlee said:


> I doubt we will, problems will be eliminated and cowards like soft targets, armed teachers are problem stoppers, not problem creators.


Cowards? Who are you talking about? most school shooters dont seem like cowards to me. Im not sure Ive ever haerd of one with a exit plan.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Why?
> We grew up watching TV, even violent ones. But we didn't kill each other.
> Are you being facetious or do you really think we can't raise kids right anymore?


But did you watch it 18 hours a day in full blood?
And yes we did a lot of killing maybe just not as much unregulated.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

no really said:


> I have attempted to read through this thread, I must need to go back to school myself. Could you please point out where anyone said teachers should be required to be armed?


Go back to where Gun Monkey stayed that it would need to be voluntary and American Stand’s question of “Why?”. Read further to Shawnlee’s statement of basically who cares if teachers don’t want to be armed.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> More PC garbage...….^^^^^ *Who cares what the teachers think/want...….they are not authorities on active shooter response, they can like it or find another job just like the rest of us*.
> 
> 
> * Backhand junior across the mouth*, turn the garbage Hollywood is pumping in them off and spend some time with the kid ……..…...by all means buy him another rap tape of boom boom music, that will open his mind and expand his horizons or let the internet baby sit him and feed him full of twisted perspectives.
> ...



This post is one of the most ugly and classist I've ever read in my 16 years as a member of HT. 

Is this what HT is now? It seems like it's a contest on which poster can generalize about current culture in the most ugly, violent way. How low have we sunk? How much lower can we go?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> Why is being prepared to defend your life or those in your care and custody a burden?
> Where have you read or heard that every teacher would be "required" to carry a firearm?
> Determining your sole purpose is to teach is noble but it doesn't somehow part the seas and allow you to pass safely thru the world and it's hazards.


Being prepared does not require one to be armed. There are many responses I am prepared to enact depending on the specific scenario.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> So you dont think we need additional security in schools? you are fine with it as i is now?
> Perhaps some potential teachers would be willing to try the job if the knew they would be firearm trained and carrying? I suspect it would depend a lot on the school situation.


You appear to be entrenched in the position that security is all about being armed. It isn’t.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> Go back to where Gun Monkey stayed that it would need to be voluntary and American Stand’s question of “Why?”. Read further to Shawnlee’s statement of basically who cares if teachers don’t want to be armed.


I did read that and it seems a stretch to assume that meant it was mandatory. 

These kinds of knee jerk assumptions on both sides is a major reason school safety has become problematic. There seems to be no real discussion. Maybe this attitude and lack of real forward momentum could be part of the reason there is a teacher shortage.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wo


SLFarmMI said:


> You appear to be entrenched in the position that security is all about being armed. It isn’t.


WOW you are misreading that!
In my experiences with teachers, literally hundreds of them, there are not more than a handful I would want armed.
I suspect my position is that armed security is harmful but at this point my mind isnt made up.
I did notice you didnt answer my questions..............


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> Being prepared does not require one to be armed. There are many responses I am prepared to enact depending on the specific scenario.


Alright, but again, what are you referencing when you state teachers would be required to be armed?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> But did you watch it 18 hours a day in full blood?
> And yes we did a lot of killing maybe just not as much unregulated.


Nope, we had a bedtime, homework time, chore time, dinner time and at least 1 parent paying attention - ready willing able to enforce those times.


Thank you and others for restoring my faith at least a few people on here really get what the problem is and the solution.
When my wife and I go out now and see nearly every other human with their face glued to a Facebook phone, oblivious to the rest of the world, we just look at each other and shake our heads.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> When my wife and I go out now and see nearly every other human with their face glued to a Facebook phone, oblivious to the rest of the world, we just look at each other and shake our heads.



What's the difference between them and you posting here ?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> So you dont think we need additional security in schools? you are fine with it as i is now?
> Perhaps some potential teachers would be willing to try the job if the knew they would be firearm trained and carrying? I suspect it would depend a lot on the school situation.


Nope, I'm ok with it.
Back in the day they came to school unarmed except for a paddled or leather belt and the funny thing is, *nobody* was worried about dying that day.
Of course back then the teachers WERE allowed to use those weapons.

Look at the difference of a few decades.
We stopped teachers from laying leather on little Jonny's behind and today we're discussing whether to let teachers put a bullet in his head instead.

God help us see hope stupid we've become.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I still think smaller schools might be the most effective tool,


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

oneraddad said:


> What's the difference between them and you posting here ?


I ain't doing it while my son or grandson shoots up a school or a mall.
Or while something else in my life is neglected.
Or while I'm at every friggen stoplight.
Or crossing a busty street.
Or......etc. etc.


Did you REALLY need it spelled out that clearly?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I've been reading about the teacher shortage, and found this:
> 
> "The teacher shortage emerged in the wake of the Great Recession, when school districts cut their staffing as funding dried up. But student enrollment has only grown, adding to the pressures on local schools. At the same time, fewer college students are opting to become teachers because of the economics of college debt, said Linda Darling-Hammond, the president and CEO of the Learning Policy Institute, a nonpartisan organization that focuses on education policy.
> 
> ...


Certainly part of the shortage is due to salary concerns. Average teacher salary nationwide is at about the same level as in 1995. In my district, we have many young teachers who would like to move out of their parents’ homes but can’t because they can’t afford it. It is not unknown to have beginning teachers who actually qualify for food stamps. Every beginning teacher I have known in the past 6-7 years has had a second job in order to pay the bills. 

Another factor is the amount of disrespect and disregard that the general public heaps upon teachers. There is the attitude from many people that, because they went to school once upon a time, they know all about teaching and that it is just so easy. 

Another factor is the ever increasing burden being placed on teachers. There are near constant outside remarks about “the schools should” or “teachers should” such as the discussion that we are currently engaged in. And yet, not one of those remarks ever comes hand in hand with the resources to make it happen. Nor do those making the remarks ever ask teachers whether what they are demanding is possible or appropriate.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wow a part time job that doesn't pay for a house the first year!
Who woulda thunk it?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow a part time job that doesn't pay for a house the first year!
> Who woulda thunk it?


Wow, an ignorant response from someone who proves over and over that he knows nothing about the realities of teaching! Imagine that.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

My recommendation abot not watching TV news was to prevent brainwashing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> Being prepared does not require one to be armed. There are *many responses* I am prepared to enact depending on the specific scenario.


They are all different variations of run or hide, and hope someone with a gun comes to save you. What makes you think you're saying something new?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> Go back to where Gun Monkey stayed that it would need to be voluntary and *American Stand’s question of “Why?”*. Read further to Shawnlee’s statement of basically who cares if teachers don’t want to be armed.


It's your fault for taking everything seriously.
They weren't meant that way.

It doesn't matter if some teachers "don't want" guns in schools when some clearly do.
Not everyone gets everything they want all the time.

I think we all want to stop *active *shooters as soon as possible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

no really said:


> Could you please point out where anyone said teachers should be required to be armed?


American Stand is the only one who said that.
I don't take things he says seriously any more.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> This post is one of the most ugly and classist I've ever read in my 16 years as a member of HT.
> 
> Is this what HT is now? It seems like it's a contest on which poster can generalize about current culture in the most ugly, violent way. How low have we sunk? How much lower can we go?


The truth isn't always pretty.
If armed security caused more problems than it solved, all the rich folks wouldn't have it for themselves, and police wouldn't be armed.

Let's stick to the problem of stopping *active* shooters instead of ranting about the state of HT.
That's a dead horse topic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> You appear to be entrenched in the position that security is all about being armed. *It isn’t*.


It isn't all about hiding until *armed* help arrives either.


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

The fact that can't be disputed is that we are raising these monsters. Parents say it's not my fault, teachers say it's not my fault, we blame it on everything except ourselves.

What I am doing is wrong.
What you are doing is wrong.

Some say arm the staff/ security. Bring in cops, they will keep you safe. Recent school shootings proves that a frequent folly. ​
One extreme has it all figured and w/ secret methods that will protect their students,
They don't even know what their own reaction will be. ( see wr's post)

As far as teachers on food stamps, trolling the NEA talking points, is as bad a strategy,
as secret techniques to keep the students safe.
You already trained your shooter of your secret techniques.


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

I think the answer may be a combination of steps if a shooter shows up. Teachers can do the secret stuff and;
Get some people that have positive experience when lives are in danger and can do what needs to be done, when that first round goes by their ear. 
Or wait until the cops decide to do the task however long that takes. Just remember there are probably students, teachers, bleeding that might have been saved.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

SLFarmMI said:


> Go back to where Gun Monkey stayed that it would need to be voluntary and American Stand’s question of “Why?”. Read further to Shawnlee’s statement of basically who cares if teachers don’t want to be armed.



That's not what I said at all.....



Irish Pixie said:


> This post is one of the most ugly and classist I've ever read in my 16 years as a member of HT.
> 
> Is this what HT is now? It seems like it's a contest on which poster can generalize about current culture in the most ugly, violent way. How low have we sunk? How much lower can we go?



It is going to get way way way way way worse...….all the charts show we are in a uphill trend and far from the top yet.

The world is ugly, its delusional to think otherwise, no matter what we have the capabilities to be, we are what we are at this present time.

Nothing I said is violent at all...……just a observation of daily events.

The amount of sloth in this country is absurd...…...the things people call struggles are nothing...….and what most care about is meaningless...……

Most of society is consumed in pure vanity, a large portion lives in a delusional perception that differs very far from reality...…….we understand more about the moon than we do our own nature and we care more about what happened in south Slovakia than we do our own town. 


We live in world where people spend billions on Lancôme products to wear a costume of vanity while things that matter are left ignored...…..

When you get into a position to really see/observe the general public, you will see most of them are just sheep wearing what the latest billboards tell them and thinking what the 5 Oclock propaganda of choice tells them to think....and going with the herd …….it is really a sad thing when we strip away our skewed veil of perception and see things for what they are.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

See? This is why you shouldn't watch television. I live in a rural area outside of Austin, and I have a place in the Ozarks. The folks I hang out with don't wear stylish clothes, are not consumed with vanity, don't wear Lancome (isn't that makeup?), or ANY of that.

If I go to Austin, I seem some stylishly (?) dressed people. Maybe a few too many yoga pants outside of my yoga class. And, OK, I will concede that folks are on their phones too much. I am, too.

Going down my list of friends.....
retired military
disabled former finish carpenter
a group of four sisters.... retired librarians, interior designer, and pet sitter
other carpenters, plumbers, and laborers
a barefoot water ski champion
the owner of a distillery and his girlfriend who works for Apple
a few 70 year old women that I sort of keep tabs on
a single mom with six kids still living at home
goat folks
farmers
animal rescue lady who works at a bolt company to pay the bills
nurses

If you believe the news reports, the commercials, and all that blather, you think the world's going to Hades in a hand basket.

We are not currently in a world war. We are currently in discussions about a freaking wall to keep out folks who WANT to live here.

We have a higher level of affluence, running water, good roads, vehicles to drive on them, and grocery stores. Have you LIVED in a poor country?? I have. Things aren't perfect, but they could be one heck of a lot worse.

Stop feeding the panic. It's not real.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Crime rates-
*"Crime in the United States* has been recorded since colonization. Crime rates have varied over time, with a sharp rise after 1963, reaching a broad peak between the 1970s and early 1990s. Since then, crime has declined significantly in the United States,[1] and current crime rates are approximately the same as those of the 1960s.[2]" - Wikipedia

Murder rate by country -
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate#2011


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

All the charts DON'T show an increase in crime.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> All the charts DON'T show an increase in crime.
> 
> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/24/fbi-data-violent-crime-murder-us



I don't think anyone has stated that there is an general increase in crime. As far as I know this thread is about a specific crime, one that definitely has had a sharp increase in the last 20 or 30 years.
The ONLY "school shooting" I can recall in my time until my late 30's was the tower shooting at that Texas college.
From the 90's until now, that has not even been close to the same as the previous 200 years in the U.S.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Shawnlee in post #226.

Also in that post, a diatribe about the decay of society.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Shawnlee in post #226.
> 
> Also in that post, a diatribe about the decay of society.



It is wasted time for me to argue that is not what I said, I said nothing about crime.

The second part nails it though...decay of society.



I did not say I was the only one to see anything, I never said I watched the news or any other thing.


It is kind of funny to see how one can be demonized from a few comments thought...….I own a couple worthless properties, happen to live in a 10,000 house that has grown in value due to markets, worked hard and saved more than I spent, which is pretty meager...….


Make a couple comments people do not want to see and BOOM, I am the monopoly man...LOL

From my humble beginings in Forth Smith Arkansas at sparks regional hospital, to my current location north of LA, I have been fortunate enough to have seen quite a bit and a large cross section of society.....

I have been a runaway, a ward of the state, homeless done drugs and have been a respected member of the church, I have worked crazy low end jobs to upper crust jobs and business where I have met/worked for done business with senators/the rich/the famous......I have swept the floors to running the show.

I have lived in the sticks to brand new condo`s in the city and had all the friends that go with each of those...from herion addicted to money addicted, top to bottom, I have met a giant segment of them all.

I have also taken a few years to roam around and look at things from a observational point of view, had the opportunity to hear and see perspectives most people never will.

I am not alone, others have been thru and seen many things, but they are not common......most people work a handful of jobs, have a handful of friends are born and die not far from where they hatched....some make a move or 2...…..some have lived in way more places than me, but hey are not the norm.

Pointing out things is observational...… I have been that homeless, I was in the trailer with bucktooth sally, I am that guy you see on the way to work during the weekday out surfing at 10am on a work day, I am that guy you see in the ditch high, or the drunk in the bar, or in a suit at church or running a business.....I have been many of them and most importantly, I talked to most of them during my life and listened to what they said.


So no, I am not some authority on anything , I am not looking down on anyone......people are way less significant than they think, I am very insignificant in the grand scheme of things....nothing special. But I have been places other have not and many varied places......from ethnic foster homes where I was the only white kid for miles...great people by the way, learned a lot there, a perspective I am sure most will never hear or see.

I could write hundreds of pages on the places off the beaten path I have been, but until people see things for themselves you will never understand, so it is just wasted typing.

You can be told, but will never understand until you do...….

Many people see more than me, all my exploits are meager compared to some and grand compared to others...….


This thread and my posts in it are about the problems in society and about the bad things, so it is natural one can get a skewed perception about what I am saying or my views, since this is only one stance.

I have had the same skewed perception thrust on me when I am in threads that are 180 from this one, as I have seen great people and great things and a lot of the wonderful things seldom heard about that happen every day by great people who you would not twice at,who have given more of themselves with no recognition, the wonderful riches we have, the security we have, the abundance that even the most meager amongst us have...….but that is not what this thread is about, so why would I post that here.


One of better lessons I have learned and one of them I see hold people back and seems relevant here is the ability to disconnect from a place we might be, nurses have very hard time hearing critical things about nurses, teachers have very hard time hearing critical things about teachers....truck drivers have a very hard time and so forth with any trade,position or place one might be in society,....the ability to not take it personal and be objective in those circumstances is rare.

Setting aside personal beliefs and pre conceptions is rare and no easy task...…..but it is a highly beneficial one.

I have been a participant in many segments of society and it is a rare trait to encounter.


Just as I know the reality of this post is a classification of a rant, diatribe or many other describers......it was wasted words that will fall on deaf ears and change nothing, yet I still type it...…..in the end it is meaningless babble which serves no purpose, like most conversations people have each and every day....for the most part, insignificant chatter that means nothing and will change nothing...….the gold is in realizing that. 


Call me what you will, if me being the monopoly man of bigotry and hypocrisy gets you thru the day and makes you feel better, then it is worth more than I deserve and was greater than I will ever be......


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> It is wasted time for me to argue that is not what I said, I said nothing about crime.
> 
> The second part nails it though...decay of society.
> 
> ...


Blah, blah, blah, me, me, me, I, I, I. What have you done for someone else, someone that couldn't do anything for you in return?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

shawnlee said:


> It is wasted time for me to argue that is not what I said, I said nothing about crime.
> 
> The second part nails it though...decay of society.
> 
> ...



For the record, I read your posts. Although they were a little harsh or rough, it was the truth. Some people have a hard time hearing the truth if it isn't sugar coated.

I think the TV remark was part of my replies........and I missed the word "news" after TV, so I didn't interpret it correctly. My bad.



Alice In TX/MO said:


> Nope. There isn’t an option like that.
> 
> However, I highly recommend not watching television news.





farmrbrown said:


> Why?
> We grew up watching TV, even violent ones. But we didn't kill each other.
> Are you being facetious or do you really think we can't raise kids right anymore?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

*Blah, blah, blah, me, me, me, I, I, I. What have you done for someone else, someone that couldn't do anything for you in return? *




Meaninless…….changes nothing, a vain measure of ones preconceived worth that in some how by giving it makes them better than another. 


I owned a business and have posted many times about what I have done.....which is meaningless. Any fool can pass out cash, the sacrifice was little.

I have passed out pallets of tents for the homeless, tons of clothing....as much food as they would take.....on my own, no tax write off out of my own pocket, but most important out of all those immaterial possesions and soon to be gone things....I was friends with them, listened to them, made them feel like human beings......helped many get on their feet, allowed lice/scabie ridden people to shower at my home.....made them feel human and like they mattered.

All meaningless, they say ted bundy was a nice guy, al Capone was well know for feeding the homeless and was a very good person who took a care in his surroundings and people.

If you use kindness as a measure of your worth or others worth you have tainted it...…...ruined the true value it offers for both the giver and receiver.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> *Blah, blah, blah, me, me, me, I, I, I. What have you done for someone else, someone that couldn't do anything for you in return? *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have a vastly different definition of a decent human being than I do. You (nor anyone else) will never convince me that compassion is a bad thing...


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

This is more my speed and closer to reality than you would think as many never get to see these truths...


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I was not demonizing anyone. It was a conversation. Lighten up. 

Happy New Year.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)




----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SLFarmMI said:


> Wow, an ignorant response from someone who proves over and over that he knows nothing about the realities of teaching! Imagine that.


 Ignorant ?
Haven’t you yourself made the point that it’s a part-time job? 
Why do you expect it to pay some grand amount? Obviously it pays enough to get you to take the job why should it pay more ?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You have a vastly different definition of a decent human being than I do. You (nor anyone else) will never convince me that compassion is a bad thing...


 I am sorry you feel that is what I said....it is not...…..compassion is a great thing,...its ones perception and place in society they believe it gives them that I take exception with.

No matter what I or you have given it makes me no better than a person who has never given.....


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I propose a toast.....

To a new year!
To good friends!
To online discussions, whether people misunderstand us or not!


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Ignorant ?
> Haven’t you yourself made the point that it’s a part-time job?
> Why do you expect it to pay some grand amount? Obviously it pays enough to get you to take the job why should it pay more ?


Considering that pay for teachers has been flat for 20 years or so while the cost of college continues to multiply, it just doesn't pencil out and the only people you will have becoming teachers are those incapable of anything else, and not even enough of them to fill the flow chart much less actually teach our children.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> You have a vastly different definition of a decent human being than I do. You (nor anyone else) will never convince me that compassion is a bad thing...


I think you missed the point of his examples of Bundy and Capone.
Judging someone based on a few acts of kindness alone instead of the totality of their life, can be deceiving.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I propose a toast.....
> 
> To a new year!
> To good friends!
> To online discussions, whether people misunderstand us or not!


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

IndyDave said:


>


 A great time where education blended with entertainment laced with innuendo caused some people to think.




*This was originally written in 1929 by legendary composer Irving Berlin ("God Bless America"). Harry Richman introduced it in the 1930 movie musical Puttin' on the Ritz and had a #1 hit. It famously became a hit for Fred Astaire in 1946 when he performed it in the movie Blue Skies. Taco pays homage to Astaire by including a tap-dance solo in the middle of the song.*
*The expression "Puttin' On The Ritz" means to dress fashionably. The saying comes from the upscale Ritz-Carlton hotel company.*
*Born in Jakarta, Indonesia to Dutch parents on July 21, 1955, Taco Ockerse (yes, it's his real name) was raised in Germany, where he studied dance and theater. He made a name for himself on the European supper-club circuit by dressing in formal attire and performing dance versions of American standards. This song was on his first album, and it became an unlikely hit when MTV picked up the video, which showcased Taco's distinctive look and performance that he had perfected in the supper-clubs. MTV didn't have many videos at the time, and this one had lavish costumes, a glowing cane and a tap dance sequence, making it very appealing to the fledgling network. >> *
*This appeared in the West German stage remake of West Side Story.*
*Taco's entire repertoire was comprised of older songs including some by jazz bandleader Glenn Miller and show tune writer George Gershwin. He played the role of "Chico" in a Marx Brothers stage show in Germany.*
*Taco's follow-up album was also named after an Irving Berlin song he covered, "Let's Face the Music and Dance." He also did Berlin's "Cheek to Cheek."*
*This came out around the same time as a cheesy TV show called Puttin' On The Hits. In the show, contestants would lip-synch for prizes. It could only have happened in the '80s.*

*In the Mel Brooks movie Young Frankenstein, there's a scene where Dr. Frankenstein (played by Gene Wilder) does a song-and-dance act to this song with his monster.*
*The success of Taco's cover made 95-year-old Irvin Berlin the oldest living songwriter ever with a single in the Top 10 of the Hot 100.*
*In his first and only song-and-dance number, Clark Gable takes a crack at this in the 1939 movie Idiot's Delight.*
*The well-known version is about the upper-crust citizens of New York's glitzy Park Avenue, but the song has a racially charged backstory. In the 1930s it was fashionable for affluent white folks to go "slumming" in Harlem, a poor black neighborhood where the jazz scene was hot. The original lyrics reference the locals who pretended to be wealthy by donning their flashy duds (i.e. puttin' on the ritz) and hanging out on Lenox Avenue:

Have you seen the well-to-do
Up on Lenox Avenue?
On that famous thoroughfare,
With their noses in the air?
High hats and colored collars,
White spats and fifteen dollars.
Spending every dime
For a wonderful time.

The story continues with Lulubelle hitting the town every Thursday (Lulubelle was a slang term for black maids and Thursdays were typically their nights off). The lyrics also mention the "Spangled gowns upon the bevy of high browns from down the levee." High browns refers to light-skinned African Americans. 

Another Berlin tune, "Let's Go Slumming on Park Avenue," flips the narrative and has Harlemites descending on the swank avenue to spy on the rich ("They do it, why can't we do it, too?"). Not everyone bought into the slumming fad, though. In the high society spoof "The Lady is a Tramp," the title lady refuses to go to Harlem driving "Lincolns or Fords" or dressing in "ermine and pearls."*

https://www.songfacts.com/facts/taco/puttin-on-the-ritz


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

BTW the only "part time" teaching jobs are substitute teachers.
The weekly hours are well over 40 making the hourly rate not that high given the education required compared to other professions.
There ARE some great benefits like a long summer vacation and all the holidays.
But many take on extra work to make extra pay.
You definitely don't do it to get rich.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Yup, and as I remember, my parents thought the Beatles were an indication of the downfall of culture.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I propose a toast.....
> 
> To a new year!
> To good friends!
> To online discussions, whether people misunderstand us or not!


From my special guy here visiting me from the UK.

I would like to make a toast to lying, stealing, cheating and drinking. If you're going to lie, lie for a friend. If you're going to steal, steal a heart. If your going to cheat, cheat death. And if you're going to drink, drink with me.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

no really said:


> From my special guy here visiting me from the UK.
> 
> I would like to make a toast to lying, stealing, cheating and drinking. If you're going to lie, lie for a friend. If you're going to steal, steal a heart. If your going to cheat, cheat death. And if you're going to drink, drink with me.


Very cool.
Sounds like an Irishman.........or someone fond of good whiskey anyway.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Ignorant ?
> Haven’t you yourself made the point that it’s a part-time job?
> Why do you expect it to pay some grand amount? Obviously it pays enough to get you to take the job why should it pay more ?


No, never said that it was a part time job because it is not. I said that many beginning teachers need to take on a *second *job. For example, our music teacher works for a grocery store after school gets out for the day. Our speech pathologist works in a nursing home when school is out for the day as well as on the weekends. Get it now? And I never said that it should pay “some grand amount”. However, it should pay more than it does and it certainly should pay more than it did in the 90s.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

When I was teaching, I also had beef cattle and rent houses.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

The answer is simple make all people under go a psychiatric test and all those who are diagnosed with a disorder are immediately fitted with a tracker chip and an explosive when the call comes in for active shooter check the tracking if its present blow the explosive.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> Very cool.
> Sounds like an Irishman.........or someone fond of good whiskey anyway.


Scottish.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

no really said:


> Scottish.


Good choice! I had a grandmother who was full-blooded Scottish in spite of several generations in America prior to her birth. Among other things, she definitely lived up to the reputation for frugality.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Long ago


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

no really said:


> Scottish.


*Bliadhna Mhath Ùr * then.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Yup, and as I remember, my parents thought the Beatles were an indication of the downfall of culture.



While I enjoy their work...….I could see that argument going both ways.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You have a vastly different definition of a decent human being than I do.


How does that apply to stopping active shooters?



Irish Pixie said:


> Blah, blah, blah, me, me, me, I, I, I.


See my question above.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Noice!
> 
> So he’s got blue war paint, a huge sword, and inbred-monarchs fear him.
> 
> Good choice, No!


LOL, he does look pretty good in a kilt.. Not going to comment on the sword or the blue paint.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Some people have a hard time hearing the truth if it isn't sugar coated.


I've noticed that too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

D-BOONE said:


> The answer is simple make all people under go a psychiatric test and all those who are diagnosed with a disorder are immediately fitted with a tracker chip and an explosive when the call comes in for active shooter check the tracking if its present blow the explosive.


Many active shooters have shown no signs of "mental disorders" before going on their killing sprees. The majority of recent shooters bought their guns legally and passed all the background checks.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SLFarmMI said:


> No, never said that it was a part time job because it is not. I said that many beginning teachers need to take on a *second *job.


 Didn’t you say you got a check during but were not paid for the summers ?

I am Still trying to figure out how’s 1080 hour a year job can be anything other than part time when most people work over twice that and Many three or four times that.
When I was a wild lands firefighter we were scheduled for six months of work a year, our goal was two thousand hours a summer but we never considered our selves to be full-time employees.
It’s a great part-time gig I don’t see why you guys won’t own it .


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> BTW the only "part time" teaching jobs are substitute teachers.
> The weekly hours are well over 40 making the hourly rate not that high given the education required compared to other professions.
> There ARE some great benefits like a long summer vacation and all the holidays.
> But many take on extra work to make extra pay.
> You definitely don't do it to get rich.


6 hour days 5 times a week times 180 days max does not make a full-time job it makes 1080 hours or a half time job 
Three months of vacation every summer does not make a full-time job.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Considering that pay for teachers has been flat for 20 years or so while the cost of college continues to multiply, it just doesn't pencil out and the only people you will have becoming teachers are those incapable of anything else, and not even enough of them to fill the flow chart much less actually teach our children.


Where do you get the idea that teacher pay has been flat for 20 years?
The value of their benefits has gone up exponentially , while the their sizes of classes have come down.
However if their pay Had remained flat for the last 20 years while everything else went up wouldn’t it be because they are worth less ?
Perhaps they are caught in their own results of advocating liberal immigration ?
In the town I’m at teaching is the best gig going.


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The value of their benefits has gone up exponentially , while the their sizes of classes have come down.


That has not been my experience, I have worked at a vocational high school for 30 years.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

D-BOONE said:


> The answer is simple make all people under go a psychiatric test and all those who are diagnosed with a disorder are immediately fitted with a tracker chip and an explosive when the call comes in for active shooter check the tracking if its present blow the explosive.


The psych testing does make sense, but from what I can gather is expensive and time consuming. However, all, or nearly all, school shooters have been know to teachers, school administration, and in many cases the police, to have mental health issues. 

If the issues are caught early enough, we can stop at least some shootings before they occur.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Where do you get the idea that teacher pay has been flat for 20 years?
> The value of their benefits has gone up exponentially , while the their sizes of classes have come down.
> However if their pay Had remained flat for the last 20 years while everything else went up wouldn’t it be because they are worth less ?
> Perhaps they are caught in their own results of advocating liberal immigration ?
> In the town I’m at teaching is the best gig going.


Wow, you have some interesting delusions about teaching. Class sizes have increased, not decreased. Value of benefits has decreased. 

BTW, if you think teaching is so easy, I invite you to put up or shut up. Go back to school, get the degrees and certifications that you need. Then do the unpaid student teaching you need to do and get yourself in the classroom. Then get back to me about how easy it is and how teachers are worth less.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

roadless said:


> That has not been my experience, I have worked at a vocational high school for 30 years.


And is your pay the same as when you started? Do you get the same medical benifit as 30 years ago or have they reduced it to nearly nothing to compensate for the increasing prices?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> 6 hour days 5 times a week times 180 days max does not make a full-time job it makes 1080 hours or a half time job
> Three months of vacation every summer does not make a full-time job.


You have failed to account for the work required outside of class time which can at least double your figures in some cases.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I need to say I'm sorry to all you teachers. I accused you of being greedy and I don't honestly believe that's the case. Well no more than anyone else.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> You have failed to account for the work required outside of class time which can at least double your figures in some cases.


True but just as in other jobs that really doesnt count.
Its kinda a "poor planning on your part does not constitute a emergency on mine" sorta thing.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> True but just as in other jobs that really doesnt count.
> Its kinda a "poor planning on your part does not constitute a emergency on mine" sorta thing.


It isn't poor planning. Your 6 hours a day is time spent interacting with children, not time for anything else.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

This is an old old argument with little true understanding of the life of a teacher. 

No one will convince anyone of anything.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

What needs to be done outside of class time?
At my local school that six hours includes at 2 that are not classroom time.



I really feel like we need a separate thread about teaching pay and duties.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Nope. Like I said, old argument. Accomplishes nothing.


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> And is your pay the same as when you started? Do you get the same medical benifit as 30 years ago or have they reduced it to nearly nothing to compensate for the increasing prices?


I took a huge pay cut when I moved from Massachusetts to PA , even with my 28 years of experience, I started at entry level pay.
My co pay is higher for the same medical services as last year.
That being said, I love working with the students.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> What needs to be done outside of class time?
> At my local school that six hours includes at 2 that are not classroom time.
> 
> 
> ...


You had better not say that too loud or the office will be overwhelmed with applications.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> This is an old old argument with little true understanding of the life of a teacher.
> 
> No one will convince anyone of anything.


 I think you are probably correct.
A question about your pay, If your school system advertises a job at $27,000 a year and you work paid overtime is that work paid at $12.50 a hour or $25.00 a hour? (yearly divided by 1080 or 2160 hours)


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> You had better not say that too loud or the office will be overwhelmed with applications.


LOL it already is Like I said its the best gig in town.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> LOL it already is Like I said its the best gig in town.


Yes, and apparently the exception rather than standard.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I don’t know any teachers who went into that career for the pay.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Yes, and apparently the exception rather than standard.


Of course Like I said its the BEST.

What I see here(my town) is teachers wanting to be paid like they were working a big city gig while living the small town life. They want the kinda pay that goes with a big company that can move them at will while getting to stay in the town they were raised in all their life 
AND they want government security while being paid private company wages.
The teachers her CONTINUALLY complain about low wages (dont we all?) while complaining their kids are not likely to be able to get one of those jobs in their working lifetime.
If there are 20 year waiting lists to get a job is it really that under compensated?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I don’t know any teachers who went into that career for the pay.


_*

D I N G 
D I N G 
D I N G 
WE HAVE A WINNER!*_


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> What needs to be done outside of class time?
> At my local school that six hours includes at 2 that are not classroom time.
> 
> 
> ...


First, the thread is about adding additional training and duties onto teachers, so I don't see how discussing present duties, training and pay is irrelevant.

Second, do your schools have only 4 hour days for students?

Teachers are required to be there an hour before and an hour after the students in most places. If it isn't "required" it is most certainly expected, as in the case of most salaried positions.

Then you have homework.
Yes, teachers have homework every night too.
Besides grading tests, planning monthly outlines for class, there are after school conferences with parents or administrators, school board meetings, and don't forget annual classes for CE and accreditation.

Of course, there are voluntary measures that many do that aren't required except by conscience.
That list is too long to dictate and varies by student and year, but going to the store to buy supplies or even clothing for students that have none is far more common than one might suspect.

Instead of hearing it on this forum, why not go down and volunteer for a day at your local school and receive that education firsthand.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> First, the thread is about adding additional training and duties onto teachers, so I don't see how discussing present duties, training and pay is irrelevant..


Its not I just feel like we are overwhelming this thread with a peripheral point.



farmrbrown said:


> Second, do your schools have only 4 hour days for students?.


No but the teachers only teach that long



farmrbrown said:


> Teachers are required to be there an hour before and an hour after the students in most places. If it isn't "required" it is most certainly expected, as in the case of most salaried positions..


I dont think its that way here here from what Ive seen in the parking lot, but there might be a LOT of cheaters.



farmrbrown said:


> Then you have homework.
> Yes, teachers have homework every night too.
> Besides grading tests, planning monthly outlines for class, there are after school conferences with parents or administrators, school board meetings, and don't forget annual classes for CE and accreditation..


 Poor planning on their part for the most part.



farmrbrown said:


> Of course, there are voluntary measures that many do that aren't required except by conscience.
> That list is too long to dictate and varies by student and year, but going to the store to buy supplies or even clothing for students that have none is far more common than one might suspect..


 I applaud them for that but doubt it adds up to another 1080 hours.



farmrbrown said:


> Instead of hearing it on this forum, why not go down and volunteer for a day at your local school and receive that education firsthand.


Been there done that tends to tick me off at the teachers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> How does this apply to stopping active shooters?


It applies to bacon, not to complaining about someone else or talking about yourself.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> How does this apply to stopping active shooters?


If the shooter is drunk with a full belly then he will pass out without shooting anyone and the police can simply drag him out of the building!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> First, the thread is about adding additional training and duties onto teachers, so I don't see how discussing present duties, training and pay is irrelevant.
> .


 I think right there explains what the problem is, do you think this thread is about training and adding duties for teachers?

I think the rest of us came here thinking this thread was about the horrors of school shootings and what could be done to reduce them. 

Interesting that a certain group would think it’s all about the teachers.

The teachers are there voluntarily for the compensation they get.
The students on the other hand are not there voluntarily.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol then It’s a typical response of lousy teachers to blame the students for not learning.
But Feel free to keep trying.
In the field of teaching that I am licensed in we don’t get to do that. It is required that all of our students get an A+ and those that don’t impact our teaching credentials. 
Do a poor job and you lose your job.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

thread has been temporarily closed, for house cleaning of the thread.

This thread has totally went off topic.


----------

