quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

it is a very high level of risk for a non-law enforcement employee to assume as part of their job.

No one, anywhere, has suggested that being armed should/would/could be " part of their job"

Again, we are discussing allowing teachers to go armed; you are the only one discussing requiring them to do so.

I can explain it to you; I cannot understand it for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

In going back through the posts it looks like the "risk" you are talking about is the risk of being shot by a police officer if the officer sees them with a gun...is that right? Do you really think THAT risk is greater than sitting in classroom, trying to shield a bunch of kids when the shooter walks up to them, puts a gun in their face, and pulls the trigger? Nope...no risk there. And next to no way at all of putting up any kind of defense, for themselves, or for the kids they are trying to protect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

If they are armed, on the job, in case there is a shooter on campus then it is part of their job. The very act of carrying while on duty makes the safe handing and retention of a weapon part of their job. They are around children. If the school allows them to bring loaded weapons then it is indeed part of their job to safely handle and/or store that weapon while it is on that campus. It is a liability issue for both them and the school. We can play with words as much as you like. I am fine with calling it whatever you like. Because whatever we "call" it, we are still talking about armed educators who would confront and stop school shooters. It is a very high risk for a non-law enforcement employee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

it is a very high level of risk for a non-law enforcement employee to assume as part of their job.

No one, anywhere, has suggested that being armed should/would/could be " part of their job"

Again, we are discussing allowing teachers to go armed; you are the only one discussing requiring them to do so.

I can explain it to you; I cannot understand it for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Absolute drivel.

Whats in your job description is your job. What you get paid for, is your job. Your responsibility to secure a weapon is your responsibility as a gun owner.

And if that gun owner in a school under fire did not react to the shooter - I wouldn't think less of them. Nor would they lose their job.

Being a hero is optional - and being at the business end of a gun scary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

If they are armed, on the job, in case there is a shooter on campus then it is part of their job. The very act of carrying while on duty makes the safe handing and retention of a weapon part of their job. They are around children. If the school allows them to bring loaded weapons then it is indeed part of their job to safely handle and/or store that weapon while it is on that campus. It is a liability issue for both them and the school. We can play with words as much as you like. I am fine with calling it whatever you like. Because whatever we "call" it, we are still talking about armed educators who would confront and stop school shooters. It is a very high risk for a non-law enforcement employee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

it is a very high level of risk for a non-law enforcement employee to assume as part of their job.

No one, anywhere, has suggested that being armed should/would/could be " part of their job"

Again, we are discussing allowing teachers to go armed; you are the only one discussing requiring them to do so.

I can explain it to you; I cannot understand it for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

If you are bringing a gun to campus in order to respond in case of a school shooting; You better believe it is part of you job to keep that weapon secured and if you do not keep it secured you most likely will lost that job.

They would not lose their job for not reacting to a shooter, but you can pretty much bet that they would lose it if they accidently shoot an innocent student because they could not properly handle the gun they brought on campus.

I notice both you and the other poster want to argue about my "wording" of it; but no one has yet denied the high risk and liability of it that I spoke of.

So I take that means that we are all in agreement that there is a high risk and liability associated with it? No matter how I worded it, that was my point. (high risk- liability) and it is something that should be considered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Absolute drivel.

Whats in your job description is your job. What you get paid for, is your job. Your responsibility to secure a weapon is your responsibility as a gun owner.

And if that gun owner in a school under fire did not react to the shooter - I wouldn't think less of them. Nor would they lose their job.

Being a hero is optional - and being at the business end of a gun scary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

If they are armed, on the job, in case there is a shooter on campus then it is part of their job. The very act of carrying while on duty makes the safe handing and retention of a weapon part of their job. They are around children. If the school allows them to bring loaded weapons then it is indeed part of their job to safely handle and/or store that weapon while it is on that campus. It is a liability issue for both them and the school. We can play with words as much as you like. I am fine with calling it whatever you like. Because whatever we "call" it, we are still talking about armed educators who would confront and stop school shooters. It is a very high risk for a non-law enforcement employee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

it is a very high level of risk for a non-law enforcement employee to assume as part of their job.

No one, anywhere, has suggested that being armed should/would/could be " part of their job"

Again, we are discussing allowing teachers to go armed; you are the only one discussing requiring them to do so.

I can explain it to you; I cannot understand it for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Why should I deny the risk / liability question. Its only the characterization that its part of your job that I disagree with.

quote:

quote:

The very act of carrying while on duty makes the safe handing and retention of a weapon part of their job.

quote:

What about schools where there is a high incidence of physical confrontations between students and teachers

quote:

And if that gun owner in a school under fire did not react to the shooter - I wouldn't think less of them. Nor would they lose their job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

The very act of carrying while on duty makes the safe handing and retention of a weapon part of their job.

Okay. I will give you that one, sort of.

But- anything after that, anything that occurs beyond the mere fact of carrying, is proposed/presented as a purely voluntary act.
No one is proposing that teachers who chose to carry have an obligation to confront an active shooter.
Further, as Igor2003 has pointed out, such a confrontation might be the least risky option available to an armed teacher unlucky enough to be present when an assailant is present.

Let me ask you something directly, in the hope of getting a direct answer. If I remember correctly, at least one teacher at SH actually, physically, stood in front of her students in a vain attempt to shield them from the shooter and the lead he was spewing. Would she have been more, or less, at risk had she been armed? Simple question with two possible, one-word answers. More. Or. Less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
I am only pointing out that the high risk factors involved need to be considered before pushing this as a solution. A gun is 22 times more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, suicide or homicide than it is being used in self defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
I am only pointing out that the high risk factors involved need to be considered before pushing this as a solution. A gun is 22 times more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, suicide or homicide than it is being used in self defense.

I'm surprised you didn't post 43 times more likely. That's another fake statistic bandied about by midecal associations like The New England Journal of Medecine or gun grabbers like the Brady Bunch.

"What is truly sad about the nonsense-ratio is how often it is cited and uncritically. "


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
What are the odds that an armed school teacher will stop (let alone actually encounter) a school shooter?

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Try 80 teachers per 1,000 students (schools teach more than one subject these days), plus administrators, plus the people I listed below. 12 to run the cafeteria, the physical plant, transportation, and all clerical? Nope, doesn't add up.

And bus drivers, etc. aren't employees? Says who?

And none of that addresses the fact that even a smaller pool of armed people with only CCW training, are more dangerous to everyone else during an active shooter situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

And for every hundred teachers, how many coaches, bus drivers, maintenance people, clerical staff, and so on?

The worst case scenario is still undesirable with even a handful of untrained people, especially the very people who would think that their 16 hours CCW class equipped the to be effective is n active shooter situation.

Part of the overall US gun culture is a widespread belief that all American males are born experts at driving, lovemaking, holding their liquor, and conquering evil in a crisis...

Reality disagrees.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Why do you think that 20 - 30 is an unreasonable number to have carry permits?

I'm not envisioning the little red schoolhouse, I'm talking about a school of 1,000 or more kids, and a hundred or more employees.

As far as track record, I only know that Arkansas passed such a law, and most schools in that state opted out on a faculty vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

You're probably right about spending the money. If we dropped the gun free zones designations and just let school employees who have permits carry, there wouldn't be any additional costs. However if this is adopted by most schools, I'm sure some Zimmerman type of fuck up would eventually happen though certainly nothing to the extent of 30 teachers running around waving guns.

Now I'm curious what the history has been with the 3 states and parts of Texas that have been allowing concealed carry in their schools. I believe Utah has recently approved it and it's under consideration in other states.

Statistically with 100 teachers no more than 4 or 5 would be expected to have permits.
When you consider that educators tend to be liberal it could be even less.

For starters with 1000 students you would have not more than 40 teachers, to be generous 1 dozen more for clerical and maintenance , bus drivers don't count.
That gives us 52 people. Only about 5% of people get permits so you have maybe 3.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
Its math. There is a cost-benefit to this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Try 80 teachers per 1,000 students (schools teach more than one subject these days), plus administrators, plus the people I listed below. 12 to run the cafeteria, the physical plant, transportation, and all clerical? Nope, doesn't add up.

And bus drivers, etc. aren't employees? Says who?

And none of that addresses the fact that even a smaller pool of armed people with only CCW training, are more dangerous to everyone else during an active shooter situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie
Right because it is real hard to tell the difference between who is shooting people and who is running away.
And for every hundred teachers, how many coaches, bus drivers, maintenance people, clerical staff, and so on?

The worst case scenario is still undesirable with even a handful of untrained people, especially the very people who would think that their 16 hours CCW class equipped the to be effective is n active shooter situation.

Part of the overall US gun culture is a widespread belief that all American males are born experts at driving, lovemaking, holding their liquor, and conquering evil in a crisis...

Reality disagrees.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Why do you think that 20 - 30 is an unreasonable number to have carry permits?

I'm not envisioning the little red schoolhouse, I'm talking about a school of 1,000 or more kids, and a hundred or more employees.

As far as track record, I only know that Arkansas passed such a law, and most schools in that state opted out on a faculty vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

You're probably right about spending the money. If we dropped the gun free zones designations and just let school employees who have permits carry, there wouldn't be any additional costs. However if this is adopted by most schools, I'm sure some Zimmerman type of fuck up would eventually happen though certainly nothing to the extent of 30 teachers running around waving guns.

Now I'm curious what the history has been with the 3 states and parts of Texas that have been allowing concealed carry in their schools. I believe Utah has recently approved it and it's under consideration in other states.

Statistically with 100 teachers no more than 4 or 5 would be expected to have permits.
When you consider that educators tend to be liberal it could be even less.

For starters with 1000 students you would have not more than 40 teachers, to be generous 1 dozen more for clerical and maintenance , bus drivers don't count.
That gives us 52 people. Only about 5% of people get permits so you have maybe 3.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I think some people are not considering the complete chaos that happens when a school shooting occurs.
When an officer arrives on an active shooter scene he or she has no idea who the shooter is. He doesn't know if the shooter is an outsider, a student or a faculty member. There are people running and screaming, people laying on the floor injured or dead and sometimes alarm bells or partial power outages that screw with the officer's hearing and visibility. Plus he is going to be at a heightened state of arousal because he is going into a life threatening situation.

The only way the officer(s) will know who the shooter is, is the fact that the shooter is in civilian clothes and has a gun. They have no other means of identifying him or her. That means if a teacher or principal is walking through the building with a gun when a school shooting is in progress, he or she will most likely get shot by the police. And given the situation, if a teacher or principal shoots at the active shooter, they have just as much chance of hitting an innocent student as they have of hitting the active shooter.

I am not saying they should or should not be armed. I am only saying that we should consider the multitude of risk factors that play into it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

And none of that addresses the fact that even a smaller pool of armed people with only CCW training, are more dangerous to everyone else during an active shooter situation.

quote:

Two problems with this
A The police don't start off shooting the attacker they give him a chance to surrender, wouldn't the same procedure follow for the armed teacher?
B You are saying that the person shooting at the attacker is a greater threat to the children than the attacker.

quote:

That question is not worded right

quote:

A gun is 22 times more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, suicide or homicide than it is being used in self defense

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

That question is not worded right

Fine. Quibble quibble quibble, but- fine. Let me rephrase.
Would she, and the children she vainly tried to protect, have been more likely to survive had she been armed?

quote:

A gun is 22 times more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, suicide or homicide than it is being used in self defense

Source?
Speaking from personal experience- that's one fucked-up study.