Missouri bill would allow teachers to carry guns in schools

yup

Thursday, April 01, 2010
More concealed weapons in Mo. Capitol?

Missouri legislators are considering a bill that would let their aides and employees carry concealed weapons in the statehouse if they have permits. Legislators are already allowed to do so, Jason Noble and David Klepper write this morning. Kansas, meanwhile, doesn't allow anybody to carry concealed in its Capitol.

Read more here: http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2010/04/more-concealed-weapons-in-mo-capitol.html#storylink=cpy

Dumbshits...

that's like coming up on a fire of burning flames and grabbing a bucket of gasoline and throwing on the fire hoping to out it....I agree that's some dumbshit...

What will the "right-to-lifers" (who tend to be the same people as the gun-humpers) do about that one?

--Almost as backwards as Indiana or West Virginia.

That and security guards on every floor makes me feel safe.

However, if someone is going to enter by shooting out a window, that's another matter.

Here's the problem: as a teacher you don't want to have a loaded gun in the classroom ready to go if some shooter comes through your door. And if you have it locked up, how to you get at the shooter before he gets at you and your kdis? You have to unlock that door or cabinet first, and meanwhile, he's already killed some people.

So this fix is not a fix.

You're supposed to be carrying.
And I agree, this is no fix.

If you have it loaded on u in the classroom teaching kids who can be mischievious...that's an accident/tragedy and a law suit waiting to happen...wow...

Or do they have to buy their own school supplies, guns and SWAT training too?

I presume the teachers will be responsible for training and purchasing their own gun supplies.

Some idiot in VA (Bob Marshall) is putting forth a proposal that would REQUIRE schools to have at least two teachers who are armed. This is proof enough that these proposals aren't serious because if you're going to have armed people in the schools you should suck it up and raise taxes so you can hire trained/professional security versus asking for volunteers from the staff.

nt

1. Do you think having an armed teacher on-scene would make things worse in the event of another attack?

2. If 'Yes', why?

Yes it makes it worse, because then you have a firefight going on with bullets flying in multiple directions. That is assuming the teacher can draw the weapon, take the safety off and fire near the attacker.

If you can't see why, then you have a lot of thinking to do.

Do you have examples of your hypothetical? Even if you do, would 5 children hit by even stray bullets be better or worse than 20 children dead intentionally?

I've been thinking. I even did the math. Hmmmm.....

revolvers don't have safeties
( OK, some have a grip safety, but no
user-input is needed)

aim, pull trigger, bang

Glocks (and clones) don't have safeties
(OK, they have a trigger lever, again,
no user-input needed)

aim, pull trigger, bang

When there isn't an attack:

1. Increases likelihood of accidental shootings, both by teachers and "curious" students

2. Gives potentially unstable teachers an instant outlet to vent their frustrations

3. Gives potentially unstable students an instant outlet to vent their frustrations, if they manage to get their hands on the teacher's gun

4. Further adding to the gun culture by indirectly promoting the ownership of firearms to school children

When there is an attack:

1. Knowing teachers may be armed, shooter/shooters will plan ahead. They will arm themselves better, and also wear more protective armor, and perhaps even deploy home made explosives to disable armed teachers before they even have time to pull out the gun. Escalation of arms race (and I bet the shooters will win, hands own, in this race).

2. Teachers not properly trained in the use of firearms may shoot at anything that moves in the height of confusion and panic, including students, other teachers and even law enforcement (see 5 below). Or they may simply miss and hit innocents instead.

3. Instead of finding a good hiding spot for themselves and their charges or leading them to safety, gun-ho teachers invariably invite themselves and people around them to become targets for the shooter/shooters.

4. Shooter/shooters can add to their growing weapon and ammunition supply by prying them from the cold, dead hands of teachers

5. Makes it more difficult for law enforcement to contain the situation, including being able to tell armed friend from armed foe

Or that they would occur with a frequency to outweigh the the security benefits?

Edit: On reflection, if teachers or students appear that unstable, surely it give additional creedence to the call for better mental health care. It also calls into question why those teachers are allowed to remain in their position, and why those children are not more closely monitored.

s

I think an armed security guard might be better. And there will be those who will say that the shooter would just take out the guard first, well he/she woud be behind bullet proof glass. The guard could also be plain clothed so not able to be easily identified.

Gun free zones are an invitation to someone like Lanza.

K&R

...with that law. Just more dead kids & teachers in schools. Teachers with guns is just an invitation for violence. It's the wild wild west in the USA, folks. This is not progress.
WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS!

I have seen some posts on Facebook (from a few of my extreme right wing friends...remember keep your friends close but your enemies closer) basically saying "Well Israel allows teachers to wear firearms and look how safe they are" and other bullshit about how America is a bunch of wimps for not arming our teachers and oh how it would have been different if the teachers in Sandy Hook were armed.

No you morans it would not be better. I don't want to live in a society where it comes down to arming the teachers. How about some sensible gun regulation and stop our manic fascination with guns? This is no longer the wild west, never was never will be.

So many thoughts in my head about this I cannot type it coherently however I do know this is definitely NOT the way to go.

must be mentally tested every year. After all, I wouldn't want a teacher to go balistic on their students.

teach them. I've seen and heard too many unstable teachers sabatoge other teacher's work, because they didn't want the other teacher to look better or be chosen as the better teacher. I've seen teachers come to work drunk or stoned too, or high on their psychotic pills...anything to help them make it through the day. It's really bad.
I'm not saying all teachers are this way, but I wouldn't want to chance it with certain teachers having access to a gun in class.

Well, other than this:

We arm the STUDENTS in case a teacher goes off! See problem solved per the NRA's logic.

BTW, in case anybody needs it, the above was

But I'm sure an adult will be fine, especially if he/she got his weapon at a gun show with no background check.
( )


:stupid:
:insane:
:republicans:

Aw, there's no smiley for those tags? We'd only need one image for all three!

------------------------------------

So when the police arrive at a place with many shots being fired, and they meet a teacher with a gun. Must they somehow determine if he/she is deranged or on their side? I always thought the police would put down any one with a gun in that situation. This idea makes it much more difficult for police. Comments from any law enforcement people will be appreciated.

By the time the police arrive to a self-defense incident, the shooting is usually long over.

Even if a gun battle is on-going, the person positioned between an attacker and the kids, shooting away from the kids, is probably the "good guy".

In brief, when the police arrive, the "good guys" put their weapons down, if able to do so, and let the police sort it out from there. They'll almost certainly be detained until it's clear what was going on.

Most civilians are not going to be able to effectively use a firearm against a shooter in body armor and they likely are more of a danger to themselves or other civilians by drawing fire in their direction, exactly what would happen in the scenario you describe. Someone who positions himself between the shooter and the kids is almost sure to get more kids killed before he manages to bring the shooter down than if he came from another direction away from kids.

And this does not even consider the truth that more bullets flying means more people get hit in most cases. People behind closed doors and out of sight of the "good guy" for example. This happens even with trained police officers in a gun battle. Civilians cannot be trained to the level of police officers and in particular, they cannot possibly keep up that training as police officers do on a continual basis. This is essential if they are going to be effective at all in a high adrenalin confrontation with an active shooter. A school teacher/administrator simply cannot do this. This is nothing like defending a house against an intruder. For one thing, most house intruders do not come in shooting.

It doesn't make you impervious to all effects of gunshots. While it may stop most pistol bullets, it still feels like getting whacked with a bat. Most folks, hit in the torso, will still want to lie down for a while. And it doesn't stop rifle bullets for much, unless backed up with heavy metal or ceramic plates. And those cover only very limited areas.


If you look up the actual stats, Citizens shooting in self-defense hit innocent people far less often than police. I'll try to find the study that supports this, I seem to have misplaced the link for it. (Found it, a Newsweek column that's hard to find: http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.will. Haven't found a direct link. Yes, it's also old data, but I haven't seen anything to contradict or indicate any change.) Even if it went the way you imply, I fail to see how, for instance, 2 shot by a criminal and 1 or 2 accidently shot by a defender is worse than 20 dead children by a criminal. That math doesn't work.


While your faith in police training is admirable, it is rather misplaced. Police in general do not receive the level of firearms training most Citizens think they do. Nor do they "keep (it) up" particularly well. (See the Rand study on NYPD training: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG717.html . This is, sadly, not atypical.) As for your opinion on "civilians" (police are very much civilians, FTR), they most certainly can be trained, and frequently well past the level of police. One need merely look at the competitive shooting sports and count the numbers of police vs. Citizens at those events, and the numbers of winners. Overwhelmingly non-police....

Also, defensive options in a classroom are very limited. There are only a few options to chose from, and a correspondingly reduced training demand. A 3-5 days of annual training, with one or two refresher days per year would be more than sufficient.

And I suspect most classroom teachers would tell you the same thing.

but can't reasonably explain/support why not.

Teachers are quite capable people, as I'm certain you know.

And that is the truth but please proceed to deny away.

Teachers are capable at teaching. Not the same thing as being capable with a gun. Seems clear enough unless you are enamored with guns.

and hiding the children while under pressure.

This indicates that they'd have been quite capable of fighting back even more effectively had they been equipped to do so. This seems clear enough unless you are so tied up in a fixation of restricting people's ability to resist criminals that you see no other options.

...it's a bad idea is not whether teachers can become capable with guns, but the risk created within the classroom where a student could accidentally get the gun and hurt him/herself or another person.

I have had students steal things from locked cabinets and/or desks over the years. Once my school had a problem with older students stealing indelible markers and putting graffiti all over the school walls. We (educators) locked the markers up, made a rule about not allowing them at school, etc. and the situation improved. But it wasn't perfect.

Once in a while, markers were still stolen. Once in a while, graffiti appeared.

Substitute the idea of markers with GUNS. Do you see my concern?

right before my eyes...is this what the people saw in Germany..it is like we see this and we are in such shock that we really don't do anything about it...

That would mean we would have Nuns with guns. That would be promoting some very bad habits...

Dvd Guy, that is a great answer. As of teacher of 25+ I won't carry a gun. Your answer is my thoughts exactly.

He's rolling in his grave over this lame brain idea.

They wont have to figure out how to get guns into the school anymore. All they'd have to do is catch an armed teacher off guard and take theirs from them. I'm in MO. I don't have children in k-12 anymore, but if I did the day this law passed would be the day I took my kids out of school.

when they let everyone at an NRA press conference bring one.

Ted Nugent concerts, too.