Nevada Lawmaker Proposes Arming School Officials To Prevent Mass Shootings

1. It's a blame the victim argument and misdirects responsibility
2. The simple presence of a gun does not ensure safety - training and practice are essential to achieve any measure of effectiveness. This leads to a third issue - untrained people carrying and firing guns present multiple hazards.

the teacher was able to stop the shooting very quickly, without killing the shooter.

Yes, N=1. Yes, there are plenty of bad things that could happen. But we have to do more than knee-jerk and say "this is a horrible idea", because the one time it happened it kept things from getting a lot worse than they did.

Also, an example of taking this several steps further is Israel. In order to protect their children from armed attacks teachers who are trained carry weapons. They also have armed guards everywhere. I remember New Orleans after Katrina - armed guards everywhere in the streets. I can't imagine making children going to school and growing up in a world like that.

Is that what we want for our country? Armed guards everywhere? Is that where we are as a country now? That we so expect and accept the violence that we need and want to arm teachers and post guards at elementary schools? Don't we have police forces to provide security? Or have we cut funding to essential public services so much, that we have left the babies and their parents and teachers to fend for themselves.

Personally, I think that allowing teachers who are willing to carry in school and perform the duties of an armed guard is intriguing, and might be a moderately effective preventative measure. Not 100%, but it may perhaps save more lives than it takes. Then again, it may not.

The point is, how have we come to this? How is it that we accept the ever increasing escalation as right and proper and react not by addressing the violence, but by increasing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

We can't keep being like Republicans on this issue. We aren't entitled to a separate set of facts.

But the version at your link says: " ... Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving ... However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car ..."

So Myrick arrested Woodham, as Woodham was leaving after shooting a number of people. That's nice, but it just doesn't match your claim "the teacher was able to stop the shooting very quickly"

she fancy's herself as a know-it-all

The Clark County School District already has it's own police force as does UNLV. The rural counties don't and I could agree with some teachers and administrators being trained and armed against the possibility of a deranged nut shooting up a school.

That would have to be their response right? I mean, if you are going to make decisions based on fear, what better to keep the fear alive!

1). I say, American's rights to carry unregulated firearms STOPS at my right to keep my children safe.
2). I say, "Regulation" (as in a "Well-regulated militia" is written in the second amendment. Possessing arms for "Personal protection" is not written in the second amendment.
3). I say, If people cannot keep from killing people with automobiles, then they shouldn't have guns. Automobiles are a tool for transportation and guns are a tool for killing.
4). I say, using the false analogy of equating gun violence with automobile fatalities. Stay on topic, we are talking about gun violence.
5). I say, stating that America is the best nation on Earth, is not supported by the evidence.
6). I say, staunch gun advocates have an irrational fear of the government, which, in my opinion, means they are willing to act violently in response to their fears, making them mentally defective.