quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

Based on those responses and attitudes, I must really wonder how effective and, more important, how willing teachers or other school staff would be to take on an active shooter. How many would elicit the same sort of, “I know Jones, the shop teacher, and I wouldn’t want to be on the same range with him, much less around when he decided to take on a shooter.” Some people here also don’t seem to recognize the difference in hazard levels between a predator armed with a rifle and actively seeking victims, and a few shots fired at him by a teacher who isn’t a highly trained expert shooter.

This will be determined on a case-by-case basis. As we have seen with the 'deputy' in this instance, even armed and trained law enforcement officers can't be relied on to do their duty 100% of the time. Many of us on this Forum, I have no doubt, WOULD HAVE put their lives (and pensions) at risk and engaged the shooter, whether they were armed or not.

There is no shortage of examples of brave students and staff selflessly putting themselves in harm's way to protect others. Why would this be any different if those people were armed? If somebody is willing to die, unarmed, to protect their students, why would anybody assume these same heroes would shrink from duty if they had a gun? That makes absolutely no sense.



And, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but in EVERY active shooter case I've heard of, the shooter IMMEDIATELY stopped killing innocent victims the MOMENT he was engaged by another person (armed or otherwise). Their default setting is self-defense. As long as there is no evident threat to their lives, they murder away. As soon as somebody engages them, they turn 100% of their attention onto the threat. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

So, those 'few shots fired at him by an untrained teacher' won't be ignored. They will be immediately responded to (either by engaging the teacher, fleeing, or killing himself (all of which stop the threat to innocent lives) ).


And these shooters are, as stated above, NOT special Delta SEAL operators. They are generally cowards themselves (who else attacks unarmed victims). Don't make them out to be some sort of 'apex predator,' when in all likelihood, they will immediately shrink back when they themselves are receiving incoming rounds. They are pathological killers - this does NOT make them supermen.

Not sure how many of our 20 million+ population of Florida are 18-21 but I suspect there is going to be a run on rifles before too long by this age group.

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:

So you would rather an armed person be in the hallway shooting kids on purpose instead of having teachers try to stop him that might accidentally hit a kid?

It is totally possible that a stray bullet hits a kid but better the chance of stray bullets from two adults shooting at each other than one shooting directly at the kids with no obstacles.

Pale Horse, this argument has been used by the antis time and again. They oppose arming teachers because "then we would have TWO armed men firing in the school." It's the same argument they used to oppose armed pilots - "That's all we need - MORE guns on airplanes."

It's a flawed argument. If I were stuck in the middle of such a shooting, I would prefer to accept the small risk of catching a stray round and have somebody engage the murderer instead of letting him casually walk around, unopposed, murdering people at will.

Or, do they suppose it's 'safer' to ONLY have the murderer armed? That is where that argument ultimately leads.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:


On the other hand, studies have revealed that most active shooters in schools “aren’t Rambos” who are highly skilled or even highly motivated. As is apparent even from news reports, most are teenaged boys or very young men whose experiences with guns and violence were previously limited primarily to video games and, perhaps, small animals as victims. That doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous, but confronting them isn’t like engaging a Russian Spetsnaz team. What’s more, I also believe that just knowing that armed guards are present is likely to be a major deterrent for many would-be attackers. They may not be afraid of dying, but they want to rack up a serious body count first. As mentioned above, if the SRO in this incident had even fired a distant shot at the murderer, it very likely would have disrupted his activities.

This is what a lot of people don't get. Especially non gun people. Most people get their knowledge of firearms from movies and TV where every shot is a hit and is immediately deadly. Where every criminal is former special forces. Where every criminal is far better trained and deadly than the average police officers and only the "hero" of the story is capable of stopping any serious attack.

Most people don't understand that these shooters typically have little to no training and no real plan other than roam the halls and shoot at will. Like you said the gunman are still dangerous and not to be taken lightly, but it sure seems to me that a good guy with a gun and training would have a real shot at putting them down.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
Not sure how many of our 20 million+ population of Florida are 18-21 but I suspect there is going to be a run on rifles before too long by this age group.

Prices in Texas are already rising.

We train military, police and others to be armed and capable of using them, all the while doing many other daily tasks.

The very vast majority of them do this day in and day out very well, and only a very small handful fail at it.

Why can we not expect teachers to be able to do the same thing?

But it reality, they are a "last resort" and not a "policing force".

They are much like fire extinguishers, airbags, seat-belts and parachutes.

We hope to never need them, but in a situation when you need one, having one is far better than not even having the option.

In principle, I support the effort 100%.

In actuality, I hope that the planning and implementation is well thought out and not a cluster fuck my government types in its execution.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:

So you would rather an armed person be in the hallway shooting kids on purpose instead of having teachers try to stop him that might accidentally hit a kid?

It is totally possible that a stray bullet hits a kid but better the chance of stray bullets from two adults shooting at each other than one shooting directly at the kids with no obstacles.

Pale Horse, this argument has been used by the antis time and again. They oppose arming teachers because "then we would have TWO armed men firing in the school." It's the same argument they used to oppose armed pilots - "That's all we need - MORE guns on airplanes."

It's a flawed argument. If I were stuck in the middle of such a shooting, I would prefer to accept the small risk of catching a stray round and have somebody engage the murderer instead of letting him casually walk around, unopposed, murdering people at will.

Or, do they suppose it's 'safer' to ONLY have the murderer armed? That is where that argument ultimately leads.

Oh I know it is. I've had this same discussion countless time. I was surprised to see one of our own members believe it too.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Florida Gov. Rick Scott just proposed raising the minimum age to buy anyfirearm to 21.

"Also, we will require all individuals purchasing firearms to be 21 or older. Let me repeat – we will require all individuals purchasing firearms to be 21 or older."

If you're 18-21 years old, the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you.

Link

Fucking idiot. Hey Ricky, the next shooter will be 22. Let me repeat - the next shooter will be 22.

At the same time you shouldn't be able to join the military until you're 21, so you can legally use a gun and drink too...

If you can't be legal as a civilian, right?

The next shooter will still be 18, he just won't have a legally purchased firearm, it will be stolen from mommy or daddy's closet.

Next shooter is 22. What are they going to do? Yes, raise the age requirement. Look, people, I'm doing something. The point is feel good measure to appease the hysterical mass won't make a damn bit of difference. These politicians are so predictable.

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:
Like you said the gunman are still dangerous and not to be taken lightly, but it sure seems to me that a good guy with a gun and training would have a real shot at putting them down.

Or at least halting the slaughter.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:
Like you said the gunman are still dangerous and not to be taken lightly, but it sure seems to me that a good guy with a gun and training would have a real shot at putting them down.

Or at least halting the slaughter.

like others have said the deterrent effect alone would be significant. no longer a gun free zone, unknown number of faculty are trained, and concealing arms.

They are not trying to find solutions. They are saying things that uninformed, gullible voters will applaud. It makes sense when you realize that. Yes, they are that conniving and crooked.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Now I wonder how this fellow can be criticized severely for not entering and confronting, armed, but with a pistol and no back up.

Because it's his fucking job, thats why.

Absolutely...

In Corrections part of our job (Code of Ethics book) was to break up a fight among inmates. Dozens and sometimes a couple of hundred inmates fighting. (Gangs) Some armed with a shank.

We went in. Sometimes just a few of us and at times we got "bounced around" but we did it...because it was our job.

If you are an armed guard at a school, there is only one life or death scenario that you might need to respond to, and that is an active shooter or shooters in the school. Unlike, say, a LEO who might need to respond to all sorts of life or death scenarios, too many to ever make into a list. So this guy had to think about what he would do in the case of a shooter. Was his answer "Hide against a wall?" He knew he was expected to go to the gunfire and take out the shooter. And he chickened out. He failed in the job he was paid to do, with the lives of kids in the balance.

Why does CNN and the whole corrupt main stream media perseverate on the gun the gun the gun? Because there is so much they don't want us to see, don't want us to think about.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

So lets just allow ONLY the government to decide how much security our schools need? Shit, why not? They've done such a great job so far.
So you shouldn't be trusted to handle a firearm in an emergency either?

Every one of us who possesses a CHP has signed up for this type of responsibility.

I wouldn't trust anyone to hunt a shooter down in a school with kids running everywhere who didn't have extensive training on a regular basis. Police and military practice and train to keep their skills up and they have to qualify. Teachers who carry shouldn't be any different. I'm not against them being armed. I'm against them trying to do a job if they aren't qualified for it when there are kids involved. Locking the classroom doors and protecting their class is something different than clearing hallways.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:
Like you said the gunman are still dangerous and not to be taken lightly, but it sure seems to me that a good guy with a gun and training would have a real shot at putting them down.

Or at least halting the slaughter.

I made a comment to a group of people that if I was allowed to sit in the school with a gun I'd happily volunteer to do so. Unsurprisingly someone commented that the shooter would just kill me too. I responded that I was fine with that because at least that would be a few seconds that he was aiming at me and not some kid.

A few R governors, including my own, have stated they are thinking about things such as banning AR15s and raising the age to 21. The 2nd amendment is one of the main reasons to vote R, in my opinion. Of all the promises the Rs have made and chosen not to keep, giving away our rights should not be on their list. Ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
I wouldn't trust anyone to hunt a shooter down in a school with kids running everywhere who didn't have extensive training on a regular basis. Police and military practice and train to keep their skills up and they have to qualify. Teachers who carry shouldn't be any different. I'm not against them being armed. I'm against them trying to do a job if they aren't qualified for it when there are kids involved. Locking the classroom doors and protecting their class is something different than clearing hallways.

I'm not sure anyone is advocating that. But at the very least hunkering down with students in their room with someone that is armed and could potentially shoot back if necessary sure seems better than crawling in a corner without a weapon somewhere...

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

So lets just allow ONLY the government to decide how much security our schools need? Shit, why not? They've done such a great job so far.
So you shouldn't be trusted to handle a firearm in an emergency either?

Every one of us who possesses a CHP has signed up for this type of responsibility.

I wouldn't trust anyone to hunt a shooter down in a school with kids running everywhere who didn't have extensive training on a regular basis. Police and military practice and train to keep their skills up and they have to qualify. Teachers who carry shouldn't be any different. I'm not against them being armed. I'm against them trying to do a job if they aren't qualified for it when there are kids involved.

Someone is there hunting the kids and you are afraid of a good guy hunting the shooter?

This argument blows my mind. There is a person in the hallway actively trying to kill kids and you don't want someone else in the hallway that might accidentally hit a kid?

This reasoning is why our schools are unsafe and why teachers aren't armed all over. People are so afraid of one kid accidentally being shot that they would rather 17 kids get shot on purpose. This is the type of thinking that encourages kids to hide instead of teaching them to fight back. Better the whole class get shot in the back huddled in a corner than one get shot in the chest rushing forward.

Hide and wait for the police to come take up position outside.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
I wouldn't trust anyone to hunt a shooter down in a school with kids running everywhere who didn't have extensive training on a regular basis. Police and military practice and train to keep their skills up and they have to qualify. Teachers who carry shouldn't be any different. I'm not against them being armed. I'm against them trying to do a job if they aren't qualified for it when there are kids involved. Locking the classroom doors and protecting their class is something different than clearing hallways.

I'm not sure anyone is advocating that. But at the very least hunkering down with students in their room with someone that is armed and could potentially shoot back if necessary sure seems better than crawling in a corner without a weapon somewhere...

I am advocating letting teachers carry guns and giving them the training needed to take whatever action they feel necessary at the time. If that is holding down their classroom, so be it. But since not every teacher will be armed I am not against teachers who are armed and have undergone some training to leave their room and engage, especially if the shooter is in a nearby room shooting kids whose teacher is unarmed. I am not saying it should be protocol that they leave their room, but I also don't think that there be rules preventing it.

Either we trust them or we don't. Yeah someone might get hurt accidentally but people are already getting hurt. I support attempting to put a stop to that as soon as possible.

This isn't rocket science for me.

Want to know why I'm OK with completely untrained good guys with guns? Because we saw what the trained guy did in this story.

I'd rather take my chances with a untrained good guy backing me up than with the trained good guy hiding out in the parking lot.