School shooter stopped by good guy with a gun, Dixon IL

[The ScorpioN]

I dont want someone to have to be competent with both. We already have teachers abusing kids and have bad teaching practices. You want them to have guns too? How long before the concealed carry assholes shoots that trouble maker who always freaks out and yells at the teacher.

Obviously it'd be someone experienced enough to handle it.

Not every menopausal English Lit teacher is gonna have a firearm.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I dont want teachers to have guns in classrooms?

You said that. I'm asking what you think the point of your video is. We all know accidents happen. Teachers won't be handling guns in their classroom unless there's a major emergency. It's self-defense. Not show & tell.

Bus drivers crash. You against busing kids to school?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

1) Registration has led to vehicle confiscation. Land Rovers for example.

Never even heard of that. What a crock of shit. Looks like the courts/arbitration agreed.

https://jalopnik.com/all-the-seized-land-rover-defenders-will-be-returned-to-1708474732

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Because i dont trust teachers with guns.

See, if I can trust a person to educate my child, then I trust them very much to be a responsible person. Guns aren't all that hard. A safety course and a little bit of time at the range. It's much simpler and more reasonable than the gun control route.

Instead, the "I don't trust" types will call to curtail my civil rights the next time there is a school shooting and act as if I'm a monster for rejecting that notion.

 

[44nutman]

If I am ever in Dixon,IL, Mr Dallas drinks for free.
Good job

 

[Protectandserve]

He should call former Deputy Peterson and tell him that's how it's done. Then tell him to fuck off for being a cowardly piece of shit who failed his kids.

 

[InternetHero]

What does it take to trust a teacher with a firearm?

Similar firearms training to a LEO? That would not be very hard to attain.

A lot of posters seem to think that guns are some sort of incredibly complicated and unstable device, and that most citizens carrying a gun are going to shoot themselves in the foot at the first sign of trouble.

Not only is that an odd media perception/joke, but, the "professional" training of Law Enforcement or most Military is firing a handful of live rounds and a simple class or two and firing a few shoots at the range. Would most of the "I don't trust teachers" crowd be satisfied if the teachers went over the very low hurtle that most LEO's and or Marines go over?

 

[SBJJ]

I am inclined to believe most people that do not trust teachers with guns have never shot a gun

 

[InternetHero]

I am inclined to believe most people that do not trust teachers with guns have never shot a gun

I would agree, and go on to guess that most have never even seen a gun and many would be deeply afraid of the intimate object.

Understandable in a sense - fear of the unknown is human, guns are dangerous without knowledge...

But rather than have knowledge or understand the unknown, we usually end up getting a lot of emotional outrage and dissonance, and our media/political camps encourage this on issue after issue to bring out emotionally outraged and dissonant voters...

 

[44nutman]

I am inclined to believe most people that do not trust teachers with guns have never shot a gun

Or we had teachers who had no business owning a pair of scissors much less a gun.
There is a county here in Florida one of the poorer counties which can’t afford to have a police officer in every school. They are hiring ex military and retired cops to fill the role. It’s cheaper and they are required to take classes prior to being assigned to a school. I am all for that, but the gym teacher with anger issues that stares at young chicks wearing tight ass Bike shorts should not be carrying a gun.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

They arent "teachers with guns" they are "concealed carry holders who happen to be teachers". Surely you understand the difference

You don't think a person can be competent in both, teaching and weapons?

Damn dude. Most people I've known are capable of acquiring competency at more than just one thing in life. Take driving for example. I bet most teachers are able to both teach and operate a motor vehicle (which is far more complicated than learning to carry and when to use a firearm).

See, if I can trust a person to educate my child, then I trust them very much to be a responsible person. Guns aren't all that hard. A safety course and a little bit of time at the range. It's much simpler and more reasonable than the gun control route.

Not only is that an odd media perception/joke, but, the "professional" training of Law Enforcement or most Military is firing a handful of live rounds and a simple class or two and firing a few shoots at the range. Would most of the "I don't trust teachers" crowd be satisfied if the teachers went over the very low hurtle that most LEO's and or Marines go over?

I am inclined to believe most people that do not trust teachers with guns have never shot a gun

Teachers armed with guns would only be responsible for handling one type of threat, a school shooter. That kind of situation has fuck all to do with hitting targets at a range. A more valuable skill would be being able to differentiate the shooter from the rest of the students. That is not really what the concealed carry training is for. LEO and military members participate in training exercises which are well above and beyond just firing targets at the range, but oftentimes their training can prove to be insufficient if they aren't keeping up with it. Any district that arms teachers then has some kind of mishap where a teacher shoots an innocent student, no matter whether it was a total misfire or it was failure to accurately identify the threatening student, would end paying millions of dollars out to the family of said student no matter whether they died or lived, and it just wouldn't be worth it.

The competency required to be effective in such situations is a few steps above getting your license and driving a fucking car. It's more like getting your CDL and keeping up with it. The big problem with arming the teachers is that it's not their jobs to be threat prevention. They have a job, and it takes enough time and training for them to stay on top of that, asking them to also be as competent as a LEO or military personnel in firefights is impractical. Talk all the shit you want, but you can know I'm right when you see that the majority of the most republican states don't allow teachers to carry as a rule of thumb (before you do a google search and see that 18 states allow concealed carry based on the permission of the school, realize that CA is one of those states and it doesn't mean all that much).

 

[InternetHero]

Teachers armed with guns would only be responsible for handling one type of threat, a school shooter. That kind of situation has fuck all to do with hitting targets at a range. A more valuable skill would be being able to differentiate the shooter from the rest of the students. That is not really what the concealed carry training is for. LEO and military members participate in training exercises which are well above and beyond just firing targets at the range, but oftentimes their training can prove to be insufficient if they aren't keeping up with it. Any district that arms teachers then has some kind of mishap where a teacher shoots an innocent student, no matter whether it was a total misfire or it was failure to accurately identify the threatening student, would end paying millions of dollars out to the family of said student no matter whether they died or lived, and it just wouldn't be worth it.

The competency required to be effective in such situations is a few steps above getting your license and driving a fucking car. It's more like getting your CDL and keeping up with it. The big problem with arming the teachers is that it's not their jobs to be threat prevention. They have a job, and it takes enough time and training for them to stay on top of that, asking them to also be as competent as a LEO or military personnel in firefights is impractical. Talk all the shit you want, but you can know I'm right when you see that the majority of the most republican states don't allow teachers to carry as a rule of thumb (before you do a google search and see that 18 states allow concealed carry based on the permission of the school, realize that CA is one of those states and it doesn't mean all that much).

The U.S. Army does not even do a lot of live fire exercises due to the costs and difficulties. As well, the training for a grunt or LEO is not A. intensive or rigorous in terms of weapons use (discounting the Marine's to some extent/special forces) and B. not for most agencies of LEOs.

Let's cut to the chase though:

Would you be in favor of giving teachers the chance to carry firearms if they were given a training course that matched LEO standards, and helped with active shooter situations?

 

[Islam Imamate]

See, if I can trust a person to educate my child, then I trust them very much to be a responsible person. Guns aren't all that hard. A safety course and a little bit of time at the range. It's much simpler and more reasonable than the gun control route.

Instead, the "I don't trust" types will call to curtail my civil rights the next time there is a school shooting and act as if I'm a monster for rejecting that notion.

How about we meet in the middle and don't ban guns or arm teachers?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Teachers armed with guns would only be responsible for handling one type of threat, a school shooter.

Yeah. And their own personal self-defense that (apparently as per this debate) they're prohibited from engaging in on company time. If they're not prohibited then whoever wants to carry can carry. If they are, then it might be worth questioning why that's the case when these shootings are supposedly an actual threat (rather than a statistical anomaly that makes the news).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The U.S. Army does not even do a lot of live fire exercises due to the costs and difficulties. As well, the training for a grunt or LEO is not A. intensive or rigorous in terms of weapons use (discounting the Marine's to some extent/special forces) and B. not for most agencies of LEOs.

I guess that's why the concept of well-regulated includes people owning and having experience with the firearms necessary to repel other motherfuckers with firearms.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

You said that. I'm asking what you think the point of your video is. We all know accidents happen.

lmfao

Theres no way that dude with the dreads in the first video had an 'accident'. He is incompetent, plain and simple.

 

[IloveTHIS]

Wow, a good guy with a gun is able to stop a bad guy with a gun? Hmmm....maybe just wishing all the guns to go away isnt the answer after all!

Ban guns! Felonious spreenkillers won't want to break the law by getting a gun if they are illegal!

 

[BangersAndSmash]

The U.S. Army does not even do a lot of live fire exercises due to the costs and difficulties. As well, the training for a grunt or LEO is not A. intensive or rigorous in terms of weapons use (discounting the Marine's to some extent/special forces) and B. not for most agencies of LEOs.

It doesn't always have to be live fire, it can be paint-ball for all I care, just something more than range target practice that accurately simulates an active shooter threat. But for the sake of argument, my friend was in the army from 2008-2013 and he said he was in at least 3 live fire exercises during the first year and a half, but he got real combat experience during his deployment in Iraq, so however you slice it, it's more than just concealed carry permit training.

Would you be in favor of giving teachers the chance to carry firearms if they were given a training course that matched LEO standards, and helped with active shooter situations?

Yes, I'm aware LEO standards are all over the place, due to the fact that some officers work in districts with a budget, and some work in offices with like 1 sheriff and 4 deputies total. If the teachers pass a strict vetting process and have a steady diet of quality training, then I'd be okay with them having a gun that was securely stored away in their classroom, except for the fact that its going to eat away from budgets that are already painfully lean, let alone what happens when a teacher packing heat makes some kind of mistake and the district is sued for millions of dollars.

If they are, then it might be worth questioning why that's the case when these shootings are supposedly an actual threat (rather than a statistical anomaly that makes the news).

I don't disagree that the threat of a mass shooter is somewhat overblown, especially by the sensationalized money-first media, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and act and solve problems if they're present. Again, the most salient example of safety measures enforced across the whole of society is what happened to cars. People realized that just letting anyone buy and use a car as they saw fit wasn't a good strategy for keeping society safe. We adjusted our laws, created street signs, required cars come standard with seat belts, headlights, airbags, and rear view cameras, and we require all car drivers to pass a baseline competency test before they can legally operate a motor vehicle without aid or assistance, plus we keep track of said drivers and ensure that they don't fuck up too many times before we suspend or take away their ability to operate motor vehicles.

 

[InternetHero]

It doesn't always have to be live fire, it can be paint-ball for all I care, just something more than range target practice that accurately simulates an active shooter threat. But for the sake of argument, my friend was in the army from 2008-2013 and he said he was in at least 3 live fire exercises during the first year and a half, but he got real combat experience during his deployment in Iraq, so however you slice it, it's more than just concealed carry permit training. (1)



Yes, I'm aware LEO standards are all over the place, due to the fact that some officers work in districts with a budget, and some work in offices with like 1 sheriff and 4 deputies total. If the teachers pass a strict vetting process and have a steady diet of quality training, then I'd be okay with them having a gun that was securely stored away in their classroom, except for the fact that its going to eat away from budgets that are already painfully lean, let alone what happens when a teacher packing heat makes some kind of mistake and the district is sued for millions of dollars.

If it "does not have to be live fire," and can be "paintball for all you care" then I feel you don't have a lot of firearms experience or training. Do you feel that degrades or perhaps adds to the emotional involvement you may have in the issue?

Your answer of "why not" given A. Good "storage" and B. "regular training" seems all right.

However, what amounts to safe storage? Concealed in an under the waistband holster, or in a safe where it takes minutes to access the gun and is not on-person? The latter might lead to 15 dead kids in the 3 minutes it takes to open said safe under pressure.

As well, "regular training" is not part of licensing or the protocol to most LEO departments either.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't disagree that the threat of a mass shooter is somewhat overblown, especially by the sensationalized money-first media, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and act and solve problems if they're present. Again, the most salient example of safety measures enforced across the whole of society is what happened to cars. People realized that just letting anyone buy and use a car as they saw fit wasn't a good strategy for keeping society safe. We adjusted our laws, created street signs, required cars come standard with seat belts, headlights, airbags, and rear view cameras, and we require all car drivers to pass a baseline competency test before they can legally operate a motor vehicle without aid or assistance, plus we keep track of said drivers and ensure that they don't fuck up too many times before we suspend or take away their ability to operate motor vehicles.

Come on man. I can build, own, and operate any vehicle I want, in whatever inebriated state I want, on private property. I'm fine with the same rules for arms. Deal?

It should also be noted that motor vehicle laws aren't in the Bill of Rights. If you just wanna brush aside the same thing that protects your free speech then consider me fundamentally opposed.