Well, armed teachers... don't know about that.  What if an armed teacher decides to go "postal"    One too many parents complaining about the required "free" reading at home and the graded reading logs and suddenly teacher turns into some wacko robot killing machine from Robocop or something... 

You know, in my opinion, outside of established concealed weapons permits, that is really kind of a strange concept admittedly.  I don't know if I'm for or against it.  A teacher or administrator can not paddle a child (or it is against the law to do corporeal punishment), and in many cases can not do any sort of disciplinary action that could be construed as humiliating, but it will be okay for them to be packing heat and use it in a crisis situation?    I mean, add into that the laws in place that make it a major offense to have a firearm within x feet of school property, how do they end up reconciling that since a teacher / administrator is not recognized law enforcement or security personnel.

salesortonscom wrote:

---

If you are willing to murder somebody the last thing on your mind is whether you firearm is prohibited under some gun law.

---

{Maxwell Smart voice on} Ah... The old "the last thing that goes through a bug's mind when it hits a windshield is it's butt" manuever...

I don't know.  That sounds reasonable to make sure they get law enforcement training, but do you really want your kids teacher to become a law enforcement official?  Do you think they would really like to have to take on that sort of additional training as part of their job description?  I can see it making them demand higher wages, and a backlash from the various teacher's unions as well as the police unions.

I guess if it is a need within a school district, then they should enforce policies that are more reasonable, like locking school doors to prevent outsiders from entering except through the office, having trained security on-site during school hours (like off-duty police officers and not Bubba from Joe's Security Services).

Something needs to be done, because right now there is a huge potential problem. That one freak in Bailey, Colorado has proven to freaks around the nation that, if they want to molest young girls, all they have to do is walk onto a campus with a gun. There's pretty much nothing to stop any suicidal child molester from entering a school and doing the same thing. Even if you have a razor wire fence and metal detectors, he'll just cut the wire of the fence. Why not? He's already bent on breaking all the rules anyway. He's not going to be afraid of trespassing charges, or destruction of school property charges, or any of that.
The only way to stop people like that is threat of force. If there's even a chance that the teacher in the classroom is carrying, they'll be much more hesitant.

WAGONMAN wrote:

---

 

The police have no duty to protect you. Warren vs D.C., South vs Maryland .

There's also a Supreme Court ruling that no right to protection exist under the 14th amendment.

So, who's going to do the protecting?

---

An armed populace?  Could be that's exactly what I've been preaching for years.  The police are there to investigate the crime and pick up the pieces.  They rarely prevent crime unless they happen to be in the right place at the right time.

Hey, that is kind of an unfair generality statement there Wagonman to imply that everyone who supports a reasonable level of gun control want to take away others right to defend themselves...

I'm not from the left, and I have nothing against those who own firearms AND use them for protection... in fact, I have family members who have actually HAD to use firearms to protect themselves from an assailant who is now on death row.

I just don't see the need to "arm" teachers wholescale as a deterrent to wackos.  Teach them self-defense methods, have them carry pepper-spray with them at all times, dig a moat around the school and fill it with wacko-eating alligators... I don't know...

If school teachers want to be a reserve police officer, that is fine, and is probably a great thing to have one or two at a school IF it does not become a part of the job requirements for being a elementary, middle, or high school teacher.  I used to work for a retired police officer, and it is (IMO) for the most part an honorable profession.  Like anything, it requires the individual to stay honorable.  I just don't see a lot of teachers getting in line to go through the training and police academy (do reserve officers have to do this?  Don't know) just so they can be a better protection and deterrent to wackos in the schools.  The thing is, reserve officers have to do actual police work too... they are like the auxilliary for the full-time force.

Hmmm... I'll ask my sister, who is a career, tenured full-time elementary school teacher what she thinks. 

What is reasonable gun control Cat?  How do you define it? What you might think is reasonable another might think as too extreme while someone else might see it as not going far enough.  A firearm is a tool just like a chainsaw or a shovel.  There is nothing mysterious to how it works.  Even reasonable gun control laws are only followed by the law abiding types.  Most laws are written to stop gun crime by folks that won't follow the law anyway.  In California it is illegal to carry a loaded weapon in an automobile on the roads.  Why, to stop drive by shootings of gangbangers of course.  How many guys though that are willing to kill someone really will take the time or effort to make sure they don't have a loaded weapon in the car.  As a result, the only people who get charged under this law are pretty much poor hunters who make the mistake of puting a loaded weapon on their car or even leaning it up against the pickup while they get their hunting gear on.  California recently banned the 50 BMG rifle.  This weapon is extremely expensive and is used by long distance competition shooters.  Although no crimes have ever been committed in California using a 50 BMG rifle they still banned it under the potential that it could be used by terrorists to shoot down airplanes (something my pilot brother in law said would be almost impossible to do).  Of course terrorists are going to make sure they follow that law!  The result is that those wanting to be in those competitions have to live out of state or have been here already owning one of these firearms.  Now Saed Al Mohammed Terrorist will now be prevented from getting one too (yea right).

 As for the reserve officer training requirements they vary from state to state.  I don't think firearms training should be mandatory for teachers but I see nothing wrong with making it voluntary.

Guys, no need to get into a discussion / debate about the merits of / dangers of gun control vs. the right to bear arms.  Okay?  No need to derail the discussion to that.  Reasonable gun control laws mean just that... what the average person would consider reasonable and customary common sense sort of stuff, including enforcement thereof.

Wagon, it is awful to label everyone who thinks common sense is in order is in the same boat as those in the extreme left who are overtly or covertly conspiring to disarm anyone but the police / military.  As awful as their agenda I think.  That is to imply there is no middle ground, only one of the two extremes.  That is what I'm referring to.

One of my wife's former employers once showed me his "bank vault" in the basement.  It contained a nifty collection of armaments, including a Browning machine gun and a mortar.  Should a private citizen be allowed to own those sort of things?  I don't know.  I'm not qualified to answer that.  Does it make a whole lot of common sense to, even in the light of being armed to protect yourself and family from assailants?  I don't think so.  I mean, that is a bit different than rifles or pistols that are used for hunting or target practice. 

I support the right for people to responsibly own and bear arms as private citizens.  I personally do not own firearms, but I grew  up in a family that did not own firearms, despite my father having had firearms when he was a teen (he grew up on a farm).  It was simply a case of we didn't have a need for them, nor did my parents feel it was a prudent thing to have in our home.  My dad was not a hunter and since the military had probably only held a gun since then on various Scout activities, and we lived in the suburbs.  I always enjoyed shooting targets in Scouts or on the odd occasion as an adult when a friend would invite me to the range or something.  As earlier stated, I do have a brother-in-law who protected the lives of himself and family from a guy who had been stalking them for decades.  He had gone on a killing spree and this family was next on his list.  Because my brother-in-law was armed and knew how to use it (and because they had gotten a tip from the police the guy may be on his way), he was able to use the weapon to stop the wacko and the wacko was apprehended by police and now sits on death row.  Some of you strong NRA advocate types (sorry, not meaning to cast aspersion, just don't know how else to refer to you as) may actually have heard of the incident some years ago, as some of those groups really wanted and pressured the family to let them use the story to promote their political agenda and activity (and the family eventually did release rights to the story to some group because they were in some financial need).

And, as stated earlier, teachers becoming reserve police officers voluntarily is probably not a bad idea if it makes sense in the local area.  I can't imagine any of the women who have been my kids teachers at the elementary level doing it (or qualifying for it if the requirements are as robust and rigorous as we would hope they should be). 

One of my wife's former employers once showed me his "bank vault" in the basement. It contained a nifty collection of armaments, including a Browning machine gun and a mortar. Should a private citizen be allowed to own those sort of things?

Why not? Obviously they're not used for hunting. But they have very real self defense uses. For instance, assume that there is a riot going on in the city where he lives. Do you suppose they might stay away from the house or business where some guy with a mortar and machine gun is defending himself? In my mind self defense is a much more valid reason than hunting. I'm not going to starve if I don't hunt, but I sure want to be able to defend myself if the time comes.
It also gets back to the original method of defending the US - a citizen militia. Every male of appropriate age was considered to be part of the militia. And honestly, if you were thinking about invading a country, wouldn't it give you additional pause if you knew that even, say, 1% of the households had military hardware? Given the current US population of 300 million, that would mean a force of 3 million irregulars. That's quite a significant force, even if none of them have had military training.
There's also the reason of avoiding tyranny. The Founding Fathers knew what it was to be oppressed by a tyrant. King George wanted to take away their arms so that he could more easily rule over them. At the start of the war, it was really hard for them to get cannon because of the restrictions King George had had in place. An armed populace, and especially a well armed populace, keeps government in check. Even those with good intentions may be inclined to force the population to do their will for, in their mind, the common good.
What is the downside? Well, people might use military equipment in crimes. But most crimes aren't carried out by those gifted in math, for instance, so a mortar wouldn't be appealing. Criminals already can get their hands on automatic weapons if they want. Strangely, most don't. Besides, stuff like mortars and rocket launchers can be made at home, if you're sufficiently motivated. So banning them has little effect on the criminal mind. So, for multiple reasons, few of them having anything to do with legality, criminals tend not to use military hardware in crimes.

Or we could have an autoduel situation, where people have armored cars with mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, etc. I'll bet people would become really good drivers!

As far as targeting people who are resisting more than others, I don't see that with rioters. Their goal, usually, is widespread theft and depravity. They're typically cowards, and interested in their own surival more than whatever treasure you may be hiding.
As far as an invading army, you have a point. But it's a decision you make. Do you resist, or do you passively take whatever's coming to you? The level of force they use to put you down will depend on the force you have available to you. If you just have a pistol, they're going to send a few soldiers with automatic weapons against you. If you have a MLRS (multiple launch rocket system) they're going to send tanks against you. Either way you have the same end result.
But I've read too many stories of the depravities invading armies wreak on those they conquer to want to go quietly. I don't have daughters, for instance, but I would certainly defend to the death their virtue against invading soldiers if I did have daughters.

We don't need another hero...

On the subject of walls and bricks and not needin' any, if you were the singer of Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, would you really care if "she's a brick house?"