search
top

Armed Teachers

You know, I can talk about not politicizing tragedies until I’m blue in the face, but that won’t stop some on our side from doing so. There’s a few things to consider here:

  1. I think its just as inappropriate for us to shoot our mouth’s off about politics in the wake of a tragedy as it is for the other side to do.
  2. The vast majority of elementary school teachers will not choose to carry firearms, and we’re certainly not going to force them to do so.
  3. There’s a time and place for arguing over the wisdom of gun free school zones, but hours after a tragedy like this one is not the place for it.
  4. I think even when debate is appropriate, our side has framed this debate very poorly. I like the way CalGuns Foundation frames the issue.

I don’t even thinking shouting politics from the rooftops in the wake of tragedy is an effective strategy, because when emotions are raw, any political reaction is going to be rash and not well thought out. Give people time.

28 Responses to “Armed Teachers”

  1. harp1034 says:

    The anti-gun folks are not wasteing anytime. We have to be prepared because the hate has already started. Watch the hypocrites with their crocodile tears on the Sunday talk shows.

  2. Ronnie says:

    Even just one trained, armored, and armed security officer, or even just one fully-equipped LEO, either active or retired, posted full-time at that elementary school, would have very likely been enough to drop this deranged kid not long after he showed up on the campus with his guns blazing.

    Instead, this “gun-free zone” school up there in Connecticut apparently provided a target-rich environment for a deranged, cowardly, and heavily armed assailant. This crazy kid showed up on the campus with an apparent suicidal, pseudo-soldier, revenge fantasy, and we all were able to see how the local, state, and federal LEO tactical teams all showed up on the scene far too late to save any lives of the innocents.

    • Andy says:

      Some schools do have that officer. Some do not. That officer has to be paid. Something to consider at local tax and budget times, especially when Education is usually the biggest portion of a local gov budget. And when that budget is cut, something will go.

      • Ronnie says:

        From what I have read, this town in Connecticut where the school massacre happened was quite affluent. Most of the towns in Connecticut just outside of NYC are likewise affluent. I would bet that this town of Newtown in Connecticut could have afforded an on-site cop or armed security guard at all of their schools if enough of their taxpayers had demanded it.

        Personally, I would much rather see my federal tax dollars spent on hiring armed security at all public schools than wasted on bogus pork barrel projects such as “green energy” initiatives and sending money to countries like Egypt, which is now run by Muslim extremists who hate us. The Solyndra debacle alone cost us over 500 billion dollars, for example. I won’t get my hopes up on this though. It’s much cheaper for Obama and the Democrats to try for a new ban on semi-auto rifles instead.

    • Alien says:

      @Ronnie – I think you’re missing the point; “…even just one fully-equipped LEO, either active or retired, posted full-time at that elementary school…” is not the solution. It might help, but it’s not the solution.

      There are two parts: First is having an armed response instantaneously at the ready. Yes, that could be accomplished with “..even just one fully-equipped LEO…” (or equivalent) but there’s reasonable probability that one, or two, or three, such personnel would be elsewhere in the building(s) when the event started, not to mention a determined perpetrator would probably seek to begin his rampage where the protectors were not. Second, such action furthers the “only ones” philosophy of “you can’t protect yourself, you must depend on highly trained “others” to do so.”

      The bigger issue is not the mainstreaming of guns, although that would be a side benefit, it’s the mainstreaming of personal responsibility.

      One approach might be to simultaneously establish a higher-than-state-CCW-license standard of performance and a generous stipend to those in the education industry who volunteer to meet that standard and accept the responsibility of using that skill to protect the user community (students). With the stipend, and performance achievement necessary to get it, should come the understanding that the teacher’s responsibility extends considerably beyond maintaining order in the lunchroom; there are grave personal risks involved that come with the responsibility, and it is to be expected that most may pursue such a path through a sense of personal responsibility rather than merely the stipend.

      A place to start would be for the NRA, which has a terrific reputation as a safety and training organization, to put forth those performance standards and an accreditation program for meeting them. The standards should be uniform and high; if a majority of applicants can meet them on the first try the standards are too low. The NRA has over 40,000 instructors nationwide, and while not all of them have the certification (or ability) to teach complex and quite advanced courses, many do, and a curriculum and instructor certification program could be developed by NRA Training Staff for such a program. (This is something, that if we’re serious about it, should be addressed ASAP because whomever gets out in front of the issue will set the tone. If that turns out to be the “only ones” this will be strangled in its crib, and/or performance standards will be so watered down “to be fair to everyone” as to be worse than meaningless).

      Publicity – a difficult task, I admit, of getting positive publicity from the commie media – of the teachers who volunteer and meet or exceed the performance criteria, without mentioning how many qualified or at what schools they’re employed, will go a long way to shutting down such events as happened Friday in Newtown. Will they be completely stopped? Of course not – the mental health issue is the driving force behind such atrocities, and by definition those suffering sufficiently severe mental health problems as to engage in such atrocities are frequently incapable of the rational thought necessary to not engage in them.

      The real question, Ronnie, is do we want to be spectators in this, or do we want to be leading participants?

  3. Matt Rogers says:

    I agree.
    We must remember that this nation belongs to us. “We the people” is all of us. It does not say “Those elected officials” or “Those who make laws”.
    It is all of us that makes this a great nation. We all have a responsibility to tomorrow.

  4. The only answer to school mass murderers is IMMEDIATE armed response. While some will decry fighting violence with violence, it remains the only effective solution. We have fire extinguishers in all of our schools in case a fire breaks out. We should have “killer extinguishers” in place as well. An easy-to-use rifle, such as an M-1 Carbine or AR-15 in a securely locked container located at strategic points on the campus, and accessible only to trained school officials who carry keys might not save every life when a shooting rampage starts, but it would almost certainly lower the body count by orders of magnitude. Moreover, the knowledge that schools are prepared to take immediate action to stop active shooters will deter many who might otherwise strive for the top “body count” and a sordid place in infamy.

    • Alpheus says:

      One of my favorite quotes from Jeff Cooper:

      One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

  5. Ceefour says:

    The left/anti gun nuts are gearing up to go after gun owners with the same technique used to keep barry in the wh for another 4 years. They are pulling out all the stops to amplify their psychological attack on us with the hope of making us look like monsters and I suspect they will get physical this time around. These people are the Enemy on this great War On Guns and we have to do something about this before it is too late and we all wind up weaponless,dead.or in the DHS camps.

  6. Bill Quick says:

    Easy to say, Sebastian, but while we sit around waiting politely for “a better time,” the wannabe tyrants are making their despicable hay.

    Maybe it makes you feel better to take the high road, but I’ll start fighting as soon as they do, because I’d rather defeat them than feel good about myself.

    I’m not concerned with process. I’m concerned with liberty.

    • Sebastian says:

      As I said in the post, it’s not so much a matter of politeness as it is that whipping up a political fight in the wake of a tragedy makes you look as bad as the other side. Give it a few days. The farther you get away from the event the greater their power diminishes. I think to some degree fighting in the first few hours after the event is fighting on their terms, and I’d prefer not to do that.

  7. Matt Rogers says:

    Ninja,
    Precisely.
    We should ALL be ashamed that we did not know about this before today, and that we have not attended school board meetings demanding the same protections for our own children.
    2008! Amazing. I went to a local church and inquired of the situation there after the church shootings, their response “Not that it is any of your business, but we handle it.”
    My response was to not go back there, ever.
    –Matt

  8. Jake says:

    As much as I detest it, if we wait we end up behind the curve and arguing from a disadvantaged position. The anti-Rights cultists can’t wait, because their agenda doesn’t withstand calm, reasoned, logical analysis. Their only strong arguments are based in fear and horror, and they must strike while these emotions are strongest.

    They cannot afford to wait because they must tie their arguments to the horror and pain for them to be most effective. We cannot afford to wait because they will enthusiastically use our decency against us.

  9. Dann in Ohio says:

    This fight will be on… but not today… but soon… today we mourn, we pray, we support… tomorrow we’re ever vigilant…

    Dann in Ohio

  10. Hank Archer says:

    There’s a much more cost-effective way to have armed security on every campus. Instead of a guard or police officer, offer a stipend to school employees, say $10,000, and free firearms training to those willing to CCW at all times. This would be much like the TSA Air Marshalls. No one would know which employees would be armed. It doesn’t have to all be teachers either, there are many other employees at schools, custodians, librarians, secretaries, maintenance workers, etc. $10,000 would overcome a lot of anti-gun scruples.

  11. Patrick H says:

    Obviously I disagree. I think it can be done right- but only as a reaction to their side posting about it.

  12. Shawn says:

    “…because when emotions are raw, any political reaction is going to be rash and not well thought out.” But that is EXACTLY what the other side wants. The WANT you to not be thinking on a rational level, to be knee jerk and NOT think things through. These people feed off of things like this. The blood of the victims is the oil the gun control movement NEEDS and CRAVES for. They WANT this to happen both in the event and knee jerk reaction to ban-ban-ban.

  13. Rwilson451 says:

    I was shocked when a man being interviewed on the FNC claiming to be a ret. NYC det. said he thinks the GFSZ should be repealed.

  14. Roberta X says:

    Sebastian wrote, “As I said in the post, it’s not so much a matter of politeness as it is that whipping up a political fight in the wake of a tragedy makes you look as bad as the other side.”

    So how exactly is your stance different to the current Brady catchphrase, “We are better than this?”

    Get in the fight. Standing aloof on the sidelines because you don’t want to look like a Pratt or a prat won’t stop the AWB that is already aimed right at us.

    …And if there was even a possibility that a teacher or a school administrator might be armed, it would have a deterrent effect on these copycat murder/suicides. There’s no reason to go trying to arm every sweet elementary schoolteacher, just keep the would-be killers fretting that they might be.

  15. RAH says:

    Reading the NY times and the comments is frightening with the blood libel. Their solutions from banning all semi automatic firearms to taxes on ammo are severe.

    They have come out in droves and feel confident because of the 2012 elections they can push this issue. The blood of 4 and 5 year olds is their lubricant.

    They finally have the tragedy they wanted to push this.

    I do not think we can sit back and let them rant without pushing our view back.

    I recall the gun control antics in the 1970’s and thru the 1990, we can not let their narrative be supreme.

    We have to marshall logic, reason and be rational. Not calling them names, but we have to respond now. Waiting is too dangerous.

    • Harold says:

      Well, a bit like FNC mentioned above, the NYTimes and most especially it’s commenting readers are not entirely representative.

  16. alanstorm says:

    The vast majority of elementary school teachers will not choose to carry firearms, and we’re certainly not going to force them to do so.

    Then let them be replaced. These people have custody and control of children for 7-8 hours every day. Make them take responsibility for SOMETHING. Judging by the performance of their charges, most of them aren’t so hot on teaching.

  17. Richard says:

    Part of the problem in reacting quickly is lack of basic knowledge as to what happened. Part of this is understandable chaos and confusion in the aftermath. Part of it is the machinations of a media that is both incompetent and hostile. To take one example in the latest atrocity, we have one set of officials quoted to the effect that the rifle in the possession of the shooter was left in the car. The medical examiner is quoted as saying the the wounds were inflicted by multiple rifle shots. Which is it? Maybe we will know someday but if it doesn’t fit the media narrative, they will attempt to hide the answer.

    Perhaps an useful immediate reaction is not to talk about firearms policy but about media accountability to the facts. In both the Aurora theater shooting and this one, the media identified an innocent party as the shooter. It has taken how long now for the information that there was a CCW holder involved in stopping the Oregon shooter? As far as I know it still hasn’t hit the MSM. In addition to the question about the location of the rifle, it was identified as an “automatic weapon”. The MSM hasn’t mentioned that Connecticut already has an AWB. And so on.

    • Sebastian says:

      I agree with you there. The media coverage of this is so awful, I don’t know what is and isn’t true anymore. I don’t know what to believe. I’ve read a lot of things, but who has the truth and who doesn’t? I think it’s generally safe to criticize media coverage in the wake of these things because the media generally act like vultures, and the majority of people seem to notice.

      • Richard says:

        I would preempt. As soon as something happens, go after the media because we know that they will be incompetent and biased. Remind everyone of all the things they screwed up the last 10 times. Try to shame them into actually doing their job.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. On Strategy and Tragedy | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] few people seem to be offended that I’m not jumping right into the fight, in regards to a previous …
top