On 2/26/18 9:14 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/26/2018 9:01 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
True North wrote:
How long will it be before the first teacher accidently shoots a
student.
It will happen considering how gun crazy people are south of the border.


Bet on it. Dumbest idea ever.



You have (or had) a concealed carry permit.
I have a concealed carry permit.
Many people have a concealed carry permit.

What's the purpose of a concealed carry permit?

Last resort self-defense for yourself and/or others.Â* Correct?

What's so different about a teacher who wants a concealed carry permit
(or already has one) ?

The difference is the teacher unions.Â* Special authorization would be
required to be armed on public school property.



1. It is difficult if not impossible for a skilled, motivated shooter
with a handgun to face down a ****ed-off shooter with a high-powered
semi-auto rifle. Most school shooters are using AR-type rifles. A
teacher with a handgun likely will not have a lot of experience shooting
and is likely going to be cut down in short order.

2. When the police enter a building in which there is an active shooter,
they tend to identify the shooter as the person holding and perhaps
shooting the firearm. More dead teachers.

3. Where is the teacher supposed to keep the firearm? Will it be stolen?
Or will a kid, especially a little kid, grab the firearm to play with it
and accidentally shoot himself or a buddy or the teacher?

4. Lawsuits. Lots of lawsuits. You can imagine the variety.


The answer is to harden the entry to schools, watch closely who enters,
have bulletproof doors to classrooms, do what is possible to cut down on
the number and sorts of firearms available to the general public,
provide a higher level of counseling to students, raise the age limit
for obtaining a rifle, have better background checks, and treat the NRA
for what it is...a trade association that exists mostly to promote the
sale of firearms and ammo and lobbies for more and more firearms.

On 2/26/2018 10:22 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 9:14 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/26/2018 9:01 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
True North wrote:
How long will it be before the first teacher accidently shoots a
student.
It will happen considering how gun crazy people are south of the
border.


Bet on it. Dumbest idea ever.



You have (or had) a concealed carry permit.
I have a concealed carry permit.
Many people have a concealed carry permit.

What's the purpose of a concealed carry permit?

Last resort self-defense for yourself and/or others.Â* Correct?

What's so different about a teacher who wants a concealed carry permit
(or already has one) ?

The difference is the teacher unions.Â* Special authorization would be
required to be armed on public school property.



1. It is difficult if not impossible for a skilled, motivated shooter
with a handgun to face down a ****ed-off shooter with a high-powered
semi-auto rifle. Most school shooters are using AR-type rifles. A
teacher with a handgun likely will not have a lot of experience shooting
and is likely going to be cut down in short order.

2. When the police enter a building in which there is an active shooter,
they tend to identify the shooter as the person holding and perhaps
shooting the firearm. More dead teachers.

3. Where is the teacher supposed to keep the firearm? Will it be stolen?
Or will a kid, especially a little kid, grab the firearm to play with it
and accidentally shoot himself or a buddy or the teacher?

4. Lawsuits. Lots of lawsuits. You can imagine the variety.


The answer is to harden the entry to schools, watch closely who enters,
have bulletproof doors to classrooms, do what is possible to cut down on
the number and sorts of firearms available to the general public,
provide a higher level of counseling to students, raise the age limit
for obtaining a rifle, have better background checks, and treat the NRA
for what it is...a trade association that exists mostly to promote the
sale of firearms and ammo and lobbies for more and more firearms.


I guess your logic and arguments support the Florida cop's decision not
to engage Cruz because he had an AR-15. Oh, well. 17 dead.

(That whole issue, the numerous prior contacts and tips police had about
Cruz and the FBI's failure to followup on tips really needs to be
thoroughly investigated).

The proposal for teachers having guns includes having them in a secure,
locked safe. No reason for kids or anyone to know they exist. May take
a little time to retrieve a firearm but would probably beat the time
required for police to arrive.

I understand the confusion that could occur regarding police showing up
and facing an armed teacher. That problem needs to be resolved however
if law enforcement already knows that good guys may be armed,
precautions can be taken. Good guy/bad guy training is part of some
police training courses. Maybe an instant alarm signal to the police?

Again, nobody is talking about arming teachers against their will. It is
an idea only for those who feel compelled to volunteer.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:22:48 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/26/18 9:14 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/26/2018 9:01 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
True North wrote:
How long will it be before the first teacher accidently shoots a
student.
It will happen considering how gun crazy people are south of the border.


Bet on it. Dumbest idea ever.



You have (or had) a concealed carry permit.
I have a concealed carry permit.
Many people have a concealed carry permit.

What's the purpose of a concealed carry permit?

Last resort self-defense for yourself and/or others.Â* Correct?

What's so different about a teacher who wants a concealed carry permit
(or already has one) ?

The difference is the teacher unions.Â* Special authorization would be
required to be armed on public school property.



1. It is difficult if not impossible for a skilled, motivated shooter
with a handgun to face down a ****ed-off shooter with a high-powered
semi-auto rifle. Most school shooters are using AR-type rifles. A
teacher with a handgun likely will not have a lot of experience shooting
and is likely going to be cut down in short order.

2. When the police enter a building in which there is an active shooter,
they tend to identify the shooter as the person holding and perhaps
shooting the firearm. More dead teachers.

3. Where is the teacher supposed to keep the firearm? Will it be stolen?
Or will a kid, especially a little kid, grab the firearm to play with it
and accidentally shoot himself or a buddy or the teacher?

4. Lawsuits. Lots of lawsuits. You can imagine the variety.


The answer is to harden the entry to schools, watch closely who enters,
have bulletproof doors to classrooms, do what is possible to cut down on
the number and sorts of firearms available to the general public,
provide a higher level of counseling to students, raise the age limit
for obtaining a rifle, have better background checks, and treat the NRA
for what it is...a trade association that exists mostly to promote the
sale of firearms and ammo and lobbies for more and more firearms.

I agree most teachers are not going to be good candidates
The janitor might be a better candidate for carrying the gun.

I do think the school systems with these "diversion" programs where
they fail to report criminal students are partially responsible. If
Parkland HS had reported the crimes Cruz committed in school, he would
have a record that would have prevented him from buying the gun.
The Sheriff also failed to act on credible reports of felonies.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.

On 2/26/2018 8:55 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.


CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/24/us/armed-teachers-states-trnd/index.html

NPR:

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/25/534230962/colorado-teachers-get-gun-training-as-first-responders

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 09:06:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:55 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.


CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/24/us/armed-teachers-states-trnd/index.html

NPR:

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/25/534230962/colorado-teachers-get-gun-training-as-first-responders


And, oh my gosh, a teacher's gun accidentally fired in a restroom back in 2014!

And comments like this from the NPR article, are simply stupid: ""I think all teachers would prefer
to be given the tools and resources to help our students, as opposed to being forced to shoot
them..."

It's that stupidity that the liberal news tends to quote. More bull****.

On 2/26/2018 9:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 09:06:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:55 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.


CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/24/us/armed-teachers-states-trnd/index.html

NPR:

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/25/534230962/colorado-teachers-get-gun-training-as-first-responders


And, oh my gosh, a teacher's gun accidentally fired in a restroom back in 2014!

And comments like this from the NPR article, are simply stupid: ""I think all teachers would prefer
to be given the tools and resources to help our students, as opposed to being forced to shoot
them..."

It's that stupidity that the liberal news tends to quote. More bull****.



What struck me was that both articles gloss over (in their editorial
comments) the fact that teachers against being armed is not universal.
Some *want* to be armed. Don't they have the same rights?

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.


If Nancy Pelosi put forth the proposal, Fat Harry and the rest of
her lemmings would be slobbering all over it.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 2/26/2018 9:13 AM, justan wrote:
John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.


If Nancy Pelosi put forth the proposal, Fat Harry and the rest of
her lemmings would be slobbering all over it.



Nancy would say that the best way to protect schools is to make sure the
lawns are mowed.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 09:13:51 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:31:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/26/2018 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:

I am not surprised at the stance of the teachers' unions when it comes to arming teachers. It's an
anti-Trump stance, and I'd expect nothing more.

I am surprised at the number of teachers being quoted who use 'too many responsibilities already' as
a reason for not arming teachers. It's true that teachers have a load of responsibilities. But, when
the shooting starts only one takes precedence - protecting kids. I don't think any unwilling teacher
would be asked to carry a gun. And, the simple act of carrying a gun does not add significantly to
the other duties of a teacher.


Trump's proposal calls only for teachers who volunteer to be trained and
armed. It's certainly not mandatory.

Not as well reported is that hundreds of teachers have responded to a
gun course instructor in Ohio who offered his course free to teachers.
He initially planned on about 50 respondents but last I heard now has
over 300 who want to attend.

Even NPR and CNN have quietly reported that many teachers are in favor
of being trained and armed.



If the 'anti-Trump' politics were taken out of the equation, I think we'd see a lot more approval of
the idea. I am surprised that NBC and, I'll take your word for it, CNN are reporting anything
positive about it.

The idea that carrying would overload a teacher with too many responsibilities already is just
bull****.


If Nancy Pelosi put forth the proposal, Fat Harry and the rest of
her lemmings would be slobbering all over it.

Amen.