Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 9:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.Â* 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.Â* Don't they have the same rights?



Most Americans would prefer that firearms be kept out of schools.


How did that work in parkland?

On 2/26/18 10:30 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 9:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.Â* 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.Â* Don't they have the same rights?



Most Americans would prefer that firearms be kept out of schools.


How did that work in parkland?


You think a teacher with a handgun would have stopped the slaughter, eh?
Too funny. There would be another dead teacher.

On 2/26/2018 10:55 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 10:30 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 9:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.Â* 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.Â* Don't they have the same rights?



Most Americans would prefer that firearms be kept out of schools.


How did that work in parkland?


You think a teacher with a handgun would have stopped the slaughter, eh?
Too funny. There would be another dead teacher.

Can you possibly consider that if two or three people in the immediate
vicinity of Cruz happened to get a lucky shot off that the total dead
might be lower? Or are you adopting the philosophy you accuse Greg of
having that, "Nothing can be done".

On 2/26/18 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/26/2018 10:55 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 10:30 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 9:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.Â* 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.Â* Don't they have the same rights?



Most Americans would prefer that firearms be kept out of schools.


How did that work in parkland?


You think a teacher with a handgun would have stopped the slaughter,
eh? Too funny. There would be another dead teacher.

Can you possibly consider that if two or three people in the immediate
vicinity of Cruz happened to get a lucky shot off that the total dead
might be lower?Â*Â* Or are you adopting the philosophy you accuse Greg of
having that, "Nothing can be done".



I suggested an approach:

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 11:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/26/2018 10:55 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 10:30 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 9:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.Â* 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.Â* Don't they have the same rights?



Most Americans would prefer that firearms be kept out of schools.


How did that work in parkland?


You think a teacher with a handgun would have stopped the slaughter,
eh? Too funny. There would be another dead teacher.

Can you possibly consider that if two or three people in the immediate
vicinity of Cruz happened to get a lucky shot off that the total dead
might be lower?Â*Â* Or are you adopting the philosophy you accuse Greg
of having that, "Nothing can be done".



I suggested an approach:

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 am all for all of your suggestions. It's really a shame that we have
to design and consider schools in the same way we consider prisons and I
am wondering what kind of affect that has on little kids.

"Mommy, why are all the doors locked in my school?"

"So you won't get shot and killed".

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:08:41 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 2/26/18 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/26/2018 10:55 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 10:30 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 9:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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?



Most Americans would prefer that firearms be kept out of schools.


How did that work in parkland?


You think a teacher with a handgun would have stopped the slaughter,
eh? Too funny. There would be another dead teacher.

Can you possibly consider that if two or three people in the immediate
vicinity of Cruz happened to get a lucky shot off that the total dead
might be lower?** Or are you adopting the philosophy you accuse Greg of
having that, "Nothing can be done".



I suggested an approach:

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.

All it takes is one side door left unlocked or opened by a kid on the inside.

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:08:41 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 2/26/18 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/26/2018 10:55 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 10:30 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/26/18 9:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.Â* 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.Â* Don't they have the same rights?



Most Americans would prefer that firearms be kept out of schools.


How did that work in parkland?


You think a teacher with a handgun would have stopped the slaughter,
eh? Too funny. There would be another dead teacher.

Can you possibly consider that if two or three people in the immediate
vicinity of Cruz happened to get a lucky shot off that the total dead
might be lower?Â*Â* Or are you adopting the philosophy you accuse Greg of
having that, "Nothing can be done".



I suggested an approach:

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.

All it takes is one side door left unlocked or opened by a kid on the inside.


Kids in the play fields.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:32:34 -0500, John H.
wrote:


All it takes is one side door left unlocked or opened by a kid on the inside.

I suppose they could alarm the doors and that "hardened" school had a
bunch of surveillance, monitored from the office, with a link to the
cops. If the door alarm goes off in the office, they could look at the
monitor and know right away if this was a shooter or just a kid
sneaking out for a smoke.
You could harden a school pretty cheaply (in school board bucks) by
installing a bunch more cameras, a decent alarm/communication system
that indicated where the shooter was (display in each classroom) and
toughen up the classroom doors. If the shooter is trapped in the hall
with no one to shoot and being watched all the time. it would not be
that hard for the cops to hunt him down and kill him.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:08:41 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:



I suggested an approach:

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 really doubt new laws do anything but change how the bad guy gets
his gun., The country is awash with them.
The bullet proof door is not really necessary if the teacher gets the
kids out of the line if fire but you may want to armor the strike
plate a little better so it is hard to shoot out the lock. Commercial
products are already available for that.
The one you miss is get rid of the diversion programs that keep
violent kids out of jail. That may be exactly where they belong ...
like this ****er. If the school had pursued the charges they had, he
would not have passed the background check. If the Sheriff had
followed up on the complaints, he would have been in prison for 10
years, just on the aggravated assault with a gun.

Wrote in message:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:08:41 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:



I suggested an approach:

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 really doubt new laws do anything but change how the bad guy gets
his gun., The country is awash with them.
The bullet proof door is not really necessary if the teacher gets the
kids out of the line if fire but you may want to armor the strike
plate a little better so it is hard to shoot out the lock. Commercial
products are already available for that.
The one you miss is get rid of the diversion programs that keep
violent kids out of jail. That may be exactly where they belong ...
like this ****er. If the school had pursued the charges they had, he
would not have passed the background check. If the Sheriff had
followed up on the complaints, he would have been in prison for 10
years, just on the aggravated assault with a gun.


You don't want to give the shrinks a shot at rehabilitating him?
--
x


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