Teachers with Guns? Madison Wisconsin.....

[calvon]

Go ask the Israelis. They armed their teachers a long time ago, and virtually stopped the suicide bombers who previously targeted schools.

[nabob]

The students should be tested somehow..not left to go willy-nilly...no genuine standards, as is now done in many schools...and I don't have to prove that deficency...we can see it in everyday life

No doubt. However, a bureaucrat in Washington is not someone I want to be deciding my school's policy. The education of our youth is a quintessentially LOCAL issue, not even a state issue in my opinion.

Local control is control you can have a say in. The further up the line control is passed, the less we have to say about things.

[ironglow]

Nabob;
 
  Correction on your previous post..you claimed that I am  an "avowed Republican"..not likely..since I am not even a stealth Republican.  Over the years I have been a Democrat, a Republican, an Independant...but today I register as none of those..

[troglodyte]

So what can we really do?  I'm asking in all seriousness.  Is there something realistic we can do to even start a serious dialog to allow teachers, etal, carry in school?

While I'm not a big fan of being required to have special training (although a quality course would be good) I would even pay for it myself.

Thankfully, schools are a very safe place for our children and the likelihood of a mad shooter in any school is very low.  Schools also have few occurances of fires, tornados, and falling aircraft (yes, that is in the EOP for a local district) but we plan, train, and spend a boatload of money on these things.  Think about fire alarms and sprinkler systems.  Schools pay serious money to have them installed, tested, certified, and maintained yet the vast majority of them are never used in an emergency.  How many student deaths have resulted from school fires in the recent past, I don't know either but I would venture to say it has been very few to none, yet we still see the need for a fire system and plan, and rightly so.  (edited-see below)

Apples and oranges you might say...and you might be correct but the point is still the same.  We plan for catastorphic events that are most likely never going to happen.  How is this really any different?  Because there is a gun involved.  And many of us simply don't like that idea being in school.  It goes against our Norman Rockwell ideals. 

Times are changing, good, bad, or indifferent, they are a-changing.  With that change, we must change our thinking.  We may not like it, we may fight it, but things will still change.  We can hope for the better, but we better plan for the worst.

Not to sound pessimistic, just the reality of the world.

What can we do?  What should we do?

I'd love to hear some real ideas.


Edit:  After doing a little research, from 1990-1994, there were 137 injuries (not defined) due to school fires.  These schools include nursery, K-12, vo-tech, residental, college, business, and speciality schools.  There is less than 1 death per year average due to school fires.   NFPA Journal – September/October 1997, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts.

According to the 2000 U.S. census, 73 million American residents are enrolled in Pre-K through college.  Now I'm not going to get into math or stats but it is pretty apparent that we are "wasting" a lot of money on fire suppression/alarms that are not going to be used.  (Don't take me literally, I don't think it is a waste.)

Hold onto your hats, from 1999-2006 there have been 227 school violent deaths (including suicide and fighting).  National School Safety and Security Services   

Now I will be the first to admit that the data is not from the same years or for the same amount of time but it certainly shows some interesting numbers.  I haven't done exhusting research on the matter.  I'll also admit that a number of these deaths were not the high-profile Columbine-type deaths rather they were "drive-by" types or obliquely related to school.  Most certainly the lack of deaths from fire are due to having fire suppression/alarm systems in place.  Still, I think there is room for a "statistical" argument for having qualified teachers given the option of carrying at school.  Even if we only consider the high-profile type shootings, I would venture there have been more than 1 per year average in the recent years. 

Maybe someone has better data, the time to dig through it, or the means to better analyze it.  I simply include it to give us a few numbers to consider.  It is my hypothesis. 

May still just be apples to oranges...

[pills]

Not to change the subject but school fires used to happen and lots of kids were killed.

http://www.answers.com/topic/our-lady-of-the-angels-school-fire

http://www.answers.com/topic/collinwood-school-fire

[nabob]

Ask an actuary - what is the chance of a school having a fire? Then ask him, what is the chance of a madman showing up with a gun? The latter is so rare as to be almost nonexistent. The chance of a fire is a lot higher. Still small, but on the radar screen, at least.

Many of the same procedures for handling any emergency are substitutable for each other. Gathering the kids together, doing a head count, knowing where you are supposed to go, notification of emergency personnel, etc. The fact that an individual school doesn't have a particular emergency doesn't seem like much of an excuse for not doing the basic planning for ANY emergency.

The statistic you quote regarding injuries at schools from fires is not relevant. The appropriate statistic would be fires in general, as it can be assumed that the extensive training schools receive regarding how to handle fires results in lower injury rates. Second, the statistic regarding violent deaths at school is also not relevant as it includes suicide and fighting. The topic here is in response to keeping a madman away from the children. I don't think a gun is going to solve the suicide problem nor do I think that arming teachers is going to solve the problem of gang violence in the schoolyard.

Let's hear some statistics about how many children have been killed in Columbine-type incidents. Those are directly on the subject at hand.

Arming teachers is a radical solution to a problem that is extremely rare. I am agog at the  fascination people have with guns, to the point where they believe they are the answer to dang near everything. The paranoia that feeds this, along with the Hollywood-hero image that accompanies it, is completely foreign to me. If refusing to allow teachers to have guns is engaging in Norman Rockwell-inspired views of school, then the demand to arm teachers is a Dirty Harry view of one's self and an obsession with the power of a gun. I'd question the motivations of any teacher that wanted to strap a gun to his hip in order to teach my children. I don't think such a person is stable.

[nabob]

Ironglow, I think you might be rationalizing your position a tad. Tell me again which party you are so interested in that people vote for and then tell  me how independent your thinking is. If nothing else, you are an avowed Republican in this election.

[williamlayton]

Nabob-
NOT an arguement--let us look at it another way.
Guns are not the answer but under the circumstance of facing a person who is wanting to do harm there is a very slight chance, only, that a discussion can be started.
Guns can be as much an obcession as anything. Obcessing over guns is not a bad thing.
Obcessing over wierd sex, doing harm, terror is a bad thing, very bad, NO NO NO bad.
It is a right to bear arms and a right that has served us in good stead over the years and will continue to do so.
IF IF IF we, any of us, knew when we would have need to defend ourownselves or others then I would agree with you. I have had a weapon on me or by me for 45 years and never had the need to even show it.
WE are our own first line of defense and there are instances when a weapon in the hands of one person would have prevented 15 killings. That is enough reason for me to advocate all who are legally able, to own and carry a weapon. If I knew when and where I would call the police.
It is not the public that is obcessed it is the public that wants to be able to defend against one that is obcessed.
Blessings

[nabob]

The definition of "obsession":

1 : a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling;

I don't want someone obsessed with ANYTHING around my kids, including someone obessed with possessing an object designed to kill things. To me, that indicates an unstable individual. Have a look at the definition. You say being obsessed with guns is not a bad thing? Well, an "obsession" is a "disturbing preoccupation". That's what I'm worried about. People with "disturbing preoccupations" shouldn't be around my children. "Obsession" is often about an "unreasonable idea or feeling" - such as believing that an occurrence so rare needs to be addressed by arming teachers instead of simply locking the front door. 

And btw, using the Amish incident won't work - they don't even touch guns.

The subject is not the right to bear arms, the subject is keeping our children safe at school.

[ironglow]

  Nabob;..your answer...
 
    I am registered as a Conservative..therefore, I will naturally, gravitate toward the more conservative candidate in any case...

  I learned long ago, that if I were to go to the polls and vote for some minor candidate that cannot possibly win...I may as well stay home..
   
   That being said, there are certain bedrock, core principles that Conservatives agree upon and observing the major candidates, I make my choices upon those principles...generally, as follows

   Key Conservative principles; some of my principles:

      1) I am pro-life...I will vote for a candidate that is such and will stop the continuing holocaust against pre-borm boys and girls.

      2) I am, pro 2nd amendment...I will vote for the candidate that will best protect the Constitution. I only have a couple     

      dozen guns...and I don't think I have "too many"..

      3) I am a Christian..I am tolerant... but I will vote for the candidate that protects and endorses Christianity.

      4) I am a "family values" person..I won't vote for "special gay rights" and will always back the candidate that works to keep  America as a morally decent nation (includes our school system, since the feds are already in our schools).

      5) I am an "America first" person..I won't vote for any candidate that wants to "cut and run" or sell out to the UN..

      6) I want Constitutional judges.. (e.g. Thomas, Roberts & Alito)..not ( Ginsberg, Souter & Stevens) activist types..
 
     Would a "W" type prez or an ALGore type prez give us better judges ?

      6) I think I pay enough taxes...Our present taxes would easily take care of our needs if most of the ridiculous "social programs" were scrapped..
   
      7) What a govt subsidizes..it gets more of...I don't believe in subsidzing phony art programs, illegitimacy, abortions, gun buy-

       backs... or free lunches to children whose parents can (and should) pay for their own children's lunch...just to mention a few.

     
   Nabob, these are just a few of the considerations I use when I prepare to vote...

  Considering only the candidates who stand a chance at holding office and my already outlined principles; who would you expect me to vote for ?..

          1) Ronald Reagan ...or Jimmy Carter

          2) Ronald Reagan...or Walter Mondale

           3 George H Bush...or "tanker" Dukakis

           4) George H Bush ..or Bill Clinton

           5) Bob Dole ...or Bill Clinton...(funny how the Dems didn't mention "draft dodgers" during elections #4 & #5..)

           6) George W. Bush.... or Al Gore

           7) George W. Bush ...or John Kerry
   

                      ...Or looking toward the future..who would define my principles better ?...

            A) George Allen ..or Hitlary Clinton

            B) Mitt Romney...or Howard "Dizzy" Dean

            C) The NRA...or the ACLU

            D) The US Constitution...or the UN

            E) American Family council....or the "Gay Rights" lobby

   ..Now, if it were McCain vs. Joe Lieberman (heavens forbid)..I would definitely need to examine positions closely..and may well give Lieberman the nod.

   
  Unlike some other "independants"..I won't spend a moment defending an ALGore, Hillary, John Kerry, Howard Dean ...or any other candidate that would as soon as they could, work to undo all those rights/principles I outlined above...

   That likely explains why I sound pro-Republican  when actually I am simply pro freedom and morality...

    If the Democrats backed those principles as strongly...I might vote for them..

                 " a rose by any other name.....would smell as sweet!"

    ..But for now, the Dems choose to back the homosexuals, the "hate America first, pro abort, anti Christian, ACLU, "cut and run", condemn our troops, smear our troops, and "dirt-digging politics"....

           How could any gun owning, traditionally minded, red-blooded American ever even think of backing them....?

     If they were to change dramatically ..and with apparent permanence..I may back them...

         
 

       

[nabob]

I don't back Democrats either. They don't stand for what I believe in.

But I also don't back Republicans. They don't stand for what I believe in. Not anymore.

1) Republicans talk a good game on being pro-life. However, I don't believe their support is anything except lip service and window dressing.
2) The Bush administration has passed on many opportunities to support the 2A.
3) I don't need the government to sanction my religion. I think it does just fine without any help from the government.
4) Family values is a nice phrase but it is a bumper sticker, not a legislative program.
5) One man's "cut and run" is another man's "ending a stupid mistake". And Bush has been working with the UN, so "selling out" to the UN is a matter of perspective only, not fact.
6) "Activist" judges is a dodge. All judges judge according to a philosophy of jurisprudence. If one choose one philosophy and another chooses differently, then both are "activist". "Activism" really means "I don't like that judge's philosophy and want them to judge using a different philosophy". That's activism, just in a different direction.
7) We don't pay anywhere near enough taxes for the amount of spending we do. We need to stop spending so much. Where's the Republican support of decreasing spending along with not raising taxes? If we paid enough taxes for the spending we do, we wouldn't be running a deficit.
8 I think you might need to reconsider the free school lunch program. I am involved with that and for the vast majority of kid's I see, that's the one sure good meal they can count on. Having hungry kids in school, because one disagrees philosophically with the idea of subsidizing what you consider "poor parenting" is punishing the kids for the actions of an adult. Not something I'd care to defend, especially since we are also seeking to raise academic performance.

[victorcharlie]

There is defianately a group of us disgruntled republicans who now look to a viable third party.

Constitutionalist?  Liberaterians?

They deserve a look, and in most cases, a vote.........

[magooch]

With the country so evenly split (right and left), any vote for a third party is tantamount to at best, not voting at all, or at worst, capitulating to the side you would least like to see in power.  Voting is about making a choice for the candidate who is closest to your philosphy who has a reasonable chance of winning, not some nebulous idealistic gesture.  Unless you are about making a point that no one will notice and will have no influence on how goes the fortunes of your local area, your state, or the country.

[nabob]

I've never understood the argument about "throwing your vote away". Is it because:

1) The candidate did not actually win? If that is the criterion, then anyone who voted for a losing candidate, no matter the party affiliation, threw their vote away.

2) The candidate did not have a chance to win? By whose calculation?

I vote for candidates that espouse the ideas I agree with. If more did that, instead of voting against whom they don't want to see in power, we'd have a less-messed-up nation. I kind of figure anyone who doesn't vote for someone they like is throwing away their vote and is responsible for the type of government we now see.

[doc_kreipke]

Nabob, I think that 2) is the closer answer. The criterion is discerned by looking after an election at the paltry number of votes that minor party candidates garner. The country has a de facto 2 party system at the national level.

Now, I wouldn't exactly call it "throwing your vote away." What I have is a guidline, based on observations of previous elections, that I use for my own voting behavior: As a general rule, I figure that if I vote for a minor party candidate whose ideas are close to mine, then I'm helping the major party candidate whose political philosophy is furthest away from mine.

Said guidline occurred to me during the last presidential election while I was visiting the Libertarian Party web site. In it, they were patting themselves on the back about how many votes they pulled away from Bush during the 2000 election. So they were bragging about decreasing Bush's percentage by increasing the Libertarian's percentage. But they naturally helped increase Gore's percent of the vote. Therefore, they were aiding the liberal candidate whose politics was furthest away from their own ideas. The Libertarian candidate was, of course, unceremoniously stonked.

To be sure, counterinstances might arise in any given election (e.g., the Liebermann situation). It's up to me to be paying enough attention to recognize when that occurs and to override my own rule.

[nabob]

If people voted for whom they actually wanted to see in office, perhaps the odds would improve.

I vote my conscience. I don't know any other way to vote. Each election, I'm not asked whom I wish to avoid having in office; I'm asked whom I would like to see in office. I vote accordingly.

[ironglow]

i haven't found the PERFECT candidate yet !

[nabob]

I doubt I will either, until I decide to run.

However, that isn't the issue, is it? You've cast your argument in terms of voting for Republicans in general, not a specific candidate. And you've stated why you vote for Republicans, that they as a group hold values you deem important. That's fine, nothing wrong with that. However, to now state that the reason you vote Republican is because you haven't found the perfect candidate means that you don't vote for a group, you vote for an individual.

So which is it? Do you vote for an individual or a party? All your posts so far have been directed at voting for a party, not an individual. Yet in this last one, you make the argument that because you haven't found the perfect candidate, you won't vote third party. That's inconsistent on your part, ironglow. Do you vote for the party or the individual?

[williamlayton]

Nabob-
By your own wording "often" is the key word in obcession. I obcess often. Just about guns no! In fact I am not sure I am obcessed about guns.
I obcess about defending myownself and others often--guns seem to be a better choice than knives and I read here some which seem to be obcessed with knives.
Do watches fall in the same catagory as bad.
Obcession doe not mean bad.
I like guns.
I like to own guns.
I like to read of guns.
I plan on what gun I will purchase.
I study the choices.
I like to shoot them. I want to shoot them.
I plan when I will shoot them.
I do much of the same with golf---if I had a swing.
I see nothing which is bad about my obcessions.
I do not obcess about injury, killing, terrorizing others.
Blessings

[nabob]

No, the key word is "disturbing", along with "preoccupation", followed by "unreasonable".

Other definitions are:

obsession, fixation: an unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation with something or someone

Someone obsessed with guns is having an unhealthy preoccupation, which I find disturbing when it is around my child. Any obsession is bad, williamlayton. It means "enjoyment" has gone to "fixation".

I don't think you are obsessed with guns. You enjoy using them. So do I. However, neither of us are controlled by that desire, so neither of us are "obsessed". The word "obsession" has a clinical definition and a popular one. I think you are using the popular one that has come to mean "I like this". However, true obsession goes way beyond that and becomes fixation or preoccupation, where you cannot control your desires. That is unhealthy.

[williamlayton]

Being married 43 years I have learned that my wife, the HEN, is always right and she told me I was obcessed by golf and guns and what I think will not chage that.
I agree with your last definition, but, well, er could you lend me some money to by another gun? HUH! Please. I promise it will be the last.
Blessings

[nabob]

NO! I'm saving up for a nice Marlin in .35 Remington as a carry gun for deer stalking.

No more heartbreaking phrase than "Yes, dear, I promise this will be the last one..."

LOL!!!

[WmRoy]

NO! I'm saving up for a nice Marlin in .35 Remington as a carry gun for deer stalking.

No more heartbreaking phrase than "Yes, dear, I promise this will be the last one..."

LOL!!!

I've never used that line...........