Texas School District Will Let Teachers Carry Guns

[The_Barbarian]

How many kids were shot to death in your school during your freshman year?

Wolsely, it was never common, although it used to be a lot more common than it is now.

If the answer is none, then may we safely assume things might have changed a bit since then?

They have, but not the way you think.

Maybe you might have a few more violent or crazy students, and a few less alcholic teachers?

Well, let’s take a look…

https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/center-for-effective-discipline/

nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2007/

Keep in mind, this marked decline happened during a virtual explosion in the number of students. And yet aggressive behavior by students is down dramatically over the past seventy years or so. It’s not just student assaults on teachers that is down. Students are less often the victim of assaults, too:

nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2007/tables/table_02_1.asp?referrer=report

 

[Wolseley]

Wolseley:

How many kids were shot to death in your school during your freshman year?

Wolsely, it was never common, although it used to be a lot more common than it is now.

You and notsmart went to school together? Hey! Old classmates together again!

 

[melensdad]

(Melensdad notes he can speak to myself and avoid serious questions that have been asked)
For example:

• I can wonder why Barbarian constantly avoids the fact that the school district doesn’t have the money to hire police.
• I can wonder why Barbarian knows that the district doesn’t have the money but still insists on demanding that only “police” officers be in the schools.
• I can wonder why Barbarian suggests that ‘trained professionals’ are acceptable but only if they are paid, not if they are volunteers.
• I can muse on the fact that Barbarian doesn’t even care that there is no local police force even exists in the district but still demands that police be used to patrol the school.
• I can simultaneously stick my head in the sand and pretend that once every 12,000 years a bad thing will happen, and also predict with great assurance that it won’t happen anytime soon.
• Further, I can issue proclamations with an air of authority that is false and misleading, but if I repeat myself over and over again then maybe people will simply stop posting and I will “win” by default of having lasted the longest.

(speaking to myself again, I better return to serious mode )

Specifically to “notsmart” I’d think you may want to go back and take a look at the requirements these specific teachers much achieve in order to carry a gun on the school grounds. It is not an easy task. Not every teacher could qualify. The teachers need to take the very same type of training as the police, they also have to take special conflict resolution training that is above and beyond what the police need to qualify for their jobs. On top of all that, they must be approved by the local school board, etc.

I understand that some teachers are not of good character, my wife is a teacher so I’ve met some of those that would/should not be trusted with duct tape, let alone a gun. But from what I have examined, and of the interviews I have seen from the school superintendent, it appears that they have all reasonable safeguards in place to make sure the ‘bad’ teachers will never be approved to bring a gun on campus.

But, and this is sort of interesting, what would happen if one of those ‘bad’ teachers did finally snap and bring a gun onto the grounds with the intent to harm? ***** If nobody else on the grounds has the ability to stop him then what? *****

The Texas school district is simply saying they are a long way from the local sheriff (30 miles), there is no local police force, there is no money to provide for armed security on the school grounds so therefore we are willing to authorize a special group of faculty members who undergo extensive special training.

 

[notsmart]

Worst that ever happened to me was getting whacked upside the head with a plastic hockey stick by a grade school teacher.

That engendered another personal trip to school by my father, the psychotic Pacific vet----one of several where he went into the principal’s office, and when he walked out, they all had faces the color of mozzarella cheese, were sweating profusely, and violently trembling.

I never got clobbered with a hockey stick again. Never could figure out why.

Go get 'em, Dad!

I am glad you never had worse and that your dad let them have it.
But, parents did protest this teacher, and nothing happened.
They protested when one of them was caught in the act raping a girl and they did not fire him right away and kept him on the roster for fall. He was going to be my sophmore year English teacher.
He never showed up for school…
Too many angry dads were waiting for him to show up. He choked.

 

[Wolseley]

I am glad you never had worse and that your dad let them have it.
But, parents did protest this teacher, and nothing happened.
They protested when one of them was caught in the act raping a girl and they did not fire him right away and kept him on the roster for fall. He was going to be my sophmore year English teacher.
He never showed up for school…
Too many angry dads were waiting for him to show up. He choked.

I cannot even imagine what my father’s reaction to that might have been, but it wouldn’t have been pretty. He went up and read the riot act to them on more than one occasion, as I’ve mentioned; I was sitting in the outer office once when he was there, and it was really pretty funny.

He laid down the law to them as to what they would and would not do, and one of them made the mistake of getting on his high horse and trying to threaten Dad----and Dad stood there and laughed at him, then leaned across the desk, said, “Now, you listen to me, you slimy little @#$%&*,” and proceeded to explain to him that he wasn’t intimidated one little bit by this officious little twerp, because once you’ve waded ashore on a few Japanese-held islands, you’ve been intimidated by experts. Everything after that is just lightweight nonsense.

They got to the point where they just dreaded to see my old man show up in the offices—they’d do practically anything to keep him away.

Nowadays, of course, they’d just call in a SWAT team and have him arrested. But back then? They lived in mortal fear of him.

 

[melensdad]

But it’s not about the kids, is it?

How about we let the kids have guns? Imagine that world. Probably a world a chaos and mayhem? Well actually not.

30,000 parents, and a whole bunch of school districts, have seen fit to trust children with guns. Not little wimpy handguns, but big powerful 12 gauge shotguns.

Here is an interesting press release about kids and guns. I suppose we can’t trust them. But in 8 years there have been no deaths or accidental shootings. Imagine that, we armed kids and only targets were hit! I wonder if the targets would fall if they were hit with .wav files?
NSSF Press Release:

NEWTOWN, Conn. – In terms of sheer numbers of participants, the eight-year-old Scholastic Clay Target Program (SCTP) has been the most successful youth-oriented program in National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) history. Nearly 30,000 middle and high school students have participated in the program, which includes trap, skeet and sporting clays competitions. The competitions are held with real shotguns and live ammunition, safely.

With SCTP now of a size and scope beyond the NSSF’s mission parameters, responsibility for its continuation and development is being passed along to the newly formed Scholastic Shooting Sports Foundation (SSSF).

It should be noted that the Scholastic Shooting Sports Foundation gives college scholarships to kids every year and a couple of the SSSF kids competed in the Olympics this year. Vincent Hancock and Corey Cogdell competed. Vincent won gold in the Men’s Skeet; Corey won Bronze in the Women’s Trap.

But it is very clear that guns and schools don’t mix. Bans on guns around schools is a good thing, even though we keep reporting on school shootings and fail to connect the dots. All ‘sensible’ teachers are against guns in the hands of school kids, because guns are so dangerous. Any child who even mentions the ‘g’ word, sketches a gun, wears a gun t-shirt or points a finger in a gun-like manner, will be dealt with harshly, get a severe blemish in the record book forever, and be covered in national “news” reports. If kids can’t be trusted with guns, then we better not let highly trained faculty members have them either.

Seems like a lot of people need attitude adjustments.

 

[notsmart]

SCTP is NOT being held on school grounds.

Get on the subject of Teachers having guns in the School.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Most of them don’t bring weapons to school.

Because up until now they could not legally do so.

So the rarity of drownings (which are much, much more common than school shootings should mean we must put life preservers on all students?

You keep missing the point that they school does not have funds.

So teachers need to be trained lifeguards in addition to requiring life preservers? It would save more lives than arming teachers.

The school is NOT requiring the teachers to be experts with guns. They are merely offering them the OPTION of bringing a gun to school IF they are licensed by the state to carry one.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Barbarian observes:
Indeed. There are schools that are dangerous enough that it is a reasonable thing to have armed guards. It would be preferrable to have professionals, rather than arm teachers, however.

And if the school can NOT afford armed guards, then it is better to have armed teachers than to have no one protecting the children in the event of an armed attack.

If he can make it through a police academy. If not, let’s leave it to people who actually know what to do.

If a person is LICENSED by the state to carry a firearm to churches, banks, etc.; why should that right not be extended to schools.

 

[notsmart]

 

[Sir_Knight]

(Barbarian observes that people who don’t understand the concept of relative risk will always be making dangerous choices)

Whoa. A neighborhood with a 1% murder rate is “very good?” That’s one person out of a hundred murdered every year. Baghdad is better than that.

I was giving an EXAMPLE that while a person’s GENERAL risk may be very low, it has no bearing on their SPECIFIC risk. Just as it is virtually impossible for a person to hit the lottery because the GENERAL chance of it happening is very low, does not mean that EVERY day people throughout the country people are not winning jackpots worth millions of dollars – the same applies to school shootings … while the chance of a shooting happening is very low, does not mean that it does not happen and it is prudent to be prepared for such circumstances especially if ALL the elements are ALREADY in place – a teacher owns a gun AND is already licensed by the state to carry one and in all likelihood already carries it regularily except to school where he was forbidden to do so.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Blackwater guards, for example. They got extensive training, but not police academy. Results haven’t been so good, um?

If it comes to children, I’d rather have police officers. At least they know what they are doing.

Hello? Hello? Anybody home? How many times do you have to be told that MONEY is an issues and that police officers can not be hired but it will not cost the school one red cent to have teachers carrying guns?

The point of this thread is whether or not that is a good idea and if the students are safer under those condirtions?

 

[Sir_Knight]

(Barbarian observes that people who don’t understand the concept of relative risk will always be making dangerous choices)

Sir Knight writes:

Barbarian exclaims:
Whoa. A neighborhood with a 1% murder rate is “very good?” That’s one person out of a hundred murdered every year. Baghdad is better than that.

No, he had a lot of trouble with estimation, too.

You just said that AND as I just explained, I was giving an EXAMPLE that while a person’s GENERAL risk may be very low, it has no bearing on their SPECIFIC risk. Just as it is virtually impossible for a person to hit the lottery because the GENERAL chance of it happening is very low, does not mean that EVERY day people throughout the country people are not winning jackpots worth millions of dollars – the same applies to school shootings … while the chance of a shooting happening is very low, does not mean that it does not happen and it is prudent to be prepared for such circumstances especially if ALL the elements are ALREADY in place – a teacher owns a gun AND is already licensed by the state to carry one and in all likelihood already carries it regularily except to school where he was forbidden to do so.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian exclaims:
Whoa. A neighborhood with a 1% murder rate is “very good?” That’s one person out of a hundred murdered every year. Baghdad is better than that.

You just said that AND as I just explained, I was giving an EXAMPLE that while a person’s GENERAL risk may be very low, it has no bearing on their SPECIFIC risk.

Trust me on this; a 1% homicide rate is not “very low.”

Just as it is virtually impossible for a person to hit the lottery because the GENERAL chance of it happening is very low, does not mean that EVERY day people throughout the country people are not winning jackpots worth millions of dollars – the same applies to school shootings …

And a prudent person addresses the most serious threat first. So in this case, a rational response would be to require every student to wear a life jacket at all times. Nationwide, it would save more lives than arming teachers by a huge margin.

But it’s not about the kids is it?

 

[KenEOTE]

Barbarian exclaims:
Whoa. A neighborhood with a 1% murder rate is “very good?” That’s one person out of a hundred murdered every year. Baghdad is better than that.

Trust me on this; a 1% homicide rate is not “very low.”

And a prudent person addresses the most serious threat first. So in this case, a rational response would be to require every student to wear a life jacket at all times. Nationwide, it would save more lives than arming teachers by a huge margin.

But it’s not about the kids is it?

KenEOTE wonders Is Barbarian able to grasp the idea that someone is using the percentages as an example. Apparently he is the only one who couldn’t understand what Sir Knight was saying.

KenEOTE is also curious if Barbarian can explain the agenda he likes to allude to but never says more about.

 

[The_Barbarian]

• I can wonder why Barbarian constantly avoids the fact that the school district doesn’t have the money to hire police.

Do they have a football team? Bet they do. They have the money, they just aren’t dumb enough to spend it on risks that unlikely.

I can wonder why Barbarian suggests that ‘trained professionals’ are acceptable but only if they are paid, not if they are volunteers.

Actually Barbarian didn’t. If police volunteer for the duty, the additional hazard is negligible.

I can simultaneously stick my head in the sand and pretend that once every 12,000 years a bad thing will happen, and also predict with great assurance that it won’t happen anytime soon.

I know people like that. Have you finished the meteorite shield over your house yet?

• Further, I can issue proclamations with an air of authority that is false and misleading,

Yes, we’ve all noticed that. You don’t have to convince us.

 

[KenEOTE]

But it’s not about the kids is it?

KenEOTE is still wondering if Barbarian will enlighten us with the agenda that he likes alluding too.

But maybe its not really about an agenda is it?

 

[melensdad]

Do they have a football team? Bet they do. They have the money, they just aren’t dumb enough to spend it on risks that unlikely.

How arrogant are you? Really?

The school district has a grand total of 17 teachers if you include the Kindergarden and the “special education” teachers in the total.

If they have a football team, I’m betting it is just as small and underfunded as everything else in that tiny little community that is not even large enough to have a police department. Schools like this exist in many areas, they cover tiny populations but large geographic regions.

My wife is a teacher in the local high school, her school district is the largest geographic district in the entire state of Indiana and it has only 1 modestly sized high school in the entire district. The land area is large enough that children have to take busses to transfer areas to get on other busses to get to their schools! When my daughter is old enough to attend High School we are debating between the Catholic High School (45 minute drive by car, across the state line to Illinois) and the Public High School (1 hour bus ride) but in the same county where we live. We love our rural life, but you clearly do not understand what it is like to live in a rural area, what the schools face in rural areas, and what the residents are able to afford.

You need to realize that there are very rural areas in this country that simply can’t afford the things, or simply don’t have access to things, that you think are necessary. Please do your research on some of the problems rural schools face, in many cases even if they have money they can’t get qualified staff, in other cases money is the issue. In all cases, rural schools are different than the suburban and urban area schools that many people take for granted.

Please climb down from your ivory tower, the air is apparently very thin up there, down here you can enter the land where people still farm for a living, don’t ask others to do what they can do for themselves, and are more than happy to cling to their guns and their religion.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Barbarian exclaims:
Whoa. A neighborhood with a 1% murder rate is “very good?” That’s one person out of a hundred murdered every year. Baghdad is better than that.

Trust me on this; a 1% homicide rate is not “very low.”

You obviously do not understand the concept of offering extreme examples to ILLUSTRATE a point.

And a prudent person addresses the most serious threat first. So in this case, a rational response would be to require every student to wear a life jacket at all times. Nationwide, it would save more lives than arming teachers by a huge margin.

But it’s not about the kids is it?

A prudent person addresses the most serious threat first IF THEY ARE ABLE TO. As has been explained to you NUMEROUS times in the past, FUNDING is an issue. There is no money to purchase life jackets. However, it will not cost anything to arm teachers.

And since you keep bringing up drowning while IN SCHOOL, I don’t ever recall reading about or hearing about a single child drowning while IN SCHOOL but I do recall a number of children being killed during school shootings.

Exactly how many children have died during school drowning compared to children being killed by shooting? I haven’t found any stats on this. Perhaps because there aren’t any.

Care to provide some?

 

[Sir_Knight]

KenEOTE wonders Is Barbarian able to grasp the idea that someone is using the percentages as an example. Apparently he is the only one who couldn’t understand what Sir Knight was saying.

Most likely a reading comprehension issue.