It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: NRA Leader Advocates Guns for Teachers

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28

Originally posted by sigung86
OK.... Gee, now if I could only get you to sit down and think about an intelligent solution to problems where children are killing children and no one really seems interested in useful solutions that work for everyone.


You want a simple solution? Ban guns.

It's not popular, it might against the amendment, it might infrings on your rights, and heck i might not even support it.



But you did ask for a simple solution.


Rapier .... Ya gotsta read the post.


I said, and I quote, "useful", unquote. Simple, unfortunately, is not always best. I might not see a reason nor have a desire to give up my firearms. I have never shot anyone, if you don't count the possibility of that action when I was in Viet Nam... I have no desire to shoot anyone, currently,
I have no desire to go hunting. I have no desire to actually go target shooting. Cleaning up firearms after they're used is a pain in the patoot. But I am still born a freeman. I have inalienable rights, just like you. I have the ability and the desire to make choices. My choice is for the acquisition and maintenance of firearms. Mainly because, if I give up that right, no one will ever give it back. In my mind it is far better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Now... with that in mind, let us discourse on a "useful" solution.


[edit on 26-3-2005 by sigung86]




posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Banning guns is not an option, as some gangster has stickered on his reads: "When guns are outlawed the outlaws will have guns."

I think if a few administrators had guns and trained how to use them correctly instead of the one or two resource officers at the school the students would get the idea that the must respect the school officials. Teachers with guns is pushing it though in some bad areas it might be helpful. There are many cases of students bringing guns to school daily, especially in poorer communities. There is a problem and the schools are not safe.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   


So what is supposed to happen? As a teacher, should I draw down on a kid whenever he gets within arms reach of me because I can't have him making a play for that gun? As a student, should I go up to the teachers desk every morning and assume the position to show him that he doesn't have to pull his gun on me if I raise my voice over something?


No and no. The only reason to pull a gun is if you intend to use it.
There is no reason to pull it for a child raising their voice. The only time to use it is if lives are immediately in danger.





Then let me repeat, teachers are not adequately trained to use deadly force. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, however what happens when you miss and kill somebody else? You're liable. It's not a good idea to put a gun in untrained hands in a room full of children. When you've got 30-40 childen lined up in tight rows and you take a shot at one, you can just about bet on hitting somebody, even if its not the target.



So train them before allowing them to carry. It doesn't take long. Make them pass marksmanship exams regularly. Only allow bullets that won't pass though a body intact in schools. Not every teacher has to be armed, only ones who can pass strict requirements should be allowed.




My highschool had two campus resource officers on loan from the police department, and 8 unarmed guards. It was a good sound system. No distruptions of the classroom, no worries about a kid getting teachers guns, and all the guns were in professional hands, yet if there had been a gunshot anywhere in the school, two armed men would have been on scene with 2 or 3 minutes. Not a bad system at all.


2 or 3 minutes, do you realize how many people could be killed in that amount of time. Another point is, if you are waiting on the police it will be longer than 2 or 3 minutes. Remember Columbine? They waited until they had SWAT assembled and swept room to room. Police don't usually rush headlong into situations like that. They wait for backup.





So the system of one or two cops on campus is going to reduce the number of people killed on average DRAMATICALLY. Arming teachers on the other hand will double the number of shots fired in the crowded room at the beginning, resulting in more casualties on average.


Most schools do not have cops on campus. In my area there are school resource officers and there are only 2 I believe for the whole system. They rotate between schools. You would have to at double the size of the entire sherrif's office just to be able to do that. It's not like most areas have extra millions of dollars laying around to be able to do that. I believe it costs more than 100k per officer per year after you add up all the expenses. Money better spent on more teachers.

Anyone properly trained with a firearm knows not to just fire shots willy nilly. You wait for a clear shot. When the coast is clear you double tap the shooter. In the most recent shooting, if someone in the school was armed, they could have had a chance to meet the shooter in a hallway before they even got to a room.




Suppose you're walking down the street and somebody rattles off a string of the most apalling obcenities and slurs imaginable at your kid- how long has that person got to live, not counting the split second it takes for his lifeless corpse to stop twitching? 5 seconds, maybe 10 if he's a big guy?


Unless my life was in danger there wouldn't be a problem. Words are not a problem. If he were trying to cause life threatening harm that would be a different story. I get the feeling that the person in question would have 5 or 10 seconds if you were involved.



It seems to me that you project your violent tendencies on everyone else, thinking that everyone will respond as you would. From your posts it seems as though you have a low threshold for responing with violence. Most people ,that I know anyway, are not like that.

"Not probably- definately, because if I found a gun on that teacher I'd take it away from him and batter him with it."

Case in point.

"if I'm thinking about making an example and wanting to create a stir that will hopefully result in the banning of weapons in the classroom or perhaps just deter teachers from excercising that right- I think a horrifying and unruly spectacle culminating in the sudden death of the perpetrator would be far more effective than a long desensitizing circus-trial that results in a monetary award and somebody going to jail."


I'm glad you're in Canada.





[edit on 27/3/05 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
Licenseable fully automatic weapons are very expensive. The license is 500 bucks a a pop, and you must pass a failry stringent clearance.


The license is not $500, the federal tax on any full auto firearm is $200. This is why the ATF falls under the department of the treasury, because it was originally not law enforcement but a revenue collecting agency. And the standard wait is only 6 months for the investigation.





Hey, anyone remember that school principal who followed the law and left his gun in his car 10 blocks away from the school he worked at, only to have to run 10 blocks to retrieve it in order to thwart a murderer in his school? No? No one remember that one?
And when was the last time a terrorist in Israel managed to hold students in a school at gunpoint? What, they don’t do that, you say? Why? Couldn’t be because the teachers have guns, now could it?



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
The NRA and their gun worship disgusts me, and this is the most disgusting face of it yet presented. It looks like they (and you) are simply trying to find an excuse to press guns into another area of society.
Freaking SHAME-ON-THEM for exploiting ten recent deaths to push a second-best solution just because it compliments their obsession with having a big metal substitute phallus on their hip.

You argue that campus resource officers are two slow because they would need backup, yet one teacher can handle the situation?

You argue that it would cost $100,000 to take one cop off of traffic duty and have them sit at the school instead, and not only that but that flooding a school with guns is better than paying one cent for police protection of the children?
Also let's consider the cost of an administration to monitor and test teachers marksmanship- then the teachers union will want reimbursement for weapons and licensing and all that good stuff, and after the first couple of lawsuits schools are going to be looking at insurance prices too. This will far outstrip the wages and equipment for one extra cop, I don't care how thin you try to slice it.

You believe that in 2 minutes scores of people will be massacred when history shows that school shooters are undisciplined with their shooting and have a hard time finding targets, to the point that incidents lasting HOURS claim around or under a dozen lives only (because people run away and that first clip goes fast!)
I contend that a proper training program that instructs teachers on how to lock down their rooms immediately upon hearing gunfire is far more effective, that campus officers will arrive faster than any other potent solution possibly could and resolve the problem then, and that other solutions which involve doubling the number of shots fired in a crowded room, especially when neither shooter is a professional, will only increase casualties.

You can go on all day about wanting training teachers to be responsible shooters, but we can't even train this stinking people to educate our children! Can we at least agree that the primary function of the teacher is to teach, not to "double tap" little Johnny? There is no way to make teachers as safe as professional law enforcement officers, who will also be far more effective than armed teachers. All your plan is going to do is ensure that the teacher is always the first person shot. I'll give you one thing though- it's going to make some people feel like really big men, and that's really the point after all isn't it?



It seems to me that you project your violent tendencies on everyone else, thinking that everyone will respond as you would. From your posts it seems as though you have a low threshold for responding with violence. Most people ,that I know anyway, are not like that.


I'm not projecting anything- we are discussing what should be done when a student starts shooting other students- at that point violence is a foregone conclusion.
My point with the quote you offered was not to show that people will resort to shooting people very easily. My point was to demonstrate that this is wrong and that if it becomes legal it will still be bad for our kids and should be opposed. If somebody brings a weapon into the classroom around a child from your family, you should stand up to put a stop to that. That was my closing point- that we can not let ourselves be bullied by a bunch of sexually insecure gunslinger wannabes from the NRA, even if they do succeed in making this legal, because it will still be unacceptable.



I'm glad you're in Canada.
[edit on 27/3/05 by Skibum]

I'm in Canada? Crap, somebody get me a ride back to California ASAP!

Edit: spelling

[edit on 27-3-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Here is the state laws for Machine Guns and Silencers. www.vectorarms.com...
Here is how to obtain a fully automatic machine gun.
www.vectorarms.com...

I own a gun because I do not want an intruder to come into my home and possibly harm my wife or children. Remember the florida girl last month? The convicted child molester snuck in her grandparents home. I have and use gun locks. The most important part is my children are brought up to respect me and my property. Every school in the good ole USA has a armed police man or a security guard now, or they plan on adding one. The teachers can own a gun legally using his or her states CWP license. The children are getting guns and killing teachers and fellow students. We concerned parents need to quit worrying about getting in trouble for spanking our children and get the authority back in our homes. Remember getting your ass beat for doing something stupid? How many of us took a gun to school 30 years ago? WAKE UP AMERICA! Respect starts in the home, you do what you need to do to bring authority back. If the little goth teenager is smartmouthing you and saying he hates you and if he doesn't get his way someone is going to die. I think you better change his attitude, because he is on the way to making another statistic.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Dumbest move by NRA. They are saing its ok to shoot kids.


That is insane troll logic. I am all for guns but you cant give teacher the ok to shoot child if they feel in danger. Some schools, I bet the teachers fear for thier lives everyday.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Personal Responsibility is the KEY! The lack of Personal Responsibility on the part of those individual who misuse guns should be dealt with in a harsh and draconian fashion.

Let me say that I am not an N.R.A member, nor am I a proponent of the idea that Teachers should carry guns.....Teachers are TEACHERS! and should do just that...teach! I would hate to see some computer geek type teacher inadvertantly killl some Steroid using High School Football player who just happened to get too close to him......but I digress!

For those who feel the need to use guns in an illicit fashion.....enforce the laws which we have on the books...and more! I mean, why is anyone who has been convicted of murder using a gun still alive on death row? I know I will be attacked for that statement...but I really wonder why?

Personally I don't agree with any of this mumbo jumbo about a person's
" a priori" experience being a contributing factor in murder.....or the misuse of guns. USE A GUN....MURDER A PERSON.....IT'S DEATH FOR YOU! AND WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF TRIAL!

Back to the area of Personal and Parental Responsibilty....Perhaps the Parents of the idiot minors who misuse weapons should serve the same sentence as the their child who misuses a weapon. I mean if the penalty for carrying a gun to school were to be 2-5 years in jail on the first offense, for both the offending juvenile and the parents, there might be quite a few parents taking a better gaurd over their little hoodlums! Perhaps!

Here is another idea....maybe we could send those who feel the need to carry a gun to school....to some sort of Military School, where the instructors and administration would be allowed to carry weapons...and shoot to kill when required! Just an idea! It might even reduce our need for a draft in the future.


I could go on and on about this, however, I don't think sending teachers into the classroom with guns is the answer. I DO think that harsher and more immediate penalties for the misuse of guns might be a better consideration.

Hell I would even be in favor of a "Reality T.V. show" where the victims family and friends get a chance to "hunt down the criminal" and administer justice.....
Kinda like a nice little "foxhunt"!
Sorry to all P.E.T.A. members!


These are just a few thoughts....



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
www.cbsnews.com...

This is the sign out side of the Red Lake School. Didn't stop him did it.

Why killings at schools?

Target rich environment and no one to stop the shooter. The security guard ( no gun) was the 3rd person killed. Doesn't that tell you something?

Teachers with concealed weapons would throw the next would be shooter/s into a decision making process that may lead them to avoid the school all together.

Remember, where arms are not allowed, thats is where the killers will strike.

Look at the last terror report that stated where the terrorist would like to strike, soft targets, schools being one of these targets.

Roper



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   


For those who feel the need to use guns in an illicit fashion.....enforce the laws which we have on the books...and more! I mean, why is anyone who has been convicted of murder using a gun still alive on death row? I know I will be attacked for that statement...but I really wonder why?


I'm pretty much in agreement with you on this point, so no real arguement from me.





Perhaps the Parents of the idiot minors who misuse weapons should serve the same sentence as the their child who misuses a weapon.


Depends on how they get the weapon. If its just handed to them or they are allowed unsupervised access to it, sure. If the child breaks into a locked gun cabinet or gets it somewhere else, then no.




Here is another idea....maybe we could send those who feel the need to carry a gun to school....to some sort of Military School, where the instructors and administration would be allowed to carry weapons...and shoot to kill when required! Just an idea! It might even reduce our need for a draft in the future.



It doesn't take military school for this. Cops are taught in a few days all they know on when and how to use their firearms. Just have the teachers take the same class the cops take if they desire to carry. The classes are not expensive either.

I do disagree with the using teachers to reduce the draft as you propose.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   


It looks like they (and you) are simply trying to find an excuse to press guns into another area of society.


I'm not pressing people to carry weapons. I'm saying if a teacher can prove themself to be competent enough to carry and desires to carry, they should be allowed to. Emphasis on competent and desires.





You argue that campus resource officers are two slow because they would need backup, yet one teacher can handle the situation?


If a teacher is already in danger and in the area of the shooting, yes It is not unreasonable to believe that they would act. Cops don't just throw themselves into situations of danger. They react when they are directly presented with a dangerous situation. Thats why they usually wait for backup, unless they are already in danger.




You argue that it would cost $100,000 to take one cop off of traffic duty and have them sit at the school instead, and not only that but that flooding a school with guns is better than paying one cent for police protection of the children?
Also let's consider the cost of an administration to monitor and test teachers marksmanship- then the teachers union will want reimbursement for weapons and licensing and all that good stuff, and after the first couple of lawsuits schools are going to be looking at insurance prices too. This will far outstrip the wages and equipment for one extra cop, I don't care how thin you try to slice it.


Lets see in my county there are presently 26 schools with more being built regularly. During a shift for the sherrif's office there are between 5 and 10 deputies on the road. Where are the extra cops going to come from? Who will be protecting the rest of the community? Like I said you would have to at least double the size of the sherrif's office to accomplish your goals.


I'm not saying flood the schools with guns either. If a teacher wants to carry their own private weapon and they can pass the same strict firearms class the cops pass and pass regular marksmanship tests like the police, there should be no problem. If its an issue of the system paying for classes, then make it so that if the teacher wants to carry, they should cover the costs. Classes are not expensive, less than 500 dollars. Who says the students even have to know the teacher is carrying. Make them carry concealed if they feel thy need to carry. Most of the time you could be standing next to a person with a gun and you wouldn't even know it.

Lets see , put cops in schools to defend against an incident that may never even happen, or spend much less money training a few teachers in case it does. Hands down much cheaper my way. What are the cops gonna do in the meantime, sit around with their thumbs up their backsides doing nothing?What a waste of money. They gonna write speeding tickets in the hallways? You thought the incident with the 5 year old or whatever was bad wait til there is a constant presence there busting kids for every little infraction. Sorry kid you spit on the floor, heres you summons.




You believe that in 2 minutes scores of people will be massacred when history shows that school shooters are undisciplined with their shooting and have a hard time finding targets, to the point that incidents lasting HOURS claim around or under a dozen lives only


You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Columbine - In 7 ½ minutes, 10 people are killed and 12 more wounded.
15 minutes between shooting starting and the last victim is killed.
More than 30 minutes after the shooting starts SWAT is authorized to enter the building.
After 46 minutes of shooting SWAT finally does enter the building.

Whole timeline here.

www.cnn.com...

Its ridiculous to think cops could have done anything to help.



But even if as you claim that these shootings last hours, wouldn't it be better have the ability to stop them in minutes. Why would they last for hours as you claim? The answer is not difficult. Its because there is no one there that can stop them.

Most school shooting are over quickly. Most of the killing is done long before cops are there to do anything about it.





You can go on all day about wanting training teachers to be responsible shooters, but we can't even train this stinking people to educate our children! Can we at least agree that the primary function of the teacher is to teach, not to "double tap" little Johnny? There is no way to make teachers as safe as professional law enforcement officers, who will also be far more effective than armed teachers. All your plan is going to do is ensure that the teacher is always the first person shot. I'll give you one thing though- it's going to make some people feel like really big men, and that's really the point after all isn't it?



Yes I agree that teachers primary function is to educate. But in situations like school shootings their responsibility is to defend and protect the students. The stats I've seen are that police are more likely to wrongfully shoot innocents than legally armed citizens when it comes to defensive use.

If you would like to dispute that by all means post some facts.

You can go on all day about how teachers primary function is to teach,
But teaching usually stops when the shooting starts. Beter to have them trained and armed than to have them defenseless and dead.

Its not about feeling like a really big man- thats why criminals carry weapons.

Its about being able to protect yourself and the students when faced with psychotic killers.

Typical liberal to try to bring up that trite line though. Good for you.
Surprised you have not brought up the thats a big gun you must be compensating for something line yet.




I'm in Canada? Crap, somebody get me a ride back to California ASAP!


My apologies, I confused you for a different poster. California is even better though. 3000 miles from me.




[edit on 27/3/05 by Skibum]

[edit on 27/3/05 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
First of all, I'm with Cafeman that personal responsibility is key. I have focussed my arguement on my aversion to the NRA's proposal, but really Cafeman has chosen what may be the most intelligent position: attacking the problem before the gunplay begins. Resolving that it is necessary to allow guns to be carried in every corner of society just in case somebody illegally obtains and illegally misuses a weapon is to suggest that we just have to accept living in a society where we leave unstable people alone with access to guns and wait for them to start killing people. Pressing personal and parental responsibility through gun ownership laws which account for maturity and psychological stability and through penalties for negligent parents will likely be as effective or more so than encouraging increased gun ownership, and it wont put innocent children in the middle of a shootout between their teacher and their classmate.

Now to for my last response to skibum before I leave town for the week.

Your opposition to the school officer idea makes several faulty assumptions I believe. 1. It overstates the cost by ignoring the presence of city police forces, the possibility of replacing school security personel to free up funds for a police officer, and the fact that officers are only needed in highschools and possibly middle schools, because that's where most of the shootings are.
Your belief that the teacher will be effective and police will not be is also flawed. There is a word for police who refuse to put themselves in harms way to stop the slaughter of unarmed children- FIRED.
The teacher will not be effective because by the very nature of the idea he will never draw or fire first, and because it is not his primary job function to be handy with a pistol, (and because he probably can't afford kevlar) he doesn't have nearly the hope of winning as the police do.

You bring up the idea of putting the burden on the teacher and making it a secret. This leaves a tremendous queston:
Why is a measure for the protection of students optional?
I believe it's because the weapon is not being introduced to protect students at all. I think it's being suggested so that a handful of nutcases who probably don't belong in schools to begin with can feel macho with a gun on their hip.
We can't leave the safety of our students up to the personal discretion of a teacher and we can't safely and efficiently mandate guns in the classroom. The way I see it that leaves two options: police officers or parental responsibility (or both).


Lets see , put cops in schools to defend against an incident that may never even happen, or spend much less money training a few teachers in case it does. Hands down much cheaper my way.


Not after you factor in what happens all the times when teachers haven't taken your OPTIONAL measures to keep our schools afe. Funerals are expensive and so are lawsuits.


What are the cops gonna do in the meantime, sit around with their thumbs up their backsides doing nothing?What a waste of money.


Actually they will be arresting students who engage in fist fights, among other duties. I'm from a rough town, but one year this new principal shows up, brings a cop on campus, and announces that every single person who ever throws a punch on campus is leaving in handcuffs, that school became pretty orderly in a hurry. It's a very helpful program.



You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Columbine - In 7 ½ minutes, 10 people are killed and 12 more wounded.
15 minutes between shooting starting and the last victim is killed.
More than 30 minutes after the shooting starts SWAT is authorized to enter the building.
After 46 minutes of shooting SWAT finally does enter the building.


Your timeline says that it took 5 hours to completely search and secure the school. The timeline also implies that wounded may have died after the initial few minutes, increasing the death toll. (For example the sign from the window indicating "1 bleeding to death")

The single worst school shooting in history which involved the use of automatic weapons, shotguns, and bombs, could have been stopped within 5 minutes, and it can be safely assumed that up to half of the casualties could have been prevented if there had been a campus officer there under standing orders to intervene at all costs.

Could armed teachers have done the same? No, because an armed teacher can't be required to respond, can't even be contacted if not in their classroom, and doesn't have kevlar and therefore is more likely to lose a controntation.

Clearly the response in Littleton was extremely poor and could have been greatly improved if there had been an officer on campus and a clear policy on how to deal with such incidents.



But even if as you claim that these shootings last hours, wouldn't it be better have the ability to stop them in minutes. Why would they last for hours as you claim? The answer is not difficult. Its because there is no one there that can stop them.


For the umpteenth time, if SWAT really can't handle them, neither can the teacher. The fact is though that the police could have gone in and handled this situation: they were unprepared, incompetent, and unwilling to put themselves in harms way as required by their jobs.

It took 5 hours to sweep the school because there wasn't an officer on campus to be contacted and react in the first few minutes while the shooters were still in the cafeteria. That would have been the only way to have Columbine secure in the first few minutes instead of 5 hours later. I bet the wounded would really have appreciated it too- especially those who died while waiting for police to reach them and get them medical attention.


Most school shooting are over quickly. Most of the killing is done long before cops are there to do anything about it.

And thats why you think it's a bad idea to have cops on location? Are you insane or are you just so bloody in love with guns that you would embrace a system that sacrifices lives just to arm teachers?



Yes I agree that teachers primary function is to educate. But in situations like school shootings their responsibility is to defend and protect the students. The stats I've seen are that police are more likely to wrongfully shoot innocents than legally armed citizens when it comes to defensive use.

The statistics are watered down by the fact that private weapons are more common in homes than on the street and therefore many private shootings occur in the home where there are fewer innocents in the area. It is insane to argue that a professional is less likely to error than somebody who just passes an annual test. That's like saying that a paramedic would lose more patients than somebody with a CPR card.


If you would like to dispute that by all means post some facts.

You first my friend. For all I know you pulled that statistic out of your butt, however it is rationally explainable at any rate. If you'd like to go into that i'll find stats on the ratio of public shootings to in home shootings for you, but and i will account for the misuse of legally owned guns resulting in intentional deaths as well in order to accurately represent the statistics. You'll have to give me a week though as i will be out of town and offline.


Its not about feeling like a really big man- thats why criminals carry weapons.

Yes it is about being a big man; how else can you explain OPTIONAL security? It's about the optional sexual security of the teacher, not the mandatory safety of students.


Typical liberal to try to bring up that trite line though. Good for you.

Nice try but I'm actually a left-leaning republican and am planning on buying a rifle shortly, quite possibly an M-14 if I can find a legal way despite living in California. I just don't happen to be so hardline that I would want guns in school around my children (if i had any). I suppose you could call me a thinking republican
.


Surprised you have not brought up the thats a big gun you must be compensating for something line yet.

Um... I did. I called it a "big metal substitute phallus" because I thought simply saying that NRA members all have tiny pricks would possibly get me warned. So for future reference, a phallus is that thing you play with in the shower. (just ribbin ya, i hope you don't take that personally).




My apologies, I confused you for a different poster. California is even better though. 3000 miles from me.


You don't have to apologize unless being called Canadian is somehow an insult.
I hate the hell out of this state and will probably be leaving some day- they're liberal in all the wrong ways. If you'd tell me where you're from and how common your views are in that area i'll kindly stay the hell away though.

Thats all for now, perhaps we shall continue at a later date.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
A top official for the National Rifle Association has advocated that arming teachers with guns needs to be considered. NRA's first vice president, Sandra S. Froman, made the statement to the Associated Press. Froman is expected to become the NRA's president next month. She cited a 1997 incident where a teacher retrieved a firearm from thier car and held a student at bay.

Here come the vultures. If we start arming our teachers the WE ARE DONE! Let me say it again: WE ARE DONE. Its over period.



Fred, I don't think we have to worry about teachers packing. Socalist hate guns and I wouldn't want Ward Churchill near a gun...unless I was holding it


Chief



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   


There is a word for police who refuse to put themselves in harms way to stop the slaughter of unarmed children- FIRED.


Wrong, police like anyone else are not required to put themselves in danger. They are not required to stop bullets for other people. They are there for one reason only...to enforce the law.




and unwilling to put themselves in harms way as required by their jobs.


Show me some proof of being required to put themselves in harms way.
My wife works for the local sherrifs office, I hang out with cops on a regular basis... I've read the SOP's for the department, nowhere does it require them to put themselves in harms way as you say. In reality , the only person you can truly depend on defending you, is yourself. If a cop takes it upon himself to go in without backup that is his choice and his choice alone.
Typically they are trained and told to wait for backup before going into a hot situation.


Even court decisions prove you wrong.

“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.”
—Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)


"a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...”
—Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

Here is law from your state.

California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

In other words they are not required to protect you or the children, especially if it means putting themselves in danger.







You'll have to give me a week though as i will be out of town and offline.


Have a safe trip, hope to continue discussing this with you in the future.
Been a good conversation so far.




Um... I did. I called it a "big metal substitute phallus" because I thought simply saying that NRA members all have tiny pricks would possibly get me warned. So for future reference, a phallus is that thing you play with in the shower. (just ribbin ya, i hope you don't take that personally).


I guess I missed that part. I know what it is also. Thanks. Good thing I've never been an NRA member though.




If you'd tell me where you're from and how common your views are in that area i'll kindly stay the hell away though.


Virginia. Happen to live in a wonderful area.

Not sure how common my views are in this area.








[edit on 28/3/05 by Skibum]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join