Reply With QuoteI'm cool with firing poor teachers and replacing them with armed guards. After all, everyone knows a useless teacher who does nothing for the children. Can the useless ones.Originally Posted by kygorski
| Search Fishin.com |
Senior Member
Went home for a couple of days, ate some great old time food.Andtalked to my son a teacher. and an in law also a teacher.Niether of them want to carry firearms[neither].And neither think that shrinking school budgets should be used to finance armed security.And why should I who hasn't had a child in school for 20 years subsidize the safety of someones elses kids, when my local taxes pay for local law enforcement.So in my case in my area, that would mean the 10 schools would need a minimum of 10 police men. Or the same amount of armed private security.There are many more valid ideas, than there is valid money available. My son said he will not carry one, and then wonder if that is a valid criteria to give a minimally effective teacher a raise.
Senior Member
I'm cool with firing poor teachers and replacing them with armed guards. After all, everyone knows a useless teacher who does nothing for the children. Can the useless ones.
Senior Member
--
Wouldn't a "useless teacher" need to be replaced with a better teacher, still no money for armed guards.
Senior Member
Maybe make it mandatory and it has to be done with no additional taxes. The board of education is full of tools so fire a few of them and the money will be found. Im sure there are millions upon millions being wasted after all it was created by gubment folks.
At this point the only folks on campus with guns are the criminals. So what does a continued restriction of guns do??? What will it accomplish to say no AR-15's that hold 30 rounds or pistols that hold more than 10 rounds do?? Not on campus mind you but in general, i am addressing this ignorant buzz going on by Liberals and control freaks who say that if we control the legal purchasers of guns and legal gun owners with MORE restrictions then we have fixed the problem. Really??? At what point does someone stop and ask themselves how does that fix anything?? That's the gubment at work!!!! They won't address the issue so they spin it to get a law passed that suits their control issue they have.
I don't know how to fix the problems with shootings in schools, malls and other places but to me they are acts of terrorism and as we know by watching the news and our recent past you cannot wipe that out. If mental health issues are to blame here then it's time to address our culture of giving out meds as a fix for everything. Think maybe Obamacare has cut funding for mental health? Made it more expensive for office visits so we potentially will have more me tally ill people walking around with little to no treatment?
I know we will see an increase in taxes over this. After all the guns being the problem junk is passed and it happens again they will realize that it wasn't that at all. They will build schools with more security features built in and hire law enforcement at schools. But hey it's a win win for the liberal control freaks....they limited guns with their actions,grand standing and laws and got to spend more money we don't have!!!
Senior Member
DJ I'm one of those liberals, and I believe in the second amendment, lately I'm thinking to protect myself from most of this paranoid consewrvative thinking.You guys talk about less laws and more freedoms, and lets start seriously looking at mentaly ill folks.What does "looking " at the problem do? We "looked" at drug problem years ago,what were the solutions? "lock em up, throw away the keys" then a decade later, how do we pay for having more folks in prison than any other civilized coutry in the world? We cant prosecute wall street criminals, because were going broke dealing out justice to nickle and dime drug users, while letting million dollar scammers just go free. It seems the conservative view is exhault anyone with a few more bucks than average, the rest, throw under the bus, good pot hole filling material. Me thinks some of this righteous foam of indignation, is blowing from your mouths to your eyes blinding you to realality.
Senior Member
Getting to the point of all this gun control junk....in your opinion is limiting me and my AR-15 magazine capacity gonna fix this problem of mass shootings? Wasn't the real problem here that a mentally ill person went on a rampage?
As far as the drug problem goes I see that as proof that regulating guns won't work!!! Look at how many trillions has been spent to stop pot, cocaine,heroine and crack. Pot is used by every class of people. Coke is used the same. Heroine and crack are more street drugs but my point is that jumping up and down and saying I want laws to protect myself from something isn't always the answer.
Last edited by DJD; 12-24-2012 at 10:27 AM.
Super Moderator
The REALITY of this situation is that there is a lot of violent deranged people in today's society. Certainly this is not going to change (if it can be changed) overnight no matter what steps are taken such as gun control, mental health assistance, etc..etc. The REALITY is that our schools are "soft" targets for these degenerates. The real decision at hand is, are we going to provide some REAL security for the kids in these schools or not. Passing a gun law that may or may not reduce the number of these innocent kids that get killed in an attack on a school does not solve the problem. One unprotected innocent kid killed in one of these attacks is too many.
I remember back in my last years in the military where one of my duties was to teach anti-terrorism tactics to deploying soldiers (long before 9/11) that those of us involved in this preached that one day our country was going to pay for being such a "soft" target because terrorism and anti-american sentiment was evolving and spreading around the world in proportions never seen before. Well, guess what happened on 9/11? If it were not for the security measures taken after 9/11, there is no doubt that something similiar or worse would have happened again by now.
All this arguing over whether or not a law is going to be passed again to ban assault weapons is not going to cure the immediate problem of providing the protection that these innocent young kids deserve when they go back to these "soft" targets after the holiday break.
I certainly don't want to pay more taxes any more than anyone else, but if that is what it takes to get some trained armed securtiy folks in those schools, I am willing to do that. I really think that most schools could be protected by trained volunteers. This is done everyday in rural areas all over the country with volunteer fire fighters. I don't think that arming teachers is the answer either. They are teachers, not trained security personnel and I don't believe that we need to start deciding on who can be a teacher by their ability to handle a firearm or react to this type situation...if we did, we would lose a lot of very good teachers.
Anyway, to paraphrase what I heard the NRA spokesman say on tv the other day....I would rather my grandsons and grandaughter be met at the school by a "good guy" with a gun rather than a "bad guy" with a gun.
Senior Member
Never did I say that I want to limit firearms. I'm for open carry for ALL legal weapons. If you want to walk around like Pauncho Villa with crossed ammo belts do it. You want bannana clips go for it, Drum magazines, you want guy them. But dont think I'm going to look at you like a messiah for the second ammendment, I'll just look at as some armed kook who should be avoided.
Senior Member
I just want the choice without politicians making laws just because they feel the need to do something. You won't catch me wearing in the open anywhere. I would rather stay unseen and not be so obvious.
Senior Member
As a teacher I would never carry a gun at work - too many variables throughout the day that could come into play and go wrong. Armed guards at every school are not the answer either - remember Columbine had an armed officer in the school. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know it does not include arming every citizen, and more specifically teachers.
Senior Member
I really don't like chiming in on these threads but I felt compelled to offer at least an idea or two. First off I've tried to avoid the news reports as best as I can, find that the media machine insist on sensationalizing this cowardly horrendous act. I do agree with the NRA that a good guy with a gun is the only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun.
Most school systems are too financially strapped to arm every doorway in their school. If I were in the position I propose to our school board that an incentive be offered to teachers willing to carry concealed and offer a training allowance each year. When I spoke with my sons teacher about this she said "I am for living and not dying" she is actively seeking her concealed carry for personal use.
I do believe that any teacher chosen to carry would have to be done randomly and anonymously.
Banning assault weapons will not stop anyone with the intent to harm innocent people, I will say that I am not a fan of high capacity magazines (for civilian use). If your too lazy to change mags after 10 rounds then maybe you need to consider a new hobby.
If any of you have lady friends that would like get their CCDW or just take some defensive shooting classes I highly recommend Colleene at Keeping the piece you can find her page on Facebook.
Merry Christmas to all!
Super Moderator
The fact is that there were two security personnel at the Columbine shootings.....one was an UNARMED Security Guard and the other was an ARMED Deputy....both of these individuals were not in the school when the attack occurred, they were both sitting in the Deputies vehicle in a nearby park. Here are the real facts from the police blotters:
DEPUTIES_TEXT
Certainly I do not think that having armed security personnel INSIDE the schools will stop all the nuts from one of these senseless Kamakazi attacks.....but I also certainly do believe that if there were armed security personnel inside the schools, some of those nuts that do these things would pick a "softer" target other than a school full of young kids where they know there is not going to be any first line of defense. And, if that armed security guard can slow this nut down by only a few minutes, how many lives will he have saved that would have not been saved if he was not there? How many lives were saved at Columbine when the shooter Harris was engaged in exchanging gunfire with the Deputy in the parking lot? Maybe none, but maybe a number of them were saved...we will never know....but if it saved one life, it was worth it. How many lives would have been saved if the Deputy had been inside the school when this came down where most of the carnage took place as a result of the nut inside the school killing kids with guns and bombs with no one there to stop or at least slow him down? Do you really think there is one parent or person that lost a loved one in the Connecticut shooting that doesn't wish there had been a trained armed security guard that could have met this nut at the door when he rung the bell to get entrance rather than having the principal buzz him in?
Posting Permissions