Comments on: Teachers Packing Guns – America Reinforces Its Cowboy Image

By: Chris from Florida

Chris from Florida — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:34:20 +0000

All I can ask those who disagree is “What is the aletrnative?” Since the bad guys don’t obey laws and the police are hard pressed to enforce laws-who is left to protect the innocents but the innocents themselves.

By: Ian McCloud

Ian McCloud — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:11:47 +0000

Being a high school teacher of many decades and noting the many school shootings, I see no harm in very inconspicuously maintaining access to a defensive firearm. “Don’t show, don’t tell” I know of several throughout the country who do. These are exceedingly responsible teachers who might prevent fatalities in following the pattern of school shootings.

By: kbhall4america

kbhall4america — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:26:34 +0000

Sorry for the repeat, the first comment didn’t appear for awhile so I thought it was lost and sent another.

By: kbhall4america

kbhall4america — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:24:33 +0000

You trust the police don’t you. Most police officers have only about 8 hours of firearm training and some have never shot a gun before becoming an officer. Besides, where were the police when these tragedies took place?

“When SECONDS count, the police are only MINUTES away.”

Police are NOT liable or obligated to provide protection to individual persons, and individual persons are NOT entitled to police protection. The police are only obligated to protect the public at large and to (a:) deter crime, and (b:) investigate a crime AFTER one has been committed. Individual citizens must provide for their own personal protection, the reason (among several) for the second amendment. U.S. Supreme Court 1994

All persons who apply for a concealed carry permit, must be thoroughly background checked. Most of those who apply have more firearm experience than the majority of LEO’s.

No disrespect intended.

Firearm ownership DOES deter crime! If you don’t agree, then take this into consideration.
When the cold-war ended the leader of the Soviet Union was asked why he never conducted a ground invasion of the U.S. He replied, that too many Americans privately owned firearms.

“Gun-Free” zones are “Victim-Rich” zones.

These shootings took place where the populace was forcible disarmed by irational and irresposible lawmakers and laws. These shootings DID NOT take place at police stations, gun ranges, military bases, etc. We know what would have happened if they did.
An armed college student or any teacher/staff who is armed could possiblely have ended the shooting spree sooner or deterred it altogther by just being armed. Criminals want the easy target not a confrontation. The FBI knows this so why is it so hard to comprehend? (see the FBI’s annual reports)

I could go on, but if you don’t get it by now you probably never will! Fight the Good Fight!!!

By: kbhall4america

kbhall4america — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:37:31 +0000

Where do I begin.
Let’s get some facts straight before moving on.
First, fully-automatic firearms are not legal to purchase or own unless you are a Class III Firearms Dealer. This means those types of weapons are not and have never been readilly available since 1932 or 34 when the Feds enacted the rule in an attempt to curb organized crime related shootings. All full-auto weapons used to commit crimes were either stolen or purchased legally and then illegally modified. Any person with basic mechanical understanding can convert most semi-auto firearms to fire full-auto but doing so is a federal offense.
Second, the overwhelming majority of persons in the “old-west” were to poor to own firearms or even ammo. The Hollywood stories are just that, stories. The “shootem up” old west was never an actual “shootem up” old west.
I am a member of the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League and have near first hand information about guns and gun laws throughout the nation. One common theme has immerged. ‘Gun-Free” zones are “Victim-Rich” zones. Criminals know this. The FBI knows this. In a 1970′s era FBI report, it was stated that criminals are about 10 times more likely to attack a citizen they know is unarmed over one that is questionably armed.
We entrust everything to law enforcement for our safety. I have the upmost respect for them, but they are human too. Many officer’s do not have firearm skills yet we expect them to carry those arms and protect us.
By the U.S. Supreme Court, the public has no right to police protection and the police are not liable to provide that protection. Police are only there to a) deter crime and b) to investigate a crime AFTER one has been committed. Every citizen is therefore responsible for his or her own protection. The reason (among others) for the second amendment.

By: ma

ma — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:44:13 +0000

Its about time for a no nonsense solution to a wide spread problem. The law enforcement can only react to a situtation. God Bless All LEO’S. The real problem will be getting the nea on board. We all know how understanding they are. Again, GOD BLESS TEXAS FOR THEIR FORWARD THINKING!!!!.

By: Chris Whitman

Chris Whitman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:32:06 +0000

I think qualified teachers should carry a CONCEALED sidearm and by qualified I dont mean they took a few classes. The majority of teachers I’ve met would not be “qualified” but if you had 1 teacher in 10 that was an acceptionally good shot and had the “badass” personality I guarantee you that alone would deter students from bringing a gun into a school. But then again my school had a full time police officer. Gotta love Texas. Although I believe where I live, not alot of people pull guns on each other or threaten with them because everyone has a gun. Checks and balances. Anyways give a few teachers guns. No offense but a city kid would be an easy taketown for an expirienced marksman. Most city kids grew up on video games while I shot rabbits with a 9mm. Maybe allow them real bullets (soft tip/hollowpoints) and a clip with rubber bullets.

By: brian cole

brian cole — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:44:20 +0000

so many young lives cut down before they ever get started .if one teacher orstudent or even a janitor had a gun they could have stopped this.if you are worried about the american image being cowboy then i say gettyup!!!

By: John

John — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:47:19 +0000

My comments echo those of andrew and theotherryan.

Gun-free zones are little more than target-rich environments; criminals know this, which is why you hear regular stories of school shootings and school massacres.

If armed teachers frighten you, at the college level, there is http://concealedcampus.org/ – striving to ensure that college students can come to school legally armed.

Teachers are as much sheepdogs for our children as the police and military are. Let these sheepdogs have teeth.

Oh, and America is not the first country to arm its teachers; Israel’s teachers are armed and have been for some time. Except there, it is not an option.

If one purpose of public education is to entrust children to the care and safety of others, a means must be provided to those caretakers and protectors to actually defend their charges.

Failure to do so only ensures inevitable tragedy.

I guess that I am just confused about the hypocrisy in fearing teachers that carry firearms may negligently injure someone, while at the same time, entrusting those same teachers with the minds of your children for more time during the week than some parents put in.

Basically, we demonize and fear a low-probability damaging event, but we champion and cherish a guaranteed means of damaging numerous students over a course of years. The words of teachers can be powerfully motivating or powerfully destructive; arguably far moreso than a gunshot can be.

It just isn’t newsworthy, so we mock education and teachers instead of supporting them.

Sorry, it is hard to come down from my soap box, sometimes.

By: theotherryan

theotherryan — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:49:28 +0000

I am not sure where to begin. First of all I suggest reading the following article on how Israel which has a much longer history with terrorism/ mass murders then we do delt with the problem. http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob81.html

After that I think that it could be argued that “gun free zones” are targets of cowardly criminals. When was the last time you heard about someone attempting to commit mass murder at a police station or a shooting range? If either of those have EVER happened they certainly have not happened at the same rate as school shootings. Think about that one for a minute. If criminals like to go to places where victims are forcibly disarmed then maybe we should not forcibly disarm Americans and make them victims.

I will leave you with a final question. If God forbid your child was in a school that had an deranged shooter would you want a sane rational (noncriminal) person with a gun there ? I know that I would like someone there to give that coward an Excedrin headache number .357 and protect the children.