NationStates Jolt Archive

Nevada senator is introducing a bill that would allow teachers to carry guns to make schools safer.....

http://www.volunteertv.com/strangenews/headlines/4917261.html

Your thoughts?

utterly stupid idea

It's only fair, considering the kids have guns. They should be issued full riot-gear, really.

I don't care if they put the teachers in Bradley fighting vehicles.

If it's legal locally, I suppose ... I don't think the Federal government ought to be messing with the issue, though.

I disagree with allowing teachers to carry the guns. I think the schools need to get metal detectors, cameras, and have on hand police officers at every school.

I also think the govenment needs to step to the side to legally permit the parents to physically discipline their child (Not abuse but spankings). Kids are getting out of control. They don't have respect for anybody, they like to run in packs and at all times at night, etc...

No, I don't think the teachers should be allowed to carry guns since most of the students can easily overpower many of the teachers. Bad Idea.

It's only fair, considering the kids have guns. They should be issued full riot-gear, really.

kids don't though...which is beside the point since I can't think of a single scenario where a gun would come in handy

I don't care if they put the teachers in Bradley fighting vehicles.

I don't think they will be running them on a teachers salary:p

I disagree with allowing teachers to carry the guns. I think the schools need to get metal detectors, cameras, and have on hand police officers at every school.

we have all that excluding metal detectors in the U.K (seeing as how we don't have guns)...they don't work

Kids are getting out of control. They don't have respect for anybody, they like to run in packs and at all times at night, etc...

how old are you?

Teacher without gun:

Bad Student=:upyours: = :mad: Teacher


Teacher with gun:

Bad Student=:upyours: = :sniper: Teacher


:rolleyes:

utterly stupid idea

Worth repeating!

SNIP

nice first post....it is your first post right?

Teacher without gun:

Bad Student=:upyours: = :mad: Teacher


Teacher with gun:

Bad Student=:upyours: = :sniper: Teacher


:rolleyes:

Oh i see you replied to yourself for me, thankyou.

nice first post....it is your first post right?

No it was his 9th!

:p

we have all that excluding metal detectors in the U.K (seeing as how we don't have guns)...they don't work

Some UK schools do have metal detectors. My mum's high school in Leeds-9 did in the 1970s, so its not even a recent development.

I disagree with allowing teachers to carry the guns. I think the schools need to get metal detectors, cameras, and have on hand police officers at every school.
OK, just to begin with - this is amusingly ridiculous posting. Hohoho your points have no merit.

Right.

1) Good opener - no guns in schools. Nice one.
2) Metal detectors and cameras don't stop you beating the crap out of people sans guns and knives.
3) On-hand police officers? Like a school can afford that!
I also think the govenment needs to step to the side to legally permit the parents to physically discipline their child (Not abuse but spankings).
Yes. Because physical abuse towards students doesn't actually make them resentful towards tutors and education in general and such. Oh no. Not exactly what happened to my father's generation of schoolchildren or anything.
Kids are getting out of control.
Yeah, that's called "adolescence", when they don't care what their parents have to say for about 3 years, before realising that they were being stupid.

I'm sure that you've already been through that in your life. Either that or you're about twelve and trying to take the moral high ground on issues that you're not even familiar with yet, and yet trying to sound mature about.
They don't have respect for anybody, they like to run in packs and at all times at night, etc...
Top end use of a sweeping statement to cripple any semblance you have of an argument.
No, I don't think the teachers should be allowed to carry guns since most of the students can easily overpower many of the teachers. Bad Idea.
How's about flamethrowers, so that if any kid gets to close, they burn 'em up?

That'd resolve to 'overpowering' issue pretty sharpish.

Utterly and incredibly stupid. It seriously undermines trust between students and teachers, and raises who lists of horrible questions and scenarios. This should be struck down before it's even considered at all.

-snip-

how old are you?

I'm 29 what's the difference. I strongly believe that kids today are becoming more and more disrespectful and out of control.

I'm 29 what's the difference. I strongly believe that kids today are becoming more and more disrespectful and out of control.
You a Daily Mail / American version of said rag reader, then?

nice first post....it is your first post right?

Thanks. No, not my first.

I'm 29 what's the difference. I strongly believe that kids today are becoming more and more disrespectful and out of control.

yeah bloody kids being kids

Has it ever occured to you people that trying to control adolescents is pointless? Plus, like 90% of people over the age of 30 are complete fucking imbeciles.

Has it ever occured to you people that trying to control adolescents is pointless? Plus, like 90% of people over the age of 30 are complete fucking imbeciles.
I'd say over 28 myself.

OK, just to begin with - this is amusingly ridiculous posting. Hohoho your points have no merit.

Right.
How do you figure it has no merits?

1) Good opener - no guns in schools. Nice one.
2) Metal detectors and cameras don't stop you beating the crap out of people sans guns and knives.
3) On-hand police officers? Like a school can afford that!

1. Glad to have your approval. :rolleyes:
2. Not sure what your getting at but atleast the metal detectors will detect metal. Oh the irony.....as for the cameras, they'd give the schools better overall survelleince.
3. Yes, such as some have the resource officers. Also, our Public schools are paid for by the state. I believe our legislature does have the power to relocate money and also add some to the local law enforcement agencies. They can make this happen if they want to. Yes, our government should help the schools and to cover the costs of extra security features added to the schools in the name of public safety. Public safety is on our govenments agenda.

Yes. Because physical abuse towards students doesn't actually make them resentful towards tutors and education in general and such. Oh no. Not exactly what happened to my father's generation of schoolchildren or anything.

Maybe you misread my post, I had in parenthesis "Not Abuse" their is a big difference between abuse and discipline.

I'm sure that you've already been through that in your life. Either that or you're about twelve and trying to take the moral high ground on issues that you're not even familiar with yet, and yet trying to sound mature about.

I have been disciplined when I was a kid. I turned out to be okay. As for the rest of that quote....whatever you say......:rolleyes:

How's about flamethrowers, so that if any kid gets to close, they burn 'em up?

That'd resolve to 'overpowering' issue pretty sharpish.

So, are you denying that a lot of students are capable of overpowering their teachers?

You a Daily Mail / American version of said rag reader, then?

Are you a kid? Is that why you seem to be jumping your guns and attacks?

I forgot that their quite a few kids who frequent NSG.

2. Not sure what your getting at but atleast the metal detectors will detect metal. Oh the irony.....as for the cameras, they'd give the schools better overall survelleince.


Yep, the metal in my boots, the metal on my belt, the metal in my jeans, the metal in... you get the idea. Searching everybody for metallic objects every day is impractical to say the least. This is without getting into the bond of trust and respect argument.

How do you figure it has no merits?
The whole "KIDS ARE RECKLESS AND FOOLISH!" bit. Yes... we're all out-of-control smack addicts or something. Yes.
Not sure what your getting at but atleast the metal detectors will detect metal. Oh the irony.
'Sans' means without. As I pointed out, not having metal objects doesn't stop people getting the crap kicked out of them if someone actually cares enough about it occuring.
as for the cameras, they'd give the schools better overall survelleince.
Yes, they would. I don't really see what you're getting at here. If someone really wants something to get done, then they'll do it regardless of being caught on camera.
Yes, such as some have the resource officers.
Since I don't live in America - am I right in thinking that those are the ones with no power - similar to our Community Support Officers in the UK?
Also, our Public schools are paid for by the state.
Yes, so are ours.
I believe our legislature does have the power to relocate money and also add some to the local law enforcement agencies.
And is in-school crime really such an issue that the state could find money from somewhere else that it's also needed to put an officer of the law into schools?
Yes, our government should help the schools and to cover the costs of extra security features added to the schools in the name of public safety. Public safety is on our govenments agenda.
And where's the money going to come from, may I ask?
Maybe you misread my post, I had in parenthesis "Not Abuse" their is a big difference between abuse and discipline.
And maybe the teacher's had a crap day, or has had enough of one particular student and punches them right in the face - what's going to occur then?

"I was just disciplining him... look at his record, he's a wanker of the highest"
"Agreed. Never mind!"

Plus spanking might well not be appropriate after the age of, say, 6 or so.

You're not thinking of giving teachers powers to go around spanking 16-year old girls are you? Because I can imagine that being misused heavily.
I have been disciplined when I was a kid. I turned out to be okay.
Some would say.
So, are you denying that a lot of students are capable of overpowering their teachers?
No, I was just pointing out that giving them flamethrowers would sort this problem out. As a joke, I hope you understand. You have jokes in Tampa Bay, yeah?

Are you a kid? Is that why you seem to be jumping your guns and attacks?

I forgot that their quite a few kids who frequent NSG.
I'm sixteen.

This means that I actually know what I'm on about. And yes, I'm frequenting NSG. It keeps me off the streets, where I'd otherwise be doing my best Alex DeLarge impression, as I'm sure you're "aware".

Yootopia: I used the kids statement as a generalized statement. No, I don't think all kids are out of control. I do believe a lot of them are. No, I wasn't suggesting the teachers do the disciplining. I suggested the parents need to start being parents.

Resource officers are Sheriff's Deputies. No they aren't powerless. As for our govenment they are very resourceful. They can find ways to make it happen but I don't think they think it's that big of a deal so they're doing what politicians do best....blow it off as no big deal.

Nevada senator is introducing a bill that would allow teachers to carry guns to make schools safer.....

http://www.volunteertv.com/strangenews/headlines/4917261.html

Your thoughts?
The article summed it up for me:
Las Vegas-area school officials are dismissing the idea. They worry that the more people who have guns, the more likely it is that there will be a shootout.

If my teachers are armed, I will arm myself. I believe that in terms of inflicting physical harm on each other, I have as much right to shoot a teacher as a teacher does to shoot me.

That is, none whatsoever.

Nevada senator is introducing a bill that would allow teachers to carry guns to make schools safer.....

http://www.volunteertv.com/strangenews/headlines/4917261.html

Your thoughts?

What if the Bart Simpson-like students somehow kipe it?!?!? :eek:

What an utterly rediculous idea. Whats happened to the concept of normal disipline in school? Detentions? Suspensions? Expelling them??
How on earth would you explain to the parents why you shot their kid if you were a teacher? In what situation would you actually have teh right to shoot them???
The only reason you might possibly want teachers to have guns is if their students regularly carried guns with them too, and if thats happening the its probably getting about time to ban guns.
In my school the harshest form of disiplin we had was the teacher who threw chairs/dustbins at people who were being prats. It worked. No need for a gun.

First the Wisconsin state politician, now another one. Madness won't end I suppose.

Great idea. That way we can say it's the law when Johnny finds Mr. Johnson's .357 Magnum and blows away half of shop class.

Teachers having guns in school = utterly fucking stupid idea.

And that's from a teacher.

Yeah, I'm all for gun rights, but weapons don't belong in a school.

Yeah, I'm all for gun rights, but weapons don't belong in a school.

I agree. Exception of the Police Officers on the school grounds, of course.

I don't care if they put the teachers in Bradley fighting vehicles.

You can't exactly teach in a combat vehicle now can you? Unless it's how to run it.

"Now kids, for biology today, we'll forgo using the scalpel to dissect this frog. Instead, we will work in conjunction with physics to demonstrate the effect of high velocity impacts on its body."

*sounds of 25mm cannon firing*

I disagree with allowing teachers to carry the guns. I think the schools need to get metal detectors, cameras, and have on hand police officers at every school.

we had all that at my high school and we still had 3 shootings, and one kid stabbed to death (not to mention the half dozen rapes)

Nevada senator is introducing a bill that would allow teachers to carry guns to make schools safer.....

http://www.volunteertv.com/strangenews/headlines/4917261.html

Your thoughts?

No fucking way ... guns do not belong in an educational facility whatsoever excepting possibly trained law enforcement

No. No weapons whatsoever on school property.

The article summed it up for me:

Las Vegas-area school officials are dismissing the idea. They worry that the more people who have guns, the more likely it is that there will be a shootout.
I doubt that'll last long, unfortunately. Idiocy trumps common sense any day.

Absolutely not. No way in HELL would I send my children to a school in which the teachers were allowed to carry guns. I don't freaking think so.


Then again, I would never send my kids to a school that allowed corporal punishment either. I just DARE someone to lay a hand on my kid...guess who's gonna be in the school with a gun then...lmao!

Gives the teachers guns, whats the worse that can happen. Kids are already shooting up the schools, so it can't get any worse.

Nevada senator is introducing a bill that would allow teachers to carry guns to make schools safer.....

http://www.volunteertv.com/strangenews/headlines/4917261.html

Your thoughts?

Violence begets violence

Gives the teachers guns, whats the worse that can happen. Kids are already shooting up the schools, so it can't get any worse.

Oh, it can get a lot worse. If some teacher ever so much as HINTED they had a gun to my child...well, let's just say there would be several torture tactics involved.


A FEW kids have brought guns to school. NOT enough to warrant giving teachers gone. There could NEVER be enough problems to warrant a person who is in charge of CHILDREN to carry a gun.

Im just really glad we have very restrictive guns laws here in Sweden so I can go to school or any other place without the fear of beeing shot.

O/T, but you live in Sweden?!

My husband's family is from Sweden...we would *looove* to move there with our kids, but...not plausible right now!

Everyone seems to be freaking over the idea that a teacher is gonna shoot a student. That does not seem to be the justification for allowing teachers or principals to carry concealed deadly weapons. The justification, I believe, is that in the event of an armed intruder assaulting the building/classrooms, etc. a well-trained (or, to read it the way the Constitution puts it, "well-regulated") and armed adult could help quickly put a stop to the situation before death tolls can climb. Too, the mere knowledge that some nontrivial percent of the faculty of a school is packing would certainly deter many criminals who would otherwise choose to victimize schoolchildren in an arena where there is traditionally no tangible defense or deterrent present beyond the idea that a school is sacrosanct, and idea that criminals regularly choose to ignore in our present times.

I think allowing the faculty to be armed (with proper training, of course; I'm not saying issue the freshest teacher a GLOCK and turn 'em loose) would drastically reduce casualties in a school invasion/shooting situation and reduce the occurances of such events purely by means of deterrent. An armed society is a polite society, lest we forget.

No. The point is, plain and simple, teachers who are in charge of taking care of MY children at school have NO BUSINESS carrying a weapon. None.

*snip*

An armed society is a polite society, lest we forget.

Do you really believe that? I wouldn't call America a polite society.

No. The point is, plain and simple, teachers who are in charge of taking care of MY children at school have NO BUSINESS carrying a weapon. None.

Are trained professionals taking care of you at an airport not allowed to carry guns?

We aren't talking about giving a gun to the teacher. In the same legislation, the senator proposes training the teachers.

One last time. I will not tolerate a person who is supposed to be taking care of my child to be packing a weapon. Not gonna happen.


Your comparison falls flat, as my child would never be at the airport without me. Teachers aren't trained in combat, they're trained to teach scholastically. Whoop-de-do if they give them a few lesson :rolleyes:

Having a gun in general is stupid. Go ahead and flame me.

No. The point is, plain and simple, teachers who are in charge of taking care of MY children at school have NO BUSINESS carrying a weapon. None.

Yea, but what if that teacher could've been the one to stop a school shooting?

"One last time. I will not tolerate a person who is supposed to be taking care of my child to be packing a weapon. Not gonna happen."

Well, a lot of adults in America who own guns and take care fo their own kids obviously don't feel that way, or they themselves wouldn't own guns...

Yea, but what if that teacher could've been the one to stop a school shooting?
Just because the teacher has a gun doesn't mean that they would actually be usefull with it. Remember, the kids doing the schooting were no afraid of their death. That gives them a significant advantage over the teachers.

Doubtful. Look at the history of school shootings. These kids typically don't just waltz into the courtyard, through the school and into a specific classroom before they open fire.

Not to mention, unless we are talking about giving teachers a semi-automatic weapen, they're not going to do much anyway. Most school shotting have used either semi or fully automatic weapons...a pretty little pistol isn't going to make one bit of difference, especially not at such close range.

A teacher's responsibility in such a situation is to make sure their class is locked securely in the room, and to BE THERE to support them. Not to play Power Rangers by running after some kid with a shotgun.

One last time. I will not tolerate a person who is supposed to be taking care of my child to be packing a weapon. Not gonna happen.


Your comparison falls flat, as my child would never be at the airport without me. Teachers aren't trained in combat, they're trained to teach scholastically. Whoop-de-do if they give them a few lesson :rolleyes:

Look, you said in your above quote that your teacher is supposed to be taking care of your child. In the same statement, you say that they are there to teach. Both apply here. The teacher is both the teacher and the protector, and this senator raises a valid point that protecting children lies both in the school's (ie teachers, principals, et al) and in the government's hands.

And I don't believe this resolution says every teacher is going to get a gun. For one, it's a resolution, and it's designed to be general and broad reaching. Also, some teachers might not accept the idea. Others might be trained poorly. There are numerous circumstances where this resolution doesnt apply and it does that because it is first broad reaching.

...Plus spanking might well not be appropriate after the age of, say, 6 or so.

You're not thinking of giving teachers powers to go around spanking 16-year old girls are you? Because I can imagine that being misused heavily...

The high school I attended paddled and still paddles students as a form of discipline. In order to prevent "inappropriate discipline" of girls, a female teacher was required to paddle female students.

...Then again, I would never send my kids to a school that allowed corporal punishment either. I just DARE someone to lay a hand on my kid...guess who's gonna be in the school with a gun then...lmao!


Iluvenis, out of curiosity, why the hard feelings against corporal punishment? Is it a dislike of all corporal punishment or just corporal punishment in the education system?

Well, a lot of adults in America who own guns and take care fo their own kids obviously don't feel that way, or they themselves wouldn't own guns...


Interestingly enough, I don't give a flying rat's behind what other people feel it is okay to do. I do not allow guns in my home, and I sure as hell wouldn't allow my sons' teachers to have them!

Iluvenis, out of curiosity, why the hard feelings against corporal punishment? Is it a dislike of all corporal punishment or just corporal punishment in the education system?

It's a matter of not allowing other people to hit my children. *I* am their parent, and as such, *I* am the only one fit to discern what punishment they deserve for what "crime" so to speak.

It's a matter of not allowing other people to hit my children. *I* am their parent, and as such, *I* am the only one fit to discern what punishment they deserve for what "crime" so to speak.

Child Services also frowns on private corporal punishment, I'm afraid.

You are also telling me that the teacher is there to protect and teach the child, but punishment is out of the question?

I thought the American teacher was an extension of parental authority?

One, I'm very aware of what Child Services frowns upon, thanks.

Two, no, the teacher is in no way a parental substitution. They exist to teach my children *scholastically*...which, incidentally, does not include teaching my children it is okay to have a gun in school. Nor does it include disciplining my children. That is my job, and mine alone.

This whole concept is just BEGGING to create more problems.

If you allow carrying guns to be part of your civil liberties, then they must be allowed to carry guns if they so wish. Everybody must have the right to bare arms, what's the problem if everybody wants to bare arms???:rolleyes:

One, I'm very aware of what Child Services frowns upon, thanks.

Two, no, the teacher is in no way a parental substitution. They exist to teach my children *scholastically*...which, incidentally, does not include teaching my children it is okay to have a gun in school. Nor does it include disciplining my children. That is my job, and mine alone.

This whole concept is just BEGGING to create more problems.

So teachers having guns in school teaches kids having guns in school is okay?

Would learning how to use a gun at a relatively young age (14-ish) teach one that it is okay to carry a gun?

If you allow carrying guns to be part of your civil liberties, then they must be allowed to carry guns if they so wish. Everybody must have the right to bare arms, what's the problem if everybody wants to bare arms???:rolleyes:

I would like to "bare" my arms, but it's too cold. ;)

Where'd the 2nd Amendment snip come from, by the way? I'm not for the abolishment of it, but there are definitely cases where certain people shouldn't have guns. And I'm also not saying that teachers is definitely one of those cases, either.

First off, it is the right to *bear* arms.

Second...teaching a child to shoot a weapon has nothing to do with teaching them to carry it. Young children are impressionable, and yes, you can bet if they know their teacher has a gun at school, they are gonna think it's cooler than hell. It WILL cause more of the same type of problems it is proposing to attempt to stop.

If you allow carrying guns to be part of your civil liberties, then they must be allowed to carry guns if they so wish. Everybody must have the right to bare arms, what's the problem if everybody wants to bare arms???:rolleyes:

Think of the bears!

http://www.agitated.net/pics/right%20to%20bear%20arms.PNG

First off, it is the right to *bear* arms.

Second...teaching a child to shoot a weapon has nothing to do with teaching them to carry it. Young children are impressionable, and yes, you can bet if they know their teacher has a gun at school, they are gonna think it's cooler than hell. It WILL cause more of the same type of problems it is proposing to attempt to stop.

And if the teachers teach that the reason they carry a gun is to stop children that carry a gun with intent to use it?

And I still have a right to bare arms, too.

Think of the bears!

http://www.agitated.net/pics/right%20to%20bear%20arms.PNG

I never really thought that would be used on this forum...

Nice.

Now you're being completely circular, and it ultimately comes right back to the beginning...allowing teachers to carry guns at school will create far more problems than it will dissipate.

And yes, you do. Only, no one really cares, lol!

Now you're being completely circular, and it ultimately comes right back to the beginning...allowing teachers to carry guns at school will create far more problems than it will dissipate.

Then what do we do to stop it? I'm all for attacking flawed plans, but at least give us some kind of counterplan.

There are only two options here, give them guns, don't give them guns. How else would you like me to explain that?! o.O

There are only two options here, give them guns, don't give them guns. How else would you like me to explain that?! o.O

By giving me an alternative plan. If the problem of children having guns is inherently bad, then not having any other plan affirms that you are only arguing in favor of inherency, which is essentially the "stay the course" snip that people use about the policy in Iraq.

I'll thank you to stay on subject and not compare things which have no relation, nor any basis for comparison.

The question was not "if we don't put guns inskoolz, whadda we do, omgomgomg?!"

The question was whether or not guns should be allowed in schools. Which I have answered. So, if you'd like an alternate plan, by all means suggest one.

Doubtful. Look at the history of school shootings. These kids typically don't just waltz into the courtyard, through the school and into a specific classroom before they open fire.

Not to mention, unless we are talking about giving teachers a semi-automatic weapen, they're not going to do much anyway. Most school shotting have used either semi or fully automatic weapons...a pretty little pistol isn't going to make one bit of difference, especially not at such close range.

A teacher's responsibility in such a situation is to make sure their class is locked securely in the room, and to BE THERE to support them. Not to play Power Rangers by running after some kid with a shotgun.

Ilu, are you an expert on firearms and combat shooting tactics now? I shoot USPSA practical shooting competitions and am quite proficient with a pistol at this point in my (young) life. I say that if there was some trenchcoat mafia kid making his way through my kid's school with a semi-automatic weapon (aka, a semi-auto pistol like a GLOCK, Sig, Ruger, S&W, Para, 1911, etc. or a rifle like a Ruger 10/22, M1 Garand, Mosin-Nagant, Marlin, or any given deer rifle, etc. or a pistol-caliber carbine like the recent Canadian shooter used [ a .40 S&W Beretta CX4 Storm, btw]), I'd want my child's teacher, like you say, holed up in the room with the kids at the back of the classroom, but with a semi-automatic pistol or revolver of his own trained on the door. That way, if the shooter were to, say, try to breach the room (like in Columbine), the teacher could open fire, likely incapacitating the attacker.

Note that there has not been a single instance of a school shooting carried out with a fully-automatic weapon (partially because said weapons are extremely rare) and there have been several (see: Amish School Shooter) that used bolt-action .30-06s and .308 hunting rifles. At the ranges present inside a school building, the advantage of a long gun over a pistol goes away and, in tight enough quarters, a pistol gains the upper hand in maneuverability. Police officers regularly finish shootouts with people who are armed with carbines and rifles with their pistols alone.

And yes, I do expect the teachers to be trained adequately. That said, adequately could be defined as twice as competant as one must be to accquire a concealed carry license, which would be, able to hit a 5x3 target with 10 out of 15 shots at 7 yards (absurdly easy for a competant shootist). Or even have the teachers qualify the same as the police do. I'm certain I could pass.

If the teachers are adequately skilled and instructed in what to do in these situations (like they currently are instructed in what to do in these situations), the addition of a firearm to their bag of tools could do nothing but increase the chances that the situation would turn out better for the innocent students of the school.

I'll thank you to stay on subject and not compare things which have no relation, nor any basis for comparison.

I was making an inference to "inherency" being simplified as "staying the course." I'm not talking about the war.

The question was not "if we don't put guns inskoolz, whadda we do, omgomgomg?!"

No, but that is my question to you, without the bad grammar and acrospeak.

The question was whether or not guns should be allowed in schools. Which I have answered. So, if you'd like an alternate plan, by all means suggest one.

I would say armed guards or metal detectors, but those arent too hot either.

Okay, congratulations. Try being in the Army, then we'll talk.

Also, judging by your post, you're apparently quite young. I imagine you might feel quite differently if your child's life were at stake.

And, regardless of how you feel, or would feel, my position has not changed. MY children will never attend a school where the teachers are allowed to carry weapons. Period.

I was making an inference to "inherency" being simplified as "staying the course." I'm not talking about the war.



No, but that is my question to you, without the bad grammar and acrospeak.



I would say armed guards or metal detectors, but those arent too hot either.

Then there was no need to mention it at all, was there?


Sarcasm.


The thing is, there isn't much the SCHOOLS can do at this point. The problem lies with parents doing their jobs inadequately. So there IS no answer I can lay out for you, especially not from the stance of what the school is responsible for.

(I'm sorry for the snip, but it's to save space)

I would've equated my inexperience with firearms at 14 to my relatively larger experience with firearms at 18, but that's more effective.

I would also like to point out that it was a pistol that incapacitated one of the Los Angeles bank robbers (the ones with fully-automatic AK-47s with large magazines full of ammunition).

Or even have the teachers qualify the same as the police do. I'm certain I could pass.

Those are pretty low standards. :D

Very bad idea.