By David Thweatt, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: David Thweatt has been superintendent of the Harrold Independent School District in Harrold, Texas, for nine years.
This week, Schools of Thought will publish perspectives on school security. Tomorrow, a parent and author reacts to school safety responses in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
(CNN) - Good parents protect their children. We protect them from the wind, sun, fire, cold, sickness, from animals, harmful philosophy, other children, predatory adults, injury when possible, their own faulty reasoning and anything else that we see as a dangerous risk to their health and well-being. They are the future, and they are precious.
At the Harrold Independent School District in Texas, we believe we’ve done everything possible to protect our children. We use cameras, electronic security and emergency plans, and some of our staff members are armed.
When I got into education in 1979, the idea of guns in schools was completely off my radar. But I believe faulty logic was used to frame the 1990 gun-free school zones law, which made it illegal for most citizens to knowingly possess firearms near schools. No police record, news account or anecdotal evidence showed that school personnel authorized to carry weapons used guns to hurt or injure innocent children. There was no reason for the federal law except defective reasoning: Policy makers believed that because guns came into schools in the hands of law-breaking gang members and drug dealers, the smart response was to take them away from law-abiding citizens.
What a perilous law that has become. We hung a sign on virtually every school in America that said, “Here await our most precious possessions in the world, and they are not protected.”
In Harrold, our school serves about 105 students in our rural community 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth. Best-case scenario, we are a half-hour away from the closest law enforcement officials.
In 2005, after shootings at other schools and universities, I began to research ways to protect our school’s children, and my research included the idea of arming staff members. There was no blueprint for how that would work, so we spent two years researching and considering different requirements and legal issues. The school board passed it October 22, 2007.
We call it the Guardian Plan.
It does not OK every staff member to carry a gun. Employees must possess a Texas Concealed Handgun License and be approved by the school board. They undergo training involving accuracy and hostage situations and are required to use frangible ammunition to minimize ricocheting and injury to bystanders.
The Guardian Plan is not entirely outside the box of school security – many schools have armed guards or officers – but it has some unique qualities when compared to the status quo. No one knows the identity of our Guardians, and because they do not know who is armed, guns aren’t likely to be stolen, and our Guardians aren’t targets the way a guard or officer might be.
The number of Guardians can be higher than the usual one or two security guards, and they can be placed strategically throughout buildings. Unless the media shows up every few years to highlight the fact that some of our personnel are armed, my students forget the guns are present. They are out of sight, out of mind. That’s never the case with security officers with guns in open holsters.
The Guardian Plan is a blueprint that can work other places, but I firmly believe in local control and that every community needs to do what they think is right. Would I change any of the components? No. We thought about it so long, and tried to answer every possible question. I have taught in larger districts, and know they might need a different vetting process for who can carry a gun, and different discussions with parents and kids. In our town, we value self-reliance, and we are used to being our own first responders.
Many believe that Second Amendment traditions and rights are antiquated, treacherous and unnecessary. Some believe that if all of the guns and weapons were thrown into the sea, the world would be at peace. To be direct, this is naiveté at its zenith.
We know guns are not permitted in prisons, but those facilities are not nice, safe places. Killing tools of many kinds are fashioned there because creativity and design are not only traits of good and honest citizens. Not all immoral and depraved individuals are in prisons. Some have yet to be identified, and some are intent on harming our children - in our homes, schools and any other place. Guns in the hands of good people results in protection from bad people. It is that simple.
Is it foolproof? No, nothing is. At the end of the school day, we at Harrold want to know we’ve done everything possible to protect our children from people who are intent on harming them. We are better prepared to do that than many other places.
Across America, we need signs in front of schools that read: “We love our children: They are protected.”
The opinions expressed are solely those of David Thweatt.
What do you think? Read more perspectives on school security, and share your thoughts in the comments section.
I have move back to the UK but lived in the US for 20 years. The crime here is out of control. People get stabbed or beaten to death rather than shot but the main difference is that normal people walking on the street tend to be the victims whereas in the US murder victims are generally other gang members or drug dealers. Consequently you are several times more likely to be the victim of violent crime in the UK than in the US. I believe background checks should be more severe especially regards mental health but also firmly believe a free society must have guns to defend itself.
The concern at this moment is to prevent mass killings in the US. They're not looking to disarm lawful people, only unlawful ones and to control the types of weapons that can kill more people in less time. It's gun control and regulation not total gun bans. Your post doesn't really address what is trying to be done here.
"They're not looking to disarm lawful people, only unlawful ones and to control the types of weapons that can kill more people in less time." Please explain how this affects those that are unlawful. By definition, only the lawful will comply. To "control types of weapons that can kill more people in less time" doesn't take into account chemical weapons – household chemicals can be deadly, flammable weapons – gasloline can take out a whole building rather quickly, etc. To ban weapons based on appearance only (i.e. assaut weapons) is rediculous! My .308 hunting rifle is much more accurate than an AR-15. Muliple pistols can be carried on a person providing the same opportunity to kill many people in a short period of time. Your argument does not work.
Arming teachers still doesn't address the problem of mass killings, it shifts it away from the schools. There will still be mental/angry people out there looking to make their statement while taking down innocent people. Do we need the same armament in theaters, malls, workplaces, churches, restaurants...any public place where groups of people gather? Do we want that kind of society? We may well end up like one of the Escape from New York movies where entire cities live in a locked down state.
I'm fairly sure we already have the same "in theaters, malls, workplaces, churches, restaurants...any public place where groups of people gather," in many places around the country. I've had my Texas CCW for a while now and have legally carried my firearm in each of the places you mentioned except for the schools my children attend. Thankfully I've never been in a situation that required the use of my firearm but I'll tell you if someone around me wanted to commit mass murders I would fully exercise my right to limit the damage and death that someone like that may cause. That is what I'd like to have added to the schools in my area; even if I am still excluded from carrying inside schools I'd feel much safer knowing that there was someone who may have the opportunity to do more than simply watch my children die.
I think these educators are smart. They are doing it right. What other people think is irrelevent to them. Protecting the kids is the first prioroty.
We use the same level of protection for money, jewelry, celebrities, art or other items of value. Our children are much more precious and valuable than these.
In our state of Illinois 5 years ago we had "our" rampage killer on the Northern Illinois Univ campus. He carried three handguns (a 9mm Glock 19, a 9mm Kurz Sig Sauer P232, and a .380 Hi-Point CF380), eight loaded magazines, and a knife. He also carried in a 12 gauge Remington Sportsman 48 shotgun concealed in a guitar case. He killed 5 people and wounded 27. He struck with such quickness and so unexpectedly no one had time to react and one of the first people he shot at was the teacher, who escaped. He got in through an obscure entrance and by the time police arrived he had killed himself and it was all over.
Could an armed teacher have prevented him? I don't know...the teacher was busy doing other things when the shooting started and it was so sudden many people just froze. Could an armed guard have prevented him? Again, we don't know because one guard can't patrol a whole building effectively.
However, I do think securing the buildings would be a first step and setting up surveillance systems where a guard can view all (locked down) entrances could be implemented. Also, perhaps "safe rooms" could be established in certain areas where potential victims can at least take refuge...(recessed cameras of the entrance to these can allow those inside to let others in). This technology exists...yes, it would cost $$$ but maybe it's time priorities shifted where the taxpayer money is used.
The lack of intelligence and common sence on this board really surprises me!!!! I though Americans as a whole were smarter than that; I guess I was wrong!
FACT: Israil (a MUCH more dangerous part of the world) arms it's teachers and has had 8 students die of gun related violance in their schools over the past 10 years.
FACT: The USA has "Gun free school zones" and have had well OVER 200 students die of gun related violance in schools over the past 10 years.
... here is another FACT ... 2 of the teachers in CT are known to have faced down the gunman and did what they could to protect their students. If EITHER or BOTH of those teachers were armed there is a better than average chance that some of those children who died would still be alive today!!!!!
WAKE UP AND STOP BELIEVING THE TYRANICAL NONSENCE OF OUR MARXIST PRESIDENT AND HIS "CZARS"!
*In hindsite I guess I shouldn't be surprised about how utterly STUPID people are ... after all more than 1/2 of voting Americans RE-Elected a man who FAILED at every single thing he did other than getting Binladen and that whole operation was not even his ... it was set up by Bush, the one he blames for all HIS mistakes!!!!!!
Go back to your hole angry troll.
Enjoy your roting once the government runs out of money and can't pay for you to live off the backs of others!
You lazy troll.
Its ashamed that you feel that way, however because of people like you, Democrats will continue to be the majority in office. thank you...
No ... it's because of unintelligent and lazy people like you that the Socalists and Marxists (aka: Today's Democrats) are going to stay in power ... at least until the economy collapses (which it will) like it did in Greece. The shame is that no one is big enough to bail us out when we fall like Greece go bailed out so the rioting is going to b 100x worse.
... and it's morons like you that we will have to blame!
Nice to see there are schools with real security plans, not simply hoping someone with evil intent doesn't show up at the door.
When police are involved in shootings, and are vindicated by a Grand Jury investigation, they are often slapped with a wrongful death civil suit. For civil suits, the level of proof is lower. Civil suits are more often effective in punishing the shooter.
Has the school board adopted a policy of defending wrongful-death suits against Guardians? If not, the Guardians stand to lose everything in defending a civil suit.
If it ever came to pass that they needed to shoot in order to protect the children I doubt there would be a problem getting funds for a legal defense if a civil suit came out of it. I know I would contribute. Children alive is worth it.
Actually, in the state of Texas, the legislature passed a law (It's part of our "Castle Doctrine") that says if a person use of deadly force is deemed "Justified" (IE: No-billed by a Grand Jury) then it is an "Affirmative defense" against any possible civil suits......Meaning any "Wrongful Death" of "Mental anguish" lawsuit would be immediately dismissed.
Texas is NOT California (and several other states) where the criminals and their families can easily take advantage of the system. The citizens of this state saw this as a problem elsewhere and enacted legislation to put an end to it.
Castle doctrine will not protect the teacher or school district from a civil lawsuit if my child is injured or killed due to the teacher's negligence. The job of the teacher is to teach. Mr. Thweatt's approach of "training regarding accuracy and hostage situations" is laughable. As if additional rounds fired at a paper target are going to effectively prepare someone to engage a gunman in a firefight in a school hallway. SWAT teams train for hundreds of hours in exercises to do what he thinks his teachers can do. They use specialized equipment and tactics that his teachers are incapable of. To suggest that his program is working is a post hoc logical fallacy,
The training I've seen first hand (yes, I train and shoot with the like of SWAT, Navy Seals, Marine Snipers on a regular basis) would mean, train for accuracy and WHAT TO DO IN A HOSTAGE SITUATION.....not necessarily attempt the shot!!!
But remember, a standoff is at least a lull in the action where the active shooter ISN'T shooting and killing more kids and faculty and allows time for the Police to show up.
I'd take that over the teacher getting shot in front of my kids and then the kids wondering which one is next in line.
There has been so much emphasis put on a specific weapon that people aren't even thinking about all of the other weapons that have been used in Colombine, Virginia Tech, Arizona, etc...
An armed person, hell bent on a path of carnage, is only going to be stopped one way......by force.
Faulty logic – guns are not in jails because inmates are bad but not all bad people have been identified so its alright to have guns in schools... Wow...
That is not what he was saying but you would know that if you weren't an idiot!
The flawed logic, as this writer pointed out, is to say that eliminating guns will somehow create a safe environment.
I love my kids enough to not want them to go to school prisons.
A little bit of sensibility goes a long way. It's too bad Washington is so far from Texas. May God Bless.
And this is what our great country has come to...... needing guns in our schools? All you NRA folks, you see nothing wrong with that type of a society?
For those that are not aware, the top dogs in the NRA make BIG BUCKS. Their gambit is the same as most of the elite within the union environments.... keep stirring the pot of fear so we can get as much money flowing in.
Guns have been in schools for a long time, I use to remember watching the principal come out and look at a kids new shotgun in the window rack and they had a conversation about what a nice gun it was. until you and your kind decided to glorify the gun in movies, push for the double income household due to cost of living etc, things change.
When the nation has become one of doctors giving children and young adults on psychotropic medicines, instead of trying to work out solutions to their issues through therapy and educational adjustments/acceptance, that lead to rage and fits of no remorse, I absolutely think we need to protect our children from these people. If you think guns not being around will stop this kind of thing, even if you took all guns away and left everything else the same, you're in a la la land dreaming of utopia. This is the real world, blame the government and pharma money for pushing this stuff on our young people.
This article is truly sickening. You Americans are being filled with incorrect, even MADE UP information. Here in the UK we have not had guns in many years and it is safer than it has ever been. We've been working diligently at taking care of the knife problem as well, and other dangerous weapons.
The same thing is happening in Australia where they FINALLY woke up and smelled the vegemite, and took guns away from millions of potential murderers, and they are much better for it now.
Don't listen to the lies. Banning and confiscating guns works. America just needs to grow a set and go through with it. Hopefully one of Obama's new executive orders will include confiscating guns. These are times of emergency, and the President should do whatever it takes to mitigate the emergency, even if it means setting Congress aside (or even better, disbanding it altogether) to get guns off the street and out of their schools.
ok....then stay in the UK. We did not ask for or solicit any opinion of the Queens subjects anyway....here we are citizens and not "SUBJECTS."
I am American and I live in the UK. I love the US but I have to agree that the UK has this one figured out. The argument of fight fire with fire, eye for an eye, or more guns to prevent guns just isn't logical and doesn't work.
Why send guns to school in order to prevent guns in school? The statement in it's self doesn't make sense.
Um... You realize the UK is not "safer" than the United States right? It may have less gun crimes but that isn't the whole picture. When people talk about a place being safe they usually mean against crime not just guns. The UK's violent crime rate is more than twice the US per 100k people
Not all "violent crime" is equivalent: I'd take ten beatings in the UK to one bullet through the gut here.
The problem with your "FIX" is it doesn't take into account the actual differences between our countries. Just look at the differences in "Developed" land masses. The UK doesn't have the wildlife management problems we face. I'd like to see what the UK would do about a $10 BILLION+ per year problem with wild feral hogs (myself and a few others took almost 300 hogs off ONE ranch here in SE Texas last year alone and we haven't put a DENT in the problem!!).....let alone the wild dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, groundhogs, prairie dogs, bobcats, mountain lions, bears, etc., etc....
Then lets look at logistics. We are not an island. Our country hasn't secured it's borders yet so we still see 1000's of tons of illegal drugs come across our southern border every year......and our ports lack enough security so that 1000's of tons of illegal counterfeit goods come into our country every year. We are bordered by a country in the middle of a drug (turf) war where 10's of thousands are shot/beheaded\etc. every year. We see kidnappings-for-ransom happen in our southern states along with the shootings that has spilled over the border.. Yeah, all of the gun restrictions are REALLY working there!!!
But I guess if WE completely disarm, all of those other problems will just go away......
Sorry, I'd rather not.....Here in the REAL world, things aren't always that pretty.
I'm glad I don't live in Texas. Those guns are more likely to be taken away from your teachers and used against the children, than they are to be used to protect them. How insane is it that these supposedly grown adults could possibly think surrounding our most precious possessions with dangerous, lethal weapons is the safest thing for them?
good thing you don't live in Texas, or Utah, or Georgia, or Alabama, or any other gun friendly state where we tend to defend ourselves with firearms, by exercising the rights given to us in the 2A..it might be too much for a progressive mind to handle.
You believe it is ridiculous that we surround our most precious things with guns and cant understand it.
answer me this: Are your children not as important as your money? Banks are guarded with guns.
Are your children not as important as a politician? They are guarded with guns.
Are your children not as important as a sporting event? The stadiums and its people are guarded with weapons.
If im not mistaken, I think your priorities and most of the countries priorities are mistaken. Id rather guard children with weapons than all the money, politicians, and sports in the world.
What do you have to say to that?
How would they be taken away? Why is this any different than an armed resource officer as many schools use now? If those carrying are trained as outlined, the reality is that their firearm being taken from them isn't likely.
People seem to forget that firearm safety and marksmanship use to be taught in public schools all over the country, in some places as recent as the 1990's and there weren't problems. Utah has had a law in place that allows teachers to conceal carry without issue.
DId he really say " We use cameras, electronic security and emergency plans, and some of our staff members are armed.?" How about some COMMON SENSE and changing your culture of murder and death by firearms and knives. The only place wher they execute more citizens than TEXAS is China, the most populous place on earth,
Since 1819 Texas has executed 1219 people. Just the kind of society you want future murderers to attend school in.
Obviously the plan of killing everyone isnt working. so maybe its time to change.
ok..here's an idea....adopt laws just like Chicago, or New York, where the gun laws are the most stringent in the country...and the murder rates are the highest!!
After receiving a fair trial and spending decades on death row, Texas executed 1219 criminals in almost 200 years. WOW....you're complaining about that when the city of Chicago had 500 murders last year alone. Who's raising the most muderers??? Yes, I would much rather live in TEXAS!!!
This is almost certainly the same type of person putting anti-government representatives into Congress, while out of the other side of his mouth he suggests rolling out his private school program to schools all over America. These types of people need to get out and see more of the world. Also, the idea that it is safe to arm teachers in every school is preposterous at best, and deadly insane at worst.
Ronnie, you imply the teachers at your kid's schools are not competent enough that even a few of them could safely and successfully be armed. Such disdain. If that is the case, how do you justify sending kids to those teachers at all? If I were a teacher, I would be offended at your implication.
Ronald Regan was surrounded by trained agents with guns when he was shot, more guns did not work.
So you are saying less guns work. Which means guns are meant only for criminals. The black market will devour all the security this country has now. If guns move through the criminals has as fast as drugs do now we will have now chance to defend ourselves.
The problem is that every illegal gun was a legal gun at some point. Without registration and laws forcing reporting the loss or theft of a gun, you will always have legal guns being taken off or sold off the legal owner.
@ Judith, so what is your solution for getting all those illegal guns back? If there was a way to take each and every single gun in America away and ensure that they wouldn't come back, then I would be okay with gun control. But lets be realistic, that's not possible! Criminals are always going to have or find a way to get them. And as long as one criminal has access to one gun, then I want to have one also to protect my family against him.
Did the former President Reagan die from being shot? He would have if it weren't for the armed personnel that surrounded him. Please move somewhere else. Your views are unrealistic.
Had the shooter been a better shooter, then reagan would have died; his not dying had nothing to do with all the gun slingers around him.
If he hadn't been surrounded with agents with guns, then a lot more people would have tried to assassinate him. Yes, one person was able to break through the security and shoot him, but how many didn't??? How many didn't even try?
Hey Jim, that guy was a whack job....I;m thinking like you!. Address the ELEPHANT in the room...mental, unstable people getting guns. Why weren't the Dr's of him required to tell authorities he was a whack job and to be on the look out? Instead, you want to take the guns away from the protectors? Haven;t you learned that no GUBN CONTROL law is going to keep whack jobs from doing it, they will find a gun and do it anyway, so take the gun away from the protector or the law abiding citizen so they can't protect themselves when poop hits the fan....How fast do you think 911 can make it to your house when the armed boogie man is outside? Good luck fighting him off with a broom handle! Nothing like bringing a broom to a gunfight! Get real dude! You take guns away and people will STILL get guns. Watch one of those video games for about 24 hours and you'll want to go get a gun and take out a few people also....but nothing being done about those game makers? How old are the people that are doing these killings? Perfect example of the "gamer". So do we take donkey kong and tetris away from video games....would be the same thing as taking guns from law abiding citiezens becasue of a few whack jobs that were influenced by the games and never reported to authorities by their drs or family. In the NFL, when one player gets a DUI, do they punish everyone on the team? Get a grip! The 2nd Amendment is for me to PROTECT my self read it, taking my gun away, how else would you like me to do that?...can I borrow your broom handle...
As an educator and ex-Army medic..... I will never carry a weapon into one of my classrooms. I will do my best to protect those in my charge, but my job should not require me to be armed. Enforce the laws in place first. We have enough problems in education without putting the burden of "marksman" on our CVs.
I have an idea.... instead of spending $600 on a 9mm Glock for my classroom.... could I have some notebooks, pencils & a few extra textbooks??
Well I hope your never my kids teacher and your only protection you can offer an armed intruder are pencils and paper. In our school in California we have somethine very similar to this guardian program. Think on this, all mass shooting have happend where? GUN FREE ZONES. Good job creating FREE KILL ZONES
Steve! A "right" thinking Californian!?!? I love it!!!!
Ironically, I too am in California. If we enforced the laws that are in place now and spent more time & resources taking illegal weapons off the street......
OH Wait... Damn me... using my critical thinking skills again.
And if I can remind all of you that here in California we had two educators "talk" a gunman down, resulting in one student recovering from his wounds. Alledgly the shooter was bullied by the studnts on his "hit list".
OH BUT WAIT!!! Guns are ALWAYS the answer!!!
"I will do my best to protect those in my charge, but my job should not require me to be armed"
A teaching job should not require you to be armed, traditionally, but some places it now does... if you wish to 'do your best' to protect those in your charge. The above Guardian Plan does not mean that you have to carry, but that someone located nearby can respond to protect those in your class, no-one is forced to carry. Remember – the closer an armed teacher is to the gunman – the less time the gunman will have to kill. Many students can be killed in seconds, even a few minutes can mean scores of lives lost, shoulder your responsibility and put philosophy behind you.
Surely being a marksman is not that much of a "burden", and wouldn't appear on your CV unless you put it in there.
I like the way you think!
We can put a 16 year old behind the wheel of a car but we don't like the idea of putting a gun in the hand of a well educated teacher?
You are American you will die in a school as a kid caught in the crossfire between a shooter and your teacher........
just face the reality. It's too bad you weren't born in a different first world civilized country, but on the other hand you could've been born in other similar countries with similar gun laws like Syria or Somalia or Afghanistan which are only slightly worse.......tough luck.
Nuns with guns!
While I don't think arming teachers is the way to go, this small rural school thought it through and developed a credible program. The fragging rounds are a great idea to reduce collatoral damage. I use them myself. Too bad the bad guys keep wearing body armor. The teacher will die watching the mad man laugh off the rounds. If he even gets hit. Sorry folks, it's too late. We can't fix this. To everyone, all of the cures are worse than the disease. I'm learning to speak Mayan.
I am a teacher and I find it rather insulting when people scoff at the idea of a teacher being trained to use a firearm. What is a police office, soldier, or FBI agent?- A human being. One who has been trained to carry a weapon and use it when necessary to protect others. Why then, do people find it so unthinkable an idea that a "teacher" would be so incapable of similar training. I am a hunter ( an have participated in hunter safety courses), I have a personal protection pistol (and although I do not carry on school campus because it is not allowed where I live, I also have taken concealed carry classes) , and have a 3rd degree black belt in martial arts. If I can go through 6 years of college and earn a master's degree to teach kids, why could I not successfully go through training courses to be prepared to protect them? I also know many teachers who served a stint in the military prior to entering the teaching profession, these individuals are already trained in weapons and tactical skills. Everyone pictures teachers as the mild-mannered elementary teacher who is meek and soft spoken. But, remember, we are human beings- just as are any other "trained" protector. We are already trained to evaluate mental states and psychology of individuals (Many times we identify the future sociopaths, long before they commit their crimes- but are told there's nothing we can do until they commit a crime.). We already deal with crowd control, conflict resolution, and maintaining order amidst chaos. We are trained to observe an entire scene and assess what needs to happen. We already participate in drills that make us evaluate a situation and respond accordingly. These are all "tactical" skills, and this is what we use on a daily basis just to maintain a peaceful learning environment in our classrooms. So, as outrageous as it sounds to some, yes, teachers are very capable human beings. Even more so, teachers are very capable human beings who already feel a sense of responsibility to protect children.
You are probably more qualified to possess and use a firearm than most police officers, and especially inside a school that you are so familiar with.
Most police in any town would hardly know what the inside of the school looked like.... that is a crime....
You and mister Thesweat are so lame, I would love to see you trying to hit a shooter's head, while he is shooting 4 to 5 rounds at you per second while he's dressed in kevlar. The idea that let's all carry guns and the world will be a safer place in the utlitmate in naivety. The NRA is now just a voice for the gun industry, when I learned how to shoot they were so much different, and honest, really different.
so we will just lie down and die...
Mr. Anderson, how do you stop someone like the Newtown shooter then? Or do you just let him do whatever he wants, kill with impunity, and destroy hundreds of lives – the loved ones of his victims? You make statements, sir, but offer no solutions.
have you ever been shot at?
even if you are wearing body armor you still drop and find cover, and most psyco's turn the guns on themselves when they are threatened before they get caught.
thinking the world would be safe with everyone having guns is just as naive as thinking everyone will give up weapons.
Uhhm I hate to point out the fact that Body Armor has been banned for about 20 years now (estimnated) and the Criminals are wearing it?? Tell me again How Criminals will follow gun laws??
You seem to have a hard time with reality. When a gunman enters a school or a theater he could be wearing kevlar, but either way he still has to enter. The point is to notice there is a problem as soon as possible. Thoughs who want to give in to the nuts of this country should have to live with them daily. Each of us should chose to either fight back and protect our children or move to Syria.
If you would research what experts say about confronting an active shooter you'd find your statement to be extremely inaccurate. Most of these monsters stop when confronted by force and either give up or kill themselves. Also, most of these spree murderers aren't trained in the use of firearms, while someone as mentioned above that is required to have training will be more than capable of handling this situation, even with just a handgun. No having armed teachers in schools is not an ideal situation, but neither is waiting 10 to 30 mins for the police to arrive to respond. This school is in a rural area without a police force in close proximity, so they have taken steps to be the first responders, makes perfect sense.
Rock on, Miss Jen. It is your mindset that will ultimately prevail and restore our schools to places of actual safety and learning.
.....the U.S. is ridiculous.
if the United States of America is so terrible-please feel free to get the hell out and stay out!!
The logical solution is simple, increase the risk and lower the probability of successful mass murders. How? Allow every citizen that has passed the qualifications of a CHL to carry EVERYWHERE. If a student knew that two out of every students carried a gun on them, would he think twice before shooting up a classroom? Lets say that he does not and continues with his plan. He is stopped with fatalities reduced. Now due to this incident, the statistics of students who carry guns on them increase to five out of every 15 students. The next mass murderer comes along, and knowing this he still continues with his plan. He is stopped with fatalities severely reduced. That statistic grows until the probability of a successful mass murder is nearly impossible and mass murder is replaced with just murder. The first step however, is understanding American culture.
I know we must protect our rights, but realistically do we really need to arm our teachers? This guy was a statistical aberration, but, thanks to the media, parents are envisioning every bush outside every school hiding a wild eyed madman with an assault rifle in each arm, waiting for school to start. The reality is that your kid will most likely never see a gun fired in anger. How about a bit more common sense and maybe making policy based on the real world and not on the bogeymen that are hiding under our beds?
I bet the parents at Sandy Hook and Columbine thought just like you. Now their children are dead.
Gee GP, their were two armed guards at Columbine. A lot of good that did huh?
It's always so amusing to see hoplophobes, particularly liberals, dump on the "armed officers in schools" because this time it came from the NRA but when Bill Clinton did the same exact thing in the 90's the ID10ts were naming their kids after him and treating him like the messiah.
It won't let me reply to Anderson but first off, the security guard at columbine (there was one, not two) was outside in his car eating lunch and watching students in a smoker's pit. When the shooting started, he went near an outer door and shot at one of them about 3 times, missed, and never went into the building. Here is one for you though: if you think having a security guard did nothing and we shouldn't try it again, why would you be for another assault weapon ban then?
@Mark Anderson – Check your facts. Review the Columbine timeline and get back to us. Thanks.
Yes it is an aberration so knee jerk reactions will not work. Banning guns....arming teachers... metal detectors in schools..
Why are our young people feeling so desperate and depraved. Is it a systemic problem in society?
Rx drugs? Some of which have clearly stated side affects such as depression and suicidal thoughts. The drug companies and the FDA think these are acceptable risks.
Are they acceptable now???
But you won't see a "Task Force" investigating that possibility. Because the drug companies have more lobbyists in Washington then the NRA.
The Guardian Plan should be put in place across the country. It is possibly the best and most realistic defense against random acts of violence. I applaud the actions of David Thweatt in helping to put the plan in place in his school.
Yes absolutely, put the guardian plan into effect. Because the police that already get paid to protect us and our children can't seem to.
I think every home should have a guardian plan..... (smith and Wesson, Remington, Roger, Colt, Sig Sauer, Banelli)
Police are well-meaning, but I always remember the phrase "when seconds count, the police are minutes away".
I'm a gun owner. The people that commit these mass shootings are unstable (sick) people without a doubt, BUT, they are capable of planning...if they weren't, they would not succed in their maddness. I'm willing to bet that they would not PLAN to go anywhere near a place where they might find confrontation. I think "un-identified" security personnel could/might work. You'd need to announce their prescence, WITH A GREAT BIG SIGN, but not who they are. The downside of this is that you"ll probably get some nutjob who wants to challenge the whole thing. Not sure what the answer is....glad my kids are out of school now...although they still go to movies and malls....
yes we need more guns at school to protect the kids from psychos with guns, because anyone can buy a gun its easier then buying beer in USA.
A lunatic with $5 worth of gasoline and a propane tank could do just as much evil.
If he's not killed in the act. We can incarcerate him for 20yrs waiting for appeals. Until we can execute him.
Americans live in such a culture of fear that is perpetuated by the nations media. Their solution to this fear is owning guns to protect themselves from every possible bad thing that could ever happen. They forget that simply owning a gun makes them more likely to be a victim of gun violence. Forget protecting yourself... You are more likely to shoot yourself or one of your family members then to shoot an intruder. If owning guns made people safer the US would be the safest country in the world. Allowing every Tom, Dick and Hary to own a gun is the most rediculous notion ever. I understand owning a gun is a right to americans however there need to be exceptions. Gun regulation needs to be a federal focus to simplify and avoid changing laws from state to state. To own a gun a person should need to pass safety course in the proper handeling and storing of firearms, and a federal background check that not only includes a criminal check but also reference checks with the persons spouse and family members. In most country's obtaining a gun is a lenghy process that is restricted to only people who are properly trained. Ive heard the old addage that criminals will always find a way to get their hands on a gun. This may be true however stricter gun regulation puts fewer guns in the hands of untrained people. The fewer guns that are not properly locked and stored the fewer chances criminals have to get thier hands on a gun.
Buhuuuu im an american and im so afraid, buhuuu we need more security, buhuuu
Glad you don't need protection.
Its amazing how people forget the old saying "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it". We were spoiled to live in America that has known relative peace inside our borders for several generations. But not too long ago the typical American was taking their life in the hands by just venturing outside their house. Case in point back in the early years of the country Massachusetts had a law on the books that required men to carry rifles with them to church. Matter of fact that law is still on the books and can be found on the stupid laws website.
So there was a time people had to be ready to defend themselves with guns in a church. Sadly today's world we are replacing the threat of natives attacking with the threat of nuts attacking. Either way arming locations were we believe should have no guns today have in history been armed.
Let's not forget... America was born at the business end of a riffle.
I use a pacifier when I'm a baby, but not when I'm an adult. Sometimes you gotta ditch things as you grow.
Laws do three things:
1. Keep the honest people honest
2. Potentially prevent some people from breaking the law
3. Establish consequence for breaking the law
Laws do not:
1. Prevent someone who is willing to suffer the consequences
2. Does not know what right from wrong is as defined by a society
IF THE PRESIDENT PROMISED (WHICH HE ALWAYS LIES) ME THAT NO ONE WOULD EVER PUT MY FAMILY, FRIENDS, OR ME IN HARM OR A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION I WOULD BE GLAD TO TURN IN EVERY SINGLE GUN I OWN....HOWEVER, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH POLICE OR MILITARY THAT COULD PROMISE ANYBODY THAT....SOME PEOPLE ON HERE HATE ALL GUNS AND ACT LIKE THEY HAVE A PHOBIA ABOUT THEM... GUNS SAVE PEOPLE AND THEY KILL PEOPLE AND BANNING THEM WOULD ONLY KEEP GUNS IN THE BAD GUYS HANDS... LIKE I SAID, IF THE PRESIDENT OR SOMEONE IN CONGRESS GAVE ME A %100 FOR SURE PROMISE THAT MYSELF OR ANYONE I KNOW WOULD NEVER BE PUT IN A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION...I WOULD HAND OVER ANY GUNS.... BUT NO ONE CAN PROMISE THAT AND THE POLICE CAN NOT PROTECT EVERYBODY....
How's that militia going 2nd Amendment Forever? Do you always CAP everything, very subtle.
"IF THE PRESIDENT PROMISED (WHICH HE ALWAYS LIES) ME THAT NO ONE WOULD EVER PUT MY FAMILY, FRIENDS, OR ME IN HARM OR A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION I WOULD BE GLAD TO TURN IN EVERY SINGLE GUN I OWN...."
To 2nd Amendment Forever - Obama always lies? Where do you get that crap from? For you to make that statement makes me think you are a rightwing nut job conservaive Republican, the ones who have ruined our Republican Party . Methinks y ou are the onw who is a liar with a such statement so the rest of your message means nothing and is not worth reading. I am guaranteed my right to own guns due to the Second Amendment. Why in hell do you think Obama is a liar, h as it told us he wants to take our guns away? I thinnk not and if you think so, my friend, you are beyond help. Go hide under a rock and take your GOP Crazy Meds.
Mel, 2nd Amendment Forever never said that Obama lies...he/she did say however that if the Government can provide us a 100% guarantee that if we turn in our firearms, we won't EVER bee harmed by someone with a weapon...get it straight please...
While I don't necessarily agree with your point of view, bravo Mr. Thweatt. If only more of the gun control discourse was this sensible.
This doesn't go far enough. We need to arm the kids themselves. That's why I'm sending my kids to school with their own guns. I don't want them having to wait for some dopey teacher to run down the hall and then miss. They need to be ready to go at any time. And don't worry, I taught them to be safe.
If your kids are of age, have Texas concealed carry permits and proper safety and self defense training, and are authorized by the school administration and/or the school board like the armed teachers are, then have at it.
Any school district that chooses to arm staff has an obligation to notify parents in advance. I would pull my kids out of that school and even move to another school district if necessary. I don't want my kids attending school in an armed environment. My biggest worry is they will be authorized to do this without disclosing it to parents.
This might be one of the silliest things I have ever read.
I predict there will never be a nutcase with a gun enter that school. The only go for gun free schools.
Actually, a person with a concealed carry permit is not required to notify anyone at all that they are carrying a gun. And I can't imagine why you would rather send your kid to a place where only the murderers are armed! That really makes no logical sense.
Unless you live in one of the paranoid places like Illinois, California, Washington DC, New York, etc, that have outright bans on firearms, you currently shop, eat, watch movies, and do practically everything side by side someone legally and safely carrying a concealed firearm. They have a permit and safely carry their weapon without you ever knowing it, until they need it. What should really scare you is the criminal who is also in the same store, mall, theater, etc, who is also carrying a firearm without you knowing it. Their intentions are to rob, rape, or kill someone who cannot defend themselves. Both types of weapon carriers are in most public places, unless you live in one of the enlightened places mentioned above, then only the criminal next to you will be armed. THAT is what should scare you.
Another liberal ... you think that professional people with guns can't be productive.
I guess you don't think much of police or other law enforcement people. They are not brain surgeons, right???
A great idea until some depressed staff member decides to go on a shooting rampage because he's angry at his ex-wife.
Yeah...You do realize that if someone intends to do that, they're going to do it. A "no gun" sign on a door at the entrance to the school is not an invisible force field. Although some would like for us to think it is.
Hardly likely. And, like the principal says, no system is perfect but we have to do the best we can. Thousands of people across the country now have the proper training and have been vetted and checked out by local, county and state police agencies and the F.B.I., and once doesn't find them shooting up schools and theatres or gang-banging or robbing convenience stores and shooting up towns. More likely some mentally ill or common criminal type will be the perpetrator and there aren't many, if any, of them with concealed carry permits or even teaching credentials to begin with.
So you're worried about a teacher going crazy and using a gun on the kids? You realize that the police that walk around with guns all day are in one of the highest stress jobs going and very few of them if any have ever snapped. So few I suspect that no statistics even exist for it. Also lets not lose sight of the fact that all of these killers fit a specific profile: anti social, 20-something men with personality disorders - not too many of those are working with kids for a living Id bet. Id also like to point out that by and large the teachers love their students and would go pretty far to protect them. If you could travel back in time and pop into Sandy Hook right as the teachers realized that someone was in that building shooting at their kids and offered them a firearm do you honestly believe they would have said no?
At least police officers are certified and have gone through a decent amount of training. I, for one, wouldnt feel safe if my children were around teachers with guns. Armed officers roaming the halls? Makes sense. Teachers with guns? Sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
While I'm all for adding security to schools, I most definitely think this isn't a good idea. Orlando, Fl decided to give police officers extra hours and have put 2 or 3 in each school to make sure the children are being watched over. Pay a little extra on my taxes to ensure safety by qualified individuals? I'll take that.
Ian, trained like the cops in NY that shot at a criminal 10 feet away from them and hit 9 innocent bystanders? Its natural to think that a cop would handle a life or death scenario better than a teacher but Im not sure its true. Id bet most cops have not been in a life or death shoot-out scenario and many could probably respond similar or worse than an average civilian. Cops are just people too. That said, Im not sure it even matters. If we could just get it out there that all schools in the country are protected by armed personel that WILL defend the children with extreme prejudice - that may be enough to disuade a potential attacker from targeting a school. See, often it isnt that the gun even has to be used it just needs to be there. You and I may argue the finer points of this but it seems like we both agree that given the choice between a gun free zone or some armed personel we would chose the latter. This is really only part of the discussion by the way. The media and politicians are focusing with tunnel vision on guns and completely ignoring the fact that the next deadly school attack may not even involve a gun. What are we doing to prevent other kinds of attacks?
Certified and trained? Most police officers train with, fire and qualify their weapons once a year. As a private citizen permit holder I expend more ammunition, spend more time and devote more money working on weapon skills every month than the typical officer does in a year.
Yes those cops carry weapons everywhere. Sadly, many of them are barely competent at best.
Jaeger, not sure what police dept. you are speaking of, mine requires all weapon carriers qualify every 3 months and refresher training as needed. That said, marksmenship is a highly perishable skill and many officers are indeed poor shots in a dynamic situation.
Police are regular people big and small, men and women, not super heroes. Anyone can be trained to shoot a gun. Some, netter than others....and that includes police officers.
Seems like alot of people on here think that we live in "Mayberry"! Where sheriff Taylor could come and talk a crazy insane person from committing a crime.
Seems like alot of people here think that everbody's a gun nut teabagger living in a trailer park. Where they can hang out at Walmart and fondle guns and knives.
Many of them don't realize that some of us "Gun Nuts" live in 6,000 sq ft homes, in gated communities, have safe rooms, and love the weapons for their history, and their functionality. They forget that the 2nd is in place to keep us safe from politicians. Yeah, they are ok today, but what will come tomorrow? Maybe they just want to take this one gun or mag, then something else happens then they want to take that, and then it becomes what kind of speech one is allowed to practice and when/where they are allowed to do it. Then people are being imprisoned for voicing their opinion against a president.
I find it interesting that someone with your obvious far left leaning, and barely intelligible communications style, would attempt to call out anyone else's extreme beliefs. From your screen name to your commentary, you negate the opinions of liberals who at least attempt to engage in useful dialog.
The world is a simple place... To a simpleton.
They have a saying in texas. "wanted dead or alive" .... preferably dead.
The only things that come from Texas are steers and quee*s.
I'm so glad my kids are not in a Texas school district.
What? You haven't left yet? :-(
Having read most of the posts above, I have come to one simple conclusion. Those of you who believe that having armed school employees is wrong or dangerous simply have a phobia about guns. You cannot reason the fact that guns not only kill, but they can also protect, deter and if necessary, save lives. We live in a violent world. Get used to it and understand that you will never rid society of guns or violence.
You are so anti gun and so blinded by your own revulsion to them, you can't see the practical benefit of having some front line, early response to what could otherwise be a horrible massacre. You don't accept that school employees could ever be evaluated, trained or prepared to act in a dire situation. (They did so without guns in Newtown. They're dead) You don't accept that guns and gun violence is here to stay, or that banning them will only further expose decent folks to wacko's and the criminal element who could care less about the law..
You are the sheep of the world who truly believe that laws and law enforcement will protect you. You believe that it will never happen to you or yours'. When threatened, sheep huddle close together and hope that some other poor lamb gets it. Sheep will stand by and watch or run for cover. The worlds history is riddled with the consequences of that mindset.
You may believe that there is safety in statistics, or the odds of your being a victim are almost nil. To that I say, baa.
Seemed to work in every other civilized country...so why doesn't it work here, George?
What seemed to work? If you think that banning guns eliminates violent crime, you haven't done your homework.
You answered your own question.
We aren't a civilized country. We are islands of civilization in a sea of unrest.
I'm a gun owner, so no phobias here. The plan to arm school staff is lunacy. I would not let my kid go to a school where staff was armed. The risk of irresponsible behavior is way too high, and accidents happen a lot more often than anyone would like. It is more fantasy than the other side that wants outright bans.
There were two armed deputies at Columbine. It did not affect the outcome at all.
We need real solutions, not people who want to be in a movie.
There was one armed security officer at columbine and he was outside eating lunch and watching students in a smokers pit. When the massacre started, he fired about three shots at one of the killers from outside and never followed them back into the building.
There was one armed guard at Columbine and he was in the parking lot eating lunch. We already have armed guards at schools all over this nation and guess what? They don't get shot up at nearly the rate as the "gun free zone" schools do. You have armed guards protecting your city, your President, your money, your celebrities, they are all over the place and how often are there issues? Millions of guns protect valuable things all over this Nation. Protect your children too.
So, Matt's answer to the issue is "Gun owners being more responsible or requried to be more responsible. There should have been questions asked at the gun club. There should have been requirements for safe storage when a questionable person had access to that home. There should have been friends and family to ask questions and raise an alarm before this happened. It could have been easy things like insisting that they have a gun safe,"
Sorry, but that is still putting the safety of myself and my family in the hands of all of these other people. I agree, you need mature responsible people carrying guns. I carry a concealed on occasion-no one ever knows I have it. I am willing to bet I am much safer that way then I am depending on all of your ideas above. Sure, it would be great to live in the perfect world, but I'm not putting my safety or that of my family in the hands of "what should have been done"
You would rather depend on society to do what is right in every situation rather then taking the time to screen and train a couple people to guard our children with a firearm. So, its better to leave our schools undefended? leave our children as sitting ducks? I agree with the security systems and the cameras–absolutely!! But glass doesn't stop bullets.
@Matt Better not let your kids go to a store or event with armed guards then! No malls, no concerts, and no state fairs for your family. Just because someone carries a gun does not mean they want to be in a movie.
Bet you would not have a problem letting your kid go to a football game with an armed guard.
As a sophmore in high school, it is my humble opinion that this could be considered as an alternative to gun control. The government doesn't care about your safety at all. They care about your tax dollars and votes. Most powerful people are concerned with exactly one thing: gaining power. Money = power. Control over a population = power. Remember when SOPA tried to get a slight control over the internet? That control would have grown until eventually it was complete. That is exactly what they want to do with guns: extend more and more control until you're like australia or good ol great britain (with a monarchy) . If people start giving up their rights, then the whole point of democracy is gone. Not that they are half bad places to live (right now), but america is a unique place if nothing else.
Why would you assume that licensed and trained staff members are any more irresponsible than you?
Matt: Part of the solution outlined in this one TX school is *unknown* armed teachers – not someone in uniform advertising "The armed guy is HERE"
Also – the school is not training teachers. The teachers who have been trained and have concealed weapons permit can be authorized through the guardian program to carry.
It is scary to consider the fact we need to protect our children from massacres. It was beyond tragic and must be avoided in the future... so now is considering an armed teacher to protect our children more awful than considering continuing unprotected schools as is?
Hey George, you are living in the wrong time period. The wild west ended when responsible law inforcement took over the role of protecting the public. Even during that time, many bars required you to check your gun at the door. Why? Because even responsible gun totten cowboys get into a fight every now and then, and people got hurt. Now you think we should bring that era back? The crimes that have taken place would not have been prevented by a well armed faculty, mainly because the perpetrators don't care if they get shot. In fact that is what they want. If they don't get killed by someone elses bullet, they kill themselves. The gun rights activists think that we are all safer by being armed. In reality there is just more chances for accidents to take place. We are dealing with the public, not our personal property at home. Public protection is the role of the police and military, not private citizens. This does not mean taking away peoples right to bear arms, but it does mean not taking the law into your own hands, which I had always thought was the law, and frowned upon by the authorities. How can anyone in their right mind think that every school in America needs armed teachers. Next it will be allowing the clergy and choir to carry concealed weapons as you never know who might go nuts during a church service and you need to protect yourself. The devil could be among you – George.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Wow, another GENIUS with the wrong answer. Ok, let me ask you this since you seem to know so much about what mass murderers crave. As you stated above "perpetrators don't care if the get shot, in fact that's what they want...", the why the hell dont you hear about them attacking police stations? You know why, because there's a room full o'guns! No, they don't want to get shot. They want to make their statement to the world that they're mad about something and then they want to end it without a trial. Arming staff members ensures that they are not a part of that statement to the worlld and neither are our children.
How cute, you believe the police are here to protect us. The police have the job of bringing people to justice who have already broken the law. They do not stop crime, they do not protect people, they arrest you if you have broken the law.
Fortunately, there were not nearly as many "shoot outs" in the old west days as Hollywood would have us believe, but there were still plenty of crazies around, just as there are today. Nobody, back then, though, went through the training and background checks required today to obtain a concealed carry permit and anybody could run around armed (even ex-felons). You obviously don't know what all is involved there from your comments, and you might find it interesting to check it out. Most states have the rules and requirements enumerated on an online web site. If you read and learn about them you will see that not just any Tom, Dick, Harry or Sally can get a permit and that training by a certified instructor is mandatory. One thing prospective permit holders are drilled on is the fact that they are NOT law enforcement officers and the only time their weapons can be revealed and used is if they or someone else nearby is in imminent mortal danger and in fear of losing their lives or being severely stabbed or beaten (knives, baseball bats, firearms, etc.). I'm not putting you down – just sayin' (as they say). We're all allowed to state our opinions, and in my opinion, everybody should be required to take the concealed carry training course whether they intended to carry or not so they would at least know and understand what the law is and what the requirements are.
So your OK with armed pilots flying the skies but not armed teachers protecting your kids? After reading these posts I don't think many of you against arming teachers read the entire article. The armed faculty are carrying concealed and the kids don't know who is actually carrying. They have gone through more training then even the typical CCW holder and have been vetted properly. They would need to be reviewed at the end of each school year to make sure they are still qualified. The cops aren't going to be able to stop something like what happened at Sandy Hook, just like they couldn't at VA-Tech, just like they couldn't at Columbine. I would rather have a first line of defense until they get there then no defense at all. I think other measures should be taken too. Like bullet resistant doors and glass. Automated emergency door locks, reinforced doors, security cameras. All this can be done without the students being non the wiser. Eliminate smoking areas in the high schools to eliminate any outside access. The list goes on and on. On the off hand chance that someone gets in though there should be the ability to respond until help arrives.
George: I'm a recently retired teacher who has owned a rifle since the age of 12. I don't have a "revulsion to guns" as you so naively put it. But I do have experience in school systems and know that arming teachers is not a solution. For one thing – which I'm sure you have no clue about – teachers in most school districts are not allowed to touch an intruder unless there's obvious violence toward another person involved. Why? Because the parents and the courts sue the hell out of the schools so often the schools have to go to incredible lengths to hold on to their funding. And if you're going to train teachers sufficiently to use and store guns properly, are you willing to PAY the teachers for doing it? School systems can't afford that -they're trying to cheat them out of their pensions now. So they will have ONE training session and assume the teacher is good for the next five years. RIDICULOUS.
I agree that teachers (or anyone else, for that matter) should be forced to carry a firearm. It should be left up to each teacher individually. It's a matter of duty, honor and public service more than anything and not everybody feels the same way about it. Every armed permit holder knows that if they ever have to pull and fire their weapon, they're probably going to be sued. Not probably, actually – they will be. Nobody wants to be sued (I sure don't), so you can bet your bippy that they are not going to pull their weapons and start blasting away unless there's a very, very good reason, like somebody running around the place with a firearm shooting at them and/or others. Speaking for myself, and I carry routinely, the last thing in the world I would ever want to do is shoot anybody and, as I'm trained, I would only do so as a last resort when faced with either death or severe bodily injury. The first thing I would do is try to get something substantial between me and my assailant and/or get away completely, calling 911 as soon as possible. If I can't do that and have no other choice, then, and only then, would I draw and fire. And I know it would be a terrible experience and one that I would probably never completely recover from. Honestly, I don't think I'm alone in feeling thusly either, and think that it's probably the norm rather than the exception.
MIck, you forgot to mention when teachers try discussing that a child may be emotionally disturbed, the hoops they have to jump through and the due process hearings they face from parents that don't want to hear their child may not be the model citizen they believe he/she is.
Sorry, the-mick ... I meant in the first sentence that nobody should be forced to carry if they don't want to do it. Trying to type too fast there, I reckon. :-)
The shooter in Newtown used his mother's legally obtained guns to mow down part of a school. There would be no need for armed guards at the school if the shooter had no access to any guns. He didn't steal them from someone else's house. They were right there for him to take. His mother trained him in how to use them. Legally obtained, illegally used. One of these Texan "Guardians" may well find their gun in the hands of their own son when they aren't looking. My brother used to handle my father's .358 when he was out of the house. It happens and I don't trust anyone wanting to carry a gun except the police. The kids who robbed me at gunpoint were 15-17 or so. Where did those come from?
.358? Never heard of that one....
.358 That one of them new fangled "Assault Weapons" I been hearing so much about?
That's a cailber you get when you make stuff up.
Just because you are not familiar with a .358 doesn't mean it doesn't exist, sheeesh! Use you brain, google it, before you put someone down.
"Those of you who believe that having armed school employees is wrong or dangerous simply have a phobia about guns."
Well George, seems like you have us all figured out. Oversimplified, but all figured out. At least in my case you are wrong.
Do I have a phobia? Yes, I heard somewhere they can kill you.
In that case, Rob, you'd better not get in a car, plane or even walk outside your house, I heard you can be killed all of those ways too. Don't even think about eating fatty foods, drinking, smoking or getting stressed out, those can all kill you too. Get real, chicken little.
Gee George, I've lived almost 60 years and never have seen a gun fired in anger, or even been robbed, what Dangerous world do you live in?
The problem with virtually all gun control laws are that they are written by people with very little understanding of guns. Case in point, in Canada we cannot modify a rifle gun to have a barrel less than 18 inches in length, but you can buy a gun with a barrel less than 18 inches as long as that's how it was made.... basically, you can't MAKE a sawed-off shotgun, but you can MAKE one
We (US and Canada) also tend to ban guns based on how they look, not how they operate. A comparison would be to ban kit cars, where you put a fiberglss body that looks like a ferarri on an old volkswagen bug frame, becaus ethey LOOK fast. We ban "assault weapons" because they LOOK like military weapons, while ignore the many less-intimidating looking weapons that work EXACTLY the same because they don't look as scary
A teacher with a gun, eventually, = a student with that gun.
That's the same philosphy here in Canada that has turned us into the most unprotected group imagineable. We're not allowed to even carry non-leathal weapons (pepper spray, tasers, etc...) because "they could just be talen from you and used against you". There was even an attempt to outlaw body armour because the bad guys could use it in a shootout, so we've almost been castrated to the point of being big, juicy, soft targets
We do have fewer shootings, but that has less to do with guns (we still have a LOT) and more to do with our society (we're lovers, not fighters)
Well said, Kevin. Your society is not one of irresponsibility (on the whole) and violence that is festering in our urban settings in particular. At the moment, people are reacting to a horrible event by just responding without thought of consequence. Are there changes that need to be made? Yes. At the same time, I do not want to be like Canada where it is an offense to defend yourself from criminals.
Hey George, you are living in the wrong time period. The wild west ended when responsible law inforcement took over the role of protecting the public. Even during that time, many bars required you to check your gun at the door. Why, because even responsible gun owners can get into a fight where people get hurt. Now you think we should bring that era back? The crimes that have taken place would not have been prevented by a well armed public, mainly because the perpetrators don't care if they get shot. In fact that is what they want. If they don't get killed by bullet, they kill themselves. The gun rights activists think that we are all safer by being armed. In reality there is just more chances for accidents to take place. We are dealing with the public, not our personal property at home. Public protection is the role of the police and military, not private citizens. This does not mean taking away peoples right to own and keep weapons, but it does mean not taking the law into your own hands, which I had always thought was frowned upon by the authorities.
But, how can you deny the possibility that if one of the teachers or the principal who responded first had been armed that there would have been far fewer deaths? I'm not saying it's the answer or not, but I think both sides need to be examined.
With all due respect, you are operating under a very common erronius assumption. The police in this country have never been and are not now responsible for your safety. In some states, there is no legal requirement for government to provide police services. Please Google the folllowing Rulings by the U. S. Courts of Appeal and U. S. Supreme Court: Warren vs. DC; DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services; Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department; Freeman v. Ferguson. There are many more. (Or, just Google Police Duty to Protect.) The fact of the matter is, that witjh a couple of extremely narrow exceptions, the Police have absolutely no duty to protect you. Not to mention that the chances of having an Officer immediately available in time of need is infintesimal...
Police are regular people, big and small, men and women..not super human.. anyone can be trained to shoot a gun...some better then others...and that includes police. Its not rocket science. It should be a mandatory course in school. Like cooking, its a practical skill.
everyone keeps preaching "get rid of all guns"...really? How do your purpose that? You may get rid of all legally obtained guns...but guess what...the criminals and those that want guns for the wrong reasons-will still have them!!! so lets disarm all of the law abiding citizens so they are completely defenseless. I for one feel much safer leaving my children with people who are trained and competant with firearms then leaving them with no defense at all.
What about the little girl shot on Halloween night in Pennsylvania by a guest who "thought she was a skunk"?
The facts are very clear: people living in a household with legally obtained firearms are many-fold more likely to be killed or injured by that gun than protected by it. Your reasoning is entirely emotional and not based on fact. That is not what I expect from a [honorably] retired combat veteran.
you still didn't answer the question...how do you purpose to remove guns from everyone? including those who have them illegally. until you propose a way to ensure the criminals do not have them, then don't talk to me about removing them from those who have obtained them legally and are trained and proficient with them. And don't ever question my honorable discharge...I'm quite sure my four combat tours and purple heart have earned me the right to say I'm responsible and proficient with my firearms. just as I'm sure I am more comfortable leaving my children with staff who are trained and proficient with a firearm rather then leaving them sitting in an unprotected school where they can be used as target practice.
I often wonder what responsible police departments think of a well armed public. Do they think this will make their work easier or might it just add to the chaos if an event takes place. We don't hear very much from those that are authorized to use weapons and are paid to protect us.
You're asking the wrong question. Try asking what to think about a society where personal morals, ethics, and character no longer keep people from walking into a school and killing children. If you wonder why I think you're asking the wrong question, go read up on OKC.
Just about every cop I have talked to and know believe that the public should have the right to defend themselves and some even go as far to say that they will not enforce any gun confiscation. They know that 98% of the time they are going to get there too late. Lets also remember that a cop doesn't carry a gun for YOUR protection he carries one for HIS protection.
I know this is an opinion article and thus I respect Thweatt's opinion about the potential benefits of arming his faculty, but as an educator myself I cannot support this idea even with personal feelings towards guns and an increasing gun-culture aside. Granted, this idea seems to have success in Thweatt's school district, it must be taken into account that this is a small school district administering a rural population. Unfortunately, his model cannot be extrapolated out to a larger more urban district. I teach in the city he mentioned being 150 miles southeast of Harrold, a city with 14 high school in which the one I work at alone possesses more than 2,500 students and 100 teachers. The logistics to begin a program like this in a school district that big would be immense. While finding teachers with gun licenses in Texas would not be hard, finding the time for training and adequate certification of hundreds of teachers across 14 high schools and the numerous middle and elementary schools however would be. And who would pay for this? I think we're all a little raw with fiscal cliff feelings to propose that tax money goes towards this, so does it come out of teachers pockets? Do we get paid time off for intermittent training throughout the year as well? These are all things that need to be considered before any credence is given to this idea.
I also object to this idea from an ideological standpoint. Have we as a society really come to a point where we think the best way to protect our students/children is to arm the people who surround them? I know this is fantastical, but the image of a teacher walking up and down the aisles with a gun on their shoulder demanding attention of their youngsters is a little Kafka-esque, no? There are other ways around this. I'm not going to touch on the hot-button topic of whether or not we should restrict certain weapons or clips, we all have differing views on this and my words here won't change anyone's mind, but there are other alternatives to putting more guns in our schools. It is almost insulting to imply that we don't love our students/children if we do not arm their teachers. I love my students as a father loves their children. I look out for them, attempt to lead them to the best decision and act as a safety net when they don't make them. I do not nor have I ever felt the need to have a deadly weapon on me to express how much I care for them. It is not as though the power of human will has lost out to man-made machine and we are slaves to tools, we can turn around our crazed gun-culture.
Guns will not triumph over guns, there will only be more repercussions. In fact, the idea of additional guns in schools doesn't make me more secure, it increases my level of anxiety. I know Thwaett says that no student in his school knows who is armed at any time, but can that really be expected forever? In my district, I believe that information would be a secret for about a month maybe a little more and then slowly names of teachers would leak out. Those teachers would be more of a target because of the knowledge that they are armed. I fear there would be constant provocation of those teachers in an attempt to get them to brandish their weapon(yes, teenagers would want to see a teacher do this. It would be the highlight of their year), and that only teaches that it okay to threaten violence when backed into a corner. And what if a gun goes missing? I get things taken from my desk once or twice a year, not because of poor classroom enforcement, but because there is a 30:1 ratio and I can't see everyone or some days I'm not in class and things go missing. At that point, you have just supplied a student with a gun. What could be worse than that?
Good for Harrold ISD, it sounds like you have found a system that works in a community that supports this type of enforcement, but not everywhere does support guns like this nor will they support them going into schools as your community has. Again I recognize Thwaett wrote a piece on his opinions, and so have I. Please respect the opinions of others and learn different points of view, it makes you a more well-rounded human.
I am still undecided on this topic, but, if, as you say, "Guns will not triumph over guns, there will only be more repercussions." Why is our President surrounded by guns? Our banks? Our courthouses? Are they more valuable than our children? Why, when we are in dire need of help do we call people who have guns? If your statement were true, that would mean police and other law enforcement would not need guns. As a teacher, I would hope you understand your application of faulty logic.
Again, my opinion. Yours are different and that is great. In those places (banks and courts), guns are used for intimidation purposes as well as security. Is that how we want our children to learn? Under the threat of intimidation? I would tend to say no, but obviously others think this is a viable alternative. However, I hope that one line is not the only thing you took from what I wrote.
Sorry Dan but you are the one lacking 'logic'. You have absurd comparisons and untruths. Turn off FOX news and the hate radio and actualy contribute rationally to the debate.
Pat, nowhere implied that students are under the threat of intimidation! Where did that come up? Are they intimidated when a DARE officer comes in? No. You're applying faulty logic again.
Matt, please list the "untruths", other than my watching Fox.
banks and courts do use weapons as intimidation. You saying that guns should be brought into schools as they are in banks and courts also implies the idea of intimidation. A gigantic difference being that the people who posses the guns in the banks and courts are trained officers, not teachers (if we want to get into flawed logic). If you ask the students at Harrold, I would guess they would admit, even if slightly, that they are intimidated by the fact that their teachers hold guns. That is what i was saying.
As for your comment concerning DARE officers. Intimidation is not commonly practiced at the elementary level with young kids when DARE classes are most frequent; however in subsequent years when students reach high school, you better believe officers are used to scare students into making the right decisions. There is (ideally) supposed to be some intimidation from them. Mock-arrests to feel the weight of handcuffs, visits to local jails, and yes even the presence of their gun are all ways to intimidate, and they use them. Now, I'm not saying these things are bad, in fact there are good outcomes of students experiencing these things in a contained environment, but when they are done by the police, not teachers. Bring more police officers into schools, make the place safer, but don't arm teachers. We're not the authorities in the wild west nor should we be expected to act like them.
"I know this is fantastical, but the image of a teacher walking up and down the aisles with a gun on their shoulder demanding attention of their youngsters is a little Kafka-esque, no?"
His district uses concealed weapons. There are no openly armed guards pacing the halls.
And, why on earth would you leave a gun in your desk if you are going to be out that day? It is not like a stapler or hole punch. I am willing to bet each of those teachers carries their own gun they take with them when they leave every day.
well aware his are concealed, i was using a visual to explore a potentially absurd situation.
and yes if this was presented to all schools obviously the gun would go with the person and would not be there if a teacher was absent as I'm sure happens in the Harrold case. However, in alternative scenarios that have been presented that would require teachers to store them under their desk or in a drawer (so as not to have them on their being and potentially risk abusing the threat of weapon use) that would be a real risk.
Pat I very much respect your opinion but you didn't give us any solutions. If firearms aren't the answer. What is? It isn't my first choice either, but its better than being a sitting duck. Oh as far a teachers carrying. The firearm would never be in your desk. If you have chosen to carry, that is exactly what it means. You don't take it off during the day. I have worn my concealed firearm up to 12 hours without removal. It can be done and done comfortably.
What if a teacher shoots a student by mistake?
What if a cop shoots a person by mistake? If we what-if every possible scenario we will never do anything. Teachers, and I know many, are not the incompetent people some commenters seem to think they are.
what if a psycho shoots 20 students deliberately?? if the principal or the vice had a gun tucked away in the lock box in their office....hmm....maybe the school would have had a chance. but instead, they were all sitting ducks to this horrible horrible crime.
I love you.
What would have happened? More than likely a dead kid long before this tragedy. Most people are not responsible enough to have firearms, let alone be proficient. Being in the millitary you should know that. There were two armed, trained deputies at Columbine, and it did nothing to stop or prevent that tragedy.
What would have stopped this tragedy? Gun owners being more responsible or requried to be more responsible. There should have been questions asked at the gun club. There should have been requirements for safe storage when a questionable person had access to that home. There should have been friends and family to ask questions and raise an alarm before this happened. It could have been easy things like insisting that they have a gun safe,
Dear Retired, just like in Afghanistan, that guy who shot up the Newtown school was NOT wearing a uniform to identify him as "a Bad Guy". By the time the bullets started, do you think anyone in there could identify the target and shoot back at him without shooting someone else by mistake? When he was finally done shooting people, he then shot himself. I don't think anyone in the front office having a gun would have done any good at all. I would know. I was once robbed at gunpoint and it happend so fast and by surprise, I couldn't do anything even if I had had a weapon.
The very same day, a guy in China assaulted the same number of kids at a school with a knife. Nobody died although kids were cut up. That guy was caught and brought to the authorities. Is there anyone here who thinks knife wounds aren't preferrable to death if anyone had to choose? There are violent people out there and l'd rather they be limited to knives and Kungfu.
Maybe if the Principal had a gun, they might have stopped some of the killing. But I can guarantee, if that psychopath didn't have a gun, there would have been no death. This doesn't happen this often in any other country, I wonder why. They have less religion, same TV violence, same video games. What's the difference? Oh yeah, less guns. Even Switzerland, they have much stricter gun laws than here. Hmm, that can't possibly have anything to do with it at all, right? Not one bit? No No No.
Food for thought to the clueless editor. Canada – 1 death from a school shooting in 33 years. How many teachers have concealed weapons? Oh, probably zero. Have many schools have armed guards? Probably about 2% inner city only. You really think thats your answer to arm everyone? Perhaps look north and you will see how ludicruous all this fear mongering really is!
Your argument is littered with "probably" – The US simply is NOT Canada, or any other nation for that matter. It is apples and oranges.
we are not allowed to carry concealed weapons so I would say teachers/admin with guns=zero then if you want absolute – there are probably some inner city schools in Ontario with armed guards though. Who cares – point is, 1 shooting in 33 years and we don't have guns so more guns is not your solution down there and you need to look elsewhere!
Why is it apples and oranges? Because you care more for your firearms than for your neighbor? Your country? Your family?
...except that statistic holds true for EVERY OTHER developed nation with gun-control laws too....the U.S. is not that much different from ALL of them – e.g., Australia.
Canadians can also be imprisoned for defending their person and their property from criminals. Also, they don't have the high rate a crime we have. Also, if guns are the problem, particularly AR type firearms since that seems to be the point of the discussion (I do not own one), why as gun purchases have soared, has violent crime dropped? See the FBI stats. If guns were the root of the problem there should be a direct correlation between ownership/purchase rates and violent crimes. THe only relationship is one where as gun ownership increases, violent crime rates drop.
Most places in the US you can go to prison for shooting a person robbing you. Your arguments are full of lies. Gun ownership increases reflect nothing but the parinoid fantasy of sick people. Gun deaths follow all other crime stats, no other reason than that.
Yes, I'm a gun owner. I'm just not a nut job.
it has everything to do with poverty and very little to do with gun ownership.
rise in gun ownership isn't responsible for the mass reductions in urban crime. correlation not causation etc. etc.
@DMA: righton, get yourself checked please. Cars were not invented to kill people. Knives were not meant for killing people. Guns were made to kill. Don't even compare those things, unless you want to prove to all how much your noodle can handle.
We don't give armed Brinks guards protecting our money a second thought, but we baulk at the idea of protecting our children with the same guards... perhaps that speaks to our priorities
Guns were invented as defensive weaopns. They were not meant for offensively killing people. The first recorded use of firearms was back in 900 AD by the Chinese to Defend their cities from attacking armies.
If every single handgun or assualt weapon in this country was removed, there would be substancially fewer deaths. That's a fact. But it is alwo a fact aht this is never going to happen.
So it's time we started talking about come common sense guidlelines to at least lessen the death count.
1. Ban assualt rifles and jail anyone who maintains one. NO citizen needs the that kind of weapon for personal use.
2. Want a handgun? Then initiate mandatory safety and training classes for ALL owners, and ALL owners must be schooled in how to safely secure weapons to prevent their use by others. Hunters have been taking such courses for a long time.
3. Make secure storage/locking mechanisms a requirement of purchase.
3. If your gun is taken by someone else because you don't adequately secure it, you should be prosecuted for whatever crimes or injuries they cause. Of course, if they kill you first, the penalty will be deemed adequate.
That's actually a very reasonable proposal. Only in America, brainwashed by a fetish for guns, would that be looked at as "socialist." We are the whacko country when it comes to guns.
The guns used at VT, Colorado theater and Sandyhook were all obtained legally. All three of the persons involved were known to have mental issues and nobody did anything about it. It's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue and that is what needs to be addressed.
None of those guns were obtained legally. Reading this crap makes me wonder how stupid and ignorant you people all are to be so afraid of devices that can sit and do nothing unless there is a human controlling it. I feel sorry for all of you.
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Thinking otherwise is just ignorant.
So someone is in my house and I have to open the safe to get it out??
1 – You can't put my shotgun in one of those little boxes
2 – Technology ceases and I wouldn't want that to happen to at the time I needed it
3 – You can't hold me responsible for the crimes of another. Whu are gun owners the criminals???
Think through your suggestions PLEASE!!!
Install security system. That's what the rest of the world has been doing.
I am a gun owner. And I understand how dangerous these weapons are. As a civilized society, we should demand extensive training and psychological testing to use dangerous weapons. The more dangerous the weapon, the more regulations necessary to keep us safe.
Assault rifles weren't used Sandy Hook.
The long arm used was a semi-auto. Assault rifles are class III weapons with capability of one or both of full auto or bust modes of fire.
By your logic, we should also:
1. Ban Lamborghinis, and jail anyone who maintains one. No citizen could possibly need a car that goes that fast for personal use. The speed limit in most states is 55mph. 200mph is excessive, and someone could get hurt.
2. Want a Ferrari? Then initiate mandatory driving and safety courses for ALL owners, and ALL owners must be schooled in how to safely secure Ferraris to prevent their use by others. Taxi drivers have been taking such courses for a long time.
3.Make secure storage/locking mechanisms a requirement of purchase.
3. (again, for whatever reason) If your car is taken by someone else because you don't adequately secure it, you should be prosecuted for whatever crimes or injuries they cause. Of course, if they kill you first, the penalty would be deemed adequate.
What's that you say? Buying a car is a personal choice? Everyone can freely choose what type of car they can either afford or want? By your own logic, that car was meant for nothing except breaking the law. It wouldn't be possible for someone to own that car without the intent of speeding.
Your views are incorrect, and naive at best.
Woah, I would take my kid from his crazy school in a fraction of a second. Protecting children and ourselves means we GET RID of guns, not the other way round. But who am I preaching at? TEXAS. There you go. Do I even need to add anything? It's TEXAS.
who is going to protect your children from the criminals who choose not to follow the law of not owning guns? oh wait-outlawing guns is going to mean the criminals can't have them right? just like outlawing drugs keeps people from having them as well...
apparently some people missed the sarcasm in my above statement...
You aren't living in reality if you think making guns illegal will keep criminals and the psychotic from getting guns. Drugs are illegal and that is a rampant problem in this country.
you're clueless. Maybe you and Piers Morgan should leave the country together
Dana – The right to defend one's self, family or others should not be infringed upon or denied. At least the school district took a long look (more than a 60 day knee jerk) at options and developed a plan for themselves that works. I'd like to continue with my family to camp, fish and travel without the need to run and hide in the woods or under a desk/table and pray for survival. My grandkids are in school and I certainly hope thier safety isn't dependent on folks like you. I don't know you or where you are from but please, oh please stay the hell away from Texas.
Dana, and exactly how are you going to accomplish this? Have everyone that enters the school grounds strip naked so you you can insure they are unarmed? I guarantee you that if you ban all guns, only criminals will have guns (ya know, they are called criminals for a reason).
oh yes, because a gunman on one side and an armed teacher on the other and innocent children in the middle, is SO much safer than just having a policeman or guard at the door. and will you use your stand-your-ground laws to protect a teacher or cilivian who accidently shots a child? Oops, sorry your kid died, but ,,,,
It is a bad idea of having teachers with a concealed weapon. This will introduce even more problems that no one can avoid. Can't we live with out guns? It is always more weapons means more danger. You can not control other person's emotions or even yours and at that time you can not predict what will happen and having the concealed weapon could even make it worse. we are just human beings and we carry emotions and we cannot be the same all the time and we act or speak in different ways at different times. I wish what ever the actions the politicians decide will curb these barbaric attacks on innocent, lovely kids.
you've already been proven wrong... even before your posting. It's been done this way in Harrold TX for over 5 years.... successfully. this isn't even debatable. it's in place and has been working.
Successfully? How do you figure? It's post hoc reasoning to suggest that because nothing has happened in five years it is because of this foolish Guardian program. Or are you saying it's successful because no student has been injured or killed as a result of this program?
Exactly, that is the TRUE question! "Why can't we live without Guns?" I realize, that the US of A...is so flooded with Guns, and the only way to protect yourself is with another Gun. It's a tragic cycle! We're Monkeys killing Monkeys, we were given the sense of REASON and this is what we choose?! It has to end. And for all you "Responsible Gun Owners" Please think of our future, be a "Responsible Citizen" and DON'T BUY ANOTHER WEAPON! One less killing tool in circulation will be the beginning of the end.
Then I am forced to ask, what would you do if there was a temporary break down of civil authority? It happens. Not very often, but it can and does happen. In the past 25 years there were only two maj.or events: the LA Riots and the days after Katrina in New Orleans. In the 1992 LA Riots look up the Koreatown siuation. When the looters started shooting the Police ran leaving the people to fend for themselves. Do I think it will happen to me? Probably not. But I do live in an earthquake prone region and I've seen storms knock out power for days at a time. So I choose to keep a shotgun with a couple boxes of shells, a couple pistols, and a semi auto rifle just in case along with a water purifier and enough food to last a week. Although this day in age, probably qualifies me for a watch list.
Perhaps I misread it but 105 students and he has a gun program . That is 3 to 4 classes and teachers or in Texas maybe one . This is typical Texas ignorance and the Red-neck virtue . I did a temporary job stint in Lubbock Texas 25 years ago . The company was based in Texas and the promotion would have required me to be there for years . I loved the town and the people . The racial things (and I am Anglo) and the education system – I would not raise my children in Texas or want to see my Grand-children raised there . On this point – on my faters side , both of my grandparents were born in Dallas County .
What do you expect from a state where the governor claims that he goes jogging and carries a 'varmit' gun . I never did see his info on the gun , caliber and holster . Hey – I go out and I have a copy of the LeMat pistol . Texas has gone downhill in education and their politicians are a joke .Tom
My son is in a school with 95 children that has K-5 grades and roughly 15 adults. I don't feel it's necessary to have guns in every school but ours is 14 miles from town and 17 from law enforcement. They are fairly high tech but it still makes me panic to drive my youngest there and see some creep turning around several times in the are going back toward the school. There is no "easy" answer.
Will they actually fight?
Will they actually survive a fire fight?
Do they know how to shoot at a target that shoots back?
They absolutely are more likely to do so than unarmed teachers, if that is what you are asking.
Now that the word is out, I would doubt anybody would try an attack on this school.
@Ronald Obviously you do not know the steps a police officer takes when encountering a possible threat. The teacher who is armed would instantly set the gun down when instructed by the officer. The mental case would turn their gun on the police or themselves. Hopefully by the time the police shows up, the teachers who were armed would be done shooting the mental case and saving some lives. Or we can have it your way, and let the mental case steal a weapon and massacre defenseless teachers and students.
Someone is determined neither laws or armed individuals are likely to stop them. Both Columbine and VA Tech hard armed officers on campus at the time of those shootings. Perhaps it's time to go for something Draconian like any gun crime carrying an automatic 2 strike count for the perpetrator. So instead of Gun Free Zones, you have Gun penalty zones for those who commit any crime using a gun.
I agree. Gun crimes should come with stiff MANDATORY sentences. That way the criminals get punished, not legal gun owning citizens. There was a local law passed a few years back along these lines. I don't remember where, but it was supported by the NRA and local officials that put stiff penalties on gun crimes and the use of guns in crimes dropped dramatically.
Columbine's solitary armed officer was on lunch out in front of the building. Yes, one armed officer was "on campus" there, but he couldn't be everywhere. A building that size probably needed a dozen officers to adequately secure it. I doubt those two mentally ill students would have even tried their plan if they knew more responsible adults on campus were armed, especially if they didn't know WHO. And if they still did, they would have probably been stopped much sooner.
@killian101 You don't have to be a cop or have military training to protect children. There is private training courses available for anyone who wants to learn how to safely, effectively and properly handle a firearm. I will put a $100 bill up that my wife can out shoot 90% of our local law enforcement on the range. Now if you were to tell her that she had to stand by and wait for law enforcement to show up in order to try and stop a mental case with a weapon from harming some kids, she would probably show you some sign language. The police cannot be every where, they cannot protect every individual.
Your comment about your wife being able to outshoot some local law enforecement types is probably true. One of our local lawmen (former state trooper & now 25 year vet of our city PD) couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a base fiddle.
Well, the police can be there....if you have 3 to 7 minutes to wait, and that's AFTER they are called.
The U.S. government publishes a handbook for training military troops. In that handbook it states that one of the goals of an occupational force is to control the population's access to items needed to make weapons and munitions. Those items listed are found in nearly every store or home in the USA. Any person intent on violence will always find a weapon of some type. We need to make the criminals fully responsible for their actions and not surrender our rights to appease those that would legislate our freedoms away.
Thank you David, this is a policy that should be considered in other locations.
Most adults with mental illness go through life as high-functioning individuals. Somewhere down the line they suffer a tragedy or life-altering event that causes a mental/emotional breakdown. In a case like this school, it seems like they are doing everything they can to assure the competency of these "Guardians", but nowhere did I see it mentioned that there are regular (yearly/quarterly/monthly) assessments or evaluations for them. What happens when one of them snaps and decides to pull a Sandy Hook or James Holmes type shooting? Teachers have one of the most stressful jobs out there and they frequently crack under the pressure. If you arm them, then you have someone you approved of killing your children...
If one of them snaps, the same thing will happen as would have happened without this program. The only difference is that in this school there will be someone else there to stop them.
Just what all kids need a shoot out in the school. Now all you have done is made it a challenge to shoot up your school, and made it hard for the cops to tell the teachers from the bad guys. David Thweatt, you are just like most right wing nut jobs, clueless and crazy. we should protect are kids from people like you. if you search the internet you will find many stories about how just having a gun does not stop you form being shoot. all you have done is put more bullets in air. I hope you can sleep well.
I suppose you are one of those misguided fools who believe that a sign saying "no guns allowed", or even a law saying "no guns allowed" is going to prevent a criminal from bringing in a gun ? Since criminals, by their very definition, are people who break the law, exactly what effect does gun control legislation have? It only affects the law abiding people, who wouldnt be a threat in the first place.
Or maybe you are one of the misguided few who think that eliminating all guns in the world (unrealistic btw), will result in some wonderful utopia where everyone just stands around singing campfire songs together ? As the author of the article points out, there are no guns allowed in prisons either, but those arent exactly safe places. The bottom line is that if someone is determined to do evil to their fellow man, they will find a way. Even if you were successful in denying them access to a gun, they will just find another way. Look at all the killings by knife, or bludgeoning, etc in countries that have strict gun control laws. I could give you a list of at least 15 or 20 items for sale at any Home Depot which are just as deadly as a gun in the hands of someone intent to inflict harm.
Let me guess you think in the event of a school shooting the kids are going to be running through the halls and not be in their classrooms with the doors locked and the students safe and secure
And what happens when the shooter arrives between classes, with the hallways filled with students. Not all criminals are nuts who run in on a impulse and open fire. Many of these crimes are premeditated.
You mean that five-minute period every hour during which teachers are often outside of their classrooms overlooking things?
Even if one of the concealed carry teachers couldn't get a clean shot at that time, your argument is flawed. What if a gunman arrives during that time and none of the teachers are armed? You still get more potential death than with armed teachers standing by.
As stated many times, it is very easy to find something to kill people with. It does not have to be a gun. I would rather increase the number of scenarios we can defend our kids against that reduce it.
A gun ban would work as good as the alcohol ban during the proabition era.
how is gun CONTROL a gun ban?
when the gov't inacts a law that says a certain firearm cannot be owned, they are banning thar firearm from the people. The same as saying that you cannot have a weapon that can fire over 10 rounds without reloading. They are banning that magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. I did not think that I would have to explain this at a grade school level. Guess that Zach needed the extra help.
A driver texting while driving a car is more dangerous than an individual with a Conceal Carry Permit walking into a store!
which is why there has been many actions taken including laws being put in place to Stop people from texting and driving...
Those laws don't stop you from texting, but they are used to punish you if you get caught.
@Bob You seem to try and out smart common sense!
Have you noticed most if not all mass shootings happen in defenseless places? Never one at a gun show, bank, airport, police station.
Yet no one else seems to realize this. Good point.
Honestly, what could the harm be?
10,136 drunk driving deaths in 2011 according to http://www.madd.org/blog/2012/december/2011-State-data.html. Even with ose numbers no one wants to ban alcohol? There are lws in place athe state and federal level regarding the purchase and consumption of alcohol but the laws do not work. Ban alcohol.
Apparently the medi has not decided to focus on this so the average person has no clue about these statistics posted by MADD. people need to be realistic and be informed on topics other than what is hot in the media on that day.
Gun related deaths are similar in number., and ONLY in our country. Why is that?
Nonsense, when you break the numbers down into percentages, the U.S. is not at the top of the list for gun violence, or violence in general. The reason why we have so much more is sheer numbers. People compare our stats to England, have you looked at the difference in population between the U.S. and England?
Homicides per 100,000 are 4.7 in the US, less than .7 in UK.
This guy, David Thweatt, makes way too much sense to ever make it in politics. He is however well suited for running his school district and creating a safe environment for children to learn.
This guys plan sounds a lot like the arming of civillian pilots. How many would have thought that having the pilots carrying guns would have been stupid prior to 2001? I know I would have. But with the right systems and screening in place, it worked and how many airliners have been downed due to a pilot firing his weapon? How many times has there been a need? Again, if the strong know that the weak can protect themselves, then they typically move on and find a softer target. Previous Military Members, please chime in, but most militaries will not execute an assault of a heavily armed target in fear of losing many soilders unless the target has been softened.
As far as the "gun free" zones around schools, how many school shootings happened prior to the federal law compared to since the federal law. It is upsetting that our liberal leaders are basing decisions on emotion rather than hard stats that can and will completely debunk what the liberals are saying.
Bob, tell ya what, I have a challenge for you, put a sign in your front lawn that says "I don't not believe in guns, I do not own guns, and I solely rely on the Police to protect me" and see what happens. Also, if you are going to compare us to the UK, use ALL violent crime and I assure you, you will be eating crow as the UK has far more violent crime than the US. In addition, gun violence continues to decline as gun ownership explodes. And if guns are to be banned, let's ban drugs too; oh wait drugs are banned and they are responsible to 30,000+ deaths a year.
I personally love the "training" and "certification" programs – and the assumption that this guarantees something. Lawyers are licensed, as are teachers. Does that make them good at their profession? Does that guarantee that those individuals are (and will continue to be) 100% reliable/dependable/safe? Put another way, is every lawyer a
good lawyer? Is every teacher a good teacher? Is everyone you give a gun to guaranteed to be trustworthy?
Good luck with that - keep the guns out of my school.
You know Teacher in MI – I have been around a lot of cops, my wife used to be a dispatcher and everything you just said applies to them as well. I know several cops who are walking time bombs and I shudder to think they are armed and among us. Many cops are under educated, under paid and over stressed – like most segments of America. They're just decent shots and big enough to handle themselves in a fight.
People don't seem to have trouble getting guns into schools even if they are banned from the campus. This is the only solution that doesn't involve making the school into a prison.
You seem to want guarantees about the safety of armed protectors. There are no guarantees in life except one and that is if your kids school is invaded by a nutcase then children will die unless there are people there to protect them.
So what is your master plan then if/when some psycho decides to attack your classroom? Hide under your desk and wait 10 minutes for the police to arrive ? Be sure to report back afterwards how effective that was. As someone who used to work emergency dispatch, I can tell you that an armed "good guy" already on scene, even if on the opposite side of the campus, is going to arrive way before any police arrive. When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. I'll let you mull that one over for a bit.
The question is how many of "good guy" willing to get involved and take a chance of being mistaken with gunman. It's always a chaotic situation and people/cops will have hard time telling apart. So the likelihood of ending in tragedy is very high.
In every school district in this nation there is a large cadre of retired, trained, and in many cases, licensed and armed, veterans, police officers,and security guards who would volunteer to spend time in the schools. These are people available now. Low or no cost, who would gladly serve to protect our most vulnerable. Just ask them!
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that sales of Sarah Palin's crosshairs poster have skyrocketed in the last two weeks.
those of you saying "this isnt the way to protect our children" need to stop and take a look at that statement. you're saying you'd rather cross your fingers and hope that the police get to your children within 5-10 minutes (at best) of a gunman entering their school rather than have a few trained, competent adults on staff, on site, that have agreed to put their life on the line to protect your children? if you HONESTLY think that i feel really bad for your kids.
now this is assuming the school cant/wont have armed security on staff/site to fill this role for them. like the school above. they dont have a police station. you'd really rather have an unprotected school full of children vs a few armed teachers? it blows my mind that adults much less parents think this is a gamble theyre willing to take and im not even a parent. what are you going to do? throw children at the gunman while you wait on the police? i think we've seen how well that works out.
I agree with you. I recently read the police narration on Columbine and it took them HOURS to clear the building, one teacher bled to death waiting for help that took too long to come. Armed defenders already on site are a huge deterrant. Preventing attacks should really be the focus when you get down to it, what better way to save lives than to stop someone before they try? Isn't prevention the entire focus of Homeland Security,TSA screening, etc? And if armed defenders didn't deter the bad guy then they would be there to shut them down a lot faster than far away patrol officers who don't even know if they can safely enter a building fast enough to save anyone.
perpetuating violence is not an answer to violence. You, as a teach, mentor, should no this. Asking another person to shot, and possibly kill someone...what sort of person are you? Teachers are not Cops. Teachers are not Military. They are not trained to shoot someone. Even if they are NRA, the likelihood a teach will shoot someone if push came to shove...is very slim to none.
because making schools "no-gun zones" is sure working now.
And what is your solution to someone showing up and shooting students? talk to them about the example the are setting?
This is where so many people seem to be confused, being prepared and being able and willing to defend is not "perpetuating violence ". If that were the case then the police are guilty of it, as is anyone that steps forward to protect another person.
To "perpetuate the violence" would mean to continue it, whereas he is talking about STOPPING it.
Um... actualy our military IS Teachers and Cops (and for that matter, plumbers, electricians,doctors.
Killian, the only way you will stop violent criminals is with greater force. Violent criminals are not going to stop their attack because you want to give them a loving hug. They will try to kill you. They may kill those around you. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. Take off the rose-collored glasses, and face up to the facts – there are bad people in this world, and they place no value on human life.
Yes because teachers definitely need more work and tedious processes.
Well they have three months off each year and every Hallmark Holiday to relax and catch up.
I dare you to be a teacher.
A sane answer to a terrible problem
What Mr. Thweatt is saying, is not to just throw some loaded saiga-12 shotguns onto a table and let the teachers grab them, but to have the school board approve them after a long, tedious process of training on not just how to shoot a gun well, but how to react in the school. It's one thing to let any teacher, a mellow, unconfident one or one with a temper to just pick up a gun, and another to have them handpicked by trustworthy people. David Thweatt is not trying to arm mobs, but to arm select individuals to protect children.
next gun in the library, and next gun in the fitness centres, next gun in the bus, train, car, truck, toilet etc . Lets go on and make this place most unsafe in the world.
Why all of those places? A practical sidearm on your hip loaded with frangibles will do fine for this role. I would like to keep several firearms for several different roles, but considering the usual factors in a school shooting situation (engagement range, layout, opposing force strength, OpFor force multipliers), a simple sidearm would work.
Besides, we've tried banning "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines." The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban covered these. Columbine still happened. We've tried establishing gun free zones. Aurora still happened. Lock the door, barricade a room, try to hide the kids. Sandy Hook still happened. Why don't we try letting civilians who have passed the training necessary for a concealed carry permit carry on the job?
Chances are, unless you live in DC or the Peoples Socialist Republic of California, you are already around guns in those places every day, you just dont know it because they are carried by law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits. When is the last time you can recall one of those guns jumping out of its holster and attacking you on sight ? Guns are not the problem, its derranged people who choose a gun as their preferred tool of harming others. Deny them access to guns, and they will just find another tool. There are plenty for sale at Home Depot that are just as deadly as a gun in the wrong hands, and require no paperwork or background checks.
This isn't a way to protect our children!
It might put them in the hands of more danger ! Whats wrong with this world NOW! Are we going to get to the point where as we agree with every Stupid Politician New rules or Vote..
And by NOT allowing an armed teacher to defend students from a nutcase intent of killing kids who enters the school you have DEFINITELY put them in the hands of more DANGER!
I'll choose an armed teacher any day over the choice of just having kids wait their turn to be killed.
Tiffany Minor and the like: Your argument might be heard if it included some logic, actual reasoning, information, alternate method, or anything that might resemble an argument. The fact is, it's terrible that this type of planning is necessary, but has shown itself to be necessary as well as effective. I'm talking about in real life, not in your world of unchecked panic and "it won't ever happen to me" fallacy.
Tiffany, in addition to the other items listed in my previous reply to you, we have also determined you should not be given a keyboard or connection to the Internet. Please log off, pick up your crayons and go back to working on this week's art project. You and American will both be much happier for it.
If a lunatic walks into your childs school with a gun how will you stop that armed person? The old adage fight fire with fire sometimes applies.Nothing else will stop someone like that. No matter how much we wish they would do so, No law will ever stop a madman from obtaining weapons and killing. These educators are brave and self sacrificing to put themselves in this position and deserve your and my respect and admiration.
Banning guns has worked so well in Chicago and Washington DC. They NEVER have any crime in those cities. /sarcasm
to the people who think guns should be banned, move to Chicago. LOL
I'm not a fan of the general public having military style guns and ammo. I'm also against guns in schools. But, what was outlined in this article (limited number or staff that carry concealed, trained to the level of any policy or security along with hostage negotiation) is the only way that a firearm should be allowed for protection of students or staff. Instead of people saying NO or others saying people have a "right" to carry, this seems like a responsible approach.
Exactly. There is not 100% full proof plan. The guns are already out there. Those who are intent on killing, will find a way. All that we can do is to come up with the best way to defend our kids and ourselves. This is a well laid out plan. All of the nay-sayers...give an alternative plan....not just say no.
On the wild west side were the Gangs control the streets
While sitting around in an ice storm this weekend, we played a game about which of our high school teachers from long ago we would want armed. Some of them would have been more dangerous to themselves and the students than to an intruder. We could only think of a few that could be safely armed.
But you're ok with them being teachers? If they're unstable, then should they even be allowed to work with kids?
I feel bad for your school system if you had that little faith in your teachers. I mean, I can think of teachers I had that wouldn't be armed, but that would be more personal choice than anything. For me, in high school, I would have completely trusted most of the math and science teachers to be armed, as well as all of the social studies teachers, and most importantly, the vice principal who strolled the halls regularly. Couldn't really have seen any of the literature or fine arts teachers doing so; again, more personal choice for them.
When teachers have to be armed.... it is all over. Just put cops on campus.
I have to agree! Who's to say the teachers wouldn't snap on one of the children or be careless with a weapon at a school~
Come on Now we must think about this nonsense, I am a parent and I would won't my child protected at all cost except baring arms at school, what i think they need to go a little deeper in people that want one and even myself, check our mental back ground and not only that our medication if any~ check the side effects ~ check everything when it comes to you making sound judgement to have a gun in ANY SCHOOLS~ just boost security and if children need to be checked shoot we ain't got a life of our own anyways then allow them to be searched ~ searched the teachers ~ weapons at school other then Security or the Police having them is a Hell to the Naw! that's an concerned Parent Thoughts
Nothing you suggest would have helped in Newtown???? You probably agree with Pelosi wanting larger no gun areas around schools! Amazing that people are stupid enough to think a nut-job shooter is going to pay attention to this rule. POS in Colorado went to a movie theater that did not allow guns; I guess he forgot to look at that rule b4 he went in.
Sorry, but this will continue as long as these sorry little cowards know they will not be shot on the spot.
Tiffany we have processed your request and evaluated you based on your post. As of now you are NOT permitted to have, Guns, Vehicles larger than a bicycle or sharp objects. You may also need constant adult supervision.
Tiffany: You ALREADY trust your children to multiple teachers on any given day. They don't need a gun to snap. If they "snapped" they could just toss an open five gallon can of gas onto the bus followed by a burning match. Identify the teachers who are willing to participate and give them, and your children, a fighting chance. I'm willing to bet that heroic Principal in Connecticut, if given a choice in those last few moments of her life, would have wished she held a gun in HER hand.
If a teacher "snapped" and wanted to harm a bunch of elementary school kids, they could just as easily bludgeon them with a stapler, or stab them with one of those spike things that you stick messages on on a desk.
Many high schools do have an armed police on site, just not in the middle and grade schools, I am sure if the communities could afford it they would have it.
1. Round up all the owners of semi-automatic weapons.
2. Temporarily confine them in old, abandoned airplane hangars.
3. Load them into box cars and transport them to the deep south.
4. Confine them to special camps where they can blow each other's brains out.
Most law abiding citizens who own guns own them so that if mentally challenged individuals like yourself get their hands on a gun, they have the ability to protect themselves.
So, you seem a bit violent, yourself. I hope you don't have a gun, or a knife, or a rock, or anything else capable of harming people you seem to judge based on NO real rerason.
Just like what a good Nazi would do....
yea there you go, remove all gun owners to a camp. you do relize that about 90% of cops own guns on their own right? so who is to help you when the looting starts? not me, because i am going to be in the safest place on earth, the camp with the rest of the armed community. moron.
me and mike will be eating smores and lol'ing in our "gun nut" camp while youre outside getting mauled by criminals. have fun with that.
The Nazis did that same thing.
you may be the stupidest person on the internet.
You must be an Obama loving city slicker to have come up with that one!
first, youre implying you could actually do that. i dont know how people without guns can make people with guns do anything they dont want to. second, this is exactly why we have the 2nd amendment, so what youre proposing could be stopped. third, if you were to get all of us in one spot, after trampling on our rights, after treating us like cattle, and we all have our guns, what makes you think we wont rise up and make our own country? you are a horrible person and i wish only the worst for you in life.
Wow, Adolph Eichmann, is that your FINAL SOLUTION?
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." How quickly the sheep forget history.
Listen people, a semi-automatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon; only rifles capable of automatic firing are assault rifles (one pull of the trigger results in multiple rounds being fired). The AR15 is just a semi-automatic rifle that is stylized to the M4 (formally the M16) platform, while it does support large capacity magazines; it does not support fully automatic fire and therefore is NOT an assault rifle.
Some of the biggest mouths in the gun debate at this time are the Governor, Senators and Members of Congress from CT. They are the ones that failed the children at Sandy Hook school. CT has some of the most restrictive gun laws in this country, and they DID NOT WORK.
It sounds like David Thweatt knows better how to protect his children in TX than the CT politicians knew how to protect theirs.
They have the most relaxed gun laws out of any state. Something you should understand.
I hope you mean TX. CT has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
CTed there is a difference between restrictive and relaxed. Look it up idiot.
CT also has low crime. Much lower than Texas. YEEHAAAW. So glad that people who don't believe in reasonable care with respect to guns are more likely to kill themselves than anyone else. What's wrong with mandatory training and psychological testing?
So what is next? Packing heat to soccer games, daycare, church? Should every playground and street corner have an armed guard? The answer has never been more guns but less. The USA needs a ban on assult weapons. I can't own a bazoka so why can I own a assult rifle. Stop hiding behind the second ammendmant. If you actually read it you would see that it doesn't classify what arms are. It is up to our government, and up to us to tell them. NRA doesn't represent the people but gun manufactuers.
Great comment NRA Blows, now follow this thread if you want to see some dumb comments....
You best go recheck the facts about that happens when you ban guns. Crime and especially violent crime goes up. The strong start to pray on the weak.
You can throw this same old tired emotional argument out again and again, but it doesn't change human nature.
That is an interesting visual, the strong "praying" on the weak. Would they kneel on the weak directly or throw a prayer rug over them first?
Did you even read the article?
it's not up to the government you moron, it's up to the the people. We tell the gov't what we want not the opposite. i can see your one of those gov't can do and give me everything idiots. you and people like you are the reason this country is no longer great
You idiot, the governments passes bills and what not everyday without the people's approval, how do you think the Patriot Act got passed?
Josh... Good point and the Obama Care Tax. We should ban passing things.
While you are at it we should ban high performance engines. They lead to many accidents and really put the public at risk. Can anyone really responsibly own a V8.
Sure. I carry a weapon to all of those places, and it's never been a problem.
Plus, you're wrong and uninformed. You *can* have a bazooka, if you jump through the right regulatory hoops and aren't an idiot. Look up the National Firearms Act on wikipedia.
Yet another anti-gun nut job who thinks assault weapons are being sold at the corner gun store. First off chump, most people cannot get an assault weapon, because of the the NFA (National Firearms Act) of 1934, which made fully automatic firearms unavailable to the general population without government approval, this is STILL the LAW of the land. If you want a fully automatic weapon, it will cost more than $10,000 for just the weapon, then an additional $200 tax on EVERY component that is regulated by that act (includes but not limited to, short (saw-off) barrels, suppressors, as well as fully automatic fire); you also need approval from your local law enforcement head, usually the sheriff and file all the the required paper work with BATF (which is probably the biggest pain for acquiring these types of weapons). BTW, BATF can reject your request for approval without cause as well, so just because you get all of this together is no guarantee you will be approved to own the firearm. Please educate yourself on these matters before speaking as if you have authority of such a subject.
Good point. And I can't remember the last time a fully automatic weapon was used in one of the mass murders in the US. Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Portland...hmmm, not one fully automatic weapon????
i think this is a very good idea and i'v actually had this idea for awhile, i think 1 – 2 teachers in every to every other hallway in the school should have a safe in there room with a simple yet effective hand gun inside which the safe wil open via code, voice reconition to a specific word, or finger print scanner! thus would stop a lot of gun violence in schools because a few teachers (with coceled permittes of course) with guns could actually stop a gunman or two!
Well said. Perhaps politicians and the public will finally wake up.
I am a Texas school teacher. Anyone with a CHL can carry their firearm up to the front door, but by school district policy I cannot even have mine locked in my car.
This is one solution for one school. But Don't think it will work everywhere and some parent would reject it in many areas. The key parts of this are missed by both the pro and anti gun groups. The arms bearer is trained, licensed, and approved by a government body. Training, licensing, and regulation should be applied to all gun owners.
and thus begins the police state. Take a look at DC and Chicago where the government licenses and approves. It doesn't work. They keep honest people from purchasing firearms due to the political agenda's of those in power. Exactly what our founding fathers sought to keep from happening.
founding fathers my ar$e, that was 200 odd years ago, hardly relevant nowadays is it, times, they are a changin'!
Here's an idea, why don't you give the kids guns, let's say starting at grade 1 (kindergarteners might have a problem with recoill), then they can protect themselves just incase an armed teacher or armed security isn't in the immediate area—because guns solve problems, just look at the USA for proof of that...oh yeah...right...duh...
oh yeah that's right! Britian outlawed all the guns and guess what??? violent crime increased against innocent victims. But that's where our contries are different "Bob". We are no longer "subjects" of the crown. Americans prefere freedom. If you did any actual research, you would find there are more killings with other objects other than guns.
what a stupid response.
What a nice, infantile response to a well-thought-out article and set of actions from Harrold ISD. David Thweatt deserves a logical, fact-based response out of you, not some insolent, childish, sarcastic rant.
blah, blah, blah...
Ignorance, plain and simple
Bob you should be deported out of the United States and out and thrown deep in Iran where they will capture you and be tried as a spy. There, you will truly love it there because, they don't have guns to give to you and you will be confined deep underground in a cell by yourself away from society because, society in the United States sees you as an embarrassment and a waste of memory in the internet writing non-logical comments. As an American from the United States of America, I am disgusted of you and your behavior. You really think banning guns will work? Well that gun ban in Chicago sure works ( not the thugs and gangsters who still have their guns and good luck taking it away from them) *Sarcasm*. Its idiots like you that we need to worry about to keep you away from our children, families, friends, workplaces, and away from even owning or having a gun.
Stupid plan. Just lock the doors to the schools. You could even go to the extent of putting up a 7ft chain-linked fence around the whole campus, with locked gates manned with security guards. You don't want to have gun fights in the halls of the schools.
you make sense
Yeah, until the gunman just shoots through the windows and walks right inside. It's happened before, you know.
give the kids guns too, according to your logic my comment makes sense. :)
The doors of Sandy Hook *were* locked- he shot his way through them.
If guns weren't as easily accessible as they are in the good ole U.S. of A, then he wouldn't have been able to that...
A gun wasn't necessary to get through the doors, a cinder block, or a car would have worked just as well. Someone determined to get in is not going to be stopped by glass doors/windows.
No thats not a dumb plan you moron! The doors were locked at Sandy Hook(with state of the art security equipment I might add), and it did nothing, in addition you liberal b*st**ds argue that arming teacher would cause the children to feel like there in a prison, so your chain link fence idea is flawed. I be curious to see what children would have to say about teachers being armed, I bet a majority would feel safer
I'd bet if you asked them, "should more people have access to guns or should fewer people have access to guns?" the majority of them would say "fewer". You dumb trigger-happy yank.
@Doh. Your ignorance is matched only by the detachment from reality. Stop believing what you see on TV and the movies.
What do you think the result is if a gunman comes to the school and no one stops him? Remember Newtown? What happens is a guman walking unopposed shooting anyone he likes. Would you rather have 10 shots going two ways and the incident ended, or 100 shots all from the gunman on any target he likes.
Wake up and get in the real world.
Bill, in the USA there have been at least seven (7) instances of gun use in American school in 2012 alone, the last time a gun was used in a UK school was...??
There are also 300,000 instances of a legally armed citizen preventing a violent crime from being perpetrated against themselves or others every year in America. Not to mention that rampage shootings stopped by armed civilians have 10 less fatalities on average that rampage shootings stopped by the police (2.7 vs. 12.7).
And what's the violent crime rate in Great Britain again? And how many CCTV cameras are installed in London?
Hey, powder-head. Haven't you heard of bullet-proof glass? Did you see the mention of a "perimeter fence". Do us all a favor and volunteer as a target at your local gun range.
ON what factual or logical basis have you arrived at the conclusion that this is a "stupid plan"?
Right on! Every school should be this way. Then we'll see if there will be any more monsters attacking schools when they'll know that a few teachers in the school are armed and trained in firearms...
you yanks are messed up
Bob, maybe you should check on those school shooting over in England and Scotland, before pointing fingers. Those gun bans worked real well saying those kids lives.
Bill, in the USA there have been at least seven (7),I repeat...SEVEN instances of gun use in American school in 2012 alone, the last time a gun was used in a UK school was...??
If you're not an American then I really don't give a darn about your opinion. This isn't your country, so bugger off.
@David Thweatt: Well said, and well thought.
@profbam; Children learn from society and adults in their lives. With guns, which have been around for hundreds of years, the stereotyping is that they are responsible for these deaths instead of the person wielding them. The same thing can be said of anything else. Do we blame alcohol when a person kills another while driving drunk? What if a 'school-aged' kid drinks, gets behind a wheel, and kills someone. Is it the car's fault? The alcohol? The parent for not 'locking down the alcohol'? Where does personal responsibility finally kick in?
If this superintendent is representative of the leadership in Harold, Texas and/or the state of Texas, there is reason for hope in other towns and states. Leadership is defined in this article. Broad distribution, especially to politicians, would be in order. Hopefully any negative reaction to this man or town will be quickly quieted with support from those who stand firm with shared principles.
"They are the future, and they are precious."
Yet, look at teachers' pay.
In this country (USA), you don't get paid based on the work you do, but rather based on what profits it brings to the organization you work for. That is the reason why pro athletes get paid millions, because their organizations make millions on them.
Teachers don't bring any profit to anyone, so where would the money come from to pay them more, taxes??? How many people would like that, especially the ones living in the town without kids...
The sad thing is that schools DO bring profit. Without education you are left with a large unskilled workforce. Where would any of these giant corporations be if they had to teach their lawyers law themselves? Or their engineers basic physics?
Unfortunatly the profit is not immediate enough for many to see the value. For what they do for our nation, teachers are tragically underpaid and undervalued. I have family who were once teachers; they quit because no matter what they did or did not do, they were always under attack by the parents of their students because they did such terrible things as giving a student a bad grade. Or detention. Now it seems that schools are places to train football stars instead of places of learning and self improvement.
It's like the minimum wage. The lower the minimum wage the happier businesses are. Why?
Because a low minimum wage is a massive subsidy to business. They get to pay their workers chicken feed and let the tax payers deal with keeping them alive and ensuring there is another generation of serfs to exploit.
A functioning education system means the businesses have less training to do and have more productive workers. How does that not make very profitable? Shouldn't business be paying for that service? Taxes you say? Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes I say.
I agree with Mr.Thweatt's philosophy...and something the anti-gun folks never quite get. When you put in place a law then only the law-abiding will follow it. Criminals don't care about following laws, in fact, they like the stiffer gun laws, as it offers them greater freedom to commit crimes...knowing that they're not going to have to face an armed citizen. If more law-abiding citizens carried a firearm do you really think the 'bad guys' would still be so bold to commit these crimes?
I like this idea. Good job.
Yes, the massacre of 20 children in Newtown, CT was a tremendous tragedy. But, the reality is that killing of children in schools are very rare. Almost 6,000 school-aged children will die each year as the result of handguns and rifles in accidental shootings, suicides and homicides. The truly dangerous time for our children is between 3:00 pm and 8:00 am. The probabilites are that there will be an accident or a suicide with one of the Guardian's firearms rather than some protective action. Packing heat at school does nothing about the culture of violence and the easy availability of weapons for children who should not have access.
The probability of an accidental shooting is vastly reduced by requiring the training and testing necessary to earn a concealed carry license. The probability of suicide is vastly reduced by both that testing and the review of the School Board. The probability of a student bringing in an illegal gun and killing dozens of other students and teachers is vastly reduced by the fact that many of those teachers have both the gun and the training necessary to end the attack. Look up the history of such terrors ended by legal gun owners (mostly in private colleges) and you'll realize the teacher most likely won't even need to fire his/her gun, just point it and make the demand.
Probability?? Having a selected person trained and the firearm secure in the hands of that trained person reduces that 'probability' to negligible. Having a deterant, on the premises, works. We don't have enough guards, police, or military to be present in every school, classroom or attend every event. Our society is in territory that was not even thought to be explored in the 1950's and now we believe the problem will go away IF the guns go away. Too simplistic a solution and the logic being expounded echos what happened in Germany a generation ago.
This is one of the very few comments in the whole debate over the right of people to keep and bear arms that has made any sense.
Yup, throw MORE guns at the problem, that'll make it go away....*long protracted sigh*
You just have to accept that America isn't really a normal country.
Yup, leave things the way they are, or take away even more guns from the innocents, because that worked so well in CT... *even longer protracted sigh*
Long sigh...Connecticut is one of the safest states in the country. This never would have happened if some stupid person with her selfish gun culture came down from New Hampshire and forced her crazy gun obsession on her mentally ill son. SIGH.
This is not a very intelligent country, on average. I mean that staitsical correlations between gun ownership rates and gun violence are positive and significant in every single developed country on Earth....and yet there are people that actually believe more guns are the answer. I can't decide if people really are that stupid, or if their judgement is just clouded by selfishness....they are looking for any reason they can find to justify gun ownership (either way it's pathetic).
Yup, we've already proven that putting MORE gun in the hands of law abiding citizens DOES solve the problem.
Concealed carry is the best defense. Just ask any criminal who has found himself staring down the barrel of the intended victim's gun.
CNN’s Schools of Thought blog is a place for parents, educators and students to learn about and discuss what's happening in education. We're curious about what's happening before kindergarten, through college and beyond. Have a story to tell? Contact us at email@example.com