4 ms·

Teachers don't need to be armed in case of a shooter just as teachers don't need to carry fire extinguishers in case of a fire. Teachers DO need to be trained

by lsllc 14y ago

Teachers don't need to be armed in case of a shooter just as teachers don't need to carry fire extinguishers in case of a fire. Teachers DO need to be trained in what to do in a shooting just as they do when there is a fire. When there is a fire, we don't lock ourselves in the classroom waiting for the fire department to show up. We escape, we fight the fire (with fire extinguishers) until the fire department shows up to deal with the situation. This is what the Israelis do, they have gun safes placed around the school that contain a handgun and a magazine. They train the school personnel on how to operate the weapon, they're not looking for the next Jason Bourne, just someone who can slow down (or possibly stop the shooter). Opening the safe automatically dials 911. http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/15/against-monsters/ http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/15/agains... What should the kids do? Escape and evade, don't sit around waiting to be executed: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/parents-guide http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/parents-guide

strlen 14y ago
This has the same approach in that the weapon is hidden behind a safe and opening the safe means a call to first responders. I am very much in favour of this. My issue is that in US environment that weapon can not be a firearm: neither the students nor the teachers can think rationally about firearms. A less than lethal weapon differs only psychologically: I believe there is no difference under US between a civilian discharging a police-model Taser (with ability to shoot barbs) and a civilian discharging an NFA-licensed grenade launcher. Both are considered "lethal force" and subject to the same rules. Tasers are absolutely capable of causing death and I am actually in favour of restricting their police use: prohibit their use when a subject is not a threat to themselves or anyone else, allow their use in situations where otherwise a firearm would be used despite not being needed. Infamous cases where police used Tasers on non-compliant (but non-threatening) individualists should be treated similar to shooting and lightly injuring (or shooting and missing) a non-compliant individual. So why "glorified Tasers" but not firearms for teachers? As a Russian-Jewish immigrant to the United States with many friends and relatives in Israel, I have to say Israel is not the US. 1) Irrespective of gender non-Hassidic Jews, along with Druze, Bedouins, Circassians, and many other ethnic groups are subject to military service. The military service is half-ways between Swiss-style militia (a non-standing army) and US military. After the initial service (during which they are often free to go home with their service rifle) they become reservists subject to being regularly called up. 1) Naturally that means they already have some background training, so this isn't an issue of them learning to shoot from anew -- more of learning to use a Glock 17 instead of an an M1911 they used during training or in the reserves. So even if they are issued an actual lethal firearm, said firearm would probably have to be a break-action pistol-caliber (or frangible .223) rifle rather than a pistol. A revolver would be simple from mechanical point of view but difficult to aim, while a shotgun would would have far too much felt-recoil (other than may be a .410). 2) Military service also instills a more balanced view of the firearm for both the teachers and the students: they will view the firearm as a tool and understand its dangers and limitations. I think right now the view of firearms in US is dangerously split: * Increasing super-majority (something like 70-75%) supports the individual right to posses firearms. * Decreasing minority (currently 40%) actually owns firearms. * The minority "guns are evil" side is fairly irrationally opposed to their use (e.g., it's one thing to think that firearms should not be owned by civilians, it's another thing to oppose civilians participating in shooting sports) * Many gun owners and gun-rights defenders have these same "Jason Bourne" fantasies. It's nauseating to hear about how this or other shooting could have been stopped by conceal carriers holders. I fully support the idea of concealed carry (there are many legitimate reasons to do so), but it's asinine to think they can stop all crime. Actual statistics conceal carry alone does not actually change gun violence -- there's neither a marked increase nor a marked decrease. Crime rates have fallen since conceal-carry statues have been enacted in some states, but they also fallen across the board in the US. * Young teens consider them to be somewhat of an accessory and a curiosity item. I think not much good can come up if you a give a teacher that thinks "all guns are unequivocally evil" (or conversely "I could have stopped Columbine with my Ruger SP01") access to a firearm, while surrounding him with a crowd full of kids who have an unhealthy fascination with firearms. If you train them to use a simplified version of what is a firearm in all but name, but is remarkably less dangerous to bystanders, evokes no emotions, and has no street value (no impetus for someone to disable the connection from safe 911, steal, and sell one) then it's a different situation. I think a purpose-built Taser-like weapon, in a school shooting scenario, would deliver 80% of the value of a small-caliber firearm anyway.

by lsllc 14y ago

strlen 14y ago

This has the same approach in that the weapon is hidden behind a safe and opening the safe means a call to first responders. I am very much in favour of this. My issue is that in US environment that weapon can not be a firearm: neither the students nor the teachers can think rationally about firearms. A less than lethal weapon differs only psychologically: I believe there is no difference under US between a civilian discharging a police-model Taser (with ability to shoot barbs) and a civilian discharging an NFA-licensed grenade launcher. Both are considered "lethal force" and subject to the same rules. Tasers are absolutely capable of causing death and I am actually in favour of restricting their police use: prohibit their use when a subject is not a threat to themselves or anyone else, allow their use in situations where otherwise a firearm would be used despite not being needed. Infamous cases where police used Tasers on non-compliant (but non-threatening) individualists should be treated similar to shooting and lightly injuring (or shooting and missing) a non-compliant individual. So why "glorified Tasers" but not firearms for teachers? As a Russian-Jewish immigrant to the United States with many friends and relatives in Israel, I have to say Israel is not the US. 1) Irrespective of gender non-Hassidic Jews, along with Druze, Bedouins, Circassians, and many other ethnic groups are subject to military service. The military service is half-ways between Swiss-style militia (a non-standing army) and US military. After the initial service (during which they are often free to go home with their service rifle) they become reservists subject to being regularly called up. 1) Naturally that means they already have some background training, so this isn't an issue of them learning to shoot from anew -- more of learning to use a Glock 17 instead of an an M1911 they used during training or in the reserves. So even if they are issued an actual lethal firearm, said firearm would probably have to be a break-action pistol-caliber (or frangible .223) rifle rather than a pistol. A revolver would be simple from mechanical point of view but difficult to aim, while a shotgun would would have far too much felt-recoil (other than may be a .410). 2) Military service also instills a more balanced view of the firearm for both the teachers and the students: they will view the firearm as a tool and understand its dangers and limitations. I think right now the view of firearms in US is dangerously split: * Increasing super-majority (something like 70-75%) supports the individual right to posses firearms. * Decreasing minority (currently 40%) actually owns firearms. * The minority "guns are evil" side is fairly irrationally opposed to their use (e.g., it's one thing to think that firearms should not be owned by civilians, it's another thing to oppose civilians participating in shooting sports) * Many gun owners and gun-rights defenders have these same "Jason Bourne" fantasies. It's nauseating to hear about how this or other shooting could have been stopped by conceal carriers holders. I fully support the idea of concealed carry (there are many legitimate reasons to do so), but it's asinine to think they can stop all crime. Actual statistics conceal carry alone does not actually change gun violence -- there's neither a marked increase nor a marked decrease. Crime rates have fallen since conceal-carry statues have been enacted in some states, but they also fallen across the board in the US. * Young teens consider them to be somewhat of an accessory and a curiosity item. I think not much good can come up if you a give a teacher that thinks "all guns are unequivocally evil" (or conversely "I could have stopped Columbine with my Ruger SP01") access to a firearm, while surrounding him with a crowd full of kids who have an unhealthy fascination with firearms. If you train them to use a simplified version of what is a firearm in all but name, but is remarkably less dangerous to bystanders, evokes no emotions, and has no street value (no impetus for someone to disable the connection from safe 911, steal, and sell one) then it's a different situation. I think a purpose-built Taser-like weapon, in a school shooting scenario, would deliver 80% of the value of a small-caliber firearm anyway.