Yes. I don’t worry that a terrorist is going to blow me up. It’s not a rational fear, despite some times occurrence. Well spotted.
Wouldn’t accomplish what goal? Law enforcement perform offensive shooting. Most everyone else will practice defensive shooting. Countless incidents involving concealed carry holders show they use the weapon more for intimidation than trigger pulling. They don’t fire. They aren’t suddenly going to go on the offensive. And yet you say you are okay with those people being armed that do go on the offensive, and often fire indiscriminately. Cartwheel after cartwheel.
That's crap. We aren't simply disagreeing, you are actively creating special classes of citizens, for no valid reason, and making blanket statements you then back track on when first pressed. What are your reasons? I can make some up, they aren't yours, just some that have been thrown out over time. 1. LEO receive training. (Handgun carry permit holders go through mandated training. If you think they need more, say that.) 2. Government has granted LEO to carry firearms. (Carry permits are issued by the government). 3. Handgun carry holders might attempt to be a super hero (They might; incident after incident says they won't. Hell, until the 7 or so years, you couldn't even stand your ground, you had to attempt to actively retreat from a threat; you think now they're going to run toward one?) 4. It's distracting. (It's already there. Sometimes hidden, sometimes in plain view, and has been, for a long time.) 5. It shouldn't be necessary. (Agreed. That's not a reason to deny it.) 6. There isn't any accountability. (There is more accountability, it is just a larger population size. Require body cameras and they'll wear body cameras, purchased themselves.)
I believe I have only been speaking for myself, and the environments in which I would choose not to teach in. Are you saying I should be required to teach? Are you going to force me to change back to post secondary education?
Three public secondary school teachers post here. I believe at least one carries, another might or consider doing so at some point, and another is dead against it. I believe all of those viewpoints are valid, and you will need to accept that many people will likely elect to work in a school system that does not see "gun free zones" as being part of the problem, or even change fields entirely. It's a free country. You have probably dealt with emotional members of the general public before. I don't want to normalize them packing in places where they get emotional: hospitals, schools, public meetings, etc. That's my view point. There will be always be individuals or, yes, people of certain backgrounds in which I am fully comfortable with them walking into these places armed and can perhaps be accommodated through some process.
No, I’m saying you are full of shit. You aren’t required to be, though. You say you won’t teach armed people. Then caveat. Then caveat. You can filter it down as many iterations as you need to make yourself feel better, but all you are doing is lying to yourself.
People get emotional everywhere. You’ve never seen a couple argue in public? These conditions you are placing are lies you are telling yourself.
I understand your opinion. I mentioned earlier that any successful negotiation will take compromise by both sides. In exchange for an Assault Rifle ban, what would you be willing to compromise on?
This is an agency being completley transparent and forthright in taking full accountability of its failures. No caveats. No hit backs. No "let's look into it, first" No requiring Congress / the public to ask the right question to get to the heart of the matter. It's what I'd expect of any agency, much less any involved in law enforcement, and perhaps most particularly, the FBI. In both fully admitting and owning it, I can trust that they're sincerely resolved to figure out the cause and work to quickly correct it, at the very least. That's about as much as one could possibly hope to expect, once a mistake - as glaring and tragic as it is - has been made.
All fair, Un. And not to be overly dramatic, but were one of my kids barricaded in your classroom during an active shooter situation, I'd most greatly prefer that you be armed, than not - even as reticent you may be to use it, short of your own imminent peril, and that of your students. I'm in no way advocating for arming all teachers, any who have not been properly, exhaustively and routinely trained to safely carry and use a firearm, or any who simply do not wish or believe it necessary to do so. But I do believe that it should be optionally permissible for those teachers who do wish to carry, and who meet the stringent requirements required to safely and effectively do so.
I appreciate the transparency of the FBI, but let's not kid ourselves. That error alone would not necessarily of prevented this and similar incidents. The guy did nothing illegal right up until he took the AR-15 on campus.
True. But doing anything may have had some effect, even if only as some deterrent. Doing nothing didn't work, is my point. But I get yours, too.
Over/under on how many hours or days until Trump Tweets" "If FBI focused on shooter lead rather that Fake News Trump Russia Collusion then they could have stopped shooter. Sad for the families"
I cannot go into a classroom, which is my universe on an every day basis, on Monday with a sidearm. And, I would like to know stats, real stats on those actually possessing a weapon in their classes in a private school setting. I'm not even aware of a school shooting on a private school campus. You claim, though, that the law passed for higher ed and private schools is an indication that it has not affected learning. What is your basis for this? Your metric for supporting this statement? And, I know the difference between a weapon and an armory. I'm fine with my statement. Is there anywhere you don't think guns are appropriate?
Sorry, I just don't. The chances of a school shooting in your child's classroom are exceedingly small. I really don't care if the Biology teacher has trained or not, it's not appropriate to have weapons in a classroom setting. And, I stand by my statement of, if this becomes an accepted, normalized thing, I'm very seriously considering getting out. Not just because of the idea of it being ok for the person teaching my 6 year olds all day long, but also because of the perceived need for it.
