Shooting at a Florida high school
- Thread starter Mr Deeds
- Start date
Four sheriff’s deputies hid during Florida school shooting
https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/four-sheriffs-deputies-hid-during-florida-school-shooting/
https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/four-sheriffs-deputies-hid-during-florida-school-shooting/
But an armed teacher would have 'shot the hell out of him'... right?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-armed-teacher-would-ve-shot-hell-out-florida-gunman-n850666
Two completely unrelated statements that do nothing to suggest armed teachers are the way to go.
Yes teachers would know the school better than the cops and no, a shooter isn't going to wait for swat.
But what makes anyone think that teachers will have the ability to make the right tactical decisions in a life or death situation? Should they be expected to attend regular tactical and gun training as well as teaching for that huge $50,000/a they make in Florida?
And seriously, I expect there are a small number of teachers who choose to routinely go to the range and with the right training would do fine in a crisis but I also know that there are some teachers who should be kept well away from guns.
The side issue is funding. The US education system faces severe funding issues in may jurisdictions. Where will they find the money to pay for the training and salary incentives Trump has suggested?
That's simple.
Many, if not most teachers actually buy supplies out of their own pocket.
Isn't the answer to your question obvious?
Wait. I thought you said it was circumcision. No it was the lack of father figures. No wait, it's drugs given to frogs.
Maybe Alex Jones can clear it up.
Some teachers love their kids and could be more motivated than cops...you never know...
Here we go again. People seem to be obsessed with the notion that ordinary folks can't be trained properly in the handling of firearms, and that Trump's proposal is to just hand them over like that, no training.
Get this into your thick skulls: Concealed Carry and Trump's proposal requires training by law, and it's not just putting bullets in the centre of a target. It's what's legal and what's not and when it's time or not the time to engage.
You don't need weekly target practice in order to be proficient. do you actually think that the average cop shoots every week? What nonsense; they shoot once a year. Is this a reflection on you? Maybe you don't trust yourself with a firearm.... so don't get one, nobody is forcing you. But that doesn't mean that everybody else is as clumsy as you allude to be. Did you ever shoot a handgun before?
This attitude reflects the nanny state, where citizens are totally reliant on the government to maintain their well being. The idiocy goes to the point where people are unwilling to defend themselves against mortal danger in order to uphold that stupid notion that the police is going to take care of everything. And when it happens for real, they bleet 'why? why? why? as they realise that the nanny state is not real.
It's because there are bad people out there who don't care to sing Kumbaya with you before they rape your wife and blow your brains out..... especially in the violent society that is the US, and especilly in inner cities where poor people are by far the victims of gun crime.
Do you actually think the average cop is proficient? What nonsense.
If you do ANYTHING only once a year, you are NOT proficient.
And you assume that the police are always 100% reliable and competent?
You ignore the vetting that has to take place, the volunteers who step forward, and the training they will receive.
Nobody is ever 100% proficient. Those who pass achieve a minimum and acceptable level of proficiency. Not everybody passes, any more than people taking a driver's test, or take an infantry course, or take their graduation exams, or airline pilots taking their recurrent qualifications.
Those who cannot achieve a minimum level of competency do not pass, and don't get to do what they set out to do. Why is that so hard to understand?
Of course they can. The question is whether there is a mechanism to arm only the teachers whop are capable in a crisis situation and more importantly, who is going to pay for it. There are enough school districts in the states that struggle to find capable teachers for the pittance they pay, let alone capable teachers who are also capable as a crisis team.
Of course not, even with police training focusing a significant amount of time on guns and dealing with a crisis. And that is exactly the point. If police can't guarantee ability on part of their primary job responsibility (and at least 4 seem to have failed in this case), how would you expect teachers to sufficiently capable in both their actual job and being a substitute cop?
The average cop is never 100% proficient. But it doesn't mean that they are incompetent. Proficiency is not black and white. You achieve an acceptable level of proficiency. More to the point, you lose proficiency over time. You raise your proficiency by periodic training. Most police forces accept, within bugetary limitations, that training once a year is sufficient to maintain an acceptable level of proficiency. 'Acceptable' doesn't mean 100%, any more than getting less than 100% on your school exam means you flunk.
But why is it that some people believe that teachers (in this case) have to be more proficient (100%) than the cops who are supposed to instantly be there to protect them?
They also ignore the deterrence effect where certain schools are not gun-free zones anymore. That means to a potential aggressor, somebody may shoot back. Whether there are 2 or 50 teachers who are armed, or whether they are all super proficient or barely, how is a potential aggressior to know anyway.
Cops do a lot more than shoot guns. They uphold the law, and all of the laws. The duty of a volunteer who is armed is very narrow, and doesn't need the training that the cop gets, because most of it is irrelevant. Self defense and the protection of others in the immediate until help arrives is the only thing they have to focus on.
First, these shooters don't care if they are gun free zones or not. Do you not think that this guy knew that there was an armed deputy assigned to that school? It was HIS school.
Also, you seem to ignore the fact that teachers become teachers because they want to be teachers. They don't want to be law enforcement, paramilitary, military, mercenaries... they want to be teachers.
Additionally, in an environment where many, if not most teachers actually buy class supplies out of their own pocket... where do you suggest the money comes from to: train (initially and ongoing) said teachers, give them a salary increase (because now they have a new skillset and more responsibility), pay for increased insurance premiums (because insurers LOVE having armed people walking around their liabilities), increased medical premiums for teachers who are too stressed out because they are carrying a gun all day, increased disability payments for teachers who can no longer work because of the stress of carrying a gun and/or the trauma of being in a situation and feeling like they have been forced to play superhero. Where is that money going to come from?
First, you need volunteers who are willing to take the training. Usually, those who volunteer show some initiative and some skill in the first place.
There are 12 million adults in Florida between the ages of 25 and 65. There are already 1.5 million concealed carry permits issued in Florida, or about 10% of the adult population. It is expected then that 10% of Florida teachers already have concealed carry permits. The only thing that needs changing is to allow these people to carry concealed in school, as most schools now don't allow it. Nobody said that all teachers had to be armed, let alone against their will. But there are already many out there who would volunteer. What is a sufficient number? it's not 100%. It's more like 20%, plus or minus 10%.
Compensation would most probably to cover range time and handgun purchase and maintenance. Not the difference between a teacher's pay (45,000 a year) and an armed security guard ($75,000)
Trump was talking about compensation, but that's not a salary.
Lots of hyperbole and lots of nonsense. Do I have to go through every specific point?
Trump suggested compensation, and that would cover range time, training and the cost of a firearm for those few who don't already have one. Although nobody knows how many handguns in Florida for sure, as guns are not registered there; it was estimated that there were 3 legal handguns for every resident of Florida a decade or so ago. So there is probably no problem finding teachers to volunteer who already own a handgun.
The shooter had apparently staked the school in advance, and knew exactly where the armed guard was. In fact, it was easy to avoid him because the guy probably wore an uniform. And in fact, the guard was outside the building and refused to enter and engage.
Wanting to become a teacher has nothing to do with the willingness to own a gun or not. Teachers aren't born on trees, any more than gun owners. Gun owners are represented in all walks of life, believe it or not. You have a very stereotypical view of gun owners. You don't have to make a career in law enforcement in the unlikely probability that you have to defend yourself or those under your supervision. Do you have to be a trained fireman to have a fire extinguisher in your house, in the unlikely event that it catches fire?
Gun insurance is very cheap. If you are a sport shooter in Canada, you can get $5 million coverage for $15 per year. But insurance would not cover you in case of a criminal act. As a volunteer defending yourself and others, you would be covered under the good samaritan act.
