T&G your opinion

sksguns said:
I'm not talking about the goofy idiot sitting behind the desk in the lobby where I work. I think a real solution is required for the security of our schools. A real security force that most normal people would think twice before screwing with them.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is "real" security cost a lot of money, more then most schools could ever afford. Derek is right and not just as a Marine but the average slob who watches Commando too much can take down 90% of the security guards out there, believe me I have seen and worked for security. You want "real" security pay up.

As for the teacher she should do the responsible thing and leave her job, sks is right about her putting kids in danger but this is a unique situation and in general teachers should have the right to CCW.
 
Adam_MA said:
That's just funny! You should seriously take a look at the amount and quality of "training" that a LEO is given in the academy. It's laughable at best.
Click to expand...

The Hill Man was talking about this subject this morning on WAAF. Spaz was indicating that he thought it was a very bad idea. His reasoning is that the police are probably the best trained when it comes to handling a firearm. [thinking] In schools he believes that the police should be the only one who have a firearm as they are the ones who could make the best shot and not hit other kids.

Oh if he only knew.
 
Mikey said:
As for the teacher she should do the responsible thing and leave her job, sks is right about her putting kids in danger but this is a unique situation and in general teachers should have the right to CCW.
Click to expand...
Uh... Mikey, has Kim been slipping those funny cigarettes into you pack? Are you nuts? (I'm giving up on sksguns because he's made it plain that it's all her fault and that she doesn't have the right to have a life, much less defend it, since she's got a loony ex).

But YOU, Mike... You're kidding, right? You don't really need for me to go into a tirade about how a person shouldn't have to live in fear or change their lives because of a threat, do you? Remember "... that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

I see no reason why she has to live in fear of the loon - simply arm herself, take precautions, and go on living her life - otherwise he's won.
 
Rockrivr1 said:
The Hill Man was talking about this subject this morning on WAAF. Spaz was indicating that he thought it was a very bad idea. His reasoning is that the police are probably the best trained when it comes to handling a firearm. [thinking] In schools he believes that the police should be the only one who have a firearm as they are the ones who could make the best shot and not hit other kids.

Oh if he only knew.
Click to expand...

It's too bad Spaz has the IQ of a door knob. [rolleyes]
 
dwarven1 said:
But YOU, Mike... You're kidding, right? You don't really need for me to go into a tirade about how a person shouldn't have to live in fear or change their lives because of a threat, do you? Remember "... that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

I see no reason why she has to live in fear of the loon - simply arm herself, take precautions, and go on living her life - otherwise he's won.
Click to expand...

Ross,

The problem is she CANT arm her self at work...
 
dwarven1 said:
I know... and that's flat out WRONG.
Click to expand...

That's why Mike is saying if she can't protect herself at work and the BG knows this she might want to consider looking else where for employment.

If I knew someone wanted to cause me bodily injury I would carry at work even though our policy is against it. If I had to defend myself with my sidearm I would be willing to suffer the consequences of losing my job.
 
derek said:
That's why Mike is saying if she can't protect herself at work and the BG knows this she might want to consider looking else where for employment.

If I knew someone wanted to cause me bodily injury I would carry at work even though our policy is against it. If I had to defend myself with my sidearm I would be willing to suffer the consequences of losing my job.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I have made that decision twice.
 
derek said:
That's why Mike is saying if she can't protect herself at work and the BG knows this she might want to consider looking else where for employment.
Click to expand...
Again, that means he's done what he wanted to: force her to lose something precious to her.

derek said:
If I knew someone wanted to cause me bodily injury I would carry at work even though our policy is against it. If I had to defend myself with my sidearm I would be willing to suffer the consequences of losing my job.
Click to expand...
Me, too. There are enough deep concealment rigs out there to try so that TPTB won't know you're carrying.
 
Adam_MA said:
So I guess this answers our question. You really DON'T believe in the second ammendment...
Click to expand...

My belief in the 2nd isn't at issue here. But hers is. If she really believes her life is in danger and she has a license to carry and she doesn't then she is the one who doesn't believe in the 2nd.

"Shirley Katz said she bought her own gun in 2004 after Gerry Katz grabbed her by the throat and threatened to kill her — an allegation he denies."

Were charges pressed against him for this alleged attack? Why not? Should have been bruising....If she pressed charges and he was found guilty case closed. He'd be in jail and she could close her yap...



"He argues that her desire to take her gun to school is about reopening their divorce to get exclusive custody of their 6-year-old daughter."


Crying wolf to get custody..... I don't know about that....


“She’s just scamming everybody,” he said.

Possible...


Of course you should carry all the time but if you know someone is out for you then you definately carry all the time and not scream to the newspaper that my job has a "no gun policy".

After all the school shootings who the hell in their right mind would bitch about that? This is not the way to get carry restrictions lifted in public shools.
 
dwarven1 said:
Again, that means he's done what he wanted to: force her to lose something precious to her.
Click to expand...

It is also HER problem and not the kids, the kids don't have a 2A right to protect themselves and her choosing to NOT put the kids lives at risk has nothing to do with anything other then being the honorable choice in this situation. Don't put my family in danger b/c you have personal issues that need to be handled.
 
digitech said:
As the old saying goes

"I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six"
Click to expand...

It's to bad it has to come down to this decision for her, but overall, I was thinking the same damn thing. What her bosses don't know will not hurt her. She just needs to be very secure in the rig she uses and make sure it doesn't pattern in the least.
 
and not scream to the newspaper that my job has a "no gun policy".
Click to expand...

What her bosses don't know will not hurt her. She just needs to be very secure in the rig she uses and make sure it doesn't pattern in the least.
Click to expand...

IIRC, that's not the way things happened.

People at the school knew of her troubles and the restraining order -- as they should have.

Friends of hers and the RKBA knew she had a licences to carry. It is unknown as to whether she was actually carrying in violation of school district rules.

A friend accidently let it slip that if there is any violence, he wanted to be right next to Ms Katz. Anti-self-defense types freaked out and made a complaint based on this that Ms Katz was carrying. When it was investigated (searched?) she was NOT.

At this point "keeping quiet" about it at the school was impossible. But she filed a "Jane Doe" lawsuit in an attempt to keep some anonymity. The anonymity collapsed within this past week.
 
drgrant said:
Yeah, well one thing is for certain, disarming them (whether by policy
or by law) hasn't helped things either.

-Mike
Click to expand...

The problem isn't not allowing the teachers to carry. The problem is they haven't implemented additional defensive measures.

Shoufl the teachers carry? Sure...why not. It's their right if they choose.

Should they be expected to be the only line of defense in a critical situation? Absolutely not.

The need a better plan.

Just saying it'sa a "gun free zone" won't work. You can't fight against guns without guns. The bad guys know this and need to be met with eaqual or greater force. But I stand by my statement that arming the teachers isn't the solution. You need specially trained security personel equiped and prepared to handle such situations.

I'm a realist not a fanatic.

Whoever wants to call that anti 2nd........knock yourself out.
 
You have any idea how much one of those specially trained guards get? The school would not be able to even justify the salary for one of those specially trained guards. Be real.
 
Just voted.

Yes 55.5%

No 44.5%

Total votes: 497


Let teachers who are licensed carry. Give training to teachers request it.

When the next Kliebold & Harris or Cho wannabe's come blasting in through the door, let them be stopped right then and there.

Wouldn't surprise me at all iffin' there are more than a few teachers packing these days.
 
sksguns said:
Just saying it'sa a "gun free zone" won't work. You can't fight against guns without guns. The bad guys know this and need to be met with eaqual or greater force. But I stand by my statement that arming the teachers isn't the solution. You need specially trained security personel equiped and prepared to handle such situations.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we should force every teacher to be armed- that's
unworkable simply out of the fact that there are going to be
teachers which are simply unable to bring themselves to the
task of even using a firearm.

What I'm getting at is the legal prohibitions (which in some case
extend far beyond "policy" and into "law" need to be removed
before any real forward progress can be made. There is this
brain damage in society about prohibiting "legal" guns in schools,
whether they're public or private.

There are schools in the US where even the security guards are
not allowed to be armed- that's f'ed up. They at least need
to start by fixing that brain damage, and then allowing others who
are licensed to carry to do so if they choose.

Either that, or they should just let the cat fully out of the
bag and admit that they just want to turn all our schools into
prisons; that's what they appear to be anyways- and right now a
lot of them are stuck in between being schools and prisons- and
they're just building deathtraps in the process.

This shit should have started changing back when Derrick Brun
was killed at Red Lake- the only reason he is dead is because
of a matter of shit policy, nothing more. People go around
saying "oh the poor victims" while ignoring the fact that the
damned policymakers/lawmakers also have blood on their
hands, and are partially responsible for enabling these kinds of
incidents to happen. [angry]

-Mike
 
MrsWildweasel said:
You have any idea how much one of those specially trained guards get? The school would not be able to even justify the salary for one of those specially trained guards. Be real.
Click to expand...

I guess it all depends on how much value we put on our children's lives.

We all know the old saying...."you get what you pay for"....

Teacher's want to carry for personal protection then fine. They absolutely have the wrong mindset to use deadly force. Killing is not their primary calling. Teaching is. Oh, you might get one or two that can and will do it if they need to but I'd put money on it that the vast majority of teachers will not take a life even if it means saving 20.


But whatever.....
 
sksguns said:
Teacher's want to carry for personal protection then fine. They absolutely have the wrong mindset to use deadly force. Killing is not their primary calling. Teaching is. Oh, you might get one or two that can and will do it if they need to but I'd put money on it that the vast majority of teachers will not take a life even if it means saving 20.

But whatever.....
Click to expand...

You're probably right about most teachers. But the ones that "will not take a life even if it means saving 20" are not the ones that would choose to carry a gun.

But what about a teacher that did have the right mindset, had retention training, and would take a life (or several) to save even one innocent?

It appears that you think that they should be denied their 2nd Amendment rights.

If you think that such a teacher doesn't exist, you're wrong - I'm related to two of them.
 
sksguns said:
I guess it all depends on how much value we put on our children's lives.

We all know the old saying...."you get what you pay for"....

Teacher's want to carry for personal protection then fine. They absolutely have the wrong mindset to use deadly force. Killing is not their primary calling. Teaching is. Oh, you might get one or two that can and will do it if they need to but I'd put money on it that the vast majority of teachers will not take a life even if it means saving 20.


But whatever.....
Click to expand...

The teacher's life has value as well. All of our lives have value. How do you know that a teacher does not have the mind set to use deadly force if needed? That is a general statement that cannot be backed up by facts.
And who's primary calling is Killing?
It is illegal to carry a firearm, pepper spray, knives and any other item that can be used as a weapon into a school. The teacher should carry concealed and deal with the consequences if she ever has to display her gun.
This particular teacher is getting support from an Oregon Gun Owner's Rights Group to move forth with her lawsuit. Good Luck to her.
Best Regards.
 
dwarven1 said:
Gee, arming the teachers seems to work just fine in Israel.
Click to expand...

I thought it true to be that everyone in Israel serves a two year stint in the military when they are of age. And because they are routinely attacke via missles and other terroristic avenues thay are literally fighting for their right to survive on a daily basis...It's their culture now. It's not like that here yet.
 
EddieCoyle said:
You're probably right about most teachers. But the ones that "will not take a life even if it means saving 20" are not the ones that would choose to carry a gun.

But what about a teacher that did have the right mindset, had retention training, and would take a life (or several) to save even one innocent?
It appears that you think that they should be denied their 2nd Amendment rights.

If you think that such a teacher doesn't exist, you're wrong - I'm related to two of them.
Click to expand...

That's fine as a last line of defense. I'd prefer the treained professional; to squelch the situation up front.

I would not deny anyone their second ammendment rights. I just don't see teachers as a first line of defense. I'd prefer a trained, professional to get the job done right and quick. No thought...no emotion...no hesitation...Identify the threat and eliminate said threat....bang done. Go have lunch and the kids can get back to learning if they've even been interupted.
 

Similar threads

Know your target
Replies
4
Views
382
alx
alx
Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Buck F
Buck F
What not to do with your new gun.
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
Coyote33
Coyote33
Russians want your ammo
Replies
0
Views
301
watchman
W
Show me your latest purchase
Replies
11
Views
467
AmeriKHAN
A
Back
Top Bottom