A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides

[HandgunHunter]

Interesting angle. So if a teacher wants to train and carry, they are now law enforcement? Curious how many school employees at past incidents with they were armed.
As far as security guard, what's your point? He should of had a rifle? Or because he didn't end threat, no other armed person can in the future. Feel free to clarify.

I’ll help….

Buffalo. Armed guard.

Not every situation works out perfect….nothing in life is perfect. But he had a chance.

Not all citizens want to be LE but some chose to carry to protect themselves since it has become obvious LE won’t be there in time

 

[Shangobango]

So in your mind the answer really is to CONTINUE DOING NOTHING and as Buzz said keep building coffins.

I didn’t say that at all. Anywhere. Ever.

This is an issue that is going to take a comprehensive approach. Painting everyone that owns a scary looking rifle or doesn’t mind people owning scary looking rifles as the only ones holding up that process is not factual nor helpful.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This is an issue that is going to take a comprehensive approach.

The last 10 pages of this thread are a reminder that we have trouble discussing comprehensive approaches. We like to hammer on narrow “drop the mic” arguments.

 

[406dn]

Dig a little deeper in your google foo and you’ll find black powder machine guns, Gatling guns, mag fed guns and so on….

And then go a little forward….you’ll see plenty of early smokeless semi auto rifles and carbines with high cap mags.

And dig a little more and you’ll find hardware store catalogues where you could order a belt fed machine gun, sub guns and so on…..

And all the way until 1968 you could mail order all the guns you wanted without a background check…..

Trying to compare a short barreled shotgun to an AR15 just shows a complete lack of knowledge on this subject.

I literally tried to inject some actual factual data in this conversation from my time in LE which had plenty of dealings with school security.

Since you mention gatling guns, they were fed with the turning of a crank.

Before smokeless powder, small caliber high velocity cartridges were not possible. To gain more power the bore was made larger. There was a modest limit on how fast a projectile could be shot out of a barrel.

Earlier you mentioned there were comparable weapons to the AR going back 150 years. So, tell me what weapon it was that could be easily carried by a person that also had the ability to go thru ammunition the way an AR can?

 

[406dn]

Interesting angle. So if a teacher wants to train and carry, they are now law enforcement? Curious how many school employees at past incidents with they were armed.
As far as security guard, what's your point? He should of had a rifle? Or because he didn't end threat, no other armed person can in the future. Feel free to clarify.

My point is, even with a security guard, that is brave enough to engage a threat, it is far from certain they succeed.

The guard can never know the exact moment the threat comes thru the door. The killer does know. So right out of the gate, the security guard is disadvantaged. That gives the killer the first shot more times than not.

As it turns out on that day, that guard needed good body armor and an AR type weapon. That is what the other guy had. If it was you do you want to have a weapon equal to or more than the other person? I know that I would.

 

[HandgunHunter]

Interesting angle. So if a teacher wants to train and carry, they are now law enforcement? Curious how many school employees at past incidents with they were armed.
As far as security guard, what's your point? He should of had a rifle? Or because he didn't end threat, no other armed person can in the future. Feel free to clarify.

I’ll help….

Buffalo. Armed guard.

Not every situation works out perfect….nothing in life is perfect. But he had a chance.

Not all citizens want to be LE but some chose to carry to protect themselves since it has become obvious LE won’t be there in time

Since you mention gatling guns, they were fed with the turning of a crank.

Before smokeless powder, small caliber high velocity cartridges were not possible. To gain more power the bore was made larger. There was a modest limit on how fast a projectile could be shot out of a barrel.

Earlier you mentioned there were comparable weapons to the AR going back 150 years. So, tell me what weapon it was that could be easily carried by a person that also had the ability to go thru ammunition the way an AR can?

Use your google foo or your local library….it’s not tough to find….you are the smart one since you decided to try and correct me from the start.

You have missed the entire point….

The weapons to do such things have been around longer than any of us have been alive…and several generations back as the first semi auto and full auto firearms started to be developed and patented around the US civil war time frame with some utilization in that war in very small numbers.

Now you add the requirement that it’s totally reliable….well let’s just jump ahead to the first mass shooting that was well recorded. It also happened in Texas. One of the weapons used had a high capacity with magazines available from 15-30 rounds, low recoil, and very light. The M1 carbine. Available without a back ground check and ordered through the mail.

I’m done and moving on….I tried to inject relative information to the side topic of school security early on that popped up…and as usual on this forum some pops in wanting to flex the internet muscle. Logging off….have a good day.

Anyone have any elk honey holes they want to share? Or what boots to wear?

 

[ImBillT]

School security is a reasonable and related area of discussion, but the volume of recent posts dramatically outweigh it’s proportion of the OP topic. I understand that a school shooting in the news is coincident with this thread, but if I was looking for 150 posts on this mathematically tiny part of the problem I would have started a thread on it.

I suggest if folks want to go down the rabbit hole of locked school doors, odds of teacher effectiveness in an active shooting situation, and viability of black powder ARs as they relate to school security that a new thread be started so it can get the fully devoted 15 pages all its own.

Do you think the school shooting in Uvalde will have a proportionally small effect on 2A legislation? If not, then it’s an important part of the original topic, even if it was not intended to be so.

 

[tjones]

I certainly don’t know what the answer is but keep in mind a school shooter came that day to die, the teacher wants to go home and grade papers. The most dangerous man is one with nothing to lose.

Imagine the evil it takes to point a gun at a 4th grader and then pull the trigger.

 

[ImBillT]

My point is, even with a security guard, that is brave enough to engage a threat, it is far from certain they succeed.

The guard can never know the exact moment the threat comes thru the door. The killer does know. So right out of the gate, the security guard is disadvantaged. That gives the killer the first shot more times than not.

As it turns out on that day, that guard needed good body armor and an AR type weapon. That is what the other guy had. If it was you do you want to have a weapon equal to or more than the other person? I know that I would.

I think your point is that because a “security guard” couldn’t stop a school shooting, teachers shouldn’t be allowed to have tools to defend themselves. That’s a poor argument. Correct me if I misunderstand you.

 

[4ohSick]

I think your point is that because a “security guard” couldn’t stop a school shooting, teachers shouldn’t be allowed to have tools to defend themselves. That’s a poor argument. Correct me if I misunderstand you.

You keep putting words in his mouth and are clearly missing his point. Whether teachers want tools to defend themselves or not, an armed teacher has poor odds of stopping a shooter with an AR and body armor. Doesn’t even matter if they’re more of a liability or not, it’s just not an effective solution. And the example you keep posting had zero injuries other than the shooter - if he couldn’t injure a single person firing multiple shots, I don’t think that’s the same situation as a cold and calm killer with body armor and a desire to take out as many as they can.

 

[BrentD]

I think your point is that because a “security guard” couldn’t stop a school shooting, teachers shouldn’t be allowed to have tools to defend themselves. That’s a poor argument. Correct me if I misunderstand you.

Have you considered teachers, largely untrained and hired to teach, not kill, opening up with a shotgun, or AR, or whatever in a classroom with 20+ other individuals in a split second moment of surprise and panic? You aren't being even sorta realistic.

I can just see the job announcements.

Wanted, 4th grade teachers with SEAL Team 6 experience and equipped with modern and complete 3-gun arsenal.

 

[Nick87]

Have you considered teachers, largely untrained and hired to teach, not kill, opening up with a shotgun, or AR, or whatever in a classroom with 20+ other individuals in a split second moment of surprise and panic? You aren't being even sorta realistic.

I can just see the job announcements.

Wanted, 4th grade teachers with SEAL Team 6 experience and equipped with modern and complete 3-gun arsenal.

I don't know but I'll bet the teachers in Uvalde wish they had that shotgun, or AR, or whatever.

 

[BrentD]

I don't know but I'll bet the teachers in Uvalde wish they had that shotgun, or AR, or whatever.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Would they be liable for collateral damage?

Arming teachers as a solution is just plan nuts,in my opinion.

Their job is tough enough that 300 just quit in Des Moines this month. Now you want to add Special Forces training to their nightmare? You infinitely increase their liabilities in addition to everything else. Ready to raise your taxes to triple their salaries? (Hint, they will still quit in droves)

 

[Nick87]

Maybe. Maybe not.

Would they be liable for collateral damage?

Arming teachers as a solution is just plan nuts,in my opinion.

Their job is tough enough that 300 just quit in Des Moines this month. Now you want to add Special Forces training to their nightmare? You infinitely increase their liabilities in addition to everything else. Ready to raise your taxes to triple their salaries? (Hint, they will still quit in droves)

Yah maybe your right, they'd probably rather still be dead than had somewhat of a chance to defend themselves and the students.

 

[ImBillT]

Have you considered teachers, largely untrained and hired to teach, not kill, opening up with a shotgun, or AR, or whatever in a classroom with 20+ other individuals in a split second moment of surprise and panic? You aren't being even sorta realistic.

I can just see the job announcements.

Wanted, 4th grade teachers with SEAL Team 6 experience and equipped with modern and complete 3-gun arsenal.

Do some research and come back to me. Many school districts in TX have armed teachers. The district I live in has armed teachers. The district that my in-laws live in has armed teachers. Other districts around me, and other districts around my in-laws(5hrs away) have armed teachers. The district my wife teaches in does not allow teachers to carry. I’m not suggesting something that hasn’t been done, or isn’t currently being done. Additionally, no armed teachers on tx are carrying long guns.

If you prefer to face a shooter with your intellect, be my guest. You still have no right to prevent people who would rather carry a concealed weapon from doing so, whether they are at work(in school) or not.

 

[BrentD]

Yah maybe your right, they'd probably rather still be dead than had somewhat of a chance to defend themselves and the students.

Or kill a pile of them themselves. Why is it so hard to understand that teachers aren't SWAT combatants like internet experts?

 

[ImBillT]

Maybe. Maybe not.

Would they be liable for collateral damage?

Arming teachers as a solution is just plan nuts,in my opinion.

Their job is tough enough that 300 just quit in Des Moines this month. Now you want to add Special Forces training to their nightmare? You infinitely increase their liabilities in addition to everything else. Ready to raise your taxes to triple their salaries? (Hint, they will still quit in droves)

You’re usually logical except here. Special forces training? Does anyone have to have special forces training to defend themselves? We have mountains of laws regarding self defense. Suddenly you think that if you don’t have special forces training you shouldn’t be ALOWED to defend yourself with a weapon?

Raise taxes to triple? TX already has armed teachers in quite a few districts and no one is getting a triple salary. Some districts offer stipends, others offer nothing at all. So far I’m not aware of any districts being sued for allowing it. Someone should sue the Uvalde district for letting their children die. The district most likely didn’t allow staff to carry, I’m not aware of them having armed officers, and the police were WORSE THAN WORTHLESS. If I was a parent there I’d sue the district and the PD.

 

[hank4elk]

I don't know but I'll bet the teachers in Uvalde wish they had that shotgun, or AR, or whatever.

I bet they wished the 19 cowards in the hall would have done what they were paid for.
They did look good, fat and sassy in their matching cowgirl hats and long guns.
The whole damn force should be fired.

 

[hank4elk]

Oh and the State boys......jeezus.

 

[ImBillT]

I bet they wished the 19 cowards in the hall would have done what they were paid for.
They did look good, fat and sassy in their matching cowgirl hats and long guns.
The whole damn force should be fired.

Totally agree, and that’s why teachers, coaches, principle, band/choir directors, art teachers, janitors, and students, shouldn’t have to depend on a bunch of losers who are safe as long as they run back outside and pretend to be useful.