Texas School allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons.

[Vladd44]

A Texas school district will let teachers bring guns to class this fall, the district's superintendent said on Friday, in what experts said appeared to be a first in the United States.

The board of the small rural Harrold Independent School District unanimously approved the plan and parents have not objected, said the district's superintendent, David Thweatt.

If that isn't funny enough, it gets better.

Recent school shootings in the United States have prompted some calls for school officials to allow students and teachers to carry legally concealed weapons into classrooms.

[Hitcher]

yeah! bout time texas did somethin right. i wudnt wanna b around these thug-ass kids all day without a gun.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

Could they possibly tackle this issue in a worse way? I doubt it.

The kids are out of control, there is a lack of respect for any authority, how did things get this bad? Well, you could adopt the "American dream" and relax the already insane gun laws and just let everyone have one 24/7 everywhere they go, in fact, have small hand guns in maternity wards ready to dish out to newborn babies.

Or alternatively apply some common sense, if the teachers and indeed the dumb fat ass stupid parents are unable to instill some disciple in these kids, then its time to start employing ex US marines and bring in an element of boot camp into schools, hell wouldnt be a bad thing for some of these idiotic parents and teachers to be taught some harsh lessons.

Vladd and others always worry about the US financial status, the military deployments and the policies of the current and former presidents, there is a much bigger threat, the future generations, the future citizens of the US are in a real bad state, whilst to a degree this is occuring in other countries, its manifested vividly in the US.

[Vladd44]

Vladd and others always worry about the US financial status, the military deployments and the policies of the current and former presidents, there is a much bigger threat, the future generations, the future citizens of the US are in a real bad state, whilst to a degree this is occuring in other countries, its manifested vividly in the US.

Sounds a bit like empty rhetoric to me.

Car to expound on it for me?

[..Ñøßߥ..]

When you get to the situation where a governing body state, local or otherwise feel the time has come to allow weapons into schools you clearly have WAY bigger domestic problems that any financial issue. How long will it be before other areas follow suit, how long before teacher strike for the right to carry weapons into schools?

So if you fee my comments "empty rhetoric" please explain to me why these people feel the NEED to carry concealed weapons into school?

If the answer is what i think it is, then there is nothing empty abouy my comments and something hellishly serious about the social issues in the US.

[Vladd44]

When you get to the situation where a governing body state, local or otherwise feel the time has come to allow weapons into schools you clearly have WAY bigger domestic problems that any financial issue. How long will it be before other areas follow suit, how long before teacher strike for the right to carry weapons into schools?

As I said, empty rhetoric. While I consider the solution dubious, to make the choice of a literal handful of people a reflection upon 300 million people is ridiculous.

We are talking about a school district where 110 kids go to school. Not exactly a large town, a town that is not even incorporated. It happens to be near a busy highway, but at least 30 minutes away from the sheriff's office.

We are not exactly talking about a school in Compton or Harlem.

To propose that when a small isolated group of people in one of the most pro-gun states in the union decide to create a program that would allow teachers who have already been through the concealed weapon certification to take an additional "crisis management" course and then be allowed to carry their gun in a concealed private manner is somehow a reflection of a major "domestic issue" is absurd.

To then further imply this will snowball into a let's all bring our guns to school drive by teachers all over the US is not only silly, but a bit naive.

A somewhat unique set of circumstances has resulted in an isolated group of trustees coming up with a local solution.

I can think of a handful of examples in the US, Germany, FInland and even the UK where one individual with a gun could have caused a different result.

Can you tell me an armed teacher would not have made a difference at the Dunblane massacre? Doesn't at least part of you wish that had been the case that day?

I think your problem is typical European passivity that has been bred into you people.

If the answer is what i think it is, then there is nothing empty abouy my comments and something hellishly serious about the social issues in the US.

Far be it from me to imply that I do not think that there are serious social problems in the US, but I hardly think that this event is the reflection your typical european weak kneed reaction to guns is trying to make it seem.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

lol

It's not about being weak kneed infact i think i am more the hardliner than you will ever be, i just think that any society no matter how small, that feels a need to arm teachers in school are bordering on the insane.

If a kids goes nuts in a school with a firearm the answer according to you would be arm the teachers? Shoot back, blast that delusional kid into next week? I would think logic dictates that you need to deal with the root cause of the problem rather than always switching to the big gun theory. The root cause of the problems on the whole, is the current state of US society.

Im surprised Vladd, you're sounding a little more like a stero typical gun slinging yank than you have ever been before, in just a few short hours i find you supporting arming school teachers with guns and suggesting the US should go for direct military conflict with Russia, what next Vladd? Perhaps you will be launching a "V44 back Bush for re-election" campaign?

[Canada Joe]

The Asmat tribe of New guinea has the answer ... they eat the little * while their bones are still soft ..

[Vladd44]

Can you tell me an armed teacher would not have made a difference at the Dunblane massacre? Doesn't at least part of you wish that had been the case that day?

I noticed there was no attempt to answer this question.

If a kids goes nuts in a school with a firearm the answer according to you would be arm the teachers? Shoot back, blast that delusional kid into next week?

If a kid goes nuts in a school with a firearm...the answer is not arming teachers. It is to late for that, the correct answer is to meet it with appropriate force. Which most likely a bullet from someone's gun.

Or perhaps the hardliner ..Ñøßߥ.. would like to form a help group to talk about it to the gun rampaging student.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

Can you tell me an armed teacher would not have made a difference at the Dunblane massacre? Doesn't at least part of you wish that had been the case that day?

I noticed there was no attempt to answer this question.

Very well. Lets start with the facts:

On 13 March 1996, unemployed former shopkeeper and former Scout leader Thomas Watt Hamilton (born Thomas Watt 10 May 1952) walked into the school armed with two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolvers. He was carrying 743 cartridges, and fired 109 times. The subsequent police investigation revealed that Hamilton had loaded the magazines for his Browning with an alternating combination of full metal jacket and hollow point ammunition.

After gaining entry to the school, Hamilton made his way to the gymnasium and opened fire on a class of five- and six-year-olds, killing or wounding all but one person. Fifteen children and a teacher, Gwen Mayor, died at the scene. Hamilton then left the gymnasium through the emergency exit. In the playground outside he fired a number of shots into a mobile classroom. A teacher in the mobile classroom had previously realised that something was wrong and told the children to hide under the tables. Most of the bullets became embedded in books and equipment, though "one passed through a chair which seconds before had been used by a child."[1] He also fired at a group of children walking in a corridor, injuring one teacher. Hamilton went back into the gym and fired one shot with one of his two revolvers pointing upwards into his mouth, killing himself instantly. A further eleven children and three adults were rushed to the hospital as soon as the emergency services arrived; one of these children was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.

The teacher in the gym stood no chance, armed or not, the teacher would never have been expecting a gunman ready to shoot to walk into the gym. The teacher in the mobile classroom could potentially have fired back, would this have ended the attack? perhaps, or more likely it would have caused a firefight that would have seen many more bullets into that classroom. The teacher in the corridor was the one that got injured out of the whole group, why? well because its likely the gunman took out the largest target and the one that posed the only if minor threat.

The gunman then returned to the gym and killed himself, he was always prepared and planning to die, so there would have been no deterant factor even if he had known the teachers maybe armed.

So in answer to you question, i seriously doubt an armed teacher would have made any positive difference to the outcome of the tragedy, in fact it may have made things even worse.

I doubt there are many solutions that could have prevented this incident, but one things for sure, compared to the US the number of firearm/school related incidents in the UK are tiny, i wonder why that is?

Schools here have and continue to step up their security measures and protocols in a sensible manner, but i doubt there are any realistic measures that will prevent a heavily armed and determined lunatic entering a school as he did in Dunblane.

[Vladd44]

So in answer to you question, i seriously doubt an armed teacher would have made any positive difference to the outcome of the tragedy, in fact it may have made things even worse.

I find it laughable that you are essentially unwilling to admit that an armed civilian in the right place could have changed the event for the positive. Once again a reactionary anti-gun european mindset at work.

Schools here have and continue to step up their security measures and protocols in a sensible manner, but i doubt there are any realistic measures that will prevent a heavily armed and determined lunatic entering a school as he did in Dunblane.

I agree, but armed people could mitigate the damage sustain when a armed lunatic enters a school.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

So in answer to you question, i seriously doubt an armed teacher would have made any positive difference to the outcome of the tragedy, in fact it may have made things even worse.

I find it laughable that you are essentially unwilling to admit that an armed civilian in the right place could have changed the event for the positive. Once again a reactionary anti-gun european mindset at work.

Read the facts of the case carefully Vladd, the armed gunman came into contact with 3 teachers NONE of which were in any position to conduct an exchange of bullets. So i agree an armed civilian IN THE RIGHT PLACE "could" have change the event, but at Dunblane, there was no such person, your arguement is flawed. Perhaps we should arm the kids too?

As for the anti-gun European mindset, i am lucky to speak from a nation that has compared to the US a minor amount of gun deaths. Only a fool would draw the conclusion that the US gun laws do not play a large part in these figures.

Gun deaths per 100,000 population:

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA 3.98 5.92 0.36
England/Wales 0.15 0.2 0.03

[Vladd44]

Yeah and Global warming is caused by the reduction in Pirates over the past few hundred years.

global_warming_pirates.jpg (29.79 KiB) Viewed 372 times

No doubt if there were no guns there would be no gun related deaths, but to simply blame the exponential difference between US and European gun crimes on the availability of guns is a dishonest representation.

Our draconian prohibition laws are a major factor. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes in the USA are drug related. As with the last time we tried prohibition (alcohol) remove the absurd laws and violence will significantly decline.

Another factor is our prison system itself, by incarcerating people in such massive numbers for non violent crimes. They carry around the felon label creating an underclass with their ability to earn an income is damaged for life. This in turn creates a cycle or return trips to prison and the typical escalation of the seriousness of their crimes.

Take a look at the chart below, this is not only gun related deaths, but homicide in general. Blacks which account for around 14% of our population account for over 56% of our gun related homicides. I won't bother going into the factors that cause this disparity. But suffice it to say they range from societal problems in their community which result in a lack of male role models and poverty.

hbr.jpg (75.28 KiB) Viewed 374 times

Whites are actually more likely than blacks to own guns, but as you can see they are not nearly as likely to use it to kill someone. Blame economic differences or whatever you choose, it illustrates how gun ownership does not equate to more killing.

People engaging in risky behavior who own guns is the danger, do not simply blame the gun.

On an entirely unrelated note, I could not help but notice that whites are much more likely to poison someone (primarily but not exclusively female perpetrators). I will remember that the next time someone offers me something to eat or drink.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

I simply suggested that the US gun laws play a large part in the amount of gun crime, the figures don't lie, although i agree they dont give the whole picture. As you rightly point out, there are a number of social factors that clearly contribute to gun crime also, which brings as all the way back to my original post about dealing with the root cause of crime rather than arming teachers and any Tom, * or Harry in order to prevent more gun crime.

It also stands to reason that if guns are much tougher for criminals to attain, there will be less criminals with guns and therefore less gun crime. I accept that the more determined drug dealers and hardened criminals will always get guns if they wish, the lesser criminals and all the idiots that kill themselves or others by accident, would not.

Now, why dont you ask SG to check your life insurance and then bake you a nice Piiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Vladd44]

As you rightly point out, there are a number of social factors that clearly contribute to gun crime also, which brings as all the way back to my original post about dealing with the root cause of crime rather than arming teachers and any Tom, * or Harry in order to prevent more gun crime.

And you continue to build a case on faulty presumptions.

The district in question is not trying to defend against gang bangers from the big booming metropolis of Harrold. But it is an effort to protect against the random individual with some screws loose...and a gun. So dealing with Leroy and his drug dealing buddy Tyrone is not the issue in this case.

In this isolated town with limited access to police protection (remember 30 minute drive to the sheriff's office) their goal is to have people around to mitigate one's ability to run unchecked through the school.

As far as dealing with the "root cause" (I believe you forgot to pluralize btw) once again your thinking is flawed. How do you change the mindset of a group of people who raise their children with a mindset of presupposed defeat? Or force them to stop having children they cannot afford?

Money has been thrown at this problem since LBJ's "war on poverty" but the issue has only gotten worse. Instead of correcting the problem in many ways it has made things worse. I have some ideas, but the world takes such a dim view to genocide these days.

It also stands to reason that if guns are much tougher for criminals to attain, there will be less criminals with guns and therefore less gun crime.

And how exactly do you achieve this? You yourself point out the weakness with this idea in the same paragraph.

I accept that the more determined drug dealers and hardened criminals will always get guns if they wish

and all the idiots that kill themselves or others by accident, would not.

I am glad you wish to take such draconian efforts to protect the 649 people who died of accidental gun related discharge in 2004. Accidental death due to guns has continued to decline since the 1930's even with the population and and gun ownership at all-time highs.

Also considering that around 100,000 people a year die of an accidental death per year in the US, I am glad you are all about fixing the 650 portion of that problem.

You also should consider that over 50% of the US gun related deaths are suicide. Unless you wish to eliminate windows, bridges, pills, multi-story buildings................. I think you should reconsider your views. I do not think that you can honestly look at the issue without realizing that someone wishing to die will find a way.

If I recall you are in support of the one thing that could almost instantly reduce violence in urban areas (where the real stats get ugly), ending drug prohibition.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

The district in question is not trying to defend against gang bangers from the big booming metropolis of Harrold. But it is an effort to protect against the random individual with some screws loose...and a gun. So dealing with Leroy and his drug dealing buddy Tyrone is not the issue in this case.

In this isolated town with limited access to police protection (remember 30 minute drive to the sheriff's office) their goal is to have people around to mitigate one's ability to run unchecked through the school.

And you gave Dunblane as an example of this, yet the facts of the case show that arming those teachers would have made little or no positive difference and in fact may have caused more deaths. If you were intent on providing an armed security guard for this school, then fine, train and arm the Janitor, someone who is less likely going to be surrounded by kids at the time of any incident. Causing a fire fight around school children is madness, end of.

Vladd, please explain to me why you think that homocides with Guns are 27 times higher in the US than England? Are you seriously going to tell me this has nothing to do with gun laws at all?

Whilst i think the US gun laws massively contribute to deaths, crime and other social problems in the US i also accept its not going to be possible to ban guns in the US. I am merely using this example to show where the gun mentality is flawed, the very thought that in order to protect kids from a gunman you should arm teachers is flawed, there are better ways to approach this simple as that.

The original comments you posts (not yours i understand) were also calling for students to be armed, and this is a further indication of how crazy the US is becoming with its "ive got a more or bigger guns than you" mentality, a mentality that is likely to see a dangerous esculation in international tensions also.

With regards to my thoughts on drug law, if you recall, we both contributed to a thread on this a long time ago, from memory, i was a little stuck on the fence, as i could see the benifits of your proposal to legalise drugs, but was torn by more traditional thoughts. I have listened to much debait on this topic since, and whilst its still a hugely tough call, i would say if we are to go down the route of drug legalization where better to start than in the USA, for 3 reasons:

#1 they have a huge nationwide problem so it would make a good test bed

#2 social problems in the US can't get much worse in some areas, so who will notice if it goes wrong?

#3 its a long way from here

[April]

Unlike the UK, our civilian population has a constitutional right to own a gun...and for a damn good reason.

The fighters of the first American Revolution made sure that history could repeat itself, if the need arose.

Our founding forefathers knew it was essential to our country's survival and for the preservation of freedom that the civilian population be armed and ready to defend themselves against the government, should it ever get to the point where their constitutional rights were at risk.

We, The People, the rightful owners of this country, have the right to band together, armed to the teeth, with the purpose of overthrowing the government and restoring freedom as the constitution has it defined.

When that right to own a gun is taken away, we are at the full mercy of our government with no way to defend our rights and protect our freedoms. Unarmed, revolution is impossible. Unarmed, tyranny is.

While I personally am a peace loving person, and would never consider owning a gun, I have a great respect for the reasons why I can, if I wanted to.

Now that school...

There is a better way to handle the situation. They could do what my town did, at our high school. Install a mini police precent within the school and supply a few armed uniformed officers to man it and patrol the school. I think that should have been the step they took, instead of arming teachers.

People are entitled to certain community services, law enforcement being one of them, and it is vital for those services to be available to all, especially since the community is paying for it with their tax dollars. Placing officers at the school would go a long way to making sure of that, rather than just passing some law that says to teachers "We won't give you the vital community service of law enforcement, that your tax dollars is paying for, and you will now have to do that job yourself. Go buy a gun."

That's not a sign of them taking their job of law enforcement and protecting the community, very seriously.

If I was a teacher in that school I would quit, or go on strike until officers were placed at the school. If I were a parent, I'd keep my kids home until it happened, or move and sue whoever is responsible for this new gun law AND the ones neglecting to supplying law enforcement services, to cover the cost of any and all moving related expenses.

My small (3 sq mi) town has a few mini police precents set up, most of them being trailers in areas where a need for extra security has been shown. There is even one in the K-Mart parking lot, because of a high rate of robberies and rapes in that area at night, and stolen cars during the day. Having it there reduced the crime rate, drastically.

If my small town can do this, they can too.

[bincoder]

I like widespread gun ownership, makes those tax based expenses a little less if the victims are heavily armed.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

Unlike the UK, our civilian population has a constitutional right to own a gun...and for a damn good reason.

I understand and acknowledge the reason, but that doest change the fact gun related homocide is 27 times higher there than here, the gun laws MUST have something to do with that, its common sense.

Now that school...

There is a better way to handle the situation. They could do what my town did, at our high school. Install a mini police precent within the school and supply a few armed uniformed officers to man it and patrol the school. I think that should have been the step they took, instead of arming teachers.

If I was a teacher in that school I would quit, or go on strike until officers were placed at the school. If I were a parent, I'd keep my kids home until it happened, or move and sue whoever is responsible for this new gun law AND the ones neglecting to supplying law enforcement services, to cover the cost of any and all moving related expenses.

If my small town can do this, they can too.

You see Vladd? there are Americans that can apply common sense, nice one April, i totally agree with you. Arming teachers is a dumb idea, arming students is even dumber, a mini arm of the local law enforcement is a sensible and logical approach.

[Vladd44]

You see Vladd? there are Americans that can apply common sense, nice one April, i totally agree with you. Arming teachers is a dumb idea, arming students is even dumber, a mini arm of the local law enforcement is a sensible and logical approach.

If you go read my original post I am not convinced it is a great idea either.

On the other hand, comparing a "small (3 sq mi) town" that could be walked across in 45 minutes with a town that the sheriff's office is at least 17 miles from the school isn't much of a comparison.

With a population of 320 people in 2000, I doubt the budget has much room for a substation or precinct at the local K-Mart that I doubt they even have.

State or county law enforcement that could take up some of the slack, but that would be a matter beyond the ability of the Harrold ISD to control or force.

[April]

There is something here that is a bit unclear to me. Vladd, you would probably know the answer better than anyone else around here...

In New Jersey, the term "sherriff" is used exclusively to refer to county police. You would be correct in assuming that if a town here was relying on the nearest sherriff's office to supply all their law enforcement needs, then that town has no law enforcement of their own.

Is this the case with Texas too? Does the term "sherriff" exclusively refer to county and not local?

[Vladd44]

The "city" of Harrold is unincorporated. There is no city law enforcement.

On a slightly unrelated note, The Harrold Independent School District actually has more students brought in from outside. Resulting in the majority of parents having no direct representation in the ISD.

[April]

The "city" of Harrold is unincorporated. There is no city law enforcement.

I started thinking about something yesterday when I asked that question...

I started thinking about another vital community service...firefighters...and how various towns and cities provide them.

In a major city, the firefighters are usually professionals. This is what they do for a living. They get paid for it. And those cities can afford to pay them.

But in many small towns, they can't afford to pay a professional firefighter to sit in a station all day waiting for a fire to break out somewhere. So what do they do? They have volunteer firefighters that go through training & certification (usually at their own expense), that volunteer their time to do this job for their community. They don't get paid for it. They still have day jobs. They are often on call, and may have to leave their day job to go fight a fire, if the need arrises.

What if a community couldn't afford law enforcement and couldn't afford to pay professional police officers to sit around in a station or squad car all day waiting for a crime to happen? What if they couldn't even afford to build a station or buy a squad car?

What if they tried the same thing, by asking members of their community to go through some sort of training & certification (at their own expense) and carry a gun, and do the job without getting paid for it, while keeping their day jobs? Just like volunteer firefighters...a volunteer police force.

What if some of those that responded were teachers and would be on call in case a crime occurred, and would be required to be armed with a gun at all times, just like professional police officers are required to do?

They would be in the school, armed with a gun, trained, and would most likely have to act as local law inforcement if anything happened at that school.

Would this be that much different? How would you feel about it?