Which you aren't going to get with a sign that says "no guns."
You're right, you aren't. Just like a sign that says "no parking" doesn't mean you won't get people parking there. But the sign isn't there to stop everyone, the sign is there to tell you "it's not allowed and if we find out, you will be punished."
They don't need to be.
Yeah... they kinda do. Police protect civillians from those who break the law. They don't even punish law breakers, they just stop them. The judges and courts punish them. So when you say "Teacher, your job is to stop students from breaking the law but only when it comes to murder" well... it's still "stop law breakers" thus, cops.
And on top of grading papers, learning the new curriculum (if your state changed shit) and managing 30+ students.... you have to run into an active shooting situation and hope you hit the right person who is likely gonna fire back.
I beg to differ. Most "shooting unarmed people" incidents are justified. But leaving that aside, there really isn't much question when you hear multiple shots being fired whether or not you should shoot.
Right.
Like when cops shot an 11 year old who had a toy.
Or the most recent, cops shot a man who had a cell phone in his hand. (shot him like 20 times) then stood around for 10-20 min. demanding he show his hands cause they couldn't see it over the tall grass and were too chicken shit to walk up to him.
Most cops go through their entire careers without ever shooting someone yet you want only them to respond in an active shooter incident?
I'll take a guy who literally signed up for the job to shoot others if needed over a guy who signed up to teach math. Different mindset. The math teacher didn't go into teaching because he wants to save people, stop criminals, and do a dangerous job. He went in to help students learn, and become better. Or because they like summer break. Whatever the reason, I can assure you: The reasons to become a teacher are not the same as the reasons to become a police officer.
Clearing tactics and moving as a group isn't really that hard to learn. If suppose the shooter shoots one of the armed teachers, then the other teachers who are armed will be alerted and hold in place that gives him the best ambush angle. Also I don't want to force anyone to carry. If they want to then they should be able. If you already want to be armed then you already have the mindset of learning how to defend yourself and your students.
1. "group" tactics and moving requires coordination. Mr. Stammens is in room 201 but Mr. Gaze is in the gym, on the other side of the building. How the hell are they going to coordinate? And who in their right god damn mind is gonna leave their students in a room alone?
2. If you don't force, you can't guarentee "group" tactics.
3. What's the difference between a teacher with a gun, looking for the shooter and a shooter with a gun? Nothing. Absolultely nothing. And if you think shooting an unarmed guy because he might have been holding a gun is justifiable, imagine what shooting an armed teacher with his gun out is gonna look like.
Again, it's far better than what happened in Parkland. And there are active shooter courses for civilians available.
Yes. Or we can just station an officer in each school. Done. No need for teachers, who TEACH, to go on a hunt for an active shooter. The parkland guy never went in. He was either afraid or got the wrong info. And he KNEW he might have to get shot at one day. He had the training. Why would a teacher be better than a police officer?
They actually are already. We have lesd mass shootings now than what we had 20 years ago.
>_>
20 years ago was 1998.
Hold on, let me pull up the mass shootings in 1998.
(via wikipedia)
1998 - 4 (total)
2018 - 3 (so far)
1999 - 6
2017 - 18
Feel free to show me some other data because you reeally need to back up your claim.