We had a long discussion about this and today the Governor of Florida signed The bill.
"The measure allows school districts to opt-in to the program. It is not a requirement for teachers or districts, CNN affiliate WFOR reported. Teachers from districts that choose to participate will have to undergo police-style training, psychiatric evaluation and drug screening. "
…and here we go!!!
I would think drug testing and possibly psych eval should be done with teachers anyway?
In the old days the strap was enough to keep the kids orderly. Can’t wait until some distraught teacher goes on a shooting rage.
Alright you kids sit down now.
I mean now!
And be quiet!
Don’t make me take out the 9 mil!
If my 14-year old daughter went to that school, I would pull her out tomorrow.
Just sayin.
Why?
**Why? **
First, because I have the right to decide that I don’t want my child around people carrying guns.
Second, because I believe when people carry guns, it could lead to any argument escalating into something more violent. If a teacher got into a fight with another teacher or heated argument with a student, instead of a potential punch being thrown, the easy thing to do would be to pull a gun.
Third, people who come armed into a school to kill, aren’t going to care if a teacher is armed. I keep hearing how it’s not about guns but cases of mental problems so if they are deranged, why would they suddenly be sane enough to decide not to go to a school where teachers carry guns?
Having kids grow up seeing teachers resort to carrying a gun to solve violence problems is not something my child is going to learn.
**Why? **
First, because I have the right to decide that I don’t want my child around people carrying guns.
Second, because I believe when people carry guns, it could lead to any argument escalating into something more violent. If a teacher got into a fight with another teacher or heated argument with a student, instead of a potential punch being thrown, the easy thing to do would be to pull a gun.
Third, people who come armed into a school to kill, aren’t going to care if a teacher is armed. I keep hearing how it’s not about guns but cases of mental problems so if they are deranged, why would they suddenly be sane enough to decide not to go to a school where teachers carry guns?
Having kids grow up seeing teachers resort to carrying a gun to solve violence problems is not something my child is going to learn.
Very well said.
OK. Are you anti-gun or do you think we should all be able to buy and sell whatever gun(s) we want? Or a little from column a and a little from column b?
**OK. Are you anti-gun or do you think we should all be able to buy and sell whatever gun(s) we want? Or a little from column a and a little from column b? **
I have no problems with people owning guns but there should be restrictions on the type of weapon individuals can buy and the number of weapons. The idea that reasonable controls infringe on personal freedom is nonsense. People claim they want the freedom to bear arms but don’t seem nearly as offended when there are rules and laws to follow in obtaining a driver’s license and having government control how fast you can drive. There’s also barely a peep when the government tells you what countries you can visit and the ones you can’t.
You have the right to bear arms in your constitution and that is important to many people there. Americans in general seem okay with the number of guns sold and the number of people that are allowed to carry concealed weapons. Now many support teachers arming themselves so you have to live with the consequences, which may be good and may be bad. It’s a different world from where I live and I want no part of that so it just makes me more thankful that I don’t have to live in a city or province that allows teachers to carry guns.
What could possibly go wrong with this … ?
drn92
**OK. Are you anti-gun or do you think we should all be able to buy and sell whatever gun(s) we want? Or a little from column a and a little from column b? **
I have no problems with people owning guns but there should be restrictions on the type of weapon individuals can buy and the number of weapons. The idea that reasonable controls infringe on personal freedom is nonsense. People claim they want the freedom to bear arms but don’t seem nearly as offended when there are rules and laws to follow in obtaining a driver’s license and having government control how fast you can drive. There’s also barely a peep when the government tells you what countries you can visit and the ones you can’t.
You have the right to bear arms in your constitution and that is important to many people there. Americans in general seem okay with the number of guns sold and the number of people that are allowed to carry concealed weapons. Now many support teachers arming themselves so you have to live with the consequences, which may be good and may be bad. It’s a different world from where I live and I want no part of that so it just makes me more thankful that I don’t have to live in a city or province that allows teachers to carry guns.
There’s no constitutional amendment guaranteeing drivers license or speed limit.
**There’s no constitutional amendment guaranteeing drivers license or speed limit. **
It took 13 posts to read that this time, usually it’s in the first couple.
I never said it was in the constitution. My point is that one of the often repeated arguments in support of gun rights is that people want the freedom to arm themselves. Nothing wrong with that but there are lots of examples where people seem perfectly fine with government taking away freedoms. I’ve never seen people get really angry over travel bans for example which is the government telling you where you can go, or speed limits with the government telling you how fast you can drive etc.
I think the argument that it’s in the constitution is not consistent because if was, people would know every detail of the document and adhere to every single word. If I asked 100 people to list the constitutional amendments, or who wrote the constitution or any other details, my bet is that a small fraction would know the answers which is odd because when it comes to the 2A, it’s the most important document in their lives.
I think people like guns and they believe guns keep them and their families safe. If people believe that then they should have every right to own a gun and I’ve never said people can’t do that. I just don’t believe it and don’t want my child thinking that guns keep people safe when I don’t think they do. I also don’t want to get into another long debate about guns. Suffice it to say if my child was in a school where teachers armed themselves, she would be pulled out of school.
**OK. Are you anti-gun or do you think we should all be able to buy and sell whatever gun(s) we want? Or a little from column a and a little from column b? **
I have no problems with people owning guns but there should be restrictions on the type of weapon individuals can buy and the number of weapons. The idea that reasonable controls infringe on personal freedom is nonsense. People claim they want the freedom to bear arms but don’t seem nearly as offended when there are rules and laws to follow in obtaining a driver’s license and having government control how fast you can drive. There’s also barely a peep when the government tells you what countries you can visit and the ones you can’t.
You have the right to bear arms in your constitution and that is important to many people there. Americans in general seem okay with the number of guns sold and the number of people that are allowed to carry concealed weapons. Now many support teachers arming themselves so you have to live with the consequences, which may be good and may be bad. It’s a different world from where I live and I want no part of that so it just makes me more thankful that I don’t have to live in a city or province that allows teachers to carry guns.
There’s no constitutional amendment guaranteeing drivers license or speed limit.
You can’t yell “FIRE” in a movie theater, doesn’t that infringe on my free speech?
In the old days the strap was enough to keep the kids orderly. Can’t wait until some distraught teacher goes on a shooting rage.
What’s to stop that from happening now where the program isn’t in place?
The real concern is sloppy storage and dangerous deployment. Those can’t be entirely mitigated by proper training and screening.
So, a new interesting question today: If a teacher participates in this program and has a gun, will they now face criminal or civil liability if they choose not to engage in an active shooter situation? (The Parkland Florida do-nothing deputy was arrested and charged recently.)
Only if their contract mandates it, as was the case with the indicted officer. I can’t imagine that being the case. No sane teacher would sign up for that, nor would a school district mandate it as a condition of employment.
This is still the craziest thing. I mean it just makes no sense. This is in response to the Parkland shootings, where there was an trained and armed officer that was unable to stop it. How do you look at that situation and go, “I know how to prevent this in the future, lets give less trained people guns.” How do you possibly come to conclusion?
In the old days the strap was enough to keep the kids orderly. Can’t wait until some distraught teacher goes on a shooting rage.
What’s to stop that from happening now where the program isn’t in place?
The real concern is sloppy storage and dangerous deployment. Those can’t be entirely mitigated by proper training and screening.
Just imagine that a teacher hears guns shots, grabs their gun and starts going towards that noise. There are kids running in fear, adrenaline is pumping, what are the odds that this minimally trained person shoots the wrong kid? What happens then?