Female shooter at Nashville Christian school

49,444 Views | 669 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Doc Holliday
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

ATL Bear said:

Guns in the hands of the mentally unstable has always been a recipe for disaster. Too bad we can't have honest discussions about the mental health issues of transgenderism.


In state after state in the south, we are are removing background checks.


can you give an example of this? I was not aware that anyone was removing background checks.


You're absolutely right. The states are NOT reducing background checks. They're losing carry restrictions.
bearsocal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

ShooterTX said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

ATL Bear said:

Guns in the hands of the mentally unstable has always been a recipe for disaster. Too bad we can't have honest discussions about the mental health issues of transgenderism.


In state after state in the south, we are are removing background checks.


can you give an example of this? I was not aware that anyone was removing background checks.


You're absolutely right. The states are reducing background checks. They're losing carry restrictions.


Repeating it doesn't make it true. Please cite your evidence.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearsocal said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

ShooterTX said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

ATL Bear said:

Guns in the hands of the mentally unstable has always been a recipe for disaster. Too bad we can't have honest discussions about the mental health issues of transgenderism.


In state after state in the south, we are are removing background checks.


can you give an example of this? I was not aware that anyone was removing background checks.


You're absolutely right. The states are NOT reducing background checks. They're losing carry restrictions.


Repeating it doesn't make it true. Please cite your evidence.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ron.reagan said:

ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

ron.reagan said:

cowboycwr said:

Doc Holliday said:

cms186 said:

cowboycwr said:

cms186 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

cms186 said:

bearsocal said:

cms186 said:

chriscbear said:

More gun control needed obviously.
no, you're right, im sure your thoughts and prayers will be enough
What purposed gun control measure would have stopped this?
Well the details on this particular incident aren't even known yet, so knowing what would have stopped "this" isnt possible
Mexico has the strictest gun control laws in all of the world. Their country of 126 million people had a total of 30,968 homicides in 2022. The United States, made up of 327 million people, had 26,031 homicides in 2022.

Strict gun control laws only embolden the criminals and leave citizens much more vulnerable to violent crime.
Mexico has strict Gun Laws (though there are still an estimated 15 guns per 100 people in Mexico, which is about average compared to most other countries in the world, the ONLY country in the world with more than 40 guns per 100 people in population is the USA), sure, and a poorly combatted problem with organised crime, what about ALL the other countries with strict gun control laws, like Australia, Singapore, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, China etc.?
False- there are other countries with over 40 per 100 people. But don't let facts ruin your talking points.

china.... you really want to list China for gun control laws when they are the BIGGEST violator of human rights in the world and are in an active government sponsored genocide....
Sorry, you are (semi) correct, there is one other country other 40, Yemen

Yes they are and if we were talking about Human rights or State sponsored Genocide, then you might have a point, but we arent
I don't think you understand how deplorable people in the US are.



If you did this in a major city in the US, there would be fighting or even bloodshed over the money. Japan has horrible living wages and labor and they still don't tear each other apart.
We can learn a lot from Japan. Like how during the WBC a home run ball was passed around the crowd for people to take pictures with it and returned to the person who caught it. Or how their crowd cleans up the stadium after a world cup match or Olympic event (even areas they were not sitting in or even how their kids spend part of the day cleaning their own schools.
Maybe they got all the bad out in those few decades of committing the worst atrocities in human history
Yep.

The Nanjing massacre is literally THE WORST atrocity committed by mankind.
Horrific, but not even top 5 maybe even 10.
If consider what they did to China, Korea, and the Philippines it doesn't get any worse. There isn't as much proof but Philippines might have had it the worse as they were stuck between Japan causing as much psychological harm to the population as they possibly could and the US military trying to make a statement.
It gets worse. Read up on Tamerlane and Isfahan or Delhi. He and Genghis Khan could probably have their own "top 10 worst atrocities in all of mankind" themselves. That does not mean this wasn't a horrific atrocity. In fact the Japanese treatment of POWs was as cruel as anyone in the 19th or 20th century.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

ATL Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

ron.reagan said:

cowboycwr said:

Doc Holliday said:

cms186 said:

cowboycwr said:

cms186 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

cms186 said:

bearsocal said:

cms186 said:

chriscbear said:

More gun control needed obviously.
no, you're right, im sure your thoughts and prayers will be enough
What purposed gun control measure would have stopped this?
Well the details on this particular incident aren't even known yet, so knowing what would have stopped "this" isnt possible
Mexico has the strictest gun control laws in all of the world. Their country of 126 million people had a total of 30,968 homicides in 2022. The United States, made up of 327 million people, had 26,031 homicides in 2022.

Strict gun control laws only embolden the criminals and leave citizens much more vulnerable to violent crime.
Mexico has strict Gun Laws (though there are still an estimated 15 guns per 100 people in Mexico, which is about average compared to most other countries in the world, the ONLY country in the world with more than 40 guns per 100 people in population is the USA), sure, and a poorly combatted problem with organised crime, what about ALL the other countries with strict gun control laws, like Australia, Singapore, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, China etc.?
False- there are other countries with over 40 per 100 people. But don't let facts ruin your talking points.

china.... you really want to list China for gun control laws when they are the BIGGEST violator of human rights in the world and are in an active government sponsored genocide....
Sorry, you are (semi) correct, there is one other country other 40, Yemen

Yes they are and if we were talking about Human rights or State sponsored Genocide, then you might have a point, but we arent
I don't think you understand how deplorable people in the US are.



If you did this in a major city in the US, there would be fighting or even bloodshed over the money. Japan has horrible living wages and labor and they still don't tear each other apart.
We can learn a lot from Japan. Like how during the WBC a home run ball was passed around the crowd for people to take pictures with it and returned to the person who caught it. Or how their crowd cleans up the stadium after a world cup match or Olympic event (even areas they were not sitting in or even how their kids spend part of the day cleaning their own schools.
Maybe they got all the bad out in those few decades of committing the worst atrocities in human history
Yep.

The Nanjing massacre is literally THE WORST atrocity committed by mankind.
Horrific, but not even top 5 maybe even 10.
Can we just agree that was abhorrent to all decency and absolutely inhuman?

Let's leave rankings for Sports and Rock Albums.
You'll get no disagreement on the abhorrent nature of this. Unconscionable how the Japanese acted during the war. He just said it was "literally the worst in the history of mankind" and I was just trying to give some perspective. History shows us that human cruelty has no boundaries.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

riflebear said:

This is a tough subject because I bet some wouldn't go to therapy or be honest if they knew they couldn't buy Guns or be put on a no buy list.

It's still shocking that people/parents want to help 12-15 yr olds transition. What a cluster we are creating.



We are creating exactly what we were told we would become:

Quote:

in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof

2 Timothy 3:3

Welcome to the Middle Ages.
Have you ever stopped and asked yourself: How, in the year 2023, did humans begin to debate propositions like "Can men become women?" How can a society that invents vaccines and sends vehicles to other planets start to doubt the sexual dimorphism of humanity? Or begin to wonder whether our children were routinely "born into the wrong bodies"?
How did these questions not just arise, but seize the cultural heights, become the day-to-day obsession of all opinion-formers and tastemakers? How could anyone take seriously the "scholarship" that purports to find support for modern transgender equality in the life of Roman emperor and sex degenerate Elagabalus?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/a-heresy-for-our-times/
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ron.reagan said:

cowboycwr said:

Doc Holliday said:

cms186 said:

cowboycwr said:

cms186 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

cms186 said:

bearsocal said:

cms186 said:

chriscbear said:

More gun control needed obviously.
no, you're right, im sure your thoughts and prayers will be enough
What purposed gun control measure would have stopped this?
Well the details on this particular incident aren't even known yet, so knowing what would have stopped "this" isnt possible
Mexico has the strictest gun control laws in all of the world. Their country of 126 million people had a total of 30,968 homicides in 2022. The United States, made up of 327 million people, had 26,031 homicides in 2022.

Strict gun control laws only embolden the criminals and leave citizens much more vulnerable to violent crime.
Mexico has strict Gun Laws (though there are still an estimated 15 guns per 100 people in Mexico, which is about average compared to most other countries in the world, the ONLY country in the world with more than 40 guns per 100 people in population is the USA), sure, and a poorly combatted problem with organised crime, what about ALL the other countries with strict gun control laws, like Australia, Singapore, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, China etc.?
False- there are other countries with over 40 per 100 people. But don't let facts ruin your talking points.

china.... you really want to list China for gun control laws when they are the BIGGEST violator of human rights in the world and are in an active government sponsored genocide....
Sorry, you are (semi) correct, there is one other country other 40, Yemen

Yes they are and if we were talking about Human rights or State sponsored Genocide, then you might have a point, but we arent
I don't think you understand how deplorable people in the US are.



If you did this in a major city in the US, there would be fighting or even bloodshed over the money. Japan has horrible living wages and labor and they still don't tear each other apart.
We can learn a lot from Japan. Like how during the WBC a home run ball was passed around the crowd for people to take pictures with it and returned to the person who caught it. Or how their crowd cleans up the stadium after a world cup match or Olympic event (even areas they were not sitting in or even how their kids spend part of the day cleaning their own schools.
Maybe they got all the bad out in those few decades of committing the worst atrocities in human history
Not likely since they are still committing atrocities and genocide.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cms186 said:

cowboycwr said:

cms186 said:

cowboycwr said:

cms186 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

cms186 said:

bearsocal said:

cms186 said:

chriscbear said:

More gun control needed obviously.
no, you're right, im sure your thoughts and prayers will be enough
What purposed gun control measure would have stopped this?
Well the details on this particular incident aren't even known yet, so knowing what would have stopped "this" isnt possible
Mexico has the strictest gun control laws in all of the world. Their country of 126 million people had a total of 30,968 homicides in 2022. The United States, made up of 327 million people, had 26,031 homicides in 2022.

Strict gun control laws only embolden the criminals and leave citizens much more vulnerable to violent crime.
Mexico has strict Gun Laws (though there are still an estimated 15 guns per 100 people in Mexico, which is about average compared to most other countries in the world, the ONLY country in the world with more than 40 guns per 100 people in population is the USA), sure, and a poorly combatted problem with organised crime, what about ALL the other countries with strict gun control laws, like Australia, Singapore, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, China etc.?
False- there are other countries with over 40 per 100 people. But don't let facts ruin your talking points.

china.... you really want to list China for gun control laws when they are the BIGGEST violator of human rights in the world and are in an active government sponsored genocide....
Sorry, you are (semi) correct, there is one other country other 40, Yemen

Yes they are and if we were talking about Human rights or State sponsored Genocide, then you might have a point, but we arent
Still wrong. There are others.

And the point is that you cannot talk about the lack of gun crime in a country that forcibly took guns away from their citizens and then sends in the military to execute people at will, jail anyone who speaks out or pretend that their lack of gun crime somehow proves gun laws work.
there aren't, the Falklands and New Caledonia are part of the UK and France respectively, they are not individual countries, the next highest is Serbia and Montenegro, who both lie at just under 40, even if i am wrong, the USA has more than double the amount of any other country in the world, you are the only country in the world where the amount of Civilian owned firearms exceeds the number of civilians.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country

https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/database/global-firearms-holdings

You can quibble all you like, but any developed country that has strict Gun Laws, doesnt have a major problem with Gun Crime
And you don't live here so we don't care about your opinion.

You are wrong.

It isn't quibbling. It is providing facts which you do not seem to like.

And you lie yet again. There are several other developed countries that have gun issues- it just is covered up by being labeled as cartel crime, organized crime, "warring factions" or other cheap ways to not label it as a gun crime.

And the countries that don't are either populations the fraction of the US, an island or don't have long unprotected/unfenced borders like the US so they don't compare to the US at all.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cms186 said:

Doc Holliday said:

ron.reagan said:

cowboycwr said:

Doc Holliday said:

cms186 said:

cowboycwr said:

cms186 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

cms186 said:

bearsocal said:

cms186 said:

chriscbear said:

More gun control needed obviously.
no, you're right, im sure your thoughts and prayers will be enough
What purposed gun control measure would have stopped this?
Well the details on this particular incident aren't even known yet, so knowing what would have stopped "this" isnt possible
Mexico has the strictest gun control laws in all of the world. Their country of 126 million people had a total of 30,968 homicides in 2022. The United States, made up of 327 million people, had 26,031 homicides in 2022.

Strict gun control laws only embolden the criminals and leave citizens much more vulnerable to violent crime.
Mexico has strict Gun Laws (though there are still an estimated 15 guns per 100 people in Mexico, which is about average compared to most other countries in the world, the ONLY country in the world with more than 40 guns per 100 people in population is the USA), sure, and a poorly combatted problem with organised crime, what about ALL the other countries with strict gun control laws, like Australia, Singapore, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, China etc.?
False- there are other countries with over 40 per 100 people. But don't let facts ruin your talking points.

china.... you really want to list China for gun control laws when they are the BIGGEST violator of human rights in the world and are in an active government sponsored genocide....
Sorry, you are (semi) correct, there is one other country other 40, Yemen

Yes they are and if we were talking about Human rights or State sponsored Genocide, then you might have a point, but we arent
I don't think you understand how deplorable people in the US are.



If you did this in a major city in the US, there would be fighting or even bloodshed over the money. Japan has horrible living wages and labor and they still don't tear each other apart.
We can learn a lot from Japan. Like how during the WBC a home run ball was passed around the crowd for people to take pictures with it and returned to the person who caught it. Or how their crowd cleans up the stadium after a world cup match or Olympic event (even areas they were not sitting in or even how their kids spend part of the day cleaning their own schools.
Maybe they got all the bad out in those few decades of committing the worst atrocities in human history
Yep.

The Nanjing massacre is literally THE WORST atrocity committed by mankind.
really? I mean, theres a **** load of competition for that unwanted title, the Nanjing Massacre saw 2-300k people killed, along with rape and pillaging, the purging by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia saw 2 million, there the obvious example of the Holocaust with an approx 6 million deaths (or indeed the Nazi genocides against occupied Poland and Soviet Union, which, whilst less well known than the victims of the Holocaust, still saw a combined number of Deaths of around 5 million people)
I would think it would classify as the worst because of the large number killed in a short span of time. The others you mentioned happen over years while Nanjing was in about a 6 week period.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
redfish961 said:

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Swanni said:

muddybrazos said:

SIC EM 94 said:

So a transgender freak murders adults and children at a Christian school…are we allowed to bring up "hate crime" or no? Just curious


This is absolutely a hate crime and should be treated no different than if this was a Jewish synagogue that was shot up. Instead the left ecourages this behavior and there will be no tweet from the ADL condemning this terrorism bc they hate Christians.
Don't usually respond to this type of thinking but you're an idiot for saying that the left encourages violence. I'm a Christian and sometimes on the left. I neither encourage violence nor the idiocy of this sort of thing. What were you thinking to post this ? Read a book. Don't just watch Fox. Educate yourself beyond the far right BS. You'll like yourself for it n
So you are saying that video of them encouraging violence is what made up?
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Swanni said:

Wangchung said:

Swanni said:

muddybrazos said:

SIC EM 94 said:

So a transgender freak murders adults and children at a Christian school…are we allowed to bring up "hate crime" or no? Just curious


This is absolutely a hate crime and should be treated no different than if this was a Jewish synagogue that was shot up. Instead the left ecourages this behavior and there will be no tweet from the ADL condemning this terrorism bc they hate Christians.
Don't usually respond to this type of thinking but you're an idiot for saying that the left encourages violence. I'm a Christian and sometimes on the left. I neither encourage violence nor the idiocy of this sort of thing. What were you thinking to post this ? Read a book. Don't just watch Fox. Educate yourself beyond the far right BS. You'll like yourself for it n
If you vote Democrat then you damned sure do empower people who incite violence through their rhetoric. You might identify as a non-violent Christian but your votes for Democrats says otherwise.
Like Trump empowered the January 6th invasion. Oops, he's a Repub and therefore not capable of violence or encouraging it. I've voted for both parties. Can you say the same? Do you watch anything besides Fox who is being sued for 1.6 Billion for overt defamation? Do you read? Do you even read more than one newspaper? Educate yourself. It's a good thing. There are good right wing thoughts and good left wing things. Oh the evil of not allowing an ASSAULT weapon is repulsive to you. If you need 30 rounds plus to hit anything; you're just a really bad shot. Don't believe anyone should Wangchung tonight. Blocking you so won't be involved in your senseless dialogue.
So what fox is being sued???? So were CNN, MSNBC and many others for defamation with that smiling kid, kyle rittenhouse, etc.

All media outlets get sued. It doesn't mean much these days.

There is NO such thing as an assault weapon. It isn't about needing 30 rounds. It is that the CONSTITUTION says I can have it. Do people NEED multiple homes? DO they NEED millions of dollars?

You say he should educate himself when clearly it is you who needs to get educated as you spew left wing talking points.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

redfish961 said:

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
big pharma + woke left == deadly combination.

- KKM

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating oreos }
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?


cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

redfish961 said:

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

redfish961 said:

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....
If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Swanni said:

muddybrazos said:

SIC EM 94 said:

So a transgender freak murders adults and children at a Christian school…are we allowed to bring up "hate crime" or no? Just curious


This is absolutely a hate crime and should be treated no different than if this was a Jewish synagogue that was shot up. Instead the left ecourages this behavior and there will be no tweet from the ADL condemning this terrorism bc they hate Christians.
Don't usually respond to this type of thinking but you're an idiot for saying that the left encourages violence. I'm a Christian and sometimes on the left. I neither encourage violence nor the idiocy of this sort of thing. What were you thinking to post this ? Read a book. Don't just watch Fox. Educate yourself beyond the far right BS. You'll like yourself for it n


Have you been living under a rock? There are countless examples of large groups and high profile leftists calling for violence against Trump supporters Christians etc.

This has to be a fake post, right? Just this video shows her being serious about murder and you still turn a blind eye.

Now obviously a majority of the left doesn't believe this, at least I hope not but the radical woke side does and they aren't afraid to speak it knowing the media will cover for them.

We could have 50 straight days of school shootings by trans people and the media would still be on their side talking about how targeted they are and they are crying for help etc etc. Nothing will slow down the lgbtq movement. It's in overdrive and it's brainwashing poor innocent kids causing them to question their very identity.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Swanni said:

muddybrazos said:

SIC EM 94 said:

So a transgender freak murders adults and children at a Christian school…are we allowed to bring up "hate crime" or no? Just curious


This is absolutely a hate crime and should be treated no different than if this was a Jewish synagogue that was shot up. Instead the left ecourages this behavior and there will be no tweet from the ADL condemning this terrorism bc they hate Christians.
Don't usually respond to this type of thinking but you're an idiot for saying that the left encourages violence. I'm a Christian and sometimes on the left. I neither encourage violence nor the idiocy of this sort of thing. What were you thinking to post this ? Read a book. Don't just watch Fox. Educate yourself beyond the far right BS. You'll like yourself for it n
The extreme left does encourage it.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank goodness mainstream media isn't trying to downplay any of this now that we know a trans terrorist committed the attack...

This is NBC.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fear-pervades-trans-community-amid-010657141.html
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

Thank goodness mainstream media isn't trying to downplay any of this now that we know a trans terrorist committed the attack...

This is NBC.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fear-pervades-trans-community-amid-010657141.html

What a bunch of BS -

Fear pervades trans community amid focus on Nashville shooter's gender identity

So this person (with a manifesto) randomly picked a Christian school that they used to attend, no other motivation??
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

redfish961 said:

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....
https://www.ue.org/risk-management/enterprise-risk-management/increased-risks-and-costs-of-arming-educators/

Factors to weigh when considering whether to arm K-12 educators


Protecting schools from shootings is an ongoing focus in the K-12 sphere, and the conversation often includes whether to arm educators. Some schools already arm teachers pursuant to state, county, or school board authorization. Others are weighing benefits and dangers. Arming teachers or other staff can disrupt the educational atmosphere, even when the intention is to improve safety. When deciding whether to arm staff, schools should consider the following heightened costs, risks, and liability.

Costs of Arming Employees

Costs of arming educators include safety and training expenses beyond purchasing firearms. Specifically, schools may need to purchase:
  • Biometric gun safes, which require fingerprints to unlock, so the guns are inaccessible to students and other unauthorized individuals
  • Bulletproof vests for use by the armed staff
  • Background checks and mental health screenings for all armed staff (at the time of initial selection and on a routine basis thereafter) to be sure they are qualified to hold the given position and to be carrying a firearm (Read United Educators' (UE's) article on background check fundamentalsfor more guidance.)
  • Firearm licensing
  • Insurance and other liability-related products and services (see below)
  • Regular training for armed staff that covers weapons proficiency and concealed carry, including maintaining weapon security; firing accurately in high-stress situations, through regular target practice at gun ranges and active shooter scenario drills; use of force and legal considerations; and first aid. Annual or periodic re-training also may be necessary.
In addition to paying for training, schools may need to give armed staff members time off for training sessions or provide stipends or additional pay for their training hours.
Risks Associated With Arming School Staff

In active shooter situations, there are significant concerns about the ability of even well-trained marksmen to survey the scene and shoot accurately. Law enforcement personnel receive countless hours of emergency response preparation, but educators don't have time to undergo such extensive training. As a result, there is increased risk of an educator misidentifying the shooter or accidentally shooting a bystander or plainclothes first responder. Many fear that minority students may be at heightened risk of such misidentification due to implicit bias or racial stereotyping.

Additionally, engaging in a confrontation with an active shooter puts an armed educator at greater risk of death. For example, a shooter may have higher skills and more firepower, such as an assault weapon, than the educator, or a first responder may mistake the educator for the active shooter.

Aside from risks an active shooter situation presents, gun accidents are common nationwide, and firearms in a classroom pose a hazard. Studies have found that gun accidents arise primarily from weapons kept for self-defense, and children are often the victim of these accidents. If educators are armed, then curious, careless, or ill-intentioned students could accidentally or intentionally gain access to the firearms at school and cause serious harm to themselves or others.

Liability and Insurance Considerations

The potential liability for injuries or deaths resulting from an educator's firearm is complicated. Depending on the situation (especially if the employee was not acting within the scope of employment), the educator may be personally liable in a lawsuit. In some cases, the school, school district, or school board may be responsible for claims brought against the educator.

Arming employees, especially security staff, may create a position of them being considered "police," which could result in excessive force claims. Consult withlegal counsel to determinehow arming these employees will affect their status under state law. For additional information, read UE's Excessive Force by Campus Securityresource.
However, some states have broad immunity laws that restrict lawsuits against public employees, including teachers. Schools in those states may be more willing to accept the risk of injury or death that comes with arming school staff.

Insurance coverage of any legal fees and monetary damages or settlements will vary depending on the policy and circumstances. Arming educators is an emerging risk, and some insurance carriers will not insure armed educators, so schools should seek advice from their licensed insurance broker regarding liability coverage. UE members contemplating arming educators also should contact their UE underwriter to determine if coverage is available and other underwriting criteria is needed. Overall, if the practice of arming educators becomes common and more injuries result, it may significantly increase the cost of insuring schools.

Since local laws differ, before taking any steps to arm employees, consult legal counsel to understand the liability landscape and ensure compliance with state laws and local ordinances, including those mandating gun-free school zones. Counsel can also help schools update policies to address key issues, including:
  • Requirements for when teachers are to leave the classroom or confront a shooter
  • Whether employees may be armed at all school events or only during class time
  • Protocols regarding the school's use of force continuum
  • Recordkeeping and responsibility for regular firearm inspections

School employees will need to meet all state licensing requirements for carrying a firearm, including any concealed carry licensing requirements in their state. The school will need to periodically reviews those licensing requirements to ensure the employees are properly licensed each year.

Schools also should carefully review, with input from legal counsel, any memorandum of understanding with the local police department with the eye toward how the agreement handles risk transfer for the actions of a police officer while on campus. Agreements between the school and any armed contractor on campus also should be carefully negotiated for appropriate risk transfer. UE's Checklist: A Guide for Reviewing Contracts can provide a good starting point when supplemented with legal counsel's input.

Guidance from legal counsel and a licensed insurance broker, along with a careful review of all the risks and costs involved, will help schools make informed decisions about arming its educators.


Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

redfish961 said:

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....
https://www.ue.org/risk-management/enterprise-risk-management/increased-risks-and-costs-of-arming-educators/

Factors to weigh when considering whether to arm K-12 educators


Protecting schools from shootings is an ongoing focus in the K-12 sphere, and the conversation often includes whether to arm educators. Some schools already arm teachers pursuant to state, county, or school board authorization. Others are weighing benefits and dangers. Arming teachers or other staff can disrupt the educational atmosphere, even when the intention is to improve safety. When deciding whether to arm staff, schools should consider the following heightened costs, risks, and liability.

Costs of Arming Employees

Costs of arming educators include safety and training expenses beyond purchasing firearms. Specifically, schools may need to purchase:
  • Biometric gun safes, which require fingerprints to unlock, so the guns are inaccessible to students and other unauthorized individuals
  • Bulletproof vests for use by the armed staff
  • Background checks and mental health screenings for all armed staff (at the time of initial selection and on a routine basis thereafter) to be sure they are qualified to hold the given position and to be carrying a firearm (Read United Educators' (UE's) article on background check fundamentalsfor more guidance.)
  • Firearm licensing
  • Insurance and other liability-related products and services (see below)
  • Regular training for armed staff that covers weapons proficiency and concealed carry, including maintaining weapon security; firing accurately in high-stress situations, through regular target practice at gun ranges and active shooter scenario drills; use of force and legal considerations; and first aid. Annual or periodic re-training also may be necessary.
In addition to paying for training, schools may need to give armed staff members time off for training sessions or provide stipends or additional pay for their training hours.
Risks Associated With Arming School Staff

In active shooter situations, there are significant concerns about the ability of even well-trained marksmen to survey the scene and shoot accurately. Law enforcement personnel receive countless hours of emergency response preparation, but educators don't have time to undergo such extensive training. As a result, there is increased risk of an educator misidentifying the shooter or accidentally shooting a bystander or plainclothes first responder. Many fear that minority students may be at heightened risk of such misidentification due to implicit bias or racial stereotyping.

Additionally, engaging in a confrontation with an active shooter puts an armed educator at greater risk of death. For example, a shooter may have higher skills and more firepower, such as an assault weapon, than the educator, or a first responder may mistake the educator for the active shooter.

Aside from risks an active shooter situation presents, gun accidents are common nationwide, and firearms in a classroom pose a hazard. Studies have found that gun accidents arise primarily from weapons kept for self-defense, and children are often the victim of these accidents. If educators are armed, then curious, careless, or ill-intentioned students could accidentally or intentionally gain access to the firearms at school and cause serious harm to themselves or others.

Liability and Insurance Considerations

The potential liability for injuries or deaths resulting from an educator's firearm is complicated. Depending on the situation (especially if the employee was not acting within the scope of employment), the educator may be personally liable in a lawsuit. In some cases, the school, school district, or school board may be responsible for claims brought against the educator.

Arming employees, especially security staff, may create a position of them being considered "police," which could result in excessive force claims. Consult withlegal counsel to determinehow arming these employees will affect their status under state law. For additional information, read UE's Excessive Force by Campus Securityresource.
However, some states have broad immunity laws that restrict lawsuits against public employees, including teachers. Schools in those states may be more willing to accept the risk of injury or death that comes with arming school staff.

Insurance coverage of any legal fees and monetary damages or settlements will vary depending on the policy and circumstances. Arming educators is an emerging risk, and some insurance carriers will not insure armed educators, so schools should seek advice from their licensed insurance broker regarding liability coverage. UE members contemplating arming educators also should contact their UE underwriter to determine if coverage is available and other underwriting criteria is needed. Overall, if the practice of arming educators becomes common and more injuries result, it may significantly increase the cost of insuring schools.

Since local laws differ, before taking any steps to arm employees, consult legal counsel to understand the liability landscape and ensure compliance with state laws and local ordinances, including those mandating gun-free school zones. Counsel can also help schools update policies to address key issues, including:
  • Requirements for when teachers are to leave the classroom or confront a shooter
  • Whether employees may be armed at all school events or only during class time
  • Protocols regarding the school's use of force continuum
  • Recordkeeping and responsibility for regular firearm inspections

School employees will need to meet all state licensing requirements for carrying a firearm, including any concealed carry licensing requirements in their state. The school will need to periodically reviews those licensing requirements to ensure the employees are properly licensed each year.

Schools also should carefully review, with input from legal counsel, any memorandum of understanding with the local police department with the eye toward how the agreement handles risk transfer for the actions of a police officer while on campus. Agreements between the school and any armed contractor on campus also should be carefully negotiated for appropriate risk transfer. UE's Checklist: A Guide for Reviewing Contracts can provide a good starting point when supplemented with legal counsel's input.

Guidance from legal counsel and a licensed insurance broker, along with a careful review of all the risks and costs involved, will help schools make informed decisions about arming its educators.



All you have to do it compare those costs and risks with what we have today; 99% unarmed teachers and for that we have many, many dead children. That seems more costly than insurance for armed teachers. Maybe we should try those costs of arming teachers and hardening schools out before we just go for the "ban scary looking guns!" route. (Not say you suggested banning any guns, but democrats in charge sure are) Good article, though.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not sure as many would go into the teaching profession with a job description like:

1. Create lesson plans in accordance with the district's standardized curriculum;
2. Provide in-class lectures designed to help students comprehend the subject matter;
3. Create appropriate testing on the subject matter covered;
4. Pack heat and assassinate any would-be mass murderers;
5. Take daily attendance.....
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

redfish961 said:

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....
https://www.ue.org/risk-management/enterprise-risk-management/increased-risks-and-costs-of-arming-educators/

Factors to weigh when considering whether to arm K-12 educators


Protecting schools from shootings is an ongoing focus in the K-12 sphere, and the conversation often includes whether to arm educators. Some schools already arm teachers pursuant to state, county, or school board authorization. Others are weighing benefits and dangers. Arming teachers or other staff can disrupt the educational atmosphere, even when the intention is to improve safety. When deciding whether to arm staff, schools should consider the following heightened costs, risks, and liability.

Costs of Arming Employees

Costs of arming educators include safety and training expenses beyond purchasing firearms. Specifically, schools may need to purchase:
  • Biometric gun safes, which require fingerprints to unlock, so the guns are inaccessible to students and other unauthorized individuals
  • Bulletproof vests for use by the armed staff
  • Background checks and mental health screenings for all armed staff (at the time of initial selection and on a routine basis thereafter) to be sure they are qualified to hold the given position and to be carrying a firearm (Read United Educators' (UE's) article on background check fundamentalsfor more guidance.)
  • Firearm licensing
  • Insurance and other liability-related products and services (see below)
  • Regular training for armed staff that covers weapons proficiency and concealed carry, including maintaining weapon security; firing accurately in high-stress situations, through regular target practice at gun ranges and active shooter scenario drills; use of force and legal considerations; and first aid. Annual or periodic re-training also may be necessary.
In addition to paying for training, schools may need to give armed staff members time off for training sessions or provide stipends or additional pay for their training hours.
Risks Associated With Arming School Staff

In active shooter situations, there are significant concerns about the ability of even well-trained marksmen to survey the scene and shoot accurately. Law enforcement personnel receive countless hours of emergency response preparation, but educators don't have time to undergo such extensive training. As a result, there is increased risk of an educator misidentifying the shooter or accidentally shooting a bystander or plainclothes first responder. Many fear that minority students may be at heightened risk of such misidentification due to implicit bias or racial stereotyping.

Additionally, engaging in a confrontation with an active shooter puts an armed educator at greater risk of death. For example, a shooter may have higher skills and more firepower, such as an assault weapon, than the educator, or a first responder may mistake the educator for the active shooter.

Aside from risks an active shooter situation presents, gun accidents are common nationwide, and firearms in a classroom pose a hazard. Studies have found that gun accidents arise primarily from weapons kept for self-defense, and children are often the victim of these accidents. If educators are armed, then curious, careless, or ill-intentioned students could accidentally or intentionally gain access to the firearms at school and cause serious harm to themselves or others.

Liability and Insurance Considerations

The potential liability for injuries or deaths resulting from an educator's firearm is complicated. Depending on the situation (especially if the employee was not acting within the scope of employment), the educator may be personally liable in a lawsuit. In some cases, the school, school district, or school board may be responsible for claims brought against the educator.

Arming employees, especially security staff, may create a position of them being considered "police," which could result in excessive force claims. Consult withlegal counsel to determinehow arming these employees will affect their status under state law. For additional information, read UE's Excessive Force by Campus Securityresource.
However, some states have broad immunity laws that restrict lawsuits against public employees, including teachers. Schools in those states may be more willing to accept the risk of injury or death that comes with arming school staff.

Insurance coverage of any legal fees and monetary damages or settlements will vary depending on the policy and circumstances. Arming educators is an emerging risk, and some insurance carriers will not insure armed educators, so schools should seek advice from their licensed insurance broker regarding liability coverage. UE members contemplating arming educators also should contact their UE underwriter to determine if coverage is available and other underwriting criteria is needed. Overall, if the practice of arming educators becomes common and more injuries result, it may significantly increase the cost of insuring schools.

Since local laws differ, before taking any steps to arm employees, consult legal counsel to understand the liability landscape and ensure compliance with state laws and local ordinances, including those mandating gun-free school zones. Counsel can also help schools update policies to address key issues, including:
  • Requirements for when teachers are to leave the classroom or confront a shooter
  • Whether employees may be armed at all school events or only during class time
  • Protocols regarding the school's use of force continuum
  • Recordkeeping and responsibility for regular firearm inspections

School employees will need to meet all state licensing requirements for carrying a firearm, including any concealed carry licensing requirements in their state. The school will need to periodically reviews those licensing requirements to ensure the employees are properly licensed each year.

Schools also should carefully review, with input from legal counsel, any memorandum of understanding with the local police department with the eye toward how the agreement handles risk transfer for the actions of a police officer while on campus. Agreements between the school and any armed contractor on campus also should be carefully negotiated for appropriate risk transfer. UE's Checklist: A Guide for Reviewing Contracts can provide a good starting point when supplemented with legal counsel's input.

Guidance from legal counsel and a licensed insurance broker, along with a careful review of all the risks and costs involved, will help schools make informed decisions about arming its educators.



All you have to do it compare those costs and risks with what we have today; 99% unarmed teachers and for that we have many, many dead children. That seems more aptly than insurance for armed teachers. Maybe we should try those costs of arming teachers and hardening schools out before we just go for the "ban scary looking guns!" route. (Not say you suggested banning any guns, but democrats in charge sure are)
Why not compare to the cost of having local LEO's on campus?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

Swanni said:

muddybrazos said:

SIC EM 94 said:

So a transgender freak murders adults and children at a Christian school…are we allowed to bring up "hate crime" or no? Just curious


This is absolutely a hate crime and should be treated no different than if this was a Jewish synagogue that was shot up. Instead the left ecourages this behavior and there will be no tweet from the ADL condemning this terrorism bc they hate Christians.
Don't usually respond to this type of thinking but you're an idiot for saying that the left encourages violence. I'm a Christian and sometimes on the left. I neither encourage violence nor the idiocy of this sort of thing. What were you thinking to post this ? Read a book. Don't just watch Fox. Educate yourself beyond the far right BS. You'll like yourself for it n
If you vote Democrat then you damned sure do empower people who incite violence through their rhetoric. You might identify as a non-violent Christian but your votes for Democrats says otherwise.
A ridiculous exaggeration which will convince no one.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Wangchung said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

redfish961 said:

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....
https://www.ue.org/risk-management/enterprise-risk-management/increased-risks-and-costs-of-arming-educators/

Factors to weigh when considering whether to arm K-12 educators


Protecting schools from shootings is an ongoing focus in the K-12 sphere, and the conversation often includes whether to arm educators. Some schools already arm teachers pursuant to state, county, or school board authorization. Others are weighing benefits and dangers. Arming teachers or other staff can disrupt the educational atmosphere, even when the intention is to improve safety. When deciding whether to arm staff, schools should consider the following heightened costs, risks, and liability.

Costs of Arming Employees

Costs of arming educators include safety and training expenses beyond purchasing firearms. Specifically, schools may need to purchase:
  • Biometric gun safes, which require fingerprints to unlock, so the guns are inaccessible to students and other unauthorized individuals
  • Bulletproof vests for use by the armed staff
  • Background checks and mental health screenings for all armed staff (at the time of initial selection and on a routine basis thereafter) to be sure they are qualified to hold the given position and to be carrying a firearm (Read United Educators' (UE's) article on background check fundamentalsfor more guidance.)
  • Firearm licensing
  • Insurance and other liability-related products and services (see below)
  • Regular training for armed staff that covers weapons proficiency and concealed carry, including maintaining weapon security; firing accurately in high-stress situations, through regular target practice at gun ranges and active shooter scenario drills; use of force and legal considerations; and first aid. Annual or periodic re-training also may be necessary.
In addition to paying for training, schools may need to give armed staff members time off for training sessions or provide stipends or additional pay for their training hours.
Risks Associated With Arming School Staff

In active shooter situations, there are significant concerns about the ability of even well-trained marksmen to survey the scene and shoot accurately. Law enforcement personnel receive countless hours of emergency response preparation, but educators don't have time to undergo such extensive training. As a result, there is increased risk of an educator misidentifying the shooter or accidentally shooting a bystander or plainclothes first responder. Many fear that minority students may be at heightened risk of such misidentification due to implicit bias or racial stereotyping.

Additionally, engaging in a confrontation with an active shooter puts an armed educator at greater risk of death. For example, a shooter may have higher skills and more firepower, such as an assault weapon, than the educator, or a first responder may mistake the educator for the active shooter.

Aside from risks an active shooter situation presents, gun accidents are common nationwide, and firearms in a classroom pose a hazard. Studies have found that gun accidents arise primarily from weapons kept for self-defense, and children are often the victim of these accidents. If educators are armed, then curious, careless, or ill-intentioned students could accidentally or intentionally gain access to the firearms at school and cause serious harm to themselves or others.

Liability and Insurance Considerations

The potential liability for injuries or deaths resulting from an educator's firearm is complicated. Depending on the situation (especially if the employee was not acting within the scope of employment), the educator may be personally liable in a lawsuit. In some cases, the school, school district, or school board may be responsible for claims brought against the educator.

Arming employees, especially security staff, may create a position of them being considered "police," which could result in excessive force claims. Consult withlegal counsel to determinehow arming these employees will affect their status under state law. For additional information, read UE's Excessive Force by Campus Securityresource.
However, some states have broad immunity laws that restrict lawsuits against public employees, including teachers. Schools in those states may be more willing to accept the risk of injury or death that comes with arming school staff.

Insurance coverage of any legal fees and monetary damages or settlements will vary depending on the policy and circumstances. Arming educators is an emerging risk, and some insurance carriers will not insure armed educators, so schools should seek advice from their licensed insurance broker regarding liability coverage. UE members contemplating arming educators also should contact their UE underwriter to determine if coverage is available and other underwriting criteria is needed. Overall, if the practice of arming educators becomes common and more injuries result, it may significantly increase the cost of insuring schools.

Since local laws differ, before taking any steps to arm employees, consult legal counsel to understand the liability landscape and ensure compliance with state laws and local ordinances, including those mandating gun-free school zones. Counsel can also help schools update policies to address key issues, including:
  • Requirements for when teachers are to leave the classroom or confront a shooter
  • Whether employees may be armed at all school events or only during class time
  • Protocols regarding the school's use of force continuum
  • Recordkeeping and responsibility for regular firearm inspections

School employees will need to meet all state licensing requirements for carrying a firearm, including any concealed carry licensing requirements in their state. The school will need to periodically reviews those licensing requirements to ensure the employees are properly licensed each year.

Schools also should carefully review, with input from legal counsel, any memorandum of understanding with the local police department with the eye toward how the agreement handles risk transfer for the actions of a police officer while on campus. Agreements between the school and any armed contractor on campus also should be carefully negotiated for appropriate risk transfer. UE's Checklist: A Guide for Reviewing Contracts can provide a good starting point when supplemented with legal counsel's input.

Guidance from legal counsel and a licensed insurance broker, along with a careful review of all the risks and costs involved, will help schools make informed decisions about arming its educators.



All you have to do it compare those costs and risks with what we have today; 99% unarmed teachers and for that we have many, many dead children. That seems more aptly than insurance for armed teachers. Maybe we should try those costs of arming teachers and hardening schools out before we just go for the "ban scary looking guns!" route. (Not say you suggested banning any guns, but democrats in charge sure are)
Why not compare to the cost of having local LEO's on campus?
Why not have both? Armed teachers would be in the classrooms already, rather than roaming the hall as a security guard/police officer would. Don't even have to arm all the teachers, just ALLOW it and let it be know publicly that it's allowed at that school. Similar to how non-gun owners depend on criminals knowing that there ARE gun owners out there to help keep them from being robbed or attacked all the time. Some of the non-owners even hate guns but they sure like that protection the chances they could be armed provides them.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

Swanni said:

muddybrazos said:

SIC EM 94 said:

So a transgender freak murders adults and children at a Christian school…are we allowed to bring up "hate crime" or no? Just curious


This is absolutely a hate crime and should be treated no different than if this was a Jewish synagogue that was shot up. Instead the left ecourages this behavior and there will be no tweet from the ADL condemning this terrorism bc they hate Christians.
Don't usually respond to this type of thinking but you're an idiot for saying that the left encourages violence. I'm a Christian and sometimes on the left. I neither encourage violence nor the idiocy of this sort of thing. What were you thinking to post this ? Read a book. Don't just watch Fox. Educate yourself beyond the far right BS. You'll like yourself for it n
If you vote Democrat then you damned sure do empower people who incite violence through their rhetoric. You might identify as a non-violent Christian but your votes for Democrats says otherwise.
A ridiculous exaggeration which will convince no one.
Hey, sometimes the truth has to be spoken regardless of how the person being spoken to receives it. You folks in the "I can do whatever I want and as long as I identify as Christian I am a Christian" crowd live in self delusion.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

90sBear said:

Wangchung said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

redfish961 said:

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....
https://www.ue.org/risk-management/enterprise-risk-management/increased-risks-and-costs-of-arming-educators/

Factors to weigh when considering whether to arm K-12 educators


Protecting schools from shootings is an ongoing focus in the K-12 sphere, and the conversation often includes whether to arm educators. Some schools already arm teachers pursuant to state, county, or school board authorization. Others are weighing benefits and dangers. Arming teachers or other staff can disrupt the educational atmosphere, even when the intention is to improve safety. When deciding whether to arm staff, schools should consider the following heightened costs, risks, and liability.

Costs of Arming Employees

Costs of arming educators include safety and training expenses beyond purchasing firearms. Specifically, schools may need to purchase:
  • Biometric gun safes, which require fingerprints to unlock, so the guns are inaccessible to students and other unauthorized individuals
  • Bulletproof vests for use by the armed staff
  • Background checks and mental health screenings for all armed staff (at the time of initial selection and on a routine basis thereafter) to be sure they are qualified to hold the given position and to be carrying a firearm (Read United Educators' (UE's) article on background check fundamentalsfor more guidance.)
  • Firearm licensing
  • Insurance and other liability-related products and services (see below)
  • Regular training for armed staff that covers weapons proficiency and concealed carry, including maintaining weapon security; firing accurately in high-stress situations, through regular target practice at gun ranges and active shooter scenario drills; use of force and legal considerations; and first aid. Annual or periodic re-training also may be necessary.
In addition to paying for training, schools may need to give armed staff members time off for training sessions or provide stipends or additional pay for their training hours.
Risks Associated With Arming School Staff

In active shooter situations, there are significant concerns about the ability of even well-trained marksmen to survey the scene and shoot accurately. Law enforcement personnel receive countless hours of emergency response preparation, but educators don't have time to undergo such extensive training. As a result, there is increased risk of an educator misidentifying the shooter or accidentally shooting a bystander or plainclothes first responder. Many fear that minority students may be at heightened risk of such misidentification due to implicit bias or racial stereotyping.

Additionally, engaging in a confrontation with an active shooter puts an armed educator at greater risk of death. For example, a shooter may have higher skills and more firepower, such as an assault weapon, than the educator, or a first responder may mistake the educator for the active shooter.

Aside from risks an active shooter situation presents, gun accidents are common nationwide, and firearms in a classroom pose a hazard. Studies have found that gun accidents arise primarily from weapons kept for self-defense, and children are often the victim of these accidents. If educators are armed, then curious, careless, or ill-intentioned students could accidentally or intentionally gain access to the firearms at school and cause serious harm to themselves or others.

Liability and Insurance Considerations

The potential liability for injuries or deaths resulting from an educator's firearm is complicated. Depending on the situation (especially if the employee was not acting within the scope of employment), the educator may be personally liable in a lawsuit. In some cases, the school, school district, or school board may be responsible for claims brought against the educator.

Arming employees, especially security staff, may create a position of them being considered "police," which could result in excessive force claims. Consult withlegal counsel to determinehow arming these employees will affect their status under state law. For additional information, read UE's Excessive Force by Campus Securityresource.
However, some states have broad immunity laws that restrict lawsuits against public employees, including teachers. Schools in those states may be more willing to accept the risk of injury or death that comes with arming school staff.

Insurance coverage of any legal fees and monetary damages or settlements will vary depending on the policy and circumstances. Arming educators is an emerging risk, and some insurance carriers will not insure armed educators, so schools should seek advice from their licensed insurance broker regarding liability coverage. UE members contemplating arming educators also should contact their UE underwriter to determine if coverage is available and other underwriting criteria is needed. Overall, if the practice of arming educators becomes common and more injuries result, it may significantly increase the cost of insuring schools.

Since local laws differ, before taking any steps to arm employees, consult legal counsel to understand the liability landscape and ensure compliance with state laws and local ordinances, including those mandating gun-free school zones. Counsel can also help schools update policies to address key issues, including:
  • Requirements for when teachers are to leave the classroom or confront a shooter
  • Whether employees may be armed at all school events or only during class time
  • Protocols regarding the school's use of force continuum
  • Recordkeeping and responsibility for regular firearm inspections

School employees will need to meet all state licensing requirements for carrying a firearm, including any concealed carry licensing requirements in their state. The school will need to periodically reviews those licensing requirements to ensure the employees are properly licensed each year.

Schools also should carefully review, with input from legal counsel, any memorandum of understanding with the local police department with the eye toward how the agreement handles risk transfer for the actions of a police officer while on campus. Agreements between the school and any armed contractor on campus also should be carefully negotiated for appropriate risk transfer. UE's Checklist: A Guide for Reviewing Contracts can provide a good starting point when supplemented with legal counsel's input.

Guidance from legal counsel and a licensed insurance broker, along with a careful review of all the risks and costs involved, will help schools make informed decisions about arming its educators.



All you have to do it compare those costs and risks with what we have today; 99% unarmed teachers and for that we have many, many dead children. That seems more aptly than insurance for armed teachers. Maybe we should try those costs of arming teachers and hardening schools out before we just go for the "ban scary looking guns!" route. (Not say you suggested banning any guns, but democrats in charge sure are)
Why not compare to the cost of having local LEO's on campus?
Why not have both? Armed teachers would be in the classrooms already, rather than roaming the hall as a security guard/police officer would. Don't even have to arm all the teachers, just ALLOW it and let it be know publicly that it's allowed at that school. Similar to how non-gun owners depend on criminals knowing that there ARE gun owners out there to help keep them from being robbed or attacked all the time. Some of the non-owners even hate guns but they sure like that protection the chances they could be armed provides them.
For every reason in the article I linked. Start with addressing all of those items. Include where the money is going to come from to fund all of it, the fact that some insurance carriers will not insure armed educators, and that you might have some schools where there are little to no teachers interested in being armed.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

Swanni said:

muddybrazos said:

SIC EM 94 said:

So a transgender freak murders adults and children at a Christian school…are we allowed to bring up "hate crime" or no? Just curious


This is absolutely a hate crime and should be treated no different than if this was a Jewish synagogue that was shot up. Instead the left ecourages this behavior and there will be no tweet from the ADL condemning this terrorism bc they hate Christians.
Don't usually respond to this type of thinking but you're an idiot for saying that the left encourages violence. I'm a Christian and sometimes on the left. I neither encourage violence nor the idiocy of this sort of thing. What were you thinking to post this ? Read a book. Don't just watch Fox. Educate yourself beyond the far right BS. You'll like yourself for it n
If you vote Democrat then you damned sure do empower people who incite violence through their rhetoric. You might identify as a non-violent Christian but your votes for Democrats says otherwise.
A ridiculous exaggeration which will convince no one.
Hey, sometimes the truth has to be spoken regardless of how the person being spoken to receives it. You folks in the "I can do whatever I want and as long as I identify as Christian I am a Christian" crowd live in self delusion.
That's an odd label for a right-wing papist. We're more accustomed to being called legalistic or dogmatic.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Wangchung said:

90sBear said:

Wangchung said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

90sBear said:

cowboycwr said:

redfish961 said:

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....
https://www.ue.org/risk-management/enterprise-risk-management/increased-risks-and-costs-of-arming-educators/

Factors to weigh when considering whether to arm K-12 educators


Protecting schools from shootings is an ongoing focus in the K-12 sphere, and the conversation often includes whether to arm educators. Some schools already arm teachers pursuant to state, county, or school board authorization. Others are weighing benefits and dangers. Arming teachers or other staff can disrupt the educational atmosphere, even when the intention is to improve safety. When deciding whether to arm staff, schools should consider the following heightened costs, risks, and liability.

Costs of Arming Employees

Costs of arming educators include safety and training expenses beyond purchasing firearms. Specifically, schools may need to purchase:
  • Biometric gun safes, which require fingerprints to unlock, so the guns are inaccessible to students and other unauthorized individuals
  • Bulletproof vests for use by the armed staff
  • Background checks and mental health screenings for all armed staff (at the time of initial selection and on a routine basis thereafter) to be sure they are qualified to hold the given position and to be carrying a firearm (Read United Educators' (UE's) article on background check fundamentalsfor more guidance.)
  • Firearm licensing
  • Insurance and other liability-related products and services (see below)
  • Regular training for armed staff that covers weapons proficiency and concealed carry, including maintaining weapon security; firing accurately in high-stress situations, through regular target practice at gun ranges and active shooter scenario drills; use of force and legal considerations; and first aid. Annual or periodic re-training also may be necessary.
In addition to paying for training, schools may need to give armed staff members time off for training sessions or provide stipends or additional pay for their training hours.
Risks Associated With Arming School Staff

In active shooter situations, there are significant concerns about the ability of even well-trained marksmen to survey the scene and shoot accurately. Law enforcement personnel receive countless hours of emergency response preparation, but educators don't have time to undergo such extensive training. As a result, there is increased risk of an educator misidentifying the shooter or accidentally shooting a bystander or plainclothes first responder. Many fear that minority students may be at heightened risk of such misidentification due to implicit bias or racial stereotyping.

Additionally, engaging in a confrontation with an active shooter puts an armed educator at greater risk of death. For example, a shooter may have higher skills and more firepower, such as an assault weapon, than the educator, or a first responder may mistake the educator for the active shooter.

Aside from risks an active shooter situation presents, gun accidents are common nationwide, and firearms in a classroom pose a hazard. Studies have found that gun accidents arise primarily from weapons kept for self-defense, and children are often the victim of these accidents. If educators are armed, then curious, careless, or ill-intentioned students could accidentally or intentionally gain access to the firearms at school and cause serious harm to themselves or others.

Liability and Insurance Considerations

The potential liability for injuries or deaths resulting from an educator's firearm is complicated. Depending on the situation (especially if the employee was not acting within the scope of employment), the educator may be personally liable in a lawsuit. In some cases, the school, school district, or school board may be responsible for claims brought against the educator.

Arming employees, especially security staff, may create a position of them being considered "police," which could result in excessive force claims. Consult withlegal counsel to determinehow arming these employees will affect their status under state law. For additional information, read UE's Excessive Force by Campus Securityresource.
However, some states have broad immunity laws that restrict lawsuits against public employees, including teachers. Schools in those states may be more willing to accept the risk of injury or death that comes with arming school staff.

Insurance coverage of any legal fees and monetary damages or settlements will vary depending on the policy and circumstances. Arming educators is an emerging risk, and some insurance carriers will not insure armed educators, so schools should seek advice from their licensed insurance broker regarding liability coverage. UE members contemplating arming educators also should contact their UE underwriter to determine if coverage is available and other underwriting criteria is needed. Overall, if the practice of arming educators becomes common and more injuries result, it may significantly increase the cost of insuring schools.

Since local laws differ, before taking any steps to arm employees, consult legal counsel to understand the liability landscape and ensure compliance with state laws and local ordinances, including those mandating gun-free school zones. Counsel can also help schools update policies to address key issues, including:
  • Requirements for when teachers are to leave the classroom or confront a shooter
  • Whether employees may be armed at all school events or only during class time
  • Protocols regarding the school's use of force continuum
  • Recordkeeping and responsibility for regular firearm inspections

School employees will need to meet all state licensing requirements for carrying a firearm, including any concealed carry licensing requirements in their state. The school will need to periodically reviews those licensing requirements to ensure the employees are properly licensed each year.

Schools also should carefully review, with input from legal counsel, any memorandum of understanding with the local police department with the eye toward how the agreement handles risk transfer for the actions of a police officer while on campus. Agreements between the school and any armed contractor on campus also should be carefully negotiated for appropriate risk transfer. UE's Checklist: A Guide for Reviewing Contracts can provide a good starting point when supplemented with legal counsel's input.

Guidance from legal counsel and a licensed insurance broker, along with a careful review of all the risks and costs involved, will help schools make informed decisions about arming its educators.



All you have to do it compare those costs and risks with what we have today; 99% unarmed teachers and for that we have many, many dead children. That seems more aptly than insurance for armed teachers. Maybe we should try those costs of arming teachers and hardening schools out before we just go for the "ban scary looking guns!" route. (Not say you suggested banning any guns, but democrats in charge sure are)
Why not compare to the cost of having local LEO's on campus?
Why not have both? Armed teachers would be in the classrooms already, rather than roaming the hall as a security guard/police officer would. Don't even have to arm all the teachers, just ALLOW it and let it be know publicly that it's allowed at that school. Similar to how non-gun owners depend on criminals knowing that there ARE gun owners out there to help keep them from being robbed or attacked all the time. Some of the non-owners even hate guns but they sure like that protection the chances they could be armed provides them.
For every reason in the article I linked. Start with addressing all of those items. Include where the money is going to come from to fund all of it, the fact that some insurance carriers will not insure armed educators, and that you might have some schools where there are little to no teachers interested in being armed.
I did a point by point comparison in my head and none of those things seem worse than shot up little kids.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

Swanni said:

muddybrazos said:

SIC EM 94 said:

So a transgender freak murders adults and children at a Christian school…are we allowed to bring up "hate crime" or no? Just curious


This is absolutely a hate crime and should be treated no different than if this was a Jewish synagogue that was shot up. Instead the left ecourages this behavior and there will be no tweet from the ADL condemning this terrorism bc they hate Christians.
Don't usually respond to this type of thinking but you're an idiot for saying that the left encourages violence. I'm a Christian and sometimes on the left. I neither encourage violence nor the idiocy of this sort of thing. What were you thinking to post this ? Read a book. Don't just watch Fox. Educate yourself beyond the far right BS. You'll like yourself for it n
If you vote Democrat then you damned sure do empower people who incite violence through their rhetoric. You might identify as a non-violent Christian but your votes for Democrats says otherwise.
A ridiculous exaggeration which will convince no one.
Hey, sometimes the truth has to be spoken regardless of how the person being spoken to receives it. You folks in the "I can do whatever I want and as long as I identify as Christian I am a Christian" crowd live in self delusion.
So, people who vote for Democrats aren't Christians?
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

Swanni said:

muddybrazos said:

SIC EM 94 said:

So a transgender freak murders adults and children at a Christian school…are we allowed to bring up "hate crime" or no? Just curious


This is absolutely a hate crime and should be treated no different than if this was a Jewish synagogue that was shot up. Instead the left ecourages this behavior and there will be no tweet from the ADL condemning this terrorism bc they hate Christians.
Don't usually respond to this type of thinking but you're an idiot for saying that the left encourages violence. I'm a Christian and sometimes on the left. I neither encourage violence nor the idiocy of this sort of thing. What were you thinking to post this ? Read a book. Don't just watch Fox. Educate yourself beyond the far right BS. You'll like yourself for it n
If you vote Democrat then you damned sure do empower people who incite violence through their rhetoric. You might identify as a non-violent Christian but your votes for Democrats says otherwise.
A ridiculous exaggeration which will convince no one.
Hey, sometimes the truth has to be spoken regardless of how the person being spoken to receives it. You folks in the "I can do whatever I want and as long as I identify as Christian I am a Christian" crowd live in self delusion.
That's an odd label for a right-wing papist. We're more accustomed to being called legalistic or dogmatic.
I haven't read enough of Swanni's posts to label them much of anything except emotional and on a lower tier of intellect than the majority of posters here. Ignoring scripture for your own personal desires while deluding yourself that you're living as a Christian isn't legalistic nor is it dogmatic.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
2 things...

1)Chicago has some very tough gun laws. How is that working for them? I guess Obama needs to do some more organizing there.

2)Identify=pretend
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Sam Lowry said:

Wangchung said:

Swanni said:

muddybrazos said:

SIC EM 94 said:

So a transgender freak murders adults and children at a Christian school…are we allowed to bring up "hate crime" or no? Just curious


This is absolutely a hate crime and should be treated no different than if this was a Jewish synagogue that was shot up. Instead the left ecourages this behavior and there will be no tweet from the ADL condemning this terrorism bc they hate Christians.
Don't usually respond to this type of thinking but you're an idiot for saying that the left encourages violence. I'm a Christian and sometimes on the left. I neither encourage violence nor the idiocy of this sort of thing. What were you thinking to post this ? Read a book. Don't just watch Fox. Educate yourself beyond the far right BS. You'll like yourself for it n
If you vote Democrat then you damned sure do empower people who incite violence through their rhetoric. You might identify as a non-violent Christian but your votes for Democrats says otherwise.
A ridiculous exaggeration which will convince no one.
Hey, sometimes the truth has to be spoken regardless of how the person being spoken to receives it. You folks in the "I can do whatever I want and as long as I identify as Christian I am a Christian" crowd live in self delusion.
So, people who vote for Democrats aren't Christians?
Can the people who supported and voted into power the Nazis be called Christians? Can you actively support and empower evil people and still be a Christian?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.