Wangchung said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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?

---

Places already have police officer shortages and now you want to add another several thousand around the state????

Good luck with that.

---

And you want to go through the expenses involved with arming teachers.

Either way more money will have to come from somewhere and Wangchung didn't seem too interested in volunteering to donate 75% of his salary towards the problem that he is so passionate about.

So the question then becomes, realistically how much money can be spent on this problem and what is the best way to spend that money?

---

What expenses???? Give numbers or stop throwing that out as a reason to not do it.

At least I have offered a real world solution to stop shootings. You have only argued against it and want the bodies to continue to pile up.

---

Apparently the expense is 75% of one's income.

---

Way to intentionally misrepresent my argument that you seem to unrealistically state no cost is too high.

Again, how much money can be reasonably raised or shifted to this and what is the best use of those funds?

If there are enough teachers that are capable and want to do it, the costs aren't too prohibitive, there are insurance carriers available, etc., etc. and it will produce the best outcome, OK.

I simply think it's a little harder solution than y'all make it out to be.

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

May need to purchase. Not HAVE to.

Again I ask what other Constitutional right does any other American have to do all these steps to then be able to carry out.

I get it that my argument is a losing one because of gun grabbers like you who want to require people to jump through hoops to do something that is a protected right.

Shall not be infringed and the above article has a lot of infringements in it.

---

"Again I ask what other Constitutional right does any other American have to do all these steps to then be able to carry out."
Again, this is not a realistic answer when talking about the liability of schools having armed teachers.

"I get it that my argument is a losing one because of gun grabbers like you who want to require people to jump through hoops to do something that is a protected right."
Point to one "gun grabber" argument I have made. One.

The reality is the Second Amendment is already restricted, in many ways, every day.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Antonin Scalia

---

It is a realistic answer. Sorry you do not like it but it is.

So name one.

This argument is VERY much a gun grabber argument. You are wanting to limit thousands of Americans rights to protect themselves.

Yes the reality is the 2nd amendment is already UNCONSTITUTIONALLY restricted every day. Shall not be infringed.

Cool a supreme court justice said that. They also once said people were property.

---

Saying that your proposed solution is more difficult than you make it out to be is not necessarily a "gun grabber" argument. I own plenty of guns and have my LTC.

There are already in place numerous restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Automatic weapons require a license, you are not allowed to take a firearm to an establishment where more than 50% of sales are for liquor, you cannot own a military grade fighter jet, you can lose your right with certain convictions, and many many more.

This whole conversation started with me saying, "Uhhhh, I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be."

All I've done is post one article, which you refuse to completely respond to, and you just moved over to a second amendment argument. I'm not debating the second amendment here, I'm saying arming school teachers is a lot more complicated and costly solution than you seem to think is.

---

Limiting someone else's ability to carry out a Constitutional right is absolutely gun grabbing. You just refuse to accept that is the stance you are taking

I have responded to your article. The article said "may" as in those costs could be something the district has to do, could fall to the individual or could be things that don't even have to happen.

Still waiting for you to provide one other right that has these restrictions and training requirements.

---

Again, you are arguing the second amendment and the laws that are already in place throughout the country. Not what I'm here to do.

I'm here to discuss what are the best ways to help address the issue. IMO, "Arming the teachers" is not the clear cut cheap solution you make it out to be.

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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?

---

Places already have police officer shortages and now you want to add another several thousand around the state????

Good luck with that.

---

And you want to go through the expenses involved with arming teachers.

Either way more money will have to come from somewhere and Wangchung didn't seem too interested in volunteering to donate 75% of his salary towards the problem that he is so passionate about.

So the question then becomes, realistically how much money can be spent on this problem and what is the best way to spend that money?

---

What expenses???? Give numbers or stop throwing that out as a reason to not do it.

At least I have offered a real world solution to stop shootings. You have only argued against it and want the bodies to continue to pile up.

---

Apparently the expense is 75% of one's income.

---

Way to intentionally misrepresent my argument that you seem to unrealistically state no cost is too high.

Again, how much money can be reasonably raised or shifted to this and what is the best use of those funds?

If there are enough teachers that are capable and want to do it, the costs aren't too prohibitive, there are insurance carriers available, etc., etc. and it will produce the best outcome, OK.

I simply think it's a little harder solution than y'all make it out to be.

---

None of it is easy, you're right. All of it is heart wrenching and nauseating. I only mention your 75% comment because that is literally the only numbers that have been provided in this conversation specifically about costs. We can't have a serious discussion without real costs to compare with actual budgets.

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

May need to purchase. Not HAVE to.

Again I ask what other Constitutional right does any other American have to do all these steps to then be able to carry out.

I get it that my argument is a losing one because of gun grabbers like you who want to require people to jump through hoops to do something that is a protected right.

Shall not be infringed and the above article has a lot of infringements in it.

---

"Again I ask what other Constitutional right does any other American have to do all these steps to then be able to carry out."
Again, this is not a realistic answer when talking about the liability of schools having armed teachers.

"I get it that my argument is a losing one because of gun grabbers like you who want to require people to jump through hoops to do something that is a protected right."
Point to one "gun grabber" argument I have made. One.

The reality is the Second Amendment is already restricted, in many ways, every day.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Antonin Scalia

---

It is a realistic answer. Sorry you do not like it but it is.

So name one.

This argument is VERY much a gun grabber argument. You are wanting to limit thousands of Americans rights to protect themselves.

Yes the reality is the 2nd amendment is already UNCONSTITUTIONALLY restricted every day. Shall not be infringed.

Cool a supreme court justice said that. They also once said people were property.

---

Saying that your proposed solution is more difficult than you make it out to be is not necessarily a "gun grabber" argument. I own plenty of guns and have my LTC.

There are already in place numerous restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Automatic weapons require a license, you are not allowed to take a firearm to an establishment where more than 50% of sales are for liquor, you cannot own a military grade fighter jet, you can lose your right with certain convictions, and many many more.

This whole conversation started with me saying, "Uhhhh, I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be."

All I've done is post one article, which you refuse to completely respond to, and you just moved over to a second amendment argument. I'm not debating the second amendment here, I'm saying arming school teachers is a lot more complicated and costly solution than you seem to think is.

---

Limiting someone else's ability to carry out a Constitutional right is absolutely gun grabbing. You just refuse to accept that is the stance you are taking

I have responded to your article. The article said "may" as in those costs could be something the district has to do, could fall to the individual or could be things that don't even have to happen.

Still waiting for you to provide one other right that has these restrictions and training requirements.

---

Again, you are arguing the second amendment and the laws that are already in place throughout the country. Not what I'm here to do.

I'm here to discuss what are the best ways to help address the issue. IMO, "Arming the teachers" is not the clear cut cheap solution you make it out to be.

---

It is a lot cheaper than providing a full salary to pay for a police officer on each campus.

It is cheaper than the upgrades to make each building a fortress (fences, bulletproof glass, etc.)

You have only said it will be cost prohibitive and provided an article with possible costs. Not actual. You have not provided a single dollar amount.

Classes for concealed carry are cheap. Gun safes are cheap. Both can be looked up. You could get multiple safes and send multiple staff for less than $2,000. And it is a one time cost.

Wangchung said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

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

---

Just weeks ago Jane Fonda called for the murder of Christians.

Harmful rhetoric by Jane and other far left extremists has consequences… #janefona #prayfornashville pic.twitter.com/aauIuqGwcs

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) March 27, 2023

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?

---

Quote:

---

The only problem is that this frequently-repeated "fact" is simply not true. In the final two free elections before Hitler's rise to power, in July and November 1932, the Nazis received 38% and 33% of the vote, respectively a plurality but not enough to bring them into government. In the 1932 presidential election, Hitler lost to Hindenburg by a wide margin.

Hitler came to power not through elections, but because Hindenburg and the circle around Hindenburg ultimately decided to appoint him chancellor in January 1933.

---

My son did research articles on Hitler when he had to do a major project on the treatment of people by the Nazi regime and Hitler was actually appointed into power, never elected.

The Nazi's were masters at manipulation and propaganda, I'm pretty sure when the 1932 elections were held, they ran on Nationalist pride and a populist movement that would bring the downtrodden Germans out of poverty and onto the road to national prosperity. I doubt any who voted for them in 1932 could forsee the horrors of what the Nazi's would unleash on innocent victims. That said many people do vote for candidates who will look out for their interests, even though the candidate is morally bankrupt.

---

Interesting correction and historical footnote, thank you. I'll change my question accordingly;
Could the people who DID vote Hitler call themselves Christians? Could the people who later supported the Nazi regime that arose after Hindenburg died still call themselves christians despite their support of an evil party?

---

In fairness, Nazi's did win elections, after, Hitler was appointed Chancellor, but this was the aftermath of the Reichstag fire, when the government had passed emergency laws that sharply restricted the activities of left-of-center parties (including the arrest of many Communist leaders). So these would not be considered free and fair elections.

That said, people that voted for Hitler after he took power, many called themselves Christians, and my opinion is their vote was often out of self preservation.

Of course the call of Christianity is to, give up your life, for Christ sake, not to preserve your current life or agenda through political force.

Malbec said:

---

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.....

---

Do substitute teachers get tasers?

To make this easier on myself and not keep splitting up conversation regarding teachers being armed in the class room, I'm going to start over here.

This is the list of states where teachers are allowed to conceal carry. There are currently 32 and each has its own set of restrictions:

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/which-states-allow-teachers-to-carry-concealed/

One challenge with asking, "What's the dollar amount of arming teachers?" as a potential solution is that in addition to the states where it is not allowed, there are going to be some school districts in states where it is legal that just flat out don't want their teachers armed. There is a probably a good chance that the vast majority of the teachers in those districts don't want to be armed either.

Therefore you have to come up with solutions that help those states where it is not allowed and those districts that don't want it, likely largely due to lack of teacher interest.

I think it might be more realistic for the states to say, "Here's X number of dollars that we can annually give you in addition to monies already being provided. Here is a list of approved items that this money can be spent on." From there it could be up to the school districts themselves to determine the best use of those funds.

If they want to spend that money on physical improvements (doors, windows, entry vestibules, etc.), LEO's, or the necessary expenses required to allow armed teachers, it will be up to them to choose how to allocate that money and the district will have to come up with any additional funds necessary to help make those things happen if the money coming from the state doesn't cover the cost.

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

May need to purchase. Not HAVE to.

Again I ask what other Constitutional right does any other American have to do all these steps to then be able to carry out.

I get it that my argument is a losing one because of gun grabbers like you who want to require people to jump through hoops to do something that is a protected right.

Shall not be infringed and the above article has a lot of infringements in it.

---

"Again I ask what other Constitutional right does any other American have to do all these steps to then be able to carry out."
Again, this is not a realistic answer when talking about the liability of schools having armed teachers.

"I get it that my argument is a losing one because of gun grabbers like you who want to require people to jump through hoops to do something that is a protected right."
Point to one "gun grabber" argument I have made. One.

The reality is the Second Amendment is already restricted, in many ways, every day.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Antonin Scalia

---

It is a realistic answer. Sorry you do not like it but it is.

So name one.

This argument is VERY much a gun grabber argument. You are wanting to limit thousands of Americans rights to protect themselves.

Yes the reality is the 2nd amendment is already UNCONSTITUTIONALLY restricted every day. Shall not be infringed.

Cool a supreme court justice said that. They also once said people were property.

---

Saying that your proposed solution is more difficult than you make it out to be is not necessarily a "gun grabber" argument. I own plenty of guns and have my LTC.

There are already in place numerous restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Automatic weapons require a license, you are not allowed to take a firearm to an establishment where more than 50% of sales are for liquor, you cannot own a military grade fighter jet, you can lose your right with certain convictions, and many many more.

This whole conversation started with me saying, "Uhhhh, I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be."

All I've done is post one article, which you refuse to completely respond to, and you just moved over to a second amendment argument. I'm not debating the second amendment here, I'm saying arming school teachers is a lot more complicated and costly solution than you seem to think is.

---

Limiting someone else's ability to carry out a Constitutional right is absolutely gun grabbing. You just refuse to accept that is the stance you are taking

I have responded to your article. The article said "may" as in those costs could be something the district has to do, could fall to the individual or could be things that don't even have to happen.

Still waiting for you to provide one other right that has these restrictions and training requirements.

---

Again, you are arguing the second amendment and the laws that are already in place throughout the country. Not what I'm here to do.

I'm here to discuss what are the best ways to help address the issue. IMO, "Arming the teachers" is not the clear cut cheap solution you make it out to be.

---

It is a lot cheaper than providing a full salary to pay for a police officer on each campus.

It is cheaper than the upgrades to make each building a fortress (fences, bulletproof glass, etc.)

You have only said it will be cost prohibitive and provided an article with possible costs. Not actual. You have not provided a single dollar amount.

Classes for concealed carry are cheap. Gun safes are cheap. Both can be looked up. You could get multiple safes and send multiple staff for less than $2,000. And it is a one time cost.

---

This is one of the things I was thinking and it is already implemented in some areas on a voluntary basis.

I do think it would be more complicated than it appears on the surface, but it is certainly one step to help harden the target.

I think there are some other things that could be done, as well to help harden the target, but the feasibility of arming volunteer teachers needs to be looked at.

One thing that is a big question is how the armed teachers would react to a crisis situation.

It is a very different thing between shooting rounds in a range and engaging in a live shooter interaction. That is no different than combat. Even in the military, I have seen a couple freeze when engaging combatants, if only for a brief moment. A brief moment is all it takes to have a bad day.

Maybe some sort of armed teacher/law enforcement combo, where on site law enforcement is equipped to engage first and the armed teachers are basically defense.

Of course, cost is a big factor, but I would have to believe there is enough fat in whatever our taxes go to that we could trim and apply it to this situation.

Once is too many, but this whole thing has gotten out of hand. Something has to be done about it.

I think this route is more of a realistic possibility. Banning guns will not work.

90sBear said:

---

To make this easier on myself and not keep splitting up conversation regarding teachers being armed in the class room, I'm going to start over here.

This is the list of states where teachers are allowed to conceal carry. There are currently 32 and each has its own set of restrictions:

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/which-states-allow-teachers-to-carry-concealed/

One challenge with asking, "What's the dollar amount of arming teachers?" as a potential solution is that in addition to the states where it is not allowed, there are going to be some school districts in states where it is legal that just flat out don't want their teachers armed. There is a probably a good chance that the vast majority of the teachers in those districts don't want to be armed either.

Therefore you have to come up with solutions that help those states where it is not allowed and those districts that don't want it, likely largely due to lack of teacher interest.

I think it might be more realistic for the states to say, "Here's X number of dollars that we can annually give you in addition to monies already being provided. Here is a list of approved items that this money can be spent on." From there it could be up to the school districts themselves to determine the best use of those funds.

If they want to spend that money on physical improvements (doors, windows, entry vestibules, etc.), LEO's, or the necessary expenses required to allow armed teachers, it will be up to them to choose how to allocate that money and the district will have to come up with any additional funds necessary to help make those things happen if the money coming from the state doesn't cover the cost.

---

I think it would have to be done on a district by district basis.

I also think that funding would have to go towards security only, with no exceptions.

Now what that funding would really be is the question.

I wonder how many school districts are in the U.S.?

I imagine the total number would be quite large, but something has to be done.

Malbec said:

---

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.....

---

This was my first thought as well. Why would anyone want to become a teacher? Pay is terrible, dealing with kids and parents is annoying I'm sure, and now you have to deal with a very real possibly getting shot by a nut. If I was in their position, I'd much rather work at CFA for $17 an hour and make pretty close to the same amount of money.

muddybrazos said:

---

contrario said:

---

Malbec said:

---

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.....

---

This was my first thought as well. Why would anyone want to become a teacher? Pay is terrible, dealing with kids and parents is annoying I'm sure, and now you have to deal with a very real possibly getting shot by a nut. If I was in their position, I'd much rather work at CFA for $17 an hour and make pretty close to the same amount of money.

---

Why would anyone become a cop? You could potentially have to fight anyone you deal with and possibly have a gun fight with them. The pay is awful and you dont get summers off. If you happen to make one wrong move on a POC you go to jail for life. Give me a teaching job any day.

---

I think most people that sign up to be teachers have a different mindset than most people that sign up to be police officers. I've had several police officers in my family (grew up on the southside of Chicago) and I know the struggles they face. I also know the commitment they take on by wearing the badge. I don't think any teacher took the job thinking they may not come home because of a shooting at school, but police officers took the job knowing that risk. And yes, we can talk about pay for many levels of government workers, but it's sad that the teachers have to take on this new reality in addition to all of the other stresses they take on (please don't turn this into a teacher bashing discussion, there is no point in that and it is really beyond the point I'm trying to make).

Besides the teachers, it's sad our kids have to be scared of this as well. Two of my kids had active shooter drills at their school this week (it was pre-scheduled, it just happened to coincide with this shooting). I explained to them why we need to do it and that they will most likely never need to worry about it happening at their school, but the school just wants them to be prepared in case something does happen, just like a fire drill. But they are still scared. It's so sad they have to grow up in this reality. And it's also sad that the best solution a lot of people can come up with is arming every school across the country like it's a military base. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't know if I want that either.

We don't have to wonder what the outcome is when they aren't armed. We see it over and over.

I have to think the school did an outstanding job with the lockdown. We see the shooter scanning empty hallways then shooting out the window at cops before being terminated. Better to shoot towards cops then at children.

14 mins response is great but there could have still been a lot more carnage.

contrario said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

contrario said:

---

Malbec said:

---

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.....

---

This was my first thought as well. Why would anyone want to become a teacher? Pay is terrible, dealing with kids and parents is annoying I'm sure, and now you have to deal with a very real possibly getting shot by a nut. If I was in their position, I'd much rather work at CFA for $17 an hour and make pretty close to the same amount of money.

---

Why would anyone become a cop? You could potentially have to fight anyone you deal with and possibly have a gun fight with them. The pay is awful and you dont get summers off. If you happen to make one wrong move on a POC you go to jail for life. Give me a teaching job any day.

---

I think most people that sign up to be teachers have a different mindset than most people that sign up to be police officers. I've had several police officers in my family (grew up on the southside of Chicago) and I know the struggles they face. I also know the commitment they take on by wearing the badge. I don't think any teacher took the job thinking they may not come home because of a shooting at school, but police officers took the job knowing that risk. And yes, we can talk about pay for many levels of government workers, but it's sad that the teachers have to take on this new reality in addition to all of the other stresses they take on (please don't turn this into a teacher bashing discussion, there is no point in that and it is really beyond the point I'm trying to make).

Besides the teachers, it's sad our kids have to be scared of this as well. Two of my kids had active shooter drills at their school this week (it was pre-scheduled, it just happened to coincide with this shooting). I explained to them why we need to do it and that they will most likely never need to worry about it happening at their school, but the school just wants them to be prepared in case something does happen, just like a fire drill. But they are still scared. It's so sad they have to grow up in this reality. And it's also sad that the best solution a lot of people can come up with is arming every school across the country like it's a military base. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't know if I want that either.

---

I'm one that can't really come up with a solution other than hardening the target, i.e. arming voluntary teachers.

I'd be all ears for something better that will work.

At some point, you have to stop wondering and start doing something. In my opinion, we are there.

I agree that it's quite sad that this is even an issue and problem that kids must be involved in. I wish it were different, but it's not.

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

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

---

Just weeks ago Jane Fonda called for the murder of Christians.

Harmful rhetoric by Jane and other far left extremists has consequences… #janefona #prayfornashville pic.twitter.com/aauIuqGwcs

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) March 27, 2023

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?

---

Quote:

---

The only problem is that this frequently-repeated "fact" is simply not true. In the final two free elections before Hitler's rise to power, in July and November 1932, the Nazis received 38% and 33% of the vote, respectively a plurality but not enough to bring them into government. In the 1932 presidential election, Hitler lost to Hindenburg by a wide margin.

Hitler came to power not through elections, but because Hindenburg and the circle around Hindenburg ultimately decided to appoint him chancellor in January 1933.

---

My son did research articles on Hitler when he had to do a major project on the treatment of people by the Nazi regime and Hitler was actually appointed into power, never elected.

The Nazi's were masters at manipulation and propaganda, I'm pretty sure when the 1932 elections were held, they ran on Nationalist pride and a populist movement that would bring the downtrodden Germans out of poverty and onto the road to national prosperity. I doubt any who voted for them in 1932 could forsee the horrors of what the Nazi's would unleash on innocent victims. That said many people do vote for candidates who will look out for their interests, even though the candidate is morally bankrupt.

---

Interesting correction and historical footnote, thank you. I'll change my question accordingly;
Could the people who DID vote Hitler call themselves Christians? Could the people who later supported the Nazi regime that arose after Hindenburg died still call themselves christians despite their support of an evil party?

---

In fairness, Nazi's did win elections, after, Hitler was appointed Chancellor, but this was the aftermath of the Reichstag fire, when the government had passed emergency laws that sharply restricted the activities of left-of-center parties (including the arrest of many Communist leaders). So these would not be considered free and fair elections.

That said, people that voted for Hitler after he took power, many called themselves Christians, and my opinion is their vote was often out of self preservation.

Of course the call of Christianity is to, give up your life, for Christ sake, not to preserve your current life or agenda through political force.

---

See Bonhoeffer

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

It wouldn't hurt anything. It is not required to carry openly. It would also be different if it was a yearly or even every two year training.

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

If that is the only way it passes to allow teachers to defend themselves then fine. but it should not be a yearly thing.

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

We disagree.

In Texas, convicted felons are allowed to open carry weapons they aren't allowed to legally purchase (background check)

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

We disagree.

In Texas, convicted felons are allowed to open carry weapons they aren't allowed to legally purchase (background check)

---

Which law states that?

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

We disagree.

In Texas, convicted felons are allowed to open carry weapons they aren't allowed to legally purchase (background check)

---

Which law states that?

---

Look it up

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

We disagree.

In Texas, convicted felons are allowed to open carry weapons they aren't allowed to legally purchase (background check)

---

Which law states that?

---

Look it up

---

Felons can possess only five years after their sentence and only in their home. Stop being stupid.

---

May felons purchase guns? Open carry?

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

We disagree.

In Texas, convicted felons are allowed to open carry weapons they aren't allowed to legally purchase (background check)

---

Which law states that?

---

Look it up

---

Felons can possess only five years after their sentence and only in their home. Stop being stupid.

---

May felons purchase guns? Open carry?

---

No. And even if state law allowed it, federal law prohibits it.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

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

---

Just weeks ago Jane Fonda called for the murder of Christians.

Harmful rhetoric by Jane and other far left extremists has consequences… #janefona #prayfornashville pic.twitter.com/aauIuqGwcs

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) March 27, 2023

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?

---

As long as they cry "peace, peace" every once in a while, right?

---

I've yet to hear that from a democrat.

---

That doesn't surprise me.

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr 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.....

---

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.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.