I have answers, but she may not like them.

Would they have to buy their own guns, or would there be armories in schools?
I've seen plans that provide the weapon and I've seen plans that teachers provide the weapon. If the school provides it, then yes, the gun remains locked inside the school when school is not in session. This is playing fast and loose with the word armory though.
I lean to teachers providing the weapon. Use what you are familiar with.

Would students be able to break into armories?
Doubtful though rarely is anything fool proof. Most plans I've seen use bioprint safes. The alternatives would be key and/or code safes.

While teaching, would a teacher keep their weapon on their person or in a lock box?
Again plans vary. I lean to on body carry. Your next question explains why.

If it was in a lock box on the other side of the room when a threatening person walked in, would the teacher be able to get to their gun in time?
It depends. But this is why I prefer on body carry. A retention holster like the ones cop uses should alleviate your concerns about students taking the weapon, but again, there is no fool proof plan for anything.

If the threat and the teacher were in close proximity, would the threat not be able to disarm the teacher and turn the pistol on them and in turn the students?
Anything is possible. Why don't we take the 80 hour training together and see what you think at the end?

And since there was a resource or police officer on campus to help protect students and teachers, why didn't that stop 17 people from getting killed and 15 from getting injured on February 14?
I'm sorry to break this to you, but your SRO was a yellow bellied coward. I suppose that could happen to a teacher too, but I would like to believe somebody who asked to do a job will actually do the job.

Archie Bunker was ahead of his time.

Genius usually is.

El Oso said:

---

I have answers, but she may not like them.

Would they have to buy their own guns, or would there be armories in schools?
I've seen plans that provide the weapon and I've seen plans that teachers provide the weapon. If the school provides it, then yes, the gun remains locked inside the school when school is not in session. This is playing fast and loose with the word armory though.
I lean to teachers providing the weapon. Use what you are familiar with.

Would students be able to break into armories?
Doubtful though rarely is anything fool proof. Most plans I've seen use bioprint safes. The alternatives would be key and/or code safes.

While teaching, would a teacher keep their weapon on their person or in a lock box?
Again plans vary. I lean to on body carry. Your next question explains why.

If it was in a lock box on the other side of the room when a threatening person walked in, would the teacher be able to get to their gun in time?
It depends. But this is why I prefer on body carry. A retention holster like the ones cop uses should alleviate your concerns about students taking the weapon, but again, there is no fool proof plan for anything.

If the threat and the teacher were in close proximity, would the threat not be able to disarm the teacher and turn the pistol on them and in turn the students?
Anything is possible. Why don't we take the 80 hour training together and see what you think at the end?

And since there was a resource or police officer on campus to help protect students and teachers, why didn't that stop 17 people from getting killed and 15 from getting injured on February 14?
I'm sorry to break this to you, but your SRO was a yellow bellied coward. I suppose that could happen to a teacher too, but I would like to believe somebody who asked to do a job will actually do the job.

---

Good grief.

Game Theory Model

Every schools gets about 12 lock boxes

Every school system can then make their own rules. They can be all empty, all with a weapon, or somewhere in between. Make your own rules on access as well.

Now here is the important part. Policies of individual schools and districts are never made known publicly. This way, few would ever know if those lock boxes are very armed or empty. No shooter at any school would ever know for sure he was entering a gun free zone or not.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Game Theory Model

Every schools gets about 12 lock boxes

Every school system can then make their own rules. They can be all empty, all with a weapon, or somewhere in between. Make your own rules on access as well.

Now here is the important part. Policies of individual schools and districts are never made known publicly. This way, few would ever know if those lock boxes are very armed or empty. No shooter at any school would ever know for sure he was entering a gun free zone or not.

---

Except, people talk. Some people absolutely cannot keep a secret.

No doubt, but think of it on a grand scale.

Every school may be well armed - you will never know for sure.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Archie Bunker was ahead of his time.

---

No...he was right on schedule . TV's reminder how stupid, racist and pathetic whites are. And folks bought the message for many years.

Canada2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Archie Bunker was ahead of his time.

---

No...he was right on schedule . TV's reminder how stupid, racist and pathetic whites are. And folks bought the message for many years.

---

Interesting. Now, please analyze The Jeffersons.

Racist show!

"Beans don't burn on the grill"

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Racist show!

"Beans don't burn on the grill"

---

And if he is honest he will say:

TV's reminder how stupid, racist and pathetic blacks are. And folks bought the message for many years.

It was the same show.

El Oso said:

---

I have answers, but she may not like them.

Would they have to buy their own guns, or would there be armories in schools?
I've seen plans that provide the weapon and I've seen plans that teachers provide the weapon. If the school provides it, then yes, the gun remains locked inside the school when school is not in session. This is playing fast and loose with the word armory though.
I lean to teachers providing the weapon. Use what you are familiar with.

Would students be able to break into armories?
Doubtful though rarely is anything fool proof. Most plans I've seen use bioprint safes. The alternatives would be key and/or code safes.

While teaching, would a teacher keep their weapon on their person or in a lock box?
Again plans vary. I lean to on body carry. Your next question explains why.

If it was in a lock box on the other side of the room when a threatening person walked in, would the teacher be able to get to their gun in time?
It depends. But this is why I prefer on body carry. A retention holster like the ones cop uses should alleviate your concerns about students taking the weapon, but again, there is no fool proof plan for anything.

If the threat and the teacher were in close proximity, would the threat not be able to disarm the teacher and turn the pistol on them and in turn the students?
Anything is possible. Why don't we take the 80 hour training together and see what you think at the end?

And since there was a resource or police officer on campus to help protect students and teachers, why didn't that stop 17 people from getting killed and 15 from getting injured on February 14?
I'm sorry to break this to you, but your SRO was a yellow bellied coward. I suppose that could happen to a teacher too, but I would like to believe somebody who asked to do a job will actually do the job.

---

A teacher, even with 80 hours of training and an on body carry, against a semi-automatic rifle wielded by someone who probably wants to die anyway.

You will get some heroes no doubt. And you will get some who decide it's best if they go home to their own wife and children. It's nothing you can count on.

If your response to school shootings is to harden security, you have to do it the right way.

You guys dont understand the All in the Family series or Blazing Saddles for that matter.

NY Atheist Jews making fun of blue collar, under educated, white white guys.

All in all I enjoyed both, but then again I appreciate creative dialogue.

How many ****** words could a reasonable person use without getting banned.....take it in context (they are all yankees)!!!!

Booray said:

---

El Oso said:

---

I have answers, but she may not like them.

Would they have to buy their own guns, or would there be armories in schools?
I've seen plans that provide the weapon and I've seen plans that teachers provide the weapon. If the school provides it, then yes, the gun remains locked inside the school when school is not in session. This is playing fast and loose with the word armory though.
I lean to teachers providing the weapon. Use what you are familiar with.

Would students be able to break into armories?
Doubtful though rarely is anything fool proof. Most plans I've seen use bioprint safes. The alternatives would be key and/or code safes.

While teaching, would a teacher keep their weapon on their person or in a lock box?
Again plans vary. I lean to on body carry. Your next question explains why.

If it was in a lock box on the other side of the room when a threatening person walked in, would the teacher be able to get to their gun in time?
It depends. But this is why I prefer on body carry. A retention holster like the ones cop uses should alleviate your concerns about students taking the weapon, but again, there is no fool proof plan for anything.

If the threat and the teacher were in close proximity, would the threat not be able to disarm the teacher and turn the pistol on them and in turn the students?
Anything is possible. Why don't we take the 80 hour training together and see what you think at the end?

And since there was a resource or police officer on campus to help protect students and teachers, why didn't that stop 17 people from getting killed and 15 from getting injured on February 14?
I'm sorry to break this to you, but your SRO was a yellow bellied coward. I suppose that could happen to a teacher too, but I would like to believe somebody who asked to do a job will actually do the job.

---

A teacher, even with 80 hours of training and an on body carry, against a semi-automatic rifle wielded by someone who probably wants to die anyway.

You will get some heroes no doubt. And you will get some who decide it's best if they go home to their own wife and children. It's nothing you can count on.

If your response to school shootings is to harden security, you have to do it the right way.

---

Boo, ever heard of deterrence? New concept to you?

You certainly could not count on it, but safe to say they would be better equipped than the teacher armed only with a history book.

Booray said:

---

El Oso said:

---

I have answers, but she may not like them.

Would they have to buy their own guns, or would there be armories in schools?
I've seen plans that provide the weapon and I've seen plans that teachers provide the weapon. If the school provides it, then yes, the gun remains locked inside the school when school is not in session. This is playing fast and loose with the word armory though.
I lean to teachers providing the weapon. Use what you are familiar with.

Would students be able to break into armories?
Doubtful though rarely is anything fool proof. Most plans I've seen use bioprint safes. The alternatives would be key and/or code safes.

While teaching, would a teacher keep their weapon on their person or in a lock box?
Again plans vary. I lean to on body carry. Your next question explains why.

If it was in a lock box on the other side of the room when a threatening person walked in, would the teacher be able to get to their gun in time?
It depends. But this is why I prefer on body carry. A retention holster like the ones cop uses should alleviate your concerns about students taking the weapon, but again, there is no fool proof plan for anything.

If the threat and the teacher were in close proximity, would the threat not be able to disarm the teacher and turn the pistol on them and in turn the students?
Anything is possible. Why don't we take the 80 hour training together and see what you think at the end?

And since there was a resource or police officer on campus to help protect students and teachers, why didn't that stop 17 people from getting killed and 15 from getting injured on February 14?
I'm sorry to break this to you, but your SRO was a yellow bellied coward. I suppose that could happen to a teacher too, but I would like to believe somebody who asked to do a job will actually do the job.

---

A teacher, even with 80 hours of training and an on body carry, against a semi-automatic rifle wielded by someone who probably wants to die anyway.

You will get some heroes no doubt. And you will get some who decide it's best if they go home to their own wife and children. It's nothing you can count on.

If your response to school shootings is to harden security, you have to do it the right way.

---

1. The deterrence of armed teachers could be enough. That is why no one goes to spots with lots of guns around to do these shootings.

2. People armed with pistols have stopped people with rifles before. In fact in a building a hand gun is better than a rifle due to tight spaces, corners, etc

3. Yes they may not run towards the gunfire but they can at least defend themselves if the shooter approaches instead of hiding.

El Oso said:

---

I have answers, but she may not like them.

Would they have to buy their own guns, or would there be armories in schools?
I've seen plans that provide the weapon and I've seen plans that teachers provide the weapon. If the school provides it, then yes, the gun remains locked inside the school when school is not in session. This is playing fast and loose with the word armory though.
I lean to teachers providing the weapon. Use what you are familiar with.

Would students be able to break into armories?
Doubtful though rarely is anything fool proof. Most plans I've seen use bioprint safes. The alternatives would be key and/or code safes.

While teaching, would a teacher keep their weapon on their person or in a lock box?
Again plans vary. I lean to on body carry. Your next question explains why.

If it was in a lock box on the other side of the room when a threatening person walked in, would the teacher be able to get to their gun in time?
It depends. But this is why I prefer on body carry. A retention holster like the ones cop uses should alleviate your concerns about students taking the weapon, but again, there is no fool proof plan for anything.

If the threat and the teacher were in close proximity, would the threat not be able to disarm the teacher and turn the pistol on them and in turn the students?
Anything is possible. Why don't we take the 80 hour training together and see what you think at the end?

And since there was a resource or police officer on campus to help protect students and teachers, why didn't that stop 17 people from getting killed and 15 from getting injured on February 14?
I'm sorry to break this to you, but your SRO was a yellow bellied coward. I suppose that could happen to a teacher too, but I would like to believe somebody who asked to do a job will actually do the job.

---

I have no idea who Emma is and don't care.

But to me it sounds more like she is trying to play the "what if" game and ask about all sorts of scenarios that would need to be handled on a state by state, district by district and school by school basis.

There is no one solution that fits every school, every situation.

Because one "what if" she left out that could easily be thrown out is what if the shooter goes on a day that one of the armed teachers is sick?

She is doing nothing more than trying to throw out all sort of hypotheticals to make it sound like a bad plan.

She's the girl with the buzz cut. She wrote an article about guns and Hufpo complemented her on how well she did het research. I just thought this particular paragraph showed she did no research.

I would still prefer for schools to outsource security but I am firmly in the camp of arming teachers who want to be and pass whatever standards are laid out for them.

There is no one size fits all security plan.

We went through this on another thread. ATL Bear tried to make the point and was met with the same dumb responses. Arguing for school security to be provided by professionals instead of by teachers is arguing for effective deterrence, not arguing against deterrence. Why is that so hard to understand?

Separately, advocating for better background, raised age minimums and tighter restrictions on semi-automatics is not mutually exclusive with increased on-campus security. But we are such reflexive us or them thinkers we can't grasp simple, logical concepts.

Booray said:

---

We went through this on another thread. ATL Bear tried to make the point and was met with the same dumb responses. Arguing for school security to be provided by professionals instead of by teachers is arguing for effective deterrence, not arguing against deterrence. Why is that so hard to understand?

Separately, advocating for better background, raised age minimums and tighter restrictions on semi-automatics is not mutually exclusive with increased on-campus security. But we are such reflexive us or them thinkers we can't grasp simple, logical concepts.

---

Do you understand what a semi automatic gun is?

Hint most guns are. Handgun or rifle.

Because teachers know how guns work too. I've been carrying on campus since Aug 1, 2017 with zero issues.

No student has seen my weapon or asked about a bulge on my waist. Probably because I'm so good at hiding it there is no bulge.

I love when you guys from the Christian Right use continued racist slurs. Much easier to ignore you all:

pitchman said:

---

I love when you guys from the Christian Right use continued racist slurs. Much easier to ignore you all:

---

And yet you took the time to respond to the thread....

cowboycwr said:

---

Booray said:

---

We went through this on another thread. ATL Bear tried to make the point and was met with the same dumb responses. Arguing for school security to be provided by professionals instead of by teachers is arguing for effective deterrence, not arguing against deterrence. Why is that so hard to understand?

Separately, advocating for better background, raised age minimums and tighter restrictions on semi-automatics is not mutually exclusive with increased on-campus security. But we are such reflexive us or them thinkers we can't grasp simple, logical concepts.

---

Do you understand what a semi automatic gun is?

Hint most guns are. Handgun or rifle.

---

What makes you think he doesn't?
Hint: he's former military.

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Booray said:

---

We went through this on another thread. ATL Bear tried to make the point and was met with the same dumb responses. Arguing for school security to be provided by professionals instead of by teachers is arguing for effective deterrence, not arguing against deterrence. Why is that so hard to understand?

Separately, advocating for better background, raised age minimums and tighter restrictions on semi-automatics is not mutually exclusive with increased on-campus security. But we are such reflexive us or them thinkers we can't grasp simple, logical concepts.

---

Do you understand what a semi automatic gun is?

Hint most guns are. Handgun or rifle.

---

What makes you think he doesn't?
Hint: he's former military.

---

I didn't call him out, but for me, when I read things like "tighter restrictions on semi-automatic weapons," I default to thinking whoever said that may not know a lot about guns.

The vast majority of modern guns sold and collected in the US are semi-automatic, which means they fire a single shot with every pull of the trigger, but automatically reload between shots.

You're dealing with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of weapons when you use a blanket phrase like semi automatic and as often as that phrase gets misused, my default is set to another mis user of the phrase because it is way to general.

But I didn't call the man out. We may not agree, but booray makes good points.