Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alfndrate wrote:
The stuff about the molotov seems... sketchy... Like this happened days ago, and we're only now just hearing about it? Especially if he actually lit and threw one I would think we'd be hearing about it almost as soon as it happened, since ya know... fire bad...

Which of the items used are;
a) Already banned
b) Being lined up for more stringent regulation

I don't know if teachers in the states are as pressured by their employer (the state) as they are here... but the last thing I would do is give myself or a lot of my colleagues a gun. I fear "going postal" would get replaced by "going educator" or some such.

Resource Officers? Fine by me. If you find the right profile for the job, they can be a great asset. Cops are often seen as the enemy by kids these days, reaching out to the community with a sideline of added security can be great.

Good that it was stop before he did any more damage.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
I don't know if teachers in the states are as pressured by their employer (the state) as they are here... but the last thing I would do is give myself or a lot of my colleagues a gun. I fear "going postal" would get replaced by "going educator" or some such.

Resource Officers? Fine by me. If you find the right profile for the job, they can be a great asset. Cops are often seen as the enemy by kids these days, reaching out to the community with a sideline of added security can be great.

NRA fully supports these. In as many schools as possible. Problem is the funding isn't there for many districts.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
I don't know if teachers in the states are as pressured by their employer (the state) as they are here... but the last thing I would do is give myself or a lot of my colleagues a gun. I fear "going postal" would get replaced by "going educator" or some such.

Resource Officers? Fine by me. If you find the right profile for the job, they can be a great asset. Cops are often seen as the enemy by kids these days, reaching out to the community with a sideline of added security can be great.

NRA fully supports these. In as many schools as possible. Problem is the funding isn't there for many districts.

Perhaps then, instead of the school district paying for armed guardians, have the county/state pay for them as a requirement of school security. I know when I was in school, during the Rivalry game in football, fans walked a veritable tunnel of LEOs to get into the field/stadium because things could get... intense, but to my knowledge, it was an action taken by the city/county NOT the school district, so while tax payers still foot (footed?) the bill for it, it did not come from the school coffers.

So, kid tries to start Trouble, Gets stopped by an Officer of the Law, not a teacher or a principle, and offs himself.
Why dont we put more police in schools? And Make them a presence? I remember my school having one, all she did was sleep in her car. She was nice but she never got out.
What if we put 4-5 plain clothes officers disquised as yard duties around the school to stop this stuff?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
What if we put 4-5 plain clothes officers disquised as yard duties around the school to stop this stuff?

How many schools are there? How often does this kind of thing happen? Not worth it, especially when schools are struggling to pay teachers.

So arming teachers is a better plan?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So arming teachers is a better plan?

If you set up a good system, it can be.

Having more police and guards at schools is a catch 22 situation it seems like in regard to conservatives.

They want more things that cost money but they do not want to pay more taxes.

So yeah you can either pay more taxes and get guards or not pay more taxes and not have guards.

These things are not funded by the tears of parents who children who died at school shootings, but by tax payers.

You mean tears are not an acceptable payment method? BRB I have to go talk to my boss.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So arming teachers is a better plan?

No. There is no "better" plan. These school shooters are a symptom, but no one really knows the "cause" yet. We really need to find the cause and attack it there.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
I don't know if teachers in the states are as pressured by their employer (the state) as they are here... but the last thing I would do is give myself or a lot of my colleagues a gun. I fear "going postal" would get replaced by "going educator" or some such.

Resource Officers? Fine by me. If you find the right profile for the job, they can be a great asset. Cops are often seen as the enemy by kids these days, reaching out to the community with a sideline of added security can be great.

NRA fully supports these. In as many schools as possible. Problem is the funding isn't there for many districts.

Perhaps then, instead of the school district paying for armed guardians, have the county/state pay for them as a requirement of school security. I know when I was in school, during the Rivalry game in football, fans walked a veritable tunnel of LEOs to get into the field/stadium because things could get... intense, but to my knowledge, it was an action taken by the city/county NOT the school district, so while tax payers still foot (footed?) the bill for it, it did not come from the school coffers.

The county/city/state do pay for them.

School Resource Officers are law enforcement officers who are assigned specifically to work in the schools, with their pay coming from the county/city police budget depending on where exactly the school in question might be(some schools have Sheriff's Deputies while others have Police Officers).

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Having more police and guards at schools is a catch 22 situation it seems like in regard to conservatives.

They want more things that cost money but they do not want to pay more taxes.

So yeah you can either pay more taxes and get guards or not pay more taxes and not have guards.

These things are not funded by the tears of parents who children who died at school shootings, but by tax payers.

Conversely, teachers or staff with a valid conceal carry permit being allowed to carry on campus costs the tax payers nothing extra.

I'm for allowing teachers to carry in the school, and would find it perfectly reasonable if those teachers were held to a higher standard than your avg CCW.

There are plenty of tactical classes and ranges out there.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So a shooter is confronted with an armed response and turns the firearm on himself. That is a bit of a trend, isn't it.

Yes, seems to happen about half the time.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm for allowing teachers to carry in the school, and would find it perfectly reasonable if those teachers were held to a higher standard than your avg CCW.

There are plenty of tactical classes and ranges out there.

Agreed.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I can't wait until I hear about the shooter's obsession with violent video games.

And rock music/action films/rap music (delete as appropriate)

Yeah, all forms of entertainment competing with the news, not suspicious at all.

So apparently ol'boy murderface was out to kill off one specific techer?

I think that was at least part of the goal. Bringing the molotovs would indicate he wanted to do more than cap the teacher though.

I believe the plan was to kill him until he was dead...dead...dead.

The targeted teacher was the librarian. Maybe he wanted to symbolically destroy everything he worked for at the school with the Molotovs.

Assuming he left a note/manifesto or talked to someone ahead of time we will eventually find out more. It is still early in the investigation.

He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?

 cincydooley wrote:
The targeted teacher was the librarian. Maybe he wanted to symbolically destroy everything he worked for at the school with the Molotovs.

the librarian was also the kids debate coach, who apparently disciplined the kid for some reason ive not yet heard

I don't see a stressed out teacher who is being annoyed by his students, carrying a gun as a good thing.
I remember my school time and getting the teacher steaming was the class's favorite pass time.

 Crablezworth wrote:
He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?

I was given my first belt fed, automatic weapon at 17. I was also given access to high explosives, jet fuel, CS tear gas and all sorts of other fun toys.

Cars kill 32,000+ people a year, we license people to drive them at 16.

Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.

Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?

 master of ordinance wrote:
Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.

Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?

Cars are a necessity for everyday modern life. Guns on the other hand... not so much...

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I don't see a stressed out teacher who is being annoyed by his students, carrying a gun as a good thing.
I remember my school time and getting the teacher steaming was the class's favorite pass time.

You could say the same about a stressed out cop annoyed at the juvenile delinquents he/she is powerless to really do something about, or any other stressed out person.

 CptJake wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I don't see a stressed out teacher who is being annoyed by his students, carrying a gun as a good thing.
I remember my school time and getting the teacher steaming was the class's favorite pass time.

You could say the same about a stressed out cop annoyed at the juvenile delinquents he/she is powerless to really do something about, or any other stressed out person.

You do realize there is not a damn thing that stops teachers from doing that now already, don't you? That sign that says no gun zone is not a magical forcefield. If a teacher wanted to shoot a kid because he was such a dickbag, he could, anytime he wanted.