A school in Missouri has its teachers packing concealed firearms now

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.

**Seaward**

Sturmtruppen wrote:
Personally, I think this is a good idea. It'll give the teachers a boost in confidence, especially the males with small penises. Well, unless their heat is concealed at the front of their pants, and when gak hits the fan, they accidentally blow their own nads off.

You're a lot more likely to hit your femoral than your nuts if you're appendix carrying.

**Frazzled**

derek wrote:
The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive. I live in Missouri, and am a target shooting enthusiast. I spend a lot of time around firearms, and people with CCW licenses, and it's very hard to tell when people are carrying or not. People that think it's easy need to get the Hollywood image of concealed weapons out of their mind. My sister is one of the most liberal thinking people I know, and the only member of my immediate family not to own their own firearm. She's also a teacher (currently only doing it as a substitute), and after the Sandy Hook shooting, even she suggested this course of action.

Statistically, CHL carriers are the safest, most law abiding people in the US. Even better than police in that regard. They don't "snap."
Some even look right snappy in their new genuine "made in Hawaii" all cotton Hawaiian shirts they got for their birthday. . .

**djones520**

Frazzled wrote:
derek wrote:
The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive. I live in Missouri, and am a target shooting enthusiast. I spend a lot of time around firearms, and people with CCW licenses, and it's very hard to tell when people are carrying or not. People that think it's easy need to get the Hollywood image of concealed weapons out of their mind. My sister is one of the most liberal thinking people I know, and the only member of my immediate family not to own their own firearm. She's also a teacher (currently only doing it as a substitute), and after the Sandy Hook shooting, even she suggested this course of action.

Statistically, CHL carriers are the safest, most law abiding people in the US. Even better than police in that regard. They don't "snap."
Some even look right snappy in their new genuine "made in Hawaii" all cotton Hawaiian shirts they got for their birthday. . .

It's easier to slam and insult the people who want to help keep our children safe, then admit they may be wrong.

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
whembly wrote:
I have the right to fill up my garage with as many guns that I can legally buy...

You're implying that I do not.

No, I am saying that you can have as many guns as you want, so long as you are legally able to buy them. There are already restrictions in place on the types of weapons you can buy, as well as waiting periods for other types of weapon and, in some cases, various back ground checks and so on. I simply suggest that in order to get any kind of gun the buyer should have to meet certain minimum requirements in terms of a clean background check, safety training etc, similar to if you wanted to drive a car you need to pass a test and have insurance, or if for some reason people decide to arm school teachers in the classroom they need to have passed some kind of training and be reassessed regularly in order to do so.

No The Second Amendment says I can have as many guns as I want.

I don't have a garage full, but I do have a "man alcove" in said garage dedicated to the manly art of bangie bangie.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
derek wrote:
The notion that some teacher is going to snap and shoot children is laughable, and also offensive. I live in Missouri, and am a target shooting enthusiast. I spend a lot of time around firearms, and people with CCW licenses, and it's very hard to tell when people are carrying or not. People that think it's easy need to get the Hollywood image of concealed weapons out of their mind. My sister is one of the most liberal thinking people I know, and the only member of my immediate family not to own their own firearm. She's also a teacher (currently only doing it as a substitute), and after the Sandy Hook shooting, even she suggested this course of action.

Statistically, CHL carriers are the safest, most law abiding people in the US. Even better than police in that regard. They don't "snap."
Some even look right snappy in their new genuine "made in Hawaii" all cotton Hawaiian shirts they got for their birthday. . .

It's easier to slam and insult the people who want to help keep our children safe, then admit they may be wrong.

Well, I'll be nice and say the "people weirding out" are not familiar with CHL requirements and the ones that typically have it. They also make the very false assumption that, if its against the law, there aren't guns there now. If that were the case we wouldn't need the CHL in the first place, no?

**Squigsquasher**

Awwww hell no...

This is not good at all...

**whembly**

Squigsquasher wrote:
Awwww hell no...

This is not good at all...

Why not?

**Squigsquasher**

whembly wrote:
Squigsquasher wrote:
Awwww hell no...

This is not good at all...

Why not?

My experience of teachers shows that the vast majority of them are pricks.

Most of them don't even like kids.

A prick who doesn't like kids is the last person I would want in a classroom with a gun.

Also, if this is passed it will further ingrain the "guns are the answer to everything" mindset into the American populace.

**whembly**

Squigsquasher wrote:
whembly wrote:
Squigsquasher wrote:
Awwww hell no...

This is not good at all...

Why not?

My experience of teachers shows that the vast majority of them are pricks.

Most of them don't even like kids.

A prick who doesn't like kids is the last person I would want in a classroom with a gun.

Also, if this is passed it will further ingrain the "guns are the answer to everything" mindset into the American populace.

I guess you didn't read the article in full... it's in place now.

Not every teacher is a prick...

**Frazzled**

Squigsquasher wrote:
whembly wrote:
Squigsquasher wrote:
Awwww hell no...

This is not good at all...

Why not?

My experience of teachers shows that the vast majority of them are pricks.

Most of them don't even like kids.

A prick who doesn't like kids is the last person I would want in a classroom with a gun.

Also, if this is passed it will further ingrain the "guns are the answer to everything" mindset into the American populace.

You assume they don't have a gun now. Why?

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Squigsquasher wrote:
Also, if this is passed it will further ingrain the "guns are the answer to everything" mindset into the American populace.

As opposed to?

**djones520**

Squigsquasher wrote:

Also, if this is passed it will further ingrain the "guns are the answer to everything" mindset into the American populace.

I could care less if the rest of the world thinks that way about us. Honestly, my give-a-gak-o-meter doesn't even twitch at the thought of it.

Americans do not think that guns are the answer to everything, and if you guys think that's how we are, then it's your own issue. I'm not going to waste a single second considering what some people in Europe think about my laws.

**daedalus**

djones520 wrote:
Squigsquasher wrote:

Also, if this is passed it will further ingrain the "guns are the answer to everything" mindset into the American populace.

I could care less if the rest of the world thinks that way about us. Honestly, my give-a-gak-o-meter doesn't even twitch at the thought of it.

Americans do not think that guns are the answer to everything, and if you guys think that's how we are, then it's your own issue. I'm not going to waste a single second considering what some people in Europe think about my laws.

Kind of interesting how people from other countries fret and panic about the gun possession of Americans though the odds of it affecting them in any significant way are microscopic. I don't understand it.

**Frazzled**

They're jealous of our manly essence. Its in the water. Thats why the commies want to fluoridate the water. Those dirty commies. Best to only drink distilled water, pure wood grain alcohol, and of course tequila.

**whembly**

daedalus wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Squigsquasher wrote:

Also, if this is passed it will further ingrain the "guns are the answer to everything" mindset into the American populace.

I could care less if the rest of the world thinks that way about us. Honestly, my give-a-gak-o-meter doesn't even twitch at the thought of it.

Americans do not think that guns are the answer to everything, and if you guys think that's how we are, then it's your own issue. I'm not going to waste a single second considering what some people in Europe think about my laws.

Kind of interesting how people from other countries fret and panic about the gun possession of Americans though the odds of it affecting them in any significant way are microscopic. I don't understand it.

It's one of the things that differentiate Americans from Europeans... they think their way is better... and we don't.

**Grey Templar**

Well, we think its better for us.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
They're jealous of our manly essence. Its in the water.

It's in the Queso man!

Oh gak! What that supposed to be a secret??

**Grey Templar**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
They're jealous of our manly essence. Its in the water.

It's in the Queso man!

Oh gak! What that supposed to be a secret??

Fool!

Your mancard is getting suspended for 1 hour.

**Frazzled**

Indeed.

**whembly**

Grey Templar wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
They're jealous of our manly essence. Its in the water.

It's in the Queso man!

Oh gak! What that supposed to be a secret??

Fool!

Your mancard is getting suspended for 1 hour.

<walks in shame>
...

**djones520**

Frazzled wrote:
They're jealous of our manly essence. Its in the water.

We should send them some Old Spice.

**Frazzled**

On the subject. Senate rejects background checks. They should have known. I announced I liked it, which means its immediately dead. Frazzled is not allowed to have nice things.

Frazzled is used to being beast of burden. Have horrible life, probably horrible death, but at least there is symmetry.*

*And where does that line come from boyos?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/senate-rejects-gun-bill-compromise-204629005--politics.html

Senate rejects gun amendment compromise
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News

Political Reporter

PostsEmailRSSBy Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 46 mins agoEmail 0Share 535Tweet67Share0PrintThe Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, a blow to advocates calling for more strict firearm laws after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., late last year.

The measure, the product of intense negotiations between Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, would have extended background check requirements on gun owners. It needed 60 votes to pass, but failed 54-46.

Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end, a procedural tactic that allows him to bring it up for a vote later.) In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.

Scores of onlookers filled the Senate gallery to watch the vote. When Vice President Joseph Biden read the final tally and announced the amendment had not passed, Patricia Maisch, who helped disarm the man who shot former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, yelled, "Shame on you!" before walking out

As late as Wednesday afternoon, the fate of the measure appeared dire for its supporters. Shortly before the vote, Biden tamped down expectations for it to pass.

“This is going to be a close vote, and I can assure you of one thing—we’re going to get this eventually," Biden said during a live video for Google. "If we don’t get this today, we’ll get this eventually.”

The vice president promised the White House and gun-reform supporters will continue to move ahead regardless of Senate action.

**Dreadclaw69**

I'd just seen that

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Spoiler:

Frazzled wrote:
On the subject. Senate rejects background checks. They should have known. I announced I liked it, which means its immediately dead. Frazzled is not allowed to have nice things.

Frazzled is used to being beast of burden. Have horrible life, probably horrible death, but at least there is symmetry.*

*And where does that line come from boyos?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/senate-rejects-gun-bill-compromise-204629005--politics.html

Senate rejects gun amendment compromise
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News

Political Reporter

PostsEmailRSSBy Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 46 mins agoEmail 0Share 535Tweet67Share0PrintThe Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, a blow to advocates calling for more strict firearm laws after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., late last year.

The measure, the product of intense negotiations between Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, would have extended background check requirements on gun owners. It needed 60 votes to pass, but failed 54-46.

Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end, a procedural tactic that allows him to bring it up for a vote later.) In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.

Scores of onlookers filled the Senate gallery to watch the vote. When Vice President Joseph Biden read the final tally and announced the amendment had not passed, Patricia Maisch, who helped disarm the man who shot former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, yelled, "Shame on you!" before walking out

As late as Wednesday afternoon, the fate of the measure appeared dire for its supporters. Shortly before the vote, Biden tamped down expectations for it to pass.

“This is going to be a close vote, and I can assure you of one thing—we’re going to get this eventually," Biden said during a live video for Google. "If we don’t get this today, we’ll get this eventually.”

The vice president promised the White House and gun-reform supporters will continue to move ahead regardless of Senate action.

Was there any additional legislation attached to this or was it just background checks?

**Grey Templar**

Frazzled wrote:
On the subject. Senate rejects background checks. They should have known. I announced I liked it, which means its immediately dead.

Say you like Snooki, please.

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
On the subject. Senate rejects background checks. They should have known. I announced I liked it, which means its immediately dead.

Say you like Snooki, please.

I just can't do it. It has to be genuine.

**Dreadclaw69**

Grey Templar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
On the subject. Senate rejects background checks. They should have known. I announced I liked it, which means its immediately dead.

Say you like Snooki, please.

Frazzled - Dakka's very own Death Note

**Grey Templar**

Quick, get a hypnotist in here.

**Howard A Treesong**

daedalus wrote:
Kind of interesting how people from other countries fret and panic about the gun possession of Americans though the odds of it affecting them in any significant way are microscopic. I don't understand it.

Your gun possession doesn't affect me one jot. But I am still capable of discussing it and I am interested in matters concerning education because, oddly enough, I work in a school. Arming teachers is a knee jerk response to a danger that schools will likely never face, that of a armed nutter going on a shooting spree. Meanwhile I do know of the daily stresses that teachers frequently face and become buried under, there's well reported cases of teachers flipping out and becoming violent, and I think that generally it's best not to arm them because there's more potential for harm from introducing guns to the school premises than there ever will be from someone going on a rampage.

It's not just the teacher using the gun, there's the simple risk that a gun could fall into the wrong hands. Is this so inconceivable? A few weeks ago a teacher collapsed at my school and had to be taken to hospital. Good job he wasn't armed because that means for several minutes there would be a gun in the classroom and no capable adult. Does that seem safe? People who think that the kids will never notice that a teacher is carrying a gun likely haven't worked in a school. No matter how careful the staff are as a collective, eventually a child will work it out or pick up on it by seeing or hearing something they shouldn't, and then it'll become common knowledge which staff are likely to have a gun.

**MrMoustaffa**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Spoiler:

Frazzled wrote:
On the subject. Senate rejects background checks. They should have known. I announced I liked it, which means its immediately dead. Frazzled is not allowed to have nice things.

Frazzled is used to being beast of burden. Have horrible life, probably horrible death, but at least there is symmetry.*

*And where does that line come from boyos?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/senate-rejects-gun-bill-compromise-204629005--politics.html

Senate rejects gun amendment compromise
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News

Political Reporter

PostsEmailRSSBy Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 46 mins agoEmail 0Share 535Tweet67Share0PrintThe Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, a blow to advocates calling for more strict firearm laws after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., late last year.

The measure, the product of intense negotiations between Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, would have extended background check requirements on gun owners. It needed 60 votes to pass, but failed 54-46.

Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end, a procedural tactic that allows him to bring it up for a vote later.) In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.

Scores of onlookers filled the Senate gallery to watch the vote. When Vice President Joseph Biden read the final tally and announced the amendment had not passed, Patricia Maisch, who helped disarm the man who shot former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, yelled, "Shame on you!" before walking out

As late as Wednesday afternoon, the fate of the measure appeared dire for its supporters. Shortly before the vote, Biden tamped down expectations for it to pass.

“This is going to be a close vote, and I can assure you of one thing—we’re going to get this eventually," Biden said during a live video for Google. "If we don’t get this today, we’ll get this eventually.”

The vice president promised the White House and gun-reform supporters will continue to move ahead regardless of Senate action.

Was there any additional legislation attached to this or was it just background checks?

Was this an actual compromise though, or another "you get to keep most guns, be happy we let you have that" style compromise?

Because number 2 isn't really a compromise...

**djones520**

There was some quid pro quo in it, but I'm not 100% on it all. Giving cross state border protection for CCW's was a concession made.