Texas officials about teachers: Arm them!

[Baron Von Crowder]

Wayne, if it's so prone to teachers killing innocent people, why does it work so well in Israel? They all carry, and they don't have invasions of their schools.

His mind is set, dont bring logical factual information into this!

[BlackSnake]

Wayne, if it's so prone to teachers killing innocent people, why does it work so well in Israel? They all carry, and they don't have invasions of their schools.

When we start having the same kinds of problems they do there we "might" have to re evaluate a few things. I dont see it changing my mind about the training though.

What you still have not answered, is why are you against required training "to" carry in schools? I have more than answered why I think we should.

[Baron Von Crowder]

I am not opposed to extra training. But by making it a requirement.

When we start having the same kinds of problems they do there we "might" have to re evaluate a few things. I dont see it changing my mind about the training though.

What you still have not answered, is why are you against required training "to" carry in schools? I have more than answered why I think we should.

GO back and read that statement Wayne, and read it and the others over and over again until it sinks in.

Summary;
if it is required, the number of participants will fall. The strength, again, is in the numbers.
Competency is something that is individual, as a CHL holder you are responcible for your competency. School districts are already strapped for cash as it is, some are having to downsize staff to make ends meet. You are asking for the teachers to pay for this extra class themself, without extra pay? And you think there will be meaningful turnout?

[mikec]

When we start having the same kinds of problems they do there we "might" have to re evaluate a few things. I dont see it changing my mind about the training though.

What you still have not answered, is why are you against required training "to" carry in schools? I have more than answered why I think we should.

I haven't said one thing against training. You are the one trying to put extra measures in place. I'm fine with trusting the person who takes on this responsibility to do what they need to do.

One thing you are overlooking here is the level of caring that our educators have. They are not going to start wildly spraying rounds if they have to draw down on someone. They are themselves parents, they understand well the importance of accuracy and the consequences of stray rounds. They can handle it, they do not need to be exposed to more of the same red tape that is the problem now.

[BlackSnake]

GO back and read that statement Wayne, and read it and the others over and over again until it sinks in.

Summary;
if it is required, the number of participants will fall. The strength, again, is in the numbers.
Competency is something that is individual, as a CHL holder you are responcible for your competency. School districts are already strapped for cash as it is, some are having to downsize staff to make ends meet. You are asking for the teachers to pay for this extra class themself, without extra pay? And you think there will be meaningful turnout?

I dont think anyone is "opposed" to training. That should be straight across the board. The only reason I see that you are opposed to "required" training as you have stated, is because you believe the numbers will do the job. Not the actually CHL holder having to face a actual situation. Sorry my friend. Thats not good enough for me. And I mean that sincerely.

[BlackSnake]

I haven't said one thing against training. You are the one trying to put extra measures in place. I'm fine with trusting the person who takes on this responsibility to do what they need to do.

One thing you are overlooking here is the level of caring that our educators have. They are not going to start wildly spraying rounds if they have to draw down on someone. They are themselves parents, they understand well the importance of accuracy and the consequences of stray rounds. They can handle it, they do not need to be exposed to more of the same red tape that is the problem now.

Mike...that is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard on the subject.
I have been shot at on the streets more than most, and I promise you none of what you just stated ever ran across my mind. Your focus has nothing to do with how sweet of a family man you can be, or how caring your heart is towards others. I have a life time of guns training and 16 years training in martial arts of various styles. I think I might have a little insite on this, and the importance of proper combat training.

I dont mean to comew across as a ass to you or Barren. I know your opinions are well thought out. Mine are just different. You guys are friends in my book.

Headed to the lease. I'll try to stay tunes as much as I can. Hope you all have a great day.

[Baron Von Crowder]

I dont think anyone is "opposed" to training. That should be straight across the board. The only reason I see that you are opposed to "required" training as you have stated, is because you believe the numbers will do the job. Not the actually CHL holder having to face a actual situation. Sorry my friend. Thats not good enough for me. And I mean that sincerely.

I mean sincerely that you are asking for absolutely nothing to happen, if you have to have it your way, and you are making up a fantacy situation to justify it.

[Forever_frost]

In an active shooter situation, caring doesn't apply. Training kicks in and you go on auto. It's no longer a thinking or rational process. You quickly scan, evaluate target, and squeeze.

[BlackSnake]

I mean sincerely that you are asking for absolutely nothing to happen, if you have to have it your way, and you are making up a fantacy situation to justify it.

Im not sure what you mean. I think its inportant to know what to do in a safe manner if and when something does happen.

Not sure where I have made up fantacy situations. Lost on that one.

[tazz007]

You all can argue till you blue in the face. It still boils down to this. Your kid has a better chance of living through his/her school years IF there are armed personal in place. If you disagree with this you are dumber than a box of rocks!
But it's you kids at risk here, sacrifice them if you will.

Besides, there are schools here in Texas that have armed teachers. If I had school aged kids, that's where I would move to.

[GhostTX]

Liberals' kids with...

...armed guards at their schools...

David Gregory mocked the NRA's Wayne LaPierre for proposing that armed guards be at every school in America. But the NBC host seems to have no problem with armed guards protecting his kids everyday where they attend school in Washington, D.C.

"You proposed armed guards in school. We'll talk about that in some detail in a moment. You confronted the news media. You blamed Hollywood and the gaming industry. But never once did you concede that guns could actually be part of the problem. Is that a meaningful contribution, Mr. LaPierre, or a dodge?," asked Gregory.

Later the host suggested that guns don't prevent violence in schools (he cited the mass shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech). "But you would concede that, as good as an idea as you think this is, it may not work. Because there have been cases where armed guards have not prevented this kind of massacre, this kind of carnage. I want you would concede that point, wouldn't you?," Gregory pleaded.

The NBC host would go on the rest of the segment to suggest that armed guards might not be effective in preventing mass murders at school. Which is perhaps an interesting theoretical argument.

But when it comes to Gregory's own kids, however, they are secured every school day by armed guards.

The Gregory children go to school with the children of President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post. That school is the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends.

According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

Moreover, with the Obama kids in attendance, there is a secret service presence at the institution, as well.

It's safe to say the school where Gregory sends his kids is a high-security school. It's just odd he'd want it for his kids, but wouldn't be more open to it for others.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gregory-mocks-lapierre-proposing-armed-guards-sends-kids-high-security-school_691057.html

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

[Forever_frost]

Also, this was Clinton's idea. Liberals loved it then

[Captain Crawfish]

knowing your gonna get blasted with bullets if you try some dumb shit will make some of these idiots think twice.

[BlackSnake]

You all can argue till you blue in the face. It still boils down to this. Your kid has a better chance of living through his/her school years IF there are armed personal in place. If you disagree with this you are dumber than a box of rocks!
But it's you kids at risk here, sacrifice them if you will.

Besides, there are schools here in Texas that have armed teachers. If I had school aged kids, that's where I would move to.

I totally agree with you. My only argument in this matter is that there be additional training for the schools to allow teachers to carry on school ground. A second class of CHL, if you will.

The argument presented is that no one will be willing to get the extra training. Much less pay for it. But I think that's wrong also. The ones that actually want to carry will absolutely pay for and get the training. Teachers want to have that option to be able to carry at schools, and something that small is not gonna stop them. After all, they went several years of collage just to teach. What's that compared to a few weekends a year for training, that I may add could also be tons of fun.

[mikec]

We are closer to finalizing arrangements for our group of about 20 teachers to go through a free class on pistol training, hand to hand, and CHL licensing. I'm finding it awesome that so many companies are stepping up and offering their classes at no charge to educators.

Texas Weapons Institute out of Killeen is coming all the way up here to Wylie to teach the course, at no charge.