# Colorado School Massacre Was Prevented Because of a Good Guy with a Gun



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Gun laws did not stop another school shooting from becoming a massacre. But just as the NRA recommended for schools across the country, an armed security official was able to keep a bad situation from becoming much worse.

The presence of a law did not stop the shooter, but the presence of a good guy with a gun did.
- See more at: A Colorado School Massacre Was Prevented Because of a Good Guy with a Gun


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

When you run across someone who insists that arming teachers and perhaps other school employees is a bad idea, ask them this.

When was the last time you heard of a deranged shooter at a gun show? Or a gun carriers' meeting? Or perhaps a large gun shop?

That tends to stymie them a bit... give them pause and cause them to think about the inane statement they just made. Another thing you can do is ask them this question, which appears in my sig on several other websites;

"In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?"

To really have an effect, substitute the first person with your son or daughter or child. I find this one really cuts to the core and makes them uncomfortable.


The thing is, these killers go into places known by them to be "gun free zones". They want to reek as much carnage as they can minimum damage to themselves as they go about their evil ways. Encountering someone who is armed disrupts their plan and puts them in serious jeopardy. One has to really wonder why on earth parents would not want this to be the case. Why they would fight to keep armed personnel out of schools when that is the only way to stop a determined shooter.


----------



## Glock Doctor (Mar 14, 2011)

:smt017 Am I the only one who sees the group insanity in this situation? 

Armed guards in public schools! Such a thing would have been utterly inconceivable when I was a boy going to school in America. Back in the: 40's, 50's, and 60's we were a Christian nation, founded and managed on the strictest of high Judeo-Christian principles. We, all, had the: Ten Commandments, pledge of allegiance, and morning prayers to protect us! 

However, today, and as long as the organized national news media isn't going to finally shut, the hell, up, it looks like public schools with high tech video cam surveillance systems, and a couple of, 'really serious dudes' with Tasers and 40 caliber Glocks are going to be absolute prerequisites for getting a, 'good' education in this country. 

What, 'the hey' though. it's only more public tax dollars that are being pissed away; and, as The Good Lord certainly knows: While school prayers and the constant reminders of The Ten Commandments were completely free, (AND OBVIOUSLY WORKED) we've still got plenty of surplus public tax dollars left in order to more than cover the additional expedient costs! 

You tell me! Is America being, 'programmed' for inevitable failure; or what!


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm all for full-time armed guards or police officers stationed in schools. I never thought I'd see the day come that it would be necessary, but that day has arrived. It's just yet another sign of the direction that our society is headed. 

I'm still on the fence though, as far as arming teachers, school administrators, janitors, grounds keepers, school bus drivers, etc. When taking on that kind of mission / responsibility, it needs to be full-time (with training), not a passing idea or thought. 

And, it looks as if mall shootings are becoming a close second to school shootings. Time for additional mall cops, or are we gonna arm all the store clerks as well? 

No easy answers, but something has to evolve from all of this.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Another issue is non stop media coverage 24/7 for months on end. I can't help but think that this provides motivation for copy cat's. The media knows this and thinks that it will help fuel their anti-gun agenda. I think they should do away with "Gun Free Zones" and allow anyone who is legally armed to be able to carry anywhere he or she chooses. This way would be mass murderers would not know who is armed and who is not. Uniformed armed guards are bad idea as they would probably be the first target and obstacle. There are already employees of the school system, shopping malls etc. who already are legally armed just as the general public, for their own personal self protection in public. I don't see why they should be prohibited at work as long as they carry concealed and the firearm is on their person. We can't put armed guards everywhere. And the last thing that I would want to see is the law abiding public dis-armed under the guise of "What do you need a gun for protection for, we have armed guards in every church, school, shopping mall, and on every street of every city 24/7 ?" Not only would it be prohibitively expensive, but this would turn our entire country into a totalitarian police state. Although I have a concealed weapons permit and have had training, I am a firm believer in "Constitutional Carry" such as we have here in Arizona, as I don't want to have the government pick and choose who can exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right and under what conditions, other than by those who are already prohibited by law from possessing firearms.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Glock Doctor said:


> :smt017 Am I the only one who sees the group insanity in this situation?
> 
> Armed guards in public schools! Such a thing would have been utterly inconceivable when I was a boy going to school in America. Back in the: 40's, 50's, and 60's we were a Christian nation, founded and managed on the strictest of high Judeo-Christian principles. We, all, had the: Ten Commandments, pledge of allegiance, and morning prayers to protect us!
> 
> ...


No, you certainly are not alone. I have written about this very topic and just did so a few days ago. What we did over the past 60 years was remove the natural societal controls (the ones you mentioned) and replaced them with artificial ones (laws). I also am a product of a primary education in the 50's and a secondary one from the late 60's to mid 60's. My senior class may well have been the last one of substance in my area.

I well remember saying a prayer in grade school, reciting the pledge, and having copies of the Ten Commandments, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence on the walls of our classrooms. Gee, no one was offended and no one was ruined as far as I can recall. And I do keep up with many of my school mates.

You and I came from a different time where a man's word was his bond, where character and integrity meant something, and where parents were not afraid to discipline their kids. Frankly I am thankful for every spanking I received. I'm quite sure they kept me straight and positioned for the real world.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> I'm all for full-time armed guards or police officers stationed in schools. I never thought I'd see the day come that it would be necessary, but that day has arrived. It's just yet another sign of the direction that our society is headed.
> 
> *I'm still on the fence though, as far as arming teachers, school administrators, janitors, grounds keepers, school bus drivers, etc. When taking on that kind of mission / responsibility, it needs to be full-time (with training), not a passing idea or thought. *
> 
> ...


Training above and beyond the casual kind is necessary here. Not just punching paper. As for malls, more people should go armed for one thing. And it would be good if they carried openly. That makes the threat of an armed response much more obvious to evil doers.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> Training above and beyond the casual kind is necessary here. Not just punching paper. As for malls, more people should go armed for one thing. And it would be good if they carried openly. That makes the threat of an armed response much more obvious to evil doers.


I reside in a state that allows open or concealed carry w/o the need for a permit. Even so, you just don't see that many people open carry. When you do, you just kind of take notice and continue to go about you business. No one freaks out and calls the police.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> I reside in a state that allows open or concealed carry w/o the need for a permit. Even so, you just don't see that many people open carry. When you do, you just kind of take notice and continue to go about you business. No one freaks out and calls the police.


Same here except for the permit when concealed thing. In all the years I have been carrying on a regular basis, I have only had one negative experience. None from police.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

The best thing about this latest incident is that LaPierre warned everyone nationwide what would be needed, and this Arapaho High School did indeed have an assigned sheriff's dept deputy, and he was there when it happened, and he handled the situation extremely well.
And the only death so far was the suicide of the psycho kid.
I sure hope the girl in the I/C unit recovers though.
Right about now LaPierre looks really good. They did what he told them to do, and it work, by golly!


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Training above and beyond the casual kind is necessary here. Not just punching paper. As for malls, more people should go armed for one thing. And it would be good if they carried openly. That makes the threat of an armed response much more obvious to evil doers.


My personal opinion is that open carry is more appropriate for the parks and woodlands, whereas concealed carry is more appropriate for the cityscape.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> No, you certainly are not alone. I have written about this very topic and just did so a few days ago. What we did over the past 60 years was remove the natural societal controls (the ones you mentioned) and replaced them with artificial ones (laws). I also am a product of a primary education in the 50's and a secondary one from the late 60's to mid 60's. My senior class may well have been the last one of substance in my area.
> 
> I well remember saying a prayer in grade school, reciting the pledge, and having copies of the Ten Commandments, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence on the walls of our classrooms. Gee, no one was offended and no one was ruined as far as I can recall. And I do keep up with many of my school mates.
> 
> You and I came from a different time where a man's word was his bond, where character and integrity meant something, and where parents were not afraid to discipline their kids. Frankly I am thankful for every spanking I received. I'm quite sure they kept me straight and positioned for the real world.


There has always been crime. Take for instance Jack The Ripper in 1888.

Crime is stimulated by increased population and by poverty or under-employment. London in 1888 had both.

The USA in many places has both now as well.

Today in most places if not all you really need to be armed to be safe.

And you need to practice with your weapon(s).

And you need to be of the proper personal constitution to deal with weapons. Not everyone is.

For those who are not, they need to find someone to protect them.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

desertman said:


> Another issue is non stop media coverage 24/7 for months on end. I can't help but think that this provides motivation for copy cat's. The media knows this and thinks that it will help fuel their anti-gun agenda. I think they should do away with "Gun Free Zones" and allow anyone who is legally armed to be able to carry anywhere he or she chooses. This way would be mass murderers would not know who is armed and who is not. Uniformed armed guards are bad idea as they would probably be the first target and obstacle. There are already employees of the school system, shopping malls etc. who already are legally armed just as the general public, for their own personal self protection in public. I don't see why they should be prohibited at work as long as they carry concealed and the firearm is on their person. We can't put armed guards everywhere. And the last thing that I would want to see is the law abiding public dis-armed under the guise of "What do you need a gun for protection for, we have armed guards in every church, school, shopping mall, and on every street of every city 24/7 ?" Not only would it be prohibitively expensive, but this would turn our entire country into a totalitarian police state. Although I have a concealed weapons permit and have had training, I am a firm believer in "Constitutional Carry" such as we have here in Arizona, as I don't want to have the government pick and choose who can exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right and under what conditions, other than by those who are already prohibited by law from possessing firearms.


Well it is the nature of kids to imitate. And right now the psycho kids are imitating each other with these school shootings. It's unfortunate.

It forces schools to get armed security, like LaPierre said.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> When you run across someone who insists that arming teachers and perhaps other school employees is a bad idea, ask them this.
> 
> When was the last time you heard of a deranged shooter at a gun show? Or a gun carriers' meeting? Or perhaps a large gun shop?
> 
> ...


Most teachers are not cut out to be armed with firearms. Mace or pepper spray, sure.

The best thing for a school is an assigned law enforcement officer.

The second best thing is a retired law enforcement officer.

Either way, the armed security in a school should be someone who went through a police academy and learned how to shoot in stressful combat situation. Not just some bozo who plinks on paper at the local range with the other yokels.

Next time someone tells you that teachers should be armed, ask him/her, what makes you think a local yokel teacher is going to hit the right kid ???


----------



## BigAl (Oct 15, 2013)

That bellicose load of non logic defies my ability to rebut.
Let it be said my wife is.a.teacher and is more than apt with her sidearm.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

BigAl said:


> That bellicose load of non logic defies my ability to rebut.
> Let it be said my wife is.a.teacher and is more than apt with her sidearm.


There's a whole lot more involved in using deadly force, than just being able to hit the bull's eye.

I'm retired LE with over 29 yrs. of service. There's no way that I could go in and teach a class a subject without proper training and some experience. But, even if I tried, I could guarantee that I wouldn't shoot and kill someone by accident.

Giving a teacher a gun and telling him / her good luck, isn't gonna cut it. Way too many variables, situations, and scenarios to consider. Cops are trained to sort those out, come up with a plan, and execute it. The first time a teacher or principal shoots and injures or kills innocent students, the poop will hit the fan. Lawsuits will fly like there's no tomorrow.

Leave teaching to teachers, and leave protecting and policing to the cops.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

BigAl said:


> That bellicose load of non logic defies my ability to rebut.
> Let it be said my wife is.a.teacher and is more than apt with her sidearm.


B.S.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

paratrooper said:


> There's a whole lot more involved in using deadly force than just being able to hit the bull's eye.
> 
> I'm retired LE with over 29 yrs. of service. There's no way that I could go in and teach a class a subject without proper training and some experience. But, even if I tried, I could guarantee that I wouldn't shoot and kill someone by accident.
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

AdamSmith said:


> Most teachers are not cut out to be armed with firearms. Mace or pepper spray, sure.
> 
> The best thing for a school is an assigned law enforcement officer.
> 
> ...





paratrooper said:


> There's a whole lot more involved in using deadly force than just being able to hit the bull's eye.
> 
> I'm retired LE with over 29 yrs. of service. There's no way that I could go in and teach a class a subject without proper training and some experience. But, even if I tried, I could guarantee that I wouldn't shoot and kill someone by accident.
> 
> ...


So, all non-cops are just "bozos" and "yokels" with a gun? No possible way to train them to the impossibly high standards of police shooting skill?

In other words, you claim that you're the only ones "professional enough"...

Link>>> Cop shoots himself - YouTube

although I suppose I can see why you'd be worried about folks hitting their intended target. Sometimes cops do hit their intended target...

Link>>> NYPD: 9 shooting bystander victims hit by police gunfire | Fox News

and sometimes they don't...

Link>>> NYPD shoot bystanders; unarmed target gets charged with assault - Salon.com

but in both the above cases, multiple bystanders were shot and injured by "trained" police gunfire. Got any similar cases you can show me for non-cop folks who were responding to a similar problem?

Look, I'm not a cop, but I was a military law enforcement trainer for many years. As such, I got to do a lot of training with cops; local, state, and even federal. I went through the FBI Officer Survival Course in the 80s, the FLETC revolver-to-pistol transition course in the 90s, the more recent video-based FATS shoot/no-shoot courses, and have shot most of the cop qualification courses in the areas where I lived and served. Once you know how to shoot, these courses simply are NOT that difficult. I know, and I suspect that you do too, officers who treat their sidearm like any other piece of bulky equipment on their belt, and barely make the minimum score when they do have to qualify. Let's not try to make all cops out to be some super-duper gun-handlers; too many folks know better, and we get news-story and video reminders pretty regularly nowadays. Yes, they receive special training, but most of that training is aimed at sorting-out the players when they respond to a dispatched call. Just like most personal defense situations, if a person is ALREADY on-scene when the shooting starts, the person with the gun, shooting at you or other innocents, is the bad guy. Not rocket science, there. If teachers shelter-in-place, lock the doors and only shoot at threats that violently enter their rooms, the possibility of mistaken identity is very low, and the school is not put into the situation of waiting for "the professionals" to arrive, and "come up with a plan, and execute it", as more and more people are hunted down and killed in large groups by the perp. Minutes = lives.

I will fully agree that not all teachers are suitable for arming. But it's a big leap from there, to "NO teacher is suitable for arming", and/or "only cops will do". Even if I take your worst-case scenario and run with it, let me remind you that many of these active shooter cases end up just like this most recent one; as soon as the shooter is challenged by ANYONE with a gun, they usually eat their own gun or give up, being the cowards that they are. Besides there not being any serious cases of the dreaded and often-talked-about good-guy/bad-guy cross-fire deaths, a gunfight should ALWAYS be preferred to a slaughter. From a blog post I read recently:

"Unlike Newtown, the intended slaughter of innocents at Arapahoe quickly turned into a gunfight. I've said this before but it bears repeating: Any time an intended slaughter turns into a gunfight, the situation has improved dramatically. A guy bent on slaughtering the innocent who suddenly has to face incoming gunfire can't get his murder on with anything near the level of efficiency he'd like. I don't care how bent on destruction someone is, incoming gunfire has a way of grabbing your attention and screwing with your game plan."

From: http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/12/16/the-contrasts-that-the-media-wont-talk-about/

There is simply no reason not to take volunteers from the schools (already background-checked, in most cases), and train them to a given skill level, test their skills, give them a plan, and teach them to execute it -- just like we do with cops. "Shelter in place with a gun" is just not that different from "shelter in place", and it has the potential to save many lives, especially in small rural schools/districts that simply don't have the money or any local pool of cops/retired cops to draw from to hire security/resource officers.

If police admit (as at least one of you seemed to, above) that you can't guarantee 100% success in these types of situations, how can that standard be applied as a reason to not train non-cops as limited, shelter-in-place first responders?


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

Even LaPierre himself is not bold enough to suggest that local yokel school teachers should pack and carry.

Q.E.D.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

AdamSmith said:


> Even LaPierre himself is not bold enough to suggest that local yokel school teachers should pack and carry.
> 
> Q.E.D.


Well, not in so many words; he seems to think more highly of those who teach our youth. But he did say:

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or from a minute away?"

(Quoted from): CNN.com - Transcripts

And lockbox-type arming of teachers has been done for years in Utah, apparently, with no problems.

See>>> NRA clarifies its stance on arming schools - CNN.com

Excerpt:

"Teachers in Utah have had guns in the classroom for years, he said.

"This is not new for Utah. You just haven't heard about it before," Aposhian said. "Teachers have been carrying firearms in locked drawers for 12 years now. And my opponents will say the dire predictions were going to be that every argument between a teacher and student would result in gunfire.

"That hasn't happened. We haven't had accidental shootings. We haven't had guns left behind. And we also haven't had any [school] gun shootings."

Do Federal Flight Deck officers "pack and carry"? Or is some training, and a lockbox with a pistol on the flight deck (their shelter-in-place-behind-a-locked-door destination) good enough?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> My personal opinion is that open carry is more appropriate for the parks and woodlands, whereas concealed carry is more appropriate for the cityscape.


Fortunately we don't have to worry about that in my state. Open or concealed, it's not big deal. The populous seems to understand and accept this.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> There has always been crime. Take for instance Jack The Ripper in 1888.
> 
> Crime is stimulated by increased population and by poverty or under-employment. London in 1888 had both.
> 
> ...


Yes crime has always existed. But I believed you missed my point in my post. The general breakdown we see in our nation today is NOT by accident. It has taken place over many years and began to accelerate in the 50's. When you dismantle the fundamental societal institutions, the natural controls that a people place upon themselves, and replace all of this with artificial controls, laws and regulations, the core and the soul of a nation disintegrates. That is what has happened here and continues to happen.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> Most teachers are not cut out to be armed with firearms. Mace or pepper spray, sure.
> 
> The best thing for a school is an assigned law enforcement officer.
> 
> ...


Boy we do live in different states and different mindsets, do we not? There are quite a few teachers in my state who not only hunt and shoot but also have concealed carry permits. And I wrote in one of my posts that training should go beyond simply punching paper. Just because someone is a teach does not mean they are incapable of handling firearms. Would you say the same about a software engineer? Or a doctor? BTW, I'm a retired software engineer and I train on a regular basis... been around firearms for close to 46 years.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

DJ Niner said:


> So, all non-cops are just "bozos" and "yokels" with a gun? No possible way to train them to the impossibly high standards of police shooting skill?
> 
> In other words, you claim that you're the only ones "professional enough"...
> 
> ...


And that friends, is what's known as a reality check. Great post and dead on correct.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> Even LaPierre himself is not bold enough to suggest that local yokel school teachers should pack and carry.
> 
> Q.E.D.


Wonder what you call your baker? A local yokel baker?? Or barber or mechanic or your own profession?

May I suggest that you stop with the little jabs and keep your posts above board and civil. We all have things to contribute and things we want to hear about.... opinions from others who have a little more to add. You believe that school employees shouldn't be allowed to be armed and paratrooper seems to agree with your position. I and some others happen to disagree with this position. That's fine, I respect both of your positions on this issue but I do take a different approach.

I have known teachers who I would most definitely want to be armed with in their classes. And I have known some that would be best served without a firearm on their person. I imagine this can be said for any job, any profession. There is nothing special about teachers any more than there is nothing special about bankers or cashiers or cooks other than the fact that some have unique skill sets and some don't. Some are great at what they do and some are marginal.

I'm all in favor of arming those in schools who wish to be armed and who could pass some appropriate testing and training geared to make them as effective as possible should a shooter enter their domain. We have had a few cases in my state where a teacher managed to control a deadly situation with their own firearm which they retrieved from their vehicle. And a few cases where students did the same (college). I'd much rather bring things to a sudden stop as quickly as possible than to have an active shooter roaming through the halls in search for victims. Take the SOB out as quickly as possible.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Wonder what you call your baker? A local yokel baker?? Or barber or mechanic or your own profession?
> 
> May I suggest that you stop with the little jabs and keep your posts above board and civil. We all have things to contribute and things we want to hear about.... opinions from others who have a little more to add. You believe that school employees shouldn't be allowed to be armed and paratrooper seems to agree with your position. I and some others happen to disagree with this position. That's fine, I respect both of your positions on this issue but I do take a different approach.
> 
> ...


Pure nonsense.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Yes crime has always existed. But I believed you missed my point in my post. The general breakdown we see in our nation today is NOT by accident. It has taken place over many years and began to accelerate in the 50's. When you dismantle the fundamental societal institutions, the natural controls that a people place upon themselves, and replace all of this with artificial controls, laws and regulations, the core and the soul of a nation disintegrates. That is what has happened here and continues to happen.


More nonsense.

There have always been school shootings as well. All you need to do is goggle it and see.

At the moment the USA is having a spate of copycat shootings.

Every little psycho kid wants in on the action, so they are each getting their own copy of School Shooting Video Game and prepping themselves.

Then they are going and doing it.

That's why professional armed security is now needed in all schools, just like LaPierre said.

And not local yokel teacher volunteers. That would be absurd.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Fortunately we don't have to worry about that in my state. Open or concealed, it's not big deal. The populous seems to understand and accept this.


If the local yokels are used to open carry everywhere, then sure, no problem. Thing is, they are not used to it everywhere.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

DJ Niner said:


> Well, not in so many words; he seems to think more highly of those who teach our youth. But he did say:
> 
> "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or from a minute away?"
> 
> ...


Most people do not look to Utah for any kind of leadership with anything.

I doubt your example using Utah is worth anything then.

LaPierre is no fool -- his admonition was very specific -- professional security in all schools.

LaPierra was not raising a cry for universal armament on the streets of every city -- that would have made him look insane.

He only called for armed professional security in the schools across the country.

You are taking it further. I do not believe your taking it further will sell anywhere.

We will be lucky just to get armed professional security in all the schools.

And of course, we are all hoping for NO MORE useless gun regulation. I think you and I can agree at least on that much.

Although the local yokels are fine on the streets everywhere, there are certain places that they should not be allowed to tread while armed --

-- courtrooms;

-- Federal and state office buildings;

-- sports arenas;

-- and schools.

This is self evident because the potential for tremendous collateral damage is astronomical in those places.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

paratrooper said:


> There's a whole lot more involved in using deadly force than just being able to hit the bull's eye.
> 
> I'm retired LE with over 29 yrs. of service. There's no way that I could go in and teach a class a subject without proper training and some experience. But, even if I tried, I could guarantee that I wouldn't shoot and kill someone by accident.
> 
> ...


They are not getting the message here, unfortunately. There is no reality check here.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

DJ Niner: 
"So, all non-cops are just "bozos" and "yokels" with a gun? No possible way to train them to the impossibly high standards of police shooting skill?

In other words, you claim that you're the only ones "professional enough"... 

Outstanding! Along with your entire analogy. Calling our fellow citizens "bozos" or "local yokels" who can't be trusted with a gun is insulting and does nothing to further our cause, which feeds into the anti gun frenzy. Further legitimizing the statement that "only the police and military should be allowed to own firearms".


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy:
"Wonder what you call your baker? A local yokel baker?? Or barber or mechanic or your own profession?"

Yes, we do think alike my friend! A lot of people I know come from all walks of life, some choose to own guns others do not. Of those that own guns all the ones that I know have taken the time to learn how to use them in a safe and responsible manner, and have obtained a "concealed weapons permit" in spite of the fact that a permit is not required to carry a gun in public in Arizona, open or concealed. The "Concealed Weapons Courses" are booked solid, which speaks volumes about the good citizens of Arizona. I know of many who have never owned a gun before who are taking these courses and not just buying a gun, throwing it in a drawer and hope that they never have to use it. Most of us have been around guns all of our lives, and fully understand what the ramifications are for using deadly force and I'm venturing to say are a lot more proficient using firearms than punching a couple of holes in paper. Fortunately most police officers or private citizens will ever be involved in a gunfight.


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

paratrooper said:


> There's a whole lot more involved in using deadly force than just being able to hit the bull's eye.
> Leave teaching to teachers, and leave protecting and policing to the cops.


How about: stop making people either unwilling victims (disarming them) or criminals (if they ignore the unconstitutional laws and DO prepare for self defense.) Then people can be responsible for their own actions. 
How many court cases have upheld that police have no duty to protect individuals, just society as a whole?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> Pure nonsense.


Really? Which part? Fellow, I hardly know where to begin with you. I, being a Southern gentleman, will withhold any uncivil discourse. Suffice it to say that you are wrong. Of course you will disagree, as is your wont. I have done my homework and am comfortable in my assessments. Not only that, but I have lived through a lot of this.

May I once more suggest that you adopt a more mature stance. We have enjoyed good and respectful discussions on these forums so if you are of a mind to continue to join in, try to do so in a respectful manner.... please.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> SouthernBoy:
> "Wonder what you call your baker? A local yokel baker?? Or barber or mechanic or your own profession?"
> 
> Yes, we do think alike my friend! A lot of people I know come from all walks of life, some choose to own guns others do not. Of those that own guns all the ones that I know have taken the time to learn how to use them in a safe and responsible manner, and have obtained a "concealed weapons permit" in spite of the fact that a permit is not required to carry a gun in public in Arizona, open or concealed. The "Concealed Weapons Courses" are booked solid, which speaks volumes about the good citizens of Arizona. I know of many who have never owned a gun before who are taking these courses and not just buying a gun, throwing it in a drawer and hope that they never have to use it. Most of us have been around guns all of our lives, and fully understand what the ramifications are for using deadly force and I'm venturing to say are a lot more proficient using firearms than punching a couple of holes in paper. Fortunately most police officers or private citizens will ever be involved in a gunfight.


Yes we do. Unfortunately I have known some people, and have been around others, who could have stood some solid time in both safety and usage training. Just a few, but a few is a few too many in some eyes. All of my current gun friends are careful when handling firearms, are safety conscious, and do their best to train and stay proficient. I try to go every two weeks to an indoor range with a neighbor friend where we do quite a bit more than just punching paper.

I wish we did have Constitutional Carry here, but we are pretty close to that. Open carry is the normal mode of carrying a sidearm here, whereas concealing it is the exception and currently requires a permit (which is shall issue).

Take care and stay safe.


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

AdamSmith said:


> Even LaPierre himself is not bold enough to suggest that local yokel school teachers should pack and carry.
> 
> Q.E.D.


AS opposed to "local yokel" police officers? Everyone is local to somewhere. Why are you better suited to be able to exercise your right of self-defense any more than any other person?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Society can provide the man-power and taxes can provide the financial means to put a cop in a school (two or more in larger schools). It's just a matter of accepting the fact that the time has come and it needs to be done. It's just that simple.

No need to arm teachers or any school employees. Let them concentrate _*on what they do*__* best*_ (and yes, there's a whole lot of room for improvement, but that's another topic entirely). No need to cross-train them in policing.

There's plenty of retired LEO's that would most likely volunteer to patrol the local school property. It wouldn't be an issue. In some states, it's already happening.

My point is, no need to open up a can of worms by having school staff being charged with more than they are already doing.


----------



## BigAl (Oct 15, 2013)

The basic concept at the base of this discussion.is who is responsible for YOUR safety. The only correct answer is YOU are. Stop looking for the nanny state to protect you, fees, house and insure you.
When you let teachers or anyone else (recient hospital shooting in a gun free zone) bear arms to protect themselves you by default end up protecting those who cannot protect themselves ie children.
The rants from the "experts" about the ensuing chaos that would occur have been orivrn dead wrong by every real world experience.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

BigAl said:


> The basic concept at the base of this discussion.is who is responsible for YOUR safety. The only correct answer is YOU are. Stop looking for the nanny state to protect you, fees, house and insure you.
> When you let teachers or anyone else (recient hospital shooting in a gun free zone) bear arms to protect themselves you by default end up protecting those who cannot protect themselves ie children.
> The rants from the "experts" about the ensuing chaos that would occur have been orivrn dead wrong by every real world experience.


In a perfect world, that might be true. And if it was, this would all be null and void.

But, it's not a perfect world, never has been, isn't right now, nor will it ever be.

Of all the animals on this planet, we as humans are definitely the most fault prone.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Paratrooper:
"No need to arm teachers or any school employees. Let them concentrate on what they do best".

I do respect your opinion, but don't think that having teachers or school employees who are responsible people armed, and especially in states that are 2nd Amendment friendly such as Arizona where I'm guessing that firearms are a way of life, would interfere with their normal everyday activities or job duties. It would be no different than having a fire extinguisher handy in case of a fire. If they choose to carry a gun, I believe it should be carried on their person concealed, known only to themselves, not thrown in a desk or hidden where someone who is un-authorized could find it. As far as having known armed security such as a police officer or other armed security, it would be quite obvious to the students who they are, and in the case of those intent on committing mass murder, they would be the first ones that would be taken out. Just as an individual could walk up to a police officer or any other individual pull out a gun and shoot them as they would have the element of surprise. Kind of like the "Knock Out" game. If you are allowed to carry a gun legally for self defense in public, why should on the job be any different? The other issue could be that the shooting could take place at one end of the building while the guard(s) are at the other. How many could be killed by the time that the guard(s) gets there? At least if a teacher or other employee were armed at the place and moment that the shooting began, action could be taken immediately, and the shooter would not know which employees would be armed, and not know who to take out first. I'll bet that if, when the "little puke" started crashing through the doors at Sandy Hook was met with immediate armed resistance he never would have reached a classroom and slaughtered those children. I have to agree with "BigAl"-- "The basic concept at the base of this discussion.is who is responsible for YOUR safety.The only correct answer is YOU are."


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> Society can provide the man-power and taxes can provide the financial means to put a cop in a school (two or more in larger schools). It's just a matter of accepting the fact that the time has come and it needs to be done. It's just that simple.
> 
> No need to arm teachers or any school employees. Let them concentrate _*on what they do*__* best*_ (and yes, there's a whole lot of room for improvement, but that's another topic entirely). No need to cross-train them in policing.
> 
> ...


Afternoon, friend.

Let me put it this way. How about giving the option to school personnel that if they passed certain requirements then it is their choice whether or not they would like to carry while on school premises. If I were a teacher, I would most definitely want to carry a sidearm of my choosing. I am well trained, a good shot, and quite level headed (I have been tested in that department a few times in my life). So I see no reason why I shouldn't have the choice available to me to see to my own safety and that of my students should the need ever arise.

Would that set with you and some of the rest of the people on this thread?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy:
"Let me put it this way. How about giving the option to school personnel that if they past certain requirements then it is their choice whether or not they would like to carry while on school premises. If I were a teacher, I would most definitely want to carry a sidearm of my choosing. I am well trained, a good shot, and quite level headed (I have been tested in that department a few times in my life). So I see no reason why I shouldn't have the choice available to me to see to my own safety and that of my students should the need ever arise."

Well said!


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

The other question as to uniformed or known security officers. Who would volunteer to be the first target?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> Paratrooper:
> "No need to arm teachers or any school employees. Let them concentrate on what they do best".
> 
> I do respect your opinion, but don't think that having teachers or school employees who are responsible people armed, and especially in states that are 2nd Amendment friendly such as Arizona where I'm guessing that firearms are a way of life, would interfere with their normal everyday activities or job duties. It would be no different than having a fire extinguisher handy in case of a fire. If they choose to carry a gun, I believe it should be carried on their person concealed, known only to themselves, not thrown in a desk or hidden where someone who is un-authorized could find it. As far as having known armed security such as a police officer or other armed security, it would be quite obvious to the students who they are, and in the case of those intent on committing mass murder, they would be the first ones that would be taken out. Just as an individual could walk up to a police officer or any other individual pull out a gun and shoot them as they would have the element of surprise. Kind of like the "Knock Out" game. If you are allowed to carry a gun legally for self defense in public, why should on the job be any different? The other issue could be that the shooting could take place at one end of the building while the guard(s) are at the other. How many could be killed by the time that the guard(s) gets there? At least if a teacher or other employee were armed at the place and moment that the shooting began, action could be taken immediately, and the shooter would not know which employees would be armed, and not know who to take out first. I'll bet that if, when the "little puke" started crashing through the doors at Sandy Hook was met with immediate armed resistance he never would have reached a classroom and slaughtered those children. I have to agree with "BigAl"-- "The basic concept at the base of this discussion.is who is responsible for YOUR safety.The only correct answer is YOU are."


In the early 90's, I was the Athletic Booster Club president at my daughters' high school (one was a senior and the other one was two years behind her). I served in that capacity for two years. As such, I became very friendly with the two county police officers who were assigned to that school. One was male and one was female and they just happened to man and wife. It came out at some point in casual conversation that the male officer didn't much care for firearms and if it was up to him, wouldn't carry one. Now that LEO is probably not someone you are likely to see at a range or training facility on a frequent basis. His wife had a little more interest in the subject that did he.

School shootings were sparse in the 50's and 60's when I grew up and didn't start to accelerate until the mid-1990's. So this male LEO was probably satisfying an assignment that he liked after all. Talk to the kids, take it easy, and not have to worry much about some shooter busting in and opening fire.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> The other question as to uniformed or known security officers. Who would volunteer to be the first target?


You mentioned that uniformed guards or police would be the first to be targeted by a shooter(s) since they are easily identifiable. This is also true on the streets and one reason why armed citizens are rarely injured or killed in attacks. The police uniform shouts to the world of BG's that you are an LEO and are therefore armed. Most BG's will avoid police, but the few who are bent on taking an officer or officers out looks for that uniform deliberately.

Some say this same idea holds true for those who carry openly, but so far the facts don't bear this out. A uniform is a lot easier to notice than a sidearm on someone's hip. Anyway, I divert.

Once again, I'll post my little question for those who have doubts about all of this'

*"In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?"*

In my mind, the decision is clear and it ain't no cell phone that I want in my hand. [bad English intended]


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> Afternoon, friend.
> 
> Let me put it this way. How about giving the option to school personnel that if they passed certain requirements then it is their choice whether or not they would like to carry while on school premises. If I were a teacher, I would most definitely want to carry a sidearm of my choosing. I am well trained, a good shot, and quite level headed (I have been tested in that department a few times in my life). So I see no reason why I shouldn't have the choice available to me to see to my own safety and that of my students should the need ever arise.
> 
> Would that set with you and some of the rest of the people on this thread?


It's one thing to be able to protect your life and those of your loved ones. It's a whole other situation to commit to protect the lives of many, in a situation that could prove to very over-whelming.

Just having a uniformed officer or two in a school, and that fact being known, is enough to dissuade many from acting out their delusional thoughts. No shooter (as of yet) has wanted to engage others in a drawn out fire fight. They are low-life, cowardly, SOB's, and only want to inflict pain and suffering on others.

The option to arm school employees will most likely always be on the table. Whether or not, it will become fact, remains to be seen. If it was the *ONLY* option available to us, then it would be a no-brainer and should be implemented.

The vast majority of those that carry, whether open or concealed, have never pointed the muzzle of a gun at another person, yet actually take a life. For many, they think that they could do it without any problem. That's not always the outcome though.

Again, we have other options that can work. It's just a matter of getting to the point, that we have to do it.

As far as arming school employees with guns and keeping it hidden from students, as someone stated, is nonsense. For a teacher to stand in front of a class for an hour or so, and not be "outed" within a day or so, would be amazing. Word gets around at the speed of light, in a school. Everyone knows everything about everybody.

I stand-by my opinion about having cops, guards, or retired LE in schools. That, and having a controlled environment by which people enter into all school grounds. It will cost money that's for sure, to implement. But, look at the alternatives that we are currently dealing with.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

AdamSmith said:


> Pure nonsense.


 Nothing is pure. Not even nonsense.

Some examples of nonsense, in my mind, would be: Gun free zones and zero tolerance.
Also, the assumption that anyone is local, or a yokel, can be the worst kind of "bite you in the ass" nonsense.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> It's one thing to be able to protect your life and those of your loved ones. It's a whole other situation to commit to protect the lives of many, in a situation that could prove to very over-whelming.
> 
> *(1.) Just having a uniformed officer or two in a school, and that fact being known, is enough to dissuade many from acting out their delusional thoughts. No shooter (as of yet) has wanted to engage others in a drawn out fire fight. They are low-life, cowardly, SOB's, and only want to inflict pain and suffering on others.
> *
> ...


Item #1. I agree with this. Having anyone identifiable to a shooter is going to be a deterrent. And the knowledge that schools in a given county or state have armed personnel on their premises is a strong dissuader as well.

Item #2. I have long said and written that in an extreme encounter, no one really knows how they are going to act unless they have had a similar experience in their past. So I also agree with this one.

Item #3. They may outed and they may not be. A lot of factors go in to this: size of the gun, clothing, method of carry to name a few. And then there is the area where the school is located. I venture to say that the local mindset in, say, many parts of my state is not going to be the same as it is in Connecticut or Boston or New York City. The acceptance of firearms as a way of life is more natural in the former than the latter.

Again were I a teacher, I would most definitely want to be armed. I frankly don't care what others would think about this if it were allowed (others meaning locals or school officials). My life is more important than theirs so that is what would concern me most.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> Item #1. I agree with this. Having anyone identifiable to a shooter is going to be a deterrent. And the knowledge that schools in a given county or state have armed personnel on their premises is a strong dissuader as well.
> 
> Item #2. I have long said and written that in an extreme encounter, no one really knows how they are going to act unless they have had a similar experience in their past. So I also agree with this one.
> 
> ...


There are far, far more jobs than not, that do not allow you to be armed while working. People, for the most part, think and feel the same way, when it comes to protecting their own life. But, the cold hard fact is, the employer / company calls the shots, no pun intended.

We'll never see the day when everyone can carry a gun on their person anytime they want, or where ever they want, working or not. I chose to reside in a state that is firearms friendly and allows for open or concealed carry.

There really isn't a clear cut answer for what we are discussing. We as a society, are smack dab in the middle of a wide river, trying to make decisions, one of which is, should we continue and proceed to the other side, or return to the side we started from?

Problem is, staying right where we are, *ISN'T* an option.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> *There are far, far more jobs than not, that do not allow you to be armed while working. People, for the most part, think and feel the same way, when it comes to protecting their own life. But, the cold hard fact is, the employer / company calls the shots, no pun intended. *
> 
> We'll never see the day when everyone can carry a gun on their person anytime they want, or where ever they want, working or not. I chose to reside in a state that is firearms friendly and allows for open or concealed carry.
> 
> ...


Believe me, I know this to be fact. I was talking about localities and hopefully states, making some changes to their laws regarding schools and firearms. I think one or two have done this but at the moment I don't have any definitive information to back that up.

I watched a video maybe a little over a year ago with a man walking into his daughter's elementary school while he carried a sidearm in full view. I believe he was in Michigan. I haven't a clue what Michigan's laws are regarding this but the man wasn't arrested or ushered out.

*"We'll never see the day when everyone can carry a gun on their person anytime they want.."*
People can do this in my state as long as they are legally able to possess a firearm. It's not so much the time as it is the place, which you pointed out in your next clause. In Virginia, there are only a few places where you may not carry a firearm. One of the postings mentioned state legislators' offices as being off limits. Well they're not off limits here. You can carry open or concealed while visiting you state representative here. Same with police stations (not ones with holding areas for suspects). Or banks, or most colleges and universities (I only know of two where state law prohibits carry), or a host of other places. We have it pretty lenient here.

*"Problem is, staying right where we are, ISN'T the solution."*
No it's not and the real solution, the one that existed in my youth, isn't going to be returning as far as I can see. So we make dumb laws or we put up "No firearms allowed" signs or we arm some people, train them, put them where they can do some good, and get the word out that shooters enter at their own risk. None of this, "Dropp your gun and put your hands up" stuff. Shoot the bastards and do it quickly. Problem is as you said... saying this is one thing, doing it is an entirely different matter.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> Believe me, I know this to be fact. I was talking about localities and hopefully states, making some changes to their laws regarding schools and firearms. I think one or two have done this but at the moment I don't have any definitive information to back that up.
> 
> I watched a video maybe a little over a year ago with a man walking into his daughter's elementary school while he carried a sidearm in full view. I believe he was in Michigan. I haven't a clue what Michigan's laws are regarding this but the man wasn't arrested or ushered out.
> 
> ...


Not too very long ago, an off-duty police officer had just finished some SWAT training and he either dropped off or picked up his young daughter at school. I forget which one it was. 

Anyways, problem was, he was still in his SWAT uniform and still had his duty weapon on his duty belt. Some people saw him and got all upset. They complained to school officials and they in-turn, contacted the officer in question and requested that he not do that again.

I simply cannot recall what city or state this occurred in. For some reason, I seem to think it happened in Phoenix, AZ. I might be wrong, but I'm retired now, so I can't be held responsible for any lack of memory, bad decisions, lack of proper manners, or down right stupid indiscretions.

I've come to the conclusion that everything is a mess, it always will be, so I'm limited as to what I can do about it. :watching:


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> Not too very long ago, an off-duty police officer had just finished some SWAT training and he either dropped off or picked up his young daughter at school. I forget which one it was.
> 
> Anyways, problem was, he was still in his SWAT uniform and still had his duty weapon on his duty belt. Some people saw him and got all upset. They complained to school officials and they in-turn, contacted the officer in question and requested that he not do that again.
> 
> ...


Aren't we all, my friend, aren't we all.


----------

