81% Police Favor Training & Arming School Teachers & Admins to Protect Students

[Berncly]

Go ahead and repeat yourself. Its a open forum. We can all read it to clarify our understanding of your expertise in the matter.

Do I detect sarcasm :P

[Berncly]

Do I detect sarcasm :P

Fuck it.
Let me dust off my balls and I will go through it section by section.
Give me a few minutes.

[Gun]

Your soapbox is not broken.

Message, cops in favor of arming school personnel.

[Guitars_N_Guns]

After the shooting, I was listening to Fox News on Sirius to get an update. The was an LEO (not sure if he was sheriff, police chief, etc.) saying that there's a school already doing this in Florida somewhere. He said that first they interviewed and found that a few of their staff already had military background, and a lot of them were into owning and shooting guns. He made do them background checks, extra training programs, etc then they got some sort of certification by the sheriff dept.

If doing this would work, fed and local gov would have to throw a ton of money at this kind of program, and teachers are underpaid as it is.

[Berncly]

Okay here goes:

I've refrained from this sort of discussion up until now because I know how public schools work.

Here is are just a few of the problems with arming teachers (or at least allowing those who do carry to be armed at school)

Not arming teachers, arming senior administrative staff.

#1 The main job of a teacher is the teaching.
It adds yet another thing that teachers are supposed to be doing. They are already master instuctors, expected to develop and implement instruction, crunch data on student performance, constantly learn new technologies used with instruction, all get master's in their field, be guidance counselors to the kids, stay in weekly touch with parents, manage the behavior of the kids... you get the drift. So let us add one more thing, eh?

Not arming teachers, arming senior administrative staff.

#2 Weapons training (or lack of it)
So the teacher or the school would take the armed personal out of the building (admin or classroom instructor, it doesn't matter) to train? I don't mean one time one and done certification. That isn't the kind of training that would be needed and people are foolish if they think that getting certified one time is enough.

Yes.
Trained annually.
Annual background check, annual training, annual qualification certification, annual registration, annual sheriff/police issue of credentials, just like LEOSA.
Trained each summer when school is out.
Pay them for their training time, something reasonably close to what they make per hour, or a percentage of the average pay per hour to keep it uniform.

#3 Weapons security.
An armed teacher will have to be forever vigilant about their weapon. They'd need lockers to store the weapon. (everyone uses the toilet at some point) The nature of having weapons and kids together constantly means this has to be taken seriously and carefully planned out or there will be incidents.

Not arming teachers, arming senior administrative staff.
Only two or three people armed per school, and only that many to account for one or two of them not being in the school at any given time.
A single lock box in the senior administrator's office is all that would be needed.
A Fort Knox pistol box costs about $250 (my choice), but there are many other options that cost less.

#4 Admin and the role they'd play.
So you'd have the admin told to accept that teachers will now be armed if they elect to be. Great, so if a teacher actually uses their weapon will they get their back? Considering how political most admin are, I highly doubt they'd stand behind any staff in the case of on actual shooting as soon as the school system started hearing from the leftists and second guessers judging the event from the back seat.

Not arming teachers, arming senior administrative staff.
The LEOSA type program would need to incorporate a clause protecting the armed administrator from liability if they acted within the law.
Similar to the Stand Your Ground law as it relates to protection from liability if acting within the law.

#5. The taxpayer.
So who pays? Most school systems are already burdened by huge infrastructure costs: (IT systems, buildings, health care, unfunded mandates, bodies actually teaching). How much is the bill? Really. Who is going to pay for full time armed security? You think you're going to get it for a $10 an hour, part time with no benefits job? Will retired LEOs simply do it for free because they are such good souls they'd put their life on the line? (Well there are a few) The point is: if you are one of the many (myself included) who are screaming over the issue of school taxes, this doesn't ease the burden on bit.

Not armed full time security, not arming teachers, arming senior administrative staff that are already on the payroll, with no additional salary beyond training time.
The cost of training would have to come from the taxpayer's general fund, possibly at the federal level to be distributed to the states, not from the school tax.
Taxes are undesirable, but more school shootings are less desirable, and resulting gun bans are less desirable.
So yes, some federal or state tax increases, but not nearly as much as compared to paying for armed guards.
There would also need to be a one time infrastructure cost to secure school entrances where needed.
Again, better that cost than the cost of more dead kids and gun bans.

I could go on, but I'll stop now and get off the soap box.

I am not really disagreeing with your points.
I am saying your points can be avoided for the most part.
Something needs to be done to protect the kids and avoid ineffective gun bans that will do nothing to protect the kids.
I think this idea is preferable to many other alternatives.

[Emptymag]

What's the difference? They are probably even more useless than the teachers.

Administrative staff? Yeah... if you want the most liberal of all the liberals in a school... there you go.
Nobody in that role is going to WANT guns in the first place.

[Emptymag]

Schools are simply the Mini-Me of big government.

It's all politics and money. "Teaching" is that smoke they blow up your ass while making the case for needing higher taxes.

Nothing will ever be done to protect students beyond securing and monitoring the MAIN ENTRANCE (all for show) while ignoring all other security concerns.

Shouting "Save our children from guns!" costs NOTHING.
And that's what they will "do".

[Berncly]

Schools are simply the Mini-Me of big government.

It's all politics and money. "Teaching" is that smoke they blow up your ass while making the case for needing higher taxes.

Nothing will ever be done to protect students beyond securing and monitoring the MAIN ENTRANCE (all for show) while ignoring all other security concerns.

Shouting "Save our children from guns!" costs NOTHING.
And that's what they will "do".

I'm not sure I agree with that.
Liberals that want to ban guns don't seem to mind having their own armed security, or being allowed to have a gun because they are connected to those in power.
Offering a gun license to the head Liberals of a school may be accepted better than you think, especially if done under cover of law.
I am aware of 2 private schools that are Liberal beyond all reason, and they both employ armed security within the school.
I think this idea of a school LEOSA type program is very doable.

[Emptymag]

I'm not sure I agree with that.
Liberals that want to ban guns don't seem to mind having their own armed security, or being allowed to have a gun because they are connected to those in power.
Offering a gun license to the head Liberals of a school may be accepted better than you think, especially if done under cover of law.
I am aware of 2 private schools that are Liberal beyond all reason, and they both employ armed security within the school.
I think this idea of a school LEOSA type program is very doable.

Of COURSE they are OK with armed guards - the POLICE are "highly trained" and the only people who should HAVE guns.

Nothing unusual about sheep (I hate using that term, but it fits) wanting to pay for a sheep dog.
Liberals do not even remotely accept that they are (or even CAN BE) responsible for their own safety - they really believe it's the job of the government to "make them safe".

[Berncly]

Of COURSE they are OK with armed guards - the POLICE are "highly trained" and the only people who should HAVE guns.

Nothing unusual about sheep (I hate using that term, but it fits) wanting to pay for a sheep dog.
Liberals do not even remotely accept that they are (or even CAN BE) responsible for their own safety - they really believe it's the job of the government to "make them safe".

They don't employ the police, they use private armed security.
I see your point, but I also know that under the surface, Liberalism is really about power when utilized by the upper tier.
Offering a gun license to the power broker of a school could very well be received with pleasure.
Liberals in power trust themselves, they just don't trust anyone else.