Not to mention how unrealistic it is to expect a teacher working full time to simultaneously devote huge chunks of time to train as a police officer. They act like you can simply give them a gun, a few hours of gun classes, and that teacher will turn into Rambo. I have a hard time believing this will happen.
We have the police for a reason. To fight crime. How does it make any sense to ask untrained citizens to fight their own crime? Why would we want to live in a nation that depends on regular people to uphold law and order?
School shootings have also been stopped by unarmed citizens. Plus we can't ignore the danger of ordinary teachers keeping guns in their desks. Wasn't there a story a while back about some students stealing a teacher's gun out of his desk?
So a trained soldier that is unarmed somehow trumps an untrained man with a gun?
You have no idea what you are talking about. We don't need Rambo, we need a person proficient in using a handgun. It's not rocket science.
That's not the point. NRAers argue that these shooters are searching for the most vulnerable targets possible and that if we can get guns into these environments, the shooters will simply move on. This argument breaks down once you begin to examine it. First, military bases aren't easy targets. A school might be, but a military base isn't. It is filled with people specifically trained in combat. Second, even if you were able to get a shooter to move onto a different target, a goal I'm highly doubtful guns will be able to accomplish, that shooter will simply shoot up some other place. You really haven't solved anything. All you've done is to shift the shooting to another location.
The Oregon shooter had half a dozen guns on him, ammo reloads, and body armor. That teacher had better be close to Rambo if he expects to take out that guy with nothing more than one handgun and a polo shirt.
well they could throw the knife (with a lot of training) and hopefully hit the trigger hand or use a taser that has a 20-30ft firing range and knock them down at the door.
So the answer to the lack of police is to make it easier for everyone, including criminals, to get their hands on guns? How does this make any sense? If lack of police is the problem, why don't we just hire more police? How will saturating the streets with more guns prevent these killings?
To be fair, there are multiple occurrences of people stopping additional killings with their own guns. And these citizens should be commended for saving lives. But the common thread for most of these heroes is that they had extensive combat training. Most were former police or military members. It still does nothing to support the notion that untrained teachers will be effective at stopping these shootings. Additionally, in a roundabout way, it does seem to prove the claim that when you need to stop killers like this, you should rely on the police, since many of these heroes were former cops or off-duty.
Problem is that they probably can't be properly trained. Learning how to use a gun in a combat situation isn't something you can pick up in a weekend. It's something you have to undergo extensive and repeated training for. At a minimum, it would take many months to be trained enough to be effective in these situations. I think it's unreasonable to demand teachers become part time police officers to do their jobs of teaching.
So what you are saying is people that take the time to be trained in the use of a weapon stand a higher chance of stopping something from occurring? Thanks for finally seeing the light.
I think it's a little optimistic to think anyone wants to pay for this. Let's wait until we see what bills get passed. That might be a long wait.
Huey avoided the training part so it would push his agenda - the training aspect is obvious to everyone else.
Just tax the rich for it.
