[driven]

I mentioned this to my students about two years ago and a few laughed at the idea. (They may have been right ... I was just throwing it out there.)

Any thoughts?


State lawmaker suggests arming teachers, principals
POSTED: 2:11 p.m. EDT, October 5, 2006

MADISON, Wisconsin (AP) -- A state lawmaker, worried about a recent string of deadly school shootings, suggested arming teachers, principals and other school personnel as a safety measure and a deterrent.
It might not be politically correct, but it has worked effectively in other countries, Republican Rep. Frank Lasee said Wednesday.
"To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table," he said. "Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin."
In Thailand, where officials have been waging a bloody fight with Muslim separatists for the last two years, some teachers carry weapons for self defense as they are viewed as part of the government. In Israel, teachers are not allowed to carry weapons in the school, but security guards at the entrances are armed.
Lasee said he planned to introduce legislation that would allow school personnel to carry concealed weapons. He stressed that it would hinge on school staff members getting strict training on the use of the weapons, and he acknowledged he would have to work around a federal law that bans guns on school grounds.
The director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, Pete Pochowski, opposed the idea.
"Statistically, the safest place for a child to be is in school," Pochowski said. "We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals."
Last week, a 15-year-old Wisconsin student was arrested in the shooting death of Weston Schools Principal John Klang. The criminal complaint said the teen brought guns to school to confront students, teachers and the principal.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Dark Helmet]

Ya nothing like having a gun fight in the middle of a group of kids.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Ya nothing like having a gun fight in the middle of a group of kids.

(Playing devil's advocate)

As opposed to letting the letting the kids be sitting ducks?

Do you think that simply having the teachers armed would be a deterent?

[olePigeon]

Knowing the teachers at my school, I'd be more worried about a teacher leaving their gun on their desk and going outside; leaving the class alone, in the room, with the gun on the table.

[Rumor]

Aren't they already armed in some places? (ie New York, LA, Oakland etc.)

[itai195]

Arming teachers is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

[Rumor]

But a third arm could be useful.

[Paco500]

What an incredibly, fabulously, monumentally bad idea.

More guns is not the answer.

[Zeeb]

The teachers themselves could become a danger. They have mental problems, get stressed out and fall over the edge just like anyone. Right now that just means they go home sick or something, with a gun they just might decide to mow down the class.

[hyteckit]

We should arm all the students and teachers. An arm society is a polite society.

Not my quote man, so don't blame me.

[osiris]

Yeah, sure. Arm the teachers, principals, and the honor students. We'll see how quickly the bad apples fall into place and/or are eliminated. Of course, some of the bad apples might have guns too, so I guess the bigger guns will win out.

At the very least we'll see a dramatic reduction in the number of students (a good thing - smaller classrooms, but...)

The only problem is that there may also be a smaller number of teachers - surely reduced by armed students, but also due to the competition to replace felled principals.

What may become of all this?
I don't know, but this has reality show written all over it. When do we start principle photography?

[Sky Captain]

Absolutely not. Techers are not trained in the handling of firearms.
Place armed security in the schools.
But the Amish would have never allowed an armed guard in their school.

[Dakar]

Whatever Millennium says when he sees this I'm behind.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Paco500

More guns is not the answer.

Yes, it is.

But only in America !

-t

[::maroma::]

Let me guess, this Frank Lasee wacko is an avid NRA supporter. Am I right?

Surrounding our children with guns in order to protect them is quite possibly the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. Where does this nut think the money will come from to purchase all these weapons? That's right, from the school's budget. Yep, trade books for guns. Brilliant!

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

The teachers themselves could become a danger. They have mental problems, get stressed out and fall over the edge just like anyone.

That wouldn't be a problem if you'd arm the pupils. Then they could defend themselves against teachers who go crazy.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

Yep, trade books for guns. Brilliant!

At least instead of learning the kids could just shoot eachother.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Absolutely not. Techers are not trained in the handling of firearms.
Place armed security in the schools.
But the Amish would have never allowed an armed guard in their school.

The article said that the teachers would have to be trained before they allowed a firearm. As for mental stability, police carry weapons and generally don't snap and mow down their co-workers. (And nobody will argue that they don't have hi-stress jobs.)

Then there is the other statistic: The states with the weakest gun-control laws also have the lowest crime rates.

[ghporter]

Arming different people is NOT the answer. Most places have police officers in the schools-they certainly do here in San Antonio and all over Texas. These are NOT "security guards," they're fully commissioned police officers with the power to arrest.

[itai195]

This will probably turn into a political thread

Then there is the other statistic: The states with the weakest gun-control laws also have the lowest crime rates.

That doesn't mean there is causality. Do these states have low crime rates because they have weak gun control laws, do they have weak gun control laws because they have low crime rates, or do they have weak gun control laws and low crime rates for some other reason (e.g. low diversity, low population density, etc)?

Either way, that ignores the monumentally stupid idea of arming teachers. The thought of some of the teachers I know having guns makes me cringe. Frankly I think most of them would retire if something like this comes to pass.

[driven]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Arming different people is NOT the answer. Most places have police officers in the schools-they certainly do here in San Antonio and all over Texas. These are NOT "security guards," they're fully commissioned police officers with the power to arrest.

Certainly a good solution. Perhaps this should be mandatory.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Arming different people is NOT the answer. Most places have police officers in the schools-they certainly do here in San Antonio and all over Texas. These are NOT "security guards," they're fully commissioned police officers with the power to arrest.

All they probably do is just arrest high school seniors for posession of marijuana

[ghporter]

No, they control traffic, stop fights, occasionally arrest a student for bringing a weapon on campus (don't forget that deer rifle in dad's pickup when you head to school!), and a lot of other stuff. I doubt your picture of what school police do fits with reality...

[driven]

Originally Posted by itai195

This will probably turn into a political thread

That doesn't mean there is causality. Do these states have low crime rates because they have weak gun control laws, do they have weak gun control laws because they have low crime rates, or do they have weak gun control laws and low crime rates for some other reason (e.g. low diversity, low population density, etc)?

Certainly a good question. Perhaps we need to look at cities/states/countries where stricter gun control laws were enacted and look at the change in crime rate.

In 1997, just 12 months after a new gun law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In Victoria, homicides went up 300 percent. Before the law was passed, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms. In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, the assault rate in New South Wales rose almost 20 percent.


There are probably examples that show the opposite. I haven't found them yet. (Still looking.)

[sek929]

With my old HS all the cop did was try to get us to dish out the dirt on our classmates (Which we didn't) and occasionally pull someone over for going 60 in a 50.

So yeah, big waste of money in some cases.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by driven

There are probably examples that show the opposite. I haven't found them yet. (Still looking.)

There is the oft-cited example of Japan's gun ban and very low crime rate. Anyway, the effect of gun control laws on crime rates is a topic that can be debated quite heavily, but I think that's beside the point when the topic is whether or not it's a good idea to arm teachers.

[driven]

Originally Posted by itai195

There is the oft-cited example of Japan's gun ban and very low crime rate.

Japan is an odd example as a military invasion post-ww2 effectively removed all firearms from the island. Then there is the counter-point:

June 8, 2001
Pupils die in Japan knife massacre

A knifeman has killed at least eight pupils in a rampage at their school in western Japan.

Officials say more than 20 other pupils were hurt, along with several teachers. Some are seriously ill in hospital.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by sek929

With my old HS all the cop did was try to get us to dish out the dirt on our classmates (Which we didn't) and occasionally pull someone over for going 60 in a 50.

So yeah, big waste of money in some cases.

I don't think that cop was a waste of money; his presence may have reduced the potential for violence in your school.

Originally Posted by itai195

There is the oft-cited example of Japan's gun ban and very low crime rate.

There's more going on in Japan than the law against guns. Primarily it's the fact that if you get arrested, there's a 99+% chance you'll go to prison. The fact that you may not have actually committed any crime does not lessen this probability. Civil protections in the Japanese legal system are nil, there is no "speedy trial" guarantee, etc. And Japanese society is built around strict obedience to parents, the law, etc, though this robotic adherence to rules is changing-as is their extremely low crime rate.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itai195

There is the oft-cited example of Japan's gun ban and very low crime rate.

That's a cultural thing.

America is, obviously, a much different culture than Japan.

[itai195]

Either way, none of this establishes a causal relationship. I may be willing to buy the assertion that there's a correlation between weak gun control law and low crime rate, but that doesn't mean the former causes the latter. There is also a strong correlation between global deforestation and the US divorce rate, but who will argue that's causal?

[driven]

Side note: The gun-control debate is relevant to this discussion as schools are microcosms of society. What works in the general population may apply to schools as well.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by driven

Side note: The gun-control debate is relevant to this discussion as schools are microcosms of society. What works in the general population may apply to schools as well.

If that's the reason, then are students the equivalent of individual citizens? If so, shouldn't they get guns too?

[ghporter]

I'd prefer a term other than "weak gun control." The laws in Texas are pretty specific and not "weak" in any way. Break the law, you go to jail-a nasty one too. But there's a difference between draconian laws such as in New York and California and "effective" gun control. The point in both of those states was to reduce crime simply by reducing the number of people who could legally posess a firearm. But the theory behind those states' laws was that if it was unlawful NOBODY would do it. Duh. It is the criminals that are the problem, NOT THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. So the criminals took advantage of the relatively unprotected state of the law abiding citizens and became even more aggressive and active. On the other hand, when "concealed carry" laws passed in Texas and Florida, all forms of violent crime DECREASED in almost direct proportion to the number of concealed carry permits issued. Supposition: criminals are not stupid, and if ANYONE they run into might be armed (and trained in the safe and effective use of their weapon) then it's not smart to go around trying to rob people/places.

The converse is seen in Washington D.C., England, Scotland, Australia, etc., where near total gun bans are in place. England's crime rate skyrocketed when they instituted each ban over the years, as did rates in Scotland and Australia when their bans went into affect. D.C. should be the safest city in the U.S. from the look of its gun control laws, but it is quite nearly the least safe of the cities its size because the criminals know that the citizens are defenseless (and the D.C. police are ineffective).

[itai195]

Yet, despite our draconian gun control laws, I believe California's violent crime rate has dropped since the early-mid 90s.

[driven]

Originally Posted by itai195

If that's the reason, then are students the equivalent of individual citizens? If so, shouldn't they get guns too?

For the ones over 18, it might be worth opening up for debate.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ghporter

But the theory behind those states' laws was that if it was unlawful NOBODY would do it. Duh. It is the criminals that are the problem, NOT THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Obviously it is not a strict gun control law that reduces the number of gun related crimes, it is strict gun control.

[Azzgunther]

The legislation is in response to another school shooting. Maybe it's an opportunistic reaction on the part of Lasee to push something like this right after a tragedy, but it definitely resonates when you know the story of what happened in the latest shooting.


madison.com | archives: 'a Present-day Hero To Put His Life On The Line'


I'm not fond of arming teachers. On the other hand, I almost think that more good than harm would come of it. I have to wonder how many of these massacres could be averted with a few armed, trained people in the building with the ability to end the situation before it culminates in dead innocents. I don't think there are easy answers to something like this but perhaps the lesser evil is having armed teachers.

[mac128k-1984]

So the you want to combat the problem of people shooting in schools by bringing more guns in the schools

Doesn't make sense to me.

Also look at your fellow teachers would you trust them with carrying a firearm in school, if they're anything like my co-workers I'd say no.

The problem is too many people have such easy acces to guns and yet have no clue in how to use and secure them. People hide too much behind the second amendment. If our fore fathers saw what was going on today with regards to guns, I doubt very much that amendment would have made it.

Guns are not toys yet that is exactly how too many people treat them, I'm not against owning a gun but there should be tigher laws and regulations. Too many people die needlessly here in the US because guns are so easy to buy (legally and otherwise).