Teachers carrying guns - impact on classroom

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

Actually people in Israel don't even do what "People keep pointing out...(not here mostly on FB) they do it in Israel"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...oting-utopias/

saw nothing in that article about armed teachers

and this article in TIME: http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...049136,00.html

seems to contradict the assertions made about Switzerland

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Ranb

Quote:

Originally Posted by geni
The problem with that approach is that you effectively tie teachers to single classrooms and while that works in schools that deal with younger age groups it doesn't hold up too well with higher age groups where in order to get efficient classroom use teachers move around more.

Just a suggestion, I have not been in a primary or secondary school environment for decades. You could have each teacher who is trained, authorized access to several safes in certain areas in the school. If it saves just one life....?

Ranb

Each teacher carries a fast release combination lock handgun safe. It snaplocks into a housing on the teacher's desk with a separate combination or keylock.

Cost maybe $100

If it save just one life.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Each teacher carries a fast release combination lock handgun safe. It snaplocks into a housing on the teacher's desk with a separate combination or keylock.

Cost maybe $100

If it save just one life.

Shooter puts gun to teachers head, forces opening of same.

Shooter now has extra weapon and ammo.

[StankApe]

I suspect that it might act as a deterrent to even try to attack the school.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Shooter puts gun to teachers head, forces opening of same.

Shooter now has extra weapon and ammo.

How? "If you open the safe for me, I'll only kill you once" Remember mass murderer here. He already has the means and intent to kill.

Besides, the teacher can't open the safe if they don't have the combination.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I suspect that it might act as a deterrent to even try to attack the school.

Generally these people expect either to kill themselves or be shot to death by the cops. I'd have thought they'd only be put off if armed teachers led to something undramatic and humiliating rather than going down in a hail of lead.

[StankApe]

well, if you want to do a bunch of devastation before you off yourself, you would probably choose the path if least resistance.

"Hmm, should I reign terror at the school with the armed cop inside? or that McDonalds down the street?"

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

How? "If you open the safe for me, I'll only kill you once" Remember mass murderer here. He already has the means and intent to kill.

Besides, the teacher can't open the safe if they don't have the combination.

"If you give me that gun, I won't kill you."
Teacher gives the gun.

People prefer to not make a choice they know will kill them, even if the other choice is almost certain death as well.

And if you don't give the teacher the ability to open the safe, then what's the point of putting it there at all?

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by ehcks

"If you give me that gun, I won't kill you."
Teacher gives the gun.

People prefer to not make a choice they know will kill them, even if the other choice is almost certain death as well.

And if you don't give the teacher the ability to open the safe, then what's the point of putting it there at all?

Deterrent.

Only those teachers trained and willing to be armed need to know how to open the safe, because their safes are the only ones with guns, others contain a non-firearm the size and weight of a handgun.

Your scenario seems to assume that the intending perp has somehow gotten into a classroom without attracting the attention of the rest of the school.
Chances are, this is a classroom where the teacher does not know the combination of the safe, so threats are meaningless.

However, once the shooting starts, other teachers in the school, who do have guns, will notice, surprise lost, the perp never gets "an extra gun"

[Loss Leader]

Parents and teachers don't necessarily have the training to confront an armed hostile. However, we have a large population that does. And, as a side benefit, these people need the jobs. I say we hire returning veterans to patrol the schools in their military uniforms with armored vests and helmets and riffles. It would probably be good therapy for the largely untreated veterans with PTSD to spend time with children.

[Axxman300]

Dumb idea.

The kind of shooting skill (taking out an active shooter or shooters inside a crowded school) required is not something a regular person can do. Better door locks would make more sense, ones that can be remotely locked from the office.

I love guns, but there are places , and situations where they are just a bad idea if the people with them don't know what they are doing.

So what are the impacts on kids?

Less money for school stuff because a qualified armed security guard will be expensive, and you'll need more than one for most schools. The Feds won't pay, and most states can't afford the strain on their general fund, so it will come out of our already-tight school budgets.

Less money for school because of the expected rise in liability insurance. This will come for the education budget.

Less money for schools from the inevitable lawsuits from wrongful deaths, or wrongful tasings. Insurance only covers so much.

The worst thing is that kids will learn that guns are an acceptable way to solve problems - hence more shootings down the road elsewhere in society.

The biggest problem people have always had is assessing risk. How many kids were killed in school over the last 10 years vs how many kids never heard a shot fired in anger? I'll take that ratio any day. The kid in Connecticut shot his way into an already "securely locked" school. The gold standard for mass killing at a school remains Beslan, in Russia , where 334 kids and teachers were killed along with 10 Special Forces operators. It was awful but it happened only once, so what's the logical response? Do we train our kids in counter terror? Do we make our schools into prison-like fortresses?

I don't think so.

There are over 300 million guns in the US, and even if the Constitution allowed it (it doesn't, which is why most gun-control laws are thrown out) they won't get them all, and they will never get the most deadly of them as they are illegally in the hands of criminals. The only way out is to make gun use "uncool". It's that simple, and that hard.

[Almo]

I just read through all the posts up to here. Thanks for the interesting answers, folks. I worry a lot about the perception the kids would have when they're shown that more guns is a solution to a gun problem. I just don't buy that.

I've always found this from some Rap to be a good assessment of the situation:

Originally Posted by GangStarr

tons o' guns you got we got they got
the state of affairs yo it's like mad chaos
i know a kid who just passed the other day
they shot him sixteen times so there he lay
you can pray for this **** to like cease
but until then a *****'s going to pack a piece

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Originally Posted by Quinn

Reason number 317 why this is the stupidest, most poorly-thought-out, makes-me-embarrassed-to-be-an-American idea ever: Think of all the teachers you know or have known in your life. Now think of how many of them you would want to have access to a gun in the classroom.

Hmmm... lesse...

Elementasry school: 4th grade teacher (F) had a gun collection and sport-shot extensively. Fifth grade teacher (M) was an ex marine and would carry if allowed, I think. Principal (F) would have stopped a school shooting or died trying, and would accept anything that might decrease that whole, "died trying," component.

Jr. High: Shop teacher... who could lift a 200 Lb anvil with one arm and throw a closed switchblade witht he other in such a way as it opened in flight and hit a gas-station calendar across a 30 foot Shop classroom (did so at least once to forestall a stabbing incident by a student)... might carry, probably wouldn't bother. School librarian had a LARGE gun collection and practiced target and competitive shooting three weekends out of five.

High School: Gym teacher/sports coach would have stopped a school shooting or died trying, if for nothing else than to keep our school's basketball team safe... I think he'd have been willing to carry if he were allowed to train with the police. Mousy little math teacher, same kind of thing but for the maths geeks instead of the basketball team.

Two teachers per school building, quietly equipped and trained with and by the police in active shooter drills, deploying weapons at the first gunfire might be very effective.

I'm pretty sure that no one wants to draft teachers who don't want to bear the resulting responsibility to undertake to have guns in school, but the ones that would ('specially if it meant more pay and, for some of them, being paid to go to a firearms training academy over a summer vacation) might make a big difference.

We'll never know unless we ask the TEACHERS.
_____

Objections:

Unsavory individuals wanting to get into teaching: Firearmally-oriented unsavory individuals generally make crap grades in school, and even crappier grades in college. Unless you allow graduates with crap grades into teachers' college, and then allow teachers' college students with even crappier grades to be teachers, I think we're fairly safe.

Teachers might go nuts and start shooting: How often do police and registered licensed firearm carriers GCSS (Go Crazy/Start Shooting), and hence the anticipated incidence of GC by teachers? National average. Any stats on first-time shootings by previously RLA (reasonably law abiding) and LEO (law enforcement officers) personnel? Might be worth a look.

Kid steals the gun/kid takes the gun/teacher leaves the gun out: It's secured in a biometric locked safe (fastest access from a securely locked up station, because an active shooter makes a LOT of noise, and can't start shooting everywhere all at once) unless it's being used (practice at shooting range under supervision, drills w/police under supervision or during an active shooter event) or maintained. (Stainless steel firearms can git rode hard and put up wet without significant degradation of performance or safety).

Accidental deaths: Probably significantly less than the national 12-year average of 0.24/100,000 (695/year) of the population at large, adjusted to the population of armed teachers. (Less because many of those 'at large' figures include 'my kid'll never find it under the mattress' incidents and the rate would be further reduced by much stricter oversight.) So: Figuring about 99,000 schools, at two armed teachers per school, we get an armed teacher population of 198,000 persons, at the full 0.24/100,000 so, lets say about 0.48 deaths per year.
(Stats from the CDC's WISQUARS system and self-performed Interwebz searches. Please check my math.)
_____

OH CRAP! Those accidental deaths are based on full population. I need to adjust them to current gun owners.... Lemme see if I can do that quickly. (I'll just do approximations on the current population of gun owners and the worst-case yearly deaths....)

Lesse: 800 deaths by about 80 million population gives us... HA! Blind Hog/Acorn paradigm (I REALLY didn't plan it this way, I swear)... ONE per 100,000. That gives us less than (as previously explained) 1.98 accidental deaths per year.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

How? "If you open the safe for me, I'll only kill you once" Remember mass murderer here. He already has the means and intent to kill.

Besides, the teacher can't open the safe if they don't have the combination.

"Open the safe or I will put a bullet in your brain" and the hapless teacher is going to say "No because logically speaking, that will simply further your mass murdering intent and I therefore will not comply". That's really going to happen, isn't it?

Doesn't have the combination? Really? What's the point then? The shooter can rampage away until he/she happens upon a teacher in a classroom which happens to have a safe, which the teacher happens to know the combination to? What is your permissible time to encounter first armed teacher? There must be some metric in mind for body count before first armed teacher is encountered by the shooter. And what if said teacher fails?

[Gagglegnash]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Dumb idea.

The kind of shooting skill (taking out an active shooter or shooters inside a crowded school) required is not something a regular person can do. Better door locks would make more sense, ones that can be remotely locked from the office.

Ummm... First:
I can put 10 rounds out of 10 into a 3" circle at 20 yards under considerable stress. I'm pretty regular. All the people that have graduated form the Front Sight shooting schools (I didn't) can, too.
(Proviso: A year and a half in Vietnam, so maybe not all THAT regular.)

It really is just a matter of proper training and lots of practice.

Second:
"What the mind of man can set, the mind of man can solve."
----- Samuel Johnson
Active defenses are better than static defenses. See, "Maginot Line."
On the other hand, most mass-shooting legislation is of a profound knee-jerkular nature.

Originally Posted by Axxman300

I love guns, but there are places , and situations where they are just a bad idea if the people with them don't know what they are doing.

So what are the impacts on kids?

Less money for school stuff because a qualified armed security guard will be expensive, and you'll need more than one for most schools. The Feds won't pay, and most states can't afford the strain on their general fund, so it will come out of our already-tight school budgets.

Less money for school because of the expected rise in liability insurance. This will come for the education budget.

Less money for schools from the inevitable lawsuits from wrongful deaths, or wrongful tasings. Insurance only covers so much.

The worst thing is that kids will learn that guns are an acceptable way to solve problems - hence more shootings down the road elsewhere in society.

The biggest problem people have always had is assessing risk. How many kids were killed in school over the last 10 years vs how many kids never heard a shot fired in anger? I'll take that ratio any day. The kid in Connecticut shot his way into an already "securely locked" school. The gold standard for mass killing at a school remains Beslan, in Russia , where 334 kids and teachers were killed along with 10 Special Forces operators. It was awful but it happened only once, so what's the logical response? Do we train our kids in counter terror? Do we make our schools into prison-like fortresses?

I don't think so.

There are over 300 million guns in the US, and even if the Constitution allowed it (it doesn't, which is why most gun-control laws are thrown out) they won't get them all, and they will never get the most deadly of them as they are illegally in the hands of criminals. The only way out is to make gun use "uncool". It's that simple, and that hard.

Pretty sensible, but knee-jerk responses don't work sensibly.

Folks are already jumping up and down for more action, and the government is yelling, "LOOK! GUNS!!" because they know that any REAL solution is going to take more than two election cycles.

The urbanized folks, who are already used to
1) Doing what the government wants them to do (our GOVERNMENT knows what's best for US!) and
2) Already used to associating 'gun control' with 'we're doing what's best for you!' (also an admission that real crime control will take more than 2 election cycles)
is DEMANDING that the number of guns be reduced, even though the number of guns carried by law-abiding Mk.4 Mod.0 ordinary persons allowed in the mass-killing venues is ALREADY zero.

In a world where, for instance, 11 people are killed by some oversized, overstressed bag of cashews with a gun is front-page news for weeks, and 11 people killed in a pickup truck accident, probably caused by a driver with a few too many drinks under his belt, goes off the radar in less than 10 hours (both happened on the same day, by the way, if you'll remember), there seems to be a very important dynamic working in there somewhere that EVERYBODY is missing.

[SomeGuy]

Putting teachers in gun shops would probably be a better idea than guns in teachers hands.

We also know that armed guards will not stop shootings (columbine had armed guards, also Ft Hood was full of people with guns, that were also trained to use them, they couldn't stop it from happening)

We all know that outlawing guns will stop almost all school shootings, it's very obvious when looking at all the countries where they don't happen.

Truth is some people value their right to bear arms over other people's children's lifes. The problem with democracy is that it's their fair right to feel that way and if they're in a majority impose that on the minority that disagrees.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by abaddon

"Open the safe or I will put a bullet in your brain" and the hapless teacher is going to say "No because logically speaking, that will simply further your mass murdering intent and I therefore will not comply". That's really going to happen, isn't it?

Doesn't have the combination? Really? What's the point then? The shooter can rampage away until he/she happens upon a teacher in a classroom which happens to have a safe, which the teacher happens to know the combination to? What is your permissible time to encounter first armed teacher? There must be some metric in mind for body count before first armed teacher is encountered by the shooter. And what if said teacher fails?

Again. The response is 'I don't have the combination (because there is no gun in the safe)" - maybe the teacher is lying, but it's plausible denialbilty, and they are no worse off than if there was no gun/safe there at all.

Better than rampaging away for longer if there were no armed teachers at all. And once the shooting starts the perp attempts to break down a door, possible time to encounter the first armed and ready teacher is zero. It's a deterrent to rampaging away through the building..

[StankApe]

If Columbine had armed security they should have been fired, cuz they obviously didn't do their jobs.

I suggest using doors on every exit that only open from the inside, except for the front entrance. using bullet resistant glass and posting a guard or a "buzz in" system there.

ETA: in fact, a buzz in system would be pretty effective, not perfect, but I think the guard in charge of buzzing them in could walk out to the entrance and make a few requirements if he suspects anything.

would it cost $$$? yep, but it's much more effective than an assault weapons ban

[CplFerro]

Dear All,

As much as I am in favour of arming teachers, the AnCap in me has to ask, why are we coralling children in schools in the first place? Isn't there a better way than assembling thousands of children into what they view as prisons for a good chunk of their waking hours, and in order to not prepare them for life? In other words, perhaps the solution is in removing the target.

Stefan Molyneux on the Connecticut Shootings

Cpl Ferro

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Couldn't we just build a bunker at the end of each hallway and man it with 50 caliber machine guns and rocket propelled grenades?

Nope- fire laws - the doors at either end of the hallways must be freely accessible in case of fire alarm/fire drill. Otherwiuse, though, it should at least help.....

[Hungry81]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear All,

As much as I am in favour of arming teachers, the AnCap in me has to ask, why are we coralling children in schools in the first place? Isn't there a better way than assembling thousands of children into what they view as prisons for a good chunk of their waking hours, and in order to not prepare them for life? In other words, perhaps the solution is in removing the target.

Stefan Molyneux on the Connecticut Shootings

Cpl Ferro

The purpose of schools is to help Children learn things about Society and to gain skills that will help them in every day life. It also helps prepare the child for interacting appropriately with others. What would you suggest the alternitives are?

There is home schooling, but this takes a away alot of the interacting with others aspect and when learning about society important information can be easily obfuscated either intentionally or accidently.

Also in many single or double parent families the parents are at work, so they would have to get someone to watch their kid, and they may as well send them to school if thats the case.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Almo

I'm asking this in the Education forum, because I am specifically wondering about the impact of this suggestion on the classroom. I know there are some real teachers on this forum, and want to know what they think.

My first impression is that teachers are already underpaid, and they would be expected to be trained for using and expected to carry and use firearms? How does the teacher-student relationship change once the students know the teachers are armed?

It just can't be good for the classroom.

Sorry for not reading the rest of the thread first, but I want to respod directly to this:

NO! NO! NO! Shall I say it one more time? NO!

A school in my neck of the woods is considering such a proposal.

I am a teacher myself. I do own one single gun. I know how to take care of that weapon, and I am entirely cautious. I also have twin boys going on two years old. I'm a little nervous about the idea of a gun in my own household, where I have complete control of my environment.

I do not have "complete control" in the school setting. I am outnumbered 25:1. Not that I think my students would ever gang-up on me or anything like that. The point is, with such a setting, you do not have complete control.

Just the idea of my school wanting to arm me, makes me sick. For one, I do not have the time, the desire, nor the pay-rate to go through the rigorous training they would require. Nor do I desire that kind of responsibility.

So once again: NO!

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

This is the best idea so far.

Nah, I like this one better:

Originally Posted by DrDave

You'd need to arm the kids in case the teacher went nuts and started shooting at them so they can defend themselves.

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I'm not sure the homeless would want to eat school cafeteria food. And if we let them in the gym, they would probably play on the trampoline and one of them would break their neck, and then you'd have lawsuits.

You would need to get rid of trampolines. They're too dangerous anyway. Allowing one trampoline in a school, would require other people to bring their own trampolines for their own protection, then all the sudden, you would have hundreds of trampolines. What then?

That's just crazy-talk. Stupid conservatives.

Originally Posted by fuelair

1) the students should have no idea which teachers are armed. Proper CWP involves the weapon not being visible. Neither should the teachers. Only the top admins and the in school police officers should know.
2 the teachers selected should already have CWPs and then receive inservice on special considerations and who to pay attention to in an emergency (chain of command). They should also have keys for the area of responsibility so the unlocked doors can be locked -per ex. if me, I would have the ability to lock the front door to each of the upper 400s building halls (as I had access to both sides/hallways internal to my room).

"400s building hall?" You "had to both sides/hallways internal to your room?"

Uuummm...newsflash: Not everybody in this forum has been to...whatever school building you are talking about, much less knows the lay-out!

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Parents and teachers don't necessarily have the training to confront an armed hostile. However, we have a large population that does. And, as a side benefit, these people need the jobs. I say we hire returning veterans to patrol the schools in their military uniforms with armored vests and helmets and riffles. It would probably be good therapy for the largely untreated veterans with PTSD to spend time with children.

You had me seriously going there for a minute as I was reading the first half of your post.

Seriously. I can see some moron on Faux News making a similar proposal (leaving out the PTSD bit....)

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by StankApe

If Columbine had armed security they should have been fired, cuz they obviously didn't do their jobs.

I suggest using doors on every exit that only open from the inside, except for the front entrance. using bullet resistant glass and posting a guard or a "buzz in" system there.

ETA: in fact, a buzz in system would be pretty effective, not perfect, but I think the guard in charge of buzzing them in could walk out to the entrance and make a few requirements if he suspects anything.

would it cost $$$? yep, but it's much more effective than an assault weapons ban

Ya know, the irony in all of this, is that the same people crying for expensive security measures that are either highly inappropriate, or.....VERY expensive; are the same people who want to cut on government spending, with the already cash-strapped education system as a prime target!

Meanwhile, they advocate MORE spending on an overly bloated military budget that puts the next twenty largest national military budgets combined to shame!

They are also the same people who advocate that the 20,000 gun-control laws already in place are "good enough," and "need to be enforced;" who also just so happen to be the very same people who did not give the administration tasked with the job of enforcing said gun laws any teeth to do so!

Is it just me, or are the Republican conservative really crazy lunatics? Or is it just the Tea Part branch of the Republican party?

[Checkmite]

During a shooting event, teachers already have an entire classroom of children that needs protection right now. They should be locking their own classroom doors and supervising their own classes, not wandering the halls locking other doors or searching for gunmen with-or-without a weapon drawn. What's going to keep the class quiet, hidden along the safest wall, or even from getting curious and opening the door and peeking out when the teacher leaves to do these things? That's preposterous.

And it is not very likely to have a system where certain teachers are armed but "nobody, not even the teachers, knows which ones". Firstly you can't have this state of affairs if there's a defined "chain of command", every teacher is obviously going to know or at least confidently suspect who at least some of the armed teachers are. Additionally, as soon as you have your first inservice meeting, everyone at the meeting will know precisely who the other armed teachers are and who is not armed (since they won't be at the meeting). The unarmed teachers will swiftly be able to deduce who the armed teachers are as they talk amongst themselves about not attending the inservice.

[MNBrant]

I think guns owners should just be honest and admit that they like guns because they they think, "I own guns because I think, guns are sexy!," and not try to intellectualize this issue because they looks stupid doing so and don't have the numbers to enforce their will on the rest of us.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

I think guns owners should just be honest and admit that they like guns because they they think, "I own guns because I think, guns are sexy!," and not try to intellectualize this issue because they looks stupid doing so and don't have the numbers to enforce their will on the rest of us.

That's actually a very good point, and one that every single American deep-down already know. It's the elephant in the room.

Gun owners know this is true. Gun-control advocates know this is true. Gun owners know that gun control advocates know this is true, but are hoping they don't.

I think the ONLY legitimate point gun-owners actually have, is that it CAN protect a family from an armed break-in. It's just that factually it doesn't mean it WILL. So I can see having "A" gun, with a few rounds of ammunition. Not 837 guns with 90,876 rounds of ammunition that can be fired at 3,000 rounds per second from each hand!

[MNBrant]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

That's actually a very good point, and one that every single American deep-down already know. It's the elephant in the room.

Gun owners know this is true. Gun-control advocates know this is true. Gun owners know that gun control advocates know this is true, but are hoping they don't.

I think the ONLY legitimate point gun-owners actually have, is that it CAN protect a family from an armed break-in. It's just that factually it doesn't mean it WILL. So I can see having "A" gun, with a few rounds of ammunition. Not 837 guns with 90,876 rounds of ammunition that can be fired at 3,000 rounds per second from each hand!

I think we can all agree that children should not be reciting this is my weapon, this is my gun, this ones for fighting, this ones for fun, in the classroom! Vote gun control all the way yeah! There is no intelligent discussion for people who need a penis extention; i.e. a gun.

[Mason]

Collecting guns, recreational shooting with the kids at the range on the weekends, hunting deer in-season, all fine, healthy hobbies and I would see it as a shame to seriously interfere with such activities.

America's gun culture, however, is just *********** retarded. It's normal to have a few guns in a display case because they have meaning, much like vacation pictures, grandpa's purple heart, A few family heirlooms, or some knick-knacks from the seasonal bazaar. In moderation, it's fine. But the mentality of more guns to protect us from the guns we keep putting on the streets, or "You want my guns? Come and take them!" is just nutty.

Guns exist. They're around us more than enough already. I don't like the idea of expanding the stupid to the point that we arm teachers, not because of the risk factor, safety issues, questions of effectiveness, or any other reason mentioned. I just don't want the biggest influence on our children, the most immediate role-models for our youth, walking around armed, showing them that carrying a gun and looking for the chance to use it is normal.

Children look up to adults. Whatever they may say or do, in the end they become the adults that they witnessed while they were growing up. When they grow up in a religious environment, they tend to be more accepting of religioun as a normal part of life. When they grow up in an abusive environment, they tend to be more accepting of abuse as a normal part of life. When they grow up surrounded by role-models that show certain common traits, they tend to think those traits are normal and fine.

I don't want the next generation thinking that walking around with a gun, looking for the next gunfight, is an acceptable norm in our society, and arming more people around children is a huge step in that direction. If that's the environment created by the parents at home, I don't like it, but that's the right of the parent, to mold their children in the way they feel is best. But leave that **** at home with religion and politics.

Arming teachers will at the very least, cause the topic to be brought up in class. "Mr Ortiz, how come Mrs Fenton carries a gun but you don't?" Or "Mrs Fenton, why do you have a gun?". Does anyone think we'd have good, consistant, level-headed answers? Or, would the schools need to build policies and blanket statements that the teachers have to recite verbatim or lose their jobs? Would we be creating another curious taboo for kids to see on a daily basis?

Or, would we have more well-adjusted kids grow up into productive members of society because they were exposed to a mature topic at a young age? I doubt this last one, but you never know.

Old man Gittens, the science teacher might like to spend his weekends up at the cabin, strapped over a chair in his assless chaps and a ball gag, while his grand neice dances around him in a teletubby costume and a strapon, spanking his we-wee with a riding crop, and I say "You go there, Mr. Gittens! You go there!. You've spent all your life paying off the cabin and your neice seems like a nice girl, so you've earned it, have yourself a wonderful weekend!"

But Mr. Gittens, don't share your vacation photos with my neice in the classroom. Teach her science and have related conversations with the class. Keep it professional and leave the ball-gag in the trunk when you enter the school. Likewise, don't bring a gun to class. When the time comes, I'll talk to my own kids about gods, guns and riding crops, but these conversations are just not appropriate for the classroom. Even though I might think your extra-curricular activities are perfectly healthy, there are parents who don't want their children exposed to such things inside of a school environment, so stick to science in the classroom and leave guns and ball-gags to the parents.

[h.g.Whiz]

Arming teachers pretty much makes our schools into prison-like fortresses.

[LTL]

As a Teacher, I do not like the idea of carrying a gun, I teach ES/SP students, who are in grades K-1. My job is to teach and help students learn, not worry about the possibility of a student getting their hands on my gun.