(02-05-2016 12:46 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:27 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I've seen teachers mad enough to shoot kids. Would they if they were strapped? Who knows.

That's why this needs to be coupled with a return to corporal punishment.

I'll be damned if I would ever let anyone lay a hand on my child.

(02-05-2016 12:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:46 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:27 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I've seen teachers mad enough to shoot kids. Would they if they were strapped? Who knows.

That's why this needs to be coupled with a return to corporal punishment.

I'll be damned if I would ever let anyone lay a hand on my child.

Then home-school. You are the reason America is full of whiners and lawyers.

ETA: and criminals.

(02-05-2016 12:51 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:46 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:27 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I've seen teachers mad enough to shoot kids. Would they if they were strapped? Who knows.

That's why this needs to be coupled with a return to corporal punishment.

I'll be damned if I would ever let anyone lay a hand on my child.

Then home-school. You are the reason America is full of whiners and lawyers.

ETA: and criminals.

You don't know what you are talking about. If a teacher has to resort to hitting a kid to make them behave they they don't belong in the profession.

We are talking about kids here.

(02-05-2016 12:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just because a few teachers are armed doesn't mean that they would automatically have success stopping a school shooting. I could think of scenarios where it would actually cause one.

In every scenario where teachers are not armed there is a zero percent success rate in stopping a school shooting. Here is a list of US school shootings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc...ted_States where people died, defenseless, in a gun-free zone.

If you are not willing to go down this avenue, then there must be further security investments in schools: putting ballistic doors and mag locks on classrooms, issuing “ballistic blankets” , training Run / Hide / Fight to all kids, and having teachers learn how to buy time to get kids out of the rooms, or to safe the kids as securely as possible.

Or, you know, maybe arm trusted teachers instead. The best cure for an active shooter is a a good person with a gun. Any other answer merely kills more innocent people.

(02-05-2016 12:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:51 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:46 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:27 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I've seen teachers mad enough to shoot kids. Would they if they were strapped? Who knows.

That's why this needs to be coupled with a return to corporal punishment.

I'll be damned if I would ever let anyone lay a hand on my child.

Then home-school. You are the reason America is full of whiners and lawyers.

ETA: and criminals.

You don't know what you are talking about. If a teacher has to resort to hitting a kid to make them behave they they don't belong in the profession.

We are talking about kids here.

Okay, now I'm starting to get the idea you are trolling. Either that, or you are below the age of 20.

And one more thing. The teacher is not the one who should be spanking (not "hitting") students. It was the principle in my day. He was the authority. Sometimes the Football coach.

(02-05-2016 12:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:27 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I've seen teachers mad enough to shoot kids. Would they if they were strapped? Who knows.

I've seen many videos where teachers are attacked by students. Would they be justified in using their firearm against them?

No. Unless they were in reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury and no less than deadly force would resolve the situation.

Have you seen this scenario?

(02-05-2016 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is laughable. As if a sign is going to stop a psychopath from shooting up a school.

It is a fact that thieves rarely break into homes that have posted security signs. I submit the same would be true here. It is about choosing the easy target.

(02-05-2016 12:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:18 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:48 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It's not the damn sign, it the actual physical armed response that is the difference maker here......

Debatable

Debatable? Fine. Kids get killed......

Just because a few teachers are armed doesn't mean that they would automatically have success stopping a school shooting. I could think of scenarios where it would actually cause one.

I can see that also...but...Not if the weapon is secured. Technology already exists that makes a firearm only possible to be engaged by a particular individual.

(02-05-2016 03:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:18 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:48 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It's not the damn sign, it the actual physical armed response that is the difference maker here......

Debatable

Debatable? Fine. Kids get killed......

Just because a few teachers are armed doesn't mean that they would automatically have success stopping a school shooting. I could think of scenarios where it would actually cause one.

I can see that also...but...Not if the weapon is secured. Technology already exists that makes a firearm only possible to be engaged by a particular individual.

Yes but from what I hear, many states are banning this technology for some reason.

(02-07-2016 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 03:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:18 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Debatable

Debatable? Fine. Kids get killed......

Just because a few teachers are armed doesn't mean that they would automatically have success stopping a school shooting. I could think of scenarios where it would actually cause one.

I can see that also...but...Not if the weapon is secured. Technology already exists that makes a firearm only possible to be engaged by a particular individual.

Yes but from what I hear, many states are banning this technology for some reason.

Link?

(02-07-2016 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 03:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:18 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Debatable

Debatable? Fine. Kids get killed......

Just because a few teachers are armed doesn't mean that they would automatically have success stopping a school shooting. I could think of scenarios where it would actually cause one.

I can see that also...but...Not if the weapon is secured. Technology already exists that makes a firearm only possible to be engaged by a particular individual.

Yes but from what I hear, many states are banning this technology for some reason.

I would think that would be just the opposite. It is my understanding that many Police departments are considering it. It eliminates the ability for a perp to take an officers weapon and turn it on him. It also would eliminate the need for trigger locks while safeguarding a weapon from children.

(02-07-2016 11:27 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 03:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:18 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Debatable? Fine. Kids get killed......

Just because a few teachers are armed doesn't mean that they would automatically have success stopping a school shooting. I could think of scenarios where it would actually cause one.

I can see that also...but...Not if the weapon is secured. Technology already exists that makes a firearm only possible to be engaged by a particular individual.

Yes but from what I hear, many states are banning this technology for some reason.

Link?

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsi...nationwide

(02-05-2016 02:42 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:51 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:46 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  That's why this needs to be coupled with a return to corporal punishment.

I'll be damned if I would ever let anyone lay a hand on my child.

Then home-school. You are the reason America is full of whiners and lawyers.

ETA: and criminals.

You don't know what you are talking about. If a teacher has to resort to hitting a kid to make them behave they they don't belong in the profession.

We are talking about kids here.

Okay, now I'm starting to get the idea you are trolling. Either that, or you are below the age of 20.

And one more thing. The teacher is not the one who should be spanking (not "hitting") students. It was the principle in my day. He was the authority. Sometimes the Football coach.

Im not here to discipline your child, Im here to teach them how to learn. Discipline should happen in the home.

(02-07-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:27 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 03:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just because a few teachers are armed doesn't mean that they would automatically have success stopping a school shooting. I could think of scenarios where it would actually cause one.

I can see that also...but...Not if the weapon is secured. Technology already exists that makes a firearm only possible to be engaged by a particular individual.

Yes but from what I hear, many states are banning this technology for some reason.

Link?

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsi...nationwide

Looks like this technology is still being perfected. Im not a fan of the watch anyway. The grip technology looks far more promising. Im perplexed by anyone that would consider this technology as gun control. Looks like a silly argument too me.

(02-07-2016 11:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 02:42 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:51 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'll be damned if I would ever let anyone lay a hand on my child.

Then home-school. You are the reason America is full of whiners and lawyers.

ETA: and criminals.

You don't know what you are talking about. If a teacher has to resort to hitting a kid to make them behave they they don't belong in the profession.

We are talking about kids here.

Okay, now I'm starting to get the idea you are trolling. Either that, or you are below the age of 20.

And one more thing. The teacher is not the one who should be spanking (not "hitting") students. It was the principle in my day. He was the authority. Sometimes the Football coach.

Im not here to discipline your child, Im here to teach them how to learn. Discipline should happen in the home.

I fully agree...but...How is that working out now?

(02-07-2016 11:43 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 02:42 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:51 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Then home-school. You are the reason America is full of whiners and lawyers.

ETA: and criminals.

You don't know what you are talking about. If a teacher has to resort to hitting a kid to make them behave they they don't belong in the profession.

We are talking about kids here.

Okay, now I'm starting to get the idea you are trolling. Either that, or you are below the age of 20.

And one more thing. The teacher is not the one who should be spanking (not "hitting") students. It was the principle in my day. He was the authority. Sometimes the Football coach.

Im not here to discipline your child, Im here to teach them how to learn. Discipline should happen in the home.

I fully agree...but...How is that working out now?

There are good and bad kids. Its like it has always been. Quit honestly, I think the gang problem was much worse in the 90s than now.

(02-07-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:27 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 03:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just because a few teachers are armed doesn't mean that they would automatically have success stopping a school shooting. I could think of scenarios where it would actually cause one.

I can see that also...but...Not if the weapon is secured. Technology already exists that makes a firearm only possible to be engaged by a particular individual.

Yes but from what I hear, many states are banning this technology for some reason.

Link?

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsi...nationwide

No one is for banning the technology. They would be against making it mandatory.

(02-07-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:27 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 03:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just because a few teachers are armed doesn't mean that they would automatically have success stopping a school shooting. I could think of scenarios where it would actually cause one.

I can see that also...but...Not if the weapon is secured. Technology already exists that makes a firearm only possible to be engaged by a particular individual.

Yes but from what I hear, many states are banning this technology for some reason.

Link?

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsi...nationwide

Where in that article does it say that any states are banning the technology?

Doesn't.

(02-07-2016 11:54 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:27 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 03:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I can see that also...but...Not if the weapon is secured. Technology already exists that makes a firearm only possible to be engaged by a particular individual.

Yes but from what I hear, many states are banning this technology for some reason.

Link?

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsi...nationwide

Where in that article does it say that any states are banning the technology?

It doesnt. I had heard something about this and mistook it for states banning it. However, according to the article, a NJ law is making this technology difficult to catch on in other areas.