The M4 and the AR15, brought to you by Colt Firearms.
I don't know about you, but I know more than a few teachers socially, and I can tell you with an absolute certainty that most, if not all, of them clutch at their pearls like Margaret Dumont at the very idea of a gun inside a school. I can also tell you with absolute certainty that most, if not all, of them wouldn't know a carbine from a carburetor. So, even though I haven't heard an opinion from all of them, I can safely assume that they responded to Wayne LaPierre's called for armed guards in all schools with ignorance expressed as outrage or mockery.
He may have been "crazy", but he knew reality didn't stop at a school's entrance.
So far, the only major thing I've seen a zero-tolerance policy and "Gun Free Zone" in a school accomplish — a rural school in a county where most residents hunt and many out-of-towners come to fill their deer tags every year — was to nearly get a teacher fired for forgetting that his hunting rifle was in his truck when he drove to work. Imagine that: being fired from your teaching position for having a weapon on school grounds. He probably would have had a hard time finding a decent paying job in another line of work, much less worked as a teacher ever again.
But this kind of irrational fear is limited. Just as the fear was induced through indoctrination, so could it be overcome through training and rational discussion.
The real trouble is with the teachers' unions. Don't kid yourself that their concern is for the safety of their members or students. No, their concern is whether they will get their pound of flesh or not. How will contracts deal with guns? Will teachers get some sort of "hazard pay" for either working around guns or carrying one themselves? In their world, giving teachers and staff the freedom to take control of their safety and concealed-carry is an extra burden. After all, teachers are already babysitting your little brats all day long and now you want them to be overtly responsible their lives, too. Ridiculous!
Of course, teachers are already overtly responsible for their students' safety (and, by extension, lives), but many teachers and their unions prefer to pretend that that isn't true. What many of them would prefer is to continue living in a world where magical thinking, embodied by the Zero-Tolerance Incantation and the Gun Free Zone Sign Talisman, keeps madmen from targeting schools. As long as they continue to put their faith in these things and absolutely refuse to imagine that real, proactive measures which includes the possibility of one or more armed employees, all of their gun and mental health policies add up to nothing more than over-priced crossed fingers.
If they care as much about The Chill Drun as they say they do, they must do better than that.



jefferson101 on December 28, 2012 at 10:06 am said:
I'm of the opinion that in most cases, arming the Teachers would be just about as effective and safe as arming the Student Body. The levels of good judgement and responsibility would be about the same for either group.
That's not to say that some Teachers would not be excellent candidates to carry while at work. If they have a Conceled Carry license, they would be capable. But trying to get the rest of them involved is about as likely to succeed as singing lessons for a hog.
Starless on December 28, 2012 at 12:39 pm said:
Pretty much all of those I've seen advocate for armed teachers have talked about eliminating the "gun free zone" designation from schools and thus allowing teachers with concealed-carry permits to carry on the job, not creating a specific program (like say, LaPierre's proposal — though he talked about cops and retired military) whose aim would be to arm teachers. Like the guy in Utah — he talks about training only teachers who want to be trained.
jefferson101 on December 28, 2012 at 10:15 am said:
Oh, and by the way, the rifle at the top of the picture is clearly the Assault Weapon. It's black, and we all know that a black rifle is evil, and that evil = assault rifle.
See, I figured that all out without even having to note how many positions the selector switches had.
Starless on December 28, 2012 at 12:40 pm said:
I think what you wrote would be considered raaaaacist.
jefferson101 on December 28, 2012 at 6:27 pm said:
And what else would you expect? I'm a Bitter Clinger from a Flyover State. I am completely afraid of "The Other" people, which is why I chose to live in the South among a population that's about 40% Black instead of the folks I used to live around in NE Minnesota, who were 99% White.
I won't mention that I get along fine with all the illegal immigrants around my locale. I wouldn't want to burst any Leftoid bubbles. Such being the case, It's got to be RAAAAACISM. There is no other rational explanation.
You see? Not have I accepted my responsibility for RAAACISM of the Instutional sort, but I have accepted their "reasoned discourse", because I'm a RAAACIST and shut up Wingnut.
Or whatever.
Be it noted however. I may be rabble, but I'm a part of a rabble in arms. So there's that.
Starless on December 29, 2012 at 6:47 am said:
Duluth is widely known for its Finns of color.
jefferson101 on December 29, 2012 at 5:42 pm said:
I was more oppressed by the Swedes of St.Cloud, actually.
And the Norwegians. The horror of the "Ya, sure, Ole" bunch cannot be overstated. Actually, I think I wound up in Lake Woebegone once, when I got lost in a fog. (I was young, foolish, and had been drinking. And I burned over a half tank of gas getting home from Princeton. And I'd swear that I saw a sign that said "Lake Wobegone" at one of the places I drove through!) That alone was enough to put me off Minnesota for life.
I relocated myself and my family to Texas the next year, and got over the paranoia eventually.
Starless on December 30, 2012 at 7:37 am said:
St. Cloud would be central MN.
SCSU, BTW, is supposed to be so super-duper racisty that they have to have an entire watchdog initiative dedicated to "anti-racism", Its acronym is "CARE". Because they "care". They care so much they created a Wall of
White GuiltHistory. Section 1 is dedicated to "1492-1865 (colonization, genocide of indigenous peoples, slavery, establishing U.S. society & nation)". I think they tossed those last two in there as an after thought.