NC Educrats: If Scot Peterson Couldn’t Get the Job Done at Parkland, Why Would Teachers Do Any Better?

North Carolina train arm teachers school shooting

Bigstock

Do we really have to break this down?

The School Security Act of 2019 proposes that teachers undergo all applicable in-service training required for law enforcement officers, as well as training established by DOJ law enforcement commissions in how to respond to an active shooter situation.

Even trained and seasoned law enforcement professionals tested under the kinds of stress found in live shooter scenarios don’t have stellar accuracy with their firearms, (Wake County Board of Education Chairman Jim) Martin said. To ask teachers with the minimal training and students all around them to respond in those same situations doesn’t seem wise, he added.

“In that case, even the person who signed up for the job, who was trained for it, who had that job couldn’t do it,” said Katy Wittner, a first-grade teacher at Colfax Elementary in Guilford County.

– Joe Killian in Educators seethe at N.C. lawmakers’ plan to arm, deputize teachers

First, it wasn’t that Peterson couldn’t do it, he chose not to. Second, voluntarily trained and armed teachers in North Carolina would already be in classrooms to defend their students and confront a potential shooter. Got it?

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Do the job, or quit. (Please quit.) We don’t need worthless commie vermin educating kids.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “We don’t need worthless commie vermin educating kids”

      However the fact remains, that is the majority of educators in todays supposed institutions of higher learning.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Not in actually useful fields. Note how the commies pile up in the “studies” courses of universities? The way I see it, publicly funded universities should offer STEM and nothing else.

        1. avatar napresto says:

          What a shallow, dismal world that would be. The humanities are incredibly important – just no longer taught as they used to be, nor valued for the reasons they ought to be. A lot of humanities academics are failing us, but the answer isn’t to only do STEM. (Said napresto, CS professor)

        2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Napresto you just hit on both sides of the problem. Humanities are important for maintaining what led to the very concept of liberty and everything we value in our republic and are no longer taught as they run counter to the agenda. Private school/home school for my kids for as long as we can afford it. They will know what it means to be free as well as why others would seek to undo it.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          napresto
          Humanities are a hobby, not a career. I could probably write several doctorate dissertations on my favorite history topics and have the equivalent of a masters in military history just from the course work I did for fun to take the edge off during my engineering curriculum.

          The problem I have is that there is public grant money going to people’s hobbies. If a private university wants to have a humanities curriculum, they can feel free to do so. I just object to the taxpayer funding it.

        4. avatar napresto says:

          @pwrserge: The founding fathers would disagree with you about the humanities being a hobby. So, for that matter, would some of history’s worst actors, like Marx, Lenin, Hitler, et al.

        5. avatar OBOB says:

          napresto…I am with pwrserge on most of his statment

          we as a nation do not need to pay for programs like LA’s famous ‘latino studies’ (AKA Mexican branded activist stiring the pot and asking for Reconquista!) course at its local colleges…then add ‘other BS activist classes…AKA how to hate males or hat anything GOP…
          If it can’t get you a job in the BIZ world 100%…then the cost of those classes should NEVER be ‘discounted’ to the student at al…you want BS then pay for it

        6. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          pwrserge
          You are correct.The humanities are a hobby. The Liberals expect, YOU, to make a career in the humanities. NO. You aren’t going to make a living teaching or acting in shakespeare plays in the civilian world. If you major in Native American literature, or major in Circus Clowns, and there is such a major, you are not going to make a living at it in the civilian world.

          The education establishment is trying to sell Bull Sh#t to college kids. And trick them into signing up for useless humanities majors.

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          I would propose that avoiding the currently hyper liberal environs is counter productive. The point of a university system is to argue ideas. If it’s all liberals then the only arguement is how liberal to be and over time things slide farther and farther Left.

          Raise your kids properly then they’re effectively inoculated against this. They can go and argue a more freedom minded approach and counterbalance the Left. The more we do that the more the university system is balenced.

          You can’t get the gold without going under the mountain and fighting the dragon. Being a pansy, avoiding the challenge and then complaining you have no gold serves no purpose.

          Take the fight to them. Make them defend their positions. They aren’t expecting it. Keep all assignments and tests as records and if a prof lowers a grade because of a difference of opinion tell the Dean with strategic use of the word “lawyer”. Watch them squirm.

        8. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          I wonder sometimes if part of the problem is the nonsense degree requirements for a lot of entry level and office jobs. Let’s be honest filing a TPS report requires neither a degree nor 3 managers. Yet we require a degree and a lot of so easy a brainwashed peon can pass classes become fields of study to fill the demand. Humanities have a place but have not truly been taught in decades for many schools. And what is called humanities (victims studies) today has exploded in number while not teaching anything even as useful as basic civics let alone critical/rational thinking

        9. avatar SoCalJack says:

          I’m with napresto on this one and I’m an engineer. To be a good engineer, we need to be we’ll rounded and learning about human culture is part of it.

        10. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          SoCal I mostly agree with your statement but your logic has one critical flaw, commies are’t human and they corrupt all they touch.

        11. avatar napresto says:

          There’s an army of straw men getting a real beating here, but clowning(!?) is NOT a humanities subject and no one claimed it was. “Studies” programs are not humanities, but rather, advocacy work disguised as a college major. And many people DO, in fact, make a living teaching history or performing or making art or lots of other things that ARE humanities and are NOT primarily engineering or business. I’m quite sure that all of you railing against such jobs spend lots of time enjoying, e.g., web content produced by such people… or watching Netflix, or viewing YouTube videos… or if you want something that is more “plain old humanities” than “digital humanities,” reading, for example, books.

          A lot of great books are written by people who studied something other than STEM.

          I don’t know where the idea came from that someone here advocated that you (or any taxpayer) should foot the bill for a humanities – or any other – education. We shouldn’t have to do that, and the fact that we do is a problem. But to extrapolate from that to “publicly funded universities should offer STEM and nothing else” is just… silly… and to call the humanities a “hobby” is historically illiterate. Poor understanding of civics and history (and many other humanities subjects) is a root cause of many of the most intractable problems in this country today, and these can’t be fixed by teaching people how to code.

        12. avatar napresto says:

          As I was writing, some nice responses came in above. Feelin’ better!

        13. avatar RidgeRunner says:

          CHRIS: Well, there IS Clown College.

        14. avatar Kenneth says:

          I think ridgerunner is just kidding, but one would be amazed at what’s out there:
          https://www.theclownschool.com/

        15. avatar strych9 says:

          @Kenneth:

          Such schools have long been around. I went to college with a kid who attended one for high school.

          One day, the idea of juggling knives comes up in a conversation and this guy says “I can juggle knives” to which we all said “Bullshit!”. He says “No, really, I went to Clown High School” which just makes us all laugh and think even more that he’s full of shit.

          Dude picks up three knives and just starts juggling. Then adds a forth and fifth. These knives are not toys, they’re real, sharp and they’re all different. KaBars, Benchmades, a kitchen knife etc. All fixed blades and all shaving sharp.

          He stops, goes over to a computer and pulls up his high school. Holy shit, you can really go to a Clown High School before you go to Clown College. I’ll be damned.

        16. avatar Pg2 says:

          Humanities at one time was important in my opinion, it was one of the reasons for higher education. Today University’s and colleges are thoroughly indoctrinated with socialist/communist from top to bottom. Humanities are the hardest hit, being total social engineering platforms.

    2. avatar bob says:

      Go watch or better still shoot a USPSA match. And watch the better contestants. it will educate you as to how accurately trained people can shoot under pressure with high accuracy. Your average police officer qualifies twice a year while most competitive shooters shoot weekly if not more often. Whether people like it or not a well trained armed security person is the last line of defense between a deranged shooter and innocent children.

    3. avatar Gadsden says:

      I’m just wondering what’s with that imperial sun behind that dudes head.

    4. It is one thing to want to shoot your way into a gunfight. It is quite another to want to shoot your way OUT.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        Scott Peterson was assigned the job as the deputy working as the resource officer at that high school. He should have told the coward sheriff that, he to, was a coward and turned down the assignment. Furthermore, the lazy coward never bothered qualifying with a patrol rifle etc. Plus, suspended Coward County Sheriff Israel didn’t mandate his resource officers to do so and also changed the standing order from “will engage” to “may engage.”

  2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Big difference between being confronted by a gunman and pursuing a gunman. You don’t have time for cowardice in the former.

    1. avatar what would spock say says:

      exactly. I figured the difference in scenario would be obvious, but the person who is trying to make that argument is either stupid or intentionally obtuse. In both scenarios the the humans act to save their own asses-this is a universal thing in all animals. One scenario results in engaging the shooter(teachers being fired upon), the other results in someone hiding outside(cop). duh.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        ‘…either stupid or intentionally obtuse.’

        You mean Democrat?

    2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Not to mention nowhere to run. I would bet on a cornered armed teacher over what passes for school resource officers choosing to respond.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        When it’s shoot or die, not having a gun kind of narrows down your options a bit.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Agreed and it makes me laugh maniacally when I remember some of the teachers on my side of the Hudson fall under LEOSA. Pesky combat veteran hiring preference and all.

    3. avatar Higgs says:

      I have no issues with teachers being armed if they want to be. I know a lot that would want to be.

      I am not sure if I want rapid response teams of teachers. Sure they probally know the school better than mast shooters would. I just think that guarding a room has significant tactical advantages. A shoot would have to clear a whole room for targets. A teacher in the roof has to hit a man sized target outlined by a door frame. During a high stress situate I think that would probally give the teachers an additional advantage.

      1. avatar Dani in WA says:

        There are, *ahem*, “some” teachers who carry in CA, my former state, despite the laws forbidding it as they consider their lives more important than such laws.

    4. avatar Wiregrass says:

      Very well stated. That’s what opponents of voluntarily armed teachers don’t understand. They assume that armed teachers will be looking for a fight when they really want is a fighting chance.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Exactly. I’m working on the assumption that the fight is coming to them whether they’re prepared or not. True, it’s possible that one (armed) teacher could run down the hall and engage the shooter in another classroom, in which case he is truly a hero. But it doesn’t take a hero to save his/her own skin and his students in the process.

        1. avatar Truckman says:

          that’s the same reason citizens with concealed Carry permits carry just in case I have for 25+ years and never had to pull my weapon and pray I never do but it’s there if I have to

    5. avatar Blue says:

      Suspened Coward County Sheriff Israel didn’t provide proper training nor guidance for these situations as demonstrated not only at Parkland, but also the Ft. Lauderdale Airport. Furthermore, the logic assumes that Peterson was actually trained and honed his skills. It seems he did neither on top of being a coward.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        *suspended*

  3. avatar Bob Jones says:

    Replace teachers with tablets & games designed to convey knowledge to the player and warehouse students at home instead at expensive schools. The games can be designed like nagware and randomly stop until you spell a word like “C-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n” correctly or watch a ten minute instructional, with content quiz. Quiz scores determine amounts of play time vs learn time.

    1. avatar Patriot2G says:

      Is there such a place! I’m in.

    2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Sadly that would be a cost effective improvement up here. Especially in Albany.

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      That’s the holy grail of educational psychology, blending the candy of video games/apps with the fruits and vegetables of substantive learning material. It hasn’t proven effective, yet, but that isn’t to say that it won’t someday soon. Virtually no profession is invulnerable to automation and A.I.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        I am very curious to see what mental gymnastics will be on display from the teachers unions in the years to come.

    4. avatar Swarf says:

      Sure! We can call it Ender’s Game.”

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Without a trace of humor that would be a improvement to several schools around the capitol region. At least the violence learned would serve a purpose and our guard units could keep up on infantry slots.

  4. avatar VicRattlehead says:

    The (purposeful) misinterpreting of these bills drives me NUTS!
    NOBODY IS TRYING TO FORCE TEACHERS TO CARRY GUNS! It’s not like the hiring process will now, all of a sudden, include live fire time and range qualifications, or fat old Ms. ‘im just here for the paycheck’ are going to have to train like Navy SEALS to keep their jobs.
    All they do is allow faculty who WANT to take on that responsibility the opportunity to do so, and by requiring training they help ensure that those that do are A) serious about the responsibility and B) are equipped to do it as safely and effectively as possible.

    I swear, hoplophobia is a very real thing and it short circuits any reasoning ability the person affected may have possessed.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      I patiently explain that to people, too. We’re aren’t MAKING teachers carry. I think the media is intentionally spreading that falsehood.

    2. avatar napresto says:

      I’m pretty sure that mischaracterization is mostly done on purpose by people who know better – aka “liars” -because it helps advance the anti-gun agenda. I don’t think I’d give the benefit of the doubt that this is done primarily based on fear and lack of understanding.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        It does make rational discussion impossible when a “professional” representative of the union dissolves into the kind of histrionics one only finds in toddlers or mental hospitals. One of my neighboring counties had a three word reply to this “LEOSA and tenure”

  5. avatar anarchyst says:

    It seems that “officer safety” trumps “courage under fire” almost all of the time, but especially with “school resource officers” and police officers in general. It seems that for almost every police officer, making it to a cushy retirement is the ultimate goal, the protection of the public be damned. Add to that, observe the many unjustified shootings by police that get “covered up” by police-friendly prosecutors and grand juries.
    All one has to do is look at the (in)action of the police officers during the last number of mass school shootings, where these “trained professionals” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while the carnage was going on.
    You can bet that us military veterans in such a case would be drawn TOWARD the sound of gunfire. If I had my way, I would arm teachers who wish to be armed, and would hire military veterans as school support personnel such as janitors and maintenance personnel. Janitorial and maintenance personnel have the run of the school buildings and would make an effective “reactionary force”. Us veterans would be much more effective than police, (who are only concerned about their own “safety”), as us veterans are trained to go towards the sound of gunfire and “solve the problem”.
    Today’s human nature dictates that the person with all of the “training” (especially) law enforcement DOES cower in fear, while a 90 lb. armed teacher would reluctantly, but successfully take out the shooter. Being forced into a situation also forces one to act.
    There are many examples of persons, who one would normally think, would not be capable of acting in an extremely high-stress situation, but DO come out on top-stopping the threat, and saving lives.
    Sad to say, today’s police practices dictate that the cop’s life is MORE IMPORTANT than that of those he has sworn to protect despite the cops having statutory protections that do not apply to us ordinary civilians.
    All one has to do is look at Medal of Honor recipients, who are almost always mild-mannered, initially reluctant to act, but DO act, and perform feats who most would think are normally beyond their capacity and capabilities TRUE bravery in the heat of battle. The same applies to those civilians who act during school shootings.
    Human nature has a habit of propelling (actually forcing) the normal, average person into a true hero and life saver, while showing the true (cowardly behavior) nature of those we assign to protect us. A good example of our protectors cowering in fear is the deputies who FAILED TO ACT despite having all of the equipment necessary and the preferential laws on their side (that protect them from lawsuits and liability).
    TRUE heroes ACT, while our so-called protectors (failed to) REACT.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Scot Peterson was not concerned about the children he was supposed to protect.

      He was only concerned about his paycheck and his pension.

  6. avatar DrDKW says:

    Besides, unarmed and cowering has worked real well so far!

  7. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    A scared, stressed out teacher in front of a room full of kids, with limited training in how to use a semi-automatic handgun, is NOT going to be very accurate when confronted by a school shooter. Neither would any of us. Energy, stress, fear, sweat, loss of focus, all of the factors that reduce accuracy are going to be there. AND IT DOESN’T MATTER.

    That teacher WITH a firearm is going to stop a school shooting – probably every time. Even if the teacher misses, probably even if he (or she) fails to pull the trigger, they will stop the killer and end the killing. That is what has happened EVERY time a “school shooter” has been faced with armed opposition in the US – EVERY TIME. No exceptions, no gun fights, no failures.

    In the US, over the past 30 years, every time a murderer inside a school building has been confronted by someone with a firearm one of three things has happened. The killer surrendered, the killer committed suicide, or the killer was shot ending the threat. There has not even been an “exchange” of gunfire. Three options – all three result in an end to the threat. (NOTE: never has a school shooting ended because some cop was hiding behind a car outside – even though that has been a documented response in over a dozen incidents.)

    While the USA does NOT rank among the top 10 nations in school shootings (per capita), the US panic media repeatedly makes claims like that. And although US schools are statistically among the safest places to be IN THE WORLD (US government stats from CDC, FBI, Dept of Ed.), and safer than US schools have EVERY been, there is always room for improvement. Arming and training volunteer teachers is the best possible improvement we could make for school safety!

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      “Even if the teacher misses…” – Easier to hit a target when you know which door it has to come through to get at your students.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      The most important effect of arming school personnel (teachers, custodians, administrators) is the deterrent effect. If a crazy person contemplates shooting up a school to score a kill figure higher than the standing world record he will choose a school with no armed personnel. So, introducing a realistic risk of return fire is an effective deterrent for some (perhaps not all) cases.

      The probability of encountering return fire needs to be greater than 1%. If just 1% the crazy guy will take his chances. Probably needs to be greater than 10%. I’m guessing that the risk of encountering return fire needs to be between 30% and 60% but it doesn’t need to be 100% or 95%.

      Realistically, just arming school personnel is probably NOT enough by itself. If a school is known to have armed some of its personnel then, essentially, they have hung a sign around the neck of every adult: “Shoot me first”.

      Something must complement armed adults.

      1. avatar VicRattlehead says:

        It seems to me that the deterrent factor would be roughly the same in all but the extreme ends of the ‘percentage armed’ spectrum.
        IE: if it’s well known that only a tiny percentage are armed the deterrent factor just won’t be there. Conversely, if it’s well known that nearly all staff are packing that’s a HUGE deterrent.

        I believe the key would be to keep em’ guessing by keeping all guns hidden or to have ‘approved storage’ (biometric safes or whatever) in EVERY classroom, whether there’s a gun in them or not, so the only ones who REALLY know for sure are those with authorized access. This way there’s no way for a spree killer to know how much resistance to expect or whom to expect it from.

    3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      This reminds me of the advice given by some liberals years ago as to rape. Their advice to women that were attacked by a rapist was do not fight your attacker or you will be hurt or killed, just relax and submit and everything will be alright. Their gun advice seems to be just as asinine.

    4. avatar BobS says:

      The reason it doesn’t matter whether the teacher (or custodian, or administrator, or SRO) lands a shot:
      Any potentially-effective response gets inside the bad guys’ OODA loop.
      If you disrupt their observe–orient–decide–act cycle, they are left with only the option of exiting their plans to a result that’s more favorable to their intended victims.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        That assumes that he’s rational and engaging in selection of targets once on premise.

        If he’s irrational and the school in general is the target then he just shoots whoever he sees and there’s no way to get inside his loop because he’s already closed it and won’t be making further selection decisions.

        At that point the only choice is to end that loop by killing or incapacitating the shooter which is the point of armed resistance in the first place.

  8. avatar David Bradford says:

    “As a teacher, you get close to your students,” Veneris said. “You’re almost a second parent to some of them. And you’re supposed to create a space where they can learn and they feel safe. Historically, most of these school shooters have been students. To put a teacher in a position where they have to think about being asked to shoot one of their students…it’s unthinkable.”

    “In that case, even the person who signed up for the job, who was trained for it, who had that job couldn’t do it,” said Katy Wittner, a first-grade teacher at Colfax Elementary in Guilford County.

    These two viewpoints are exactly why it is a good idea to arm teachers and not “security monitors”. When push comes to shove, that security staff is going to weigh his/her life over the life of some random kid and their paycheck. Given that choice, the kid is going to come up short against the prospect of a new job search. However, the teacher, who sees that kid as not a random victim but as a beloved family member will gladly give their own life to save YOUR CHILD! The deaths of both Geography instructor Scott Beigel and, football coach Aaron Feis are proof of that. I have little doubt that they both would have gladly traded a life of emotional turmoil for having shot someone in exchange for the lives of 16 of their “family members”.

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      Viewing the shooter as a “beloved family member” just like his victims is a big part of the problem. They are willing to sacrifice their own lives in a futile effort to stop the killing without harming either when they need to stop it by injuring the shooter so badly he cannot continue.

      1. avatar David Bradford says:

        That might well be true for most teachers, and they will not choose to be armed in the first place. Those that will choose to be armed will have at least faced the fact that they may have to seriously injure or kill one of their own students to protect the rest. And in the end, may find that they can’t follow through. Either way, they will have to live or die with the choice they make in the moment. At least if they have chosen to be armed they have the option available for them to take action or not. It is not unheard of where one family member shoots and kills another in defense of a weaker vulnerable member of the family. For those of us that have never had to pull the trigger on another human being, we will never know for sure that we will or will not be able to when and if the time comes. I would not carry if I had not come to terms with the fact I may have to take someone’s life, but until that bullet leaves the barrel I will never know for certain that I have the intestinal fortitude to pull that trigger on another living soul. I hope I never have to find out, but I’m prepared none the less.

  9. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I would trust my son’s teachers who have an emotional attachment to their students more than a cop who got a cushy, politically connected position to do nothing most of the time as a defense against a homicidal maniac. The police

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Yeah, it is better to let a spree-killer operate unopposed for as long as possible, and guarantee that nothing distracts a spree-killer or disrupts a spree-killer’s ability to place carefully aimed shots and maximize the death toll.

    To be sure, that is far better than having an armed teacher who shoots back at a spree-killer, thus distracting the spree-killer, interfering with the spree-killer’s ability to place carefully aimed shots, or shortening the killing spree.

    In summary: it is better to let evil people operate without opposition and guarantee maximum carnage, rather than oppose evil people because collateral damage is possible.

  11. avatar Omer says:

    There are teachers who heroically take bullets to save their students, why shouldn’t they have the ability to return fire to save their students?

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      Because the more chaos and lawbreaking that they encourage, the more power the politicians will have? Because scared sheep are easier to control than thinking men?

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Because scared unarmed sheep are easier to control than armed thinking men?

        There, fixed that for you.

        1. avatar Wiregrass says:

          Thinking men are armed.

  12. avatar WI Patriot says:

    When I hear of statements like this, I just want to go take a nap…

  13. avatar MyName says:

    Haven’t we been told that anything is worth a try “if it saves just one life.” Don’t tell me that the antis apply their reasoning selectively.

  14. avatar TommyJay says:

    The Gov. and Omer have got it right.

    First, these leftists are always make an argument. A BS, dishonest, imbecilic argument; but an argument that might sway 10% of people. Don’t you love it when they leave the word “voluntary” out.

    There was a case of Pennsylvania elementary school where a divorced dad who had lost custody showed up with a machete. The principal saw the guy coming and placed herself between him and the children in the classroom. She now has only partial use of her arms that were hacked up. I’ll bet she would have loved to have a handgun in a safe.

  15. avatar James W Crawford says:

    The record of how police respond to mass shooters is inconsistant. Police responded very effectively and courageously to the Uqua Community College shooting and the Pittsberg Synogogue shooting. At the Sandy Hook, Clackamas Town Center, and Mandalay Bay, as well as Parkland High School, the police literally cowered in the parking lot while they waited for the shooting to stop. The response at Clackamas Town Center was particularly egregious because the shooting was literally across the parking lot from the Clackamas County Sheriffs Office! They took time to bring in their mobile command post from Oregon City before any officers dared enter the mall. They didhowever accost potential victims who were fleeing the mall at gun point, thus hindering their instictive efforts to disperse and escape. It was as if they were assisting the mass shooter.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      “The response at Clackamas Town Center was particularly egregious because the shooting was literally across the parking lot from the Clackamas County Sheriffs Office! They took time to bring in their mobile command post from Oregon City before any officers dared enter the mall.”

      I didn’t know just how bad it was. I will have to read up on this.

    2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      “…accost potential victims…” Why do they always do that? Maybe it’s easier to do that than find the real cause of the problem. I remember seeing the Parkland kids running with their hands up/on their head. Well, how does that help?? The shooter can do the same thing after he drops his “assault weapon”.

    3. avatar what would spock say says:

      I have an idea…officers can only be stationed at schools if they have children in that school. May not always be possible based on size of the police force for a given community, but if so, there would be no chance of them hunkering down outside while gunfire is going on inside. also be nice if the ones assigned weren’t the old fat ones incapable of the cardio required of charging into a situation like that. for some reason around here, the police resource officers always seem to be the “put out to pasture” plus size types. of course, teachers armed on a voluntary basis inside is always the best. those looking to shoot up schools are really not expecting the intended victims to be returning fire. will result in delay, poorly aimed shots, and saved lives even if the attackers are not hit.

  16. avatar Texican says:

    We really need to ban public schools! For the Chilluns! TM Problem solved. Problem staying solved.

  17. avatar strych9 says:

    Why would they do better? Because, unlike Peterson, the teachers have no choice. They’re on desperate ground.

    “10. Ground on which we can only be saved from destruction by fighting without delay, is desperate ground.” – Sun Tzu The Art of War.

  18. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    So, Katy Wittner says even a trained person couldn’t do it. Well let’s just disarm the cops who score poorly on their target practice. That’ll sure make things better (sarc)

  19. avatar possum says:

    I can’t understand the school shootings, wondering why an individual has to go on a shootem up because someone said something negative on Facebook. Somethings wrong. Arm the teachers by all means if these school shootem ups can’t be stopped by the Enforcers

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      They blame the guns for 2 reasons. ( 1 ) They have to make people feel threatened and scared enough to surrender their firearms for peace. ( 2 ) They cannot do to us like what has been done in Venezuela if we are armed. This is the real goal, control and subjugation of the population but the pesky second amendment always gets in the way ( so far ). The school shootings and other violence is a manifestation of a Godless, evil society. Not all are in this category but enough are to cause this problem.

  20. avatar Excedrine says:

    Scot Peterson was and is a coward. Are these eduKKKrats seriously telling me that they’re all cowards, too?

  21. avatar Warren Neville says:

    The biggest difference between teachers and cops is the intelligence level. Most cops did not actually graduate from high school. They were handed a diploma just to get rid of them.

  22. avatar Swarf says:

    “Did you just assume my competency?!”

    First off, stop putting your inadequacies on the rest of us. What you mean is that you don’t think you would be able to hit the target under stress. Don’t speak for the rest of us.

    Second, what I don’t see being talked about is the fact that armed teachers will stop shooters solely though the deterrent effect of… being armed. Gun-free zones are killing fields.

  23. avatar William Ashbless says:

    One thing that these tools fail to realize(or deliberately ignore) when talking about self defense is that most spree killers are not skilled, trained shooters.

    So, it would make sense that an armed staffer would be on an equal footing with the killer.

    We already know what a target rich environment with disarmed victims will continue to get us.

  24. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Today’s schools suck… most instructors mix studies with their own political baloney,,, almost always favoring liberal points of view… that’s why students nowadays act rude & think they know better than the general public….

  25. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    No gun zone=open shooting range. It is still amazing that the left doesn’t yet get that.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      The average “liberal” is utterly ignorant, blinded by feelings and wishful thinking, but I think the people at the top levels of the progressive left DO know they’re cramming children into shooting galleries for lunatics…and they like it that way.

  26. avatar Mad Max says:

    “Why Would Teachers Do Any Better?”

    Because not everyone is a Broward Coward.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Alternative reply:
      They can’t do any worse

  27. avatar Seizure doc says:

    This debate will NEVER end. There will always be cowar… er, people who rather the problem just goes away vs. those who will fight back. If I were a teacher I would want the option to fight back. In my home I have that option. I’m going out on my feet protecting those I love rather than on my knees. What bothers me is that the cowar… er, people who don’t want to fight back would prevent me from fighting back. Where do they think they get that right ?

  28. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Scott Peterson is a sniveling coward.

    Are they saying that all teachers are sniveling cowards?

    Maybe today they are, but when I was attending Catholic prep seminary in Chicago in the ’70s, one of my teachers had been the navigator of a B-24 during WWII. Of course today’s Democrats probably think he was fighting for the wrong side…

    1. avatar Blue says:

      Exactly, Peterson was a coward and didn’t enter/did not engage. This punk knew what job he was assigned to do and when it came time to do it, he was a coward. Yet unarmed teachers died engaging the punk that Coward County Sheriff Israel let slide through the system along with the bungling FBI and sorry excuse of a school board.

      1. If the soldiers at Little Rock had done what Peterson did, they would have been court-martialed for cowardice before the enemy- a capital offense.

  29. avatar Red dog says:

    Truth be told…..there are some cops that shouldn’t be anywhere near a .22….I know of 2 incidents where cops have shot themselves holstering there firearms…..one fainted at the scene and resigned after seeing his colleague bleeding…

  30. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Wow.

    That seems to ignore and under value teachers who stepped into hallways, blocked doors, squirted their kids out first, when shooters cams. And some died buying their kids a chance and another breath.

    When some teachers did that, when they had no chance, what would teachers do if we allowed them some chance?

    Any of those teachers can have and carry any weapon they want in school. (So can the kids who stepped up.) Who are we to limit them to a bucket of rocks, because we, who aren’t there, don’t think they can be entrusted with more?

    Let’s let them protect their kids, who are also our kids, better. How about we stop corralling them into those terrible choices: die probably doing no good or die without trying; come to school knowing you can be no help, or abandon the kids entirely n don’t come to school at all. When we make sure they can do nothing, we drive the teachers who care to do any other job. (There’s nothing more disruptive n despized in a bureaucracy than someone actually commited to its mission.)

    If districts want to secure training for teachers who want to be able to do more, at need, let’s do that. To start, let’s stop blocking them.

    Meanwhile, the edu-weenies don’t seem to think much of the people they employ, train, and represent. That’s a weird way to live.

  31. avatar Mark Davis says:

    Scott Smith couldn’t do the job because he is a coward! He only cared about himself. That is most likely why he worked around kids.

    1. avatar Warren Neville says:

      If he was like most resource officers, he was also a pedophile.

  32. avatar Kendahl says:

    The only way an armed teacher or staff person could have done worse than Scot Peterson would have been to join Nikolas Cruz in shooting additional victims.

    The Pencils Not Guns sign in the linked article is amusing. Would they really prefer to fight off an assailant, no matter how armed, with a sharp pencil instead of a gun? Of course, it’s the “fight off” part to which they object. Tell them that someone who attacks them or their students should be regarded as a target of opportunity and watch the reaction. He would most definitely be a legitimate target of defensive force. The only question is whether someone would have an opportunity, that is more than a suicidal gesture, to stop him.

  33. avatar RGP says:

    Nothing like being willing to sacrifice somebody else’s life for one’s leftist beliefs.

  34. avatar Crumudgeon says:

    Interestingly, I have come up with a nonlethal solution to stop school shootings. And although I’ve contacted all my representatives federal and state, no one seems interested in even hearing my idea. Guaranteed to work. Something no one else has thought of.

    1. avatar David Bradford says:

      “Interestingly, I have come up with a nonlethal solution to stop school shootings…Guaranteed to work. Something no one else has thought of.”

      And? We would all love to hear a viable solution so the gun grabbers will have no reason to mess with us anymore. I’m all ears, let hear it.

      1. avatar RGP says:

        Home schooling?

  35. avatar George burns says:

    A 12 gauge shotgun with 9-10 rounds would work best, in my opinion, for an untrained person with less than necessary efficiency rating, rather than a 9mm or other centerfire cartridge. The training time is faster the efficiency quotient is higher and the hit to shot ratios greater than a pistol.
    As those of us who have been shooting most if our lives know, it’s easier to hit a moving target with buckshot, than a bullet. Of course it can be argued for hours but a 12 gauge with the proper choke on it can hit a man at 50-100 feet with enough power to make him stop whatever it was he was doing.
    Even with body armor on one can take the legs or head out fairly easy. Of course there will be injuries sustained, but trying to shoot and armed guy with protection on is harder that one who isn’t trained would think.
    This is exponentially increased with several men with shotguns all aiming at the same target- targets.

  36. avatar Alan says:

    We have already seen the performance of “professionals”, so called. Seems less than impressive. Armed teachers might not provide superior performances, but one never knows until one tries. Once again, the less than sterling performance of the “professionals” raises the most serious of questions.

  37. avatar doesky2 says:

    This bill gives teachers 5% salary bump for this “LEO” certification.

    As God is my witness you can rest assured that this program will just turn into a rubber stamp to enable most teachers to get a 5% bump for all their years.

    Fvck that sheet.

    The only compensation should be for some training and some ammo.

  38. avatar Ark says:

    Well, Peterson had the opportunity to hide and be safe, whereas a person in a classroom has a choice between resisting or dying.

    Also it’s like saying “Could you shoot hoops better than an NBA player!?” when said NBA player is choosing to sit on the court and play with his shoelaces instead of shooting hoops.

  39. avatar Michael says:

    AMERICANS Please REad our Preamble.We are not a man made Mob rule Democracy but are a Individual Republic.Only a just and moral people( who believe i n God) can run this Republic with Truth.We have laws under Treason and to this day require a hangman’s noose!

  40. We need to send in the U.S. Army to secure our schools.

  41. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    I love the reduction to absurdity they always use….. Well that guy couldn’t do it and that is his job so there’s no way someone else could do it when it isn’t their job.

    These are usually the same people who say stupid things like criminals don’t follow laws so we should get rid of the laws.

Leave a Reply to pwrserge Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email