Previous Post
Next Post

Americans have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Why that right would end at the school gates is beyond me. The antis argue that “allowing” teachers (or any other law-abiding Americans) to carry a concealed firearm in a school is a slippery slope. “Where do you draw the line?” California Senator Leland Yee demanded during a recent TV interview. “Supermarkets? Playgrounds?” Keep going. Meanwhile, it’s important to accept the antis at their word: schools are simply ground zero in their ongoing campaign to disarm civilians. Equally, their willingness to put armed police into schools should be seen not as a concession. It’s a way to preserve their “gains” . . .

After all, if cops have guns in schools, citizen’s don’t need them. If citizens don’t need them, they shouldn’t be allowed to have them. See how that works? Make no mistake: the hard left understands this dynamic.

Responding to a report on Harrold ISD’s armed teacher program [described in the video above], Clay Robison, spokesperson for the Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA), issued the following statement:

TSTA would rather the state spend the money to restore the $5.4 billion (more than $500 per child) cut from public school budgets two years ago. Lt. Gov. Dewhurst’s proposal would add more guns to the public schools, and we need fewer guns in the schools. Teachers signed on to teach, not to be armed security guards. We don’t object if the state wants to pay for additional, professional security officers, but not to arm teachers. The answer is reducing the number of guns, particularly assault rifles, too readily available to people who have no use having them.

People like . . . teachers? If my instruction at SIG SAUER’s Active Shooter Instructor’s Course taught me one thing it’s this: the best defense against a school shooter (or two or more) is a good guy armed with an “assault rifle.” Quickest resolution. Fewest casualties.

The idea of having an AR-15 available inside a school is simply too horrible to contemplate—for those who trade common sense for a deeply misguided belief in the state as the ultimate authority protector. Gun control advocates can’t even wrap their heads around the idea of a concealed firearm on a person who’s dedicated their life to educating children.

In the post-Sandy Hook hysteria, gun rights advocates have a long way to go to defend and extend their 2a-protected rights. Putting armed police in our schools is not the best way to get there.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It may not be the best solution in light of our Second Amendment rights (or the best solution in any way), but having at least *someone* on site to be a defender is still better than nothing.

    • Yeah, I can’t figure out why the typically liberal emotional response of “if it saves even one child” doesn’t apply in this case.

      • Simply because it doesn’t advance their goals.

        When arguing with a hardcore lib, any argument/tactic/statement once used by them is no longer valid the moment it could be used against them and their goals. Compare gas prices under Obama and gas prices under Bush. Compare unemployment, economic growth, deaths by our soldiers in combat, passing a federal budget, the debt ceiling. Pretty much anything a lib once said, did, or supported is no longer a valid argument when someone tries to use it against them.

        The only hope is to convince the uninformed and the younger generations, and let the hardcore libs die of old age without a new generation coming in behind them.

        • Absolutely agree. They don’t argue like logical human beings. In fact, I think the description sometimes stops at “beings”.

      • Because everyone knows an armed citizen will accidentally shoot children. Look at the hysteria over CCW guy Joe Zamudio at Tucson, that he “almost drew on the wrong person,” ignoring that he DID NOT DRAW. Stick with the narrative, people. Armed civilians=bloodshed. QED.

        • No, the GUNS shoot children. Then we blame the owner. Read your indoctrination book, page 34. Under “talking points”.

    • This bill is winding its way through Virginia’s General Assembly: . It provides for CHP holders to go armed on school grounds. I don’t care for the “requirement” angle, but I will be first in line for training as a volunteer at my kids’ school if passed. Deeds, not words. I suspect everyone on this board would volunteer for guard duty if allowed.

  2. He’s a teacher’s association leader.
    He wants his base to get more resources and more pay.

    If you re-read what he’s saying, the core of his argument seems not so much to be anti-gun, as much as pro-teacher.

    Gun rights are irrelevant to his agenda and student safety may be only secondary.

  3. First rule of a gunfight: Have a gun.

    I don’t think I’m the only one who thought that Wayne LaPierre’s idea of a Federally funded and controlled program of putting armed guards in schools was egregiously bad, if you just think about it for about five second. Wayne had a week.

    For one thing it wasn’t even his idea but he got tagged with the worst of it. Schmuck.

  4. We’re broke. We can’t afford armed resource officers in all schools.

    For the cost of one resource officer for one year, we can train enough teachers in gun safety and active shooter defense to protect the school forever.

    The very first thing that people have to accept, though, is that there is no way to prevent the next mass shooting.

  5. Problem #1 : the nature of self defense is known only to people with proper tactical training. That is to say, only the pro gun side. The antis are making decisions with no background in the practical details of what real security requires.

    Problem 2: the antis are afraid of losing ground.They have bills to disarm concealed carriers in school, and we have bills in place to repeal “school gun free zones”.HR 822 showed the antis they can’t rest on their laurels any more then we can.

    What we must do to win victory is to pull a Mr. Universe: we need to bring the truth about school security to the hearts and minds of the American ‘verse. When soccer moms and working dads see videos like TTAGs school shooting drills , the words of the antis favoring disarmament will ring hollow.

    • I wonder how they would react if we proposed to put ARMED RABBIS in the schools? GAWRSH…. we CAN’T seem ANTI-SEMITIC! What to DO?

  6. If they won’t protect themselves, if they’re too stupid or too brainwashed to get their puny brains around the concept of self-defense, then let them suffer the consequences of their idiocy. It’s their call. If they don’t care, why should I?

  7. I humbly submit that on the federal level it’s not about protecting kids. That should be obvious to anyone with 3 of their 5 senses. That is why the teachers unions say “we need less guns in schools”. We need more potent defense in schools, but the grabbers refuse to acknowledge the difference between a defensive weapon and an offensive weapon. They want our guns, mags, and ammo. Period. The elitists see us as a threat (read surfs with weapons). What they are want is elimination of any chance of resistance to their policies.

  8. “You want it to stop before a shot ever gets fired.”

    Well…yes, that would be optimal. However, I feel like that’s not the point of having an armed teacher. They will keep the bloodshed to a minimum, but realistically they cannot prevent the lunatic from entering the school and taking his first shot. Hopefully they can stop the next 80.

    • I believe that’s false. All but one of the mass shootings in the U.S. since the 1950’s have happened in gun free zones. Mass shooters avoid places where others may have weapons. Arming teachers will absolutely prevent many lunatics from entering the school in the first place.

  9. Robert, a few months ago, you posted a report about a small Jewish school in NY where the dads take turns bearing arms in school. Could you post that link again? It just seems so much more relevant now. Thanks.

  10. what are the odds of a mass shooting happening in a school as opposed to the odds of anything else harmful to students?

    I would bet that a student is more in danger on prom night or being on a sports or cheerleading team than being involved in any sort of school shooting.

    and referring to a different post, fire drills are security theater, not much use, but teach us to keep our heads down and obey

  11. What is all the hysteria about parents, teachers, and staff carrying concealed in schools? Responsible, law abiding citizens that carry concealed at the grocery store or restaurant will behave the same in their children’s school. Don’t believe it? Then explain why Utah schools have been tranquil since 2006 … the year that the state stopped criminalizing concealed carry in schools.

    • No one knows how many maniacs intended to shoot up schools in Utah and changed their minds because they knew that any adult could be armed.

      What is most important is the FACT that none of the armed adults have been irresponsible in schools. NO negligent discharges, NO unnecessary escalation of conflicts to gunfights, etc. etc. etc.

      • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

        Although thank goodness there are no elephants in the gym and no one has been impaled by unicorns either .

        • Actually absence of evidence is evidence of absence, just not proof of it…i.e. the more lack of evidence the more occam’s razor starts to make the logical theory the one where the absense is the reality.

  12. I saw the cops in schools rather than citizens, likewise. They had one of those oh oh moments where they knew they would lose big. Now we can hear after a few kids get winged by the deadeye dicks, that its ok, they were doing the best they could. One kid gets a broken fingernail with us & let the blubbering begin, Randy

  13. Wait… What is Senator (I use the term loosely) Yee talking about? In WHAT state is it prohibited to carry in a SUPERMARKET? THAT is a special, sacred gun free zone now? WTF!

    Also I speak for Texans and residents of Texas; this POS union stooge does NOT speak for us. He speaks only for his agenda. ESAD.

  14. For guys who pride themselves in rational thinking and statistical evidence, you are a difficult bunch to understand. The possibility of a school shooting happening at that particular school is almost zero. On the other hand, the possibility of one of those armed teachers or guardians doing something wrong with their gun is much higher.

    What kind of thinking is that?

    • This was in Monday’s Daily Digest. From The Stanford Review article Why College Campuses Should Allow Concealed Carry:

      After a combined total of one hundred semesters, none of the twelve colleges across the country–Colorado State University, Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia, and ten public colleges spanning 30 campus in Utah–that allow licensed individuals to carry on campus has seen a single incident of gun theft, accident, or violence, including threats and suicides. In addition, all Utah educators have been able to carry concealed weapons to work for the past 12 years, in which there have been no accidents or shootings in the schools.

      What say you to that? Since the “possibility is much higher”, are they simply defying the odds, in your opinion? Are you basing that opinion on anything, or like most other things you say, is it just a feeling, and facts be damned?

      • First of all, in those places there have been no major incidents that we know of. Minor situations that didn’t make the national news very likely have occurred.

        My idea still holds. Some kind of problem with the protectors is more likely than that a spree shooter will attack.

        Isn’t it the pro-gun side that tells us how rare school shootings really are? Now, what, you’re telling us the opposite?

        • You are so incredibly full of shit that your eyes are brown. “Minor situations” have “likely occurred.” Defined as what, exactly? What exactly do you think is the likelihood that minor situations involving a gun in a school have been covered up or swept under the rug?

          Nevermind, don’t answer. You’ll just make up more shit that has to be true simply because you “know it,” and I’ve had my truckload for the day.

        • A minor situation that doesn’t make the news is a dropped gun or a negligent discharge that just happened to not hit anyone. Others are when the gun owner gets too drunk or loaded on drugs and just happens to not do anything stupid with the gun. There are many. You should know, you’re the gun owner.

        • You seriously think that a negligent discharge at a school wouldn’t make the news, even if it didn’t hit anyone? You’re delusional. Maybe in an office or a public place, but in a school? There’s no way you’re not hearing about that on the evening news.

          I can, on the other hand, see the possibility of a school employee coming to work either drunk or high, although I still think it’s in the “extremely rare” category. However, if that happened and they were carrying and they “just happened to not do anything stupid with a gun,” no rational person would count that as “minor situation involving a gun.” Know why? Because it didn’t involve a gun.

          By the standard you’re setting, me getting drunk right now with my keys in my pocket and my car just outside my door would be a “minor situation where I just happened to not do anything stupid with a car.” I carry a pocket knife. If I get drunk somewhere — home, a friend’s house, a bar, a football game — by your standard that would be a “minor situation where I just happened to not do anything stupid with a knife.” Are you capable of seeing how ludicrous that point of view is?

          Remember now, we’re talking about schools. If I drop my gun in my living room, yeah, that’s a story that doesn’t make the news. But you said “the possibility of one of those armed teachers or guardians doing something wrong with their gun is much higher.” In response, I gave you a concrete, sourced statement that in a couple years of college campus carry, and twelve years of educator carry ability, there have been zero accidents or shootings, and the best you can come up with is “Minor situations that didn’t make the national news very likely have occurred.” That’s pretty weak.

          Back to the original point, the truth is nobody can know (well, except you of course, because you possess superhuman prescience) which possiblity is greater, that of an “armed teacher or guardian doing something wrong with their gun” or a school shooting. Both items are highly statistically unlikely. The difference, however, is that in the unlikely occurrence of a school shooting, history has shown that there will be multiple casualties, while in the equally unlikely occurrence of someone “doing something wrong” — which could be defined as narrowly as a negligent discharge or as broadly as coming to work drunk while in possession — potential casualties range from zero to “counted on one hand if you’re extraordinarily unlucky,” but likely would range from zero to one. On balance, I’m completely comfortable taking the chance that accompanies allowing armed adults to defend themselves (and others).

        • It’s not equally unlikely, that’s where you’re purposely spinning the thing. Gun negligence happens. Gun owners lose their guns and sometimes they get stolen. Lawful gun owners occasionally go berserk. The more people you arm in schools in the name of protecting the kids, the more of those incidents you’ll have. They haven’t happened yet in UT and CO, that we know of, but multiply that across the whole country like you say you want, and it’ll be different. Meanwhile the total number of mass school shootings is what it is.

    • Wait. So let me get this straight . . .

      You would not have wanted an armed teacher or security guard at Sandy Hook because the risk of a negligent discharge would have been too high? Is that right?

      • RF, I keep saying we need a better class of troll. And isn’t this guy supposed to live in Italy? Look at the times on his comments. Looks like east coast time to me.

        • A significant portion of my posts come between 0000 and 0600 EST, and I live in Florida. Times don’t mean nothin’.

      • No fair. You can’t work backwards like that. Of course I would have wanted an armed person there. The point is, as I said, the chances of an incident like that happening in a school where your kids go, for example, is so remote, that you’d be crazy to want armed people there. There are so many ways the protectors can harm your kids, accidents, theft of their weapons, or god forbid, one of them goes berserk. Remember, they wouldn’t be as prepared as you, they’d be your average concealed carry guys, who qualify for their permit with practically no requirements. Is that what you really want?

      • I think the larger point here is, pardon the pun, “where do we get the most bang for our buck?”

        Should we attempt to prevent something that has a proven minuscule fraction of a percent from happening, or attempt to prevent something from happening that happens quite often.

        So, where are the most deaths or serious injury due to firearms, or even death or serious injury in schools?? What is the easiest/most cost effective way to stop or lessen them?

        Then…DO THAT!

        anything else is security theater and does nothing to help anyone.

  15. We don’t need every teacher to carry. Just a couple in each school would be sufficient to limit, not prevent, a madman’s damage.

    Even if every adult carried, incidents could occur. However, they’d end a lot more quickly than waiting for the police to arrive. That has never ended well. Mass murders occur where people are waiting for the people with guns (police) to show up. Throwing a book or, as we were told last week, using a pair of scissors to defend just won’t cut it.

    If nothing else, it would keep the bad guy occupied, either seeking cover or shooting at the attacker instead of the kids. And we’ve seen that happen. Just check out what happened at Clackamas Mall last year. The good guy didn’t even have to shoot. Just showed a willingness to shoot.

    Gun Free Zones are repeatedly the places targeted precisely because they are zones of least resistance.

  16. Very good article, yet I’m still left angry and sick after reading the hoplophobes’ comments about this. What is their mental disconnect…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here