Markk wrote: Why not just take the weapons from the bad guys? Wouldn't that be a better option?
DoubtingThomas wrote:Exactly!! The problem is that we don't know who the bad guys are. So to solve the problem the government has to take away all big weapons from everyone. Ban all semi-automatic rifles and so forth.
And the bad guys, who are bad, will just say...okay, here you go?
Amazing logic. Take guns away from good law abiding people, and pretend we are getting guns from bad guys.
The odds of an armed teacher being confronted with a shooter are so infinitesimally small that it's hardly worth taking the time to discuss it.
The real question for me is whether or not making it known to the public that there are a few teachers trained to use guns (and with access to them) at each school will make shooters less likely to attack a school?
My guess would be that yes, it would.
A similar question could be asked about air marshals. Do air marshals reduce the likelihood of someone trying to hijack a flight, or are we hoping that they'll engage in a firefight with a would-be hijacker in a crowded, pressurized tube full of people at 30,000 feet?
DoubtingThomas wrote:Is having armed teachers just another stupid idea?
It will be as soon as there is a tussle over the teacher's gun and somebody ends up getting shot or a shooting occurs from an accidental discharge of the gun. If the police are fraidy cats when it comes time for a shootout, why put the onus on the teachers.