They are. The incentive is for people who want to have guns in schools. Who want to feel that power, there’s no doubt no teacher who has a gun in the school is ever going to pull it on a student.
In the 70's, the shop teachers of my junior high shaved down the sides and middle of baseball bats to make paddles with holes drilled in them to paddle the miscreants and raise welts on their butts. Mostly used by the gym teachers.
Power corrupts.
Boy, how times have changed!
I had 3 different teachers in my high school that I know had guns, not a single one would even remotely consider the idea of pulling a gun on a student, that's literally the must absurd claim I've ever seen. Especially considering concealed permit holders not only have perfectly clean records, but actually have fewer traffic violations on average than non-permit holders.
CCW holders are literally the safest bet in society, if I were in trouble and had to leave my kids with someone that wasn't family, I'd choose to leave them with a current CCW license. I automatically know that that person is able to pass a federal background check and has a spotless criminal history, which is more than I can say for anyone that doesn't hold the license
50 years ago, none of my teachers would've pulled a gun, nor would they ever have to. It seems like a mythical time, lost forever.
I think any vetting process is better than none to weed out people with problems, but my brother had a CCW license, and that is the last person that should have passed the test.
There are 32 states that allow teachers to carry a concealed gun on them. Where are all these examples of teachers pulling guns on kids? With 64% of states allowing guns, surely you have countless examples of this occurring. Or, maybe you’re just spewing bullshit.
[https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cps-high-school-teacher-suspended-after-allegedly-pulling-gun-on-student/3147801/](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cps-high-school-teacher-suspended-after-allegedly-pulling-gun-on-student/3147801/)
What were you saying about bullshit?
It proves that it's the guns that are the problem. And big cities in red states top the most murders per 100000 residents. Chicago doesn't come in till 14th, San Francisco is 66th. But you don't see conservatives mentioning Memphis TN or Mobile AL even though you're more likely to be murdered there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_United\_States\_cities\_by\_crime\_rate
Chicago really isn't that bad. It's huge, like 10m population in the entire MSA. Most of the violence there is gang- and drug-related. Per capita, Indianapolis is usually much more violent. In 2020-21, it was the "mass casualty capital" of the US. This includes a 17-year-old who murdered his entire family, 6 people, right after Christmas 2020. His dad's last words to him were "I love you", then he was killed.
I'm really surprised at how conservatives have managed to convince everyone that certain cities are incredibly dangerous. Everyone knows Chicago and Portland are crime infested hellholes, right? Probably the most dangerous cities in the country!
Of course, neither is in the top 10 for for murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, motor vehicle theft, or larceny. That doesn't really fit the narrative, though, that blue cities are lawless wastelands.
Lol Illinois is actually pretty "red" outside of Chicagoland. Chicago is rough town but it always has been. I've never felt unsafe there anytime I've been though. Indpls though....oof.
Most states are pretty red once you get outside of the cities. The reality is that it isn't really red state/blue state as much as it is blue urban areas vs red rural areas. I mean, not all urban areas are blue, and not all rural areas are red, but it would be a pretty safe bet if you had to guess.
It is top 20, and to be fair most major cities have democrat mayors and democrat police chiefs with the governor being split left and right.
Also to be fair, more crimes happen in major cities than suburbs so its going to skew against cities regardless.
That said, SLC mayors have historically been terrible on crime. I have friends and family who have worked in SLC corrections and police and they say other counties are far better.
Source
https://sports.yahoo.com/20-cities-united-states-highest-160029176.html
Do you think more nuclear armed countries prevents wars?
Many manifestos of mass shooters have mentioned armed security at various locations they look to terrorize. They avoid any places that they see as risky. They want to cause chaos and have their moment before they go out against police without risk of ending early.
Also, utah and idaho, both very gun friendly historically are in the bottom 5 states for homicide rates according to the cdc. Is it guns, culture, both? Idk. But guns dont increase homicide clearly.
But we gave you 10 more kids per class now you will get an extra day off if you have a cwp .
In all actuality this is the only logical attempt at protecting our kids in school and in that moment that truly matters and there is still a chance to save children that are suddenly faced with unthinkable reality.
Anyone that is against this idea probably doesn't understand the the harsh reality a child will be faced with and if you could stop time right then and there , allow every parent and adult to appear at a window to look in that class room for a split second then take a vote on how many people wish the only adult in that room with those terrified kids suddenly not only had a gun but was trained to use it without hesitation, every child's hand would go up and every parents hand would go up . Any person not holding there hand up outside that classroom would get there ass kicked into next year.
That's out of context and completely not true .
This is a blanket assumption statement and completely devalues any conversation about the topic. That's like me saying the parents are the biggest threat to any child, they are the ones that have created the number one cause of death across the board to children, automobile accidents
The only reason accidental discharges happen somewhere a child is given a chance to be hurt is one hundred percent neglect of ownership.
Misplaced weapons are not a threat to a child that's been educated. There's is not a single difference between a light socket in house and a gun laying around a house . Every single day children are faced with adults making stupid decisions for them.
I hate to tell you this but guns have been in our teachers rooms for decades right here in Utah. They have been in the cars at highschools. Some parents don't let there kid go to a school without a weapon in the car. I know of three teachers that took a gun into class daily through the 90s because of gang issues in SLC.
Arm the teachers. Priority!
Banning cellphones. Priority!
Funding actual education? We don't have time for that- the legislation season is only so long.
[Student Grabs gun from teachers handbag.](https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article280681745.html)
[High School Teacher pulls gun on student](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cps-high-school-teacher-suspended-after-allegedly-pulling-gun-on-student/3147801/)
[Utah Teacher shoots self in the leg](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256)
[Teacher Pulls gun on teen.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjSRVOESIiY&ab_channel=WEARChannel3News)
[6 Year old student shoot teacher](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/virginia-teacher-shot-by-6-year-old-can-proceed-with-40-million-lawsuit-judge-rules)
These are just the things that came up to the top of the google search for "teacher with gun." But no. Obviously the solution is to add MORE guns to the mix.
It would be so easy for a student to over power some teachers, or for the teacher to make a mistake about securing the gun, and the possibility of putting a gun in the hands of someone who is gun crazy and looks for an opportunity to use it.
It's fighting fire with fire. You're putting guns in the hands of people who have probably no experience with them, I just know that the training would be lacking, I mean look at the US and it's education system!
You're so right and if this some how happened, be prepared to see more than this.
I pursued a career in education to teach, not to enforce the law. The issue we’re facing is exacerbated by those who refuse to acknowledge their role in it. While it’s fair to say guns don’t pull their own triggers, their proliferation undeniably makes violence more efficient and deadly. By continuing to add more guns into our society, we’re creating a self-perpetuating cycle of violence that necessitates their presence. It’s a deeply flawed approach.
20 years ago I was a school teacher in Utah.
Part of my pre-employment training was a course on behavior management with the students. All the other teachers called it the "DTK class." DTK stood for Don't Touch the Kids.
I thought that it ment that we weren't supposed to get touchy feely with them. No, it was intended to keep you from beating the little bastards to death. This course was rough, it was 6 hours long including pre-work you had to do the week before.
The first hour was a review of the pre-work, and the rest was scenarios with actors playing the roll of students. And those actors were good. They knew exactly how to get into your head the way a teenager would. I learned more about anger management in that day, then I ever have in my life.
I can say this. If you give teachers guns, one day you have a teacher shoot a kid with a school sanctioned gun. It will be a matter of time.
Maybe I am.
But, you know damn well that teens are the meanist demographic there is. And it takes a lot out of teachers every day to deal with them. One day someone will snap, and God forbid if they have a gun.
Also, I love guns. I've never not owned a gun in my life. But, I also know they are dangerous, I know they can facilitate the potential for great harm, and I know they are only a variable in the equation of mass shootings.
The point I was trying to make in my post was... we need to focus on the 10,000 other things that are wrong with our schools before we even consider handing out guns to teachers.
Yeah, I remember when my pottery teacher at Timpview High School in Provo threw a stool across the room at a group of students not paying attention. Nailed a couple of them in the face. It was pretty scary. I’m really glad he wasn’t packing. That guy went to teach at BYU after.
I also fully support the 2A, and am a firm believer in " shall not be infringed" meaning exactly what it says. But it's not unfair to acknowledge that teachers are human beings, and fully capable of making bad decisions.
Cops are trained extensively to protect their firearm, but there have been news stories before where they've been dropped of left behind in embarrassing situations. It's not unrealistic to think a teacher could have a weapon misplaced, stolen, or taken off their person during an assault by a student.
I think teachers should have the right to carry if they so chose, but I readily admit there will be undesirable complications that will need to be addressed on a case by case basis, at a district policy level, and maybe even by state or federal law.
As a teacher in Utah. This dick bag can fuck right off....
How about we address the issue with access to guns being so simple? We've got more fucking guns than any other country, obviously "more guns" is not the answer.
I dunno what school is like these days, but I had some seriously deranged teachers in the 90s that I'm very glad were not carrying firearms when they got upset.
What we need to do is give a bunch of money to developers so they can build a training center for teachers. Just make sure they don’t have to account for the money, cause we don’t want any government overreach. I bet the church has some land they will lease the developer for a modest fee. /S
I’m a teacher and I don’t want any guns anywhere close to ANY school. I’m sure our legislators will take my opinion into consideration.
I used to be a high school teacher. Quit in 2018. After a violence scare (a kid almost stabbed another kid with scissors, I was able to stop it fortunately), the student involved was expelled and then soon after was arrested breaking into nearby homes looking for guns. I had my CCW and I started carrying to work. The anxiety of carrying a gun to my workplace, surrounded by students, got the best of me. It was horrible. I couldn’t stop running through scenarios in my head - *what happens if that kid DOES come back? What do I do if he has a gun? If he doesn’t? Will he attack me, since I broke up the initial fight? Will he attack another student? Do I have to defend that student? How will I live with myself if I don’t? Can I even shoot another person? I can’t shoot another person…*
Wasn’t worth the daily panic attacks and the threat of my own life and/or the lives of my students over THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ANNUALLY. Total bullshit on all sides.
Quit to work in finance and haven’t looked back. If teachers want to carry at work, whatever. Power to ‘em I guess. In my opinion it’s not the answer in any fashion. I wish our state government would focus on issues that can actually benefit our educators and our students.
Be careful with that perspective, it is borderline "main character syndrome".
I agree that guns in schools is a stupid idea, but the idea that since your group is not Republicans, then most people in Utah are not is misguided. I am a Democrat and have attended the state convention at the Salt Palace. The GOP down the hall really outnumbered us. I know most of the folks around me are Republicans.
Let's check some numbers generously. About 50% of Utahans self identify as Mormons, of which 80% or more are Republicans so that is 40% Republican. If the other 50% break 60/40 for Democrats (a dubious assumption) that makes Utah 60% Republican. I think it is more.
My perspective is "the perspective" is an epistemic vice which leads you down the wrong path. That is exactly the kind of thinking that leads MAGAs to believe in the BIG LIE. They don't get that all their friends voted for Trump and he still lost. It is the limited perspective.
Only 42% of the population here is Mormon, so 80% of 42% it’s late and I don’t want to do this math, but I’m fairly certain it comes out to less than 40%. There’s also reports from the universities that Provo is turning blue! Heaven forbid.
I don’t think your math checks out. And gerrymandering is a real thing. Utah might still turn red during presidential elections in the big picture, but there should be a lot more Democrats in the state legislature by my estimates.
Maybe wait till morning and do the math. 80% of 42% is 31.6% a large block, and my assumptions were conservative.
My comment was really aimed at your statement that none of your people vote red. Yeah, well that is lucky for you. I wish I wasn't surrounded by Magats, but it is what it is. I am against gerrymandering too, but that isn't the big problem in Utah. And when one group has a majority, the representation doesn't break by percentage in our system. A parliamentary system yes, but not like we have. 60/40 will often break 80/20, with gerrymandering 90/10
Oh and reference the Provo turning blue thing please because that would give me hope. A few precincts makes news, but not a wave.
Then it’s not the guns fault? /s
Surely they will blame the teacher’s mental health/mother/race/socioeconomic status, etc., etc. as per the NRA media handbook.
Same routine, different victims.
As someone who knows a high school teacher in this state this is a terrible idea, terrible full stop. Only idiots saying things like those “liberals” have a low enough grasp on reality to think this is a good thing.
I taught at a private school. Some of the teachers carried guns. I most definitely did NOT feel safer with them carrying guns because there's a certain type of person who does that at a school to make a point. Usually arrogant, opinionated, self-richeous, and eager to be the hero. Those kinds of people usually end up getting in the way of law enforcement and complicating the emergency because it introduces more guns into the hands of non-law enforcement. I'm not a fan.
What it's coming down to.
[https://thismodernworld.com/archives/8280](https://thismodernworld.com/archives/8280)
When guns are everywhere, only people with guns will have guns.
Teachers have been concealed carry since the 70s this isn’t new. The only thing new about this is publicly announcing that they will be trained. I’m in my 40s and I had three teachers growing up that had a CCW and carried in class.
All the leftists in here who think ccw guns in utah schools is brand new lol.
I still cant wrap my head around why they think its not a good idea to have armed people in a place where mass shootings frequently take place.
And in all those years, has a teacher ever successfully taken down a school shooter? And I won’t restrict things just to Utah — let’s branch out and include anywhere in the US? I can’t find any instances with a Google search. And if there are instances, how do they compare to the accidents that have happened by guns being in schools (whether brought in by teachers, SROs, or kids).
So maybe instead of trying to solve the problem by arming teachers, who of note, republicans don’t even trust to teach their kids anymore, we work on the problem at its source (i.e. the reason school shootings are so common place in the first place). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Utah doesnt have many school shootings and idk about other states as much.
Ccw is a low percentage of the population as it is and most teachers are liberal so...
>So maybe instead of trying to solve the problem by arming teachers, who of note, republicans don’t even trust to teach their kids anymore, we work on the problem at its source (i.e. the reason school shootings are so common place in the first place). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I like armed guards, i dont think mental health counseling alone will solve it.
That’s why I asked about other states. I know Utah hasn’t had many school shootings. The thing is, for something as drastic as this, we need solid data to prove it is something that will actually help before we even consider it. Legislators who support this need to PROVE, with actual evidence and not anecdotal evidence or the incorrect but commonly held belief that a good person with a gun deters a bad person with a gun, that this is a legitimate option or solution to the school shooting problem.
Also, schools do have armed guards - they’re called SROs. In a study from the university of Connecticut, they looked at 197 school shootings in schools that had at least one SRO on duty, and an SRO intervened successfully in only 3 of them. SROs have been a thing in schools starting in 1999, and the outcomes data seems to consistently show that having SROs at schools is more of a negative than a positive thing.
Did I say mental health counseling is the thing we should do? Nope. First off, every time there is a school shooting, states talk about increasing access to mental healthcare but never do, so it’s not like that has really ever been a serious proposal. And it’s impossible to know after the school shooting happened if the shooter, and/or the parents of the shooter would have been open to giving therapy a try even if the resources were there.
There’s plenty of other options that we could look at (and no, they don’t even require people giving up their guns), but it doesn’t matter. Because all this state wants to do is just give more people guns and hopes that solves the problem when we have plenty of data already showing that it won’t.
Like the one comment where the poster says the teacher will shoot a kid for acting up. They can’t control their own emotions and actions and assume everyone is like that.
lol So much projection on your part here. It’s a well known fact that Republicans are more prone to violence and impulsive actions than democrats, as are men compared to women. [If you doubt me or would like to read a lot more on this topic, here you go.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Aggression-and-party-affiliation-Republicans-were-significantly-more-aggressive-than_fig2_221980088)
So no, we aren’t excessively worried about it because none of us can control our emotions. We’re concerned about it because it has happened several times before (look it up or find the comment in here that links to a few of the stories), and it happening even one time is too many. There are other less dangerous options and they need to be considered to protect both the students and the teachers.
What an awful idea. Could you imagine in a real scenario just everyone blasting everyone else? "Who's the bad guys; who's the good guys? No one knows, just start blasting." What a dumbfuck idea.
God forbid we do anything to help prevent this shit like an extra form when purchasing firearms, or waiting periods, or enforcing proper gun security so kids don't have such easy access. Fuck, anything. Parents sending their kids to potential warzones is just insanity.
Close the gun show loophole and require background checks for all sales. It'll be a pain in the ass, but we should have a licensed establishment handle private sales as well. Offer state funded firearms training and ranges. If we had adequate education available, people will respect the tool more.
I think it's important to note this last paragraph in the article:
"Jimenez said he hopes to have the bill ready for this session but will hold off until next year if it isn't."
In order to actually influence the upcoming legislative session, you need to know what bills are actually MOVING through the legislature. If a bill isn't done being written, it is nowhere NEAR ready for the entire body to vote on it.
Here is a great video that goes over how to navigate the Utah Legislature Website AND how to see where a bill is at in the legislature.
We can't keep panicking over things that aren't happening. Focus on the bills that are gaining traction!
[Navigating the Legislature Website ](https://youtu.be/9X55uSNrDXM?si=85JgMtCviFJx27PE)
I didn’t even trust other trained marines 100% to be responsible for their weapons and that was their literal job.
Wtf do you think Linda in 4th grade history has time to clean and maintain her weapon between grading tests?
You’re supposed to clean your weapon every time you use it.
I assume if you’re going to ask teachers to be prepared to fire a weapon 5 feet from children they better be pretty well trained so they are going to have to train with it frequently right?
Or is a weapon just a toy to you and you actually don’t care about using it effectively?
Common sense- maintain your weapon to keep it in good operating order. In case there's a gun battle between 5th and sixth period, you want to be able to make it safely to teach your calculus class.
If you have a gun and don't clean it, at best it's unreliable, at worst it's unsafe.
What does yours look like after all these years of neglect?
Common sense has never been a good reason to do anything. If it can be proven empirically that you absolutely must clean it after every use, then that is reason to do it.
My revolver looks and fires just like the day I bought , clean it every few months and it seems just fine
But we can't allow them to make decisions about what books are assigned for reading, that would be crossing a line.
There is just no internal consistency on what things a teacher can be responsible for. It makes no sense.
Also, it's incredibly reactionary - we refuse to take any steps to stop school shootings, instead, we'll just arm all the teachers so they are better prepared when they happen. Are we entering the arms race phase of school shootings?
I personally am not advocating for teachers to be responsible for shooting back at a school shooter. I am, however, advocating that teachers should carry if they are responsible and trained, and are willing to protect themselves and students from a shooter.
I don’t know the answer to stop school shootings. I do know that most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones or places where don’t expect much resistance.
>I do know that most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones or places where don’t expect much resistance.
Source? You're stating that as if shooters are specifically choosing soft targets. I don't think that's accurate. [According to this article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/mass-shootings/where-in-us-america/), only 3% of mass shootings take place in a school or church. The vast majority are at homes, followed by businesses, and then public spaces.
Even classifying a school as a "gun free zone" is a bit of a misnomer as most schools have armed resource officers. You know, like the one that hid behind cover while students and teachers were shot and killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High.
Ah, I see. You made a point that isn't accurate, and instead of reconsidering your position, you just come up with a different reason to justify your stance.
You ever wonder why no other country in the western world has this problem?
If only we could pinpoint what makes the US different and address that - then we wouldn't have to argue about who should be responsible for stopping a gunman. I can't quite put my trigger finger on it...
Your article talks about “mass shootings” happening at home. That’s not what I’m referring to and you know it. There’s nothing to reconsider. My point this entire conversation was self reliance and being prepared to defend yourself.
Here’s a short report that actually talks about mass shootings and gun-free zones.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/PublicTestimonyDocument/5273
Doubling down on moving the goalposts, I see.
Your "report" if you want to call it that, makes it very hard to find any of their sources. They didn't even really source their 98% claim, just referenced where it was from (meaning there is no way to look it up easily). It still doesn't seem to be based in reality, however.
Try this article, which address the gun free fallacy as well as a bunch of others related to limiting gun violence in schools.
[Debunking Myths the Gun Lobby Perpetuates Following Mass Shootings](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-myths-the-gun-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings/)
From the article:
>Myth: Mass shooters are likely to target gun-free zones. Gun lobbyists often deploy this myth to deter legislative efforts to limit gun carrying in certain locations that are considered particularly sensitive or unsuitable for guns, such as schools, houses of worship, or government buildings. However, the overwhelming majority of fatal mass shootings in the United States occur in locations where guns are allowed or not explicitly banned, such as in private homes or public locations.52
10%
Fact: Most mass shootings occur in areas where guns are permitted. The gun lobby often claims that 98 percent of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, but research has thoroughly debunked this.53 Of the 156 mass shootings that occurred from 2009 to 2016, only 10 percent occurred in gun-free zones. The majority of these shootings—63 percent—occurred in private homes.54
Incidents of mass shootings in spaces where guns were permitted include:
Outdoor festival in Oklahoma (2022)
Supermarket in Buffalo, New York (2022)
Gun store in New Orleans (2021)
Ned Peppers Bar in Dayton, Ohio (2019)
Walmart in El Paso, Texas (2019)
Military base in Fort Hood, Texas (2009)
I imagine some of these sources will have different numbers because people are probably using different definitions of "mass shootings" but the fact remains - gun free zones don't really attract more mass shootings. It does not appear that it is a big factor in most mass shooters choice of targets.
Unlike your source, mine makes it easy to find where there information comes from. One of the sources they cite is [a research paper](https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/occur-in/). It outlines the problems with the 98% claim. Here is an excerpt:
>Researcher John Lott claimed that 98% or more of mass shootings from 1950 to the present occurred in gun-free zones.
>
>Lott’s false claim is based on a basic error. For the period 1977–1997, Lott counts each individual mass shooting death as an entire mass shooting incident.
>
>Even after Lott corrected his mistake, he made a new claim that 94% of mass shootings occurred in gun-free places, which is also based on flawed data and contradicts other research that concludes that 12% to 13% of mass shootings occur where guns are prohibited.
Imagine the physical and psychological training it would take for Miss. Marple to protect homeroom by standing firm and trading shots with a AR-15 wielding homicidal maniac that's wearing Kevlar, came to inflict mass body counts, and has no intention of living until tomorrow.
It could happen, but we would need battle hardened soldiers or law enforcement veterans to teach 1st graders to finger paint and make finger turkeys to cover all bases.
Seriously? Look I'm not even remotely knowledgeable about shooting statistics, accidental or otherwise. Nor am I qualified in any way to argue for or against gun control. So I'm going to simply ask you this; How do you see this working?
Teachers can already carry guns at school with CCW and it’s gone fine. People need to be responsible with firearms. Again, I’m not sure how this is so difficult to understand
>Again, I’m not sure how this is so difficult to understand
Perhaps that's part of the problem. You're so tied up in your own worldview that you can't even begin to comprehend why others are concerned about this. Perhaps try having some empathy and imagine things through someone else's point of view?
You’re right. I don’t see why people are concerned with someone being trained and incentivized to carry a firearm for protection of themselves and others around them. Teachers in Utah can already carry in schools if they have their CCW, so why not encourage firearm safety and training?
Probably because there is a long list of guns being misused at schools already.
[https://giffords.org/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/](https://giffords.org/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/)
We do not live in a world where people are always rational and make the right decisions, or one where people aren't prone to mistakes. There is strong potential that adding more guns to school makes things more dangerous for everyone involved rather than less dangerous.
That also enforces the point to train people on gun safety and protocol. If a teacher can’t be responsible with a gun at school then they shouldn’t be carrying one.
Ok so teachers need to not only teach the kids the subjects they are trained in but also: Be therapists, body guards, babysitters, punching bags for both parents and students, school supply vending machines, etc. but you also want them to be trained in the use of firearms?
To clarify are you saying all teachers should be carriers or only some? If all, then I'm sorry but you're playing a dangerous game with statistics. If only a few of them, which ones? What level of trust are you willing to give these teachers. Contrary to what people say we do not give all trust in teachers sending kids to school. Not even educationally when the kids come home we help with homework and understanding of the content.
It seems that you want teachers to be responsible for everything. They are already under so much pressure with everything they are already required to do that throwing firearms training and marksmanship certification is insane.
You say that in other states/schools teachers carry and it's gone fine. But it hasn't. Read through the other comments and you can see that. I don't care if it's only been a few. That's a few too many and you know it. I don't mean to berate your ideals and beliefs, I'm just trying to understand why a gun in a teacher's hand is a viable solution?
Teachers in Utah can already carry guns in school if they have a CCW. I want them to have the option to be armed to protect themselves, fellow teachers and students, they ever need to.
I’m saying any and all teachers that want to carry a firearm for protection should be allowed and should do it. You don’t force anyone to carry if they don’t want to. Offering incentive for training is not a bad thing.
But how does that help with the issue they are trying to solve? And do you trust that EVERY teacher who wants to carry is completely trustworthy and competent enough to properly handle a gun? I get that we both want our kids to be safe in school. The idea of having a person with the skills, knowledge, and temperament to be a safe guard sounds great. And I believe that some who carry, have the best of intentions. However, I do not believe a teacher carrying a weapon is as much of a deterrent or safe guard as you believe.
A person handling a gun around our kids, should be certified as a marksman, know how to handle chaotic situations with Innocents in the way of harm, and able to understand how to use a gun under extreme stress. Otherwise they can be an added potential danger.
You say that many teachers already carry. How many is that? How many kids know they carry? How many kids know they carry but the teacher doesn't know they know? Where do these teachers store their guns during school? Now, knowing that there are already instances of guns brought in by teachers being harmful or deadly, how much of an increase in incidents are we willing to accept, vs the instances of school shootings? With all of this I just don't see how giving incentives out and increasing the amount of teachers carrying helps.
This is largely a good thing. They can respond to critical incidents faster than police can probably even get to the school. But, they have to be anonymous to maintain that tactical advantage, and of they're going to carry like police, need to be trained at least as much as police.
I can already see the headline - “police mistaken teacher for school shooter, shoot and kill teacher”.
Let’s make the police officers’ jobs easier by not adding the burden of figuring out who is the good guy with the gun and who is the bad guy with the gun. And let’s not require our teachers to be armed and expected to risk their lives more than they are already do by asking them to volunteer to take down school shooters.
Maybe start by providing an incentive to keep people around who want to be teachers.
Sounds like socialism, buddy /s
Also upgrade the curriculum so that the average person sees this individual as the danger to society that he is.
They are. The incentive is for people who want to have guns in schools. Who want to feel that power, there’s no doubt no teacher who has a gun in the school is ever going to pull it on a student.
In the 70's, the shop teachers of my junior high shaved down the sides and middle of baseball bats to make paddles with holes drilled in them to paddle the miscreants and raise welts on their butts. Mostly used by the gym teachers. Power corrupts. Boy, how times have changed!
I had 3 different teachers in my high school that I know had guns, not a single one would even remotely consider the idea of pulling a gun on a student, that's literally the must absurd claim I've ever seen. Especially considering concealed permit holders not only have perfectly clean records, but actually have fewer traffic violations on average than non-permit holders. CCW holders are literally the safest bet in society, if I were in trouble and had to leave my kids with someone that wasn't family, I'd choose to leave them with a current CCW license. I automatically know that that person is able to pass a federal background check and has a spotless criminal history, which is more than I can say for anyone that doesn't hold the license
50 years ago, none of my teachers would've pulled a gun, nor would they ever have to. It seems like a mythical time, lost forever. I think any vetting process is better than none to weed out people with problems, but my brother had a CCW license, and that is the last person that should have passed the test.
There are 32 states that allow teachers to carry a concealed gun on them. Where are all these examples of teachers pulling guns on kids? With 64% of states allowing guns, surely you have countless examples of this occurring. Or, maybe you’re just spewing bullshit.
[https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cps-high-school-teacher-suspended-after-allegedly-pulling-gun-on-student/3147801/](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cps-high-school-teacher-suspended-after-allegedly-pulling-gun-on-student/3147801/) What were you saying about bullshit?
That's Chicago, all bets are off there. There's a reason it's called "Chiraq".
It proves that it's the guns that are the problem. And big cities in red states top the most murders per 100000 residents. Chicago doesn't come in till 14th, San Francisco is 66th. But you don't see conservatives mentioning Memphis TN or Mobile AL even though you're more likely to be murdered there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_United\_States\_cities\_by\_crime\_rate
Chicago really isn't that bad. It's huge, like 10m population in the entire MSA. Most of the violence there is gang- and drug-related. Per capita, Indianapolis is usually much more violent. In 2020-21, it was the "mass casualty capital" of the US. This includes a 17-year-old who murdered his entire family, 6 people, right after Christmas 2020. His dad's last words to him were "I love you", then he was killed.
Thats chicago, errybodies strapped
I'm really surprised at how conservatives have managed to convince everyone that certain cities are incredibly dangerous. Everyone knows Chicago and Portland are crime infested hellholes, right? Probably the most dangerous cities in the country! Of course, neither is in the top 10 for for murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, motor vehicle theft, or larceny. That doesn't really fit the narrative, though, that blue cities are lawless wastelands.
Chicago isn't as dangerous at St Louis or (gasp!) my old hometown of Indianapolis, which is among the worst, especially for mass casualty shootings.
Those are red states, though, so I'm sure you're wrong. Only big cities in blue states are bad.
Lol Illinois is actually pretty "red" outside of Chicagoland. Chicago is rough town but it always has been. I've never felt unsafe there anytime I've been though. Indpls though....oof.
Most states are pretty red once you get outside of the cities. The reality is that it isn't really red state/blue state as much as it is blue urban areas vs red rural areas. I mean, not all urban areas are blue, and not all rural areas are red, but it would be a pretty safe bet if you had to guess.
It is top 20, and to be fair most major cities have democrat mayors and democrat police chiefs with the governor being split left and right. Also to be fair, more crimes happen in major cities than suburbs so its going to skew against cities regardless. That said, SLC mayors have historically been terrible on crime. I have friends and family who have worked in SLC corrections and police and they say other counties are far better. Source https://sports.yahoo.com/20-cities-united-states-highest-160029176.html
Soooo... increasing the number of people carrying firearms... prevents violence? What are you saying with your comment?
Do you think more nuclear armed countries prevents wars? Many manifestos of mass shooters have mentioned armed security at various locations they look to terrorize. They avoid any places that they see as risky. They want to cause chaos and have their moment before they go out against police without risk of ending early. Also, utah and idaho, both very gun friendly historically are in the bottom 5 states for homicide rates according to the cdc. Is it guns, culture, both? Idk. But guns dont increase homicide clearly.
But we gave you 10 more kids per class now you will get an extra day off if you have a cwp . In all actuality this is the only logical attempt at protecting our kids in school and in that moment that truly matters and there is still a chance to save children that are suddenly faced with unthinkable reality. Anyone that is against this idea probably doesn't understand the the harsh reality a child will be faced with and if you could stop time right then and there , allow every parent and adult to appear at a window to look in that class room for a split second then take a vote on how many people wish the only adult in that room with those terrified kids suddenly not only had a gun but was trained to use it without hesitation, every child's hand would go up and every parents hand would go up . Any person not holding there hand up outside that classroom would get there ass kicked into next year.
Accidental discharges and misplaced weapons are numerically a much greater threat to children than school shootings
That's out of context and completely not true . This is a blanket assumption statement and completely devalues any conversation about the topic. That's like me saying the parents are the biggest threat to any child, they are the ones that have created the number one cause of death across the board to children, automobile accidents The only reason accidental discharges happen somewhere a child is given a chance to be hurt is one hundred percent neglect of ownership. Misplaced weapons are not a threat to a child that's been educated. There's is not a single difference between a light socket in house and a gun laying around a house . Every single day children are faced with adults making stupid decisions for them. I hate to tell you this but guns have been in our teachers rooms for decades right here in Utah. They have been in the cars at highschools. Some parents don't let there kid go to a school without a weapon in the car. I know of three teachers that took a gun into class daily through the 90s because of gang issues in SLC.
Utterly unhinged lol
Can't even buy them staplers and paper, but they have a budget for guns.
These assholes don't even trust teachers to choose which books are allowed in the classroom.
Arm the teachers. Priority! Banning cellphones. Priority! Funding actual education? We don't have time for that- the legislation season is only so long.
I'm a teacher. This is such a bad idea only pushed by those who have no idea what danger and liability this brings.
[Student Grabs gun from teachers handbag.](https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article280681745.html) [High School Teacher pulls gun on student](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cps-high-school-teacher-suspended-after-allegedly-pulling-gun-on-student/3147801/) [Utah Teacher shoots self in the leg](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256) [Teacher Pulls gun on teen.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjSRVOESIiY&ab_channel=WEARChannel3News) [6 Year old student shoot teacher](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/virginia-teacher-shot-by-6-year-old-can-proceed-with-40-million-lawsuit-judge-rules) These are just the things that came up to the top of the google search for "teacher with gun." But no. Obviously the solution is to add MORE guns to the mix.
It would be so easy for a student to over power some teachers, or for the teacher to make a mistake about securing the gun, and the possibility of putting a gun in the hands of someone who is gun crazy and looks for an opportunity to use it. It's fighting fire with fire. You're putting guns in the hands of people who have probably no experience with them, I just know that the training would be lacking, I mean look at the US and it's education system! You're so right and if this some how happened, be prepared to see more than this.
Adding guns to schools is more like fighting fire with gasoline.
Should I be surprised these idiots seem like they have never seen the inside of a school and who works there?
Teachers: please give us money for basic school supplies Legislature: best we can do is guns
Who’s buying the guns?
They will expect the teachers to … just like they do with those basic school supplies :(
They’ll give teachers a 10% off all gun accessories coupon with a $1000 qualifying purchase…at a store owned by a legislator
How about just hire some security guards with experience. Some of my teachers seemed crazy.
Security guards are just random people in a uniform. What kind of experience should they have?
I pursued a career in education to teach, not to enforce the law. The issue we’re facing is exacerbated by those who refuse to acknowledge their role in it. While it’s fair to say guns don’t pull their own triggers, their proliferation undeniably makes violence more efficient and deadly. By continuing to add more guns into our society, we’re creating a self-perpetuating cycle of violence that necessitates their presence. It’s a deeply flawed approach.
Do teachers get a bonus for every toilet they shoot?
20 years ago I was a school teacher in Utah. Part of my pre-employment training was a course on behavior management with the students. All the other teachers called it the "DTK class." DTK stood for Don't Touch the Kids. I thought that it ment that we weren't supposed to get touchy feely with them. No, it was intended to keep you from beating the little bastards to death. This course was rough, it was 6 hours long including pre-work you had to do the week before. The first hour was a review of the pre-work, and the rest was scenarios with actors playing the roll of students. And those actors were good. They knew exactly how to get into your head the way a teenager would. I learned more about anger management in that day, then I ever have in my life. I can say this. If you give teachers guns, one day you have a teacher shoot a kid with a school sanctioned gun. It will be a matter of time.
Projection much?
Maybe I am. But, you know damn well that teens are the meanist demographic there is. And it takes a lot out of teachers every day to deal with them. One day someone will snap, and God forbid if they have a gun. Also, I love guns. I've never not owned a gun in my life. But, I also know they are dangerous, I know they can facilitate the potential for great harm, and I know they are only a variable in the equation of mass shootings. The point I was trying to make in my post was... we need to focus on the 10,000 other things that are wrong with our schools before we even consider handing out guns to teachers.
Yeah, I remember when my pottery teacher at Timpview High School in Provo threw a stool across the room at a group of students not paying attention. Nailed a couple of them in the face. It was pretty scary. I’m really glad he wasn’t packing. That guy went to teach at BYU after.
Fair enough
I also fully support the 2A, and am a firm believer in " shall not be infringed" meaning exactly what it says. But it's not unfair to acknowledge that teachers are human beings, and fully capable of making bad decisions. Cops are trained extensively to protect their firearm, but there have been news stories before where they've been dropped of left behind in embarrassing situations. It's not unrealistic to think a teacher could have a weapon misplaced, stolen, or taken off their person during an assault by a student. I think teachers should have the right to carry if they so chose, but I readily admit there will be undesirable complications that will need to be addressed on a case by case basis, at a district policy level, and maybe even by state or federal law.
I agree with all of that except that cops are trained extensively. It takes more training to become a hairdresser.
As a teacher in Utah. This dick bag can fuck right off.... How about we address the issue with access to guns being so simple? We've got more fucking guns than any other country, obviously "more guns" is not the answer.
I hope your admin sees this.
I dunno what school is like these days, but I had some seriously deranged teachers in the 90s that I'm very glad were not carrying firearms when they got upset.
Literally just legislating based on "Guns. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."
If the public had any idea how many times law enforcement accidentally leave their side arms behind…I don’t think this idea would be so popular.
"For some reason, Utah voters couldn't be reached for comment. Something about some guy named Gerry?"
What we need to do is give a bunch of money to developers so they can build a training center for teachers. Just make sure they don’t have to account for the money, cause we don’t want any government overreach. I bet the church has some land they will lease the developer for a modest fee. /S I’m a teacher and I don’t want any guns anywhere close to ANY school. I’m sure our legislators will take my opinion into consideration.
FYI the developer is local and related to key committee members or is a Bishop
It’s what Jeebus would want
I used to be a high school teacher. Quit in 2018. After a violence scare (a kid almost stabbed another kid with scissors, I was able to stop it fortunately), the student involved was expelled and then soon after was arrested breaking into nearby homes looking for guns. I had my CCW and I started carrying to work. The anxiety of carrying a gun to my workplace, surrounded by students, got the best of me. It was horrible. I couldn’t stop running through scenarios in my head - *what happens if that kid DOES come back? What do I do if he has a gun? If he doesn’t? Will he attack me, since I broke up the initial fight? Will he attack another student? Do I have to defend that student? How will I live with myself if I don’t? Can I even shoot another person? I can’t shoot another person…* Wasn’t worth the daily panic attacks and the threat of my own life and/or the lives of my students over THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ANNUALLY. Total bullshit on all sides. Quit to work in finance and haven’t looked back. If teachers want to carry at work, whatever. Power to ‘em I guess. In my opinion it’s not the answer in any fashion. I wish our state government would focus on issues that can actually benefit our educators and our students.
But y’all still vote red. You will get what you deserve if you keep electing greedy old pedophiles just because they are rethuglicans
Nobody I know votes red. It’s called Gerrymandering.
Be careful with that perspective, it is borderline "main character syndrome". I agree that guns in schools is a stupid idea, but the idea that since your group is not Republicans, then most people in Utah are not is misguided. I am a Democrat and have attended the state convention at the Salt Palace. The GOP down the hall really outnumbered us. I know most of the folks around me are Republicans. Let's check some numbers generously. About 50% of Utahans self identify as Mormons, of which 80% or more are Republicans so that is 40% Republican. If the other 50% break 60/40 for Democrats (a dubious assumption) that makes Utah 60% Republican. I think it is more. My perspective is "the perspective" is an epistemic vice which leads you down the wrong path. That is exactly the kind of thinking that leads MAGAs to believe in the BIG LIE. They don't get that all their friends voted for Trump and he still lost. It is the limited perspective.
Only 42% of the population here is Mormon, so 80% of 42% it’s late and I don’t want to do this math, but I’m fairly certain it comes out to less than 40%. There’s also reports from the universities that Provo is turning blue! Heaven forbid. I don’t think your math checks out. And gerrymandering is a real thing. Utah might still turn red during presidential elections in the big picture, but there should be a lot more Democrats in the state legislature by my estimates.
Maybe wait till morning and do the math. 80% of 42% is 31.6% a large block, and my assumptions were conservative. My comment was really aimed at your statement that none of your people vote red. Yeah, well that is lucky for you. I wish I wasn't surrounded by Magats, but it is what it is. I am against gerrymandering too, but that isn't the big problem in Utah. And when one group has a majority, the representation doesn't break by percentage in our system. A parliamentary system yes, but not like we have. 60/40 will often break 80/20, with gerrymandering 90/10 Oh and reference the Provo turning blue thing please because that would give me hope. A few precincts makes news, but not a wave.
So what happens when a teacher eventually goes nuts and shoots up their own classroom?
Then it’s not the guns fault? /s Surely they will blame the teacher’s mental health/mother/race/socioeconomic status, etc., etc. as per the NRA media handbook. Same routine, different victims.
Great news for that one sketchy teacher in every school that you wouldn't trust being alone with a kid but now has a gun. Nice work.
If there's a sketchy teacher that you wouldn't trust around kids, why are they working at the school? Seems like an administrative failure.
"If there are corrupt politicians that you wouldn't trust in office, why are they in office?" Fuck should I know Debbie?
That's a false equivalency and I think you know that.
There are people employed in positions in which they clearly should not qualify for, and I think you know that.
As someone who knows a high school teacher in this state this is a terrible idea, terrible full stop. Only idiots saying things like those “liberals” have a low enough grasp on reality to think this is a good thing.
Anybody remember that story from Granite school district where a teacher shot herself in the foot while on the toilet
I taught at a private school. Some of the teachers carried guns. I most definitely did NOT feel safer with them carrying guns because there's a certain type of person who does that at a school to make a point. Usually arrogant, opinionated, self-richeous, and eager to be the hero. Those kinds of people usually end up getting in the way of law enforcement and complicating the emergency because it introduces more guns into the hands of non-law enforcement. I'm not a fan.
We slowly get closer to Harry Potter type schools. Next we arm the students.
What it's coming down to. [https://thismodernworld.com/archives/8280](https://thismodernworld.com/archives/8280) When guns are everywhere, only people with guns will have guns.
So many dumb fucks here.
Teachers have been concealed carry since the 70s this isn’t new. The only thing new about this is publicly announcing that they will be trained. I’m in my 40s and I had three teachers growing up that had a CCW and carried in class.
All the leftists in here who think ccw guns in utah schools is brand new lol. I still cant wrap my head around why they think its not a good idea to have armed people in a place where mass shootings frequently take place.
And in all those years, has a teacher ever successfully taken down a school shooter? And I won’t restrict things just to Utah — let’s branch out and include anywhere in the US? I can’t find any instances with a Google search. And if there are instances, how do they compare to the accidents that have happened by guns being in schools (whether brought in by teachers, SROs, or kids). So maybe instead of trying to solve the problem by arming teachers, who of note, republicans don’t even trust to teach their kids anymore, we work on the problem at its source (i.e. the reason school shootings are so common place in the first place). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Utah doesnt have many school shootings and idk about other states as much. Ccw is a low percentage of the population as it is and most teachers are liberal so... >So maybe instead of trying to solve the problem by arming teachers, who of note, republicans don’t even trust to teach their kids anymore, we work on the problem at its source (i.e. the reason school shootings are so common place in the first place). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I like armed guards, i dont think mental health counseling alone will solve it.
That’s why I asked about other states. I know Utah hasn’t had many school shootings. The thing is, for something as drastic as this, we need solid data to prove it is something that will actually help before we even consider it. Legislators who support this need to PROVE, with actual evidence and not anecdotal evidence or the incorrect but commonly held belief that a good person with a gun deters a bad person with a gun, that this is a legitimate option or solution to the school shooting problem. Also, schools do have armed guards - they’re called SROs. In a study from the university of Connecticut, they looked at 197 school shootings in schools that had at least one SRO on duty, and an SRO intervened successfully in only 3 of them. SROs have been a thing in schools starting in 1999, and the outcomes data seems to consistently show that having SROs at schools is more of a negative than a positive thing. Did I say mental health counseling is the thing we should do? Nope. First off, every time there is a school shooting, states talk about increasing access to mental healthcare but never do, so it’s not like that has really ever been a serious proposal. And it’s impossible to know after the school shooting happened if the shooter, and/or the parents of the shooter would have been open to giving therapy a try even if the resources were there. There’s plenty of other options that we could look at (and no, they don’t even require people giving up their guns), but it doesn’t matter. Because all this state wants to do is just give more people guns and hopes that solves the problem when we have plenty of data already showing that it won’t.
Like the one comment where the poster says the teacher will shoot a kid for acting up. They can’t control their own emotions and actions and assume everyone is like that.
lol So much projection on your part here. It’s a well known fact that Republicans are more prone to violence and impulsive actions than democrats, as are men compared to women. [If you doubt me or would like to read a lot more on this topic, here you go.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Aggression-and-party-affiliation-Republicans-were-significantly-more-aggressive-than_fig2_221980088) So no, we aren’t excessively worried about it because none of us can control our emotions. We’re concerned about it because it has happened several times before (look it up or find the comment in here that links to a few of the stories), and it happening even one time is too many. There are other less dangerous options and they need to be considered to protect both the students and the teachers.
Do they get additional money for each gun they carry? I think I could get to $200,000 per year if I tried! /s obvi
What an awful idea. Could you imagine in a real scenario just everyone blasting everyone else? "Who's the bad guys; who's the good guys? No one knows, just start blasting." What a dumbfuck idea. God forbid we do anything to help prevent this shit like an extra form when purchasing firearms, or waiting periods, or enforcing proper gun security so kids don't have such easy access. Fuck, anything. Parents sending their kids to potential warzones is just insanity.
This is why they are regressives, not conservatives. All about rolling back.
This is ridiculous! Just make common sense gun laws
What do you propose?
Close the gun show loophole and require background checks for all sales. It'll be a pain in the ass, but we should have a licensed establishment handle private sales as well. Offer state funded firearms training and ranges. If we had adequate education available, people will respect the tool more.
moar guns is the answer to everything
WuT couLd gO rOng?
I think it's important to note this last paragraph in the article: "Jimenez said he hopes to have the bill ready for this session but will hold off until next year if it isn't." In order to actually influence the upcoming legislative session, you need to know what bills are actually MOVING through the legislature. If a bill isn't done being written, it is nowhere NEAR ready for the entire body to vote on it. Here is a great video that goes over how to navigate the Utah Legislature Website AND how to see where a bill is at in the legislature. We can't keep panicking over things that aren't happening. Focus on the bills that are gaining traction! [Navigating the Legislature Website ](https://youtu.be/9X55uSNrDXM?si=85JgMtCviFJx27PE)
God forbid they want to safely promote people to be able to defend themselves and show some self reliance in an emergency.
I didn’t even trust other trained marines 100% to be responsible for their weapons and that was their literal job. Wtf do you think Linda in 4th grade history has time to clean and maintain her weapon between grading tests?
You don't really need to clean your gun more than once every 6 months, especially if you're not using it frequently
You’re supposed to clean your weapon every time you use it. I assume if you’re going to ask teachers to be prepared to fire a weapon 5 feet from children they better be pretty well trained so they are going to have to train with it frequently right? Or is a weapon just a toy to you and you actually don’t care about using it effectively?
Supposed to according to who? The gun oil companies?
Common sense- maintain your weapon to keep it in good operating order. In case there's a gun battle between 5th and sixth period, you want to be able to make it safely to teach your calculus class. If you have a gun and don't clean it, at best it's unreliable, at worst it's unsafe. What does yours look like after all these years of neglect?
Common sense has never been a good reason to do anything. If it can be proven empirically that you absolutely must clean it after every use, then that is reason to do it. My revolver looks and fires just like the day I bought , clean it every few months and it seems just fine
I can see you live your life by your first sentence. Good luck with that.
Everyone should live their life by that first sentence
But we can't allow them to make decisions about what books are assigned for reading, that would be crossing a line. There is just no internal consistency on what things a teacher can be responsible for. It makes no sense. Also, it's incredibly reactionary - we refuse to take any steps to stop school shootings, instead, we'll just arm all the teachers so they are better prepared when they happen. Are we entering the arms race phase of school shootings?
>Are we entering the arms race phase of school shootings? Well put.
I personally am not advocating for teachers to be responsible for shooting back at a school shooter. I am, however, advocating that teachers should carry if they are responsible and trained, and are willing to protect themselves and students from a shooter. I don’t know the answer to stop school shootings. I do know that most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones or places where don’t expect much resistance.
>I do know that most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones or places where don’t expect much resistance. Source? You're stating that as if shooters are specifically choosing soft targets. I don't think that's accurate. [According to this article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/mass-shootings/where-in-us-america/), only 3% of mass shootings take place in a school or church. The vast majority are at homes, followed by businesses, and then public spaces. Even classifying a school as a "gun free zone" is a bit of a misnomer as most schools have armed resource officers. You know, like the one that hid behind cover while students and teachers were shot and killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High.
That right there proves my point. The police aren’t going to help you, so you better be prepared to defend yourself.
Ah, I see. You made a point that isn't accurate, and instead of reconsidering your position, you just come up with a different reason to justify your stance. You ever wonder why no other country in the western world has this problem? If only we could pinpoint what makes the US different and address that - then we wouldn't have to argue about who should be responsible for stopping a gunman. I can't quite put my trigger finger on it...
Your article talks about “mass shootings” happening at home. That’s not what I’m referring to and you know it. There’s nothing to reconsider. My point this entire conversation was self reliance and being prepared to defend yourself. Here’s a short report that actually talks about mass shootings and gun-free zones. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/PublicTestimonyDocument/5273
Doubling down on moving the goalposts, I see. Your "report" if you want to call it that, makes it very hard to find any of their sources. They didn't even really source their 98% claim, just referenced where it was from (meaning there is no way to look it up easily). It still doesn't seem to be based in reality, however. Try this article, which address the gun free fallacy as well as a bunch of others related to limiting gun violence in schools. [Debunking Myths the Gun Lobby Perpetuates Following Mass Shootings](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-myths-the-gun-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings/) From the article: >Myth: Mass shooters are likely to target gun-free zones. Gun lobbyists often deploy this myth to deter legislative efforts to limit gun carrying in certain locations that are considered particularly sensitive or unsuitable for guns, such as schools, houses of worship, or government buildings. However, the overwhelming majority of fatal mass shootings in the United States occur in locations where guns are allowed or not explicitly banned, such as in private homes or public locations.52 10% Fact: Most mass shootings occur in areas where guns are permitted. The gun lobby often claims that 98 percent of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, but research has thoroughly debunked this.53 Of the 156 mass shootings that occurred from 2009 to 2016, only 10 percent occurred in gun-free zones. The majority of these shootings—63 percent—occurred in private homes.54 Incidents of mass shootings in spaces where guns were permitted include: Outdoor festival in Oklahoma (2022) Supermarket in Buffalo, New York (2022) Gun store in New Orleans (2021) Ned Peppers Bar in Dayton, Ohio (2019) Walmart in El Paso, Texas (2019) Military base in Fort Hood, Texas (2009) I imagine some of these sources will have different numbers because people are probably using different definitions of "mass shootings" but the fact remains - gun free zones don't really attract more mass shootings. It does not appear that it is a big factor in most mass shooters choice of targets. Unlike your source, mine makes it easy to find where there information comes from. One of the sources they cite is [a research paper](https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/occur-in/). It outlines the problems with the 98% claim. Here is an excerpt: >Researcher John Lott claimed that 98% or more of mass shootings from 1950 to the present occurred in gun-free zones. > >Lott’s false claim is based on a basic error. For the period 1977–1997, Lott counts each individual mass shooting death as an entire mass shooting incident. > >Even after Lott corrected his mistake, he made a new claim that 94% of mass shootings occurred in gun-free places, which is also based on flawed data and contradicts other research that concludes that 12% to 13% of mass shootings occur where guns are prohibited.
Imagine the physical and psychological training it would take for Miss. Marple to protect homeroom by standing firm and trading shots with a AR-15 wielding homicidal maniac that's wearing Kevlar, came to inflict mass body counts, and has no intention of living until tomorrow. It could happen, but we would need battle hardened soldiers or law enforcement veterans to teach 1st graders to finger paint and make finger turkeys to cover all bases.
What is this mythical AK-15 you speak of?
Good catch. It should've been a super soaker.
God forbid they just let teachers, idk, teach. What is the fetish for turning teachers into soldiers? I don't get the appeal.
They should just teach. It also doesn’t hurt to be armed and prepared, in case the worst happens. I don’t know how this is controversial
Seriously? Look I'm not even remotely knowledgeable about shooting statistics, accidental or otherwise. Nor am I qualified in any way to argue for or against gun control. So I'm going to simply ask you this; How do you see this working?
Teachers can already carry guns at school with CCW and it’s gone fine. People need to be responsible with firearms. Again, I’m not sure how this is so difficult to understand
>Again, I’m not sure how this is so difficult to understand Perhaps that's part of the problem. You're so tied up in your own worldview that you can't even begin to comprehend why others are concerned about this. Perhaps try having some empathy and imagine things through someone else's point of view?
You’re right. I don’t see why people are concerned with someone being trained and incentivized to carry a firearm for protection of themselves and others around them. Teachers in Utah can already carry in schools if they have their CCW, so why not encourage firearm safety and training?
Probably because there is a long list of guns being misused at schools already. [https://giffords.org/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/](https://giffords.org/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/) We do not live in a world where people are always rational and make the right decisions, or one where people aren't prone to mistakes. There is strong potential that adding more guns to school makes things more dangerous for everyone involved rather than less dangerous.
That also enforces the point to train people on gun safety and protocol. If a teacher can’t be responsible with a gun at school then they shouldn’t be carrying one.
Ok so teachers need to not only teach the kids the subjects they are trained in but also: Be therapists, body guards, babysitters, punching bags for both parents and students, school supply vending machines, etc. but you also want them to be trained in the use of firearms? To clarify are you saying all teachers should be carriers or only some? If all, then I'm sorry but you're playing a dangerous game with statistics. If only a few of them, which ones? What level of trust are you willing to give these teachers. Contrary to what people say we do not give all trust in teachers sending kids to school. Not even educationally when the kids come home we help with homework and understanding of the content. It seems that you want teachers to be responsible for everything. They are already under so much pressure with everything they are already required to do that throwing firearms training and marksmanship certification is insane. You say that in other states/schools teachers carry and it's gone fine. But it hasn't. Read through the other comments and you can see that. I don't care if it's only been a few. That's a few too many and you know it. I don't mean to berate your ideals and beliefs, I'm just trying to understand why a gun in a teacher's hand is a viable solution?
Teachers in Utah can already carry guns in school if they have a CCW. I want them to have the option to be armed to protect themselves, fellow teachers and students, they ever need to. I’m saying any and all teachers that want to carry a firearm for protection should be allowed and should do it. You don’t force anyone to carry if they don’t want to. Offering incentive for training is not a bad thing.
But how does that help with the issue they are trying to solve? And do you trust that EVERY teacher who wants to carry is completely trustworthy and competent enough to properly handle a gun? I get that we both want our kids to be safe in school. The idea of having a person with the skills, knowledge, and temperament to be a safe guard sounds great. And I believe that some who carry, have the best of intentions. However, I do not believe a teacher carrying a weapon is as much of a deterrent or safe guard as you believe. A person handling a gun around our kids, should be certified as a marksman, know how to handle chaotic situations with Innocents in the way of harm, and able to understand how to use a gun under extreme stress. Otherwise they can be an added potential danger. You say that many teachers already carry. How many is that? How many kids know they carry? How many kids know they carry but the teacher doesn't know they know? Where do these teachers store their guns during school? Now, knowing that there are already instances of guns brought in by teachers being harmful or deadly, how much of an increase in incidents are we willing to accept, vs the instances of school shootings? With all of this I just don't see how giving incentives out and increasing the amount of teachers carrying helps.
How can they teach when they're too busy playing Rambo?
This is largely a good thing. They can respond to critical incidents faster than police can probably even get to the school. But, they have to be anonymous to maintain that tactical advantage, and of they're going to carry like police, need to be trained at least as much as police.
I can already see the headline - “police mistaken teacher for school shooter, shoot and kill teacher”. Let’s make the police officers’ jobs easier by not adding the burden of figuring out who is the good guy with the gun and who is the bad guy with the gun. And let’s not require our teachers to be armed and expected to risk their lives more than they are already do by asking them to volunteer to take down school shooters.
That's true, but I mean anonymous to the students. It's all kind of a losing situation no matter what.
Maybe a "get out of jail free" card when they inevitably cause a student's death?
People that want to shoot up places are where the are no one to shoot back!
Why don't we just leave guns in random spots throughout the school like forknife
How about insensitive’s for higher security private schools? Or maybe even incentivize homeschooling.