M14 Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I'm afraid that it takes more than an armed teacher to stop a suicidal/homicidal mass shooter armed with an AR-15 type weapon and anywhere from 30 to 210 rounds of ammo in a school building. In reality, it takes a heavily armed 6-man SWAT team with ballistic shields, proper tactical weapons that are not typically concealable, and a ton of specialized training to really neutralize a suicidal/homicidal mass shooter like what see here in the USA. I think we have 97k public schools, so multiple that by 6 and and that's 600k full-time SWAT police for just public schools, along with need to train as a team every month or two to keep the their skills up - preferably at the specific school that is funding their protection.

Hence, even if we raised local taxes to pay for such a force, I don't think we can effectively harden our schools with such a massive police/SWAT force. Not sure how kids and parents would feel seeing 6 people decked out in full tactical gear at the entry points. It's more effective (and cheaper) to do a couple of character/reference checks for young males buying their first firearm that trying to train teachers and create a police state for public schools...Once they have the firearms, ammo, and homicidal/suicidal intent, its basically too late. My 2cts.
View attachment 482628
Bull crap! All it takes to neutralize a threat is the tools and the mindset. If you don’t have your head wrapped fully around turning a human being into a by product it doesn’t matter how many of you there are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Just to zoom out a bit:

Consistent once again with the prevailing sentiment of gun owners (I think or hope), the goal here is to not issue pistols to every teacher. It is to encourage responsible gun ownership and for those holding a weapon that can exact deadly force to take the burden of responsibility seriously. That means training and mental and technical discipline.
Who gets to define responsible? 🤨
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
It’s like that allegory about the bowl of peanuts. One of them is poisoned, but you can have all you want. Generally at the end of the day the bowl is still full.

You don’t have to arm every teacher, just make sure that the willing are trained and unobstructed. Small unit tactics would be ideal. Give them qualified immunity like the cops and shout it from the rooftops. Anyone shows up being stoopit burn them to the ground and hang what’s left on the front gate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I think the point I was trying to make is that it is better to be pro-active rather than re-active when it comes to this topic.
Arming teachers and hardening schools is re-active, and extraordinary complex and expensive, and perhaps not even effective against a determined mass shooter who is fully suicidal/homicidal...

Keeping the weapons out of the hands of the whack-jobs in the first place is pro-active. I see the problem as too many young male whack-jobs legally buying weapons with the specific intent to go out on a suicidal/homicidal killing rampage. They just don't yet have a criminal record, so NCIS doesn't flag them as someone unsuitable for firearm owernship.

My observation? Not all of them, but the typical 18-25 year old mass shooter is a disturbed male who would typically not be able to provide three personal character references for a basic background check - as the majority of mass shooters have parents/siblings/class-mates and co-workers - who if asked the basic question by an unbiased investigator; "Do you have any reservations about this applicant having access or ownership of a firearm?" Those who know the disturbed male would respond with a "Yes, I do have reservations about that person for the following reasons...."

The signs are almost always there for those who know the mass shooter, but those folks are only interviewed by law enforcement or the media after the tragedy has already occurred. As I have noted before, the current NCIS background check isn't working to screen out the whack-jobs, and as a consequence we have a lot of tragedies carried out by homicidal/suicidal mass shooters. Those tragedies are impacting gun ownership rights for the normal folks.

If we have to provide a few references to get an entry level job, then I think we should consider asking for a few character references for 18-25 year-olds who are seeking to purchase their first firearm. A lack of a criminal record doesn't mean that someone is responsible enough or mentally fit for the awesome responsibility of firearm ownership. Would such a process screen out all the whack-jobs and want-to-be mass shooters? Probably not, but it would likely screen out most of them. I think this is far cheaper and more effective than trying to harden 100k schools, and in the end I think it would/could enhance gun owner rights. My 2cts.
That kind of proactivity starts stepping on my johnson and I don’t like having my johnson stepped on.

Funny how every one of the recent shooters have been on the Feebs radar. Perhaps instead of fouling my sandbox there should be a deep dive into some fed agencies by folks twice removed. 🤔
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top