M14 Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
While I favor allowing teachers to be armed but I also believe it is a complex issue. I do not believe armed teachers are a substitute for a school security officer. They are only an additional layer of defense.
I'm afraid that it takes more than an armed teacher (or a single security officer) 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 the disturbed person has the firearms, ammo, and homicidal/suicidal intent, its basically too late. My 2cts.
Camouflage Squad Military camouflage Ballistic vest Cargo pants
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 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 with SWAT teams 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 teenage/20 something year-old whack-jobs in the first place is pro-active. I see the problem as too many mentally disturbed young males (aka 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 NICS doesn't flag them as someone unsuitable for firearm ownership.

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 inquiring about their suitability for firearm ownership - 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 (and esp if they cared about that person) would respond with a "Yes, to be honest I do have reservations about that person for the following reasons...."

IMO, if 2 out of 3 people interviewed relate similar risks about that applicant, suggesting that access to firearms might be a risk to that person's life, or to the life of others, those character references should be taken into account prior to a first-time firearm purchase. If all three references check-out fine, then the purchase should then proceed. This basic character reference check would create a slight delay for first-time buyers, but it is doable.

The signs of violent intent/pathological anger are almost always observed by 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 NICS 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 100% of 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.

IMO, the founding fathers were brilliant men, but if they could see into future, they might have added two simple but powerful words to the following text that I think is a reasonable/ logical edit:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of sound minded people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think we can agree that sound-minded people are NOT suicidal/homicidal mass shooters who are typically known to be disturbed males by family members/classmates/co-workers. Hence my post regarding a more pro-active approach to partially solve this issue with a compromise that I think preserves the intent of the right, as opposed to various re-active approaches that don't address what is often the core problem: An insufficient vetting process that appears somewhat specific to the USA. Moving on...but those are my 2cts.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top