S.D. governor signs teacher 'sentinel' bill

[justanothershyguy]

http://www.ksfy.com/story/21556148/s...rs-to-be-armed

All this despite being heavily opposed by those it actually affects.

Representatives of school boards, school administrators and teachers opposed the bill, saying it could make schools more dangerous, lead to accidental shootings and put guns in the hands of people who are not adequately trained to shoot in emergency situations.

Administrator's group opposes: http://www.ksfy.com/story/21562983/a...rming-teachers

[Just_Believe18]

Apparently teachers are no longer teachers. They're "sentinels" now who babysit kids until the next mass shooter invades their classroom.

[CowboyBob]

My sister is a kindergarten teacher nearing retirement. I asked her if she will be packing a gun to class.

The thought of her grabbing a loaded gun out of her purse if and when a gunman forces their way into her classroom is laughable.

The NRA and the republican party are agents for the gun manufacturers. And both have blood on their hands.

[White Eagle]

I believe this is very wrong and I'm surprised you aren't getting more responses to this thread.
I had a coach in HS that you wouldn't want to give him any kind of weapon. He would use it on the kids. Also there was a Board member you would not let anywhere near a gun.

[Rolyo85]

I am appalled. I just don't really have much to say about it... I hope teachers just ignore it.

[TX-Beau]

Yes it's appalling alright. But yeah - what's to say. The right is populated by crazy, and that's no more appalling than some of the "castle doctrine" laws in the south.

[bike10]

As former educator I oppose any guns in class rooms. Teachers need to teach and not be carrying six shooters in the classroom.

[crimsonpaine]

All this despite being heavily opposed by those it actually affects.

That never stops government from doing anything. They know better, we are all too stupid to take care of ourselves. or think for ourselves.

There are pros and cons for this, the pro is obvious, teachers armed to stop an intruder from killing.

Con would be since the teacher is packing heat, just have a couple students overpower teacher to get gun. Unless there is more than one teacher in the room at the time, the chances are the student will kill as many people in the room before someone comes to stop him.

But if teachers today are like some of the ones I have while in school, I would rather teachers not be arms.

[Rolyo85]

The pro doesn't exist. In reality, there is no shooting spree scenario in which the armed teacher can prevent anything.

[Durango95]

I don't understand why this was necessary. South Dakota is always in the very low percentile of violent crimes across the board. The only school shooting I could find in SD was nearly a hundred years ago and that was a accident.

This just doesn't make much sense.

[JayHawk]

It does make sense if you realize which party is parading the dog and pony shows.... yeah... baby you like that tie in... I know you do....



I was looking for the cartoon when this ludicrous idea was first offered up by the NRA. It was a kid sitting at a desk in a classroom of kids and teachers armed to the gills. The one girl says "I'm scared" and the other girl says "Here, you can hold my back up piece"

Utterly horrifying that a state has actually done this as law. I sometimes wonder where we are headed. Check that.

I often wonder where we are headed, I am now officially worried where that destinations will be for us!!

[justanothershyguy]

There are pros and cons for this, the pro is obvious, teachers armed to stop an intruder from killing.

I would much rather have a trained professional handling the issue if it were to arise. This 'pro' does not outweigh the cons. In any way.

The pro doesn't exist. In reality, there is no shooting spree scenario in which the armed teacher can prevent anything.

Exactly. If I were in a situation like that, my first thought isn't going to be "Oh my goodness, I have to stop him." I'm a teacher, not a vigilante. In stead, I am going to do everything I can to get my kids to safety.

I don't understand why this was necessary. South Dakota is always in the very low percentile of violent crimes across the board. The only school shooting I could find in SD was nearly a hundred years ago and that was a accident.

This just doesn't make much sense.

Nope, it doesn't. I'm sure it's considered a 'precaution', however that doesn't mean it's a necessary precaution.

[crimsonpaine]

I would much rather have a trained professional handling the issue if it were to arise. This 'pro' does not outweigh the cons. In any way.



Exactly. If I were in a situation like that, my first thought isn't going to be "Oh my goodness, I have to stop him." I'm a teacher, not a vigilante. In stead, I am going to do everything I can to get my kids to safety.



Nope, it doesn't. I'm sure it's considered a 'precaution', however that doesn't mean it's a necessary precaution.

I agree, most of my teachers I suspect were at that fine line breaking point and I would have felt really uncomfortable knowing they were armed. I am pro-gun, but like with everything in life, gun ownership required common sense. Not everybody should have a gun, just like some people shouldn't be allowed to have children when all they will do is abandon them.

[TX-Beau]

That never stops government from doing anything. They know better, we are all too stupid to take care of ourselves. or think for ourselves.

There are pros and cons for this, the pro is obvious, teachers armed to stop an intruder from killing.

The Government is not some alien parasite forced onto your back. It can't think anything. If people WE elect are that condescending and dismissive of us - the fault is ours for electing them in the first place. Saying anything else is a cop out.

My favorite political quote goes ...Democracy is the form of government that guarantees people get exactly the government they deserve.

The cons are obvious, the pro is fantasy, the issue is dick waving and posturing from the suburban vigilante set who really really really just want the opportunity to "defend" themselves.

The problem is a gun culture that links firearms to penis size and the idiots who buy into it.

[Kulindahr]

http://www.ksfy.com/story/21556148/s...rs-to-be-armed

All this despite being heavily opposed by those it actually affects.


Administrator's group opposes: http://www.ksfy.com/story/21562983/a...rming-teachers

Polls show that those it affects support it -- that is, two-thirds of people with school-age kids like the idea.

The NRA and the republican party are agents for the gun manufacturers. And both have blood on their hands.

Same disinformation, different day.

Wayne LaPierre has hijacked the NRA and has the gun manufacturers by the throat. And the only ones with blood on their hands are those who commit the crimes, and the government which subsidizes violent crime.

I had a coach in HS that you wouldn't want to give him any kind of weapon. He would use it on the kids. Also there was a Board member you would not let anywhere near a gun.

Was he hitting them with chairs and strangling them with towels?

[Kulindahr]

The pro doesn't exist. In reality, there is no shooting spree scenario in which the armed teacher can prevent anything.

Fantasy.

In any of the situations where a teacher has gotten between a shooter and the kids, if the teacher had been armed there's a good chance that would have been the end of it.

To believe otherwise is to maintain that teachers are inherently incompetent at anything practical, or are cowards who don't care about their students.

[Kulindahr]

If I were in a situation like that, my first thought isn't going to be "Oh my goodness, I have to stop him." I'm a teacher, not a vigilante. In stead, I am going to do everything I can to get my kids to safety.
.

False dichotomy.

[Kulindahr]

The Government is not some alien parasite forced onto your back. It can't think anything. If people WE elect are that condescending and dismissive of us - the fault is ours for electing them in the first place. Saying anything else is a cop out.

Are you really that out of touch?

To believe the above, you also have to believe that "Corporations are people, my friend", and that secret money is free speech, and that backroom committees spending money that belongs to other people is a good way to select legislators.

The problem is a gun culture that links firearms to penis size and the idiots who buy into it.

The real problem is a brainless culture that thinks the above statement has anything to do with reality.

[TX-Beau]

Fantasy.

In any of the situations where a teacher has gotten between a shooter and the kids, if the teacher had been armed there's a good chance that would have been the end of it.

To believe otherwise is to maintain that teachers are inherently incompetent at anything practical, or are cowards who don't care about their students.

Leap.....................to conclusions.

This is rank assumption. You don't have anything to support any of this.

[TX-Beau]

Are you really that out of touch?

To believe the above, you also have to believe that "Corporations are people, my friend", and that secret money is free speech, and that backroom committees spending money that belongs to other people is a good way to select legislators.



The real problem is a brainless culture that thinks the above statement has anything to do with reality.

You are opposed because you don't want to admit that the problem with guns is not the guns, but the gun OWNERS who project all kinds of fantasy and wishful thinking onto them.

Which is WHY we need REGULATION!

[TX-Beau]

A gun is a tool, not freedom, not liberty, not a holy fucking relic and having one does not guarantee you of any fucking thing whatsoever.

One wonders why you are so out of touch.

[Durango95]

A gun is a tool, not freedom, not liberty, not a holy fucking relic and having one does not guarantee you of any fucking thing whatsoever.

One wonders why you are so out of touch.

Not having one (a gun) does guarantee you will not be able to defend yourself against an assailant with one (a gun) or something else, albeit unequal in lethality, like a knife or machete.

That being said, I don't think arming unionized teachers is a good idea. These people aren't the shiniest coins in the fountain to begin with.

[TX-Beau]

Everybody carrying guns everywhere guarantees nothing but that the "assailant" will shoot you in the back before stealing your wallet.

[justanothershyguy]

Polls show that those it affects support it -- that is, two-thirds of people with school-age kids like the idea.

First, of course parents of the kids support it, their not the ones in the school at the time! By heavy opposition I meant both the teacher's and administrator's groups (unions).
Second, show me these polls, I'm genuinely curious.

- - - Updated - - -

That being said, I don't think arming unionized teachers is a good idea. These people aren't the shiniest coins in the fountain to begin with.

Generalization; there are also many teachers who are quite shiny.

[Durango95]

Everybody carrying guns everywhere guarantees nothing but that the "assailant" will shoot you in the back before stealing your wallet.

Law abiding citizens not having guns only means that criminals will have guns. Criminals do not comply with existing gun laws. What about that is not understood by so many of your ilk? I mean it is like you only want the criminals to have guns. Is that the plan? You want to disarm law abiding citizens and leave the weapons in the hands of criminals. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from such an obtuse ideology.

[Durango95]

First, of course parents of the kids support it, their not the ones in the school at the time! By heavy opposition I meant both the teacher's and administrator's groups (unions).
Second, show me these polls, I'm genuinely curious.

- - - Updated - - -



Generalization; there are also many teachers who are quite shiny.

Who care what unions want? They are dinosaurs. They are no longer needed in this society.

Not the one's I've met lately.

[TX-Beau]

Law abiding citizens not having guns only means that criminals will have guns. Criminals do not comply with existing gun laws. What about that is not understood by so many of your ilk? I mean it is like you only want the criminals to have guns. Is that the plan? You want to disarm law abiding citizens and leave the weapons in the hands of criminals. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from such an obtuse ideology.

Please. All of that came out of your head and you are responsible for it.

[Rolyo85]

Not having one (a gun) does guarantee you will not be able to defend yourself against an assailant with one (a gun) or something else, albeit unequal in lethality, like a knife or machete.

The logistics of that always confuse me. I mean, a gun is a tool of attack, not defense. Once the assailant has pointed his gun at you, your owning one benefits you not at all. The moment you reach for it, you will be shot. The whole "deterrent" factor is obviously not working on a large scale either, judging by statistics.

So HOW does one "defend" oneself with a gun? O.o

- - - Updated - - -

Who care what unions want? They are dinosaurs. They are no longer needed in this society.

Not the one's I've met lately.

I am sure every large greedy corporation ever (who gave you that line btw) will totally agree with you ^_^

[Kulindahr]

Leap.....................to conclusions.

This is rank assumption. You don't have anything to support any of this.

It isn't assumption at all. Anyone with the least training with a firearm, who is capable of putting herself between students and shooter, has the necessary objectivity and calm to be able to point, shoot, and eliminate the threat. That's just tactical reality.

The only reason to claim otherwise is a belief that otherwise competent people who have demonstrated their ability to act coolly under threat sudden;y become incompetent or uncaring when provided with the means to do more than just run/hide.

[TX-Beau]

The logistics of that always confuse me. I mean, a gun is a tool of attack, not defense. Once the assailant has pointed his gun at you, your owning one benefits you not at all. The moment you reach for it, you will be shot. The whole "deterrent" factor is obviously not working on a large scale either, judging by statistics.

So HOW does one "defend" oneself with a gun? O.o

- - - Updated - - -



I am sure every large greedy corporation ever (who gave you that line btw) will totally agree with you ^_^

One is of course Rambo and your assault is scripted by Hollywood.

[Kulindahr]

You are opposed because you don't want to admit that the problem with guns is not the guns, but the gun OWNERS who project all kinds of fantasy and wishful thinking onto them.

Which is WHY we need REGULATION!

THe only thing that needs to be regulated is the fantasy of people who can't grasp that guns are tools, and that most people are competent with those tools. Regarding gun owners as unbalanced people who engage in magical thinking is mere projection by people who have the contrary-to-fact notion that making it harder for the law-abiding and responsible to protect themselves is going to deter criminals from acting contrary to the law.

[TX-Beau]

It isn't assumption at all. Anyone with the least training with a firearm, who is capable of putting herself between students and shooter, has the necessary objectivity and calm to be able to point, shoot, and eliminate the threat. That's just tactical reality.

The only reason to claim otherwise is a belief that otherwise competent people who have demonstrated their ability to act coolly under threat sudden;y become incompetent or uncaring when provided with the means to do more than just run/hide.

Spare me. More fantasy.

[Kulindahr]

A gun is a tool, not freedom, not liberty, not a holy fucking relic and having one does not guarantee you of any fucking thing whatsoever.

One wonders why you are so out of touch.

You say this, but you don't believe that a gun is a tool -- you think it's a magical item that makes people irrational, and that being deprived of one somehow makes an intended victim safer against the aggressor.

If the liberal thought-set about firearms were correct, then the logical thing to do would be to disarm the police as well, so they'd be safer from criminals.

[TX-Beau]

THe only thing that needs to be regulated is the fantasy of people who can't grasp that guns are tools, and that most people are competent with those tools. Regarding gun owners as unbalanced people who engage in magical thinking is mere projection by people who have the contrary-to-fact notion that making it harder for the law-abiding and responsible to protect themselves is going to deter criminals from acting contrary to the law.

How do you know what "most" people are "competent" at? You don't. Period. Because people can be very competent an some thing and imbeciles at other and YOU ARE COMPLETELY IGNORING that the US gun culture IS NOT promoting "competence." IT's promoting fantasies of suburban commando.

To SELL firearms.

- - - Updated - - -

You say this, but you don't believe that a gun is a tool -- you think it's a magical item that makes people irrational, and that being deprived of one somehow makes an intended victim safer against the aggressor.

If the liberal thought-set about firearms were correct, then the logical thing to do would be to disarm the police as well, so they'd be safer from criminals.

blah blah blah blah blah

[Kulindahr]

Everybody carrying guns everywhere guarantees nothing but that the "assailant" will shoot you in the back before stealing your wallet.

This fantasy gets debunked every time another state passes a "shall issue" concealed carry law -- which most have now, because the majority of Americans see the common sense of it, have now done.

Criminals are not suicidal. Overwhelming evidence shows that they will avoid places or victims where they can expect to be confronted by an armed victim. If all citizens carried guns -- or if even one in five did -- the evidence shows that crime against persons would plunge to nothing except crimes of passion and criminals shooting criminals. Of course the flip side of that is that crime where there are no people present goes up, as criminals get smarter about being sure no one is home before striking.

An armed society would be a much more polite society, and one where personal responsibility would be more common

[Durango95]

Please. All of that came out of your head and you are responsible for it.

Wrong. Try again.

[justanothershyguy]

Okay, before this turns into a full-fledged debate on gun control, let me ask this:

Why teachers? Is it honestly a necessary precaution to take [in arming teachers]?

[Rolyo85]

You say this, but you don't believe that a gun is a tool -- you think it's a magical item that makes people irrational, and that being deprived of one somehow makes an intended victim safer against the aggressor.

If the liberal thought-set about firearms were correct, then the logical thing to do would be to disarm the police as well, so they'd be safer from criminals.

Um, a thing doesn't have to be magical to provoke certain mentality. If you don't believe that certain tools make their owner want to find a situation to use them, you need to take some psych classes.

[Kulindahr]

First, of course parents of the kids support it, their not the ones in the school at the time! By heavy opposition I meant both the teacher's and administrator's groups (unions).
Second, show me these polls, I'm genuinely curious.

IIRC they were done by ABC, Gallup, Rasmussen, and one of the big papers.

[TX-Beau]

Criminals are not suicidal.

Which is why if EVERYONE is ALWAYS armed as you fantasize about, they will SHOOT you first, then commit their crime.

Anyway I do not trust anything you have to say on this subject because you are quite irrational about it.

Nor do you ever want to talk about countries with FAR stricter gun controls not being overrun by gun wielding miscreants, who have less gun violence and less gun accidents.

Strange.

That.

- - - Updated - - -

IIRC they were done by ABC, Gallup, Rasmussen, and one of the big papers.

LINK!

All of those are on line, and you posses google.

[TX-Beau]

Wrong. Try again.

[Kulindahr]

The logistics of that always confuse me. I mean, a gun is a tool of attack, not defense. Once the assailant has pointed his gun at you, your owning one benefits you not at all. The moment you reach for it, you will be shot. The whole "deterrent" factor is obviously not working on a large scale either, judging by statistics.

So HOW does one "defend" oneself with a gun? O.o

SO you think the US should disarm? Really, if guns can't be used for defense, then armies all over the world should just surrender the moment they're attacked!

But they know something you don't: this isn't two people standing in the open facing each other so everything is seen. You seem to think that a person wanting to defend himself with a firearm will step out into plain view, announce that he is about to draw his gun, and do so nice and slowly. That's why firearms are used far more often to stop crime than to commit crime: people have the common sense your above post exhibits a complete lack of.

[Kulindahr]

Spare me. More fantasy.

SO you do believe that teachers who have the fortitude to place themselves between a shooter and their students will suddenly become blithering incompetents if they have a gun available to stop the threat.

Why is it that you hold a position wherein criminals with firearms become bold individuals willing to shoot others in the back in broad daylight, but teachers with firearms turn into cowards?

[TX-Beau]

He didn't say disarm, YOU DID. You seem to think that a criminal who assumes you have a gun is going to step out into the open and not shoot you in the back.

Like I said, irrational. If the criminal assumes you are armed, THEY are not going to announce themselves, they are going to shoot you in the back. fat lot of good your gun does in your fantasy scneario.

- - - Updated - - -

SO you do believe that teachers who have the fortitude to place themselves between a shooter and their students will suddenly become blithering incompetents if they have a gun available to stop the threat.

Why is it that you hold a position wherein criminals with firearms become bold individuals willing to shoot others in the back in broad daylight, but teachers with firearms turn into cowards?

You made that up, I didn't say any of it. Like I said. Irrational.

[Kulindahr]

Why teachers? Is it honestly a necessary precaution to take [in arming teachers]?

Irrelevant and false limitation. The only requirement for such a program is that it be useful -- it doesn't have to work miracles and make every teacher into super-citizen, it just has to make a fraction of teachers show themselves sufficiently determined that shooters decide to leave schools alone, at least more often.

Of course then they'll just switch to another "no weapons" (and therefore target-rich) environment.... which is why the place to start on this is putting back into place a decent care system for the mentally ill, the removal of which (starting most heavily under Ronald Reagan) titled us into a period of greatly more common mass shootings. It would be far better to help these unsettled people before they become violent than to have to choose between letting them shoot students or shooting them.

[Kulindahr]

Um, a thing doesn't have to be magical to provoke certain mentality. If you don't believe that certain tools make their owner want to find a situation to use them, you need to take some psych classes.

I've had psych classes. And in one we studied possession of weapons, and it turns out that people properly tarined with weapons will be more reluctant to use them, because they understand what using them means.

Which leads me to state once again that Congress needs to use its Article I Sec 8 authority for establishing discipline for the militia, in the form of setting standards of training.

[justanothershyguy]

Irrelevant and false limitation. The only requirement for such a program is that it be useful -- it doesn't have to work miracles and make every teacher into super-citizen, it just has to make a fraction of teachers show themselves sufficiently determined that shooters decide to leave schools alone, at least more often.

Of course then they'll just switch to another "no weapons" (and therefore target-rich) environment.... which is why the place to start on this is putting back into place a decent care system for the mentally ill, the removal of which (starting most heavily under Ronald Reagan) titled us into a period of greatly more common mass shootings. It would be far better to help these unsettled people before they become violent than to have to choose between letting them shoot students or shooting them.

It is relevant and whether or not a teacher is armed is not going to save the day when that time comes. You know what will? A teacher who follows procedure and keeps his or her students in the locked classroom until the all clear is given.

All I ask is for you to answer the question. Is it a necessary precaution?

[Kulindahr]

Which is why if EVERYONE is ALWAYS armed as you fantasize about, they will SHOOT you first, then commit their crime.

Do you ever think past your first emotional response?

NO ONE with the least trace of rationality is going to shoot ANYONE when they know that everyone else around them is armed -- there's no profit in it. They want to get away with loot, not get shot by three or four bystanders.

Nor do you ever want to talk about countries with FAR stricter gun controls not being overrun by gun wielding miscreants, who have less gun violence and less gun accidents.

Strange.

That.

When you resort to making up lies about me, you've already failed utterly.

[justanothershyguy]

Again, please do not make this about gun control. This is about 'sentinels' in the schools.

[justanothershyguy]

NO ONE with the least trace of rationality is going to shoot ANYONE when they know that everyone else around them is armed -- there's no profit in it. They want to get away with loot, not get shot by three or four bystanders.

Okay, so which school shooter ever has been 'rational'?