Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Florida Lawmakers Pass Legislation Allowing Teachers To Be Armed; Governor Expected To Sign

Some key points:

"Guardians must have a valid concealed carry license, and complete 144 hours of training, including a psychological evaluation and diversity training.

Guardians "must submit to and pass an initial drug test and subsequent random drug tests," and "successfully complete ongoing training, weapon inspection, and firearm qualification on at least an annual basis."

So they have to go through a lot more than the average person to be able to to be armed. So what do people think? Is this a bad idea?

Sounds good.


If only this same standard would be applied to existing gun owners...but wait, the people shooting up other people do it with not their guns or illegally obtained guns.



So it's a stupid idea that looks and sounds good on paper.





As far as the teachers? Yeah, okay. Some of the teachers I had growing up would become hysterical and make terrible decisions if they had a gun during an active shooter situation. That's not a good thing for them to have. They'd be almost as likely to shoot the damn kids.

What does diversity have to do with handling a gun?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some of the teachers I had growing up would become hysterical and make terrible decisions if they had a gun during an active shooter situation. That's not a good thing for them to have. They'd be almost as likely to shoot the damn kids.

I think this is why they are gonna have the psychological testing.

Originally posted by cdtm
What does diversity have to do with handling a gun?

I don't know, perhaps they threw that in there in an attempt to get some democrats on their side? Then again they didn't need any democrats.

Well they did reject "implicit bias" training lol.

Seems like more training than the cops. Lol

At this point it might be a good idea.

I was curious about this part tho

"Guardians have no law enforcement authority aside from stopping or hindering a school shooting."


Is "school shooting" a broad term with other dangerous situations included, tho not mentioned, such as someone bringing explosives to school, stabbings etc... Or is it just relegated to shootings?

Its a shooting in general, defined by if there is an active shooter in the building or campus.

Other than that, the police and local authorites are authorized only to take force.

I am sure if someone showed up with a knife and started killing people that would obviously be viewed the same and they could take action.

"Guardians must have a valid concealed carry license, and complete 144 hours of training"

That is a massive amount of training. And for good reason.

Originally posted by Surtur
Florida Lawmakers Pass Legislation Allowing Teachers To Be Armed; Governor Expected To Sign

Some key points:

"Guardians must have a valid concealed carry license, and complete 144 hours of training, including a psychological evaluation and diversity training.

Guardians "must submit to and pass an initial drug test and subsequent random drug tests," and "successfully complete ongoing training, weapon inspection, and firearm qualification on at least an annual basis."

So they have to go through a lot more than the average person to be able to to be armed. So what do people think? Is this a bad idea?




No, it's a great idea.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Its a shooting in general, defined by if there is an active shooter in the building or campus.

Other than that, the police and local authorites are authorized only to take force.

I am sure if someone showed up with a knife and started killing people that would obviously be viewed the same and they could take action. it still should be something that gets added/worded carefully.

if some kid showed up with a live explosive and takes a bullet for it, and those bases aren't covered, i have no doubt in my mind that the family would sue the teacher, school, district etc....

Lol, 144 hours? These guys are better trained than some officers.

Implement this for every American citizen carrying a weapon, and the states would be the safest place on Earth.

Having worked in NYC public high schools for almost 30 years, yeah, I see this as an unfortunate but necessary development. In my main school, my office was in a basement-floor corner suite, next to a large classroom. We'd be fish in a barrel if a shooter had ever ventured down there.

Trained cops fire at a black man sleeping in a car 14 times because he "jerked awake suddenly". But yeah, sure, teachers are gonna pull a Rambo and save the day.

This is so hilariously stupid.

I hope it doesn't turn tragically stupid.

Originally posted by MythLord
Trained cops fire at a black man sleeping in a car 14 times because he "jerked awake suddenly". But yeah, sure, teachers are gonna pull a Rambo and save the day.

I guess you have to weigh both sides, there is a chance something bad can happen...as is always the case when a firearm is involved. Weigh that against the lives it could save if someone ever tries to shoot up the school.

Of course you also have to factor in the chances of a school shooting, which I do not think are very high. So I don't know.

You also have to factor in the chances of a teacher having a mental breakdown at chronic overworking and underfunding blasting his own students in the face with his government funded gun and training.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You also have to factor in the chances of a teacher having a mental breakdown at chronic overworking and underfunding blasting his own students in the face with his government funded gun and training.

That is why they are doing the psych tests.

Psyche tests won't account for a breakdown hasn't happened yet.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Psyche tests won't account for a breakdown hasn't happened yet.

So you don't want this program to happen at all or you're just worried about what might happen?

I'm just postulating possible parameters of potential perturbances

Ah, a classic P5 scenario.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You also have to factor in the chances of a teacher having a mental breakdown at chronic overworking and underfunding blasting his own students in the face with his government funded gun and training.

Exactly. How that isn't obvious to everyone I don't know.

It's not like teachers aren't already underappreciated and overworked enough.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Exactly. How that isn't obvious to everyone I don't know.

It's not like teachers aren't already underappreciated and overworked enough.

And yet most teachers don't go around beating the shit out of students, etc.

Anyone can have a breakdown, even with training. Shall we disarm all cops?

Originally posted by Surtur
And yet most teachers don't go around beating the shit out of students, etc.

Anyone can have a breakdown, even with training. Shall we disarm all cops?

They already have a legal stress release mechanism. Beating and shooting citizens.

In nigh 30 years of working with teachers, in multiple schools (again, NYC public high schools), not once was one ever brought to my (the school psychologist's) attention, nor my colleagues' in other schools, due to 'mental breakdown'. When teachers get stressed, typically, overwhelmingly, they take a day off, or worst case, they quit.

Training, testing, arming teachers should involve a volunteer basis, and it should be stressed that this is a defensive, last-resort measure. It is not the teacher's job to find the shooter (that's law enforcement's), only to protect himself and his students, if need be. If a shooter blasts his way into a classroom, it is obviously far better to be armed than be a sitting duck. If my main school had offered such a program, I definitely would've volunteered.

Originally posted by Mindship
In nigh 30 years of working with teachers, in multiple schools (again, NYC public high schools), not once was one ever brought to my (the school psychologist's) attention, nor my colleagues' in other schools, due to 'mental breakdown'. When teachers get stressed, typically, overwhelmingly, they take a day off, or worst case, they quit.

Training, testing, arming teachers should involve a volunteer basis, and it should be stressed that this is a defensive, last-resort measure. It is not the teacher's job to find the shooter (that's law enforcement's), only to protect himself and his students, if need be. If a shooter blasts his way into a classroom, it is obviously far better to be armed than be a sitting duck. If my main school had offered such a program, I definitely would've volunteered.

That's cos they never had guns before.

The voice will be in their head. "It's right there. The gun's right there. Just do it. Just shoot the little ****ing bastards and be done with it"

See. See what you've done. This is your fault, Mindship.

That voice could be saying "hey stab a kid with these scissors" too. Scissor ban yay or nay?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The voice will be in their head. "It's right there. The gun's right there. Just do it. Just shoot the little ****ing bastards and be done with it"

See. See what you've done. This is your fault, Mindship. I know that voice. That's why my office was in a corner in the basement.

Originally posted by Surtur
I guess you have to weigh both sides, there is a chance something bad can happen...as is always the case when a firearm is involved. Weigh that against the lives it could save if someone ever tries to shoot up the school.

Of course you also have to factor in the chances of a school shooting, which I do not think are very high. So I don't know.
Plot twist: the teacher starts the school shooting. Takes revenge on the students.

That pos Kevin in the back row had it coming for too long!

Originally posted by Mindship
In nigh 30 years of working with teachers, in multiple schools (again, NYC public high schools), not once was one ever brought to my (the school psychologist's) attention, nor my colleagues' in other schools, due to 'mental breakdown'. When teachers get stressed, typically, overwhelmingly, they take a day off, or worst case, they quit.

Training, testing, arming teachers should involve a volunteer basis, and it should be stressed that this is a defensive, last-resort measure. It is not the teacher's job to find the shooter (that's law enforcement's), only to protect himself and his students, if need be. If a shooter blasts his way into a classroom, it is obviously far better to be armed than be a sitting duck. If my main school had offered such a program, I definitely would've volunteered.



Such a program makes sense.


Unfortunately, many are more fearful of their neighbor with a gun, then they are of an active shooter. A result of a country where many have never had to serve, and never developed the judgement to handle a weapon.

As opposed to someplace like Israel, where they live in a warzone, and service is compulsory.

Originally posted by cdtm
Unfortunately, many are more fearful of their neighbor with a gun, then they are of an active shooter. A result of a country where many have never had to serve, and never developed the judgement to handle a weapon.

As opposed to someplace like Israel, where they live in a warzone, and service is compulsory. We're a complacent lot, as noted by our treating flip-flops like all-purpose footwear.

Originally posted by Surtur
And yet most teachers don't go around beating the shit out of students, etc.

Anyone can have a breakdown, even with training. Shall we disarm all cops? The Algebra Honors teacher in my middle school would sometimes break up fights by bodying the students. Nice guy and a good teacher, heard he got fired for it after I went to high school, what a shame.

Originally posted by Surtur
That voice could be saying "hey stab a kid with these scissors" too. Scissor ban yay or nay?

^Still curious. Teachers have easy access to scissors. They could have a mental breakdown and stab a student.

Yes or no do we need to have a serious discussion about scissors in our schools?

Originally posted by Surtur
^Still curious. Teachers have easy access to scissors. They could have a mental breakdown and stab a student.

Yes or no do we need to have a serious discussion about scissors in our schools?


Get ready for the "you can't kill as many people with scissors as guns!" argument.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Get ready for the "you can't kill as many people with scissors as guns!" argument.

Ah but no...moronic leftists can't use that cuz I can counter with "well if it even saves one life!" which is the excuse they use with gun control.

Isn't that hilarious?

Originally posted by Surtur
Ah but no...moronic leftists can't use that cuz I can counter with "well if it even saves one life!" which is the excuse they use with gun control.

Isn't that hilarious?



Yes, it is. Very.


It's also funny how they conveniently forget about that argument when it comes to abortion.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yes, it is. Very.


It's also funny how they conveniently forget about that argument when it comes to abortion.

Oh yes the argument doesn't apply to abortion or illegal immigration. Just guns. Weird how it turned out like that.

I know it's an attempt to make people feel safer, and it seems like something needs to be attempted, but I'm unlikely to be convinced that throwing more guns into the mix is going to be an improvement. After all you don't put out a fire with fire. But of course the NRA is on board, no doubt. More gun sales for them. This lone-gunman hero narrative that is constantly touted rarely seems to play itself out. It's certainly more of the exception, not the rule.

Trouble psychopath kids will just go for the armed teacher first. Why would they care? They often are going in with a suicide mission anyway.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I know it's an attempt to make people feel safer, and it seems like something needs to be attempted, but I'm unlikely to be convinced that throwing more guns into the mix is going to be an improvement. After all you don't put out a fire with fire. But of course the NRA is on board, no doubt. More gun sales for them. This lone-gunman hero narrative that is constantly touted rarely seems to play itself out. It's certainly more of the exception, not the rule.

Trouble psychopath kids will just go for the armed teacher first. Why would they care? They often are going in with a suicide mission anyway.

Do you wanna go with the "rare" route? Just saying, school shootings are rare too. Doesn't stop progressives from screaming about more gun control.

Originally posted by Surtur
Do you wanna go with the "rare" route? Just saying, school shootings are rare too. Doesn't stop progressives from screaming about more gun control.

Rare is a relative term. Rare in other parts of the world. Not so rare here in the States.

But that's not the point. 1 is too many. And we've had waaaaayyy too many.

I'm going to have a child in public school in a few years. I wouldn't feel any better even knowing some underpaid, poorly trained teacher has access to a firearm.

And fu#k the way you always make it some Right vs Left thing.

No one wants their kids getting shot up just going to school on a daily basis. Armed teachers will have fu#k-all to do with preventing it.

The NRA has far too much political pull. Enough said. Period.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And fu#k the way you always make it some Right vs Left thing.

No one wants their kids getting shot up just going to school on a daily basis. Armed teachers will have fu#k-all to do with preventing it.

The NRA has far too much political pull. Enough said. Period.


Like someone else pointed out, it's about prevention. Ideally, a shooter wouldn't take the risk.


And in the worse case, an armed teacher probably couldn't make things much worse.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And fu#k the way you always make it some Right vs Left thing.

No one wants their kids getting shot up just going to school on a daily basis. Armed teachers will have fu#k-all to do with preventing it.

The NRA has far too much political pull. Enough said. Period.

Bro you gotta realize everything connects back to politics.

And yes I feel it is valid to point out that the "if it saves even 1 life" or "even 1 is too much" logic is selectively applied. Why shouldn't that be pointed out?

Especially when you could say the same about defensive gun usage: if it saves even one life...

Originally posted by cdtm
Like someone else pointed out, it's about prevention. Ideally, a shooter wouldn't take the risk.


And in the worse case, an armed teacher probably couldn't make things much worse.

Risk what? Committing suicide like many of them are going in for anyway?

It's true, a teacher likely wouldn't make it much worse, but they also wouldn't be likely to help much either, especially if the shooter knows the teacher is armed. Easy fix: take out the teacher first.

Originally posted by Surtur
And yes I feel it is valid to point out that the "if it saves even 1 life" or "even 1 is too much" logic is selectively applied. Why shouldn't that be pointed out?

Especially when you could say the same about defensive gun usage: if it saves even one life...

Please, with the ubiquity of gun access you can read in the news on any given day about some child coming across dad's loaded firearm and killing their sibling or themselves, etc. That kind of shit is a regular occurrence here and no one bats an eye. Gun violence is just a fact of life here. Hell, I had a patient who got shot as a bystander during a drive-by (in a different city than my own). Just in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was lucky that it was just a couple bullet entries on her lower leg.

"Save one life" with more guns... please. That's a non-starter if I ever heard one.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Please, with the ubiquity of gun access you can read in the news on any given day about some child coming across dad's loaded firearm and killing their sibling or themselves, etc. That kind of shit is a regular occurrence here and no one bats an eye. Gun violence is just a fact of life here. Hell, I had a patient who got shot as a bystander during a drive-by (in a different city than my own). Just in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was lucky that it was just a couple bullet entries on her lower leg.

"Save one life" with more guns... please. That's a non-starter if I ever heard one.

You are aware that even the CDC has said that defensive gun usage far outweighs gun murders, right?

Originally posted by Surtur
You are aware that even the CDC has said that defensive gun usage far outweighs gun murders, right?



I seriously doubt he'd care about that inconvenient fact.

I'm fully aware of weapons being useful as a deterrent to burglaries, robberies, etc.

But what we're talking about here is troubled psychopaths shooting a place up oftentimes intending to die. So why would they care if a teacher is armed?

Hell, they might even think it would be more fun that way. F*cked up as that may seem, it wouldn't surprise me.

You are aware that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones, right?

Originally posted by Surtur
^Still curious. Teachers have easy access to scissors. They could have a mental breakdown and stab a student.

Yes or no do we need to have a serious discussion about scissors in our schools?

The question you need to ask then is do scissors have any other purpose in schools other than as a weapon?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You are aware that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones, right?

So the NRA just needs to work harder and make sure every man, woman, and child is armed at all times.

Don't know why they keep slackin'.

Originally posted by cdtm
Like someone else pointed out, it's about prevention. Ideally, a shooter wouldn't take the risk.


And in the worse case, an armed teacher probably couldn't make things much worse.

Because school shooters are well known for their application of logical thinking before carrying out their intentions.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Because school shooters are well known for their application of logical thinking before carrying out their intentions.

Well, how many of them try and shoot up schools with high-end security?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The question you need to ask then is do scissors have any other purpose in schools other than as a weapon?



I think that question would be irrelevant, tbh. The original point Surtur was making is that they could be used as a weapon. Doesn't really matter if they're used for other things in schools.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So the NRA just needs to work harder and make sure every man, woman, and child is armed at all times.

Don't know why they keep slackin'.


^
Strawman

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I think that question would be irrelevant, tbh. The original point Surtur was making is that they could be used as a weapon. Doesn't really matter if they're used for other things in schools.

Not really because the logic is flawed. It can be applied to anything. You can kill someone with a textbook. You can kill people with many of the chemicals found in high school science labs. You can drown someone in a sink of water. Kill them with sports equipment. None of them are weapons and all of them have an actual purpose that is non-weapon related.

Originally posted by Silent Master
^
Strawman

How so?

If you follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion that's what you get.


And no one in their right mind would think that every man and woman of proper carrying age and background holding a weapon would make the world entirely safe from gun violence. That's a patently absurd narrative to tout.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Not really because the logic is flawed. It can be applied to anything. You can kill someone with a textbook. You can kill people with many of the chemicals found in high school science labs. You can drown someone in a sink of water. Kill them with sports equipment. None of them are weapons and all of them have an actual purpose that is non-weapon related.

Eh, you're wasting your time. Gun nuts love that "anything can be used as a weapon" go-to argument.

But stabbing someone and shooting them are two very different experiences:

Stabbing is up close and personal. Shooting someone is very impersonal.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
How so?

If you follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion that's what you get.


And no one in their right mind would think that every man and woman of proper carrying age and background holding a weapon would make the world entirely safe from gun violence. That's a patently absurd narrative to tout.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So the NRA just needs to work harder and make sure every man, woman, and child is armed at all times.

Don't know why they keep slackin'.

Quote the people actually making the above argument.

I was meaning to be a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "man, woman, and child"...

but anyway...



Originally posted by Silent Master
You are aware that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones, right?

Implicit in this statement is that more people need to be armed for defense.

So I was just carrying the idea to its absurd conclusion.

IOW, strawmanning.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Not really because the logic is flawed. It can be applied to anything. You can kill someone with a textbook. You can kill people with many of the chemicals found in high school science labs. You can drown someone in a sink of water. Kill them with sports equipment. None of them are weapons and all of them have an actual purpose that is non-weapon related.


And none of those things you named would really do much good against an armed psychopath either.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You are aware that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones, right?

Gun free zones don't really have any meaningful way of being effective though. If they're surrounded by non gun-free zones with no actual way to prevent guns for passing in an out of them.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Because school shooters are well known for their application of logical thinking before carrying out their intentions.


Actually, they are. A lot of planning goes into them, as evidenced by the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
And none of those things you named would really do much good against an armed psychopath either.

Not sure a teacher with a gun would either. Trained police have a measured accuracy rate of 30% that falls to 18% when under fire. In 2012 in New York police injured 9 bystanders taking down a shooter.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, strawmanning.

Okay, well I'll refine it a little for you then...


"Every responsible, capable, sane, well-trained, lawful owner armed for defense."


That's a lovely ideal, but it's damn near impossible to achieve at this point and would require extensive background checks and very slow access to weapons (Although, I think that's how Japan does it and it works very well for them, it takes months of applications and training to get a gun). But that ain't gonna fly in a country where owning a piece of machinery specifically designed to be deadly is a "right."

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Gun free zones don't really have any meaningful way of being effective though. If they're surrounded by non gun-free zones with no actual way to prevent guns for passing in an out of them.

Sure they do, they keep honest gun owners from bringing their gun into them.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Gun free zones don't really have any meaningful way of being effective though. If they're surrounded by non gun-free zones with no actual way to prevent guns for passing in an out of them.


Exactly right.


Unless one wants a police.state, or thinks eliminating guns world wide is viable (Not banning, completely doing away with existing guns and the capacity to manufacture them), then gun free zones don't work, as you say.

Oh goodness, the Florida Man epidemic is about to hit the roof.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I'm fully aware of weapons being useful as a deterrent to burglaries, robberies, etc.

What I'm asking is if you are aware of the sheer scale of difference between gun murders and DGU's?



And if the presence of weapons does not deter a shooter it is possible that the weapons themselves will be able to stop him. I know you will say "well if he knows there are guns he can go after those with the guns first" and to that I'd say...they should not advertise which teachers are armed. There are holsters that can be hidden within your pants that can give you quick and easy access, they don't need to walk around with a gun visibly on their hips like a cop.

And assuming a school had a few teachers that were armed...perhaps he could take out one by surprise, but after shots are fired the other armed teachers would be alerted.