Quoting 'New York Times':
Gov. Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota on Friday signed into law a bill that would allow teachers to carry guns in the classroom.
While some other states have provisions in their gun laws that make it possible for teachers to be armed, South Dakota is believed to be the first state to pass a law that specifically allows teachers to carry firearms.
About two dozen states have proposed similar bills since the shootings in December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., but all of them have stalled.
Supporters say that the measure signed by Mr. Daugaard, a Republican, is important in a rural state like South Dakota, where some schools are many miles away from emergency responders.
Opponents, which have included the state school board association and teachers association, say this is a rushed measure that does not make schools safer.
The law says that school districts may choose to allow a school employee, hired security officer or volunteer to serve as a “sentinel” who can carry a firearm in the school. The law does not require school districts to do this.
Mr. Daugaard said he was comfortable with the law because it gave school districts the right to choose whether they wanted armed individuals in schools, and that those who were armed would have to undergo firearms training similar to what law enforcement officers received.
“I think it does provide the same safety precautions that a citizen expects when a law enforcement officer enters onto a premises,” Mr. Daugaard said in an interview. But he added that he did not think that many school districts would end up taking advantage of the measure.
Don't worry gun-nuts, South Dakota will protect your right to bear arms.
Aeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 689 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (9 months 6 days ago) and read 3098 times:
I don't see an issue with it. Chances are many have already done so.
The Dakotas have always had an air of the old west.People in those places probably know a lot about guns and how to use and not to. I have family who live in Montana and in a very rural setting. They are mostly gun owners. That part of my family on my mothers side has always hunted and had 'protection' as well to protect property and family from animal and man in case.
There you go..start right off by being insulting. That will always garner support for any argument you may put forth.
This is basically what I've proposed, and I wish the NRA would have proposed instead of armed guards.
All this law does is allow the school districts involved the option to have an armed guard at the school. They don't have to have one if they choose not to.
Personally, I feel the repeal of the federal gun-free zone statute (18 USC 922(q)) will go a long way at making our schools safer places.
I think we can all agree that criminals or those that wish to do harm will just walk by the sign that declares the area a gun-free zone. Why not allow a parent or teacher or administrator that is legally allowed to carry a gun, to do so, if she or he chooses to do so?
The "right to bear arms" has nothing to do with carrying guns in school.
Studies have shown that more guns create more problems but fewer guns create fewer problems. I have no problem if people want to own guns. I do, however, care if people want to own multiple automatic weapons. What is one teacher with one gun going to do to stop one nut carrying an AR-15? Not only do teachers have to be psychologists and referees and parents as well as teachers but, now, they have to be police? And get no extra pay or benefits? What's wrong with this picture?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 6567 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3048 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 7): I do, however, care if people want to own multiple automatic weapons.
1: do you even know what you're talking about when you say "automatic weapons" 2: what's wrong with more than one? If I had one and I occasionally maintained it, it would be as deadly as 50 automatic weapons... guns aren't something you can keep stacking one on top of another, you can really use only one... maybe if one jams, two, but the logic you're employing really doesn't make sense
I know you aren't barking up that tree... I see where you're going. Careful of what you say though, most people aren't going to get what you're saying and go a totally different direction, no fault of their own
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1638 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3043 times:
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 3): Don't you think that teachers should teach and guards should guard ?
I agree. I had many teachers in school who I wouldn't ever trust with a gun. If people in South Dakota really feel that they need protection in schools, they should hire someone to do it and let the teachers keep doing what they're doing.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8): If I had one and I occasionally maintained it, it would be as deadly as 50 automatic weapons... guns aren't something you can keep stacking one on top of another, you can really use only one... maybe if one jams, two, but the logic you're employing really doesn't make sense
Well, I guess if you had some serious forearm strength, you could have one in each hand
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 10719 posts, RR: 16 Reply 10, posted (9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3034 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 8): Their school had armed guards long before their dad was elected President. Not really sure why this is a big deal for some.
Private schools that can afford that sort of thing. But public schools that are constantly being de-funded by the right then given tons of guns? How can they suddenly afford firearms training but can not afford more teachers?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): I know you aren't barking up that tree... I see where you're going. Careful of what you say though, most people aren't going to get what you're saying and go a totally different direction, no fault of their own
Okay, then. What is the point of private citizens owning that many military grade weapons? To overthrow the government? I got news: They have been taking rights away by Patriot Act, among other bills. Why were the same people who were thrilled with Patriot Act now wanting to stockpile weapons and take arms against the government? These are the same people who said "Well, if you are doing nothing wrong, you should have no problem with them looking at your e-mail." What changed? Obama is in the White House.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39416 posts, RR: 76 Reply 11, posted (9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3025 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 10): Private schools that can afford that sort of thing.
I guess you didn't read the article. Sounds like you're implying that rich kids deserve to be protected but poor kids do not.
You're also implying that if schools were flush with cash then you would support this idea. Yes? No?
Mudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3022 times:
I will never understand why there are people in this country, that will not be happy, until we are back to the "Old West"? I believe in having a gun in your home and your car as an extension of your home, but if I wanted to live in a country where everyone walks around with guns, I would move to Yemen or Pakistan.
What is a Teacher going to do, wear it on their side or keep it locked up? Who is going to pay for the training, the qualifying and maintaining of proficiency and the bonding? What happens when a Teacher forgets to lock it up and the curious little kids, pull it out and want to see it and someone gets shot? Before you blast me, I have been a Paramedic for 20 years and I have worked a few accidental shootings, that happened just like that at home and it is never nice seeing a little kid shot.
The subject of EMS being armed has come up recently and it is the same thing, who is going to foot the bill for all the training, maintaining of proficiency and bonding? You can't just leave it up to the individual, because if someone gets shot, you better be able to show that they were trained up, proficient and insured. People seem to think it is as simple as just giving someone a gun and letting them have at it, because of the 2nd Amendment, but do you understand the amount of training LEOs and Military have to go through to not only carry a weapon, but be able to defend someone from taking it from them? Also, what is going to be the escalation of force, does it just begin and end with the gun?
Aeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 689 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2949 times:
Quoting pvjin (Reply 14): That's interesting, I wonder when the first case of teacher going nuts and shooting his/her students happens.
You make it sound like having a gun in a Dakota classroom is something new... ? What makes you think a gun has not 'unofficially' been in classrooms already? Like I mentinoed in my post way above, it's probably already been done for decades. If you don't understand how life is led in many of the outreaches of the Dakotas and has been for decades, that comment sounds like those reactions vis a vis your views on gun controls in the US.
Again, those areas have a different view, history and appreciation of guns than most of us on this forum have. My view is fit the law to the environment. Personally I have a differnet view of guns in cities, large urban areas vs. those in far flung towns and counties with sparse populations. I think decisions should be a county (county not country) decision.
My mothers side of the family live on the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation in North eastern Montana. I don't think I'd even feel remotely safe if some uncle or auntie did not have a gun somewhere. Tribal police may not be responsive as one would like either. Again, fit the law to the circumstances I say.
cmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (9 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2931 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2): Personally, I feel the repeal of the federal gun-free zone statute (18 USC 922(q)) will go a long way at making our schools safer places.
Like promoting having sex to avoid pregnancy. Suggest motorcycle drivers don't use helmets to avoid head injury. Walking in the middle of the road to avoid cars hitting you on the sidewalk.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2): I think we can all agree that criminals or those that wish to do harm will just walk by the sign that declares the area a gun-free zone. Why not allow a parent or teacher or administrator that is legally allowed to carry a gun, to do so, if she or he chooses to do so?
Your logic makes several assumptions that you need to prove
* You suggest criminals do not care about an area being gun free zone. That the risk of standing out with a weapon doesn't have an effect.
* You suggest (in other threads) an area being gun free makes it attractive to those committing crimes. When it is very likely they reason they choose that place is the same reason why the area became a gun free zone.
* You suggest "good armed people" will reduce damages from "bad armed people" more than they will create damages from accidents.
In short, you suggest gun free zones cause there to be more shootings. Provide the stats that the balance is on that side.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5): Teachers have learned that anything which has a high pawn or underground sale value isn't safe in schools. Too many kids lift things from their teachers in today's schools.
Then add the unavoidable accidents.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 8): Obama's children already go to school with armed guards
Obama's kids can't run down to the public playground because some people make them their target for their hate of Obama...
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4738 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2922 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 6): What is one teacher with one gun going to do to stop one nut carrying an AR-15?
That one teacher may well interrupt a delay the asshole and save lives in the process. Otherwise, that one teacher may just sit and be a victim.
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 3): Don't you think that teachers should teach and guards should guard ?
Yes, I do. But, I would rather have a dozen armed teachers and/or administers and visiting parents than one or two guards walking around. Don't get me wrong, there is a deterrent factor there, but, if someone decides to shoot up a school, those visible guards may well be the first to go.
Quoting Mudboy (Reply 12): Who is going to pay for the training, the qualifying and maintaining of proficiency and the bonding?
That's assuming the school districts hire these people and puts them on the payroll as guards in addition to being teachers. I say lift the restrictions and if someone wants to carry, let them, assuming they are eligible to carry under state law. I will submit that any teacher carrying be required to inform the appropriate administrator that he is carrying and a reasonable, responsible storage/carry plan be implemented.
Quoting pvjin (Reply 14): I wonder when the first case of teacher going nuts and shooting his/her students happens
There is the assumption that gun carrying people are a crappy Happy Meal away from shooting the place up. What's to prevent that very same teacher from bringing the gun to school today and shooting the place up?
Quoting cmf (Reply 16): * You suggest criminals do not care about an area being gun free zone. That the risk of standing out with a weapon doesn't have an effect.
Sandy Elementary. The Century Movie Theatre in Aurora. Virginia Tech. Amish School in Nickel Mines, PA. Fort Hood, TX. Hartford Distributors, CT. Any US Post Office shooting.
All these places were gun-free zones by statue or policy. Didn't seem slow these guys down.
Quoting cmf (Reply 16): In short, you suggest gun free zones cause there to be more shootings. Provide the stats that the balance is on that side.
Actually, I don't suggest that. I suggest that the shooters have an easier time of it in gun-free zones.
Quoting cmf (Reply 16): * You suggest "good armed people" will reduce damages from "bad armed people" more than they will create damages from accidents.
You're right, I do suggest that. Accidents happen when firearms are handled (or mishandled). A properly holstered firearm is about as dangerous as a brick. My suggestion is that an asshole intent on killing several people is confronted by someone with a gun that asshole's attention will be shifted to the armed person. It's my position that when that attention shifts, innocent lives are saved and the clock ticks closer to an armed response by police.
Tell me; why have police departments shifted to an active shooter protocol or Immediate Action Rapid Deployment techniques. Because they know that the sooner a shooter is disrupted, the lower likely-hood of high casualties.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6842 posts, RR: 29 Reply 18, posted (9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2901 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 6): What is one teacher with one gun going to do to stop one nut carrying an AR-15?
Lets use Columbine and Sandy Hook as contrasting examples.
Columbine had a full time armed police officer on the campus. Five minutes after the shooting started there were already two dead and ten wounded when the officer was able to reach the scene, but was outside the building. The officer exchanged shots with one of the shooters, who ducked back into the building without either one being hit.
Four minutes later the first external police officers arrived on the scene. There had been another brief exchange of fire between the school based deputy who was by his car in the parking lot and one of the shooters in the building.
A teacher (coach) was shot about this time as he approached the gunmen. Would him having a weapon allowed him to possible take down one or both of the shooters? We will never know. We do know he was shot and died later in the afternoon.
The armed SWAT team and many more officers arrived on the scene quickly.
The school resource officer and the majority of the officers arriving on the scene did not enter the school building because they had no protective armor/ vests.
The SWAT team did not enter the building until at least a half-hour after the last exchange of gunfire - and all the student victims were dead or had been shot. The gunmen committed suicide, apparently based on their plan, two minutes after the SWAT team entered the building, but were not in contact with the SWAT team. There is no indication they knew the police had entered the building.
The shooter used his AR-15 to shoot out a locked glass door and enter the school. The school principal and the school psychologist heard the gun shots, apparently recognized them and charged to confront the gunman. They were both killed. Would they have been able to hit the gunman if they had weapons? Likely, but we will never know.
The first two police officers arriving at Sandy Hook entered the school without protective vests and saw the gunman. He ducked into a room before they could fire, and shot himself.
I'm not saying I like the idea of armed teachers, but teachers/ school staff confronted both gunmen very early in the shooting. Any armed person confronting the gunman/men in either instance could have gotten off a couple shots even if the person had an AR-15 configured for full automatic. They might have hit the gunman.
It takes a LOT of practice to be even partially accurate with an automatic weapon. Even the military teaches people to not fire on full automatic - because you cannot reliably hit anything. Fire three shot bursts.
All the TV and movie firing of weapons you see on automatic is pure BS. The weapons rise when fired. Even Arnold in his prime could not have held a Thompson sub-machine gun on target on full automatic. You use full automatic to make the other people duck. Not to hit anyone.
Full automatic is also a great opportunity for the person trying to take down the person firing on full automatic. Because you will know when the magazine is empty and you will have 5 to 15 seconds to aim and carefully place a killing shot.
In the Columbine case, the coach/teacher saw the gunmen were shooting. In the Sandy Hook case, the principal and psychologist had heard shots and literally saw an armed man holding a smoking gun.
Would they have fired if they had a weapon? I think so.
Would they have been effective? In Columbine - I really doubt it. They were too well prepared. At Sandy Hook with two school staff against one shooter - probably they could have stopped the murders of the children.
But that is just my guess.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 6): Not only do teachers have to be psychologists and referees and parents as well as teachers but, now, they have to be police?
I don't see anything requiring them to be police. It looks like the Texas proposed law - allowing those who choose to do so to have weapons.
Personally, I see armed teachers as a greater risk to students than unarmed teachers.
The teachers will literally have to carry the guns with them at all times, and that won't happen.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 6567 posts, RR: 51 Reply 19, posted (9 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2886 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 10): Okay, then. What is the point of private citizens owning that many military grade weapons? To overthrow the government? I got news: They have been taking rights away by Patriot Act, among other bills. Why were the same people who were thrilled with Patriot Act now wanting to stockpile weapons and take arms against the government? These are the same people who said "Well, if you are doing nothing wrong, you should have no problem with them looking at your e-mail." What changed? Obama is in the White House.
I don't really know where you are going with this, I can ask where the people against Gitmo and the Patriot Act went, and "What changed? Obama is in the White House." goes the other way. Did you protest Gitmo and the Patriot Act? If you did, why did you stop?
About stockpiling, I don't know any of the survivalist types, I'm sure there are nuts out there, but I have a few just because I like to collect them and shoot them and that is what my friends do too. Why have more than one? IDK why collect anything?
Minus David Koresh and a few other notable examples, the people that have a bunch of scary assault weapons aren't the ones you should be concerned about... it is the common thug or angry Joe that has a single handgun. They do most of the shooting. When my friends with a bunch of 'assault rifles' get pissed, they don't arm a mob and go shooting up a place... not too sure where you keep going with the stockpiling
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18): It takes a LOT of practice to be even partially accurate with an automatic weapon. Even the military teaches people to not fire on full automatic - because you cannot reliably hit anything. Fire three shot bursts.
Partially true. The reason they don't teach fully auto M-16/M-4 shooting is because the ones we have now aren't designed for fully auto, 3 round burst isn't actually holding the trigger down and stopping after 3 rounds have gone off.
And there is plenty of fully auto training with M249s, M240Bs, and M2s. The methodology isn't spray and pray, it's a lot more controlled
I don't know why we're even talking about fully automatic, they are very rare even in the US and it's not easy to convert. There are simple ways to do it that usually result in killing yourself or have a gun that doesn't stop firing until the magazine is empty (even if you let your finger off the trigger) but no practical way
However in first high pressure situation in a combat mode - not likely. I've personally seen trained US Marines take longer than that to change magazines in combat the first time. When my son was in Iraq in 2003, close to 1/3 of his army unit expended zero rounds in their first firefight.
Both the Columbine shooters were observed to be fumbling while changing magazines early in the shooting. That allowed several of the wounded to get to safety. They were the best prepared of all the school shooters.
But the point is that there is a chance to take down the shooter if one has training.
I doubt any of the teachers could have done so, but it was possible.
There is a mental requirement to be able to fire at another person immediately and without question. In these school shootings, verbal warnings, warning shots, etc would have only put the teacher in greater danger.
Not many people have the ability to shoot to kill the first time they encounter a dangerous situation. (I actually think the principal might have been able to do so - the mother protecting her cubs instinct - but we don't really know.)
I really think the only thing that guns in the classroom will do besides allowing more guns to be stolen is ensure that the teachers are killed first while they hesitate to fire.
But, you can see where your statement was a blanket statement aimed at gun owners in general. I'm a fan of civil debate and do my damndest to keep from calling people names. Though, in these threads I do call the killers "assholes". I will refrain from doing that.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18): The teachers will literally have to carry the guns with them at all times, and that won't happen.
I agree, there is risk here, but I think allowing a teacher and the school administrators to jointly make the risk/benefit analysis is the right way to go. They know their school and students better than anyone else. If they decide to that allowing a teacher to be armed in class isn't worth the risk, that's fine...but let them make the call.
Further, allowing parents and visitors to the school that have already been granted a carry license from their state of residence to come on school grounds allows an extra layer of defense that may just tip the balance against the attacker.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6842 posts, RR: 29 Reply 24, posted (9 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2831 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 23): Further, allowing parents and visitors to the school that have already been granted a carry license from their state of residence to come on school grounds allows an extra layer of defense that may just tip the balance against the attacker.
I strongly disagree with this idea.
The school, and the police responding to any incident need to know exactly who has weapons on the school property.
Parents have never been involved in any of the school shootings to my knowledge - if they have, please let me know.
Any parents inside a school with a weapon are likely to be taken down by police as they will be mistaken as the shooter by police. At the very best, any parents with weapons in the school are going to delay police from confronting the shooter because they will have to be identified and moved out of the area.
And I don't think anyone can come up with a worse case scenario than parents hear of an incident at their children's school and respond with their weapons.
25 kiwirob: I can't see how this is going to make any difference? Dude walks into a classroom and starts shooting, the teacher will probably be target no. 1, they
26 fr8mech: Who said anything about a parent responding? Ideally, by the time some incident hits the news, the event will be over. At my kids' school there are a
27 DocLightning: Yes. The fact that they are not absolutely deranged and wouldn't bring a firearm into their classrooms for fear of discovery. But when the firearm is
28 DeltaMD90: I agree with this. That is why I think that registration wouldn't be pointless... people say criminals wouldn't register guns. But a lot of times, th
29 fr8mech: Again, who said every teacher? Those that are licensed and choose to carry, with the blessing of the administrator. We allow it on the flight deck, d
30 Geezer: The very first thing we hear out of anyone on the left who are all so "terrified" by guns, is ALWAYS........anyone who owns a gun is a "nut". What I
31 Mudboy: Every person that carries a gun as a LEO or an Armed Security Guard has to be bonded, it is not as simple as allowing a person to carry a firearm. Yo
32 fr8mech: In that case, I would assume the school district would assume the cost. From the article: The law says that school districts may choose to allow a sc
33 Mudboy: For the record, I am not nor ever will be, "on the left". I only have my opinion on this because of what I have seen in my career. I am only trying t
34 cmf: By listing those events you suggest they would not have happened if it wasn't for the gun free zone. Love to see evedince for that theory. Do they? D
35 WestJet747: But the Columbine shooters weren't trained whatsoever, were they? (or is that the point you're trying to make?) I agree with rfields in his response
36 CalebWilliams: Again, as posed in the other thread: can you prove that restricting guns leads to more violence or rather does the existing violence lead to more res
37 DeltaMD90: No one can because the answer is way more complex than more guns = less crime or less guns = more crime. If the answer was black and white there woul
38 Geezer: No, I'm not missing anything; and nothing in the above has the slightest bearing on what I said; I have ZERO interest in what happens in Australia; I
39 CalebWilliams: That's great that you're well informed, but please prove your assertion that gun restrictions lead to higher gun crime.
40 cmf: Some people just need to reinvent the wheel over and over. Other learn from what others have done. In this Rome the rule is that you must respect the