(May 15, 2019 at 4:26 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(May 15, 2019 at 4:22 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: 1. No. All teacher's do not need to be armed - and It's unlikely any union would allow a teacher to be forced to carry. You are just making shit up here.
2. Duh. Sure - and they repell firearms as well? If a kid drives up to the steps, gets out of the car and starts firing - he' s going right past your metal detector.
You won't need it - the bullets flying past will clue you in that the kids armed and dangerous.
Try harder.
In that scenario, where is the deterrent factor of armed teachers? It hasn't deterred anything.
Boru
No It's not a deterrence AT THAT POINT where the little monster is shooting at people. At that point -- having the fastest response possible with deadly force is the best response -- and this is the tactic that a majority of police agencies are now employing.
But they have to travel to get there.
The teachers are already there. And THEY CAN BE TRAINED. Perfect? No. Better in my opinion than cowering and waiting for minutes while the carnage ensues.
Where an armed teacher IS a deterrent is before the shooting. A coward is more likely to attack if he knows all of his potential victims are unarmed. Cowards LOVE those " gun free" signs...
