- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Sentinels are a first response, identical in nature to having staff trained in 1st-Aid and CPR. Just as one would not expect first responders to perform surgery, Sentinels are not intended to deal with hostage situations or acts of terrorism.Mass shooters do not stand still, they would engage in a shootout with these sentinals. And what if this mass shooter is cruel and cunning enough to take hostages and stand among them?
Your comment doesn't make sense. I'm quoting as I go. It's fairly common on vbulletin boards.You're not even using the quote code properly. That's just sloppiness.
I'm pretty certain I can decide whether I carry a gun.No, you cannot control whether or not a gun is in your classroom.
Again, you dishonestly change the context of my comment. My statement was in response to what kids know and how it relates to the relationship I have with the student. I said I cannot control certain factors which might impact that relationship, but I can control whether or not the relationship between the student and me involves a gun.If a sandy hook style shooting occurred in your classroom, you would have no control over the gun, because you are unarmed yourself.
That's not what you said, You said you could control rather or not there was a gun in your classroom. You are not the only person in your classroom. You are not the only person who gets to make a choice rather or not to bring in a gun. If someone else brings a gun into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom. You don't get to make that choice. If a cop walks into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom and you have no control over it. If an Adam Lansa wana-be brings a gun into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom and you have no control over it. If you were in SD and a Sentinel brought a gun into your classroom, there would be a gun in your classroom and you would have no control over it.I'm pretty certain I can decide whether I carry a gun.
That's not what you said, You said you could control rather or not there was a gun in your classroom. You are not the only person in your classroom. You are not the only person who gets to make a choice rather or not to bring in a gun. If someone else brings a gun into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom. You don't get to make that choice. If a cop walks into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom and you have no control over it. If an Adam Lansa wana-be brings a gun into your classroom, there is a gun in your classroom and you have no control over it. If you were in SD and a Sentinel brought a gun into your classroom, there would be a gun in your classroom and you would have no control over it.
A teacher does not have authority to prohibit otherwise lawful firearms from their classroom. This is not private property. This is District property, so if the District has given a Sentinel permission to carry on District property, they may do so.But... What if you posted a polite sign on the door requesting that guns not be brought into the room?
"Active shooter" scenarios are a part of police training, and so are also a part of Sentinel training, since Sentinels take the exact same firearms course as the local police department. A Sentinel is as capable of handling an active shooter as any local cop. A Sentinel is less likely to shoot a child than the mass killer because the Sentinel is aiming at the mass killer, not children, while the mass killer is aiming at the children, not his own head. Did I say that right? We see this kind of unknowable presence of Sentinels as a good thing, because someone like Adam Lansa can't know how many armed people are in a given school or where they are. This makes planning an attack incredibly difficult.
An active shooter in a school is always a bad situation. There is no one-size-fits-all easy button answer. There are no guarantees. Neither cops nor Sentinels are intended to be a solution to every conceivable scenario, and we realize that. Much like a condom doesn't guarantee 100% safety against STDs or pregnancies, it's still very effective the majority of the time.Glad to see the NRA's asinine lone armed teacher has been dropped in here. That idea was beyond bad.
But the standard firearms training for law enforcement doesn't involve engaging active shooters, it trains on simple targets, this is why SWAT is an advanced course with far more expensive training methods. It is not cost effective to attempt to train every Rookie to be a school corridor sweeper while in the academy.
Sometimes the best option is to not fire at all, yes, and that is part of the firearms course.It isn't a volunteer armed citizen will purposefully aim at a child but will have a very cluttered engagement area with the strong possibility of children moving in front of and behind the bad guy. (this is why many SWAT teams use some form of carbine/MP5/, not because of any distance requirement but the much longer sight plane.)
The problem as I see it if these Sentinels are to be trained to the level of unpaid volunteer Reserve Officers they will have to pass a more intense backround check, beyond simple criminal past. The former Assist Chief of the Lawton PD told me a few years ago it wasn't the criminal back round that rejected most recruits to the force- it was the psych eval that cuts most recruits loose. Posturing politicians may be comfortable putting armed people in schools, but professionals should demand at least the same level of volunteer the academy does.
The problem will be the same that local police departments face, enough qualified people who will foot a rather steep bill to train to a level of competence beyond CCW or rookie cop. There is a reason most departments don't have their patrol officers rush into schools as they arrive, going in from different directions and in a piecemeal fashion is not a recipe for success.
So that leads us to the volunteers and their need to be able to do more than shoot. To not form a circular firing squad coz unless the badguy hits while all the armed teachers are in the break room they will be scattered around the school's grounds. The ability to move in a way so they don't just rush blindly to the sound of fire and add to the body count AND be able to hit a body armored shooter in the head after running and with all that fear/anger adrenaline pumping through their bodies- that takes a bit more training than what rookie cops get- hence that is why SWATT is an elite unit.
That sentence does not make any sense. Please re-word it.I'd say the difficulty many PDs have getting Sentinels for traffic/school zone/funeral escort/admin work the odds of there being ANY sort of viable concealed carry teacher REACT Force that arms, trains and then continues to practice is pretty poor.
Oh and how does a bad guy know who is armed in the school- any adult you see you put down, especially those not running away. You can shoot kids at your leisure afterwards.
That's exactly what I said. Follow the line of the conversation.That's not what you said
Post #239 I said:That's exactly what I said. Follow the line of the conversation.
Me: And kids know. Kids find out things in ways I couldn't even describe. Whether it's a teacher was a stripper before the child was even born, or whether a teacher has a homosexual partner or whether a teacher is carrying a firearm, children know.
You: So really, everything affects your relationship with every child. I'm not seeing anything unique about guns here. Do you want to just ban every negative thing a child could ever learn about the teacher?
Me: I can control whether or not a gun is in my classroom. I cannot control if another teacher was a stripper or if a fellow teacher is a homosexual. I can, however, control whether or not a gun is in my classroom.
We were not discussing gun control, we were discussing whether we arm teachers and the change it would cause to the relationship dynamic. You and/or others claimed the students wouldn't know, and I said they would, citing real life examples from my own experiences. You then engaged in hyperbole, asking if we should just ban every negative thing, and I responded by saying I can't help another teacher as a stripper or homosexual, but I can control whether there is a gun in my classroom, and thus, can control that element of the teacher/student relationship.
That's exactly what I said. The rest of your post now becomes moot, once this part of your post is now proven false.
...because I have quite a lot of experience carrying a gun in places which may not want me to have a gun (but is still legal) and not getting 'made'. I did not say the students would not know. I asked how they would know. You responded by saying that students tend to find out many things the teacher never intended, and I accepted that.How would the student even know you were armed in the first place for it to be an issue?
And I specifically said you and/or others, because I did not remember if you made the claim or not.Post #239 I said:
...because I have quite a lot of experience carrying a gun in places which may not want me to have a gun (but is still legal) and not getting 'made'. I did not say the students would not know. I asked how they would know. You responded by saying that students tend to find out many things the teacher never intended, and I accepted that.
If someone else stated 'students would never know', I'm not responsible for that claim.
Yes, I can. Because we were talking about the relationship between teacher and student, and how a gun changes that. It had nothing to do with a school intruder, only the every day relationship between student and teacher.My point that you cannot control rather or not there is a gun in your classroom remains.
100% true, but completely unrelated to what we were discussing when I said that. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.You can only control rather or not you bring a gun into your classroom, but you cannot make that decision for others.
So you're telling me to "Follow the line of the conversation" while you can't do that yourself.And I specifically said you and/or others, because I did not remember if you made the claim or not.
No you can't, and you admit this below....Yes, I can.
...so now you're equivocating.100% true...
Well, along that line of discussion, guns aren't seen as a negative out here. A teacher with a gun is no big deal. If you were teaching out here and if you had a gun and if a kid saw it and if that kid gave a **** to ask about it, the kid would probably tell you about the guns they shoot. Most of the kids here come from households with firearms and parents who carry in public all the time. It's not new, there's little to no mystery about guns. Children out here are exposed to guns and exposure to a thing tends to remove fears and stereotypes; which is why people who oppose ssm don't generally know any gay people and people who are indifferent or supportive of ssm generally do know gay people. Same thing.Because we were talking about the relationship between teacher and student, and how a gun changes that. It had nothing to do with a school intruder, only the every day relationship between student and teacher.....but completely unrelated to what we were discussing when I said that. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
Uhh, that's stupidly redundant. Why would I waste my time doing that when I can simply write [quote][/quote]? Is your attention span so short you need to be reminded each time to what post I'm referring?Still not using the quote code correctly...when you quote someone, their name and the blue 'backtrack' button should appear in every quote box....sloppiness....
I very clearly posted the conversation.So you're telling me to "Follow the line of the conversation" while you can't do that yourself.
Which is why I included the "and/or" part. Seriously, reading comprehension isn't difficult.I am not responsible for what others say. I am only responsible for what I say and not anything else.
*sigh*No you can't, and you admit this below....
No, that is two separate conversations. Why are incapable of understanding this?...so now you're equivocating.
But it changes the dynamic of the teacher/student relationship, as I've already explained. Multiple times, as I've explained the above multiple times. Now it's upon you to show you're capable of understanding it.Well, along that line of discussion, guns aren't seen as a negative out here. A teacher with a gun is no big deal.
See that's just the thing: You claimed it, but you haven't explained it. In SD, OR, or any other state where firearms are in schools, it's not a problem, so I have no reason to believe you.But it changes the dynamic of the teacher/student relationship, as I've already explained.
See that's just the thing: You claimed it, but you haven't explained it. In SD, OR, or any other state where firearms are in schools, it's not a problem, so I have no reason to believe you.
...I just can't be trolled that easy. Be more creative.Most normal people don't like being near a weapon that can kill you in an instant, even if the purported "sentinel" is purportedly on your side. (God I love NRA rightspeak)
Now I guess conservatives aren't normal or at least they like pretending that they're sooooo tough that they don't mind having weapons around. But a weaponized environment is unsettling and not conducive to learning. Take your guns and go to Starbucks and hang out like a tough guy. Keep your guns out of school.
Yes, I did. I explained it, it's not my fault if you didn't read it.See that's just the thing: You claimed it, but you haven't explained it.
You said it was so, but you didn't explain how, you didn't offer supporting links, nothing.Yes, I did. I explained it, it's not my fault if you didn't read it.
Sure, someone pulls a knife on you and you're going to ask them to wait while you run all the way to the other side of the campus to get your gun.
That's so ****ing retarded.
It's incredibly difficult to disarm someone without getting shot in the process. No box required.
It's just so much safer/cheaper/easier for folks to keep their gun on their person. We just skip past all the liability and lock-boxes and code words etc and cut right to it.No one's suggesting the guns are "across campus" or even across the classroom.
And it's not like the shooter's gonna teleport into the classroom as soon as he starts attacking. A guard will see him on the security cameras, and the PA will announce "The superintendent is in the building." Teachers unlock their guns and lock the door. They'll be well-prepared to shoot the maniac the moment he enters the door.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?