Teachers should be armed

  • Follow Letters

Before the uninformed start attacking Columbia County Sheriff Clay Whittle over his comments about the Second Amendment and his suggestion about putting up signs that read “12 teachers are armed,” it should be noted that Georgia law already provides for the arming of teachers – Georgia Code 16-11-127.1 (c)(6):

“A person who has been authorized in writing by a duly authorized official of the school to have in such person’s possession or use as part of any activity being conducted at a school building, school property, or school function a weapon which would otherwise be prohibited by this Code section. Such authorization shall specify the weapon or weapons which have been authorized and the time period during which the authorization is valid ... .”

I have a few questions. Will the Columbia County Board of Education have the courage to implement this law? If they do, will other counties in the CSRA follow their lead? And why only 12 teachers per school? I think we should allow any teacher with a concealed-weapons permit to carry on campus. Teachers already have proved they are willing to defend their students. They need to be able to defend their students with more than locked doors, staplers or tape dispensers.

Remember, when seconds count, and help is only minutes away, an armed teacher is your child’s best protector.

Art Denney

North Augusta, S.C.

Comments (18) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 03/02/13 - 07:06 am
8
4
I've been saying this since

I've been saying this since two days after the Sandy Hook shooting. What are we waiting for? It makes too much sense, therefore it confuses politicians. I'm starting to believe that common sense truly baffles politicians, and people on the left; they just can't process it.

Teachers would gladly give their lives for their children, in most cases. So why not TRAIN THEM, and give them the ability to protect these children ADEQUATELY. Not giving them a stapler to fight a gun, but thanks anyway Federal government for the awesome advice. I think the federal government also suggested throwing hot coffee on the shooter; just in case you need further proof they are completely void of common sense.

I know several deputy partners of mine who are married to school teachers and I've met them personally. Most of them would be willing to take the EXTENSIVE training and be responsible for a firearm in school. This would reduce cost and be a preventative measure, plus a responsive measure in the case of an active shooter.

No, I don't believe it should be FORCED upon any school teacher to carry, if they aren't comfortable with a firearm. But I guarentee you, there are at least 6 or 7 teachers in EVERY SCHOOL, who would be willing to be issued a firearm for protection of the school. There are many brave men and women in our school system; give them the chance.

What are we waiting for? Another shooting? Unfortunately, this might be exactly true. The left will stop at NOTHING to take our guns away from us. Here we have this common sense answer to the school shootings problem, and instead of trying it; they are STILL talking about taking away guns from law abiding citizens. So YES, another shooting might be exactly what they are waiting on, because it would propel their agenda of taking guns away. THIS MUST END!!

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 03/02/13 - 08:06 am
2
1
Armed Teachers

But, myfather, if some teachers are armed, do you think the shooter(s) would target the teachers first? I am not against teachers having that protection, I am just wondering about the mindset of the bad guy(s). Everytime there has been a school shooting and murders, I thought if a, or some, teachers had a weapon of their own, maybe lives would have been saved.........I do agree with you, by the way!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 03/02/13 - 08:47 am
6
2
"But, myfather, if some
Unpublished

"But, myfather, if some teachers are armed, do you think the shooter(s) would target the teachers first?"

Perhaps....but if we have cops there, they might target THEM first. Either way, the kids have a better chance if SOMEONE who is on their side is armed.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 03/02/13 - 08:49 am
7
2
Let's try this again today.
Unpublished

Let's try this again today. Is there anyone on the left that can give a logical reason why only the wealthy are allowed to have fully automatic weapons? Why would you not allow common citizens to have them? Remember....I asked for a logical reason, not an emotional one, and I did say law abiding citizens.

Good luck "progressives." I await your response.

zippy
250
Points
zippy 03/02/13 - 09:34 am
6
2
They will not target the

They will not target the teacher first, they would avoid the school. Name one shooting that took place where there was a known armed person present. That's why they pick schools and movie theaters. They are not looking for a fight, they want attention. An armed guard creates an obstacle. That's why an armed society is a safe society

dichotomy
32919
Points
dichotomy 03/02/13 - 10:07 am
6
1
School shooters are cowards.

School shooters are cowards. That is why they select a school. They know there is no opposition. I assure you that a couple of teachers returning fire would stop them in their tracks and send them running for the door....if they could still run. Any return fire would break off an ongoing incident whether it be an armed teachers or paid guard(s). If guards you really need to have more than one per school. Allowing armed teachers would be the most economical in addition to providing sufficient numbers. One 60 year old security guard cannot protect a whole school building and would be the obious first target for a surprise attack.

myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 03/02/13 - 10:43 am
4
2
The teachers that volunteer

The teachers that volunteer to be trained and carry, would be anonymous to anyone besides the teachers and principal. Theres no way the shooter would know exactly which 6 or 7 would be armed; UNLESS someone from the inside were to leak that information to the shooter, which is highly unlikely.

This would actually work better in PREVENTING a shooting, than uniformed law enforcement. With a uniformed officer, he would be the first target and probable casualty, because he is highly visible in his uniform. Why do you think air marshalls wear civilian clothing; so they can't be picked out of the crowd. Also, you would have to have numerous uniformed officers in EVERY school, so the shooter wouldn't be unable to target each one; this would cost BILLIONS each year. Arming teachers would save money and MAKE OUR SCHOOLS SAFER. Isn't that the goal, to make our schools safer?

This is such a ridiculous issue. I've got two school age children (7&5 year old girls) and would have ZERO problem with a responsible teacher, being TRAINED and allowed to have a firearm in the school. Again, this wouldn't be for every teacher, but those willing. They are supposed to be responsible people, right? They are teaching our chilldren, so their character is supposed to be above average, right?

What are we waiting for? Is this common sense to complicated for our politicians? I'm honestly beginning to believe common sense is completely DEAD in this society. I don't mean on its last leg, I mean completely dead, flatlined!! We do the same things over and over, expecting different results. We are afraid to try anything new to see if it's better. Thank you trial lawyers, because they are one serious reason for this because people are afraid of getting sued everytime they turn the corner.

deestafford
27600
Points
deestafford 03/02/13 - 11:16 am
2
6
What intelligent comments!

I bet if this letter appeared in the paper of a liberal city the comments would be completely the opposite. Kudos to y'all.
As to politicians...I want the clinic that performs the temporary lobotomy on a person when they become a politician and then reverses it when they are no longer in office.

soapy_725
43678
Points
soapy_725 03/02/13 - 11:17 am
1
0
The Colorado Church shooting for one.
Unpublished

Shootings at local hospitals. The last time we were at Doctor's (not where the shootings occurred) armed security was all over the place.

Replace at least two of the "associate principals or administrative staff" with rent-a-cops in each school. Corporations outsource their security personnel. It is good business on several levels and is effective. They are already trained. They would not be additional government employees with benefit packages, bureaucratic support staff and a union. They would not be micro managed by the ARC commissioners or the RCBOE.

These individuals DO NOT need to be teachers. Teachers are already asked to be teachers, baby sitters, psychotherapist, pro-parents, adult mentors, self defense experts, etc. Don't ask them to be law enforcement officers for laws that are not enforced.

The "law" does not say teachers, it say authorized persons. Persons authorized to have a gun in a "gun free zone". This could be a parent? But we cannot go there either.

Don't add additional responsibilities to an organization that cannot deliver on it "core mission" of producing young men and women that can become functioning members of society.

Professional private security is the answer. Ask Mr. Sizemore. Ask Fort Gordon, SRS, P&G, etc. Organizations that appreciate security.

soapy_725
43678
Points
soapy_725 03/02/13 - 11:25 am
1
0
Why does everyone that claims to
Unpublished

hate government intrusion in our everyday lives, jump at the chance to enlarge the scope of government control? It is crazy.

It is the issue of, I will give up all of my FREEDOM to be absolutely safe. N. Korea for example. Any totalitarian state. Be calm and let the state save us.

Private security does not increase government. It increases private jobs. Jobs that can be filled by qualified, non sociopaths, retuning or retiring military personnel.

As the TV adds says, don't ask your doctor to repair your car.

Riverman1
83899
Points
Riverman1 03/02/13 - 11:37 am
5
0
Let's look where it's been

Let's look where it's been tried. In Israel, at least 3 teachers and principals not named, carry concealed guns in EVERY school. They have never had a case of a terrorist inflicting harm at a school.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 03/02/13 - 12:40 pm
5
2
The
Unpublished

The anti-gun/anti-constitution left has completely lost their mind!!

http://am1370wdea.com/boy-eats-pop-tart-suspended-from-school-2-days/

Sweet son
10398
Points
Sweet son 03/02/13 - 12:50 pm
2
0
Like I have said before.

The armed school personnel do not have to be the principal or other office staff members. That would probably be the best case scenario since most access to schools is through one door close to the office. But other teachers and staff members who WANT to get the training and make a difference should be considered. It there were several hand guns within the school wouldn't it make sense that they be scattered around rather than all be in one place like the office. My one door observation does sound good in theory but we all know that even if all the rest of the doors are locked a gunman would figure out a way to get in if his mind was set on it. Lots to talk about. Lots to think about. I do believe trained/armed staff members in schools could deter and/or stop an attacker!

WalterBradfordCannon
1442
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 03/02/13 - 12:57 pm
3
5
Columbine had an armed guard

Columbine had an armed guard during their massacre. Armed guards are not great protection. A better idea is making the school doors impenetrable without secure access. If a shooter comes to a school, he could access the front office. He would need access to each door to proceed from there. Not impossible to achieve, but would sure slow them down, a lot. Think about a minimart or gas station in a high crime area. Do they post armed guards or place their people in secured areas?

myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 03/02/13 - 04:02 pm
6
3
Mr. Cannon

Columbine had a SINGLE armed guard, just as the vast majority of schools have now; either one or less in most schools today. Again, ONE GUARD=First casualty. If the shooter has prior knowledge there is only ONE GUARD, he would go after them first, then be free to continue his rampage of shooting innocent children, with zero concerns. Four guards would work, but would be extremely expensive for a Country 16 trillion in debt already.

Now, think about this with common sense; say there are 7 armed teachers who are anonymous, inside the school. The shooter has NO IDEA which ones, or where they are located within the school. He's planning an event he wants to be successful and bring him fame; which will mean killing multiple victims. The LAST thing he wants is to be stopped, prior to a massive slaughter. He also doesn't want to be confronted while shooting, because then, HE would have to dodge bullets, while trying to shoot people. Mythodically shooting people isn't so easy when the SHOOTER has to dodge bullets.

Now, for those who've never trained for such events, LISTEN CLOSELY. We are talking about an ACTIVE SHOOTER, NOT a hostage situation. So, before you saying something about the teachers bullets and what they might hit; this assassin is already spraying bullets EVERYWHERE. He is NOT taking hostages, but KILLING as quickly and effectively as he can. So, you've got the bullets flying everywhere, the only question is; would you like some of them flying towards the shooter, or just at innocent children?

Now, I've heard people say "What if the teacher misses, what about those bullets?" I also heard people actually say "The teacher might hit someone near the shooter, by accident.

Well, lets address this; one again we are talking about an active shooter, not hostage taker. I can't express this enough. We law enforcement train completely different for active shooters. If you have an ACTIVE SHOOTER in the school, shooting people ACTIVELY, then you wouldn't think people would be gathering around this shooter, taking numbers to be shot next. You would assume EVERYONE would be fleeing AWAY from the shooter, therefore there shouldn't be so many innocent people around him; and if they are around him, they are already in grave danger anyway, because he is shooting at them.

Sorry, but I like the idea of HIM having to dodge bullets; not just the children and teachers. I like to think SOME of the bullets in this school, are being fired towards HIM, not just from him. This just doesn't seem difficult to comprehend; but I've been a deputy for 16 years, so I've trained for this scenario many times.

Also, this shooter has high powered firearms, you don't think he can shoot his way through doors? No, that wouldn't take very long either. Adam Lanza shot his way into Sandy Hook, what makes you think the next one won't do the same?

Arming teachers would be the biggest PREVENTATIVE measure you could take. Just like TASERS for law enforcement actually PREVENT more physical altercations. Tasers are DISPLAYED much more often than used, because when displayed, it makes the bad guy think twice about fighting the police.

You arm the schools, then BROADCAST IT on the news, letting people know there are armed personnel in the school. No, of course you don't broadcast the exact teachers or faculty who are carrying firearms, but you broadcast the SCHOOL. Then these shooters will NOT choose our schools as a place for mass shootings, they will choose an easier (Gun free) target. Isn't that the point; to protect our children? It WOULD WORK, so what are we waiting for?

deestafford
27600
Points
deestafford 03/02/13 - 04:15 pm
5
2
MyFather 15 is right on with his comments

You have 12 unidentified armed teachers and you will have as safe school as could reasonably bea expected. The teachers would have their weapons concealed and never shown to anyone unless needed. If they are wearing a polo-type shirt they would have an ankle hoster.

shrimp for breakfast
5456
Points
shrimp for breakfast 03/02/13 - 04:52 pm
7
0
You know what

At first I was against all these armed people in schools and thought that it was downright nuts.
I will humbly admit that I didn't think it through.
My position has changed. Although I hate guns I would rather have as many good guys as possible with a weapon ready to protest innocent citizens against the bad guys who are illegally armed and have no respect for human life.

It is Ok for me to change my opinion about this subject right?

CobaltGeorge
158682
Points
CobaltGeorge 03/02/13 - 05:01 pm
2
2
Shrimp

That is what factual, common sense debates are all about. It is so bad that a liberal minds can not comprehend "Facts & Common Sense"

Jake
32532
Points
Jake 03/02/13 - 05:39 pm
2
2
Cost

There are many teachers that do not want to be armed. Most have plenty to worry about without having the burden of carrying and securing a weapon.
That being said, if armed personnel are going to employed in all schools then that is going to cost a lot of money. Who is going to pay for it? Will it come out of the educational funds which in most states is already stretched thin?

CobaltGeorge
158682
Points
CobaltGeorge 03/02/13 - 06:42 pm
3
2
Jake

We are talking about the school teachers and officials. Why would it cost a lot of money. It would be the teachers and officials own firearm. The only cost would be the training requirements.

Sweet son
10398
Points
Sweet son 03/02/13 - 07:00 pm
3
0
@CobaltGeorge

Even if we have to purchase firearms for school staff and pay for training I think that the cost would minimal for the amount of 'peace of mind' that would be gained by the costs.

I am sure that each school would have those who would be interested in the safety of the school and step up for the opportunity to be able to participate in the protect of our children!

Darby
25639
Points
Darby 03/02/13 - 07:13 pm
4
0
Let's not get too specific....

just say that MORE THAN TEN staff and/or faculty members are armed. Leave the exact number and job description up to speculation...

Then let the perp consider the consequences.

myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 03/03/13 - 08:45 am
1
0
I think the firearms would be

I think the firearms would be purchased by the State and issued to the teachers, just as law enforcement is issued their duty weapons. So there would be the cost of each firearm; about $500.00. Also the cost of training each teacher, because they should have at least one day a month of training and shooting, possibly a 4 hour block of training each month.

But, if you hire law enforcement to guard the schools, the price is MUCH more because you still have to issue them firearms, equipment and trained them just like the teachers. Plus you're paying an additional salary of 35k per year; per officer. Are you going to provide them with patrol vehicles, which we currently do with BOE police? You have to think about that cost as well. How many schools exactly do we have in this State? That would be astronomical number for the State to pay. Put NUMEROUS officers in each school, would destroy most States budget. But arming teachers? You pay for the firearm, which should last for MANY YEARS, and then pay for training. It's the most fiscal policy and it WILL WORK, which is the biggest goal.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs