.

Do You Support Arming Some School Employees?

A Bill introduced in the Georgia House of Representatives would allow school districts to designate certain employees to be armed on school campuses.

Georgia’s House Bill 35 that would allow school districts to arm employees cleared a couple more hurdles this week, getting approval from the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports. The bill now moves to the Rules Committee for consideration.

According to the AJC, if approved, the bill would give local school boards the authority to designate an employee, or number of employees, to carry concealed weapons on school campuses. The designees would have to obtain the necessary permits, undergo background checks and comply with certain other requirements. It would be voluntary – districts would not be required to participate. The designees need not necessarily be administrators, according to the AJC.

If approved, this would reportedly help school districts avoid the cost of requiring trained law enforcement officers in schools.

Do you support a bill that would allow for one or more staff members at a school be armed? If not, what alternative do you think would work better?

Nancie Chandler February 15, 2013 at 05:49 PM
So the answer to the infinitesimal chance that another crazy person is going to shoot up a school is to put armed guards in EVERY school in the country. At what cost and to what end? We introduce untold numbers of guns into the schools to be monitored by trained or untrained personnel who will, after months and years with nothing threatening happening, become complacent. That means that they will be less observant, less careful and more apt to be the cause of a gun-related incident than the cure. Everyone has to remember that the gun that was used in Newtown, CT was legally purchased by the gunman's mother. And I have yet to hear why it is necessary for the average citizen Joe to have an assault rifle/gun with multiple rounds of ammunition. If you want to protect your property, a handgun or rifle should be sufficient. I have yet to hear of an army of home invaders taking down a family!
Good Grief Y'all February 15, 2013 at 10:00 PM
No. Trained law enforcement plus more secure buildings.
Rogers Lackey February 15, 2013 at 11:07 PM
No and my grandkids will not go to public schools if I know others beside train law officers will be carrying guns,somehow I believe this action will hurt people of color more than others.
Amy February 16, 2013 at 01:46 AM
Heck no!
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew February 16, 2013 at 02:39 AM
Pardon, but you must not read much domestic and international news, why our own southern border states have had more than their fair share …
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew February 16, 2013 at 02:46 AM
Trained concealed carriers would be an asset. By their very nature, no one would know who or how many there are. (With the exception of the principal) The proposed program would not force everyone to carry, just those who are trained and could pass dexterity demonstrations perhaps anually?. Surely one could see the point that former military or law enforcement members could be used in such a manner.
Ned Lane February 16, 2013 at 02:17 PM
There is no way to ensure the faculty and kids are perfectly safe in schools. No where in the world is perfectly safe. I believe the faculty and students are already safe in schools. The statistical chance of being involved in a school massacre situation are far less than being hit by lightning. Should we have government mandated personal lightning rods, and a trained emt's at every school for lightning prevention purposes? Of course not. If we allow, or mandate, more guns at schools, there will be more, murders, accidents and suicides than there will be successful defensive shootings.
Karsten Torch February 16, 2013 at 02:21 PM
By army, do you mean more than, say, 10? I'd say one or more is enough. And I'd say it's a really good thing that that woman in Loganville didn't have more than one intruder, or she would have would up a statistic, too... I also hate to admit this, but the idea for armed personell in the schools is not to keep a vigilant watch over things - the last thing we need is for an armed teacher to shoot a kid because they 'thought' he was going to go ape-shit and do something dumb - but rather to be available should something occur. IF somebody comes into the school shooting, or IF somebody comes into the school brandishing a gun and threatening to kill somebody. In that case, doesn't take hypervigilance to do something.
Karsten Torch February 16, 2013 at 02:29 PM
And - regarding your question, it kind of tells me that you've fallen into the same idea of 'assault rifle' and not really knowing the definition of it as many other people have. Which also tells me the media has done their job. 'Assault-looking' rifles (Read: Big, Black, Scary guns) are nothing of the sort. They're modified hunting rifles that are designed to look like military weapons, but they don't operate like military weapons. Every time you pull the trigger, you get one bullet. And these don't really do any good if you only have one round. And the point to your question that you're missing is the idea of the 2nd Amendment. It's not a matter of what we need - it's what we should be allowed to have. The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect our ownership of hunting weapons. The founders would have thought it silly that those even needed to be addressed. It's also not really about our ability to protect our homes from invaders. Again, hunting weapons should suffice for that. It's so that the populace could protect themselves from invaders, could band together to form an army, and, probably most importantly, so that the people could rise up should their government get too tyrannical. Remember, they just won a war against their own country. If they would have lost, they would have been hanged as traitors. They wanted to make sure that didn't happen again. Best way is deterrence....
Karsten Torch February 16, 2013 at 02:30 PM
"hurt people of color....." How?
Karsten Torch February 16, 2013 at 02:40 PM
Yes, absolutely. I would rather know that there may be somebody in that school that could provide some sort of defense for my child (preferably multiple somebodies) should some psycho walk in and start shooting. I don't like the idea of everybody in a school being defenseless. Plus, armed resource officers would be the first targets. Or just bypassed completely (think Virginia Tech). There's a lot to be said for places that do nothing more than advertise the idea that somebody MAY be armed on the premises to deter a shooting. Could be why the Batman theater shooter drove past a couple of theaters on his way to the one he wound up at. Or why there's only been one mass shooting in a place that wasn't a gun-free zone in the past 40 years. The idea most are missing on this is the one that it's not the legal gun carryers that are the problem. They're not the ones committing crimes with them as a general rule. It's the ones that don't pay attention to the 'Gun-free' zones that we need to be able to handle.
Chris P February 16, 2013 at 03:33 PM
A trained professional whether it be a policeman or security guard would be the best option along with a more secured building including security cameras monitoring entrances. That being said certain key faculty members should be allowed to carry so long as they go through a training program and continue to practice their marksmanship. It wasn't that long ago that we did not have to worry about this. The world has gotten more insane.
Jack Gleason February 16, 2013 at 08:14 PM
"The World" is just as "insane" as ever for MILLIONS of People MORE existing in the same space...add the factors of (a) Communications evolving over the last two decades and (b) a desires to illuminate Ones "15 seconds-of-Fame" too and we have (c) INSANE incidences seemingly occurring WAY too often ~ whereas in terms of incidence-per-capita per Sq. Mile "Society" is actually SAFER today than anytime ELSE in Human Anthropological History, no : ? Regarding the need of any "Citizen" for "Hi-Capacity Ammunition Magazines" it is a "MOB" that will become the most serious threat to anyones "Homestead" in times of Civil Unrest ~ remember in the early '90's when less than 55 Men were held culpable for the murders of over half-a-million "Tutsies" in Rwanda AND about that many too found responsible for burning-down East Los Angeles CA -- There's BOTH a Forign Nation AND American "State" excercising STRICT "Gun Control" over it's Citizens in example! -- and whereas BOTH suffered at the hands of MOBS armed with the likes of Machetes, Axes, and Split-Mauls, etc., ONE PERSON (such as those Korean Store-Owners in L.A. ; ) armed with the likes of a 30 rd. magazine "regulated" AK-47 Semi-Automatic Rifle and/or Colt Mo. 1911 Semi-Automatic Pistol (plus two "clips" at least ; ) CAN effectively repel such an attack upon their Homestead...damn-near as well as ONE Bazooka w/RPG round(s) likely would ~ which is why I advocate even THOSE being "permitable" to any "Citizen in Good Standing" too.
Karsten Torch February 16, 2013 at 08:47 PM
And actually, what the left with their agenda don't want you to know is that no, it hasn't gotten more insane. Even with the flood of weapons into our society the number of mass killings has actually decreased every year since, what, 1949? The problem is the media grabs hold of these stories and escalates them.
Mark Pike February 19, 2013 at 11:58 PM
What does the CT school shooting have to do with "assault rifle/ guns". The shootings in CT were all committed with pistols. The AR-15 was found in the trunk of his car. Of course the liberal media has not retracted their error since it would conflict with the presidents agenda. Is it necessary for the average Joe to have an assault weapon??? I look at this ridiculous question two ways. 1) I have a generator and spare flashlights "just in case" the power goes out. I don't "need" the generator on a day to day basis. But, if the power goes out it will be a great thing to have. Now, I hear you thinking....Generator don't kill people! You know what...my generator has killed just as may people as all the gun owners I know....that's zero!! 2) Are we really going to start passing laws to limit the citizens of our country to owning only the things "necessary"???? Are pools necessary??? They drown people!! Are bicycles "necessary"??? People die on them every year yet they are not necessary!! Lastly...laws DO NOT prevent crime. Avoidance of the penalties do. It is a CAPITAL offense for someone to take an others life and people think an additional 5 yrs., for having an illegal gun, is going to stop someone willing to die or spend the rest of their life in prison. The weapons that you feel should be banned are responsible for only 2.5% of all gun crime. Yet, the guns you feel "should be sufficient" are responsible for 98.5% of all gun deaths.
TheSkalawag March 27, 2013 at 01:44 PM
There are a number of questions that no one here has addressed so far. 1) Has anyone considered that by saying that there will be one or more persons armed in the schools for protection that you will be putting a target on EVERY adult in the facility? I'll admit that whoever the shooter or shooters come across first will probably be a victim no matter what. But think about it. 2) What adult WANTS to put on that target? 3) How much are taxpayers willing to pay that person for doing it. It seems that tax payers are finding it difficult as it is to pay teachers and administrators to do what they were hired to do in the first place. Now there is a call to place even more responsibility on them. And lastly has anyone thought to ask the teachers and administrators if they even want to assume that risk and responsibilities, no matter how much more you want to pay them? These are just some of the questions that come to my mind. There is probably a host of other questions out there to be asked and answered.
Dave Ballard March 27, 2013 at 02:30 PM
@TheSkalawag= 1) There are already school districts across the nation that have trained, armed and CCP-ed such personnel. Their stats are self-explanatory: Zero mass shootings. Zero deaths or injuries due to firearms, by either invaders, or school personnel. Zero accidental discharges or weapons malfunctions. Zero students finding/taking/playing with said weapons. Whether they have actually PREVENTED any crimes is of course conjecture. 2) The armed/trained personnel are ALWAYS volunteers, and the schools' personnel vote on the programs before they are implemented, at least they have so far. No one is ever forced to participate in this sort of program. 3) The funding, depending on the district, is either through one or more of the school's general expense funds, local law enforcement offices, or through the voluntary acceptance of expense by the trainee him/herself.
Dave Ballard March 27, 2013 at 02:37 PM
@TheSkalawag= in re: your comment about putting targets on the adults, that's part of the idea: stats show that by and large, only another shooter stops a criminal shooter before he/she runs out of ammo. If you make them focus on another armed person, even briefly, that gives the defenseless (namely our kids) that much more time to get away or under cover. That's also part of the reason the programs are strictly voluntary on both an institutional and individual basis. If I'm not mistaken, even parents uncomfortable with the idea are given special dispensation to move their kids to another school, though that may not be in all cases. I don't remember that part of it well, but I do seem to recall that it was the parents and the communities involved which called for the programs in the first place.
TheSkalawag March 27, 2013 at 04:12 PM
Dave as you say in your post: "Whether they have actually PREVENTED any crimes is of course conjecture." I hope that they have. I am also glad that there are good people willing to volunteer and that the school districts are able to find the necessary funding for their programs. My comment about targets was meant only to bring another perspective to the conversation. I just wanted to point out that possibility just in case it hadn't crossed anyone else's mind. It was not meant to try to dissuade anyone's participation. I hope that you're right that parents are given the option of participating or not. I think it would be unreasonable to try to force parents to send their children into an environment they felt was unsafe.
Good Grief Y'all March 27, 2013 at 04:21 PM
Dave Ballard and TheSkalawag - examples of reasonable, respectful discourse, and good sense. Your comments are appreciated.
Dave Ballard March 27, 2013 at 04:28 PM
@GGY= You're too kind, Ma'am. You make us out to be decent human beings: I can't speak for TS, but MY reputation will be RUINED if that sort of thing gets out! ~_^
TheSkalawag March 27, 2013 at 04:36 PM
Thank you.;0)
Good Grief Y'all March 27, 2013 at 04:56 PM
Ha! Dave, from yours and Skalawag's posts, I can tell you are decent human beings. I have enjoyed your posts as well as TheS's. You both have a way of expressing your views without condescension or insulting the opposition. Maybe you two should go to D.C. and show Congress how it's done. But don't leave Patch. You're needed here.
TheSkalawag March 27, 2013 at 05:21 PM
Good Grief Y'all I'd have a better chance of surviving naked in deep space than in that town. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood would say: " A person has got to know their limitations." I know mine.
Mr. B March 27, 2013 at 05:42 PM
I think that's precisely the point and a good one to consider, Skal. Who among us wouldn't jump in front of the kids if a shooter were to appear? Armed or not. Given advance notice to stop and think about it, we might say...Not Me!, arm someone else! But put into the situation, it would be automatic. I'm making a bit of an assumption based on the reports but the six adults killed at Sandy Hook were trying to protect the kids.
TheSkalawag March 27, 2013 at 06:01 PM
They were brave souls that made the ultimate sacrifice. From the safety of my own home I like to think I would do what it took to protect the innocents but when actually confronted with that choice only God in heaven knows the answer to that.
John B March 27, 2013 at 07:43 PM
TS: 1) Yes, there is a possibility that it puts a target on teachers but I would bet it's more of a deterrent than a target. If you're a bad guy you're rolling the dice on who is carrying. 2)No adult wants to don a target but if you gave them a choice to arm themselves or hide under a desk I'm guessing they would choose the former in most cases. 3)Yes funding is always an issue but like any budget that needs to be balanced something would fall off...maybe that brand new football field? Not all teachers or administrators would sign up to carry to your point. It's not for everyone but I think the article is focusing on some school employees not all. I think forcing someone to carry if they didn't want to is a dangerous propostion. Me personally, I would rather have a fighting chance than cower under a desk somewhere waiting for my turn.
Good Grief Y'all March 27, 2013 at 09:42 PM
I'm sure it's brutal in D.C. The good, the bad and the ugly. I know what you mean about limitations :)
TheSkalawag March 28, 2013 at 03:40 AM
@John B since I no longer have any children in any school system the point is moot for me from that stand point. I do care for the safety of the children and faculty. I just hope that there is a better way to look out for them besides turning their schools into mini prisons. And all new spending can't be funded by cutting old spending especially if the school has already cut to the bone and the programs are considered worthwhile programs. I also think, here in Georgia , if you suggest cutting the football program you're asking for an uncomfortable one way ride out of town on a rail covered in tar and feathers.
Mr. B March 28, 2013 at 03:46 AM
So, what do you suggest Skal?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something