SD Senate panel approves bill on arming teachers
February 23, 2013 at 4:52 am in The Daily Republic
The State Affairs Committee voted 5-4 to send the bill to the full Senate after supporters said it could help prevent tragedies like December’s grade school shooting Connecticut, particularly in rural schools that don’t have a police presence. Continue Reading
This is a bad idea. Guns in the classroom will not keep our children safe, rather they will put our children’s lives in jeopardy. We need people of faith to oppose this bill so that no teacher or staff member will ever be put in the position to end a student’s life. School resource officers and other alternatives are the smart and responsible way forward.
https://www.facebook.com/PeopleOfFaithForSmartSafetyInSdSchools
Like or Dislike:
10 
12
So what would you rather have in a classroom, a teacher with the best interests of the kids foremost, defending them, or a lunatic that knows nobody there will have the means to stop him from killing as many as he wishes?
Like or Dislike:
11 
9
Smartimus, the chance that a potential killer is going to walk into any particular school is not even statistically relevant. On top of that, the armed teacher needs to beat the killer to the draw (guess who the killer is going to target first). In contrast, putting guns in classrooms creates a risk each and every day in each and every classroom. Every day, in every school in South Dakota, teachers leave the classroom for such mundane tasks as going to the bathroom or getting supplies. The risk chance that a teacher would leave the gun unattended in the classroom is far greater than the chance that that [particular classroom would be the target of a killer. Train teacher seven times a day and seven times a week and the chance a gun will be left unattended in any particular classroom far exceed the chance that a killer will walk through the door.
Like or Dislike:
13 
9
A bad idea
Like or Dislike:
12 
10
If it will keep the children , why not try it ??
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
I meant to say ” If it will keep the children SAFER ,than why not try it”
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
If the problem is guns, it just seems that adding more really doesn’t seem to solve anything.
Like or Dislike:
9 
9
The problem has never been about guns, it’s about the person behind the gun pulling the trigger, it’s just easier for bleeding liberals to place the blame on the gun instead of the deranged person behind it…..
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
No, guns are the problem. Remove them from the equation and the problem is greatly reduced.
Like or Dislike:
11 
9
People are resourceful. Think of how many people were killed during the Bronze Age with chariots, using bow and arrows as the weapon, or spears and swords.
Question: Why were they killed?
Answer: Because people don’t get along.
Change that if you want the killing to stop.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
A gun safety class would be a nice option…but I’m a dreamer, a silly heart.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
I would think that would be a must.
Since guns are not the problem and people are…….what checks will be done to make sure the right person has one?
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
I meant offering gun safety classes to students. I would hope a teacher or a principal would have the sense to take a class before handling a firearm.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
I own many guns. I will defend the right to keep my firearms and contest any attempt to limit my right with respect to owning firearms. That being said, this idea is ludicrous. The chance of a “school shooting” at any particular school has virtually no statistical relevance. However, placing guns into every school creates a statistically relevant chance for accidental shootings, a child’s access to guns that would not otherwise be available etc. . . . What kind of logic exists to place guns in schools for the one in a million chance that that particular school may be the target of a “school shooting” so somebody might be able to prevent it when the very act of placing guns in that environment will create the real risks of unintended injuries. It’s fairly simple statistics folks. In this case the proposed cure is potentially greater than illness.
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
Joe Smith says”The chance of a “school shooting” at any particular school has virtually no statistical relevance”
Try telling that to the parents of Sandy Hook, if by chance they would of had an armed resource officer there and he stopped that tragic event before it unfolded, your telling me thats not a good idea…..
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Trojan, the bill does not propose armed resource officers, the bill proposes to arm teachers and other school personnel. There is a significant difference between a bill that proposes to allow teachers to have loaded and accessible guns in classrooms and having armed resource officer. By implication an armed resource officer is trained, not in a classroom and designated for the purpose of security.
You also apply faulty logic by referencing Sandy Hook. First, you insert an armed resource officer, not a teacher with a loaded and accessible firearm in the classroom. Second, you ignore the fact that the elementary school had a controlled security access. Third, you assume that an armed resource officer would have been effective. Finally, you ignore any balance between the risk of having teachers with loaded accessible firearms in the classroom compared to the extremely small risk that a killer will enter the classroom. Armed teacher will not prevent “crazy” people but will without doubt create new and much more likely accidental tragedies.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
So what’s your idea for keeping the children safe ???
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Whether I am right, whether I am wrong, I still believe in the message of removing weapons from the conversation and we might be able to achieve something other than violence. But then again, I might be a dreamer.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
That book you preach from has plenty of violence in it. It was written before firearms came into the picture.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
It just seems strange, almost ridiculous, that we have no problem arming teachers to “protect the children” yet we can’t ban texting while driving.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Visualize the scenario of an armed teacher stopping a killer. The teacher’s gun will have to be loaded at all times; there wouldn’t be time to load as the killer is walking through the door. The gun is going to have to be immediately accessible, not locked in a drawer and not in a purse or briefcase under the desk; perhaps holsters in the school colors would be appropriate (sarcasm). The teacher is going to have to be prepared to draw their weapon each time someone unfamiliar approaches the classroom door; if the teacher doesn’t have their weapon drawn or ready to be drawn while questioning an unfamiliar person it is highly unlikely they’d be able to “outdraw” the killer. Those advocating putting guns in classroom seem to be operating under the assumption that placing guns in the classroom is going to eliminate the threat of an armed intruder. Arming teachers has the potential to stop a killer, but I am fairly confident that if a killer walks into a classroom with a gun drawn there is little if any chance that a teacher is going to stop the shooting. Weighed against the risk of accidental shootings from unattended guns in a classroom full of children the idea to arm teachers is incredible.
Arming teachers is significantly different than conceal and carry. I do believe that conceal and carry can prevent crime by making perpetrators think twice before confronting someone. But there is a huge difference between Joe Smith carrying a firearm while walking down the street and placing firearms that would need to be loaded and accessible into a classroom full of children; if the firearms are not loaded and accessible in the classroom they have no value in confronting an armed intruder. Joe Smith’s weapon is never accessible to children. Joe Smith carrying a weapon is able to provide immediate protection of his person and those who may be immediately around him, but that scenario is vastly different than establishing a defensive position for the purpose of “guarding” a classroom. Trained police officers and military personal are all too frequent casualties in confrontations with armed individuals; the results of armed teacher confrontations with potential killers are going to be far less successful. I don’t gamble, but I would be willing to bet that arming teachers will result in more than the occasional headline that will read something like this: “Accidental Discharge of Firearm at Elementary School”, “Student Injured after Taking Teacher’s Unattended Firearm”, “Teacher Startled by Assistant Principal’s Unannounced Visit to Classroom – Draws Handgun”, “Teacher’s Handgun Left in Bathroom; Found by Third Grader”, “Gunman Enters School, Shoots Teacher and Then Students”. People who enter schools and shoot children are disturbed and “crazy”; the fact that a teacher may have a gun won’t fix crazy.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
If a armed resource officer in the school isn’t an option for you, what do you propose we do to make our children safer in the schools????
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Trojan, this bill does not propose armed resource officers, it proposes to arm teachers and school personnel. My solution, stop crazy people from getting guns. But, if you really want to protect children, don’t let them ride in automobiles; in 2009 1,314 children under the age of 14 died in automobile accidents. I am not making light of the tragedy involved in school shootings, but the reaction, resources and concern is disproportionate to the risk. A trained armed school resource officer is a much better proposal, but different from the bill being discussed which proposes to arm teachers and school personnel. That may include an armed resource officer, but it is much broader. Loaded and accessible firearms inside classrooms is a bad idea and creates a risk of tragedy far greater than the risk of a killer entering a classroom. A good analogy would be a proposal to make kids ride motorcycles to eliminate the risk of fatal automobile accidents; the cure is more dangerous than the problem.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Don Corleonne said: On February 28, 2013 at 3:54 PM No, guns are the problem. Remove them from the equation and the problem is greatly reduced.
Like or Dislike
you say removing guns will greatly reduce the problem, well what if that loser out in sandy hook had stolen his mothers car and waited until the kids were in the playground playing, and he sped across the playground killing 20 of them with the car, where are you going to place the blame then???
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
But he didn,t and the same is the case in Columbine or Virginia Tech. Do you think we own the rights on crazy? Tell me where else in the world that mass killings of school children have happened and what was the method used other than firearms.
You have to stop watching Fox. It’s not even a news channel, it’s an opinion channel and it’s only purpose is to manipulate. It’s not guns, it’s people. It’s not revenue, it’s spending. it’s not this, it’s that. They are good for only two things:making you afraid of something, and who’s to blame for it. Let me know when they offer a solution to anything.
Guns are the problem.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Spoken like a true Liberal…….
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
If you mean someone that can think rationally and independently…….shrug…….I’ll take it
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
That’s the problem with liberals, you don’t think rationally or independently, not even close………………
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Trojan reminds me of words in a song “paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep” I don’t want your guns taken away. All I want are good laws to keep the crazies from getting them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0