JEFFERSON CITY, Mo

[kimba1]

I started by say staffer  on this situation than teacher kept being said and I point why is teacher being used and point out not once is this being mentioned as voluntary.  So now than we got this misunderstanding out of the way. We can address are these schools required to have armed staffers.

[sirs]

Since the initial posting of this thread made it clear that it was not just teachers, but was also not mandatory, I'm not sure why there was any confusion.....especially when I specifically referenced the point about the choice being provided the teacher/staff. 

The law, as was referenced in the post simply makes the "gun free zone" of a Missouri school ground, no longer such a zone, since anyone that has a legal CCW will be allowed to enter said school grounds, and any teacher/staff that wish to legally carry, can do so, after the requisite training. 

It's a win win win, since no one is being forced to carry a weapon, and those that chose to, will have added training in the safe handling of a firearm.  And to to top it off, there's the potential for an immediate deterrent to any wound-be mass killer, vs the down-time waiting for the police to arrive.

I'm not seeing the down side here

[kimba1]

It says trained employees but somehow teachers got mentioned later on.

But  since its voluntary than potentially these school may have no one armed but the students wont know.

[Plane]

It says trained employees but somehow teachers got mentioned later on.

But  since its voluntary than potentially these school may have no one armed but the students wont know.

   That is true.

    But I think it unlikely that, with the prohibition removed ,that there won't be at least a few armed persons on campus.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Somew of the armed teachers are sure to be members of *the horror! the horror!* TEACHERS UNIONS!!!!!

[sirs]

It says trained employees but somehow teachers got mentioned later on.

Teachers are indeed employees, and make up the largest number of employees for a school staff.

But  since its voluntary than potentially these school may have no one armed but the students wont know.

You're catching on       Though in all honesty, it would be advantageous that a school have some on staff.  But even if they didn't, at least those who are legal CCW holders could be legally on the grounds at any one time....including a teacher

[sirs]

Somew of the armed teachers are sure to be members of *the horror! the horror!* TEACHERS UNIONS!!!!!

I'm sure they could be.......and??,,,,,,you have a problem with that??   

[sirs]

I cannot imagine requiring a teacher to go armed into a school against his will, or tellijg him that he cannot have the job unless he agrees to be packing heat.

I cannot imagine any law that would mandate that a teacher be packing heat, either, or lose their job if they didn't.  Where in this law does it require such a leap of illogic??

Didn't think so.  Yet another attempted effort to argue a point never made

[Xavier_Onassis]

So fucking what? I made the point. I get to make points just like you, fool.

This stupid law is just to get votes from gun nuts. It will not save anyone's life.

[sirs]

You made no point, since its a point no one else was making, or even supporting. 

Your unsubstantiated opinion aside that this was supposedly some gift to "gun nuts", the fact you yourself conceded has no cost to the tax payer, but will provide an added level of defense for those children in an otherwise "defenseless zone", is all the good news I need to know

But you know, since neither of us are from Missouri or have spent any time there, I guess we can't really talk about it.......waste of time, right?  *cue the knee jerk xo snark about anything to do with sirs is "obviously" a waste of time*     

[kimba1]

maybe win win . as human beings we can`t always know all the variables. so we`ll see if this has unintended consequences like the very knowledge of a armed staff present will encourage suicide spree killer. I did point out adults do this with police officers.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The law did not indicate whether the school district would be allowed to demand that a particular employee be ordered to carry a concealed weapon or the school board would only accept volunteer pistol-packers. My point, which is a point because I SAY it is my point is that the pistol packers should  not be ordered to bring their arms to class every day.

As kimba suggests, it is possible that the prospective assassins might well know who the pistol packers are and deliberately plan to take them out first. In small towns, everyone tends to know everyone's business.  I recall the first place I ever taught was Randle Washington, and I knew within three months which families poached deer in Gifford Pinchot National Forest and which of the town's two lockers they kept their meat in. Everyone knew. I did not even have to ask. So I imagine such a place the School Gunslinger's identity would be no secret.

[sirs]

You can say its your point.....doesn't make it a valid point, since again your arguing a point no one is making or even supporting.  I realize hard core liberals have a problem with the concept of freedom.....especially when firearms are involved.  It seems the left thinks that support of the 2nd amendment is tantamount that those supporting the 2nd amendment are pushing that everyone MUST own a gun.  Or that this Missouri law is tantamont to mandating that all teachers carry a gun or lose their job.  Oy-vey.  Absolutely ridiculous, if not ignorant, proclamations........which is why its done, because it is so ridiculous, that you make yourself appear to be refuting such an absurd action.  Problem is, no one is supporting or calling for such an action to begin with   

Kimba is at least arguing a somewhat valid hypothetical, but it hits a wall when the firearm in question is concealed.  So, without some intimate confession by the person carrying the legally concealed weapon, provides precisely the kind of deterrent needed to make the bad guy think twice about even trying.  Sure they can, but their odds of success are greatly lowered, now that the location is no longer a defenseless "gun free zone"

[kimba1]

I really don`t see it as a wall because it really depends how well that person can conceal the weapon . how hard can it be to figure out the staffer who said previously he`s former military might be the one who might be the one. the question will be is the person whose willing to take the gun
 indistinguishable. I`m in security and very few people has surprising personality. I know several teacher who refer to their time in korea or veitnam. now if those staffers had a trade off system then I would believe profiling will not be possible.

speaking of profiling "quiet guy who keeps to himself" kinda scarey how often that`s brought up. as a very bad joke that`s how I describe myself

[sirs]

It's a hypothetical, which I grant you is a possiblility.  But to try and plan out some mass killing, by guessing who's armed, ignores who else is armed, not to mention what ammo is the person going to use once they have supposedly wrenched their weapon away.  Folks who carry concealed rarely have more than 1 magazine with them, then what?  Most of the mass killings involved folks arming themselves to the teeth with multiple magazines and rounds.   If they're being targeted to be shot 1st, again requires quite the guessing game, as to who else might be legally armed.

The risk-reward for someone wanting to shoot up a school is turned completely upside down, in the face any number of staff who may or may not be carrying a concealed weapon.  Far too many examples of situations where livees were saved by the presence of a person with a CCW, not to mention the tragic stories of lives lost where someone who legally could carry, was not allowed to bring their weapon on the premises, because it was a declared gun-free zone.

Despite any number of hypotehticals that could supposedly thwart said Missouri legislation, I'm going to error on the side that really does have a far better chance at protecting more students from thje potential of a mass killer want-to-be.  I agree it's not going to be a huge number saved, but that's partly because school shootings are not common at all.  The kids win, responsible gun owners win, and common sense wins.  The only ones that lose is the bad guy....and wound-be anti-gun zealots