Anonymous wrote:I am an elementary teacher in FCPS. I don't see anything wrong in what she said. She is entitled to her opinions and viewpoints. I don't understand how she is allowed to keep a gun in her car during the school day if it is on school property. If the car is parked off school property then that's different. (The article keeps reloading before I can read it in its entirety.)

Anonymous wrote:If that were my kids' school, I would absolutely demand that my kid is never in that teacher's class and never in a scenario where that teacher is the only adult around my kid. I do not trust her judgement and feel that the knife she does (or now doesn't) carry puts my kid in danger.
And for sure if teachers are ever allowed to carry guns into schools, my kids will be pulled out and put into private school asap.

Anonymous wrote:Update on NBC4

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That video is actually the best advertisement for homeschooling that I've ever seen.

+100

Lots of people home school to escape liberals.

As a formerly home schooled student, I would home school to escape a great many more conservative enclaves. Luckily, we are enrolled in a school we like, so this is not necessary. Teachers like that, however: Game Changer!

Anonymous wrote:That video is actually the best advertisement for homeschooling that I've ever seen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Update on NBC4

Thank you for posting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That very teacher could save lives some day. Don’t be ridiculous.

The odds are significantly higher that the kids will find out at some point that she has a gun and children being children, will find a way to sneak her gun and have an accidental injury. There are far more home accidents where minors with access to guns get them and hurt themselves or others, that there are guns that are used to safely protect against active shooters.

Additionally, I'm not sure why having teachers who have only limited training in armed incident response would be better than trained security personnel, most of whom have military or police training in active shooter situations. In many of recent school shootings, there was an armed guard in the school. In the Parkland school case, there was an armed security guard, who did not enter the building and failed to stop the shooter. In Marshall County Kentucky, there was an armed guard who was on premises, did respond, and did apprehend the shooter, albeit after 2 were dead and 21 injured. The shooting at Ft Hood was on a military base where there were many armed military personnel. The shooter was able to kill 3 people and 14 people were injured before the shooter took his own life. Armed security with training is already on-site at many of these shooter locations and that has not been a deterrent not a prevention of loss of life. There was an armed security guard at the Pulse nightclub. This security guard was a current member of the Orlando police force with over 15 years experience. He actually engaged the shooter, but his presence did not deter the shooter. And before this brave officer and his fellow officers were able to stop the shooter, 49 were dead with over 50 injured. I'm not sure why teachers with less training having weapons would be more of a deterrent or better defense against active shooters than trained security personnel on-site. In virtually all of the shooting incidents, the active shooters were not stopped prior to the arrival of emergency personnel (police) arriving after being summoned by an on-site staff member or security guard. The presence of armed opposition is not a deterrent nor is it a guarantee that there will be less injury or loss of life since the armed shooters are stopped after police arrive (with the exception of those who shoot themselves). Without the deterrence factor, then having armed teachers only increases the risk of accidental injury or death without adding an effective deterrence of such cases.

People like the PP will never agree with you. In spite of the fact that facts and logic are on your side, it's just way too hard for people like them to read far enough to understand. I mean, it's a whole paragraph of that evidence stuff, and that's just taxing to the small-brained.

Anonymous wrote:Update on NBC4

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are so obsessed with your hatred of guns that you have lost your minds! So what if she has a gun secured in her vehicle? I used to live in an area where virtually every household had several firearms, and people weren't going around blasting each other. Maybe you should worry about your kid getting killed in a car accident, which is much more likely to happen. And why is anyone surprised that a teacher is doing this? accident

You keep making this comparison. You should stop.

"Why worry about guns? Cars are also dangerous!"

PS - Guns kill 36 people in America every day. It's worth worrying about.

Or opioids. FORTY dead Americans EVERY day!

Let's not worry about guns! Because other things are also dangerous!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That very teacher could save lives some day. Don’t be ridiculous.

The odds are significantly higher that the kids will find out at some point that she has a gun and children being children, will find a way to sneak her gun and have an accidental injury. There are far more home accidents where minors with access to guns get them and hurt themselves or others, that there are guns that are used to safely protect against active shooters.

Additionally, I'm not sure why having teachers who have only limited training in armed incident response would be better than trained security personnel, most of whom have military or police training in active shooter situations. In many of recent school shootings, there was an armed guard in the school. In the Parkland school case, there was an armed security guard, who did not enter the building and failed to stop the shooter. In Marshall County Kentucky, there was an armed guard who was on premises, did respond, and did apprehend the shooter, albeit after 2 were dead and 21 injured. The shooting at Ft Hood was on a military base where there were many armed military personnel. The shooter was able to kill 3 people and 14 people were injured before the shooter took his own life. Armed security with training is already on-site at many of these shooter locations and that has not been a deterrent not a prevention of loss of life. There was an armed security guard at the Pulse nightclub. This security guard was a current member of the Orlando police force with over 15 years experience. He actually engaged the shooter, but his presence did not deter the shooter. And before this brave officer and his fellow officers were able to stop the shooter, 49 were dead with over 50 injured. I'm not sure why teachers with less training having weapons would be more of a deterrent or better defense against active shooters than trained security personnel on-site. In virtually all of the shooting incidents, the active shooters were not stopped prior to the arrival of emergency personnel (police) arriving after being summoned by an on-site staff member or security guard. The presence of armed opposition is not a deterrent nor is it a guarantee that there will be less injury or loss of life since the armed shooters are stopped after police arrive (with the exception of those who shoot themselves). Without the deterrence factor, then having armed teachers only increases the risk of accidental injury or death without adding an effective deterrence of such cases.

Anonymous wrote:That very teacher could save lives some day. Don’t be ridiculous.