• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Woodbuchr last won the day on December 25 2006

Woodbuchr had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

172,684 Excellent

About Woodbuchr

  • Rank
    Moonset at the Badlands SD

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • Location
    Cleaver World
  • Gender
    rather not say
  1. Yet again, nobody EXPECTS the teachers to carry. It would be VOLUNTARY. Were local, state, and federal buildings to give their employees the option to carry I have a strong suspicion many would. I wouldn't have a problem with more police at the schools but should that not occur allowing those who volunteer to do so should be an option.
  2. Actually in his speech to CPAC the other day Wayne Lapierre did just that. It's at about the 5:45 mark. Unless I misunderstood what he meant by "absolutely free". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EvwpwqPJFQ Here's another link https://www.nationalschoolshield.org/about/faqs/ Maybe just look at some of the FAQs. Like the 2nd one for instance And I am not in the NRA I just watched the speech. If this program is not what you mean let me know. It looks like it to me.
  3. I could not possibly answer a question like that. Nobody could. That is strictly hypothetical.
  4. Did I say that? Perhaps teacher retrieves gun from safe and gunman comes in room next door and starts shooting. Teacher could, depending on training and situation, intercede or barricade room and save children if gunman breaks barricade. Look, being reasonable there are so many scenarios we could fill page after page listing them. Could things go wrong? Certainly and I can admit and accept that. It just seems as though those that oppose the idea refuse to accept the possibility things might go right too.
  5. According to mrdeltoid's post the teachers get more than target practice. Since I was never in the military or a gunfight I will defer to those who may have been in either but I doubt anyone knows how they will respond to an active shooter, no matter the training, until they are in the real world situation. Some will choke, some will be competent, and some will probably excel. Some here have said teachers are trained to nurture and would not be able to shoot someone. Is it possible also that some may become like the proverbial lioness protecting her cubs and attack anything that is intending to harm their kids?
  6. Oh come on. Did you even read the thread title? This is an OHIO school system. In case you didn't know Ohio and Florida are two different states (I know you're a Brit so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one).
  7. There is a waiting list "Trumpanistas"? This program is 4 years old. Who was the President 4 years ago? Here I'll help, President Obama was in office when this program started.
  8. Actually the more I think about, even though it is a sad situation and yes he should have engaged, YOU PEOPLE (as you lefties like to call anyone who is not as rabidly anti-gun as you) got exactly what you wanted. Not the deaths, I won't accuse anyone of not caring, but because of his inaction there was one less gun in school. Since there was one less gun in school, and a lot of people are saying one is too many let alone one more, how did that work out? Are you all saying now a gun should have been in school? Are you saying a good guy with a gun should have or could have stopped a bad guy with a gun? Take your time, twist it, deflect it, name call, whatever. It doesn't matter and I more than likely will not respond should you attempt to justify your stance but---- There was one less gun in the school, that's what you push. No defensive guns in school. How did it work out?
  9. But a lot could go right too. Such as: teacher retrieves gun at first alarm and shoots at gunman misses everything but gunman runs away and is captured by law enforcement. Gunman is then tried and sent to a medical facility for mental help and kept there. Oh, scrap that last sentence, that would never happen. Such as: Teacher retrieves weapon and is able to successfully defend the children in his/her care
  10. I suppose the concept of "Voluntary", "Trained", and "Vetted" are not acceptable to an opponent of protecting the children.
  11. Nobody is expecting it nor asking that it be required but voluntary for teachers or school staff.
  12. Not really. IF it pleases you I will rephrase - Should the parents have objections. I hope that is satisfactory. IF not then you will respond IF you see fit or you won't. No, I think my point is clear and did not lose impart because of the parsing of my words. IF you disagree that's fine and IF not that's fine too.
  13. IF, the biggest word in the English language. And IF they are armed they may stop an attack, and IF the crazies know they may be armed they might not try, and IF, and IF, and IF. No offense but this argument, or debate of you prefer, is loaded with ifs and what ifs. Either something is tried or we keep going with the status quo. Personally I would rather see the slim chance of something going wrong with armed teachers and a small number of students killed or injured than keep going like we are and chance larger numbers of students killed or injured because we did nothing. And I think more gun laws that criminals and crazies won't obey is akin to nothing. As for notifying the parents I do think there should have been notification that this program was being implemented but, just as with the press, not being specific about who and where. If the parents had objections they could make appointments and talk one on one with administrators and hopefully figure out alternatives.
  14. Apparently, and rightly so, they are not giving that information to the news or public. It wouldn't do much good if a crazy person knew exactly what school to target or what teachers to avoid. They did say this though in the linked article:
  15. No, but these teachers are armed. I'll rephrase for you. Do you have an example of one of THESE ARMED teachers mentioned in the article having their gun taken away? Or any armed teacher from any school district?