Arming Teachers

[LuisDantas]

The origins are the constitution of 1847-48. They were in part derived from the US constitution. Actually, it is probably more accurate to say the gun laws and citizen access to military weaponry in Switzerland is an extension of US policies than to point out cultural differences as far as the training, destribution, and availability of guns is concerned.

On this matter, I found another (indirect) source:

What I bought – 19 December 2012 | Comics Should Be Good! @ Comic Book Resources

I ended up reading about Swiss gun laws today because one of my facebook friends posted something from a conservative website that mentioned Switzerland issues every household a gun (turns out that’s partially true; not every household, but every household with a male aged 20-30 because Switzerland has a militia and not a standing army). What I found was a gun code that made a lot of sense and balanced gun control and gun freedom very well.

Basically, everything gun-related needs a separate permit, and to get those permits you have to meet several criteria, the least of which is a background check. You need a permit to buy guns, and you’re limited to three (including Airsoft guns and the like), and if you’re a hunter or a member of a gun association, you can get a separate permit that has more relaxed rules. You can only carry a gun on your person if you have a special permit that is limited to a specific firearm and can only be obtained if there’s a specific threat. And you’re not allowed to buy automatic weapons or accessories such as silencers without a permit obtained from the police, which has very strict guidelines (among which include owning a specific type of gun locker). Finally, guns are registered to a specific person and that person is held accountable if their gun is used in a violent way (in addition to the perpetrator, of course).

An then I found out that most US states don’t require a license OR registration to own a gun and got very angry.

 

[LuisDantas]

I advocate the same thing. But this single measure would be only part of a larger effort to curb violence & deaths.


Why?


I see no reason this is more likely.

Having teachers carrying firearms can only make using them more likely, due to both the ready availability and the casual presence of same. It is very counterproductive.

 

[Revoltingest]

Having teachers carrying firearms can only make using them more likely, due to both the ready availability and the casual presence of same.

Is there any evidence that trained & armed teachers are more likely to increase deaths in school?
I dispute this because the number of firearm self defense cases in the US far outnumbers the wrongful deaths by a couple orders of magnitude.
If the mere presence of a gun increased the probability of wrongful death, we should see that number exceeding successful uses in self defense.
But we don't. (Ref Gary Kleck's work.) This points towards a net benefit of citizens being armed, which would include school staff.

One could make a credible argument that if every private citizen were disarmed, & only gov authorities had guns, that we'd be safer. I don't
dispute this. But I also don't believe that this is achievable in the near future (say 40 years). So if we look at what practical policies would
improve the situation in the next 10 years, then widespread availability of guns should be a given we must cope with. How do we defend
schools then?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I argue that if a school staffer did shoot a murderous student in order to stop even
more deaths, that the emotional pain of doing so would be justified by lives saved.

On the exterior...probably.

But internally you have no idea what it would do to someone who may not be mentally prepared to handle taking another life. Even trained police officers have to deal with the psychological part of using their weapon. We even see this with our military personnel..I'm sure the rate of PTSD and suicide amongst the military is linked to the killing in combat they've done.....So why should we burden our staff of teachers with such a responsibility?

 

[Revoltingest]

On the exterior...probably.

But internally you have no idea what it would do to someone who may not be mentally prepared to handle taking another life. Even trained police officers have to deal with the psychological part of using their weapon. We even see this with our military personnel..I'm sure the rate of PTSD and suicide amongst the military is linked to the killing in combat they've done.....So why should we burden our staff of teachers with such a responsibility?

I don't want to impose this burden on them. I advocate only allowing concealed carry.
It is up to the school staff to individually decide for themselves if they want to assume this responsibility.
Emotional distress at shooting someone is worth enduring if a life is saved. Isn't this a premise behind
arming cops & soldiers?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The cost of having cops stationed at schools is prohibitive. Were funds available, this would be a solution, & I'd be OK with it.
But we see that communities typically don't do it, so it's not a solution I'd advocate pursuing in lieu of others.

There are already many schools that have this. One school here even has it's own division and squad cars for the school cops. While I think having specially marked cars is most likely money better spent elsewhere, I would imagine the cost is not too prohibitive for at least that disctrict because there has been a police force for the schools for many years now. And I really don't see it being more costly than paying to train, liscense, and equip teachers, as the police already have these things. And unless the country is really strapped for cash to the point they are reducing the number of cops (in which that level of poverty will usually see a general increase in violence), I don't really see it being a problem, especially since the initial start-up costs would be significantly higher for arming and training teachers.
But ultimately it does not matter what measures are taken in terms of fire arms, a shooter will always find a way to achieve their goal, even if it means waiting until the halls are crowded just for a few seconds to shoot as many people as possible, and nothing will ever truly improve. I think really the only way to see any real improvement is to get people to be aware of the prevalence of violence in our society, and how violent our thinking tends to be. Even our language is laced with violence. And a better mental health outreach would prevent many shootings before there would even be a need for an armed victim to intervene.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't want to impose this burden on them. I advocate only allowing concealed carry.

I don't At least not in schools....

It is up to the school staff to individually decide for themselves if they want to assume this responsibility.

And so far the majority is against such a suggestion.

Emotional distress at shooting someone is worth enduring if a life is saved. Isn't this a premise behind arming cops & soldiers?

You may feel as though it's worth it but it isn't. Acting as armed guards isn't something teachers and staff want to do. Even "trained" officers and military deal with the psychological trauma from killing another person. As I previous stated....many suffer from PTSD and have committed suicide. It's simply not worth it to have staff acting as guards/police.

Our school just let out for the break and since last week's event we've have an increase in police presence. The officer I spoke with a moment ago says this will be indefinite. Our MS and HS are literally next door to each other and we've been getting away with one SRO (School Resource Officer) but now..we're going to keep that police officer but police will be available even more. He informed me their plan is to train and bring aboard more officers for us and the community.....NOTE: He's telling me this all the while standing in front of me decked out in full paramilitary clothing and a bullet proof vest. Again...the consensus in the main office of employees talking to him was that we want that presence and not for our staff to be armed. In fact...many police officers will tell you that staff being armed in schools complicates their job.

 

[Revoltingest]

And so far the majority is against such a suggestion.

For once though, my loopy ideas have some mainstream support, in this case with the MI legislature.

You may feel as though it's worth it but it isn't. Acting as armed guards isn't something teachers and staff want to do.

While most wouldn't, I'm sure some would.
Would it be enuf to make a significant improvement? I don't know.

] Even "trained" officers and military deal with the psychological trauma from killing another person. As I previous stated....many suffer from PTSD and have committed suicide. It's simply not worth it to have staff acting as guards/police.

If you to assume my premise that staffers carrying concealed weapons would reduce wrongful deaths, would you still say the emotional damage of killing a murderer isn't worth it?
This seems to be what you're arguing, but I must ask since it's so unusual.

Our school just let out for the break and since last week's event we've have an increase in police presence. The officer I spoke with a moment ago says this will be indefinite. Our MS and HS are literally next doo to each other and we've been getting away with one SRO (School Resource Officer) but now..we're going to keep that police officer but police will be available even more. He informed me their plan is to train and bring aboard more officers for us and the community.....NOTE: He's telling me this all the while standing in front of me deck out in full paramilitary clothing and a bullet proof vest. Again...the consensus in the main office of employees talking to him was that we want that presence and not for our staff to be armed. In fact...many police officers will tell you that staff being armed in schools complicates their job.

Cops differ on this...I've known some on both sides of this issue. But most tell me that citizens capable of self defense are the better option.
One cop even opened a school to train concealed carriers. So I imagine that different communities will craft different methods to deal with the threat.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

For once though, my loopy ideas have some mainstream support, in this case with the MI legislature.

MI legislature these days, especially in the lame duck knee jerk decisions being made, is hardly a ringing endorsement....

If you to assume my premise that staffers carrying concealed weapons would reduce wrongful deaths, would you still say the emotional damage of killing a murderer isn't worth it?

No..! And I fail to see how arming teachers/staff addresses the problem that happened last week. What if that nut got on the bus and shot those kids..Should we now arm the bus driver..? The solution is not to arm everyone. One solution is to make sure the mentally unstable don't get a gun, making sure ("combat rifles" - see bushmaster.com) are banned, require, by law, background checks on all gun sales, requiring guns in the home to be secured...and there may be even more that's needed.

This seems to be what you're arguing, but I must ask since it's so unusual.

It's not unusual to suggest that school staff is spared from the psychological trauma of taking a life...

Cops differ on this...I've known some on both sides of this issue. But most tell me that citizens capable of self defense are the better option.

Cops tell me the same thing but...let's be clear here...I work in the school system and I deal with law enforcement daily from county to county and all agree "citizens" should be allowed to protect themselves but so far none that I've spoken to believe school staff should be carrying a weapon.

One cop even opened a school to train concealed carriers. So I imagine that different communities will craft different methods to deal with the threat.

But this has nothing to do with training staff to carry on school properties. Teaching gun safety/training to the community of would be CCL citizens is different than instructing staff on how to carry their weapon in schools/on school grounds around children.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

On this matter, I found another (indirect) source:

What I bought – 19 December 2012 | Comics Should Be Good! @ Comic Book Resources

Your source is pretty inaccurate. It is true that gun laws and the militia in Switzerland are related. It is also true that there are certain licensing restrictions. However, these are mostly irrelevant as 1) they don't refer to the loan of military issued assault rifles to private citizens, 2) private citizens have greater access to military weapons in Switzerland (including anti-aircraft guns) than just about any other country (including the US) and 3) there are guns in just about every household, and this isn't just sanctioned by law, it's usually the result of the laws regulating the militia which require citizens to keep military weapons in their homes (conscripts, volunteers, inactive conscripts, etc.). Finally, the laws (as is so often the case) say one thing while practice dictates another. The Swiss have firing ranges all over the place and a "gun culture" which prides itself on the ability of average citizens to shoot. Local contests are ubiquitous, as is the ability to obtain ammunition (technically illegally) at gun ranges.

In other words, if you want a gun and you are a Swiss citizen, it's extremely easy to get one, and you might just be required to have one whether you want it or not. There are ways for males to try to avoid service on moral grounds, but it is not entirely clear how often such appeals are successful; however, even if the success rate is 100%, this still means that you have to appeal not to keep a gun in your house, rather than appeal to do so.

 

[Revoltingest]

MI legislature these days, especially in the lame duck knee jerk decisions being made, is hardly a ringing endorsement....

I didn't intend it to be an endorsement. You brought up how mine was a minority opinion.
This makes it relevant for me to point out that this might be changing.

No..!

Just checking. I doubted my inference, so I asked.

And I fail to see how arming teachers/staff addresses the problem that happened last week.

It addresses last week's problem because an armed school worker could've stopped the perp.

What if that nut got on the bus and shot those kids..

Here's another what if....
What if an armed groundskeeper heard the first couple shots & quickly killed the perp?
(Anti-CCW types never bring up the positive scenarios.)

Should we now arm the bus driver..?

If the bus driver qualifies to carry & wants to, I say OK. But once again, let me
point out that the proposed burden is upon the worker to become trained & armed.

The solution is not to arm everyone.

I agree. But then, I never proposed that.

One solution is to make sure the mentally unstable don't get a gun, making sure ("combat rifles" - see bushmaster.com) are banned, require, by law, background checks on all gun sales, requiring guns in the home to be secured...and there may be even more that's needed.

I concur. This should be one positive measure among many.

It's not unusual to suggest that school staff is spared from the psychological trauma of taking a life...

But it is unusual to argue that such trauma should prevent shooting the perp to save lives.

Cops tell me the same thing but...let's be clear here...I work in the school system and I deal with law enforcement daily from county to county and all agree "citizens" should be allowed to protect themselves but so far none that I've spoken to believe school staff should be carrying a weapon.

It could be that these cops have an ill founded distrust of armed citizens.

But this has nothing to do with training staff to carry on school properties. Teaching gun safety/training to the community of would be CCL citizens is different than instructing staff on how to carry their weapon in schools/on school grounds around children.

It is relevant, since the training should be similar. I can see where carrying
in a school would have some additional considerations to prepare for.
Moreover, since you point out when cops support your views, this suggests that
it's equally useful to point out that I have cops on my side.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm a teacher, and I can say that I have zero interest in becoming an armed guard, nor do I know many teachers interested in emergency combat training.

Rather than trying to figure out ways of making the folks who are already teaching our kids for ridiculously low pay and benefits into de facto deputies, how about we inject a little basic human reason into our social discourse around guns.

My personal preference when it comes to the Second Amendment is to treat it as the ideal moment for constitutional strict constructionism: you want to bear arms? Fine, just like the Founding Fathers, you can own all the single-shot, muzzle-loaded, smooth-bore, black-power muskets you like. Load up on 'em.

But even if we're going to say that, for some stupid reason, the incredibly antiquated, pre-police, pre-standing army, back-from-the-days-when-bears-came-to-your-door provision for letting people bear arms should still be upheld in a modern world, I cannot think of any sound reason why people should be permitted to own anything more complex than a manually operated hunting rifle with a maximum magazine size of three or four rounds.

There is no possible reason why anyone in this country not currently employed by police or the armed forces needs either handguns or semiautomatic rifles, combat shotguns, assault rifles and heavy machine guns, or any of the other hideous implements of mass violence currently sold and all too frequently stockpiled by nut bars of every description, to say nothing of combat-level clips and ammunition. Honestly, what kind of person needs armor-piercing rounds, fragmentation rounds, hollow-point rounds, incendiary rounds, suspended shot or flechette rounds, or other such horrors? Until such time as the deer strap on kevlar and start shooting back, I can imagine no justification for such things, much less in clips of ten, thirteen, or even fifteen rounds in handguns, thirty or more in assault rifles, and who knows what for heavier arms.

Instead of ridiculous ideas to bring even more weapons into schools, or even around schools, how about a few sound ideas for reducing the weapons outside of schools, before they get brought in?

If owning stupidly overpowered and destructive arms in mass quantities is really that important to some folks, maybe they'd be happier living somewhere in the Third World, where we don't have to suffer the inevitable massacres that support their vicious little collecting habits.

/rant

I'm thinking that responsible gun ownership is the more sensible approach. I won't front - my father and brother in law are always packing. But they do so legally and responsibly.

Every gun was purchased legally. They have all of the appropriate permits and handle their guns legally. Walking into either household, you'd never know WHERE the guns are stored. They're meticulous in ensuring that their guns will not get into the hands of children.

My entire family, with the exception of myself and Father Heathen have guns.

Growing up, my father warned my sister and I as to what would happen if we touched a gun. We were scared out of our minds to get near a gun. My mother and father paid attention to us in our youth. If we exhibited unstable behavior, which I did in my teenage years, a parent was there, providing guidance and seeking help.

We need, as a society, to pay attention to our children - teach our children right from wrong and act responsibly as indiviudals and teach our youth how imperative responsible living is.

Tragedy will still occur. But, I do think that if the family unit focuses on responsible living and strong relationships, we'd see less violence and less crime.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I didn't intend it to be an endorsement. You brought up how mine was a minority opinion.
This makes it relevant for me to point out that this might be changing.

Maybe something has changed but I thought Snyder vetoed the bill that would allow people to carry guns in schools...

It addresses last week's problem because an armed school worker could've stopped the perp.

You don't know this and you can't know this for sure. The Columbine shooting had, I belive, an armed officer onsite who couldn't take out the shooter. I believe the report says the gunman was wearing body armor. The killer in Sandyhook is reported to have been wearing body armor as well. So as you can see it may not have mattered if teachers were armed. Basically arming them in that situation may not have solved the problem. I suspect that body armor would be the norm if would be killers thought school staff would be armed. Shucks, the Virginia Tech shooting (not far from me) the college had armed security guards. I still believe trained armed guards/police would be better in situations like this because they would have the specific training....but a teacher simply armed with a gun with no body armor is no match for some one who has all that coming in.

Here's another what if....
What if an armed groundskeeper heard the first couple shots & quickly killed the perp?
(Anti-CCW types never bring up the positive scenarios.)

He may not have been able....again...since the reports I've been reading suggest the perp was wearing body armor. Even so.....the groundskeeper would need the element of suprise and we can't say for sure he would have had that...Remember there was some one that tried to rush the shooter and still lost their life.

If the bus driver qualifies to carry & wants to, I say OK

The bus driver sitting with his/her body to the side would be no match for a person who walks up to the bus with their hands in their pocket...who then pulls out their gun and starts firing. I understand what you're trying to do here but when I took my gun courses to be an armed guard and my subsequent yearly recetification training.....the seated position and side position would not afford you much time to draw your weapon and the angle would not work either.

But it is unusual to argue that such trauma should prevent shooting the perp to save lives.

No it's not. It's the reality of the situation. Regardless of the potential for protecting and saving lives...the majority of my collegues in the schools throughout the counties, in a we love our guns state, don't want the burden of carrying a firearm or taking a life....and especially not have to make the choice to shoot a child or teenager.

It could be that these cops have an ill founded distrust of armed citizens.

They do with good reason to.

It is relevant, since the training should be similar. I can see where carrying
in a school would have some additional considerations to prepare for.

And that's the crux of it right there. Training a citizen for a CCW is going to be different from training a teacher. His or her level of responsibility is higher. CCW training and licensing is generally for self protection. The rules and procedures would be completely different when a teacher has to protect children.

Moreover, since you point out when cops support your views, this suggests that
it's equally useful to point out that I have cops on my side.

But you haven't demostrated that they do. I just so happen to work for a school system and I happen to know officers from various counties and none of them support the idea of guns in the schools in the possesion of teachers and staff. When trying to secure a crime scene and many are packing it can make it difficult and time comsuming to figure out which person is friend or foe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe something has changed but I thought Snyder vetoed the bill that would allow people to carry guns in schools...

I'd heard that Snyder would sign, but then that became politically difficult (the shooting, ya know).

You don't know this and you can't know this for sure.

None of us knows what would happen in a hypothetical scenario. But if you can posit scenarios wherein guns
do no good, then I can pose ones wherein guns are useful. I speak to likely possibilities, not to certainties.

The Columbine shooting had, I belive, an armed officer onsite who couldn't take out the shooter. I believe the report says the gunman was wearing body armor.

This might sound harsh, but it's possible that cops don't post the best & brightest to just sit & wait in a school. Also:
Several armed defenders would be more effective than a single individual. Body armor can be defeated. The standard
is that if center of mass shots don't work, then go for the pelvis (which disables their ability to walk) & the head shot.
There are no guarantees in violent confrontations, but improving the odds is possible.

The killer in Sandyhook is reported to have been wearing body armor as well. So as you can see it may not have mattered if teachers were armed.

I disagree for the above reasons. Moreover, body armor comes in various capabilities. I don't know what type
he was wearing, but it's possible that a direct hit even with armor could break ribs, reducing the threat.

Basically arming them in that situation may not have solved the problem. I suspect that body armor would be the norm if would be killers thought school staff would be armed. Shucks, the Virginia Tech shooting (not far from me) the college had armed security guards. I still believe trained armed guards/police would be better in situations like this because they would have the specific training....but a teacher simply armed with a gun with no body armor is no match for some one who has all that coming in.

You say "no match", but I look at it differently. To be trained & armed gives
one a better chance to reduce the carnage than to be entirely unarmed.

He may not have been able....again...since the reports I've been reading suggest the perp was wearing body armor. Even so.....the groundskeeper would need the element of suprise and we can't say for sure he would have had that...Remember there was some one that tried to rush the shooter and still lost their life.

Groundskeepers can be surprising.
Was the person who tried to rush the shooter armed?

The bus driver sitting with his/her body to the side would be no match for a person who walks up to the bus with their hands in their pocket...who then pulls out their gun and starts firing. I understand what you're trying to do here but when I took my gun courses to be an armed guard and my subsequent yearly recetification training.....the seated position and side position would not afford you much time to draw your weapon and the angle would not work either.

There are innumerable ways to see how it's possible that armed staff would be feckless. But this is to focus solely upon
how things might go wrong. It's more realistic to create possibilities how things have a greater probability to go right.

No it's not. It's the reality of the situation. Regardless of the potential for protecting and saving lives...the majority of my collegues in the schools throughout the counties, in a we love our guns state, don't want the burden of carrying a firearm or taking a life....and especially not have to make the choice to shoot a child or teenager.

This is to essentially decide....."A murderer should be allowed to continue killing unimpeded because I'd feel so bad if I killed him."
This is what I find so unusual, ie, that feeling bad is more important than preventing wrongful deaths. If you wanted to stand down,
& let carnage continue, that would be your decision. I'd prefer to live with the psychological trauma of shooting someone in order to save lives.

They do with good reason to.

I've known the type, ie, safety of citizens takes a back seat to safety of cops, so they'd prefer to have us all unarmed.
Well, other cops & I would disagree with that philosophy.

And that's the crux of it right there. Training a citizen for a CCW is going to be different from training a teacher. His or her level of responsibility is higher. CCW training and licensing is generally for self protection. The rules and procedures would be completely different when a teacher has to protect children.

Training should be no higher for school staff than for others. But school staff would have additional considerations, eg,
school procedures to follow in case of a threat, balancing pro-active measures to stop the perp vs securing classrooms.

But you haven't demostrated that they do.

Well, neither have you. Let's not say that I must be held to a higher evidentiary standard.

I just so happen to work for a school system and I happen to know officers from various counties and none of them support the idea of guns in the schools in the possesion of teachers and staff. When trying to secure a crime scene and many are packing it can make it difficult and time comsuming to figure out which person is friend or foe.

You know the people you know, & the same goes for me. Differences can be seen due to geography & just due to that the fact that
people may inclined to agree. If some people know you oppose guns, they will confirm this. Similarly, if they know my background,
they will be comfortable supporting concealed carry. There will be no proof that one side is right or wrong in looking at it this way.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's consider the real case of Michigan:
- We want to avoid a tragedy like Sandy Hook.
- The economy is in da terlit, & ain't getting better. We have no spare cash. So we can't just decide to put thousands of cops in schools.
- We can't just disarm everyone. Good guys & bad guys alike will have guns, no matter what the state does.

This leaves us with 2 likely legislative possibilities:
1) Maintain the status quo, ie, everyone in every school is unarmed. But bad guys can enter schools. They will be unopposed.
2) Snyder can sign the bill allowing private citizens to be armed in schools with extra training over & above that for a regular CCW/CPL. Bad guys can enter schools, but staff can fight back.

I pick door #1.

 

[averageJOE]

I only propose that school staff who wish to do so may become trained & licensed to carry concealed in school. If one lacks the time,
interest or commitment to doing this, then they would not. Many of us have busy lives, but we make time for what matters to us.

2) Snyder can sign the bill allowing private citizens to be armed in schools with extra training over & above that for a regular CCW/CPL. Bad guys can enter schools, but staff can fight back.

Here is the slope:
When you leave it up to teachers who only want to carry a gun on school where do they go to get this "extra training over and above that for a regular CCW/CPL"? The reason I ask is because if you do this that takes away an accross the board, standardized training. Teachers carrying these guns will not have the same training, because we're are leaving it up to them to find whatever place offers some type of training. If you think emergency response training is the same everywhere your mistaken. Law enforcement are trained completly different than military to respond to riot control, room entry and clearing, to simple body searching and hand cuffing.

So if teacher #1 goes to PLACE A for training but teacher #2 goes to PLACE B, because it was more affordable, the result will be teacher #1 is trained to turn right but teacher #2 is trained to turn left. And when it comes to involving children I believe everyone carrying a gun in a school should have the exact same training. A special hybrid style of training.

But I don't think teachers should carry guns. I still think that if they did the inevitable scenerio will be a teacher killing an unarmed student claiming self defense.

 

[Falvlun]

Besides the "it would make guns more accessible to those who might snap" argument, I fear we'd also see more vigilante, Trayvon Martin stories.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is the slope:
When you leave it up to teachers who only want to carry a gun on school where do they go to get this "extra training over and above that for a regular CCW/CPL"? The reason I ask is because if you do this that takes away an accross the board, standardized training.

No.
In MI the training for concealed carry is already a standard secondary training, over & above basic CCW requirements.
This is the kind of gun control I favor, ie, no 2nd Amendment violation, just some extra expense & work, & positive results.

Teachers carrying these guns will not have the same training, because we're are leaving it up to them to find whatever place offers some type of training. If you think emergency response training is the same everywhere your mistaken.

Nah....I know the law in my state better than wouldst thou (old timey English gives me credibility).

Law enforcement are trained completly different than military to respond to riot control, room entry and clearing, to simple body searching and hand cuffing.

True, but not an issue here.

So if teacher #1 goes to PLACE A for training but teacher #2 goes to PLACE B, because it was more affordable, the result will be teacher #1 is trained to turn right but teacher #2 is trained to turn left. And when it comes to involving children I believe everyone carrying a gun in a school should have the exact same training. A special hybrid style of training.

See above.

But I don't think teachers should carry guns. I still think that if they did the inevitable scenerio will be a teacher killing an unarmed student claiming self defense.

Your less-than-inevitable scenario is only one of many. In probablistic systems analysis, one should look at all possibilities,
& determine likely outcomes. Example:
An anti-gun type could argue, "But if someone carries a gun, he will accidentally shoot the wrong person or go nuts & murder!"
This is possible. But in the real world, it is unlikely. We had on the order of 10K wrongful deaths (excluding suicides) in the US
in 2011. But we had over an order of magnitude greater number of uses of guns in self-defense.

 

[Falvlun]

Your less-than-inevitable scenario is only one of many. In probablistic systems analysis, one should look at all possibilities,
& determine likely outcomes. Example:
An anti-gun type could argue, "But if someone carries a gun, he will accidentally shoot the wrong person or go nuts & murder!"
This is possible. But in the real world, it is unlikely. We had on the order of 10K wrongful deaths (excluding suicides) in the US
in 2011. But we had over an order of magnitude greater number of uses of guns in self-defense.

How many of those "uses of guns in self-defense" were against people with guns? In other words, if total number of guns were reduced, you'd have less of a need to defend yourself with a gun.

Also, how many of those "guns in self-defense" ended in the death of the perp, when a less deadly use of force, like a taser or pepper spray, could have been used instead?

 

[Revoltingest]

How many of those "uses of guns in self-defense" were against people with guns?

I don't know. But the frequency of guns in the threats is unrelated to my conclusion that guns offer a net benefit in the US.

In other words, if total number of guns were reduced, you'd have less of a need to defend yourself with a gun.

That is possibly true....& possibly false.

Also, how many of those "guns in self-defense" ended in the death of the perp, when a less deadly use of force, like a taser or pepper spray, could have been used instead?

In the majority, the perp was not shot. Tasers & pepper sprays are a reasonable choice, & I've recommended pepper spray to many.