Teachers Can Shoot Back in Claude, Texas

From newschannel10.com:

CLAUDE, TX (KFDA) –

A new warning sign is attempting to bring a safer environment to the small community of Claude.

Outside of Claude’s school buildings is a newly placed sign that reads in big red print: “ATTENTION: PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE STAFF AT CLAUDE ISD IS ARMED AND MAY USE WHATEVER FORCE NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR STUDENTS.” 

The installation of the new sign comes after the school board decided to allow conceal carry on campus.

Superintendent Jeff Byrd says the safety of the children is the reason why the school decided to put up the sign and allow campus carry for the staff.

“Any employee at Claude ISD, any teacher, I feel firmly they would give there life to save a child. Our job is to make sure the kids are safe, that they are comfortable and secure,” Byrd said.

Byrd says the sign is not meant to be a threat but to be proactive, and he compares it to ‘Beware of Dog’ and home security signs.

As I’ve stated before, gun-banning advocates aren’t opposed to guns in schools. They fully support them being carried by law enforcement after everybody is dead. Thankfully, the Claude Independent School District doesn’t want to wait that long. They quite sensibly want law enforcement to pick up would-be murderers—on a stretcher if need be—while students live to see another day.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
A Very Good Question.
  • pennywit

    For a school superintendent, Jeff Byrd doesn’t know much about pronoun-antecedent agreement.

    • Scalia

      Yes, but do you have an on-topic comment?

      EDIT: The writer also misspelled their.

      • By that standard pennywit would be heard from very little indeed…

        EDIT: Carry On.

      • pennywit

        The one thought that goes through my head is this: Does this sign mean that a faculty member is going to use the gun first?. There are scenarios where an armed response is clearly the best response to somebody with a gun at school. But there are also scenarios where you can save lives, including the life of the “bad guy with a gun,” by talking to that person rather than immediately pulling a gun on him.

        Two parallel questions wind through my brain:

        1) What if my kid is threatened by somebody at school with a weapon?

        2) What if my kid is threatening others with a weapon?

        In the former case, I have the viscerally satisfying notion of somebody putting down the bad guys. In the latter case, I’m afraid that somebody’s going to shoot my own kid when there might have been a way to help him.

        EDITED TO ADD: Not every gun-related school incident is a Columbine, a Newtown, or a Sandy Hook, where somebody has enacted a plan for mass murder. Some of them are just one kid, scared, or mad, or otherwise troubled, acting out. Sometimes he’s determined to pull that trigger. And sometimes he’s just on the edge of pulling that trigger. And with faculty and staff carrying weapons, there are severe consequences to mistaking the latter for the former.

        • Scalia

          All staff are required to undergo a monthly training course. Firearms training includes non-violent or non-lethal solutions.

          • pennywit

            Doesn’t change the fact that I’m worried.

          • Nothing will.

          • Scalia

            I’m more worried about our children and staff being defenseless in a gun-free zone.

          • pennywit

            I’m still exploring my own thoughts on this, to be honest. I’m trying to avoid the right-wing or left-wing knee-jerk reaction. I’m also trying to avoid generic “for the children” response. I’m trying to think about this issue as a father and a stepfather. It’s not easy.

          • Scalia

            I’ve been a father for a very long time, so I’ve been there and done that. I don’t know what’s right-wing about wanting an armed guard for your children.

          • pennywit

            How can I explain this … this issue, like every other thing, has liberals lining up on one side and conservatives lining up on the other. I’m trying to think not like a liberal and not like a conservative. Does that make sense?

          • Scalia

            I think so, but the liberals don’t mind armed guards for themselves or for their children at their private schools. They also don’t mind calling armed guards (aka law enforcement) after the shooting has started, so I don’t think there’s a philosophical objection to guns, per se. For some reason, they don’t trust anybody outside of government to possess firearms for defense purposes (except…maybe…in your home if it’s unloaded and locked away).

            I think it’s perfectly natural to defend yourself and your family. After all, you’re trying to preserve life against a criminal act. I think to object to that is to object to nature.

          • pennywit

            It’s the same natural instinct that makes me hesitant about other people with guns around my own children.

          • Scalia

            And I’m more naturally afraid of their being defenseless than any fear I may have of trained teachers who continue their training on a monthly basis.

          • pennywit

            Augh. Going in circles. Hopping off.

          • Scalia

            Yep. You’ve made your point about fearing for the safety of your children, which is something we all share. I just don’t understand how you can struggle with one over the other. To me, it’s a no-brainer. If you don’t like teachers with guns, what about paid security guards? Why not offer that as a reasonable counter to packing teachers? I mean, it’s not like our country hasn’t had a school shooting in a hundred years. Something needs to be done.

          • pennywit

            I’m open to paid and armed security guards, provided they’re trained well and we can keep the school from looking like a prison, but I’m not in favor of armed police officers.

        • pennywit

          Postscript: Mrs. Pennywit has a kid, and we’re thinking of having our own kids soon. So this isn’t a left/right issue for me.

        • Armed Response is inferior to armed presence at initiation.

          Most folks find it hard to adapt when things go off script, and being interrupted by an armed individual is not commonly part of the plan.

        • If 2) pertains you are a failure as a parent, and part of the problem.

          • pennywit

            Thanks for that sensitive, uplifting response.

          • Truth only hurts when it’s supposed to.

          • Ah, and I see he who would have no standards were it not for doublestandards has endorsed your doublestandard.

        • jim_m

          If your kid is threatening others with a weapon, he is the bad guy in question 1. I have no sympathy for him.

        • Brett Buck

          I certainly HOPE the teacher shoots first. If the bad guy has a gun drawn and starts to aim it, they had darn well better shoot. That’s the fundamental flaw with “shelter in place and call the police” notion so beloved of the leftists. The police do very well, and are genuine heroes, but they are always at least minutes away, and a lot of innocent people can die in a few minutes.

          Case 1 – teacher shoots the guy with a weapon
          Case 2 – teacher shoots the guy with a weapon

          Sorry, if your kid is threatening someone with a gun, he is a danger to others and in the wrong. We can’t and shouldn’t wait around to see if he really means it and maybe get someone innocent killed. It is extremely rare that someone wakes up one day, and suddenly decides to go on a shooting spree. The time to help him is before he gets to this point; once is he is to the point of threatening someone, it’s too late.

          • pennywit
          • Scalia

            I don’t know why you would characterize those incidents as being “on the other side.” As I said, the teachers in question are trained on a monthly basis, and training includes non-violent solutions. That means, of course, that a trained teacher should be able to recognize when s/he can talk down a situation.

            The concerns you raise can apply to anybody, whether they be teachers, paid security guards, military personnel or law enforcement. There’s always a risk, but your child stands a greater chance of being killed in a car accident than s/he would getting shot by a teacher or a security guard. I think your concerns are a tad overblown.

          • jim_m

            Teacher had the police outside. Might as well have had a gun in her hand. Not that much difference.

          • Brett Buck

            You are making the classic mistake of going with what you feel instead of what is right. You think about it in the abstract and get more-or-less the right answer. Shoot the intruder/guy with the gun. But then, you think about what you would feel if your son was the one that was threatening others, he doesn’t really mean it, it just needs help, oh my God, someone shot him, if only they had talked to him.

            I feel for people, including the family of the dead shooters, just like anyone. But you cannot let someone threaten the innocent without doing something to stop if, if you have the means. The fact that it is your son is irrelevant – in this regard, no matter what you feel, he is not special at all. All the other kids in class are someone’s son and daughter, too, and they love them just as much as you do yours. Everyone else has the same right to protection by the armed teachers (or police, or national guard, or military) that your kid does.

            It is certainly a tragedy when young people are killed for whatever reason. But if a young person puts himself in the position of being a threat to others – school shooting, attacking a man and threatening to kill him, trying to take a policeman’s gun, etc. – blame the situation that caused that, not the person who makes the responsible decision to intercede.

        • jim_m

          In response to your edit:

          We cannot wait to respond to situations based on someone’s motive. People have to respond to the person’s actions. Someone threatening the lives of others is still threatening the lives of others.

          How many deaths have to take place before you deem this a mass shooting worthy of intervention?

          It seems to be that you are saying that you don’t want your child to be killed if he is just going in to murder a single student or teacher. How noble of you.

          Why not just be a good parent and raise your kids not to kill other people? Maybe that’s just too hard of an ask.

          As an aside, I like it that Bruce votes up the idea that people should be allowed to be murdered before anyone is allowed to intervene. The vast majority of defensive hand gun uses do not result in the weapon being fired. In most instances merely producing the weapon causes the perpetrator to surrender or retreat. But it appears that neither he nor nit wit above want that. They want some dead bodies so they can advance their political agendas.

          • pennywit

            It seems to be that you are saying that you don’t want your child to be killed if he is just going in to murder a single student or teacher. How noble of you.

            A gross misinterpretation. It’s a permutation of the Golden Rule. In addition to treating other people how I want to be treated, I try to support policies that treat other people (and their kids) how I would like myself (and my kids) to be treated.

          • jim_m

            So the end result of your statement is that you want special treatment for your own family therefore you are willing to put other people at risk. Nice.

          • pennywit

            Before you lay about with the condemnations, you might want to look into the trolley-car hypothetical and recent surveys on what people want for the AIs in autonomous cars.

            As to the immediate issue. I have friends and colleagues who have worked directly with at-risk youth. One of them has related to me multiple incidents where he dealt with a kid who pulled a knife or a gun on him. And he resolved all those situations by talking to the kids and occasionally with minimal physical force.

            Aside from him, these individuals — professionals who do this for a living, mind you — say that resorting to force, including lethal force, often makes such situations worse rather than making them better.

            So … I’m not convinced that introducing guns to a school environment is a net improvement to safety. And even if they are introduced, whoever is carrying the firearms needs to be trained to try to resolve a situation first without force, where practical.

          • jim_m

            Look at the info on mass shootings. They almost uniformly end when someone with a gun appears with the intent to stop them (in a few an unarmed person stops them, but in all cases they end not with people running away as the government tells them to, but with someone confronting them). In most cases the attacker commits suicide.

            The fallacy you are making is that the presence of guns means that someone necessarily MUST be shot and killed. That is not supported by the evidence.

          • jim_m

            As to the trolley car problem – Go watch I Robot and understand why it will be a long, long time before people put their trust in autonomous cars and AI.

            Susan Calvin: The robot’s brain is a difference engine. It’s reading vital signs. It must have done…

            Detective Del Spooner: It did. I was the logical choice. It calculated that I had a 45% chance of survival. Sarah only had an 11% chance. That was somebody’s baby. 11% is more than enough. A human being would’ve known that. Robots,
            [indicating his heart]

            Detective Del Spooner: nothing here, just lights and clockwork. Go ahead, you trust ’em if you want to.

            Not everything is reducible to an algorithm.

          • pennywit

            Not quite what I was referring to. In recent surveys on autonomous car algorithms, people were asked, “Should the algorithm preserve the driver’s life, or should it preserve the most life?” To a T, people said “Preserve the most life.” But when asked, “Would you want to drive in a car that would preserve your life first, or human life first?” people said, “My life.”

            If I’m prioritizing my own survival, or that of family, over others. I have good company.

          • jim_m

            OK. So you are admitting that I was right when I made the comment that you wanted special treatment for your own family at the expense of the lives of others.

            Nor are you willing to put yourself in the shoes of other people and when thinking about a hypothetical, consider their position. Your reflexive action is even then to preserve your own self and maximize your own benefits at the expense of anyone and everyone else.

            Criticize me for what you like, what you just said about yourself is far more disgusting than anything I could type out.

          • pennywit

            Again, not what I said. Read my comments carefully.

          • Precisely what you implied.

          • jim_m

            NO. Clarify them.

            What is the difference? You say that you want teachers to not have guns because in the (hopefully) unlikely event that your son goes to murder someone at school you would rather that he not be killed in the act.

            You have clearly stated that you don’t have the same concern if it is someone else’s son. So you want a separate and more lenient system to address the malfeasance of your own kin.

            I fail to see where I am misinterpreting your feelings in any way.

          • pennywit

            Alright, one more time for the people in the cheap seats.

            NO. Clarify them.What is the difference? You say that you want teachers to not have guns because in the (hopefully) unlikely event that your son goes to murder someone at school you would rather that he not be killed in the act.

            I don’t want ANYBODY’S kid killed over it. Before I say “teachers should shoot the kid,” I try to imagine what I would say if it were my kid. And once I have that answer (“no”), it guides how I want other people’s kids treated.

            You have clearly stated that you don’t have the same concern if it is someone else’s son. So you want a separate and more lenient system to address the malfeasance of your own kin.

            Not quite. When you accused me of selfishness, I pointed to the trolley-car hypothetical to note that my imputed selfishness is shared by quite a few people. And in my early question above, I pointed to “what if my kids are threatened by kid with the gun?” and “what if my kid is the kid with a gun?” are how I address the issue. It’s not just about my kids and me, but noting my own attitudes, then extrapolating from those attitudes to how other people are affected by these policies.

            I don’t want to be thinking “teachers with guns are bad” or “teachers with guns are good.” I want to think, “How would I feel if it were my kid in either of these situations (threatening or threatened).” The reason I want to do that is so that I remember that the other kids have parents, just like me, who are concerned about their kids’ safety.

            If I seem a bit biased toward the hypothetical armed kids in these situations, it’s because both when I was a kid and as an adult, I’ve seen how absolutely horrible teens and tweens can be to each other, and how close to the edge bullying sends some of these kids. And honestly, I don’t know if it’s possible to tell whether the bullied kid is going to go ballistic, or if he’s just going to stew a little while.

            If a bullied kid goes to school with a weapon, with some half-formed notion of using it to defend himself from a bully or (more likely) to get revenge on the bullies, I’d rather that kid get talked down by an adult rather than shot and killed for his trouble.

            For the record, my stepson at this point is a pretty good kid. He’s not quite old enough (or comfortable enough) yet to be really educated about firearms, but I’ve started to teach him basic safety rules. I also plan to take him to a range when he’s old enough. I want him to learn to respect firearms and other weapons, to understand realistically what they are and what they can do.

          • jim_m

            Again, you presuppose that because someone has a gun they are obligated to kill someone with it. That is a fallacy. It is not the case. The vast majority of defensive uses of handguns result with the weapon not being fired.

            In the vast majority of attacks with guns, people are not talked out of it, they are able to shoot someone first.

            You are presenting a hypothetical that is not witnessed in real life. You are substituting a fake ideal for the reality that is trying to be addressed.

            In real life someone comes with a gun with the intent to shoot someone and they do so. They are stopped when someone confronts them with the ability to stop them. That usually means someone with a gun threatens them. People trained in defensive hand gun use understand this. The last thing a person who carries concealed want to ever do s shoot someone, much less kill them.

            Your presumptions are all based on lefty lies. You them make a conclusion that you don’t want guns in the hands of rational people because if your loved one becomes irrational you would want them coddled. You then piously claim that you would want that for others too.You’re either an idiot or a liar and I don’t exclude the possibility of both.

            Your hypothetical assumes that any teacher with a gun is going to kill any person with a gun without asking any questions first. It is not a real world experience. You are willing to put people at risk because you have dreamed up a fantastic hypothetical that almost never occurs but because you can think of something that might represent 0.00001% of incidents you are willing to let 99.99999% of people targeted to die.

          • pennywit

            I cited three occurrences above … situations where somebody defused a situation with words.

          • jim_m

            Item # 1 – Police are outside when teacher talks the man down. He is being confronted with lethal force that will stop him. This is precisely my point. When you present sufficient force you can talk someone down.

            Item # 2 – the shooter had a shotgun and had taken numerous shots already. It is unclear if he had any shells remaining to shoot.

            Item #3 – This is actually the unusual situation you claim. Still, it would be better to talk to the person with the option of shooting him if you fail rather than just dying with everyone else.

          • pennywit

            They are stopped when someone confronts them with the ability to stop them. That usually means someone with a gun threatens them. People trained in defensive hand gun use understand this. The last thing a person who carries concealed want to ever do s shoot someone, much less kill them.

            There are actually both types among the concealed-carry crowd. Some who are absolutely fantastic and cautious. And some who make you wish they only had one bullet, and kept it in their front pocket.

          • jim_m

            Really? You have stats to show how many?

            There are good stats on the defensive use of guns that back me up.

          • pennywit

            No, I don’t have stats. Just anecdotal observation.

          • Scalia

            There are actually both types among the concealed-carry crowd. Some who are absolutely fantastic and cautious. And some who make you wish they only had one bullet, and kept it in their front pocket.

            That’s for all practical purposes irrelevant to the conversation. We’re discussing trained teachers as opposed to Barney Fife types.

          • It’s to be hoped that the teacher would never have to deal with a kid looking to kill. I try to put myself in that situation, and I don’t know what I’d do. But there’s no ‘one size fits all’ response to this situation.

            That said, the odds of such a thing happening are higher than winning the Powerball… but not a whole lot. There’s things I worried about happening with my son – but being shot by another student wasn’t one of them. If we’d been in a different school district violence in the schools might have been a consideration. There’s a few in Atlanta where I feel sending kids there are tantamount to child abuse. In those cases, it’s not the school’s fault – it’s the parents who insist that their kids not be held to any sort of behavioral standard because ‘They’re GOOD kids and you don’t like them.’

            If that’d been the case, son would have been taking karate lessons well past an initial familiarity.

            BTW, started my son’s education on firearms when he was about 5 or 6. When he was around 10, took him to the range with a .22. Kids are a LOT more capable and competent than we’re conditioned to think they can be. You might be surprised at what he’d be comfortable with – but you’ve got to competently fake being comfortable yourself or he’ll pick up your vibes.

            (Can’t even tell you how many times I had to bite my tongue when he was learning how to drive, lol.)

          • jim_m

            Look – I don’t want my son killed under such circumstances either, but that is why I have tried to raise him in such a way that he would not do that. I then understand that if in the unlikely event that he were to do something like that, that he might be shot. I’m going to put my trust in the way I have raised my children and not rely upon the government to coddle him if he murders someone.

            That is the problem with your reasoning. I would suggest that you not raise children because you do not think very clearly and have questionable morality.

          • pennywit

            Just answer one question. If your kid is the one with a gun, and he’s on the psychological edge of using it, wouldn’t you prefer that somebody try to talk him down instead of shooting him? That’s all I want. My issue with arming faculty is I’m worried they’ll go straight to “gun.”

          • jim_m

            Exactly, you dumbass.

            Stop with the fallacy that someone with a gun is obligated to kill someone else. As I have said repeatedly, the vast majority of defensive uses of hand guns ends with no gun being fired. You are making bullshit up.

            I am saying that it is a hell of a lot more likely that if he is confronted with someone that has sufficient fore to stop him that he is far more likely to stop than if he is confronted by someone who lacks the ability to stop him.

            I am also moral enough to say that if something happens and he goes so far off the reservation to do something like this that I would want him stopped before he kills 30 people.

            My guess is that you would rather have a son who is a convicted mass murderer than a son who was prevented from being one.

          • Scalia

            So … I’m not convinced that introducing guns to a school environment is a net improvement to safety. And even if they are introduced, whoever is carrying the firearms needs to be trained to try to resolve a situation first without force, where practical.

            Of course it’s a net improvement. You’re talking about one troubled kid’s life as opposed to some 20 or 30 kids who’ll get blown away because nobody had the means to defend them. A troubled teen being shot is tragic, but 20 others being killed is even more tragic. You’ve been told multiple times now that firearms training includes recognizing degrees of escalation. Even when you draw your firearm, you scream, “Drop the gun (knife, rock, etc.) or I’ll shoot,” if possible. You don’t pull the trigger unless you have no other option.

          • pennywit

            But it appears that neither he nor nit wit above want that. They want some dead bodies so they can advance their political agendas.

            Would you like some fries with your ad hominem?

          • jim_m

            Name calling is not an ad hom. I made serious comments and arguments in response to your comment.

            An ad hom would be attacking you personally instead of addressing what you actually said with the purpose of discrediting you personally rather than your argument. I attacked your argument an then made a very mild insult.

            If you can’t stand being called a nit wit then suck it up buttercup. Learn what ad hom means before accusing people wrongfully. It only proves that you are a moron.

          • pennywit

            Ad hominem == Attack on a person.
            Name-calling == Attack on a person.
            Therefore,
            Name-calling == Ad hominem.

          • jim_m

            Learn the fucking language:

            Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

            So show where in the original response that I failed to address the subtance of your original comment. Otherwise STFU and stop lying about me.

          • pennywit

            Otherwise STFU and stop lying about me.

            It’s just a small pattern I’ve seen with you. You’ll make your arguments, but you never seem satisfied unless you toss a personal insult or two into the mix. It’s a very juvenile way to try to intimidate a person or distract him. I wonder why you do it.

          • jim_m

            Yes, I will take a poke at people. If you are so freaking thin skinned that you cannot stand to have your anonymous persona called names or made fun of then you probably should not be on the internet.

            Why? Because from time to time I find people to be insufferably stupid and deserving of ridicule and contempt. When you make a good comment I will upvote it. I have before.

          • Commander_Chico

            He’s obviouly a frustrated guy in real life, makes him jolly to make insults. Engage only on the occasions he attempts to make an argument based on facts.

          • jim_m

            Projection. I get great entertainment value out of calling you names.

            I thank you for the endorsement that people should always engage with me. I always talk about facts. I also include insults. Deal with it mr stolen valor.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yes, if Byrd was interviewed, it’s the “journalist’s” fault.

        • Imagine my surprise to find you on a comment thread featuring blatant double standards up-dinging the double standards. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you [/LouisRenaultMode]

  • yetanotherjohn

    Good for them. I personally think that any place banning concealed carry should be subject to strict liability for any violence perpetrated on their premises.

    • Scalia

      That’s what Tennessee has done.

  • At least they have plenty of chalk for the outlines!

  • ne1410s

    Claude, Hmm, near Amarillo, Tx with the highest number of refugees per capita than any other city even though the Mayor keeps telling obama administration to stop sending them. I’d be more than proud to have my grandkids attend this school.

  • Commander_Chico

    Wonderful. Madhouse America.

    • Sky__Captain

      It’s been this way since Barack Insane 0bama declared he would “fundamentally transform” America.

      • Commander_Chico

        He was responsible for Columbine, VA Tech AND Sandy Hook?

    • Good thing you don’t live in these United States.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yup! No constant fear of school shooting rampages in Spain.

        • jim_m

          Nope, they blow up trains there.

          • Commander_Chico

            Ya 13 years ago. Wouldn’t it be great if the last mass killing in the USA was that long ago?

          • jim_m

            You voted for the man in office that facilitated that an have defended the policies that have led to it.

          • Commander_Chico

            Ya Obama caused Columbine, Sandy Hook. Otay.

          • jim_m

            Actually, the left is responsible for the laws that make it impossible to commit these people, so yeah, he is responsible in that sense.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yah because almost none of those guys made open threats before, should have been locked up anyways.

          • jim_m

            All of them were known to have significant psychiatric problems and intervention would have potentially saved lives. Once again we see you take up the argument that because you can’t fix everything you shouldn’t try to fix anything.

          • Commander_Chico

            You are talking about locking people up. Randall McMurphy.

          • jim_m

            Yes I am, but I am also just talking about getting them treatment. You don’t know jack about healthcare.

    • Scalia

      What’s wonderful? Are you upset that fascist Americans (Democrats) want to prevent American teachers from being armed at school?

      • Commander_Chico

        A perceived need to arm teachers is a symptom of social pathology.

        • Scalia

          There is definitely a lot wrong with our society, but only relatively recently has there been mass shootings at school. The first direct attempt (outside of war) to kill as many students as possible occurred on August 1, 1966 (University of Texas massacre) wherein 17 were killed and 31 were wounded.

          We used to have rifle clubs in school. Nobody feared the mass shootings we see today because they did not occur. The fact that they occur and are increasing is not due to the presence of guns. There is nothing wrong with people defending themselves.

          • Exacerbated by the demonisation of the gun and those who use them.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes I did not mean America was always sick. It is sick now.

          • On the upside, we do benefit from your absence…

          • Commander_Chico

            On the downside, your toxic bile is part of the morbidity.

  • jim_m

    Why are some of my comments being deleted?

    • pennywit

      Don’t look at me.

      • jim_m

        That would have to be a moderator. I know it would not be you.

        • pennywit

          It also isn’t me complaining to a moderator about you.

          • jim_m

            I didn’t have any such suspicion.

    • Scalia

      Jim, I don’t see any of your comments in the Deleted list, neither are any of your posts in the Spam list. I don’t know what happened to your comments.

      • The ghost of grass-seed?

      • jim_m

        OK. Maybe I am mistaken. I’d swear I had another comment about not being a cold hearted monster but perhaps I failed to complete the posting.

  • Well, hopefully this small district will become the flagship for the rest of the country. I know a classroom teacher and I’m sure he’d feel much safer being armed. He teaches middle school and kids come in with so much baggage, there is no telling what happened the night before on any given night. Repeat that scenario with my 130 kids and there’s the danger that at least one is on the edge every day. Usually that means just an outburst or possible fight, but you never know. There was one instance a few years ago where he found a .38 Special in a backpack while looking for a stolen calculator.

  • Nice to see some school districts are finally moving in the right direction. As a teacher, I know that many teachers carry some type of weapon with them to class everyday to potentially protect not only the students from outsiders, but themselves from students. Hopefully the decision by the Claude school board will set a precedent for many more around the country.