While other school districts are demanding teachers get more certifications on math and science, the Harrold Independent School District wants teachers trained to lock and load weapons at school. School officials have announced that teachers will be trained and armed in the future to protect the students and themselves from a possible attack on the school.
David Thweatt, superintendent of the Harrold Independent School District says that part of the problem with school violence is the lack of guns: “When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That’s like saying ‘sic ’em’ to a dog.” This is the superintendent of the school district. The Thweatt is real.
Sure, there has been no violence of the kind in the school’s history, but Thweatt notes that they are near a highway and so anyone could just pull over from out of town and start mowing down children.
Thweatt notes that “The naysayers think [a shooting] won’t happen here. If something were to happen here, I’d much rather be calling a parent to tell them that their child is OK because we were able to protect them.”
For the full story, click here.
22 thoughts on “Reading, Writing, and Re-Loading: School District To Train and Arm Teachers”
You’ll often find my ideas to be totally inviable, but we can dream can’t we? But, yeah, something along the lines of a storage facility. Or the guns could be rendered inoperable if they are simply antiques/relics. And no, no less right to hunt, but it would be more inconvenient for some people like yourself. Pick up your rifle on the way to your favorite hunting spot, that sort of thing. Just the way people get their fishing/hunting licenses, I suppose. Or stop outside of town at Rent-a-Rifle if you’re just a weekend hobbyist. And yes, the servicing places would have to relocate.
My biggest concern really is concealable weapons. Still, not unlike the seatbelt laws, it may turn out to be a minor inconvenience if it would indeed reduce the large amount of gun violence we see in our cities, in the same way seatbelt laws help reduce traffic fatalities.
Obviously there are some things that would need ironing out, and reasonable people like yourself would be welcome to voice complaints and offer solutions that would work for everyone …
The problem with your idea is people like me. I own two rifles, both of which are family heirlooms, one of which I use for hunting. I keep both of them in a gun safe, and don’t generally even have any ammo in the house. I’m in city limits. Do I have less right to hunt because my wife and I don’t like long commutes? Or do you propose that I should have to find some way to leave my valuable and irreplaceable rifles outside city limits?
That would start a whole new industry of “gun banks.” Not to mention it’d require that almost all gunsmiths and some shooting clubs\ranges relocate.
I think EVERY American should carry a gun. They should be free with every bank account you open, with every car you buy, with every postal worker contract renewal, to every high school or university student that hasn’t flunked out yet, with every day pass to Disneyland and with every Happy Meal. What’s the worst that could happen?
In San Antonio they have strict laws regarding the purchasing of fireworks only outside city limits and using them only outside city limits. Although one could question the logic of even selling things that fire off into random directions and then explode during one of the hottest, driest months of the year, at least an effort is being made to reduce the risk of fire.
How about reducing the risk of people getting shot by keeping guns outside the city limits? In the old west, the Sheriff would post a sign instructing travelers to check their guns with the local Sheriff’s office so they wouldn’t have to worry about people getting drunk in the saloon and then shooting each other up. A fistfight was all they had to worry about–and if anyone snuck a gun they were dealt with harshly.
Makes sense to me. No guns inside the city limits. For rural types who hunt on their own land or need protection against wild animals or intruders on their isolated properties, then a shotgun or a rifle is reasonable–but only outside the city limits. No concealable weapons allowed (or should even be available) and violations would be dealt with harshly. Mandatory year in jail just for possession of a gun inside city limits, and the punishment gets harsher for, say brandishing, and twenty years mandatory for use of a gun in the commission of a crime like an armed robbery. Make it serious and people will take it seriously.
But I don’t think the answer to gun crime is more guns. That IS a joke.
This is just the natural progression of our School\Penal systems.
School is nothing more than prepping our children for prison life, nothing more.
The dynamics of the modern high school is identical to prison, where the strong rule, the suckbutt’s cower around the strong, and everyone else gets assaulted.
When Americans grow brains, they’ll realize we know longer need public schools to educate our kids but instead can do it all with computers.
But hey, don’t listen to me. Keep funneling your kids into the meatgrinder that is our public school system. Watch them be raped, assaulted, and murdered. Sooner or later this country will get it.
We don’t need guns. We don’t need public schools.
They just want them kids to feel at home!
Gyges/hassan, MS, Jill; I would like you to keep your word, if only for this ONE time. Thank you, it’s been amusing.
UN Resolution 3379 (1975), “Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”, with a majority of world nations supporting the Resolution. It took Bush Sr. and US arm-twisting to have that Resolution revoked in 1991 without any change in the Palestinian condition. Bush Jr. had the phrase “Zionism is racism” omitted from the World Conference against Racism 2001 (ironically) in Durban, South Africa. The US left delegation left however, when Israel was equated with Apartheid.
So it took the esteemed Bush family and US arm-twisting to remove what the majority of countries felt was right. However, what made Zionism racism in 1947 and 1975 did not change in 1991 or 2001. Jimmy Carter knows a great deal more about the topic that either Bush, you or I and he recognized that Israel is an Apartheid State.
So if you’re a Zionist, you’re a racist, congratulations.
Molly Ivins said Texas is the national laboratory for bad government. Well, we dabble in education here too you know.
Don’t give up on Texas, entirely. Austin is a GREAT place to visit and live with good deal of rational folks who roll their eyes and sigh deeply when they read articles like this.
So anyway, should I go through my “Guns shouldn’t be used as a deterrent” rant or do we all know it at this point?
Count me in.
Gyges and Michael Spindell,
It does get old after awhile. I may have to follow your suggestions!
I agree with your suggestion. It has become a bore.
You promised that on August 12, yet another lie.
I just came up with the answer to your question. He reads from an internal script that bears no relation to the on going discussion. That’s the only way you can explain is constant use of non sequitar and red herring arguments. Since he seems more interested in reciting his inner monologue then actually participating, I suggest we give him what he wants and just stop interrupting him. That’s my new plan.
I apologize for getting suckered in to enabling him in the first place. I won’t respond to him anymore, because I don’t want to have any part of his intellectual masturbation. I would hope the rest of you will do the same.
Let’s just wait a few months and see if the first dead student is coincidently a minority.
Why do you always have to try to introduce race or religion into a topic that does not mention race or religion? The fact that a teacher may shoot ANY student is a concern. The fact that a student may shoot ANY teacher is a concern. The school environment is not place for guns.
I wonder how long it’ll be before a white teacher kills a minority student (in self defense or by accident of course).
This is one more example why I would never live in Texas. This school district is going to “protect” its students by arming teachers who seem to be encouraged or expected to use them to fend off the felons. More guns in school will not make anyone more safe. What will this District do when a teacher shoots a student in “self defense”? What will this District do when a student grabs a gun off of one of the teachers and kills someone else in school? This type of thinking belongs in George W. Bush’s home state.
Comments are closed.