Sheepdog1968
Member
I have often looked to Israel as the one country who is very realistic about how to prevent and stop bad things from happening. There is plenty of data to back up it is successful.
Ky. plan aims to arm teachers, mitigate active shooter situations
- Thread starter Midwest
- Start date
- Status
Jim Watson
Member
There was a news story here last month showing public school faculty taking firearms training. Unfortunately I do not recall which school system was sponsoring/allowing it.
Of course there was a counterpoint by a typical Liberal Education Professional - I won't call her a teacher - who was against the whole idea.
There was also an item about a martial arts instructor talking about being prepared to resist with whatever came to hand. Squirt them with a fire extinguisher, poke them with a broomhandle, throw books, etc. Doesn't that sound like a fine way to charge into battle to defend your students?
School shootings are low probability, high consequence events. It can be hard to make a correct choice of options.
Of course there was a counterpoint by a typical Liberal Education Professional - I won't call her a teacher - who was against the whole idea.
There was also an item about a martial arts instructor talking about being prepared to resist with whatever came to hand. Squirt them with a fire extinguisher, poke them with a broomhandle, throw books, etc. Doesn't that sound like a fine way to charge into battle to defend your students?
School shootings are low probability, high consequence events. It can be hard to make a correct choice of options.
Texas Gun Person
Member
I should be joining the ranks of teachers next year in the Fall once I finish up with graduate school. A few Texas school districts already allow teachers to carry concealed. Here is a recent article about training for teachers and administrators on NBC DFW (dallas-fort worth) http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Sc...267084021.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DFWBrand
There is one fatal flaw in the proposal....it is completely logical!!!!
Too many people in this world, especially teachers, have what I call an emotive personality. They are primarily motivated in their beliefs by their irrational emotions.
They have been brainwashed to believe that guns are BAD, EVIL and no amount of reason or evidence to the contrary will sway their opinions.
They would rather see a classroom full of dead students than use guns in their defense. :banghead:
Too many people in this world, especially teachers, have what I call an emotive personality. They are primarily motivated in their beliefs by their irrational emotions.
They have been brainwashed to believe that guns are BAD, EVIL and no amount of reason or evidence to the contrary will sway their opinions.
They would rather see a classroom full of dead students than use guns in their defense. :banghead:
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Bottom line, illustrated as a chain of consequence:
0) People of initiative, independence and common sense aren't able to muster an effective counter to
1) The people who fear armed teachers more than they fear what in their mind is the abstract, theoretical threat of a madman, and are able to invoke the institutions to enforce their will which
2) are actually *effective* at preventing teachers from arming themselves, and are *inneffective* at preventing a mass public shooting.
3) Most people lack the fortitude and character necessary to buck the institutions, and therefore are not equipped to do anything about
4) A madman who shoots up the school
Texas Gun Person
Member
As I mentioned up thar, ^^ I'll hope to be starting as an elementary teacher next year in Texas.
It seems to me that a lot of people are just jaded by the potential positive uses that firearms have. When you are never around firearms and then hear news stories about a mass shooting in Bubba's Diner, then you tend to associate guns with crime, death, etc. Then you have comments like "Well let the police handle it!" What's the real difference between a police officer and a civilian? A job title and a badge? I'll toss out that I'm a firefighter now, and don't have anything bad to say about the police, but to act like they are some sort of knight in shining armor all the time just isn't right. They're people like the rest of us.
It seems to me that a lot of people are just jaded by the potential positive uses that firearms have. When you are never around firearms and then hear news stories about a mass shooting in Bubba's Diner, then you tend to associate guns with crime, death, etc. Then you have comments like "Well let the police handle it!" What's the real difference between a police officer and a civilian? A job title and a badge? I'll toss out that I'm a firefighter now, and don't have anything bad to say about the police, but to act like they are some sort of knight in shining armor all the time just isn't right. They're people like the rest of us.
In most colleges, the large majority of faculty are not gun friendly. There are surveys that indicate this.
Administrations are dead set against carry because of administrators political beliefs or even if they are gun friendly, liability concerns.
Analysis are said to indicate that paying off victims of a rampage (which can be tied up in court for ages) is probably cheaper than paying off victims of an employee doing bad if allowed to carry. Doing bad can be going nuts while allowed to carry or shooting an innocent.
The latter seems to be a psychological effect where folks think you shouldn't take an innocent life even to save others. Thus friendly fire is stuck in opponents of carry mental focus.
Many of the antigun folks cannot see themselves using violence to defend themselves. They view themselves as helpless. Or the low probability of an attack makes them not wanting to engage in the discussion as it is really not important.
Campus carry in TX has probably been sunk for various reasons but the Chipolte fools were nails in its coffin.
Administrations are dead set against carry because of administrators political beliefs or even if they are gun friendly, liability concerns.
Analysis are said to indicate that paying off victims of a rampage (which can be tied up in court for ages) is probably cheaper than paying off victims of an employee doing bad if allowed to carry. Doing bad can be going nuts while allowed to carry or shooting an innocent.
The latter seems to be a psychological effect where folks think you shouldn't take an innocent life even to save others. Thus friendly fire is stuck in opponents of carry mental focus.
Many of the antigun folks cannot see themselves using violence to defend themselves. They view themselves as helpless. Or the low probability of an attack makes them not wanting to engage in the discussion as it is really not important.
Campus carry in TX has probably been sunk for various reasons but the Chipolte fools were nails in its coffin.
Elkins45
Member
I taught for a good part of my life and was teaching when the Heath High School, Pearl, MS and Columbine shootings occurred. If I had been allowed to carry at school I certainly would have. We had a fire alarm a couple of days after the Jonesboro, AR shooting where the fire alarm was pulled so all of the targets would be concentrated in one spot. I normally was one of the last people out of the building anyway because I had to check the bathrooms, and I can tell you I was more than a little anxious when I walked out the door.
I would have liked to have had the option to carry.
I would have liked to have had the option to carry.
In the United States, we have a thing called Posse Comitatus that prevents any sort of those happenings.
Anyways, I believe in large metro areas or well funded suburbs having an actual cop in school wouldn't break the bank. He'll, even a few security guards wouldn't be too costly.
Technically cops (should) "defend"* the public. Teahers are educators not security personnel.
If people fear for their kids lives at school so much, pull them out and home school them.
*Dont bother linking the case that states police have no duty to protect.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
$, Under Siege.....
First, I for one, highly doubt some school district or high school will have or has a lunch lady or janitor that, at a moment's notice will snap into action like Steven Segal in Under Siege or Hong Kong Phooey.
Carrying a firearm & learning proper tactics/skill training takes a long time & costs $$$.
Hiring properly trained security officers or guards is smart but they aren't cheap. If you want to cut corners(which many public school districts want) then the QC will nose-dive.
Hire off duty cops or patrol deputies? Sure.
In my metro area, the PD rate(hourly) for off-duty details is $43.00(min). The sworn deputies in the large county sheriff's office get $37.00(min).
In 2013, a parent offered to pay the school for one deputy's wages for the entire school year. That's only one deputy at one campus.
As noted, there are + steps & security plans schools or universities can take. A few systems or plans work better than others in my view.
The Israeli concepts will not work in most US schools.
Violence & counter-terrorism is a way of life in that country. You can't really compare the Israeli format or culture to the US.
First, I for one, highly doubt some school district or high school will have or has a lunch lady or janitor that, at a moment's notice will snap into action like Steven Segal in Under Siege or Hong Kong Phooey.
Carrying a firearm & learning proper tactics/skill training takes a long time & costs $$$.
Hiring properly trained security officers or guards is smart but they aren't cheap. If you want to cut corners(which many public school districts want) then the QC will nose-dive.
Hire off duty cops or patrol deputies? Sure.
In my metro area, the PD rate(hourly) for off-duty details is $43.00(min). The sworn deputies in the large county sheriff's office get $37.00(min).
In 2013, a parent offered to pay the school for one deputy's wages for the entire school year. That's only one deputy at one campus.
As noted, there are + steps & security plans schools or universities can take. A few systems or plans work better than others in my view.
The Israeli concepts will not work in most US schools.
Violence & counter-terrorism is a way of life in that country. You can't really compare the Israeli format or culture to the US.
we are not amused
Member
we are not amused
Member
First, I for one, highly doubt some school district or high school will have or has a lunch lady or janitor that, at a moment's notice will snap into action like Steven Segal in Under Siege or Hong Kong Phooey.
Carrying a firearm & learning proper tactics/skill training takes a long time & costs $$$.
Hiring properly trained security officers or guards is smart but they aren't cheap. If you want to cut corners(which many public school districts want) then the QC will nose-dive.
Hire off duty cops or patrol deputies? Sure.
In my metro area, the PD rate(hourly) for off-duty details is $43.00(min). The sworn deputies in the large county sheriff's office get $37.00(min).
In 2013, a parent offered to pay the school for one deputy's wages for the entire school year. That's only one deputy at one campus.
As noted, there are + steps & security plans schools or universities can take. A few systems or plans work better than others in my view.
The Israeli concepts will not work in most US schools.
Violence & counter-terrorism is a way of life in that country. You can't really compare the Israeli format or culture to the US.
So there is no point in self defense because we aren't all Steven Segal?
I would laugh out loud at that, but the idea is too sad.Fortunately we don't have the terrorism problem Israel has, so it isn't necessary for a teacher to carry a full auto rifle on field trips. But the idea that individual teachers be armed is a very sane and sound idea. They don't need to be trained to some extreme level, most of the schools trying the idea are not trying to turn them into Seal Team Six.
Remember the incident in the Philadelphia Hospital, where a doctor violated the rules and had a concealed carry gun? He successfully defended himself, and probably saved a great number of lives. He also prevented another anti-gun Jihad by the anti-gunners and News Media. Still think Gun Free Zones are a good idea?:banghead:
jamesjames
Member
Why not armed teachers?
I'd like to start another thread on armed teachers. the previous thread on this topic was deleted because a troll was involved in it. yet some thoughtful ideas were being developed and explored. I ask everyone who contributed to the previous thread to bring your ideas back for another discussion.
I am a teacher and a shooter. I've thought long and hard about the value of having serious and well-disciplined shooters who also happen to be teachers be able to carry in deep concealment on campus. Statewide, there are a couple of rural school districts with firearms knowledgeable principles, superintendents, or school board members who are studying or crafting policies to allow certain employees to carry.
There are protocols that have to be developed and strictly adhered to. deadly force to be used in the gravest extreme and only at close range. j-frame and pocket 9 sized firearms for deep concealment. retention ankle or IWB holsters that cover the trigger guard and retain firearm even in a bathroom stall. firearms never to leave the holster while on campus. concealment meaning complete concealment: no bragging, brandishing or or putting on airs. No use or implied threat of the firearm in any other difficult professional or social interactions like contract negotiations, evaluations, etc. Senior administration would have the ability to revoke the privilege and we would abide that decision.
Difficult, high stakes, and delicate stuff. And any misstep spells the end of the experiment, possibly for the whole state if not the country.
What do you think?
I'd like to start another thread on armed teachers. the previous thread on this topic was deleted because a troll was involved in it. yet some thoughtful ideas were being developed and explored. I ask everyone who contributed to the previous thread to bring your ideas back for another discussion.
I am a teacher and a shooter. I've thought long and hard about the value of having serious and well-disciplined shooters who also happen to be teachers be able to carry in deep concealment on campus. Statewide, there are a couple of rural school districts with firearms knowledgeable principles, superintendents, or school board members who are studying or crafting policies to allow certain employees to carry.
There are protocols that have to be developed and strictly adhered to. deadly force to be used in the gravest extreme and only at close range. j-frame and pocket 9 sized firearms for deep concealment. retention ankle or IWB holsters that cover the trigger guard and retain firearm even in a bathroom stall. firearms never to leave the holster while on campus. concealment meaning complete concealment: no bragging, brandishing or or putting on airs. No use or implied threat of the firearm in any other difficult professional or social interactions like contract negotiations, evaluations, etc. Senior administration would have the ability to revoke the privilege and we would abide that decision.
Difficult, high stakes, and delicate stuff. And any misstep spells the end of the experiment, possibly for the whole state if not the country.
What do you think?
InkEd
Member
I would be fine with armed teachers. I would like some sort of state standardized training beyond simply a ccw permit.
1911 guy
Member
I have an opinion which will become apparent soon, but I'll play devil's advocate for a minute.
School shootings are extremely rare. Given how many kids sit in how many classrooms on how many days, the odds of being a victim, or even in the same building, are so small as to make winning the lottery look like a sure thing. Given this fact, any program set in motion to arm teachers, with all the levels of bureaucracy and red tape involved, the expense to school districts of maintaining the program and training teachers as well as the PR impact, it's just not worth the cost.
Now my own opinion. While school shootings are rare, so are tornadoes, floods, fires and so on. Your kids school has an emergency plan for all those things, why not the one rare event that is most likely to cause harm if and when it does happen? The state of Ohio requires that I place my children (not hypothetical, I have two) in their care every weekday from September to June. They have no will, and because of lack of will, no means, to protect my kids if someone should try to harm them. The "plan" is to hide in a corner and hope you survive.
There are plenty of teachers who feel the same way you seem to, they take their responsibility for the safety of kids in their charge very seriously. However, you're outnumbered. Here in Ohio we do have a state law that allows districts to arm teachers. So why not more teachers getting trained? Districts are refusing to allow their teachers to participate. Without district approval, the individual teacher is helpless to make change. The educational system as a whole is anti-gun, anti free-thinking and anti personal responsibility. To be clear, there are a lot of good individuals within the system. But the system has taken on a will of its own.
School shootings are extremely rare. Given how many kids sit in how many classrooms on how many days, the odds of being a victim, or even in the same building, are so small as to make winning the lottery look like a sure thing. Given this fact, any program set in motion to arm teachers, with all the levels of bureaucracy and red tape involved, the expense to school districts of maintaining the program and training teachers as well as the PR impact, it's just not worth the cost.
Now my own opinion. While school shootings are rare, so are tornadoes, floods, fires and so on. Your kids school has an emergency plan for all those things, why not the one rare event that is most likely to cause harm if and when it does happen? The state of Ohio requires that I place my children (not hypothetical, I have two) in their care every weekday from September to June. They have no will, and because of lack of will, no means, to protect my kids if someone should try to harm them. The "plan" is to hide in a corner and hope you survive.
There are plenty of teachers who feel the same way you seem to, they take their responsibility for the safety of kids in their charge very seriously. However, you're outnumbered. Here in Ohio we do have a state law that allows districts to arm teachers. So why not more teachers getting trained? Districts are refusing to allow their teachers to participate. Without district approval, the individual teacher is helpless to make change. The educational system as a whole is anti-gun, anti free-thinking and anti personal responsibility. To be clear, there are a lot of good individuals within the system. But the system has taken on a will of its own.
scaevola
Member
What would be wrong with letting teachers who are licensed to carry concealed off campus carry on campus?
It's annoying the way so many want to compartmentalize the world into varying permission zones.
If somebody can be trusted to carry on a public street, a city park, or at the grocery store why can't they be trusted at a school?
It's annoying the way so many want to compartmentalize the world into varying permission zones.
If somebody can be trusted to carry on a public street, a city park, or at the grocery store why can't they be trusted at a school?
Sheepdog1968
Member
The problem is that the public at large has no stomach for it. It shocks and scares them. As such politicians for the most part won't enact laws making it possible for those teachers who would do it.
1911 guy
Member
While on one hand I agree with you, on the other I have been trained to use firearms in very close and crowded quarters. While there's no magic or voodoo involved, there are some very specific tactics and techniques used to minimize collateral injuries that must be constantly practiced to maintain proficiency. Simply offer this training to teachers willing to put forth the effort require to train.
I'm 100% in favor of it! I don't believe in unarmed victim zones to make things easier for lunatics that perpetrate such evil acts. I DO believe those folks participating ought to be volunteers who should be well trained and who need to have at least limited immunity from lawsuits for actions they take in response to a threat so they don't have the Sword of Dammacles hanging above their heads.
I'm proud to say that my state of Ohio quickly developed a curriculum to train teachers for these possibilities through OPOTA (Ohio Peace Officers Training Academy.
http://www.ohioccwclasses.com/armed-teacher-program/
They also passed legislation to protect them from frivolous lawsuits as long as they exercise good judgement.
Makes me pretty darn proud to be an Ohioan!!
I'm proud to say that my state of Ohio quickly developed a curriculum to train teachers for these possibilities through OPOTA (Ohio Peace Officers Training Academy.
http://www.ohioccwclasses.com/armed-teacher-program/
They also passed legislation to protect them from frivolous lawsuits as long as they exercise good judgement.
Makes me pretty darn proud to be an Ohioan!!
luzyfuerza
Member
Utah law allows anyone with a carry permit to carry in public schools. This approach seems to work ok here (no accidents, complaints, public outcry, etc). With this kind of outcome, why should our community advocate additional training requirements and other regulatory restrictions that have proven to be unnecessary here?
Bobson
Member
Let's consider the options. We can either allow teachers to carry, with or without enforcing varying sorts of qualifications requirements, or we can mandate that teachers carry, and do enforce varying sorts of qualifications requirements.
Even though the latter option does a better job of ensuring the safety of students, it does have significant problems. Namely, that teaching, as it is now, is a low-enough paying job, along with a high-enough responsibility, that nobody really goes into teaching unless they have an immense, genuine passion for it. The point is that adding further requirements that are so far off from what teaching traditionally entails will certainly persuade many passionate would-be teachers to look for careers in other areas. Despite the aforementioned benefits, this alone eliminates the option of mandating that teachers carry, AFAIC.
On the other side now, we have the option of simply allowing teachers to carry if they're inclined to do so. I would support two different approaches to this option.
The first would be simply allowing teachers who have a CHL to carry on school grounds the same way they carry anywhere else. No further training or qualification requirement. That's it, plain and simple. You want to carry just in case, and you're licensed to do so (or the law doesn't require a license, as in Constitutional carry states), then you go right ahead and do it, and good on you for it.
The second avenue for optional carry that I would strongly support is to develop a certain training and qualification requirement - even if it's just an NRA basic pistol class or something similar. To encourage teachers to take this avenue, I would grant some level of a pay raise for teachers who meet and maintain qualification standards, say about 8-10% extra (with some sort of upper limit) tacked onto the teacher's annual salary - and I would put my money where my mouth is by saying PLEASE increase my taxes for that purpose.
All that said, I genuinely believe Gun Free Zones are the most damaging laws in America, and I believe every responsible, intelligent citizen in the country (including those who carry and those who don't care to) ought to be tirelessly trying to get them removed/repealed. That's a platform I'd love to see a politician run on. He would almost certainly have my vote.
Even though the latter option does a better job of ensuring the safety of students, it does have significant problems. Namely, that teaching, as it is now, is a low-enough paying job, along with a high-enough responsibility, that nobody really goes into teaching unless they have an immense, genuine passion for it. The point is that adding further requirements that are so far off from what teaching traditionally entails will certainly persuade many passionate would-be teachers to look for careers in other areas. Despite the aforementioned benefits, this alone eliminates the option of mandating that teachers carry, AFAIC.
On the other side now, we have the option of simply allowing teachers to carry if they're inclined to do so. I would support two different approaches to this option.
The first would be simply allowing teachers who have a CHL to carry on school grounds the same way they carry anywhere else. No further training or qualification requirement. That's it, plain and simple. You want to carry just in case, and you're licensed to do so (or the law doesn't require a license, as in Constitutional carry states), then you go right ahead and do it, and good on you for it.
The second avenue for optional carry that I would strongly support is to develop a certain training and qualification requirement - even if it's just an NRA basic pistol class or something similar. To encourage teachers to take this avenue, I would grant some level of a pay raise for teachers who meet and maintain qualification standards, say about 8-10% extra (with some sort of upper limit) tacked onto the teacher's annual salary - and I would put my money where my mouth is by saying PLEASE increase my taxes for that purpose.
All that said, I genuinely believe Gun Free Zones are the most damaging laws in America, and I believe every responsible, intelligent citizen in the country (including those who carry and those who don't care to) ought to be tirelessly trying to get them removed/repealed. That's a platform I'd love to see a politician run on. He would almost certainly have my vote.
Last edited:
we are not amused
Member
I agree with Bobson, and Luzyfuerza.
In Utah and Colorado where concealed carry is allowed on College Campus, it took legislative action and then a Court order to enforce it. The Academic Left which controls education in this country is almost uniformly opposed to gun rights of any kind, let alone self defense or concealed carry.
That is the reason so many teachers and administrators freak out when a grade school kid chews his "pop tart" into the shape of a gun, and all the other outrages that have made the news. I think there is a lot more support among most Parents and the general public for allowing guns in schools than the News Media and the Education "professionals" would like people to think.
Surely, our teachers and students deserve better than to forced to lock themselves into a building with an active shooter in it, which is the current response plan for most schools.
The utter stupidity of "Gun Free" zones was exposed in the recent Philadelphia Hospital incident, where a mentally ill patient killed one caseworker and wounded a Doctor, before the Doctor used his gun to defend himself, saving not only his own life, but probably many others. If the Doctor had obeyed the rules, he would have been unarmed and helpless, and the anti-gun people would be using the incident to push for more gun control.
I am not going to comment on the several cases where school shootings were stopped by people who retrieved guns from their vehicles, parked off Campus, largely because it is too early in the morning, and I have to go do chores.
In Utah and Colorado where concealed carry is allowed on College Campus, it took legislative action and then a Court order to enforce it. The Academic Left which controls education in this country is almost uniformly opposed to gun rights of any kind, let alone self defense or concealed carry.
That is the reason so many teachers and administrators freak out when a grade school kid chews his "pop tart" into the shape of a gun, and all the other outrages that have made the news. I think there is a lot more support among most Parents and the general public for allowing guns in schools than the News Media and the Education "professionals" would like people to think.
Surely, our teachers and students deserve better than to forced to lock themselves into a building with an active shooter in it, which is the current response plan for most schools.
The utter stupidity of "Gun Free" zones was exposed in the recent Philadelphia Hospital incident, where a mentally ill patient killed one caseworker and wounded a Doctor, before the Doctor used his gun to defend himself, saving not only his own life, but probably many others. If the Doctor had obeyed the rules, he would have been unarmed and helpless, and the anti-gun people would be using the incident to push for more gun control.
I am not going to comment on the several cases where school shootings were stopped by people who retrieved guns from their vehicles, parked off Campus, largely because it is too early in the morning, and I have to go do chores.
45_auto
Member
Some interesting theories here - not surprising, it's a gun forum.
Kind of funny how you find pretty much the exact opposite viewpoint on the education forums. You guys should log onto a few of them and do a search for "armed teachers". Kind of a familiarize yourself with your enemy (educators who don't want teachers armed) approach.
My wife has been an elementary school teacher for almost 20 years now, so I have a passing familiarity with the other side's viewpoint.
I really enjoy the OP's premise:
I assume that these "protocols" that you expect your armed teachers to adhere to will be in the form of some kind of law or regulation? Wouldn't it be easier just to outlaw guns at schools or murder and expect people to follow those protocols? Does calling them "protocols" instead of laws or regulations somehow make them more binding on people?
Kind of funny how you find pretty much the exact opposite viewpoint on the education forums. You guys should log onto a few of them and do a search for "armed teachers". Kind of a familiarize yourself with your enemy (educators who don't want teachers armed) approach.
My wife has been an elementary school teacher for almost 20 years now, so I have a passing familiarity with the other side's viewpoint.
I really enjoy the OP's premise:
jamesjames said:
I assume that these "protocols" that you expect your armed teachers to adhere to will be in the form of some kind of law or regulation? Wouldn't it be easier just to outlaw guns at schools or murder and expect people to follow those protocols? Does calling them "protocols" instead of laws or regulations somehow make them more binding on people?
Last edited:
- Status
