Time to go on offense to take care of this mass shooting problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Put the onus of leaving innocent lives vulnerable and unprotected on those that continue to pursue an unarmed citizenry. They are essentially killing our youth by leaving them unprotected.
 
If the idea of armed teachers is put into effect, it won't be uniform throughout the country. We may see it in small towns in Texas, but we won't see it in Chicago, New York, or any other big cities where the teachers' unions are strong. Nor will we see it in affluent suburban areas where the parents would be opposed. (Incidentally, these are the kinds of places where most school shootings have taken place to date.) So, the shooters will pick their targets to minimize the possibility of armed intervention, and the problem will go on.
That's regrettable, but so be it. Keep your school gun free, don't do what needs to be done, somewhere down the road perhaps see your kids in the morgue.

You asked for it.
 
If the idea of armed teachers is put into effect, it won't be uniform throughout the country. We may see it in small towns in Texas, but we won't see it in Chicago, New York, or any other big cities where the teachers' unions are strong. Nor will we see it in affluent suburban areas where the parents would be opposed. (Incidentally, these are the kinds of places where most school shootings have taken place to date.) So, the shooters will pick their targets to minimize the possibility of armed intervention, and the problem will go on.

Think again and do some research


Its legal in 18 states including CA (3 school districts already allow it with 1 having over 20,000 students) NY, NJ, and MASS

In the following States the work is halfway done in that no laws need to be overturned or created to allow it.

Here are the 18 states that allow adults to carry loaded weapons onto school grounds with few or minor conditions - citations below.

  • Alabama (which bans possessing a weapon on school grounds only if the carrier has "intent to do bodily harm")
  • California (with approval of the superintendent)
  • Connecticut (with approval of "school officials")
  • Hawaii (no specific law)
  • Idaho (with school trustees' approval)
  • Iowa (with "authorization")
  • Kentucky (with school board approval)
  • Massachusetts (with approval of the school board or principal)
  • Mississippi (with school board approval)
  • Montana (with school trustees' permission)
  • New Hampshire (ban applies only to pupils, not adults)
  • New Jersey (with approval from the school's "governing officer")
  • New York (with the school's approval)
  • Oregon (with school board approval)
  • Rhode Island (with a state concealed weapons permit)
  • Texas (with the school's permission)
  • Utah (with approval of the "responsible school administrator")
  • Wyoming (as long as it's not concealed)
https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...hool-armed-20180222-story.html?outputType=amp

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...-on-campus-20160413-story.html?outputType=amp

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...-allow-k-12-teachers-to-carry/article/2649321
 
Think again and do some research


Its legal in 18 states including CA (3 school districts already allow it with 1 having over 20,000 students) NY, NJ, and MASS

In the following States the work is halfway done in that no laws need to be overturned or created to allow it.

Here are the 18 states that allow adults to carry loaded weapons onto school grounds with few or minor conditions - citations below.

  • Alabama (which bans possessing a weapon on school grounds only if the carrier has "intent to do bodily harm")
  • California (with approval of the superintendent)
  • Connecticut (with approval of "school officials")
  • Hawaii (no specific law)
  • Idaho (with school trustees' approval)
  • Iowa (with "authorization")
  • Kentucky (with school board approval)
  • Massachusetts (with approval of the school board or principal)
  • Mississippi (with school board approval)
  • Montana (with school trustees' permission)
  • New Hampshire (ban applies only to pupils, not adults)
  • New Jersey (with approval from the school's "governing officer")
  • New York (with the school's approval)
  • Oregon (with school board approval)
  • Rhode Island (with a state concealed weapons permit)
  • Texas (with the school's permission)
  • Utah (with approval of the "responsible school administrator")
  • Wyoming (as long as it's not concealed)
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-school-armed-20180222-story.html?outputType=amp

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-guns-on-campus-20160413-story.html?outputType=amp

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...-allow-k-12-teachers-to-carry/article/2649321
Gotta like Wyoming; "As long as it is not concealed".
 
Here are the 18 states that allow adults to carry loaded weapons onto school grounds with few or minor conditions - citations below.

You can add Ohio to that list. Licensees are allowed to keep their firearm locked in their car. With proper written permission a licensee can carry inside the building.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.122v1

Some rural districts are already allowing teachers and staff to carry. In the liberal school I work at there is zero chance of being given permission, so I haven't even bothered to ask.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ano...lic-armed-trained-staff-members-already-place
 
The list of states allowing appropriate people to carry in school is very interesting. Can we cross match that against recent school shootings? And then I wonder if/how many teachers (etc) were armed.

After all I've read... It makes the most immediate sense to remove the "gun free zone" restrictions. I also like calling on trained volunteers (vets and such) to stand as guards. However, once the guards are in place and nothing else happens for a long while... Complacency will grow and this will become less effective. I think armed teachers/staff is best. They are in harm's way. They love those kids. If cornered I do believe most of them would shoot to protect.

Banning or even confiscating anything will not do anything. It's not the shooter's goal to get anti-2A legislation passed, right? It's to kill innocent people. An all out ban would almost certainly cause them to use alternative methods of killing.
 
Last edited:
That's not true at all, Most teachers are going to panic and as a long time competitive shooter I don't agree with you, I would rather they put real guards who do just this for a living, than multi task teachers into gunfighters. I would like to see a simulation of what might occur if people who trained a few times were confronted by a shooter, and had to pick out the shooter from the kids, while making sure their bullets went where they were supposed to. My wife shoots, so where you get that from is ridiculous, this is not about carrying gun, it's about skill levels. And if teachers were going to train with professional trainers twice a month, it might work, but just like every other government program, it won't happen. Just put Vets, ex military shooters who have the skillset to be able to pull this off. If someone is middle age and doesn't carry or shoot a gun ever, this is not for them.
It's best not to over-analyze what may happen, there are too many variables in any deadly force encounter. One cannot prepare for everything. When concealed carry was first introduced, people predicted blood baths and wild west style shootouts, none of which happened. Licensed citizens carry perfectly responsibly and safely in all of our states, in restaurants, malls, theaters, etc. Over 1.5 million crimes are prevented every year because of that.

As a long time competitive master-class shooter myself, I see often that competitive shooters tend to think that most real world scenarios will be like the stages they see on the range, but actually there are far too many variables. All competitive shooting does is train you in gun-handling, NOT in tactics. For example, most real world scenarios will require shooting at a closer range, and at a much larger target. We don't need everyone to be a master-class shooter to be allowed to carry.
The time has come to ask "What is it about schools that makes them so special that they have to be gun-free? Isn't this a direct anti-gun sentiment that is being expressed, denying teachers, staff and parents their God given, Constitutionally recognized right to defend themselves and their loved ones?"

And removing that artificial gun-free zone designation is costless.
I am all for offering training to people who want it, I have availed of it myself. But allowing people to carry is not, and should not be linked to training.
 
I wasn't talking about the legality of (teachers) carrying guns in schools, but rather of the policy. Teachers' unions would be opposed to it, unless (at a minimum) the carrying teachers' salaries were raised to compensate. This would be an additional financial burden on the school districts, and would be passed on to property owners in the form of taxes. And suburban parents would be opposed to it. I can tell you that around here (Fairfax County, Virginia) the idea of teachers carrying guns in schools is a complete non-starter.
 
Last edited:
I believe that if you have a carry permit, you should be able to carry anyplace. A pre screened person who carry's a gun on a daily basis is not a danger to anyone but a bad guy. So we may already have the solution and not be using it. I am sure there are teachers who have carry permits, Why not just allow them to carry in school? The answer is staring us in the face. A person who has carried for 1-50 years is far more likely to use the gun than one who has been tasked to do so with reservation. For instance some of us have had to use our guns at some point. If I were picking up my granddaughter and I heard shots fired, no one could stop me from going in. We need to end gun free zones, in NY in the 70's I never heard of such a thing, and I was carrying since 73. I always had my gun on me, banks schools hospitals, no one addressed this then. I think that this has been screwed up by limiting where honest law abiding citizens are allowed to carry, no reason for this. We need a unified carry set of rules, that are less restrictive, if they allowed you to have a permit, then they shouldn't worry about where you are when armed. IE: NY no guns allowed to be left in a vehicle, FL, if you are going into a restaurant that serves booze, leave the un in the car. That's just stupid, so when the guy steals your car, he gets a gun with it.Why not allow permit holders to carry on school grounds, is some supernatural force suddenly going to make the shoot people? It's nonsense. carry means carry.Simple solution let teachers get permits and carry like most of us do.
 
I wasn't talking about the legality of (teachers) carrying guns in schools, but rather of the policy. Teachers' unions would be opposed to it, unless (at a minimum) the carrying teachers' salaries were raised to compensate. This would be an additional financial burden on the school districts, and would be passed on to property owners in the form of taxes. And suburban parents would be opposed to it. I can tell you that around here (Fairfax County,Virginia) the idea of teachers carrying guns in schools is a complete non-starter.


You must not be reading because you keep repeating the same false information.

I've provided links to show that at least 3 CA school districts are allowing teachers to CC.

Those CA school districts are in the CA teachers union.

It's not the teachers unions decision; it's the school districts decision.

The schools have not had an increased financial burden.


It's ALREADY happening now in in some of the most anti states despite you saying that it cant/won't happen

Why do you keep repeating false information?
 
Other states and school districts allow CCW holders on staff to carry as well.


OOPS! Bad map choice.
 

Attachments

  • concealed-carry-in-k-12-schoolspng.png
    concealed-carry-in-k-12-schoolspng.png
    214.4 KB · Views: 21
Last edited:
The map appears to be in conflict with what danez71 said.


No.

What I listed was regarding teachers (presumably some staff too) bejng able to carry.

The map appears to be for non facuity related. I belive hso misworded. I've seen that map before (recently)

Take CA for example. Person like me can't carry on campus regardless if I have a CC permit or not.

CA state law allows the superintendent to give an exemption for teachers.

If you read the articles I linked to.......
 
Oops, wrong map.

upload_2018-2-25_18-48-12.png

The above is only supposed to be accurate to 2013 and TN allowed CCW for teachers if the district approved in 2016.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-2-25_18-47-59.png
    upload_2018-2-25_18-47-59.png
    253.5 KB · Views: 1
I wasn't talking about the legality of (teachers) carrying guns in schools, but rather of the policy. Teachers' unions would be opposed to it, unless (at a minimum) the carrying teachers' salaries were raised to compensate. This would be an additional financial burden on the school districts, and would be passed on to property owners in the form of taxes. And suburban parents would be opposed to it. I can tell you that around here (Fairfax County, Virginia) the idea of teachers carrying guns in schools is a complete non-starter.

School administrators in Fairfax County, Va and other places need to be asked
" What exactly is it about schools that should make it so that licensed citizens (including employees) are NOT allowed to exercise their God given, Constitutionally recognized rights to carry firearms so as to be able to defend themselves and others in harms way?"

I understand that many lefty school admins have an anti-gun fetish, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to turn our schools into killing fields for the benefit of criminals and nut-jobs who would do our children harm.

Also, please note: there is ZERO cost to taking down gun-free zone signs and allowing all citizens to exercise their rights.
 
School administrators in Fairfax County, Va and other places need to be asked
" What exactly is it about schools that should make it so that licensed citizens (including employees) are NOT allowed to exercise their God given, Constitutionally recognized rights to carry firearms so as to be able to defend themselves and others in harms way?"

I understand that many lefty school admins have an anti-gun fetish, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to turn our schools into killing fields for the benefit of criminals and nut-jobs who would do our children harm.
It isn't just the school administrators in Fairfax County. The public here (especially the soccer moms, who dominate the PTA's) is antigun, and increasingly so. If word got out that teachers were armed, about half of the parents would pull their kids out of school.

You don't understand. We're living in two different worlds. What plays well in Texas does not play well in northern Virginia. We have decent gun laws only because of the rest of the state. But that might not last much longer. The new governor has already vowed draconian gun measures. In my old age, I may be forced to move back to Texas. But for how long is even Texas safe?
 
That assertion is not beyond question.

Simply arming teachers does not equate to engaging the shooter nor saving lives. The fact someone has a gun doesn't mean they know how to use it, know how to use it properly, are trained in how to not shoot innocents, or that they have the drive to move against the crowd, "ride to the sound of the guns" and once there and having acquired the target actually pull the trigger.

Since World War One and through Vietnam, through a combination of marking rifle bores and directly observing troops in action determined that one trained soldier out of four does not even fire their weapon their first time in combat and that of the remaining three that do fire, one will aim so as to not hit another person. If this is what the Army gets from trained soldiers on their first time in combat, why would we expect untrained or minimally trained teachers to do any better?

But, assuming that we are going to arm teachers and we are going to train them appropriately, that training must be constantly refreshed in the same way police officers have to regularly spend time in the range. Are you willing to vote to increase your school taxes to pay to arm, train and supply teachers?

Allowing teachers to carry is still much better than the alternative.

Some schools already allow this e.g. Texas. Training is required for those who choose to carry.

FYI police officers are only required to train/qualify once a year ( at least in my county ). As a civilian, I train way more than your average cop.
 
Since these shootings seem to happen in high schools, what if we reversed the student populations? I.E. - where I used to live 6 elementary schools fed two middle schools which fed 1 high school (which had over 2,000 students). Smaller high schools mean more kids know more about everyone there, they would be cheaper and easier to protect using various means, etc. The only complaining will be coming from the sports coaches mostly having a smaller. group to draw from
 
Too many posts to quote them all, but I'd like to offer a general reply to those discussing the idea of knowing how effective an armed teacher/administrator/school employee may or would be:

There are multiple national level courses that teach high-level firearm training. It's been proven pretty convincingly that if you wish to recall and use any particular skill set under a stressful situation, you must actually LEARN & PRACTICE that skill set in a stressful situation. There are a few ways to induce stress on the human body, and still not put their life or safety at risk. You do have to understand (in depth) what the fight/flight response is, what it does to our bodies, and how you can train to work through it effectively, and with precision.

In my earlier post, I proposed a solution, that involved situation-specific training for teachers. (I should have made it more clear that it would be voluntary, but I think most got that idea) Let me write that again: Situation-specific!! This is not 'guns 101', or 'target practice', this is a series of courses that go into great detail the mindset required, and the physical actions needed to defend kids, and adults, at a school facility.

If you put teachers (or anyone for that matter) through a course, or series of courses that induce that stress in the body, and teach them how to act, and build that into muscle memory, you run a substantially higher chance of that person responding in an effective manner to a threat of life.

We run just such a class series in Seattle area. Are we teaching for a school-specific scenario? No. But we do teach in an environment where we induce stress, and our results have been excellent. -- I only bring this up to illustrate that I know for a fact that it's possible, it is NOT an attempt to boast. In our experience, most LE have never trained in such a manner.

When the poop hits the fan, it's not like the movies, where you turn into John McClain, and 'rise to the occasion'... In reality, you shrink to the level of training which you have MASTERED, (not just simply watched a video, or seen a demonstration, you have to master it, and maintain it)


It's a physically demanding process, to train at that kind of level, no matter who you choose to train with. So, I'd encourage all of us to eat your Wheaties, put your adult pants on, get your butts in shape, and start training under stress.


PE
 
Last edited:
There are already some taking the initiative where they can. Don't know how to post links with my Android, but simply Google Mark Cowan Oath Keeper Fort Wayne Indiana High School. It will pull up the story on Wane.com etc.

Basically Oath Keeper volunteers standing watch and guard just off the school property.

This, on the school properties, and in the hallways etc along with allowing those teachers that wish to be armed to do so, is the way to go. It wouldn't cost anything.
 
It wouldn't cost anything.

Maybe you should ask the school district's insurance carrier that question; and how many teachers would want to risk losing everything they have in a lawsuit? This is NOT going to be a typical gov't one-size-fits-all-that fits no one scenario. Who pays? Inner city folks on welfare have no money. Many rural folks are in the same boat. Whether hardening the schools, armed personnel, more cameras, more police, or whatever, it is going to COST and big time - just the way it is; and none of these ideas (or the millions it would cost) go to solving the causation of these events. This is like constantly being behind the 8 ball and playing catch-up. One never wins in that scenario.
 
Yes, we know that about city police and county sheriff deputies.

But law enforcement officers HIRED SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT SCHOOL CHILDREN from active shooters HAVE DUTY TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN.

They are really not there to "protect" they are there to stop fights, bust kids for weed and be pseudo counselors.

Unless the Deputy assigned to the school has done his 30 years, sat at the school for 10 years doing nothing, makes at least $75k a year and now is resigned and he is protected by other deputies in his home. It pays to be a COWARD!

Arming teachers is not a good idea, they are paid to teach not be armed body guards.

Here in Florida we have a very large population of RETIRED LEOs that would more than be happy to VOLUNTEER as school resource officer. I know several of them,. But NOOO the school board will not allow it due to liability insurance or some other red tape.

It's pretty hard for a crazy person with a gun to get close to any of the "Privileged" members of society as the all have ARMED security, why not our kids at school??
 
Maybe you should ask the school district's insurance carrier that question; and how many teachers would want to risk losing everything they have in a lawsuit? This is NOT going to be a typical gov't one-size-fits-all-that fits no one scenario. Who pays? Inner city folks on welfare have no money. Many rural folks are in the same boat. Whether hardening the schools, armed personnel, more cameras, more police, or whatever, it is going to COST and big time - just the way it is; and none of these ideas (or the millions it would cost) go to solving the causation of these events. This is like constantly being behind the 8 ball and playing catch-up. One never wins in that scenario.
Insurance carriers? I wonder what the insurance carriers will be paying out over the dead and injured at Parkland?

Generally speaking more security equals lower insurance premiums. Armed teachers and volunteer patrols cost nothing.

The alternatives will not reduce any risks, will cost alot of money - and will lead to more shreiks for what we know the change agents want when repeat incidents occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top