Teachers with firearms

[Tom Servo]

Does it really matter what fancy label we put on the shooter?

If we're to understand the factors in this, yes.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by shortwave

Does it really matter what fancy label we put on the shooter?...

Yes, it does.

1. There's a saying, "The first step toward wisdom is calling things by their right names."
   
   
2. Part of the exercise is trying to understand why people do such things and whether there might better ways of heading off these sorts of tragedies.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Interesting notion about "showing signs" is that I have noticed on this board when somebody is disarmed because of such concerns, people fly into a frenzy over the violation of the second amendment. Graphic writing and imagination, depression, etc., aren't necessarily signs that a person will become a mass murderer. Edgar Allen Poe and Stephen King should be (should have been) dealt with accordingly if that was the case.

The people who are most likely to do what Lanza did are not the same as those you describe and need pointed out before fears set in (with good reason). IMO he (Lanza) was not diagnosed properly and there is proof already out as well as more to come.

Two problems I see with mental illness that need attention IMHO:

1) Sloppy work by mental health doctors is increasingly risking the safety of everyone and there is no real set of checks and balances to prevent it. I have seen it on many occasions. I have tried to deal with it but the mental health organization is very powerful and don't take complaints seriously.

Likely due to many family members who are dealing with the frustrations of an ill family member. They tend to lash out at doctors and mental health organization's. In response defenses go up and real problems get buried in the muck. It often takes an act of congress(figuratively speaking) for just one problem with just one patient or dr. to be acknowledged.

One example of MHS problems written by a Psychiatrist here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-health-system

2) Patient rights being used as a means to defend outside influences and control patients through fear.
I have a brother that has been in and out of state mental health hospitals and housing. He has had three different diagnosis over the past 27 years. He has been on every medication for mental illness that you can imagine. He became a human guinea pig. Not able to find the real diagnosis really put him and the family through years of turbulence. When approached by the family requesting a change of doctors and facility to somewhere else we were told that my brother would have to sign his rights away and that do psychiatrist/psychologist would treat him if he did sign. We thought it a joke and decided to ask around first. Turns out that no one who took Medicaid/Medicare would take him as a patient without signing his rights to them first. Within two days my brother was contacted and threatened to lose his housing as well. He was scared and refused to sign.

We contacted two Lawyers who made it very simple for us. We did not have the money to fight it. We did not have the time (years) to fight it. Finally neither would commit to this kind of fight and recommended other avenues. The system (by design) made it hard enough (as it usually does) to make us go away.

They finally found a combination of medication to stabilize him through trial and error in 2000. A few years ago the only medication that worked was banned by the FDA and 3 years later he is more stable but nothing like he was.

Just by accident the true nature of his sudden illness was revealed when his right jaw sagged and started to look like Sylvester Stalone. His mind was the same, just unable to move or feel the right side of his face. He was taken in to have a series of test for stroke. During a CAT scan it was determined that he had a stroke, however the stroke was several years old. The eventual diagnosis for his current condition was an infection in the nerves and antibiotics cured it up. So it turns out that my brother had a stroke that was missed back in 1985 and just discovered in 2010.

Just another example very similar to what my family has went through dealing with the system here:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...95154217291958

Here Dr. Kieth goes into some detail about Lanza and problems with the MHS:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...-mentally-ill/
Not only does he point out that the guns were not the problem ( in his opinion) but the problems that plague the mentally ill and cause these problems to become more dangerous as we go on with a broken MHS.

What is wrong, exactly?

Here is the truth: Today, even a mentally ill young man with a known propensity for violence, or even a history of serious violence, is likely to receive just an hour a week of counseling (if that) by a social worker.

He is likely have an unclear diagnosis of his condition and to be on a list of constantly changing, very powerful psychoactive medications prescribed by a nurse.

He is also likely to be turned away -- repeatedly --by emergency room social workers who act as gatekeepers for insurance companies to restrict access to inpatient psychiatric treatment.
If admitted to a psychiatric hospital, he will likely be triaged quickly through an often-incompetent “tune up” of medications that might accomplish nothing and then be sent back home as soon as he “contracts for safety”—simply promising a social worker that he won’t kill anyone.

The biggest concern for me (as well as others) today with changes in the MHS is that anyone who might have some depression or emotional issues on medication will be disallowed to own or possess a firearm. Understandable and scary that it can be a power source capable exploitation whether through intention or not. However we can't ignore issues with the MHS that threaten A2 rights through their shortcomings. There can and should be changes. The question is how while leaving 2A secure. Though I don't have the answer I believe that it is possible for the right people to get together and come up with a reasonable solution before the Antis can exploit the problem and abuse it. Not only that it is better that something is done than to ignore it and allow it to be exploited. Wait too long and reversing the damage is unlikely.

[shortwave]

Originally Posted by shortwave
Does it really matter what fancy label we put on the shooter?...

Originally posted by Tom Servo : If we're to understand the factors in this, yes

Originally posted by Frank Ettin: Yes, it does.

There's a saying, "The first step toward wisdom is calling things by their right names."


Part of the exercise is trying to understand why people do such things and whether there might better ways of heading off these sorts of tragedies

Obviously, we can, should and do study the events of the lives of the shooters in these cases the best we can and try to categorize/profile or find similarities in their actions prior to the event that may have caused them to do what they did.
The reason I also wrote this:

There is always plenty of time after the event to diagnose the 'why's and how's'. To even talk about obvious signs the shooter may have shown up to the event. Easy to do after the tragedy.

But during the actual school shooting, these shooters are killers. With one thing in mind. Killing. And at that point it does not matter the killers reasons, whether he's a diagnosed Schitzo or he's doing what he's doing cause his hemorrhoids are flared up. Again, at that point he's a killer. And usually has his pick of unarmed innocent targets which he knew he would have when he entered the school.

And this thread is about whether we should be allowing our teachers/staff to be armed to defend themselves and others against these killers.

[TimSr]

But during the actual school shooting, these shooters are killers. With one thing in mind. Killing. And at that point it does not matter the killers reasons, whether he's a diagnosed Schitzo or he's doing what he's doing cause his hemorrhoids are flared up. Again, at that point he's a killer. And usually has his pick of unarmed innocent targets which he knew he would have when he entered the school.

And this thread is about whether we should be allowing our teachers/staff to be armed to defend themselves and others against these killers.

Exactly. The armed school staffer is the last line of defense, not the first. Preventative action makes good sense but all the preventative actions in the world cannot be 100% effective, and school staff WILL BE the last line of defense for those who fall through the cracks of widespread and even aggressive prevention. The only question at hand is when that happens, and the only thing between your child and a killer is a teacher, would you permit that teacher to have a gun, or would you restrict them to staplers and pencils or their bodies as bullet shields as happens most of the time.

[jeepstrapped]

Not to ruffle anyone's feathers. But, I disagree with the premise of the argument that teachers are somehow different than any of us.
Teachers are regular people like all of us, so I don't see any reason for setting up special, or extraordinary, conditions to allow them to carry firearms.

It seems to me that we, collectively, have bought in to the idea that teachers are somehow different and need to be held to a higher level of scrutiny. I just don't buy it.

[mehavey]

...bought in to the idea that teachers are somehow different...

As a cohort, teachers are different from the general population in that they are better educated, have entered a field where service to others is the central mission, are experienced in handling (or at least exposed to daily) rebelious teen/pre-teenagers w/o resort to violence, and have passed an extensive background check.

Does that make then universally suitable to be armed?
Not by a long shot. ** [pun intended]
But it's a start.

Those who are willing/exhibit sheepdog traits beyond the "run & hide" reaction whose Newtown results are so well documented in Glenn's Cite should be allowed to do so after:

- Another CCW Background check (double insurance)
- Specific defensive weapons training tailored to school situations
- Regular refresher qualification including the legal landscape for deadly force
- Legislation is put in place to give them them similar incident review/legal protections as shown in police shootings

I see absolutely NO reason to cede the armed landscape to men who would do our children harm "...because it would set the wrong example," as stated by one California educrat during a recent interview. That is the very definition of lunacy in the face of stark reality.

**
NOTE: Many if not most teachers do not have this sheepdog mindset. Having been married to one for a 20-year teaching stint, I find the teaching landscape surrounding her to be universally liberal, ivory tower, and dead set against weapons in general -- much less in schools.

That said, there some few notable exceptions.
And that's all there needs to be ... a few.

~~~~~~~~~~~
postscript: This argument will rage forever until...
...until a shooting ocurs in which the killer goes into
a school and proceeds to kill a classroom of kids
before proceeding to the next...

... there to be shot dead by that next classroom's armed teacher.

[44 AMP]

have bought in to the idea that teachers are somehow different and need to be held to a higher level of scrutiny.

Well, its because of the CHILDREN!

Part of the problem is that some people are so worried (and vocal) about what might happen that they refuse to allow what could change what is happening.

in some ways, it is like what they did about the idea of "arming pilots". First off, "arming pilots (or teachers) is a talking point, and NOT what is being proposed by anyone to be taken seriously. Allowing those who already meet all the legal requirements to be armed if they so choose is a completely different matter.

Second, requiring pilots, who already have the life of everyone on board in their hands from takeoff to landing, to have to spend time, and their own money to meet difficult and totally arbitrary additional standards, solely to provide an additional layer of feel good for the spoon fed masses actually reduces any possible participation, and thereby any benefits from the program.

They want the same thing for teachers, too. I suspect actually protecting our children is not their highest priority.

There should not be a double (or triple) standard, simply because children are in the vicinity.

[dogtown tom]

mehavey ......Those who are willing/exhibit sheepdog traits beyond the "run & hide" reaction whose Newtown results are so well documented in Glenn's Cite should be allowed to do so after:
- Specific defensive weapons training tailored to school situations

Why? Does your state require "specific defensive weapons training tailored to (insert any scenario/location here)" for all other CHL holders?
Why on God's green earth do you feel teachers are LESS suited to hold a CHL equal to others in your state?

What part of the Second Amendment says teachers require additional training above and beyond the rest of the population?

....Having been married to one for a 20-year teaching stint, I find the teaching landscape surrounding her to be universally liberal, ivory tower, and dead set against weapons in general -- much less in schools.

Having been a teacher for the last thirty three years I find that funny. You and your wife would enjoy Texas.

Teachers are a mirror of their school district, their community and their state. Want liberal teachers? Move to an urban district in a liberal state. Want pro Second Amendment teachers? Move to a suburban or rural district in a conservative state. You would be shocked at how many teachers, principals and administrators I have as customers.
While your wife's school district may be anti gun, mine has the NRA 'Eddie the Eagle" books in every elementary school library.

[mehavey]

What part of the Second Amendment says teachers require additional training...?

It doesn't.
I do.

Does your state require "specific defensive weapons training tailored to [defense in a chaotic classroom of children w/ an out-of-control shooter]?

It doesn't.
I do.

Having been a teacher for the last thirty three years I find [my(meh) comment on the liberal bastion of educrats] funny. You and your wife would enjoy Texas...

I came from Texas.
Until military retirement my residency remained Texas
My 3rd daughter and her husband still live in Texas/Bryan.
(God Bless Texas)
But most of this country isn't Texas
...and is no longer even like Texas.

Not even Idaho these days....
> A recall drive has been approved against a northern Idaho school board
> chairman who proposed arming teachers as a security measure,
> Youngdahl spurred a community debate last fall when he proposed placing
> guns in secure locations inside schools and training some teachers,
> administrators and other employees to use them in case of a school shooting.
> ...he was concerned that five of the district's 11 schools are in rural areas
> where the response time by law enforcement can be up to 20 minutes.
http://www.idahostatejournal.com/new...9bb2963f4.html

My comment in an e-mail this morning to my older brother
living in Boise:
> "This seems so common sense as to be beyond discussion.
> Are the people of this school district smoking Crack -- or just
> wish-it-were-so head-in-the-clouds idiots ? "

But when all the dust settles.....

Why do I want extra training?
Because you fight as you've trained....
and I want it all thought out ahead of time.

[ATW525]

I don't have a problem with teachers carrying firearms at malls and churches just like everybody else. However, when it comes to teachers carrying in classrooms, I would prefer that there were tighter training requirements and restrictions. I don't believe they need to shoot like SWAT members but at the very least I believe they need to have instruction on proper use of force under the law. My preference would be for this to be tied into a school specific conflict resolution course, which would count towards the teacher's continuing education requirements to maintain their certification.

The difference between myself going to the mall and a teacher in a classroom is that I have no responsibility over the kids at the mall. I'm free to ignore them and go about my business. And in the worst case scenario that there' a bad apple at the mall who decides they want to hurt me, they don't have days/weeks/months to study and probe me for weaknesses before hand.

[mehavey]

...count towards the teacher's continuing education
requirements to maintain their certification....

ROTFLMAO -- I love it !!!!
The Educrats would have an absolute fit !

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The difference is that some of you want teachers to be pseudo-police with a responsibility to use armed force.

This is compared to the simple right to carry.

In TX, CHL holders are informed of the law and take a very basic competency test. Now many object to even that.

The proper use of force - When a person shoots through the school door and starts killing children:

a. Call Mr. Bloomberg
b. Charge with your IPAD
c. Huddle in the bathroom
d. Engage with a firearm, if you are able to.

Other responses:

a. Can I leave because I am a man and you only want to kill or molest girls?
b. Please don't shoot me - so you can stab me with your hunting knife.
c. Charge in football tackle position (might work in close quarters, might get shot to pieces like at VT).
d. Hold door closed with body so students can escape but you get killed through the door - sad way to go for a Holocaust survivor.
e. Engage in conflict resolution therapy with shooter.

[mehavey]

...pseudo police...

`Understand your point, but not quite. [IMHO] Armed teachers should consider their position to be one where self defense
is not the sole/central focus. It is the defense of others in your charge.

I want training/status -- to include the law, endless scenarios, and legal shield -- because (and I choose my words carefully):

- I DON'T want them to be hesitant in either action or thought.
- I DO want them to be effective in terminating the threat.

[zxcvbob]

Armed teachers should consider their position to be one where self defense is not the sole/central focus. It is the defense of others in your charge.

As opposed to the real police, who have no duty to protect anybody?

I do like the part about weapons and tactics training counting towards their requirement for continued teacher training

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

As opposed to the real police, who have no duty to protect anybody?

Good point
(I obviously lost my head.)



.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is a debate driven by an evolutionary moral principle to protect children. However, it is not rational and counterproductive.

By demanding higher standards for teachers to carry, you just give support to denying them the right to carry. Schools would have to set up very expensive training programs. That probably is not in the cards.

You promote distrust of the right to carry.

Thus, you get no or limited carry and deny enhanced abilities to stop a rampage.

Thus, the teacher must be well trained and compelled to intervene - they simply cannot flee. Are they morally bound and legally bound to make suicide charges with the IPAD of death?

Now here you are in your house of worship - you go there because you espouse some divine moral principles - like be good, help your fellow person, etc. If you carry in this divine, are you not bound to be well trained? Or are you morally bound to make the suicide charge down the aisles using a guided missal as a weapon?

Folks have an aversion to perhaps making a error and injuring a child. You don't hurt children and you don't take an innocent life even to protect another - those are automatic and we think evolutionary based principles.

However, using these emotional heuristics are just going to deny enhanced protections for children. Rational thought suggests that a person who passes the state requirements for carry should be able to carry as a teacher.

Please send Mayor Bloomberg your support in his campaign to deny us the right of self-defense. If you are not well trained, please don't carry in the mall or your particular house of worship. Even while fleeing, you might shoot an innocent. Or charge the guy unarmed (it has worked - and it hasn't).

I spent a fair amount of time and money training but that's just me. But I'd rather have someone who passed the TX requirements carrying in the schools than not - when the door is shot through by a guy carrying an EBR and lubricant for the little girls.

[teeroux]

I don't see a problem with teachers being randomly armed but there are other options. How about 2-3 teachers likley the pricipals and a coach with offices on opposite sides of the school with locked boxes containing carbines or rifles and a vest with a teacher label known only to them and local law enforcement. Have em train once a year or more with the local patrol level law enforcement in the school on active shooter senarios. Now you have emergency security officers with a realisticly effective weapon to respond with till police arrive. Even if one of the offices is hit off guard the other assigned teacher could respond. Coaches and principals would seem good candidates because principals often don't have children in their immediate care and there are usually multiple coaches in a small area that oversee children at a single time.

[mehavey]

By demanding higher standards for teachers to carry, you just give support to denying them the right to carry.

We had a saying in my "undergraduate" institution: "That's Wrong." I invoke that here again.

Schools (K-12) are distinct from University/adult settings. They are uniquely instituted for children
and act (whether we like it or not) en loco parentis. I therefore reserve the right to control the setting
to the extent that armed staff have the required training to act in that capacity -- staff en loco parentis.
And just as the normal populace is granted "shall-issue" status, so would I grant that to the staff upon
application and consent to training.

a person who passes the state requirements for carry should be able to carry as a teacher

State requirements are only that you are not a criminal. So yes, I guess you have somewhat of a
point in that I see -- and would extend -- special status/requirements (and special legal protection)
to teachers.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I know that we have a view of the coach as an all American hero. I'll pass on that.

However, the principal and coach will have to retrieve the weapons and gear from the stash and then run down a long hall to the rampage.

I don't know how some of you shoot but I see folks who can shoot 6 people in about 2.5 to 3.5 seconds. In thirty seconds - this ain't the SATs. You need immediate response. The teacher in the next room must be able to respond immediately.

Next, if you want specially trained elementary school teachers to be pseudo-cops, with higher standards than the normal state carry requirements - well -you are wrong. The point that the risk to the kids is evoking a non logical but emotional response is being ignored.

But it's for the kids.

[dajowi]

When it comes to school shootings the basis of argument from either side seems to be: "what if?"

What if he hadn't been bullied?
What if the teachers were armed?
What if there were metal detectors?
What if there had been a SRO?
What if they'd known he had mental issues?
What if it had been a "gun free zone".
What if mom and dad hadn't owned firearms?

WHAT IF?
WHAT IF?
WHAT IF?

It's pointless speculation.

It doesn't solve anything.

It doesn't answer questions.

[manta49]

Maybe people will just have to except that if an individual is determined to carry out a school shooting, that there is not much can be done to stop them. Schools can be turned into fortress no one in or out without being checked by armed guards. I would think different states would have different views on what is the best thing to do, so getting a consensus across all the states would be impossible. I asked in another post why does this seem to be more prevalent in America, no answers yet.

[shortwave]

The difference between myself going to the mall and a teacher in a classroom is that I have no responsibility over the kids at the mall. I'm free to ignore them and go about my business

A teacher is under no obligation or responsible for giving their lives up for the children when at school by acting as human shields during these shootings. They do those things cause of the love they have for the kids. I'm sure that nowhere in their contract does it say the teacher has to die for their students if put in that position. And these are the same teachers that if they were at a child infested mall and a shooter started spraying, would most likely do the same and use themselves in any way possible to protect the kids. Although not obligated to do so. Same as other non-teaching people would do.

Moral of the story : a teacher is no more responsible or obligated to die for a child at the mall or at a school then a non-teaching person would be at the mall or at a school. But teachers often make the ultimate sacrifice for the children at schools cause...well...teachers are at schools.

Ya know, having been a TFL member for a few years, I've read many a past thread that have been started after different tragic 'non-school' shootings(shootings in theatres, malls, banks, stores, etc) throughout the U.S.

Seems that in all these past non-school shootings that have been discussed here as well as on other forums, the unanimous conclusion or line of thought has been " if only someone with a ccw would have been there, the shooter may have been stopped sooner" .

I guess it's just puzzles me that many are so quick to post on these types of threads in which a shooting happens at say a theatre that has no-gun signage posted that the theatre owner is at fault for not allowing guns in the theatre and if there had been patrons ccw'ing in the theatre there would probably have been less people killed. And when giving that response, are you considering that the above mentioned theatre just might have been full of mostly children that particular day.

But yet these same people seem to have an issue with qualified school staff having arms at school?

[ATW525]

A teacher is under no obligation or responsible for giving their lives up for the children when at school by acting as human shields during these shootings. They do those things cause of the love they have for the kids. I'm sure that nowhere in their contract does it say the teacher has to die for their students if put in that position. And these are the same teachers that if they were at a child infested mall and a shooter started spraying, would most likely do the same and use themselves in any way possible to protect the kids. Although not obligated to do so. Same as other non-teaching people would do.

Nothing I said had anything to do with teachers having an obligation to sacrifice themselves. They do, however, have a responsibility to maintain order and discipline in their classroom.

At the mall, if I spot a group of unruly teenagers hanging around the food court, I can just avoid them. The teacher, on the other hand, can't just avoid a group of unruly students in their classroom. They need to deal with the situation to restore order, whether that be a simple, "settle down", handing out a detention, sending the offending students to the office or summoning assistance from other teachers, administrators or the police.

In a way they already are pseudo-cops, though with a different continuum of force. I don't feel that it's unreasonable to want a teacher that carries in the classroom to be educated in the proper legal application of deadly force. Quite frankly, I can't understand why anybody would want to send their kids to school under the care of an armed teacher who had no desire to learn how and when it was appropriate to use it.

[Double Naught Spy]

Seems that in all these past non-school shootings that have been discussed here as well as on other forums, the unanimous conclusion or line of thought has been " if only someone with a ccw would have been there, the shooter may have been stopped sooner" .

Yeah, and for years the party line "conclusion" was that CCW lowers crime rates. There is a real distinction between wishful thinking, actual conclusions drawn from real information, and reality.

It is true that if somebody there had a gun, things might have been stopped sooner. You can't argue with such ambiguous logical. It is not outside of the realm of possibility. That is all such a statement says.

I would be willing to bet that there are a lot of people at these non-school shootings who are armed and who don't do a darned thing. After all, according to Grossman, most of us are not geared toward killing other humans and based on his studies of combat, fairly high percentages of soldiers fail to fire their weapons, especially if not properly trained.

Of course, we won't hear about too many of the CCW people at such shootings because they usually just keep quiet. Few people want to make it known that they had a gun and then did nothing with it to stop a mass shooter. Of the few we do hear about (Dan McKown, Joe Zamudio, Ralph Swagler), they don't come across very well as poster-boys for the cause of being armed and present. McKown was afraid the cops would shoot him and that he could not make the shot on the bad guy, so he just stood up and yelled at the guy who shot him multiple times. Zamudio was all over TV talking about how he had a gun and was prepared to use it, that he almost shot the WRONG person, etc. Swagler announced to 911 multiple times (IIRC) how he had a gun as he witnessed the event unfolding, but never made a move to stop the IHOP shooter because as he later said he wasn't going to move against such firepower.

People with a gun at or near the situation can make a difference, sure enough. People with a gun at or near a situation may not actually do anything constructive with their guns. This is also very true.

Grossman also notes that with soldiers, the type of training received has significantly improved the willingness of soldiers to fire. We see that in a lot of major self defense shootings at significant events that many of the effective responders are current or former military or police or otherwise have a good bit of training such as Mark Wilson who was a firearms instructor.

If you really want to stop school shooters by letting teachers be randomly armed, then do it right and make sure that said armed random teachers will have the training to be able to deal with the highly chaotic, scary, and emotionally charged situation in which they will find themselves.