Teachers with firearms

[shortwave]

So why not expect a person who is given the charge of protecting the lives others as part of their occupational duties to be held to a greater standard of training than joe citizen perusing his private endeavors? A occupational professional and a layman are two different things.

By that line of thought, teachers should not receive CPR courses or basic first aid courses because they are not doctors.

As far as the number of teachers that would voluntarily carry when going to work...we may be surprised:

www.northwestohio.com/news/story.aspx?id=844026

http://www.guns.com/2013/07/10/ohio-...ict-will-allow

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...2012/12/27/gun

There are many more articles.
If interested just Google 'teachers carrying guns'.

[dogtown tom]

johnelmore I dont mean to make anyone angry about teachers having to meet a higher standard. I believe having the teachers meet a higher standard would put the disbelievers more at ease and be the most responsible decision to make.

The "disbelievers" cannot be convinced and will never be "more at ease". Guns terrify them and renders them incapable of reason. It's far easier to continue to control the law abiders and blame the gun when a criminal or kook uses one.

I want there to be the least chance of something bad happening as a result of a lack of training or because the wrong person had a firearm.

I don't think there is a teacher alive that would disagree about training and education............but I don't see anything in the Second Amendment that requires a psych profile or training in order to carry a firearm.

Teachers should meet a higher standard armed or unarmed in any event. They should have a thorough background check just like police officers to work in the school. That said, I dont believe teachers are required to have that same thorough check.

You would be wrong. Most, if not all states require teachers to submit to a background check on hiring and many have yearly checks run.

As well teachers should go through a self defense class taught by a qualified professional instructor who has studied these situations and given supplemental training every 6 months. Is any self defense training being provided now besides lock the door and get under a desk?

Do YOU need to go through a self defense class every six months? Geeze.
The Second Amendment doesn't require it, neither should anyone else.

In my mind, its all about hardening the target in the most responsible way and to satisfy the disbelievers.

Simple solution......let teachers carry just as everyone else does. If the firerm stays concealed its not likely to be wrestled away, if the teacher doesn't draw it out of the holster its not going to be a negligent discharge, and if concealed IT'S NO ONES BUSINESS.

And the "disbelievers" can pound sand.

[johnelmore]

There is a difference between a records check and a thorough background check where all of your past employers, educators, relatives and neighbors are questioned about you. In any police department all officer candidates go through this intensive check. I do see some unusual articles in the paper at times about teachers having a questionable background like the ex pornstar. Also involved in the officers background check is sitting down with a psychologist.

I think a teachers background check should be more stringent then just a records check. That goes for all teachers who are hired on to the school.

[dogtown tom]

I do see some unusual articles in the paper at times about teachers having a questionable background like the ex pornstar.

Nothing illegal about being a pornstar.
Would you also deny the right to carry a firearm to pornstars?

[johnelmore]

I would leave that decision up to the parents if they want this person employed there teaching the children. My point is that a records check doesnt discover every detail about a persons background. Teachers are placed in charge of children so a higher level of trust is required and so I would prefer to know the details of the teachers background.

Let me emphasize that I believe a thorough background check similiar to what police officers go through should be required just to work at the school. I guess the norm right now is a records check.

[Sparks1957]

Teachers are placed in charge of children so a higher level of trust is required and so I would prefer to know the details of the teachers background.

I'm beginning to think this isn't about guns at all, or the rights of teachers to carry guns in schools, but more about a distrust of teachers in general.

Why should a teacher be any different than you when it comes to 2nd amendment rights? If their local laws allow a teacher to have a CC permit, why should they be held to a higher standard?

[Double Naught Spy]

I think there are two aspects to this problem.
1) Teachers all to carry for self defense
2) Teachers allowed to carry for the protection of their charges

1 & 2 are NOT the same thing, though there may be overlapping coverage. Protection of a group is not the same thing as self protection in the dynamics and complexity of the issue.

If teachers are allowed to carry for self defense, you cannot expect them to carry for the purpose of protecting others anymore than a person having a CCW is expected to protect others.

[Sparks1957]

If teachers are allowed to carry for self defense, you cannot expect them to carry for the purpose of protecting others anymore than a person having a CCW is expected to protect others.

True indeed, though many school shootings could ultimately be self-defense scenarios for the teacher viewpoint.

[Tinner666]

The NRA offered to pick up the tab for teachers wanting and qualified to carry and train. That would even cover the SRO, teachers and local AND even state working together so the LEO's would have a good idea of who was legally packing in a situation so the teachers could easily be identifiable to responders.
An armed person crouched in a hall at a corner looking towards the sound of shooting isn't likely to be the active shooter. Even LEO's not trained with the teacher should be able to make a good call and not shoot the teacher.
I also saw a comment, here, I believe, that's it shouldn't be rocket science. In fact, the most likely scenario is that in the case of an incident, the armed teacher would have all students shove all desks and chairs in a corner, get behind the chairs, desks, etc, and the teacher would also be behind cover and if the shooter, or knifer came through the door, the teacher could shoot from cover and end the threat.
I'm also sure that many teachers already have CCW's and shoot some in their spare time.

[johnelmore]

That is a great idea. Have the teachers train alongside the police.

All these school shooters were crazy people, but would they be crazy enough to head into a gunfight even up against small caliber 380 pistols? I dont think they would be crazy enough to try. If every teacher at Sandy Hook were armed then things would have been different. Maybe Lanza would have not tried in the first place or he would have been delayed or slowed or stopped by an armed response.

Many politicians want gun control until they start taking fire and then hope someone has a firearm to respond in kind.

[Double Naught Spy]

That is a great idea. Have the teachers train alongside the police.

All these school shooters were crazy people, but would they be crazy enough to head into a gunfight even up against small caliber 380 pistols? I dont think they would be crazy enough to try. If every teacher at Sandy Hook were armed then things would have been different. Maybe Lanza would have not tried in the first place or he would have been delayed or slowed or stopped by an armed response.

I see we have lost track of reality again.

1) Who is paying for the police training? It isn't inexpensive. The NRA is not going to pay for that. Will the teachers be LEO certified law enforcement officers when done? If they have all the training then why not be certified LEOs?

There are 3.7 million full time public and private school (primary and secondary) teachers, not including support staff and part time or student teachers. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28 Plus there are another 1.5 million or so college instructors (not including graduate students who teach). http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2...mbers-flattens So police training for 5.2+ million teachers would cost ?????? Police have to be certified or recertified at varying rates, but most are at least once per year. So you have that additional cost. How much of a maintenance cost for 5.2+ million teachers would that be ??????

WOW!

2) Crazy people don't care about the odds. If they are 'crazy' then they don't have proper rational thought. Many plan to die anyway. So, yes, they would enter into such a gunfight.

3) If every teacher at Sandy Hook was armed? Really? Such a scenario isn't likely to ever happen at any school other than a police academy or gun school, certainly not for a school the size of Sandy Hook. If being armed was a requirement for teaching, there would become a shortage of teachers in the US given the numbers of teachers who are anti-gun.

--------------------

I'm also sure that many teachers already have CCW's and shoot some in their spare time.

Sure. Glenn is one. I used to be one. There are others on the board. We are the exceptions rather than the rule. So, there are SOME, but the reality is that they are a tiny percentage and they are just people like all the other CCW people who don't carry even though they could. There is no reason to believe that more than 20% of teachers who can carry legally do carry when it is legal for them to do so. By and large, the teaching profession seems to be dominated by Liberals. Assuming that 5% of the population that is legally able to get a CCW actually has one (this would be more than double than Texas' average, FYI) and less than half of teachers are apt to be in the group willing to carry (say 49%), you are looking at maybe 2.45% of viable teachers that might have a CCW and only 20% of those would carry, so 0.49%, roughly 1 out of every 200 school teachers. That isn't a very high density and not only that, they won't be evenly distributed across schools or school districts. More than likely there would be higher concentrations in rural schools than inner city schools based on political demographics.

[johnwilliamson062]

Crazy people don't care about the odds. If they are 'crazy' then they don't have proper rational thought. Many plan to die anyway. So, yes, they would enter into such a gunfight.

Kind of... In every case of one active school shooters being confronted with any sort of threat/weapon they have retreated, surrendered, or killed themselves shortly thereafter.

Arming every teacher would obviously be foolish. 10% would be a lofty goal and likely 2-3% the high end of realistic.

I have researched that photo a little and from all I have found:
The photo shows a private security guard accompanying a school field trip. It seems in Israel all field trips are required to have an armed escort. Teachers in Israel are not armed while instructing. Some schools in very dangerous areas do have weapons on hand to arm teachers in case of emergency. Remember all of those teachers would have spent time in IDF as service is compulsory.

[Crazy88Fingers]

I'm on the younger end of the age spectrum here on the boards and got out of public schools less than a decade ago. I can honestly say the few teachers I wouldn't trust to carry a gun were the type that would probably scoff at the idea, if not become enraged over it. One teacher comes to mind who I think would carry a pocket pistol if allowed (actually I wouldn't be surprised if he did anyway) and I don't doubt he would risk his life to defend his students if necessary.

[Double Naught Spy]

Kind of... In every case of one active school shooters being confronted with any sort of threat/weapon they have retreated, surrendered, or killed themselves shortly thereafter.

WRONG!

Charlie Whitman certainly did NOT.

Keith Ledeger at Wickleffe Middle School killed 1 and wounded 3 more including a police officer who was working at the school as security. The officer was not the first one shot, either.

Eric Houston took 80 hostages after killing 4 and wounding 10. He eventually did surrender, but it wasn't shortly thereafter but many hours later.

Charles Roberts at the Amish School didn't become an active shooter until AFTER the cops were on scene and had been there for a while and had communicated with him.

At the Epstein School shooting, Karel Charva also killed a police officer who attempted to intervene.

Kimveer Gill at the Dawson School also opted to take hostages after the police arrived and confronting him, having already shot 20. It wasn't until he was shot in the arm by the police that he finally committed suicide. So this notion of the mere threat of a weapon stopping folks is pretty silly, isn't it?

And why limit things to just single shooters? Not all such shootings are by single shooters, are they? Klebold and Harris were not daunted by being shot at by the sheriff's deputy and simply continued their killing inside the school.

The Ma'alot massacre is another. While a number folks were shot and or killed during the takeover of the school, more than 100 hostages were taken by 3 terrorists and 3 days later after a prolong standoff, the killing and wounding of a lot more occurred. In the end, 25 were dead and 68 wounded, not including the terrorists. Several officers were shot in the eventually successful attempt to retake the school.

Funny how it is that we forget about the cases that are the exceptions to what we want to believe. I know that the notion of the gunmen surrendering or killing themselves when confronted when a weapon is very comforting to us, but the true fact of the matter is that you can't couch all situations so conveniently and count on that happening. School shooters are not a cookie cutter groups of people any more than active shooters at malls or in neighborhoods. Each one is different, has different goals, and/or motivations.

[ChuckS]

I’d like to bring up a few points:

Is there a danger that with more armed citizens, an innocent bystander may be shot?
I like the idea of having armed staff (not just teachers) able to respond to an active shooting situation because they know and can recognize other staff and students. This reduces the chance of innocent people being mistakenly shot.

Originally Posted by George Will

Only 2 percent of civilian shootings involve an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The error rate for the police, however, was 11 percent.

Having staff armed will also provide an immediate response. This is important because we know that the sooner a response, the fewer the number of victims.

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Who is paying for the police training?

If I remember right, a local trainer in Utah welcomed teachers to free training and he got a big response. Maybe NRA won’t do it for free, but they could develop and offer the specialized training. I would bet there are many in the shooting-community that would contribute to a fund(s) for training school staff in shooting, FOF, etc.

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

If every teacher at Sandy Hook was armed?

Do we need to arm everyone in the school?…no. Even a small percentage will be a deterrent. That’s why even a small police presence works to reduce crime. Strategically placed armed staff would be better use of resources and provide much better coverage. I’d pose that having even “some” staff would reduce incidents. How often are these mass shootings in a gun-free zone?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The answer is so easy.

1. I don't expect all the CCW commandos who carry in church or the mall to get SWAT training. They carry as it their right. Should they get trained - of course they should. ON their own dime.

2. I don't expect the teacher to be a cop. I want the teacher to have the right to carry as if he or she were in the mall or church.

Oh, dear - the teacher might accidentally shoot a kid. Oh, dear - the internet reading CCW type might shoot the little kid in the choir in church by accident. What is the logical difference?

That's all there is to it and the rest of the arguments are just plain silly. You set conditions which would eliminate concealed carry in general.

[44 AMP]

I wonder why no one seems to be discussing what, to me seems an obvious (and might even be remotely possible):

Co-locate the police and the schools.

A police station /substation could be placed at schools. Not the jail, just having Officer Friendly on the grounds, at any time would be a deterrent, I think. None of these shooting incidents ever seems to happen at police stations, (or, for that matter at other locations likely to have armed people on the premises).

Sure, there's a lot of things that would have to be done it effect this, but, other than money, what could anyone object to?

Arming Teachers? A joke. Just look at what happened to "arming pilots". Allowing people who happen to be teachers to exercise the same rights as the rest of us, (including at work) is, to me, simply equal treatment under the law, and the way things ought to be done.

Putting guards in schools (armed or not)? Ok, pay for it, find only responsible people, AND keep the system from requiring Delta Force level training before they are considered competent and "safe"? Good luck.

We already have police. Move some of them around. Do that, before worrying about other, less possible alternatives.

[jrwhitt]

To be honest I'd rather the police are on the streets and not sitting in the station

[TimSr]

If teachers are allowed to carry for self defense, you cannot expect them to carry for the purpose of protecting others anymore than a person having a CCW is expected to protect others.

The courts have ruled that police officers are not legally required to protect others.


I guess the flip side of the question "should teachers be permitted to carry?" is "What is the deficiency in teachers that they should be denied CCW in their workplace as opposed to other occupations where children are present and its legal?"

[Double Naught Spy]

Do we need to arm everyone in the school?…no. Even a small percentage will be a deterrent. That’s why even a small police presence works to reduce crime. Strategically placed armed staff would be better use of resources and provide much better coverage. I’d pose that having even “some” staff would reduce incidents. How often are these mass shootings in a gun-free zone?

So many points. Even a small percentage would be a deterrent? You mean like CCW has been a deterrent to crime rates? That hasn't happened.

Strategically placed armed staff? What staff are you talking about? You mean SROs, teachers hired to be hired guns?

How often are these shootings in gun free zones? I am not sure what you mean by "these shootings" exactly. Virtually all school shootings are in gun free zones but most shootings and even most mass shooting do NOT occur in gun free zones. Most mass shootings happen on private property, especially residences. You don't necessarily hear about them because they are domestic matters and so don't get the grand coverage, but they qualify under definition as being a mass shooting because 4 or more people other than the shooter are shot. So it really is something of a myth that most mass shootings occur in gun free zones. That just isn't the case.

Are the police-on-campus really a deterrent at school shootings? I don't know. Having them there certainly reduces response time and potentially limiting the carnage, but that failed miserably at Columbine. There was an armed SRO and unarmed security officer at the Arapaho school shooting. The SRO was the first intended target at the 2010 Socastee High School shooting where a student showed up armed with a pistol and pipe bombs. Fortunately, he missed the SRO who responded quickly. A lot or most of the universities where mass shootings have occurred have their own police forces, which isn't quite the same thing, but hasn't proven to be a deterrent.

I wonder why no one seems to be discussing what, to me seems an obvious (and might even be remotely possible):

Co-locate the police and the schools.

Wonderful idea. At worst, it would reduce response times. HOWEVER, how many substations are you going to have? Take my community. We have 113,000 people and 28 public schools in the city limits. That then becomes 28 substations with at least 28 people manning them (like putting an SRO in each school). That would require increasing the location police force by approximately 25% because you can't have officers leaving the substation to do their normal duties without leaving the schools unprotected. So again we get back to a money issue. Who will pay to have all those officers in place? Some cities are doing it and can afford it. Some are doing a few SROs and letting them rove randomly from school to school. I think we are up to three in my city and they are usually hanging around the high schools and sometimes middle schools (based on the last talk I saw given on the topic). However, they rove throughout the district which actually involves 35 schools, 7 of which are outside the city limits. So they won't be present for a Sandy Hook type of incident if something happens at an elementary school and have less than a 1:10 chance at being at any school with an incident. Private schools, at which some shootings occur, are left on their own.

The City of Dallas only has 233 public schools. So you need 233 dedicated officers to that job. Los Angeles has 1124 schools comprising nearly 700,000 students and teachers. That would be a lot of substations.

I guess the flip side of the question "should teachers be permitted to carry?" is "What is the deficiency in teachers that they should be denied CCW in their workplace as opposed to other occupations where children are present and its legal?"

Good question, but if you permit teachers to carry under CCW laws, then you permit any adult with a permit to carry as well, which I would like to see. Teachers are not special in this regard and have no justification for being specially armed over other CCW folks. It isn't just the teachers that are prohibited, but people in general, regardless of occupation if outside of law enforcement. Also keep in mind, also, that in most states, prohibited school carry isn't just at the high school and below levels. It extends to colleges.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Since quite a few of the shooters seem to have significant psychological problems, let's not go off in political directions that have little influence on psychosis. Deleted some of that.

The issue of deterrence is well stated above. It is hard to make a case based on the scientific method for deterrence of rampage shooters. We really don't know how many have been deterred. We know that between 50 and 150 have been caught before the act by being turned in.

The reason to have carry in the schools is simply to have a better option that being a human shield or IPAD kung-fu moves.

[shortwave]

Oh, dear - the teacher might accidentally shoot a kid. Oh, dear - the internet reading CCW type might shoot the little kid in the choir in church by accident. What is the logical difference?

That's all there is to it and the rest of the arguments are just plain silly. You set conditions which would eliminate concealed carry in general.

The above statement is exactly correct.

When our kids were in school, we as parents made it a point to get to know, or at least meet the kids teachers, coaches, the principals etc. Today, we have met the G-kids teachers. If the kids were around these educators out on the street and the educators were armed, would I feel less safe for my children ? No!

Why should I, my kids and G-kids are out at the store, malls, go to church etc. all the time rubbing elbows with people that are armed that I have never seen before let alone met.

Would I feel less safe if these same educators were around my kids, G-kids at their schools? Why would I? They just rubbed elbows with them out on the street. On the contrary. I'd feel better about the kids safety.

I just got in from the mall. Spent probably 6hrs today going from store to store doing what I do every year at this time of year...last minute Christmas shopping.

Carried all day.

Walking past and standing next to hundreds of people and kids of all ages. Were they less safe? Good Lord...it's a good thing the people that were holding babies that I held doors for didn't know I was armed.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...active-shooter

Just some info and a take on the shooter always gives up and suicides. See the bold.

Note the Sikh temple shooter, who engaged the police and shot an officer repeatedly. I repeat that opposing teachers who have permits or licenses being able to carry is to be a tool of the antigun forces. To continue to insist that teachers become pseudocops misses the point of concealed carry.
Those who do, should give up their permits and licenses if they don't meet the standards of Swat training.

So do you prefer a school teacher leave the room so that a monster can rape the children and then kill them? That's happened. Or might the school marm, if willing to carry, have a chance to disrupt such?

Maybe faced with a crazy who asks the males to leave the classroom, they do that. Then when the crazy starts shooting the females, one can ask him not to shoot her. He can then stab her to death with a hunting knife - that happened. Or perhaps someone might have a firearm?

Yes, we can erect forcefields and metal detectors in fortress like schools for zillions of dollars (please print them). Or we can give those motivated a chance to defend themselves.

Active-Shooter Statistics


Active-shooter incidents often occur in small- and medium-sized communities where police departments are limited by budget constraints and small workforces.10

The average active-shooter incident lasts 12 minutes. Thirty-seven percent last less than 5 minutes.11

Overwhelmingly, the offender is a single shooter (98 percent), primarily male (97 percent). In 40 percent of the instances, they kill themselves.12

Two percent of the shooters bring IEDs as an additional weapon.13

In 10 percent of the cases, the shooter stops and walks away. In 20 percent of the cases, the shooter goes mobile, moving to another location.14

Forty-three percent of the time, the crime is over before police arrive. In 57 percent of the shootings, an officer arrives while the shooting is still underway.15

The shooter often stops as soon as he hears or sees law enforcement, sometimes turning his anger or aggression on law enforcement.16

Patrol officers are most likely responding alone or with a partner. When responding alone, 75 percent had to take action.17

A third of those officers who enter the incident alone are shot by the intruder.

[shortwave]

A third of those officers who enter the incident alone are shot by the intruder

...and you have to wonder why that is.

Is it a slim possibility that the LEO is entering the building only equipped with the info that there is an active shooter inside the building with no proximity of just where in the building until he/she hears the first shot?

When on the other hand, if there was someone armed already on the inside(I.E. teacher, dean etc.) when the incident started that spotted the shooter, maybe even before the shooting started, could address the situation before the shooter could ever get the first shot off. Or at least would have a better understanding of where in the building the shots were coming from.

Yes, we can construct a building so as to make it safer and be more difficult for a BG to gain entry but we cannot 100% eliminate the possibility of a BG still gaining entry with some sort of weapon if the BG is bound and determined to carry out evil deeds.

Same as if we could take every gun in the US and magically make them disappear, if someone had in their minds to commit destruction, they will.

We all know that seconds count in crimes involving weapons.

For those that say teachers with ccl's should not be allowed the chance to defend themselves or the kids while at school against a shooter, do you feel that a ccl carrier(teacher or not) should have the right to defend themselves(or others) out on the street if GOD forbid the situation would arise.

If you were at the mall with your kids and happened to be unarmed the day a madman started spraying, naturally you would you want an armed ccl carrier to try and defend himself, you and your kids if he/she could do so before LE got there?

The only difference between the above scenario at the mall and a school is location. The madman has one thing on his/her mind and that's killing people.

The same thing, and most likely biggest element the above mall scenario and school shooting scenario has in common is the more time it takes(thinking only seconds here not minutes) an armed good guy to show up and confront or at least fend off the armed BG, the higher the body count will be when the dust settles.

It's just not that complicated!

[armoredman]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

...The standard should be - do you have a permit or license issued by your state, or do you live in a state that recognizes your right to armed lawful self defense without such encumbrances?

Fixed it for ya. BTW, I have heard of a few school districts, one in Texas, who did arm the teachers. I for one would be happy to see such a program in my son's school.