I have a funny question. I read some where that Front Sight or one of the other self defense schools was offering teachers a free course if they were a designated school safety officer. The reason I ask is my 14 year old daughter is starting a petition at her school to have some of the teachers armed if they would like to be. Some already have CCW. One teacher that she has talked to would like to be one of them. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
guns at school
- Thread starter docstodd
- Start date
Munro Williams
New member
Get ready for a lefty led psycho-babble smear campaign, though.
[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited April 27, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited April 27, 2000).]
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Know this issue well.
Many school personnel and administrators
are anti-gun as you might suspect.
Also, and very important, decisions are made
on perceived liability.
it is thought that the cost of paying off the family of folks shot because the teacher could not defend themselves with firearms will be less than the costs if they allow teachers to carry and that goes wrong. The teacher goes nuts or in an ambiguous situation uses deadly force and hurts someone accidentally, etc.
Given the actual low risk of a rampage killer in modern times (as Lott points out), they don't want the risk of armed teachers.
In fact, in many institutions, getting armed campus police is difficult. Faculty tend to oppose such and administrators think that armed folks on campus give the impression of lack of safety. Bad PR.
A friend of mine consults on this and the arugment that wins the day is not any RKBA or armed response is needed rhetoric but that
if you have unarmed cops you have added risk for liability. The cop is a bullet magnet,if you don't allow themselves to defend themselves and they die - they will sue you and win.
There is such a case going well for the plantiffs in New England. Such analyses are convincing to risk managment folk who only care about MONEY.
Now could you make the argument for teachers.
Perhaps, not.
Here are the problems:
1. What level of training do you assume for the teacher? Lot's of CHL holders have no serious firearms, tactical or police training. What do they know about the force continuum, etc? If they start shooting in a situation that is not appropriate - MONEY!!
2. What expectancies do you have for the armed teacher? I know several professors with CHLs. I say only three of us have significant handgun skills but no law enforcement skills. If I blow it, would I be liable to suit.
If I hear shooting down the hall, do I protect my charges? Do I go see? Can I get sued if I follow my own training and save my own butt and flee. I'm not a cop but does official sanction of carry imply LEO responsibilites for me?
Do I have to intervene physically or with OC in a fist fight? I'm not a cop.
3. Officially sanctioned armed teachers will be bullet magnets also. Klebold and Harris might easily find out that I am armed and start with me.
Armed parents of unknown training, skills and stability are even a worse nightmare.
No offense, but give some of the folk we have seen on the list - NO WAY - do I want them patrolling my kid's school.
Thus, IMHO - officially armed teachers are not the way to go, unless they are fully sanctioned and trained as a LEO and with responsibility to intervene ONLY in potential deadly force situations.
I think there is fat chance of this happening.
What I would support strongly is that teachers with CHLs or other permits be allowed to carry on campus, just like anywhere else. When you have CHL, you know the rules for use of deadly force and can act accordingly. That permission in and of itself may be a good deterrent. I don't think this would happen - but it might.
The teacher in this situation would have no responsibilities beyond those of a CHL anywhere. They can choose to do what they want in a situation based on the laws for deadly force and their own morality.
Now that was long winded.
Many school personnel and administrators
are anti-gun as you might suspect.
Also, and very important, decisions are made
on perceived liability.
it is thought that the cost of paying off the family of folks shot because the teacher could not defend themselves with firearms will be less than the costs if they allow teachers to carry and that goes wrong. The teacher goes nuts or in an ambiguous situation uses deadly force and hurts someone accidentally, etc.
Given the actual low risk of a rampage killer in modern times (as Lott points out), they don't want the risk of armed teachers.
In fact, in many institutions, getting armed campus police is difficult. Faculty tend to oppose such and administrators think that armed folks on campus give the impression of lack of safety. Bad PR.
A friend of mine consults on this and the arugment that wins the day is not any RKBA or armed response is needed rhetoric but that
if you have unarmed cops you have added risk for liability. The cop is a bullet magnet,if you don't allow themselves to defend themselves and they die - they will sue you and win.
There is such a case going well for the plantiffs in New England. Such analyses are convincing to risk managment folk who only care about MONEY.
Now could you make the argument for teachers.
Perhaps, not.
Here are the problems:
1. What level of training do you assume for the teacher? Lot's of CHL holders have no serious firearms, tactical or police training. What do they know about the force continuum, etc? If they start shooting in a situation that is not appropriate - MONEY!!
2. What expectancies do you have for the armed teacher? I know several professors with CHLs. I say only three of us have significant handgun skills but no law enforcement skills. If I blow it, would I be liable to suit.
If I hear shooting down the hall, do I protect my charges? Do I go see? Can I get sued if I follow my own training and save my own butt and flee. I'm not a cop but does official sanction of carry imply LEO responsibilites for me?
Do I have to intervene physically or with OC in a fist fight? I'm not a cop.
3. Officially sanctioned armed teachers will be bullet magnets also. Klebold and Harris might easily find out that I am armed and start with me.
Armed parents of unknown training, skills and stability are even a worse nightmare.
No offense, but give some of the folk we have seen on the list - NO WAY - do I want them patrolling my kid's school.
Thus, IMHO - officially armed teachers are not the way to go, unless they are fully sanctioned and trained as a LEO and with responsibility to intervene ONLY in potential deadly force situations.
I think there is fat chance of this happening.
What I would support strongly is that teachers with CHLs or other permits be allowed to carry on campus, just like anywhere else. When you have CHL, you know the rules for use of deadly force and can act accordingly. That permission in and of itself may be a good deterrent. I don't think this would happen - but it might.
The teacher in this situation would have no responsibilities beyond those of a CHL anywhere. They can choose to do what they want in a situation based on the laws for deadly force and their own morality.
Now that was long winded.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The reaction to Front Sight has been negative among some folks. I recall a school supervisor in a shooting location discussing the aftermath. One thing he said that he found most disturbing was a nut trying to offer him free gun training. That was Front Sight.
You have to watch out for priming effects. The gun use by the students generates such negative affect that somebody coming to you and offering training with B-27s and Glocks in order to have a firefight with your students repulses folks.
Some people think Front Sight might have made the offer for the PR. He might be sincere or both. However, the immediate offer sounds good to the choir but I don't think it has much persuasive power outside of us or people who are naturally sympatico.
Like I said, let us get permission to carry at work - better to be a little subtle on this one.
You have to watch out for priming effects. The gun use by the students generates such negative affect that somebody coming to you and offering training with B-27s and Glocks in order to have a firefight with your students repulses folks.
Some people think Front Sight might have made the offer for the PR. He might be sincere or both. However, the immediate offer sounds good to the choir but I don't think it has much persuasive power outside of us or people who are naturally sympatico.
Like I said, let us get permission to carry at work - better to be a little subtle on this one.
Eric of IN
New member
The Indianapolis Public School system raised a big stink when they allowed the IPS police (a seperate division within the city police dept) to carry sidearms outside of normal school hours. I can't imagine what the antis would say to an armed teacher in the classroom.
------------------
Formerly Puddle Pirate.
Teach a kid to shoot.
It annoys the antis.
------------------
Formerly Puddle Pirate.
Teach a kid to shoot.
It annoys the antis.