Could you reliably do the same, with bystanders between you and the target, while someone was shooting at you in an attempt to kill you? If you've never been in the situation there's no way you can say for sure. Maybe you can, maybe you can't. But if you are going to hold yourself accountable for the ability to do this, most would agree that it is a good idea to prepare yourself. That requires practice and training.
NOT Gun Control
- Thread starter Onward Allusion
- Start date
Could you reliably do the same, with bystanders between you and the target, while someone was shooting at you in an attempt to kill you? If you've never been in the situation there's no way you can say for sure. Maybe you can, maybe you can't. But if you are going to hold yourself accountable for the ability to do this, most would agree that it is a good idea to prepare yourself. That requires practice and training.
NateKirk said:
This was post 251, the last time you said this.
While what you said may not rise to the training level of SWAT, it does exceed the mandatory training of an ordinary LEO. So while you certainly didn't say we train them as officers, you sure set the bar higher than their training.
Training is knowing what proper sight alignment is and finding your sight picture while maintaining the alignment. Then you practice your training on targets.
And yes, it can be that simple.
What I and others are saying is to allow those teachers that wish to be armed, get their state issued concealed carry permit and carry like any other citizen. We are not saying that the teacher act as Law Enforcement. We are simply saying that we should afford them the same possible protection we enjoy. The odds favor that the teacher will never have to draw their firearm.
rwilson452
New member
Simply put. I have been shot at before. I didn't loose it.
Train to do what ? Not be afraid ?
If a few of the teachers were armed some of them would protect their "family" at all cost. The officer obviously didn't look at it that way, but the teachers who shielded the students and died doing it did.
I don't see any other answer to copy cats wanting their 15 minutes of fame.
As far as not being able to acquire a weapon capable of mass casualties , that cat is out of the bag and has been.
If a few of the teachers were armed some of them would protect their "family" at all cost. The officer obviously didn't look at it that way, but the teachers who shielded the students and died doing it did.
I don't see any other answer to copy cats wanting their 15 minutes of fame.
As far as not being able to acquire a weapon capable of mass casualties , that cat is out of the bag and has been.
The risks of having armed staff on site in a school shooting are insignificant when compared to the consequences of waiting for law enforcement to arrive. It has been mentioned repeatedly that the danger to innocents is too high to allow civilians to carry in schools. What are the risks of doing nothing to stop an active shooter?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
In the Sandy Hook shooting, the principal and I think two other unarmed administrators were killed in the entrance lobby, trying to approach the shooter and stop him. A teacher, Victoria Soto, was killed in her classroom, trying to shield her students.
Three unarmed teachers were killed at Parkland. One, the assistant football coach, attempted to protect students, and was killed for his trouble.
Is it so terrible to think that those brave teachers and administrators should have had the means to counter the threat effectively?
Three unarmed teachers were killed at Parkland. One, the assistant football coach, attempted to protect students, and was killed for his trouble.
Is it so terrible to think that those brave teachers and administrators should have had the means to counter the threat effectively?
Last edited:
turkeestalker
New member
No, it's terrible to deny them that means.
Without the ability, or even the possibility of effective defense the lives of all present are in the hands of a deranged killer(s).
I live in a rural area. There are schools here in small communities where law enforcement may be 20 minutes or more away in an active shooter situation. Gun control laws won't change that, but a couple of armed staff members could save countless lives. "A good guy with a gun" is not just a trite cliche used by the NRA to forward a political agenda. It is sometimes the difference between life and death.
I live in a rural area. There are schools here in small communities where law enforcement may be 20 minutes or more away in an active shooter situation. Gun control laws won't change that, but a couple of armed staff members could save countless lives. "A good guy with a gun" is not just a trite cliche used by the NRA to forward a political agenda. It is sometimes the difference between life and death.
There is nothing in post 251 that mentions training teachers as police. I invite others to read for themselves.
I agree that the teachers should be able to carry if they want to. I also think that they should know what they are doing.
Imagine you are a teacher at Parkland high school, only you have your gun on you. Class was in session and the shooter pulled the fire alarm to get everybody into the halls. You walk out of your class room with the rest of your students to find someone with a rifle say 10- 15 yards down the hall. How many people are between you and the shooter? 5? 6? A dozen? When I was in high school we had 1200 kids for 5 hallways of classrooms. Add the fact that everyone is panicking. There is a great potential for someone who doesn't know what they are doing to make the situation significantly worse.
A normal CPL class does not train anyone on anything but the laws pertaining to carrying a gun. It's not training it's instruction. CPL classes have a shooting portion but it is by no means any kind of training. When I took my class about half the people had never shot a gun, and couldn't shoot one when they completed the course.
I insist that people take better training because they are not preparing themselves for the scenarios a CPL course covers, but for a worst case scenario.
And if that's what they're going to assume, and the level of competency they are willing to maintain, for the scenario where they never have to draw their gun, then they shouldn't carry. They should leave it to another teacher more willing to accept the responsibility or the police.
I'm not sure that presenting a firearm could make the situation much worse. Yes, randomly firing without regard for the background is a problem. That is an issue that is addressed in every CCL class that I am aware of though.
Your continued assertion that most of us who carry are a danger to ourselves and others is not supported by the evidence. Even the people I know who are less trained than they should be are not going to blaze away in the school hallway. It is a hollow argument in my opinion.
Nate Kirk said:
You're right. You don't mention training teachers as police, but insist that they exceed standards set for most police.
That doesn't make your position any more rational.
Nate Kirk said:
Now let's imagine something that actually happened. Scott Beigel struggled, unarmed, to close a door to his room to protect the children in it. With nothing but determination on his side, he died of his wounds.
Keeping teachers from exercising their right unless they've completed their double secret squirrel paratrooper training exposes children to greater danger where it keeps good people disarmed.
That is exactly what I was trying to say! Thanks.
There will never be enough training to change the minds of those who reject civilian carry as dangerous to the community at large. Complete the 'double secret squirrel paratrooper training' and then some other type of squirrel special forces training will be required.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I am all for training, having done lots at the higher end. However, there is fallacy of ranting about training in the schools.
If you want the teacher to be a pseudo-cop and run towards the sounds of cannons, you would want quality training. How many of you have it, BTW? Sound off before you opine.
However, how is the school different from the mall or your house of worship? If you are a shooting putz, you will be one in most crowded places.
Thus, the mandatory training folks have to suggest it be required for ANY carry. Now, that is not a bad thing to debate based on empirical outcomes.
If the teacher, as said before, is not a pseudo-cop but just defends him or herself and the kids in the immediate area (the classroom), then that's different.
Note, there is a moral disposition (probably based on biologically based behavior to protect the young) not to risk an innocent, even to stop a bad person. The accidental death of the innocent is seen as worse. Don't argue the cost/benefit logic - it doesn't work that way.
The simply concealed carrying teacher can defend their own body, their kids or just jump out the window. They are not bound to fight just as you are not bound to fight in the mall or house of worship. It is their and your decision. It would be nice though if they had a better option to fight with than a copy of Dr. Seuss.
If you want the teacher to be a pseudo-cop and run towards the sounds of cannons, you would want quality training. How many of you have it, BTW? Sound off before you opine.
However, how is the school different from the mall or your house of worship? If you are a shooting putz, you will be one in most crowded places.
Thus, the mandatory training folks have to suggest it be required for ANY carry. Now, that is not a bad thing to debate based on empirical outcomes.
If the teacher, as said before, is not a pseudo-cop but just defends him or herself and the kids in the immediate area (the classroom), then that's different.
Note, there is a moral disposition (probably based on biologically based behavior to protect the young) not to risk an innocent, even to stop a bad person. The accidental death of the innocent is seen as worse. Don't argue the cost/benefit logic - it doesn't work that way.
The simply concealed carrying teacher can defend their own body, their kids or just jump out the window. They are not bound to fight just as you are not bound to fight in the mall or house of worship. It is their and your decision. It would be nice though if they had a better option to fight with than a copy of Dr. Seuss.
Ah! A teaching moment has arrived! Nate, see that little graphic right after your name (
It is easily seen if I correctly and completely quoted you. Now that I've eliminated any chance that I misquoted you, let's deconstruct what you did write. Shall we?
You wrote that teachers (to be allowed to carry in the schools that they teach) would have to have mandatory traning that would also have to be very good extensive training. While that alone may not say that you want the teachers to have police officer style training, what you say next implies much more.
How frequently? Once a year? Bi-annually? Monthly? You don't actually say, but given all of your previous statements, we can well imagine. But let's move on.
That type of training is SWAT training, or just short of it. So while you don't come right out to say you would only allow teachers to carry if they had (very extensive) police training, the implication is very clear. Most especially when taking what you wrote as a whole.
One final note on the language you use. You use the quasi-military term, "non combatants", to describe the students as if this were a military operation. They aren't, this isn't. What we have are children either running away in abject fear or hunkering down in their classrooms, in that same fear. The shooter is not some highly trained military soldier. The shooter is a deranged madman, shooting at any target of opportunity that is provided. But this only goes to further prove what you would insist that teachers have for training.
Stamp your foot and whine all you want, that this is not what you meant. What I quoted was far from the first time you wrote something like this. If you didn't mean this, why have you continuously written about it in this manner?
In the final analysis, what you are saying is the same thing we have heard from the anti-gun crowd, every single time a State was about to pass a "shall issue" carry law: "There Will Be Blood In The Streets!"
It has never happened before, which is a good indicator that it will not happen this time.
rwilson452
New member
The sad truth of the matter is no one knows for certain how one will react until they hear the crack of bullets going by. Not the military, not police. It is said that, "You will fight the way you train." It ain't necessarily true.
I agree. The other side claims, "well, the teacher could be misidentified by SWAT teams and shot. The teacher could freeze. The teacher could get shot without responding effectively."
While those things are all true, there's also a chance the teacher could put a stop to such a shooting. That chance is worth taking. An old mantra of the anti-gun crusade is, "if it just saves one life."
At the very least, giving teachers training and the option of making that choice could save lives. I'll take those odds over a completely disarmed victim zone.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Let's put arming teachers in perspective. The suggestion of arming teachers is not to make teachers into a front line SWAT team, the idea is to allow them effective means to defend. Zukiphile mentioned Scott Beigel, who was killed while trying to close the door to his classroom. If he had had a gun, perhaps he could have snapped off a couple of shots that might have made the shooter duck long enough for Mr. Beigel to close the door.
Another example: Sandy Hook. A young woman teacher named Victoria Soto was killed while attempting to shield her students in her classroom. Suppose Ms. Soto had had a gun. She wouldn't have needed to do anything different -- no need for her to go out in the corridor and go hunting for the gunman. But, if/when he opened the door to her classroom, what a difference she could have made if she could have greeted him with a few rounds of 9mm instead of "Eek!" Scott Beigel and Victoria Soto didn't have that option, and they died trying to protect their students. What a tremendous waste of good people.
It's no different from burglars in your home. The experts tell us not to try to clear the house yourself, but gather the family in a safe room, call the police, and be prepared to open fire if the bad guys try to enter your safe room. Translate "home" to "school" and the same advice would hold for teachers. Get your students into the classrooms, lock the doors, hunker down, and if/when the shooter tries to breach the door -- fire when ready.
Another example: Sandy Hook. A young woman teacher named Victoria Soto was killed while attempting to shield her students in her classroom. Suppose Ms. Soto had had a gun. She wouldn't have needed to do anything different -- no need for her to go out in the corridor and go hunting for the gunman. But, if/when he opened the door to her classroom, what a difference she could have made if she could have greeted him with a few rounds of 9mm instead of "Eek!" Scott Beigel and Victoria Soto didn't have that option, and they died trying to protect their students. What a tremendous waste of good people.
It's no different from burglars in your home. The experts tell us not to try to clear the house yourself, but gather the family in a safe room, call the police, and be prepared to open fire if the bad guys try to enter your safe room. Translate "home" to "school" and the same advice would hold for teachers. Get your students into the classrooms, lock the doors, hunker down, and if/when the shooter tries to breach the door -- fire when ready.
It is wishful thinking to believe that more than 25% of CCH holders will actually carry. That's probably a high number.
You imagine how this would go, but you really don't know "how it would go." There would be panic, running, screaming, and crowds during the first minute of the shooting. Everyone will seek to flee, seek cover, and very shortly after it begins the shooter will come to a point when he has to look for more victims by going room to room (or flee). At this point engaging will not be as difficult as imagined. No one is suggesting to take a 100 shot with a pistol with kids running in and out of the line of fire. Further, while we discuss arming teachers, I wouldn't expect a teacher to seek out the shooter in the hallway. I would more expect them to corral as many kids as the can, lock the door, stand in for out of them, and hold the line.
However I still propose that teachers should endure some training to be armed. My reasoning is not so they are crack shots (neither are many cops), but so they have a mind on retaining their firearm around kids. That is the bigger deal to me, IMO. Especially around high schoolers, where some of the more "delinquent" students may eye it to steal, etc.
I personally want the teachers I hire and pay very high taxes for to focus on TEACHING
In my country I enjoy a really low property tax rate for my home and acreage.... I remember Communist wealth of Virginia charging me $3200 for a $89K home in a neighborhood circa 1985
Today with 2.5 acres and $230K home it is $586 per year... BUT school tax is an additional $3800 per year for just 7 schools in the county
I shudder to think the expense to be mandated to LOCK them all down... possible but the cost becomes very excessive and I do not believe in any lock down systems...
I easily with meager thinking can defeat ANY total lock down system
This is actually one area I think MIGHT try to exploit retired or other wise honorably discharged Veterans....
I know sort of bad example form what we think about Black water or Brown and Root...
but I am sure there are hundreds of special security agencies that easily could provide adequate first response for a reasonable cost
In my country I enjoy a really low property tax rate for my home and acreage.... I remember Communist wealth of Virginia charging me $3200 for a $89K home in a neighborhood circa 1985
Today with 2.5 acres and $230K home it is $586 per year... BUT school tax is an additional $3800 per year for just 7 schools in the county
I shudder to think the expense to be mandated to LOCK them all down... possible but the cost becomes very excessive and I do not believe in any lock down systems...
I easily with meager thinking can defeat ANY total lock down system
This is actually one area I think MIGHT try to exploit retired or other wise honorably discharged Veterans....
I know sort of bad example form what we think about Black water or Brown and Root...
but I am sure there are hundreds of special security agencies that easily could provide adequate first response for a reasonable cost