Teachers with firearms

[TimSr]

Pretty much all of the objections to allowing CCW teachers to carry on the job (falsely characterized as "arming teachers") are the same objections that were used against general CCW. I believe that they will continue to fade as more and more schools allow it, and as the irrational fears never materialize.

Nearly all of these incidents involve shooters waltzing in unchallenged and systematically shooting victims as though its a shooting gallery. Preventing the initial carnage is very difficult, but 99% of the victims wait seconds, several minutes, or more while hearing shot after shot in other rooms. A teacher need not carry to have immediate access. A biometric lock box securely anchored in each class room may be an interim compromise, to alleviate all the fears about unlikely accidents as a result of carrying. Those teachers who are qualified may bring their weapon and put it in the box in their classroom. In case their individual hand or finger opens the box. No other person has access. Every classroom has such a box. Nobody knows which ones are empty.

As in my home, I would not want to lug a gun around in the classroom all day for that 1 in a million chance I might need it, but to have one available, that is secured from unauthorized users would a no brainer to me, and far safer than in a purse or briefcase.

 

[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. 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.

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.

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?

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

 

[Tom Servo]

I believe having the teachers meet a higher standard would put the disbelievers more at ease and be the most responsible decision to make

Unfortunately, it won't do much to assuage their fears. Their core objections won't be swept aside by a few (to them) meager concessions.

Now, having optional self-defense training available to teachers would be a good step either way.

 

[Sparks1957]

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.

Well, here in Vermont I didn't get a teaching license until I was fingerprinted and subjected to a thorough FBI background check. I can't speak for other states' practices.

The majority of teachers would be most unwilling to carry, but a few of us would be.

 

[FireForged]

Should a professional driver who drives others around as an occupation, have to meet a higher standard training than joe citizen driving his daily to the grocery? Sure

Should a professional pilot who transports people commercially as a occupation have a higher standard to training than joe citizen pilot in his piper? Sure

Should the Capt of a luxury liner be expected to have a higher standard of training as compared to me in my 13' bass boat? Sure


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.

 

[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

www.guns.com/2013/07/10/ohio-school-district-will-allow

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/27/gun

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

 

[dogtown tom]

<-----Teacher

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/2012/09/26/number-college-faculty-and-staff-members-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.

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.

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.

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?