Teachers with firearms

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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?"
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. :rolleyes:

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. :eek:
 
Last edited:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2013/May/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.
Click to expand...
 
A third of those officers who enter the incident alone are shot by the intruder
Click to expand...

...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!
 
Last edited:
Glenn E Meyer said:
...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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
In both cases, the districts did NOT arm the school teachers. They have allowed the school teachers to carry. Allowing carry and actually arming the teachers are two very separate things.

The Harold School District in Texas is a singular K-12 school. Newcomerstown School District has 4 schools.

At Harold, you aren't allowed to carry unless you have a permit PLUS be approved by the school board after a personality evaluation.

Sounds like Newcomerstown is doing a better job.

Employees are designated by the school board and superintendent and in addition to having a valid concealed carry permit, they are required to undergo tactical training and recertify with the Tuscarawas County Sheriff’s Department every year. Lahmers did disclose that there was already at least one employee who has met the requirements for carrying a gun on the school grounds come this fall.
Click to expand...
http://www.guns.com/2013/07/10/ohio...ow-teachers-to-carry-guns-starting-this-fall/

In both cases, however, it isn't simply a matter of getting a valid CCW and being allowed to carry. Both school districts are being selective in just who they do and do not allow to carry.
 
A third of those officers who enter the incident alone are shot by the intruder.
Click to expand...

I would be quite interested in knowing what the active shooter incidents were that were used in this study where 1/3 of the officers who entered the incident alone were shot. I certainly know some have been. I wonder if the key here is that they were alone which may be a very small subsample of the incidents covered, or maybe Schweit has some thorough data that includes incidents unfamiliar to the general populace and maybe even to other LEOs. Of course, a lot of information is available online through numerous credible sources as well, but compiling it can be tedious.

As some of y'all may recall, there was the heavily debated accuracy of Borsch's claims (of which there were several that were dubious) that no LEO had ever been injured or killed in an active shooter incident. Granted, that study is a few years old now, but was wrong at the time of publication. I had noted several at the time that were injured/killed, but certainly had no way to assign a percentage to it, much less know if the responders were lone, paired, or grouped, though it was obvious some were most definitely not lone.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321379&highlight=armstrong+active+shooter

http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...-single-officer-entry-against-active-killers/
 
I think I paid too much attention to some training propaganda. People are much less likely to rush in when they stand a 1/3 chance of being shot and doing so is not even all that effective.
I am not sure how it ended up, but one Ohio school district was considering providing firearms in locked locations. Ohio law says anyone can carry with superintendent permission and it turned out there were several schools in Ohio with permitted staff before Sandy Hook. Stemming from the desire to keep hunting arms in cars during season.
 
In both cases, the districts did NOT arm the school teachers. They have allowed the school teachers to carry. Allowing carry and actually arming the teachers are two very separate things.
Click to expand...
Yes, an important distinction. Another way of putting it is that they stopped disarming teachers.
 
I don't think arming teachers will make much difference. If someone is determined to harm children would they not just choose somewhere else to carry out an attack. I am sure schools are not the only place that children congregate. Moving the problem somewhere else wouldn't solve the issue. It is bad that we even have to discuss arming teachers. Is this more an American issue or does it happen on the same scale in other countries. I know we had 30 years of near civil war were but there was never the need to protect schools.
 
Last edited:
That, of course, is a possibility. We don't have real data on such actions. The only reported case of such that I know of (and I didn't such) is the shooter at a Jewish school that chose one over another that had an armed guard.

Since shooters know that armed response will happen quickly - the issue is whether they have enough time to kill before armed response occurs. If they thought they would face immediate response - would that change behavior? We don't know. There have been attacks at locales well known to have immediate armed personnel.

All I know is that many folks would like to have the chance to respond with more than being a human shield or kamikaze IPAD slinger.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Since shooters know that armed response will happen quickly - the issue is whether they have enough time to kill before armed response occurs. If they thought they would face immediate response - would that change behavior? We don't know. There have been attacks at locales well known to have immediate armed personnel.
Click to expand...

Shooters will almost always have time to kill or injure before an armed response, even if that response is from the same room. I submit though, the more armed people closer to a shooter to begin with, the more likely they will be able to mitigate any deaths and injury when that shooter starts foaming at the mouth. And trying to ban guns because some criminals use them in armed robbery, for example, makes about as much sense as banning cars because some criminals use them in armed robbery, for example.
 
I don't think arming teachers will make much difference. If someone is determined to harm children would they not just choose somewhere else to carry out an attack. I am sure schools are not the only place that children congregate. Moving the problem somewhere else wouldn't solve the issue. It is bad that we even have to discuss arming teachers. Is this more an American issue or does it happen on the same scale in other countries.
Click to expand...


Again, I don't think anybody here is in favor of "arming Teachers". The debate is over whether continuing to disarm teachers has any value, and whether gun free zones protect shooters more than innocents. I agree that nothing will "solve" the problem. The goal is to reduce the damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top