Texas Public School District First To OK Conceal Carry At All Levels.

[dm1333]

If I was those kids parents I would be very wary of sending my child to that school simply because I wouldn't trust the teachers enough to make a correct choice when it comes to if/how/when they ever needed to use their CCW.

If you don't trust the teachers at the school to make the right choice about using a CCW why would you trust them with your childs education and safety?

The decision to allow teachers to choose to carry doesn't mean that all teachers are going to carry.

 

[wpcexpert]

If I was those kids parents I would be very wary of sending my child to that school simply because I wouldn't trust the teachers enough to make a correct choice when it comes to if/how/when they ever needed to use their CCW.

We trust the very same people everyday with the lives of our children. There are folks that you encounter everyday that you have no idea they are armed. Why is this any different. It's not like every teacher is going to be getting a permit. Only those that already have one, and want to carry. They may not everyday. But it's not arming the teachers. It would be allowing the ones that are armed, to do so and carry in their classroom.

 

[S832]

The damage that can be caused by them making bad teaching decisions and lack of classroom control/safety fails in comparison to the possible damage caused by a ND or any incident involving a firearm.

I wouldn't trust most teachers in being capable of protecting my children, so why would I want to introduce a firearm to an already less-then-ideal situation?

Schools should be the safest place possible, I want there to be security personal that patrol the schools perimeter and breakup fights/conflicts that occur, but I don't think placing firearms inside classrooms is a particularly good idea.

 

[GPossenti]

Schools should be the safest place possible, I want there to be security personal that patrol the schools perimeter and breakup fights/conflicts that occur, but I don't think placing firearms inside classrooms is a particularly good idea.

Security Personnel like those a Virginia Tech?

...why would I want to introduce a firearm to an already less-then-ideal situation?

The firearm is already introduced, by the attacker. That is already decided. A teacher using a gun in self defense is better than the alternative of teaching the kids to throw books like they tried in Dallas.

I wouldn't trust most teachers in being capable of protecting my children

Do you know most teachers? Do you know how many already have vast experience with firearms? Of course not. My wife is a teacher, and I don't trust most kids to be civilized. So far, I haven't heard of any teachers bringing guns to school and shooting up the kids, but we have plenty of kids who have shot teachers. Last year a kid threatened to harm my wife, then left death threats in her classroom. Another A+ student slapped the librarian. All this and you worry about teachers being the threat?

People who want to go crazy and kill people do it any way they can. Those who are law-abiding citizens don't because they are responsible people.

 

[Yellowfin]

Schools should be the safest place possible, I want there to be security personal that patrol the schools perimeter and breakup fights/conflicts that occur, but I don't think placing firearms inside classrooms is a particularly good idea.

Indoctrinating them into a police state where only those with a badge can defend themselves is a far worse environment than anything the miniscule odds of a ND can ever make.

 

[raimius]

So, if I understand correctly, you would trust a teacher at a mall, a theater, a home, a supermarket, but not where they work. This shift in trust makes sense how?

Because it is a school and I don't believe the two should mix.

I'm looking for some logic here...and not finding it.
I want a logical reason why these people (teachers) can be trusted with firearms nearly everywhere else, but not at school.

What you believe does not greatly concern me. WHY you believe is what I am interested in.

 

[wpcexpert]

What you believe does not greatly concern me. WHY you believe is what I am interested in.

There is a lot of that going on here. So many opinions, but none of them can tell you why. Or give a viable reason for it.

 

[plinky]

Yellowfin, point well taken. To be honest I hadn't even considered the flip side of the agenda coin. However I don't believe children should be used as pawns in the advancement of this agenda. There has to be a better way. And honestly I have no idea what that may be.

So far, I haven't heard of any teachers bringing guns to school and shooting up the kids, but we have plenty of kids who have shot teachers. Last year a kid threatened to harm my wife, then left death threats in her classroom. Another A+ student slapped the librarian. All this and you worry about teachers being the threat?

I also believe there should be a zero tolerance policy for any act of violence commited by any child as well.

What you believe does not greatly concern me. WHY you believe is what I am interested in.

raimius, that's a good question. At first it was just a gut feeling. After some careful thought I believe it's more about my understanding of human nature. In the case of a hired security force they know what their job is and there has been an evaluation process to decide if they are up to the task at hand. And if they fail that evaluation they don't have that job. A person who has a profession other than that is taking on the role of guardian on a voluntary basis. So a single person may act completely different than a pregnant woman or a young husband with little ones at home. Now I know that security professionals may be in the same situation however it boils down to the evaluation process. The volunteers are nor being evaluated so I don't know how they are going to react. I want some assurance that the protector is physically and emotionally up to the challenge. I think this is to risky when children's lives are being held in the balance.

Peace, Jim

 

[Shorts]

Don't pay anything, it isnt' necessary. I live in small town USA where there is enough police to have one at the school most of the time

If it isn't necessary for you then why do you insist on well-trained guards at "swat team" level training?

I lived in small town USA too. A classmate of mine was murdered in his sleep by a group out to get him and his family. Location doesn't matter. Evil goes everywhere. And if you believe it doesn't I think your doing yourself and your family a great disservice. Sure, we call all see obvious signs in a neighborhood, but there are horrendous crimes in gated communities too.

As far as liability just go ahead and shoot the wrong person because you were trying to protect another and let me know how it works out.

Really? This is your answer? You can provide a better argument than that.

I also believe there should be a zero tolerance policy for any act of violence commited by any child as well.

A comforting thought after my mom or friends are shot dead in their own classroom.



I'm sorry but I am sick and tired of someone else in their own world with their own fears telling me that me and mine are not allowed to defend ourselves and we are criminals if we do. I'm tired of suffering consequences because someone else is afraid of what might happen to their own family when they think of absolute worst case scenarios. News flash we have our worst case scenarios and guess what, they have happened already. Why does your family and your life take priority over mine that your policies get the nod? Why do we have to sit back in danger so you can feel comfortable? No more! I'm sick of paying prices for everyone else

 

[plinky]

I lived in small town USA too. A classmate of mine was murdered in his sleep by a group out to get him and his family. Location doesn't matter. Evil goes everywhere. And if you believe it doesn't I think your doing yourself and your family a great disservice. Sure, we call all see obvious signs in a neighborhood, but there are horrendous crimes in gated communities too.

I couldn't agree more. However is that a case for or against firearm freedom? I really don't know. I admit to being an idealist before being a realist sometimes to a fault. If someone close to me was murdered with a gun I don't know what side of the fence I would be on. Despite all his faults, Mike Tyson said it best when he said "Everyone has a great fight strategy going into the ring until you get punched in the face for the first time".

Really? This is your answer? You can provide a better argument than that.

What better argument do you want for the case of liability. For every good intention with a bad outcome you can't tell me there is a large number of legal people ready to exploit that. Nothing against lawyers, not all are bad.

A comforting thought after my mom or friends are shot dead in their own classroom.

I'm not suggesting we wait for a tragedy to happen. Lets think in terms of preventing a situation instead of only being reactionary.

Peace, Jim

 

[wpcexpert]

Here is my questions...well, in a minute.

No one expects things to go bad in a school. It was the same at Columbine. No one in million years thought it would happen.There was no need for armed security. Look what happened. It can happen anywhere. Most people look at the situation of teachers with guns as...well, guns now in schools. But if they are never there in the first place, what is the difference. So now someone is capable to defend your child, where they weren't before. So, if they let teachers CC, it will be known that "the faculty is armed. The students will not know who. Now this is a hell of a deterent for those on the fence of doing harm.

OK, now for the questions:
1) What if it is legal for the teachers to CC, but no one does? How does that change things as far as a deterent? The possiblity is still there, but isn't.

2) What changes your opinion so much that without a teacher CCing, the student are at more of a risk than if not? Why/How does that change things?
Where is the balk? If two students were planning on comming in and shooting up the place, why would 3-4 teachers that are armed,( that have been trained, and who have been CCing for years), cause more harm to come to your kids?

 

[Shorts]

What better argument do you want for the case of liability. For every good intention with a bad outcome you can't tell me there is a large number of legal people ready to exploit that. Nothing against lawyers, not all are bad.

Jim, liability is already on every CCWers mind (it should darn well be!). It is already a responsibility they are taking by signing the dotted line. Carrying is taken very seriously. Implying that liability and responsibility are not considered is condescending and out of line. I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority of CCWers the verse 'with great power comes great responsibility' is exemplified in their preparations, behaviors, actions and thoughts. I know I'm prepared for the responsibility legally, morally and financially.

I'm not suggesting we wait for a tragedy to happen. Lets think in terms of preventing a situation instead of only being reactionary.

Some situations have already happened. Prevention is a complicated matter and taking one angle is not it. Narrowing your options will not help. Continuing to ram your forehead into a brick will by maintaining status quo on policies and practices only serves to give you a headache and offer the same protection and failure points as have already happened.

 

[plinky]

I'm sorry but I am sick and tired of someone else in their own world with their own fears telling me that me and mine are not allowed to defend ourselves and we are criminals if we do. I'm tired of suffering consequences because someone else is afraid of what might happen to their own family when they think of absolute worst case scenarios. News flash we have our worst case scenarios and guess what, they have happened already. Why does your family and your life take priority over mine that your policies get the nod? Why do we have to sit back in danger so you can feel comfortable? No more! I'm sick of paying prices for everyone else

Shorts, it sounds as if you have experienced some very bad things in your life and for what it's worth you have my sympathy. I guess we all just have to live our lives however we feel is best. Hopefully you won't let your tragedies sour your existence. Life is to brief. And in turn I'll try not to let my inexperience allow more injustice to occur.

Peace, Jim

 

[Shorts]

I'm going way off course with this post

Jim, we have experienced some things, both terrible and great (some very recent and fresh on my mind). I would like you to clarify and tell me what you define as "very bad things" so I can give you a real answer on if its happened or not. I don't want you conjuring an image much worse off than what it truly is. I don't want you to feel sorry for me and think what I say here is because "I've had a hard life". Completely the opposite.


In the grand scope of the chaos and tragedies that have happened to others we see in the news, we're LUCKY and our problems are small beans. But they get worse each time they happen for what we consider normal. This large looming mass of evil and just plain bad-ness gets heavier each time it rolls around. Sitting and waiting, wondering what will happen next is not the way to prepare, it only puts a target on our backs. Sure, we all hope things don't escalate, but hoping only goes so far. At some point, you have to take action. You have to be realistic.

Jim, I had to learn to walk again after a broken neck at age 18, I was a great athlete before that. I was told I couldn't do a lot of things. They were wrong.

And "soured"? Well, that's a strong word with negative connotations. Good use of it if your aim is to put me in a pitiful light and discredit my words because of an emotional hangup. Sorry to disappoint - you're wrong. I said what I said out of strength and confidence - one doesn't achieve great things by accepting mediocrity.

Short current version: I'm a military spouse, not before obtaining my Bachelors. My husband is an officer in the US Navy, a pilot. We have 2 trucks, 2 motorcycles, a nice house, a cat, a dog and a comfortable income and great family. Along with the blessings we have we also have our share of disappointments and anger as it part of the package. I guess that's what happens when you lose the rose colored glasses, reality hits. I see things in a variety of perspectives and will continue to only gain perspective as the years go by. It's amazing the things you learn about between the age of 21 and 29. I'm not going to live the next 29 years with the same disappointments and tragedies that the first 29 brought if I can help it. Don't offer your sympathies out of pity, and please don't paint me as jaded and broken because that is an inaccurate summation. It's like Obama calling people bitter and they cling to guns and religion.


There is a lot in society to be disappointed about. It's important not to lose sight and lose support of the ones that are still fighting for the good and right.

Let us fight back. Let us try to do right. The ones that want to the most are the ones that will do the job the best. They are the ones that care about it the most.

 

[raimius]

raimius, that's a good question. At first it was just a gut feeling. After some careful thought I believe it's more about my understanding of human nature. In the case of a hired security force they know what their job is and there has been an evaluation process to decide if they are up to the task at hand. And if they fail that evaluation they don't have that job. A person who has a profession other than that is taking on the role of guardian on a voluntary basis. So a single person may act completely different than a pregnant woman or a young husband with little ones at home. Now I know that security professionals may be in the same situation however it boils down to the evaluation process. The volunteers are nor being evaluated so I don't know how they are going to react. I want some assurance that the protector is physically and emotionally up to the challenge. I think this is to risky when children's lives are being held in the balance.

That makes sense to me. In the end, only one person is responsible for your safety. If the police have no legal duty to protect individuals, it would be hard to expect teachers to take that duty. Society tends to assume the police and authority figures (teachers, in this case) have a responsibility to protect people, but there is no legal case for that. Morally, I think everyone has some responsibility to protect others, but that is my belief, not law.

In my estimation, armed teachers can serve to lesson a tragedy, and cannot make a massacre worse. An uncontested attacker is the WORST case scenario for a mass shooting type situation, in my opinion. Judging by the statistical records of CCW holders, and the extra training imposed by the district, I think the probability of a student being injured or killed by a ND or defective teacher is very low.

In total, I think allowing this adds one more tool to use against an attacker (standard security protocalls being the others), while not greatly increasing the risk to students.

I can think of three problem situations, where a teacher-concealed handgun would make the situation worse:
1. Negligent Discharge, resulting in injury--highly unlikely
2. A student getting the pistol and shooting someone--VERY unlikely
3. A teacher intentionally shooting someone--probably the most likely of the three, but still highly unlikely.

If your estimations of the costs/benefits differ, I think we only disagree in small degrees.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Again, this is the point I'm trying to get across. If things are that bad make a change that will allow the pro's meaning someone more efficient at their job than regular police to be at a much closer proximity than they presently are. Who cares about the cost. I'm quite sure that a community in that much trouble will find a way to fund it.

Who cares about cost? You are a riot! Cost is a significant factor in every community and it is a huge reality issue.

Of course, you can't fund a defense after the fact. Which of the following schools were located in communities that were "in that much trouble"? Of those, which are communities that have enough money to fund the changes needed?

University of Texas at Austin massacre
California State University, Fullerton library massacre
Cleveland Elementary School shooting
Parkway South Junior High School shooting
Cleveland Elementary School shooting
University of Iowa shooting
Lindhurst High School shooting
Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting
Richland High School shooting
Frontier Junior High shooting
Hetzel Union Building shooting
Bethel High School shooting
Pearl High School shooting
Heath High School shooting
Westside Middle School shooting
Parker Middle School shooting
Thurston High School shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Heritage High School shooting
Buell Elementary School shooting
Santana High School shooting
Granite Hills High School shooting
Appalachian School of Law shooting
Red Lion Area Junior High School shootings
Case Western Reserve University shooting
Rocori High School shootings
Fairleigh Dickinson University shooting
Red Lake High School massacre
Campbell County High School shooting
Pine Middle School shooting
Platte Canyon High School shooting
Weston High School shooting
Amish school shooting
Virginia Tech massacre
Delaware State University shooting
SuccessTech Academy shooting
Louisiana Technical College shooting
Mitchell High School shooting
E.O. Green School shooting
Northern Illinois University shooting
Central High School

Just how do you go about trying to fund improving security for a problem you don't know that you are going to have at some unforeseen time in the future?

 

[xrocket]

As DNS points out ...

.... School shootings in all forms are increasing in frequency and at times in scale beyond comprehension. Nothing short of a complete societal change will ever stop or at the least, reduce the carnage in our schools.

Friends, it's only going to get worse. Our school are the softest targets with the most gain for terrorist of all ilk both internal and external. Not seeking additional levels of security for our children is ludicrous in the extreme. One school district in Texas has the balls to stand up and say we'll be responsible for our own children's safety. Hopefully, others will take note and look for inspiration to protect their children too.

Beslan is a nightmare which terrorist have gone to school on. Over three hundred hostages killed, of which one hundred and eighty six were children. It is a case worth your time to study and reflect upon. In the very beginning, twenty teachers, administrates and fathers were immediately mass executed to both set an example and to eliminate inside threats to the terrorist. This happened in a far away country, but it could just as easily happen here on Monday, the first day of school for many in Texas. Just visualize a group of six or eight well trained, coordinated and highly motivated terrorist taking over your child's school as they mix with all the other new parents.

Now, imagine out of say fifty teachers, administrates and yes one or two police guards, who by the way will be the target for first and immediate elimination, ten or twelve are conceal carrying. Would they be able to stop the surprise and coordinated attack. Hell no. They could slow it down, wound a few, maybe get lucky and kill one or two, but more importantly they could slow it down or disrupt the terrorist plans long enough to get some children out the windows. Maybe they could really save a lot of lives by sacrificing their own chances in the end.

I'll take a few committed teachers any day over the alternative of ... nothing!

 

[jrfoxx]

When you are around kids the rules change, you don't have a right to raise the danger level around children.

Guns are not something which should be kept at schools, most people will tend to agree.

It's 100% legal for ANYONE with an OR permit to carry in any school in this state, and I have yet to hear of a single gun getting snatched, used inapproriatley, recklessly, getting lost, stolen, or anythign else on school property as a result of people with permits carrying.

In spite of all of the doomsday prophesies by many people of all the kids who will die because of a gun in a school, it has simply failed to ever happen here that I'm aware of. If it isnt a problem here, I fail to see why it would be a problem anywhere else, as I find it hard to beleive the average Oregonian, or Orgen permit holder is any more well trained, well disciplined, safer, smarter, or anything else than the people of other states. There is nothing special or unique about the people of OR that would make it perfectly safe here, but a problem in some other state that I can come up with.

I have carried into schools here many times, and it hasnt been a problem yet, and I see no reason it ever would be, and there is nothing special about me (in spite of what my mommy always told me ).

 

[RDak]

Bottom line for me is these gun-free zones have been shown to be slaughter houses way too often.

Allowing teachers and college students over 21, all with CCW's, to carry on campus, etc., is a start. Something rational has to be done.

The anti-gun Democrat types have had enough time to solve the problem and their "remedies" have been an abysmal failure.

Time for them to move over and let the pro-gunners have a chance to solve this "killing fields" problem.

 

[Hellbent11]

For those that don't think it's a good idea... As a teacher me and my wife are so completely VULNERABLE it's not even funny! ( See My Previous Post)
***What other jobs or industries are "known" for the same amount of FATAL shootings as education???*** (gas station clerks excluded) ---My point exactly

Are we just going to wait for more bodies or try and do something about it?