The NRA Response

OK, I'm not going to defend my position because nobody is really paying attention with a few minor exceptions.

"Why should anyone worry about a teacher who passed the CC certification."

OK

To that I say, would you want your kids driven to school, or anywhere for that matter, by a 16 year old who just got his/her drivers license that morning?

I mean that 16 year old did pass the minimum requirement to get a drivers license so what could go wrong?

Would you want a a doctor with no experience handling your bypass surgery? I mean he's got to have a first patient. Right?

I have said that I'm not against a teacher bringing their weapon to school if they were deemed safe by more than just the state minimum requirement.

Reason being that I think my kids deserve more than just the "state minimum."

Also, the state laws that everyone is talking about haven't passed yet? I'm wondering just what kind of rules will be imposed on teachers who want to carry their weapon inside a school.

The reason why teachers need to be held to a higher standard *Inside of a School* is because unlike a Boyscout troop or any other activity that is extracurricular, I don't have a choice about sending or not sending my kids to school.
 
Last edited:
Safe is where the staff defend your kid with a pencil.

Anway - back to the NRA - seems they are not doing that badly:

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-54-percent-view-nra-favorably-85545.html?hp=l13

About 54%. So all the uproar hasn't really moved the public. This suggests that if Diane's bill gets to a vote - ain't going to make it.

I am against carry bans except for technical reasons. The state or private employer cannot take your right to defend yourself away because he or she or the government thinks they are king of their castle.

PS - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ericans-oppose-handgun-ban-gallup-poll-shows/

74% oppose a handgun ban.

So such numbers probably suggest that the charge of Schumer, Bloomberg and Feinstein will go nowhere significantly.
 
Last edited:
No1der, the problem comes back to funding. Training teachers to a higher standard, or even effectively testing them to see if they meet a higher standard up front, would require funds that most politicians probably would not want to approve.

Even if they did approve funds, it would take time to stand up training and evaluation systems.

Who would set the standards?

So, for the short term if not the long term, the question becomes are your kids safer with no armed staff on campus, or are they safer with armed but possibly untrained staff on campus?
 
@Glenn

I'm really getting frustrated because I am NOT against teachers being armed at school. I'm against SOME teachers with questionable maturity bringing a gun to school.

What about Jose the janitor, is he allowed? What's his background, is he responsible?

What about the 19 year old teaching assistant? Is she allowed?
 
No1der, the problem comes back to funding. Training teachers to a higher standard, or even effectively testing them to see if they meet a higher standard up front, would require funds that most politicians probably would not want to approve.

Seems to be working out for Utah.

Someone tell me again how the NRA is bad?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/28/teachers-in-utah-ohio-get-free-gun-training/

http://www.businessinsider.com/utah-teachers-flocked-to-gun-training-2012-12

I'm really getting frustrated because I am NOT against teachers being armed at school. I'm against SOME teachers with questionable maturity bringing a gun to school.

What about Jose the janitor, is he allowed? What's his background, is he responsible?

What about the 19 year old teaching assistant? Is she allowed?

I guarantee you that a lot of teachers would come up as prohibited persons as well.
 
@MLeake

I just had an idea that I'd like to run by you. I'm not in any way proposing this yet I'm asking for your thoughts.

What about a requirement that any teacher who wants to carry a gun on school property be required to have had a CCP for a minimum of 1 calender year prior to being allowed to carry at school?

It's not a great solution but at least we'll know that they were responsible enough to not have shot themselves or a family member by accident.

@Alabama Shooter

I never said the NRA was bad. I said Wayne LaPierre doesn't now what he's saying if those 2 tv appearances are representative of his judgment these days.

I'm a paying member of the NRA so I don't know why people think I'm anti NRA or anti Gun. Or whatever folks around here think I'm anti.
 
It's not a great solution but at least we'll know that they were responsible enough to not have shot themselves or a family member by accident.

Will not know. I can have a driver's license my whole life and never drive.
 
I am not pointing any fingers at you. :)

Plenty of people have posted terms of derision their way. There are people who don't like the Red Cross either. Yet they always seem to be there doing what they can.

You asked for thoughts and I gave them.
 
Jose the Janitor - oh, dear - now I hear some implication. Why is not a janitor a decent person?

Why is a Jose less competent that a Joe?

Before we have denial - please recall that I'm a psychologist and implicit meanings are our bread and butter. Trying to scare us with such?

No1der - the ground is shaking under you for continuing here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not sure what a year of having a permit would do.

Not that I mean to be mulish, but I do believe strongly in the axiom, "He governs best, who governs least." In other words, I do not favor requirements or rules that are only there for form's sake. I believe that if a requirement or restriction is created, it should be for demonstrably good effect.

As far as training, what would you suggest? Classes on threat recognition and barricading of a classroom could theoretically be taught online, much like DOD does a lot of pre-deployment training via Joint Knowledge Online. It is better to have an instructor for feedback, and to answer cascading questions, but the lack of an instructor can be overcome for some things.

OTOH, other subjects would demand a physically present instructor.

So, you would need to identify what minimum training you think would be needed, and find a way to achieve that.

Otherwise, requirements and restrictions become arbitrary, pointless, and ultimately detract from value.
 
OK

To that I say, would you want your kids driven to school, or anywhere for that matter, by a 16 year old who just got his/her drivers license that morning?

I mean that 16 year old did pass the minimum requirement to get a drivers license so what could go wrong?

Non Sequitir, a 16-year-old is not an adult and, in most places, cannot acquire the type of driver's license necessary to drive a school bus. A teacher, on the other hand, is a college graduate who is at least supposed to be vetted for stability and responsibility with our children. This is like saying that a rookie cop shouldn't be armed until he gains experience because he just meets the minimum requirements.

Would you want a a doctor with no experience handling your bypass surgery? I mean he's got to have a first patient. Right?

Doctors, once they have completed their education and residency, are deemed safe and qualified to practice. Of course, if you feel uncomfortable with a particular doctor caring for you, you can easily choose another. Such is not the case with schools unless you have the time and resources to home school, send your children to a private school, or move to another school district.

Reason being that I think my kids deserve more than just the "state minimum."

OK, so why don't they deserve more than just the "state minimum" when they're in Toys 'R Us, Six Flags, Chuck E. Cheese, or any of the other crowded places where people can legally carry? Why is the "state minimum" insufficient for schools, but not for a myriad of other places?

The reason why teachers need to be held to a higher standard *Inside of a School* is because unlike a Boyscout troop or any other activity that is extracurricular, I don't have a choice about sending or not sending my kids to school.

So do you keep your child locked away in your home when not at school for fear that someone who only meets the "state minimum" might be around with a gun? After all, the only thing required to carry a gun in public is to meet the "state minimum" so there is always a chance that your child may be around someone with a gun unless you only allow your child to be in places where guns are prohibited, and only then if you only count law-abiding people who respect such prohibitions. If you really think that the "state minimum" is insufficient, would it not make more sense to raise the bar for everyone rather than only teachers?
 
why can't everyone be right?

Nolder, I have read in detail your posts and others as well.
I have 4 grandchildren so I too, have a dog in this fight.

My life's observations as a manufacturing engineer:
The best run operations don't start out perfectly.
You start up, you build and improve.
There is risk but so too if nothing is done.


IF teachers were picked to protect then yes, there would be limited training to start.
I agree with you, I would want more too. Protecting a room full of kids is different than hunkering down in my bedroom waiting for the BG to walk thru the death funnel.

I think crisis training should be taught and practiced.

Others are also correct that some training and a gun is better than a pencil and a prayer.

But we need to start and start now.
A gun free zone is a crazy man's playground.

  • sign up the voluteers, some will already have a cc and even 1/school is an improvement
  • get them some basic training
  • schedule more training soon, they have 3 months off, some would no doubt pay for the training themselves. Those who train might well give a discount to them. Give them an extra 10% pay. 10% increase to 1% of them is um....very little.

Many sign up for small pay to join the military and police forces. They do it for the excitement and / or desire to serve and protect.
I have to believe there are enough (even 1 is a start) at every school that would take this to heart. For that matter, no one would know if a school had none or 100.


I also believe that opinions vary more by location. Let the school board hold a parent's meeting and make a decison or vote. I would guess it would pass where I live but unlike some politicans, I respect others ideas and if big cities or forward thinking states want to continue to provide crazy people a place to vent-so be it.
 
Well, most people have only the state minimum. I don't see where anyone can get much training without investing large amounts of time. Some one can learn firearm safety and how to shoot accurately in just a couple of hours.

Without experiencing that kind of situation they won't know how they are going to act. They should be under no obligation to take a shot.

So the requirements are simple and the same as any ccw holder:

1. Don't have a negligent discharge.
2. Keep your weapon secret.
3. Shoot the bad guy if you can.

Probably only one and 2 will be all they will ever have to worry about.
 
I'd like to add that the janitor remark was elitist at a minimum.

How do you know that the janitor is not a retired deputy, or a paratrooper with a bum knee or numerous other experience people?
 
@L2R

Yup, I understand what you're saying and you're right. Things have to start somewhere and they are improved with time. I'm fine with that.

Sorry for the quick response but I'm working right now with minor breaks to keep up with you guys.

I'm fine with a start, my issue is that we improve from the bare minimum to make sure that firstly, nobody gets hurt by a dumb accident or, secondly, getting the programs canceled due to multiple stupid accidents nation wide. Think it can't happen? It can and we'll be right back where we started.

@Webleymkv

It is NOT an non-Sequitur as a basic drivers license is not enough to be a School Bus driver. So it's kinda silly to expect the bare minimum from our teachers when we expect more than the minimum from our school bus drivers.

A standard drivers license is NOT enough to get a job as a bus driver. So why is a basic, bare minimum license enough for someone who bought a gun on Monday, got their license on Tuesday and starts carrying it to school on Wednesday considered OK?


(Sorry) I gotta get back to work for now. I'll check back when I can.
 
Last edited:
What about the (pick your name) janitor?

Are we to assume for some reason that a janitor would automatically not be as qualified in the defensive arena as a teacher,principal or someone with a higher paying job or a few years of college?

If a janitor meets qualifications to carry on the street and meets whatever requirements that may be set forth for teachers and such to carry in schools, and is volunteering to do so, I don't see a problem with a janitor carrying at school.

Too, I believe the money needs to be found to put at least one LE officer in all schools as other violence such as gang activity, drug activity etc. can be monitored better then it is now. But there WILL be parents in certain school districts that keep their heads in the sand, claiming 'we don't need LE in our schools cause our kids and community just don't have those type of problems'. :rolleyes:
In other words, many parents of communities stay in complete denial that THEIR kids could possibly ever be or get involved in serious illegal activities.

That's of course till LE calls the parent at work/home to inform parent what their child has just been arrested for. But, some parents even then, refuse to believe that their 'little angel' did anything wrong and surely the illegal activity MUST have been done by someone else's child(mistaken identity) or their child was forced to do what they were arrested for.

Sad, really.
 
Last edited:
When I was small, one of our neighbors had retired as head janitor for the district.

We knew he was a WWI veteran, but he was so quiet and gentle that we didn't give it much thought. But, one Memorial Day, I asked him what he had done during the war.

Turned out the soft spoken, retired janitor had been a decorated sniper...
 
It is NOT an non-Sequitur as a basic drivers license is not enough to be a School Bus driver. So it's kinda silly to expect the bare minimum from our teachers when we expect more than the minimum from our school bus drivers.

A standard drivers license is NOT enough to get a job as a bus driver. So why is a basic, bare minimum license enough for someone who bought a gun on Monday, got their license on Tuesday and starts carrying it to school on Wednesday considered OK?

Yes, it is non-sequitur because a 16-year-old cannot legally carry a handgun at all, be it in a school or otherwise. But, for the sake of argument, let's look at exactly what is required to drive a school bus. In my home state of Indiana, the requirements to drive a school bus are as follows:

Sec. 1. (a) An individual may not drive a school bus for the transportation of students or be employed as a school bus monitor unless the individual satisfies the following requirements:
(1) Is of good moral character.
(2) Does not use intoxicating liquor during school hours.
(3) Does not use intoxicating liquor to excess at any time.
(4) Is not addicted to any narcotic drug.
(5) Is at least:
(A) twenty-one (21) years of age for driving a school bus; or
(B) eighteen (18) years of age for employment as a school bus monitor.
(6) In the case of a school bus driver, holds a valid public passenger chauffeur's license or commercial driver's license issued by the state or any other state.
(7) Possesses the following required physical characteristics:
(A) Sufficient physical ability to be a school bus driver, as determined by the committee.
(B) The full normal use of both hands, both arms, both feet, both legs, both eyes, and both ears.
(C) Freedom from any communicable disease that:
(i) may be transmitted through airborne or droplet means; or
(ii) requires isolation of the infected person under 410 IAC 1-2.3.
(D) Freedom from any mental, nervous, organic, or functional disease that might impair the person's ability to properly operate a school bus.
(E) Visual acuity, with or without glasses, of at least 20/40 in each eye and a field of vision with one hundred fifty (150) degree minimum and with depth perception of at least eighty percent (80%).
(b) This subsection applies to a school bus monitor. Notwithstanding subsection (a)(5)(B), a school corporation or school bus driver may not employ an individual who is less than twenty-one (21) years of age as a school bus monitor unless the school corporation or school bus driver does not receive a sufficient number of qualified applicants for employment as a school bus monitor who are at least twenty-one (21) years of age. A school corporation or school bus driver shall maintain a record of applicants, their ages, and their qualifications to show compliance with this subsection.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title20/ar27/ch8.html

The requirements for obtaining a public passenger chauffeur's license are as follows:

Public passenger chaufeur’s licenses may be issued to Indiana residents who
are at least 18 years old and have held a valid driver’s license for at least two years.
You may apply for a public passenger chaufeur’s license at any Indiana
license branch. To obtain a public passenger chaufeur’s license you must meet
the following requirements:
† Submit an original Medical Certiication - State Form 3337, completed
by a licensed physician no more than 30 days before applying for your
public passenger chaufeur’s license.
† Present your driver’s license; and
† Present documents described in Appendix A proving your identity,
Social Security number, lawful status, and Indiana residency; and
† Pass a standard vision screening test; and
† Pass a public passenger chaufeur’s written knowledge test.

http://www.in.gov/bmv/files/Drivers_Manual_Chapter_1.pdf

Is that really all that much more stringent than the requirements to obtain a CCL in most states? A minimum age of 21, classes, written tests, skills tests, and background checks are all pretty common, so it seems to me that the requirements to be a school bus driver aren't all that much more stringent than those to carry a handgun in most places.

Also, part of the reason that the requirements for a public passenger chauffeur's license are more stringent than those of a standard driver's license is that the types of vehicles that can be operated with a chauffeur's license are different than those allowed by a standard driver's license and thus may not operate the same way. A handgun, however, works the exactly the same whether it's used in a shopping mall or school.

Finally, a person who only meets the "state minimum" can still drive a school bus. For all I know, a bus driver in Indiana may have never driven anything but his own passenger car before because the "state minimum" for eligibility to drive a school bus does not include experience or a skills test of any sort.

All that being said, you're still not answering the question I've been asking you for over two pages: Why does one need special qualifications to carry in a school, but nowhere else? You say that you don't want people who only meet the "state minimum" around children in schools, but why is it OK for people who only meet the "state minimum" to be around children (or anyone for that matter) elsewhere?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top