I think this is the most persuasive argument against allowing school staff to be armed. The ratio of underage charges to adults is lower than in other venues, and the school staff has a responsibility to look out for the safety of all students. In that judgment, the state may decide that the calculus weighs against allowing staff to be armed.
This rationale would be defeated in the event that the state passes a law that permits teachers to carry since that would indicate in their judgment the potential risks are outweighed by the potential benefits. Several states have made this decision and I think this is a fair way to evaluate circumstances.
This however, is a terrible argument. I don’t know how to replace the toner in my office printer. I may be able to figure it out if I tried, but really, there are other people who’s responsibility it is to do that and I can’t be bothered to even make the attempt. If a printer is low on toner, I use another one. I also don’t make the office coffee, I don’t even make an attempt to fill the paper. I don’t know how to order the office supplies, and I don’t know the plants watering schedule. All of that shit is useless to me - I rely on others to do that work so I can focus on my work. Using toner replacement or other unrelated tasks as some indicator of firearm proficiency is asinine and I can’t figure out why you’re stuck on that example. And secondarily, it seems like an insult to teachers.
I omitted the rest of this post because it really bore no resemblance to reality. And given the sarcasm in your post #57, I don’t think you’re serious. In any event, what you suggest is a far greater standard than is required for police. Whatever standard exists as a threshold that must be met to be allowed to carry, in no circumstance should it exceed what is required of police. Any proposal that exceeds the police requirements is not at all serious.
Since I received my concealed carry permit a year and a half ago, I have engaged in an occasional mental exercise while I’m out and about. I envision active shooter scenarios and try to figure out if my gun could be of any use. I don’t do this because I have fantasies of being a hero. I have a lethal weapon at my disposal and I want to some clear guidelines in my head to govern my actions if something horrible happens.
In most scenarios that occur to me, it seems to me that there is a very good chance that I wouldn’t be able to do anything useful with my gun. Most of the problems that I see involve innocent people behind my target, but there are also scenarios where I would not be in a position to know the good guy/bad guy status of the target with certainty. For a teacher in a classroom, the problem of victims behind the target could be huge.
There’s another thing that I think a lot of people don’t know about pistols. Particularly with pistols that are suitable for carrying concealed, hitting what you are aiming at is a difficult skill to learn and maintain. Anyone can pull a trigger and accidentally kill someone, but quickly taking aim on a target and placing the bullet where you are aiming it, consistently, is not easy. I say this as someone who shoots 20 to 50 rounds through each of my pistols at least once a month. This is certainly at least doubly true in the heat of a stressful situation, as is attested to by the cases where a bunch of police officers empty their magazines on a suspect and score one or two hits.
In my view, the concealed carry permit I have is for personal protection against one-on one-crimes like mugging and car-jacking. Having a gun on my person doesn’t make me an auxiliary law enforcement officer.
I’ll also add that the shooting requirements for the course I had to pass to get my Ohio permit did not leave me feeling that I was qualified to walk around with a gun in my pocket. I spent an hour or two at the range and shot a total of 30 rounds with a .22 target pistol at a stationary target at very close range. While I was legally qualified to carry a pistol as soon as I got my permit, I didn’t feel personally qualified until I had spent many more hours at the range with my guns.
I don’t think that any teacher with a CCW permit should be allowed to carry in the classroom. I think that the type of situational training that others have mentioned should be a minimum requirement for that, and that it still is probably not going to do much good…
I would agree, and mention again that during the robbery of a local restaurant by four guys, the cc people who were present all independently decided that they should take no action.
No. The majority of the course was classroom training. It was good, and thorough, but it mainly concerned the law, types of guns, and gun safety. The range training and shooting test was at the very end.
No, they are not. Unless you are somehow saying that these individuals are incapable of learning, the entire point is irrelevant. In addition to that, people can carry a firearm with no external safety! Win/win.
I have no problem with arming teachers and staff. Several schools have done exactly that and publicly declared that they will not be shooting ranges for the whackjobs of the world.
Have these same schools also declared that only teachers and staff shall be armed on campus? If not, how are the “whackjobs” identified before it becomes too late to avoid a shooting confrontation?
I was involved in a FB discussion about this and IFyou are going to arm teachers built the following proposal:
Teachers who choose to be armed are those who volunteer to do so, none of them are required to do so.
The gun is kept in a quick release gun safe in the classroom (where they spend the vast majority of the time). It does not come out unless there is an active active armed threat situation. Using your gun to break up a fight or any other non life threatening scenario is instant termination. There are versions of these safes with multiple combinations as well as centralized monitoring. Safe should also contain a radio for coordinating teachers in question.
The primary goal is to defend your classroom, not to move out and engage.
If you can confirm the shooting is occurring in a different area of the school and can link up with other armed teachers to try and herd/pin/delay/deny access to the shooters, bonus. Do not try going rambo, utilize cover.
Teachers in question should go through some basic tactical drills/training and pass before being assigned a weapon. Perhaps even a few paintball matches around the school for better situational practice. Twice a year for a couple hours. As these events are rare, many of the teachers in questions will have been through dozens of these by the time it happens.
I would suggest not attaching any kind of incentive pay to the program unless it is in the form of a bonus for participating when an actual event occurs or a little OT for the times that you drill.
I would imagine only a handful of any given schools teachers would choose to go through the process. It is probably going to be more likely that the ones who do are the ones most familiar with guns already, and or have military, security, or law enforcement backgrounds.
Saying that identification is needed before a person starts shooting at a school is a ridiculous standard. The comparison should be between the scenario when a school staff member is armed vs. when one isn’t armed. In both cases, it would be very difficult to determine if there is a whackjob before they start shooting.
So while a person may not be able to identify a person intent on doing harm in a school before they start a shooting confrontation, threat assessments could be made in the same manor that people who are trained to make threat assessments do so everyday.
Are you saying that the teachers of whom you speak are incapable of learning?
Every single scenario wants, desperately, to align the “psycho” performing the actions of murder, mass shootings, and criminal activity in general to anyone carrying a gun.
Every
Single
One
This is the true strawman that the people opposed to guns use. This is the strawman that needs to be fought.
I imagine that teachers, being regular Janes and Joes, would know that they are either comfortable or not with carrying. The place matters not one whit. Schools, HEB’s, Home, or the local church.
I didn’t say anything like that, did I? I asked how these armed teachers and staff are supposed to identify the “whackjobs” they are supposedly arming themselves to defend against before a situation gets to a point where a teacher or staff member feels the need to raw a weapon in a classroom or crowded hallway? This time, could you try answering the question that is asked instead of the ready-made question you have a prepared indignant answer for?
What kind of question is that? Teachers nor any other gun carrying person is psychic in nature. They won’t know, they can’t possibly know until the whackjob does something whacky.
also according to carnivorous, teachers aren’t the sharpest sticks in the pile?
Define “whacky”. If you mean "pulls out a weapon and starts shooting, then say that, but if you mean anything else, then you are dreaming. If parents and guardians are still allowed to carry on campus, then how does one tell the “whacky” shooter from the parent thinking she/he is defending children from a “whacky” shooter? Not all teachers and/or staff know all parents and guardians(and vice-versa)…and absolutely no one is going to be wearing a hat that flashes a sign saying “Shoot me! I’m Crazy!”.
She had to sleep some time, and that’s when he shot her. She also appeared to have mental health issues as serious as his.
The wrong person almost got shot at the Gabrielle Giffords incident. A man wrestled Jared Loughner to the ground and took his gun, and another witness who had a legally concealed weapon almost took it out and shot him. :eek: That’s why anyone who chooses to carry needs lots of training, especially WRT when and how NOT to shoot.
I did answer your question, and you actually did say that. I know you like to JAQ, but it’s clear your meaning. If I interpreted this statement (in the form of a question) incorrectly, feel free to clarify:
I interpret this to mean that an armed teacher would need to be able to identify the whackjobs before the whackjob starts a shooting confrontation or they feel the need to draw a weapon on campus. And I’m saying that this is a ridiculous standard. In the vast majority of times, I would think that this will not happen - and it doesn’t matter if a person is armed or not. Whether a school staff member is armed or not, in both cases, it would be very difficult to determine if there is a whackjob before they [the whackjob] start shooting.
The comparison should be what happens after that point where a staff member is armed or not. And in that case, if a staff member is armed and they have the opportunity, I would hope they would be able to neutralize the whackjob. If they are not armed, they can run or hide or both. You’re point seems to be more like, ‘if school staff are armed, they won’t have magic powers!’ A brilliant observation.
So my post #21 was more or less accurate. Your reference to toner was an effort to disparage certain teachers.
The first line is in reference to the staff member identifying the whackjob before the whackjob starts shooting.
I’ve posted this quite a few times here, but here goes anyway if you haven’t seen it.
The one school I’ve encountered that was on permanent lockdown with an armed guard at the door was a K-3 school in a quiet Midwestern middle-class neighborhood. The guard was a contracted employee of the local domestic violence agency, and was there because this was the school attended by the children that age who lived at the shelter. IDK if they’d had threats or what, but yes, this was why.
