I’m not. I’m assuming that the average teacher’s schoolday involves interactions with fewer hardened criminals intent on seizing a weapon than the average patrolman’s shift.
No.
Because they’re reasonably confident they won’t be facing any opponents with a firearm in those settings. If the risk were so great to law enforcement that they outweighed the benefits of being armed out there in the wider world, they’d patrol without weapons, wouldn’t they? Presumably they’re not doing that (at least here in America, I don’t know what happens up north) because the risks don’t outweigh the benefits, at least in their eyes.
I’ll reply to the questions about how women can CCW because I looked into this awhile back–not because I was thinking of getting a CCW permit or even a gun, but because I had the same question. Depending on the type of firearm, a woman wearing a skirt and blouse could conceal successfully with a holster inside the waistband, depending on the fabric of the blouse and the style of the skirt. I don’t know of any way to CCW wearing a dress. I suppose it’s possible, but it wouldn’t be quick or easy to access the weapon. And I’m assuming we’re not concerned about modesty in a shooting situation.
But when I say “successfully” I don’t necessarily mean in a school setting. Kids spend a lot of time looking at teachers. Examples of observations of my students:
“The back of your earring is about to fall off.”
“The fastener on your necklace is by the locket.”
“I think you have a run starting down by your heel.”
“Aren’t those the same shoes you wore last Thursday?”
Kids are observant. Teachers are active. Kids who know some teachers are carrying will watch like hawks and figure it out.
But how many TEACHERS support the idea? I wish someone would poll us. Were I the betting sort, i’d bet big money that number would be dramatically lower.
How is the risk factor of facing down a teacher with a pistol supposed to be convincing to psychotics, psychopaths, suicidal shooters, or the pharmaceutically damaged?
They might just think of it as a challenge to be taken up. In fact this is part of most accounts, whereas the risk of gunfire never seems to.
I think a lot of people like to fantasize that someone is afraid of their gun, and then project it to “bad people are afraid of our guns.” But to make public policy around it? It would be funny if it weren’t. It is idiotic.
I can see a certain mindset who might like to go back and have a shootout with a teacher.
Not only that, but an armed teacher only has to “mess up” and reveal that they have a gun a single time, and from then on every single student they ever teach will know that they are carrying a gun. That’s the type of news that spreads through a school like wildfire and becomes a permanent school legend.
What CCW holder has a 100% success rate preventing anyone from ever seeing a bulge or other indication they are carrying? None that I know, and I know several.
I suspect you’re right. It’s generally a left-leaning demographic. I suspect a poll of police and / or military might show the opposite, as they’re generally right-leaning demographics.
ETA: and I’m not aware of any polls like this, so I’d be surprised if either one of us can confirm our suspicions
That probably depends on the school and its location. In areas where gun ownership is rare, it would definitely be a legend; in places where it’s common and a lot of the students’ own parents are in the habit of CCing, it probably wouldn’t be considered that exciting of a revelation.
As I’ve said before, I sincerely doubt that the majority of teachers have anywhere close to the abilities required to confront a shooter under the effects of adrenaline…or the inclination to even try to develop those abilities - which a civilian could only do in a limited capacity anyway. For the small minority who do, and those who are former police or military and have experience on the “two-way range”, I have little objection to them being permitted to carry a concealed weapon on the job.
I don’t think it’s going to result in a bloodbath, any more than “campus carry” in Texas has. The odds of a properly-qualified armed teacher overlapping with a school shooter seem statistically remote (school shootings are themselves statistically remote, they just get a lot of press since they amount to terrorism.) Teachers carrying might act as a deterrent in some cases, it might not in other cases; some of the teachers might actually be able to take down a shooter, some of them would probably fail.
Expecting every teacher to want to take on the immense responsibility of being armed, is sheer lunacy.
And the schoolteacher is supposed to face down the highly armed school shooter with that wimpy little CCW gun that is little more than a water pistol? The gun that is so ineffective that no self-respecting troubled schoolboy would bother with it as a weapon? Maybe we should let the teachers carry AR-15’s, that’s the only way I can see that they’d have a fighting chance at anything but suicide. The little guy beating insurmountable odds has been such a TV and movie trope for years that it’s easy to forget that life doesn’t work that way. The guy that’s outgunned is going to lose. A teacher with an AR-15 has a better shot. What do you think?
So what? What does it matter how many police or military think schoolteachers should carry guns? They’re not. What matters is how many TEACHERS support the idea, because they’re the ones you’re asking to die because you saw a Die Hard movie once.
It’s not an ideal weapon if one’s goal is to kill as many people as one can. Frankly, it’s probably not the ideal weapon for disabling just one person either, but it is adequate for that task, which is why I’d prefer that the school teacher have that vs whatever throwable / swingable object they can scrounge up in a pinch, if the teacher feels comfortable wielding such a weapon.
That proposal would be a good bit more controversial than what I’m suggesting. As for the “fighting chance” bit, I believe I’ve consistently maintained that a competent, pistol-armed teacher would have at least a fighting chance against a rifle-armed school shooter inside of a school.
Do you think they might have some inkling of an idea what it take to stop an active shooter?
Don’t be dramatic. I’m not asking them to die. I’d prefer it if everyone lived. And this has got nothing to do with Die Hard.
That is one of the more ignorant statements I have seen made on this board. It is total bullshit. Unless, of course, you can produce quotes from the NRA stating that X number of dead kids is an acceptable price for freedom.
Here’s a more important question: if, as you suggested up thread, that teachers have probably been ‘packing’ for years, has any of these heat-packing teachers stopped one of these rampages?
Don’t just look at schools; let’s consider anywhere a private citizen could legally carry a concealed weapon and neutralize an active shooter. Did a CCW permit holder stop Las Vegas? Did he stop the Aurora, Colorado massacre? Did he stop Columbine? Did he stop Parkland? Did he stop the church massacre in Texas? Or the church massacre in South Carolina? The only one of these incidents in recent memory where someone was actually stopped by a private citizen was one the citizen(s) were unarmed.
There’s something that the pro-gun rights advocates are not taking into account. Having fewer weapons floating around in the general public tends to make the public safer. It doesn’t guarantee that these massacres won’t happen, but they tend to reduce the likelihood of these incidents – of course that’s just a starting point. But there’s no way you can convince me that arming teachers will make any school safer or less prone to an attack.
All it does is give at least one person an opportunity to fight back with equal force – that’s it. But what if that person (or people) are using the bathroom? What if they’re on a lunch break? What if they’re writing on the white board with their backs to the students? What if their gun is jammed? What if they freeze? What if they’re confused and don’t know where the gunfire is coming from and run away from the shooter instead of towards him? Sorry, but conservatives are just peddling this based on their own very limited experiences watching Hollywood movies or going on duck hunting trips. What happens in real time, when real people are getting shot and when real screams are heard is completely different. The evidence pretty clearly supports that, and not the gun rights advocates’ “fighting chance” argument.
What’s unfortunate is that I remember when the NRA wasn’t crazy. In fact they still do things that aren’t at all bad – like gun safety programs and teaching responsible firearms use to children and young adults. It’s overshadowed by the no-holds-barred political thuggery of Wayne LaPierre and his counterpart Larry Pratt at Gun Owners of America.
In some ways they are being held hostage to the political system. LaPierre’s contract gets renewed and his salary increased for bringing in more members and generating more revenue, and like him or loathe him, he does a pretty good job in this regard. One of the reasons for his success is his ability to deliver a very sharp message over the airwaves, not just sharp in its tone but also very targeted in its delivery. He knows how to get under people’s skin and how to get them to respond. He mastered the art of being a controversial right wing prickosaurus rex and that has made him a kind of celebrity that all gun enthusiasts can identify with.
On the flip side, however, he has no choice but to maintain that facade and to perpetually out-Wayne himself. Otherwise, Larry Pratt and other activists, who have their own firearms rights organizations (essentially their competitors) will take a bite out of that membership, and force him out of power. LaPierre isn’t just a gun rights activists; he’s a de facto member of congress. And he’s more powerful because he writes the checks, and he decides who his proxies are. And there’s not a single person in congress who doesn’t understand this reality. And in the short-term, LaPierre enjoys leverage and it’s a calculus that favors him and his agenda.
The long game, however, is problematic for the NRA. With one massive shift in the congressional makeup, and with another politically tectonic voting cycle in the 2 years that follow, the NRA could be facing an entirely new political reality. And the danger for the NRA is that the activism is stacking the chips pretty high. They’re playing an all or nothing game. One would think the sensible thing to do would be to compromise on bump stocks and automatic weapons, but again, politically speaking, LaPierre has a reputation to uphold. He’s a prisoner of his own making (in no way is that meant to be sympathetic). The NRA would be wise to understand, however, that there is a new wave of activism that is occurring, and it’s not just with women, but it’s also generational. And more importantly, it’s local, not just national. That means that when the progressives and democrats can finally agree on what they want their party to be, the NRA is going to have a major problem on its hands.
The solution came to me this morning. More guns in school is not the deterrent/solution we are looking for. But now I know what is!
Trained attack dogs in every classroom.
The vast, vast majority of the time, they’ll just be the class pet, a therapy dog, good for morale. But if there’s an active shooter, just before the rooms go on lockdown, the teachers can release their dogs into the hallway with the command, “Hunt!” Even spree killers, intent on murdering humans, are often reluctant to harm an animal. Dogs trained to attack have no fear and will not hide from a shooter. Even if they do shoot at the dog, a dog is a low-profile, difficult target. And the presence of dogs will have a strong deterrent effect, as it does on burglars.
Detained him, after he left the building and was trying to get away. Nice that he caught him, but he didn’t stop a rampage.
Two things. One, it was a former police officer, not a random CCW’er. Two, there is disagreement between the officer and the coroner on whether the officer killed him or whether the gunman took his own life.
That’s not a bad example, but I am curious as to why there are no reports of any injuries from Custodio’s shots. Did he not hit anyone when he opened fire? I checked a couple other news articles that aren’t paywalled, and there was no mention of any injuries other than the shooter’s.
No doubt if more people are armed, there’s a greater chance that one of them will stop a shooting. But that benefit will need to be weighed against the downsides of having people carrying guns all the time. For slim chance that they’ll be in a situation to stop a crime, there’s the possibility that their gun will be lost or stolen, they’ll use it in anger (e.g. road rage), they themselves will snap and lash out with their gun, etc.
For any given gun, what are the chances that it will be used to stop a crime vs the chances that it will be mishandled/misused in some way? I would suspect that the latter case would be higher simply because there’s way more time that it can be misused vs used to stop a crime.
Yes, it’s a crying shame that Joel Myrick wasn’t allowed to carry on campus. He had to run to his truck to retrieve his pistol, which delayed him from stopping the massacre sooner.
I don’t believe anyone disputes that Jeanne wounded the gunman, just whether she fired the fatal shot or not.
I believe the CCW holder managed to shoot the bad guy before he injured anyone.
Yes, this is the trade-off. There are hundreds of thousands or millions of defensive gun uses every year. Not sure how you want to count “mishandled/misused”. I suppose one could count accident fatalities and injuries, perhaps suicides (although I imagine some would quibble with this one), not sure what else.