You can read all the details here, but my brief summary would be:
[ul]
[li]gun safety rules[/li][li]basic handgun function and operations[/li][li]maintenance and storage[/li][li]shooting fundamentals[/li][li]a thorough review of state and federal gun laws, including the laws governing use of force in defense of self, others, home, etc.[/li][/ul]
I’m going to wait for HurricaneDitka to respond more definitively, since it seems s/he is a Utah resident, but I did find this: http://www.utahccwcarry.com/
That may be enough to know how to handle a gun, and not shoot yourself in the leg while holstering it, it doesn’t seem to be enough to know how to keep a violent intruder armed with an AR-15 at bay while simultaneously keeping control of panicked students.
Of course, I may be wrong, which is why I’d like an authority on Utah’s CCW to chime in.
Edit: HurricaneDitka did post just before I did. I’ll read and respond accordingly if necessary. Thanks for the response.
So that would be NO hours of training for the purpose of protecting the public under extremely high pressure situations.
Would you want them to have any training requirements at all, if in a constitutional carry state?
If they are in a state that requires a CCW, do you feel that that is enough training?
I don’t see how teachers carrying guns in class can make anyone safer. The chances of a teacher using a gun to defend students is phenomenally small. If we say that we have 18 school shootings last month*, and an armed teacher would have prevented each of those events, then an individual school should expect to get hit once every 450 years.
That means that the overwhelming vast majority of guns in teachers hands will never be used to thwart a shooter.
However, that is hundreds of thousands of guns that we are bringing into the schools. Trusting the teachers not only to be sane and not shooting students over discipline problems, but also responsible enough and vigilant enough to ensure that they are in complete possession of their firearm at all times throughout the day is a tough one. My english teacher thought she had her Jack Daniels that she drank at lunch well hidden and secured, but we were getting into that quite easily.
So, we have to assume that over the course of 450 years, this gun will never be used in malice or accident, and remain vigilant the whole time to ward off threats.
*Yes, I know that number is “inflated”, but the bigger it is, the more reasonable the argument to put guns in schools, so quibble if you want. As there actually hasn’t been another school shooting that an armed teacher would have been able to disrupt since Sandy Hook, you are really talking about 360,000 years between times when a school would be targeted by something that armed teachers would be able to disrupt.
Seems you don’t even have to shoot the gun and demonstrate any proficiency in hitting a target.
I’m still trying to figure out why it would take a whole four hours for a class that limited.
How many shootings would there be because someone overpowered their teacher in the heat of the moment, or simply stole their gun and started shooting up their classroom right there?
Its a goddamned stupid idea all around.
I’d encourage you to go sit through one and find out for yourself. The Utah permit is so widely recognized, that it’s quite common for people to teach the Utah class in other states. There might be one near you, for a reasonable price.
Another issue: where would the guns in the school be stored? In the teacher’s desk? A dedicated gun safe? Who would pay for that? Would there be standards for these gun safes? Would there be space in the classroom? How do we know students wouldn’t try to break into them?
My whole point with this thread is even though the idea of arming teachers comes up, it never seems to have been thought through very well.
I don’t give a shit if it is so popular it has it’s own Netflix series-I asked you how much training you had concerning a certain situation, and the answer turns out to be none.
In Utah the school districts tell employees they must maintain personal possession of the weapon. That’s generally understood to mean on their person, and not left unattended in a desk.
Yeah, I never claimed to have training regarding whatever precise scenario you want to craft your question around.
I don’t believe Utah has had a single one under either of those circumstances.
I do not think teachers should carry guns in schools but if they did I would hope it would require more training than seems to be necessary to get a CCW. At a minimum I think they should have to demonstrate some minimum level of proficiency using the gun of their choice then be licensed to carry ONLY that type/model gun in the school (so no acing the test with a .22 and then carrying a Desert Eagle, .50 AE to school).
Note I am only proposing those extra requirements if the teacher wants to carry while in school. Would be nice for all CCW holders though but probably would never happen.
The" precise scenario you want to craft your question around" just happens to be what this thread is about. If a thread was about painting a house, do you think my taking abstract art classes would impress anyone?
This is a silly objection. There are several teachers in my family, they have to take CPR to be licensed, that does not mean they are paid more since they are now supposed to be doctors, they have recently taken training to spot abused kids, does that mean they are paid more since they are now supposed to be psychiatrists?
Just like the other trainings have not solved the problems of heart problems or sexual abuse but are an attempt to ameliorate the situation, gun training would not make teachers into security guards but might make school shooting somewhat less likely and less deadly.
It’s treading relatively untested grounds, so I’m not sure I can say what the right amount would be. I think if a state determines that an individual is suitable to carry based on its own criteria, I think the burden of showing why a school necessitates different treatment than say, a park or playground. But sure, I’d be fine with a training element if required. Shit, if my state required POST training to obtain a CCW and a $10K fee, I’d have one already.
I think the first question is whether you think a person carrying a gun at all can make anyone safer. If the answer to that is no, then of course a teacher wouldn’t make the cut either. If the answer is yes, then the next step would be to delineate what makes the teacher’s situation different and to see if there are ways to mitigate those differences.
I don’t know about the ‘since Sandy Hook’ part, but school staff can be in a position to disrupt an active shooter sometimes.
I don’t think it’s a silly objection at all. Being certified in CPR isn’t at all the same thing as being trained to fire a gun. Arming teachers means the possibility that a teacher may be forced to shoot another person.
Far different from spotting an abused kid or compressing someone’s chest in order to save lives.
If you can’t switch states, have you considered switching counties?
Do you believe that’s going to hold true everywhere else, like Chicago or Alabama?