I’m still waiting for some proof that this is a law that says, “Teachers: go out and buy a weapon to use at school!” instead of a law that’s addressing where a person who has a concealed carry permit may carry the weapon.
Good lord. Every person you meet physically larger than you could snap and beat you severely. You are hostage to their stability and mental state.
Unless you’re armed, of course.
The problem here is the probable scability of an incident.
When I was in highschool several ‘strange’ things happenned in my school or other schools. Things that in the end turned out alright, most importantly, with no one dead.
In one incident (which I was present at to witness) a student wanted to go to the bathroom. The teacher refused to let him (he had some nutty system where only one person was allowed to go no sooner than 15 minutes apart). Well, the student would have none of it and got up to go. The teacher also got up to bar the door. The student picked him up and threw him against some lockers.
Now, I knew the student. He just wanted to get to the bathroom, he didn’t want to hurt the teacher, however his decision to shove him away wasn’t a brilliant one.
I could see the fear in the teacher’s eyes. I didn’t see much danger coming form the student, after he shoved the teacher he started to go towards the bathroom. But I think the teacher so it a different way.
This is all anecdotal I know, but I’m sure we’ve all been involved, or seen altercations between students and faculty, or between two students.
I think the ONLY role a gun would play in such instances is to potentially get someone killed.
In the story above the kid ended up in toruble with the law, and the teacher went to the hospital for a cracked bone (IIRC). If there had been a guin involved we could have ended up with a dead student (either the instigator, or some inoccent bystander).
This is a very bad idea, and I cnanot believe that parents in utah would be for this. I certainly would raise hell over this if I had a child going to such a school.
**
Or it could mean the difference between someone getting a round off in time or getting shot or stabbed while trying to pull the slide back. Or they could just use a revolver with the hammer down on the empty chamber so all they have to do is pull the trigger to shoot it. I would never carry a firearm for self-defense that wasn’t chambered, it kind of defeats the purpose and really doesn’t serve to make anyone safer. Let’s check with the experts, do police officers carry sidearms with empty pipes?
**
In Texas an employer can ban an employee from carrying a firearm to work. So even if the law says it is ok the employer can say no.
**
In Texas that would be a crime. You can’t brandish or otherwise use your firearm to intimidate other people in the normal course of your day.
**
I agree.
Marc
I guess I don’t quite understand your point Monty. My question related to the specific issue of teachers in Utah potentially carrying concealed guns onto school grounds (pre-school ad up)which the concealed carry law passed in Utah now allows them to do, and why this specific aspect of the Utah concealed carry law may not be a particularly wise thing to allow for as public policy.
Why does a law have to “command” concealed carry in schools vs “allow” it before it can be considered a potentially dangerous law? I’m not really grasping your distinction in this context relative to the question at hand regarding the real world potential dangers of teachers packing concealed guns.
What’s life like living in fear of the bogeyman, tejota? How do you walk around knowing what fear lurks in the hearts of men? It must be a burden knowing that all of us psychos are just lying in wait to cap you.
I carry for the security of my family. No more, no less. As I would be using it in their defense, I would think that I couldn’t be any more trustworthy. So, there you go.
Oh, and while open carry is technically legal, the police really don’t care for that too much. Hence, concealed carry.
astro: My point is that the discussion in this thread seems to have started out on a completely different subject than the issue considered in the links provided in the OP.
**
The same is true when I walk down the street, drive my car, or carry heavy objects around. I could run head on into a bus load of orphans, I could strangle someone because I’m having a bad day, or I could stab someone in the eye for looking at me funny. I guess we’re all hostages to everyone’s mental state.
**
I’m not even sure what this means. Obviously nobody has a right to bring deadly force to the lives of someone else which is why we have laws against aggravated assaults, murders, and other violent activities.
**
Handling a firearm is not at all difficult or complicated as they are very simple machines to operate.
**
Why use some inflammatory language like play? Do you really think someone here is advocating irresponsible behavior?
Most states don’t allow you to openly carry. As for every situation being potentially deadly that is already the case.
Marc
Huh?? Of the three links provided the only linked article that does not directly reference the policy implications and debate about teachers carrying guns is the “Teachers get preliminary OK to carry weapons” cite, which more or less simply references that the legislation has been passed. The other two have explicit notes and quotes about the debate over the advisability of this policy relative to teachers carrying guns which is what the OP question is all about. These issues being discussed in these articles are directly on point with the debate referenced by the OP.
Part of “Guns at School” editorial
[/sub]
Part of “Concealed gun bill passes Senate committee”
[/sub]
Actually, the way it seems to read right now, students would be just as eligible under this law. Granted, you have to be 18 to get get a CCW permit, usually, but it sounds like any student that got one would be able to carry, too. At least, under the law. The school could quite easily make other rules that are more restrictive.
Contrary to popular belief, carrying a gun doesn’t make you a raging maniac. After being shoved out of the way, and assuming the student didn’t attack the teacher afterward, like was described, there would be no reason to draw a gun. In fact, to have drawn and used it would most likely be homicide, and anyone who’s actually gone through the required steps to get a CCW permit would know that.
I don’t think the scenario would change one bit.
I have heard of it, at least. I remember some story (Anecdotal, I know) of a police officer who had his weapon taken from him, but he protected himself by ejecting the magazine before the criminal pried it away.
Then again, the above suggestion was before I read the article ( :smack: ). Since the law is simply allowing CCW-permit-holders to carry in schools, it’s really their call how it’s carried, unless the school has specific policies in place.
And yeah, I’m aware that employers can restrict wether a person can carry on the job. Actually, isn’t it that the owners of any private property can decide wether or not people can concealed-carry on their property? I’m not sure about Texas, but I think that’s how it is over here…
Here in Oregon, if you have a CCW permit, you can legally carry handguns into schools. As I understand it, it has always been this way. And, as far as I am aware, no CCW-held weapon has been used in a crime in Oregon schools. On the other hand, it also did not prevent the school shooting here, either (Note, nobody in the school was carrying, except for the kid who brought in three firearms… No CCW required…).
A CCP does not guarantee responsible behavior. Even with policemen and police women who are supposedly trained to the nth degree in weapon safety and judicious use, there are occasionally stories in the news how an off duty officer pulled a weapon and used it in a threatening manner or injured or killed someone in their own domestic or other personal disputes where the use of weapon was completely uncalled for, and was used strictly to intimidate or injure someone they were mad at. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of these instances of police using firearms irresponsibly when angry never make the news.
In the late 70’s, while sitting in a perfectly placid freshman college english class at the University of Maryand I had a grad student teacher break down in wracking, heaving, sobbing tears because (she explained the next day) she was pregnant and super hormonal, and was going through some personal turmoil. Would I feel “more safe” if she was packing heat? Umm… no.
**
These are certainly in the minority. And as described in the story, the teacher was shocked and scared, and it sounded like they froze up. Having a handgun wouldn’t be too likely to change that behavior.
And if a teacher did any of the above, there would be dozens of witnesses… That’s a pretty one-way trip to not being able to own any firearm again.
Would it make you feel safer if she were “just” driving a multi-ton piece of steel around town at high speeds? One can do a lot more damage with a car than a handgun, if one wants to (Like the incidents of someone swerving off the road and severely injuring dozens of people, sometimes on purpose).
The way the law sounds, it isn’t about adding security to the school, but about allowing people to carry defensive tools into schools, if they have a CCW permit. It’s been allowed in other states already, and it hasn’t cause any problems.
Well, I met Airman Doors once and I wasn’t afraid of him. If he had had a gun, big deal. He doesn’t seem like the type who’d whip it out and start spraying everyone.
This, however, seems like a really bad idea. I’d be scared shitless to go to school. I would also hope that the teacher would have to have it on his or her person at all times-is there a risk of someone getting ahold of it?
If the state has decided that certain people can carry concealed handguns, then I don’t see anything terribly inconsistent with the idea that they can carry them to various places. To say otherwise would be to reach absurd positions like it is legal to sell sex but not to buy sex (ie legal to be a prositute but not legal to seek one out). While such absurd positions are reached in matters of law, their removal is, I think, a wise move for conceptual consistency.
Can they carry concealed handguns into banks? Into restaraunts? On playgrounds? If so then the law seems to be a matter of course and is democratically sound. If not, then there is something interesting happening.
I mean, this is basically what the law is saying: “If we’ve decided you can carry a gun on your person, then you can carry a gun on your person.” What exceptions already exist for where people can carry firearms? What motivated them? Do those motivations that are accepted as valid apply to schools?
Whether or not some posters think the idea stupid, it seems on the surface to be democratically sound and consistent, which is what we ideally want laws to be.
Let’s consider the utility of having a gun on a teacher in the classroom.
First, where is the opportunity for the teacher to use it? School shootings do happen, but I do not believe they are so prevalent that this would make a difference in preventing the events - unless a good number of teachers in every school carried, but with a large number of guns it follows that the likelyhood of accidents and other undesired effects will increase as well.
Second, what is the use if such an event occurred? Having a person with a gun sounded like a good idea to me at first - I don’t know, maybe they could shoot the kid before the incident got huge - but even in my limited experience with projectile weapons (read: paintballing/airsoft) I recognize that being able to load, aim, and fire the gun comes second to good target acquisition and fast reflexes.
In other words: with frantic kids running around, throwing an armed but untrained individual into the mix is asking for friendly fire. This is the problem I have with the idea.
Firearms in these cases are better left with the SWAT, in my opinion…
Take me for instance, guys. I have a concealed carry permit, for combat missions I carry a 9-MM, and if the fit hits the shan, I may have to augment the Security Forces. In addition, I have a security clearance. Yet if I bring my gun onto Federal property, I’ll be detained, and certainly punished. Thems the rules.
There are some places where guns are simply not permitted. Schools are one of them, unless you are a law enforcement officer.
This is a bad idea.
Sounds to me like guns are the problem, so why do they automatically become the solution? Why do these people feel the need to carry a gun, is there really that much violence in US schools?
I do not want to get into a debate on the right to bear arms on this issue, I know it is a thorny one in the US. I guess if the anti gun lobby there feel strongly enough they’ll get around to a referendum and alter the second amendment.
I feel, perhaps, a little hypocritical on this as a gun owner myself (bolt 22, only used for targets). Under our laws, no one can own a handgun (including 99% of the police force) and we are a hell of a lot safer as a result. Well, personally, if I could legally own a handgun I would. But for the sake of society as a whole it’s better that no-one can.
I know that people will say that when you take away legal guns, only the criminals are armed…well not if they can’t get them in the first place, or buy parts or ammo for them! I had a six week security screen to buy my 22, including a background check and an interview with the local Gardaí (cops). Can you say the same for a firearm purchase in Utah?
My opinion: no guns in schools, not even for police stationed there. Ideal world. But then, none of us would need guns would we?
Regards,
The anti-gun lobby doesn’t have a chance in hell of altering the 2nd Amendment. 'Nuff said about that.
I once watched a police training video titled “Surviving edged weapon attacks.” The premise of the video was that an attacker with a knife is far too deadly to try and shoot except in certain circumstances, and it’s actually better to grapple for the knife or try to escape.
Most of the examples basically centered on a person with a knife being able to get right on top of a cop and be cutting and stabbing them, long before a cop could get his gun out, point it, and shoot it. They did tests where a person with a knife charged a cop from various distances, and the cop (fully aware he was about to be attacked, with a knife, which is not always the case). In order for the policeman to draw his weapon and get two shots off in the direction of the attacker, the attacker had to be at least twenty feet away. Less than ten feet, and the cop didn’t even get to fire. And that’s when the cop was ready for it.
I’m severely sceptical of the utility of arming teachers simply because I don’t see a gun as being terrifically useful in any but a small minority of cases. A student in a classroom with a knife, or simply the physical strength to overcome a teacher, will almost always be able to get to the teacher before the teacher can shoot the student, given the distances and the fact that the teacher will probably not be aware of an impending attack, or will not have his firearm ready to defend himself if one seems possible. Add to that hesitation on the part of a teacher, due to nerves, inexperience in shooting people, and crowds of innocent students, and it seems like a pretty useless idea.
On top of that, an armed teacher creates a more adversarial relationship with the students that virtually guarantees that, if Kleybold and Harris actually show up again somewhere, they’ll simply shoot the teachers first, or barricade themselves in with students where there are no teachers. Do we then expect teachers to do what SWAT professionals do? How many armed teachers will simply say “I can’t do this.”?