Indiana school board to reexamine firearms policies

[Dirtebiker]

Yes. Perhaps the thought of uneducated, untrained strangers with guns having access to your children while they are out of your care doesn't bother you but it does me. I've already volunteered to provide training to school employees should they be authorized to carry in the schools. Perhaps I've seen a few too many people shot, perhaps I just don't trust people, probably a bit of both.

So, you would trust those that YOU train?
besides yourself, what training and education would you consider acceptable?

 

[phylodog]

So, you would trust those that YOU train?
besides yourself, what training and education would you consider acceptable?

Don't twist my words please. I stated early on that there should be proficiency standards and was told that was unacceptable. I'd be willing to assist school employees to reach those standards if they need it. That's all I said.

 

[phylodog]

So what is the difference between allowing law abiding citizens to carry in a school and other places where children are congregating?

ETA: Or is it you are concerned about teachers and administrators now assuming the roles and responsibilities without the training?

Schools aren't just open for the general public to go wandering around when there are children present. The employees are there all of the time. I want employees armed I just want it done responsibly.

What I fear are people who have never owned or carried a gun and, with the best intentions in the world, having unrealistic expectations about shooting end up creating a more dangerous situation than not carrying at all.

 

[Rocket]

I am with phylodog on this one. Do we let anyone who wants to be a teacher walk in and teach? No we require them to receive extensive training. Lets look at it from a different angle. How many times have you been near someone shooting and decided one or the other of you had to go? I have plenty.
In fact I try to go exclusively to private ranges for this reason. A well meaning person with a gun is better than just a bad guy with a gun, agreed. However I make it a point to train so I can be safe and effective around my kids. I would expect nothing less than that of school personnel.

 

[danielson]

I dont understand the resistance to wanting some level of training to be given to those who would carry a firearm, in an official capacity, for the school. IE armed staff.

Why would you not want them to be at least competent, and meet some form of target qualification? I don't think they need to go through basic training or anything. But some classroom to learn the basics, and drill it in their heads, and yearly qualifications make sense to me.

I personally like the idea of the support staff carrying, more so than the teachers. The maintenance and janitors have an intimate knowledge of the building, and will not be stuck in a classroom when the shooting starts.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I dont understand the resistance to wanting some level of training to be given to those who would carry a firearm, in an official capacity, for the school. IE armed staff.

Why would you not want them to be at least competent, and meet some form of target qualification? I don't think they need to go through basic training or anything. But some classroom to learn the basics, and drill it in their heads, and yearly qualifications make sense to me.

What if they just want to carry one for the same reasons most of us do: To be able to protect themselves and their family (and possibly others) from those intending to do grave bodily harm or death?

 

[phylodog]

What if they just want to carry one for the same reasons most of us do: To be able to protect themselves and their family (and possibly others) from those intending to do grave bodily harm or death?

If that's the case then a proficiency demonstration should be a cake walk. If they intent to carry in the school where there is a chance they would have to shoot around a large number of children they should accept the responsibility and expectations that come with that. If they don't want to, I'd be in favor of allowing them to leave their guns in the car. I'm a believer that an armed society is a polite society and have encouraged people to carry for the past 15 years but I have also encouraged them to train.

 

[danielson]

I understand where some are going with this. But your not caring your firearm as a profession, its not a part of your job function, and no one but you needs to make an assessment on your proficiency.
How can you do your best, from a school board standpoint, to know that your employees, that are caring handguns, are doing so with some level of competency, of you dont require them to meet some kind of standard?

What your asking for is the equivalent of the NYPD, pre Roosevelt

Its one thing where your only looking after yourself. Its another when you are responsible for others.

 

[dprimm]

How many times have you been near someone shooting and decided one or the other of you had to go? I have plenty.

THIS depends on how the school is setup. Charter schools and private schools have exemptions for teacher training requirements.

Phylodog, if you can get my school board to authorize my carrying, not only will I demonstrate a high degree of proficiency, I will take whatever lessons you will provide.

One thing that has not been discussed is reciprocity between districts. If for some grace of God, I was to be allowed to carry at my school, I would have trouble picking my child up at school in another district. I would like some form of legal protection if I went from work to pick my child up.

 

[88GT]

Yes. Perhaps the thought of uneducated, untrained strangers with guns having access to your children while they are out of your care doesn't bother you but it does me. I've already volunteered to provide training to school employees should they be authorized to carry in the schools. Perhaps I've seen a few too many people shot, perhaps I just don't trust people, probably a bit of both.

Does she walk outside of your house? Ever? Those same uneducated, untrained strangers with guns have "access" to your children in the general public. Why is a school any different?

So what is the difference between allowing law abiding citizens to carry in a school and other places where children are congregating?

ETA: Or is it you are concerned about teachers and administrators now assuming the roles and responsibilities without the training?

There is no difference. It's just a feel-good measure.

I dont understand the resistance to wanting some level of training to be given to those who would carry a firearm, in an official capacity, for the school. IE armed staff.

Why would you not want them to be at least competent, and meet some form of target qualification? I don't think they need to go through basic training or anything. But some classroom to learn the basics, and drill it in their heads, and yearly qualifications make sense to me.

I personally like the idea of the support staff carrying, more so than the teachers. The maintenance and janitors have an intimate knowledge of the building, and will not be stuck in a classroom when the shooting starts.

If carrying is part of someone's job description, then I concede that the entity for which the person will be carrying as part of the job has some authority and power to mandate and determine the level of training. But several of you are making a leap that the strapping on of a firearm by a citizen whose job just happens to take place in a school suddenly elevates him/her to "security guard status." There is no indication that this is the case.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If carrying is part of someone's job description, then I concede that the entity for which the person will be carrying as part of the job has some authority and power to mandate and determine the level of training. But several of you are making a leap that the strapping on of a firearm by a citizen whose job just happens to take place in a school suddenly elevates him/her to "security guard status." There is no indication that this is the case.

Exactly.

 

[phylodog]

Does she walk outside of your house? Ever? Those same uneducated, untrained strangers with guns have "access" to your children in the general public. Why is a school any different?


There is no difference. It's just a feel-good measure.


If carrying is part of someone's job description, then I concede that the entity for which the person will be carrying as part of the job has some authority and power to mandate and determine the level of training. But several of you are making a leap that the strapping on of a firearm by a citizen whose job just happens to take place in a school suddenly elevates him/her to "security guard status." There is no indication that this is the case.

A school is different because my daughter is Entrusted to their care for many hours a day and outside of my ability to protect her. My daughter goes outside, sure, but she is rarely outside of mine or my wife's view. I trust precious few with my daughter.

If they're not strapping on a firearm due to a need to utilize it in that surrounding then they don't need it at all. Granting the authority for employees to carry in a school accepts that the possibility of needing to use a firearm exists. In that setting, surrounded by those incapable of defending themselves against an armed opponent, one is accepting more responsibility than carrying simply for self defense.

 

[88GT]

A school is different because my daughter is Entrusted to their care for many hours a day and outside of my ability to protect her. My daughter goes outside, sure, but she is rarely outside of mine or my wife's view. I trust precious few with my daughter.

Makes no difference what role the school plays. Your daughter is still exposed to least common denominator who has been issued an LTCH and exercises his permission slip to the fullest. There is no difference between a citizen employing his EDC against a bad guy in the mall and putting your daughter at risk and a school employee doing the same. She is still at risk. If you are arguing that the school employees have been elevated to security personnel over and above their teaching responsibilities, then, as I said before, the school does have the oversight to require additional training regarding protocols in the event certain responses are needed. If, on the other hand, this is just teachers being given their full rights to be free men (and women) and defend themselves in the event certain responses are needed, then how is that any different than these me being at the mall in the same store your daughter and wife happen to be shopping in?

If they're not strapping on a firearm due to a need to utilize it in that surrounding then they don't need it at all.

You want to run that by me again? Who died and made you king? Since when did you or anybody else get to determine when and where it was acceptable for me to exercise my rights?

Granting the authority for employees to carry in a school accepts that the possibility of needing to use a firearm exists. In that setting, surrounded by those incapable of defending themselves against an armed opponent, one is accepting more responsibility than carrying simply for self defense.

Here's what I take from your posts:
1. You'd rather your daughter be defenseless and at the mercy of whatever shows up in her school than give a citizen his full compliment of rights and a means to defend her.
2. You think the serfs don't have an inherent right to defend themselves or to determine when that right should/could be exercised.
3. You're willing to grant permission for the serfs to defend themselves provided they make herculean efforts to obtain that permission with pointless training and education.

That about cover it?

 

[phylodog]

Here's what I take from your posts:
1. You'd rather your daughter be defenseless and at the mercy of whatever shows up in her school than give a citizen his full compliment of rights and a means to defend her.
2. You think the serfs don't have an inherent right to defend themselves or to determine when that right should/could be exercised.
3. You're willing to grant permission for the serfs to defend themselves provided they make herculean efforts to obtain that permission with pointless training and education.

That about cover it?

It would literally be impossible for me to give less of a **** what you take from my posts. You have more than proven ten times over that you can make miraculous leaps in assumption which have absolutely nothing to do with what someone says. I'll not be responding to your posts, questions or comments in this thread. Your conclusions are full of **** (as usual) and your desire to argue for the sake of arguing is awe inspiring. Have a great day.

 

[Denny347]

Here's what I take from your posts:
1. You'd rather your daughter be defenseless and at the mercy of whatever shows up in her school than give a citizen his full compliment of rights and a means to defend her.
2. You think the serfs don't have an inherent right to defend themselves or to determine when that right should/could be exercised.
3. You're willing to grant permission for the serfs to defend themselves provided they make herculean efforts to obtain that permission with pointless training and education.

That about cover it?

Ah, armed=CAPABLE of safely defending themselves and others. Got it. Having the tool does not make you a craftsman. Training make you the craftsman, otherwise you are just a tool collector. Active shooter training IS available to those outside of LEO circles. How many here have some familiarity with the dynamics of school shootings? Schools ARE different than the mall, a factory, an office, when it comes to these things. Having a school district require SOME proficiency with your handgun before granting you permission is not unreasonable.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Don't twist my words please. I stated early on that there should be proficiency standards and was told that was unacceptable. I'd be willing to assist school employees to reach those standards if they need it. That's all I said.

I understand what you said.
I am not trying to "twist" your words, simply asking questions.
Would you trust anyone that you personally trained,to be around your children while in possession of a handgun?
And besides your personal training, is there other training or education that you would like to be required for us to be allowed to carry in a school?

 

[phylodog]

I understand what you said.
I am not trying to "twist" your words, simply asking questions.
Would you trust anyone that you personally trained,to be around your children while in possession of a handgun?
And besides your personal training, is there other training or education that you would like to be required for us to be allowed to carry in a school?

I never said training should be required. I said I believe there should be required proficiency standards. I have trained a lot of people, some I would trust, some I would not. Some can't seem to grasp the ability to shoot a handgun accurately. Some can shoot a handgun accurately unless they are put under stress. Some can shoot a handgun accurately even when stressed. Facing an armed opponent who may be shooting back is stressful, allowing people to be put in that position without making efforts to ensure they are capable of dealing with it appropriately doesn't make sense to me.

We aren't just talking about allowing someone with a gun around my children. We are talking about them caring for my child in my absence. I see a difference there.

 

[danielson]

Are they considering letting average people off the street carry in schools? Or EMPLOYEES of the school????
If part of your function at your job is to be armed and ready to defend those in the building, you have IN FACT been elevated to security status. You are still a teacher or a principle, or a janitor, or a cook, but your also there to secure the people in the building, should something happen. You are NO LONGER just an armed citizen, you are now an armed, school security officer.

If your just a guy off the street, nobody is telling you to run out and get that "worthless" training.

Simply, from a schools standpoint, they cannot just let people, under their employ, carry firearms without proving some level of proficiency.

I personally dont see the reason for the bugs up the ass that some of you have. Unless you worked for a school that decided to go forward with this, wheres the fire coming from???

 

[HeadlessRoland]

You know what's most amazing about all of this to me personally? Homeschooling solves every problem and dilemma raised by this issue: physical safety of children, accountability and responsibility for the well-being of children, uncertainty whether staff have the appropriate skillset to be armed and effectively defend children - every single problem brought up by this is effectively resolved by homeschooling. Deny the State. Ensure your child(ren)'s safety. No one in this world has a more vested interest in your child(ren) than you: not the best teacher, not the best principal, not the most well-meaning private citizen - no one cares more about your child(ren) than you.

 

[Denny347]

You know what's most amazing about all of this to me personally? Homeschooling solves every problem and dilemma raised by this issue: physical safety of children, accountability and responsibility for the well-being of children, uncertainty whether staff have the appropriate skillset to be armed and effectively defend children - every single problem brought up by this is effectively resolved by homeschooling. Deny the State. Ensure your child(ren)'s safety. No one in this world has a more vested interest in your child(ren) than you: not the best teacher, not the best principal, not the most well-meaning private citizen - no one cares more about your child(ren) than you.

That is certainly one option.