Indiana school board to reexamine firearms policies

[redryder]

"I said I believe there should be required proficieney standards"
What standards are you talking about?

 

[kjf48197]

I have an idea, lets have the state gov't do away with gun free zones.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If we are willing to intrust our children all day long with these unarmed people, why would we trust them any less if they were armed without training? Are we saying here that our kids would be safer with some maniac shooting up the school with teachers unarmed vs armed with no training? I will take my chance with the untrained armed teacher over an unarmed teacher all day long.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I guess I don't understand the psychology of the situation. Or maybe others don't understand it. School teachers have proficiency standards they have to meet in order to teach at a public school. Any armed school employee will almost certainly have to have SOME training in order to be allowed to carry in school; I'll bet the insurance carrier will insist upon it. Even today, without CC by school employees, schools are conducting "Active Shooter" drills as a means of mitigating risk. Personally, I think any swinging citizen with a LTCH - or any person, really - should be allowed to walk into a school with a firearm. Any person carrying a firearm with the intent of using it to protect himself or others - as a secondary function of their jobs in school - can reasonably be required to demonstrate that they understand basic firearms safety, the standards for engagement, and are proficient with their weapon at gunfight range. I would think a modified ILEA course of fire would be sufficient.

While everyone - EVERYONE - has a basic right to self defense, there is a difference between accepting that responsibility for oneself, and standing in the gap for others as a responsibility, whether voluntarily or as an adjunct of primary employment duties. A person willing to take that step responsibly should be willing to prove competence. A person NOT willing to prove personal competence with a firearm is not someone I would like entrusted with such responsibility.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And there is also this: Arming school personnel won't necessarily mean the end of shooting at schools. But arming school personnel will go a long way toward limiting the damage a potential killer can do.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Would we be better off with untrained armed teachers or teachers that are unarmed?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Would we be better off with untrained armed teachers or teachers that are unarmed?

I'm with you on this. I realize that the way things are, the expectations our society has, there will be a demand that those teachers and administrators that would carry, they be "competent". It's just the world we live in. Rather than designate certain people as adjunct security guards and relying on them to stop the threat, it seems to me it would be better that any able-bodied person, some willing and able person, be able to fill that role if (God forbid) it arises again should they be in a position to do so.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Would we be better off with untrained armed teachers or teachers that are unarmed?

I suppose it would depend upon what would be considered "untrained." I have to seriously wonder how many teachers are going to go out, purchase a handgun, and bring it to school without any sort of training with it. While I'm sure there are pro-self-defense teachers out there, I also know there are bunches of teachers who abhor the concept - and therefore shouldn't carry a firearm in school. I would guess that most teachers who would be willing to carry a firearm to school either are ones who train with their handguns because they like to shoot or see the need for self-defense with one, or they would be willing to train with their weapon to become proficient (and safe) because they would recognize that carrying a firearm in school is an additional responsibility.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I suppose it would depend upon what would be considered "untrained." I have to seriously wonder how many teachers are going to go out, purchase a handgun, and bring it to school without any sort of training with it. While I'm sure there are pro-self-defense teachers out there, I also know there are bunches of teachers who abhor the concept - and therefore shouldn't carry a firearm in school. I would guess that most teachers who would be willing to carry a firearm to school either are ones who train with their handguns because they like to shoot or see the need for self-defense with one, or they would be willing to train with their weapon to become proficient (and safe) because they would recognize that carrying a firearm in school is an additional responsibility.

Those that take the responsibility typically are prepared for it to one extent or another. I would still be happy with the 2nd grade teacher Mrs. Brown with no practical training besides the basics of handgun safety be carrying than not be carrying.

 

[Denny347]

Those that take the responsibility typically are prepared for it to one extent or another. I would still be happy with the 2nd grade teacher Mrs. Brown with no practical training besides the basics of handgun safety be carrying than not be carrying.

Lots of people carry that do nothing more than buy it and carry it...NOTHING in between. It is VERY possible that a completely untrained teacher is MORE dangerous than an unarmed one. The artificially created sense of security could lead them to do something that they otherwise would not have, causing them to get themselves or worse, the kids, killed because of it. We are discussing these issues in the circle of "gun enthusiasts" so we tend to think as that. However, many gun owners are not in these circles. Many carry without any interest in doing anything more than that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

When I first read your stance on requiring training or some proficiency standard, I determined I had to write something in reply, to the effect that that's what they have (de facto, anyway) now: In theory, a school board may allow anyone to carry at a school. In practice, they will not, thus, only LE may do so, since they do it without the need of school board approval, thus, your training and/or proficiency standard is that the person must have passed their yearly or bi-yearly qual.

I take issue with that, since these are not people intending to become LE, but are instead teachers whose focus is on educating of our youth. I support a LEA having standards for their employees. Where I see this falling down is that these are the same people who behave with responsibility elsewhere (those who choose to carry at school will likely be those who already carry away from school)

I know you have lots of stories about people who carry, and many if not most of them probably have a LTCH and may have no training classes at all. Those are the people who think having the gun is a magic talisman of protection from evil. I submit, however, that you are, by virtue of your employment, a bit jaded. Just as I am very stingy with the narcotics.... If I medicate someone with those, they've got to convince me, and I don't convince easily.... you're untrusting and if that changes, it's because someone has earned your trust. Both of these are for the same reason: We've gotten bitten in the past.

With all of that said, having read what you wrote here, I see what you're meaning. The question still applies: while little Miss Susie, the kindergarten teacher/soccer mom, may feel some peer pressure if she's the only teacher who doesn't carry and may then go buy herself a cute little .25 auto with a Hello Kitty sticker on the grips and think she's now a badass who will protect her kids and thus be more a danger to them because of her ignorance, the greater likelihood is that most of the teachers and admins who choose to carry will be folks like we know here. We make it our business to know what we're doing and how to do what we must when the time comes, knowing full well that when it's done, we're likely going to have some sleepless nights for a year or lots.

This begs the question: Miss Susie needs some good, solid training. No question. By that, I mean she needs to be convinced that right now, she is dangerous and this is how to not be a danger to her kids. What kind of proficiency standard would you set for people who aren't in her category? Should we have to do a full-on pre-basic qual and 8 hrs of DT? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm setting one standard for you to compare yours to, for greater or lesser.
Further, other than being a parent, by what right do you set that standard on another who has carried in perfect safety for years?

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.

I see that you're not, at least here, talking about "us", but rather about those of "us" who are just joining the fold. The question still applies, and as above, I mean it without sarcasm and with respect.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bunnykid68]

Lots of people carry that do nothing more than buy it and carry it...NOTHING in between. It is VERY possible that a completely untrained teacher is MORE dangerous than an unarmed one. The artificially created sense of security could lead them to do something that they otherwise would not have, causing them to get themselves or worse, the kids, killed because of it. We are discussing these issues in the circle of "gun enthusiasts" so we tend to think as that. However, many gun owners are not in these circles. Many carry without any interest in doing anything more than that.

Havent several of these school shooters offed themselves because they were confronted by someone with a gun?

I would like to think that a "teacher", someone that teaches people how to use and do things, would take upon themselves to know how to use a tool they wish to use.

Anyways, a school with armed teachers becomes less of an easy target regardless of training or not and regardless of whether anyone is actually armed. In the shooters eyes it becomes a harder target because they are allowed to carry.

 

[danielson]

I dont get it... Bunny, Your 40 year old friend comes up to you and says they've bought a gun for the first time, asks you for advice. What are you gonna do? Most likely, teach them the basics of gun safety, take them to a range and show them how to handle it properly, and show them how to shoot it well.

Is this not the same principle?

We all know its not the best thing in the world to be turned loose with a firearm, to defend yourself when youve had NO training.
Why is it suddenly ok to turn the same person loose, to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of others????


I put it this way... I know many teachers, probably 80% of them would scare the hell out of me if I knew they had firearms.

But on the other hand, Hickok45 just retired as a teacher..

No ones saying its NEEDED for every person.

But its DEFINITELY NEEDED for alot of them. The only way to achieve this is to have some form of standard..

 

[Dirtebiker]

I dont get it... Bunny, Your 40 year old friend comes up to you and says they've bought a gun for the first time, asks you for advice. What are you gonna do? Most likely, teach them the basics of gun safety, take them to a range and show them how to handle it properly, and show them how to shoot it well.

Is this not the same principle?

We all know its not the best thing in the world to be turned loose with a firearm, to defend yourself when youve had NO training.
Why is it suddenly ok to turn the same person loose, to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of others????


I put it this way... I know many teachers, probably 80% of them would scare the hell out of me if I knew they had firearms.

But on the other hand, Hickok45 just retired as a teacher..

No ones saying its NEEDED for every person.

But its DEFINITELY NEEDED for alot of them. The only way to achieve this is to have some form of standard..

"Slippery slope"!?

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

If an armed teacher is to be some kind of reactive agent to an active shooter situation... Shouldn't that armed teacher have training and demonstrate proficiency?

If part of my job is to entubate people, I must be trained on how to do that. I also will be tested upon that in order to be deemed proficient.

If rendering first aid is a job requirement, don't you think you had better be trained and proficient at it?

 

[phylodog]

When I first read your stance on requiring training or some proficiency standard, I determined I had to write something in reply, to the effect that that's what they have (de facto, anyway) now: In theory, a school board may allow anyone to carry at a school. In practice, they will not, thus, only LE may do so, since they do it without the need of school board approval, thus, your training and/or proficiency standard is that the person must have passed their yearly or bi-yearly qual.

I take issue with that, since these are not people intending to become LE, but are instead teachers whose focus is on educating of our youth. I support a LEA having standards for their employees. Where I see this falling down is that these are the same people who behave with responsibility elsewhere (those who choose to carry at school will likely be those who already carry away from school)

I know you have lots of stories about people who carry, and many if not most of them probably have a LTCH and may have no training classes at all. Those are the people who think having the gun is a magic talisman of protection from evil. I submit, however, that you are, by virtue of your employment, a bit jaded. Just as I am very stingy with the narcotics.... If I medicate someone with those, they've got to convince me, and I don't convince easily.... you're untrusting and if that changes, it's because someone has earned your trust. Both of these are for the same reason: We've gotten bitten in the past.

With all of that said, having read what you wrote here, I see what you're meaning. The question still applies: while little Miss Susie, the kindergarten teacher/soccer mom, may feel some peer pressure if she's the only teacher who doesn't carry and may then go buy herself a cute little .25 auto with a Hello Kitty sticker on the grips and think she's now a badass who will protect her kids and thus be more a danger to them because of her ignorance, the greater likelihood is that most of the teachers and admins who choose to carry will be folks like we know here. We make it our business to know what we're doing and how to do what we must when the time comes, knowing full well that when it's done, we're likely going to have some sleepless nights for a year or lots.

This begs the question: Miss Susie needs some good, solid training. No question. By that, I mean she needs to be convinced that right now, she is dangerous and this is how to not be a danger to her kids. What kind of proficiency standard would you set for people who aren't in her category? Should we have to do a full-on pre-basic qual and 8 hrs of DT? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm setting one standard for you to compare yours to, for greater or lesser.
Further, other than being a parent, by what right do you set that standard on another who has carried in perfect safety for years?



I see that you're not, at least here, talking about "us", but rather about those of "us" who are just joining the fold. The question still applies, and as above, I mean it without sarcasm and with respect.

Blessings,
Bill

I don't have a standard in mind. I have not spent the time to develop what I feel would be appropriate and there are those who are probably better prepared to do so. My training, and the training I have provided to others concerning an active shooter is basically a suicide mission. I have told many that if they are not willing to accept that ahead of time, they're better off not showing up at all.

You mention that it is likely that most who would choose to carry are like minded to the membership here. If that is the case why is there so much resistance to asking someone to demonstrate that they are capable of making good decisions under stress thereby not unintentionally killing children? I honestly don't understand why it is so offensive a proposition.

it is an unfortunate fact that in many things we must cater to the lowest common denominator. The right to set a standard upon another does not lie with me. The state law forbids, with a few exceptions, the carrying or possession of firearms in school. The authority to grant an exception lies with the administration of the school. That administration can place standards and limits as a condition of employment and if it were open to debate I would argue in favor of a proficiency standard and suggest that training would be a good idea.

I have been involved in a shooting, I have taken a life and I've had many guns pointed at me. I just completed research for a presentation which included a survey of over 70 officers on my agency who have been involved in shootings as well. There are very dramatic physiological changes which the body experiences when involved in a deadly situation. Most of the officers I spoke with experienced several of them. Auditory exclusion, tunnel vision, loss of fine motor skills, the inability to execute relatively simple tasks, etc. I find the topic extremely interesting and believe that putting people into that situation and asking, better yet, expecting them to perform is not only a disservice to them but also to those in their charge.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I dont get it... Bunny, Your 40 year old friend comes up to you and says they've bought a gun for the first time, asks you for advice. What are you gonna do? Most likely, teach them the basics of gun safety, take them to a range and show them how to handle it properly, and show them how to shoot it well.

Is this not the same principle?

We all know its not the best thing in the world to be turned loose with a firearm, to defend yourself when youve had NO training.
Why is it suddenly ok to turn the same person loose, to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of others????


I put it this way... I know many teachers, probably 80% of them would scare the hell out of me if I knew they had firearms.

But on the other hand, Hickok45 just retired as a teacher..

No ones saying its NEEDED for every person.

But its DEFINITELY NEEDED for alot of them. The only way to achieve this is to have some form of standard..

If an armed teacher is to be some kind of reactive agent to an active shooter situation... Shouldn't that armed teacher have training and demonstrate proficiency?

If part of my job is to entubate people, I must be trained on how to do that. I also will be tested upon that in order to be deemed proficient.

If rendering first aid is a job requirement, don't you think you had better be trained and proficient at it?

Fine. Screw it all. Leave them unarmed because obviously most think they are better unarmed than armed unless they have some kind of training.

 

[danielson]

Fine. Screw it all. Leave them unarmed because obviously most think they are better unarmed than armed unless they have some kind of training.

Why are you SO opposed to training, that you would rather them not carry at all, than carry with it?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why are you SO opposed to training, that you would rather them not carry at all, than carry with it?

Why are you so opposed to letting people carry even if they do not have the training you require?

I never said I was opposed to training but I would rather Mrs Brown be armed with no training than not be armed at all.

 

[danielson]

Look, there's ideology, and then there's reality. Here in the real world, ran by lawyers and insurance companies, there will be some kind of proficiency standard, guaranteed. If you oppose that, than it wont happen at all.

CYA is the name of the game. I bet you one of the biggest fears superintendents have about their faculty being able to carry a gun is how much money they will lose if during an active shooter situation, one of the faculty shoots one of the innocent.

Thats the world we live in these days, bud. Its disgusting, but there it is...