Indiana school board to reexamine firearms policies

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, that is certainly a valid argument against standards for teachers to carry at school. I'm convinced, well done.

I was going to address the previous version of this post but you changed it...I'll do the best I can based on what I can remember. Please don't confuse my position that all law abiding citizens should be able to carry in schools with the realization that the general population is not ready to allow that. I realize that if any movement is to be made, the first step will be to just get school boards to authorize "somebody" to do it and they will likely place some training and maybe some financial hurdles in the way. I am not, as you accused in your original version an all-or-nothing zealot. If that is the stage through which we must pass in order to remove gun free zones, I'll be all over it.

One of the main points of my posts in this thread is to argue that just because those that are deemed by the powers that be to possess certain qualifications are often less trust worthy than some "untrained" kindergarten teacher. I think this has been a general consensus on this site since I've had an account. But for some reason, in this particular discussion, it seems as though this position has been vacated by some.

 

[phylodog]

Nothing in life is guaranteed. Successfully meeting a standard does not guarantee success and I haven't heard anyone suggesting it would.

 

[danielson]

Who said the teachers are all horrible with firearms, and after training, theyre all perfect? Im telling you, the lawyers wont let it happen without some kind of training and proof of proficiency. This country is full of feel good measures, none of them guarantee to do anything but just that.

On top of that, I feel training is important(not necessarily formal training) and I know several people who carry guns, and many more who only own them, and they have ZERO regard for the 4 rules, a few back home, were teachers. The thought of THEM carrying in my school, is terrifying.

I understand where your coming from, and it IS all or nothing to you, because you want complete constitutional carry, country wide, and thats how it SHOULD BE, its how its supposed to be. We all know, the people with LTCH dont commit crime, so banning firearms does NOTHING to stop crime.

But the LAWYERS that run this country DO NOT, and THEY are in charge.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is fundamentally, ideally, I'm totally in agreement with you. But practically, Im not.

 

[flippiethehippie]

I had asked for some advise earlier in this thread and have found many interesting points that have been made. I am a firm believer in the idea that many times we as people can analyze things to a point that we lose focus on the basics of common sense. I do think a teacher must have some level of basic training based on getting them to realize different strategies to minimize collateral damage and increase probability of success. that being said, I relate to and also don't think that we as a society we should expect a teacher to stand by and do nothing if a student is in life saving need of CPR , but the teacher has not been "authorized" with a CPR certificate. At the end of the day, any tool that could stop a shooter raises the probability of survival for our children as apposed to doing nothing. I also think that in this world of useless lawyers, it is the individuals right and responsibility to make sure they know how to properly use any deadly tools (hammers, knives,screwdrivers, guns)

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Perhaps where the big divide in this thread could be chalked up to a difference between an armed teacher in (and staying in) a classroom vs. an armed teacher that has been trained in how to respond to an active shooter situation...

Two different things, me thinks. And perhaps they SHOULD be...

-J-

 

[Scout]

She does not.

To clarify here, I am not in favor of the no guns on school property law. What I am concerned with are those who will be at the school with the kids full time and choose to carry. I would very much like to see at least 1/2 of the staff make the decision to do so responsibly. Buying your first gun, loading it and taking it into a school thinking you will now be able to stop a threat is a dangerous pipe dream but there are a lot of intelligent people out there who believe what they see on television and in the movies. There are a lot of people who do just that on a daily basis. As I stated, I'd be more than happy to train teachers/administrators who would like to arm themselves in the schools free of charge. The idea of allowing those who think they don't need any training or at a minimum to demonstrate some level of proficiency will meet resistance from me.

You've got a good point, a lot of what people see on tv and in the movies is the bad guys having terrible aim and the good guys having perfect aim. You and I both know that's not the way the world works.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I object to being required to demonstrate anything when I don't have any guarantee of what is a "good decision" in the mind of (or on the paper in front of) my evaluator. Example: Years ago, I read a fiction story wherein a person was driving and had a collision. I don't remember all the details, but he got out of his own vehicle, uninjured or minimally injured, but the young girl in the passenger seat of the other vehicle died in front of him... then he woke up: Seems it was all a virtual reality thing. Still, the image of the young girl dying disturbed him. He described being in a fog, unsure what to do, and blankly following the directions of his evaluator, who told him to just sign this form, and he could have his driver's license. He moved automatically, still thinking of the girl, and the next thing he knew, he was being carted off to a psychiatric facility. The evaluator said something to the effect that "we used to just have you drive and issued a license, but now we catch you sick people... it should be months before you want to drive after seeing what you saw."

The upshot of it is that what was in his mind didn't matter, he was in a "catch-22" where if he wanted to drive, he couldn't, and if he didn't want to drive, he couldn't.

So it is with the idea of demonstrating my "competence": The only person whose standard I should have to meet is the guy that watches me brush my teeth in the morning. An infringement on that is what is so offensive. I'm not a cop and while I've toyed with the idea of applying as a reserve, I have not done so. If I ever do, yes, I will have to meet someone else's standard.

I can already hear the comparison that just as a LEO has to meet departmental standards, so should "school safety", for lack of a better name to call them, have to do likewise, because "it's for the children". The catch is that these folks are the ones who carry all the time anyway, and in the event of another Trolley Square or the like, but this time with the responder being a non-LEO citizen rather than an off-duty, out-of-jurisdiction officer, that person has no "required training" either. The mall may be full of shoppers of all ages, and "it's for the children" not only rings hollow, but is disingenuous at best.

As a police sniper, you have to be exceptionally well-trained. As a road officer, someone needs to do DT regularly to avoid a gun grab, a fight, whatever.
How often is Theresa Teacher or Adam Administrator going to use those skills? If they don't use them, are those skills going to stagnate? So is the next question "how often do they have to requalify?", and if so, will the antis be happy with any time frame that is not so intrusive as to make it not worth the trouble for people to carry on campus? It all comes back to that: if you can't legislate it, regulate the unholy p**s out of it so no one wants to comply with all the regulations.
It's insulting.
Yes, you have a right, a duty, in fact, to be worried about your daughter. You're a good parent. Your right to worry about her, however, does not permit you to regulate someone else's rights out of existence.



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.

 

[phylodog]

Got a ton of respect for you Bill but I've not been tasked with developing standards so I don't understand the insult you apparently feel at my suggestion that they should exist. Many people in this country don't have the right to carry at work. Many people in this country have jobs that suck in many aspects. If someone in my profession complains, what do we hear? We could always quit. That's the attitude we receive and it is true, it's a decision to stay.

A school teacher in a public school is in the same boat, they work in the public sector. Who gets to decide what they can and can't do at work? Their boss, and who is their boss worried about pleasing? Those who will show up at the meetings and voice their concerns. I guess when it comes down to it there will be those sitting in the crowd who'd be perfectly comfortable with their kid's teachers brining firearms to school without concerning themselves with whether or not the teachers have a clue about safe storage, weapon retention, shot placement, trigger control, sight alignment or over penetration. I won't be one of them and I suspect there will be far more people sitting on my side of the room but I guess when those discussions happen we will find out.

I have no issue agreeing to disagree on this topic, no one has made an argument which has affected my personal opinion. I don't see it as infringing on anyone's rights. Working in the public sector means you have willingly given some of them up; no one is forced to work.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The respect is mutual, Cory, and no, you've not been tasked to develop those standards. My question to you was not to assign you that task in any official manner, but rather to get an idea where you would set a bar were it yours to set. By comparison, I'd like to see everyone know how to do CPR properly and understand how to do basic first aid without the Chicken Little factor. (I'd LIKE to see people with the common sense to not go to the ER for stupid stuff like hangnails and simple coughs and colds, but that's asking too much.) I expect a schoolteacher or administrator to at a minimum be able to control the crowd (aka "uh oh squad") and maybe slap a hand over a bleeding wound until someone else can get there and do more. It's my understanding that they DO have basic first aid and CPR training as a "mandatory" thing every year, in no small part because those are skills they are much more likely to use.
I'd also like to clarify that the insult I referenced with "it's insulting" was not solely your suggestion, but the very liberal mindset that gave us the paradigm that says that since LEOs have to have training in this, everyone should have to, and then using that as the basis to deny "permission" to everyone who applies. You are not the instigator of that, and I'm not calling you at all "liberal", certainly not as a pejorative. Rather, I'm saying that as a LEO, you seem to have fallen prey to at least part of it, the part that says that without some external authority granting permission, people's rights are not theirs to enjoy. As a free citizen, there is no external certification, no required permission. As an agent of government at any level is where those come into play.
(I can act to save a life outside of work and as long as I do not act negligently and do not expect to be paid in any form for doing so, I need no external certification. By comparison, when I'm in uniform on the big white bus, I da*n sure better have my license ready to show if the state DHS shows up and wants to verify it.

You and I are in agreement that teachers and for that matter, everyone, should have some training in firearms. Where we differ is in making it mandatory.
Were I setting a bar, I'd say the Four Rules, how to conceal well, and how to use the sights as a bare-bones minimum. I'd like to see the topics you mention covered as well, but I don't know how important weapon retention is if they maintain proper concealment; that is, unless they draw it, no one's going to know they have it, and once they draw, someone trying to take it should only get an empty pistol, if anything. Likewise, safe storage while in the classroom should constitute keeping it on your person and concealed. If no one knows it's there, no one has reason to grab for it.

Lastly, you made the point about working in the public sector, and it's valid for those who teach at government/"public" schools. What of those who teach in private schools? I don't think they've willingly given up anything, other than their free time. Would you agree?

Blessings,
Bill

Got a ton of respect for you Bill but I've not been tasked with developing standards so I don't understand the insult you apparently feel at my suggestion that they should exist. Many people in this country don't have the right to carry at work. Many people in this country have jobs that suck in many aspects. If someone in my profession complains, what do we hear? We could always quit. That's the attitude we receive and it is true, it's a decision to stay.

A school teacher in a public school is in the same boat, they work in the public sector. Who gets to decide what they can and can't do at work? Their boss, and who is their boss worried about pleasing? Those who will show up at the meetings and voice their concerns. I guess when it comes down to it there will be those sitting in the crowd who'd be perfectly comfortable with their kid's teachers brining firearms to school without concerning themselves with whether or not the teachers have a clue about safe storage, weapon retention, shot placement, trigger control, sight alignment or over penetration. I won't be one of them and I suspect there will be far more people sitting on my side of the room but I guess when those discussions happen we will find out.

I have no issue agreeing to disagree on this topic, no one has made an argument which has affected my personal opinion. I don't see it as infringing on anyone's rights. Working in the public sector means you have willingly given some of them up; no one is forced to work.

 

[drillsgt]

She does not.

To clarify here, I am not in favor of the no guns on school property law. What I am concerned with are those who will be at the school with the kids full time and choose to carry. I would very much like to see at least 1/2 of the staff make the decision to do so responsibly. Buying your first gun, loading it and taking it into a school thinking you will now be able to stop a threat is a dangerous pipe dream but there are a lot of intelligent people out there who believe what they see on television and in the movies. There are a lot of people who do just that on a daily basis. As I stated, I'd be more than happy to train teachers/administrators who would like to arm themselves in the schools free of charge. The idea of allowing those who think they don't need any training or at a minimum to demonstrate some level of proficiency will meet resistance from me.

I don't think it's a pipe dream or the nutcases that have no training but just go out and buy/steal a gun to shoot a place up wouldn't be able to kill anybody, it's not that hard. The people that shoot these places up are no more trained than anybody else, except for the possible disparity in weaponry it's probably about even. I think you give these school shooters way too much credit.

 

[drillsgt]

Nothing in life is guaranteed. Successfully meeting a standard does not guarantee success and I haven't heard anyone suggesting it would.

Very true.

 

[phylodog]

You and I are in agreement that teachers and for that matter, everyone, should have some training in firearms. Where we differ is in making it mandatory.
Were I setting a bar, I'd say the Four Rules, how to conceal well, and how to use the sights as a bare-bones minimum. I'd like to see the topics you mention covered as well, but I don't know how important weapon retention is if they maintain proper concealment; that is, unless they draw it, no one's going to know they have it, and once they draw, someone trying to take it should only get an empty pistol, if anything. Likewise, safe storage while in the classroom should constitute keeping it on your person and concealed. If no one knows it's there, no one has reason to grab for it.

Lastly, you made the point about working in the public sector, and it's valid for those who teach at government/"public" schools. What of those who teach in private schools? I don't think they've willingly given up anything, other than their free time. Would you agree?

Blessings,
Bill

We aren't far off on the standards. I might add that I'd like someone to demonstrate they they don't close both eyes and yank back on the trigger using every muscle from the base of their spine to their finger tips but I'd not ask for much more. Many of the things you mention are more than obvious to the membership here because we live around firearms. Someone who has not, quite possibly has an unfounded fear of them but is willing to work through that to protect "their" kids may not know what seems so painfully obvious to the rest of us. How many new shooters have you been around who honestly expected it to hurt when they fired a gun? Guns are inherently dangerous and ignorance can be just as deadly as recklessness.

I would argue that anyone who spends five hours a day in a room full of kids is going to print their firearm at some point, the kids are going to know its there. Depending on the age of the students that may or may not be an issue. If there is even the slightest chance someone may attempt to grab the gun, I would think a little weapon retention would go a long way.

Private schools are just that, private. They aren't public sector and have more freedom in their decision making than public schools. Working in the public sector myself, my kids attend(ed) public schools. My son going to Purdue now is more than paying me back (financially) for that now, lol.

 

[Denny347]

I don't think it's a pipe dream or the nutcases that have no training but just go out and buy/steal a gun to shoot a place up wouldn't be able to kill anybody, it's not that hard. The people that shoot these places up are no more trained than anybody else, except for the possible disparity in weaponry it's probably about even. I think you give these school shooters way too much credit.

Indeed, however, he/she is going into a school to kill people/kids. So they do not have to worry too much about bullet placement, backstop, collateral damage...they have a whole school of targets, they miss one, they will likely hit another. Teachers, armed security, LEO's on the other hand only have one or two targets in a SEA of innocents. Our shot placement is MUCH MORE risky than theirs. Anyone can fire a gun in a school and hit targets, it takes much more to hit a shooter without hitting an innocent.

 

[phylodog]

I don't think it's a pipe dream or the nutcases that have no training but just go out and buy/steal a gun to shoot a place up wouldn't be able to kill anybody, it's not that hard. The people that shoot these places up are no more trained than anybody else, except for the possible disparity in weaponry it's probably about even. I think you give these school shooters way too much credit.

Killing people with a gun is easy. Killing someone with a gun while they are trying to kill you with a gun is harder. As Denny mentioned, killing someone with a gun who is trying to you with a gun while trying not to kill any one of hundreds of innocent people in the immediate vicinity gets exponentially harder yet. How much forgiveness would a teacher receive who accidentally killed a child while trying to kill a suspect? How long would the allowance for teachers to carry in schools last after that occurred?

I propose none and seconds.

 

[Bill of Rights]

And the level of demonstration you describe here is more than reasonable. The problem is that we have no way to guarantee that the requirement would not become far more stringent. The "slippery slope", as it were.

I also noticed you picked up on my use of "their kids" and modified it. I used that term very intentionally, because teachers, in fact, every classroom schoolteacher (k-12) I've ever known, thinks of the students in their care as their own, and whatever I may think of the Newtown story from the end of 2012, the reported fact is that one of them dived at the shooter with empty hands, intending to do whatever she could to stop them. Call that "Mama Bear" or "Cornered Cat" or whatever, but that's not the response of a mere employee doing a job... A line worker at a factory will not dive at a shooter to protect parts on the assembly line. These children (OUR children!) are "their kids" in almost every aspect other than biology, in their view.

As to new shooters, I start them all off on a .22LR pistol, with a close target and a suppressor. I also tell anyone I'm teaching that it won't hurt, before they ask. I've never asked any of them if they thought it would hurt prior to my saying that. I do see your point, though, which is why I said from the outset that training is good, and took issue only with the "mandatory" aspect of it.

On printing...Thunderwear/SmartCarry? OC or "relaxed CC" are going to be obvious with that kind of time frame, yes. Deep concealment, not so much, and with practice (which a smart gun owner does on their own, no requirement needed) can draw from there almost as easily as IWB. Regardless, again, training in and of itself is not objectionable.

Lastly, while we agree that private sector teachers and schools have more freedom and I'm of the opinion that the students are better educated as a result, my question addressed the phrasing of the law that any gun at any school, public or private, without someone else's "Mother May I", is appropriately classed as the more serious class of crimes, what we call a "felony". This is ludicrous, and I saw where you said you agree. The simple fact is that if there is a call at the local high school and you and I both respond to it, both carrying the same firearm in the same holster, the fact that you're doing so will be ignored, while the fact that I'm doing so will probably get me curbstomped, cuffed, printed, and jailed, even if I never put a hand on it to draw. That is simply wrong. The shield on your shirt doesn't make you less or me more of a risk... but the law is written to punish one and not the other solely on the basis of that shield.

I'd love to see a real solution to this problem, like HB 1018.

Blessings,
Bill

We aren't far off on the standards. I might add that I'd like someone to demonstrate they they don't close both eyes and yank back on the trigger using every muscle from the base of their spine to their finger tips but I'd not ask for much more. Many of the things you mention are more than obvious to the membership here because we live around firearms. Someone who has not, quite possibly has an unfounded fear of them but is willing to work through that to protect "their" kids may not know what seems so painfully obvious to the rest of us. How many new shooters have you been around who honestly expected it to hurt when they fired a gun? Guns are inherently dangerous and ignorance can be just as deadly as recklessness.

I would argue that anyone who spends five hours a day in a room full of kids is going to print their firearm at some point, the kids are going to know its there. Depending on the age of the students that may or may not be an issue. If there is even the slightest chance someone may attempt to grab the gun, I would think a little weapon retention would go a long way.

Private schools are just that, private. They aren't public sector and have more freedom in their decision making than public schools. Working in the public sector myself, my kids attend(ed) public schools. My son going to Purdue now is more than paying me back (financially) for that now, lol.

 

[phylodog]

My use of "their kids" was not intended as a play on yours. I intended it in the same manner and believe that most teachers would likely feel that way at least to some extent.

 

[dprimm]

I expect a schoolteacher or administrator to at a minimum be able to control the crowd (aka "uh oh squad") and maybe slap a hand over a bleeding wound until someone else can get there and do more. It's my understanding that they DO have basic first aid and CPR training as a "mandatory" thing every year, in no small part because those are skills they are much more likely to use.

Ummm, as a current teacher in Indiana, WHERE do you get this understanding? We must have a current CPR certificate to renew our license. No first aid training beyond the annual(?) blood-born pathogens video we watch. I know more than many, due to previous training. Also helps I taught biology for years. But quite frequently, we are told to wait until proper help arrives to protect ourselves. (this from many schools in more than just Indiana).

 

[dprimm]

I also noticed you picked up on my use of "their kids" and modified it. I used that term very intentionally, because teachers, in fact, every classroom schoolteacher (k-12) I've ever known, thinks of the students in their care as their own, and whatever I may think of the Newtown story from the end of 2012, the reported fact is that one of them dived at the shooter with empty hands, intending to do whatever she could to stop them. Call that "Mama Bear" or "Cornered Cat" or whatever, but that's not the response of a mere employee doing a job... A line worker at a factory will not dive at a shooter to protect parts on the assembly line. These children (OUR children!) are "their kids" in almost every aspect other than biology, in their view.
...

I'd love to see a real solution to this problem, like HB 1018.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, I will stand here and say Damn right they are MY kids. Even the ones that can be a real thorn in my side on a daily basis. All 120 of them every single day.

Question: HB 1018? franchise tax rate?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I knew about the CPR. I figured the two went together when it comes to teacher training. (though they are separate classes, of course)

Thanks for correcting my misinformation.

Ummm, as a current teacher in Indiana, WHERE do you get this understanding? We must have a current CPR certificate to renew our license. No first aid training beyond the annual(?) blood-born pathogens video we watch. I know more than many, due to previous training. Also helps I taught biology for years. But quite frequently, we are told to wait until proper help arrives to protect ourselves. (this from many schools in more than just Indiana).

As to the other point you made that I didn't quote, thank you for proving my point.

Also... http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/bills/house/1018

 

[danielson]

What exactly was the point FOR?
Is it like all those stories I heard about when peoples kids get run over by a car, and the mother develops super human strength and lifts the car off?

So, if a teacher feels a motherly attachment to her children and goes "momma bear" does that means shes suddenly capable of proficiently using a firearm?


Or is that something only gained through training?

I understand your staunch defense of constitutional carry, but you seem to want to line these teachers up, like lemmings, and let them just go about it, hoping they dont kill someone on accident, or the gun doesn't fall out of their holster and hit the floor, because no one told them to get one with some level of retention.

This is the problem with bringing many people together, all of different backgrounds and not giving them some kind of uniformity... It becomes chaos. You'd have one teacher down the hall who has a good holster, and practices daily, who will be effective should the need arise. Then you'd have the lady down the hall, with her derringer laying loose in her purse full of all kinds of other garbage, because she cares about her kids, and wants to help, BUT DOESN'T KNOW HOW. Which is where standardized training comes in. It takes a ragtag bunch of people and gives them a chance at being effective if they need to defend their kids.

These people would no longer be only responsible for themselves, when you are stepping up, to carry a firearm in an official capacity, to defend others. The rules have changed. IMO