Indiana school board to reexamine firearms policies

[Johnny C]

I don't necessarily agree that training should be required but there should absolutely be a measure of proficiency and minimum ability standards which have to be met.

Perhaps if the persons in question received some training, they would be less likely to Coonfinger their weapons while in the school.

 

[Dirtebiker]

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?

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.

I have not seen where anyone has said anything resembling either of these points.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Perhaps if the persons in question received some training, they would be less likely to Coonfinger their weapons while in the school.

Is there a purpose to your post besides using Kirks favorite word?

 

[danimal]

So I'm confused.

Take any old larry holder, with guns at home, at the range, a gas station, a grocery store, in a mall, a museum, at a parade, just about anywhere children are present, is all ok, without training. Put them in a magic building/room, call it a "school", and we shouldn't be restricting them from protecting themselves or anyone else inside anymore. Sounds good to me.

Teachers, with guns at home, at the range, a gas station, a grocery store, in a mall, a museum, at a parade, just about anywhere children are present, is all ok, without training. Put them in a magic building/room, call it a "school", and they become big bumbling idiots and require training. Is that kind of like how magic felony lines work? In ground shock collars that immediately cause teachers to lose 60 IQ points? (well, that would explain public education)

Teachers are not a lower class of citizen than anyone else here, no matter your view of our education system. They should be afforded the same right to defend themselves as anyone else here. The fact that they would and 99%+ of the time will extend their self protection to the children they are in care of should not be a disqualifier for exercising their rights anymore or less than anyone else.

 

[Denny347]

So I'm confused.

Take any old larry holder, with guns at home, at the range, a gas station, a grocery store, in a mall, a museum, at a parade, just about anywhere children are present, is all ok, without training. Put them in a magic building/room, call it a "school", and we shouldn't be restricting them from protecting themselves or anyone else inside anymore. Sounds good to me.

Teachers, with guns at home, at the range, a gas station, a grocery store, in a mall, a museum, at a parade, just about anywhere children are present, is all ok, without training. Put them in a magic building/room, call it a "school", and they become big bumbling idiots and require training. Is that kind of like how magic felony lines work? In ground shock collars that immediately cause teachers to lose 60 IQ points? (well, that would explain public education)

Teachers are not a lower class of citizen than anyone else here, no matter your view of our education system. They should be afforded the same right to defend themselves as anyone else here. The fact that they would and 99%+ of the time will extend their self protection to the children they are in care of should not be a disqualifier for exercising their rights anymore or less than anyone else.

OK, here it is in simple terms. Teachers would be carrying in protection of students, not themselves. They are trained in other aspects of child safety/life saving. I doubt most here would question the requirements fro AED,CPR, etc. Armed teachers would be the first line of defense, they will be acting as school security in this narrow capacity. Would you not expect armed security to have SOME training?

 

[eldirector]

Late to the party (again - I need to log in more often).

First, there is a distinction between simply carrying (like any other good citizen) and carrying as part of your employment. I absolutely fully support the "lawful" carry in any location by any otherwise legal citizen. Either under the current licensing, or (better yet) Constitutional Carry.

Second, I have no issue with an employer, who requires their employees to carry for their own and their "student's" protection to receive some additional training. Why? It is the same as ANY other training for emergencies. They receive training on how to handle tornadoes, fires, fights, floods, etc.... They should have training (and some demonstrated proficiency) in ALL of the tools they use to respond to emergencies. First Aid kits, defibrillators, and yes.... guns.

So, two separate issues for me:
1) If you may carry outside of the magical school boundary, you may carry inside of it.
2) Employers that require you to carry and have some responsibility towards others may require additional training for their employees, at their discretion.

Am I way off base here?

 

[Denny347]

Late to the party (again - I need to log in more often).

First, there is a distinction between simply carrying (like any other good citizen) and carrying as part of your employment. I absolutely fully support the "lawful" carry in any location by any otherwise legal citizen. Either under the current licensing, or (better yet) Constitutional Carry.

Second, I have no issue with an employer, who requires their employees to carry for their own and their "student's" protection to receive some additional training. Why? It is the same as ANY other training for emergencies. They receive training on how to handle tornadoes, fires, fights, floods, etc.... They should have training (and some demonstrated proficiency) in ALL of the tools they use to respond to emergencies. First Aid kits, defibrillators, and yes.... guns.

So, two separate issues for me:
1) If you may carry outside of the magical school boundary, you may carry inside of it.
2) Employers that require you to carry and have some responsibility towards others may require additional training for their employees, at their discretion.

Am I way off base here?

I am of the same opinion. Let's say they get rid of the "no carry" zone at schools. I STILL would argue that teachers get SOME training. Visitors who are carrying would carry like any other place in the state. Parents/visitors are not tasked with child safety as part of their job. Sure, they could get thrown into the middle of something bad if they were there eating lunch with their kid but that is not the same as being employed by the school to be responsible for their students.

 

[rhino]

This issue is complicated by what is essentially a captive environment for most kids. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the issue if we can't separate a law abiding adult legally possessing a firearm vs. an employee expected to act in the defense of others.

At least it's being discussed as an eventual reality.

However, we can't rest or stop fighting to get our LtCH valid on school grounds again, just as it was before the mid 1990s.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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?

Of course not.

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?

Now you're just being silly.

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.

OK. It seems you missed my earlier posts, other than to cherry-pick from them points with which you disagree. Let me lay this out clearly and distinctly, then: I favor, encourage, support, and will happily provide training in the basics of a firearm. If the school district or an individual wants to pay me to do so, I won't object in most cases. Where I draw the line is on making the training they receive either mandatory or, in your terms, "uniform". If they want uniform training, they can all sign up and give Uncle Sam a couple of years or join a police force, but that's NOT what they're doing. The problem I have with mandatory or "uniformity" is the slippery slope we're all aware of and some discount the existence of. Should all of the involved, carrying school personnel have to carry the exact same weapon? The same ammo? in the same holster? That would give us uniformity, and allow for one to use another's mag and/or ammo, too.

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.

There we go with "standardized" again. Just because they all use what they're comfortable using does not make them ragtag nor ineffective

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

You're welcome to your opinion. When that teacher leaves the school and stops by the mall after work, is s/he incapable of defending her/himself or others because s/he doesn't have the same training as the (armed or not) mall security?

Some basic knowledge of which way the rounds go in the mag, which end the bullets come out of, how to use the sights, how to squeeze (rather than mash) the trigger, I have no argument that those are good things to know. How many people here on INGO know those things? Most, if not all, right? and lo and behold, Indiana requires no training... so how did these people learn what they know? Is it possible that they sought that knowledge themselves, without a requirement?

When I first got interested in carrying, I've said before that (since it was before INGO existed), I sought out a website to learn what I was doing. I intentionally looked at corneredcat.com, because it was geared toward women, who stereotypically do not know about guns. I wanted to learn from the ground up; I had no extra money to spend and hadn't bought a gun yet, other than my shotgun I'd had for years. A few emailed questions back and forth with Mrs. Jackson, and I knew that I knew enough to be dangerous. At that point, once I'd bought my first pistol, a Walther P22, I took NRA Basic Pistol before buying a pistol I would actually carry, as I knew at that point that a .22LR was not a good choice for SD (though better than nothing.) From there, I expanded and took more. I continue to learn more... and no one requires me to do so.

I'm not so different from other gun owners. People who are responsible take the responsibility on themselves. Teachers, by and large, are responsible people... they take on the responsibly for a room full of children five days a week. I can't imagine that they would not do likewise, especially as gun owners like most of us, with something so important.

Does that make more sense?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[danimal]

OK, here it is in simple terms. Teachers would be carrying in protection of students, not themselves. They are trained in other aspects of child safety/life saving. I doubt most here would question the requirements fro AED,CPR, etc. Armed teachers would be the first line of defense, they will be acting as school security in this narrow capacity. Would you not expect armed security to have SOME training?

So is it of your opinion that once a teacher crosses school property boundaries, they no longer have a right to defend themselves? If they are carrying "for the children" and someone threatens only them (a stalker or ex or what have you), they are not allowed to use their firearm because they aren't defending the children? It just seems bewildering to me why everyone else would be allowed to defend themselves in a school with no strings attached (license notwithstanding), except the people that work there.

When I drop off and pick up my kids after school and I'm carrying in the driver seat of my car, am I now school security? I don't know that teachers are a replacement for security because I'm not sure they would have any kind of arrest, detainment, or investigative powers.

I actually have no problem with a teacher attempting CPR or using an AED in the absence of someone who does. Emergencies are emergencies, should I not dial 911 because I'm not certified on how to operate a phone or give proper technical descriptions to the 911 dispatcher? Doing something > doing nothing. And unless it's in their job description, I don't know how the assumption is being made that the teachers are now "school security" by virtue of being allowed to exercise the same rights as anyone else would be allowed to do if school carry were to pass. Only thing I guess I'm advocating for is allowing teachers the right to protect themselves. Being able to better protect the children is a bonus.

BTW, not sure if you know this or not, but not all teachers are trained in CPR. Maybe it's different from one school corporation to the next, but at my wife's it's not required. Text conversation between me and the wife

Me: Dumb question, does your teacher license require you to be certified to know CPR or any other medical training?
Wife: No, but you can get an endorsement on your license for it if you want
Wife: The more endorsements you have a better you look to employers obviously
Me: Are you allowed to perform CPR if you know it without the endorsement?
Wife: I don't know for sure. I think you would need to be certified, but not sure
Me: If a kid needed CPR, and you roughly know how to do it, and no other teacher was around, would you try it, or wait 10 minutes for the paramedics?
Wife: I'd do it no question
Wife: Screw them if they want me to wait

(that's my girl!)

[Rant]
So if there is an after school activity, and a teacher isn't "certified", and a student needs CPR, the teacher shouldn't do anything but stand there and wait for the professionals, even if they know how to administrate CPR or how to use an AED, because they don't have the magic "certification".

So if there is an after school activity, and a teacher isn't "trained", and a gunman starts shooting up the place, the teacher shouldn't do anything but stand there and wait for the professionals, even if they know how to shoot or how to use a gun, because they don't have the magic "training".

I have to wonder where this fear that only teachers won't be able to hit the broad side of a barn and every bullet will be magically drawn towards children like they have some magic magnetic pull on lead and copper. Does everyone else who doesn't receive training hit every child in a 10 block radius automagically and I was never made aware of it? Plus, aren't most classroom walls made of cinderblocks? (well, at least at my wife's school) I know most rifle bullets will destroy and many will pass through, but aren't just about every non-magnum handgun bullet stopped dead at the first block (not always, but just about), especially if the blocks are filled with concrete (rarer still, i know, usually only exterior walls more than any).
[/Rant]

If you propose that teachers have a firearm handling and proficiency endorsement on their license, sure, anything they want to do to make themselves better marketable to employers seems like a good idea to me. If you want to require firearms training as a condition of employment, fine, it's a free market and people can choose to get the training to get the job or not. But requiring it, where others aren't, to defend themselves, regardless of the "duty" to defend the children, it just smells like 2nd class citizenry to me. If it's going to be some one that can carry at a school, it needs to be every one.

Not trying to be a jerk here Denny, and not trying to single you out and **** in your corn flakes either, so please don't take it as so.

 

[dprimm]

BTW, not sure if you know this or not, but not all teachers are trained in CPR. Maybe it's different from one school corporation to the next, but at my wife's it's not required. Text conversation between me and the wife

danimal,

Your wife, if she has an Indiana teaching license, IS REQUIRED to have current CPR training in order to renew her license. This is a state of Indiana rule. This rule changed in the past 4 years, as it was not that way when I came to Indiana. If she has a lifetime license, then she won't have to renew, thus eliminating the requirement.

So if there is an after school activity, and a teacher isn't "trained", and a gunman starts shooting up the place, the teacher shouldn't do anything but stand there and wait for the professionals, even if they know how to shoot or how to use a gun, because they don't have the magic "training".

As far as the second statement, that is EXACTLY what is expected of us. Even those of us that are used to being the sheep dog, not the sheep. Not because we don't have the magic training, but because ... well, just because. Period. If they (powers to be) wanted my opinion, they would tell it to me.

David

 

[Denny347]

So is it of your opinion that once a teacher crosses school property boundaries, they no longer have a right to defend themselves? If they are carrying "for the children" and someone threatens only them (a stalker or ex or what have you), they are not allowed to use their firearm because they aren't defending the children? It just seems bewildering to me why everyone else would be allowed to defend themselves in a school with no strings attached (license notwithstanding), except the people that work there.

When I drop off and pick up my kids after school and I'm carrying in the driver seat of my car, am I now school security? I don't know that teachers are a replacement for security because I'm not sure they would have any kind of arrest, detainment, or investigative powers.

I actually have no problem with a teacher attempting CPR or using an AED in the absence of someone who does. Emergencies are emergencies, should I not dial 911 because I'm not certified on how to operate a phone or give proper technical descriptions to the 911 dispatcher? Doing something > doing nothing. And unless it's in their job description, I don't know how the assumption is being made that the teachers are now "school security" by virtue of being allowed to exercise the same rights as anyone else would be allowed to do if school carry were to pass. Only thing I guess I'm advocating for is allowing teachers the right to protect themselves. Being able to better protect the children is a bonus.

BTW, not sure if you know this or not, but not all teachers are trained in CPR. Maybe it's different from one school corporation to the next, but at my wife's it's not required. Text conversation between me and the wife

Me: Dumb question, does your teacher license require you to be certified to know CPR or any other medical training?
Wife: No, but you can get an endorsement on your license for it if you want
Wife: The more endorsements you have a better you look to employers obviously
Me: Are you allowed to perform CPR if you know it without the endorsement?
Wife: I don't know for sure. I think you would need to be certified, but not sure
Me: If a kid needed CPR, and you roughly know how to do it, and no other teacher was around, would you try it, or wait 10 minutes for the paramedics?
Wife: I'd do it no question
Wife: Screw them if they want me to wait

(that's my girl!)

[Rant]
So if there is an after school activity, and a teacher isn't "certified", and a student needs CPR, the teacher shouldn't do anything but stand there and wait for the professionals, even if they know how to administrate CPR or how to use an AED, because they don't have the magic "certification".

So if there is an after school activity, and a teacher isn't "trained", and a gunman starts shooting up the place, the teacher shouldn't do anything but stand there and wait for the professionals, even if they know how to shoot or how to use a gun, because they don't have the magic "training".

I have to wonder where this fear that only teachers won't be able to hit the broad side of a barn and every bullet will be magically drawn towards children like they have some magic magnetic pull on lead and copper. Does everyone else who doesn't receive training hit every child in a 10 block radius automagically and I was never made aware of it? Plus, aren't most classroom walls made of cinderblocks? (well, at least at my wife's school) I know most rifle bullets will destroy and many will pass through, but aren't just about every non-magnum handgun bullet stopped dead at the first block (not always, but just about), especially if the blocks are filled with concrete (rarer still, i know, usually only exterior walls more than any).
[/Rant]

If you propose that teachers have a firearm handling and proficiency endorsement on their license, sure, anything they want to do to make themselves better marketable to employers seems like a good idea to me. If you want to require firearms training as a condition of employment, fine, it's a free market and people can choose to get the training to get the job or not. But requiring it, where others aren't, to defend themselves, regardless of the "duty" to defend the children, it just smells like 2nd class citizenry to me. If it's going to be some one that can carry at a school, it needs to be every one.

Not trying to be a jerk here Denny, and not trying to single you out and **** in your corn flakes either, so please don't take it as so.

Not at all, but state law and the school board make those determinations, I do not.
Have you seen this picture of a teacher in Israel carrying a Mauser?

She is carrying this rifle to protect her class (pretty cool actually). She is teacher AND class security. Since she is with the class all day, she becomes the first line of defense if someone want to do them harm. Arming a teacher is akin to placing an armed guard in that classroom. Armed security guards do not have any powers to arrest, detain, or investigate. They are not police, they only have citizens arrest powers that EVERY citizen has. You think a teacher carrying a gun at school will be to protect themselves? Look, if the legislature decides ANYONE can carry in a school, FINE, I'm good with that. But I still feel STRONGLY that armed teachers should have some kind of training, but that is just me. Have you ever had active shooter training? Or shooting in a crowd? If you have then you know how difficult it actually is. Concrete/cinder blocks are WORSE to hit than drywall. You ever see what a bullet does when it hits concrete? It skips, and travels parallel to the floor/wall it hits. Same reason we are trained NOT to hug the walls while clearing a business/school, a bullet can hit the wall and travel parallel to it the entire distance of the wall until it hits something else. Very bad. There is no "second class citizenry" in my thought process at all I assure you.

 

[glockednlocked]

I don't feel most public school teachers are capable of the responsibility, Thus bviously no one should require teachers to be armed but and this is the big but.. there are a few very "squared away" teachers, administrators and building staff who I would trust. Most are already gun owners who train and would gladly "re cert or qualify" I think the point is Insurance/liability would require this . I on the other hand am more interest in seeing the carry ban on school grounds removed. Hate to think that living in libtopia a lawfully armed citizen could cop a felony for ending an active shooter across from his home long before law enforcement could arrive. Time is lives simple fact.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Wait a second, teachers get a license to teach? Who the hell is issuing these licenses? Have you met some of these teachers? Dumb as a box of rocks with no actual thoughts of their own.

 

[danielson]

Late to the party (again - I need to log in more often).

First, there is a distinction between simply carrying (like any other good citizen) and carrying as part of your employment. I absolutely fully support the "lawful" carry in any location by any otherwise legal citizen. Either under the current licensing, or (better yet) Constitutional Carry.

Second, I have no issue with an employer, who requires their employees to carry for their own and their "student's" protection to receive some additional training. Why? It is the same as ANY other training for emergencies. They receive training on how to handle tornadoes, fires, fights, floods, etc.... They should have training (and some demonstrated proficiency) in ALL of the tools they use to respond to emergencies. First Aid kits, defibrillators, and yes.... guns.

So, two separate issues for me:
1) If you may carry outside of the magical school boundary, you may carry inside of it.
2) Employers that require you to carry and have some responsibility towards others may require additional training for their employees, at their discretion.

Am I way off base here?

Nope, your speaking my language.

 

[danielson]

Of course not.Now you're just being silly.OK. It seems you missed my earlier posts, other than to cherry-pick from them points with which you disagree. Let me lay this out clearly and distinctly, then: I favor, encourage, support, and will happily provide training in the basics of a firearm. If the school district or an individual wants to pay me to do so, I won't object in most cases. Where I draw the line is on making the training they receive either mandatory or, in your terms, "uniform". If they want uniform training, they can all sign up and give Uncle Sam a couple of years or join a police force, but that's NOT what they're doing.

The problem I have with mandatory or "uniformity" is the slippery slope we're all aware of and some discount the existence of. Should all of the involved, carrying school personnel have to carry the exact same weapon? The same ammo? in the same holster? That would give us uniformity, and allow for one to use another's mag and/or ammo, too. There we go with "standardized" again. Just because they all use what they're comfortable using does not make them ragtag nor ineffective

You're welcome to your opinion. When that teacher leaves the school and stops by the mall after work, is s/he incapable of defending her/himself or others because s/he doesn't have the same training as the (armed or not) mall security?

Some basic knowledge of which way the rounds go in the mag, which end the bullets come out of, how to use the sights, how to squeeze (rather than mash) the trigger, I have no argument that those are good things to know. How many people here on INGO know those things? Most, if not all, right? and lo and behold, Indiana requires no training... so how did these people learn what they know? Is it possible that they sought that knowledge themselves, without a requirement?

When I first got interested in carrying, I've said before that (since it was before INGO existed), I sought out a website to learn what I was doing. I intentionally looked at corneredcat.com, because it was geared toward women, who stereotypically do not know about guns. I wanted to learn from the ground up; I had no extra money to spend and hadn't bought a gun yet, other than my shotgun I'd had for years. A few emailed questions back and forth with Mrs. Jackson, and I knew that I knew enough to be dangerous. At that point, once I'd bought my first pistol, a Walther P22, I took NRA Basic Pistol before buying a pistol I would actually carry, as I knew at that point that a .22LR was not a good choice for SD (though better than nothing.) From there, I expanded and took more. I continue to learn more... and no one requires me to do so.

I'm not so different from other gun owners. People who are responsible take the responsibility on themselves. Teachers, by and large, are responsible people... they take on the responsibly for a room full of children five days a week. I can't imagine that they would not do likewise, especially as gun owners like most of us, with something so important.

Does that make more sense?

Blessings,
Bill

I dont think your hearing me, are a town marshal and an English teacher not BOTH employees of the local government? People keep beating this to death, and your talking about a slippery slope that has a big wide wall right in the middle of it, in the shape of, not all private citizens are employed by the government. That makes this situation completely different.

We can go tit for tat all day about whether you like the idea or not, but the way I see it(always willing to accept the possibility of being wrong)
IT WILL NOT HAPPEN without some level of training, and some degree of uniformity.

Both of which should not apply to a normal citizen with a larry.

 

[Dead Duck]

TAT

 

[Dirtebiker]

OK, here it is in simple terms. Teachers would be carrying in protection of students, not themselves. They are trained in other aspects of child safety/life saving. I doubt most here would question the requirements fro AED,CPR, etc. Armed teachers would be the first line of defense, they will be acting as school security in this narrow capacity. Would you not expect armed security to have SOME training?

Ok, how about allowing school employees (and the rest of us) to carry on school property. Period.
Then, out of those that do carry, ask for volunteers to be part of the security team. Give them (and any others interested in additional education) training and responsibilities above and beyond that of just a teacher? Win win!?

 

[Denny347]

Ok, how about allowing school employees (and the rest of us) to carry on school property. Period.
Then, out of those that do carry, ask for volunteers to be part of the security team. Give them (and any others interested in additional education) training and responsibilities above and beyond that of just a teacher? Win win!?

Fine.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Ok, how about allowing school employees (and the rest of us) to carry on school property. Period.
Then, out of those that do carry, ask for volunteers to be part of the security team. Give them (and any others interested in additional education) training and responsibilities above and beyond that of just a teacher? Win win!?

That's pretty much what I said several posts above...

Have a two-tiered system.

1 Tier would be the "average Joe/Jenny" that was carrying lawfully for themselves - more of a reactive in-classroom protector (IE aim at the doorway and try and not let someone in)

2 Tier would be those who volunteer to undergo training to be an active response to an active shooter. (IE team up and seek out the threat in order to hopefully stop it)

However - I know that both of these are pipe dreams.

-J-