Thoughts on School Gun Laws?

[looney2ns]

I'll repost this here incase someone missed it in the other thread.
Great read:
https://www.rutherford.org/publicat...s_commentary/making_sense_of_school_shootings

 

[Bunnykid68]

Training is a great idea and everyone should get training as often as possible. Unfortunately not enough people get frequent training bc of time and money constrants.I don't like mandatory training though bc it would open the door to red tape being wrapped up in a permit. However If the schools were offered the money and the blessing of the public to train teachers that would not create those concerns.

Like I previously said before, I have never had training, will not disagree that it would not help me in the future, but if someone untrained like myself were in a school that was being shot up at least there would be someone to shoot back which creates the other problem. Cops show up and see me with a gun, they have no idea who the bad guy is. If we arm our teachers, which I am in full support, we make them targets of the LEO that must respond to a school shooting and have no idea who the bad guy is.

 

[LoneWolf2554]

Good point about the LEO unsure about who the BG might be. But I know if I'm not engaging the BG and I see or hear that LEO are there, I'm probably going to either holster my gun or at the very least lower my arms and ID myself.

That article was a good read BTW, probably going to share that with some friends of mine.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Like I previously said before, I have never had training, will not disagree that it would not help me in the future, but if someone untrained like myself were in a school that was being shot up at least there would be someone to shoot back which creates the other problem. Cops show up and see me with a gun, they have no idea who the bad guy is. If we arm our teachers, which I am in full support, we make them targets of the LEO that must respond to a school shooting and have no idea who the bad guy is.

How is that any different than your home? Or your church? Or the local McDonalds? If a gunman goes nuts there and a citizen responds the cops don't know who's the culprit either....

It's not a reason for disarming the teachers.

 

[rooster3654]

Like I previously said before, I have never had training, will not disagree that it would not help me in the future, but if someone untrained like myself were in a school that was being shot up at least there would be someone to shoot back which creates the other problem. Cops show up and see me with a gun, they have no idea who the bad guy is. If we arm our teachers, which I am in full support, we make them targets of the LEO that must respond to a school shooting and have no idea who the bad guy is.

I'm in the military and that makes me one of the lucky ones that have the opportunity to get lots of training at no cost to myself. It's very important and as said in an earlier post you really don't know how unprepared you are until it happens. I was always told anything worth doing is worth doing right. That being said if the training is of no expense to the teachers it should be far more intensive than a couple hours at the range to prove they can hit a stationary target in a stress free environment. Train how you fight anything less is useless. There would need to be an SOP for when police arrived and encountered any school employee that would be legally armed.

 

[ruger1800]

All american teachers, maintance, janitors ect.. who work in the school should be required to carry if able.
All american students should have to pass a marksmanship program, yes shoot a rifle at the school range.
Every school in america should have a rifle range.

 

[emsdial911]

I have a licence to carry a gun, That means I know what I'm doing.

Like I previously said before, I have never had training, will not disagree that it would not help me in the future, but if someone untrained like myself were in a school that was being shot up at least there would be someone to shoot back which creates the other problem. Cops show up and see me with a gun, they have no idea who the bad guy is. If we arm our teachers, which I am in full support, we make them targets of the LEO that must respond to a school shooting and have no idea who the bad guy is.

That's why the cops have TRAINING and yes I know it doesn’talways work that’s where the human factor comes in. They don't come in and"SHOOT BACK". They identify ANY potential threat and try to end itwith as little force as possible. If a Cop tells me to drop my weaponthen that’s what I’m going to do. It will get figured out later but at least I’mstill alive.
Even in the military you have rules of engagement. I don't agreewith some of those either but it sometimes stops someone with inexperience frommaking a judgment mistake because of adrenalin and chaos.

Let’s say you see someone draw their weapon and fire (not atyou) you don’t know what’s going on. You think that they are shooting up theplace and you draw your weapon and shoot at them. They turn and fire at you in“self-defense”. BUT what you didn’t see is that person saw someone draw aweapon and was a threatening someone else. And you, without assessing the wholesituation have drawn on someone that is trying to protect someone else.
I have mixed feelings about mandatory training. But let metell you this I am not perfect even with the training I have had, shootingsince a young child to 12 years in the military to include Iraq. I can andprobably will make mistakes but with the training I have had I feel a lot morecomfortable about engaging a potential threat and what level of force needs tobe used. I know a lot of people have the thought of shoot first ask questionslater. My theory is assess the situation to the best of your ability and IF and WHEN youdo have to shoot, shoot to kill.
You can justify "I thought he had a gun" all you want and if you can live with that more power to you. Just remember you can't give a spouce, parent, or child back afteryou have killed them.

 

[emsdial911]

All american teachers, maintance, janitors ect.. who work in the school should be required to carry if able.
All american students should have to pass a marksmanship program, yes shoot a rifle at the school range.

We took hunters education in school given by the DNR. For the final we were taken to the range to shoot and given completion certificates and patches by the Indiana DNR.

Every school in america shouldhave a rifle range.

Come on now, although I agree, we can't even keep the basics in school let alone a range.

 

[tmccorkel]

Sorry if I've missed anything.. I jumped ahead a little bit.

I'm a high school teacher and I also believe that we should be allowed to carry in schools. I don't advocate teachers going out and hunting down the shooter(s), but I do think we should be able to protect our classrooms and the students within if need be.

On the other hand, I'm lucky- I have a fairly large concrete-walled darkroom with no windows, and a hallway with locking doors on both ends in my classroom.. I call it the "safe room".

 

[looney2ns]

The show Top Shot shows how some would perform under stress. There was a lady last season that was head of her police departments SWAT team. She crapped the bed when it came time to compete. She admitted she'd never trained in a stressful situation with others shooting around her. She was expelled from the show rather quickly.

 

[.40caltrucker]

We don't need to change the law, only get permission from the school to carry.

IC 35-47-9-1
Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A:
(A) federal;
(B) state; or
(C) local;
law enforcement officer.
(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or

Am I missing something? Sure it would be a case by case basis, but that's what their doing in Texas with the help of the NRA. Activists want Arlington teachers to be allowed to carry guns | Mom2MomDFW.com

Given that this exemption already exists, I wonder if there are any schools quietly allowing a few teacher to carry.

 

[minuteman32]

An armed law abiding citizen should be able to carry any gun/knife/arms they choose in any location, without restriction. The only exception that makes ANY sense is a correctional facility (jail/prison), and there should be lock boxes available.

 

[Bill of Rights]

In my opinion the risk of taking someone's life who is not the BG is still a littler higher at a school (the hallways there are tight "kill zones") I would be more comfortable pulling my gun at a mall or restaurant, that's just me at this moment . I am with you that every life is important, doesn't matter if the person is 8 or 80.
Schools are also viewed as these "sacred/safe places" where no harm should ever occur. So if someone walks in and starts shooting at their classmates and a principal comes around the corner and fires at and misses the BG and strikes a couple 7th graders, in the eyes of the public it would be worse than missing the BG at the mall and hitting a 29 year old. But with that being said, I still don't think anyone should act any differently because of public opinion. The BG still needs to be brought down in a controlled manner.

This is exactly the problem, though. Even if this is how schools are viewed, it doesn't make it true. There is no place that meets that definition and to treat a place as if it is is to engage in a utopian fantasy.

If LTCH or less is all that's required for teachers to carry, why would we require more from police and personnel in the armed services (where small arms are concerned)?

Presumably the competent and efficient use of necessary force is desirable for anyone working in a protective function. I'm not sure we're all born with those abilities. Otherwise why so many training courses offered here on INGO, for example?

Training taken voluntarily is a good idea. Training by mandate, not so much.

I agree somewhat with both sides. I do feel that everyone has the right to carry . I also think that people think that they can get a gun and all is well. But without proper training on sight accuracy and identifying your target before pulling the trigger I can see how there would be some serious mistakes. Do you really think that a teacher huddled in their class room during a shooting is not going to react when someone comes into the room? What if its a student seeking refuge or someone letting them know its all clear. I'm all for the right to carry but those of you who are not trained either military or privately or have never been in a hostile environment have no clue how much training comes into play for a good outcome. You have to train to remember your training because when you hear that first shot ring by your head your thought process goes out the window. For those of you who hav had no training Its easy to talk the talk but let us know how unprepared you really were when you get into your first gun battle. Hopefully its not your child when they come sneaking home at 3 in the morning.

it's a good idea to be trained. It should certainly be encouraged and incentivized. Made mandatory, no, I can't support that.

Good point about the LEO unsure about who the BG might be. But I know if I'm not engaging the BG and I see or hear that LEO are there, I'm probably going to either holster my gun or at the very least lower my arms and ID myself.

That article was a good read BTW, probably going to share that with some friends of mine.

With all due respect, BULL! Police don't seem to have issues figuring out the BG anywhere else and to claim otherwise is insulting to them at the least.

The question I never seem to see answered is for those who already have the LTCH, should it be revoked for all of us who haven't taken some specific class? Have YOU had training? Did you seek it voluntarily or were you forced to do so? If you sought it voluntarily, WHY do you think others should not have the choice to do the same thing? To force people to take training they don't choose to take is to guarantee that most will not retain it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[LoneWolf2554]

With all due respect, BULL! Police don't seem to have issues figuring out the BG anywhere else and to claim otherwise is insulting to them at the least.

The question I never seem to see answered is for those who already have the LTCH, should it be revoked for all of us who haven't taken some specific class? Have YOU had training? Did you seek it voluntarily or were you forced to do so? If you sought it voluntarily, WHY do you think others should not have the choice to do the same thing? To force people to take training they don't choose to take is to guarantee that most will not retain it.

Blessings,
Bill

Why would someone have their LTCH revoked for not having a class or training? I don't think anyone has they should lose that in this thread. If so, I missed it. I just think given the setting we are talking about (schools) that some training should be needed to carry on those sites. If I have to go to school for 4 years to be able to teach at a school, why would it be a bad idea to use a weekend to learn some useful tactics.

 

[LoneWolf2554]

Oh and should I have put "Schools are also viewed as these "sacred/safe places" where no harm should ever occur." in purple?

 

[laxmann31]

I definitely agree that teachers should be allowed to carry guns. Its a shame that a lot of college campuses dont allow concealed carry. If there are any other college kids here please remember that the empty holster protest is April 2 through the 6th. Wear you holster to class!

 

[cobber]

Ok, so when we are talking about getting training what exactly does everyone mean? Take a few expensive training classes and all is well? Or should one spend money every year and do like LEO does and have to qualify annually?

How much training is enough?

We're talking about teachers dealing with a whole spectrum of contingencies. From one kid with a knife to a group of terrorists. Ideally they should be able to function as a team with all armed personnel in the school should the need arise. All the while protecting the kids, and getting them to safety where practicable.

If I were going to be armed in that situation, I would want to at least be well-versed in my abilities, know who else was carrying in the school and how we would work together if necessary, and also have pre-set plans for various scenarios. Simply getting the pink card, or not even having a pink card, isn't going to instill that level of competence.

How many LTCH holders have done any sort of combat training? I think you want to have those skills in place before the day the SHTF.

Mind you, I'm not thinking Delta Force teachers here. But more than a random number of teachers carrying guns of their choice with no real game plan.

Annual qualification? At least. Mandated training? Why not, they are already mandated to have teaching licenses. At the least they ought to have some sort of reserve police officer status in this role.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Why would someone have their LTCH revoked for not having a class or training? I don't think anyone has they should lose that in this thread. If so, I missed it. I just think given the setting we are talking about (schools) that some training should be needed to carry on those sites. If I have to go to school for 4 years to be able to teach at a school, why would it be a bad idea to use a weekend to learn some useful tactics.

I suspect that the difference of opinion lies in "required" vs "a good idea".

And that by the rules/laws re: schools - one's LTCH is effectively nullified there.

I personally think it's a GREAT idea for a teacher to be trained. Required? Not so much. And I think that any other law abiding citizen with an LTCH should be able to carry on school property as well. The arguments for "but there could be collateral damage" seem to make sense - until you consider situations where a law abiding citizen has responded to a perp in say a McDonalds , convenience store , or other public place. How much collateral damage from the law abiding citizen have we seen?

Let me state again - I am ALL FOR teachers or anyone else getting trained. It's that "REQUIRED" thing that I respectfully disagree with.

I wrote out a more detailed response - but let's leave it at this. There were several times during the debacle my wife and I went through that we would have vastly preferred to be carrying. And if I had related the circumstances of that situation, I doubt that there's a mother or father on this forum that would have disagreed with me. Instead, we had to park out on a public road, and both lock our EDC's in our car, since we couldn't so much as soil the sacred precincts of a school parking lot with GASP, a firearm! (grin)

We obeyed the law. But we would have felt a LOT better had the law been different.


EDIT:

To cobber's point - I don't see the role of a teacher being that of a cop - perhaps that's the difference. They are merely citizens like anyone else. We don't need another "well oiled Mall Ninja SWAT team..." we have PLENTY of those running around. That IS WHAT THE POLICE ARE FOR. To suggest otherwise is an insult to them. A teacher though, IF they choose, should be allowed the same privileges as any other free citizen. The ability to defend themselves and whomever they choose from attack. Key word here being DEFEND , not go through the halls searching for perps. Just not to huddle behind a desk while Dylan Klebold wastes half your class and yourself with a hi-point.
I think that whether people want training to be required is partly dependent on your view of the use of armed teachers. Form follows function. I would argue AGAINST the well oiled team. Procedures - SURE - they already have them for lockdowns. I'm sure they've thought that much out.

 

[cobber]

To cobber's point - I don't see the role of a teacher being that of a cop - perhaps that's the difference. They are merely citizens like anyone else. We don't need another "well oiled Mall Ninja SWAT team..." we have PLENTY of those running around. That IS WHAT THE POLICE ARE FOR. To suggest otherwise is an insult to them. A teacher though, IF they choose, should be allowed the same privileges as any other free citizen. The ability to defend themselves and whomever they choose from attack. Key word here being DEFEND , not go through the halls searching for perps. Just not to huddle behind a desk while Dylan Klebold wastes half your class and yourself with a hi-point.
I think that whether people want training to be required is partly dependent on your view of the use of armed teachers. Form follows function. I would argue AGAINST the well oiled team. Procedures - SURE - they already have them for lockdowns. I'm sure they've thought that much out.

I guess it depends on the premise of the thread. Are we talking about the civil liberty of teachers to carry? In that case why should they have any special right to carry in schools when we can't? If they have no special duty or role based on their status as teachers, then schools should be open for all proper persons to exercise their 2A rights.
However, if we are talking about arming teachers as a first-line against school invaders who would harm our children, then as a parent I would want to know that they are trained to be effective, and to apply proper techniques. They don't need to be ninjas, but they do need more, in that role, than the average citizen. And they should act as a team, good teamwork will multiply the effect of any force needed and applied, as opposed to a school full of armed teachers who have no game plan to protect students, and isolate and end threats.
Actually all gun owners should have some training, but I would not mandate that for private citizens. I have had some training and learned a lot more in four days than I could have acquired in years of range shooting and talking with other gun folks.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

cobber -

I think that you and I agree at least on the premise. I personally think that schools should be no different than any other location. Anyone should be legally (emphasis on LEGALLY) able to carry.

I'm not sure that I think that teachers make good cops, and that's why I'm NOT going there. Let the teachers do what they do best. Interact with the kids. Prevent problems before they start. I'm very grateful that a few did - as I've detailed in other places in this thread. We have no need to try to turn them into cops. Disarming them is a whole 'nother kettle of fish - and that's what we ARE doing today.

IF we did choose to arm them as a reaction force - THEN I would opt for training. In that case we are effectively paying them to be cops-"lite"... I just think that "deputizing" teachers isn't the right thing to do.

Any of you that are teachers care to weigh in on the "citizen vs. cop" debate. How do you see your role in this?