Thoughts on School Gun Laws?

[senork]

This continues to be an interesting thread. Weighing in on the "teacher vs. cop" idea put forth by Armed Programmer. As I said in my post yesterday, I taught for 39 years, (retired 2010) so I have had more than one discussion on this topic. These are my thoughts.

Teachers go into the profession to be a teacher, not a cop. In Indiana, the job of a teacher is: to impart knowledge, discipline, and be a moral exemplar. Over the years, you have to add to that, social worker, parent, and counselor.

When I taught, I never liked having to discipline students, but I did it when necessary, sometimes much to the displeasure of the student, parents, and administrators.

I think most teachers would rather be allowed to teach and leave the "cop" side of it to someone else.

Now as to the idea of training for teachers to carry while in school, I think is a good thing on an individual basis, (I would have liked to have carried) but not for all teachers, some just aren't cut out for it. Based upon
previous discussions with both teachers and parents, I don't really think the majority of teachers would prefer to be armed, and I don't think the patrons of a school district would prefer that they be armed either.

How does a school pay for training when there have been so many budget cuts that they can't buy teaching supplies, but yet justify the training cost? If you leave it up to the individual teacher to secure training, then where does the school stand in it?


This is a very difficult topic, and I think the majority of parents, teachers, and administrators just keeping hoping that it "doesn't happen here". I think the reality of the situation is that schools aren't going to allow carrying, and the state isn't going to mandate it, so we have what we have.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

Sorry, I was on my iPod last night; my computer was unavailable. Let me go into a bit more detail:

Premise: Some people (not only you) seem to be saying that a person should be required to have some form of training to be allowed to have a LTCH.

Data point: Many thousands of us already have a Lifetime LTCH, meaning "it expires when you do".

Hypothetical: If a law is passed requiring a specific training to have a LTCH, the LTCH would have to be revoked for those who did not have the specific training required in the above premise. The other alternative is that we would have two sets of rules, in effect "grandfathering" everyone who already has the LTCH, and only affecting those who didn't get it before the requirement.

So then: a person who is part of the "data point" who favors the premise seems to me to be saying is either, "I want to make a rule that applies to YOU (plural pronoun), but from which *I* am exempt."

or

"I agree people should be able to get a Lifetime LTCH, but only if they comply with what I think they should have to do, and those who don't aren't worthy in my eyes of being allowed to exercise their natural, God-given rights."

If there's another angle to this that I'm not seeing, one that doesn't involve using the force of government against those who disagree but have committed no crime, please show me.

Despite the fact that I'm completely secure in the correctness of my opinion, I'm very willing to listen to your side of it. That doesn't mean I'll agree, but it means I'll listen.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[LoneWolf2554]

Sorry, I was on my iPod last night; my computer was unavailable. Let me go into a bit more detail:

Premise: Some people (not only you) seem to be saying that a person should be required to have some form of training to be allowed to have a LTCH.

Data point: Many thousands of us already have a Lifetime LTCH, meaning "it expires when you do".

Hypothetical: If a law is passed requiring a specific training to have a LTCH, the LTCH would have to be revoked for those who did not have the specific training required in the above premise. The other alternative is that we would have two sets of rules, in effect "grandfathering" everyone who already has the LTCH, and only affecting those who didn't get it before the requirement.

So then: a person who is part of the "data point" who favors the premise seems to me to be saying is either, "I want to make a rule that applies to YOU (plural pronoun), but from which *I* am exempt."

or

"I agree people should be able to get a Lifetime LTCH, but only if they comply with what I think they should have to do, and those who don't aren't worthy in my eyes of being allowed to exercise their natural, God-given rights."

If there's another angle to this that I'm not seeing, one that doesn't involve using the force of government against those who disagree but have committed no crime, please show me.

Despite the fact that I'm completely secure in the correctness of my opinion, I'm very willing to listen to your side of it. That doesn't mean I'll agree, but it means I'll listen.

Blessings,
Bill

I think I'm being misunderstood by you. I believe that those who are eligable to have a LTCH, should fully be able to do so. I don't think training should be required to have a LTCH. Where I would like to see the training to be able to OC or CC is for teachers to be able to carry at schools. It is a middle ground that shouldn't cause much issue for either side of the spectrum. All I want is traing to be able to handle certain situations. Ex. someone with a knife, someone with a firearm, multiple attackers, ect... If a school is going to give a teacher permission to carry, I think it would go a long way to calming some of the fears that parents are going to have.
I'm in no way trying to make it more difficult for people to have a LTCH

 

[youngda9]

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.

Care to elaborate on the bold item above? I don't have to have training anywhere else that I carry...even, gasp, around children. Seems like you're operating from the same feel-good, emotional "for the children based, position our legislators have used to make firearms illegal on school property. It doesn't deter crime one bit.

It's like expecting a criminal to not cross the street and commit a crime because he's worried about getting a ticket for J-Walking. Doesn't work that way.

 

[LoneWolf2554]

Its for the TEACHERS to carry at school while they are working. I get the point that training isn't needed to carry, and that lots of you do it on a daily basis without any training. That is perfectly fine with me.
I have NO issue with people carrying, even around children.

What I would like to see, if/when schools open it up for their teachers to OC/CC, is that they would require them to take a class, get training, or whatever. How much training would be required, I don't know, not my call. This is for the teachers to carry in the classroom. Not for parents dropping their kids off for school, or parents sitting down at a baseball game. If my school requires me to have CPR/AED training to work at the school, why would having a 4 hour course on gun handling or something be a bad thing to require?
I don't believe in the "sunshine and rainbows" position. It doesn't stop or prevent anything.

 

[youngda9]

I don't believe that teachers are somehow more reckless or incompetent than the rest of us who can function around children without these requirement hoops you suggest.

 

[LoneWolf2554]

Its not a "reckless or incompetent" thing at all. Teachers are held to a higher standard in a lot of areas, there are certain things we are expected to do or not do, fair or not, that's the way it is.
I'm just curious why there is such a backlash on asking a teacher to take a 4 hour class* on tactics. I'm not trying to make things difficult, my idea is to make things safer for the kids if a situation comes up where a gunman comes into a school.

 

[VidGuy]

I would want to see a teacher (with an LTCH) go through proper training before being allowed to carry at a school.

Here's why: The people on here all say that they know the proper way to handle a firearm. Yet how many have had any real safety training? Just getting a LTCH doesn't mean you know how to handle a gun safely, especially around other people's kids.

I know a lot of you will disagree with that statement, but I see too many stories of an accidental discharge by people who, even thought they're licensed to carry, are total morons. Sure, accidents happen, but I'd say that ALMOST all accidental discharges are preventable.

And nothing against teachers (my daughter is one), but there are a good many teachers that have no common sense.

 

[youngda9]

Teachers are held to a higher standard in a lot of areas...I vehemently disagree with this statement. The product being produced vs. the ever increasing cost of operation supports my position. But that's another topic entirely.

 

[LoneWolf2554]

Teachers are held to a higher standard in a lot of areas...I vehemently disagree with this statement. The product being produced vs. the ever increasing cost of operation supports my position. But that's another topic entirely.

Thanks for bashing my profession . Lets keep it to the gun discussions now .

 

[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.

Yes, call 911 and say your prayers?

I'm not envisioning an inept bunch of gun-toting yahoos dressed in black, but just that some % of the teaching staff be armed and trained, of their own volition, and prepared to protect students until the police arrive. In that time frame they could save lives. Maybe even your child's life.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

.. In that time frame they could save lives. Maybe even your child's life.

Cobber - that particular scenario is all too real to me. I get it.

I don't know that I would opt for requiring a certain % of teachers to do it. Any more than I would want to require that a certain % of John Q Public carry. It has to be voluntary. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be for the schools to offer to pay for the training. I agree with you that it's a darn good idea. Compelling them to do it makes it far too close to the "slippery slope" , in my opinion.

Question for you: would you allow everyday citizens to carry on school grounds? (legally, ltch presumed)?

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Question for you: would you allow everyday citizens to carry on school grounds? (legally, ltch presumed)?

I would, but in the PC, "fear the tool" society that we live in, it is likely just wishful fantasy. Kind of like the whole leaving the gun in the car to walk into the post office to mail a package... You never know... That gun could JUMP out of that holster and shoot someone!

Strange thing with the whole post office deal. As I recall it has never been a customer coming into the place and going "Postal". (no matter how infuriating they can be...) It's been someone disgruntled on the inside...
Its the typical knee jerk response... "Someone has to DO something about this".

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Agreed, Sheepdog - Most of this is a wishful "what-if". Realistically the school can't keep kids safe. Period. They do a good job of trying - and the teachers in general do a good job. I don't realistically think that we'll be seeing ANYONE armed on a school campus except perps for the foreseeable future.

 

[jgreiner]

School gun laws do nothing but create Victim rich environments. Someone wishing to do harm is not going to STOP because of some stupid law. Meanwhile, the LAW abiding folks can't do anything to protect the kids.

I am a former teacher. I taught at an inner city school. I was shot at once while on duty outside before school one morning (former student did drive by). Thankfully, he was a crappy shot.

Teachers should be allowed to be armed.

 

[jgreiner]

You never know... That gun could JUMP out of that holster and shoot someone!

We would have to make sure that all teachers with 5 year old girls in their classes would remain unarmed.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Agreed, Sheepdog - Most of this is a wishful "what-if". Realistically the school can't keep kids safe. Period. They do a good job of trying - and the teachers in general do a good job. I don't realistically think that we'll be seeing ANYONE armed on a school campus except perps for the foreseeable future.

It's not just the Campus... consider a school bus for example ... kids totally captive and contained, (perhaps a rural country road) , one foreseeable exit and one adult (the driver) ... I am in strong agreement with both Grossman and Ayoob on this. Its not a matter of if, its when, and the Israeli model makes a lot more common sense... (that of having armed volunteers/parents riding the routes, or at least the driver)

Unfortunately we are a large country, and the standard Sheeple attitude is that that is something that happens somewhere else, not in my little town of Blah-ville.

Being from Valpo, that's what a LOT of people said PRIOR to the kid with the machete the day before Thanksgiving in 2004. (who incidentially is now out of his treatment facility seven years later...) Valpo High School slasher out of treatment seven years after attack.
This of course is followed by the general finger pointing and "Somebody needs to DO something attitude".

My niece sat directly in front of him in that Spanish Class. Had her family not left a day early for the Thanksgiving break, (which is against school policy by the way), she would have possibly been one of the first kids out of the seven who were attacked. (Fate is, what it is...)

 

[cobber]

Question for you: would you allow everyday citizens to carry on school grounds? (legally, ltch presumed)?

Restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying there does not prevent the criminal element from attacking kids. So I would say there is no rational reason not to allow citizens to carry there. Presuming an ltch, yes.

Probably not going to happen, though.

Since the law can't prevent criminals from coming armed to school, there should definitely be serious enhancement for criminal acts while armed on school property, or at school functions.

 

[LoneWolf2554]

Sheepdog:
I knew people that were across the hall when that went down at VHS. I was senior at school in the area then, and we went on lockdown for a short while for that. Not sure why, but we did. Glad to hear that your niece wasn't there that day. Saw some of the scars that were left on one of the students on a church trip. Scary stuff.

 

[Nitehunter500]

If all teachers carried I feel my children would be safer