Thoughts on School Gun Laws?

[looney2ns]

I agreed until the proper training part.

I think Indiana makes it too easy to get a license. The reason I say this is because I see way too many jackwagons that don't even have basic safe gun handling skills...but they have a LTCH.

Yeah yeah, we shouldn't require an LTCH in the first place. But the truth is, too many people purchase a weapon, take it home and throw it in the drawer and think "I'm now protecting myself and my family". Not, you just became a liability to everyone around you.

You really want a teacher carrying a gun amongst students that doesn't even have basic safe gun handling skills like keep your finger off the trigger unless you know your target and whats behind said target?

You want a teacher pulling that weapon in the class room or hallway full of kids, including your kids in an emergency and he's only shot his gun one time...two years ago? Never practiced proper draw, proper sight picture, etc. ?

Just because you own a ge-tar, doesn't make you a muscian.

Now going to hide under my desk.

 

[Sylvain]

Are you saying you don't believe they should be required to go to training?
Seriously?

Nobody should required to get training.The whole idea is against the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed unless they dont have the proper training."


Of course training is a good think and I think everybody that carries a gun SHOULD get training, but not REQUIRED by law.
That's the difference.
We all have different level of training (formal training or not) and shooting skills.
Some of us are never been to a shooting class, some have been trained by friends and family, some have military and police training, some went to dozens of shooting class.
If you want people to have to get training, by law, then what kind of level of training are you talking about it?

Is it a two hour very basic class where you learn the 4 basic safety rules and learn how to shoot in the general direction of your target?
Is it two years training where you to shoot a 1" group at 100 yards with a pistol one handed, and you need to have been a NAVY Seals for at least 5 years before training?
Do need medical exam as well?
What about making it illegal for people over 40 years old to carry because their vision is not the one of a 20 years old?
Will the training take into consideration how smart you are, maybe how educated you are.
If there is a written test during that training, how hard should it be?
Do you need to have been to college and studied english classical literature for 5 years in order to understand the questions of the test or is it possible for someone like myself (who learned english as a second language, in school in a foreign country) to understand the questions?

Training is not the business of the state.If that becomes mandatory it would be very easy to make it impossible for 99% of gun owners to fail the test.It just depends how hard it is.

Im all for training and im always trying to train better.I have been to gun classes and I would like to go to many more in the future but just because I want to go.Not because it's required by the state.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

LCSOSgt11 the rant was just fine. Good points made in there. It would take a heavy dose of "spine and balls" to pull a gun out in a school during a time which could be chaos. That's why I think some good training would be great to have.

Bunnykid68: can you explain why training wouldn't or shouldn't be needed? Or just kinda why you disagree?

If this was ever to be allowed that Principals/or Teachers would be armed, the "training" necessary would be primarily to make the Sheep feel better about the decision to allow a teacher to be armed in the first place. A a responsible citizen, they would take it upon themselves to be proficient and capable...

The other issue is perhaps "conditioning" of the person to the idea of drawing and shooting a 14-15 yr old kid... (for example) Yes we might say we could, but not being in the situation, and being a person who has dedicated their lives to HELPing kids, it would be an even tougher decision perhaps than others.

The B.G. is not always wearing a hoodie, sunglasses and/or a mask. It could be just a kid... and that in an of itself is quite a dilemna...

 

[looney2ns]

Nobody should required to get training.The whole idea is against the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed unless they dont have the proper training."


Of course training is a good think and I think everybody that carries a gun SHOULD get training, but not REQUIRED by law.
That's the difference.
We all have different level of training (formal training or not) and shooting skills.
Some of us are never been to a shooting class, some have been trained by friends and family, some have military and police training, some went to dozens of shooting class.
If you want people to have to get training, by law, then what kind of level of training are you talking about it?

Is it a two hour very basic class where you learn the 4 basic safety rules and learn how to shoot in the general direction of your target?
Is it two years training where you to shoot a 1" group at 100 yards with a pistol one handed, and you need to have been a NAVY Seals for at least 5 years before training?
Do need medical exam as well?
What about making it illegal for people over 40 years old to carry because their vision is not the one of a 20 years old?
Will the training take into consideration how smart you are, maybe how educated you are.
If there is a written test during that training, how hard should it be?
Do you need to have been to college and studied english classical literature for 5 years in order to understand the questions of the test or is it possible for someone like myself (who learned english as a second language, in school in a foreign country) to understand the questions?

Training is not the business of the state.If that becomes mandatory it would be very easy to make it impossible for 99% of gun owners to fail the test.It just depends how hard it is.

Im all for training and im always trying to train better.I have been to gun classes and I would like to go to many more in the future but just because I want to go.Not because it's required by the state.

Tennessee does it, and they have a much better success rate than 99% failure.

But so many gun owners do not take it upon themselves to study and train, and we are talking about teachers carrying in a school, not the general population by the way.

 

[Sylvain]

I think Indiana makes it too easy to get a license. The reason I say this is because I see way too many jackwagons that don't even have basic safe gun handling skills...but they have a LTCH.

Yeah yeah, we shouldn't require an LTCH in the first place. But the truth is, too many people purchase a weapon, take it home and throw it in the drawer and think "I'm now protecting myself and my family". Not, you just became a liability to everyone around you.

You really want a teacher carrying a gun amongst students that doesn't even have basic safe gun handling skills like keep your finger off the trigger unless you know your target and whats behind said target?

You want a teacher pulling that weapon in the class room or hallway full of kids, including your kids in an emergency and he's only shot his gun one time...two years ago? Never practiced proper draw, proper sight picture, etc. ?

Just because you own a ge-tar, doesn't make you a muscian.

Now going to hide under my desk.

Im glad Indiana makes it too easy to get a LTCH, way better than making it too hard in my opinion.See my above post.
I agree with you that some people have a LTCH and dont know anything about gun safety (4 safety rules and such) or even about carry laws, self defense laws and legal use of deadly force.

They should be advised to get training, not required.
Because like I said who would decide what kind of training you need to get and what kind of exam you need to pass before you can get your precious pink paper?

In some states it's required to get training and go to a shooting class.
You then have to bring your signed target from the training to the sheriff, and show him to get your carry licence.
What if the sheriff decides that you need to hit the bullseye at 50 yards in order to qualify to get your licence?
If you fail you need to get the class again, and btw the state made it a $5000 class and it takes a week.
Im not sure you would get a licence if that was the case.

 

[looney2ns]

Im glad Indiana makes it too easy to get a LTCH, way better than making it too hard in my opinion.See my above post.
I agree with you that some people have a LTCH and dont know anything about gun safety (4 safety rules and such) or even about carry laws, self defense laws and legal use of deadly force.

They should be advised to get training, not required.
Because like I said who would decide what kind of training you need to get and what kind of exam you need to pass before you can get your precious pink paper?

In some states it's required to get training and go to a shooting class.
You then have to bring your signed target from the training to the sheriff, and show him to get your carry licence.
What if the sheriff decides that you need to hit the bullseye at 50 yards in order to qualify to get your licence?
If you fail you need to get the class again, and btw the state made it a $5000 class and it takes a week.
Im not sure you would get a licence if that was the case.

This explains exactly why training would be needed for someone carrying in a school situation:
This was posted above, but here it is again as some may have missed it.
In time of war: The Israeli answer to terrorism by Massad Ayoob Issue #81

 

[Sylvain]

Tennessee does it, and they have a much better success rate than 99% failure.

But so many gun owners do not take it upon themselves to study and train, and we are talking about teachers carrying in a school, not the general population by the way.

I know some states do it but the training is easy.
Who decides how easy it should be?
That's the whole problem.
I can teach a shooting class and make up a final test where 99% of INGO members couldn't pass.
You would need to be both a lawyer (written tricky questions on carry laws) and a marksman (hit the target dead center at 50 yards one handed with a gun that has a 12 pounds trigger) to pass my test.

Only KirkFreeman here on Ingo would get his licence.

 

[eldirector]

I would have NO ISSUE with teachers receiving training as a condition of their employment.

Meaning:
- All citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. More specifically, they have the right to self defense with a weapon of their choice. You do not need training to exercise a right. Period.
- Employers (e.g.: the School) are welcome to have a POLICY requiring employees to receive whatever training they deem necessary to maintain their employment. This is ALREADY quite common in k-12 education.

Mommy and Daddy should not be felons for walking little Jimmy to the door of the school, while otherwise legally carrying.

Ms. Smith, the Math teacher, should not be a felon for carrying to an event at the school on her day off.

Ms. Smith should receive routine training on how to deal with emergencies. If that means she also assumes a role in the safety and security of her students, then should should be required to receive appropriate training.

BTW: Israel has already proven that this works. Arm teachers – save children While they have their own issues, violence in schools is all but non-existent.

 

[Mosinowner]

I wrote a letter to my rep about this.

 

[rooster3654]

Sure let's just allow it but only on the stipulation that the great men of this state and country (congress) write a set of stipulations and rules governing it that will need to be a 10-20 page section in the state code on. And then that won't be clear cut enough and the case law that will eventually go with the new statute will eventually be big enough that no one really knows what the statute allows and doesn't allow. That's always worked in the past right?
Or we could just follow the bill of rights to a T. Maybe the bill of rights was left simple and straight forward because the founding fathers didn't want it to be subject to interpretation ie. should we still have the second amendment when children are present? Or should peaceable protests (occupy movements) be put down bc they aren't good press?

 

[thompal]

I do not disagree with someone getting training, I disagree with it being mandatory that someone get training in order to protect themselves. I have never had professional training and will not say that it would not help me. BUT, who gets to set that standard? Also, what if you do not measure up to that standard that is set? You do not get the RIGHT to defend yourself the way you see fit.

I disagree that mandatory training to defend yourself is a bad idea all around.

HOWEVER, in this context we are discussing the possibility of mandating that teachers, or at least SOME number of a school staff, be armed. I would rather, as a parent, know that, if they aren't a 'gun person,' that they will have gotten some training in firearms, restraint methods, etc. I wouldn't walk into some random school room, and hand the 105 year old teacher a handgun and tell her that she should start shooting if a bad guy comes in. I'd like to know that she has at least an idea of how to use it.

If she doesn't know how to use it, she isn't going to be able to defend anyone.

Another option is, as Grossman suggests, to have EVERY student within range physically attack the shooter. It would mean the difference about hearing of a school "shooting" vs. a "shooting rampage."

Unfortunately, our children are taught to behave, and think, like sheep.

 

[LoneWolf2554]

If this was ever to be allowed that Principals/or Teachers would be armed, the "training" necessary would be primarily to make the Sheep feel better about the decision to allow a teacher to be armed in the first place. A a responsible citizen, they would take it upon themselves to be proficient and capable...

The other issue is perhaps "conditioning" of the person to the idea of drawing and shooting a 14-15 yr old kid... (for example) Yes we might say we could, but not being in the situation, and being a person who has dedicated their lives to HELPing kids, it would be an even tougher decision perhaps than others.

The B.G. is not always wearing a hoodie, sunglasses and/or a mask. It could be just a kid... and that in an of itself is quite a dilemna...

It would be very tough to possibly shoot a student or former student, there's no question about that. But if it comes down to shooting that person or allowing a dozen other students to get shot... the choice becomes easy.

 

[Sylvain]

It would be very tough to possibly shoot a student or former student, there's no question about that. But if it comes down to shooting that person or allowing a dozen other students to get shot... the choice becomes easy.

I agree.I dont want to shoot a kid and I hope I never do but I think it's not that hard to do if that kid is actually shooting at you or at people around you.
Im ready to defend my life and the life of my loved ones no matter if im attacked by a 30 years old man with a gun or a 16 years old girl with a gun.
Both attackers would be deadly and in both cases I would have no problem to answer with lethal force.

 

[Goober135]

I'm going to come at this from 2 sides, as I have beliefs on both.

1.) If an individual is legally allowed to carry a gun, they should be allowed to carry at a school. Who knows, maybe if a someone had been armed at Columbine / VTech / Red Lake, those tragedies could have been avoided or at least not carried on as long due to the shooter being uncontested. Maybe even knowing there is a good chance people in a school are armed could preemptively stop a shooting from ever happening.

But...

2.) To begin, I do not believe any type of training course should be mandated to allow an individual to receive their LTCH. The Govt has enough regulations in place, we need less, not more. With that being said, I can potentially see a school shooting going from "bad" to "worse". Let's say, as of today, people legally licensed to carry are now allowed to carry in schools. (I know it's terrible to use hypothetical arguments in a debate, but bear with me)

John Doe, a teacher at Imaginary High School, bought his first handgun a month ago and just received his LTCH. Well today, Brett Boe, a student, brought a gun to school and started shooting. John Doe pulls his gun, but since he is very new to handguns, he isn't very accurate. Unfortunately, in the exchange of fire, John Doe hits two innocent students, killing them, before finally incapacitating Brett Boe. How would this news article read?

Also, here is something else to consider. As tragic as school shootings are, they are not extremely common. Would any of you agree that you know of someone, who is 100% legal to carry, but that you don't think should be carrying? Maybe one of these people might be a teacher that, at the first sign of danger, will simply dive behind their desk and start shooting at anyone who walks through the door. Without any mandated training, which I am against, I don't know if an average teacher would have the ability to correctly handle an active shooting scenario.




In conclusion, I think I am more on the side of allowing guns in schools. Sure, an armed teacher could potentially do more harm than good, but ANYTHING that helps to reduce the probability of a killing spree like at VTech from ever happening again, to me, is a step in the right direction.

 

[LoneWolf2554]

As I've said before it is a nightmare or mine, and I hope that day never has to come for anyone anywhere again. Sadly we don't live in that perfect dream world.

Goober: That is why training for those who want to carry at school would be needed. If you're going to pull your weapon in a school, you'd better damn well be sure you know what you're going to hit.

 

[Goober135]

Goober: That is why training for those who want to carry at school would be needed. If you're going to pull your weapon in a school, you'd better damn well be sure you know what you're going to hit.

I agree. I guess I could put aside my distaste for govt. regulations if it were to ONLY mandate training for individuals to be allowed to carry in a school.

 

[Bonez87]

With the tragic incident that happened at that school in Ohio in the news, and other tragedies like the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech, what are your thoughts about not being able to carry on school grounds?

As a teacher and gun owner it is both comforting and frustrating that guns/weapons are not allowed on school grounds. It is nice knowing that my students know they will be expelled if they bring weapons to school, but if someone is set on doing harm to themselves or others at the school, they are going to bring a weapon regardless of what the rules/laws are. Why should those same laws that are being ignored by that person disarm an educator like me?

I think if a person knew that one of the teachers could be armed, it might prevent some of these awful events. Just looking to see what other thoughts or viewpoints are out there on this topic.

I definitaly agree with you on this one. A person who plans to commit a crime doesnt care that you arent aloud to do something and the law abiding citizens have to pay for obeying the law.

 

[rooster3654]

I'm going to come at this from 2 sides, as I have beliefs on both.

1.) If an individual is legally allowed to carry a gun, they should be allowed to carry at a school. Who knows, maybe if a someone had been armed at Columbine / VTech / Red Lake, those tragedies could have been avoided or at least not carried on as long due to the shooter being uncontested. Maybe even knowing there is a good chance people in a school are armed could preemptively stop a shooting from ever happening.

But...

2.) To begin, I do not believe any type of training course should be mandated to allow an individual to receive their LTCH. The Govt has enough regulations in place, we need less, not more. With that being said, I can potentially see a school shooting going from "bad" to "worse". Let's say, as of today, people legally licensed to carry are now allowed to carry in schools. (I know it's terrible to use hypothetical arguments in a debate, but bear with me)

John Doe, a teacher at Imaginary High School, bought his first handgun a month ago and just received his LTCH. Well today, Brett Boe, a student, brought a gun to school and started shooting. John Doe pulls his gun, but since he is very new to handguns, he isn't very accurate. Unfortunately, in the exchange of fire, John Doe hits two innocent students, killing them, before finally incapacitating Brett Boe. How would this news article read?

Also, here is something else to consider. As tragic as school shootings are, they are not extremely common. Would any of you agree that you know of someone, who is 100% legal to carry, but that you don't think should be carrying? Maybe one of these people might be a teacher that, at the first sign of danger, will simply dive behind their desk and start shooting at anyone who walks through the door. Without any mandated training, which I am against, I don't know if an average teacher would have the ability to correctly handle an active shooting scenario.




In conclusion, I think I am more on the side of allowing guns in schools. Sure, an armed teacher could potentially do more harm than good, but ANYTHING that helps to reduce the probability of a killing spree like at VTech from ever happening again, to me, is a step in the right direction.

First off college is a completely different story because the students are all of legal age to have a ltch. And there is no need to take away their rights simply because they choose to better educate themselves.

However let's save that for another thread. This particular instance deals with hs where the only people that could legally carry are employees. Any instance of a shoot out will have the risk of stray bullets. Those bullets can come from all parties involved be it the BG/police or an armed citizen. That has less to do with with shooting ability than it does risk assessment. I know that many people who carry try to train under simulated stress but thats about as useful as Jeff gordon practicing for the brickyard 400 by driving the 465 loop. It's not even close to the real thing. There will always be a risk involved no matter what kind of training someone has.

That's a risk every single one of you accepts when you take the responsibility of protecting yourself into your own hands. To think that we can shoot at paper targets in a controlled non threatening environment will get rid of the risk is ridiculous. It's already expected that in the event of an active shooter that teachers are responsible for the safety of students. So why should we not allow them the tools to do the job.

 

[cobber]

You really want a teacher carrying a gun amongst students that doesn't even have basic safe gun handling skills like keep your finger off the trigger unless you know your target and whats behind said target?

You want a teacher pulling that weapon in the class room or hallway full of kids, including your kids in an emergency and he's only shot his gun one time...two years ago? Never practiced proper draw, proper sight picture, etc. ?

Just because you own a ge-tar, doesn't make you a muscian.

Now going to hide under my desk.

Even a skilled shooter is going to have trouble in a school situation. It's not like confronting someone breaking into your house after midnight, or you happening upon a convenience store robbery.

If my kids are going to be in a school with armed teachers, I expect the teachers to be well-trained. An unschooled or incompetent sheepdog may actually pose as great a danger to the sheep as does the wolf.

If it were just my safety, I might say, sure, I'll trust my life to a person about whose abilities I have no idea. But where kids are concerned, as a parent I have the right to expect training.

(No one seems to have a problem with training police in firearms use. We rightly expect them to have a higher degree of expertise in the use of deadly force. We don't just issue officers an LTCH and tell them to go get the bad guys.)

I assume we're not just replicating the 'peace officer with no duty to defend individuals' model here. We're expecting the armed teachers to instantly respond, and place themselves at risk to protect our kids.

Maybe armed teachers, even untrained, would have some deterrent effect. Still...

 

[TTravis]

Maybe they should allow it in high schools and possibly middle schools where the kids are more likely to bring a gun to school. I would leave out grade schools because they have 5 year old girls there.

At least I can stay in my car with my gun as I am dropping off or picking up my kid. When this law about bringing guns to school was enacted, did it improve anything or were there more shootings?