Teachers and Firearms


Bini
 Share

Recommended Posts

I decided to start a new discussion out of respect for the other thread.

With everything that has happened, and the possibility that it could happen again, would you vote YES to arming school teachers with guns?

Some thoughts of my own. I'm not opposed to firearms on bodies of trained and registered persons, however, I do have some concerns with the entire faculty being armed. For example, where would a firearm be stored when a teacher needs to remove it (whether it be during a P.E exercise or going on a field trip where weapons are prohibited)? Is a designated safe, "safe enough", from students?

Secondly, in the event that a psychopath trespasses onto school grounds and starts shooting, what happens if the teacher freezes and or is injured, and a student decides to be a hero and use the gun himself? It's a possible scenario that could cause more chaos and more fatalities..

I'm not necessarily against firearms on school grounds. Every private school that I attended overseas was walled and gated. We had armed security guards that patrolled the premises. Parents could not enter without providing valid identification. I'm wondering if something like this might be more affective, rather than having teachers packing heat in the hallways? I realise that most public schools are not walled and gated but an officer or two could still patrol the grounds..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am against arming teachers who do not want to be armed. That said: On NPR the other day they were saying that Utah is one of only two states that allow teachers with concealed carry permits to carry on campus; and I'm not aware that it's ever been a problem here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be a wonderful thing, if interested, able, and legally permitted teachers were allowed to carry concealed in schools.

We have over 30 years of conceal-carry data to look at - permit holders are the good guys. They have an almost zero rate of accidental injury or committing violent crime.

Of course I don't want to force any teacher carry a firearm. I don't see anyone advocating we force teachers to arm themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to start a new discussion out of respect for the other thread.

With everything that has happened, and the possibility that it could happen again, would you vote YES to arming school teachers with guns?

Some thoughts of my own. I'm not opposed to firearms on bodies of trained and registered persons, however, I do have some concerns with the entire faculty being armed. For example, where would a firearm be stored when a teacher needs to remove it (whether it be during a P.E exercise or going on a field trip where weapons are prohibited)? Is a designated safe, "safe enough", from students?

Secondly, in the event that a psychopath trespasses onto school grounds and starts shooting, what happens if the teacher freezes and or is injured, and a student decides to be a hero and use the gun himself? It's a possible scenario that could cause more chaos and more fatalities..

I'm not necessarily against firearms on school grounds. Every private school that I attended overseas was walled and gated. We had armed security guards that patrolled the premises. Parents could not enter without providing valid identification. I'm wondering if something like this might be more affective, rather than having teachers packing heat in the hallways? I realise that most public schools are not walled and gated but an officer or two could still patrol the grounds..

I wouldnt mind for there being allowal and a set of requirements (including training) for a teacher to be allowed to conceal carry.but it should not be a requirement.

As for storage safest place would have to be on the body or in a locked gunsafe.

Guns are not insurance. they may add to discouragement, but in the end if an individual is dead set on injuring or killing multiple targets at a school, there will not be much to stop him before damage is inflicted short of totally redesigning the school structure, school transport, faculty setup so that it is much more like a military base and implementing very draconian measures.

Due to how our urban environments are, and the freedoms we have in travel and commerce provide far too many openings that can be exploited by an individual who truly and methodically seeks to inflict harm. That being said it may be of better use against the spontaneous sort violence, but it should only be a last resort option.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I am strongly against guns in schools. If it happened I would recommend people home school their kids. Why are we making kids the front line for guns? There is something horribly sick about that.

I"d rather not there be guns in schools as well, but on the other hand I can't really justify against it at a base level, for teachers to carry if they can pass training that would be equivalent to whats given to police or equivalent law enforcement.

however i believe schools and schooling in general have benen and are in need of a very major overhaul in most respects anyways, and i would encourage homeschooling wherever possible. I think that if the situaiton is one of such that requires guns at schools then thats one more arrow to the quiver for using homeschool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our teachers have had wages cut for years, and now the national debate is should they carry guns in the classroom? Let's reinstate their regular pay before asking them to take on this huge responsibility.

Never thought of it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teachers are there to teach not be body guards. Body guards require totally different training and mindsets. Why would we even ask them to do two totally different jobs at once. It makes no sense.

Would the teacher be expected to wear a gun at all times? Would they be required to attend target practice regularly? Would they be trained in subduing offenders or just taught how to shoot them? Would they be required to wear body armor along with the kids? Heck teach the kids to protect themselves. Give them little pistols and train them to use them in case the teacher is subdued. Each class could be a swat training group. No one would dare come into the school with bad intentions then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seems to be too many variables that could go wrong with arming teachers. That's why I made note of utilising security guards and maybe a checkpoint entry - no one enters except through that checkpoint with valid ID. It's an alternative, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seems to be too many variables that could go wrong with arming teachers. That's why I made note of utilising security guards and maybe a checkpoint entry - no one enters except through that checkpoint with valid ID. It's an alternative, at least.

They had a security lockdown in that elementary school. Lanza shot it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I"d rather not there be guns in schools as well, but on the other hand I can't really justify against it at a base level, for teachers to carry if they can pass training that would be equivalent to whats given to police or equivalent law enforcement.

however i believe schools and schooling in general have benen and are in need of a very major overhaul in most respects anyways, and i would encourage homeschooling wherever possible. I think that if the situaiton is one of such that requires guns at schools then thats one more arrow to the quiver for using homeschool.

I think it's interesting that we protect 'goods' and handguns in stores is accepted but we not only don't protect our children, we advertise this fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had a security lockdown in that elementary school. Lanza shot it out.

I meant a literal checkpoint, where you are stopped by an armed guard, prior to entry.

The schools I attended had two guards at the entrance checkpoint. We also had a guard walk the premises. This said, security was especially top notch because we had several embassy children attend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our teachers have had wages cut for years, and now the national debate is should they carry guns in the classroom? Let's reinstate their regular pay before asking them to take on this huge responsibility.

I am more than happy to pay teachers who carry a firearm in defense of themselves and their students more than those who do not.

But if you really want to insist on discussing compensation, then you'd best realize that such discussions cut both ways.

If we're going to talk about compensation, then merit pay, benefits, and actual accountability for their performance and conduct need to be on the table as well.

By the same token- and given the number of sexual predators who are currently coddled and protected by the teachers unions (a full order of magnitude in scope larger than the Catholic Church scandals)- we'd need to see some fairly in-depth revisions to the hiring and employment guidelines- and that is something the unions would never tolerate.

Oh, and Anne?

Teachers are already morally and legally responsible for the physical safety and welfare of the children under their care.

Your use of the derisive "bodyguard" nomenclature is simply overwrought rhetoric.

Safeguarding and protecting their students is already their moral duty and legal obligation. A weapon is simply one more tool at their disposal if the unthinkable happens.

The phrase "bringing a knife to a gunfight" is a well-known (almost universal) metaphor for being ill-prepared.

The principal at Sandy Hook died trying to subdue the monster who was threatening her students.

Common sense and simple decency dictate that she might have stood a better chance had she been properly armed and competently trained.

Contrary to the hype, no one is arguing that teachers should be required to be armed- but given the nature of the threat (and the celebrity and notoriety that these crimes engender) they should at least have the option of doing so.

Or to put it another way: if I can't trust this individual with a loaded firearm, why in God's name would I trust them alone with my child?

Edited by selek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or to put it another way: if I can't trust this individual with a loaded firearm, why in God's name would I trust them alone with my child?

There are people I trust with my daughter but would not feel comfortable with them harnessing a firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teachers are there to teach not be body guards. Body guards require totally different training and mindsets.

The idea isn't that we make teachers stand guard, or go on patrol, or whatever else bodyguards do. The idea is that we give teachers the same opportunity to arem themselves for self-defense that people outside of gun-free zones have.

Would the teacher be expected to wear a gun at all times? Would they be required to attend target practice regularly? Would they be trained in subduing offenders or just taught how to shoot them?

The notion is that they be able to carry if they legally can, like other people do. Not that they become highly trained shooters or fighters or whatever.

Would they be required to wear body armor along with the kids? Heck teach the kids to protect themselves. Give them little pistols and train them to use them in case the teacher is subdued. Each class could be a swat training group. No one would dare come into the school with bad intentions then!

How come uncharitable, outlandish, snide mockery seems to be the preferred response to this notion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come uncharitable, outlandish, snide mockery seems to be the preferred response to this notion?

Because like any other bit of hucksterism, the entire gun-control movement is predicated upon emotionalism and upon rail-roading people while emotions are running high (ie, "Never let a crisis go to waste").

Preventing another Sandy Hook Tragedy isn't the goal. It's the sugar pill they're using to try and get us to swallow their long-standing agenda.

Rationale arguments need not apply.

Edited by selek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question. This may veer off topic just slightly.

If a teacher opts to carry a gun and is granted permission from the school to do so, what options and or rights do parents that oppose this have (assuming homeschool is not feasible)? Does the teacher's right to bare arms trump those of parents and children not-in-favour of it? What I am wondering, is how would a sensitive situation like this be addressed? Would these children be transferred to another class? Another school? I know how those school boundaries can get testy.

Also, I'm still interested in any ideas on how situations in my original post would be handled. Any ideas? Like I said, I'm not necessarily opposed but it does concern me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question. This may veer off topic just slightly.

If a teacher opts to carry a gun and is granted permission from the school to do so, what options and or rights do parents that oppose this have (assuming homeschool is not feasible)?

Good questions- these would have to be addressed.

Does the teacher's right to bare arms trump those of parents and children not-in-favour of it?

While I understand the jist of what you're driving at, but the question is poorly worded to the point of being an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The civil rights of one individual do not and cannot trump those of another.

You have a First Amendment right to speak your mind. I do not have a First Amendment rights to silence you.

My desire not to hear your opinion does not trump your right to express it.

Your Second Amendment rights are limited by my right to be secure in my home and possessions. If I as a private home or business owner decide "no guns" on my property or establishment, then you have no legal right to carry on my property.

In this case, however, t's not a question of my rights trumping yours, but of the limits imposed by applicable law.

Our Constitutional rights are already limited by Federal and State laws- for example, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre.

"Gun Free zones" are a legal category defined either by state or Federal law (as in schools and government buildings) or by the policies of private owners (such as movie theaters, many businesses and churches).

Schools and most government buildings are public places- so your right to speak your mind or carry a gun isn't limited by my rights, but by applicable law.

Is that as clear as mud?

What I am wondering, is how would a sensitive situation like this be addressed? Would these children be transferred to another class? Another school? I know how those school boundaries can get testy.

These would all have to be addressed in a case-by-case, or jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.

Also, I'm still interested in any ideas on how situations in my original post would be handled. Any ideas? Like I said, I'm not necessarily opposed but it does concern me.

As noted above, I too, have concerns.

But given the gravity of the situation- and the high price of failure- these are matters worth discussing.

We cannot and should not allow people to bully us into silence with outright mockery or even threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM and Mirkwood made comments. So are we training them to "defend" themselves as civilians? Or are we training them to be gun and combat efficient like police officers and patrol guards?

Having worked extensively with police and private security guards, I hope we can train them to a better standard than that. (Most cops are notoriously poor marksmen and have less training than many think).

To answer your question, however, we'd probably want a middle ground between what is required of a concealed carry permit holder and a SWAT officer.

For all her mockery, Anne is correct in that we neither want nor need paramilitary forces in our schools.

I think I would be happy with CCP-level background checks, firearms safety courses, and semi-annual (or perhaps even quarterly) safety and marksmanship refresher courses.

Spot checks (both random and regular) should be conducted at least quarterly, and failure to abide by common-sense safety protocols and a level of marksmanship should result in forfeiture of the right to carry on school grounds.

I also think that who- if anyone- is carrying on school grounds should be a matter of the strictest secrecy.

There's a reason bankrobbers like to take out the security guard first- and uncertainty is a very powerful deterrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share