Teachers and Firearms


Bini
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How old do you have to be to apply for a gun and become registered? 18?

Not sure what you're asking here. How old does who have to be? Are you still discussing a hypothetical situation, or asking about current laws?

This is the U.S. You don't 'apply for a gun' - you go buy one. Apart from a small handful of cities and states, you don't need to register it, or you. The laws are different for each state.

Are you asking about conceal carry laws? Each state is different there too, although there are some commonalities.

Assuming you're asking about conceal carry laws in Utah, take a look:

Bureau of Criminal Identification

You have to be 21 yrs old to have a conceal carry permit in Utah.

Utah Concealed Carry Permit Information

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Even military base precautions won't stop a person who is suicidally determined to cause havoc before they do some damage, but as New Life Church proved, having armed, determined people who are willing to protect at the risk of their own lives will minimize the damage an attacker can do.

Having worked security, we were taught to look at a situation the way a criminal would in order to identify potential problems. The biggest problem with a single, obvious armed person (the uniformed cop usually proposed as a solution to school shootings, etc.) is that any attacker with two functioning brain cells to rub together will simply remove that guard with the first shot. That's why real asset protection is done with at least a four man team, and usually multiple teams. The other problem is that schools tend to be fairly large; I went back to the high school I attended and timed myself running the halls, and still came up with almost two minutes to cover the longest distance in the school. Even assuming the shooter only has a revolver, (or a knife, for that matter) that's 20 deaths before your single guard even gets a chance to do something about the situation, assuming he correctly identifies the sound of the first shot, responds immediately at a full sprint, and doesn't get delayed by a flood of people in the halls trying to get away from the shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, even registered and trained gunman freeze when a scenario is no longer "role play."

This is a problem anywhere, including military and law enforcement. Look at the number of muzzleloaders found on battlefields with multiple loads in the barrel because a soldier thought he had fired, when he was actually unable to make himself pull the trigger. Similar problems have been reported in modern combat, with soldiers unconsciously pulling shots high or low because their brain just won't let them shoot another person.

People who respect human life are often not able to take it even when it is necessary. This is the disadvantage of the defender; these are the very people we need to be able to take a life in order to preserve others.

Training helps, no doubt, but there is really no way to identify who will be able to perform in a real deadly force encounter until one happens. I've seen guys who could calmly shoot fast drills against paper targets all day long freeze when they only needed to use a little force to restrain a drunk, and yet I worked with a man who was one of the gentlest beings I've ever met, but killed an attacker with a small pocketknife left handed when the guy pinned his gun hand and tried to strangle him.

Should this happen, and a child picks up the gun, I would have no problem with a child picking up the gun, if they know how to use it.

This is another problem in modern society; parents avoid teaching their children about guns, sex, drugs, etc. with an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. It doesn't prevent teen pregnancy or drug use, and it doesn't stop gun accidents among children either.

This is what happens when kids learn about guns:

Harris County deputy's son shoots one of two intruders - Houston Chronicle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to me what people think. But it would seem to me that if there is an earthquake we would expect the teachers to be trained and able to respond in a manner to assist and protect our children while in their care. If there was a fire or other such thing we would expect teachers to be trained and respond to assist and protect our children.

I think it is interesting that we expect teachers to be able to give CPR and first aid in an emergency - we expect them to be trained and able to assist and protect - even save children in an emergency. But there is an exception? If for some reason our children are threatened by violence - we do not want teachers trained and able to respond.

Are you people nuts? Just like learning CPR and first aid to save lives why is there any doubt or opposition concerning assisting protecting and saving children - or for that matter anyone else?

One of our rights is the right of every citizen to assist, protect and save life’s threatened by violence. I do not understand why so many have become products of propaganda to the point of thinking that citizens should not be involved in assisting protecting and saving lives.

One thing we should have learned from history is that it is impossible for any government to protect it’s citizens in all possible circumstances. Retaliation after the fact should not be the only option of free people. In fact war is in essence the attempt to harm the citizens of another country. The idea that it is the responsibility of government only to always be responsible for the safety of it citizens is like believing that trained doctors should only be allowed to assisted the injured - it is like saying we do not believe in first aid.

To me, it appears that many have the mentality of a fool and a coward when it comes to guns and assisting protecting and saving lives so that these people pass laws making it more difficult for first responders to be able to offer first aid. I understand that there are some that would rather stand by and watch their loved one die waiting for EMT’s than to be able to offer first aid. So we pass laws that only medically trained doctors and nurses give first aid? Likewise I believe some would rather see their loved ones die waiting for the police than to respond responsibly towards violence. Each individual should be able to make such a choice. But I do not understand the mentality of making it more difficult to be a responsible citizen.

I believe that anyone that is in a place of social responsibility should have the freedom, training and ability to respond to growing emergencies. It is time to quit acting like legendary ostriches - pull our heads out of the sand and instead act as free people who are willing to stand up for the right and quit expecting someone else to guarantee their rights - entitlements is the illusion of people that do not understand freedom. Governments and laws do not make people free. Only people that are willing to be free can have freedom. It appears to me that more and more people believe that security is more important than freedom.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with a single, obvious armed person (the uniformed cop usually proposed as a solution to school shootings, etc.) is that any attacker with two functioning brain cells to rub together will simply remove that guard with the first shot.

No, the attacker with two brain cells will go somewhere else without a guard. Hardening targets works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How old do you have to be to apply for a gun and become registered? 18? Would it be acceptable for an 18-year old high school student to wear his gun to school amongst his peers? If so, are there any possible concerns with this?

Depend on the state and what you mean by "apply for a gun" and "registered". Most states actually don't have any form of gun registration. Several, (my state Idaho is one) have constitutional prohibitions on any form of state gun registration or tracking. Any attempt to do so by any agent of the state would become a criminal matter.

As far as concealed carry, most states have a 21 year age limit for getting a concealed carry permit, though Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming have no requirement for a concealed carry permit.

Currently 49 states have some means of allowing concealed carry (not all of those have concealed carry laws, Vermont has no laws addressing concealed carry at all, and in a free society, anything that is not expressly forbidden by law is allowed). The one state (Illinois) that had been banning concealed carry recently had that law struck down by the district court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teachers have a right to defend themselves, however depending on legislation and contract wording they may not have the right to carry a weapon upon school property.. and as such having the choice to use a weapon in said defense may vary.

How the school wants behavior to be conducted is the school's business. if a teacher does not agree with it then they should find employment at another school that they do agree with.

If that school's behavior crosses over into criminal behavior then the teacher may have legitimate grounds to take it to court.

Every time we sign a contract we give up rights to certain things.

Legal right often is different from moral right. While governments often infringe on our personal rights all the time, that doesn't mean the right is existent, only violated. A law that prevents the carrying of weapons on school grounds deprives me of the only reasonable means of defending myself against an armed attacker, and therefore is a grievous violation of my rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel requires every adult to serve time (I believe it's two years) in the army, it's a little bit different than civilians who've only had a gun safety class and a few hours at the shooting range.

I'm disappointed in this suggestion honestly. This is how we plan to make our kids schools safer? By reenacting the wild west in their study halls? We now expect teachers to be part time commandos as well as teachers? Why don't we just issue each student a hand grenade at the beginning of the year, then they'll really be safe.

OK yes that last part was over the top and I want our kids to be safe just as much as the next person but I just don't see this actually keeping them safer. All I see is a million and one different ways that this can go wrong and if I found out that my (hypothetical) kids school was arming it's teachers I'd pull them out of that school in a heartbeat. I'd quit my job and home school them if I had too (and I am not a fan of homeschooling).

I personally would rather talk about ways to improve the shockingly bad state of mental health care in America or finding ways to improve security in schools that don't include expecting our teachers to play Rambo but that's just me.

That would be your right, however every time concealed carry legislation has come up, the gun grabbers have predicted blood running in the streets. It doesn't happen, in fact the opposite happens. Every single time. When Utah allowed teachers to carry, vast numbers of deaths were predicted. Guess what, It didn't happen, and Utah hasn't had a single school shooting either.

You don't want guns in the schools because of what COULD happen. I'm looking at what IS happening and realizing that keeping the good guys from having guns isn't working.

I'm also concerned about the dubious idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill". It is absolutely 100% impossible to ever give a government power and not have it abused. The times in recorded history when a government has been given power and has given it back without bloodshed can be counted on one hand.

There's an idea. Does the law pass the "Jews in the attic" test. namely, could the law have been used in Nazi Germany to help the government find those hiding Jews in their attics, a la Anne Frank, and destroy them. I would say that tightening up government laws as to what constitutes mental illness fails this test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legal right often is different from moral right. While governments often infringe on our personal rights all the time, that doesn't mean the right is existent, only violated. A law that prevents the carrying of weapons on school grounds deprives me of the only reasonable means of defending myself against an armed attacker, and therefore is a grievous violation of my rights.

Civil disobedience is at times appropriate, especially in a free society which is what this country once had.

Current legislation including the NDAA and Patriot Act have gutted the Constitution legally authorizing an authoritarian regime in the United States.

Yes, I absolutely believe in an armed society for the reasons outlined by the founding fathers which has nothing to do with hunting or home defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support school faculty members who are competent with their firearm and have a CFP, to be allowed to carry on campus while doing their job.

I believe self defense is a right, not a privilege.

I would go one step further and say it is not a right, but a responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realizing how emotive this discussion is in the US, I was loathe to get involved. However someone listed Isreal as an example, so I will point out Australia as a counter example. We had 4 major massacre leading up to the Port Arthur one. At that point the government (a conservative one) stepped in and banned all semi-automatic, automatic and greatly strengthened the gun laws. We have not had a single massacre (4 or more people) in the last 16 years.

However given how well permeated the US is with weaponry, I don't see this as an option. I don't see how your society could be disarmed of all military style weapons. If I lived in the US I think I would want my boys in a school with a very secure boundary and a well defended and secure entry point.

I live in the UK but have family in both the UK and USA. The difference in opinion between the two populations as a whole regarding guns is quite astounding - whether that opinion is based on what they are used to within their respective societies or vice versa, I'm not sure. People as a whole fear change.

What I do know based from personal experience only of the two societies is this: In general, people in the US appear to live in fear on a day to day basis, with constant preparation for the worst scenario. This fear took me by surprise initially, but I've come to expect it now. In the UK, people generally feel safe in their own homes and schools without what they would consider extreme defensive measures in place, and not without reason either.

A common argument is that criminals aren't exactly going to lay down their arms because of a change in law. Maybe that would be the case in the US, as has correctly been pointed out that guns are so embedded in society that they'd remain easily accessible for many generations to come. In the UK however, guns are so difficult to get hold of that unless you were involved in serious organised crime, it's unlikely you'd manage to get hold of one before the police were made aware of you - the percentage of gun related homicides in the UK are considerably less than in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I do know based from personal experience only of the two societies is this: In general, people in the US appear to live in fear on a day to day basis, with constant preparation for the worst scenario. This fear took me by surprise initially, but I've come to expect it now. In the UK, people generally feel safe in their own homes and schools without what they would consider extreme defensive measures in place, and not without reason either.

Personal experience notwithstanding, your generalization is false. Certainly it does not apply to me or to those I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal experience notwithstanding, your generalization is false. Certainly it does not apply to me or to those I know.

Your assessment of my generalisation is also based on personal experience, which doesn't mean any more than mine did.

It's also worth considering that you may not define something as fear if its all you've ever known. Based solely on my personal experience only, I would say that those that I know in the USA live in what I would define as fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That is what we do in Israel. Far better solution than arming teachers. Half of the point is to deny entrance to the shooter. You can't expect the teachers to be patrolling the facilities when they have lessons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel has teachers carry, they don't have teachers killing people, and there's almost no school violence there.

QUOTE]

My entiore elementary through high school years were spent in Israeli schools. Teachers only carry guns on field trips, not in class or in school. They also generally do so only when a trained guard or volunteer is not available to go with the class. Something else to keep in mind is that most adults in Israel have some sort of military training, which is not, I think, the case in the USA.

As for no school violence, baloney. There is plenty of violence between students, and some between students and teachers, but none like in Sandy Hook. You'd have to look to other factors than guns for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what we do in Israel. Far better solution than arming teachers. Half of the point is to deny entrance to the shooter. You can't expect the teachers to be patrolling the facilities when they have lessons.

There is a VAST difference between arming someone so that they can defend themselves should other measures fail, and having someone go out and be a security guard. In fact that seems to be the major disconnect in this entire discussion. When I carry, I'm not up and around wandering around looking for trouble. In fact I'm trying to avoid it. Most of the time I'm going about my business and completely ignoring my gun. It's never even come out of its holster in any type of confrontation (cleaning and practice are another matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your assessment of my generalisation is also based on personal experience, which doesn't mean any more than mine did.

It's also worth considering that you may not define something as fear if its all you've ever known. Based solely on my personal experience only, I would say that those that I know in the USA live in what I would define as fear.

Maybe you could provide concrete examples? Because preparing for problems and not walking around in the mistaken belief that someone else will help me should something go wrong is not fear, it's simply being prepared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share