Teachers with Guns

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

kparker wrote:

* "might be": in case you haven't noticed, it's on the internet, so J.L. could just as easily be a dog and we'd never know.

I refuse to comment on this.:lol:

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

kparker wrote:

* "might be": in case you haven't noticed, it's on the internet, so J.L. could just as easily be a dog and we'd never know.

I refuse to comment on this.:lol:

I think he might be a prairie dog. :lol:

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

kparker wrote:

* "might be": in case you haven't noticed, it's on the internet, so J.L. could just as easily be a dog and we'd never know.

I refuse to comment on this.:lol:

I think he might be a prairie dog. :lol:

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

kparker wrote:

* "might be": in case you haven't noticed, it's on the internet, so J.L. could just as easily be a dog and we'd never know.

I refuse to comment on this.:lol:

I think he might be a prairie dog. :lol:

Let's go with sheepdog.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

kparker wrote:

* "might be": in case you haven't noticed, it's on the internet, so J.L. could just as easily be a dog and we'd never know.

I refuse to comment on this.:lol:

I think he might be a prairie dog. :lol:

Let's go with sheepdog.

Hog Dog?:lol:

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

kparker wrote:

* "might be": in case you haven't noticed, it's on the internet, so J.L. could just as easily be a dog and we'd never know.

I refuse to comment on this.:lol:

I think he might be a prairie dog. :lol:

Let's go with sheepdog.

Does that mean we call you Phil or Ralph?

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:
No differenceand I'm not against training the teachers. I'm against the cops saying the teachersmust have training. The state and/or the school board get to decide on training, not the cops. Cops get to enforce the law, not make it. Which is a good thing because most cop inspired laws or interpretation of law infringe on citizens rights (hence this officer safety crap that ignores the Constitution). I think that an armed teacher without training is a bigger deterrent than an unarmed teacher in a gun free zone every time, no contest.

I'm certainly not dictating anything here,just stating what I feel is prudent and reasonable. I have a very good feeling that most here would agree with it as well.

As for Officer safety, ya I want to stay safe as much as you do.Isn't that why YOU carry a gun in the first place, to stay safe? I take enough risks on the job without having to be subjected to one's that can be prevented.

I have stepped upcountless times and placed myself in extreme danger for people I don't even know, and I willalwaysdo so, even for you Bear.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:
No differenceand I'm not against training the teachers. I'm against the cops saying the teachersmust have training. The state and/or the school board get to decide on training, not the cops. Cops get to enforce the law, not make it. Which is a good thing because most cop inspired laws or interpretation of law infringe on citizens rights (hence this officer safety crap that ignores the Constitution). I think that an armed teacher without training is a bigger deterrent than an unarmed teacher in a gun free zone every time, no contest.

I have stepped upcountless times and placed myself in extreme danger for people I don't even know, and I willalwaysdo so, even for you Bear.

And for that we thank you. ( Or at least I do. )

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:
No differenceand I'm not against training the teachers. I'm against the cops saying the teachersmust have training. The state and/or the school board get to decide on training, not the cops. Cops get to enforce the law, not make it. Which is a good thing because most cop inspired laws or interpretation of law infringe on citizens rights (hence this officer safety crap that ignores the Constitution). I think that an armed teacher without training is a bigger deterrent than an unarmed teacher in a gun free zone every time, no contest.

I'm certainly not dictating anything here,just stating what I feel is prudent and reasonable. I have a very good feeling that most here would agree with it as well.

As for Officer safety, ya I want to stay safe as much as you do.Isn't that why YOU carry a gun in the first place, to stay safe? I take enough risks on the job without having to be subjected to one's that can be prevented.

I have stepped upcountless times and placed myself in extreme danger for people I don't even know, and I willalwaysdo so, even for you Bear.

OK. I just don't like my Constitutional Rights stepped on for any reason, they are suppose to come first to all else.

 

[3/325]

imported post

I would support the idea of requiring teachers to be trained if they choose to carry. The details of that training are debatable, but it should include safe handling, proper shooting, and at least a few scenarios. You can't train for every little situation, but you can make training broad enough where people can effectively improvise in a real time situation.

We don't send soldiers into combat without the basics. If we're serious about protecting our children then we should not only arm the faculty, we should hedge our bets by giving them some decent training as well.

And I'm not talking about playing beauracratic games where the training is deliberately made so difficult or confusing that no one can pass. I'm talking about "Thanks for volunteering to ensure the safety of our kids, let's get you some training so you're not completely useless or ironically dangerous in an emergency."

The right of carrying a firearm comes with the responsibility of getting an education in the proper handling of it; we all know this. True, it's not a government-mandated responsibility, but then my job doesn't involve being amid hundreds of children 5 days a week. I see no reason why teachers who volunteer to carry shouldn't get training focused on proper (and tactical) firearm handling in a school environment.

 

[Bookman]

imported post

3/325 wrote:

The right of carrying a firearm comes with the responsibility of getting an education in the proper handling of it; we all know this. True, it's not a government-mandated responsibility, but then my job doesn't involve being amid hundreds of children 5 days a week. I see no reason why teachers who volunteer to carry shouldn't get training focused on proper (and tactical) firearm handling in a school environment.

Well said!

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

OK, first off I never said they shouldn't be trained, but it isn't up to any policeman or agency to dictate that training. The training level would be up to the State of Texas for the teachers to have a CPL and the School board for any additional training required. But I still say that an untrained armed teacher is a bigger deterrent than an unarmed teacher in a gun free school zone.

 

[3/325]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

OK, first off I never said they shouldn't be trained, but it isn't up to any policeman or agency to dictate that training. The training level would be up to the State of Texas for the teachers to have a CPL and the School board for any additional training required. But I still say that an untrained armed teacher is a bigger deterrent than an unarmed teacher in a gun free school zone.

I wasn't singling anyone out for rebuttal, those were just my thoughts on the topic. And I agree that a faculty advertised as armed (gotta get the word out) is a far greater deterrent than any GFZ sign posted on the front door, whether or not they are trained.

As for the training standards, I think a school board should have some input but it seems a better idea to establish a core program at the state level. Too many school boards are composed entirely of morons (people who get their "gun education" from movies). Not all of them, mind you, but too many of them. I would rather see some tactical experts develop a very basic, very solid training course tailored to the specific needs of operating defensively in a school. The course should have some flexibility, allowing it to be further customized to a particular school.



Frankly, I'm just happy to see things moving in the right direction.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

3/325 wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

OK, first off I never said they shouldn't be trained, but it isn't up to any policeman or agency to dictate that training. The training level would be up to the State of Texas for the teachers to have a CPL and the School board for any additional training required. But I still say that an untrained armed teacher is a bigger deterrent than an unarmed teacher in a gun free school zone.

I wasn't singling anyone out for rebuttal, those were just my thoughts on the topic. And I agree that a faculty advertised as armed (gotta get the word out) is a far greater deterrent than any GFZ sign posted on the front door, whether or not they are trained.

As for the training standards, I think a school board should have some input but it seems a better idea to establish a core program at the state level. Too many school boards are composed entirely of morons (people who get their "gun education" from movies). Not all of them, mind you, but too many of them. I would rather see some tactical experts develop a very basic, very solid training course tailored to the specific needs of operating defensively in a school. The course should have some flexibility, allowing it to be further customized to a particular school.



Frankly, I'm just happy to see things moving in the right direction.

With as many Liberals in State government and the Legislature, even in Texas, I doubt that will ever happen until the Dems truly drop their anti 2nd Amendment assualt. Its not just school boards, it's pretty much any government agency, elected or not.

 

[trevorthebusdriver]

imported post

Now when are they gonna let us bus drivers carry? We're not even supposed to get out of our seats, just sit there and get beat up and wait for a Metro Sheriff to show up if we have managed to hit the emergency button while being attacked....

 

[marshaul]

imported post

It's really quite simple.

Instead of legally requiring teachers to be trained by some arbitrary standard before they get to carry a gun, they should be trained in the use of firearms as part of their education to become certified as a teacher, to a standard agreed upon by those who determine the standards by which teachers are trained -- whether they choose to carry or not.

They end result may appear the same, but it's the difference between creating new regulatory restrictions and incorporating additional training into that which every teacher must already receive.

If teachers are to be responsible for your (not my!) kids' education, they should be responsible for their safety in the classroom as well. (Oh, wait, they already are, except when a gunman tries to kill them). Not only would this set a good example, it's only prudent.

 

[neddis]

imported post

Instead of legally requiring teachers to be trained by some arbitrary standard before they get to carry a gun, they should be trained in the use of firearms as part of their education to become certified as a teacher, to a standard agreed upon by those who determine the standards by which teachers are trained -- whether they choose to carry or not.

I think this is going a little far. There is already too much bureaucratic crap to learn in teacher preparation programs. You have to know that if this kind of training was required, it would just become another bureaucratic nightmare in becoming a teacher. there are already enough of those. I am a teacher - I have had to jump through all the stupid regulatory loops - BUT, that is a topic for a different day.

I did a happy dance when I read this article. I don't ever expect the superintendent of my district to allow this (he is a people-pleaser and too concerned about his reputation), but it is good that finally somebody in charge grew a freakin brain. We can only hope that this kind of thing starts to sprout up in other districts since the ground has been broken in Texas.

I totally agree that they should have some sort of crisis training if they are going to carry at school. I think it would be neat to have a condensed version of some of the elements of LEO training.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Well, personally, I'm not too fond of modern public education. After all, I am a product of it.

But, if the state is going to legally require me to place my child into the care of a single individual for the duration of a class, that individual had damn well better be able to take responsibility for their safety while I'm unable to. Bureaucracy be damned; if it's too much, maybe the requirements should be loosened elsewhere.

 

[3/325]

imported post

I just noticed that you're in Fairfax Co. I graduated from Lee H.S. in Springfield!

I agree with getting teachers some good, quality training. The most effective kind comes when beauracracy is indeed damned and thwarted and altogether dispensed with.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

As long as the teachers receive some good training to go with their guns. Otherwise youmay have an armed adult potentially attempting to shoot at a bg amongst a room or hall filled with screaming, panicking kids, running every direction. Very similar to taking a shot in a mall full of people. They best know what the hell they are doing, or it could end in disaster via "friendly fire" and as we all know friendly fire, isn't.

I agree. I would much prefer my child be gunned down by a psycho student while the police, in full body armor, with scoped rifles and all their advanced CQB training hide behind their cars on the outside edge of the parking lot for up to half an hour after the shooting stops, rather than worry about my child getting accidentally shot by a teacher who has only had enough training to obtain their CCW, who is already in the school and who is just as much at risk of getting shot as my child and who therefore has a vested and immediate interest in taking out the bad guy. Good thing they didn't have armed teachers like that at Columbine or the Amish school or VT otherwise more than 50 people may have been killed and another 50 injured through those events in the crippling friendly cross-fire. Oh wait ... :what:

Seriously though, I know what you are saying Johnny Law, however, given LE's track record with such shooting events, I think the risk of death or injury from an armed teacher rather than from the armed assailant if the worse happened in a particular school is at worst a break even proposition. Hopefully it would never come to that because the very fact that there are armed teachers would serve as a deterrent and the BGs would just go find a school in IL instead. While I certainly would like it if armed teachers were willing to take advanced handgun classes including some CQC training as I would hope that every American who chooses to carry a firearm would choose to obtain more than any minimum training required, I still think that a single armed teacher with basic handgun proficiency and a vested interest in survival inside the school when something went down is far preferable to 100 armed, highly trained professionals outside the school ten minutes after the shooting starts.