Arming Teachers in School - Good Idea? Bad Idea?


September 20, 2004, 10:52 AM
This thread:

Wordy and Confusing ( got my attention.

My first thoughts were darn skippy - teachers should be armed. BUT after a bit I transferred control of my thought processes from my heart to my brain and asked myself, "Do we really want to arm teachers in our schools? What are the advantages? What are the disadvantages?"

Tough questions that I think warrant some discussion.

First off think about who we are talking about arming. Teachers. It would seem to me that anyone who would choose to be a teacher of young children would not likely have the mind set necessary to take on armed invaders of a school. This proposition IMO would be less valid at the university level.

Arming folks not temperamentally suited to taking a life or even fighting back would cause many more problems than it would solve.

Armed teachers might be effective against the crazed teenager phenomenon or single madman invader though I have my doubts.

However, armed teachers against a group of terrorists is a losing proposition guaranteed to assure the deaths of the teachers and lots of students IMO for previously stated reasons.

Of course if terrorist response teams (made up of school personnel) were formed, armed and adequately trained that would be a different matter entirely. Training would have to be ongoing and drills would have to be held which involved not only the team but students as well - i.e. the students would have to be taught how to respond as well.

The odds of that happening are about as likely as the sun not coming up tomorrow.

So IMO arming teachers in our secondary and primary schools is not a good idea at all.

If you enjoyed reading about "Arming Teachers in School - Good Idea? Bad Idea?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
September 20, 2004, 11:12 AM
Your argument hinges on 2 points I don't really follow:

It would seem to me that anyone who would choose to be a teacher of young children would not likely have the mind set necessary to take on armed invaders of a school. I'm not sure where you got this idea. How does it necessarily follow that a person engaged in teaching children is incapable of handling the use of deadly force?

However, armed teachers against a group of terrorists is a losing proposition guaranteed to assure the deaths of the teachers and lots of students IMO for previously stated reasons. Yes, just because you have a pistol does not mean you can win against a team armed with AKs or whatever. The fallacy here is that you think every situation must be responded to with blazing guns. Sometimes, the situation may be that you are truly outgunned and need to wait for an opportunity, or wait for the pros. Teachers, as with all CCW holders, will be expected to use individual discretion and consider the consequences of their actions.

September 20, 2004, 11:13 AM
Possibly the solution is passive, rather than active, legislatively speaking.

Rather than order teachers to arm up, or get involved in the question at all, how about just lifting currently regulations preventing teachers from arming themselves?

That way, the people who are comfortable with firearms, and put out the effort to acquire firearms and CCW (where required) will have guns, and those disinclined will carry on with their happy little lives.

This would seem to require somewhat of a change of mindset for many areas of America. Perhaps if there were a mass killing in some American school, then that would change perceptions and... oh, wait, already happened and everybody called for _more_ gun control.

So, I'd sumbit that the ideal would be permitting CCW-holding teachers/employees to carry, without turning this into a TSA-esque bureaucratic boondoggling debacle. -MV

September 20, 2004, 11:15 AM
I believe anyone with concealed carry should be allowed to carry in a school. Simple as that.

September 20, 2004, 11:21 AM
Never happen. Its not in the teacher's union contract.

How much are you will to pay every teacher to carry?

September 20, 2004, 11:22 AM
Arming folks not temperamentally suited to taking a life or even fighting back would cause many more problems than it would solve.

Why would such a person be armed unless it was mandated somehow? I assume that any armed teacher would be so of their own volition.

I really don't see this as "tough" at all. Anyone who wants to be armed should be allowed to be so based on their fundamental right of self defense. The question is not one of arming teachers per se, but rather of the govt' recognizing an individual's said right of self defense and lifting current restrictions, per MV's comments.

September 20, 2004, 11:37 AM
However, armed teachers against a group of terrorists is a losing proposition guaranteed to assure the deaths of the teachers and lots of students IMO And unarmed teachers against a group of terrorists is not a losing proposition?

September 20, 2004, 12:00 PM
Arming folks who aren't temperamentally suited to a take life or fight back would cause more problems than it would solve.

Those who aren't inclinded to arm themselves won't be. To me it's about a personal choice rather than a mandate.

However armed teachers against a group of terroists is a losing proposition guaranteed to assure the death of teachers and lots of students.

Well, unarmed means they don't have a chance at all.:banghead: Most schrool systems have emergency lockdown procedures where students and teachers are locked in their classrooms until the all clear is sounded.
I don't think that anyone is advocating armed teachers form a skirmish line and take on terrorists head on. Rather what (we ?) I advocate, is giving teachers the option of being capable of defending the classroom and students should the locked door be breached by hostiles buying time for the cavalry to respond.

September 20, 2004, 12:13 PM
However, armed teachers against a group of terrorists is a losing proposition guaranteed to assure the deaths of the teachers and lots of students IMO for previously stated reasons.

And this is different from what happened in Russia with unarmed faculty how?

From my time in school, we tended to have two types of teachers. The liberal type and the retired military type. I know I'm simplifying, but I believe that allowing teachers (and qualified kids!) to be armed only gives more options. I knew teachers that would sacrifice their own life to protect their students against any threat, armed or not. I knew others that would be the first out the window/door.

Imagine the terrorist/colombine kid (same difference), coming through the door, bringing up the gun. Shots have already been fired. The teacher has already had the kids move desk to provide what shelter can be had, and the teacher is aiming at the door. Blaam, end of problem. Terrorists would be more difficult of course, as any multiple person scenario is. But four terrorists can do less than five. Combat is more difficult than a chicken shoot against unarmed, scared, civilians and kids.

Sure, it's not a panacea, but could it be any worse than the alternative? These spree killers and terrorists are able to hit schools unopposed. The only other solution is to post cops/guards. Alot of the time they aren't even armed! And cops can be ambushed.

Tom Servo
September 20, 2004, 12:14 PM
You're missing one important point. Whether or not individual teachers are inclined to use deadly force, and whether or not the ordinance in question is sufficient to stop a group of attackers, teachers would be able to put up resistance with potentially lethal force.

Those who would attack a school in an act of terrorism want a "soft" target. If teachers were armed, the terrorists would look for victims elsewhere. If I were a street thug with a handgun-rated kevlar vest, I'd still go after unarmed victims first. There's simply far less of a chance that something would go wrong. Bear in mind that terrorism is essentially an act of cowardice, and the victim-selection procedure for these types involves the least possible risk of harm or apprehension.

And I've taught in the classroom. I can tell you that most teachers wouldn't hesitate for a second to protect "their kids" if it came to that.

September 20, 2004, 12:15 PM
I was in an airport and was talking to a Vietnam Vet who was also an airline pilot. I brought up the whole arming the pilot thing and he while being very pro gun and CCW had this interesting perspective.

He said that he was not really for arming pilots. He said that I should meet some of the wackos that fly planes. He said it's the weirdos that worry him more than any terrorist. He said that The guys that really wanted it were some of the last guys that should have it.

Teachers are probably the same. I'm for giving people the option but the wackos make me nervous. I don't think any psycological screening can work.

Best case a teacher uses a gun to save lives and the antis still won't trust us.

Worst case teacher uses gun and the wrong lives are lost and all gun owners get screwed.

tough call.


September 20, 2004, 02:32 PM
I was in an airport and was talking to a Vietnam Vet who was also an airline pilot. I brought up the whole arming the pilot thing and he while being very pro gun and CCW had this interesting perspective.

What did he do in SEA? How old did he seem to be?


Andrew Rothman
September 20, 2004, 02:44 PM
What MatthewVanitas said. Allow teachers (and principals and secretaries and lunch ladies and social workers and nurses and parents) the option of carrying legally.

Experience has shown that in the US, legal CCW saves lives. Why should it be any different in the schools?

September 20, 2004, 03:11 PM
Matt Payne asked:Experience has shown that in the US, legal CCW saves lives. Why should it be any different in the schools?Because schools aren't the streets. CCW works because it is an unknown and it involves one on one confrontations in many cases.

Remember Oleg's poster which prompted this thread implies that armed teachers could have thwarted the terrorist takeover of the school in Russia.

I say BS. At best an armed teacher could hunker down in a classroom behind a closed door and shoot any terrorist dumb enough to come thru the door or maybe two (they don't care if they die - at least the current crop doesn't anyway). What then - the terrorists take out the teacher and everyone else in the class room. But what makes anyone think a group of terrorists would pile thru a class room door when all they'd have to do is shoot out the window or blow open the door and toss in a couple of grenades.

Allowing CCW at schools might very well - probably would be IMO - be effective against whacked out students or the lone enraged madman.

Allowing CCW at schools as a counter to terrorists would be total folly against an armed group of terrorists. The only reason IMO that the death toll in Russia was so high is because of the cowboy attitude of the local cops, army and the recruited volunteers. They jumped the gun and caused the carnage. They did the same thing at that theatre a few years back. Russians don't give a crap about hostages. They don't negotiate unless they think it'll work. Otherwise they just go in and kill the suckers.

Imagining that a group of armed teachers acting in concert or alone could successfully resolve a terrorist hostage situation is pure unadulterated pink sky and blue bunny thinking IMO.

Andrew Rothman
September 20, 2004, 03:29 PM
The only reason IMO that the death toll in Russia was so high is because of the cowboy attitude of the local cops

Nope. The reason was that the terrorists wanted the death toll to be high.

CCW in the school, just like anywhere else, is not a panacea. But it's a damn sight better than doing nothing.

Ask the Israelis.

Oh, and one other idea: Teachers get paid extra to supervise after-school activities, to coach athletic teams and for having advanced degrees. It would be perfectly reasonable to pay teachers a bit extra for being on the school's armed defense squad. :D

September 20, 2004, 03:33 PM
School violence is not a new problem and frankly, I believe that a little analysis will show that is actually decreasing, while coverage increases.

I believe that "arming" anyone is a mistake. People should carry because they want to, not because they are forced to. Furthermore, IMHO, giving someone a gun is not "arming" them, it is making them carry a weapon and responsiblity, which they may or may not be capable of nor desirous of the duty it entails.

I also dislike the diea on the grounds of expertise. Engaging in a gunfight in a school will require a level of knowlede and skill that many will not have, nor want, and yes, that may include a number of law officers.

Old Dog
September 20, 2004, 04:01 PM
I agree with Sendec. I too oppose the concept of "arming" teachers. Lifting the ban on CCW for faculty and staff might be workable ... but requiring additional training for school staff who want to carry on campus should be required. Perhaps one armed teacher could prevent or minimize a Columbine-style attacks involving only one or two attackers ... But schools will always be soft targets ... without a hardened perimeter, restricted points of entry, 100% hands-on ID checks, X-ray machines, metal detectors, parking lots sufficient distance from the building, a large number of guards with longarms standing posts with no other responsibilities other than to be prepared for an attack, regular drilling of all students, faculty and staff ... the idea that armed teachers could prevent even a small group of determined terrorists from mass killings or taking over a school is ludicrous. Our well-trained military personnel presenting hard targets in Iraq have difficulty preventing even untrained insurgents from inflicting significant damage on our personnel, vehicles and buildings -- and they are proactively trying to prevent attacks and are prepared.

Series 70
September 20, 2004, 04:03 PM
I think it's common knowledge at this point that the enemy's end-game in such a situation would be to wait for a lot of media coverage, then kill everyone. They may negotiate for a short while to get everyone's hopes up, but I don't believe they really expect to survive a school takeover. Given that, they have no incentive to leave anyone alive.

So what could an armed teacher/staff member do? Take out a couple bad guys? Make a few more keep their heads down long enough for some kids to make it out the nearest window or door?

You're concerned kids could be hurt by return fire? I suppose so. They could also be hurt when the enemy commander gives the word to kill all the hostages, since the last satellite truck has just gone live.

I'd prefer a few armed teachers, even if they hadn't completed LFI IV, or Urban Rifle III at Thunder Ranch. They rules of engagement need to match the tactical realities of our current war.

We're not there yet.

September 20, 2004, 06:03 PM
If the teachers will actually go through real training, then I could see this working. A real, hands on, shoot the gun, have to have a certain accuracy.

I also think they should know how to not get the gun taken away from them. Also, maybe they could have a lock box that sent a signal to the office or P.D. when it was opened for the gun.

I noticed that a lot of the kids are bigger than teachers these days. At least where I went to school. And, that might be an issue, because that would make it too easy for a student to get a hold of a gun.

What about the fact that kids aren't going to try pull anything in school, because they know assorted teachers have guns. Right now, if you go to school, and you have a gun in your back pack, you know you are probably the only person with one, which makes you the most powerful person in there if you want to be.

September 20, 2004, 06:15 PM
I dont think they should arm teachers, but from the looks of the schools I live near (Los Angeles County), there needs to be an armed patrol from classroom to classroom. I know that the high schools have armed police officers, but there are only 2 or 3 officers and 3000+ students. I think we need to level the playing field.

Series 70
September 20, 2004, 06:18 PM
Teachers should be held to the same standards of skill with arms as the rest of the CCW holders. In some states, that's not much. In others, there are real standards. Retention techniques are an excellent idea, but why them and not everyone? If the students are so out of control that they will attempt to disarm the teacher, they should be in juvie, not school. If a kid is a bad egg, he has options for arming himself outside of school. If he tries to disarm a teacher, I expect he'd be piled-on by the kids not wanting him to have a gun.

Lock boxes? Right. So a teacher on hall monitor duty - likely among the first to know something was wrong - would have to race back to her classroom before being able to defend herself. Makes about as much sense to me as a hole in the head, which is what that teacher would likely get before getting the lock box open.

Again, the rules of engagement need to match the tactics of our enemy.

I have one kid in high school and one in middle school. I see no problem with any CCW holder being able to carry in school - teachers, staff, parents, whomever. In fact, our MN law being what it is at the moment, that's just the case. I don't expect that to last, but we should be able to point back at this period and say that nothing bad happened.

September 20, 2004, 06:18 PM
There was an incident i read a while back about a teacher<?> getting in trouble because an armed student had entered the school and was doing something - can't remember if he was shooting people or threatening to.

Either way, the teacher<?> had gone back to his car to retrieve his firearm and returned to the school and took care of the situation. I don't think he had to fire a shot - just had to show determination to act.

As i recall he got fired or suspended or something - maybe someone knows where the article could be located.

I think that should a teacher/staff member of the school wish to obtain a CCW, and is grated one. They they should be able to carry just about anywhere. Not "open carry" not "we armed our teachers" AP reports... just the knowlege that ANY one in that school that could obtain a CCW could be carrying. (and i think thats more of a deterrent than we armed a bunch of people that really didn't want to be armed and prolly can't effectively use thier weapon anyway)

I will never ever understand not allowing a card carrying(ccw) lawful citizen to carry wherever he goes. Any time one declares someplace "gun free" what they are really saying is people who obey the law won't (normally) be carrying. This just tells me that people who don't desire to observe the law - will automatically think - cool - i'm prolly not gonna get shot at.

btw - the airplane thing. I call BS. The day i say a certain "wacko" can't or shouldn't be armed - i run the risk of being told i'm a wacko - and shouldn't be allowed to have one either. If the person can obtain a ccw, i don't care if his/her fellows don't care much for the guys/gals views/attitude. We entrust them to fly the plane (where its supposed to go) and to take off and land it... i certainly don't see how letting him obtain license and ablility to carry a gun makes him/her "more" dangerous than flying a jumbo jet. Still say seal the cockpit and sleep gas the cabin if "something goes down" would be the most effective means to retain control of the airplane. =) (we'd have to look REAL close to see if someone was trying to get on the airplane w/ gas masks... rofl)


September 20, 2004, 06:20 PM
Armed teachers are not unusual in Israel. The issue of basic constitutional competence is real. In this city, a substantial number of public school teachers lack the capacity to teach much less operate machinery. This may not be the case in the outlying suburbs that have grown up because of the need for quality school districts or the many private schools that promote basic education and a community of values.

September 20, 2004, 06:23 PM
I don't know what he flew but he flew during the war. He was in good shape but looked to be late 50's early 60's. I got the impression he flew during the 70's not the 60's. I think he mentioned that.

I was more interested in talking about flying now as I find it difficult to ask people about their war experiences as I have not served. The poor guy had to keep changing employers as different airlines went under.

He said he was still flying just because he loved to fly.


September 20, 2004, 06:42 PM
What would worry me would be giving guns to the ones who say things like "Well, if _I_ was carrying a concealed assault weapon, and someone cut me off in traffic, I just know that I'd unleash the bullet hose." I mean, I admire the fact that they admit that they've got anger control issues, but sheesh....

September 20, 2004, 07:02 PM
What kind of dope are ya'll smoking? Teachers? Guns? I've been working as a JROTC instructor for seven years in a 1,800 kid high school. There are 150 teachers, maybe 25 are male. This is the most anti gun collective group you will ever see. Never never happen. They can't even handle the stress of a might be real tornado drill. Ther are about five of us who ever have even handled a gun. The society of a teacher and guns do not mix.


El Kabong
September 20, 2004, 07:07 PM
The students already have firearms in school, why not the teachers too?


P.S. I'm a teacher.

September 20, 2004, 07:19 PM
Part of that time was spent as a school superintendent and part was as the Dean of Education in a teacher education university. I know teaching, teachers, and education close up and personal. There is research to show that certain personality "types" gravitate toward the profession of teaching. My personal experience would confirm that those who opt to teach are neither culturally nor psychologically likely to be either carriers or users of weapons. During my career in education I was always known as someone who liked/favored/used guns and, because of that, I was thought by many of my colleagues to be some kind of "nut"!

Of course there are always exceptions that prove the rule. But, as a general statement depending on weapon carrying teachers as some kind of defense strategy is IMHO not going to be very productive. Good shooting;)

September 20, 2004, 07:50 PM
Howdy Werewolf,
I know on the visceral sounds like a good idea, but I think the LAPD has the right idea...just put several "trained" individuals with good radios/cell phones with a direct link into police headquarters.

To me, it's like doctors...their main training and focus in life is to save people...kind of hard for some of them to kill someone.

Of course, when the stuff hits the fan, that's the real determiner of who can and will do it. I remember when the baloon went up in 'Nam...some of the guys couldn't get themselves to do what needed to be done.

Nothing against the troops, but when you need every swinging D*ck to fire against all boarders especially when they are trying their best to overrun your camp... who knows....we even had a Conscientious Objecter pick up a weapon and got on the firing line. I guess when your life is personally on the line...some will fight to save their life....some won't (shrug)....

Of course, you don't want to find out when the stuff hits the fan, but there you go. Against a determined, trained'll need good people with the right firepower to protect the schools and our kids. I wouldn't want rank amateurs fighting that battle.

September 20, 2004, 08:17 PM
"A school" covers a lot of different things. I was in the "big city" of St Louis one day, passing by a high school as it let out--and there were six or eight police cars aitting around running their lights, police standing out everywhere, a few on each corner. I got down the road a comple miles to my intended destination and asked the business owner "what was going on over at the high school", and he says "what do you mean?" and I says "well there's police everywhere", and he just goes on with what he was doing and says "It's three o'clock. They always have those police there when the school lets out...".....
I live in the suburbs/rural part of IL, I had never seen such a thing. Certainly not at my 2000-student high-school. Officers removing a student from school premises was gigantic news, it rarely ever happened. The only times police usually came to my high school was if there was a big football game, or the prom--and then it was just to help conduct traffic in and out of the main parking lot.
So when I think of teachers packing guns, I assume it's to protect the students--but that might not be the case everywhere. Without any clearly-defined enemy, it might be confusing to the students exactly why the treachers are armed.
I also think that to require teachers to carry who really do not wish to would be a disaster sooner or later, even in the case of outside intruders.
Kind of like drafted soldiers vs. volunteers; either way puts somebody armed on the line, but there's a HUGE difference in their mindsets.

September 20, 2004, 08:41 PM
I say "make it legal", or rather, "keep it from being illegal - since self-defense is our right as Americans!", but don't mandate it, and certainly don't release the list of people who carry or don't. That way, the bad guys don't know when they're safe or not. Kind of like real life - in the good states, anyway.

Series 70
September 20, 2004, 11:17 PM
Right. Just eliminate the gun-free school zone. If a teacher wants to carry at school, fine. If a counsellor wants to carry, fine. If a parent coming to watch his kid in the fourth-grade play wants to carry, fine.

No one should be required to carry, just as no one should be prohibited from carrying. If most teachers are anti and would never think about carrying, maybe you'll get one who will. Or maybe the custodian.

I think the most important effect will be that schools will not be known as gun-free criminal safety zones. There might be one armed staff member, there may be none, there may be five. The bad guys will not know.

Andrew Rothman
September 20, 2004, 11:56 PM
Behold the common sense from Minnesota! Series 70, I salute you!

September 21, 2004, 04:39 AM
lets revise...

ok - my POINT was that a "gun free zone" SHOULD equal a gun free zone... for those who aren't licensed to carry. (aka - anyone who doesn't have a permit to carry) Thus those that DO have a weapon on school property that shouldn't be get procecuted properly. In Texas its illegal to carry your CCW onto school property.... why i don't understand.. a lawfully licensed person should be able to carry wherever.

Thus the few teachers/coaches what not that have CCW should be able to carry where they work .. they are already licensed to carry in public - why can't they carry where there expertise/knowledge would be usefull ... AKA where people don't expect armed opposition. Where they can do the most good.. because the "average" teacher according to posts above wouldn't be the "type" to take care of the situation.

IF i were a teacher... i'd never understand why the state could give me a CCW - .... but not allow me to protect my workplace...


September 21, 2004, 08:21 AM
hell no

September 21, 2004, 08:32 AM
Teachers can and should be authorized to carry concealed weapons. This is a remedy that can only be enacted on the state legislative level. Some states will favor arming teachers(Utah, Georgia and Texas) while others(New York, California and New Jersey) will increase police and security guard presence in their schools. The first option will be easier and cheaper to implement while the 2nd option will truly turn schools in those states into fortresses.

America has changed a lot between Columbine and 9/11. Teenage suicidal killers don't care who their victims are; metal detectors can be avoided and weapons can be hidden near school grounds until they are ready to be used.

We are maybe 1-2 incidents away from having to arm teachers. If what happened in Russia happened here there would be no question of arming teachers but for now we have the luxury of debating the pros and cons of the effects on students. When a real attack happens there's gonna be a lot of blaming and lawsuits flying but the end result will be having to arm teachers and parents who are willing to defend our children. That's where we're headed.

September 21, 2004, 12:32 PM
A few comments:

1) Remember, the antis are never talking about a terrorist take-over scenario. They just don't want potentially dangerous teachers with firearms. And anyone with a gun, automatically, because they have a gun, is dangerous in their minds. This is consistent with their overall we-are-the-enemy, blame America and Americans first attitudes. The antis always say something like, "Well, what if a teacher goes nuts..and shoots up the kids. Kids and guns don't mix."

This is classic 'projection' and says more about the unstable nature of the person who would say this than kids and guns in school. The simple reply would be something like: "If you think that your kid's teachers are actually capable of killing your kids, then why would you EVER put your kids in their care."

Now back to the terrorist scenario. The next point has already been made and it's a good one:

2) the endgame for terrorist is to KILL EVERYONE.

So the risk of a teacher being a danger (missing the bad guys and hitting a kid or something) is negligible. Terrorists killing everyone being about as bad as it can get, there is no risk or danger of an armed teacher making it worse. Terrorist: "Darn, I was going to be nice and let everyone go and surrender. But now, because a teacher tried to resist us with a I'm mad. And now I'm going to have to kill everyone." Of course this idea is ridiculous.

The logic now being firmly established, teachers with guns in a terrorist takeover scenario can never make the situation worse only potentially better. Remember, terrorist are bullies. Bullies prosper in exact measure to a lack of resistance to those they are bullying. In a terrorist scenario, some resistance is always better than no resistance because no resistance leads to everyone being dead.

General comment. The entire 'kids and guns'...'guns and schools' argument is based on "false parallelism"(watch for this in most leftist rhetoric). In creates false disaster visions in a listeners' minds. Always, the way to combat false parallelism is to first, point out the falseness of the parallelism, then correct the parallelism with a proper comparison.

For example, a good response to "Kids and guns don't mix", would be something like, "I care about my kids enough not to leave them unprotected". This points out the reality-based parallel that the antis are creating....

kids+no guns=unprotected, vulnerable children.

Then, now that the false parallel has been point out, you follow it up with a proper parallel. Something like, "Sorry, but I just think that dead bad guys equals the restoration of happy, safe classrooms. And it kinda scares me that you want to leave terroristic killers in control of our kids."

armed terrorists+no resistance=you agreeing to leave murders in control of our little children.

Now of course this won't convert anyone who is so far gone that they are pushing stupid victim disarmorment stuff, but it will reestablish operation control of the debate and help others who might be listening--many of which might be undecided on the issue--to see things in their proper light.

Guns in schools=safer kids.

Enough said.

Car Knocker
September 21, 2004, 12:53 PM
Series 70,

That's exactly the way it works in Utah. The legislature did not define schools as prohibited areas, school districts promulgated policy that says the employee carrier is liable and not the district and that the employee is not to advertise they're carrying (don't ask, don't tell).

Series 70
September 21, 2004, 01:49 PM
That's the way it used to be in MN, and is again thanks to ongoing court cases. Since the ruling that changed things for us, I've carried into two schools several times each.

I didn't think about shooting children.

Not even once.

Not only that - no one knew I was armed.

Once our legal situation gets sorted out, I have every confidence that I will once again be prohibited from carrying in schools. It should not take another atrocity in the US for people to see reality, but it probably will.

September 21, 2004, 03:30 PM
How about letting us college students CCW at college?

September 21, 2004, 04:52 PM
I'm not going to bother to read the whole thread, so I apologize if I miss something or restate something.

First, I teach. Second, I am fairly well trained for the average teacher. I've been to the NTI and have been an active shooter in a school training situation. Thus:

1. One person against a team of terrorists is not a good situation. However, one person acting aggressively and violently can disrupt a plan.

2. One person could stop the Columbine kids.

3. Teachers have the right to protect themselves. Thus, CCW bans on teachers, to me, are unconstitutional and immoral.

4. Officially armed teachers are not a good idea IMHO. They will becomes pseudo-cops and we are not cops. I don't want to be called into some kiddie brawl because I'm the armed teacher. Let the school cops do that.
Also, I want no part of the liability unless acting in a life or death situation.

About teachers not being up to carry, you would be surprised to know that in my institution, the percent of staff with permits is almost the same as the general population.

I can point to several teachers who have asked me for info about training and guns.

Now, I'm in TX and lived in OR also. Maybe NYC won't be like that - but I've lived there also and freed from the Sullivan law, those folks would 'gun' up also.

Bottom line, let teachers carry. Of course, a Glock 19 against a 10 man terrorist squad is a bad situation. A Glock 19 at Columbine could have been a win.

September 21, 2004, 06:07 PM

I see your points, I belief that responsible college students should not only have CCW but should be able to carry on campus. It could stop an attempted columbine, and IF terrorists chose to attack a college one glock 19 (or hypothetically in my case an XD9) and it's owner might not beable to do that much, but I feel that that person could bring down one or two or maybe more terrorists before he or she had to bug out or got incapacitated. And as you say, that could disrupt their plans.

Of course CCW for 18 and up seems unlikely even in Ms, much less while on campus

I am also fo rallowing teachers to Carry at school.

Eskimo Jim
September 21, 2004, 06:54 PM
I believe that firearms should be allowed in schools by those duly licensed if they wish. The only person who is obeying a 'gun free zone' sign and statute is the law abiding citizen that has neither the desire or inclination to break the law. Sure one armed person in a school might not be able to end a large scale assault ala the recent events in Russia, however like others have said, it could probably disolve a Columbine type terror spree. At least give the teachers and school employees the choice to defend themselves and their students and allow them the tools they need.

If someone doesn't have the mindset to use a tool to defend themselves then they shouldn't carry a firearm.

That being said, if someone isn't willing to protect the minors that they are entrusted with, then I'd question their suitability to be charged with such an important responsibility.

In my opinion, once you turn 18 you are recognized as a citizen of the US and therefore should be entitled to all enjoyment, responsibilities, rights, consequences and priviledges that you are entitled to under the laws of the lands. Therefore, you get your rights to the laws of the land recognized in their entirety.


If you enjoyed reading about "Arming Teachers in School - Good Idea? Bad Idea?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!