Arming Teachers in School - Good Idea? Bad Idea?

[Roadkill]

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.

rk

 

[El Kabong]

The students already have firearms in school, why not the teachers too?




P.S. I'm a teacher.

 

[dairycreek]

I was a school administrator for 30 years!

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

 

[LASur5r]

Sort of like doctors

Howdy Werewolf,
I know on the visceral part...it 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 terrorists....you'll need good people with the right firepower to protect the schools and our kids. I wouldn't want rank amateurs fighting that battle.

 

[DougCxx]

"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.
~

 

[Truman]

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]

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]

Behold the common sense from Minnesota! Series 70, I salute you!

 

[Tharg]

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.

bah
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...

J/Tharg!

 

[TheDutchman]

hell no

 

[RangerHAAF]

Just a matter of time

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.

 

[bfieldburt]

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 gun...now 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]

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]

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.

 

[mcooper]

How about letting us college students CCW at college?

 

[GEM]

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.

 

[mcooper]

GEM,

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]

Werewolf,
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.

-Jim