These Teachers Are Learning Gun Skills To Protect Students, They Say

[Aim1]

For all of those folks who say teachers shouldn't or don't want to be responsible for protecting themselves and their students. I completely agree if a teacher doesn't want to, but a teacher shouldn't be stopped from doing it if they want to.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017...teachers-get-gun-training-as-first-responders

These Teachers Are Learning Gun Skills To Protect Students, They Say

June 25, 20178:06 AM ET Heard on Weekend Edition Sunday

"I don't have any children of my own," says Kelly Blake, "so these students are my children." Blake is an agricultural education teacher at Fleming School in Colorado's eastern plains. She says she attended the advanced training, learning shooting accuracy, efficiency and gun safety, because she wants to make sure her students are "protected at all times."

 

[Sunray]

Is CCW not illegal in a Colorado school?
As in: "2. Any property of public school grades kindergarten through 12, unless the firearm remains inside a container in a locked vehicle."
https://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Doesn't U.S. Federal law say that too?

 

[dogtown tom]

Is CCW not illegal in a Colorado school?
As in: "2. Any property of public school grades kindergarten through 12, unless the firearm remains inside a container in a locked vehicle."
https://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Doesn't U.S. Federal law say that too?

No & no.

 

[Elkins45]

So typical of an NPR story to doubt their sincerity in the headline.

"They say"

Wonder it "they say" ever appears in a headline about some of the many faux 'gun safety' groups they pimp for?

From the article it is clear some of them are already carrying in schools. I curious how CO laws are written to allow that.

 

[Walkalong]

Very cool stuff. Good for them.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

This should be available in every school across the country.

Good for them.

 

[bannockburn]

These Teachers Are Learning Gun Skills To Protect Students

...and themselves, other teachers, school administrators, maintenance workers, visitors: anyone on school grounds during an armed attack.

Everyone there deserves to be "protected at all times".

 

[ontarget]

I agree that if a school staff member wants to carry and is willing to undergo whatever prescribed training is set forth, why not? When was the last time a mass shooting was perpetrated by a person with a CPL?

 

[hdwhit]

ontarget wrote:
...if a school staff member wants to carry and is willing to undergo whatever prescribed training is set forth,...

My concern is the adequacy of the "prescribed training".

I think we can all agree police officers get more training in the use of their firearms (both at the start and on a continuing basis) than citizen holders of a license to carry. Yet, we have repeatedly seen police officers in New York, Texas, California, etc. having made the decision that deadly force is required proceed to spray the scene with bullets - in Texas and New York even changing magazines and continuing to fire; striking stationary, unarmed suspects with fewer than 1 out of 5 bullets. Such performance is sufficient to call into question the adequacy of these officer's training.

A weekend training class - particularly if not accompanied by mandatory, periodic follow-up training - is probably not adequate to train someone who has never before been shot at themselves to engage an active shooter in the midst of an auditorium full of 250 children.

I doubt anyone involved is willing to invest the time and resources to provide - or receive - training appropriate to that environment. And that means we have to accept that fresh faced teacher in the picture in Post #1 is, when the moment comes, going to gun down some of her students along with the "bad guy". And that means we, as taxpayers, get to pay to write the checks to the slain childrens' families and to put the teacher out on disability because she now has a service-connected psychological disability.

 

[Kendahl]

My concern is the adequacy of the "prescribed training".

It's not a question of well trained versus poorly trained. It's a question of someone with at least some capability versus no one at all until the police arrive too late to save anyone. Sandy Hook was an example of how bad the latter can get.

 

[k-mo]

So typical of an NPR story to doubt their sincerity in the headline.

"They say"

Wonder it "they say" ever appears in a headline about some of the many faux 'gun safety' groups they pimp for?

From the article it is clear some of them are already carrying in schools. I curious how CO laws are written to allow that.

Actually, NPR does use the phrase "they say" (or some facsimile thereof) in refrence to a multitude of organizations, and individuals, regardless of policital affiliation or stance on a given matter. It is a style choice that distances the reporter from the person(s) being reported on.

 

[k-mo]

My concern is the adequacy of the "prescribed training".

I think we can all agree police officers get more training in the use of their firearms (both at the start and on a continuing basis) than citizen holders of a license to carry. Yet, we have repeatedly seen police officers in New York, Texas, California, etc. having made the decision that deadly force is required proceed to spray the scene with bullets - in Texas and New York even changing magazines and continuing to fire; striking stationary, unarmed suspects with fewer than 1 out of 5 bullets. Such performance is sufficient to call into question the adequacy of these officer's training.

A weekend training class - particularly if not accompanied by mandatory, periodic follow-up training - is probably not adequate to train someone who has never before been shot at themselves to engage an active shooter in the midst of an auditorium full of 250 children.

I doubt anyone involved is willing to invest the time and resources to provide - or receive - training appropriate to that environment. And that means we have to accept that fresh faced teacher in the picture in Post #1 is, when the moment comes, going to gun down some of her students along with the "bad guy". And that means we, as taxpayers, get to pay to write the checks to the slain childrens' families and to put the teacher out on disability because she now has a service-connected psychological disability.

Agreed. I'm a teacher, and have gone through two rounds of full-day active shooter training. Even though I am far better prepared than I was prior to the training, I am still concerned that in an actual situation I could mistake an armed staff member for the shooter, or not see that a student was in the line of fire. There is also the concern that a responding LEO could mistake me for the shooter (this was a concen voiced by the LEOs running the training as well). At this time there is no requirement for such training, and no requirement for certification (proving that you paid attention in class) or annual review.

 

[PabloJ]

That is very kind of you and shows much dedication. By doing this you basically agreeing to doing two jobs a security detail and a teacher. Be sure to ask for a big raise I know I would.

 

[Hokkmike]

There was a local teacher (Pennsylvania) who before the hoopla regularly carried a little .38 revolver to school. He left it in his jacket pocket. One day it was stolen (presumably) by a student. He was disciplined in to a forced retirement. Another teacher, friend of mine, once pulled out his .38 revolver in the faculty room as part of a discussion on guns that we were having. It did not raise a single eyebrow from the (male) teachers who were sitting around. It was when faculty rooms were male or female. (how times have changed) When I was a young teacher, about 1976, I had a Smith & Wesson model 1500 (now Howa) deer rifle delivered to the school. The Principal asked me to bring it in to his office so that he could admire it and compare notes to his own hunting rifle. I kept it boxed and stored in my classroom closet until the end of the day when I took it home.

Can you imagine the fury and commotion these acts would precipitate today?!!

I am all for teachers carrying in school. I think two conditions must apply.

#1: Condition of carry must be concealed. This to avert meddling by students who may be too immature to respect or grasp the concept of the inherent danger of handling or grabbing somebody's gun. Also, I believe that if a bad-guy regards every teacher as a potential counter threat that he/she would not consider an intrusion where he/she does not belong.

#2: A class and regular (say every 5 years) refresher in shooting, gun safety, and handling should be mandatory. I say this to assuage public concern for student safety and offer a legal shield to teachers should they be required to employ their firearms. I think it advisable that administration keep a secret list of who is armed among the faculty and/or classified staff.

 

[1MoreFord]

It first became legal for teachers in private schools in Arkansas to carry. Now there is at least one municipal school district that is carrying. About time IMO.

 

[Hanzo581]

My concern is the adequacy of the "prescribed training".

I think we can all agree police officers get more training in the use of their firearms (both at the start and on a continuing basis) than citizen holders of a license to carry. Yet, we have repeatedly seen police officers in New York, Texas, California, etc. having made the decision that deadly force is required proceed to spray the scene with bullets - in Texas and New York even changing magazines and continuing to fire; striking stationary, unarmed suspects with fewer than 1 out of 5 bullets. Such performance is sufficient to call into question the adequacy of these officer's training.

A weekend training class - particularly if not accompanied by mandatory, periodic follow-up training - is probably not adequate to train someone who has never before been shot at themselves to engage an active shooter in the midst of an auditorium full of 250 children.

I doubt anyone involved is willing to invest the time and resources to provide - or receive - training appropriate to that environment. And that means we have to accept that fresh faced teacher in the picture in Post #1 is, when the moment comes, going to gun down some of her students along with the "bad guy". And that means we, as taxpayers, get to pay to write the checks to the slain childrens' families and to put the teacher out on disability because she now has a service-connected psychological disability.

There are a lot of CCW holders, and they carry in populated areas, are you saying these teachers are more likely to miss/shoot innocent bystanders than your average CCW holder? If that's true you're propagating the fear the anti's have of us that all we will do is get innocent people killed trying to "play hero".

 

[Demi-human]

We guard our money with bank vaults and firearms. Are our children different?

Yes they are. They are infinitely more precious.

 

[Hanzo581]

Agreed. I'm a teacher, and have gone through two rounds of full-day active shooter training. Even though I am far better prepared than I was prior to the training, I am still concerned that in an actual situation I could mistake an armed staff member for the shooter, or not see that a student was in the line of fire. There is also the concern that a responding LEO could mistake me for the shooter (this was a concen voiced by the LEOs running the training as well). At this time there is no requirement for such training, and no requirement for certification (proving that you paid attention in class) or annual review.

This argument applies to any public situation with a CCW holder. If you argue against the teachers being able to concealed carry, you are basically arguing against anyone carrying in public.

 

[k-mo]

This argument applies to any public situation with a CCW holder. If you argue against the teachers being able to concealed carry, you are basically arguing against anyone carrying in public.

I'm arguing for higher standards, not a prohibition of concelaled carry. The current minimum standard (of all U.S. states) is whoever can pass a background check, and can afford a handgun, can concealed carry. This is simply not good enough.

 

[Hanzo581]

I'm arguing for higher standards, not a prohibition of concelaled carry. The current minimum standard (of all U.S. states) is whoever can pass a background check, and can afford a handgun, can concealed carry. This is simply not good enough.

I've gone down this path, it's a slippery slope. You're putting an arbitrary requirement on a constitutional right. Should they have to be trained to carry a gun? I don't know, who sets the standards? The same government that would rather us not carry? What if you can't afford the training? Does that negate your right to protect yourself?

 

[dogtown tom]

I'm arguing for higher standards, not a prohibition of concelaled carry. The current minimum standard (of all U.S. states) is whoever can pass a background check, and can afford a handgun, can concealed carry. This is simply not good enough.

<---Teacher btw

So what higher standards or training requirements do you think evildoers should have to meet in order to carry a firearm?

 

[.308 Norma]

The current minimum standard (of all U.S. states) is whoever can pass a background check, and can afford a handgun, can concealed carry. This is simply not good enough.

I usually don't get involved in discussions like this, but everything about that statement is patently false, k-mo:
1. "The current minimum standard (of all U.S. states) is whoever can pass a background check," - Have you ever heard the term "Constitutional Carry?" No background check or permit/license required my friend, like it or not. Besides, I'm pretty sure there are states, New York, California, and New Jersey perhaps, that have minimum standards that go way beyond background checks before they issue concealed carry permits/licenses. Maybe you'd feel more comfortable living in one of those states.
2. "and can afford a handgun," - What on earth would being able to "afford a handgun" have to do any state's "minimum standard" for concealed carry?
3. "This is simply not good enough." It might not be "good enough" for you, but it's good enough for a lot, if not all, true 2nd Amendment supporters.

 

[Demi-human]

I fail to see how a teacher can be good enough to be with my children for eight hours a day, teach them points of view of the world different than my own, and yet too irresponsible to protect them in an emergency. The emergency we are all discussing, an "active shooter event", were the sole goal is to kill as many innocent children and teachers as possible.
With all the background checks a human must go through to be considered for a teaching position in the first place, it seems to this one that these humans should be the forefront of possible concealed carriers in a school.

Has logic failed me somehow? What is it that I am 'missing' about teachers? I realize times have changed dramatically since my Grandmother taught third grade.

 

[.308 Norma]

Has logic failed me somehow? What is it that I am 'missing' about teachers?

Naw, Demi-human, I don't think logic has failed you at all. But I also don't think it's just about background checks. I do think we have to consider training for teachers who want to carry guns in school, but how much, and what kind of training - I have no idea.
The thing is, in 2014, here in Idaho the legislature passed a law allowing on-campus concealed carry at Idaho's universities and colleges. Less than six months later, a teacher at nearby Idaho State University shot himself in the foot during class.
Now it would be real easy for the antis to say, "See there! We told you so! Teachers need the same amount of training as Law Enforcement Officers before they're allowed to carry guns." And the antis would probably be purposely forgetting about our own Bannock County Sheriff (Loren Neilson) who shot himself in the hand in his own front yard back in 2010.
Anyway, sorry about the rant. I'm just trying to say I don't know. But I do know your logic is not flawed, much less failed.

 

[c1ogden]

I agree with hdwhit who is concerned about the adequacy of the training. Kendahl thinks that any capability is better than none but as hdwhit points out we have many examples of (generally) higher trained and psychologically screened LEOs panicking and messing up under such pressure. This will come down to the individual's inherent abilities and the level of his/her training. Psychological screening should be the first test for any teacher wanting to carry, just like it is for cops.


k-mo says "Agreed. I'm a teacher, and have gone through two rounds of full-day active shooter training. Even though I am far better prepared than I was prior to the training, I am still concerned that in an actual situation I could mistake an armed staff member for the shooter, or not see that a student was in the line of fire. There is also the concern that a responding LEO could mistake me for the shooter (this was a concern voiced by the LEOs running the training as well)."

There is always that possibility and something that we have been training our cops to avoid for decades now but we still have blue-on-blue shootings several times per year. The risk will always be there but its a risk we have to take.


Hokkmike said "A class and regular (say every 5 years) refresher in shooting, gun safety, and handling should be mandatory. I say this to assuage public concern for student safety and offer a legal shield to teachers should they be required to employ their firearms. I think it advisable that administration keep a secret list of who is armed among the faculty and/or classified staff."

I don't think that's nearly enough training.


Hanzo581 said "There are a lot of CCW holders, and they carry in populated areas, are you saying these teachers are more likely to miss/shoot innocent bystanders than your average CCW holder? If that's true you're propagating the fear the anti's have of us that all we will do is get innocent people killed trying to "play hero"."

Actually they probably are more likely. We've seen (presumably) highly trained LEOs do just that, to dismiss the possibility of a barely trained teacher doing the same thing would be irresponsible. However, Hanzo speaks of two (typically) very different situations. Most self defense shootings take place fairly empty environments, usually only the victim and bad guy in the immediate area, so very few (if any) innocents in the area to be hit accidentally. A school environment is very densely populated and many lines of fire on the bad guys will typically include one or more innocents. Air marshals face the same problems, very closely crowded innocents surrounding the bad guy. I've trained with a number of them and every single one I've seen has been an amazingly fast and accurate shooter. Many other officers in the classes could match them on speed but it was extremely rare to see anyone match their accuracy. This is what we need in our schools. I doubt we will ever get it but that shouldn't stop us from trying.


308 Norma says " I do think we have to consider training for teachers who want to carry guns in school, but how much, and what kind of training - I have no idea."

I agree on the training and based on 25 years of training cops I would suggest at least a week of basic training with 2 days refresher training at the beginning of the school year, again 1/3 of the way through the school year and again 2/3 of the way through the school year. Considering their densely populated operating environment I would consider this a bare minimum.