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

[Steel Horse Rider]

I work in a number of Colorado school districts as well as a number of Colorado College Campuses. I would say that at least 25% of the teachers are capable of carrying, 40% of the maintenance personnel, and probably 80% of the athletic department personnel are capable of discernment in an armed situation in my opinion. Any protection is better than none when you measure the bottom line. Those on this forum who do not really buy into the Second Amendment always throw out the "accidental or wrong target" victims but do not apply the logic of how many would be lost with NO armed reaction. We do not celebrate the loss of innocent life but we should also realize that in a world impacted by evil that the loss can be reduced by the use of individual liberty as defined by natural law.

 

[Demi-human]

...but do not apply the logic of how many would be lost with NO armed reaction.

An excellent point, sir. Thoughtful and well made.

Thinking ourselves into helplessness saves no one. Fundamentally, laws save no one. Firearm free zones save no one. Action against evil is what saves children. Often, and after the fact, it is said " If there was just one other gun there it would not have been a massacre.".

I disagree with the relation to blue on blue shootings, made earlier. Officers are or can be involved in many, many violent encounters in their careers. More than the average concealed permit holder will ever encounter. It is the law of statistics that something in-fortuitous will happen. This is no reason to suggest that having another tool in which to thwart the horror of a school attack, is somehow more dangerous than the attack. There is no perfect answer, we are imperfect humans.

These teachers are training, however slight, however 'not enough', but they are training. Hopefully for something that will never come to fruition again.

 

[mokin]

What I found interesting about the NPR article was how the reporter juxtaposed a situation in very rural eastern Colorado with an opinion form Denver. Many of the children in this state (outside of Denver) grow up around guns and for them it is no big deal. The teacher from Denver however, expressed concern as to how the presence of a firearm in the classroom may affect the children. I reckon more than one child can hug a person and recognize a pistol under a shirt and thinks nothing of it. On the other hand, many teachers in Denver might as well be in Seattle when it comes to opinions regarding firearms.

As far as carrying in classrooms, I've gone back and forth. I believe the persons who choose to attack schools are cowards and just the chance that they may meet armed resistance will dissuade many to choose softer targets. While firearms training is important, there are many other things a teacher will use on a regular basis where that time could be better spent.

 

[Demi-human]

I don't feel like a education on self preservation is a waste of time. Not just in the classroom could this be useful in their life.

 

[GAF]

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.

Your questions are exactly why there need to be a plan of action that is taught in school districts that allow school staff to be armed.

 

[dogtown tom]

I shake my head at some of the responses above regarding required training of schoolteachers to allow them to carry a firearm in the classroom.
How much training should be required? ZERO.......the Second Amendment doesn't get pushed aside because of a persons occupation. If the bad guys can carry guns without training or licensing, why impose such a restriction on teachers?

Before someone has a stroke while uttering "OMG the children!..." understand what I'm trying to convey:
1. Training in firearms is helpful, no one disagrees with that I would hope.
2. An understanding of your states laws concerning firearms and the use of deadly force is helpful.
3. The firearm skills and decision making of a teacher armed with a gun are exactly the same as a truck driver, a clerk at a liquor store or a grandpa walking the dog. How many hours of firearm instruction do you think should be required before they can carry a firearm?
4. Teachers aren't police officers. If you want me to have the skills of a police officer then pay me to acquire them and pay me to keep them. Taxpayers won't relish that idea.

What I prefer to happen:
1. Who can carry- Let any teacher who wants to carry in the classroom do so. Period. They should be made aware of the risks, liability and consequences of being armed in the classroom. Every school district in the country has training on safety and security matters and this could easily be added. It doesn't take two weeks to tell a teacher "hey, you gonna carry? Keep your gun secure and don't shoot the good guys".

2. Risk and liability- School districts are rightfully terrified of their financial liability if a student or staff member is wounded or killed by a teacher accidently, negligently or by "friendly fire"...........so grant school districts immunity from the actions of their TRAINED employees or provide liability insurance.
Similarly, a teacher who goes through a training course should receive similar immunity when using a firearm to defend their life or their students.

3. Training- The more the better, but teachers aren't police officers. The number of inservice or professional development hours that a teacher must complete each year doesn't make teachers jump with joy as it is. Adding a week of firearms training? Get real. Who the heck is going to pay for that? I work in a district with 7,000 employees. Do you think the taxpayers would embrace a week spent on something not job related? How about one or two days? Better, but unlikely. Give an incentive for those teachers to seek additional training.

4. Reality- School shootings are rare. VERY rare. Keep that in mind. The incidence of deaths in school shootings is less than deaths caused by lightning strikes......way less than one per week in the U.S. http://www.factcheck.org/2014/06/spinning-statistics-on-school-shootings/ and http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml

 

[k-mo]

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.

1. If you can't pass a background chack you can't buy from a FFL (granted, this is not the only way to become a firearms owner).
2. If you can't afford a handgun, you won't have one to carry unless you steal it. Therefor it is a prerequisite for being able to carry; eg. part of the minimum standard.
3. Backhanded ad-hominem attacks are not helpful to any discussion. Implying that I am not a 2nd Amendment supporter is an utterly false statement.

4. There are limits to most Constitutional rights. Rights are by their very nature defined by their limits, both in original language, and in legal precident. Take libel and slander laws as one example (remembering that all constitutional amendments are co-equal).

 

[hdwhit]

Kendahl wrote:
It's not a question of well trained versus poorly trained.

In point of fact, the adequacy of the training is a critical question.

An inadequately trained person who, for example, elects to engage an active shooter where the backdrop is a roomful of children can end up killing more people than the shooter.

At the end of the day, your poorly trained person who is not relevant to the equaltion, not only adds to the body count, but spends the rest of their live living with the guilt of having killed the children they were supposed to protect and spending the next several years in court dealing with the civil suits against the school district. Not to mention the increased tax burden on everyone in the district from the settlements of those civil suits.

Yeah, let's save a few bucks up front and scrimp on the training because this is really the outcome we all want.

 

[hdwhit]

dogtown tom wrote:
I shake my head at some of the responses above regarding required training of schoolteachers to allow them to carry a firearm in the classroom.
How much training should be required? ZERO.......the Second Amendment doesn't get pushed aside because of a persons occupation.

This isn't a Second Amendment issue.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on the issue of guns in schools and has allowed restrictions. The rest of the post is therefore irrelevant.

 

[hdwhit]

Hanzo581 wrote:
You're putting an arbitrary requirement on a constitutional right.

Not at all.

The Supreme Court already did that.

 

[hdwhit]

Demi-human wrote:
We guard our money with bank vaults

Yeah, but I bet those bank vaults weren't installed by someone who had only a weekend training class.

 

[dogtown tom]

This isn't a Second Amendment issue.

It sure as hell is a Second Amendment issue.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on the issue of guns in schools and has allowed restrictions. The rest of the post is therefore irrelevant.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that blacks born in the US weren't citizens, that "separate but equal" was perfectly fine and that indigent defendants didn't need a right to counsel.
All rulings that were later overturned.
Need I list more?

 

[hdwhit]

Hanzo581 wrote:
...are you saying these teachers are more likely to miss/shoot innocent bystanders than your average CCW holder?

No.

If you read my post thoroughly, you would have found that I think they will probably be about as accurate as sworn officers of the NYPD or Carrollton, Texas, Police Department that when firing in the line of duty managed to land something around 20% of their shots on target at about ten yards.

That's not a big concern when the target is standing alone on the front porch of his home illuminated by the front porch lights, but when the target is surrounded by innocent third parties it matters where that other 80% goes.

And if you have followed the topic of self-defense shooting in the Legal forums you would know that when a CCW shoots an assailant, their shooting is generally considered legally justified and some degree of immunity from civil liability is provided. There is no such provision of immunity from liability for injuries to third parties.

 

[hdwhit]

dogtown tom wrote:
Need I list more?

Yes. Some rulings that are on-point would be nice.

 

[.308 Norma]

I'm arguing for higher standards, not a prohibition of concealed 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.

No k-mo, by your own statement, I was led to believe you were arguing for higher standards for concealed carry. Are you now saying that you were arguing for higher standards than just passing a background check to buy a handgun from an FFL dealer?
You stated, "The current minimum standard (of all U.S. states) is whoever can pass a background check, and can afford a handgun, can concealed carry." I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I'm just confused. Which background check are you talking about? Are you talking about the quick background check when the FFL dealer phones the FBI (or whoever they call) when you buy a gun? Or are you talking about the longer, more extensive background check like the County Sheriff's Department (here in Idaho at least) used to do when we applied for our CCW licenses? I said "used to do" because Idaho became a Constitutional Carry state last year - background checks and permits/licenses are no longer required for concealed carry here. That one was mildly irritating to me because both my wife's and my CCW permits don't expire until 2019.
Regardless, the "current minimum standard" for legal concealed carry is not the same for "all U.S. states." Besides, the background check for buying a gun through an FFL dealer is not state law anyway - it's federal.
I do agree though - whoever can get hold of a gun (legally or not) can concealed carry. But the "minimum standard" for "all U.S. states" for legal concealed carry is not the same, not by a long shot.

 

[dogtown tom]

Yes.

Knock yourself out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categ..._that_overrule_a_prior_Supreme_Court_decision

Some rulings that are on-point would be nice.

All three examples I gave are not only "on point" but clear examples of how USSC decisions change with the times. When you insinuate that no further argument is needed ("irrelevant" in your own words) you miss the point.........that USSC rulings aren't necessarily the final word.

 

[k-mo]

No k-mo, by your own statement, I was led to believe you were arguing for higher standards for concealed carry. Are you now saying that you were arguing for higher standards than just passing a background check to buy a handgun from an FFL dealer?

I am argung for higher standards for concealed carry, within the context of 50-state reciprocity (which is currently on the table), and within the context of public safety. The current lowest state standard for concealed carry is owning a concealable firearm. I'll use Kansas as my example because I live here. I can buy a handgun via private sale (no background check), and immediatly carry that handgun concealed upon my person (this is a constitutional carry state). With 50-state reciprocity that becomes the de-facto standard in all 50 states, merely because officers sorting out who has to meet which state standard is logistically unworkable (eg. with 50-state reciprocity an officer in Oregon would have to hold Oregon citizens to a different standard than a citizen of Kansas would have to be held. "When in Rome..." would no longer apply).

In the original contex of this thread I'm arguing for improved training, and regular recertification. Being able to carry is a huge responsibility, and it should be taken as seriously as we take operating a commercial airplane, treating patients, or any other activity where the consequences of improper action can cause harm to those who are depending on our abilities as professionals. Training and certification, with continuing education and periodic recertification. That's the current minimum standard to be in a classroom, and I welcome more opportunities to better fulfill my role and provide parents with confidence that I'm genuinely capable of keeping their children safe.

 

[Hanzo581]

In point of fact, the adequacy of the training is a critical question.

An inadequately trained person who, for example, elects to engage an active shooter where the backdrop is a roomful of children can end up killing more people than the shooter.

At the end of the day, your poorly trained person who is not relevant to the equaltion, not only adds to the body count, but spends the rest of their live living with the guilt of having killed the children they were supposed to protect and spending the next several years in court dealing with the civil suits against the school district. Not to mention the increased tax burden on everyone in the district from the settlements of those civil suits.

Yeah, let's save a few bucks up front and scrimp on the training because this is really the outcome we all want.

I'll say again, you cannot claim this and then support public concealed carry of any kind. A couple days ago we just had a man waiting in line at a busy McDonalds for breakfast forced to draw and shoot someone that came in after him with a crowbar. If you are worried about children in the backdrop you have to be worried about any people as backdrops. So are we dangerous and likely to kill more innocents or not? You can't have it both ways.

 

[k-mo]

I'll say again, you cannot claim this and then support public concealed carry of any kind. A couple days ago we just had a man waiting in line at a busy McDonalds for breakfast forced to draw and shoot someone that came in after him with a crowbar. If you are worried about children in the backdrop you have to be worried about any people as backdrops. So are we dangerous and likely to kill more innocents or not? You can't have it both ways.

Training and adequacy. These are both clear concepts, and are a requirement for operating many devices that have the potenial to cause unintended harm to innocent bystanders.

 

[Hanzo581]

Training and adequacy. These are both clear concepts, and are a requirement for operating many devices that have the potenial to cause unintended harm to innocent bystanders.

Right, my point is get on one side of the fence or the other. If there are stringent training requirements for teachers to carry, there should be for everyone. I take my daughter to a lot of child focus places packed with kids. School is not the only place kids congregate. Try not to let the children aspect emotionally sway you, that's what the anti's do when they pitch their "if it could save just one child" crap.

 

[dogtown tom]

Training and adequacy. These are both clear concepts, and are a requirement for operating many devices that have the potenial to cause unintended harm to innocent bystanders.

How many of those "devices" are mentioned in the Bill of Rights?...........NONE.

Take a deep breath and read what you've written. Shame on you.

 

[k-mo]

Right, my point is get on one side of the fence or the other. If there are stringent training requirements for teachers to carry, there should be for everyone.

Agreed.

 

[k-mo]

How many of those "devices" are mentioned in the Bill of Rights?...........NONE.

Take a deep breath and read what you've written. Shame on you.

Whether or not they are in the Bill of ights or not has no bearing on the safe use of any potentially deadly device (on ownership, yes; but not on the safe use thereof).
Consider that the Second Amendment was a compromise between the two camps that are still at odds. Well regulated Militia is co-equal to Shall not be Infringed, and that was the best compromise possible at the time.
Also consider that there is a strong (but fairly quiet) push to hold a third Constuional Convention, though the impetus is over taxation, healthcare, and regulaton of businesses.
As of January 18th this year, 28 of the required 34 states have adopted resoultions calling for such. Given the current state of affairs surrounding firearms rights, and the fact that once convened a Constutional Convention is entirely in the hands of the states, do we really want to keep pushing an agenda that makes it more likely that a majority of states will amend, or outright repeal the Second Amendment?
Granted that would be an exceptional event, but we've had a run on exceptional events lately.

Shame on me for wanting a set of standards that helps improve outcomes when a CCL holder has to respond with deadly force?
No sir; that's no shame at all.

 

[dogtown tom]

Whether or not they are in the Bill of ights or not has no bearing on the safe use of any potentially deadly device (on ownership, yes; but not on the safe use thereof).

Pretty much impossible to use a firearm (safely or unsafely) if THE RIGHT TO HAVE THAT FIREARM IS DENIED!
Who the heck are you to decide what is or isn't safe, what is or isn't proper training?

You make exactly the same argument as the antigun crowd.......that the ONLY ones that should be armed are the police (where the government decrees what is proper training).

Consider that the Second Amendment was a compromise between the two camps that are still at odds. Well regulated Militia is co-equal to Shall not be Infringed, and that was the best compromise possible at the time.

Hogwash. Your understanding of the foundations of the Second Amendment are nonexistent.

Also consider that there is a strong (but fairly quiet) push to hold a third Constuional Convention, though the impetus is over taxation, healthcare, and regulaton of businesses.

Which has jack squat to do with this thread or any discussion of the CURRENT Second Amendment.

As of January 18th this year, 28 of the required 34 states have adopted resoultions calling for such. Given the current state of affairs surrounding firearms rights, and the fact that once convened a Constutional Convention is entirely in the hands of the states, do we really want to keep pushing an agenda that makes it more likely that a majority of states will amend, or outright repeal the Second Amendment?
Granted that would be an exceptional event, but we've had a run on exceptional events lately.

Wait, what? YOU advocate that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to teachers....now you're worried about yourself?

Shame on me for wanting a set of standards that helps improve outcomes when a CCL holder has to respond with deadly force?
No sir; that's no shame at all.

The outcome isn't in your hands.
No one is arguing that a trained shooter isn't better than an untrained one.
The argument is give the good guys the same damn footing as the bad guys.
Again, shame on you and your elitist antigun position.

 

[Snyper]

That's not a big concern when the target is standing alone on the front porch of his home illuminated by the front porch lights, but when the target is surrounded by innocent third parties it matters where that other 80% goes.

If they are truly an "active shooter" a defender doesn't have many options.

Do you wait until they have killed all the "innocent third parties" before trying to stop them?

Or do you more realistically accept that risk to prevent further certain deaths or injuries?