Texas school district to let teachers carry guns

Pvolcho: This is really a numb skull debate. No offense to you or any of the other members here but the media has sensationalized school shootings with 60 minutes specials, Dateline reports, etc. There is such a minimal amount of school shootings of teachers, kids and staff that the statistics and idea of arming teachers is laughable. There were a total of 32 school related deaths. Out of the 32 several were adults killing adults, suicides, and gang related violence. Here is the breakdown: Total Deaths: 32

Breakdown by Type:
Shooting: 13
Suicides: 6
Murder-Suicide: 8
Fight-Related: 1
Stabbing: 4
Other: 0

To put that in perspective there was a total of 4862 murders in the US for the same time period. I hope u get my point that it doesn't make any sense to arm teachers. When you allow teachers to carry guns into a school you will create new problems that may be more horrendous than the few sensationalized deaths we have each year from kids shooting teachers.
You say it would give the staff a fighting chance. Ridiculous because even if this silly, half backed, irrational law is enacted there would only be a handful of teachers who would even consider arming themselves (most teachers are liberal) and now if you factor in the number of schools in the US and the chance of an incident occurring in a school that has armed teachers the possibilities are extremely remote. Even if he/she did wield a gun there is a good chance they would crap their pants and hide or wave their gun and get shot.
You might be shocked to learn that in NYC there are several jumpers each week who die by suicide. They like to use the train as a means of suicide. However, the media doesn't think it will sell papers so they don't sensationalize these stories. Why aren't we doing something to protect these misguided soles. Who decides where our societies resources should be placed. Do u want the media to tell u what to think and feel? Well I hate to say this but they do and I don't mean u personally but the general public at large.

Second. I'm all for taxi drivers, liquor store owners, and bank tellers being legally armed if they so wish. Why aren't you? Pizza delivery people, for example, are apparently some of the most at risk people for being the victim of violent crime. Why shouldn't they be encouraged to avail themselves of personal defense tools as they see fit (again, under normal legal channels). I sense a grand amount of paranoia against and a low opinion of the public in your desire to disarm these at risk individuals and the public in general.

yeah...You're right I don't want a minimum wage worker to have a gun. I'm not saying that your job equates to your intelligence but we need to face facts that the smartest people are not working for the lowest wages. I have an aunt who lived a good part of her life spending every penny on concerts and cigarettes. She lived at home until she was in her late thirties. I worked hard to go back to school and paid my way and stayed home to study while she partied. Now she is 40 working in Walmart. It's an honest job and I respect that she works but her decision making skills are poor and that is how she ended up where she is in life. Do u really want to give people with poor judgment like my aunt a gun? I sure don’t. She is also under a tremendous amount of stress because she can’t pay her bills and is always in debt. Not exactly the best profile for a gun owner. By the way she use to work in a liquor store too and was robbed. She wasn't hurt but if she had a gun she may have gotten herself killed.

I agree, you do sound paranoid and scared of society. A large number of states have liberalized their gun laws in the past couple decades. In these states I think almost all of them have seen marked declines in violent crime rates, many well below the rates and change in rates of the national average and states/cities of similar type. When these new laws went into effect in these states there was an initial "burst" of registration, but it eventually tappered off back to normal levels. Along with the increase in legal pistol owners and carriers, there was not a percentage increase in incidence of legally registered gun owners committing a violent crime, it remained vanishingly low compared to the incidence of "normal" criminal/non-registered-holder violent crime (which itself, as I said, fell well below national rates and rates of change for violent crime). (Most of this I've culled from the book "More Guns, Less Crime" and other reading and listening over the past few years, which I'm sure Devil and perhaps yourself will roundly reject as a useful or reliable source of information).

I'm not paranoid about society at all. I love this country and I believe that 98% of the people who live in this country are honest, hard working people who will rally around hardship and tragedy. I do think we have lost touch with our neighbors and many of us don't feel connected to our society and that is an issue. Anyway, I don't believe your statistics. Sorry - but it makes no sense to me that a criminal who is an addict or a dirt bag has taken the time to read the latest gun laws and has curtailed their criminal behavior as a direct result. Once again I'm not saying that all guns should be banned only hand guns. lets get them off the street so gangs and criminals don't have easy access to them. You can even keep your stun gun and shotgun. You can also trace crime rates to many factors in our society and skew numbers to substantiate an argument.

. Background checks, character witnesses, often safety a class or other seminars/training is involved, etc. We're generally talking about removing as much subjectivity in the approval process as possible and eliminating other do-nothing and hindering process barriers as possible, such as overly high, sometimes outright punitive registration costs and short license expiration periods, long processing delays, deliberate under-staffing of licensing authority offices, etc.

If you have a history of mental illness or a criminal history it will show up on your records. However, if you have a temper, make poor decisions or want to hurt people with your new weapon then a background check is not going to help much. This really doesn't matter because I don't think people who get gun permits go into crime. But as a citizen I don't want my neighbors carrying concealed weapons.

[color=#FF0000]

I'm all for making society more safe. I'm all for discriminating as best as possible the whack jobs from the average citizen before issuing licenses. But at the end of the day the fact is crime will exist no matter what and it is not a recipe for a safer society to disarm that society. That makes society more vulnerable to crime, it encourages more crime (often more violent crime), it makes the society vulnerable to its own government, and ultimately makes people wards of the state for individual safety which is, of course, entirely impossible to provide and totally antithetical to the principles of this nation.

[/color]

I don't agree. Get handguns off the street and then we will have a safer society. Why isn't a 22 or a shotgun enough for you. Do u really need to have a hand gun with u everywhere u travel. If you are that paranoid then vote in politicians who will put more trained officers in the street. The one thing that you wrote which I think is silly is that we're more vulnerable to our government if we all have guns. Have u seen the weapons that our government possesses. Do u really think your cap gun would hold a candle to the heavy artillery they have. Do u really think the government is going to start rounding up civilians and if they did u would take on a whole swat team with a shotgun and your trusty revolver. The real reason you want your guns is so you can feel empowered and that you can protect yourself. God bless u but keep it to your own property. Don't bring your guns around my family or my kids. They are not wanted.

pvolcko wrote: Devil505 wrote:Getting back to the point of this thread, I think school teachers are probably one of the last groups I would want to see carrying concealed weapons .



Why?

I'll have to make a gross generalization to answer your question here Paul, but one that I think has some basis in fact:
IMO, school teachers in general.... (have I put in enough caveats? ) tend to be more "idealistic" & thus less "realistic" in their thinking. This is as it should be, considering the type of life;'s work they have chosen.........Educating the young & innocent. This idealism however, is exactly the opposite of what it takes to make accurate threat analysis's in our crowded & potentially dangerous society these days. (This of course, is also directly contingent on where the teacher is from, ie urban vs rural, but nonetheless, I think is fairly accurate when it comes to all but very urban teachers)
Add to that "idealism" the proximity to children on a daily basis (while armed) & you have a prescription for danger for these children.
This backs up the point you made about secrecy being impossible with an armed teacher & you would now have a real danger of that teacher being targeted for his/her weapon by a crazy or enraged student that otherwise may have no access to a gun.

Think of this scenario:

If even one of the two crazies at Columbine knew that a particular teacher was usually armed , they would have undoubtedly targeted him/her first as their major threat. (The two killers at Columbine had carefully rehearsed & thought through their maniacal strategy b4 their attack & while crazy, they certainly were not stupid)
Thus, their attack would have been just as lethal with little or no possibility that the armed teacher, targeted first & by surprise, would have had any chance to stop he attack.
This is why I feel the secrecy is imperative for any chance at stopping an attack.

Before Bugsy jumps down my throat here , I emphasize that this is just my opinion!~!

This will be it for me on this thread. Sorry I went so long on this post.

traderfjp wrote:Pvolcho: This is really a numb skull debate. No offense to you or any of the other members here but the media has sensationalized school shootings with 60 minutes specials, Dateline reports, etc. There is such a minimal amount of school shootings of teachers, kids and staff that the statistics and idea of arming teachers is laughable. There were a total of 32 school related deaths. Out of the 32 several were adults killing adults, suicides, and gang related violence. Here is the breakdown: Total Deaths: 32

I tend to agree with you. Again, I'm not advocating support for doing this on any basis other than it is better than nothing for many schools, such as the one that triggered this whole thread. The school in Texas where this is being adopted is literally 20+ minutes away from any kind of police presence and way further away from any kind of SWAT type presence. This is not nearly as uncommon as one would think. Response times of 5-10 minutes are quite common even in suburb type schools and may be good reason to adopt this kind of policy. I think in this case, and others like it, the option should be left to the school districts and the towns in question. The problem is that most states passed laws banning guns and other "weapons" (certain archery equipment, for instance) on school grounds many years ago. While today it may make sense to maintain these kind of rules for urban and some suburban schools, there are many schools that could enjoy increased security and possibly rekindle the inclusion of shooting sports in their PE curriculums and afterschool activities, and experience no negative effects in doing so.

I'm all for states passing laws freeing up districts to make their own choices on this matter. That would bring them in line with churches and commercial establishments and other semi-public/semi-private buildings. I'm not necessarily for all districts adopting the policy. It is a local issue that is best decided locally. I just support the option being available.

yeah...You're right I don't want a minimum wage worker to have a gun. I'm not saying that your job equates to your intelligence but we need to face facts that the smartest people are not working for the lowest wages.

Since when is the police department loaded with well adjusted braniacs?

I find your line of argument here to be entirely without merit. Self defense rights and imperatives don't start at a 120 IQ or a nice 50K+ salary. As I said, if such a person can get a pistol legally in their state, I find no reason why those people shouldn't be allowed to carry while doing their job. There are some jobs where it isn't needed (employer opts to provide armed security) or where it isn't practical (strippers ), but home delivery, field sales work, community advertising, and many other low wage, common man type jobs are common targets for criminals and should have as much opportunity as common sense and the law allows them to defend themselves.

Do u really want to give people with poor judgment like my aunt a gun? I sure don’t.

Is she not going to respect the responsibly of carrying it? Is she liable to whip it out at the drop of a hat or be wreckless with it? If you say so, then I take you at your word that your aunt is not of high enough character to own or carry the gun. But I think most law abiding people who are interested in going through the process of getting licensed to own and/or carry a pistol are of the type that are highly unlikely to act criminally or not respect the responsibility.

She is also under a tremendous amount of stress because she can’t pay her bills and is always in debt. Not exactly the best profile for a gun owner. By the way she use to work in a liquor store too and was robbed. She wasn't hurt but if she had a gun she may have gotten herself killed.

I have to admit, I'm not groking your set of disqualifying circumstances and characteristics. And I really don't get your "if she had a gun available she might have been killed" position. Maybe that's true, but she's also damned lucky she wasn't killed during the robbery while being being unarmed. The statistics are clear. If you don't have a firearm, best course of action in such a situation is compliance. If you do have a firearm, though, your chances of survival in such an encounter are significantly increased (above mere compliance). This is particularly true for women, who are disproportionately victims of violent crime.

Anyway, I don't believe your statistics. Sorry - but it makes no sense to me that a criminal who is an addict or a dirt bag has taken the time to read the latest gun laws and has curtailed their criminal behavior as a direct result.

Of course they aren't reading crime statistics or defensive gun use statistics. They simply hear through their contacts with other criminals and through media and other means that it gets riskier to attempt crimes against actual people. The statistics also bear out that while violent crime does go down, non-violent crimes such as robbery (while no one is around) go up.

Why isn't a 22 or a shotgun enough for you. Do u really need to have a hand gun with u everywhere u travel.

As a point of fact, I don't need to carry everywhere I go. That is my personal choice. I may change my mind in the future, though, and I advocate for my ability to do that and for every reasonable person to have that opportunity, too. To my way of thinking it would be unjust of me to do anything else.

And as an aside, a 22 is minimally useful for self defense purposes (and useless for hunting anything besides the smallest game). It's better than nothing, but it suffers all the draw backs of a shotgun plus it is too weak a caliber to stop many attackers without multiple shots or a very well placed, close range single shot. A shotgun, in a self defense role, can be very effective but it can also be unwieldy in practical use due to the configuration of a house, a person's physical size, a handicap, or other factors. It also requires two handed operation (to cycle a round in the case of pump or single shot, and to effectively aim and control recoil), which can be a problem. They also require more room for safe storage and do not lend themselves to safe storage beside a bed as a pistol in a lock box can. There is a common refrain that a shotgun is the most effective home defense weapon, but it is not necessarily the case. The best home defense weapon is the weapon you and your family feel most comfortable using, period.

If you are that paranoid then vote in politicians who will put more trained officers in the street.

This is where so many anti-gunners go astray. It isn't about paranoia. It is about hoping to God that you never once have to use it, but wanting to be able to if the worst should happen. Incidents happen in seconds. Police will not and can not be there (at least it is exceedingly rare). Maybe having the gun in that situation will get me killed, but the chances are more likely that it will save my life or the life of a fellow citizen. Regardless, it is a personal choice, based not in paranoia of every single person I walk by on the street but on wanting to be personally responsible for my own well being. I wish not to rely on chance, the good morals of a criminal, and/or a police officer being nearby.

The one thing that you wrote which I think is silly is that we're more vulnerable to our government if we all have guns. Have u seen the weapons that our government possesses. Do u really think your cap gun would hold a candle to the heavy artillery they have. Do u really think the government is going to start rounding up civilians and if they did u would take on a whole swat team with a shotgun and your trusty revolver. The real reason you want your guns is so you can feel empowered and that you can protect yourself.

If the government started rounding up or killing citizens as policy... yeah, I think I just might join the revolution. I'm assuming if that's happening here then there is no safe country on the planet and that I have very little to lose. Go out fighting for the country I once loved and the safety of my fellow citizens. But I don't expect or ever want that to ever come to pass.

My concern is much more about the mentality and intentions of a government that seeks to disarm the people. This has never portended good things in the history of this country or any other. In many (most?) cases in history disarming the people is the critical, precursor step to enactment of truly authoritarian policies and governance.

Why am I a gun owner and support gun ownership (including concealed carry)?
1) I enjoy target shooting and trap shooting quite a bit. In particular it is one of few common interests and activities I share with my father.
2) Personal and home defense.
3) Deterrent effect on violent crime in society.
4) Knowing that government is in its rightful role, servant to the people.

I'm not sure what feeling empowered means. I suspect you think I want guns for some kind of maladjusted thrill. It is not the case. For instance, I've put off even applying for my pistol permit for almost 10 years out of a desire to be sure it wasn't for that purpose and out of what I believe is a healthy fear of taking on the responsibility of owning one, and perhaps someday carrying one.

I hate to say I agree with devil, but kids and guns don't mix well except under controlled circumstances. There is too much opportunity for catastrophe by allowing guns in a hotbed school in the hands of amateurs. Kids today don't have the respect for firearms and authority like they did 60 years ago. They will be trying to "acquire" the firearms from the teachers to use them illegaly. If the school is a quagmire to begin with, trained law enforcement should be present with firearms at the discretion of the school.

The real issue here is why are so many schools are dens of iniquity. The shame is that it is accepted as normal or inevitable. The question is: why has society deteriorated so much in the last 60 years? Why do we tolerate it? Has society gained anything by its loose individual moral standards? I am sure that on this subject devil and I will not agree. Pity we can talk about it here without Richard pulling the plug. Too tired to start another thread. Later.

I believe the Texas school is in a rural location and far from the police so they want to be able to protect themselves. They believe that a school is a perfect target for terrorists and madmen because guns are not allowed so allowing guns would take schools off the list of easy targets. I don't follow this logic since most places in our society are gun free.

Remember that this is TEXAS we are talking about, not some part of the country where women faint and men pee their pants at the sight of a firearm..

While there are lots of good reasons for teachers to carry weapons, there are also many reasons for them to not.. I think that if caring parents knew that their children were in a school without effective security and police coverage, that a group of parents would get training and become a school security force, that not being practical, then arm the teachers..

ANY amount of deterent will be a pluss.. just like posted near the begining of this topic, if a sign was placed in your front yard proclaiming this to be a [defensless] no gun zone.. would you feel safe and secure??? I think not..

Greg L.

An armed society is a polite society and a safe society. This has been proven over and over again.. just look at England and Australia.

GL.

Texas is not like the Northeast. I lived there for 1 year when I was first married. We wanted to be in warm weather and live near a big city. We got all that but we weren't ready for the culture. Lets just say we met some interesting people.

traderfjp wrote:I don't follow this logic since most places in our society are gun free.

How do you figure? Maybe in certain cities and states where there is are strong efforts to minimize gun ownership and all but ban concealed carry, but these are relatively few at this point. And even in those places, so long as there isn't an outright ban for the city or state, there generally are only a handful of places one can't carry by law and a couple of big chain type stores that have gone to the trouble of posting concealed gun ban policies. Some big employers go to the trouble of having concealed gun bans for employees, but most places don't have a policy one way or the other.

I have already explained my reasons for not wanting school teachers armed, so I will not belabor my opinion again. For those who would favor other unprofessionals to roam school corridors while armed I offer this first hand experience: There is little in life as futile as trying to stay vigilant to threats while performing a day-to day, boring job. For a short term assignment , it can be done but for the long term...it is impossible! (again, I go back to the temporary assignment of various federal agents as Sky Marshals in the 1970's. It was a horrendous waste of motivated & well trained Agents & I don't think a single actual skyjacking was ever actually thwarted!
My point is that I wouldn't trust the motivation of anyone who would actually want to perform this job (SM) on a long term basis, & cant imagine anyone remaining effective at it, even if they did. This is why I can only see using an existing group of well trained officers, on very short time assignments as "School Marshall's" & rotating them quite often so as to share the misery & try to keep moral up. (this would also aid with the secrecy aspect as well)

In my school we hire trained professionals to keep our school safe. I sure wouldn't want Fred the gym teacher who can barely touch his toes to start playing Rambo and could end up getting more people hurt.

I heard some more info on this particular school and what they're trying. Apparently they will only be allowing people in who have received an approved set of training (they apparently are in talks with Gunsite to provide this training, and probably other such facilities). They are not simply letting teachers with a state CCW walk the halls as an SM. Apparently this is not a rash decision either, they've been researching the legalities of it for over a year and likely were discussing it for some time prior to that. Approval for the plan was unanimous on the school board.

I tend to agree with the skepticism voiced in this discussion, if one were considering this for urban or even many suburban schools or any school of sufficient size as to have funds available to hire dedicated security professionals. However, the school in question here has 100 or fewer students (total, across all grades), is 25+ miles away from any local law enforcement, and is quite used to providing for themselves as need requires. I'm sure they have made provisions for storms, utility loss, fire (assuming they're well away from firefighting services too), and student health that any typical suburban or urban school would consider ridiculous, too. The school board of this school has voted for this after careful deliberation and has a plan for safety and training in place. I say more power to them. I hope the yahoos at the state DOE, the state and national teachers unions, and God forbid the f'n Brady Campaign don't stand in their way.

Again, wouldn't recommend it as a general matter (I took the liberty of arguing a bit beyond my actual stance on this, thanks for the discussion and helping me flesh out my thoughts on it, particularly Devil and Trader) in what we in the Northeast consider a typical school district. But in this case, for this district, in their circumstance, with the unanimous support of their board and apparently unanimous or near unanimous support of the parents in the district, with a plan for training and certification and safety in place... in this case I say let them try it out and see how it works.

pvolcko wrote:But in this case, for this district, in their circumstance, with the unanimous support of their board and apparently unanimous or near unanimous support of the parents in the district, with a plan for training and certification and safety in place... in this case I say let them try it out and see how it works.

The more I am on this forum, the more impressed I am with our problem solving technique & results, whether it is a home heating problem or a national or even ethical problem! I agree with Paul in this particular small school situation & say....let's give it a chance. I still remain skeptical, but as Greg says.....some security is better than doing nothing!

It sounds like it's a done deal. I guess if it makes them feel safe and everyone is for it then who cares. Where I live I wouldn't be one of the parents in favor of such a decision.