IAP Political Forum

A Texas school district will let teachers bring guns to class this fall, the district's superintendent said on Friday, in what experts said appeared to be a first in the United States.

The board of the small rural Harrold Independent School District unanimously approved the plan and parents have not objected, said the district's superintendent, David Thweatt.

School experts backed Thweatt's claim that Harrold, a system of about 110 students 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth, may be the first to let teachers bring guns to the classroom.
Thweatt said it is a matter of safety.

"We have a lock-down situation, we have cameras, but the question we had to answer is, 'What if somebody gets in? What are we going to do?" he said. "It's just common sense."

Teachers who wish to bring guns will have to be certified to carry a concealed handgun in Texas and get crisis training and permission from school officials, he said.

Finally, a school district with some common sense.  I applaud their efforts.

finally those b#@$%@% will learn what respect is about. get your homework done, son, or else...
less of potential candidates for US presidency

  I doubt the teachers will be threatening with a gun, nor pistol whipping, students who fail to do their homework.

Good move.

I'd need a look at the specifics, but it looks like they're taking a sensible approach to this.


In the case of a school shooting, it would be very nice to already have a 'last line of defense' in place. IMO (and I'd be curious about the crisis training for the teachers), the best use for this is a defensive strategy. The teachers could protect better by gathering students and standing guard, not by pursuing the shooters (in most cases at least).




Most likely because there wont be all to many students anymore who don't turn their assignments in.  ;D

A school in our area last year had a gunman enter it.  I heard about it on the news as it was unfolding.  All the schools went into lockdown mode.  I could not get through to our school on the phone and nobody would say which school had the gunman in it for quite some time.  I didn't know if it was our school or not.  I cannot express the terror that I felt.  On that day, I wished that a teacher had a gun to protect my babies.  I would not have thought about it before this happened.  Now, I think about it.  There is no other form of protection once a crazy person gets inside the school.  They are left alone to do as they please and shot whomever they feel like.  The police, swat and so on will not enter the school until some time later which is often too late.  I don't blame them, they do a fantastic job but it takes precious minutes for them to even arrive on the scene after getting the call and then more minutes spent trying to assess the situation and make a game plan.  I respect them very much but when you have a child in a school with a gunman, you don't feel very secure that they are going to prevent further bloodshed.  As it turned out, our school was not the one targeted but for the time that I didn't know that, my heart was in my throat and I was completely helpless to take any action.

Most schools will not allow teachers to carry guns or weapons of any kind.  Instead, our kids are sent to school with the promise that they will be protected but that is impossible for them to promise as we all know.  The best we can do as parents is make a plan for our kids to follow in the event they are ever involved in such a horrible situation.  The school's plan is to have all the kids go hide in the nearest classroom and lock the door.  That is NOT good enough for me.  I tell my kids if they have the opportunity, get out the window and run fast!!!  I'm not about to let them die without a fighting chance.  The school cannot give that advice because it goes against their policy.  They are bound by the law to keep our children together in the school.  Kids are not allowed to leave the grounds because the school needs to have an accurate head count after any sort of disaster such as whether, accident or gunmen.  They are responsible for the whereabouts of our kids.  That was the response I got from the school.  Who cares about a head count when they are being shot at???  I will gladly call them after a shooting incident and tell them my kids are safe.  Go ahead and ask your schools what their policy is and I will bet you it is the same everywhere.  Talk to your kids and make a plan.  Give them some sort of tool to survive.  You may not like my idea of escaping out the window but from all the shootings that have taken place at schools, there has never been a gunman standing outside to my knowledge.  It is the best option I have come up with.  My children will be out the window and gone before the police even arrive.  I'm not about to let the schools pretend to protect my kids when they clearly cannot!!!  You shouldn't either.  Don't get me wrong, my kids follow all the rules and are great students but when their life is in danger, I give them my full permission to act against the school policy and protect themselves and hopefully others as well.  Perhaps the gunman will see them and try to shot them but they are a much harder target to hit while running away versus sitting on the floor in the classroom like a sitting duck.  Just my opinion.      

My only question is what happens to the teacher when some kid steals that gun from his/her desk and then does something harmful? Does that teacher go to jail like anyone responsible for a fire arm? When kids learn teachers have guns you can bet a few will want to break in and steal them. Not a brilliant plan in my opinion considering school shootings rarely happen anyways. It'll cause more trouble than good.

LOL, in my secondary substitute teaching days while in grad school, I joked about how nice it would be to have a whip, gun and chair like lion tamers.  Of course the lion tamers fire blanks.

Any more native Texans here?  Wonder if they will allow teachers guns in locations like Dallas or Houston? Is Houston still the crime capitol of the country? Where will the teachers carry? Maybe in a belly band holster like the AF used to issue to those charged with stopping high jacking on cargo planes? 

But there's not much out in that area of West Texas of this school district, but jack rabbits, rattle snakes an a few towns that might remind you of the one in "The Last Picture Show" for those who might remember that old movie.

Guess the late Charton Heston would be proud and the gun nuts ecstatic.

I think it would be very poor planning to just leave it lying around. It should be locked away behind something more substantial than a desk drawer lock, and should never be brought out.

Responsibility should fall on both the teacher and the school if a student does get hold of one.

This is such a bad idea... it's scary.

I really think the guns are in case of threats against the school (like criminals) rather than threatening the students if they forget to come to class with a notebook. I'm a little shifty about the whole idea.

 Hmmmm Guns in a school room... For some reason this video came immediately to mind;
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE3QAeYRk-A

I was joking! as i do in most of cases I think the whole American idea of carrying guns wrong if you want my real view.

  Number 1, The school district will allow them to carry after an extensive gun safety licensing ordeal.  Thats allow them, not force them. Second, After they have gone through the program they will learn that you never take the gun out of it's holster unless you are at home or the equivalent.  You are not allowed to just leave your gun lying around Willy-nilly, and you certainly are not allowed to leave it in your school desk.  Are you people afraid when the police are around you?  Are you afraid of the armed guard at the bank?  So then why should you be afraid of an armed, trained teacher?  They are sure to be more intelligent then many security guards.  I'm old enough to remember back when the public at large wasn't so terrified of guns in general. The media has been working the anti-gun issue harder then a catholic priest on a choir boys zipper.   With proper training, a firearm can save innocent lives. They are indispensable when faced with an armed assailant.  Thats why the police carry them.  Theres a lot of armed nuts out there.  It's time to level the playing field.

This is a solution chasing a problem.  Yes there have been school shootings, but schools are still just about the least likely place to encounter gun violence(churches might be safer, but that's about it). There is probably more risk from accidental shooting than is averted by having it there in the first place.  Teachers need to keep track of where students are, whether they're working, what they're learning, whether materials like papers and books are readily at hand and at least half a dozen other things at a time.  With all that they can't keep it in a place where they'll usually be (good teachers circulate throughout the room a good deal of the time which means they'd often be away from it in the rare occasion they might "need" it anyhow).  In any care it also creates a situation which erodes their role as teacher anyhow. Dumb idea. 

I know.

  If you have a CCP (concealed carry permit), the gun is on your person at all times when out in public, except in your car is the only time it is not in its holster.  Teachers will have their firearm on them at all times, NOT in their desk. Is that clear?

That still doesn't address anything but my least important point.   It changes the role of teacher in a way which reduces their effectiveness as a teacher.  Schools are already safer than about any other place you can put a kid.  Any program which increases the presence of dangerous weapons which can be accidentally discharged to protect against a threat which is largely illusory is foolhardy.  Gun accidents kill far more people than the sensationalized but astonishingly rare school shooter.  Safety at schools can be increased more by any number of other methods which don't involve packing heat(for example a defibrillator at school would likely save more people without the potential for harms your "solution"  introduces).  This sounds more like the plot of a cheesy Hollywood thriller than sound policy.

I agree this does have the potential to distract teachers, which is why it should only be allowed for veteran teachers.

This idea worries me less than say, county deputies patrolling the school armed with tasers, and makes me much less nervous than the idea of rent-a-cops guarding schools.

Many schools already employ rent-a-cops and professional hall monitors (security guards). Why not arm them rather than the teachers?

I was just thinking that gommi. Seems like a cheap version of security. "If you'd like to bring your own gun to school and are certified sure".

You wouldn't need a lot. Just a couple guys who 'take over' on a lock down.

Why the fear of teachers having guns? They don't do the job for the money, that's for sure.  They do it because they love it and they love the kids.  Teachers are some of the most sane people around.  (yes, there are exceptions as with anything else)  Should we just require the teachers to use their bodies as a sheild between the shooter and the students?  Or should we give them the chance to protect themselves and the kids?  Crisis training, gun training and licensing are a must, of course.  Teachers are the biggest influence on kids other than parents.  Most take their job very seriously and care deeply for these students.  In all the shootings at schools, I have never heard of a teacher trying to run away and protect themselves only.  Instead, most stay and try to protect the kids knowing that they will be the first ones to get shot at.  What other professionals would do that for our kids?  I woud trust a teacher far more than anyone else to do the right thing where the students are concerned.  The argument that school shootings are rare doesn't hold up.  It is happening more and more every year.  I looked on www.schoolsecurity.org and found 64 school related shootings which no deaths occured and 28 shootings that resulted in death, all from the 2006-2007 school year.  That doesn't seem very rare to me.          

Both of my parents are teachers and so are all of their friends. I know teachers out the wazoo and they all mostly love their job because they love teaching, because as Crystal noted, they're not doing it for the money.

With that said, teachers should not be faced with the burden of stopping a school shooter if and when one decides to act. Teachers (ALL TEACHERS), regardless of whether they carry a weapon or not, will now be the first target of a kid with a gun. This puts every teacher in harm's way... and for what?

Most school shooters commit suicide at the end of their campaign, so they don't expect to go home alive, anyway.

We don't need to restrict weapons in this country but we HAVE to restrict the ease in which teenagers and the mentally ill are getting them.

That's *my* position.

Laws restricting access to guns cannot prevent the criminal minded from obtaining them. If more limits are imposed, teenagers will find guns elsewhere. Firearms are quite prevalent in your country.

I agree. It should not be required for teachers to carry guns, as it is not their responsibility, however should a teacher legally be able to if they choose?

  And just how?  Your letting your rectum speak for you.




Illusionary?  Look at the stats.  Hardly an "Illusion".  Guns in their holster do not just discharge.  Had you any experience with them you would know.


 

Yes, usually by a careless, untrained adult who has left a loaded gun under their mattress or in some other accessible place.


  Once an armed assailant is inside, there is no security short of an armed deterrent.

Kids who shoot friends at school aren't "criminally" minded. They're insane.

If we don't address the real problem, adding more guns to the mix really doesn't do anything but make it worse.


Can students? In some states you only have to be covered by "Conceal-Carry Laws" 18 .

And you forgot to address the point that some teachers with guns endangers all the others. Is it fair to do that?

Out of all the teachers I've known, and all the rent-a-cops I've known, there are more teachers that I would trust with guns around children.

Um, I don't think they are exactly shooting their "friends."  I thought it was spite that motivated these school shooters.

I think this whole idea is supposed to save money.  If security was important, schools would buy it.  If you can't, well then you come up with clever schemes in giving teachers the right to bring their own. 

I couldn't imagine, being in class, knowing that my teacher has a holstered gun.  I wonder what that would do in terms of discipline.  I don't fuck with a cop not because I don't want to go to jail or get fined or whatever.  Its because he has a gun.  Giving a teacher that kind of power could backfire.

Alright. "Peers" then.

What's the f*cking difference? To act like this shows a mentally unstable mind.

What you call their targets is irelevent.


My problem isn't with the teachers with guns. If they have a "Conceal-Carry" permit them they're generally understood to be responcible. My problem is with all the teachers that don't or can't bring a weapon to school and the percieved threat that future school shooters will see from their own teacher.

Again, school shooters don't expect to walk away alive. Keep that in mind when people think they'll be discouraged by the idea they'll die sooner.

WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM!

Now, now.  No need to get touchy.  I just thought it looked silly thats all. 

I'm sincerely sorry about that. I wasn't angry at you or even what you said.

Like I said, my parents are both teachers and I think laws like this only endangers everyone in the profession. I mean, God forbid people are too discouraged by the law to become teachers... or worse, encouraged by it...

This idea is just all wrong!

It certainly makes me uneasy.  Usually teachers are not the ones who love to take up the opportunity.  But I grew up in a liberal hot spot.  No one who would have even remotely voted conservative.

My sister went to school in NC for a year and said that half her teachers were crazy, spouting "Pro-Right" propaganda and talking about Jesus.   Them with guns would scare the "bejesus outta me."  They certaintly hated her for being a psuedo-hippy.  I couldn't imagine what they would have done if they had a gun.

I am a teacher and I have caught myself doing things that amazed me to protect kids.  I'm not the most physically imposing guy but I've broken up fights and stepped in front of crowds of kids on stairwells wanting to rush in get in involved in a brawl at a dance.  Of course I'm inclined to think that people should trust teachers(or most at least).  However, the fact that teachers want to act to protect kids doesn't change the fact that introducing the threat of lethal force into the relationship changes the role teachers are supposed to have. 

Think for a minute about the difference between the way most people perceive a policeman and the way they perceive a teacher.  The difference between them serves both well in accomplishing their primary community roles.  The threat of lethal force is vital to an officer in gaining compliance from hardened criminals, but even the veiled threat of lethal force is destructive to the sort of relationship which is required to teach someone.  True, even as many deaths as we've had in schools is too many, but it is still a safer place than almost any other place a kid could be and I'm not going to support a change which injures the education of hundreds of thousands or millions to introduce a change unlikely to save kids or which might even be slightly more dangerous to kids and to the public at large.  Twenty-eight lethal shootings in a population as large as our millions of school-kids is statistically speaking quite safe, far safer than kids are at home, at the mall, or on their way home from school.  I respect proponents of this idea for their desire to to help kids, but I think their efforts are misguided and could be directed instead to a variety of other measures which would offer our kids more protection.
Thank you for demonstrating that verbal pyrotechnics are more important to you than calm consideration of the issues involved.

I certainly would not be in favor of making all teachers carry a gun, I'm only talking about the ones that would feel able to handle the added pressure. 

And for Goodness sake, none of the kids should ever have to see the gun.  I would never want the kids to be in fear at school from a teacher.  It can be put in an ankle holster or some other place on the body where it is out of sight.  The teacher should never even talk about having a weapon.  I don't think we have to advertise it.  That could lead to other problems that we don't need.  The other possibility is keeping the gun locked up somewhere and since schools are bigger than most places, the teacher would hopefully have enough time to get to it if need be.  Or some other person in the school like the principal or vice principal could carry a weapon, concealed, of course. 

Please tell me how the change in the role of a teacher in a way which erodes their classroom effectiveness is worthwhile for a rare problem.

You also haven't addressed how this might even make kids safer.  School shootings are exceedingly rare and accidental shootings are fairly rare too.  Might you end up with as many or more kids dead with more from accidental causes as you prevented from intentional ones?  It seems to me that you'd have to have a higher per capita body count of kids for this to even start to approach the threshold at which it increases safety at an appreciable level. 

I watch and read in fascination as this discussion continues.  Wiglaf, in my years of long term subbing, I've broken up a few fights in the classroom. CA Ed Code requires that teachers do so. On more than one occasion I have removed weapons, the more common one being fingernail files sharpened to knife capability. Easy to put into a purse and usually a female weapon of choice in those days. The worst was when a large group attacked one small and younger student and beat him severely. Would a gun have come in handy in that case?  I doubt it. They would have overpowered me and then possibly used it on me. 

Even though it's been many years since I've been in a classroom, even then almost all schools employed rent-a-cops. And some where I worked had "closed campuses."  Frankly, I never had a fear of an intruder, but far more
fear of some of the students in the classrooms where I taught.  A kid wigged out on meth can be a real problem for faculty and students alike.

Before I go I would remind those in this discussion about the location of the school district who made this choice.
Small town West Texas, would be the last place I would be concerned about a intruder.  A school district that serves just over a hundred students most likely hires few teachers. 

What a load of empty rhetoric."the veiled threat of lethal force is destructive to the sort of relationship which is required to teach someone".
  This is complete and utter nonsense.  I went to Military Acadamy.  I knew of there being guns on the campus.  Why would I of ever thought of those weapons as a "veiled threat of lethal force".  Answer is I wouldn't and I didn't.  Where did you come up with this pseudo psychological impact theory?  It bears no validity what so ever. 

  Could you possibly be any more over dramatic?  What is highly likely is that "if" a Teacher who is trained in firearms, God forbid, comes face to face with some deranged shooter murdering anything that moves, my money is going to be on the Teacher who is competent with a sidearm to remove the threat before more innocent die.  Depending on what states you live in, there may be quite a few more people whom you come in contact with on an everyday basis that are armed without your knowledge.
  Your "other measures" are nothing short of turning every school into a closed society, not unlike a prison.  Just how much adverse impact on learning might that have?  There are also long forgotten Constitutional legalities that granted the right to keep and bear arms.  You are familiar with the word "bear", right?

Yeah.

I guess the teacher (Wiglaf) wouldn't be the best source of information on what is required to teach someone.


Says you.

Tell me, was your life at a Military Academy different then the one you might have gotten at a public school?

Of course it was. So do you think the "going ons" of a military academy would transfer well to a public school enviroment?

I go to a regimented college and I can assure you that the uniform, command structure, demerit system, designated path for each class of student, physical training, etc. wouldn't be loved by my friends at "regular" colleges.


And what about the teacher that isn't trained to use a firearm? And what about the shooter who only thinks his teacher is a threat?

Dead teacher.

This law puts a bullzeye on every teacher in the system and may very well scare away new ones.


I'm all for the 2nd ammendment but you are so far outside of reality that it's scary.

You really have no concept of what a gun in a classroon DOES and COULD DO.

Who's being over-dramatic?  You speak of my "other measures" as turning schools into prisons.  Your words, not mine.  I spoke of the small numbers of students killed in any given year.  You responded as though I'm condemning all students to be sent as lambs to the slaughter.  Get a hold of yourself. 

Furthermore, when did I make this about the right to bear arms?  You also have the right to free speech, yet not the right to yell and interrupt courtroom proceedings willy-nilly. You also have the freedom of religion, yet it would be rapidly constrained if you used it as a cloak to excuse, finance, and encourage criminal acts.  Hell, you have right to bear arms too, but just see how people would react if you extended that right to a prison or a courtroom.  Having a right doesn't make that right absolute.

As for how well your choice to attend a military college applies to the situation, I think Abraxas already covered that.  Teaching requires trust and persuasion to be effective, not threats, force, or the threat of force.  When those are employed you as a teacher rapidly become ineffectual.  Think of the most effective teachers you had as in junior high or high school.  Did they rely on intimidation to get students to learn?

Wiglaf, I appreciate having this discussion with you and I applaud you for being a caring teacher (as you seem to be) I have teachers in my family and circle of friends and many would not want to carry a weapon.  The discussion of guns has to be made with care.  I was born and raised on the west coast (Oregon and then Southern California for many years)  I have also lived in Nevada, Colorado, Michigan and now in the South.  I am well aware of the different mindsets that live in different areas.  This idea will not work for many schools because some people are against guns in general or don't have any knowledge of them.  I'm not blind to that and they have the right to believe what they want.  I simply have a different view.  In my area, these people are professionals with guns.  They were raised with them, they are excellent marksmen and they make gun safety the number one priority.  We don't have gun accidents around here.  It simply doesn't happen because every precaution is taken.  Every safety detail has been gone over and over a thousand times.  Kids learn how to use guns at an early age and they have no problems whatsoever.  It is quite a change from what I grew up in.  It is a different mindset.  A mindset I have come to love and trust as I have come to love and trust the people here.  They (some of my teacher friends) feel there would be no distractions in school because they don't believe a gun carrying teacher would or should ever let the students know they have one in the first place.  I take offense at people assuming they would ever use a weapon to intimidate the kids to learn.   They would never take such actions nor would they ever resort to that kind of thinking.  Our teachers love these kids and want to provide a safe environment for them.  Since guns are a way of life here, the thought that this would in some way change their role as a teacher or errode any classroom effectiveness is ridiculous to them.  All it does is give some security in the event of a school shooting.  That would be the one and only time the gun would be taken out.  Again, I know this won't work for many places but it would work in others.        

I just want to remind you how insanely insane this is to the eyes of anyone not living in the USA. You're insane, guys.

Well, my good Major, I would have to say how little we care about what others think. 

:) ...lol...yeah whatever there Major. Why not just go release 100 wild bulls on the street and go provoke them into chasing you? You mean that kind of sane?


Ahk

LOL, Major Zee Lee, just used an incorrect term in his comment.  He should have said inane.

  Very clever Cass, But I can assure you, there is substance to this issue.  Speaking of School shootings, most of the weapons used are guns bought legally or taken, by the assailants, from their parents, who purchased them legally.  So, gun control enforcement won't stop this type of crime.  We need some sort of armed resistance in schools that will have the capability to stop problems if they arise.  Money is also an issue as school budgets are already below the minimum needed to operate.  With these things in mind, I see no problem with allowing certain teachers, under strict guidelines, who are willing and able to go through the process of obtaining a Concealed Carry permit and threat management program, to be allowed to carry a concealed handgun on school grounds   It achieves two things.  It provides an extra layer of protection for the staff, faculty and students, and it does it for a very low monetary output.  For those of you that see a problem with this type of plan, may I remind you that there are over 200 million guns in America in the hands of private individuals.  The police cannot keep our children or us, safe.  At some point we are going to have to accept the responsibility of insuring our children's, and our own security, in as far as we are able to do so.  With the possibility of a worsening economy looming on our horizon, a word for the wise is, be prepared for surprises.

My Wife is a Teacher and so are the majority of our friends.  While I do not know wiglaf personally, I do know quite a few teachers personally that do disagree, as I do, with his theory.


  yes, life in Military Academy was different.  But, mine was not a boarding school.  I went home each day.  It was far more regimented then public schools.  There was no need to put a military press onto your uniform, nor spit shine one's shoes each day, nor polish your brass, nor march each morning at public school. That was different.  Also, back then if you broke the rules a large paddle with holes drilled in it was your reward.  But I went straight from public school into the academy environment without any "transfer" problems. I suspect that most students would be capable of the same.   A point was made that Teachers carrying would somehow change the Student/Teacher dynamic because of the "threat of lethal force".  I called this rubbish, for I know that it is rubbish.  Some of the most beloved teachers I have ever had the pleasure to know had appearances, I suspect most kids, thought of as frightening at first glance.  It is the person they were inside that gained the admiration of people they came into contact with.  Not their outward appearance. So, this in mind, I believe that children would not be affected by a teachers carrying a concealed weapon. a weapon, may I remind you, that the children would not even be aware they had on them.  I, myself carried a concealed weapon for a few years, and I can tell you from personal experience that the people around me and myself felt nothing but more secure, in certain situations, because of it.  Just the same as if, say, you would feel more secure to have a security guard walk you to your car late at night in a high crime area.  This is as natural, logical and real as your instinct for self preservation.  So, yes, I know wiglaf's theory is utter nonsense.


And what about, and what about....Do you hear yourself?
It should be mandatory to be trained if one is to be allowed to carry in school.  Without training I would not recommend allowing anyone to carry anywhere.  a student crazy enough to go on a school shooting spree will probably aim at someone pointing a gun back at them first.   This is true.  But, a trained shooter is far more likely to use cover and hit his target, as opposed to an untrained deranged shooter, who traditionally, just walk right out in the open and start firing.  Regardless, there are no guarantees in life.  This program will not, unequivocally, not guarantee anyones child's safety at school. But, ask me if I, personally, would feel more secure knowing my kids were at school with someone who I trusted, and knew was competent, responsible and trained in firearms.  The answer would be yes..  Keep in mind that I may be looking at it from a completely different perspective then you.  I've been around firearms all my life.  I'm a reloader and an, at one time, Certified NRA instructor.  My shop is in a semi-high crime area.  There was someone shot 3 blocks from here just last night.  I heard the shots from my office. I would like to be able to get a CCP for myself here, but they have made nearly impossible to get one in Los Angeles these days.  It seems like the worse crime gets here, the harder the state makes it to be able to protect yourself with lethal force.   I don't walk the streets in fear without a gun, but I know the potential for an altercation involving firearms is very real here.  Take it for what its worth.


  I think you and I see the same words in the 2nd amendment, but I don't think we define it the same.  It's just a difference in the mental conditioning we've been exposed to.  I see it terms of "The Constitution" guarantees me the right to carry a loaded firearm on my person anytime I am in public.  Carrying on private property is at the sole discretion of the property owner.  Thats how I see it.
  Also, Regardless of what you think you know about me, allow me to assure you I am fully aware of the concept and negative aspects of gun's in the class room. 

Retro Fit for the most part, compared with all the daily arguments, I'm most likely considered only a drive by poster on this forum.  I also post on another forum and posted the article this way.

"Charton Heston Would Be Proud And The Gun Nuts Ecstatic"

I have no problem with the Second Amendment.  My Dad, who had no son,'s taught his older daughter to shoot and though I've never had a firearm in my household, the last time I did any target shooting, though it was years ago, I was a still a very good shot. 

My point with stringing those pearls as well as my comment, is I've also taught, for a couple of years as a long term sub at the secondary level, when I was in grad school and later as a community college instructor.  IMHO, opinion teaching can be a dangerous enough position much less with arms in the classroom.  And I understand your arguments well.

In my final employment before retirement, I worked as Congressional staff in a District Office. Everyone answered the telephones and politely listened to every NRA argument there is, but I will also add, when some one called and said right off, "You tell that bastard," how he had better vote on a piece of gun control legislation,
you could be guaranteed the caller would identify most often, him rather than herself, as an NRA member.

If this was a more relevant school district this issue might be less inane, but it isn't and that is what makes it,
unless it becomes a national NRA lobbying issue, realistically is quite inane.

Maybe an armed teacher in that district out in W. Texas maybe could shoot a rattle snake intruder.   :laugh:

You'll forgive me if I'm a bit suspicious of this claim. You just happened to bring up this very idea, conveniently enough, to your teacher friends who happen to all agree with you.  Give me a break! Are you being being intentionally obtuse here?  A specialized school like your works because students know what they're in for and are, at are some level OK with it.  Many of them want, or think they want, military or police careers.  People choose them because they are OK with the regimentation and weapons involved in the environment.  That wouldn't be true of the general school population as you well know.  Assuming that the kids wouldn't know you had weapons in the case of a more generalized  distribution of concealed weapons is sheer fantasy.  Parents would know because of the political necessity for such disclosure and they'd certainly (at least some of them) let it slip to their kids.  Incidentally, I noticed that you said people felt more comfortable in certain circumstances with your concealed weapon.  Is it reasonable to conclude that other situations made them feel less comfortable?

I don't think the "threat of lethal force" would change the dynamic of a learning enviroment. I think the mere fact that a gun nearby would. I remember in 5th grade when a cop came to class for our stupid DARE program. All the kids kept doing was looking at and asking questions about the guys gun.

Don't tell me a gun doesn't create distractions. I've seen it happen!

Also, while you and I and others may transfer between a public school and a regimented school without trouble, I can assure you that the vast majoirty out there wouldn't.

My freshman class was 300. It's not down to about 150 and will be 100 by the time I graduate.

That's cause 200 people couldn't deal with it. Either the academics or the regiment killed them. So don't assume what's alright for people in military schools is alright for people in public schools, cause if my school is any indication, 2/3 of the people will react poorly.


I gave you ONE example, Retro. Read it again!

And this time actually READ it.


If the shooter even thinks his teacher has a gun, the teacher will be the first to die.

He'll get everyone else later.

Like I said, all this does is endanger every teacher out there whether they have a gun or not.


There is a difference between your right to carry a gun down a dangerous alley and to carry one at school.

Again, my problem isn't with the 2nd ammendment or the gun itself, but rather how much more endangered the teacher is - especially the one without a gun.


The fact that you wrote that shows you clearly have no idea what I'm concerened about with guns in the class room.

MY PROBLEM ISN'T WITH THE GUN! IT'S WITH WHAT THE ADDITION OF THE GUN DOES TO THE SHOOTER'S LIST OF PRIORITY TARGETS! THE TEACHER IS AT THE TOP NOW WHETHER THEY HAVE A GUN OR NOT! THIS COULD DISCOURAGE NEW TEACHERS AND LEAD CURRENT ONES TO QUIT!

Savvy?

  Your assuming I wanted to go to Military academy.  I did not.  Nor did I know what I was in for, nor was I O.K. with it.   At no time have I wanted a career in the military or police.  I accepted it out of necessity, I felt I had no choice so I adapted.  Just as most kids would adapt under the same circumstances..... as you, apparently, do not know.   Do you think you have to be special in order to go to Military Academy?  You don't.  And what does it matter if the kids know you are armed?  Your thinking it matters is an absurd notion on your part and I've offered ample evidence to support my views.  You have offered none to support yours.


No, I didn't bring it up.  But, the topic of protecting themselves from armed or large students has come up before.  Most of the men would like to be able to arm themselves but here they are not even allowed mace or a stun gun...nor a baseball bat even.  So their choice is, when faced with a younger stronger or multiple threats, is either get beat up or run away.  But the kids can run faster too. It looks like you just will not accept any solution other then your own, nor anyone else's opinion that differs from yours.  Hey, by the time I was 10 I thought I knew everything to...You'll grow out of it....maybe.

You know I've been thinking about it and I've gone from thinking this is a bad idea to a horrible idea. WTF is this a police state? Imagine having your teachers with a damned gun around their belt. Makes for a  comfy learning atmosphere doesn't it? Teachers are there to teach nothing more. Security officers and cameras are plenty for school and school shootings are about as rare as George W making a wise decision.

  If you are carrying a concealed weapon, it's hidden, hence the term "concealed".  Furthermore, if a parent is told which teachers are armed and asked not to reveal this to their children, do you think the parents would tell their kids regardless?  First you said it would disrupt the teacher/student dynamic.  Then you said it would target teachers.  Well, better the teacher then the kids.  And after that first "bang" I doubt they would be able to kill as many kids before other armed teachers responded.  None of your arguments have substance.  Yes, they would target the person with the gun first because that would be the one person around who could stop them....do you understand that?

   Hello, there concealed!  What ever.  We disagree.

Concealed where in his pocket? It'd be awfully hot to wear a jacket in spring and autumn. Or is it concealed in his desk in which I all ready mentioned the problem about that one. But yeah just trying to point out some things no hard feelings. ;D

OMG! Are you really that dense?

It's a law being passed by the Texas legislature. Do you really think everyone is going to be oblivious to what the law does? And isn't the whole point of the law to in effort to discourage future shooters by letting them know that there are more people in the school with guns (which, in and of itself, is pretty silly cause school shooters don't usually expect to survive anyway...)?


No. I didn't.

In fact I specifically said I didn't say that in the last post:

"I don't think the 'threat of lethal force' would change the dynamic of a learning enviroment."

I said teachers would become the primary threat to school shooters and would be the first targeted whether they have a gun or not. The shooter only knows teachers are allowed to carry guns he would aim for them first because they represent the biggest threat.

After I tried to say this the first time I mentioned a gun, if seen by the students, may create a distraction, especially with younger students who don't understand the purpose or severity of it's presence.


That's what I've been saying since the beginning!

From my second post on page 2:

"Teachers (ALL TEACHERS), regardless of whether they carry a weapon or not, will now be the first target of a kid with a gun."

Don't pretend like I'm inconsistent. You can't even read!


You have GOT to be fucking kidding me. Seriously... are you brain dead?

It's better for the teacher to be shot then the kids?

You just killed by dad, ass wipe. Thanks!


Yeah, what's one more dead teacher?


You don't even know what my arguments are! How could I possibly expect you to debate them?


Do you understand that they're dead now?

I mean, how many teachers do you expect to carry guns to school? I would bet maybe 5% - 10% would even be eligable to carry one to school... and some still might not do it.

Now boys, if you aren't going to play nice then nobody can have a conversation about this.  You all resort to anger at the drop of a hat.  I can't even jump in to make a point because it will be lost while you pick each other apart. 

Crystal, I apologize for the testosterone.


  The class would have a fighting chance with an armed teacher.  Without somebody armed, they are all fish in a barrel. I'm not going to call you dense or insinuate that your parents were never married.  I'm just going to say that I think the kids would have a better chance with an armed teacher.


  Not the biggest threat, the only threat.  And you are dead wrong about the gun being visible.  All they need to do is wear a shirt that doesn't tuck in, a small 5 shot .38 special or a 9mm kurtz auto (.380) worn in am  inner waistband holster reversed.  You don't know what your talking about in the concealed department because you've never done it.  I did it for years.  No one would ever know it was there.  But, even if they did, kids adapt.  Your not giving anyone credit for anything.  You say the kids can't adapt to armed teachers.  You say the teachers couldn't conceal their guns, nor be able to protect themselves from an armed assailant.  People are a lot more flexible and capable then you've been led to believe.   


  I mistook you for wiglaf.  Sorry.  It happens.


  No kids yet?  How did I guess.


  Just how the fuck do you know?  How about if the psycho just wings the teacher and the teacher is still able to return fire?  It's just as likely of a scenario, but no, you demand that the teacher (your Dad) has to die because I'm so dense.  You spew your stinking MSM bullshit as if you have any real world experience concerning guns or human nature or anything but how to be a stubborn egotist who insists its their way or nothing.  In layman's terms, Your full of shit.  Go out and learn about firearms, carry one around with you for a few years, then have some kids and get something to lose, then come back and talk to me about it.

  Once again, you have no experience in the field on concealed carry, so why do you think that you are right.  Your not.  Handguns can be easily conceald.  And if you refuse to believe it then your just as stubborn and wrong as Abraxas (the first known God.....not)



Abraxas, sometimes you can be such a mindless fuckin' idiot.  (whoops! Sorry Crystal.)

What does the marriage status of my parents have to do with anything?

And I'm worried about my parents who wouldn't bring a gun to school... but a school shooter wouldn't know that. All the school shooter knows is that the teacher might have a gun, so the first person the shooter is going to incompasitate is the teacher.

The teacher is now the primary target in EVERY situation. This may lead current teachers to retire and discourage new ones from taking the job.

This is the LAST thing we need right now.


The gun is not my primary argument. Stop treating it like it was.

I only mentioned the possibility it could cause a distraction. My opposition to this law ISN'T the gun.

How many times do I have to tell you this?


No, but I have a father and mother and this law endangers both of them.

Are you still convinced that teachers should sacrifice themselves for their students?

Then they should be paid for it!


The student gets the first shot. All he has to do is wait till the teacher turns around. Their are SEVERAL oppurtunities to be standing right next to the teacher, and if the teacher can hide a gun then so can a kid. Basically, a school shooter has a wealth of options in how to kill the teacher first and I would be shocked if the teacher manages to survive.

You say my opinion is influenced by the MSM, despite the fact that my parents are both teachers. Don't you think THIS shapes my opinion more?

Don't mitigate my opinion because it's difficult for you to debate.

Yet you still didn't answer the question, and as I mentioned before hiding the gun in the classroom can result in it getting stolen and bad things happening.

  Yes I did answer the question of how easily a gun can be concealed.  But here it is again:  "All they need to do is wear a shirt that doesn't tuck in, carry a small 5 shot .38 special or a 9mm kurtz auto (.380) worn in an  inner waistband holster, reversed (reversed means that the grip of the gun points forward.  This is done so when you bend forward there is no grip end butting out)."  And, as I stated before: teachers would not be allowed to take their guns out of the holster on school grounds except in the event of an emergency  Do you understand what I'm saying now?

They can also put a gun in an ankle holster. 

If some would be ok with an armed rent a cop, why not a teacher who, IMO, is far more educated and rational?  The teacher is usually the first one targeted anyway because they put themselves between the shooter and the kids in most cases.

Now think about this for one minute.  If you had to trust one or the other, would you rather trust an $8.00 per hour rent a cop who doesn't know the kids or faculty............ or a teacher, who went through college and loves the kids they teach as well as the faculty they work with?

 

I'm sorry Crystal, but that isn't necessarily true.

When a shooter starts his rampage he's under the impression he's the only one with a gun. If there is even a possibility that the teacher does, they will be the first victim.

I think this is a tremendous risk to just GIVE to teachers.

A rent-a-cop is at least under the impression he could die because of the things he may have to do. A teacher shouldn't have to be faced with their own mortality every day. It's not what they sighned up for.

If you're in a state with carry/conceal, and you have a permit, it doesn't really matter if a law like this exists at all.....my guess is nearly everyone I have contact with doesn't know when I'm carrying.

IF a student starts shooting....I'd rather be armed and no one know than be defenseless.

IF I killed the shooter, and it was illegal for me to be armed on school property, I'd be glad to plead my case before the court.

Depends on the state...but I believe I'm close enough to Texas to just pay my fine and be on my way..........

  then it isn't necessarily false either.

  Administration and teachers, especially ones they don't like might be targeted first just because they pose a bigger threat. But, there are so many variables that it is impossible to know what any one loon will do.


I think you are afraid for your parents.  Why don't you ask them their opinion.  My wife is a teacher.  Do you think I want her targeted?  No, but to think that teachers will be targeted simply because they might have a gun is just assuming to much.  If, as you say, these perpetrators would stalk teachers then still the teacher stands a far better chance of survival if they are armed as well.


  Nobody signs up for it but everybody, everyday of the year faces the possibility of dying.  I think you are letting your emotions get the best of you.

If the shooter is the only one with a gun and he goes to a classroom to find a kid to shoot, who do you think will stand between him and the kids?  The teacher will.  The shooter will view that teacher as a threat no matter what.

This discussion was only meant for the teachers that wanted to take that risk.  Anybody who does not want to carry a gun should never be forced to.  That would be pointless and stupid.  I'm just saying if some schools hire an armed person to guard the school then why not allow some of the teachers the same thing?  

 There was recently a shooting in a church in Tennessee;
 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25882063/
 How do Y'all feel about the preachers carrying an AK-47 slung  under their vestments or keeping a glock on the lectern beside the bible in the pulpit?

 You know just in case...

There was recently a shooting in a church in Tennessee;
 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25882063/

  How do Y'all feel about the preachers carrying an AK-47 slung  under their vestments or keeping a glock-17 on the lectern beside the bible in the pulpit?

 You know, just in case...

If the church feels they need protection (as some do these days) then why not?  An Ak47 might be a bit much but maybe the Glock. 

 
 

(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:uG1MWmcnkFUCRM:http://www.vanriet.com/mt/archives/images/january_img/nuns_with_guns_big.jpg)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:VPFtmqqpkesDKM:http://gunsforjesus.net/jesus.JPG)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:kGH69ZmcYP-S9M:http://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/jesus_gun.jpg) (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:I-ANrR1ASL96sM:http://bp0.blogger.com/_iRbPuGDcqjI/Rian3frDanI/AAAAAAAAAF0/TiRbRv-wc5E/s400/jesus%2Bguns.jpg)Ye-HAW! Now we're talkin'!

I find it incredible that so much ado is made about a crime that infinitesimally small statistically and is in fact declining.  Fewer people have been shot per year than during the 90s and less than 1% of school-age children's deaths are at schools.  We're talking fewer than one kid in a million at risk of getting shot.  That is too many, but measures to reduce suicide, drunk driving, and other risky behaviors would all save more kids than this would.  So would measures to reduce neighbor crime more generally.  This is a solution looking for a problem. 

 A perfect assessment Wiglaf...A solution looking for a problem...perfect.

I'm sorry, I thought the post was in regards to guns in schools, not drunk driving, suicide, risky behaviors and reducing neighborhood crime.  Your point is well taken and those areas need to be addressed as well but I thought I would stay on topic for this one.

Again, I'll ask the question:  If you would be okay with hiring an armed rent a cop to protect schools, then why not allow some highly educated teachers to do the same thing if they wanted to?  I can't find any reason to deny them. 

you diminish the one example and exaggerate the other. People don't necessarily envision "rent-a-cops" so much as air marshals for schools. You need  1 professional not 12 bone heads.

And "highly educated" high school teacher? No. Just no. At any rate zero of their education is in how to handle a wild gunman in a school full of kids.

Let the teachers carry guns sure, fine, but don't trust them to be the security.



Ahk

24 hour since I drove by and Ahk this truly inane thread goes on. The last time I crossed the 49th, the primary interest on the Canadian side of the border was if I had a firearm, even if I owned one at home in CA. How many
school shootings have you had in Canada?  Could it be that rational gun control might be the reason for fewer and
when one might occur it would be like the recent bus beheading out in the boonies by a truly certified whacko?

LOL, maybe I'll drop by again tomorrow to see if there has been any resolution about the school district in TX with
all of 110 students, and the decision to arm their teachers or actually allow their teachers to be armed. Sometime
I find my self wondering what the IQ is of some of the posters who get into such inane discussions and then National Rifle Association comes to mind.  :laugh:

Why deny them?  Because this sort of thing is a needless distraction from the real purpose of schools which won't make a real contribution to the safety of children and teachers.  All of those other actio