Hey Euclidian - Teachers, if you want to bring a gun to class, please drop me a line
This is a discussion on Hey Euclidian - Teachers, if you want to bring a gun to class, please drop me a line within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; NV: Teachers, if you want to bring a gun to class, please drop me a line for monday
JANE ANN MORRISON: Teachers, if you ...
December 18th, 2006 03:22 PM
Hey Euclidian - Teachers, if you want to bring a gun to class, please drop me a line
NV: Teachers, if you want to bring a gun to class, please drop me a line for monday
JANE ANN MORRISON: Teachers, if you want to bring a gun to class, please drop me a line for monday
State Sen. Bob Beers is a likable guy. I enjoy spending time with him and hearing his views. He's articulate, witty and media-savvy, and even if we don't agree, it's usually a good discussion.
But his latest idea of letting teachers carry weapons while they are in schools left me shaking my head in bewilderment. He thinks if teachers train in firearms and gun safety, they should be allowed to pack.
Shooting is not about being able to shoot accurately, it's about judgment. Just ask all the police officers who end up shooting and killing people. It's not a question of how to shoot; it's a question of when to shoot. A firearms safety class doesn't tell someone when they should yank out a gun and use it. There's a difference between trying to outgun a robber and using weapons in a crowded classroom.
After Sept. 11, 2001, when GOP Congressman Jim Gibbons, a former airline pilot, was asked about whether pilots should be armed, the now governor-elect quite sensibly said no. The pilot's priority should be flying the plane, rather than turning into a gunslinger swaggering down the aisle of a jumbo jet. Gibbons, with his military background, is better trained than most, and he didn't like the idea for pilots. He hasn't taken a position on teachers.
I'd like to hear from any teacher who thinks this is a good idea, and would like to be weapons trained, anyone who wants the additional responsibility in the classroom, anyone who doesn't worry about shooting a kid because he or she might mistake a toy gun for a real one and blow a kid's head off, anyone who doesn't worry the gun would be wrestled away.
Please, if you're so confident that your aim would be sure and certain in a crowded classroom and you wouldn't accidentally hit an innocent kid, please get in touch with me. If you are a teacher who thinks there would be no chance that a responding police officer might misunderstand that you're the good guy and blow your head off, tell me why you are so positive. If you are so confident in your sharpshooter abilities, are you willing to go through the litigation that inevitably follows, even if your judgment was right? I want to hear from such teachers.
Sometimes I wonder whether Bob Beers really believes these ideas or whether he's just tossing them out because he enjoys the publicity. This one was a softball. Everyone has an instant opinion. A lot of people think it's brilliant, a lot think he's an idiot for proposing it. But they're talking about Bob Beers and his idea.
A Wisconsin state assemblyman made the same suggestion recently. Utah law allows people to carry guns on campus if they have a concealed-weapons permit and leaves it up to the individual school districts to set policies and restrictions. Some districts have made it clear teachers would be acting on their own and not as school employees once they draw their weapons.
It would be so easy to say Beers is just tossing this idea out to keep himself in the news, something for which the former radio announcer has a natural affinity.
Then I remember it was Beers' idea to give a tax rebate during the 2005 Legislature. Gov. Kenny Guinn at first pooh-poohed it, then ran with it, making it his own. Not all Beers' ideas are as doomed as this one.
Just because he knows how to pick a populist idea and run with it, doesn't make him a bad guy.
But I will say this: Never gonna happen.
Incoming Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley won't let it happen. It's just not a bill that's going to make it out of the Democratic Assembly. And based on Gibbons' views on arming pilots, I'm not sure he would sign such a bill. This may be a case where the Republican governor is more in sync with the Democratic speaker than Beers.
So we can enjoy the sound and fury of the discussion, and the story will have legs as both sides argue back and forth. But when all is said and done, Beers' bill won't survive. It will be shot out from underneath the cowboy from Summerlin.
Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0275.
December 18th, 2006 03:31 PM
I'll bet others more articulate than I will have opinions about Jane Morrison, but this looks like an issue to support Mr. Beers on wholeheartedly!
The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard
December 18th, 2006 04:12 PM
if we're willing to protect ourselves and our families, shouldn't we all be willing to support our teachers protecting our children? i'm all for allowing properly trained and licensed teachers carrying in the classroom. i also wish they'd extend that right to every other ccw holder who needs to go onto a school campus.
December 18th, 2006 04:28 PM
I'm a teacher - I've had over 280 hours of formal handgun training including much FOF scenario training. I'd CCW at school without hesitation if it were legal and take any training they asked me to and pay for it out of my own pocket if necessary.
December 18th, 2006 04:44 PM
This Jane Ann Morrison... not real bright.
In her obvious knee-jerk anti-gun reaction to the idea of teacher being armed to defend students, she seems quite short-sighted and without imagination.
Why does she see only ONE possibility -- that of a teacher shooting a student among the class for pulling a toy gun? She doesn't seem willing to consider any other possibilities: an outsider or a student roaming the halls with a shotgun and a handgun, indiscriminately entering classrooms and slaughtering unarmed teachers and students, for example. How difficult would it have been for a teacher in Columbine to determine that it was not toy guns that those two murderers were using?
I stand fully in favor of teachers and other licensed adults being able to take handguns onto school campuses all across the country. And by the way, I also fully support arming pilots. Where she managed to find this Gibbons guy, who's supposed to be a pilot who opposes pilots being armed, I don't know. The only way to oppose that idea is to mislead with the image that the pilot will have to get up from his seat, roam the airplane looking for hijackers, and leave the plane to dive and swoop and crash. Um, folks? There are TWO pilots in the cockpit. On commercial flights -- always. And even if both of them took their hands off the controls (the hands don't even really always stay on the controls, anyway) for a bit, the plane's not gonna smash into the ground. The arguments against arming pilots are 100% intellectually bankrupt; always have been and always will be.
This Jane Morrison is a knownothing.
December 18th, 2006 04:48 PM
I concur with Jane Ann Morrison's commentary about guns in the hands of teachers, not the least because it is not their job. Their job is to teach. It is the job of professional law enforcement to protect and serve, to the extent possible. That extent, in schools, would be best served by a dedicated police presence composed of officers who are trained and specifically certified in that particular tactical environment. Certification would include the requirement for continuing education regarding those issues surrounding school shootings and the requirement for frequent recertification. On a related note, it occurs to me that one good reason for not allowing concealed carry by visitors in a school setting is that any gun not in the control of duly authorized law enforcement means trouble and that control of any situation can be gained quicker without having to sort out the participants in a running gun battle.
December 18th, 2006 05:10 PM
It looks like you may have posted on the wrong board.
"any gun not in the control of duly authorized law enforcement means trouble"
Teachers are people too, and they have the right to defend their lives.
Last edited by Black Oak; December 18th, 2006 at 05:13 PM.
December 18th, 2006 05:16 PM
And those little kids who were murdered up in Amish country a few months ago might be alive if their teachers were armed.
There is no way around that argument because it's just the plain truth.
Yeah, a student MIGHT have gotten shot by teach if she starts shooting at Mr. Boogeyman. But if teach doesn't start shooting, all the little girls WILL get murdered.
I'd damn sure rather have my children with someone who will at least TRY to save their lives with the most effective tool available- - in this case, a handgun.
December 18th, 2006 05:19 PM
Can you clarify your statement here. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me...do you really mean the words that you wrote literally? Sorry, not trying to be "smart" I just really didn't get what you were trying to say...
Originally Posted by LTPhoon
December 18th, 2006 05:27 PM
Please note the full context of "civil carry in a school" and that prohibiting such carry would make the job of any responder, teacher or dedicated law enforcement, that much easier and response options that much clearer.
Originally Posted by Black Oak
December 18th, 2006 05:36 PM
If they would do this, that would be great, when will it start, are they waiting for another Columbine to get in gear?
Originally Posted by LTPhoon
Does this mean that you do not carry a CCW. What was the reaction time to "any" school shooting.
any gun not in the control of duly authorized law enforcement means trouble
and that control of any situation can be gained quicker without having to sort out the participants in a running gun battle.
I believe the premise of arming teachers is to put the ability to stop a gunman in the hands of the people who are there, when it happens, until the "special school cops" are in place, why shouldn't teachers be allowed to obtain a pre-selected level of training, and carry.
I am not a teacher, but I am a parent, I would feel better knowing that at least some of the teachers, who completed the level of training that would be acceptable to be armed, and on hand ready in the event that something went down in my child’s school.
Please don't forget, the one test of teachers with guns,
The blood didn't run in the streets after the begining's of "shall issue" why should this be any different, I agree with a very high level of trianing, but it should be allowed, IMHO
In October of 1997, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
December 18th, 2006 05:41 PM
Response of first responders is anything but clear at this point- without non-LE carry. Some jurisdictions have taken the agressive-entry, neutralize the shooter policy; others marshall force, negotiate, enter on command.
Originally Posted by LTPhoon
Bottom line: who knows the participants and environment best? Teachers. This is no different than any other carry debate, untrained/inadequately should not be carrying. Trained, competent individuals are always assests (read force multipliers). LE is too far behind the curve to be honestly considered "incident command/resolution".
Edit to add: training minimizes confusion. Anyone advocating the "Us vs. Them"(LE/armed citizens & teachers), and that personnel on-scene should barricade is hopelessly out of touch. Personally, I am not a proponent of child-sacrifice.
LTPhoon, not picking on you, but I highly recommend Dan Korem's, Rage of the Random Actor to your attention. His analysis, correlating my experiences with disturbed individuals, is spot-on. It also illustrates why we are likely to have many more such incidents, and why the locations they are most likely to occur in will not be able to train the "designated response team", simply on a cost/benefit assessment. Individuals, most especially parents and teachers, are the key.
Last edited by Rob72; December 18th, 2006 at 05:53 PM.
December 18th, 2006 05:50 PM
Nope, you are not being "smart", just moving the discussion along. And if the spirit of the entire post is taken into consideration, the suggestion that police carry the guns, after specific training and certification relating to that potential area of operations, and considering the notion that somebody with a handgun roaming the halls of a school could be anybody, good or bad for all anybody has a way of telling, yeah, this can be taken literally. My purpose is not to dis the Second Amendment which guarantees all the other Amendments, but to hopefully bring some moderation to the debate, which debate is going to require some finesse in coming days. I would expect to hear from Euclidean soon...
Originally Posted by raysheen
December 18th, 2006 05:58 PM
We are all certified by the state to carry concealed handguns. We are trained when to use force and when not to. There is no reason why anyone with a permit cannot carry in a school. As far as a running gun battle there would not be one. We don't go on the offensive. We stay and hold ground. Law enforcement would not have trouble sorting out the bad guy.
Using your reasoning I should not carry because I might get shot by law enforcement. Belive me I can and will carry.
PS: You sound like an anti.
December 18th, 2006 06:20 PM
I'm not a teacher, but I play one on the internet
He could have an unloaded gun, the safety could be on, tha ammo could be deffective. Too many what ifs. A threat with deadly force is a threat with deadly force.
anyone who doesn't worry about shooting a kid because he or she might mistake a toy gun for a real one and blow a kid's head off,
About as much as I worry about my seatbelt trapping me inside a vehicle.
anyone who doesn't worry the gun would be wrestled away.
Absolutely. I can hit a 2" circle at 15 yards (longer than any distance to be found in most classrooms). I can also control my trigger finger to not shoot if the situation is unsafe.
if you're so confident that your aim would be sure and certain in a crowded classroom and you wouldn't accidentally hit an innocent kid
Hmmmmm..... get killed by madman and watch madman kill 30+ students or...... risk the chance of not disarming and surendering quickly enough when the trigger happy cops come to save the day.
If you are a teacher who thinks there would be no chance that a responding police officer might misunderstand that you're the good guy and blow your head off, tell me why you are so positive.
Are you so confident with your racecar driver abilities that you are willing to go through the litigation that inevitably follows the auto accident, even if your judgement was right?
If you are so confident in your sharpshooter abilities, are you willing to go through the litigation that inevitably follows, even if your judgment was right?
Last edited by Daddy Warcrimes; December 18th, 2006 at 06:50 PM.
By TapRackBang in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: January 26th, 2009, 01:44 AM
By gimpy in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: November 7th, 2007, 11:41 PM
By gimpy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: November 6th, 2007, 01:39 PM
By NaturalSelection in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 15th, 2007, 02:38 PM
Search tags for this page
can u bring a gun in class
concealed carry class psyd
what would happen if students were allowed to bring a gun
Click on a term to search for related topics.